Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that's something that is really going to be determined by us. Clearly, that is a model that is more complex and expensive, I imagine, but it certainly is a possibility. I believe it was mentioned at the Caucus retreat in August. I'm not certain whether there was a consensus in the room as to where to go with that; certainly, that is being examined. The question is how complicated might that be. Cost is always an issue also. So, ultimately, that will be a determination that is made by the House. Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Any further questions? I see no further questions or comments from committee. Please turn to page 276, Justice, services to government, operations expenditure summary, total activity, $12,966,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, Committee. We will now proceed on to the next activity, services to the public. Before we proceed on, I will recognize Mr. Simpson.

No, I have questions for the next activity. Do you mind if I just continue on with that?

I'll just read out the comments here. We will now proceed on to the next activity, services to the public. Activity description is found on page 279. The activity detail is on page 280 and the activity position information item is found on page 281. I will remind committee to specify the page their questions are addressed to. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for jumping the gun. I apologize to Mr. O'Reilly for usurping his question, but I did my statement on the rental office the other day and so I just want to follow up on that.

The Minister agreed to do a business case to see the possible benefits of adding another body to the rental office. I was wondering when we can expect to see that business case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.

We are always looking at ways to improve the service. I think that we will be looking at wait times. The current wait time, if I can put it that way, for the hearing date is between two and three months, which is consistent with other jurisdictions. However, if it appears that wait times are becoming too lengthy, and they may be, clearly we can look at the appointment of a second rental officer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't go over my entire Member's statement, but I'll read from Hansard. I said, "Will the department formally assess the business case for adding another rental officer to the rental office?" The Minister replied, "Yes." So I'd like to know: when can we expect that business case? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.

Can I have a different chair?

---Laughter

The business case will be worked on and be produced for the fall, and we will be examining that issue, as I indicated.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seeing as how it's only February, that's quite a ways away. Is this done yearly? Why the long delay, I guess? Why the long delay to take care of this issue that has been identified as an issue, as an impediment to creating small businesses, to attracting people to the territory, by taking away people's incentive to rent out and restricting the market? So why is this going to take so long? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Sebert.

I'm sure committee would not want us to make any rash decisions on this. I do appreciate that this is an ongoing problem, but I don't think there's been a sudden spike in the issues that the Member quite properly raised in the House. So, I mean, I don't think that amount of time is unusual or unexpected. The point is that we do realize there may be an issue here, and if it is determined that we should hire a second rental officer, we can certainly look at that in the business plan.

Again, I don't see this as a crisis or anything that has happened recently. Maybe it's more of a long-term issue, and we certainly have to look at the numbers again. As I mentioned previously, we seem to be in the same range as other jurisdictions. Now, that may still be not terribly acceptable, and that's what we'll be looking at; whether we do need to hire someone else to ameliorate the issues raised by the Member. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is not a crisis that happened recently; it's an ongoing crisis, so we're aware of that. We've learned that much. It's going to take one person -- because we are a small jurisdiction, so we're on par with the rest of Canada, I mean, I don't know. Maybe I'm just unhappy with the status quo. Maybe I want to be at the top of the country at something, and if we can double our staff by hiring one person and have the best rental office in the country, that seems like something we can boast about, but I can tell I'm not going to get much movement on this and it's going to be a long day, so I will yield the floor and perhaps Mr. O'Reilly wants to continue with this. That's all for now, and this is something that I'll be discussing with the Minister over and over again until the fall, I'm sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any further comments? Seeing no further questions or comments from committee, please turn to page 280, Justice, services to the public, operations expenditure summary, total activity, $4,328,000. Does committee agree?

Committee, before we turn to the department total, we will consider the information item on pages 282 and 283, work performed on behalf of others. Does committee have any questions or comments to the information item? Recognizing Ms. Green.