The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in Room 5083.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I would like to welcome everyone to the meeting this evening. We will do the introductions first, for the record. My name is Harry Harding, MHA for Bonavista North and Chairman of the Resource Committee. If the other Committee members would please introduce themselves.

MR. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA for Twillingate & Fogo.

MS FOOTE: Judy Foote, MHA for Grand Bank.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, MHA for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. ORAM: Paul Oram, MHA for Terra Nova.

MR. O'BRIEN: Kevin O'Brien, MHA for Gander.

CHAIR: I ask the minister now to have his officials introduced.

MR. MEANEY: Brian Meaney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Responsible for Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Trevor Taylor, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. SAMSON: Mike Samson, Deputy Minister.

MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Branch.

MR. WARREN: Mike Warren, Executive Director, Policy and Planning.

MR. MARLAND: Alex Marland, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: Thank you.

There is a sheet there on the table. I would like to have everyone sign that.

For the purpose of recording by Hansard, if the officials could turn on and off your mike as you speak, but identify yourself before you speak, because they have had some problems in finding out who is actually speaking. Anyway, if you could do that.

We are about ready now to begin, Minister Taylor, if you would like to start off.

MR. TAYLOR: Good evening, everyone.

It is a pleasure to be in front of the Resource Committee this evening to review the departmental Estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for 2005-2006.

Before we get going, I will give a very quick overview of the department and the previous year's activities. First of all, I guess, just to touch on some of the economic indicators from the fisheries perspective, the volume of landings in 2004, we had a total of 326,000 tons. The landings value was $605 million, and production value exceeded $1 billion, just about $1.1 billion this past season. Peak employment, believe it or not, increased to 30,300 from 23,300 in 2003, roughly a 7,000 person increase in employment. Groundfish landings, from the resource perspective, declined by 13 per cent to 51,418, and the landed value declined by 11 per cent to $59 million. It is mainly due to lower landings for redfish, American plaice and turbot; partly in redfish because of quota issues and market issues, in American plaice primarily because of the market, and in turbot primarily because of quota again.

The shellfish sector was again dominant, with a landed value of $503 million, represented 83 per cent of the total landed value, snow crab and shrimp continuing to be the main species. Despite the 5 per cent drop in snow crab landings to 55,636 tons, due to lower quotas, the landed value increased by 14 per cent, up $301 million from $264 million in 2003. Again, that was primarily due to a very strong market and continued low quota levels in jurisdictions like Alaska.

Shrimp landings increased by 15 per cent to 100,167 tons in 2004 and that was, of course, mainly due to increased harvesting effort in the inshore sector and higher quotas in the Gulf fishery where we landed 144 million pounds of shrimp for the first time ever. The landed value for shrimp in 2004 was approximately $155 million.

I am not going to go into a great deal of detail on the rest of it, other than to say aquaculture, just to touch briefly, in spite of some difficulties and continuing difficulties in the aquaculture sector, the production volume for all species was 5,600 tons, and that was up from approximately 3,900 tons in 2003, and the export value rose to $22 million up from $16 million in 2003. This strong performance was in spite of a rising Canadian dollar which has affected all sectors of the industry, and which particularly affected the export revenues from the United States marketplace where the majority of our salmonid production ends up.

Focus continued in aquaculture on Atlantic salmon, steelhead, blue mussels and Atlantic cod, as outlined in the industry's strategic plan. Blue mussel production this year reached 2,300 tons with a value of approximately $5 million, and there were some significant advancements made in establishing markets for value-added and fresh products in North America and Europe, with some significant players coming on side and ramping up production there.

Overall production value of the salmonid sector increased to $17 million, up from $13 million in 2003, and production increased 27.8 per cent to 3,300 tons. We had new investment from New Brunswick and Norway primarily as a result of the department's investment prospecting program.

Continuing problems in that sector - in 2004, as most people know, we developed the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee Initiative. We believe that is an instrumental piece to further the development of this sector of our seafood industry. We have a number of applications in right now - a couple, I guess it is - and it appears there is probably going to be another one coming in shortly for support under the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee Initiative on the South Coast. We have some challenges down there. We hope we can work through them in the very near future. There are some substantial players in our seafood industry, both in the Province and external to the Province, that have expressed interest in the North Atlantic receivership and taking over the assets there as a going concern, and we hope that will come together in fairly short order.

From a policy perspective, in 2004, we took the Dunne report and used that as the basis for the establishment of a new fish processing policy framework. There are four broad categories in that: the development of new policy framework, including the establishment of an arm's-length fish processing licencing board; the development of a pilot project for raw material sharing for snow crab; the continuation and strengthening of the Quality Assurance Program; and a review and revision of the department's legislative and regulatory framework.

From the department's perspective, from an organizational perspective, we have undertaken a number of organizational changes to meet the challenges and opportunities facing the fisheries and aquaculture sector. I want to touch on this because it speaks to some of the substantial changes that are in our Estimates this year from last year.

We have developed a new Seafood Development and Diversification Division to improve the effectiveness of fisheries development. This division will allow us to better co-ordinate resource, processing and market development activities. This division will also see a greater emphasis on public and private sector partnerships to develop the harvesting, processing and marketing sectors.

Trade expertise - and this one is again in the Estimates; it stands out there - will be added to the department to address the important and complicated international trade issues facing the fishing and aquaculture sectors. This will improve the Province's ability to address global trade barriers such as the European Union's 20 per cent tariff on cooked and peeled shrimp.

Also, as part of the revision of the department, we have a new sustainable Fisheries and Oceans Policy Division that has been created to increase the Province's emphasis on fisheries management and foreign overfishing and to improve our involvement in several emerging oceans-related activities such as the Species at Risk Act and implementation of Canada's oceans action plan.

Those are three of the major things from an organizational, overall, perspective at the department that you will see in the Estimates.

Anyway, I am going to conclude right there and pass it back to you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not keep you long tonight, Minister. Most of the questions we have were raised in the House anyway. I am rather disappointed, though, where fisheries places in priority with this government. I say that with regard to the lack of security here tonight. Apparently, the Minister of Finance was here last night and there were eight RNC officers around the building. As we speak, I think there is one in the gallery in the House, so they don't care too much about you or your (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I think that means you are disposal, but Loyola is not.

Anyway, we will run through the few quick questions I have here.

You increased the fees for the processors this year, I take it.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: How much?

MR. TAYLOR: It was based on the budget last year and what flowed out of the Dunne report. As I recall, it was roughly $1.25 million. A million and a quarter was the increase. We can ensure that is the accurate -

CHAIR: Your microphone.

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, sorry.

Just for the record, I will repeat that.

We increased the fees by $1.25 million. In fiscal 2004-2005 is where that actually applied. We announced that in the Budget Speech last year and it would have been actually, as I recall, in the Estimates last year - wouldn't it have been?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: How did you distribute the increase to a particular plant, for example? What fees did you increase?

MR. TAYLOR: Just broadly speaking, generally speaking, what we did, in most cases we increased the base fee for the various species and then we applied, as well, a production surcharge on just about all of the species except for where we were into value-added and initiatives like that.

We tried - based on as good and thorough an economic analysis as the department could bring together - to weight that surcharge towards the higher value production. Crab sections, for example, section production, would have a higher production surcharge than crab meat production. As a matter of fact, there was a minimal surcharge on crab meat production, if at all. I cannot remember the exact number now because we are trying to, of course, facilitate more labour intensive -

MS FOOTE: Dave knows the exact number.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, if he wants to further -

Anyway, that is the way we did it. On groundfish we tried to keep the surcharge down, on crab sections we jacked it up, on shrimp we tried to keep it to a minimal increase because of the marginal nature of that business.

Where the value was at in the industry is where we applied the majority of the surcharges. For example, in pelagics, in capelin, there is nobody crying out that pelagics is not a money-maker. Everybody is crying out that groundfish is not a money-maker, so we weighted it more on the pelagics production side than we did on the groundfish production side, for example.

I will just add, the increase in the fees was to offset the increase in our expenditures on the quality assurance program side of it. The reason for that is, what we have said, basically, to the industry, is, when you have your act such that the government does not need to be policing your industry then we will not charge you for the police. In the meantime, you have demonstrated your inability to maintain the highest quality standards. Therefore, we have to have this quality assurance program so you should pay for it.

MR. REID: All crab plants would have had a basic licence fee, and then it was based on your production as well?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

Basically, somebody who produced 100,000 had a base fee and then, you know, how ever many dollars per ton for that 100,000, and anybody who had a million pounds had a base fee and $5, for example -

MR. REID: So, you did that with all species, only some of the base fees were lower for different species.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: How many extra plant inspectors did you hire?

MR. TAYLOR: Ten.

MR. REID: So, the total of all this will let you $1.25 million?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: How much are you paying for the plant inspectors? What would the ten -

MR. TAYLOR: Does somebody want to answer that?

MR. LEWIS: The total cost of the ten inspectors and the associated funds, travel and so on, is around $310,000.

MR. REID: All right, $310,000 for the ten but do you have more besides that ten, or is that it?

MR. TAYLOR: More what?

MR. REID: Inspectors. Is that all you have?

MR. TAYLOR: No, no. There are more than that. Do you mean the existing inspectors previous to the ten hired?

MR. REID: Yes, you hired ten. Dave said it is costing you $310,000 for the ten additional inspectors. How many inspectors do you have in total now?

MR. LEWIS: In terms of seasonal inspectors, we have about twenty and we also have fisheries field representatives who are full time staff who do inspections as a part of their duties.

MR. REID: All right. So the increase this year, you are saying, is $1.25 million -

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

MR. REID: - in licensed fees and the extra cash that you are spending this year, with regard to licensing - well, in terms of inspectors, is only $310,000?

MR. LEWIS: For inspectors, yes.

MR. REID: All right. So the total cost of inspectors, you do not know yet, do you? You do not have a rough figure on it?

MR. LEWIS: Well, it would be double. It would be approximately double for the seasonal inspectors because there were ten and we added ten, right.

MR. REID: All right. What terms of reference have you given these inspectors? What are their duties?

MR. LEWIS: The inspectors' responsibilities are, in the first instance, to assist people in the industry, both harvesters, processors and truckers, in maintaining top quality of raw material delivered to the plants as it goes into the processing line of the plants.

As I say, we try and take a proactive role where possible. Where it is not possible, where enforcement is required, then the inspectors have the authority to, based on an approval of the minister, lay charges, take people to court and apply whatever other penalties are required to enforce the Fish Inspection Act and Regulations.

MR. REID: The federal government licences a plant, right? Now I am not talking about the processing licences, but the actual facility.

MR. TAYLOR: For export?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: All right. When we send an inspector in there, why do you have them ascertain whether or not the plant is inspected? Is that a normal role?

MR. TAYLOR: What is that?

MR. REID: If they go into a facility, do they have to check to determine whether or not that plant has been licensed by DFO?

MR. LEWIS: No. In fact, we will not issue a processing licence to a plant unless it is inspected by DFO. Actually, it is not DFO. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency now that registers the plant for export purposes, and unless it is an in-province retail processor, then we will not issue licence. The department does not issue a licence until that is in place.

MR. REID: But do your inspectors often ask for that, to see the registration, with the federal government?

MR. LEWIS: They can ask for it, but if the plant has been licensed, automatically, it would have had that certification or it would not have received the licence.

MR. REID: All right.

Do you want to ask some questions, Judy?

MS FOOTE: Yes, I just have to look at some of the line items in your budget.

Under Executive Support, 1.3.01., Planning and Administration, the Salaries component there. The Budget amount was $389,400; last year you actually spent $311,000, and now this year you are looking at $439,400. Can you give me some indication of why the increase is up?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that is the - and I referenced it in my opening remarks here. The adjustment upwards is the new trade person that we are adding to the department -

MS FOOTE: Okay, so it is there.

MR. TAYLOR: - so he can work on trade issues, European Union tariff issues.

MS FOOTE: Have you hired someone for that?

MR. TAYLOR: No, it is not done yet.

MS FOOTE: Is that a position that will be advertised?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

The same heading, Grants and Subsidies here. I am noticing that it has been reduced from $44,000 to $1,000. What is -

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Believe it or not, for quite a period of time - and we found this when we did program renewal, actually - the Province was spending $40,000 to support a grant - basically, it was - to support the Province's weather radio network, basically supporting a federal program.

MS FOOTE: Is that right?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, believe it or not. It goes back a long ways, yes.

MS FOOTE: So, why did you leave $1,000 there?

MR. TAYLOR: Good question. Does anyone have an answer for that?

OFFICIAL: I could answer it if -

MS FOOTE: No, it is all right. Don't worry about it.

Under 1.3.02., Sustainable Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy, your Purchased Services heading there.

MR. TAYLOR: 1.3.02.

MS FOOTE: 1.3.02., under Purchased Services there. Last year you budgeted $50,500 but you really only spent $18,500, and now this year you are budgeting $60,500. I am just wondering what it is you are anticipating there?

MR. TAYLOR: It is the Oceans Policy but the adjustment downward, is that where we dealt with that court case from way back?

OFFICIAL: That was in Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Yes, right.

OFFICIAL: Mike, do you want to take that now?

MR. WARREN: That is to cover off the new, I guess, activity area in Oceans Policy that we engaged in.

MS FOOTE: Such as?

MR. WARREN: I guess, attending meetings and that stuff. We are going to use, pretty much, our own staff. It is more travel and these kinds of things working with DFO.

MS FOOTE: Okay. So travel is coming under Purchased Services now?

MR. SAMSON: Maybe I can explain the process that we went through.

This emerged in the latter days of budget preparation and it was an initiative that the department had proposed as part of the program renewal exercise. We had suggested that, given the shift in direction we are seeing from DFO off into Oceans Policy and these sorts of thing, that it would be appropriate for us to begin to prepare ourselves to deal more effectively with the feds on that. We had made a proposal and we were provided a tentative approval by the government late in the budget process. So there was some shifting of money that occurred. Essentially, what had happened was we had, in this $50,000 allocation, contributed some money through the program renewal process and then were granted money back for a separate purpose. So we essentially replaced the money that we had given up with new money, with a new focus.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. SAMSON: In the later days of the budget process it was difficult to determine exactly where this was going. A lot of it will support activity in the Sustainable Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy Division, which is a new division created through the reorganization, working on things like coastal zone management plans.

MS FOOTE: So is it contract work that you will be using this for?

MR. SAMSON: Well, we would anticipate that at this point some of it may be contract work but a lot of it we will probably use to fund interaction with groups like the Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee -

OFFICIAL: Coast of Bays.

MR. SAMSON: - and Coast of Bays.

MS FOOTE: Some core funding for them, or...?

MR. SAMSON: No, this would be to support departmental initiatives in working with these people. So, I think you would be looking at - well, I would think of things that would be cost associated with sponsoring meetings, helping to defray costs for people involved with these issues in engaging with the department and those sort of things. So it got pitched in a purchased services division. I think you will see a couple of - there are three or four variances, I think, in the budget as you move forward through this that relate to the shifting of monies as a part of the reorganization. Money was moved and parked, and until you have had a years activity in any of these new divisions or in these new activity areas, it is difficult to figure out exactly how you should portion out the money.

MS FOOTE: I was going to say, next year's budget will tell the tale.

MR. SAMSON: In next year's budget - I would expect that next year we will, perhaps in this Committee, have this discussion. We would be able to, based on a year's experience, provide a good explanation -

MR. TAYLOR: A place for it to pitch.

MR. SAMSON: - of where it pitched.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

Regional Services, 2.1.01., under the Administrative and Support Services heading there. Under Salaries we see a decrease there in excess of $100,000. Were there layoffs, or was that, again, part of your reorganization?

MR. TAYLOR: Basically, that is the elimination of two vacant positions.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

MR. REID: Who were they?

MR. TAYLOR: The two vacant positions?

MR. REID: What were they? Who used to be in them?

MR. TAYLOR: Two development officers. I do not know exactly where they were now.

MR. LEWIS: Those are the two development officer positions. Over the past three or four years we have reduced the number of development officers that we have had, because prior to about three years ago we had a significant amount of cost-shared money for development. With the reduction of that, we found ourselves with some funds left in the department but we had nine development officers around the Province and we felt that we had more staff than was required to deliver the program. No one was laid off, but as people retired those funds have been redeployed into other areas. In this particular case, there were two vacant positions that were left on the books in this particular budget and those two positions were eliminated.

MS FOOTE: So there are seven now left?

MR. LEWIS: There are five left now.

MS FOOTE: Five left. I thought you said you had nine.

MR. LEWIS: We did have nine. There were two that went out in previous budgets over the past, say, three or four years.

MR. REID: Who are some of the people who would have been in those positions?

MR. LEWIS: Art Major, Ed Drover, Roy Hart. I am just trying to think. There was one other. I cannot remember who the other one was now, but there were four in total.

MS FOOTE: Okay. Still under Regional Services, the heading there Property, Furnishings and Equipment, 2.1.01. Last year's budget allowed for $13,600 to be spent, but now we are seeing that expenditures were actually $220,800. What was that?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, it was revised up. We had some savings throughout the department and we were allowed to, by Treasury Board - pardon?

MS FOOTE: I thought you said trout.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, throughout, okay.

We had some savings throughout the department, as you can see, so we were allowed to move it into Property, Furnishings and Equipment. We got seven replacement vehicles, and we did not replace anything with less than 250,000 kilometres, or something like that.

MS FOOTE: How many vehicles are there for the department?

MR. LEWIS: I am not sure of the exact number but I believe it is around twenty-three or twenty-four, somewhere in that order.

MS FOOTE: Are the majority of them out in rural Newfoundland or are they all here?

MR. LEWIS: They are all out in rural Newfoundland.

MS FOOTE: Section 2.2.01., Seafood Diversification and Development. I see a decrease there of $115,200 in Salaries.

MR. TAYLOR: Under what section, Judy?

MS FOOTE: In the Salaries.

I see a decrease there of $115,200. Are there layoffs there, or is that more vacant positions?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, it is a combination of - not a layoff - two vacant positions being eliminated and the transfer of one position to our new Division of Compliance and Enforcement. So, we moved one salary and one person associated with that salary over to another section of the budget and another section of the department, and there are two vacant positions that have been -

MS FOOTE: What were they?

MR. LEWIS: What we did was, this is a new division that has been established through a reorganization of the department this year. Previous to this year, we had a division called a Division of Technical Services which included a refrigeration technician, an engineer, a financial analyst, a naval architect; and there was a vacant director's position there, and also a Clerk-Typist III position. The Clerk-Typist III position was transferred to the new Division of Compliance and Enforcement and the director's position was vacated and the two divisions were amalgamated, so Technical Services was absorbed within this new Division of Seafood Diversification and Development.

MS FOOTE: There was a director who took responsibility for both, then?

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Professional Services there, I am just looking at, you had budgeted in 2004-2005 $147,400, actually spent $27,400, and now you have gone and budgeted again $147,400. What is the rationale there?

MR. TAYLOR: Basically, when we budgeted last year at $147,400, and again this year, it was for issues related to the implementation of Dunne, and issues in the Dunne report. Just trying to get through everything that we had to get through to implement a lot of the policies that flowed out of the Dunne report, it took us longer than we had anticipated and therefore we only spent $27,400. So, now we are in a position where we -

MS FOOTE: Need to spend that.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Purchased Services, I notice that has gone up by about $60,000 there.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that one is related to European Seafood Exhibition and those funds will be 100 per cent recoverable from the federal government for our participation in that this year.

OFFICIAL: If I could, for a second, if you go to the final line or the second to next last line in 2.2.01., you see -

MS FOOTE: Revenue?

OFFICIAL: - Revenue Federal, $60,000. That accounts for it.

MS FOOTE: That is where it is.

OFFICIAL: It is just an offsetting in and out.

MS FOOTE: Under 2.2.03., Compliance and Enforcement, looking at Salaries there, you budgeted last year $330,700, spent $44,700, and now we are back up to $361,400.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, similar to a question you asked a little while ago, or two questions back, actually, again that was related to the late hiring, late recruitment of - we budgeted for the ten new inspectors and then we were late getting them in place. Now we have them in place, and also there was a transfer of a clerk-typist position from the Technical Services Division into Compliance and Enforcement which we spoke about two questions ago also, believe.

MS FOOTE: A question on contracts.

I don't you to tell me here tonight, but can we get you to table what has happened in the department in the past year with respect to any contracting out, who has gotten the contracts and how much they were? Have there been any?

MR. TAYLOR: There has not been much, I don't think, but we can -

OFFICIAL: By contracting out, do you mean contract employees in place of -

MS FOOTE: Hiring people outside, going to tender -

OFFICIAL: Or consultants, you mean, that kind of thing?

MS FOOTE: Yes, absolutely.

OFFICIAL: Okay.

MR. TAYLOR: It will not be a long list.

MS FOOTE: Well, if it won't take long it will be easier on you.

MR. TAYLOR: It is only three or four, I think, anyway, was it?

OFFICIAL: The ones I recall.

MS FOOTE: Did you hire any temporary employees this year in the department?

MR. TAYLOR: No.

OFFICIAL: Inspectors.

MR. TAYLOR: Just the inspectors, but nothing new. We are very well-behaved.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

Under Aquaculture Development, just one question there on the Salaries budget, 3.1.01., just a query as to why the difference there, to see what was budgeted in 2004-2005, what was actually spent, and now we see a bit of an increase of $100,000.

MR. TAYLOR: I guess Brian will probably have to elaborate on it, but basically it was a revision down essentially because of the strike. I cannot answer why it is not exactly the same this year, all the same.

Go for it, Brian.

MR. MEANEY: There were one vacant position, a director's position, that was vacant in the department, and then there was a reduction during the strike period. The reflection upward this year just reflects annual step increases now for the remainder of the staff.

MS FOOTE: Do you know what the savings were in the department during the strike?

MR. TAYLOR: No.

MS FOOTE: Can you get it for us?

MR. SAMSON: The manner in which we proceeded through the strike, all of the strike salary savings, of course, were frozen by Treasury Board and basically removed from your budget, so you were provided no flexibility in that regard, but certainly we can do the addition and bring that forward to you.

I would say, I was looking a little earlier and it is interesting in some respects that I think last year overall the department came in at about $1.2 million under its budget, so that would include the full amount of savings from the strike and also the savings that accrued as a result of delays in the implementation of Dunne. So, we turned back about $1.2 million to the Treasury on a net budget of about $8.1 million. We are prudent, or we try to be.

Thank you.

MR. REID: Come back to that again, Mike, if you don't mind.

The implementation of Dunne - I am just trying to think - how much money did you save by not implementing Dunne at that time?

MR. SAMSON: In response to that, we would have to do the addition on the strike savings of salaries, but basically we had $1.25 million allocated to implement Dunne. We slipped approximately $1.25 million at the end of the year. Some of that $1.25 million was savings. The balance would have been, for the most part, related to delays in the implementation of Dunne. The one noticeable exception that I would note would be the re-profiling of the couple of hundred thousand dollars that allowed us to replace seven vehicles in our fleet.

There was a government-wide review of government vehicle usage conducted last year. Of the twenty-odd vehicles in fleet, I think, we replaced nothing that did not have almost a quarter million kilometres on it. There were valid concerns for the safety of the employees in driving those vehicles. So, about $200,000 of the Dunne money was re-profiled at the end of the year to permit us on a one-time basis to try and catch up on vehicle replacements.

That would be the difference, essentially, but we will bring back and table the salary savings, strike related savings. With the exception of the $200,000 that was used for vehicles, the balance of the Dunne stuff would have been returned.

MR. REID: I was just thinking. What you are saying is, if you take out the vehicles and you take out Dunne, the budget for the Department of Fisheries last year was probably considerably less than $8 million. Is that right?

MR. SAMSON: That is correct.

MR. REID: Not a lot of money, is it?

MR. SAMSON: No, it is not a lot of money. For a department which has approximately - well, at peak we probably hit about 130 employees, when we have peak seasonal employment with our twenty inspectors on in the summer. We operate from eighteen or nineteen locations around Newfoundland and Labrador. We operate regional offices in Labrador, on the Burin Peninsula, on the West Coast and in Central Newfoundland. We have our aquacultural operation, of course, regionalized in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have a lot of people who spend a lot of time on the road, the inspectors. The reason on the vehicle thing was - Dave, I think, was a member of the committee, but I think there were thirty-odd people in government who were - there is a certain point beyond which the use of a private vehicle does not make financial sense. Once you drive so many kilometres it makes more sense, rather than pay 31.5 per kilometre, to give an employee a government vehicle. Of thirty in government, we had twenty or something. Because our inspectors are moving during the season, twenty-four seven, it is, of course, as you know, a challenge to operate on a tight budget like that. I think we do try to manage our budget prudently.

MR. REID: That is down about, at least $2 million since when I was there.

MR. LEWIS: The reason for that is, up until last year, the licence fee revenues were just reflected in general revenues for government. They were not reflected in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Now they are shown as provincial revenues, so they come off our net budget. Eight million is around what the net budget was when we had nine point something, when the Estimates used to show nine point something. What we were not seeing was the revenues that were coming in from the licence fees. Now the licence fees are netted off the departmental budget. The gross budget is, say, 10.4, I believe it is; you take 2.1 off that for fees and you end up with 8.3 as the net budget.

MR. REID: What you are saying is, when I had $10 million we had $10 million.

MR. LEWIS: You had $10 million but, in fact, the government was collecting revenues but they were not being reflected in the Fisheries Estimates; they were being reflected in the general budget of government but it was coming in as general revenues. It was going off to the Cashier's Office. There was no reflection of it in the departmental Estimates. Now it is now being reflected in the departmental Estimates.

MR. REID: Yes, but it is still going off to Finance or general revenues.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, yes. We don't get to play with it or anything. It is more accurate to reflect it, I think, to show where the fees are offset against the various programs in the department and so on rather than just show it somewhere else.

MS FOOTE: It wasn't shown like that before?

MR. LEWIS: It wasn't up until a year ago, I think. Last year it was, and this year it is, but not previous to that.

MR. REID: Okay, I will buy that, but the minister just said the new initiative this year in licence fees (inaudible) $1.25 million. Yet, your budget on page 121 is reduced by $90,000, according to that. Even though your budget is reduced by $90,000, what would have happened - sure, you lost, out of the department, government revenues by a tune of $1.2 million this year, did you?

OFFICIAL: What? Say that again. I am not following your logic, Gerry.

MR. REID: You were just saying that, before, the revenue that you were collecting was going off over the general revenues, right? You have a $1.2 million increase in fees this year over last year. That is right, isn't it?

MR. LEWIS: No, the fees were collected starting in 2004-2005. The $1.25 million increase was applied in the last fiscal year. The reason most people think that the fee increase happened this year is because billing for fees is at the end of the fiscal year so the invoices go out in, like, February, and they are hopefully collected by the end of March. So, it seems like it is next year's fees but, in fact, it was last year's fees collected at the end of the year.

MR. REID: So, I missed that last year is what you are saying?

MR. LEWIS: Right.

MR. REID: So, the government took $1.25 million out of your budget last year and told you to make it up with fees?

MR. SAMSON: If I could jump in for a second.

I have been the deputy minister for four years.

MR. TAYLOR: He has come through this relatively unscathed.

MR. SAMSON: Relatively unscathed.

The net budget of the department has been relatively constant at just over $8 million over that period of time. The gross budget of the department has, in fact, increased. The gross budget of the department was $9 million. Last year, the gross budget of the department increased from $9 million to $10 million, essentially, and we made up the extra $1 million we collected from the processing sector, or the million and change we collected from the processing sector. We are now reflecting $2.107 million in revenue in section 2.2.02., Licensing and Quality Assurance.

If you go back to a previous set of Estimates, previous to the numbers showing here, there would have been no number there at all; but, in fact, we were collecting about $865,000 a year in fees, and that $865,000 was being reflected in a revenue number in the Department of Finance revenue at that time.

MR. REID: Give your minister the Reader's Digest version of that so that, when I ask him in the House of Assembly, the people in TV land will -

MR. TAYLOR: I will let Loyola answer it.

MR. REID: We asked the Minister of Industry, yesterday, a question and she made an attempt at it. Then her deputy made another attempt, and then her director made another attempt. Three different answers to the same question, so you are doing better than that.

Anyway, Mike, see if you can straighten that up a bit because I might have to ask that. To me, it seems like your budget is the same as it was last year, essentially.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. You see, even, where we saved money on vacant positions we managed to convince everybody to allow us to take it and re-profile it into other areas of the department where we thought it would be better served.

MR. REID: Not a lot to re-profile.

MR. TAYLOR: No, I agree, not a lot to re-profile.

MR. REID: You cannot take much more out of it.

MR. TAYLOR: No, that is right. You know that situation; you were there.

MR. REID: There is an increase of $1.22 million in licensing fees. If you are saying that was in the budget last year, how much were the licensing fees the year before?

MR. TAYLOR: Eight hundred and sixty-odd thousand.

MR. REID: Now it is $1.5 million.

MR. TAYLOR: No, it is an addition $1.25 million. It is now $2.107 million total in licensing fees.

MR. REID: Am I asking the wrong questions or what?

What is the total?

MR. TAYLOR: That is the total.

MR. REID: One point two million.

MR. TAYLOR: No, $2.1 million. You have the right numbers; you just have to flip them.

MR. REID: That is what I asked.

I said, last year - depending on which year Dave is talking about, he says these fees went in last year. Everyone in the industry thinks they went in this year. So, last year - let's pretend for a second that the $1.25 million is in this year - how much was licensing fees last year?

OFFICIAL: In fiscal year 2003-2004, the licence fees were, say, $850,000. It was $857,000, I think, to be exact. So, $857,000 was budgeted. In 2004-2005 there was $1,250,000 added to it, and the grand total of the two of those is $2,107,000, I think it is, and that is the amount that is reflected in the budget both last year and in the coming year, or the one that has just started, 2005-2006.

MR. REID: You have increased the licensing fees by 110 per cent or 120 per cent.

MR. TAYLOR: Basically, yes.

MR. REID: I didn't think I was that bad at asking questions.

MR. TAYLOR: We didn't think we were that bad at answering them.

MR. REID: Do you have anything else there, Judy?

MS FOOTE: I just want to ask a couple of general questions. One is in the aquaculture industry, and what is happening in Bay d'Espoir. I know that you had stood in the House and talked about the program that was put in place, I guess, the (inaudible) or INTRD.

MR. TAYLOR: That is who is managing it, yes.

MS FOOTE: What happened there? Why didn't they qualify? Why weren't they eligible for support?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, without going into too much detail - because of proprietary information, I guess - the bottom line was they could not meet the financial requirements of the program. Their debt equity position, their ability to find themselves in a position - in looking forward - where the business was sustainable could not be demonstrated.

MS FOOTE: Did they present a revised business plan?

MR. TAYLOR: They did. They presented a business plan, I guess it was in October. It was analyzed by our Department of Finance and INTRD. There were substantial questions associated with it. They were brought to the table, told what the issues were, and said some of this stuff does not add up. Would you mind going back and having another look at your numbers because they do not match with our numbers? They do not jive with our numbers, type of thing. They went back and did that, came forward again. I think there was probably about three renditions of the business plan and it just could not fly at the end of the day. I do not know if I should go any farther. How far should I go?

MS FOOTE: What is happening with it now? Where is it?

MR. TAYLOR: Right now, of course, that company is in receivership and receivers are trying to sell it as a going concern.

MS FOOTE: ShurGain?

MR. TAYLOR: Ernst & Young are the receivers for a sure gain. ShurGain has, if I am not mistaken, five aquaculture operations in Atlantic Canada in receivership, currently.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: So, they are not - like that little joke, they are mean but they are fair. They are mean to everybody. Anyway, they have five in receivership. There has been considerable contact between our department and ShurGain receivers and, I guess, probably about three or four different companies who have expressed interest in either the whole or a portion of what is in Bay d'Espoir.

MS FOOTE: Are you looking to make sure that it stays as a whole?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, we want it to go, as a going concern. We want it as a whole. Now, what it will end up, at the end of the day, whether somebody will just pick up the pre-market fish and take the business from that or they pick up the pre-market fish and the market fish. Really, I suppose, it is not a big deal - I do not think, at the end of the day - if you separate the market fish from the pre-markets. It will still end up being the same basic business in the short term and the long term. The only thing is the cost of buying it from the receivers, there would be a marked difference there. Now, how that is going to come together remains to be seen, but there are a number of reputable companies with significant financial assets who are looking at it, kicking the tires, and have made proposals to the receivers and ongoing negotiations and have kept us apprised of what they want. We know that if they - whoever takes it over, out of those four, we know that the Aquaculture Loan Guarantee Program that we developed last fall is attractive to them because it basically puts them on the same level as the New Brunswick industry. I think it is fair to say, without that there would be nobody interested.

OFFICIAL: That is correct.

MS FOOTE: On another subject that we just touched on this afternoon in our meeting, I want you to elaborate a little bit on this early retirement and where the government is with respect to that. I know that you mentioned something about trying to ensure that when you go forward - if you go forward - to the federal government that it is with a complete picture, I guess, somehow having some kind of structuring or an appreciation for where the industry is going to go in the Province, so that the feds will have a better appreciation for what you are trying to do as a government with the industry. Can you just elaborate a little bit there, what you talked about in terms of time frames and things?

MR. TAYLOR: Time frames, what do you mean?

MS FOOTE: Before you would, I guess, be in a position to do something formally because you said you do not have a formal presentation on the table in front of the federal government, and you know what we are hearing from the federal government.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS FOOTE: I guess the point is, is that we have a lot of people working in the industry who are pretty anxious, and rightly so, given what is happening, especially with FPI now.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS FOOTE: I am just wondering if you can give me some idea as to the time frame of what you have in mind, or what it is exactly you are trying to get your head around or get the whole industry - where you are trying to get before you do go forward?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think we are probably getting fairly close to where we need to be on that and be able to demonstrate to the feds that actually putting money into an early retirement program is not just going to take x number of people out of the operations on top of the seniority list to be backfilled by casuals or people who are on the low end of the seniority list, on the other end, with no net gain at the end of the day.

I think we all recognize that we would like to see a situation where those people who are currently working in fish processing operations, if we all collectively spend $100 million to $120 million to retire, however many people that retire - I don't know, it is probably about a 1,000 or a little more - from the industry, that at least the remaining people would have an opportunity to see an increase in their incomes and levels of employment as a result of us collectively spending $100 million or $120 million. I think everybody would like to see that happen.

So, if it can be determined where FPI is going in the short-to-medium term - and I suppose that, in part, is going to depend on where we go, all of us - and if we can get a better picture of how we are going to move forward on issues - like crab, for example, in spite of all the rhetoric, it is not about closing down all these plants, it is about trying to manage what we have in a better way. The bottom line is, either we are going to be in a position to go forward with something to the federal government within, at the outside, I would think six months, or we are not; from a time line.

MS FOOTE: It is not contingent on whether or not you get the raw material sharing program in place, or is that with or without?

MR. TAYLOR: No, no. It is not contingent necessarily on anything. What I am saying is, once we have a better picture of how all of these various components are going to unfold, you know, where we see groundfish going; where we see some of the processing operations, like FPI, where their short-to-medium term game is and where we see other - as I said, and I indicated this in the meeting today and I have indicated it in the press conference that we had back on March 4, I firmly believe that the industry that has made so much money on the back of - on the back, that is probably not the right way of putting it, but anyway - because from their participation in the fishing industry - the companies I am talking about now - I do not think that there is any reason why, in trying to restructure this industry, that they should be expected to assist in the funding of a retirement program. They made a lot of money over the years and they have workforce problems and recruitment problems and there is no reason why they should not be expected to assist in the funding of it. If they had -

MS FOOTE: That is laudable but, in reality, I guess I would hate to see that a package or a program would be held up because they would not participate.

MR. TAYLOR: No, no. I am not saying that it would be held up because of it, but I think that it can be achieved.

MS FOOTE: Good. Go for it.

MR. REID: How would it be?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I guess, that is a subject of some considerable work that has not been started yet. What I am saying is -

MS FOOTE: But you are talking about six months, right?

MR. TAYLOR: No. What I am saying is we should be in a position to know if we can have something go forward to the feds with, within six months or not. Then the other part of it, as it relates to engaging the industry, is a separate issue. I am not saying that we would not go forward without the engagement from the industry, but I do not think that - I mean, what do you think? Do you think that the seafood producers of this Province, who have made many, many millions of dollars, should be off the hook? Should only be responsible for -

MS FOOTE: It is not up to what we think. It is up to what we can get the both loads of government to do for those people who need to retire. I know today you said that there has been no formal presentation or representation made, and you told me that in the House of Assembly, too, to the federal minister, but you also said today that you had those discussions. He is aware that the Province would come to the table. You just have not put a program -

MR. TAYLOR: He is aware from our very first meeting to our very last meeting that we believe that an early retirement program is an integral part of moving forward with the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS FOOTE: Okay. And you would hope within six months to be in a position to put that former proposal forward?

MR. TAYLOR: I would think so, yes.

MS FOOTE: Just another question on this, do you mind? Sorry?

MR. REID: Yes, go ahead. I am (inaudible) here now.

MS FOOTE: On the -

MR. REID: I said I wasn't going to be long, boys.

MS FOOTE: You will have to put duct tape on my mouth.

On the FPI issue - and we discussed that today, too, and you have alluded to whatever FPI is going to do. I guess I would like to think that the government will have some say in whatever FPI is going to do because I think we are in a serious situation here, and not just in my district with Fortune, but in other processing plants as well around the Province. Today when the Premier mentioned that you had two legal opinions, one that FPI came to you with, with respect to the Income Trust, and one that the government had. Now I thought that when Kelvin asked the Minister of Justice a question in the House he said that there were four legal opinions.

MR. TAYLOR: I cannot remember if he said four.

MS FOOTE: I think he said three and called out and apologized because there were four.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, FPI have their opinion of course.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that's right.

MR. TAYLOR: There were three opinions that we solicited, so there are four opinions.

MR. REID: Plus the Department of Finance.

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

MR. REID: I would assume the Department of Finance had an opinion.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, their own departmental opinion.

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, but I am talking about legal opinions. Opinions sought from outside sources.

MS FOOTE: So there would be four, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: There would be three that the government solicited -

MS FOOTE: And FPI.

MR. TAYLOR: - and FPI has their own.

MS FOOTE: Now, FPI has apparently said that they could move without government consent.

MR. TAYLOR: That is what their legal opinion is. I guess that is what they are saying anyway.

MS FOOTE: Yes. What about the ones that government has? What are they saying?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think this has already been, if I am not mistaken, said in the House, but -

MS FOOTE: Refresh my memory.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I mean, the bottom line was: one said yes, one said no, and one said maybe, maybe not.

MR. REID: What about the other one?

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you very much, right.

MS FOOTE: Yes, it sounds like lawyers.

MR. REID: That is three, what about the other one?

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

MR. REID: That is three, what about the other one?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, the other one was FPIs.

MS FOOTE: FPI, and they said they could.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: So, there is some concern that this is not legal, or it is contrary to the act.

MR. TAYLOR: There is some concern that it may not be. I mean, the bottom line is - I think the legal opinions were that the case could be made that this meets the requirements of the FPI Act, or a case could be made that it cannot meet the requirements of the FPI Act, or - well, you can make a case either way but we are not really sure what way it will fall. I mean, it is very definitive type stuff.

MS FOOTE: All right, that is it for me. Over to you.

MR. REID: I want to go back to that early retirement thing. Yes, there is nothing wrong with trying to get money out of industry for early retirement, but for those who are about to go, you are hoping -

MR. TAYLOR: A separate issue.

MR. REID: A separate issue, yes, because I think that, you know, when you think -

MR. TAYLOR: The other one, Gerry, is more of, what I would suggest, something that we should be pursuing as a long-term initiative. Right?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: You know and I know, I believe, or we think we know, where the crab resource is and where it is probably going, unfortunately, in the short-to-medium term. How do we handle that? It is not just enough for processors to think that they can walk away from responsibility to the people who were (inaudible) on it.

MR. REID: Oh, I agree with you 100 per cent. I don't think you should be letting FPI walk away from Harbour Breton (inaudible) are going, to be truthful with you. They made the commitments -

MR. TAYLOR: I know what you saying, but we have not let them walk away yet. They are still waiting on our decision on a proposed Income Trust.

MR. REID: Yes, but that means -

MS FOOTE: Sorry. Are they saying that with the Income Trust they would go back and operate Harbour Breton?

MR. TAYLOR: No.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

MR. REID: But they might put $1 million on the table as a signing bonus. Is that it?

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, I don't know. We haven't had any discussion with them.

MR. REID: Well, I mean, there was a million bucks -

MR. TAYLOR: It is reported that they have kicked that around with the union and the people but we have not had any discussions - and I can say that in all honestly - on what we would want in an Income Trust as it relates to that issue because there hasn't been any discussions with them on it since then. We have not engaged in discussions with them.

Judy, you heard the Premier today. We are going to try and have some discussions with FPI within the next week. Whether we actually get down to a discussion on the Income Trust or if it is just a discussion on what the Fortune situation is, that is yet to be determined.

MR. REID: Well, if you get any commitment out of those people, get something besides writing for any future.

MS FOOTE: Blood.

MR. REID: No, put the cash on the table. Have a penalty in place if they do break their commitment because, personally, I do not trust them. They sat in a room like this one with half the Cabinet and signed in blood almost, around that room, that they were going to create jobs, not cut them.

MS FOOTE: Were you there then, Mike, when Risley was there?

MR. REID: Derrick Rowe and all of them; John Crosbie.

MR. SAMSON: Yes, actually, I believe I was.

MR. REID: They committed that they were going to - and the questions were raised. They were going to increase employment in plants with a moratorium on, and they had all the answers for that and swore on a stack of bibles, some of them who are very prominent Newfoundland and Labrador businesspeople, who, I must say, I am not too pleased with either.

So, my suggestion, any commitment, tie a dollar value to it and have them put it aside, because in my estimation, once the marketing division is gone to the U.S., there will not be much left here. If you listened to Mr. Rowe himself on the broadcast a little while ago, and I am surprised not more people picked up on it, when asked the future of FPI in Newfoundland, he said it will be a shellfish operation. So, it doesn't say much for Marystown and Burin and the rest of the stuff they have left. The way they are going, they could probably have one plant or two do all the shellfish they have in the Province. My suggestion to you, minister, is that, besides the writing, get some kind of a legally binding contract where they shove some money aside to pay for their promises.

Anyway, going back to the early retirement. There is no formal request. You said you have discussed it with the minister but you haven't put anything on paper with regard to that. Did you tell the minister that you would be prepared to cost share the program?

MR. SAMSON: Yes, we did.

MS FOOTE: Do you have a dollar figure on that?

MR. TAYLOR: Our analysis is somewhere between $100 million and $125 million, total cost.

MS FOOTE: Total cost, yes. Yours would have been 30 per cent?

MR. TAYLOR: Depending on - and the reason I say between $100 million and $125 million, is depending on how you structure the criteria, you know, whether it is a program that extends over a longer period of time or whatever.

MS FOOTE: Are you looking at fifty-five? Is that the age?

MR. TAYLOR: That is the reason why I say between $100 million and $125 million. You know, there is a number - I forget how the numbers break out now but the analysis was done based on how many people are between the ages of fifty and fifty-four and fifty-five and sixty-four, and based on previous take up and whether you start at fifty or start at fifty-five and let it run, so that people who are younger than fifty-five pick up the program at a later date as opposed to this sharp cutoff, you know.

MR. REID: Is that $125 million based on a 30 per cent contribution?

MR. TAYLOR: That $125 million is total and the provincial component will be 30 per cent of that; so somewhere between $30 million, $37 million and $38 million.

MR. REID: On the quota again, back to Harbour Breton, have you made any official written request to the minister for a quota for Harbour Breton?

MR. TAYLOR: No. We had a discussion on quota, both on groundfish, shellfish and what have you, when we were in - and I would have to say that it was very preliminary. I told them some of the issues that were coming up from the Community of Harbour Breton and some of the issues that they would probably be looking to address with him, whenever they got to meet with him. It turned out that they met with him about a week or so afterwards, I think. Anyway, we had a discussion on that and I said that I would not be presenting anything formally to him until the IAS Committee had completed their work and had determined what their approach was going to be, both from a financial perspective and from a quota perspective. Once that was done, we would be back to make our formal position known.

MR. REID: With regard to - do you want to ask that question again? When would that be, you said?

MS FOOTE: Yes, I asked him that. What is the timing on that, do you know?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, we want to get it done as soon a possible, but I really cannot tell you what the timing is because they are driving that themselves, and they come to us as they look for information or whatever.

MS FOOTE: But your position is, as soon as they are ready you are ready?

MR. TAYLOR: As soon as they are ready we are ready. As soon as they are ready and they determine what it is that they think can make it work down there, then we will look at what they have there and then go forward to see what we can get.

MS FOOTE: If a community quota is the direction in which they are going, is that something that you have determined? You must have thought about it, that government will support.

MR. TAYLOR: Conceptually, I think we can support it. I just cannot tell you that we can unequivocally support whatever it is they look for, but it is not something that conceptually I am opposed to or the government is opposed to. It is something that we can entertain and it is something that we - certainly myself, personally, have supported in the past in other areas. So I cannot see why I would not support it down there. Again, like I said, not unequivocally support but depending on what it is they are looking for and how much and how it is put together.

MS FOOTE: In your discussions with the federal minister, did you raise that, that this was one of the things that the community was looking for? Did you get any kind of sense from him if it is something that they would consider?

MR. TAYLOR: No, we just raised it that this was an issue. We did not get into a great discussion. We had about an hour and we hit a bunch of issues. Our real concern was - not our real, I should not say it that way. On the eve of management plans coming down on crab, shrimp and groundfish, that was the bulk of the discussion, but we did not think it was fair to be in Ottawa meeting with the minister and not raise the issue of Harbour Breton, at least.

MR. REID: You said conceptually you would support a quota for Harbour Breton but that is not taking portion of FPI's quota, I take it, and giving it to Harbour Breton. Would you support that?

MR. TAYLOR: Again, I said conceptually we would support it, but once we see what it is they are looking for and how it works then we will make a definitive decision on that. That is why I am saying our support is not unequivocal. In principle, conceptually, we are there but we have to see what it is that is being proposed at the end of the day.

MR. REID: Do you support, in principle, a separate quota from FPI from the government, for whatever species, along with, conceptually or in principle, you would also support the quota coming from FPI? Which of these did you discuss with the minister?

MR. TAYLOR: We did not discuss either. We discussed quota and where it comes from. What species was not discussed, other than to say - Regan I am talking to here now: You know, Mr. Minister, that the people of Harbour Breton are looking for a portion of FPI's quota and they are also considering other quota acquisitions from other species that may or may not be available in Atlantic Canada, and they are also looking at the possibility of shrimp in 3L and what have you. Those are the issues you can expect to hear from those people when they come to see you. We have not taken a formal position on it right now. We do support conceptually the notion of regional allocations. We have given them access to $250,000 to put together their plan, and we expect that a part of that plan will be quota. We hope a part of it will be aquaculture development and so on. When they have that put together, we will be back to see you.

MR. REID: The money in Harbour Breton that they are looking for from the federal government, I understand your colleague, Ms Dunderdale, has said that this money, the Province's portion, would be contingent upon whether or not the federal government put any money in.

MR. TAYLOR: You will have to ask her. I do not know what she said on that. All I can say is that we have, so far, put $150,000, maybe more than that now, into job creation in Harbour Breton. If we are going to get real benefits and decent salaries for the people - not decent, but something more respectable than what we started out at - the feds are going to have to come onside. I think by saying that - if she did say that - it is probably the right thing to be saying, to put more pressure on the federal government to come across because we cannot carry that ball by ourselves down there.

MR. REID: No, but if they don't come across at all you are going in with more money, I guess?

MR. TAYLOR: I guess we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Until we hear and know whether the feds - we are going to assume that they are going to say yes.

MR. REID: Yes, but her comment was that money from the Province was contingent upon money coming from the feds, which would leave you to believe that if there is none from the feds, there is none from the Province.

MR. TAYLOR: As I said, right now I think we are in a position where as much pressure as possible has to be exerted on the federal government. I support her in taking that stand, if she took it, but in the meantime, we have supported to the extent that we could and when they have asked for funding we have responded. I suspect it is probably crawling up close to $500,000 in support that has been either spent or committed to Harbour Breton since November by the provincial government, and we will evaluate it as we go forward, that is all.

MS FOOTE: Trevor, does the regional minister for the Province get involved in any of these discussions when you go and have these meetings?

MR. TAYLOR: Which meetings? As it relates to Harbour Breton?

MS FOOTE: As the regional minister, as the minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, any meetings you might have on the fishery with respect to what is happening in this Province. Would he be involved in those meetings?

MR. TAYLOR: I have been in a number of meetings that Minister Efford has been in. I can say that the meetings I have had with Minister Regan have been between myself and Minister Regan. That has been the extent of them, or we have been in ACFAM or the Federal-Provincial-Territorial meetings.

MS FOOTE: MP Matthews would not have been at the meetings either, or any discussions on Harbour Breton or Fortune?

MR. TAYLOR: No.

MR. REID: Do you think, though, the federal government is going to take any of these issues seriously until we put something on paper?

MR. TAYLOR: No, probably not.

MR. REID: When I mean any of these issues, I am talking about -

MR. TAYLOR: If you are going to get them to take it seriously, you have to put the right stuff on paper too.

MR. REID: Early retirement, I am talking about. I know you had a discussion on quotas, a general discussion on quotas, but I know that as we speak there are probably people in Ottawa today with very formal proposals for quotas, making lengthy presentations to the minister and paying lobbyists to get quotas for various companies. Until we do similar, none of that is going to happen I don't think.

MR. TAYLOR: Absolutely.

MR. REID: Earlier - I didn't mean to ask you this question - you said to Judy here that under this production quota thing you had no intent of closing plants, but you are on the record and in the media quite often as saying that we have too many plants.

MR. TAYLOR: The same thing you said.

MR. REID: I don't know if I really went that far, did I, all of the time?

MR. TAYLOR: If you didn't, you were borderline.

MR. REID: I said we had enough for sure. That is the reason I didn't issue the licences.

Which is it? You have no intent of closing, but we have too many?

MR. TAYLOR: As you know, there are going to be plants close. The question that we ask, I guess, is, do we do it in a managed way or do we do it the way that it was done when cod collapsed?

MR. REID: What is the union talking about, when they are talking about regional - they don't use the word quotas, but they said regions can be looked after - I saw it in the paper today - without implementing production quotas.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't know. They haven't raised that with us.

MR. REID: Well, they raised it with someone in government the last few days. It was in a press release that Earle McCurdy put out today. It was said that it could not work because the processors did not agree to it. They would rather the old system rather than the one the union put forward.

MR. SAMSON: What it seems is being suggested is that some informal arrangement could be struck whereby harvesters would agree to land a certain amount of product in certain regions of the Province. It is not clear - as nobody controls boats, and independent fish harvesters determine where boats will land - how that would work. The amount of detail, really, that is available is what has been reported in the media.

MR. REID: Dunne made a recommendation that, before you proceed - you know what the recommendation is; it has been read publicly enough times. They talked about 75 per cent of the processors. Are we talking 75 per cent of the actual crab processors, or 75 per cent of the volume that a particular company does? You know what I am talking talk about. I would think that there are probably four processors out there that do somewhere between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the product, or 30 per cent and 70 per cent, or 30 per cent and 80 per cent, probably, I am not quite sure.

The 75 per cent that you are using, is that 75 per cent of what a particular group of people produce?

MR. TAYLOR: First of all, two things.

First of all, Dunne recommend the 75 per cent and he recommended it based on numbers, as I recall.

MR. REID: Not on the individual owners, but on -

MR. TAYLOR: Seventy-five per cent of the licence holders, if I am not mistaken.

MR. REID: Okay.

Because, when we used to look at different items in the department, there were always two numbers: the number of processors involved in a certain organization, and the total amount of -

MR. TAYLOR: Volume that represented.

MR. REID: - volume that these people produced.

So, which is it?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, he recommended 75 per cent by number, right?

MR. REID: Okay, and there are how many of those? Twenty-two or something?

MR. TAYLOR: There are thirty-eight plants licensed.

MR. REID: Yes, there are thirty-eight plants, but some own a couple or three.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: I imagine you are not counting them twice, are you?

MR. TAYLOR: We said that we accepted Dunne's report in principle. We never said that we were going to live to the letter of the law and the letter of every single recommendation and every single page and every single word that is in that, right? I mean, Dunne recommended that we licence by species, and we licence by a combination of species and species' groupings. So, in principle, we accepted his recommendation, but in practice, in some ways, in some cases, it becomes very difficult to implement precisely what was recommended in the report. I don't know if you can get the fishing industry, 75 per cent of the people in the fishing industry, to agree that today is Wednesday. It would be extremely difficult.

MR. REID: What do you feel about it, though? Is it 75 per cent of the processors or 75 per cent of the volume?

MR. TAYLOR: I am not sure what you are asking me.

MR. REID: We will use Quinlan Brothers, for example, all right? Quinlan Brothers are probably 2 per cent -

MR. TAYLOR: First of all, Dunne recommended that a proposal on raw material sharing should have the support of 75 per cent of the licence holders, right?

MR. REID: Yes, okay.

MR. TAYLOR: That is what he recommended.

Now, we looked at this and we have decided that we are going to go forward with a raw material sharing system. Now, we have not gotten a proposal from 75 per cent; we have not gotten a proposal from 1 per cent. We have a plan that was developed based on the issues that Dunne dealt with on raw material sharing. Dunne did not have - I don't believe he did; I can't recall now - any requirement for disclosure of sales invoices, but we decided that it was reasonable to expect processors to disclose sales invoices.

All of the things that are there, there is a plan that flows out of that. What is being done is not based on whether or not 75 per cent of the production, or 75 per cent of the number, are in favour of it or against it. It is based on a plan that is developed flowing out of the issues that came out of Dunne.

MR. REID: I don't know how you can take half of a recommendation or a quarter of a recommendation, because I have read it a number times. Dunne recommended sharing arrangements, or production quotas, and I think it says there, if it is agreed to by 75 per cent of the processors and these processors could convince the minister that there were basically no reasonable objections from the harvesters.

I don't see how you can take Dunne-recommended production quotas and leave the rest out. That would be equivalent to saying that George Bush recommends the bombing of Newfoundland if we bomb the United States first, and then go out and say tomorrow that George Bush is recommending that he bomb Newfoundland - as silly as that might sound.

You cannot take a recommendation in part, as far as I am concerned, and legally I am sure you could not.

OFFICIAL: No, it has never been done before.

MR. REID: Well, not that blatantly, I don't think, to be truthful. No disrespect.

MR. TAYLOR: What?

MR. REID: No disrespect, but not that blatantly, I don't think.

I cannot imagine standing anywhere and saying that Eric Dunne recommended this. I do not think Eric Dunne would say tonight that he recommended this.

MR. TAYLOR: Eric Dunne recommended raw material sharing.

MR. REID: If.

MR. TAYLOR: Eric Dunne did a report. Nobody has ever said that Eric Dunne recommended to do what we are doing. We have always said that we are using the Dunne report, the report done by Eric Dunne, as the basis for that we are doing. That is it.

MR. REID: Dave Vardy recommended a sharing arrangement for shrimp. I don't think he even mentioned crab in the report, did he?

MR. TAYLOR: No, but he recommended raw material sharing.

MR. REID: Yes, but you use Dave Vardy in this debate, when he recommended a sharing arrangement for shrimp, because that is all the report was about, and he said that this should be only done if it were negotiated in a collective agreement with the union, between the union and the processors.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and Dave Vardy also recommended that Final Offer Selection be used for two years and that we then move to an auction system. I don't recall anybody waving that around lately.

MR. REID: No, that is true. In fact, we stayed here last spring, I think, into the wee hours of the night, debating the auction system, and you forced it through the House and we haven't heard of it since. We won't discuss that tonight, but let's -

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, yes, we will, since you raised it.

We did not go there because, after we went through the House with it and the union had said, boy, the best thing for you to do is put the auction in place, after the Final Offer Selection that they had agreed to three weeks before went down the tubes when somebody threw several cans of gasoline or diesel on a load of shrimp down in the harbour and it resulted in the tying up of the shrimp fishery for three weeks, I was called by the union, who said, the best thing for you to do is come out and say that you are going to have an auction again. We will get the boats back fishing on the collective agreement that we now have, and we will work out a deal in the Gulf to get the boats going over there.

So, I go out and I call on everybody to go back fishing under the collective agreement, because we were going to implement an auction, and we took the next five weeks to finish developing the auction, and, two days before the auction was supposed to take effect, the union and the processors reached a collective agreement based on raw material sharing.

There weren't many phone calls made to me saying, boy, hold off on the auction because we are going to have a collective agreement. So, you know, there are lots of people talking about consultation and forewarning people, but there are lots of hypocrites in this business.

MR. REID: Oh, I know all about it.

Anyway, talking about that, I think most people have been told what their quota is going to be percentage-wise, because there is a letter gone out from your arbitrator saying that if you have a problem with that between April 22, is it, and May 7, that you can come and fight over it if you do not agree with it. I think April 22 is when? What is the date today?

OFFICIAL: Tomorrow.

MR. REID: Tomorrow.

Is that right?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. REID: You have seen the letter that -

OFFICIAL: Probably I might have wrote the letter.

MR. REID: No, no, there is another letter from the arbitrator that was sent to the processors saying that you can come for your two hours and make your case starting on April 22.

MR. SAMSON: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All right, go ahead, Mike.

MR. SAMSON: Actually, the arbitration process, the arbitration hearings, commenced today, began today.

MR. REID: I would assume, though - the minister, in answer to a question from our leader the other day, said that the reason it was restricted to two hours, I think, was that these people would already know what their allotment would be for this year, or their percentage, and they would have all their numbers and stuff like that ready when they went to the arbitrator.

The plant in Englee, what percentage are they getting?

MR. TAYLOR: I can't tell you that.

MR. REID: Roughly.

MR. TAYLOR: If I did have it - it is proprietary information - I wouldn't tell you.

MR. REID: What I am saying, though - I am not asking your exact quota or anything - you said time and time and time again that you take your last three years of production, right?

MR. TAYLOR: That will generate a number.

MR. REID: That will generate a number.

So, say it was a million, a million and a million.

MR. TAYLOR: Ninety percent would be applied to that, and that number would be sent to the processor.

MR. REID: All right.

Is that what happened with Englee?

MR. TAYLOR: I would assume. It happened with everybody else, so I would assume it happened with Englee.

MR. REID: So it would be safe to say that under that regulation -

MR. TAYLOR: Then you would be informed that you can take your case to the arbitrator, bearing in mind that a minimum of 75 per cent of crab must be processed in a region and that has an impact in that region because 75 per cent, if you just used the 105, if you assigned everybody their previous three year average, you would end up with 20 per cent of the crab being processed in the region, for the sake of argument.

MR. REID: What is the average landing up in the Northern Peninsula? What areas do you call the Northern Peninsula, too, by the way, geographically?

MR. TAYLOR: I think, Gerry, most of the stuff you are asking now, you can get it in the backgrounders that were released by the department.

MR. REID: I never read it all.

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe you should.

MR. REID: All I am saying is that some might argue that Jackson's Arm is part of the Northern Peninsula.

MR. TAYLOR: And some might argue otherwise.

MR. REID: Exactly. Is it or isn't it?

OFFICIAL: For the purposes of this exercise, no, it is not.

MR. REID: What was the average landing on the Northern Peninsula?

MR. TAYLOR: Six-and-a-half million.

MR. REID: Six-and-a-half million.

Because, under the numbers -

MR. TAYLOR: Trout River is included in the Northern Peninsula because we define it as the Northern Peninsula Highway, anything that is off the Northern Peninsula Highway.

MR. REID: So that is four plants, is it, including St. Anthony?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, four.

MR. REID: That is six-and-a-half million for the four plants.

All I am trying to figure out -

OFFICIAL: Seventy-five per cent of the 6 million and change is the minimum for the Northern Peninsula, so it is about 4.5 million and change.

MR. REID: Four-and-a-half million pounds for the four plants. That is basically what you have to give out up there. I am trying to figure out - Daley's did not operate in Englee last year, and in the two previous years the average they had was 500,000 to 700,000 pounds, roughly, or did they have -

MR. TAYLOR: About a million, I would say. A million, roughly.

MR. MEANEY: You really should not say. Strictly speaking, we should not say. It is proprietary information.

MR. REID: Strictly speaking. No, but what I am trying to figure out, I am just trying to calculate -

MR. TAYLOR: You are not going to figure out what Englee is getting, you are not going to figure out what St. Anthony is getting. Nobody is going to get it until it is all over, okay?

MR. REID: All right. If that is the way - you will not tell me, that's fine.

MR. TAYLOR: That is right, so you had best get another line of questioning.

MR. REID: You are trying to convince the harvesters of the Province that you are going to open all the books one of these days and make all of this crystal clear so that no one knows they are getting ripped off. I am trying to ask you tonight a simple question, to come as close as to what they are going to get, based on your own recommendations and based on what you are saying in public. You saying I am not going to get it. Fine! I will skip that one and I will go to something else. So somewhere between the four plants they will divvy up 4.5 million pounds?

MR. TAYLOR: Somewhere between 4.5 and 6.5 million pounds.

MR. REID: All right, good. That is fine. So I will get the information. I hope this arbitrator or the minister, at the end of the day, is going to be far more forthcoming when all of this is done and next year, or the year after, when the fishermen want to know if they are getting ripped off by the processors there is going to be a better answer than I just got when they open their books.

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe if people are more agreeable to try and work together on it they would get more answers.

MR. REID: I have been asking some questions. I am asking questions because I have been asked to ask questions by the residents of this Province. I am just trying to calculate, basically, what a particular area is going to get. Now, some processors have already told me what they are going to get.

MR. TAYLOR: Great. That is fine. That is their right, but it is not my right.

MR. REID: The impression that is being left out around the Province is that everyone should get at least 90 per cent of what they got last year.

MR. TAYLOR: Subject to quota changes, obviously.

MR. REID: Ninety percent of the region -

MR. TAYLOR: You are not able to give everybody 90 per cent of what the quota is if the quota was 250 per cent, for example, are you?

MR. REID: I know that.

MR. TAYLOR: Right.

MR. REID: We know that you cannot get 90 per cent if there is x number of pounds of crab going in for St. Anthony because that was not there last year either.

Anyway, we will forget the production quotas tonight because you are not allowed to tell me any of this. Let's go back to Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula on the aquaculture. The receiver that is in there now, is he selling fish? Is the hatchery in operation?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: Is the grow out in operation? Are they replenishing the fish that they are selling?

MR. MEANEY: The company is being operated as if it was - as a going concern. It is no different than if it was not in receivership.

MR. REID: So, they are selling fish, and you say the sale of fin fish went up this year? The tonnage?

MR. MEANEY: The total production is the highest we have had now since we started.

MR. REID: What do you attribute that to?

MR. MEANEY: Mostly, the marketing effort by the companies down there. They have a very high quality product. There have been some problems in New Brunswick. The supply out of New Brunswick has been down, so there has been a greater opportunity for Newfoundland to enter into the marketplace.

MR. REID: These small grants to fishermen. How much did you have in that last year?

MR. TAYLOR: Two hundred.

MR. REID: How much do you have in this year?

MR. TAYLOR: The same thing.

MR. REID: Do you think that I could have - because I know there is a fellow down there who can tell you tonight exactly how much is left there for this year. On any given day he call tell you exactly how much is there and he can also give you, within fifteen minutes, where every cent of that has been spent. Do you think I could have that within a week for last year?

MR. TAYLOR: Not a problem, Sir.

OFFICIAL: You mean for last years?

MR. REID: Yes. We are only a month into the new fiscal year.

MR. TAYLOR: I was much fairer than some previous ministers were, I can tell you that.

MR. REID: I thought I was pretty fair to you.

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, I never said you weren't. I said some previous ministers, Sir.

MR. REID: I would hazzard to guess, unless you are not informing me, I was much fairer to you than you were to me last year.

MR. TAYLOR: I was fairer to you than I was to myself, I think.

MR. REID: When, this year? Well, then obviously you never sent out any letters informing me like I used to you.

MR. TAYLOR: Now don't go saying that because you didn't. I don't know if I did or I didn't, but -

MR. REID: We copied the members, regardless of what side of the House they were on.

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Gerry. You might have copied some members but, anyway (inaudible).

MR. REID: All right, here is another bit of information. Go back to the records that are down in the Department of Fisheries. I am going to ask you a question -

MR. TAYLOR: You can have the information, and I can tell you right now that it was divided out just about exactly - how many Liberal districts we have, how many PC districts we have, allocated proportionally. Where it went? Again, I do not know.

MR. REID: They are on the records. I want a copy of that.

MS FOOTE: Then you should have copied us because that is good news.

MR. REID: That is the reason, she did not want us to know about it.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't know. I would not be able to tell you what happened. I would say my own members are upset with me because they didn't know about some of it, I would suggest.

MR. REID: Well, that is their fault. They will learn. I don't feel sorry for them.

Loan Guarantees to fishermen. I know that is over in Industry now, but is that loan guarantee program for vessels still in place?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and any further questions, refer them to ITRD.

MR. REID: Not even a general -

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, boy, you know it is, Gerry

MR. REID: How much money is out there now, or what is the government on the hook for now?

MR. TAYLOR: I do not know.

MR. REID: Do you know what - you do not know what the pool is?

MS FOOTE: If you don't know, you shouldn't answer the question.

MR. REID: Refresh my memory, the provincial government is on the hook for a percentage of the total pool, am I right? Well, answer from the way it used to be, when you knew something about it.

OFFICIAL: Yes. That is my understanding.

MR. REID: Is it 20 per cent of the total?

OFFICIAL: If I recall, I believe it is. I believe it is 20 per cent.

MR. REID: You have no -

OFFICIAL: We do technical assessments on those loan guarantee applications under the Fishing Vessel Loan Guarantee Program. We have a marine architect who deals with issues around vessel design and that sort of stuff. We also, through our resource policy - who are now Sustainable Fisheries and Oceans Policy Division - provide commentary and assessment on projections of landings and quota levels. Of course when people come in, they have a business plan for an enterprise and suggesting that they are going to have access to x amount of this and x amount of that. So we provide technical assessment of that but the decision making and whatever is done by, I guess, the business investment corporation, which is under the auspices of ITRD.

MR. REID: Do you know anything about it?

OFFICIAL: That is about it, but I could - if you would like to know the total amount outstanding, I could arrange to get the answer for you.

MR. REID: Is the program still in place whereby - it used to be over $50,000.

MR. TAYLOR: The program is unchanged.

MR. REID: If you went to the bank and borrowed in excess of fifty - I do not know, is it still fifty or is it less or more?

OFFICIAL: My understanding is that the program is now available for amounts under $50,000. There is not a lot of take up under $50,000 because many harvesters are of the view that the red tape that is involved - and that is largely a function of the Financial Administration Act - accountability requirements in government, the amount of red tape involved is too much to make it worthwhile.

MR. REID: Okay, but if a fisherman goes to a bank and gets a loan today, the government is guaranteeing it up to a certain amount?

OFFICIAL: Subject to approval of the Business Investment or Business Development Corporation, yes.

MR. REID: Yes. So, is it safe to say that if a fisherman does not go to a processor today and he goes out to a bank and tries to raise $1.2 million for a new boat that the government is probably on the hook for 20 per cent of that on a loan guarantee with a bank?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: All right, that is all I wanted to know. I guess Ms Dunderdale will tell me how much is out there, how much we are on the hook for?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. REID: All right. I do not mean to be getting people's nerves all frayed or anything, you know.

MS FOOTE: You are just being yourself, right?

MR. REID: I am only asking a question.

MR. TAYLOR: We know that, Gerry. We know it comes natural for you.

MR. REID: You do not have to get so feisty about it.

Is there any money in the budget this year for foreign overfishing?

MR. TAYLOR: Not specifically, other than our departmental realignment, our treaty issue and our (inaudible) policy to deal with foreign overfishing, our dedication of resources, specifically for that, under - whatever that new section is called.

MR. REID: But there is nothing there directly related to -

MR. TAYLOR: No.

MR. REID: There was last year, wasn't it?

MR. TAYLOR: No, it was not there last year either. It was there for two years before that and you fellows did not spend it so we did not think there was much point in keeping it.

MS FOOTE: You could not find a way of putting it over in some other little kitty, like some of the other ones you did?

MR. REID: If I am correct - no, I will not say it.

MR. TAYLOR: No, don't, because I know where you were going then.

MR. REID: The legal opinion of FPI, I guess we will receive those before we have our free vote in the House.

MR. TAYLOR: I would imagine whatever information is relevant will be divulged to people at that time.

MS FOOTE: That is what the Premier said today.

MR. REID: Did he?

MS FOOTE: Oh, yes (inaudible).

MR. REID: He would never answer me when I asked him.

MR. TAYLOR: You ask in the wrong way, Gerry. You just have to ease off, take that chip off your shoulder. Judy came up today, she was the best kind. We had a good meeting. If you would have come up there we would have been five minutes into it and it would have been all off the rails.

MR. REID: He winks at me in the House more than he winks at Judy. (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Well, he knows better than to wink at me, so that is why we had a good meeting.

MR. REID: He is constantly winking at me in the House. I thought I could get information out of him.

MR. TAYLOR: He likes you.

MR. REID: I guess he likes Judy better.

Anyway, that is all I have, minister. Obviously, you are not going to tell me anything else about how you are going to divvy up the quotas, so we will discuss that in the House or somewhere else. Maybe the arbitrator will tell me this weekend.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Any further questions from the Committee?

OFFICIAL: No.

CHAIR: None at all?

MS FOOTE: This talkative bunch down here you mean?

CHAIR: Yes.

MS FOOTE: They only talk when we leave the room.

CHAIR: Okay. I will ask the Clerk now to call the subheads.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01 to 3.1.01, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall the subheads 1.1.01 to 3.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Estimates for 2005-2006 for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture carry without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried without amendment.

On motion, Estimates carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We have the minutes of the meeting that we had this morning. I ask for adoption of these minutes, they are circulated.

Moved by Mr. O'Brien, seconded by Mr. Hunter, the minutes of the meeting of the Business department this morning be carried.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I would like to thank Minister Taylor and his officials for providing us with the information tonight that was requested. I also thank the members of the committee and the House of Assembly staff. Our next meeting, and the final one for our committee, is tomorrow morning at 9:00 in the House of Assembly.

Motion to adjourn.

MR. REID: Did you say tomorrow morning?

CHAIR: Mr. O'Brien, this meeting is adjourned.

Yes, tomorrow morning.

MR. REID: In the House?

CHAIR: House, yes, Natural Resources.

On motion, Committee adjourned.