May 12, 1992 RESOURCE

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (FORESTRY & AGRICULTURE)

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the Legislative

Chamber of the Colonial Building.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Langdon): Order, please!

Before we have a presentation by the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, I would like to have a motion that the Minutes be

adopted as read, with corrections, noting the omission of the name of

Vice-Chair, Mr. Woodford.

On motion, minutes adopted as corrected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We would like to welcome the

minister and his officials from the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. For

the members, with the minister and his staff, I will introduce the people from

the House of Assembly: Mr. Alvin Hewlett, Green Bay; Mr. Alec Snow, Menihek; the

Vice-Chair is Mr. Rick Woodford, Humber Valley; Mr. Tom Murphy, St. John's

South; Mr. Danny Dumaresque, Eagle River, and Mr. Harold Small, Baie Verte -

White Bay. Before the minister has his presentation, for the benefit of the

members here I'd ask if he would introduce his officials to us. Also, be

reminded, when the minister or his officials speak, identify yourself for the

record. Mr. Minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is

only for recording, we're not amplified here, are we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay. First off, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to do as you suggested, introduce my staff. On my immediate right is

Mr. Robert Peters, Deputy Minister of the department. To my far right is Mr.

Martin Howlett, ADM for the agriculture side of the department; on my immediate

left is Dr. Mohammed Nazir, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Forestry, and on

the left of Dr. Nazir is Mr. Leonard Clarke, the Director of Financial

Operations. On my far left, next to Mr. Clarke, is Ms. Margaret Power, the

Director of Human Resources for the department.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just to like to try to set the

tone from the outset to tell you that I am here, I'm sure, and my officials are

here, for one reason and one reason only - to provide as much information as we

possibly can on the spending estimates of the department. That is what the focus

will be and, hopefully, we will be able to answer any questions asked. In the

event something is asked that is so technical that none of the people at the

table can answer, I'll provide the answer tomorrow or at the first possible

chance.

I just want to say that the reason we're here - we

were kept outdoors for ten minutes - is that I requested the Colonial Building

for nostalgic and historical reasons. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee and I,

myself, have some great memories of meetings held here years ago. That is why

we're here, as opposed to the Confederation Building.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know for sure what the format

is. The department is divided into two branches, Forestry and Agriculture.

Forestry was always, as you know, a line department, and Agriculture came with

Forestry and is a large part now, if not 50 per cent of the department. I have a

few opening remarks here ready that were prepared by my staff. One deals with

Forestry and the other with Agriculture, so where shall we begin?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and give the opening

statement.

MR. FLIGHT: Go ahead and deal with Forestry, or

MR. CHAIRMAN: Give the both of them and then -

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I said, give both statements and

then we'll go from there.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay. I am going to read these.

They are fairly brief. I think they are about probably five, six, or seven

minutes, something like that.

Mr. Chairman, before the members of this Committee

get into the debate on the Budget Estimates of my department, I would like to

take this opportunity to outline, in general terms, the forestry and

agricultural functions of my department and describe some of the programs my

department carries out with the funding provided in these Budget Estimates.

I would like to deal with forestry first. Forestry,

as you know, deals with management, utilization and the protection of the forest

resource of this Province. Forests, of course, are a natural, renewable

resource. They are renewable only if you manage them well. Wanton destruction

without any regard to their renewal does not guarantee any benefits to our

future generations. It is therefore necessary that forest resources are managed

in such a way that they not only serve the needs of the current generations of

people but they also protect the interests of future generations. Despite the

fact that we are currently spending $13 million per year on silviculture

relating to improving the forests and its productivity, through thinnings,

reforestation and other techniques, Newfoundland is relatively a newcomer in

investing in the productivity of this resource.

The history of large-scale silviculture does not go

beyond the past fifteen years. Even when we thought we had reached a plateau of

sophistication in managing our resource, we have discovered we had merely begun

our task. Forests are not a collection of trees providing wood for industry,

lumber and firewood, forests are living ecological systems which support all

kinds of plants, animals and various life support systems for the human race,

including the water we drink, the air we breathe and the space in which we live.

Mr. Chairman, recognizing the complex ecological

nature of our forests, government has agreed to manage the forests on its

sustainable development basis, which requires management of the resource as the

ecosystem. The basic forest management technique maintains a modern forest

inventory, nurseries to produce seedlings for planting, credible reforestation

programs, silviculture thinnings, management of the forest, fire management,

both fire protection and the use of fire for preparing sites, efficient

utilization of this resource for industrial and non-industrial uses.

The integrity of the water sheds, the soils,

wildlife habitat, etc. are well-known and will be used in managing this

resource, but above all, efforts will be directed at creating a climate for

management of this resource, in such a way that various multiple values and uses

of this resource are balanced for the maximum benefit, both current and future,

of our people. We are putting in place a system of sound ecological management

of the forests with input from the public, various user groups and various

government and non-government organizations who are interested in proper

management of this important, natural resource of our Province.

Mr. Chairman, I have outlined our overall

philosophy in managing the forest resource and our desire to balance all values

and uses flowing from the resource. At the same time, however, we cannot ignore

the fact that we have benefited by deriving a livelihood for many of our people

from the forest industry and we will continue to do so. The Province's three

pulp and paper mills, hundreds of saw mills, and numerous firewood production

operations generate much needed jobs and incomes. Without this source of income

in our rural communities, Newfoundland would not be what it is today. Towns like

Grand Falls-Windsor, Badger, Millertown, Bishop's Falls, Corner Brook and Deer

Lake would not have come into being without these forest industries. The

prosperity of these towns continues to depend on a viable forestry resource.

Unfortunately, the current economic recession during the past year or so, and

the turmoil in the world markets have created very unstable conditions in the

forest industry, especially in the pulp and paper sector. Unless the prices

improve or the Canadian dollar falls significantly, this export-oriented

industry will continue to face difficulties.

On the domestic front, efficiency in the mills,

lower cost, high quality products are going to be of paramount importance. There

have been job reductions in the mills and in the woodlands; these cutbacks are

hard to take, but necessary to maintain the viability of the industry. I hope

our industry will come out of the current difficulties successfully. Despite the

hard times, Mr. Chairman, the forest industry and the two levels of government

have been able to maintain, and in fact, expand to some extent the silviculture

program.

We are again carrying out jointly-funded

silviculture programs on pulp and paper industry-held lands, with $3 million

being expended on Abitibi limits and $3 million on Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

lands; also, $4 million will be invested on Crown-held forest lands. In

addition, $2 million to $3 million will be invested through a silviculture

worker training program. Other sources of funding will also be explored. For

example, last year, we were able to invest approximately $1.5 million in various

forestry activities through the provincial job creation program. The

silviculture program will result in the planting of over eight million trees in

the Province and thinning and improving almost 7,000 hectares of forest, along

with other activities such as reclaiming the high-graded forest by clearing the

sites for reforestation.

Mr. Chairman, there are always complaints by the

saw-millers about the lack of adequate sawlogs supply in the Province. We have

been attempting to improve that supply by acquiring wood from the pulp and paper

companies and providing access to various forest sites. We had noted, however,

that despite the complaints by the saw-millers about adequate sawlogs supply,

there were a lot of sawlogs being shipped by saw-millers and others as pulpwood.

My department has taken a very strict stand against conversion of sawlogs into

pulpwood and we will be enforcing this very strictly. We will be continuing to

work with the NLPA, the Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association in providing

the sawlogs supply and transfer of technology to our sawmills.

My department has provided $62,000 to the NLPA

during 1992, by way of a grant. We are also working on various research and

development projects directed at improving the outturn of wood from existing

forest stands through better utilization of the trees. Some specific projects

include: trials of a timber royalty system based on standing volume that

provides incentives for users to maximize timber utilization; development of

computer-assisted on-site analysis of sawmills to help owners identify

opportunities to improve efficiency and logging systems evaluation to determine

their environmental and forest management impacts. To further improve the

availability of wood to the industry, my department will be constructing

approximately fifty kilometres of forest access roads in 1992-93.

In addition, a small technology enhancement fund

has been established through the federal/provincial co-operation agreement for

forestry development which provides support to projects directed at improving

utilization or processing efficiency through the introduction of new technology.

Specific projects include testing of a slash chipper, testing of systems to

extract timber from commercial thinnings, comparative evaluation of two

mechanical harvesting systems and the development of a prototype small scale

chipper, canter and sawmill. All of these investments in the resource must be

protected from fire and insects and we will continue to provide adequate

protection against fires through staff located throughout the Province and by a

fleet of eight water bombers.

With regard to insects, the hemlock looper

infestation this year is minimal. A few pockets still persist but they are at

locations which are isolated and are in forest stands which may not be utilized

during the current rotation. It will, therefore, not be advisable to protect

these isolated forest stands. The eastern spruce budworm, on the other hand,

after remaining at very low levels of population, is beginning to show some

surge. Its population is forecasted to increase this year and is close to our

highly valuable silviculture treatments. We have therefore included a small

insect protection program using the biological insecticide Bt in our 1992

operations.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that probably took a little

longer than I thought. I have a very short statement on agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have time to do that.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, the agriculture

industry is experiencing many challenges at the provincial, national, and

international level and this has drastically increased activities in many policy

areas. One major issue facing the industry today is that of the GATT negotiation

and its potential effect on supply management.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the commitment of

this government to the supply management commodities and the beneficial effects

they have for our Province as a whole. The government recognizes the benefits of

the Province and the country producing its own food where possible, and we

intend to support this. The Province is not directly involved with the

negotiations of the GATT but we have made our position clear to the federal

government. Every possible effort has been made to ensure that Canada's

objectives are met. This government agrees with the principle of supply

management and the stability it brings to producers, retailers and consumers

alike.

Another issue we are dealing with at present is the

continuing pressures on the productive land base, especially around the Avalon

Peninsula. The food source has to be protected, if not, we will become more

dependent on imported products with continued price increases and job losses in

agriculture. To help ensure this protection, we have allocated funding again

this year to the land consolidation program.

Mr. Chairman, farm cash receipts have fortunately

shown an increase from 1990 to 1991 of $2 million, from $59.4 million to $61.4

million. The majority of this comes from the livestock sector, $48.8 million,

with crops contributing $10.1 million. We remain a net importer of wood products

but are self-sufficient in food, milk, and nationally export some of our eggs

under a surplus removal program. The Province's export commodities are

blueberries, furs and partridgeberries.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, the

senior review committee set up to review the report of the Agri-Foods task force

is actively evaluating the recommendations contained in this report. The

committee has spent a great deal of time and effort on the triple issue of hogs,

chicken and the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation. This is a very complex

issue and one that will require some hard decisions. The committee has completed

its work in this area and has moved on to other parts of the report.

Mr. Chairman, the school milk program, of which I

am personally very proud, I say to the vice-president of the committee, was

started by the Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk Foundation during the past

year and this government was please to provide financial support to this effort.

The success of the program speaks for itself. The school coverage and the milk

consumption have far exceeded the original forecast. This program benefits the

dairy industry but the major benefit is better nutrition for our school

children, so, for fiscal 1992-1993, this government will contribute funding of

$150,000 to this very worthwhile initiative.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee,

government has concluded several new federal/provincial programs over the past

year in support of the agriculture sector. I would mention the financial support

to the fur industry and the Net Income Stabilization program, better known as

NISA. In addition, there is a $1 million cost-shared Environmental

Sustainability Initiative program which is continuing to be funded from fiscal

year 1992-1993. Also, the Atlantic Livestock Feed Initiative program has been

extended and funded in this budget. The present Agri-Food Development Subsidiary

agreement expires March 31, 1993, and the extension to the ALFI expires in

September of 1992. To advance planning in this area in preparation for a new

comprehensive cost-shared development agreement, a committee of both levels of

government and industry are developing a financial package for discussion to

develop the many opportunities which the agriculture sector offers.

The fur producers of this industry have always done

well in terms of quality of products when compared to their counterparts in the

rest of the country or, for that matter, in the rest of the world. However,

producers are dependent on silver fox and mink. If the fur industry is to

survive in the long-term, it must diversify its lines of furs so producers can

survive the market downturns in one or two years. The department believes there

is a real opportunity to start this process of diversification by carrying out

research and demonstrations of various other species.

We are very pleased that under the

Canada-Newfoundland Comprehensive Labrador Subsidiary agreement, an experimental

research and demonstration facility for lynx and pine marten has been

established through a local rancher in the Lake Melville area. The objectives of

this project are to examine economic feasibility, feeding regimes, management

practices, and serve as a demonstration facility and a future potential source

of breeding stock.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes what I call my opening

statement. Whatever your format is now we will follow. I am prepared to answer

or to have my officials answer any questions arising out of the Estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister. What we have been doing in the other Committees is to have the

Vice-Chair for fifteen minutes to respond, and after that the members of the

Committee, ten minutes, asking you and your officials questions pertaining to

the Budget. Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will

just touch on a couple of the headings first and then get into some other

questions of the minister and his officials.

Under Executive and Support Services - 1.3.02,

Information and Statistics, what were the Professional Services there in .05?

What happened there? Nothing was budgeted, yet it was revised to $7,500, and

then, an expenditure of $185,000.

MR. FLIGHT: That $185,000, Mr. Vice-Chair -

under the Canada-Newfoundland Forestry Agreement, there are allowances made to

evaluate the program twice during the life of the five-year agreement. That

$185,000 will be used to monitor and evaluate what has been accomplished at the

midpoint of the agreement.

As you know, it is a $65 million, five-year

agreement. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the program, and what

had been accomplished, would be evaluated midway through the agreement and at

the end. The $185,000 is for that purpose.

MR. WOODFORD: Under Professional Services, what

would be involved in the evaluation? What would you be using there, to evaluate

a program that's federally-and-provincially-driven?

MR. FLIGHT: The way that money will be spent,

Mr. Vice-Chair, is that there will be contracts called from consulting companies

to evaluate what's been done and what's been accomplished under the agreement up

to this point in time. That report will be made available to the federal

government and, of course, to the Province. There will be purchased services in

the sense that there will be contracts let, or tenders called, for the

evaluation of the program.

MR. WOODFORD: Well then, 1.3.02.06, under

Purchased Services, last year they budgeted $139,000 and revised at $21,000, and

now this year it is down to $42,500. Would that be a crossover between the two?

How come they budgeted $140,000 and spent $21,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may go ahead - just state

your name.

DR. NAZIR: Purchased Services are meant to

purchase materials, pay for reports and buy equipment and various products in

support of the program. Again, since this is mostly cost-shared, we may budget,

but it does not necessarily mean that we will spend it too, because there is a

management committee with federal and provincial officials on it. All the

projects are submitted to the management committee and if they are approved, we

will spend the money, if they are not approved there may be savings and we may

be able to transfer money from one area to another.

For example, you find $7,500 revised, spent in

Professional Services, although there was no budget. So we have the flexibility

that if the management committee agrees to one part but does not agree to

another, we can move the money around.

MR. FLIGHT: Specifically, Mr. Vice-Chair, .06 -

Purchased Services - the printing and developing of brochures relating to the

agreement activities and the development and production of education materials

and to promote the objectives of the agreement, so, specifically, that .06 is

for the printing and development of brochures relating to the agreement

activities and to promote the objectives of the agreement.

MR. WOODFORD: So, under Professional Services,

the $185,000, you said, was twice in the life of the five-year agreement?

MR. FLIGHT: Midway, and when it started.

MR. WOODFORD: To evaluate the agreement, how it

is administered, what good it has done?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, what has been accomplished by

the agreement?

MR. WOODFORD: The total agreement.

MR. FLIGHT: The agreement specifies how we can

spend the money - on silviculture or not on silviculture, on wood deal or not on

wood deal, and I guess, the feds feel they should monitor and determine whether

we have spent the money as per the agreement, and basically, that is the

purpose.

MR. WOODFORD: You announced that new mill down

in Roddickton where the company - I think it is Norwegian, is it, or Fin? -

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. WOODFORD: Is that a Norwegian company?

MR. FLIGHT: No, Austrian.

MR. WOODFORD: - is going to ship out the lumber

from Canada Bay; take over the Canada Bay lumber plant. Will they finish that

product there, will it be sawn, planed and kiln-dried or just sawed and planed?

MR. FLIGHT: In Roddickton, sawn, planed and

kiln-dried.

MR. WOODFORD: They will kiln-dry it right there

before they ship it?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: The total product?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So they will have to put up a -

MR. FLIGHT: A kiln dryer.

MR. WOODFORD: They will have to put up a

completely new building, a new kiln?

MR. FLIGHT: A new kiln, yes; that is part of

their plan. As a matter of fact, they can't ship wood from Eastern Canada into

Europe unless it is kiln-dried.

MR. WOODFORD: Unless it is kiln-dried, that is

what I was going to say.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) aware of that.

MR. WOODFORD: You mentioned sawlogs, that you

were going to get tougher with regard to a lot of sawlogs going into pulpwood.

That has been going on for years, but I have always found it is hard to control

because you have no way to police it. Unless you have some on Crown lots or

something like that, it is very hard to police. How do you propose to police

that now or are you talking about, primarily, places like Chouse Brook or White

River or places where they have an agreement between the companies and the

government?

MR. FLIGHT: Obviously, we are hoping for

co-operation, in the first instance, I can tell the hon. member, but we are

going to use our own enforcement staff. We have also talked to the paper

companies, because they are, obviously, the point of entry. I have asked them to

co-operate, and they will know whether or not the sawlogs - obviously the odd

sawlog is going to slip through, or the odd twenty logs maybe, but it has been

going on to the extent of people chucking in prime sawlog material for pulp. We

are going to ask the company to co-operate, and we visualize the possibility of

asking our inspectors to arrive at the mill yard some day and spend a day or

two. The saw-millers will know about it - they will not know when they are going

to be there but, I mean, we can only police it, as you know, with the number of

people we have, and they are very limited. But we have had already - and I don't

like to brag about prosecutions - but we have had situations where that has

happened, and would have been turned back and that kind of thing, and we are

going to escalate that. We are going to get the message out. I spoke to the NLPA

at the last annual meeting, where loggers and saw-millers from all over

Newfoundland were gathered. We have their support. We are going to renew our own

resources and look for the help of the companies in any way they can co-operate

to keep sawlogs from being turned into pulpwood.

MR. WOODFORD: You have had cases where wood has

been turned back from the mill yard?

MR. FLIGHT: No, not turned back from the mill

yard but intercepted on the way to the mill yard by our enforcement people.

MR. WOODFORD: How is it working out with regard

to Chouse Brook where it is 60/40, something like that? How is that working out?

MR. FLIGHT: It doesn't matter, I suppose, if it

is 60/40.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, it could be 70/30.

MR. FLIGHT: The average sawlog production is

around, I think, 30 per cent for a given stand.

DR. NAZIR: Even less, in some cases.

MR. FLIGHT: Even less than 30 per cent. We

issue these permits on the basis that they are sawlogs, but we demand, I guess,

100 per cent utilization, so the onus is on the sawmiller to separate his

sawlogs and ship his pulp to the paper mills. We don't expect him to ship

sawlogs to the paper mills.

MR. WOODFORD: Let's move on to 2.l.03,

Management Planning. I think it is probably the same as in the agreement, but

2.1.03.05 -is that also in the federal/provincial agreement?

MR. FLIGHT: What is that again?

MR. WOODFORD: 2.1.03.05.

MR. FLIGHT: Professional Services.

DR. NAZIR: Well, we have a computer model in

Corner Brook which we used when producing our geographic information system. We

are modifying that and improving it and there will be some student help plus

some consulting work so that model is being modified and upgraded.

MR. WOODFORD: It is in Corner Brook, you say?

DR. NAZIR: In Corner Brook.

MR. WOODFORD: In the office there?

DR. NAZIR: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So that would, I suppose,

indicate why the salary is up, as well?

MR. FLIGHT: That money will also include the

funding of a graduate student at UNB to deal with and to adapt the form and

timber supply model.

MR. WOODFORD: For forestry?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: How many students will be hired

there?

MR. FLIGHT: Students hired where?

MR. WOODFORD: I though Dr. Nazir said there

might be some students involved.

MR. FLIGHT: I suggested one graduate student.

MR. WOODFORD: Just one?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, one graduate student of UNB.

MR. WOODFORD: I will leave that for now, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody on this side here? Mr.

Murphy, Mr. Snow or Mr. Small?

Mr. Hewlett.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Chairman, I am not feeling

well this evening. I will have a few comments but if my colleague for Kilbride

wishes to savage all and sundry in due course he can fill in for me.

I read a couple of items related to the forestry

department that just recently came across my desk. They are sort of associated

with my district. A letter just came in the mail today addressed to the hon.

minister from the mayor of Triton, by a Mr. Roberts, basically saying, you know,

that this is a small, and I presume company, that operates on Crown limits, by

the looks of it, or whatever. I am not sure exactly where they operate but they

normally employ about fourteen loggers and the allocation of wood this year will

provide work for these people for eight weeks only, so they are wondering

whether or not an extra two weeks work can be found. I know this is very recent

correspondence. It is dated May 8, but I was wondering if I could have some

possible reaction? Stanley Roberts & Sons is the name of the company that

employs these loggers.

MR. FLIGHT: I say to the member that I haven't

seen that letter but I am aware of the situation in his district, which is one

of the worse ones, as he knows. In that kind of letter we take each case on its

merits, and one of the difficulties in the department that I have had to deal

with as minister for three years is, most of our sawmill operators need more

wood, and they can market more wood. The problem is that the resource can't

stand it. So you almost become known as 'Dr. No,' because you keep saying no to

increased permits. I would like to say yes, but there have been specific cases

like that which will be looked at on its own merits. If the annual allowable cut

in the area can stand an increase that would permit the extra two weeks, then

I'd want to do it.

MR. HEWLETT: The reasoning given in the letter

is simply, number one, they need the work, obviously, to qualify for UI. But

they say there is mature timber in the area that will essentially blow down

anyway. So if they don't cut it Mother Nature will. So why not let us? Even

though, I suppose, from a technical point of view, it would exceed the number of

cords allowable in a given region. I just bring that letter to your attention

and I'll be writing you on it.

There was one other item related to my district

which I sent your way very recently. It was rather unique in that it had to do

with a sawmill operation and it struck me, because I'd seen an

article in

Canadian Geographic about logging in British Columbia in rough terrain using

horses to haul logs and whatnot, sort of stepping back in time in one regard, in

terms of technology, but stepping ahead in time probably in terms of

environmental impact. This particular person wanted the right to cut sawlogs in

an area that has been designated domestic, which I presume means firewood and so

on and so forth. But upon the firewood stand there would be a certain number of

large logs that could be used for making lumber. This individual, as I

understood from the letter, wanted permission from your Department to log that

land selectively and pick out the sawlogs using a horse and so on and leave the

firewood per se for the firewood cutters, anybody who might have a permit to cut

firewood.

I'd certainly commend such an initiative to your

Department. If a given stand of what we might call scrub spruce or whatever is

interspersed with occasional large fir or spruce of lumber quality, and someone

can go in there without tearing up the countryside with a timber jack or some

sort of mechanical equipment, and selectively saw down sawlogs and haul them to

a distribution point using the old-fashioned horse technology, I would suggest

that possibly your Department might look seriously at accommodating such a

request. It seems to be environmentally benign and a good use of sawlogs which

otherwise might end up as firewood.

MR. FLIGHT: To my knowledge, I say to the

member, that request hasn't come to my attention, so -

MR. HEWLETT: It was turned down at the local

office. It was referred up to me and I've referred it on. It's only been in the

last couple of days so obviously the minister has not seen it. But I appreciate

what you say about these things being considered on their merits, because being

from a forestry area and being born with an axe in my hand, I know that you can

go through a given stand of wood, which the paper companies probably wouldn't

have much time for, but someone quite often can go in and cut sufficient sawlogs

for instance to build a house or to run a small sawmill operation employing two

or three people, and so on.

While the general area marked out on the map says

domestic firewood cutting I hope that particular application will be considered

on its merits, because it seems a shame that if there is good timber that can be

utilized selectively and harvested in a relatively benign manner

environmentally, that the application be given serious consideration. Because

you get more value obviously for the timber that's growing there.

MR. FLIGHT: I will look forward to receiving

the correspondence from the member on it. I have to say, what the member is

saying makes sense. I will guarantee the member that my officials will have to

convince me that it is not the right thing to do because as the Deputy Minister

just reminded me - not that I need reminding - we try to achieve the highest

value, the highest return, for the tree count. There may be reasons why it can't

be but I'd like to hear them.

MR. HEWLETT: The other thing I want to make a

comment on at this time, Mr. Chairman, has to do with fur farming. The political

party of which I am a part embarked some time ago on policy conferences around

the Province and we had one in Springdale. There was a presentation from the

local Fur Breeders Association and one of the things that they raised with our

party committee in developing party policy per se, was what you mentioned,

diversification of the fur product, particularly pine marten and lynx. They were

unable to obtain from the wildlife officials or whomever, even two pine martens,

a breeding pair, and the same with lynx, in order to do some experimentation. I

gather from what you said earlier there is an experimental program underway now

in the Lake Melville area doing just that.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, there is because we did not

have the same problem. As you know, the pine marten in Newfoundland is

identified as an endangered species, and I can tell you that I am aware of

efforts being made by my department working in conjunction with Environment to

get a permit to trap lynx, for argument's sake. It is not resolved yet, however

we are working on it.

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. HEWLETT: I said there is one out at the

Salmonier Nature Park that sleeps most of the day. We have put him to work with

a female and hopefully we may have some positive results.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, as long as the female did not

sleep all day too.

MR. HEWLETT: That's it for me right now, Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Minister, recently there has

been a fair amount of talk about agricultural land that is under I suppose, a

freeze, that needs to be -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I can understand the hon.

Member for Kilbride getting a little excited about this issue, he is politically

hung out on it so perhaps he will give me a chance. If I say something that does

not suit the member, fine, we can talk about something else. Anyway, Mr.

Minister, you and your staff, in understanding that most of this land of course

is contained in the new amalgamated area of St. John's, in the Goulds area

primarily, I just thought that having conversation with a large number of

constituents in that area who have called me, they cannot seem to get in touch

with their own member, but I respond to them quite often, is that they

understand that the department obviously is trying to protect what little

agricultural land we have on this side of the Province and rightfully so.

We have an awful lot of farmers, dairy farmers

primarily I understand, who have overextended themselves with dairy herds and

what have you, and who depend very much now on farms that are kind of dormant,

planted in hay and what have you. Now I can understand all of the reasons to

protect this land, however, having a little bit of knowledge of the Goulds area,

I have seen quite a few properties in that particular area that are now under an

agricultural freeze. I am very doubtful that you would get anything to grow

there. I do not know if you would get a dandelion to grow on some of it and I

think the problem is that perhaps we have reached the time to accommodate these

people. History has not done much for them and for a lot of reasons that I would

not go into now, I would suggest to you sir, I would ask you, and then maybe

suggest that a couple of your staff might want to have a look at that particular

area and rationalize some of the tremendous amount of pressure that is put on

some of these younger folks in there who want to try and build a home for

themselves in a

section of that particular parcel of land or piece of land.

MR. FLIGHT: I am delighted to get the

opportunity to comment and my hon. friend will understand if I come to the

defence of the hon. Member for Kilbride in this particular case.

MR. MURPHY: Somebody has to.

MR. FLIGHT: It is this government's position

that we are going to protect the land freeze or the zone he refers to. I saw him

stand one day in front of what I would have guessed to be mostly his

constituents. They were all there to put pressure on government to have the land

freeze lifted, the zone changed, or whatever. Actually I think the motivation

from some of the main spokesmen was to do away with the zone, but that is not

going to happen. I must say he stood there and told them so. However, you are

right though and I am sure the Member for Kilbride will agree that for roughly

twenty years the freeze has been there. There have been a lot of changes to the

zone. The zone was created in 1973 and there have been at least two or three

reviews. In each review a lot of land came out and you probably would not

recognize the original zone now. As a result of various things happening,

changes to the zone, special permission by the minister or by government on a

particular piece of land, there are now areas in the Goulds and in Kilbride, and

there is no question about it, on Brookfield Road and in the Northeast, where it

is pretty hard, certainly for a layman, to defend keeping it in the zone in the

better interest of agriculture.

There is a lot of pressure coming on and I have

some real concerns for some of the arguments being made by the people, as you

just made them yourself. I say to the committee now that one resolution I am

going to recommend to government is that we do a complete review of the zone

with a view to identifying, particularly identifying, the problems that you

raised. I want it to be clear for the record that to review the zone is purely

to determine the inequities that might exist or where there is a piece of land

frozen that will serve no purpose for agriculture and you might as well let

somebody build on it. It is not in any way to indicate that this government is

lessening its intention to protect the agricultural land in St. John's and the

Northeast.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Minister, I agree with you and

I think we have to be very careful of what we do with land suitable for

agricultural purposes. I certainly respect your response and I am glad to hear

that you are taking or initiating a review of the particular zone to probably

accommodate a fair amount of residential properties that may very well fit in

with the agricultural plan of the area.

I want to thank the minister for his frank answer.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Just for my general information

and as one who is not that familiar with the forest industry, what is the state

of the wood supply in the Province? I am wondering about Labrador and also what

the potential Labrador harvest is and what is the Province losing in the sense

of not seeing a reasonable harvest? What kind of tree life are we looking at in

that tremendous resource in Labrador if in fact something does not happen? What

kind of timeframe are we looking at and what are some of the things your

department is doing in that way?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, on the Island

part if we do

not do things right starting now, or I guess starting five years ago or maybe

starting when the previous government implemented their various silviculture

programs which would have been in the late 70s I guess, now we are asking, or we

are demanding and insisting on 100 per cent utilization of the resource and

certainly the wood on Crown land. We are talking to the company about the

possibility of that being practised on company land. The problem on company

land, of course, is finding a mechanism whereby saw logs or timber harvested on

company lands are made available to the saw-millers. It is finding the

mechanism. Obviously the companies would have to be remunerated for their fibre

and possibly by way of dollars as far as costs are concerned.

On Crown lands we are surely going to insist on 100

per cent utilization. If we get 100 per cent utilization, if we harvest what

hitherto has been considered uneconomical wood - in the sense that it has been

farther removed from the main access roads or the rivers that the companies use

to drive the wood - if we stop burning prime pulpwood for firewood, if we

continue with the level of silviculture that we are doing now, particularly in

thinning, then we won't run into a timber shortage in Newfoundland on the island

that would threaten the operation of either one of our mills, or reduce the

present level of sawmilling activity.

However, if we don't do that, if we don't have very

stringent silviculture, 100 per cent utilization, stop burning prime pulpwood

for firewood, then everyone knows, particularly on Abitibi limits, there could

be a problem. But if we do the things that we intend to do and if the following

governments continue to do what we are doing now then we won't run into that

problem.

Now normally I end that off by saying: and if we

do, the ace in the hole is Labrador. Because as you know, people up till now

have been talking about Labrador as though there was an unlimited wood supply in

Labrador. There is not an unlimited wood supply, but there is a major wood

supply, a wood supply that could support a paper mill, I suppose, or certainly a

pulp mill, and major sawmilling operations. The problem is that previous

governments over the years have tried to attract that kind of an operation to

Labrador and it hasn't been successful, because of the economics involved. We

would like to see the three paper mills on the island, the two companies, have

first right of refusal for pulpwood, or for any by-product.

One of the problems with Labrador, as the member

will know, and it was not a problem ten years ago, is the native land claim

situation and the environmental situation. Within the past two years it has

changed the way you approach Labrador totally. The natives are demanding a say

in the way the forest is harvested. They're manning major environmental studies

that were not required. They're not required on the island, as a matter of fact.

The other problem with Labrador, as the member

knows, is that the wood supply in Labrador is mature and over-mature. It's in

excess of 100 years old. So the old clich, 'use it or lose it', means we're

starting to get to that point in Labrador. So everybody in this Department,

certainly everybody in government, is looking for, and receptive to and trying

to identify ways of developing the forests of Labrador.

But we have a new factor now. We did not have it

when I became the minister to the extent we have it, and that's with regard to

native land claims. The native land claims, certainly that's major in the Lake

Melville area, where the largest wood supply is, they've extended their interest

to coastal Labrador. If the land claim situation is not that relevant then there

is indication that they are prepared to use the Environmental Assessment Act to

make sure they accomplish what....

MR. DUMARESQUE: One more little piece of

information. I've been saying for some time that the Labrador wood has a greater

yield. Is that true?

MR. FLIGHT: Better fibre, by far. The best

fibre by far.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is it like 40 per cent greater

yield or something like that?

DR. NAZIR: It's not that much but it is denser.

MR. FLIGHT: It's denser. It's the best known in

the world for pulp fibre.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's the kind of thing I was

looking for, so I can go out and do my selling job.

MR. FLIGHT: I'm talking about fibre for

pulpwood.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Maybe one more short question

on Labrador. I know that the Labrador agreement had some funding there for, I

think it was a fire depot and a forestry unit in central Labrador. What's the

latest on those things?

MR. FLIGHT: The forest resource centre has been

announced of course, as the member would know, for Northwest River. Proposals

have been called and the funding is there. It's full speed ahead. I don't know

exactly what the status this day is but -

MR. DUMARESQUE: There's a fire depot being

looked at for Port Hope Simpson, or something.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, okay, I'm talking about the

resource centre for Goose Bay.

DR. NAZIR: That is still being considered.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: The member wants it to be

considered very quickly and done.

MR. DUMARESQUE: We'll see how many fish come

ashore now, but more than likely we'll need whatever we can get. Thank you very

much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you ask a question and then

he will be finished and come back to you? Would that be alright, Alec?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, go ahead.

MR. SMALL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask to be

excused because I have something else to attend to. Larry Short will be filling

in for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. SMALL: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Alex.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Minister, to follow along the

lines of a question Mr. Dumaresque asked concerning the inventory of wood in

Labrador. At present my understanding is that there is wood being harvested in

central Labrador that was supposedly to be sold in Europe, I understand. It was

sold. Some of it was brought down to the island, to Newfoundland, and consumed

here by one of the mills. I wonder if you can tell us what the economic analysis

done on that was, how it fared?

MR. FLIGHT: Last year we conducted an

experiment. We brought a boat load of wood from the Goose Bay area, as you know,

to Stephenville. The whole idea was to try to determine whether it was

economically feasible to transport wood from Labrador to Stephenville, in

particular.

It was still expensive wood, I can tell the member.

As a matter of fact I'm having a report prepared. The hon. Member for Kilbride

asked to have a report on that particular project and it is being prepared now.

It was still expensive compared to the highest prices that the company pays for

wood landed at the mill in Newfoundland. I guess it depends on what happens in

the market, if the price of paper was to suddenly be very high for eight or ten

years and they could afford to pay more for their wood. It was purely an

experimental project and there have been some concerns raised that we were going

to do it again or bring two more boat loads. There's no basis for that. At this

point in time we're not considering bringing any more wood from Labrador under

that particular program.

MR. A. SNOW: You mentioned that there was a

subsidy involved in this program?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, a subsidy program.

MR. A. SNOW: You say it was expensive. Does

that include the subsidy?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: How much more expensive?

MR. FLIGHT: I'm not sure exactly how much more.

I think the wood cost $135 per cord -

DR. NAZIR: Total.

MR. FLIGHT: Total, $135 per cord landed in

Stephenville. We paid that and this was agreed to in the first place, that we

pay. Abitibi bought the wood from the supplier, Eastern Harvesters in Goose Bay,

and we agreed. Because you know, I suppose, you assume or you take for granted,

that if Abitibi-Price was going to have an ongoing wood supply they'd probably

put in designated docking facilities, handling facilities, to handle the wood

and it would keep their costs down. Because that wasn't there we agreed to

subsidize the transportation. I think it cost us up to fifteen dollars a cord to

pay the transportation costs. That, included with the price the company paid,

made the total cost $135 per cord, which is a fair amount higher than they pay

for their wood landed at the mill. The most expensive wood on the island landed

at the mill.

MR. A. SNOW: How many cords of wood were

shipped out?

MR. FLIGHT: About 5,000. One boat load.

MR. A. SNOW: What's that, $75,000 subsidy, is

it?

MR. FLIGHT: It cost fifteen dollars a cord and

I think it was around $50,000, the total cost.

MR. A. SNOW: Fifty thousand dollars. Your

Department has done quite a bit of work attempting to attract somebody to

establish a facility there?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, not only my Department and

not only this government, but as the hon. member would know, the previous

administration spent a lot of time and effort in delegations all over the world,

I suppose, to try to attract people, and they were thinking in terms of pulp

mills. There were different groups. I remember there was a Houston group, I

think. I don't have the details now, but there was certainly a Houston group,

and there was another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scandinavian.

MR. FLIGHT: There was a Scandinavian company or

group which expressed interest.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They all love fishing, too.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: Were these people out looking for

timber or fish?

MR. FLIGHT: No, they were looking to establish

a pulp mill. In the end it fell through, as it has in our case, but we are

pursuing it and there is still interest being expressed.

The group in Roddickton, which is purely a saw

mill, their original interest was Cartwright and Goose Bay and hopefully we will

see the day when they will be there but we have to resolve these native land

claims issues first before you commit a company to spend $25 million. This group

had intended to invest about $25 million in Cartwright with an understanding

that they would invest another $25 million or more in Goose Bay when the time

came, when Goose Bay was ready, but for the time being that is on hold until we

can resolve our land claim situation.

MR. A. SNOW: You mentioned about an inventory

of the product or the wood being done in Labrador, how much money is being spent

this year on doing this inventory and how much has been done in previous years?

DR. NAZIR: We spent almost $3 million.

MR. FLIGHT: To date?

DR. NAZIR: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: To date, there has been about $3

million spent on determining an inventory in Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: On the inventory of where the wood

is, in Labrador?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: How about over towards Western

Labrador and in that area?

MR. FLIGHT: No, no. I would say that up until

now the most dollar resource I suppose was spent in the Lake Melville area

because that is where the major wood supply is, although I know there is wood in

Western Labrador as well, but any thought of establishing an industry up to this

point in time, has been based on the wood supply available in the Lake Melville

area in Southern Labrador, and that is obviously for shipping reasons and

everything else you know.

MR. A. SNOW: Surely to goodness, the minister

is aware that it is easier to ship from Western Labrador than it is from

Southern Labrador?

MR. FLIGHT: It is getting easier.

MR. A. SNOW: It is easier, it is not getting,

it is!

MR. FLIGHT: I do not mind asking the hon.

member a question. We have a wood supply in Southern Labrador that is capable of

producing 400,000 metres per year forever, on an annual allowable cut, is there

that kind of a wood supply in Western Labrador?

MR. A. SNOW: That is one of the reasons why I

asked the question whether or not the inventory was there; maybe it is, maybe it

is not but I mean, one would think that you would be doing an inventory to see

if it is there; there are a couple of local saw-millers but I am sure they are

not into that type of capacity.

MR. FLIGHT: The use of the available resources

you know, to find the money and spend the money to identify the inventory, I

would go out on a limb and suggest that as soon as we complete the inventory -

it is not completed in the Labrador and Cartwright area - we will undoubtedly

look at continuing those efforts in Western Labrador.

The ADM says we do have a satellite imaging project

that gives us some idea of the volume of wood in Western Labrador but it is not

that exact where we could come within determining an annual allowable cut, but I

know where the member is coming from; he is suggesting I guess, that we should

start looking at the wood resource in Western Labrador and determine whether or

not it can be developed. I understand there is a very successful sawmill

operating there -

MR. A. SNOW: Two actually, I think. The third

is in the process of being established. In the salary details, in the minister's

office, I noticed there is $10,000 -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Salary details, page 101?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Page what?

MR. A. SNOW: 101, salary details.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay, the minister's office - go

ahead, Alec.

MR. A. SNOW: Overtime in the minister's office,

overtime and other earnings, the $10,000. Surely goodness, you don't get paid

overtime do you?

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, all the time. Of course not. Is

there a spare copy of the salary details?

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is a spare copy.

MR. FLIGHT: Overtime - $8,500?

MR. A. SNOW: No, it is $10,000.

MR. R. AYLWARD: In this one it is, anyway.

MR. A. SNOW: I hope this is the right year - is

it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Wrong year - sorry.

MR. FLIGHT: Wrong department.

MR. A. SNOW: I had the wrong year.

MR. FLIGHT: Come on, Alec!

MR. R. AYLWARD: You had $10,000 last year. How

come you reduced it?

MR. FLIGHT: How come I reduced it? I will have

to go to my deputy or somebody on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not for the minister, it

is for support staff.

MR. FLIGHT: The hon. member would know that is

not for the minister. The minister doesn't get overtime. That is for the

minister's staff, the secretaries, etc. If overtime is being budgeted under the

Minister's Office, then obviously, it is for secretarial staff, surely not for

the minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Would it have anything to do

with a car allowance?

MR. FLIGHT: It is the car allowance. Thank you

for providing that information. I know the minister doesn't get overtime.

MR. A. SNOW: It is $10,000.

MR. FLIGHT: No, it is $8,500. Anyway, the

answer to the question is that it is the car allowance.

MR. A. SNOW: So there is an increase in it this

year, is there?

MR. FLIGHT: There is no increase in the car

allowance. I am sure the hon. member has asked the same question in other

committees. As I understand it, the car allowance is $8,000, so the $500 must be

for other considerations like overtime for staff - secretaries or whatever.

Unless members want to pursue that issue there is no question that $8,000 of the

$8,500 is for car allowance and the $500, my staff tells me, is for overtime for

the minister's secretaries. There are two secretaries, and an executive

assistant who doesn't get overtime either, so it must be for my two secretaries.

That is $500 for the year in overtime and other earnings.

Was the member going to move that the minister's

car allowance be increased?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will do that when it comes to

me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else? Bob, do

you want to ask a question?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much. I am not a member of your Committee, but I appreciate being here tonight.

I am not here to obstruct the minister or cause him any headaches. I am just

looking for some legitimate answers, mostly because it is my responsibility as

critic in the House of Assembly to scrutinize the department.

Mr. Chairman, I heard on an international newscast,

probably a month ago, a forestry report coming from the Scandinavian countries,

mostly Norway and Sweden, about 'sustainable use', I guess these being some of

the buzz words that are used in forestry now.

MR. FLIGHT: 'Sustainable development' is

probably the term.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They are into their second and

third growth of trees now and one of the main problems they are finding,

especially in third growth, is that the land itself cannot support the volume of

wood that it should support. They find, and you would find the same in

agricultural activity, I guess, if you were farming the land, unless you put

something back, you can't continue to get the yields. They find it a big

problem. I do not know if this was an environmental report or a forestry report,

probably an environmental one.

They were raising the concern that even though they

planned for sustainable yields - we always said that the forestry is a renewable

resource - they figured that unless they do something more to build up the land

in between cuttings, they are going to have a big problem. I guess we are only

sixty or eighty years behind them and have the same problem. Does the minister

have his department doing any studies on these, or do you have any information

on this type of concern?

MR. FLIGHT: No, I haven't. The department - we

do have a research division, as you know, and they may, on their own, be looking

at that. What he says makes sense. I understand what he is saying. I suppose, in

areas that developed, regenerated naturally, we must be into some areas of

Newfoundland where they are into the second cut, and, of course, the trees in

Newfoundland on sites that regenerate naturally, we thin. I'm not aware that the

companies or anyone else have complained that the second generation didn't come

back - we're talking natural regeneration now, or at least, I am for the time

being - didn't come back as healthy or as full as the original.

We haven't had a chance, of course. We have only

been planting for fifteen years. We haven't had a chance to determine, when this

crop of seedlings we're planting now become mature trees and are cut, whether

the soil will sustain another growth. We know when agriculture doesn't work, you

have to rotate your crop and you have to put something back into the soil,

fertilizer, whatever. Maybe that will be true with trees.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does your staff know if any of

the federal research people are doing studies in this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: The ADM tells me there's one study

under way. The loss of nutrients as a result of the harvesting could be a valid

concern.

MR. R. AYLWARD: When I was minister, I watched

some of the tree harvesters with Abitibi. I noticed that they were working

fairly well, but they would cut the tree, skin it, and then haul out the full

tree. I understand that some of the tree harvesters Kruger are using are hauling

out the whole works. At least the skinned tree left something there. That's the

point I'm trying to make. The tree harvesters Kruger are using now will take the

whole works out and skin it out by the side of the road somewhere.

MR. FLIGHT: By the side of the road. So nothing

stays in the forest to reseed it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. That is creating a

long-term problem. The reason I keep talking about long-term is we have a major

problem in the fisheries now, and it is because of poor - no planning, actually.

We have to consider things to try to avoid that in our forestry, if possible.

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell the hon. member that

although the ADM indicated that the feds were doing some research on the first

problem he raised - the possibility of the soil losing its nutrients or whatever

and not sustaining a second, third or fourth growth - the other problem he

raises is a concern of ours. As to the harvesting machines that Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper are using, and the fact that they are, indeed, taking everything

out, the limbs and any nutrients that are included going out to one spot, we are

concerned about it. We are talking to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper about it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What do they do with it? Do

they just stockpile it there?

DR. NAZIR: They are looking at a number of

options. One is to spread it back with a bulldozer or something. Another is to

let it rot there or burn it so that the site is available for planting. But they

are not going to convert all their system to it, only a limited part, the part,

like Abitibi's whereby you leave the slash in the woods and bring out only the

wood. It is comparable to your conventional logging. That is not that harmful,

because after sixty or seventy years of rotation the site builds up.

If you remove everything then the site may

deteriorate. So we have put monitoring studies on it and we'll be monitoring the

nutrients. As the minister says, it is a concern. So, if it starts deteriorating

the sites, then we will have to get on with the companies, modify their approach

and try to bring them back to a short wood system, which means leaving the slash

in the woods instead of bringing it outside.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What is the economics or the

rationale behind taking the slash out? You would think it would be cheaper or

more practical to skin it and take out only what you need to use. What is the

reasoning behind taking everything?

DR. NAZIR: The economics of the operation,

because on the roadside you can have a mechanized slasher through which those

trees can go quickly, and the same machine can slash and de-limb and pile. As

compared to the slasher in the woods, they are trying to take an individual

tree, clean it up and slash, and move to the next one. As compared to that,

roadside slasher is a fixed thing. You push the trees and it's a very high-speed

thing and cheaper.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So they just cut it and another

machine will grab hold of the whole works and take it out, and the other one

continues cutting.

MR. FLIGHT: The decision by the company is

purely economical; it is the least cost to deliver wood to the roadside, or they

think it is.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, but it doesn't make sense

to me to be hauling out all the garbage with it, that it costs less, you know,

that is the only reason. I can't imagine how it would be more economical to haul

garbage with your product. They know better than I do, I suppose.

MR. FLIGHT: They say it reduces their labour

costs, and that is the name of the game. It doesn't make me happy that you lose

loggers in the process, but their argument and their rationale is that those

machines reduce their labour costs, and that is the technology they want to use.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, the one I saw in Norway

certainly would reduce labour costs and leave the slash in the woods because it

cut it, skinned it, put it on a little trolley behind it and took it out of the

woods. One person did it all and when he had his full load he took it out

somewhere.

MR. FLIGHT: But they are using those here on

the Island, as well.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I know, that is the one

that sounds to me to be the most economical. I don't know why Kruger would try

them unless they are cheaper to buy them, maybe. The minister had a meeting,

probably within the last couple of months, I can't remember now, but I did talk

to the group - I don't know if they were domestic sawmill operators or domestic

woodcutters or who they were, I know one of them used to be a farmer. I don't

know what he was doing with these guys, but anyway, the idea or the purpose of

the meeting - I think there was one group from Lethbridge and one from

Roddickton, and the concern was clear-cutting closer to or around local

communities, and the need for some type of policy to try to have a sustainable

use of the woods that are close to communities. Has the minister given that any

consideration or do you have any policy direction on that right now?

MR. FLIGHT: The meeting, I think, to which the

member refers was held in my office with a delegation from the Lethbridge -

Bonavista area and their purpose was to ask me, as minister, to stop

clear-cutting within eight kilometres of their communities. They had particular

concern that we, ourselves, the Department of Forestry had actually gone down

there last year, I guess, and done a clear-cut because, as far as I was

concerned, it was a site reclamation, but they complained that we had actually

cut good, virgin trees. Now, that is a debatable point, but that is beside the

point.

I made one commitment to them that if they did not

want the Department of Forestry in there clear-cutting or doing that kind of

work, then we wouldn't do it anymore, we would do it somewhere else in

Newfoundland, but it is purely site reclamation as far as we are concerned.

They wanted a commitment that there would be no

more clear-cutting within eight kilometres of their community, and I say to the

member, if I did that for the Bonavista Peninsula, if it was the right thing to

do, then chances are, other areas in Newfoundland would want the same thing. I

don't know why they wouldn't want it. And if I were to commit government policy

that there would be no clear-cutting within eight kilometres of communities, it

would pretty well effectively shut down the forest industry in Newfoundland. So

I told them that. Although the newspapers said the next day, that I had

committed myself to no clear-cutting, I hadn't, I just simply had committed

myself to no government-funded clear-cutting.

They argued for - and by the way, I might say that

some of the people there were sawmill loggers, and there were people who were

simply concerned about the forests.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, the forests. They weren't

sawloggers, they were environmentalists, and I don't say that in a derogatory

way, but environmentalists in that sense. As a matter of fact, I had a map of

the Bonavista Peninsula produced and we shaded in all the communities,

eight-kilometer buffers or five miles around each community, and extended in

major, major land mass and then you have to assume that if people in Bonavista

North want that, then people in Bonavista South are going to demand it. The

makeup of the communities are about the same. So, if we did the same thing, it

would effectively stop a lot of the logging on the Bonavista Peninsula. They

were insisting on selective cutting, as you know.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Wasn't their main emphasis on

selective cutting, that their communities have existed in a forest environment

for hundreds of years because they selectively cut? They cut the good trees and

left the rest so they would be good some day and ready for cutting.

MR. FLIGHT: The problem is though, Bob, is that

there is probably, on the Bonavista Peninsula, most of the junk forest in

Newfoundland. Because, on the peninsula, there were times when they went in and

cut the sawlogs and the pulp was left on the ground to rot because they couldn't

get it to Abitibi-Price, or the paper companies weren't buying it, and the

department approved their doing it. So there are some major problems with the

forestry resource on the Bonavista Peninsula.

Select cutting: When we talk about clear-cut, most

people think of British Columbia, Ontario, and what we see on TV. The size of

our clear-cuts is nothing close to what is on the Bonavista Peninsula. I

suggested to them, well, let's assume I do this, tell me, what will you have me

say to your sawloggers where you employ eight or ten people in practically every

community on the Bonavista Peninsula? It is a situation of trying to come to a

happy medium.

As a matter of fact, only recently I met one of the

people who had been at that meeting, and he wondered what progress we were

making. I discussed it with him the way we are discussing it here now. And he

knows there are problems. They know there are problems but they are hoping we

will find that happy medium to avoid clear-cuts to the extent we can and to

guarantee we manage the forests so that there will always be a cut, but it is a

conflict, there is no question about that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The sawmilling operations on

the Bonavista Peninsula have more problems than that.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, supply problems.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. I think there was

questioning in the House of Assembly a little while ago, by the Leader of the

Opposition, or somebody, probably the New Democratic fellow, about some kind of

new deals made with the paper companies on their limits to try to get the

sawlogs. There were some deals made for exchanges but I think we were running

out of exchange areas. Are there any other possibilities of getting those

sawlogs before they are made into pulp?

MR. FLIGHT: On the exchange issue, as the

Member for Humber knows, since I have been minister we have completed two

exchanges, one in the Chouse Brook area which makes a major forest resource

available to the sawmillers, particularly in his district. Now, we have

completed another exchange within the Cormack area.

MR. R. AYLWARD: White's River Road.

MR. FLIGHT: That exchange is completed. We are

talking all the time to the companies to do that. I have to say that Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper has been more receptive, from my perspective, than

Abitibi-Price has been.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ron is gone now - you might get

some work done.

MR. FLIGHT: That's right. Anyway, we are

pursuing the exchange and we are also pursuing - but I do not want to give the

wrong impression that we have any agreement or any understanding, it is a new

concept and it is going to take a while to get the company to agree or to work

out a way - we are talking about the possibility of having some, if not all, of

the sawlogs that are produced on company limits, maybe even by company

employees, diverted to the sawmilling industry. Lumber produced in this

Province, as the member knows, has a lot more economic value than pulp, and one

knows that you don't need sawlogs to produce pulp. But the byproduct, the rest

of the tree, will produce the pulp. If we can be successful starting now, in the

next year or two, to convince the companies and to work out an arrangement where

we can actually take sawlogs off the company limits, then it will be a great

boost to the sawmill industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is 8:30 p.m. and usually we

have a ten-minute break, so we will take ten minutes and you can take some time

to ask your questions later.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have only a couple more and I

will finish then.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we finished, the Member for

Kilbride, Mr. Aylward, was in the processing of questioning, so we will ask him

to continue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, earlier tonight, the

Member for St. John's South mentioned the agricultural development zone in the

Northeast Avalon area and I, too, would like to ask some questions concerning

that. It is certainly nothing new that you are going to hear tonight, but does

the minister realize - I don't know if you have a good feeling for what is going

on in there, and your ADM probably does have a fair feeling, but with the City

of St. John's involved, and maybe this landowner's committee, although that is

not an overly threatening group - does the minister realize that this is

probably the beginning of the end of the agricultural development zone in the

Northeast Avalon?

MR. FLIGHT: I realize it has the potential for

being the beginning of the end and the member may be a self-fulfilling prophecy,

but I am not prepared to permit it to be the beginning of the end. I am

prepared, as minister, and this government is prepared to consider the

legitimate concerns of the people, if there is a person who has a legitimate

concern about a piece of land that is frozen and that will never be farmed

because of other buildings around, or whatever.

The member may be right but I'm not prepared to take

that position. I'm prepared to do a review of the zone and address the

inequities and be fair but, in the final analysis, the agricultural arable land

in the Northeast and in St. John's, the Goulds, Kilbride, Brookfield Road, will

be protected. There is no question that the zone is under seige right now, led,

in particular, by - I'm not really aware of what the council's position is; I

know individual councillors - but the attack now is coming from that particular

committee, as the member knows.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That committee is only one of five

that I've dealt with since I've been a member for the area. It is not the

committee that concerns me.

Two things, one that happened last year and one that

is to take place next year, will dictate what is going to happen to that

agricultural zone in the future. The first mistake we made was putting that area

in the City of St. John's. That was a drastic mistake, whether the government

will admit it or not. It definitely was a drastic mistake to put all of that

area in the City of St. John's. It should have been, as was recommended by the

committee doing the study, kept out of the City, out of any municipal boundary,

and run by a development board or whatever was recommended. That has the

greatest effect.

The next greatest effect is a project that has to be

done. I don't know how - we are not going to be able to do it. But the Goulds

bypass road will be the next that's going to destroy - well, it will be the next

nail in the coffin of that agricultural development zone. It is going to split

it in half. Once you split something like that in half then you have a boundary

moved again. When the zone started, Brookfield Road was supposed to be the limit

of development in the Newtown area, whatever you call that end of Mount Pearl.

Then, when the arterial road was built, that became the boundary. Now, we'll

have a bypass road that will become a boundary and, over the next five or six

years, all of that land will be gone.

The most frightening part of it all, if any of the

studies done by the department and AgCanada are true, which I can only assume

they are, is that we have approximately 2 per cent of the land mass in this

Province on which we can reasonably grow food. On 98 per cent of the land mass

we can do anything else we want as long as it is properly zoned. That is the big

problem. I don't know if the minister is courageous enough to recommend to his

Cabinet that that zone be taken out of the City of St. John's, because that's

the first step. If that's not done it is just as well to save yourself a lot of

headaches and walk away from it, and move all of those farmers out to Deer Lake

or Cormack or wherever there is a land base to support that type of industry. I

guess Lethbridge would be the closest land base.

That would be my prediction right now. I'd fight it

'til the cows come home, as they say. But I think it's not being realistic. I

thought up until amalgamation that it would be very realistic to protect that

land. But I'm pretty sure now, because we have a group of people managing that

now who don't understand at all what the agricultural development area is, and

that's the Council in the City of St. John's. John Dinn is the front man on it,

but John Dinn is only doing what he always believed in. I don't criticize John

Dinn for what he's doing. He always had that point of view and I'll have to

admire him for sticking up for his point of view. But the rest of the City

Council down there have no idea of the importance or the need for that

agricultural zone in this area.

My recommendation to the minister and to his

department would be to take a Cabinet paper back to Cabinet and remove that

immediately from the City of St. John's. That is the way to start it off. Then

we have to go to work on the Goulds bypass road and get a proper environmental

impact study and make sure that is built - and it can be built - so that it will

have the least possible impact on that zone.

MR. FLIGHT: To the member, Mr. Chairman, I don't

necessarily accept the fact that it was a mistake to amalgamate - because that's

what we did - amalgamate the Goulds with St. John's. Our position as Agriculture

was that legislation was in place to protect the zone and the legislation

existing superseded anything that would be done as far as the City was

concerned, and that the Goulds would amalgamate with St. John's. The zone was

still in place, established and defined by legislation, and that would not

change. Obviously, pressures would come on and they are coming on, but the

legislation is still there.

With respect to taking a paper back to Cabinet to take

the zone out, I suppose the right way to word that would be to take a paper back

to Cabinet to take the Goulds back out of St. John's. I mean, if you took the

zone out, you'd have little pieces intertwined with the Goulds. There is land on

some of the major accesses in the Goulds that is in the zone, so how can you

take the zone out without taking the Goulds out?

MR. R. AYLWARD: You could quite easily take it

out. You might have to make some adjustments to it, which you're planning on

doing anyway.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay, some adjustments.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You could go from the back line

and immediately take out all that was in the Metroboard area. That would be the

way to do it.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay, I accept, I suppose, if you said

make some adjustments and draw straight lines and then say: What's left here now

is the zone and we take it out. I still think it would be a pretty cumbersome

undertaking.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That was the recommendation of

your government's committee. That's not only my recommendation. That was the

sensible thing to do. If you want to protect -

MR. FLIGHT: My government's committee?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Which committee?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Deputy Minister of Municipal

Affairs happened to be chairperson of it, or the ADM.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) amalgamation

committee.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, I see what you're saying.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Amalgamation committee, yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay. Now, as far as the Goulds bypass

is concerned, I am aware of the concept of the Goulds bypass. I've had

discussions with other ministers. In the first instance, the member was quite

right, that the Goulds bypass, as proposed, will have to undergo a full

environmental assessment which may or may not see the Goulds bypass as it is

envisioned now being built. I'm told there are alternate routes. Because, as the

member knows, if the Goulds bypass is built where it is proposed, it cuts right

through the prime agricultural land in the zone. So those will be considerations

for the environmental assessment study.

I am told there are alternates. It may be a little

more expensive, it may be a little longer or shorter or whatever, but there are

alternate routes that will serve the same purpose inasfar as moving traffic is

concerned. So all these things will be considered. But the member is right. If

the Goulds bypass, as it has been proposed, is built, and it has major

implications for the agriculture zone, I will see, and the department will see,

that those concerns are addressed by agencies of the government before that

point in time.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It would probably destroy all the

farming on Brookfield Road.

MR. FLIGHT: On Brookfield Road (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would imagine that's a forgone

conclusion. A lot of other area will be taken out, too, hundreds and hundreds of

acres, probably almost as much as we have brought back in the land consolidation

program.

The reason I raise the concern about the City, and the

minister said he is not sure how the City feels -

MR. FLIGHT: Not in the sense that we haven't had

an official position. I've talked to the Mayor, I don't mind telling the member,

I've talked to different councillors. It is obvious, if you watch TV, there were

certain councillors, as Mr. Dinn, for example - but we haven't had, or at least,

I'm not aware that we have had a stated position. I would hope that the City's

official position will be the maintenance of the agricultural zone.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The official position was

indirectly stated and indirectly ruled upon last Friday, when a farmer who was

operating in Kilbride in the City of St. John's since 1985 - he was operating

before 1985. He was harassed and harassed and harassed by the City of St.

John's, who actually, at one time, said they were going to put curb and gutter

up in his fields, in his meadows, so the water wouldn't run out on the street,

which will tell you what the City of St. John's knows about farming. He was

harassed until he could not operate in that area anymore. I spent three years

with your department trying to find him a spot to move within the zone. We did

get him moved; we did get him a spot in the zone. He has been a year-and-a-half

now with a permit from the Metroboard to move into that zone, and on Friday, he

got a stop work order from the City of St. John's. So, if that's not what the

City's intentions are, I don't know what they are. If you can't operate a farm

in the agricultural zone, I certainly cannot operate a farm in the north-east

Avalon.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I have to say to the hon. member

though, that that harassment took place long before amalgamation, certainly the

most recent amalgamation, so if they were harassing then, it did not come as a

result of the amalgamation he referred to.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It came from the last amalgamation

so we should have learned something from it, but the trouble was the last

amalgamation did not take in any of the zone, that is the difference.

MR. FLIGHT: But the hon. member knows that the

Town Council of the Goulds itself, long before amalgamation, was not the

friendliest in the world towards maintaining the zone as such. They wanted to

have it both ways. They wanted to have the zone maintained but they wanted the

ability to service land that they felt I should take out of the zone and

service.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They wanted a review of it. That's

what you're going to do now for the city council or for that land developers

committee. That's all the Goulds committed were asking for. Pretty well.

MR. FLIGHT: They talked about specific sites as

well to me.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh yes, I realize, and that's what

you're going to do now. You're going to review it and look at specific sites.

MR. FLIGHT: It was driven by their desire - and I

understand this from a municipality point of view - to generate revenue to run a

town. I suppose that St. John's' argument will be that if we are going to

provide the services and all the rest and the infrastructure in the Goulds, then

we have a right to do whatever has to be done to have the Goulds part of the

City generate municipal revenue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Bylaws of the City of St. John's

do not permit farms within their boundary. That's what the bylaws say. You can't

even have a rooster. I don't know if you remember some time ago there was a

rooster as a youngster's pet up on St. Clare Avenue that had to be taken out of

the City because of the bylaws.

That is why I'm suggesting to the minister that for

the protection of the zone, if it's important to protect -

MR. FLIGHT: No, it's worth considering.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - we should remove it and put it

under a separate administration. I don't know what you'd call it.

MR. FLIGHT: Was there any consideration given to

that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Murphy?

MR. MURPHY: I know where the hon. member is coming

from. Because he himself, as well as the Vice-chair, are two politicians now who

work the soil.

MR. FLIGHT: I understand that, I appreciate that.

MR. MURPHY: Nobody has a better appreciation than

somebody who did that.

MR. FLIGHT: I understand that.

MR. MURPHY: But I say to the hon. member we talk

about food. It beckons the question: food for whom? I don't know how much of the

Goulds is now planted, or what percentage of the Goulds is planted in root crop

and/or surface crops, such as cabbage, brussels sprouts and what have you. I

know it has intensified a bit.

MR. R. AYLWARD: 7 per cent (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I'm only asking a question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That's the answer to your

question.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I realize -

MR. R. AYLWARD: We produce 7 per cent so we'll

have a land base that you should not destroy.

MR. MURPHY: I didn't interrupt the hon. member. So

if he'd just let me go on. This land has gone down in value - historically the

land in the Goulds, you know, fifty years ago it wasn't worth $100 an acre in

there. I don't know if it was worth that. The hon. member knows this. Now he can

get on with his heartthrob and his strings and all that. That's fine. I

understand where he's coming from. But that land has been passed down from

generation to generation like a lot of communities in Newfoundland.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did they get it for agriculture or

did they get it to build houses on?

MR. MURPHY: They got it for agricultural land.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So the zone didn't change on that

land.

MR. MURPHY: No.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The zone is still the same.

MR. MURPHY: Fine.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Everyone in there now wants to

change the zone, which is unfair to the farmer.

MR. MURPHY: I know where you're coming from and I

appreciate it. But I'm sure that the hon. member understands that there are

young people in there who have absolutely no intention of planting anything in

the land that has been left to them. It's been hay land for time immemorial. It

goes to dairy farmers and what have you and I'm not against that either. I'm

just saying, in fairness to these young people who don't intend to plant it, if

that land that has now become amalgamated into the City, and with the tremendous

pressure on these young folks by developers to take over this agricultural land,

and build whatever - from golf courses to condominiums, I have no idea - but

they see all of a sudden a very large increase in value of the Goulds property.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I see a very large decrease in the

value, actually.

MR. MURPHY: Well, it depends on how you look at

it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If a lot of land came on the

market, that's just simply supply and demand.

MR. MURPHY: Fine.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Fine. I totally understand where the

member is coming from. Okay? All I'm saying to the member is that time has

changed the nature of the Goulds, and he admits it. I know he admits it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sure it does, yes, I don't

disagree.

MR. MURPHY: Sure, okay. There is a tremendous

amount of land in the Goulds that's nothing more than good old-fashioned hay

land. Alright? It isn't foodstuff.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Probably I should argue it more in

the House of Assembly to try and educate you, you do not understand the reason

why it is planted in hay. The reason why it is planted in hay is because the

landowner who does not want to use it can give it to a farmer and they can be

exempt from property taxes. If the farmer owned the land it would not be hay as

much as it is because he would rotate the crop, he would grow vegetables and

then grow hay some other year.

MR. MURPHY: I do not understand it as well as the

member but I do understand this, that there are a lot of young folks in there

whose fathers and forefathers passed the land down to them and who do not have

the same appreciation as the hon. member has, and/or some other residents do.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You are not trying to establish

policy for the Province?

MR. MURPHY: I am trying to be fair to people and

trying to be fair to the land, too. What I said in my opening remarks was that

there is land in the Goulds that the minister committed to review that will

never be agricultural land. The member knows that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I support him on a review. I told

him that.

MR. MURPHY: That is right. But, all of a sudden we

want to protect it and that is fine, but there are a lot of things that the

previous administration -

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is not all of a sudden. If the

Aylwards had protected that when they were in there in the first place there

would not be this problem. We are twenty years too late.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, I know this is near and

dear to the member but I am not going to get into an argument with him. I can

bring up some of his former colleagues and governments that did not protect a

lot of things, too, but we are not here to debate that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They protected the agricultural

land.

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member and I will debate that

at great length in the House of Assembly, I am sure, but I just need to say to

the minister that he needs also to understand that the hon. member's opinion,

which I know is sincere and I know where he is coming from, but remember there

are other people who have just as sincere an approach to their wishes. Now if

somebody is going to offer these young people, who have fifty, sixty, and

seventy acres, a decent price per acre to farm it, then I am sure these young

folks would not mind selling the land, but there is nobody offering them that

kind of money for farm land. They are offering it for something else and it is

very, very tempting for young people who have just gotten married, thirty-three

or thirty-four years of age with one or two children, who own a large block of

land for somebody to come along and offer them a fair chunk of money for it, it

is tough.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, tell them to sell it if

somebody offers a fair chunk of money for the land. Tell them to sell it.

MR. MURPHY: Sell it for what, for farmland?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sell it for whatever they were

offered it for.

MR. MURPHY: They are not being offered it Bob

because it is frozen. You and I know that. Unfreeze it and see what will happen.

MR. FLIGHT: I accept the advice of the hon. member

for St. John's South in as far as I should respect the opinions of the hon.

Member for Kilbride and the hon. Member for Humber. I think my performance in

the House of Assembly as minister has been indicative of that over the years. I

know that from a policy point of view and from an academic point of view they

have had practically experiences.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (inaudible) as you were the other

day, do not be a wimp like that fellow over there.

MR. FLIGHT: In the interest of levity, Mr.

Chairman, I can get away with this and this may turn the committee sour. I have

had, as the hon. Member for Kilbride knows, a lot of experience on the committee

for the best part of fourteen years in the opposition and I did exactly what

these two gentlemen are doing now, and I loved it, but I do not know what the

debate this past ten or fifteen minutes has to do with the estimates.

MR. MURPHY: You are not being a wimp. When you

have an underlying current inside yourself, that you are asking the City of St.

John's - the member knows that the City of St. John's and the government are not

going to 'unmalgamate'. They are not going to take away the amalgamation so he

wants the constituents in St. John's South to have a mil rate shoved down their

throat to provide the services for his constituents. That is what he is up to.

There is no secret as to what the member is up to. Now we are into politics and

we are not in the estimates so I will take it as it is and I will debate this

with the member in the House.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have just one

comment on that. What will happen now is that the City of St. John's taxpayers,

including the ones in St. John's South, will have to foot 100 per cent of the

services now. If it was under a government board they would not be footing 100

per cent because it would be a provincial responsibility. That is what I am

trying to do, save your taxpayers some money which you are too narrow minded to

even think about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we are away from the

estimates.

MR. MURPHY: You are right, Mr. Chairman. I totally

agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque, do you have a

question?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, no question, Mr. Minister.

MR. WOODFORD: I have just one comment, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Just one comment. I will bring it up

so it will be legal under a question of where is the land consolidation money

this year?

MR. FLIGHT: I think the consolidation is under

3.1.06, page 135 in the Estimates.

MR. HEWLETT: 3. 1.06.07

MR. WOODFORD: How come? You used to always have it

under land consolidation, how come you now you have it - was there nothing last

year under land consolidation?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, $400,000, the same amount,

exactly.

MR. WOODFORD: Are you saying 3.1.07 or 3.1.06?

MR. FLIGHT: 3.1.06.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.1.06, okay, Land Development. So

that is way down though from the previous year -

MR. FLIGHT: No, it is the same as last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same as '91 and '92.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but we put $500,000 in that the

year before and $600,000 in the year before that; so she dropped down to

$100,000 last year.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. WOODFORD: She dropped down to $100,000 last

year. Last year's estimates, the '90s estimates was -

MR. FLIGHT: Oh yes, yes, I am sorry. The hon.

member is right. Last year there was $400,000 to purchase land under the Land

Consolidation Program and there is $400,000 this year. It is greatly reduced

from previous years as the hon. Member for Kilbride pointed out. I think it was

last year and the year before. That is not a lack of commitment to purchase the

land - it is a lack of funds to buy the land so the commitment this year is the

same as last year, $400,000, and it is the result of the great financial straits

in which we found ourselves in this past couple of years.

MR. WOODFORD: Can the minister tell me about the

Goulds; was there ever a municipal plan in the Goulds?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: A municipal plan? The hon. member says

yes and he would know.

MR. WOODFORD: And is there one there, today?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Under that municipal plan, was there

anything to do with agriculture?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I would defer to the deputy

minister, the ADM of Agriculture, but I would say that any municipal plan in the

Goulds, I suppose, since the zone was established, would have had to reflect the

zone, would have had to indicate land that was in the zone and could not be used

for anything other than agriculture. I would have to assume that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Marty, would you like to have -

MR. HOWLETT: Yes. That is correct, Mr. Minister.

The zone I guess, over the last couple of years has always been - there were

some minor changes made to conform with the Town's plan, the Town of the Goulds

at the time, and what was zoned agriculture by our department was the same as

the town plan in the municipal plans.

MR. WOODFORD: In that plan you could have bridge

zoning, but attached to the plan would be regulations. For instance in Cormac,

everybody here tonight, the Member for St. John's South and the Member for

Kilbride, and all the talk in the House last week, was that sons and daughters

have a problem with building in areas under the municipal plan in the Province.

I would say even in planning areas, have within their plan, with regulations

attached to them, which gives a municipality the right and a farmer the right,

even with a grant, to subdivide up to half an acre for a son or daughter.

Once that subdivision is done, the son or daughter, if

he or she happens to sell it, will not be permitted another half an acre or an

acre, but they are permitted half an acre within the municipal plan even though

it is under a grant without a subdivision clause in it, can be given the right

to build and that is enough for anyone. We are talking about a rural area now,

half an acre, and that is only based on the Department of Health regulations of

20,000 square feet for a septic system, so in an urban area, really what you

will be now is within the jurisdiction, could not the same thing apply to a

place like the Goulds?

MR. FLIGHT: I understand that when the zone was

established in the first place, that clause was there, that sons and daughters

of the owners of the land could build on the land, however, as you said, once it

was sold, they lost the right. Again, I will ask the ADM to briefly outline it

but that was my understanding and I have heard it plenty of times and I presume

it still exists.

MR. HOWLETT: When the zone came in there was a

sons-and-daughters clause in the zone for a certain period of time in which they

could apply to build a residence. If the son was working on a farm with the

father in certain cases there would be a second house allowed if he was married

MR. WOODFORD: Farmhouse.

MR. HOWLETT: - and what have you. What's happened

I guess over the years, with the regulations and some changes being made, the

sons-and-daughters clause is still there, but we've moved now to an impact

assessment process. Through that impact assessment process that is one of the

factors that's there. But if it comes out as a high impact on agriculture, a

negative impact, or low impact or medium , which would be the gray area, the

same rules are applied. High impact in all likelihood, unless a guy has to live

on that farm, he may not be allowed to put another house on the farm. So we have

had cases that there has probably been one or two or three houses on farms.

Okay? So it's part of the impact assessment right now, the sons-and-daughters

clause.

MR. WOODFORD: Why would the sons-and-daughters

clause be applicable in another area of the Province? Are you talking about

impact with regards to proximity or numbers?

MR. HOWLETT: No. What'll happen, when the impact

assessment is done, Environment says that 2,000 feet radius of wells and so

forth, servicing, closeness to farm buildings, suitability to soil, all of that

goes into the assessment. It's not just one factor any more, like the

sons-and-daughters clause. It goes in the assessment, the assessment is done.

It's a computer model that's been developed and then that'll come out and say it

has a high, medium or low impact on agriculture, and here are the reasons why.

MR. WOODFORD: That same thing is applicable in

Cormack. Same thing is applicable. Because we talked about environmental, health

and transportation regulations. They're there anyway from each government

department. It just so happens that in regards to a farm, I think it is 2,000

from the nearest building. We ran into that. But it was no trouble to

accommodate someone building on a particular farm with fifty, sixty or seventy

acres. So what I am talking about is working somewhere else, albeit I can see

some changes going to have to be made in the next few years with regards to the

regulations part of the plan. It's the only argument I'm hearing, that's what

I'm getting. All I'm getting is people can't build.

MR. FLIGHT: What I would say to the member is that

I have some doubts as to whether or not we should have allowed the term that the

ADM uses. I think that the sons-and-daughters clause should have stayed and be

overriding, regardless maybe. But obviously there have been changes made to the

zone, there have been changes made to the policy administering the zone, and in

these policy changes somehow or other viability or - what's the word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Impact.

MR. FLIGHT: Impact assessment and other factors

overrode the sons-and-daughters clause, and maybe we should have never have let

that happen.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Seventy per cent of the

applications have nothing to do with the sons-and-daughters clause.

MR. FLIGHT: That's a fact.

MR. WOODFORD: I would say that all of the parcels

of land in the Goulds, except for some in the last five or six years, or seven

or eight years, is granted property.

MR. FLIGHT: Probably.

MR. WOODFORD: Not leased. Leases only came in

eight or nine years ago with the conditions attached, and even some of the

grants had the non-subdivision clause in them. So I've known land in the

Province that were subdivided against the municipal plan and against the

contents of a grant or lease. Even a grant. I've seen properties in the

Province, as high as 100 acres, taken back from the individual if he subdivided

against the wishes of the grant.

So if this is all granted property that is something

that could be used in there. Now it's probably not the right thing to do and it

is certainly not the political thing to do, but it has been done. As Bob has

mentioned earlier, it was given in the first place for agriculture. Now I think

really the government has two choices. If they lift the zone and the freeze, the

land is gone and gone forever, and they're going to have to relocate every farm

out there. The cost of relocating a dairy farm, I can assure you, is at a

minimum, half a million. You're talking about $10,500 per animal unit now. So

anyone out there with 100 cows, no trouble to make it out, you have $1 million,

so that is one thing to take into consideration. You can spend all night on that

but I have an awful lot of questions here, as other members do, and I do not see

how we are going to get through it now. Resource roads, under forestry, 2.6.03.

Purchased Services, I would say that is resource roads.

MR. FLIGHT: Purchased Services: that is for

tenders let for construction of resource roads.

MR. WOODFORD: What roads will you be doing this

year? Will you be extending the Chouse Brook one? Will you be doing anything

with the Whites Road-Bridges Pond one?

MR. FLIGHT: I would expect we will probably be

extending Chouse, I am not sure, and Whites Road I would suspect. I would be

surprised if there is not an allocation there. The rest are all over the

Province.

I should not tell the hon. member this because it will

be running in the press tomorrow or the next day.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, you do not have to. I can ask

you in the House tomorrow.

MR. FLIGHT: The amounts will be tendered but we

are predicting approximately five kilometers on the Whites River Road and

approximately a kilometre and a half on the Chouse Brook Road. See how good I am

to the hon. member.

MR. WOODFORD: It is a good project. I would say

then those tenders will be called fairly soon.

MR. FLIGHT: Exactly. Very shortly.

MR. WOODFORD: To put all jokes aside it is good to

have those out early, especially with woods roads where you have to have a type

C road before the Fall, the frost, the snow, and everything like that, because

you have an awful mess if you do not. Those are two worthwhile projects I might

say to the minister, the Chouse Brook one and again the Whites River one.

MR. FLIGHT: Both those roads I say to the member

are class B which is higher still than C.

MR. WOODFORD: Class B, that is what I meant, which

is higher.

Under 2.6.04 (06) resource road construction,

Purchased Services.

MR. FLIGHT: The $235,000, 2.6.04 (06), is funded

under the Labrador agreement so obviously all activity will be in Labrador. It

is for the contracted construction services to provide for the purchase of

materials and the construction of resource roads in the Labrador region;

experimental portable bridge; experimental multi-plate arch bridge; experimental

aggregate project and bridge; Burnt Ridge resource road extension; alternative

pond construction trails; experimental low-class roads; Cartwright resource

roads; and Mills Lake Road reconstruction. So it's projects in Labrador funded

under the Labrador Agreement.

I might take this opportunity to point out to the

committee that although it is budgeted and we want to spend it, it may not be

totally spent, depending on the management committee and the success we have in

resolving some of our problems with the native claims.

MR. WOODFORD: 2.7.01 (06), budgeted $120,000,

spent $511,000 and $100,000 this year. What would that be on?

MR. FLIGHT: What is that?

MR. WOODFORD: 2.7.01 (06), forest renewal, on top

of the next page.

MR. FLIGHT: I will read it off to the member. It

is Purchase Services, vehicle and equipment maintenance, seed collection, seed

extraction and stand reclamation.

MR. WOODFORD: So that is where we extract seeds

from Wooddale. So there will be a cone picking program this year, will there?

Will it be any more extensive than it was last year?

MR. FLIGHT: In Millertown.

MR. WOODFORD: Just in Millertown.

MR. FLIGHT: Just in case he did not hear me.

MR. WOODFORD: Any cone picking for the west coast?

MR. FLIGHT: Are we going to have a cone picking

program this year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We did not have one last year and I

presume we will be doing some this year.

MR. WOODFORD: Why would you pick them all in one

place, why do you not spread the jobs around?

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, use your imagination there now,

Rick. We try to spread it around between Millertown and Buchans Junction and

just above Badger. Seriously Rick, even though the money is budgeted, we cannot

say for certain that there will be a collection, most likely there will be cones

collected wherever it is obvious the better supply cones are at any given time

and forestry people will identify this.

MR. WOODFORD: And you have identified that the

Millertown area would be a better supplier of cones?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You should collect them in

Labrador since we have such a yield on them. You might be able to get them to

grow the way they do in Labrador. I would even volunteer to pick a few for you.

MR. A. SNOW: Just to elaborate on 2.6.04 (06),

back to the question that you answered a few minutes ago, Mr. Minister. You

listed off names of lakes or locations of access roads -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. Do you want me to do it again?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. They are all in Labrador,

correct?

MR. FLIGHT: Oh yes, because it is funded under the

Labrador Agreement.

MR. A. SNOW: Is there one in Western Labrador?

MR. FLIGHT: On the Coast of Labrador, yes.

MR. A. SNOW: Is one of the roads there in Western

Labrador? No?

MR. FLIGHT: I do not think so boy. It provides for

the purchase of materials to construct resource roads in the Labrador region.

Burnt Ridge resource road extension?

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mills Lake.

MR. FLIGHT: That is up Northwest River.

Alternative road construction trails, Mills Lake road reconstruction -

MR. A. SNOW: That is in Labrador.

MR. FLIGHT: - and Cartwright resource road. It is

in Labrador but is it in Western Labrador?

MR. A. SNOW: Well, there is a Mills Lake. Can you

find it -

MR. FLIGHT: I cannot off the top of my head.

DR. NAZIR: I think we have done some work there

but we have run into difficulty with the native issue.

MR. A. SNOW: In Western Labrador?

MR. FLIGHT: Okay. What the ADM is saying here, is

that we have budgeted $235,000 because we wanted that much work. The management

committee has not approved those roads yet and one of the problems the

management committee is running into now is determining the native land claims

negotiations. I would draw to the member's attention that last fall the forestry

work in Labrador in Mills Lake was shut down. We had $300,000 worth of work

going on within fifteen miles I would guess, or less, of Goose Bay itself and we

had to shut down that work, and now one of the problems is before we start up

that kind of work we have to make sure that we are doing it with the

co-operation or the understanding of the Native People's. So I have to tell the

member that this work is funded under the Coastal Labrador Agreement. Now does

the Coastal Labrador agreement provide funding for Western Labrador? It seems to

me to be the obvious question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it is comprehensive

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It is comprehensive Labrador.

MR. FLIGHT: Well all I can say to the member, is

that the Mills Lake Road reconstruction - that is the only thing that would be

in Western Labrador if it is there, and I will determine it tomorrow if he

wishes, and advise him.

MR. A. SNOW: I would appreciate it; and there has

not been any protest in Western Labrador, native protest or -

DR. NAZIR: But it is part of their claim area. As

long as that is part of the claim area, federal officials will very (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: There are more highways being built

over in Western Labrador and road construction in Western Labrador than probably

anywhere else in the Province and they have not been in there protesting yet, so

I doubt if they are going to come in over this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to bring the members

back to the Estimates. We have some for agriculture.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.1.07.10: Grants and Subsidies,

Environmental Sustainability Initiative. Is that the new federal-provincial

agreement on the manure handling facilities?

MR. FLIGHT: That's the Province's share of the $1

million subsidiary agreement, or environmental sustainability. It's funded

50-50. The Province provides 50 per cent and the feds provide the other 50 per

cent.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.2.02, Market Development,

3.2.02.10.

MR. FLIGHT: 3.2.02.10.

MR. WOODFORD: Grants and Subsidies.

MR. FLIGHT: That's the one.

MR. WOODFORD: That's where the school milk program

is?

MR. FLIGHT: I'm delighted to tell the hon. member

that is the program that he wanted to get started and committed himself to

during the election of spring, 1989 -

MR. WOODFORD: It was more than that though, but

anyway.

MR. FLIGHT: - and couldn't deliver, but I'm very

proud to say that -

MR. WOODFORD: But it was more than this, that's

why I wanted to ask.

MR. FLIGHT: - this minister delivered that

program. That is our commitment this year to the school milk program.

MR. WOODFORD: It can't be totally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No, he's talking about the - okay.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.2.02.10.

MR. FLIGHT: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars

is the school milk program.

MR. WOODFORD: Fifty thousand?

MR. FLIGHT: One hundred and fifty thousand.

MR. WOODFORD: One hundred and fifty thousand

dollars. The rest would be what?

MR. FLIGHT: The rest would be... assistance is

provided to producers. Producer groups, marketing organizations, companies, for

produce related to agricultural marketing and promotions. Assistance is normally

provided at 50 per cent of the cost to a maximum of $2,000 per project. A grant

to the secretariat for three federal-provincial committees. Trade policy and

market development, and food inspection for $1,500. This secretary is

cost-shared 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the

Province. So that's $18,000 over and above the $150,000 for the school milk

program. I am sure that the member will want to commend the government for that

school milk program.

MR. WOODFORD: On that same one, would for instance

agricultural fairs and so on come under that particular heading or would it come

under production subsidies or something like that? Not production, production

and marketing.

MR. FLIGHT: No. Although we provide grants to

agricultural fairs, small grants. I suppose that is pretty well discretionary.

But it's not in that particular head, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: 3.6.01.10.

MR. WOODFORD: Administration.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. Grants and Subsidies, $10,000,

$15,000.

MR. WOODFORD: What would happen there for it to be

budgeted at $378,000 and then just use $7,300 last year, and now budget $15,000?

MR. FLIGHT: Explain that, Mr. ADM.

MR. HOWLETT: We had some money that we just put

through that subhead in grants which would have been federal dollars out to

producers. Len, you can help me on this one. I think that's where we put

$350,000?

MR. FLIGHT: We got a grant from the federal

government to assist the fur industry. What I'm hearing here is that it was put

MR. HOWLETT: It was income support.

MR. FLIGHT: Income support from -

MR. HOWLETT: Federal dollars that we actually flow

through our budget.

MR. FLIGHT: One hundred per cent -

MR. HOWLETT: And 100 per cent comes back from....

MR. WOODFORD: Well, what...?

MR. HOWLETT: It shows up there, the revenue back

would have been $257,600. Federal.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that's my question. It was

budgeted, but I'm asking, where is it now? It was budgeted last year, revised

downward, it's not in the budget, actually budgeted this year, but showing where

the federal....

MR. HOWLETT: It was a one year program.

MR. WOODFORD: So where's the money now?

MR. HOWLETT: Income support for one year.

MR. WOODFORD: So it did go out last year?

MR. HOWLETT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, how come it's not shown going

out?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, it's budgeted at $378,000 and

(Inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Because under the revised -

MR. WOODFORD: But it's not under revised, that's

what I'm saying. Usually if it goes out it's under revised.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show him the revised figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not very clear.

MR. FLIGHT: I can say to the member that I'll

undertake to get this clarified for him tomorrow and get the explanation,

because I don't understand it myself. I could almost accept it as a

typographical error but it's not.

MR. WOODFORD: I'll name two: Humber Valley

agricultural fair, Harbour Grace agricultural fair. How much money went to those

two places last year with regards to a grant towards the fair?

MR. FLIGHT: I think the Harbour Grace fair, if I

remember correctly, was $2,500.

AN HON. MEMBER: $2,000.

MR. FLIGHT: The Harbour Grace fair was $2,000, off

the top of my head because I was there and presented it, I think.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, you were.

MR. FLIGHT: I cannot tell the hon. member what the

Western or -

MR. WOODFORD: The Humber Valley one?

MR. FLIGHT: - the Humber Valley, yes.

MR. HOWLETT: (Inaudible) probably a little more.

That $15,000 goes to all the small fairs around the Province; there are seven or

eight small ones.

MR. WOODFORD: Could you get the Humber Valley

figure for me tomorrow?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.3.04, Mr. Minister.

MR. FLIGHT: 3.3.04? Before we leave, I want to

make clear to the committee that it is obviously difficult to understand 3.6.01

(10). I will have a detailed and clarified response for the member tomorrow, as

quickly as it can be obtained.

MR. WOODFORD: 3.3.04, Grants and Subsidies,

budgeted $ 83,000 but yet spent $200,000 and now $620,000. I know there is

probably some federal money in it, probably 75 per cent of federal money in it,

but what was it for?

MR. FLIGHT: That is the one that was for the fur

farmers. It was a pass through from the feds for the fur price support program,

that is what that one is for.

MR. WOODFORD: So then the one to which I referred

in 3.2.06, is certainly not fur again, is it?

MR. FLIGHT: Not unless there is another one.

MR. HOWLETT: There was a 1990 income support for

fur and there was a 1991 income support for fur. The $483 is that 1991

contribution by the feds and $300 and some odd in the other one is the 1990,

because they pay them on the previous year. Those are the figures that they use.

MR. WOODFORD: The $483 was 1991 and the $378 was

1990, did you say?

MR. HOWLETT: It would have been paid on the 1990

fur crop year, okay?.. and the $483 would be on the 1991 figures just being

paid.

MR. WOODFORD: Now could you get that for me

tomorrow?

MR. FLIGHT: There is no problem with the 3.3.04,

there is no question because that $483 was -

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, because it shows that.

MR. FLIGHT: - it shows that it was passed through

the federal government -

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and it will pass through this

year, but on the other one, it shows -

MR. FLIGHT: - but I will get an acceptable

explanation for the hon. member.

MR. WOODFORD: Farm Development Loan Board. Last

year in 3.3.06, $2,240,000 was budgeted for farm loans, which was a drop, but

you spent $1.84 million and now there is $2,500,000 in it for this year. If I am

not mistaken the ALFI and the Agri-Foods Agreements all ran out last year, there

was an extension for ALFI and the Agri-Foods, so are you expecting a real

increase in the Farm Development Loan Board, because there is no agreement -

MR. FLIGHT: The Agri-Foods Agreement does not run

out until March of 1993. The ALFI Agreement ran out -

MR. WOODFORD: ALFI ran out last year and you

extended the year.

MR. FLIGHT: - yes, and we had an extension, but

the Agri-Foods Agreement does not run out until March of 1993.

MR. WOODFORD: How much is left in that?

MR. FLIGHT: How much is left in it? I do not know

how much it is but the ADM tells me it is totally committed.

MR. WOODFORD: It is totally committed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: But why would Agri-Foods Initiatives

have hardly anything budgeted for Agri-Foods last year and up $1.7 million this

year?

MR. FLIGHT: Where?

MR. WOODFORD: Under 3.6.05.

MR. FLIGHT: 3.6.05, Agri-Foods Initiatives.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, $1.5 million was budgeted last

year, but $1.1 million was spent under Agri-Foods, now it is $1.7

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: I did not think there was that much

money left in that agreement, where is it coming from?

MR. FLIGHT: It had better be left there if we had

budgeted for it. We just increased the funding a little bit in 1991 to use

everything up, I would presume.

MR. HOWLETT: It works on a producer's five year

farm plan. So that figure can be up and down, okay? So that would be the balance

that would be left that is committed between now and when the program expires

for March of 1993. Then we have a period of time to clue up and so forth, as you

know.

MR. FLIGHT: Even though it's committed that would

be the amount of services that has been left in the agreement so we would be

sure to spend it all.

MR. WOODFORD: While you are there on that one - I

just back up to ALFI. 3.6.04. Is that the remaining - because ALFI was extended

last year, and is there $1.2 million left in that for this year?

MR. HOWLETT: That would be the year carryover. We

really have two years to clue up, spend the funding, and the extension is

roughly $820,000.

MR. WOODFORD: That's all committed?

MR. HOWLETT: The $820,000 is not. We're just

assessing applications now. The extension money.

MR. WOODFORD: Based on the extension.

MR. HOWLETT: That's right. That's why you see an

increase in the loan board, because of anticipated demand because of the ALFI

extension of roughly $850,000.

MR. WOODFORD: That extension is coming from March

of 1991, isn't it?

MR. HOWLETT: That extension expires in September.

MR. WOODFORD: Of this year.

MR. HOWLETT: Of this year.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but there were no monies last

summer under the ALFI agreement.

MR. HOWLETT: Only the carryover.

MR. WOODFORD: Only the bit of carryover from the

year before. So really, this is an extension from 1991.

MR. FLIGHT: From September of 1991.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HOWLETT: Well, (Inaudible) -

MR. WOODFORD: There were no new monies last year.

MR. HOWLETT: That's right. We did not get the

agreement signed till September. But in the terms of the agreement it is from

March of 1991 to September of 1992.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. But now you've got till

September 1993 to spend it.

MR. HOWLETT: Well, the carryover.

MR. WOODFORD: The carryover. What about the status

of a new agreement, Minister? A new ALFI agreement.

MR. FLIGHT: The status, I will tell the hon.

member, is that we have our people and the federal people talking about an

agreement -funding levels and what our priorities are in the agreement - under

such an agreement.

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing on the table? Nothing?

MR. FLIGHT: No amount on the table, just the

parameters of the agreement, what we want to see, our priorities under the

agreement. Of course, the feds have their priorities. Now it's a case of trying

to get the maximum level of fun