HANSARD

Setting the Agenda

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Gerald Sampson (Chairman)

Mr. William Dooks

Mr. Cecil O'Donnell

Mr. William Langille

Mr. Jerry Pye

Mr. Gordon Gosse

Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)

Mr. Harold Theriault

Mr. Stephen McNeil

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005

STANDING COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Gerald Sampson

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's 9:05 a.m., so let's call the meeting to order and get underway. There are other meetings on the go today, and some are going to be late. I don't think Mr. Gosse is going to be in attendance, he's at an EMO meeting. Mr. Dooks is going to be late, and we'll thank him for that. Mr. O'Donnell, we'll put that in the minutes so he can know that he's always welcome.

There are no witnesses attending today. Committee Business: we have an application for a disability pension here. Mr. Langille could probably walk us through the steps of what's taking place with a gentleman by the name of Ronald Haslund.

MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: Mr. Chairman, there's a Ronald Walter Haslund - his wife came to my office along with another Legion member. Mr. Haslund spent 25 years in the regular Forces - Navy - and was discharged in 1986. He resides at 8825 Peggy's Cove Road, Indian Harbour. The problem is he is in an advanced state of Parkinson's disease, and he's hospitalized. So he's been getting exorbitant bills from the Department of Health, which they really can't afford. They would like to put him in the veterans wing of Camp Hill. This appears to be a problem with Veterans Affairs, because - my understanding is - it wasn't work-related at the time, which really doesn't make sense. I thought Camp Hill was for the veterans when they became sick.

So what I'm requesting, Mr. Chairman, is maybe we could send a letter expressing our concern, that this person is a veteran and ought to be considered for Camp Hill Hospital. I would just put that out to the other members of the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pye.

MR. JERRY PYE: Mr. Chairman, of course this was just presented to us now. I just did a brief perusal of the information that was provided to me. I have to say where it relates to the condition related to services that it doesn't imply that Parkinson's disease was a part of that disease that would have occurred as a result of the years of service. But I want to say that I do agree with the honourable member. The honourable member makes a very good point on something that I have to admit that I was unaware of. I thought the Camp Hill Hospital was designated for veterans, whether they served or not, and not a relationship to a disease or an injury that occurred while they were employed with the Canadian Armed Forces. So I would certainly be open and receptive to sending a letter on their behalf.

Once again, if you read where it said how this claim and condition is related to service, it doesn't spell it out quite clearly. Also, I don't know if there's any medical evidence with respect to the information that he has provided in this disability application.

MR. LANGILLE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I know of cases where veterans who have come into the veterans wing in Camp Hill with an advanced stage of sickness, didn't have that sickness when they retired from the service. It just makes me wonder, we are going to have veterans who weren't sick when they retired, but have since become sick. The question is, what are our veteran wings in our hospitals and what is Camp Hill if it's not for the veterans? We've had cases in the past where they tried to put people in there who never served in the Forces, calling them veterans, at one time.

Anyway, what I am requesting is, with consent of the committee, that a letter be written to Veterans Affairs and see what their stance is on this particular person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might pass my own - do any other members want to make a comment before I comment?

MR. CECIL O'DONNELL: So are we asking that the veterans explain the decision why he's not being put in there, or are we going on record as supporting his request to be put in the veterans?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think that we could ask for an explanation of a veteran, but I personally feel that we should be supporting the gentleman as a veteran. My decision is based on the fact that, number one, there is a wing in the hospital in Sydney Mines that is specifically for veterans. I'm not familiar with any specific cases, but I understand it's there for veterans and when they become sick, that's where they go.

Number two, my own father was a veteran and he suffered several heart attacks before he passed away and he would have a heart attack, they would ship him off to Camp Hill Hospital. His lungs would fill up with fluid and things like that and he would go up to Camp Hill and they'd dry him up in a week or two weeks and he'd come back, he'd be a brand new man. I'm sure he didn't retire from the service with a heart condition. I remember

as a kid when he had his first heart attack and he was working at the naval base in Sydney as a civilian and not in the Army, so he was looked after every time he went up to Camp Hill Hospital. There was no question of whether he was or whether he wasn't a veteran. He never served overseas, but he was in the Army during the war and whatnot so he was looked after. So, to me, a veteran is a veteran and when you serve 25 years I think this is what the word veteran is all about.

This is the Year of the Veteran, what are we going to do, make an example - this is new to me, I just thought if you served in the service you were a veteran. The gentleman's service number is there and where he served and whatnot. I would fully support that.

MR. PYE: I did make a previous comment and I want you to know that I support this application going forward as well, but I want you to know that we are setting a precedent. The cases that may not be accepted by Veterans Affairs can now come before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to have letters written on their behalf with respect to getting entrance to a hospital facility, namely the veterans hospital.

MR. LANGILLE: I agree partially with what you're saying. However, we do not make the decision. We can only lend support.

MR. PYE: That's what we're doing.

MR. LANGILLE: I personally don't see anything wrong with us lending support to our servicemen who are retired and who have become sick.

I don't know the circumstances of the amount of beds that are available right now, but if they have a program in place where they do not cover their service personnel who do become sick after retirement, even though it's not sickness related to when they retired. Most people aren't sick when they retire. They retire healthy and you can get out at 20 years with a pension - not a full pension, but the norm is 25 years in the Armed Forces when people get out, but of course, they can serve longer.

However, they should look at their policy when it comes to serving our veterans. When these people rack up exorbitant hospital bills which they have to pay for and practically putting them in the poor house, which it's doing, I think the Government of Canada ought to take a good look at their policy.

[9:15 a.m.]

MR. PYE: I just want to say what the honourable member says is correct, I'm just putting a flag up indicating to you what we are doing, or the potential of what we are doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, Mr. Theriault has joined us and, Mr. Dooks, I have already entered into the minutes a thank you to you for being late. We're very appreciative of the fact that you weren't here at the start. (Interruption) Just to flag you a little extra, that's all.

MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you're always holding the interests of the committee . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you'll get me back for that.

So has the committee had enough information set before them? The two gentlemen who have entered, you had the opportunity to hear the discussion that has taken place. There's a gentleman who has 25 years service, and has an exorbitant bill, not being admitted to the Camp Hill Hospital, and the family is wondering why. Mr. Langille has requested that we send a letter of support, two things we could ask the department to explain - one, the meaning of veteran and, number two, a letter could be in support of this application by Mr. Ronald Walter Haslund to be admitted to the hospital and have his bill looked after.

MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, the letter can be two parts, can't it, it doesn't have to be a separate letter. There can be two components to this letter; one explaining and, secondly, endorsing our support for Mr. Haslund.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the one letter, I would say, will be sufficient.

MR. PYE: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A two-part letter, is that satisfactory with you, Mr. Langille?

MR. LANGILLE: Yes, that's satisfactory to me. I just met these people at my constituency office on Monday. Like I said, they drove all the way up from Peggy's Cove and I guess they're coming to me because somebody told them I was Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, but I'm not of course, and people still come. In fact, I have another issue that came in on Monday also.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I was unaware that veterans - there was a qualification that you could be turned away. Maybe the letter can explain that to us.

MR. LANGILLE: Well, if past experience is any precedent, I think they will explain very well. It's not what they can do, it's what they don't do. However, we'll wait to see. Send in the letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's in agreement that we send the letter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, total agreement to send the letter. Mr. Langille, you said you had a second request come to your office on Monday?

MR. LANGILLE: Yes, I did. I had another request, and this is in regard to veterans who receive home care, who receive snow shovelling and so on, yard work around their homes, which is paid for by Veterans Affairs. However, Veterans Affairs, as I understand it, their mission statement is 72 hours, any claim put in will be processed and given out within 72 hours. That is their mission statement. Now, whether they adhere to that is something else, and that's my concern today because what I was being told is that they're not adhering to that, that they are taking long lengths of time, putting a burden on these people who pay out of their own pocket, not getting their claims back on time.

Now, I don't know if there's anything we can do or if that's just their back load or what. I'm sure they're doing the best they can, but I just bring that to your attention in case anybody else hears of it. So I don't know if there's anything we can do. I understand it's anywhere from three weeks to two months, but I don't know if we can do anything on that or just advisement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a separate department in Veterans Affairs that looks after the financial end of things like that, that maybe there are processing problems? Do any of the members have any information that they could add?

MR. LANGILLE: I'm not aware of any.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. PYE: This is part of the VIP program isn't it? Under the VIP program it must have a time frame in which they say that they're going to respond back or give you - because first of all you must fill out the application, pay the bill and then send the bill for remittance, right? Once the bill is remitted, then it may take anywhere from three weeks to a month or more, and I don't know if that's an administrative process and I don't know what you do with respect to an administrative process. I would say one thing, I would advise you to tell them to contact their MP and their MP can go directly to the department to see what's the holdup. Then if it's a policy thing, we might be able to make a suggestion on policy, but it wouldn't be that they would have to adhere to it.

MR. LANGILLE: I agree with what you're saying; however, what I'm saying is, they have a mission statement and every department has a mission statement and their mission statement, in this regard, is 72 hours, but what I'm also saying is it's not being adhered to. Now I don't know if they have problems processing, or what. That is what I was told and that's all I'm relating to you is their mission statement says 72 hours, and they're taking a lot

longer to pay these bills and it's out-of-pocket expenses for the veterans who, a lot of times, just don't have that extra cash flow. It's a burden on them, so whether we can do anything with that or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we either make a separate letter asking for an explanation of the policy of that for their burdens, or how do you want to proceed with it?

MR. LANGILLE: What I would suggest is to write a letter and ask that if this is the mission statement, that they be paid within 72 hours; that we have concerns at constituency levels that they're not being adhered to, and possibly explain the reason why, so we can explain the reason why to the veterans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfactory with the committee? Anybody want to comment on that?

MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Well, we certainly can do that but if that department can process something in 72 hours, that's the first government department that ever worked that quick - 72 days maybe. (Laughter) They better rewrite their mission statement . . .

MR. LANGILLE : They could do that too, but if they have a mission statement saying that, they ought to adhere to their mission statement, that's all I'm saying, but it's taking longer. Just explain to us why so we can explain to the people who bring these concerns to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Another suggestion would be, I know we have had, in front of this committee many times, Mr. Walker, who is, I believe, the head of the Atlantic region, if not Nova Scotia, and maybe a call to him, just a personal call, I know he's quite open and willing to come before us and update us on programs and that. That might be an avenue just to give him a call and get him to look into it for us and then we can proceed from there. I mean if there is a definite problem there, we can definitely send off a letter of . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be better to address the letter to Mr. Walker, to investigate it on our behalf and then like everybody says - I mean, I have no problem making a phone call, but a paper trail is something that everybody seems to want to have. Maybe the letter could go to Mr. Walker, to check this out for us and then have him appear as a witness sometime to walk us through the steps of what has taken place and then we could question him at that time. Would that be appropriate? So it's agreed that we send the letter to Mr. Walker? Okay, thank you, Mr. Wilson.

MR. THERIAULT: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Theriault.

MR. THERIAULT: The new federal constitution for Veterans Affairs, do we know anything about this? I've been asked many times about this, the new constitution that we learned about, what, six months ago here or something? I've been asked quite a few times, and I can't answer anything about it because I don't know anything about it. I know that when it was first introduced to this group it said that everything was going to be made better, made better for families of veterans and so on. That's all I know about it. It doesn't even seem to exist according to some veterans. I wonder how we could find out more about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would Mr. Walker be the one who could explain that to us? That's a topic, I would say, Junior, that we could bring up with our first set of witnesses. We're going to set an agenda, and we could invite witnesses in who could maybe enlighten us on that. If we don't know what's going on with that and we're on the committee, and I'm like yourself, it was presented here and everything was going to be good, but . . .

MR. THERIAULT: It was introduced here to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know.

MR. THERIAULT: I don't think there was too much literature on it or anything, it was just verbal. That was pretty much it, but I've had a lot of veterans ask me about it and I don't know a thing about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe what we could do is - the next item on the agenda is Setting the Agenda - after we finish with the Committee Business, put that as one of our main topics. Is there any other business, before we go to Setting the Agenda?

MR. LANGILLE: I just have one. Every year at this time, in the Legislature or here, somebody always brings up the notion of a statutory holiday. The letter from the Legion stating their position on the statutory holiday - I would assume you people have it, too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand they don't want it to be a statutory holiday, they want it to remain for veterans only and not become a national holiday for everyone. That would take the emphasis off the veterans.

MR. LANGILLE: What they want is a Day of Remembrance, not a statutory holiday. I think we should put that letter in today. Can we put that in Hansard just for the record?

MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): Yes, sure.

["Legion News - Press Release

For Immediate Release

The Royal Canadian Legion, Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command

Halifax, N.S. September 19, 2005

'Remembrance Day as a Statutory Holiday'

During the 46^th Biennial Convention of The R.C.L. Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command held in Bridgewater N.S. in 2003, a resolution was presented to the floor which requested that, NS/NU Command pressure the Provincial government to change November 11^th to a Statutory Holiday. Following a spirited debate on the subject the resolution was narrowly carried.

Over the ensuing two years the debate has continued and has even spread to the floor of our Provincial Legislature. The Executive Council of NS/NU Command has heard from many segments of our society - our seniors, our youth and our Veterans, regarding their views on this subject. The overwhelming majority of these voices, especially those of our Veterans, have expressed a fervent desire to keep November 11^th as it is - a sacred day of Remembrance. To turn it into a 'Statutory Holiday' would destroy the meaning of November 11^th as an annual day of Remembrance in honour of all Canadians who paid the supreme sacrifice for their country. Our Veterans have reminded us that their Comrades' sacrifices have given us the freedom to democratically debate this issue, but have strongly requested that November 11^th not be made a 'Statutory Holiday' in Nova Scotia.

Existing Provincial legislation, specifically The Remembrance Day Act, has already deemed November 11^th a holiday and regulates it's (sic) observance regarding business openings and time off for employees and students. Declaring November 11^th a 'Statutory Holiday' would eliminate this legislation and would allow businesses to remain open and less of the public would be able to attend remembrance ceremonies.

One of The Royal Canadian Legion's purposes as an organization is to perpetuate Remembrance, and to that end, during the 47^th Biennial Convention in Sydney Mines in May 2005 the Executive Council of NS/NU Command concluded that we would end our debate on this subject and request that the N.S. Legislature also respect the wishes of the majority of our Veterans and cease debate on this subject.

November 11^th should remain a solemn day of REMEMBRANCE - not a holiday.

For more information please contact the Command Public Relations Chairman at 429-4090."]

MR. LANGILLE: We do have the best Remembrance Day Act in Canada as far as I'm concerned. Once you read it, you understand how good it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They're not in favour of taking the emphasis off the remembrance . . .

MR. LANGILLE: No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . and just having it as a holiday for everybody. This way it focuses on remembrance.

MR. LANGILLE: It is a remembrance, not a holiday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the main focus.

MR. LANGILLE: That's correct, and that's the way it should be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because if not it would become watered down.

Does the committee agree with that? Agreed.

Is there any further business? We will move, then, to setting agendas for coming meetings.

MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, might I just add that I think we do have some basis for setting the agenda. Number one is the Royal Canadian Legion, Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command, November 17^th. Number two would be Mr. Walker, director of Veterans Affairs for Atlantic Canada. Number three, could we have the Royal Canadian Legion come back and give us an update as to the activities that are going on, and what's happening around the Year of the Veteran and so on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MR. PYE: December 31^st is the year-end, so that will bring us up somewhere close, in January, probably, because Mr. Walker will come in December. In January the year will be ended, and we will know what they think of the Year of the Veteran program and so on, both provincially and federally, and let us know. Is that possible?

MR. LANGILLE: Do we need the Command to come in twice?

MR. PYE: Well, one is the Nunavut Command, isn't that a separate entity from the Royal Canadian Legion?

MR. LANGILLE: No, it's combined.

MR. PYE: It's combined, okay. Good point.

MR. LANGILLE: My preference, just because we have a couple of issues, is I would personally like to see Mr. Walker come in and explain and then have the Legion come in, but that's just my personal preference, it's up to you people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think you already have the Legion booked in for November 17^th. (Interruptions)

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. LANGILLE: Oh, you do, I didn't know that. Well, if that's the case, then . . .

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): So a suggestion of mine maybe is to have the Legion in - I'm sure they'll advise us on what they've been doing over the last year for the Year of the Veteran. Have Mr. Walker come in and then maybe have someone from the office that promoted the Year of the Veteran to give us an update on what they did and the money allocated throughout the year, where it went. I know the minister will probably not appear, but I'm sure he'll send his staff with a report. We can give him some advance notice that we would like to hear a report of the events throughout the year and what his office was involved in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could do that, and what I would like for us as members of the committee is if we gave, for the record, a report on what took place in our own ridings. I have four Legions in my riding and we've completed one so far - I have another one coming up soon, and then I have two Legions that would like to do it on November 11^th. I'm telling them, no, because November 11^th is Remembrance Day, and what I'm saying is have a celebration for the veterans where the veterans are recognized, and invite the general public in and present them with their certificates with the general public there where the veterans are the focus.

Like I said, on Remembrance Day some of the Legions are looking at combining it. It's an easy way for them, but with four Legions in my area, and doing it on Remembrance Day - one year I go north in my riding, this year I'm going south, and the next year I'll go to

the western side of it, so I won't be able to attend to present the certificates, number one, and it's taking the focus, for me, off Remembrance Day and the veterans. I think, just have kind of a salute to the veterans on a Friday night, or a Saturday night, and have the general public in and whatever.

MR. LANGILLE: Yes, I'm in about the same position. However, I go a week before to Economy to the cenotaph there - they don't have a Legion, but I have three Legions in my area, in Great Village, Debert and Tatamagouche. I'm a member of the Tatamagouche Legion. On Sunday, last week, I went to a function in Debert, but prior to that I gave Great Village $833. I just divided my $2,500 up between the three Legions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I do.

MR. LANGILLE: Yes, and I gave it $833. Now what they did, they went out and purchased Canadian flags for all the graves and that's fine. Last Sunday I attended in Debert, which was very significant in the Second World War of course, and they did a Wall of Honour for their veterans. So I gave them a cheque for $800 for the Wall of Honour before the reception and also other initiatives they have later this year, for which there's money left over. I also presented the two plaques, one for Great Village there at the time because there were members from Great Village there, and the Legion. However, on Remembrance Day, I'm like you, I'm spread out, too, and I'll be attending two ceremonies, one at 10:00 a.m. and one at 2:00 p.m. Then we have our reception and our dinner back at the Tatamagouche Legion, and because that's what they want, I'll be presenting a plaque there at that time because it is for the veterans. So I'm just saying that I'll be doing that.

I know where you're coming from, Mr. Chairman, but that's what they wanted and I'm not in a position to argue with them. If that's when they want it, that's when I'll give it to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm four and a half hours from boundary to boundary.

MR. LANGILLE: Oh, I see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And it's totally impossible to go north of Smokey to the two Legions down there and then go up to Iona to a Legion there, and then rush into Baddeck and go to a Legion there - the geography doesn't allow it. You'll spend time running around, and you will be five minutes in each place and that's worse than not being there at all. But I just thought, as committee members, we could give kind of a little summation of what took place in our ridings and show the Year of the Veteran if they come; if the minister doesn't come, if he sends a representative, the representative can fill us in on the summation of the year and we can show that as members of the committee what we've done in our own areas.

MR. LANGILLE: Not trying to pre-empt you, Jerry, I really believe that Nova Scotia - we're the only place that has a Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We're the only province that does something provincially. I think to give these plaques out, and the monies, to allocate some money to all the Legions, with the local member's name on the plaques, and the Red Ensign, I really believe that's quite an accomplishment for this small province in the Year of the Veteran.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Pye.

MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, I do know, and I have no difficulty with people presenting a brief report of what they have done for the Legions in their constituencies that they represent. I represent a constituency that has no Legions, but I do share the entities outside my constituency with some of my colleagues who have constituencies with Legions.

I just want to get back to the witnesses. Now we will be doing our own individual reports, if that's agreed upon, but so far we have had only two witnesses, one for November 17^th, Mr. Walker for December, and I don't know if my colleague, the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid, had mentioned that we ask a government representative to come forward and give us a breakdown on what had been done for the Year of the Veteran in the province, but that will take a couple of months. So we'll probably look at February, March, before they will get those numbers and everything together. So I'm wondering who are we going to have for January and February?

MR. LANGILLE: Do we have to meet every month? We've never met every month before.

MR. PYE: I'm just passing that out, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the minister's office can give us somebody by December or January to finalize the summation of the Year of the Veteran. Then, at that time, if some issues have come forward, we can plan then. I don't see us planning the whole year out now and locking that in and then something comes up and we say, well, it's not on the agenda. I think we should be open to changes as they proceed and look at, from now like you say, until the end of the year, and then in January we'll have other issues to proceed with, and maybe we won't mind that meeting every month.

MR. LANGILLE: The other thing, if Mr. Walker comes in, he's not going to take that much time, so maybe we can have two presenters in on the same day. To come here for a half-hour or so is not feasible to me. We have to come in from out of town, stay overnight and so on. This is a luxury to come here when the House is sitting; however, with all the other committees that we're on, maybe we ought to look at that. I know with the minister's office, it wouldn't take that much time to explain what they did.

MR. PYE: No, I just put that out for some thought because, in my opinion, to have a committee that's just there in name, it doesn't mean a whole lot at all. If you're just sitting on a committee and it's not functional, then I have difficulty with that. That's the reason why I bring it to your attention. We have been very fortunate in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I think in the last few years, I don't recall a committee meeting that we haven't attended on a monthly basis, except when it was Summer, but when the Fall came back in, and through the Winter, we continued to have those monthly meetings, and that's just what I'm saying.

MR. LANGILLE: Not the Veterans Affairs Committee, though; not every month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.

MR. THERIAULT: I just want to agree with the chairman. We have two meetings set in the House, and by the first meeting or by the second meeting, there will be other ideas that will come up. I have five Legions in my area, and one of the presidents asked me one day if it was possible if one of those Legions could come here and do a presentation - just a local Legion, that may be interesting. Maybe we could come up with more similar ideas the next meeting or two that we're here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could have a hands-on presentation from the actual Legion in a specific area which would give us ideas we could transfer through to our own Legions.

Is that satisfactory that we're set now for the next two meetings and then be open and flexible for whatever comes forward, that we can adjust rather than trying to set it for the whole year? Is that agreeable to the whole committee? All right, then we have that set.

Our next meeting date is Thursday, November 17^th. We will sit from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. A motion to adjourn.

MR. DOOKS: So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 9:41 a.m.]