May 2, 1994                                                              RESOURCE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


The committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Penney): Order, please!

I would like to welcome you to the fifth meeting of the Resource Estimates Committee for this year. Tonight we will be reviewing the estimates of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I would like to welcome the Minister, the hon. Graham Flight.

I will first introduce the members of our committee. My name is Melvin Penney, and I am the Member for Lewisporte and chairman of the committee. On my left is Mr. Rick Woodford, the Member for Humber Valley and the vice-chairman; further to my left is Mr. Don Whelan, the Member for Harbour Main; there is Dr. Bud Hulan, the Member for St. George's, and Mr. Paul Shelley, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. Mr. Beaton Tulk, the Member for Fogo and Mr. Ed Byrne, the Member for Kilbride should be joining us in a few minutes.

Before I go any further, I would like for you to have a look at the minutes that have been circulated. Could I have a motion, please, that we adopt the minutes as circulated? That is the minutes of the Resource Committee meeting for the estimates on the Department of Fisheries.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of those of you who are not familiar with the procedures here - and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record now, the fifth time in five meetings - this is basically an extension of the House of Assembly, except that it is a much more relaxed atmosphere here. There is a much more relaxed dress code and you do not have to refer to members by the name of the district they represent, you can address them by name; and you are welcome to have the Page bring a coffee into the Chamber for you as well.

What we have been doing is allowing the minister twenty minutes to make his opening comments and then allowing the vice-chairman or another member of the committee whom he would wish to designate in his place, to respond to that for equal time. Then we will turn it over to the members of the committee for ten minutes each of questioning. What we have tried to do, rather than have the members ask lengthy ten-minute questions that would consist of five or six questions, we have adopted a procedure very similar to what we do in the House of Assembly during Question Period. We expect them to ask brief questions and we would ask that the minister provide brief answers. Each member will still be given his ten minutes of time.

For the benefit of the gentleman in the recording booth up there, I would ask that the officials of the department, if they speak, that they first introduce themselves, and then lean into the microphones, because the system is designed to record from a standing position and we will be speaking tonight from a sitting position - so lean into the microphones. I will remind members of the committee that they are permitted to question only the minister. Any of his officials may answer the questions if that is his wish but if they do so they cannot give answers related to policy.

Having said that, Mr. Minister, if you would be so kind as to introduce your officials to us, and once you have done that you may proceed with your opening statement.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take the opportunity now to introduce my officials. My officials probably need no introduction to most members of the committee because they have been here, well, this is five years I think, and I don't think the officials of the department have changed, but in any event, on my immediate right is Mr. Robert Peters, the Deputy Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, better known to most people around the government as `Bob'. On his right is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Agriculture, Mr. Martin Howlett, known, again, around the building as `Marty'. On my immediate left is Dr. Mohammed Nazir, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Forestry; immediately behind me here is the Manager of Financial Services, Mr. Bernie McGuire; and behind me to my right is Mr. Len Clarke, Director of Financial Administration. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my officials, we are delighted to be here tonight to defend, I suppose, for want of a better word, or to discuss the estimates of this department. I might tell you from the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I will not be taking twenty minutes, I hope it will be nothing near that, but I do have to say that my very competent officials have a penchant for writing long briefing notes and I feel very obligated to read these because they put such effort into them and they are so factual.

I will read the statements that I have prepared, but I don't think it will take twenty minutes, Mr. Chairman, and we will go from there. If there is no comment at this point, I will continue into the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr. Minister, take whatever time you need to a maximum of twenty minutes.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my department is responsible for the management of the Province's forest resources and the development of the agriculture sector in order to enhance the economic and social well-being of the Province. I would like to take this opportunity to expound on some of the programs included in this year's budget which will help achieve these objectives, and I will deal with forestry first.

The primary forestry programs in 1994-1995 will include silviculture, forest inventory, access roads, protection, utilization and public education. The department will again this year be carrying out a major silviculture program under the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement for forest development. Approximately 7.6 million trees will be planted this year and another 10,000 hectares of forest land will be thinned or improved. This will bring the overall total number of trees planted in the Province to 97 million, and by July 1995 we expect to reach the milestone of 100 million trees planted since the inception of the silviculture program.

The Private Woodlot Program which has about 100 forest land owners registered in the program will continue this year. While we will not be signing any new woodlots to the program this year silviculture and other improvements will be funded under the previously signed woodlots program through the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement on forestry development.

I am pleased to report that the newsprint industry is expected to improve in 1994-1995 with a return to profits expected by year's end. Lumber prices are expected to remain high in 1994-1995 with all indications that sawmillers will have a peak production year. The main focus of the Forest Inventory Program in 1994-1995 will be to establish and remeasure inventory sample pots in the field for input into the department's geographic information system, known in the department as GIS. This information will be used to update the Province's forest inventory indices.

An access road program will include the construction of 63.3 kilometres of new forest roads and the reconstruction of nearly 36 kilometres of existing forest roads. These roads will be built on lands under Crown control and will provide access to approximately 1 million cubic meters of timber.

The Forest Protection Program will include forest fire protection, insect protection, and the implementation of an environmental protection plan. Under the Forest Protection Program we will be hiring approximately 120 seasonal firefighters to man the department's fire depots throughout the Island and Labrador. Eight water bombers, four CL-215s, and four Cansos will be strategically positioned throughout the Province, depending on the fire weather index. In addition, four helicopters will be contracted and located at bases in St. John's, Gander, Pasadena, and Goose Bay.

The annual Fall surveys of the major insect pests, which are conducted by the Canadian Forest Service and my department, are forecasting no significant defoliation caused by the spruce budworm or the black-headed budworm in 1994, however, the hemlock looper is forecast to cause damage in Central Newfoundland. As a result, my department is proposing to spray approximately 15,000 hectares in this area. We are proposing to use Bt spray again this year, only for the hemlock looper problem.

An environmental protection plan will be more fully implemented during the 1994-1995 fiscal year, and this was developed in consultation with other agencies such as Wildlife, Environment, and Industry, and will enable the department to minimize the impacts to the environment caused by forestry operations. For example, it makes provision for buffer zones around water bodies during harvesting operations. Such measures enhance the department's plan to incorporate ecosystem management into the forest management planning strategy.

My department will continue to participate along with other stake-holders in the Western Newfoundland model forest. Through that process, a decision-making system based on consensus by stakeholders is being tested; an integrated resource management plan is being prepared, a number of wildlife and watershed management studies would also continue through that process, that is, the model forest process. Work on innovative techniques to broaden the scope of forest management to include various non-timber values will be continued.

The Cartwright Forest Management Plan, which was registered for environmental assessment last year, will undergo further review for completion of an environmental preview report, and we hope to continue that process soon, which will set the stage for a regulated use of the forest resource in Labrador, particularly on the coast of Labrador. In the area of forest utilization, the department has been successful in balancing the allowable cut in nearly all areas except for the Avalon Peninsula, and to some extent, the Bonavista Peninsula area, where we are exceeding the allowable cut.

As you are probably aware, we have already taken steps to remedy this problem by reducing the allocations on the cutting permits; we have also brought in measures to reduce illegal cutting in this area by decreasing the cutting time on permits.

We have recognized the need to promote forestry and environmental themes to the use of the Province by continuing to support the very successful Junior Forest Warden Program. In addition, this year we will be implementing a forestry education program in the school system called: Focus on Newfoundland Forests. This program is a curriculum support program covering Kindergarten to Grade XII, and offers information and activities relevant to all subject areas.

I would like to point out that the current federal/provincial co-operation agreement for forestry is due to expire on March 31, 1995. The department's Silviculture and Forest Management Programs are funded through this agreement. If a new agreement is not signed, this will seriously affect the Province's ability to deliver these programs, but I intend to vigorously pursue renewal of this agreement in order to ensure continuity of funding for silviculture and other important programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned the program which is funded in the 1994-1995 estimates; however, I would like to point out that we have identified silviculture projects for $15 million to $20 million, which could be implemented if funds become available under other programs such as post-NCARP and I will be pursuing these opportunities vigorously during the next few weeks.

Mr. Chairman, I will move to the agricultural side, the Agri-food notes on defence of estimates and I would hope that the Member for St. George's would have noted that it is Agri-food notes for defence of estimates.

Mr. Chairman, this past year has been an extremely busy one for both the agriculture industry and for government. In 1993, the total farm cash receipts was $62.4 million. Let me highlight some of the activities of the past year and also some of the planned activities for the next year.

In June of 1992, everyone was aware government released Change and Challenge, A Strategic Economic Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. I need not elaborate any further on the overall strategy; however, I do wish to take some time to outline its status with respect to the Agri-food industry. The strategy stated the provincial meat inspection program will be established. Draft standards and regulations have been prepared and will soon be before government for consideration. Training of the staff for this particular program is completed, as well as the necessary equipment purchases and laboratory renovations. To assess the potential for alternative sources of livestock and poultry feeds, several research efforts have been undertaken.

Work has been undertaken to look at all marine by-products and other waste that could be utilized as a protein source in livestock and poultry feed. Trials utilizing fishery by-products involving palatability, digestibility, animal weight gain, meat tasting and economic feasibility are ongoing with respect to sheep, dairy and poultry. In addition, feed grain trials studying the feasibility of high-moisture grains are ongoing in Western Newfoundland.

Again, as in the past few years, $150,000 has been allocated as government's contribution to the School Milk Program. The volume and the value of milk produced, both increased by 1.9 per cent to 29.8 million litres and $22.2 million respectively. The School Milk Program has contributed to the success. The Canada/Newfoundland Agri-food Development Subsidiary Agreement was extended for one year to March 31, 1994 with an additional $2.8 million on a cost-shared, 70/30 basis.

In keeping with the Strategic Economic Plan, programs aimed at increasing the volume and quality of local forage, assisting with technology adoptions, marketing and promotion, and human resource development were included in the extension. I must tell you, however, that over $9 million worth of requests were received from industry. This agreement has now been extended for one additional year.

In addition to this agreement, the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement on Green Plan and the Canada-Newfoundland Farm Business Management Agreement still have funds for 1994-1995. The objective of the Green Plan Agreement is to help our farmers to operate in a manner which will ensure our natural resources are not only protected but enhanced for future operations. The Farm Business Management Agreement is designed to improve the management and business knowledge of our industry's entrepreneurs.

The GATT agreement was signed on April 15 by trade ministers from over 100 countries. It is now subject to passage through each participating country's legislative authority for implementation in 1995. Current quantive import quotas used by Canada supply (inaudible) agencies will be replaced by tariffs. However, both industry and government agree that the levels of these tariffs, up to 350 per cent in some cases, will provide adequate protection for domestic markets. Supply management can not only survive but also prosper in this country if all stakeholders work in that direction. A task force on orderly marketing has been established by the federal and provincial agriculture ministers to deal with this issue.

The Strategic Economic Plan outlined the strategy to privatize appropriate public services where these could be provided by the private sector in an equally efficient manner. The processing of chicken falls into this category. We have come to the conclusion that allowing an interested private concern to operate the business is the best option for the chicken industry's long-term future, for its prosperity and for its expansion.

Mr. Chairman, just to give you some idea of the potential that exists: Record production levels were realized in the broiler industry last year. The volume of chicken processed increased 15.8 per cent to 11.5 million kilograms live weight, while farm value was up 17 per cent to about $16.6 million. As you may be aware, government has invited interested parties to present packages by June 30, at which time they will be evaluated.

One final comment before closing. For a long time now, the poultry industry has been lobbying for a poultry veterinarian position within the department. I am pleased to report to the committee that the recent Budget has made this possible. We are currently preparing to fill the position of a poultry veterinarian.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot over-emphasize the potential for the Agri-foods sector of this Province to contribute greatly to helping alleviate some of our economic problems, especially and particularly in rural Newfoundland.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I have taken twenty minutes but it may have been longer than you would have wished. I believe the majority of the comments in these briefing notes were appropriate and necessary to share with the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to make an opening remark and I am in your hands now for the rest of the evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Chair had no desire for you to go at any particular length of time. You had twenty minutes. As long as we can all get home and see the last period of the hockey game I think we will be all happy enough.

I will now turn it over to the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Woodford, unless he were to designate somebody to go in his stead.

MR. SHELLEY: I can start, off, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister. If I could, I would like to have a copy of your briefing notes afterwards so we could just put them together with some other things we have, if you don't mind, I'm sure you don't, just to go over again some of the things you mention there.

I was taking notes on some points, basically jumping around a little bit with it. I wanted to start - you say the silviculture agreement will run out on March 31. Has there been any indication whatsoever from the federal people - I know you've been talking to them, and I have too, and everybody. What is the feeling right now? What is the possibility that would be extended, from what you have gathered from talking to them?

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you in a general sense that although the previous government, as you know, Paul - and I will call you Paul as opposed to the hon. member; it comes more naturally, right? - indicated they were going to dead-end those co-operative agreements and they weren't going to renegotiate.

The present government - during the election campaign this happened - indicated that they saw the benefit of these cost-shared agreements and would continue them. It was qualified. The now Prime Minister qualified that on the basis that they would be subject, of course, to the financial limitations and in keeping with their ability to fund them, so we believe that before this agreement ends we will probably have a substitute for that agreement in place.

The original approaches have been made to the Federal Government to renegotiate an agreement. I can only tell you now that I haven't seen anything to indicate that they are not prepared to negotiate an agreement, and we will continue to pursue it now.

MR. SHELLEY: That is why I ask about it, because, as you know probably, too, I wrote the short-term Prime Minister who was there then, when I found out that it was about to expire, and I stressed as much as I could to her that I hoped it would be re-instated. That is why I knew, through the election campaign and everything else, that the present government did indicate that they were willing to look at it again and certainly reconsider it seriously. That is why I have had to ask this question now. You are closer to that ball game now than I am. I am just wondering what this particular government feels on that issue. I am hoping that -

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you, it sends a good signal that the Federal Government have just extended New Brunswick's - New Brunswick had basically the same agreement that we had, only where it would run out this year, they have extended it for a year, so that sends a good signal that they are prepared to - they haven't had time to renegotiate one with New Brunswick.

MR. SHELLEY: I asked the question first and up front because I think there won't be anybody here disagree, including yourself, that I think it is one of the most important things to get straightened away right now as far as the forest sector goes, and that is why I wanted to go on record as asking it and seeing how this present government looks at that.

Now, I am going to jump around a little bit. There are a few things, but I didn't know I was going to be up right away. There is a mixture of things, but I will bring up a specific one. I have already talked to the minister about it, but I will just get your reaction on it now; it has to do with the Harbour Deep situation.

Just to follow up and let you know where I have gone, because I have talked to you, and I have tried to be out front and open about it as much as I could talking to everybody, and basically with my meeting in Harbour Deep as we looked at it at first there were two possibilities there. First of all, the reality is that there is a timber stand there, the Mooney block, a viable timber stand that hasn't been utilized yet. Of course, we know the reality of that timber. As it gets more mature it will lose its value. Of course, it all does at that point. Looking at two options, basically, for Harbour Deep, either Abitibi uses that stand, which they have the right to, or they don't use it.

I want to just ask the minister, point blank: I met with Abitibi; and I know the realities of some of this on the political side of it all, and also out front is - Abitibi, when they said this to me in a meeting that they have always considered having that land revert to the Crown, and that they would pay, I think, $90,000 to $100,000 a year now in taxes, how realistic and how possible is that?

MR. FLIGHT: It is so realistic, Paul, that they have approached us officially to move the Mooney block back to the Crown. We have correspondence from Abitibi, or have had communications with Abitibi, indicating their desire and interest in having the Mooney block revert to the Crown.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, I have just written a letter to you, as a matter of fact, it is gone as of today or tomorrow, just asking that. I just wanted an update on it because I haven't talked to Mr. Oldford since.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, that is the status.

MR. SHELLEY: What is the possibility of that whole process taking place where they do -

MR. FLIGHT: I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't accept it back. Your problem, or your focus, is how do we get development in Harbour Deep, I suspect.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, to use that timber stand. I mean, it could be for the use of other people.

MR. FLIGHT: The problem is simple - it is access. I suspect the reason Abitibi didn't harvest in that area is because -

MR. SHELLEY: Is for that reason.

MR. FLIGHT: You are being up front with your questions; I will be up front with my answers. We don't have any plans at this moment, in the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, to access the timber supplies in Harbour Deep, whether it's the Mooney block or the Crown limits surrounding the Mooney block, and the reason is simple. In order to have any substantial harvesting, we have to have access, and any access, as you are aware, that is possible, is to come from the western side, and you are talking millions and millions of dollars for access roads that would have to be of a better standard than just the access road you harvest on because eighteen-wheelers would have to haul that wood to -

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: For that reason, we have no plans for Harbour Deep. However, as I've told you privately -

MR. SHELLEY: For the government to pursue, yes, I realize that.

MR. FLIGHT: I have told you privately that if tomorrow an operator, be it Abitibi-Price, or a private contractor somewhere in Newfoundland, in Baie Verte, anywhere - if he were to come and make a proposal to the Province that he wanted to harvest some of that wood in Harbour Deep, whether it be the Mooney block or whether it be the closest wood or whatever, we would treat the application as we would any application. The wood supply is there and we would be prepared to issue a permit for him to cut the wood. We would have to see that you had 100 per cent utilization, that he had a market for his wood, that kind of thing.

MR. SHELLEY: The whole plan up front.

MR. FLIGHT: We would entertain tomorrow an application for a harvesting operation in Harbour Deep. We only foresee that possibility based on barging the wood out of Harbour Deep to a point, whether it is Stephenville or Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. That is what I wanted to know. Of course, I am asking these questions because, to be quite honest with you, it is all in the pioneer stages to me. I am just pursuing a possibility, that is all. To be honest with you, it all started from the situation in Harbour Deep. Quite simply, they lived off the fishery 100 per cent, and as I told them when I was over there: You are just going to have to turn around and face inland to see if there is mining potential, forest potential. That is all they are doing. It is quite simple. They are looking at the development of a resource that is in front of them that is not utilized and, of course, now the point is to be able to get somebody to do it.

Of course, in this new era that is coming, and it is even coming to Newfoundland, with the possibility of that lamination plant, wherever it is going to go - it might not affect Harbour Deep in any way, but according to what I read up on and research, laminated wood and modernized lumber mills are becoming a way of the future now for the 1990s and into the next century. There are all kinds of possibilities in Europe if they know there is a timber stand over here, such as the one in Harbour Deep, so the possibilities are there for private people to come in and utilize that wood stand.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, you know, I can tell -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister answers that question, I have been informed that Mr. Oates is having a little bit of problem with the volume and he has asked that you speak up. Everything was okay until the air-conditioner cut in, so you have a little bit of competition.

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell the hon. member that the people who are operating in Roddickton, the Canada Bay Lumber Company, and the people who are proposing the lamination plant in Roddickton, most people, say Roddickton -

MR. SHELLEY: Hawke's Bay, or whatever.

MR. FLIGHT: It may be, the site is being considered now.

- are aware of the wood supply in Harbour Deep. Whether it is just aware of the wood supply, or whether it is the wood - I don't know if they know the difference between the Mooney block and the Crown land that is there. They have looked at it as a possible wood supply for their plant, but they haven't - there have been no specific plans, no indication to the department, that they are looking for access to harvest. There is some concern, as the member would know, that that is an area that has not been harvested for a long time. It is a very beautiful area. You have the Soufflets River. We would expect that it would be subject to more environmental scrutiny than maybe the existing harvesting areas on the Island. That is something you would have to deal with through the environmental process.

Anyway, in any event, the people who would be operating the lamination plant and the Canada Bay Lumber, totally for export, as you know, are aware of the Harbour Deep wood supply and have looked at the possibility; and they may have - I'm not aware that they have - looked at the economics of it. There is a potential there and we just have to go through the process.

MR. SHELLEY: There is also, on a small scale, I don't know if you would run into much environmental problems with a modern saw mill right in Harbour Deep. There is even a possibility that would be suffice to what these people are asking me. They are talking about 100 - well, 200 people, but 100 working men over there, so I mean, even a small saw mill at this point. Anyway, I will just tell the minister: I have a letter coming to you, and you may consider pursuing any possibilities. I mean, you have to look before you decide anything about that, I guess.

I will skip on to the next question then. I'm going to jump around a little bit, as I said, until my time is used up. Newfoundland Farm Products: I asked the minister today in the House - quite straight about that, too, although in the House sometimes during Question Period we just go off on a tangent a little, I think we all do, but that is okay. Quite straight again, I have had a lot of contact now, too, with people, from employees to the unions to interest groups and so on, since I first heard about Farm Products - not saying anything myself, just listening to what they had to say, in other words, basically educating yourself and listening to the concerns. I will be quite frank with the minister on that. One of the last questions I asked today was that concern, and I don't know but what you've gone through the process and maybe it is all there.

I say, as I have said before, that in general principle I think it is probably a good thing, especially looking at the numbers I have been doing over the last little while, that the privatization of Farm Products is probably the right move to make. But there are concerns, obviously, and the minister must have concerns, too. For example, there is the possible scenario of outside interests, big investors, deciding to invest in this. Just what safeguards are in place, or what concerns do you have with respect to keeping the operation in the Province and ensuring it doesn't move out of the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the member, that if he is so concerned about getting this into the record for the general public or for the interest groups he just referred to, then the question should better, probably, be asked again in the House. Because obviously, for some reason - is this the way it has been with the press since your meetings started? Because I see there is not a member of the press here now.

MR. SHELLEY: No, there is no press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There may very well be members of the press up in the press gallery that I'm not aware of. This is the fifth meeting and we have had members of the media here at two of them. It is not surprising, based on the first two and earlier, that there would not be one here. But they may very well be in the press gallery.

MR. FLIGHT: I will try to give the member an answer - try to put his mind at ease.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a concern I had, too, by the way - I'm sure every Newfoundlander has one.

MR. FLIGHT: Most people that I talk to, including the Opposition, agrees that privatizing Farm Products is not a bad idea - it is a good idea.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: But it is possible to conjure up all kinds of problems that could result from the privatization, and that is one of the worst ones, by the way, that some outside force would come in, buy it, close it down, and move the production to the mainland.

Well, I can tell the hon. member that we have called for expression of interest, and there is interest. At this point in time, six, seven or eight parties have expressed enough interest to come and pick up the prospectus that we have printed. I am not aware, at this point in time, how many have actually delivered a proposal. Assuming there have been and there will be proposals delivered, they will be analyzed and eventually I will take a recommendation to government, if we get that far. But we are doing this with a view to protecting the industry in Newfoundland, the producer industry. So we will not go into any proposal, strike any deal with any company, that puts Newfoundland's chicken industry at risk.

Now, there is not much more one can say. Obviously, if one recognizes a proposal where the potential is that they are going to buy it today, close it down and move the production, we are not going to do that deal. We are hoping to get a proposal that is in the long-term better interest of the chicken industry in this Province and will provide the means for the chicken industry to reach the potential that exists in the Province by way of increased production - that, for sure, doesn't include closing it down and moving it to wherever.

MR. SHELLEY: I thank the minister for that answer. I wish you had given it to me today, to be honest with you, because I was being straight about the question to start with. I think that is a question that has come from every group I have talked with, every person on either side of the House. I think it was a genuine concern, and all I really wanted was for the minister responsible to say exactly what you just said.

Obviously, my job and everybody else's who is opposed to this, I mean, the idea of the industry being taken out of the Province - don't stir up, as you said, mud, when there is no need for it. My job and everybody else's job is going to be to make sure - of course, that is our duty - that what you say, you carry out, and when we see the deal that has been struck, see also that you have safeguards there to ensure that doesn't happen. Because from what the minister said, you don't want to see that happen either. Obviously, nobody wants to see an operation moved out of this Province.

The material I have been studying over the last few days, shows, I think, that this Province is the highest consumer of chicken in Canada right now. Last year, 80 per cent or 85 per cent of Farm Products' revenues came from the sale of chicken.

MR. FLIGHT: One hundred per cent from now on, because that is all that's left now.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, well, the hogs - that side will be wiped out. So I did ask that question for that reason and I am glad I got that answer from you. Whether the media are here or not, I wanted to ask you that; I think it was a question that needed to be asked. It is not a matter of stirring up mud, or anything like that, it is a point-blank question, really, and I am glad you have given me that answer tonight.

Now, the next question, to jump again, because I think there are only a few minutes left now - the third one and the other one to be of concern, I already mentioned this one to you, is the relation with NCARP programs, especially coming for this year. And I am sure the minister gets it as I get it, indeed, we hear it every day - and it is not just going to happen, by the way, with silviculture, it is happening in every sector. This whole Province, the fisherpeople and those who are not fisherpeople, are saying, `We're getting the wrong end of it again.' So, of course, the question has to be asked again: are we making sure that if there is money from NCARP for people to, say for example, go planting trees or thinning, or whatever to do with silviculture, that we are not taking away from people who would usually work in that particular sector?

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Nazir reminds me and, of course, I have been fairly familiar with this aspect, if we were to get money this year under NCARP to do some silviculture work - if we were - it would be over and above the plans that I have already outlined, over and above any spending we did last year. So it would be over and above that anyway, and assuming that if you have the same level of spending in silviculture this year, you would employ the same number of people by-and-large - it might not be the same individuals, but the same number of people - any extra silviculture work done as a result of NCARP money being made available, would be for people over and above, and they would most likely be displaced fishermen, obviously.

It should be said, Mr. Chairman, that this is not definitive. Number one, I cannot tell you with certainty that we are going to get NCARP money to spend in the forests of Newfoundland but everyone also knows that under the son of NCARP or new NCARP there is a job creation component that wants to take some displaced fishermen and put them to work as opposed to having them sit home and get paid a benefit. Well, if that is so then everyone in Newfoundland agrees, the professional people as well, everyone agrees that if you are going to have a job creation program in Newfoundland then you cannot dream of a better employment generation program than silviculture.

The short term benefits is the job that NCARP wants to generate and the long term is an enhanced forest capable of supporting our forest industries, whether it is the pulp mills or the sawmilling industry. So everybody agrees on that. I know the Federal Government sees that and the Provincial Government sees it, and as a result of that, there are ongoing negotiations. All I am saying to the member is that if and when we get the new NCARP and there is a job creation component there, then I suspect that substantial dollars will be made available to the Province through some mechanism to employ these people and to create those jobs in silviculture.

It is not inconceivable to me also that, even though it is intended to create jobs for displaced fishermen, if there are people in a given community who have not found work and if the displaced fishermen are taken care of, then it may well be that we may be able to have an agreement where people other than displaced fishermen in a given community, might be able to access it.

MR. SHELLEY: That was my next question.

MR. FLIGHT: It is open for negotiations right now, it is being negotiated but there is no certainty at this point in time as to what the program will be when it comes down.

MR. SHELLEY: That is what I was going to add to that question but you have answered it anyway. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will turn it over now to another member of our committee for ten minutes.

Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In going through the estimates I noticed that 2.1.03.06, the amount of money allocated for Purchased Services -

MR. CHAIRMAN: What page are you on?

MR. WHELAN: Page 122. There has been a drastic reduction there. What would account for that?

MR. FLIGHT: What was it that we budgeted last year?

MR. WHELAN: Last year it went from spending $886,000, down this year to $75,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Just give me a second now.

DR. NAZIR: This relates to the cost-shared agreement, co-operative agreement on forestry development and with that we try to balance the budget with what is the amount left in the agreement, and that is subject to approval by the management committee. Management committee may approve certain things in this particular area but overall, we are supposed to balance. We do not know what areas management committee will shift on, so daily the board generally puts funding in one area or the other subject to transfers later on. In this particular case, for example, there was a 10 per cent reduction last year as compared to what we were supposed to get, so instead of trying to take a little bit here and there, they would take a certain amount from one subhead and then say, you can balance it later on. And there are two more subheads in this forestry side that are cost-shared, so that a certain amount is introduced in one and eventually it would be balanced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of Hansard, that was Dr. Nazir, replying to that question. I doubt very much that there would be any question of the voice with the accent.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) that project?

MR. WHELAN: Yes, okay. Again, I suppose, on the same page, 2.1.04.06, we have an estimate this year of $534,400 as opposed to $39,200 for last year. Would it be a similar situation?

MR. FLIGHT: It is almost, but that increases the Labrador agreement; we will be spending $500,000, of increased expenditure this year and it pertains to the Coastal Labrador agreement. We are spending that on the Coastal Labrador agreement.

MR. WHELAN: Is that the project down around Cartwright?

MR. FLIGHT: No, well, it is (inaudible) inventory on the Cartwright area and the Port Hope Simpson area. It is basically doing inventory on the amount that will be available in Coastal Labrador, Cartwright primarily, but the wood supply is in the Port Hope Simpson area as well.

MR. WHELAN: In Resource Roads Management, that is 2.1.07, page 123. There are some enquiries to me with regard to snow clearing and the management of roads during the wintertime.

MR. FLIGHT: Up to now, Don, for the past few years we haven't been budgeting very much money for snow clearing. Years ago, there was but as you know, as a result of the restraint we have been into these past three or four years, forest access roads maintenance, practically every program in every division of every department has taken its share of reductions, and one of the areas that we reduced was the snow clearing on forest access roads, so it is negligible. We budgeted $155,000 for road maintenance last year and spent $152,000, so we budgeted $155,000 again, and in that, would be any money spent on snow clearing on access roads.

MR. WHELAN: So what are your proposals for next year, will that be increased or will there be any great emphasis placed on -

MR. FLIGHT: This is the proposal for this year.

MR. WHELAN: I realize that yes, but, is there any consideration given to having more money spent any time in the -

MR. FLIGHT: On snow clearing?

MR. WHELAN: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: No, only I suppose if we get a situation where an operator or a member, for that matter, came in and had a specific request for a road that was blocked and the operator couldn't get in, that kind of thing, we would have to make judgement there and then as to whether we would allocate some of that $155,000 to clear the road, but generally speaking, we will avoid snow clearing on access roads.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. There is a little bit of confusion here now, because I believe you mentioned in your opening remarks that there was supposed to be a little over $7 million spent on silviculture, this year, or am I mistaken on that?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, but that is in planting, that is cost-shared.

MR. WHELAN: Alright.

Here in 2.1.09, page 124, there is no money budgeted for silviculture. As well, there is no money budgeted for the forest training program, and no money budgeted for forest management. What would account for that?

MR. FLIGHT: That $434,000 there has nothing to do with the agreement. That is provincial -

MR. WHELAN: $434,000?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: That was last year's.

MR. FLIGHT: No, it isn't.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it was.

MR. FLIGHT: But that was -

MR. WHELAN: There is no money budgeted for this year.

MR. FLIGHT: That wasn't under the agreement. That was 100 per cent provincial dollars to fund that employment generation program we had. It was in silviculture, thinning and so on.

MR. WHELAN: Oh, okay.

MR. FLIGHT: But it was over and above -

MR. WHELAN: That was the emergency response program.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

AN OFFICIAL: We got the money late in the year, so (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: The deputy reminds me, we got the money late in the year, I guess, September or October, and it had not been budgeted for because it was a Special Warrant, if you remember. That is the amount that was - and we are not estimating because that was an extra budgetary decision last year, and if the same program happens this year it is going to have to be an extra budgetary decision and a Special Warrant will be - $6 million, if you remember, in the total program.

MR. WHELAN: Now, the forest training program, that is a different set of circumstances altogether.

MR. FLIGHT: That is a federal-provincial agreement.

MR. WHELAN: So that has just been cut out, has it?

MR. FLIGHT: That is finished. That was a three-year agreement that finished last year.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. The forest management section, there was no money allocated there either? That was the money allocated for the helicopter-based (inaudible), so that was just a one-shot deal, was it?

MR. FLIGHT: That was money we purchased from this Helitactics company that manufactured that fire-fighting technology in Bishop's Falls.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I remember.

MR. FLIGHT: That is the money we used to purchase the system. Of course, we won't be purchasing one this year.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to agricultural initiatives, 3.1.07 page 130, there are appropriations provided for the implementation of the Technology Enhancement and Industry Support Services Program. That program has been finished as well, has it?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. That is a federal-provincial program, ALFI, that was finalized and completed, and ended in 1994, so the figures you see there are the 1993-1994 expenditures by the department, but we don't have a new agreement for 1994-1995.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

You don't happen to have a breakdown - certainly you wouldn't here, I guess - of the financial assistance to organizations? How many organizations are there in the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: How many organizations?

MR. WHELAN: Yes. You have here, financial assistance to organizations.

MR. FLIGHT: Those are the grants, the sustaining grants, Newfoundland Lumbermen's Association, the Newfoundland Federation of Agriculture, I can tell you there are dozens.

MR. WHELAN: But this must pertain basically to agricultural organizations.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, totally, this one here.

MR. WHELAN: But how many of them are there in the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: The figures in here would be the amount of money that I spend, or the Department of Forestry and Agriculture spends, or gives to organizations that are agriculturally related or forestry-related. The money you see here is the money that is budgeted in the Department of Forestry and Agriculture for allocation to these various organizations.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I realize that.

MR. FLIGHT: Now, I am sure the Department of Social Services would have dozens of organizations that they fund.

MR. WHELAN: Oh, sure, but I am just wondering -

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) items under that subhead.

MR. FLIGHT: My deputy tells me there are twenty-one items, or twenty-one organizations, under that subhead.

MR. WHELAN: You don't have a breakdown on the amount of money that each organization receives? Would it be possible for me to get that?

MR. FLIGHT: Anywhere from $100 to $40,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the Department of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: And that is the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I will give you an example. I will read some to you: Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, $500; that is to help fund -

MR. WHELAN: But that is forestry.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: I am basically interested in this section here.

MR. FLIGHT: What are you on?

MR. WHELAN: Page 132, 3.2.03, agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay, agriculture. For instance, Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association, NLPA, $64,000.

MR. WHELAN: Did you say the Lumber Producers Association?

MR. FLIGHT: Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association, $64,000, annual grant, sustained grant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up but I will allow the minister sufficient time to answer the question to your satisfaction.

MR. WHELAN: What I am trying to zero in on is the agricultural organizations -

MR. FLIGHT: Alright, well, let's do it -

MR. WHELAN: - and the money that was given to them.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WHELAN: I'm trying to -

MR. FLIGHT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am having a hard time (inaudible) what is happening, but I really am having a difficult time hearing.

MR. WHELAN: Maybe I can (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know how to address that, Mr. Minister. I can hear him over here.

MR. WHELAN: I am dealing with section 3.2.03, page 132.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WHELAN: Page 132.

MR. FLIGHT: Financial organizations - you were asking for a breakdown of the grants. Here is the breakdown of the agricultural grants:

Farm Women's Association - we provided $14,000, a standing grant to that organization, gave them a cheque for $14,000. Agriculture marketings and promotions - we are proposing to expend $12,000. That would go - we are not proposing anything this year. Pardon?

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Tell me what is happening with agriculture. Is that (inaudible)? So it is the Farm Women's Association, as I told you, $14,600. We have the agriculture marketing promotions projects and we are not allocating any expenditure this year on that particular group. I don't know why they are (inaudible). So, federal-provincial committee, $1,500; livestock slaughterhouses, $26,000. Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk Foundation, $150,000.

MR. WHELAN: What was that again?

MR. FLIGHT: Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk Foundation - Nova Scotia Agricultural College, $129,000; Wild Blueberry Association of North America and North American Strawberry Growers Association, $3,600; local community groups, Regional Pastures, another $115,000. That is the breakdown on the agricultural side of groups or organizations that get funding by way of grants.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go to Mr. Woodford, I recognize that the minister said he was having trouble hearing Mr. Whelan, and I recognize that Mr. Whelan appeared to be having trouble hearing the answer from the minister. I can only ask that all members and the minister speak up when they are questioning or giving answers. It is, I guess, the only suggestion I can make.

AN HON. MEMBER: Earphones.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is right, or we could use the earphones.

Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In last year's estimates I asked the minister about the increase for the limits of the Farm Loan Board. You were saying at that time that possibly there was a paper pretty well ready to go to Cabinet. I don't know what the limits were or what intentions he had but there was $75,000 at that time and there is still $75,000 today. I was wondering if the minister could give a status report on that particular situation now. Is there going to be anything done about the raising of limits in the very near future?

MR. FLIGHT: Rick, it is an ongoing process, as I indicated last year. We see the benefit of increasing the limit from $75,000 to -I think the figure we use is $250,000. Now, of course, you could argue that $150,000 is enough, but at least, going from $75,000 to probably $250,000.

There have been some difficulties in convincing various orders of government that we should do that, and there have been discussions at Treasury Board level. It is an ongoing process, and I am hopeful that shortly we will indeed convince the people who have to be convinced that it is the right thing to do, to raise that limit to $250,000, the figure we would be aiming for.

MR. WOODFORD: I, for one, don't understand. I can understand where the minister is coming from in trying to convince his colleagues, especially the people in Treasury Board. The benefits that would come from that particular move alone, especially at times like this in the Province, where that is an industry that could be expanded, would be, I would say, substantial. As you know now, one of the holdbacks that farmers face in the Province, or anybody in the agricultural industry, is when you go to farm credit you are paying almost as much, and probably, in some cases, more than you are through the banks, unless you happen to hook on to what they call a commodity-based loan. I think that is gone now. It used to be with the Farm Credit Corporation, FCC. But, unless something like that happened, I mean, their loans are really expensive. All those loans from the Farm Loan Board do not go out unless you have collateral, anyway, and I think - the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it has one of the best repayment records that the Province has.

MR. FLIGHT: That is right, there is no question about it - there is almost 100 per cent repayment.

MR. WOODFORD: There are different reasons for that. I won't get into it but there are different reasons for it. In any case, I think it would be a real plus for the industry, and for expansion in the industry if something like that were done.

MR. FLIGHT: Anyway, the comment I make, Rick, is that there is some thinking that in order to raise the limit from $75,000, say, to $250,000 would require government finding $1 million to put into the fund. Now, there was some disagreement as to whether that was actually a fact, or not a fact, but with the budgetary situation we are in there were some people who wanted to make sure that would not be necessary because that is another $1 million in the financial situation in which we find ourselves.

At the same time, there is a review being looked at of all the funding agencies of government, the Fisheries Loan Board, the Newfoundland Farm Loan Board, rationalizing various boards. At the time we were talking about doing the increase, that is what was happening. But I am still convinced, and I think we will convince Treasury Board, to have the loan limit increased.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I wish you luck and I hope they see the light. If they are not going to put it into an industry that is growing and into an industry that has almost a 100 per cent repayment record, then I ask the question, what are they going to put it into?

Under Regional Pastures, 3.2.04, it is cut pretty well 50 per cent from what was budgeted, the difference in the revised figure and what is budgeted for this year. What is the intent there? Is that going to be a cut on the animal unit alone?

MR. FLIGHT: The intent is that we reduce the amount of money being allocated to community pastures by 50 per cent and we are reducing the number of pastures in the Province by 50 per cent. That 50 per cent will then be allocated to the existing surviving pastures.

MR. WOODFORD: In other words, you are saying that the allocations will be made to the viable pastures, the pastures that are trying to do something for themselves?

MR. FLIGHT: The most viable pastures, the pastures that serve the greatest need in a given region or in a given area. I guess, when you look at the kind of money we had available, if we were to continue on with the thirty-two pastures there wasn't enough money to go around, and you are wasting money in lots of cases. But look at the viable pastures potential - the pastures that had a future that were getting a fair share of activity by way of animal units. We are going to be notifying the operators of the other pastures from whom we will be withdrawing support, and in next year's budget that $115,000 will be allocated to roughly fifteen pastures and right now there are thirty-two, I think. But now this year, in order to make it easy for the pastures that are going to be phased out, we are sharing the $115,000 among the thirty-two existing pastures, however, we are telling them that if they want to stay in business, the ones we are not going to support as of this year, then they can make their own arrangements.

MR. WOODFORD: So what you are saying then is that all the pastures will get a share of the $115,000 this year?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So that means that all the pastures will be cut 50 per cent this year?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I don't agree with that. If it is a viable unit and they are not doing their share, then I don't see why they should be given another stay of execution.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, Rick, you would be interested in knowing, we have some cost-shared dollars - okay?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: - that are available and that we will spend on the viable or the pastures that we intend to continue to support in the future.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, that was my next question, because there were monies allocated last year under the extension that were not utilized and were not allocated. That was my next question, wondering what you were going to do with them, because whatever that fund was, if you are going to allocate that on the same basis, then that would be unfair, totally unfair.

MR. FLIGHT: We are going to allocate that. Let's assume we have identified the fifteen pastures that are going to exist as of this year. We are going to allocate that $150,000, for instance, to those fifteen pastures. So they will have as much money, or more, to operate this year than they had last year. But the fifteen designated for closing will get their share of this budget here and it is not on a basis, I guess - you know, there were two lots of advice; one was to close them now and just write a letter and tell them they are cut off and that's it or to give them an opportunity to come to grips with the fact that we are not going to continue to support them, and to provide their funding this year out of the reduced funding. But that will be it, this will be the last year now. I suspect those pastures will close and revert to common unless there is an initiative in the community to keep them going without government funding.

MR. WOODFORD: How will you allocate that? Will it be done on animal units, on the total acreage of the pastures? Just say, for instance, if there is $150,000, fifteen pastures at $10,000 each or what? How will the allocations be done, on a per animal unit, and when?

MR. FLIGHT: It is going to be based, the same as last year, on animal units.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, now, that is the provincial allocation?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but I'm talking about the extension money. How will you allocate that?

MR. FLIGHT: The $150,000?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: To the fifteen existing -

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Animal units plus potential.

MR. FLIGHT: It will be the same thing, animal unit plus potential, plus requirements that are needed to upgrade that particular - because there are going to be identified, let's use, as an example, the community pasture in Robinsons, serving a major -

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Of course. No, but it is a major - there is no question about its future viability, there is no question about the need, there is also no question that it needs to have some money over and above the animal unit, this annual grant, spent on it, either in fencing, in liming or whatever. So that $150,000 will be spent - animal unit, in the first instance, is on a needs basis to get it up to a certain standard.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, because a lot of those pastures could be utilizing programs that are already available for fencing and stuff like that, and very successfully. The Community Development program from Social Services, the CEIC program, job strategy and all that. I mean, a lot of those pastures are just not utilized, not taking advantage of the programs that are already there, especially where they are labour-intensive.

MR. FLIGHT: Exactly. If I could make the point Rick, you are absolutely right, and the Department of Agriculture is saying that we are going to maintain or continue to be responsible for fifteen pastures, and the fifteen that close, or at least, we withdraw support from, have the option to do what you are saying, to take advantage of any programs that are available if they have the initiative, and if they can convince the government departments or employment generation programs or Department of Social Services, there is no restriction on them, it is just that they will know they will be operating without the Department of Forestry and Agriculture funding. And I might tell you, too, that I expect some `flack', for want of a better word. It will be a little controversial; people will argue: `You shouldn't have closed my pasture,' but the stats speak for themselves. Dr. Hulan did a - I guess he is familiar with -

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: When you did you task force report, I am sure you identified with the pastures that had great potential and should be supported, and pastures where we were wasting our money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not decided yet?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, they are decided.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not made public.

MR. FLIGHT: It is not made public at this point in time. When I say they are decided -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. The way it is going to be released is, letters will be going out on each individual pasture or to the pasture management groups, and that letter will be going out shortly under my signature.

MR. SHELLEY: So this spring everybody will -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, in a few weeks everyone will know by way of letter under my signature, and I suspect there will be some controversy, there will be people saying: Why are you closing my pasture? and we will have to justify doing it.

MR. WOODFORD: Some of them need that dart.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: Some of the pasture committees - what they need is a good dart like that and it will wake them up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will turn the questioning over now to Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Minister, I am glad to be here again this year. I remember saying to you last year, since there are no more trees here in the Province now, a few here and there and so on, it is about time that we change the name of the department to Agriculture and Forestry, and you said last year you would take it under advisement but I see it has not been changed yet - probably Bob Peters had something to do with it.

MR. FLIGHT: That, coming from a potential Minister of Forestry and Agriculture!

DR. HULAN: I have some good comments to make. I am certainly pleased with the initiative that you have taken on the meat inspection program, but my understanding was, it was going to be in place last Fall. Obviously, something got in the way and inhibited its progress. Can you tell us what happened, why it was not initiated last Fall?

MR. FLIGHT: I guess there is no one particular reason, but it was a bureaucracy delay, taking longer to develop the regulations involved because, as you know, the Department of Health and other departments were involved, purely, a bureaucracy-type of thing, that has delayed it, and it is only now that we are getting it in place. We are hoping that I can announce the program in detail now. You are right, there is no specific reason, other than trying to implement that, and you had to deal with the feds and with other provincial departments.

DR. HULAN: Was there any move - I believe there was, and your officials can give us the details - was there any move in the last year or so to upgrade, to some degree, some of the slaughterhouses in the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, I am personally familiar with one, in particular, but there were some local slaughterhouses upgraded, either on their own initiative or, in some cases, using funds under the agreement to improve or upgrade the slaughterhouses.

DR. HULAN: The reason I was leading up to that one - and I am glad, personally, that it wasn't initiated last Fall, because I know some of the slaughterhouses. I know, on the one in Robinsons, they did some upgrading on their own, and now it is going to be more suitable for the program when it comes into effect. Therefore, I was just - I am very supportive of what you are doing.

MR. FLIGHT: By the way, that will be the designated slaughterhouse for that particular area, obviously.

DR. HULAN: The regional pastures - I am very happy to hear about the approach that you say you are taking, because indeed, I have viewed most of the regional pastures around the Province and I think, with the limited dollars, we have to put them to - I guess, in the old cliche, it's where you get the biggest bang for your buck, and that is where you are going to get the better response in the fifteen pastures that you have identified. I will be anxious to learn what fifteen pastures they are, but that will come out in time.

I have a question with regard to an industry that I feel a little close to in this Province, and that is the dairy industry, and I am told that there has been a reduction or a removal of the heifer bonus this year - is that right - completely?

MR. FLIGHT: That disappeared in last year's budget.

DR. HULAN: But was there not some money over the last year in the heifer bonus area? No?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was done last year.

DR. HULAN: Last year? Okay.

Again, looking at page 132 on limestone, there has been a reduction in the amount of money, and again, limestone is very important to dairy farmers because those who have good land base use a lot of limestone.

MR. FLIGHT: Bud, to answer your question, I suspect you are saying that there was a $40,000 savings, I guess, or whatever, right? That resulted in a reduced purchase of limestone, probably as a result of our increase in the price of limestone to farmers, which we did last year as you know, and we have again this year.

DR. HULAN: It is going up again this year, is that right?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

DR. HULAN: Eight dollars a ton, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

DR. HULAN: Three dollars?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

DR. HULAN: I can appreciate the situation you are in, but that bothers me to some degree, there is no question.

MR. FLIGHT: It could mean a lower take-up. I am concerned about it as well. It is the kind of issue that I may well have to go back to government and talk about. If we feel that the dairy industry or the agriculture industry is being affected in a negative way, kind of thing, and it is directly the result of the price of limestone, then I would go back and make the case.

DR. HULAN: I am also very pleased that you have taken an initiative to put in place a poultry veterinarian. If we are going to have a poultry industry we must have that; that was identified, of course. And it is a good move that bodes well for your department, as far as I am concerned, because the poultry industry is such an important industry. Something like 50 per cent - no, about 70 per cent of farm gate receipts, pretty well over 60 per cent, come from poultry and dairy today, I guess. I am glad that there is going to be a poultry veterinarian, because so often large animal veterinarians have real difficulties handling the poultry problems, and we have lots of large animal veterinarians, as we know.

On page 133, there is an allocation of appropriations provided for upgrading the facilities at Newfoundland Farm Products. Now, is that $200,000 going to be used this year, although you are in the process of privatizing?

MR. FLIGHT: It may well be. Bud, as you know, there is always upgrading needed, repairs, maintenance and that sort of thing.

DR. HULAN: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: I cannot say to you with certainty that we are indeed going to do a deal to privatize, but there is no question that if we don't, we are going to maintain Newfoundland Farm Products, and as a result of federal inspections and that kind of thing, it is a standard allocation.

DR. HULAN: Okay, it is a standard allocation for maintenance and I can understand that. The other thing I noticed, ALFI is gone completely.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

DR. HULAN: Yes, that is too bad. Anyhow, I have a question: I noticed, in some of the cases, Mr. Minister, the funding for Information Technology was greatly reduced - pages 122 and 127. Now, it may have been due to the agreements that they were tied into. Information Technology - that would have been tied in with the Canada/Newfoundland Cooperation Agreement for Forestry Development. Is that how that came about? Because in Information Technology, you spent over $1 million last year and now it is cut by 50 per cent - line item 2.1.03.12.

MR. FLIGHT: That's the amount that is left in the agreement.

DR. HULAN: Yes, I thought in response to the answers to Mr. Don Whelan's comments - so I will not bother the other one there.

The other thing that hasn't come up, and I haven't seen it in here - and I again will congratulate you on taking the initiative to do what should have been done roughly - how old am I? I'm thirty-eight, so - no, it should have been done a long, long time ago and that is to put 4-H in where it belongs, with agriculture. Now, I couldn't identify it in here anywhere. What kind of dollars are we putting into the 4-H movement?

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you, Bud, there are dollars in there. Let's find the -

DR. HULAN: While you are looking for it, I have to say that this is a very, very important move. If we are going to change the mindset and stimulate agriculture in this Province at the young age, this is a tremendous organization. I was a 4-H club member for many, many years myself. So I am interested in - I know you have dollars in there, but I was just wondering.

MR. FLIGHT: We are making a major contribution to Camp Nipper, which is 4-H, in the Gambo area, as you know, and we provide support staff to them. We give the employees actually - we make the vehicles available to them. Kevin Aucoin, with whom you are familiar, is the director responsible for liaison between the department and 4-H.

DR. HULAN: Well, I was going to comment on that for the other committee members. The person who is heading up the direction for 4-H in the Province is Kevin Aucoin. He is an old 4-H'er from a long ways back and I think you selected a good person.

MR. FLIGHT: Here is the extent, Bud, and it is nothing near what I'm sure you would believe we should do, nor I believe we should do if we had the wherewithal, but given -

DR. HULAN: I am more aware of the financial constraints now than I used to be.

MR. FLIGHT: We are providing a $12,500 grant directly to 4-H. We provide two full-time staff - the Department of Forestry and Agriculture pays two full-time staff for the 4-H movement. We support their Camp Nipper, which is a fairly important aspect of their operation. We will be funding for them this summer one student whom they can put to work in any way they choose, most likely it will be at Camp Nipper. That is basically the extent of our support.

DR. HULAN: Two more very quick questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman, by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could roll two of the questions into one, Bud - your time is up. I have to go to another member.

DR. HULAN: Okay, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan, I'm sorry, you must not have understood -go ahead.

DR. HULAN: Oh, I may go ahead, okay. Very quickly, maybe Marty can answer this one. How has the response been with regard to the establishment of 4-H clubs? What are the numbers like? Do you have any idea, Marty? I should ask the minister.

MR. FLIGHT: No, go ahead.

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: There are approximately - I can get these numbers specifically for you, if you want them, tomorrow - there are approximately fifty 4-H chapters, units -

DR. HULAN: Clubs.

MR. FLIGHT: Clubs.

DR. HULAN: Membership in 4-H puts those kids in a position where they take the leadership later on in many other areas.

Okay, I had another, but I will pass now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple more quick ones. Basically, I think that is about it for me.

First of all, I suppose, to talk about some positive things, and I would like to bring them up, maybe even just to get an update on them. The milk program in the schools, if you could just let me know how that is proceeding and what the indications are for next year. Also, you mentioned in your briefing notes the educational program that would be introduced into the schools this year, from Kindergarten to Grade XII.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. SHELLEY: You mentioned in your briefing notes, an educational program in the schools this year. Could you expound on that? Does that go from K to XII? Did I hear you correctly? that is what I wanted to know.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes it does.

MR. SHELLEY: I was just wondering how it would work out from there and what -

MR. FLIGHT: K to XII.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. What kind of program is that? Is it involving the curriculum? Is there something special like that earth green program they had one time? I took part in that. There are different programs. What is it, more specifically?

MR. FLIGHT: It is an education curriculum that the department has prepared. There is a booklet which I can have provided to members of the committee if they require it. Is it actually going to be a curriculum in the classroom?

DR. NAZIR: There is a number of programs which will go into the classrooms but (inaudible) Focus on Forestry (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Dr. Nazir tells me that there is a number of courses that will go into the classrooms this year. Focus on Forestry is the one that we intend to use this year. It is in booklet form. I have to ask the question myself: Is this going to be treated as an academic course?

MR. SHELLEY: I would assume not.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) knows.

MR. SHELLEY: I am asking that from the point of view of being a teacher, too, and I have seen them come into programs -

DR. NAZIR: I think it is somewhat part of (inaudible), somewhat part of (inaudible) and then (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: In Kindergarten.

DR. NAZIR: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It would be something like the read program that they had, where you implemented throughout the year certain little projects that the classroom does. I'm assuming that is what it is, little projects that they do throughout the year in the classroom.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. I don't see it -

MR. SHELLEY: As a course or anything.

MR. FLIGHT: I don't see it as an established course, the same as mathematics or English, at this point in time. I can see that happening in the future though.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure, especially at the higher grades.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supplemental (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It will be supplementary now, I'm sure, to the regular curriculum.

MR. SHELLEY: I would be interested in seeing that because, being a teacher, I have seen programs on all kinds of recycling coming through the school, and reading and everything else. I just want to know how you are going to implement it and what it is exactly. Of course, the milk program, if I can get an update on that - because that is one I've really supported heavily.

MR. FLIGHT: We are making a financial commitment, as you know, of $150,000 a year. The program is now utilizing or using over a million litres in the school milk program itself, which is a million litres of new production, I guess, because that market wasn't there two years ago or three years ago when it was implemented in the first instance. It has had fantastic success. Practically every school in the Province is part of the school milk program now. Student consumption is - the concern about whether they would drink milk or pop. There is no question about the success of it. Students are drinking milk and doing it willingly, in the sense that it is cheaper, obviously, because it is highly subsidized.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a fantastic plan. I have brought it into the schools and pushed it through.

MR. FLIGHT: We provide $150,000 and the rest of the cost of the program is funded by the processors and producers.

MR. SHELLEY: The price is pretty good, too. I tell you what really hits on it is the young kids around here who don't get a chance to drink milk at home because they can't afford it. They do avail of it in the schools. I've seen it happen many times. So it is a good program.

Now, I am going to cross lines a little on this. I know, because I've asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is in the area of block loading.

MR. FLIGHT: Block loading.

MR. SHELLEY: It is connected with your department. I had a letter just the other day from the development association in my area and they had some concerns. One that came up again, of course, aside from the block loading, I guess, is the times when they have gone to the scales and had their wood thrown off. Then, of course, I have known truckers who told their brothers or whoever to go up and get the wood the next day, that they threw off for themselves, and it is gone. So the first point, before you go into the actual block loading, is the wood that was thrown off at the scales was gone.

I am going to revert and ask a question about block loading later. But has that been brought to your attention in the department? Because I said I would bring it up to you tonight, because of the letter I received a little while ago. But there is a problem with that wood that is unloaded at the scales.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I can tell you, Paul, that the - I will answer your second question and you might not need to ask the first one. The block loading has not been resolved yet. There have been problems in transportation. Transportation has problems with it, as you know. I asked the minister last week. I understand they are going back to the industry now to see if they can come up with some kind of compromise that will be acceptable to everybody, because people have identified problems with block loading, as such, problems that cause them not to be prepared to implement it holus-bolus type of thing, so it has not been resolved, although it is a major concern.

MR. SHELLEY: It certainly is. Have they thought about the problems that are there now?

MR. FLIGHT: My position is purely wearing the forestry minister's hat, my responsibility as minister of the Department of Forestry. I want to see a resolution that is in the better interest of the people trucking wood. I thought block loading was the answer, but the final -

MR. SHELLEY: Is it the companies, though?

MR. FLIGHT: The final jurisdiction is with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, because of weights and everything else on the roads, and the companies have a major concern, obviously, and they have registered those concerns, so now they are trying to resolve something that is acceptable to everybody. Whether they can or cannot, I will leave -

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I hope they haven't given up on it, because it is still a major problem.

MR. FLIGHT: No, they haven't given up on it.

MR. SHELLEY: It is getting more frustrating with the dollars and cents now, as far as that goes.

MR. FLIGHT: Now your question on what happened to the wood that was thrown off, most of it is delivered to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture at his summer residence or winter residence, and I sent some out to the previous critic from Cormack.

I don't know what happens to the wood really. Can anyone answer that question: What happens to the wood that is taken off the truck if it is overweight at the scales?

MR. SHELLEY: It is a question that should be answered by someone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The scalers? Maybe - I don't know, but certainly these truckers have a legitimate beef, as far as I am concerned, if it is being taken time after time. They have started to ask the question: What is happening to this wood that is thrown off?

MR. FLIGHT: The assistant deputy minister just suggested to me that he was aware the trucks were being stopped and tickets were being issued, fines were being issued. He wasn't aware that wood was actually being taken off trucks. Now, I haven't seen wood removed, but truckers have told me it is done.

I tell you what I will do. I will take that question under advisement, because obviously, it can't be answered here. I don't know. The deputy tells me he is not aware of what happens to that wood, and the ADM is not aware, so I will take the question under advisement and provide an answer for you in the next few days. The only people who can answer that question, I would think now, are the people at the Department of Works, Services and Transportation at the weigh scales.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will tell you why the question was asked, and it not what I am insinuating, but what the loggers are insinuating, and that is, they might even be getting harassed a little at the scales because these fellows need some wood.

AN HON. MEMBER: You might be correct.

MR. SHELLEY: I am just saying what - anything is possible, but if we can answer that question, maybe it will stop that abuse and cut down on some harassment being done at the weigh scales.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I have one more. You mentioned the Green Plan a few minutes ago, didn't you? Could you elaborate on that a little? That is the last thing I will ask.

MR. FLIGHT: We signed a $2 million agreement under the Green Plan.

MR. SHELLEY: Two million.

MR. FLIGHT: Basically, most of the funds will be agriculture-related. We have farms that have had trouble with the environment, manure, spreading problems, the need for manure pits, that kind of thing, so we are identifying. Some of the money will be spent in specific projects on various farms that apply. Other money will be spent in training or making available technology to farms to manage their operation in the most environmentally acceptable way possible, it is called the Green Plan but basically, our money will be spent, from an environmental point of view, on existing farms, most likely.

MR. SHELLEY: With respect to farmers and land clearing, especially expansion on their own land, has there been any thought or consideration - I do not know anything about this so I am asking -given to financial assistance for land clearing for farmers?

MR. FLIGHT: There is financial assistance. Under the agreement, farmers can apply for grants to clear land or to purchase equipment but normally what happens is, they make their applications and -

MR. SHELLEY: Is that federal/provincial shared?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, as long as the money lasts. I would suggest that the bulk of the money spent under that agreement is probably for land clearing, because I sign every application, every approval crosses my desk; I am not familiar with every exact one but I do make a point of seeing, number one, who it is, where it is going and what it is for, and off the top of my head, I would guess that the majority of the money spent under that agreement is for land clearing.

MR. WOODFORD: Or renovations.

MR. FLIGHT: Or renovations, yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what we will do now is, take a five-minute recess, so we can stretch our legs, have a cup of coffee or whatever and we will ask if Mr. Oates will signal us when the five minutes are up, and we will come back and resume.

 

Recess

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that we have had our cup of coffee, I will recognize Mr. Whelan to continue the questioning.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering if the Department of Forestry and Agriculture have had in the past, or have presently, plans to identify any, I suppose, good agricultural land in the Province, if good agricultural areas have been mapped out and, is there any ongoing policy in the Department of Forestry and Agriculture to try to protect these areas for agriculture?

MR. FLIGHT: I say to the member, that is already done. Everybody is familiar with the agriculture zone on the Northeast Avalon. We have identified agriculture development areas in Wooddale. The Robinsons area, I think -

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No? Okay. There are twenty-two agriculture development areas in the Province and the famous ones, I suppose - and I don't know if they are designated by any kind of legislation or even regulation, but obviously the West Coast, the Codroy Valley area, we know, has the best agricultural land in the Province with the Robinsons area, moving into the Cormack area, that has been designated, I am sure, as an agricultural area.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, the community of Cormack, the whole community, 33,000 acres, is not only designated as agricultural, but with a community plan, the only one in the Province based on that (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. So the only one where there is a freeze existing, where you cannot use the land for anything else, I guess, or the freeze existing to the extent that the land freeze on the Avalon Peninsula - but in the Wooddale area, for instance, you are not permitted development, are you, other than agriculture? So there are areas all over the Province where the important agricultural land has been identified and protected to the extent that it is reserved for agriculture.

MR. WHELAN: Apart from the freeze here on the Avalon Peninsula, is there an ongoing policy of government - for example, if there is any type of development that is being proposed, usually it has to be passed by each and every department, each and every pertinent department.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: Is there any sort of protectionist policy for agricultural land as opposed to a development that would have practically no returns anywhere in the future?

MR. FLIGHT: Any land use in the Province has to be approved if there is such a thing as a land use development committee. Obviously, if that land use development committee is passing judgement on an application to do something on a piece of land, and if there is opposition or if there is a concern expressed by the Department of Agriculture, and that land, in that process, is identified as agricultural land and should be preserved as such, then I would suspect that the land use development committee would not permit the land to be used other than for agriculture, unless the applicant could convince everybody that they were all wrong and it had no agricultural value.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Just a quick follow-up on Don's question, Mr. Minister. Has there been any other ADAs identified - agricultural development areas - other than the Northeast Avalon and the Wooddale area in the last five years? For instance, Deer Lake - although they have a plan, they are not identified as an ADA, are they?

MR. FLIGHT: They are not gazetted as such.

DR. HULAN: No. Because I know that -

MR. WOODFORD: They are planning areas.

DR. HULAN: Yes, okay. Your planning area.

MR. WOODFORD: No, the Deer Lake planning area. That would be the area outside the actual plan of any municipality, like, for instance, Goose Arm.

DR. HULAN: I know the furore - Marty and I smiled at each other. I know the furore it created out in the area that I grew up in. I think in the task force report we said: Try it in a couple of more areas and if it works then go there again. But really and honestly, I personally think that if we are going to protect agricultural land in this Province, we have to resort to that. Because greed will do all kinds of things, and you know what I'm talking about there.

We were in a meeting today, Don and I, with an individual, and he raised a question that local farmers are having difficulty in selling their hay - baled hay or whatever, because the buyers in the Province claim that quality-wise and nutritionally it is not as good as mainland hay so they buy up on the mainland. I suspect that in many cases that is true, if the hay isn't harvested at the right point of maturity, then you would lose some. Is that a general problem, I'm asking, for farmers?

MR. FLIGHT: It is not a problem that has come to my attention. Is the department aware of that, Marty? Would you want to comment on that?

MR. HOWLETT: No, Bud, it is not a general problem, because as you know, hay today is bought on quality and bought on test. If anyone has hay or forage in the Province for sale and were prepared to get it tested - because farmers today just don't go and buy hay, as you know, or forage. They buy it based on soil tests for protein, TDN and so forth. If they have a product - and we can have it tested, we can test it in our labs - their forage or hay, that they feel is as good a quality, it is only a matter of submitting it for tests. We will give them the results and they will be able to sell it to farmers as tested.

A lot of guys are expecting the farmers these days to just buy hay because you see it in a sale. It doesn't work anymore. Most of them buy hay on the mainland now, it is not bought on spec. They are buying it either sixteen or eight or nine or ten, whatever he wants, protein, and so much TDN and so forth. So, it is not a problem. Now, if you cut hay in September, it certainly is a problem.

DR. HULAN: That is right, and that is the exact thing I raised today. I said, I know farmers start making hay in the last week of August and that is then straw you are making, not hay. So, Marty is right.

MR. WOODFORD: If it is the second cut, it is no problem making it in August.

DR. HULAN: That is right, if it is the second cut.

MR. HOWLETT: Yes, my comments were based on that.

DR. HULAN: The last question I have, and I have to raise it here, because it is such an important issue for my district and area of Newfoundland, is about the wood supply for the Stephenville mill. It would be remiss of me if I did not raise it, at least, here.

You may not want to make a comment now, Mr. Minister, you know we are going to be meeting, all of us, on it again, but it is a very, very serious problem and we have to get around it somehow.

MR. FLIGHT: I would, as you would expect, be fairly guarded in any comment I would make at this point in time. Everyone knows or most people would know who have an interest, that the Abitibi limits in this Province originally were meant to supply the Grand Falls mill because that was the only mill Abitibi owned. When Abitibi became the owners of the Stephenville mill there was, indeed, wood allocated to supply that mill, but Abitibi's original wood allocations are wood licensed lands, that are supplying the pulp mills. And, in my mind, it is becoming less and less designated for Stephenville or designated - everything west of Red Indian Lake close to Stephenville. And the problem, of course, is economic wood. They are running out of economic wood in the Stephenville area or on lands that they saw as supplying the Stephenville mill. As a result, the wood is coming from further and further away and becomes more and more expensive. And there are no Stephenville designated limits, so there is a problem. There is a problem, I guess, with Abitibi limits period, with the supply for the two mills, the question of Abitibi limits, the regional limits, being capable of supplying two mills as opposed to one.

Now, I say to members, without fear of contradiction, that properly managed, with the right utilization of wood, with the right forest management, neither of the mills will ever be threatened as a result of a wood shortage supply. We have the Labrador ace in the hole; you know, they are importing - and some people don't like that - they are importing about 40,000 metres this year from PEI and Nova Scotia. But yes, there is a problem and it is a problem that has been discussed with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture all the time and we are trying to rationalize the wood supply. Abitibi has, over the years, identified Corner Brook Pulp and Paper limits as a potential where we might be able to ration, because they have over - there is a question of a shortage of wood on Abitibi limits and there may well be an over supply of wood on Kruger limits, so if you can rationalize both in a way that is acceptable to everybody and that kind of thing -

DR. HULAN: I tell you, Mr. Minister, at the last meeting I had with all the loggers in the Stephenville area, ninety-three turned up that night, eighty-eight the first night in a blizzard. So they really have it close to their heart. But one thing that came up was the - now, of course, the union is not very impressed with the transfer from Kruger to Crown, because Crown can be cut with non-unionized loggers.

MR. FLIGHT: Because they think it is going to go, that's right.

DR. HULAN: So they are pushing for a transfer from Kruger to Abitibi. Just in the confines of this Chamber, do you think that is ever going to be possible?

MR. FLIGHT: The transfer of land or the purchase of the 1.6 million acres of land from Kruger to the Crown is agreed in principle and still being negotiated in that sense but there is an agreement principle - I don't think there is any possibility that 1.6 million acres will be transferred because Kruger is selling that land to the government for their own good reasons. Obviously, that would not be an option, I am sure, with Abitibi Price, but the problem you have in the Stephenville area with regard to unionized loggers, is a problem, I guess, that has nothing to do with the wood supply per se, it has to do with where the wood is cut, who is delivering it and who is cutting it. It is a fact that, as you know, the bulk of the wood supply in Stephenville now is coming off what we considered one time the limits for Grand Falls and it is unionized workers in that area who are supplying the wood.

DR. HULAN: They are complaining about those as well.

MR. FLIGHT: Right, but that is the big complaint, I think, they are complaining about the amount of wood that is coming out of the Crown to Stephenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a serious problem.

MR. FLIGHT: It is a serious problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: The status of that 1.6 million acres that we just got back, I think it was 800,000 acres of freehold land this year and the remaining 800,000 for immediate ownership of service rights, they are retaining the timber rights of that until the year 2037 according to the statement.

MR. FLIGHT: On the half?

MR. WOODFORD: On the 800,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Simply put, I guess, we are purchasing 1.6 million acres of freehold land from Kruger, and to half of that, 800,000 acres, Kruger will retain the cutting rights, the licenses, the same way they do on their licensed land for roughly thirty years, until 2037. That is the negotiated part of the arrangement.

MR. WOODFORD: Can you tell me now roughly where that land is? What about around the Deer Lake-Spillway area? Is that included?

MR. FLIGHT: To all intends and purposes it is all Kruger's freehold land in Newfoundland. Obviously, Kruger has interests that we have to recognize, for instance, operational land, land around the mill in Corner Brook. Obviously, they have to retain that. You can use the Glenwood example where they have that major operation so they have to retain whatever acreage is required to do that. There are some municipal lands, they may well be in the City of Corner Brook, or they may be in Deer Lake, that they are talking to us about retaining in this deal.

I know the lands you are referring to in Deer Lake because I think we have discussed it, and that is about to be resolved. We are at the stage now of their identifying the specific land they would like to retain and for the reasons they would like to retain it. We have also identified - if there is a dispute here, we are thinking about that land the Town of Deer Lake needs, as an example, for sewer (inaudible) and that kind of thing.

We have drawn the lines to accommodate that and hopefully they will accept it, but there are certain very small proportions compared to 1.6. I would not want to put a figure on it, but maybe hundreds of acres as opposed to thousands of acres that they would want to retain simply to accommodate their operations.

MR. WOODFORD: At this time, I would like to say to the minister that in the municipalities where there are community plans, and even where there are none, in the so-called municipalities planning areas, I don't think Kruger should be allowed, under this, to retain that. I have an example now in Spillway where there are a number of people who don't have title to their property; they built in the older days and so on, and there is no way Kruger will release it. They are saying it is held as collateral. They will not even entertain a meeting with them. Another example is where the town of Deer Lake could quite conceivably be held up from putting in a lagoon system which would stop every bit of sewerage from going into one of the biggest fresh water bodies in the Province - held up because of Kruger ownership. It is all little pockets, they have a pocket here and then it is Crown, a pocket there and then it is municipal. It is just like a checkerboard. As far as I am concerned the minister is going to use his authority and use the government's heavy hand, if he has to, and do something about it.

MR. FLIGHT: I know we are just being specific on that one particular issue, and I know it is important to you, but I am hoping that the sale will resolve the thing. As you know, the Town Council of Deer Lake had come to me before they were even aware that the sale was in progress, and I was going to use my good office, so to speak, as minister, to try to convince Kruger to do a deal with the Town to accommodate them, but with the sale, I am hopeful that the lands we are talking about will be part of the sale, in which case, we will deal with the Town.

The other point that has to be made in Kruger's defence, I guess, is we are paying roughly $10 per acre, buying 1.6 million acres for $15 million, which works out to about $10 an acre.

If they have what they consider valuable land in the middle of Corner Brook or in the middle of Deer Lake, then I can see them having some objection, to saying: We are not prepared to let that go for $10 million. They may be using that as collateral or security or whatever. Although, by-and-large, we are going to get all their freehold land, they will obviously have some concerns about specific pieces of land in specific places that they have a specific reason to retain.

MR. WOODFORD: We have a great penchant for -

MR. FLIGHT: If you will permit me to just make the comment, because (inaudible) here made it, I thought I implied it - there is an agreement in principle. The agreement hasn't been consummated, hasn't been signed, the details are still being worked out, but I have no doubt the details will be worked out because it is in their better interests for their own reasons to do this deal.

MR. WOODFORD: ALFI was finished last year. Agri-foods is finished, too. There is a little bit of money left over, I think, this year.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. We will finish it up this year.

MR. WOODFORD: What are the prospects and what is the status of the federal-provincial agreement now? There has been no agreement now. As you know, it was extended last year and I think it was extended the year before for a year or so.

MR. FLIGHT: It has been extended again, Rick, for another year.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but there is no -

MR. FLIGHT: That is the second extension now. Effective March 31 of this year, it is extended to 1995.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that was -

MR. FLIGHT: This is the clean-up year on the old agreement (inaudible) extended, yes.

MR. WOODFORD: That was clean-up.

MR. FLIGHT: They have extended the agreement - we don't have it finalized - for one year, which, in effect, would be the second one-year extension.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Because last year we operated on an extension. This year we are going to be operating on an extension again. The only thing we haven't finalized is the amount in that extension. Will it be the same as last year's allocation, or will they want to reduce it? Because it is a 70-30 agreement. Or can we convince them to increase it a little bit? That is where we are right now in trying to find out.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but the funding last year, when they were looking at it first, was something like $40,000 per unit. Then it was watered down, I think, to around $9,000 or $10,000 now, if I'm not mistaken. That is the last word I got on it.

MR. FLIGHT: What do you mean per unit?

MR. WOODFORD: Per Crown unit. It was something like $40,000 and now it is all watered down and people - I'm hearing names - people who got a couple of thousand dollars' worth of sales getting just as much in that agreement as people who have been in the industry for the last thirty years. So I just question it. I'm looking for confirmation, but it is obvious that when they identified the funding that if they identified $40,000 per farm unit they must have based it on a viable operation.

MR. FLIGHT: But it wasn't predicated that $40,000 would go to per farm unit, was it?

MR. WOODFORD: Total funding under that - what was left over under that agreement would have worked out under that allocation. I could be wrong. It might be $30,000 but I heard it was $40,000. Now it is down to, I think, something around $9,000 or $10,000. Maybe that is wrong, too. Maybe Marty can clarify that. If it is, someone is getting money who shouldn't be getting it.

MR. FLIGHT: Maybe we could keep it short.

MR. HOWLETT: No, Rick, what happened in that agreement - I guess you try to anticipate the demand that you have. So, of the $2.5 million, there was roughly $1.3 million allocated for the on-farm development component. For that, we had in excess of $6 million in requests. So the original intent at looking at up to $40,000 certainly couldn't be upheld. Therefore, what they had to do was, they looked at from different income levels - say, from $0 to $10,000, $10,000 to $20,000, $20,000 to $40,000, and $40,000 upwards - and allocated money on that basis. The highest allocation was somewhere between $10,000 and $13,000, and then they ranged - it could be down as low as maybe $1,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Depending on the gross income.

MR. HOWLETT: There weren't cases of someone getting in last year and getting as much as someone who was in thirteen years ago or thirty years ago. It wasn't done on that basis, it was done then on a project. The committee felt that rather than give a person a quarter of the project - okay, they might say: I don't know if that is his first priority or his second, but here is a project here that we can fund and allow him to take up the full amount. It might be land clearing, it might have been equipment purchase, or it might have been some type of building. That is the basis they used then to allocate the funding.

MR. WOODFORD: And based it primarily on gross, did they?

MR. HOWLETT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: What about the land consolidation? I don't think there was anything in there last year for land consolidation, was there?

MR. FLIGHT: $400,000 last year.

MR. WOODFORD: $400,000?

MR. FLIGHT: The same as this year.

MR. WOODFORD: And $400,000 allocated for this year. Have you moved off the Avalon yet with regard to land consolidation?

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. WOODFORD: No?

MR. FLIGHT: No. As a matter of fact, it only applies to the agricultural land freeze on the Northeast Avalon. There have been some comments that suggest we should look at the same program for other parts of the Province. As a matter of fact, I think anyone who read the Simmons agricultural review raised that issue.

MR. WOODFORD: I said before, and I say again, instead of giving an operator or farmer monies to clear land all the time, they should look at the availability of farms in a given area that is already cleared, and cultivated to a certain extent. It would take a lot less money for renovation than it would for clearing and sowing and so on. The government would save money especially, for instance, in the Cormack area where you have land that has been developed over the years and if left - some are holding on to it, won't sell it - if left over the next number of years would all be grown over.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would grow back, yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Not only that, but it would make a viable farm unit. Say, for instance, you have fifty acres here and someone else has forty, and somebody else has fifty, if it were consolidated it would make an excellent farm unit, much like the White River road proposal they had in there a number of years ago.

MR. FLIGHT: So you are saying, that program should be extended to Cormack in that case, or Robinsons, or -

MR. WOODFORD: Or Codroy, anywhere where there is a potential for as the member was saying, and as Don was referring to, the potential agricultural development wouldn't be going, it would be lost because, as you know, and you said it before, the best agricultural land is a piece of land that can be used for anything. It is the best land going for development, for residential purposes, for growing trees, for doing anything, for recreation. It is the best land in the Province, and everybody tries to grab that piece of good land. Anyway, I know you are under restraint.

MR. FLIGHT: There is nothing wrong with the principle you are espousing.

MR. WOODFORD: I know, it's the money problem.

MR. FLIGHT: It's the money problem.

MR. WOODFORD: I realize that, but then again, you need a lot of support for something like that.

On your red meat program, your inspection program, referred to earlier by the Member for St. George's, I think one of the things you have to look at there with regard to the slaughterhouse situation and the red meat inspection program, that is going to have to be worked in conjunction with some of the final decisions you have made on pastures, because that is where the nucleus of lambs will be, that is where the nucleus of a beef herd will be, and that is where the nucleus of a cow\calf operation would be in those areas. And the dairy operations, the dry cow operations, are all put on the pastures and they are taken back and sent to the HUB meat packers in New Brunswick.

Now, as you know - I am sure you are aware of it - we have an excellent success story in Cormack where the slaughterhouse was built by the Humber Valley Development Association and now passed over to a private operator, and he has sausages all around the Province now. He is into Sobeys, he is into Dominion, operating year-round, doing all the lambs, doing all the beef, and the potential for a value-added product there is unreal. I just say to the minister that if that is close to going through, that is going to be a big plus to the survival, that will add to and help the survival, of those pastures in those areas that you have already identified.

MR. FLIGHT: I think it might be the thing that is holding back the expansion of the sheep and lamb production in this Province, too, and there is major potential for that. So one of the reasons that it hasn't grown any more is the lack of particularly inspection facilities where they can put the stamp on and sell it from Sobeys as opposed to, not black market, I guess, but almost, from door-to-door.

MR. WOODFORD: To a certain extent, and then you have the forage program and hay program that were referred to earlier. Now, most of the farmers, I know in our area and out in St. George's, have become self-sufficient. That is why we have this year, for the first time that I know of, a surplus of silage in our area. And, I mean, this is good, 14 per cent, 15 per cent - anywhere from 12 per cent, 15 per cent, 16 per cent silage. If you are feeding this time of the year you are talking about excellent quality stuff and this is where it is going to come in with regard to excess. Because anybody who has excess forage and excess silage, excess hay, they want to utilize it, and it is going to be utilized into a beef herd, or cow\calf operation, or lambs. That is going to augur well for our area, anyway.

Someone else -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions?

DR. HULAN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: For a number of years we were working on a technique to make very fine top-quality leather from seal hides. We have been able to accomplish that. In fact, in June, I will be going to France to consummate a deal on the whole thing. It is a project between us at the University and the University of Toulouse.

Also, recently, we started working with the same technology with regard to sheep and lamb hides, and the quality of the leather that we can produce from lamb and sheep is fantastic. You have never seen anything like it before, I tell you, because the technology isn't used commercially in North America. We are the only ones who have it.

As Marty can tell you, in any sheep operation what makes or breaks your profit line is what you can get out of your wool and your hide. Because that is basically, to a great degree, a large part of your profit, and we know what has been happening to the hides of our sheep here, they have just been discarded for years. That is one of the reasons why the industry is going down - the profit hasn't been there.

This technology is very unique, it is completely environmentally friendly, and we can produce the most high-quality seal leather for about seventy cents a square foot. Other technologies, you are talking $3.50, $4 a square foot. So, I see it as another great opportunity for the lamb and sheep industry. And I keep talking lamb and sheep, I keep saying that we can be the lamb capital of Canada and all of this. Sooner or later it will occur. That is one added thing that we didn't have before now. It is now available and it will be commercially set up in Newfoundland.

MR. FLIGHT: And you agree that the establishment of regional slaughterhouses, whether they are privately-owned or publicly-owned, and the inspection services, should enhance the growth of that particular industry.

DR. HULAN: No question whatsoever. The only problem that we have, and I know Marty and you people have talked about it, a very serious problem, is the coyote. We do have the coyote and they are multiplying fast. That is really serious. That is not your (inaudible). Wildlife - they are the culprits.

DR. HULAN: I could keep on going all night but I won't. Thank you very much.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that you move 1.1.01 to 3.2.08 inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.2.08, carried.

On motion, Department of Forestry and Agriculture, total heads carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

I have a couple of comments I would like to make, but before I do I shall provide an opportunity for the minister to make a very brief closing comment, if he wishes.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of my officials, I want to again express - it's an obligation, I know. I am not here by choice, I am here by obligation, but I want to thank the committee for the civility that has been shown here tonight. And, obviously, the committee have indicated and expressed a keen interest in the issues that are forestry and agriculture-related, and to the extent that I have been able to answer, or my staff have been able to answer the questions or queries, I feel good about that.

If any members of the committee have asked a question that they feel they didn't get a substantial or a full answer to their satisfaction, if they find a way to notify me I will see to it that the answer is provided in the shortest possible period.

Having said that, I want again to thank the committee for the way they have handled my estimates. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you and your officials for coming this evening, and for the manner in which all questions have been answered, in a forthright manner. I would like to thank the members of the committee, particularly Mr. Woodford, the Vice-Chairman, for the manner in which they have asked the questions and have co-operated with the Chair. What you have seen here tonight is an indication of the kind of co-operation this committee has shown the Chair from the time the committee had its first meeting.

I would also like to thank Elizabeth Murphy for spending her evening with us again, and our Page, Mr. Pearcey, and Mr. Oates who has been up there diligently recording the proceedings of this evening.

Having said that, I would now entertain a motion to adjourn.

On motion, committee adjourned.