May 2,

1994 RESOURCE

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

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

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Penney): Order, please!

I would like to welcome you to the fifth meeting of

the Resource Estimates Committee for this year. Tonight we will be reviewing the

estimates of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I would like to welcome

the Minister, the hon. Graham Flight.

I will first introduce the members of our

committee. My name is Melvin Penney, and I am the Member for Lewisporte and

chairman of the committee. On my left is Mr. Rick Woodford, the Member for

Humber Valley and the vice-chairman; further to my left is Mr. Don Whelan, the

Member for Harbour Main; there is Dr. Bud Hulan, the Member for St. George's,

and Mr. Paul Shelley, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. Mr. Beaton Tulk,

the Member for Fogo and Mr. Ed Byrne, the Member for Kilbride should be joining

us in a few minutes.

Before I go any further, I would like for you to

have a look at the minutes that have been circulated. Could I have a motion,

please, that we adopt the minutes as circulated? That is the minutes of the

Resource Committee meeting for the estimates on the Department of Fisheries.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of those of you

who are not familiar with the procedures here - and I'm beginning to sound like

a broken record now, the fifth time in five meetings - this is basically an

extension of the House of Assembly, except that it is a much more relaxed

atmosphere here. There is a much more relaxed dress code and you do not have to

refer to members by the name of the district they represent, you can address

them by name; and you are welcome to have the Page bring a coffee into the

Chamber for you as well.

What we have been doing is allowing the minister

twenty minutes to make his opening comments and then allowing the vice-chairman

or another member of the committee whom he would wish to designate in his place,

to respond to that for equal time. Then we will turn it over to the members of

the committee for ten minutes each of questioning. What we have tried to do,

rather than have the members ask lengthy ten-minute questions that would consist

of five or six questions, we have adopted a procedure very similar to what we do

in the House of Assembly during Question Period. We expect them to ask brief

questions and we would ask that the minister provide brief answers. Each member

will still be given his ten minutes of time.

For the benefit of the gentleman in the recording

booth up there, I would ask that the officials of the department, if they speak,

that they first introduce themselves, and then lean into the microphones,

because the system is designed to record from a standing position and we will be

speaking tonight from a sitting position - so lean into the microphones. I will

remind members of the committee that they are permitted to question only the

minister. Any of his officials may answer the questions if that is his wish but

if they do so they cannot give answers related to policy.

Having said that, Mr. Minister, if you would be so

kind as to introduce your officials to us, and once you have done that you may

proceed with your opening statement.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take the opportunity now to

introduce my officials. My officials probably need no introduction to most

members of the committee because they have been here, well, this is five years I

think, and I don't think the officials of the department have changed, but in

any event, on my immediate right is Mr. Robert Peters, the Deputy Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, better known to most people around the government as

`Bob'. On his right is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for

Agriculture, Mr. Martin Howlett, known, again, around the building as `Marty'.

On my immediate left is Dr. Mohammed Nazir, the Assistant Deputy Minister

responsible for Forestry; immediately behind me here is the Manager of Financial

Services, Mr. Bernie McGuire; and behind me to my right is Mr. Len Clarke,

Director of Financial Administration. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my officials,

we are delighted to be here tonight to defend, I suppose, for want of a better

word, or to discuss the estimates of this department. I might tell you from the

outset, Mr. Chairman, that I will not be taking twenty minutes, I hope it will

be nothing near that, but I do have to say that my very competent officials have

a penchant for writing long briefing notes and I feel very obligated to read

these because they put such effort into them and they are so factual.

I will read the statements that I have prepared,

but I don't think it will take twenty minutes, Mr. Chairman, and we will go from

there. If there is no comment at this point, I will continue into the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr. Minister, take

whatever time you need to a maximum of twenty minutes.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee, my department is responsible for the management of the Province's

forest resources and the development of the agriculture sector in order to

enhance the economic and social well-being of the Province. I would like to take

this opportunity to expound on some of the programs included in this year's

budget which will help achieve these objectives, and I will deal with forestry

first.

The primary forestry programs in 1994-1995 will

include silviculture, forest inventory, access roads, protection, utilization

and public education. The department will again this year be carrying out a

major silviculture program under the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement

for forest development. Approximately 7.6 million trees will be planted this

year and another 10,000 hectares of forest land will be thinned or improved.

This will bring the overall total number of trees planted in the Province to 97

million, and by July 1995 we expect to reach the milestone of 100 million trees

planted since the inception of the silviculture program.

The Private Woodlot Program which has about 100

forest land owners registered in the program will continue this year. While we

will not be signing any new woodlots to the program this year silviculture and

other improvements will be funded under the previously signed woodlots program

through the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement on forestry development.

I am pleased to report that the newsprint industry

is expected to improve in 1994-1995 with a return to profits expected by year's

end. Lumber prices are expected to remain high in 1994-1995 with all indications

that sawmillers will have a peak production year. The main focus of the Forest

Inventory Program in 1994-1995 will be to establish and remeasure inventory

sample pots in the field for input into the department's geographic information

system, known in the department as GIS. This information will be used to update

the Province's forest inventory indices.

An access road program will include the

construction of 63.3 kilometres of new forest roads and the reconstruction of

nearly 36 kilometres of existing forest roads. These roads will be built on

lands under Crown control and will provide access to approximately 1 million

cubic meters of timber.

The Forest Protection Program will include forest

fire protection, insect protection, and the implementation of an environmental

protection plan. Under the Forest Protection Program we will be hiring

approximately 120 seasonal firefighters to man the department's fire depots

throughout the Island and Labrador. Eight water bombers, four CL-215s, and four

Cansos will be strategically positioned throughout the Province, depending on

the fire weather index. In addition, four helicopters will be contracted and

located at bases in St. John's, Gander, Pasadena, and Goose Bay.

The annual Fall surveys of the major insect pests,

which are conducted by the Canadian Forest Service and my department, are

forecasting no significant defoliation caused by the spruce budworm or the

black-headed budworm in 1994, however, the hemlock looper is forecast to cause

damage in Central Newfoundland. As a result, my department is proposing to spray

approximately 15,000 hectares in this area. We are proposing to use Bt spray

again this year, only for the hemlock looper problem.

An environmental protection plan will be more fully

implemented during the 1994-1995 fiscal year, and this was developed in

consultation with other agencies such as Wildlife, Environment, and Industry,

and will enable the department to minimize the impacts to the environment caused

by forestry operations. For example, it makes provision for buffer zones around

water bodies during harvesting operations. Such measures enhance the

department's plan to incorporate ecosystem management into the forest management

planning strategy.

My department will continue to participate along

with other stake-holders in the Western Newfoundland model forest. Through that

process, a decision-making system based on consensus by stakeholders is being

tested; an integrated resource management plan is being prepared, a number of

wildlife and watershed management studies would also continue through that

process, that is, the model forest process. Work on innovative techniques to

broaden the scope of forest management to include various non-timber values will

be continued.

The Cartwright Forest Management Plan, which was

registered for environmental assessment last year, will undergo further review

for completion of an environmental preview report, and we hope to continue that

process soon, which will set the stage for a regulated use of the forest

resource in Labrador, particularly on the coast of Labrador. In the area of

forest utilization, the department has been successful in balancing the

allowable cut in nearly all areas except for the Avalon Peninsula, and to some

extent, the Bonavista Peninsula area, where we are exceeding the allowable cut.

As you are probably aware, we have already taken

steps to remedy this problem by reducing the allocations on the cutting permits;

we have also brought in measures to reduce illegal cutting in this area by

decreasing the cutting time on permits.

We have recognized the need to promote forestry and

environmental themes to the use of the Province by continuing to support the

very successful Junior Forest Warden Program. In addition, this year we will be

implementing a forestry education program in the school system called: Focus on

Newfoundland Forests. This program is a curriculum support program covering

Kindergarten to Grade XII, and offers information and activities relevant to all

subject areas.

I would like to point out that the current

federal/provincial co-operation agreement for forestry is due to expire on March

31, 1995. The department's Silviculture and Forest Management Programs are

funded through this agreement. If a new agreement is not signed, this will

seriously affect the Province's ability to deliver these programs, but I intend

to vigorously pursue renewal of this agreement in order to ensure continuity of

funding for silviculture and other important programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned the program which is

funded in the 1994-1995 estimates; however, I would like to point out that we

have identified silviculture projects for $15 million to $20 million, which

could be implemented if funds become available under other programs such as

post-NCARP and I will be pursuing these opportunities vigorously during the next

few weeks.

Mr. Chairman, I will move to the agricultural side,

the Agri-food notes on defence of estimates and I would hope that the Member for

St. George's would have noted that it is Agri-food notes for defence of

estimates.

Mr. Chairman, this past year has been an extremely

busy one for both the agriculture industry and for government. In 1993, the

total farm cash receipts was $62.4 million. Let me highlight some of the

activities of the past year and also some of the planned activities for the next

year.

In June of 1992, everyone was aware government

released Change and Challenge, A Strategic Economic Plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador . I need not elaborate any further on the overall strategy; however,

I do wish to take some time to outline its status with respect to the Agri-food

industry. The strategy stated the provincial meat inspection program will be

established. Draft standards and regulations have been prepared and will soon be

before government for consideration. Training of the staff for this particular

program is completed, as well as the necessary equipment purchases and

laboratory renovations. To assess the potential for alternative sources of

livestock and poultry feeds, several research efforts have been undertaken.

Work has been undertaken to look at all marine

by-products and other waste that could be utilized as a protein source in

livestock and poultry feed. Trials utilizing fishery by-products involving

palatability, digestibility, animal weight gain, meat tasting and economic

feasibility are ongoing with respect to sheep, dairy and poultry. In addition,

feed grain trials studying the feasibility of high-moisture grains are ongoing

in Western Newfoundland.

Again, as in the past few years, $150,000 has been

allocated as government's contribution to the School Milk Program. The volume

and the value of milk produced, both increased by 1.9 per cent to 29.8 million

litres and $22.2 million respectively. The School Milk Program has contributed

to the success. The Canada/Newfoundland Agri-food Development Subsidiary

Agreement was extended for one year to March 31, 1994 with an additional $2.8

million on a cost-shared, 70/30 basis.

In keeping with the Strategic Economic Plan,

programs aimed at increasing the volume and quality of local forage, assisting

with technology adoptions, marketing and promotion, and human resource

development were included in the extension. I must tell you, however, that over

$9 million worth of requests were received from industry. This agreement has now

been extended for one additional year.

In addition to this agreement, the

Canada-Newfoundland Agreement on Green Plan and the Canada-Newfoundland Farm

Business Management Agreement still have funds for 1994-1995. The objective of

the Green Plan Agreement is to help our farmers to operate in a manner which

will ensure our natural resources are not only protected but enhanced for future

operations. The Farm Business Management Agreement is designed to improve the

management and business knowledge of our industry's entrepreneurs.

The GATT agreement was signed on April 15 by trade

ministers from over 100 countries. It is now subject to passage through each

participating country's legislative authority for implementation in 1995.

Current quantive import quotas used by Canada supply (inaudible) agencies will

be replaced by tariffs. However, both industry and government agree that the

levels of these tariffs, up to 350 per cent in some cases, will provide adequate

protection for domestic markets. Supply management can not only survive but also

prosper in this country if all stakeholders work in that direction. A task force

on orderly marketing has been established by the federal and provincial

agriculture ministers to deal with this issue.

The Strategic Economic Plan outlined the strategy

to privatize appropriate public services where these could be provided by the

private sector in an equally efficient manner. The processing of chicken falls

into this category. We have come to the conclusion that allowing an interested

private concern to operate the business is the best option for the chicken

industry's long-term future, for its prosperity and for its expansion.

Mr. Chairman, just to give you some idea of the

potential that exists: Record production levels were realized in the broiler

industry last year. The volume of chicken processed increased 15.8 per cent to

11.5 million kilograms live weight, while farm value was up 17 per cent to about

$16.6 million. As you may be aware, government has invited interested parties to

present packages by June 30, at which time they will be evaluated.

One final comment before closing. For a long time

now, the poultry industry has been lobbying for a poultry veterinarian position

within the department. I am pleased to report to the committee that the recent

Budget has made this possible. We are currently preparing to fill the position

of a poultry veterinarian.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot over-emphasize the potential

for the Agri-foods sector of this Province to contribute greatly to helping

alleviate some of our economic problems, especially and particularly in rural

Newfoundland.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I have

taken twenty minutes but it may have been longer than you would have wished. I

believe the majority of the comments in these briefing notes were appropriate

and necessary to share with the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to make

an opening remark and I am in your hands now for the rest of the evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The

Chair had no desire for you to go at any particular length of time. You had

twenty minutes. As long as we can all get home and see the last period of the

hockey game I think we will be all happy enough.

I will now turn it over to the Vice-Chairman, Mr.

Woodford, unless he were to designate somebody to go in his stead.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you, Minister. If I could, I would like to have a copy of your briefing notes

afterwards so we could just put them together with some other things we have, if

you don't mind, I'm sure you don't, just to go over again some of the things you

mention there.

I was taking notes on some points, basically

jumping around a little bit with it. I wanted to start - you say the

silviculture agreement will run out on March 31. Has there been any indication

whatsoever from the federal people - I know you've been talking to them, and I

have too, and everybody. What is the feeling right now? What is the possibility

that would be extended, from what you have gathered from talking to them?

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you in a general sense

that although the previous government, as you know, Paul - and I will call you

Paul as opposed to the hon. member; it comes more naturally, right? - indicated

they were going to dead-end those co-operative agreements and they weren't going

to renegotiate.

The present government - during the election

campaign this happened - indicated that they saw the benefit of these

cost-shared agreements and would continue them. It was qualified. The now Prime

Minister qualified that on the basis that they would be subject, of course, to

the financial limitations and in keeping with their ability to fund them, so we

believe that before this agreement ends we will probably have a substitute for

that agreement in place.

The original approaches have been made to the

Federal Government to renegotiate an agreement. I can only tell you now that I

haven't seen anything to indicate that they are not prepared to negotiate an

agreement, and we will continue to pursue it now.

MR. SHELLEY: That is why I ask about it,

because, as you know probably, too, I wrote the short-term Prime Minister who

was there then, when I found out that it was about to expire, and I stressed as

much as I could to her that I hoped it would be re-instated. That is why I knew,

through the election campaign and everything else, that the present government

did indicate that they were willing to look at it again and certainly reconsider

it seriously. That is why I have had to ask this question now. You are closer to

that ball game now than I am. I am just wondering what this particular

government feels on that issue. I am hoping that -

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you, it sends a good

signal that the Federal Government have just extended New Brunswick's - New

Brunswick had basically the same agreement that we had, only where it would run

out this year, they have extended it for a year, so that sends a good signal

that they are prepared to - they haven't had time to renegotiate one with New

Brunswick.

MR. SHELLEY: I asked the question first and up

front because I think there won't be anybody here disagree, including yourself,

that I think it is one of the most important things to get straightened away

right now as far as the forest sector goes, and that is why I wanted to go on

record as asking it and seeing how this present government looks at that.

Now, I am going to jump around a little bit. There

are a few things, but I didn't know I was going to be up right away. There is a

mixture of things, but I will bring up a specific one. I have already talked to

the minister about it, but I will just get your reaction on it now; it has to do

with the Harbour Deep situation.

Just to follow up and let you know where I have

gone, because I have talked to you, and I have tried to be out front and open

about it as much as I could talking to everybody, and basically with my meeting

in Harbour Deep as we looked at it at first there were two possibilities there.

First of all, the reality is that there is a timber stand there, the Mooney

block, a viable timber stand that hasn't been utilized yet. Of course, we know

the reality of that timber. As it gets more mature it will lose its value. Of

course, it all does at that point. Looking at two options, basically, for

Harbour Deep, either Abitibi uses that stand, which they have the right to, or

they don't use it.

I want to just ask the minister, point blank: I met

with Abitibi; and I know the realities of some of this on the political side of

it all, and also out front is - Abitibi, when they said this to me in a meeting

that they have always considered having that land revert to the Crown, and that

they would pay, I think, $90,000 to $100,000 a year now in taxes, how realistic

and how possible is that?

MR. FLIGHT: It is so realistic, Paul, that they

have approached us officially to move the Mooney block back to the Crown. We

have correspondence from Abitibi, or have had communications with Abitibi,

indicating their desire and interest in having the Mooney block revert to the

Crown.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, I have just written a letter

to you, as a matter of fact, it is gone as of today or tomorrow, just asking

that. I just wanted an update on it because I haven't talked to Mr. Oldford

since.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, that is the status.

MR. SHELLEY: What is the possibility of that

whole process taking place where they do -

MR. FLIGHT: I can't think of any reason why we

wouldn't accept it back. Your problem, or your focus, is how do we get

development in Harbour Deep, I suspect.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, to use that timber stand. I

mean, it could be for the use of other people.

MR. FLIGHT: The problem is simple - it is

access. I suspect the reason Abitibi didn't harvest in that area is because -

MR. SHELLEY: Is for that reason.

MR. FLIGHT: You are being up front with your

questions; I will be up front with my answers. We don't have any plans at this

moment, in the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, to access the timber

supplies in Harbour Deep, whether it's the Mooney block or the Crown limits

surrounding the Mooney block, and the reason is simple. In order to have any

substantial harvesting, we have to have access, and any access, as you are

aware, that is possible, is to come from the western side, and you are talking

millions and millions of dollars for access roads that would have to be of a

better standard than just the access road you harvest on because

eighteen-wheelers would have to haul that wood to -

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: For that reason, we have no plans

for Harbour Deep. However, as I've told you privately -

MR. SHELLEY: For the government to pursue, yes,

I realize that.

MR. FLIGHT: I have told you privately that if

tomorrow an operator, be it Abitibi-Price, or a private contractor somewhere in

Newfoundland, in Baie Verte, anywhere - if he were to come and make a proposal

to the Province that he wanted to harvest some of that wood in Harbour Deep,

whether it be the Mooney block or whether it be the closest wood or whatever, we

would treat the application as we would any application. The wood supply is

there and we would be prepared to issue a permit for him to cut the wood. We

would have to see that you had 100 per cent utilization, that he had a market

for his wood, that kind of thing.

MR. SHELLEY: The whole plan up front.

MR. FLIGHT: We would entertain tomorrow an

application for a harvesting operation in Harbour Deep. We only foresee that

possibility based on barging the wood out of Harbour Deep to a point, whether it

is Stephenville or Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. That is what I

wanted to know. Of course, I am asking these questions because, to be quite

honest with you, it is all in the pioneer stages to me. I am just pursuing a

possibility, that is all. To be honest with you, it all started from the

situation in Harbour Deep. Quite simply, they lived off the fishery 100 per

cent, and as I told them when I was over there: You are just going to have to

turn around and face inland to see if there is mining potential, forest

potential. That is all they are doing. It is quite simple. They are looking at

the development of a resource that is in front of them that is not utilized and,

of course, now the point is to be able to get somebody to do it.

Of course, in this new era that is coming, and it

is even coming to Newfoundland, with the possibility of that lamination plant,

wherever it is going to go - it might not affect Harbour Deep in any way, but

according to what I read up on and research, laminated wood and modernized

lumber mills are becoming a way of the future now for the 1990s and into the

next century. There are all kinds of possibilities in Europe if they know there

is a timber stand over here, such as the one in Harbour Deep, so the

possibilities are there for private people to come in and utilize that wood

stand.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister answers that

question, I have been informed that Mr. Oates is having a little bit of problem

with the volume and he has asked that you speak up. Everything was okay until

the air-conditioner cut in, so you have a little bit of competition.

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

people who are operating in Roddickton, the Canada Bay Lumber Company, and the

people who are proposing the lamination plant in Roddickton, most people, say

Roddickton -

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

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

considered now.

- are aware of the wood supply in Harbour Deep.

Whether it is just aware of the wood supply, or whether it is the wood - I don't

know if they know the difference between the Mooney block and the Crown land

that is there. They have looked at it as a possible wood supply for their plant,

but they haven't - there have been no specific plans, no indication to the

department, that they are looking for access to harvest. There is some concern,

as the member would know, that that is an area that has not been harvested for a

long time. It is a very beautiful area. You have the Soufflets River. We would

expect that it would be subject to more environmental scrutiny than maybe the

existing harvesting areas on the Island. That is something you would have to

deal with through the environmental process.

Anyway, in any event, the people who would be

operating the lamination plant and the Canada Bay Lumber, totally for export, as

you know, are aware of the Harbour Deep wood supply and have looked at the

possibility; and they may have - I'm not aware that they have - looked at the

economics of it. There is a potential there and we just have to go through the

process.

MR. SHELLEY: There is also, on a small scale, I

don't know if you would run into much environmental problems with a modern saw

mill right in Harbour Deep. There is even a possibility that would be suffice to

what these people are asking me. They are talking about 100 - well, 200 people,

but 100 working men over there, so I mean, even a small saw mill at this point.

Anyway, I will just tell the minister: I have a letter coming to you, and you

may consider pursuing any possibilities. I mean, you have to look before you

decide anything about that, I guess.

I will skip on to the next question then. I'm going

to jump around a little bit, as I said, until my time is used up. Newfoundland

Farm Products: I asked the minister today in the House - quite straight about

that, too, although in the House sometimes during Question Period we just go off

on a tangent a little, I think we all do, but that is okay. Quite straight

again, I have had a lot of contact now, too, with people, from employees to the

unions to interest groups and so on, since I first heard about Farm Products -

not saying anything myself, just listening to what they had to say, in other

words, basically educating yourself and listening to the concerns. I will be

quite frank with the minister on that. One of the last questions I asked today

was that concern, and I don't know but what you've gone through the process and

maybe it is all there.

I say, as I have said before, that in general

principle I think it is probably a good thing, especially looking at the numbers

I have been doing over the last little while, that the privatization of Farm

Products is probably the right move to make. But there are concerns, obviously,

and the minister must have concerns, too. For example, there is the possible

scenario of outside interests, big investors, deciding to invest in this. Just

what safeguards are in place, or what concerns do you have with respect to

keeping the operation in the Province and ensuring it doesn't move out of the

Province?

MR. FLIGHT: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I would

say to the member, that if he is so concerned about getting this into the record

for the general public or for the interest groups he just referred to, then the

question should better, probably, be asked again in the House. Because

obviously, for some reason - is this the way it has been with the press since

your meetings started? Because I see there is not a member of the press here

now.

MR. SHELLEY: No, there is no press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There may very well be members of

the press up in the press gallery that I'm not aware of. This is the fifth

meeting and we have had members of the media here at two of them. It is not

surprising, based on the first two and earlier, that there would not be one

here. But they may very well be in the press gallery.

MR. FLIGHT: I will try to give the member an

answer - try to put his mind at ease.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a concern I had, too, by the

way - I'm sure every Newfoundlander has one.

MR. FLIGHT: Most people that I talk to,

including the Opposition, agrees that privatizing Farm Products is not a bad

idea - it is a good idea.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: But it is possible to conjure up

all kinds of problems that could result from the privatization, and that is one

of the worst ones, by the way, that some outside force would come in, buy it,

close it down, and move the production to the mainland.

Well, I can tell the hon. member that we have

called for expression of interest, and there is interest. At this point in time,

six, seven or eight parties have expressed enough interest to come and pick up

the prospectus that we have printed. I am not aware, at this point in time, how

many have actually delivered a proposal. Assuming there have been and there will

be proposals delivered, they will be analyzed and eventually I will take a

recommendation to government, if we get that far. But we are doing this with a

view to protecting the industry in Newfoundland, the producer industry. So we

will not go into any proposal, strike any deal with any company, that puts

Newfoundland's chicken industry at risk.

Now, there is not much more one can say. Obviously,

if one recognizes a proposal where the potential is that they are going to buy

it today, close it down and move the production, we are not going to do that

deal. We are hoping to get a proposal that is in the long-term better interest

of the chicken industry in this Province and will provide the means for the

chicken industry to reach the potential that exists in the Province by way of

increased production - that, for sure, doesn't include closing it down and

moving it to wherever.

MR. SHELLEY: I thank the minister for that

answer. I wish you had given it to me today, to be honest with you, because I

was being straight about the question to start with. I think that is a question

that has come from every group I have talked with, every person on either side

of the House. I think it was a genuine concern, and all I really wanted was for

the minister responsible to say exactly what you just said.

Obviously, my job and everybody else's who is

opposed to this, I mean, the idea of the industry being taken out of the

Province - don't stir up, as you said, mud, when there is no need for it. My job

and everybody else's job is going to be to make sure - of course, that is our

duty - that what you say, you carry out, and when we see the deal that has been

struck, see also that you have safeguards there to ensure that doesn't happen.

Because from what the minister said, you don't want to see that happen either.

Obviously, nobody wants to see an operation moved out of this Province.

The material I have been studying over the last few

days, shows, I think, that this Province is the highest consumer of chicken in

Canada right now. Last year, 80 per cent or 85 per cent of Farm Products'

revenues came from the sale of chicken.

MR. FLIGHT: One hundred per cent from now on,

because that is all that's left now.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, well, the hogs - that side

will be wiped out. So I did ask that question for that reason and I am glad I

got that answer from you. Whether the media are here or not, I wanted to ask you

that; I think it was a question that needed to be asked. It is not a matter of

stirring up mud, or anything like that, it is a point-blank question, really,

and I am glad you have given me that answer tonight.

Now, the next question, to jump again, because I

think there are only a few minutes left now - the third one and the other one to

be of concern, I already mentioned this one to you, is the relation with NCARP

programs, especially coming for this year. And I am sure the minister gets it as

I get it, indeed, we hear it every day - and it is not just going to happen, by

the way, with silviculture, it is happening in every sector. This whole

Province, the fisherpeople and those who are not fisherpeople, are saying,

`We're getting the wrong end of it again.' So, of course, the question has to be

asked again: are we making sure that if there is money from NCARP for people to,

say for example, go planting trees or thinning, or whatever to do with

silviculture, that we are not taking away from people who would usually work in

that particular sector?

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Nazir reminds me

and, of course, I have been fairly familiar with this aspect, if we were to get

money this year under NCARP to do some silviculture work - if we were - it would

be over and above the plans that I have already outlined, over and above any

spending we did last year. So it would be over and above that anyway, and

assuming that if you have the same level of spending in silviculture this year,

you would employ the same number of people by-and-large - it might not be the

same individuals, but the same number of people - any extra silviculture work

done as a result of NCARP money being made available, would be for people over

and above, and they would most likely be displaced fishermen, obviously.

It should be said, Mr. Chairman, that this is not

definitive. Number one, I cannot tell you with certainty that we are going to

get NCARP money to spend in the forests of Newfoundland but everyone also knows

that under the son of NCARP or new NCARP there is a job creation component that

wants to take some displaced fishermen and put them to work as opposed to having

them sit home and get paid a benefit. Well, if that is so then everyone in

Newfoundland agrees, the professional people as well, everyone agrees that if

you are going to have a job creation program in Newfoundland then you cannot

dream of a better employment generation program than silviculture.

The short term benefits is the job that NCARP wants

to generate and the long term is an enhanced forest capable of supporting our

forest industries, whether it is the pulp mills or the sawmilling industry. So

everybody agrees on that. I know the Federal Government sees that and the

Provincial Government sees it, and as a result of that, there are ongoing

negotiations. All I am saying to the member is that if and when we get the new

NCARP and there is a job creation component there, then I suspect that

substantial dollars will be made available to the Province through some

mechanism to employ these people and to create those jobs in silviculture.

It is not inconceivable to me also that, even

though it is intended to create jobs for displaced fishermen, if there are

people in a given community who have not found work and if the displaced

fishermen are taken care of, then it may well be that we may be able to have an

agreement where people other than displaced fishermen in a given community,

might be able to access it.

MR. SHELLEY: That was my next question.

MR. FLIGHT: It is open for negotiations right

now, it is being negotiated but there is no certainty at this point in time as

to what the program will be when it comes down.

MR. SHELLEY: That is what I was going to add to

that question but you have answered it anyway. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will turn it over now to

another member of our committee for ten minutes.

Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In going through the estimates I noticed that

2.1.03.06, the amount of money allocated for Purchased Services -

MR. CHAIRMAN: What page are you on?

MR. WHELAN: Page 122. There has been a drastic

reduction there. What would account for that?

MR. FLIGHT: What was it that we budgeted last

year?

MR. WHELAN: Last year it went from spending

$886,000, down this year to $75,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Just give me a second now.

DR. NAZIR: This relates to the cost-shared

agreement, co-operative agreement on forestry development and with that we try

to balance the budget with what is the amount left in the agreement, and that is

subject to approval by the management committee. Management committee may

approve certain things in this particular area but overall, we are supposed to

balance. We do not know what areas management committee will shift on, so daily

the board generally puts funding in one area or the other subject to transfers

later on. In this particular case, for example, there was a 10 per cent

reduction last year as compared to what we were supposed to get, so instead of

trying to take a little bit here and there, they would take a certain amount

from one subhead and then say, you can balance it later on. And there are two

more subheads in this forestry side that are cost-shared, so that a certain

amount is introduced in one and eventually it would be balanced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of Hansard, that

was Dr. Nazir, replying to that question. I doubt very much that there would be

any question of the voice with the accent.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) that project?

MR. WHELAN: Yes, okay. Again, I suppose, on the

same page, 2.1.04.06, we have an estimate this year of $534,400 as opposed to

$39,200 for last year. Would it be a similar situation?

MR. FLIGHT: It is almost, but that increases

the Labrador agreement; we will be spending $500,000, of increased expenditure

this year and it pertains to the Coastal Labrador agreement. We are spending

that on the Coastal Labrador agreement.

MR. WHELAN: Is that the project down around

Cartwright?

MR. FLIGHT: No, well, it is (inaudible)

inventory on the Cartwright area and the Port Hope Simpson area. It is basically

doing inventory on the amount that will be available in Coastal Labrador,

Cartwright primarily, but the wood supply is in the Port Hope Simpson area as

well.

MR. WHELAN: In Resource Roads Management, that

is 2.1.07, page 123. There are some enquiries to me with regard to snow clearing

and the management of roads during the wintertime.

MR. FLIGHT: Up to now, Don, for the past few

years we haven't been budgeting very much money for snow clearing. Years ago,

there was but as you know, as a result of the restraint we have been into these

past three or four years, forest access roads maintenance, practically every

program in every division of every department has taken its share of reductions,

and one of the areas that we reduced was the snow clearing on forest access

roads, so it is negligible. We budgeted $155,000 for road maintenance last year

and spent $152,000, so we budgeted $155,000 again, and in that, would be any

money spent on snow clearing on access roads.

MR. WHELAN: So what are your proposals for next

year, will that be increased or will there be any great emphasis placed on -

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

MR. WHELAN: I realize that yes, but, is there

any consideration given to having more money spent any time in the -

MR. FLIGHT: On snow clearing?

MR. WHELAN: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: No, only I suppose if we get a

situation where an operator or a member, for that matter, came in and had a

specific request for a road that was blocked and the operator couldn't get in,

that kind of thing, we would have to make judgement there and then as to whether

we would allocate some of that $155,000 to clear the road, but generally

speaking, we will avoid snow clearing on access roads.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. There is a little bit of

confusion here now, because I believe you mentioned in your opening remarks that

there was supposed to be a little over $7 million spent on silviculture, this

year, or am I mistaken on that?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, but that is in planting, that

is cost-shared.

MR. WHELAN: Alright.

Here in 2.1.09, page 124, there is no money

budgeted for silviculture. As well, there is no money budgeted for the forest

training program, and no money budgeted for forest management. What would

account for that?

MR. FLIGHT: That $434,000 there has nothing to

do with the agreement. That is provincial -

MR. WHELAN: $434,000?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: That was last year's.

MR. FLIGHT: No, it isn't.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it was.

MR. FLIGHT: But that was -

MR. WHELAN: There is no money budgeted for this

year.

MR. FLIGHT: That wasn't under the agreement.

That was 100 per cent provincial dollars to fund that employment generation

program we had. It was in silviculture, thinning and so on.

MR. WHELAN: Oh, okay.

MR. FLIGHT: But it was over and above -

MR. WHELAN: That was the emergency response

program.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

AN OFFICIAL: We got the money late in the year,

so (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: The deputy reminds me, we got the

money late in the year, I guess, September or October, and it had not been

budgeted for because it was a Special Warrant, if you remember. That is the

amount that was - and we are not estimating because that was an extra budgetary

decision last year, and if the same program happens this year it is going to

have to be an extra budgetary decision and a Special Warrant will be - $6

million, if you remember, in the total program.

MR. WHELAN: Now, the forest training program,

that is a different set of circumstances altogether.

MR. FLIGHT: That is a federal-provincial

agreement.

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

it?

MR. FLIGHT: That is finished. That was a

three-year agreement that finished last year.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. The forest management

section, there was no money allocated there either? That was the money allocated

for the helicopter-based (inaudible), so that was just a one-shot deal, was it?

MR. FLIGHT: That was money we purchased from

this Helitactics company that manufactured that fire-fighting technology in

Bishop's Falls.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I remember.

MR. FLIGHT: That is the money we used to

purchase the system. Of course, we won't be purchasing one this year.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to agricultural

initiatives, 3.1.07 page 130, there are appropriations provided for the

implementation of the Technology Enhancement and Industry Support Services

Program. That program has been finished as well, has it?

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

program, ALFI, that was finalized and completed, and ended in 1994, so the

figures you see there are the 1993-1994 expenditures by the department, but we

don't have a new agreement for 1994-1995.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

You don't happen to have a breakdown - certainly

you wouldn't here, I guess - of the financial assistance to organizations? How

many organizations are there in the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: How many organizations?

MR. WHELAN: Yes. You have here, financial

assistance to organizations.

MR. FLIGHT: Those are the grants, the

sustaining grants, Newfoundland Lumbermen's Association, the Newfoundland

Federation of Agriculture, I can tell you there are dozens.

MR. WHELAN: But this must pertain basically to

agricultural organizations.

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

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

the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: The figures in here would be the

amount of money that I spend, or the Department of Forestry and Agriculture

spends, or gives to organizations that are agriculturally related or

forestry-related. The money you see here is the money that is budgeted in the

Department of Forestry and Agriculture for allocation to these various

organizations.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I realize that.

MR. FLIGHT: Now, I am sure the Department of

Social Services would have dozens of organizations that they fund.

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

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) items under that

subhead.

MR. FLIGHT: My deputy tells me there are

twenty-one items, or twenty-one organizations, under that subhead.

MR. WHELAN: You don't have a breakdown on the

amount of money that each organization receives? Would it be possible for me to

get that?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the Department of

Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: And that is the Department of

Forestry and Agriculture. I will give you an example. I will read some to you:

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, $500; that is to help fund -

MR. WHELAN: But that is forestry.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: I am basically interested in this

section here.

MR. FLIGHT: What are you on?

MR. WHELAN: Page 132, 3.2.03, agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay, agriculture. For instance,

Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association, NLPA, $64,000.

MR. WHELAN: Did you say the Lumber Producers

Association?

MR. FLIGHT: Newfoundland Lumber Producers

Association, $64,000, annual grant, sustained grant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up but I will allow the

minister sufficient time to answer the question to your satisfaction.

MR. WHELAN: What I am trying to zero in on is

the agricultural organizations -

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

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

them.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WHELAN: I'm trying to -

MR. FLIGHT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I

am having a hard time (inaudible) what is happening, but I really am having a

difficult time hearing.

MR. WHELAN: Maybe I can (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know how to address that,

Mr. Minister. I can hear him over here.

MR. WHELAN: I am dealing with

section 3.2.03,

page 132.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WHELAN: Page 132.

MR. FLIGHT: Financial organizations - you were

asking for a breakdown of the grants. Here is the breakdown of the agricultural

grants:

Farm Women's Association - we provided $14,000, a

standing grant to that organization, gave them a cheque for $14,000. Agriculture

marketings and promotions - we are proposing to expend $12,000. That would go -

we are not proposing anything this year. Pardon?

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Tell me what is happening with

agriculture. Is that (inaudible)? So it is the Farm Women's Association, as I

told you, $14,600. We have the agriculture marketing promotions projects and we

are not allocating any expenditure this year on that particular group. I don't

know why they are (inaudible). So, federal-provincial committee, $1,500;

livestock slaughterhouses, $26,000. Newfoundland and Labrador School Milk

Foundation, $150,000.

MR. WHELAN: What was that again?

MR. FLIGHT: Newfoundland and Labrador School

Milk Foundation - Nova Scotia Agricultural College, $129,000; Wild Blueberry

Association of North America and North American Strawberry Growers Association,

$3,600; local community groups, Regional Pastures, another $115,000. That is the

breakdown on the agricultural side of groups or organizations that get funding

by way of grants.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go to Mr. Woodford, I

recognize that the minister said he was having trouble hearing Mr. Whelan, and I

recognize that Mr. Whelan appeared to be having trouble hearing the answer from

the minister. I can only ask that all members and the minister speak up when

they are questioning or giving answers. It is, I guess, the only suggestion I

can make.

AN HON. MEMBER: Earphones.

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

the earphones.

Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In last year's estimates I asked the minister about

the increase for the limits of the Farm Loan Board. You were saying at that time

that possibly there was a paper pretty well ready to go to Cabinet. I don't know

what the limits were or what intentions he had but there was $75,000 at that

time and there is still $75,000 today. I was wondering if the minister could

give a status report on that particular situation now. Is there going to be

anything done about the raising of limits in the very near future?

MR. FLIGHT: Rick, it is an ongoing process, as

I indicated last year. We see the benefit of increasing the limit from $75,000

to -I think the figure we use is $250,000. Now, of course, you could argue that

$150,000 is enough, but at least, going from $75,000 to probably $250,000.

There have been some difficulties in convincing

various orders of government that we should do that, and there have been

discussions at Treasury Board level. It is an ongoing process, and I am hopeful

that shortly we will indeed convince the people who have to be convinced that it

is the right thing to do, to raise that limit to $250,000, the figure we would

be aiming for.

MR. WOODFORD: I, for one, don't understand. I

can understand where the minister is coming from in trying to convince his

colleagues, especially the people in Treasury Board. The benefits that would

come from that particular move alone, especially at times like this in the

Province, where that is an industry that could be expanded, would be, I would

say, substantial. As you know now, one of the holdbacks that farmers face in the

Province, or anybody in the agricultural industry, is when you go to farm credit

you are paying almost as much, and probably, in some cases, more than you are

through the banks, unless you happen to hook on to what they call a

commodity-based loan. I think that is gone now. It used to be with the Farm

Credit Corporation, FCC. But, unless something like that happened, I mean, their

loans are really expensive. All those loans from the Farm Loan Board do not go

out unless you have collateral, anyway, and I think - the minister can correct

me if I am wrong, but I think it has one of the best repayment records that the

Province has.

MR. FLIGHT: That is right, there is no question

about it - there is almost 100 per cent repayment.

MR. WOODFORD: There are different reasons for

that. I won't get into it but there are different reasons for it. In any case, I

think it would be a real plus for the industry, and for expansion in the

industry if something like that were done.

MR. FLIGHT: Anyway, the comment I make, Rick,

is that there is some thinking that in order to raise the limit from $75,000,

say, to $250,000 would require government finding $1 million to put into the

fund. Now, there was some disagreement as to whether that was actually a fact,

or not a fact, but with the budgetary situation we are in there were some people

who wanted to make sure that would not be necessary because that is another $1

million in the financial situation in which we find ourselves.

At the same time, there is a review being looked at

of all the funding agencies of government, the Fisheries Loan Board, the

Newfoundland Farm Loan Board, rationalizing various boards. At the time we were

talking about doing the increase, that is what was happening. But I am still

convinced, and I think we will convince Treasury Board, to have the loan limit

increased.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I wish you luck and I hope

they see the light. If they are not going to put it into an industry that is

growing and into an industry that has almost a 100 per cent repayment record,

then I ask the question, what are they going to put it into?

Under Regional Pastures, 3.2.04, it is cut pretty

well 50 per cent from what was budgeted, the difference in the revised figure

and what is budgeted for this year. What is the intent there? Is that going to

be a cut on the animal unit alone?

MR. FLIGHT: The intent is that we reduce the

amount of money being allocated to community pastures by 50 per cent and we are

reducing the number of pastures in the Province by 50 per cent. That 50 per cent

will then be allocated to the existing surviving pastures.

MR. WOODFORD: In other words, you are saying

that the allocations will be made to the viable pastures, the pastures that are

trying to do something for themselves?

MR. FLIGHT: The most viable pastures, the

pastures that serve the greatest need in a given region or in a given area. I

guess, when you look at the kind of money we had available, if we were to

continue on with the thirty-two pastures there wasn't enough money to go around,

and you are wasting money in lots of cases. But look at the viable pastures

potential - the pastures that had a future that were getting a fair share of

activity by way of animal units. We are going to be notifying the operators of

the other pastures from whom we will be withdrawing support, and in next year's

budget that $115,000 will be allocated to roughly fifteen pastures and right now

there are thirty-two, I think. But now this year, in order to make it easy for

the pastures that are going to be phased out, we are sharing the $115,000 among

the thirty-two existing pastures, however, we are telling them that if they want

to stay in business, the ones we are not going to support as of this year, then

they can make their own arrangements.

MR. WOODFORD: So what you are saying then is

that all the pastures will get a share of the $115,000 this year?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So that means that all the

pastures will be cut 50 per cent this year?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I don't agree with that. If

it is a viable unit and they are not doing their share, then I don't see why

they should be given another stay of execution.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, Rick, you would be interested

in knowing, we have some cost-shared dollars - okay?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: - that are available and that we

will spend on the viable or the pastures that we intend to continue to support

in the future.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, that was my next question,

because there were monies allocated last year under the extension that were not

utilized and were not allocated. That was my next question, wondering what you

were going to do with them, because whatever that fund was, if you are going to

allocate that on the same basis, then that would be unfair, totally unfair.

MR. FLIGHT: We are going to allocate that.

Let's assume we have identified the fifteen pastures that are going to exist as

of this year. We are going to allocate that $150,000, for instance, to those

fifteen pastures. So they will have as much money, or more, to operate this year

than they had last year. But the fifteen designated for closing will get their

share of this budget here and it is not on a basis, I guess - you know, there

were two lots of advice; one was to close them now and just write a letter and

tell them they are cut off and that's it or to give them an opportunity to come

to grips with the fact that we are not going to continue to support them, and to

provide their funding this year out of the reduced funding. But that will be it,

this will be the last year now. I suspect those pastures will close and revert

to common unless there is an initiative in the community to keep them going

without government funding.

MR. WOODFORD: How will you allocate that? Will

it be done on animal units, on the total acreage of the pastures? Just say, for

instance, if there is $150,000, fifteen pastures at $10,000 each or what? How

will the allocations be done, on a per animal unit, and when?

MR. FLIGHT: It is going to be based, the same

as last year, on animal units.

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

allocation?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but I'm talking about the

extension money. How will you allocate that?

MR. FLIGHT: The $150,000?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: To the fifteen existing -

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Animal units plus potential.

MR. FLIGHT: It will be the same thing, animal

unit plus potential, plus requirements that are needed to upgrade that

particular - because there are going to be identified, let's use, as an example,

the community pasture in Robinsons, serving a major -

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Of course. No, but it is a major -

there is no question about its future viability, there is no question about the

need, there is also no question that it needs to have some money over and above

the animal unit, this annual grant, spent on it, either in fencing, in liming or

whatever. So that $150,000 will be spent - animal unit, in the first instance,

is on a needs basis to get it up to a certain standard.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, because a lot of those

pastures could be utilizing programs that are already available for fencing and

stuff like that, and very successfully. The Community Development program from

Social Services, the CEIC program, job strategy and all that. I mean, a lot of

those pastures are just not utilized, not taking advantage of the programs that

are already there, especially where they are labour-intensive.

MR. FLIGHT: Exactly. If I could make the point

Rick, you are absolutely right, and the Department of Agriculture is saying that

we are going to maintain or continue to be responsible for fifteen pastures, and

the fifteen that close, or at least, we withdraw support from, have the option

to do what you are saying, to take advantage of any programs that are available

if they have the initiative, and if they can convince the government departments

or employment generation programs or Department of Social Services, there is no

restriction on them, it is just that they will know they will be operating

without the Department of Forestry and Agriculture funding. And I might tell

you, too, that I expect some `flack', for want of a better word. It will be a

little controversial; people will argue: `You shouldn't have closed my pasture,'

but the stats speak for themselves. Dr. Hulan did a - I guess he is familiar

with -

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: When you did you task force report,

I am sure you identified with the pastures that had great potential and should

be supported, and pastures where we were wasting our money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not decided yet?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, they are decided.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not made public.

MR. FLIGHT: It is not made public at this point

in time. When I say they are decided -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. The way it is going to be

released is, letters will be going out on each individual pasture or to the

pasture management groups, and that letter will be going out shortly under my

signature.

MR. SHELLEY: So this spring everybody will -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, in a few weeks everyone will

know by way of letter under my signature, and I suspect there will be some

controversy, there will be people saying: Why are you closing my pasture? and we

will have to justify doing it.

MR. WOODFORD: Some of them need that dart.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: Some of the pasture committees -

what they need is a good dart like that and it will wake them up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will turn the questioning over

now to Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Minister, I am glad to be here

again this year. I remember saying to you last year, since there are no more

trees here in the Province now, a few here and there and so on, it is about time

that we change the name of the department to Agriculture and Forestry, and you

said last year you would take it under advisement but I see it has not been

changed yet - probably Bob Peters had something to do with it.

MR. FLIGHT: That, coming from a potential

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture!

DR. HULAN: I have some good comments to make. I

am certainly pleased with the initiative that you have taken on the meat

inspection program, but my understanding was, it was going to be in place last

Fall. Obviously, something got in the way and inhibited its progress. Can you

tell us what happened, why it was not initiated last Fall?

MR. FLIGHT: I guess there is no one particular

reason, but it was a bureaucracy delay, taking longer to develop the regulations

involved because, as you know, the Department of Health and other departments

were involved, purely, a bureaucracy-type of thing, that has delayed it, and it

is only now that we are getting it in place. We are hoping that I can announce

the program in detail now. You are right, there is no specific reason, other

than trying to implement that, and you had to deal with the feds and with other

provincial departments.

DR. HULAN: Was there any move - I believe there

was, and your officials can give us the details - was there any move in the last

year or so to upgrade, to some degree, some of the slaughterhouses in the

Province?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, I am personally familiar with

one, in particular, but there were some local slaughterhouses upgraded, either

on their own initiative or, in some cases, using funds under the agreement to

improve or upgrade the slaughterhouses.

DR. HULAN: The reason I was leading up to that

one - and I am glad, personally, that it wasn't initiated last Fall, because I

know some of the slaughterhouses. I know, on the one in Robinsons, they did some

upgrading on their own, and now it is going to be more suitable for the program

when it comes into effect. Therefore, I was just - I am very supportive of what

you are doing.

MR. FLIGHT: By the way, that will be the

designated slaughterhouse for that particular area, obviously.

DR. HULAN: The regional pastures - I am very

happy to hear about the approach that you say you are taking, because indeed, I

have viewed most of the regional pastures around the Province and I think, with

the limited dollars, we have to put them to - I guess, in the old cliche, it's

where you get the biggest bang for your buck, and that is where you are going to

get the better response in the fifteen pastures that you have identified. I will

be anxious to learn what fifteen pastures they are, but that will come out in

time.

I have a question with regard to an industry that I

feel a little close to in this Province, and that is the dairy industry, and I

am told that there has been a reduction or a removal of the heifer bonus this

year - is that right - completely?

MR. FLIGHT: That disappeared in last year's

budget.

DR. HULAN: But was there not some money over

the last year in the heifer bonus area? No?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was done last year.

DR. HULAN: Last year? Okay.

Again, looking at page 132 on limestone, there has

been a reduction in the amount of money, and again, limestone is very important

to dairy farmers because those who have good land base use a lot of limestone.

MR. FLIGHT: Bud, to answer your question, I

suspect you are saying that there was a $40,000 savings, I guess, or whatever,

right? That resulted in a reduced purchase of limestone, probably as a result of

our increase in the price of limestone to farmers, which we did last year as you

know, and we have again this year.

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

that right?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

DR. HULAN: Three dollars?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

DR. HULAN: I can appreciate the situation you

are in, but that bothers me to some degree, there is no question.

MR. FLIGHT: It could mean a lower take-up. I am

concerned about it as well. It is the kind of issue that I may well have to go

back to government and talk about. If we feel that the dairy industry or the

agriculture industry is being affected in a negative way, kind of thing, and it

is directly the result of the price of limestone, then I would go back and make

the case.

DR. HULAN: I am also very pleased that you have

taken an initiative to put in place a poultry veterinarian. If we are going to

have a poultry industry we must have that; that was identified, of course. And

it is a good move that bodes well for your department, as far as I am concerned,

because the poultry industry is such an important industry. Something like 50

per cent - no, about 70 per cent of farm gate receipts, pretty well over 60 per

cent, come from poultry and dairy today, I guess. I am glad that there is going

to be a poultry veterinarian, because so often large animal veterinarians have

real difficulties handling the poultry problems, and we have lots of large

animal veterinarians, as we know.

On page 133, there is an allocation of

appropriations provided for upgrading the facilities at Newfoundland Farm

Products. Now, is that $200,000 going to be used this year, although you are in

the process of privatizing?

MR. FLIGHT: It may well be. Bud, as you know,

there is always upgrading needed, repairs, maintenance and that sort of thing.

DR. HULAN: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: I cannot say to you with certainty

that we are indeed going to do a deal to privatize, but there is no question

that if we don't, we are going to maintain Newfoundland Farm Products, and as a

result of federal inspections and that kind of thing, it is a standard

allocation.

DR. HULAN: Okay, it is a standard allocation

for maintenance and I can understand that. The other thing I noticed, ALFI is

gone completely.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

DR. HULAN: Yes, that is too bad. Anyhow, I have

a question: I noticed, in some of the cases, Mr. Minister, the funding for

Information Technology was greatly reduced - pages 122 and 127. Now, it may have

been due to the agreements that they were tied into. Information Technology -

that would have been tied in with the Canada/Newfoundland Cooperation Agreement

for Forestry Development. Is that how that came about? Because in Information

Technology, you spent over $1 million last year and now it is cut by 50 per cent

- line item 2.1.03.12.

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

the agreement.

DR. HULAN: Yes, I thought in response to the

answers to Mr. Don Whelan's comments - so I will not bother the other one there.

The other thing that hasn't come up, and I haven't

seen it in here - and I again will congratulate you on taking the initiative to

do what should have been done roughly - how old am I? I'm thirty-eight, so - no,

it should have been done a long, long time ago and that is to put 4-H in where

it belongs, with agriculture. Now, I couldn't identify it in here anywhere. What

kind of dollars are we putting into the 4-H movement?

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell you, Bud, there are

dollars in there. Let's find the -

DR. HULAN: While you are looking for it, I have

to say that this is a very, very important move. If we are going to change the

mindset and stimulate agriculture in this Province at the young age, this is a

tremendous organization. I was a 4-H club member for many, many years myself. So

I am interested in - I know you have dollars in there, but I was just wondering.

MR. FLIGHT: We are making a major contribution

to Camp Nipper, which is 4-H, in the Gambo area, as you know, and we provide

support staff to them. We give the employees actually - we make the vehicles

available to them. Kevin Aucoin, with whom you are familiar, is the director

responsible for liaison between the department and 4-H.

DR. HULAN: Well, I was going to comment on that

for the other committee members. The person who is heading up the direction for

4-H in the Province is Kevin Aucoin. He is an old 4-H'er from a long ways back

and I think you selected a good person.

MR. FLIGHT: Here is the extent, Bud, and it is

nothing near what I'm sure you would believe we should do, nor I believe we

should do if we had the wherewithal, but given -

DR. HULAN: I am more aware of the financial

constraints now than I used to be.

MR. FLIGHT: We are providing a $12,500 grant

directly to 4-H. We provide two full-time staff - the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture pays two full-time staff for the 4-H movement. We support their Camp

Nipper, which is a fairly important aspect of their operation. We will be

funding for them this summer one student whom they can put to work in any way

they choose, most likely it will be at Camp Nipper. That is basically the extent

of our support.

DR. HULAN: Two more very quick questions, if I

may, Mr. Chairman, by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could roll two of the

questions into one, Bud - your time is up. I have to go to another member.

DR. HULAN: Okay, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan, I'm sorry, you must

not have understood -go ahead.

DR. HULAN: Oh, I may go ahead, okay. Very

quickly, maybe Marty can answer this one. How has the response been with regard

to the establishment of 4-H clubs? What are the numbers like? Do you have any

idea, Marty? I should ask the minister.

MR. FLIGHT: No, go ahead.

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: There are approximately - I can get

these numbers specifically for you, if you want them, tomorrow - there are

approximately fifty 4-H chapters, units -

DR. HULAN: Clubs.

MR. FLIGHT: Clubs.

DR. HULAN: Membership in 4-H puts those kids in

a position where they take the leadership later on in many other areas.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have

just a couple more quick ones. Basically, I think that is about it for me.

First of all, I suppose, to talk about some

positive things, and I would like to bring them up, maybe even just to get an

update on them. The milk program in the schools, if you could just let me know

how that is proceeding and what the indications are for next year. Also, you

mentioned in your briefing notes the educational program that would be

introduced into the schools this year, from Kindergarten to Grade XII.

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. SHELLEY: You mentioned in your briefing

notes, an educational program in the schools this year. Could you expound on

that? Does that go from K to XII? Did I hear you correctly? that is what I

wanted to know.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes it does.

MR. SHELLEY: I was just wondering how it would

work out from there and what -

MR. FLIGHT: K to XII.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. What kind of program is that?

Is it involving the curriculum? Is there something special like that earth green

program they had one time? I took

part in that. There are different programs.

What is it, more specifically?

MR. FLIGHT: It is an education curriculum that

the department has prepared. There is a booklet which I can have provided to

members of the committee if they require it. Is it actually going to be a

curriculum in the classroom?

DR. NAZIR: There is a number of programs which

will go into the classrooms but (inaudible) Focus on Forestry (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Dr. Nazir tells me that there is a

number of courses that will go into the classrooms this year. Focus on Forestry

is the one that we intend to use this year. It is in booklet form. I have to ask

the question myself: Is this going to be treated as an academic course?

MR. SHELLEY: I would assume not.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) knows.

MR. SHELLEY: I am asking that from the point of

view of being a teacher, too, and I have seen them come into programs -

DR. NAZIR: I think it is somewhat part of

(inaudible), somewhat part of (inaudible) and then (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: In Kindergarten.

DR. NAZIR: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It would be something like the

read program that they had, where you implemented throughout the year certain

little projects that the classroom does. I'm assuming that is what it is, little

projects that they do throughout the year in the classroom.

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

MR. SHELLEY: As a course or anything.

MR. FLIGHT: I don't see it as an established

that happening in the future though.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure, especially at the higher

grades.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supplemental (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It will be supplementary now, I'm

sure, to the regular curriculum.

MR. SHELLEY: I would be interested in seeing

that because, being a teacher, I have seen programs on all kinds of recycling

coming through the school, and reading and everything else. I just want to know

how you are going to implement it and what it is exactly. Of course, the milk

program, if I can get an update on that - because that is one I've really

supported heavily.

MR. FLIGHT: We are making a financial

commitment, as you know, of $150,000 a year. The program is now utilizing or

using over a million litres in the school milk program itself, which is a

million litres of new production, I guess, because that market wasn't there two

years ago or three years ago when it was implemented in the first instance. It

has had fantastic success. Practically every school in the Province is part of

the school milk program now. Student consumption is - the concern about whether

they would drink milk or pop. There is no question about the success of it.

Students are drinking milk and doing it willingly, in the sense that it is

cheaper, obviously, because it is highly subsidized.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a fantastic plan. I have

brought it into the schools and pushed it through.

MR. FLIGHT: We provide $150,000 and the rest of

the cost of the program is funded by the processors and producers.

MR. SHELLEY: The price is pretty good, too. I

tell you what really hits on it is the young kids around here who don't get a

chance to drink milk at home because they can't afford it. They do avail of it

in the schools. I've seen it happen many times. So it is a good program.

Now, I am going to cross lines a little on this. I

know, because I've asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It

is in the area of block loading.

MR. FLIGHT: Block loading.

MR. SHELLEY: It is connected with your

department. I had a letter just the other day from the development association

in my area and they had some concerns. One that came up again, of course, aside

from the block loading, I guess, is the times when they have gone to the scales

and had their wood thrown off. Then, of course, I have known truckers who told

their brothers or whoever to go up and get the wood the next day, that they

threw off for themselves, and it is gone. So the first point, before you go into

the actual block loading, is the wood that was thrown off at the scales was

gone.

I am going to revert and ask a question about block

loading later. But has that been brought to your attention in the department?

Because I said I would bring it up to you tonight, because of the letter I

received a little while ago. But there is a problem with that wood that is

unloaded at the scales.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I can tell you, Paul, that

the - I will answer your second question and you might not need to ask the first

one. The block loading has not been resolved yet. There have been problems in

transportation. Transportation has problems with it, as you know. I asked the

minister last week. I understand they are going back to the industry now to see

if they can come up with some kind of compromise that will be acceptable to

everybody, because people have identified problems with block loading, as such,

problems that cause them not to be prepared to implement it holus-bolus type of

thing, so it has not been resolved, although it is a major concern.

MR. SHELLEY: It certainly is. Have they thought

about the problems that are there now?

MR. FLIGHT: My position is purely wearing the

forestry minister's hat, my responsibility as minister of the Department of

Forestry. I want to see a resolution that is in the better interest of the

people trucking wood. I thought block loading was the answer, but the final -

MR. SHELLEY: Is it the companies, though?

MR. FLIGHT: The final jurisdiction is with the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, because of weights and

everything else on the roads, and the companies have a major concern, obviously,

and they have registered those concerns, so now they are trying to resolve

something that is acceptable to everybody. Whether they can or cannot, I will

leave -

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I hope they haven't given up

on it, because it is still a major problem.

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

MR. SHELLEY: It is getting more frustrating

with the dollars and cents now, as far as that goes.

MR. FLIGHT: Now your question on what happened

to the wood that was thrown off, most of it is delivered to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture at his summer residence or winter residence, and I sent

some out to the previous critic from Cormack.

I don't know what happens to the wood really. Can

anyone answer that question: What happens to the wood that is taken off the

truck if it is overweight at the scales?

MR. SHELLEY: It is a question that should be

answered by someone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The scalers? Maybe - I don't know,

but certainly these truckers have a legitimate beef, as far as I am concerned,

if it is being taken time after time. They have started to ask the question:

What is happening to this wood that is thrown off?

MR. FLIGHT: The assistant deputy minister just

suggested to me that he was aware the trucks were being stopped and tickets were

being issued, fines were being issued. He wasn't aware that wood was actually

being taken off trucks. Now, I haven't seen wood removed, but truckers have told

me it is done.

I tell you what I will do. I will take that

question under advisement, because obviously, it can't be answered here. I don't

know. The deputy tells me he is not aware of what happens to that wood, and the

ADM is not aware, so I will take the question under advisement and provide an

answer for you in the next few days. The only people who can answer that

question, I would think now, are the people at the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation at the weigh scales.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will tell you why the

question was asked, and it not what I am insinuating, but what the loggers are

insinuating, and that is, they might even be getting harassed a little at the

scales because these fellows need some wood.

AN HON. MEMBER: You might be correct.

MR. SHELLEY: I am just saying what - anything

is possible, but if we can answer that question, maybe it will stop that abuse

and cut down on some harassment being done at the weigh scales.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I have one more. You mentioned the

Green Plan a few minutes ago, didn't you? Could you elaborate on that a little?

That is the last thing I will ask.

MR. FLIGHT: We signed a $2 million agreement

under the Green Plan.

MR. SHELLEY: Two million.

MR. FLIGHT: Basically, most of the funds will

be agriculture-related. We have farms that have had trouble with the

environment, manure, spreading problems, the need for manure pits, that kind of

thing, so we are identifying. Some of the money will be spent in specific

projects on various farms that apply. Other money will be spent in training or

making available technology to farms to manage their operation in the most

environmentally acceptable way possible, it is called the Green Plan but

basically, our money will be spent, from an environmental point of view, on

existing farms, most likely.

MR. SHELLEY: With respect to farmers and land

clearing, especially expansion on their own land, has there been any thought or

consideration - I do not know anything about this so I am asking -given to

financial assistance for land clearing for farmers?

MR. FLIGHT: There is financial assistance.

Under the agreement, farmers can apply for grants to clear land or to purchase

equipment but normally what happens is, they make their applications and -

MR. SHELLEY: Is that federal/provincial shared?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, as long as the money lasts. I

would suggest that the bulk of the money spent under that agreement is probably

for land clearing, because I sign every application, every approval crosses my

desk; I am not familiar with every exact one but I do make a point of seeing,

number one, who it is, where it is going and what it is for, and off the top of

my head, I would guess that the majority of the money spent under that agreement

is for land clearing.

MR. WOODFORD: Or renovations.

MR. FLIGHT: Or renovations, yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Those are all the questions

I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what we will do now is,

take a five-minute recess, so we can stretch our legs, have a cup of coffee or

whatever and we will ask if Mr. Oates will signal us when the five minutes are

up, and we will come back and resume.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that we have had our cup of

coffee, I will recognize Mr. Whelan to continue the questioning.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering if the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture have had in the past, or have presently, plans to identify any, I

suppose, good agricultural land in the Province, if good agricultural areas have

been mapped out and, is there any ongoing policy in the Department of Forestry

and Agriculture to try to protect these areas for agriculture?

MR. FLIGHT: I say to the member, that is already

done. Everybody is familiar with the agriculture zone on the Northeast Avalon.

We have identified agriculture development areas in Wooddale. The Robinsons

area, I think -

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No? Okay. There are twenty-two

agriculture development areas in the Province and the famous ones, I suppose -

and I don't know if they are designated by any kind of legislation or even

regulation, but obviously the West Coast, the Codroy Valley area, we know, has

the best agricultural land in the Province with the Robinsons area, moving into

the Cormack area, that has been designated, I am sure, as an agricultural area.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, the community of Cormack, the

whole community, 33,000 acres, is not only designated as agricultural, but with

a community plan, the only one in the Province based on that (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. So the only one where there is a

freeze existing, where you cannot use the land for anything else, I guess, or

the freeze existing to the extent that the land freeze on the Avalon Peninsula -

but in the Wooddale area, for instance, you are not permitted development, are

you, other than agriculture? So there are areas all over the Province where the

important agricultural land has been identified and protected to the extent that

it is reserved for agriculture.

MR. WHELAN: Apart from the freeze here on the

Avalon Peninsula, is there an ongoing policy of government - for example, if

there is any type of development that is being proposed, usually it has to be

passed by each and every department, each and every pertinent department.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: Is there any sort of protectionist

policy for agricultural land as opposed to a development that would have

practically no returns anywhere in the future?

MR. FLIGHT: Any land use in the Province has to be

approved if there is such a thing as a land use development committee.

Obviously, if that land use development committee is passing judgement on an

application to do something on a piece of land, and if there is opposition or if

there is a concern expressed by the Department of Agriculture, and that land, in

that process, is identified as agricultural land and should be preserved as

such, then I would suspect that the land use development committee would not

permit the land to be used other than for agriculture, unless the applicant

could convince everybody that they were all wrong and it had no agricultural

value.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Just a quick follow-up on Don's

question, Mr. Minister. Has there been any other ADAs identified - agricultural

development areas - other than the Northeast Avalon and the Wooddale area in the

last five years? For instance, Deer Lake - although they have a plan, they are

not identified as an ADA, are they?

MR. FLIGHT: They are not gazetted as such.

DR. HULAN: No. Because I know that -

MR. WOODFORD: They are planning areas.

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

MR. WOODFORD: No, the Deer Lake planning area.

That would be the area outside the actual plan of any municipality, like, for

instance, Goose Arm.

DR. HULAN: I know the furore - Marty and I smiled

at each other. I know the furore it created out in the area that I grew up in. I

think in the task force report we said: Try it in a couple of more areas and if

it works then go there again. But really and honestly, I personally think that

if we are going to protect agricultural land in this Province, we have to resort

to that. Because greed will do all kinds of things, and you know what I'm

talking about there.

We were in a meeting today, Don and I, with an

individual, and he raised a question that local farmers are having difficulty in

selling their hay - baled hay or whatever, because the buyers in the Province

claim that quality-wise and nutritionally it is not as good as mainland hay so

they buy up on the mainland. I suspect that in many cases that is true, if the

hay isn't harvested at the right point of maturity, then you would lose some. Is

that a general problem, I'm asking, for farmers?

MR. FLIGHT: It is not a problem that has come to

my attention. Is the department aware of that, Marty? Would you want to comment

on that?

MR. HOWLETT: No, Bud, it is not a general problem,

because as you know, hay today is bought on quality and bought on test. If

anyone has hay or forage in the Province for sale and were prepared to get it

tested - because farmers today just don't go and buy hay, as you know, or

forage. They buy it based on soil tests for protein, TDN and so forth. If they

have a product - and we can have it tested, we can test it in our labs - their

forage or hay, that they feel is as good a quality, it is only a matter of

submitting it for tests. We will give them the results and they will be able to

sell it to farmers as tested.

A lot of guys are expecting the farmers these days to

just buy hay because you see it in a sale. It doesn't work anymore. Most of them

buy hay on the mainland now, it is not bought on spec. They are buying it either

sixteen or eight or nine or ten, whatever he wants, protein, and so much TDN and

so forth. So, it is not a problem. Now, if you cut hay in September, it

certainly is a problem.

DR. HULAN: That is right, and that is the exact

thing I raised today. I said, I know farmers start making hay in the last week

of August and that is then straw you are making, not hay. So, Marty is right.

MR. WOODFORD: If it is the second cut, it is no

problem making it in August.

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

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

DR. HULAN: The last question I have, and I have to

raise it here, because it is such an important issue for my district and area of

Newfoundland, is about the wood supply for the Stephenville mill. It would be

remiss of me if I did not raise it, at least, here.

You may not want to make a comment now, Mr. Minister,

you know we are going to be meeting, all of us, on it again, but it is a very,

very serious problem and we have to get around it somehow.

MR. FLIGHT: I would, as you would expect, be

fairly guarded in any comment I would make at this point in time. Everyone knows

or most people would know who have an interest, that the Abitibi limits in this

Province originally were meant to supply the Grand Falls mill because that was

the only mill Abitibi owned. When Abitibi became the owners of the Stephenville

mill there was, indeed, wood allocated to supply that mill, but Abitibi's

original wood allocations are wood licensed lands, that are supplying the pulp

mills. And, in my mind, it is becoming less and less designated for Stephenville

or designated - everything west of Red Indian Lake close to Stephenville. And

the problem, of course, is economic wood. They are running out of economic wood

in the Stephenville area or on lands that they saw as supplying the Stephenville

mill. As a result, the wood is coming from further and further away and becomes

more and more expensive. And there are no Stephenville designated limits, so

there is a problem. There is a problem, I guess, with Abitibi limits period,

with the supply for the two mills, the question of Abitibi limits, the regional

limits, being capable of supplying two mills as opposed to one.

Now, I say to members, without fear of contradiction,

that properly managed, with the right utilization of wood, with the right forest

management, neither of the mills will ever be threatened as a result of a wood

shortage supply. We have the Labrador ace in the hole; you know, they are

importing - and some people don't like that - they are importing about 40,000

metres this year from PEI and Nova Scotia. But yes, there is a problem and it is

a problem that has been discussed with the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture all the time and we are trying to rationalize the wood supply.

Abitibi has, over the years, identified Corner Brook Pulp and Paper limits as a

potential where we might be able to ration, because they have over - there is a

question of a shortage of wood on Abitibi limits and there may well be an over

supply of wood on Kruger limits, so if you can rationalize both in a way that is

acceptable to everybody and that kind of thing -

DR. HULAN: I tell you, Mr. Minister, at the last

meeting I had with all the loggers in the Stephenville area, ninety-three turned

up that night, eighty-eight the first night in a blizzard. So they really have

it close to their heart. But one thing that came up was the - now, of course,

the union is not very impressed with the transfer from Kruger to Crown, because

Crown can be cut with non-unionized loggers.

MR. FLIGHT: Because they think it is going to go,

that's right.

DR. HULAN: So they are pushing for a transfer from

Kruger to Abitibi. Just in the confines of this Chamber, do you think that is

ever going to be possible?

MR. FLIGHT: The transfer of land or the purchase

of the 1.6 million acres of land from Kruger to the Crown is agreed in principle

and still being negotiated in that sense but there is an agreement principle - I

don't think there is any possibility that 1.6 million acres will be transferred

because Kruger is selling that land to the government for their own good

reasons. Obviously, that would not be an option, I am sure, with Abitibi Price,

but the problem you have in the Stephenville area with regard to unionized

loggers, is a problem, I guess, that has nothing to do with the wood supply per

se, it has to do with where the wood is cut, who is delivering it and who is

cutting it. It is a fact that, as you know, the bulk of the wood supply in

Stephenville now is coming off what we considered one time the limits for Grand

Falls and it is unionized workers in that area who are supplying the wood.

DR. HULAN: They are complaining about those as

well.

MR. FLIGHT: Right, but that is the big complaint,

I think, they are complaining about the amount of wood that is coming out of the

Crown to Stephenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a serious problem.

MR. FLIGHT: It is a serious problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: The status of that 1.6 million acres

that we just got back, I think it was 800,000 acres of freehold land this year

and the remaining 800,000 for immediate ownership of service rights, they are

retaining the timber rights of that until the year 2037 according to the

statement.

MR. FLIGHT: On the half?

MR. WOODFORD: On the 800,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Simply put, I guess, we are purchasing

1.6 million acres of freehold land from Kruger, and to half of that, 800,000

acres, Kruger will retain the cutting rights, the licenses, the same way they do

on their licensed land for roughly thirty years, until 2037. That is the

negotiated part of the arrangement.

MR. WOODFORD: Can you tell me now roughly where

that land is? What about around the Deer Lake-Spillway area? Is that included?

MR. FLIGHT: To all intends and purposes it is all

Kruger's freehold land in Newfoundland. Obviously, Kruger has interests that we

have to recognize, for instance, operational land, land around the mill in

Corner Brook. Obviously, they have to retain that. You can use the Glenwood

example where they have that major operation so they have to retain whatever

acreage is required to do that. There are some municipal lands, they may well be

in the City of Corner Brook, or they may be in Deer Lake, that they are talking

to us about retaining in this deal.

I know the lands you are referring to in Deer Lake

because I think we have discussed it, and that is about to be resolved. We are

at the stage now of their identifying the specific land they would like to

retain and for the reasons they would like to retain it. We have also identified

- if there is a dispute here, we are thinking about that land the Town of Deer

Lake needs, as an example, for sewer (inaudible) and that kind of thing.

We have drawn the lines to accommodate that and

hopefully they will accept it, but there are certain very small proportions

compared to 1.6. I would not want to put a figure on it, but maybe hundreds of

acres as opposed to thousands of acres that they would want to retain simply to

accommodate their operations.

MR. WOODFORD: At this time, I would like to say to

the minister that in the municipalities where there are community plans, and

even where there are none, in the so-called municipalities planning areas, I

don't think Kruger should be allowed, under this, to retain that. I have an

example now in Spillway where there are a number of people who don't have title

to their property; they built in the older days and so on, and there is no way

Kruger will release it. They are saying it is held as collateral. They will not

even entertain a meeting with them. Another example is where the town of Deer

Lake could quite conceivably be held up from putting in a lagoon system which

would stop every bit of sewerage from going into one of the biggest fresh water

bodies in the Province - held up because of Kruger ownership. It is all little

pockets, they have a pocket here and then it is Crown, a pocket there and then

it is municipal. It is just like a checkerboard. As far as I am concerned the

minister is going to use his authority and use the government's heavy hand, if

he has to, and do something about it.

MR. FLIGHT: I know we are just being specific on

that one particular issue, and I know it is important to you, but I am hoping

that the sale will resolve the thing. As you know, the Town Council of Deer Lake

had come to me before they were even aware that the sale was in progress, and I

was going to use my good office, so to speak, as minister, to try to convince

Kruger to do a deal with the Town to accommodate them, but with the sale, I am

hopeful that the lands we are talking about will be part of the sale, in which

case, we will deal with the Town.

The other point that has to be made in Kruger's

defence, I guess, is we are paying roughly $10 per acre, buying 1.6 million

acres for $15 million, which works out to about $10 an acre.

If they have what they consider valuable land in the

middle of Corner Brook or in the middle of Deer Lake, then I can see them having

some objection, to saying: We are not prepared to let that go for $10 million.

They may be using that as collateral or security or whatever. Although,

by-and-large, we are going to get all their freehold land, they will obviously

have some concerns about specific pieces of land in specific places that they

have a specific reason to retain.

MR. WOODFORD: We have a great penchant for -

MR. FLIGHT: If you will permit me to just make the

comment, because (inaudible) here made it, I thought I implied it - there is an

agreement in principle. The agreement hasn't been consummated, hasn't been

signed, the details are still being worked out, but I have no doubt the details

will be worked out because it is in their better interests for their own reasons

to do this deal.

MR. WOODFORD: ALFI was finished last year.

Agri-foods is finished, too. There is a little bit of money left over, I think,

this year.

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

MR. WOODFORD: What are the prospects and what is

the status of the federal-provincial agreement now? There has been no agreement

now. As you know, it was extended last year and I think it was extended the year

before for a year or so.

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

another year.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but there is no -

MR. FLIGHT: That is the second extension now.

Effective March 31 of this year, it is extended to 1995.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that was -

MR. FLIGHT: This is the clean-up year on the old

agreement (inaudible) extended, yes.

MR. WOODFORD: That was clean-up.

MR. FLIGHT: They have extended the agreement - we

don't have it finalized - for one year, which, in effect, would be the second

one-year extension.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Because last year we operated on an

extension. This year we are going to be operating on an extension again. The

only thing we haven't finalized is the amount in that extension. Will it be the

same as last year's allocation, or will they want to reduce it? Because it is a

70-30 agreement. Or can we convince them to increase it a little bit? That is

where we are right now in trying to find out.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but the funding last year, when

they were looking at it first, was something like $40,000 per unit. Then it was

watered down, I think, to around $9,000 or $10,000 now, if I'm not mistaken.

That is the last word I got on it.

MR. FLIGHT: What do you mean per unit?

MR. WOODFORD: Per Crown unit. It was something

like $40,000 and now it is all watered down and people - I'm hearing names -

people who got a couple of thousand dollars' worth of sales getting just as much

in that agreement as people who have been in the industry for the last thirty

years. So I just question it. I'm looking for confirmation, but it is obvious

that when they identified the funding that if they identified $40,000 per farm

unit they must have based it on a viable operation.

MR. FLIGHT: But it wasn't predicated that $40,000

would go to per farm unit, was it?

MR. WOODFORD: Total funding under that - what was

left over under that agreement would have worked out under that allocation. I

could be wrong. It might be $30,000 but I heard it was $40,000. Now it is down

to, I think, something around $9,000 or $10,000. Maybe that is wrong, too. Maybe

Marty can clarify that. If it is, someone is getting money who shouldn't be

getting it.

MR. FLIGHT: Maybe we could keep it short.

MR. HOWLETT: No, Rick, what happened in that

agreement - I guess you try to anticipate the demand that you have. So, of the

$2.5 million, there was roughly $1.3 million allocated for the on-farm

development component. For that, we had in excess of $6 million in requests. So

the original intent at looking at up to $40,000 certainly couldn't be upheld.

Therefore, what they had to do was, they looked at from different income levels

- say, from $0 to $10,000, $10,000 to $20,000, $20,000 to $40,000, and $40,000

upwards - and allocated money on that basis. The highest allocation was

somewhere between $10,000 and $13,000, and then they ranged - it could be down

as low as maybe $1,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Depending on the gross income.

MR. HOWLETT: There weren't cases of someone

getting in last year and getting as much as someone who was in thirteen years

ago or thirty years ago. It wasn't done on that basis, it was done then on a

project. The committee felt that rather than give a person a quarter of the

project - okay, they might say: I don't know if that is his first priority or

his second, but here is a project here that we can fund and allow him to take up

the full amount. It might be land clearing, it might have been equipment

purchase, or it might have been some type of building. That is the basis they

used then to allocate the funding.

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

they?

MR. HOWLETT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: What about the land consolidation? I

don't think there was anything in there last year for land consolidation, was

there?

MR. FLIGHT: $400,000 last year.

MR. WOODFORD: $400,000?

MR. FLIGHT: The same as this year.

MR. WOODFORD: And $400,000 allocated for this

year. Have you moved off the Avalon yet with regard to land consolidation?

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. WOODFORD: No?

MR. FLIGHT: No. As a matter of fact, it only

applies to the agricultural land freeze on the Northeast Avalon. There have been

some comments that suggest we should look at the same program for other parts of

the Province. As a matter of fact, I think anyone who read the Simmons

agricultural review raised that issue.

MR. WOODFORD: I said before, and I say again,

instead of giving an operator or farmer monies to clear land all the time, they

should look at the availability of farms in a given area that is already

cleared, and cultivated to a certain extent. It would take a lot less money for

renovation than it would for clearing and sowing and so on. The government would

save money especially, for instance, in the Cormack area where you have land

that has been developed over the years and if left - some are holding on to it,

won't sell it - if left over the next number of years would all be grown over.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Not only that, but it would make a

viable farm unit. Say, for instance, you have fifty acres here and someone else

has forty, and somebody else has fifty, if it were consolidated it would make an

excellent farm unit, much like the White River road proposal they had in there a

number of years ago.

MR. FLIGHT: So you are saying, that program should

be extended to Cormack in that case, or Robinsons, or -

MR. WOODFORD: Or Codroy, anywhere where there is a

potential for as the member was saying, and as Don was referring to, the

potential agricultural development wouldn't be going, it would be lost because,

as you know, and you said it before, the best agricultural land is a piece of

land that can be used for anything. It is the best land going for development,

for residential purposes, for growing trees, for doing anything, for recreation.

It is the best land in the Province, and everybody tries to grab that piece of

good land. Anyway, I know you are under restraint.

MR. FLIGHT: There is nothing wrong with the

principle you are espousing.

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

MR. FLIGHT: It's the money problem.

MR. WOODFORD: I realize that, but then again, you

need a lot of support for something like that.

On your red meat program, your inspection program,

referred to earlier by the Member for St. George's, I think one of the things

you have to look at there with regard to the slaughterhouse situation and the

red meat inspection program, that is going to have to be worked in conjunction

with some of the final decisions you have made on pastures, because that is

where the nucleus of lambs will be, that is where the nucleus of a beef herd

will be, and that is where the nucleus of a cow\calf operation would be in those

areas. And the dairy operations, the dry cow operations, are all put on the

pastures and they are taken back and sent to the HUB meat packers in New

Brunswick.

Now, as you know - I am sure you are aware of it - we

have an excellent success story in Cormack where the slaughterhouse was built by

the Humber Valley Development Association and now passed over to a private

operator, and he has sausages all around the Province now. He is into Sobeys, he

is into Dominion, operating year-round, doing all the lambs, doing all the beef,

and the potential for a value-added product there is unreal. I just say to the

minister that if that is close to going through, that is going to be a big plus

to the survival, that will add to and help the survival, of those pastures in

those areas that you have already identified.

MR. FLIGHT: I think it might be the thing that is

holding back the expansion of the sheep and lamb production in this Province,

too, and there is major potential for that. So one of the reasons that it hasn't

grown any more is the lack of particularly inspection facilities where they can

put the stamp on and sell it from Sobeys as opposed to, not black market, I

guess, but almost, from door-to-door.

MR. WOODFORD: To a certain extent, and then you

have the forage program and hay program that were referred to earlier. Now, most

of the farmers, I know in our area and out in St. George's, have become

self-sufficient. That is why we have this year, for the first time that I know

of, a surplus of silage in our area. And, I mean, this is good, 14 per cent, 15

per cent - anywhere from 12 per cent, 15 per cent, 16 per cent silage. If you

are feeding this time of the year you are talking about excellent quality stuff

and this is where it is going to come in with regard to excess. Because anybody

who has excess forage and excess silage, excess hay, they want to utilize it,

and it is going to be utilized into a beef herd, or cow\calf operation, or

lambs. That is going to augur well for our area, anyway.

Someone else -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions?

DR. HULAN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: For a number of years we were working

on a technique to make very fine top-quality leather from seal hides. We have

been able to accomplish that. In fact, in June, I will be going to France to

consummate a deal on the whole thing. It is a project between us at the

University and the University of Toulouse.

Also, recently, we started working with the same

technology with regard to sheep and lamb hides, and the quality of the leather

that we can produce from lamb and sheep is fantastic. You have never seen

anything like it before, I tell you, because the technology isn't used

commercially in North America. We are the only ones who have it.

As Marty can tell you, in any sheep operation what

makes or breaks your profit line is what you can get out of your wool and your

hide. Because that is basically, to a great degree, a large part of your profit,

and we know what has been happening to the hides of our sheep here, they have

just been discarded for years. That is one of the reasons why the industry is

going down - the profit hasn't been there.

This technology is very unique, it is completely

environmentally friendly, and we can produce the most high-quality seal leather

for about seventy cents a square foot. Other technologies, you are talking

$3.50, $4 a square foot. So, I see it as another great opportunity for the lamb

and sheep industry. And I keep talking lamb and sheep, I keep saying that we can

be the lamb capital of Canada and all of this. Sooner or later it will occur.

That is one added thing that we didn't have before now. It is now available and

it will be commercially set up in Newfoundland.

MR. FLIGHT: And you agree that the establishment

of regional slaughterhouses, whether they are privately-owned or publicly-owned,

and the inspection services, should enhance the growth of that particular

industry.

DR. HULAN: No question whatsoever. The only

problem that we have, and I know Marty and you people have talked about it, a

very serious problem, is the coyote. We do have the coyote and they are

multiplying fast. That is really serious. That is not your (inaudible). Wildlife

- they are the culprits.

DR. HULAN: I could keep on going all night but I

won't. Thank you very much.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that you

move 1.1.01 to 3.2.08 inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.2.08, carried.

On motion, Department of Forestry and Agriculture,

total heads carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

I have a couple of comments I would like to make, but

before I do I shall provide an opportunity for the minister to make a very brief

closing comment, if he wishes.

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

Chairman.

On behalf of my officials, I want to again express -

it's an obligation, I know. I am not here by choice, I am here by obligation,

but I want to thank the committee for the civility that has been shown here

tonight. And, obviously, the committee have indicated and expressed a keen

interest in the issues that are forestry and agriculture-related, and to the

extent that I have been able to answer, or my staff have been able to answer the

questions or queries, I feel good about that.

If any members of the committee have asked a question

that they feel they didn't get a substantial or a full answer to their

satisfaction, if they find a way to notify me I will see to it that the answer

is provided in the shortest possible period.

Having said that, I want again to thank the committee

for the way they have handled my estimates. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I would like to thank

you and your officials for coming this evening, and for the manner in which all

questions have been answered, in a forthright manner. I would like to thank the

members of the committee, particularly Mr. Woodford, the Vice-Chairman, for the

manner in which they have asked the questions and have co-operated with the

Chair. What you have seen here tonight is an indication of the kind of

co-operation this committee has shown the Chair from the time the committee had

its first meeting.

I would also like to thank Elizabeth Murphy for

spending her evening with us again, and our Page, Mr. Pearcey, and Mr. Oates who

has been up there diligently recording the proceedings of this evening.

Having said that, I would now entertain a motion to

adjourn.

On motion, committee adjourned.