Resource Committee — Department of Forestry and Agriculture — 7 June 1993

1993-06-07

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

June 7, 1993

RESOURCE ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Penney): Order, please!

I would like to welcome everybody to our final

meeting of the Resources Estimates Committee. 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.

Before I introduce the Committee I will draw your

attention to the fact that you have had distributed minutes of the meetings of

June 1 and June 3. I would now entertain a motion to adopt these minutes as

distributed.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now introduce the members

of our Committee. My name is Melvin Penney. I am the member for the district of

Lewisporte, and I will be acting as the Chairman for this meeting tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only acting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only acting. On my immediate left

is the Member for Humber Valley, Rick Woodford. The other members of our

Committee are: the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, Paul Shelley; the Member

for Fogo, Beaton Tulk; the Member for Harbour Main, Don Whelan; the Member for

Kilbride, Ed Byrne; and the Member for St. George's, Dr. Bud Hulan.

The role of the Chairman in these proceedings is

very similar to that of the role of the Speaker of the House of Assembly. It is

quite simply to maintain order and decorum. I would like to remind everybody

here tonight though that it is a much more informal setting. The dress code is

relaxed to the point that you can remove your jackets and ties, if you prefer.

As well, you can have a cup of coffee or tea brought into the Chamber, which is

something that is not permitted during House of Assembly proceedings. It is not

necessary to address anybody by title. We are familiar with addressing members

by the district they represent, but for tonight everybody can be addressed by

name.

I would like to recognize our Table Clerk for the

night, Mr. John Noel.

The procedure that we have been using for these

meetings is that we will allow the minister fifteen minutes for his opening

remarks and then we will allow the Vice-Chairman fifteen minutes to respond,

unless the Vice-Chairman wishes to have somebody else designated to do that.

Then we will allow it to go ten minutes each to the members of the Committee. I

have asked in previous meetings, and will do the same again tonight, instead of

making a ten-minute speech and expecting the minister then to reply to twelve or

fifteen questions hidden in the speech, that we use a system very similar to

what we use in the House of Assembly during Question Period: the member will ask

a brief question and I will ask the minister to co-operate with a brief answer

and when his ten minutes are up we will go to another member. If the member has

not asked all the questions that he wishes to have asked, then I can assure him

that the Chair will get back to him again. This procedure has been followed, not

to the letter, I suppose, but fairly accurately over the previous meetings, and

I will ask for co-operation from everybody tonight.

I remind the minister's officials that they are

permitted to answer questions only if directed by the minister to do so, and I

remind the members of our Committee that they are not permitted to question the

officials - their questions must be directed to the minister. If the officials

answer any of the questions directed to them by the minister, they must restrict

their answers to items of fact and not delve into anything related to policy.

Since the microphones are designed for a person to

speak into from a standing position, I ask members and the minister's officials

to lean into the microphones when they speak. For the sake of Hansard staff, who

will be transcribing everything that is said here tonight, I ask the officials

to introduce themselves each time before speaking.

I think that just about covers everything that

needs to be said. I now ask the minister if he will, for the record, introduce

his officials and then he could proceed directly into his fifteen-minute opening

comments. Mr. Minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me say that my officials and I

appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee, such an august bunch

as I am looking at across the way, obviously well-informed.

I would like first, as you said, Mr. Chairman, to

introduce my officials. On my immediate right is Mr. Bob Peters. Bob is a Deputy

Minister of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture; on his immediate right

is Dr. Mohammed Nazir, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the

forestry side of the department; and on his immediate right is Mr. Len Clarke,

the department's Director of Finance; on my immediate left is Mr. Martin

Howlett, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the agricultural side of the

department.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to do as you suggest, lead

with an opening statement. I don't think it will take fifteen minutes - I hope,

as a matter of fact, it will be less than ten. I do have some notes prepared for

me and I will basically read the statement right into the record, but before I

start, I have to tell members of the Committee that I have been hearing all

kinds of rumours that these hearing are winding up in an hour-and-a-half when

three hours were designated, and to remind them all that at 10:30 p.m. my

favourite hockey player comes on TV. Mr. Gretzky faces off against the Montreal

Canadians. So, anybody who wants any favours from the Minister of Forestry, this

is in the record, they had better be cognizant of the time, 10:30 p.m.

MR. TULK: I am urging the minister to keep

(inaudible) from politics - that is all I am afraid of.

MR. FLIGHT: No, no there is no question about

that - no worries about that. Don't worry.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I have two sets of

notes here because it is the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, having

been, at one time, pretty well line departments. So, in my speaking notes, I

will deal with the forestry side of the department, Mr. Vice-Chairman, and then

deal with the agricultural side of the department in the same opening remarks as

opposed to doing it -

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the procedure we would

prefer, Mr. Minister.

MR. FLIGHT: In the Budget, as everyone knows by

now, the forestry side of the department is dealt with, then it goes into

agriculture, and they are not intermixed in the Budget. In any event, Mr.

Chairman, during these tough economic times, and we don't need any elaboration

on that, there is not a lot to cheer about. However, we feel satisfied that we

are doing our best to manage the forest resource of this Province and to ensure

the viability of the forestry industry and continued flow of non-timber goods

and values for this important practical resource.

I am glad to say that the three pulp and paper

mills have managed to hold their own during this recent recession. In fact,

total production of newsprint was slightly higher in 1992 as compared to the

previous year, and I am hoping the pulp and paper industry will be on its way to

recovery and improved profits.

Similarly, the sawmilling industry continued to

provide some cushion to an otherwise ravished economy of this Province. In fact,

three of the Province's sawmills started exporting lumber for the first time

since the early 1920s. The lumber prices have improved significantly and should

result in further improvements in the industry.

My department's main forestry mandate is management

of the forest resource. The 1993 Budget provides for expenditures directed at

enhancing the productivity of the forest resource, its adequate protection

against fire and insects, and its proper use. I will explain some of these

initiatives in a little more detail in a few minutes.

I want, however, to advise this Committee, and

through it, the hon. House of Assembly, that forestry in Newfoundland is

currently undergoing transformation of revolutionary proportions. This

transformation relates to changes currently under way which require the

management of the forest resource on sound, ecological principles, and provides

for integrated use of the resource for wood production and various non-timber

values and uses. The department has established a very elaborate system of

internal reviews and planning for making this change a reality. This fits quite

nicely with the government's commitment to sustainable development.

Under the current Canada/Newfoundland co-operation

agreement on forestry development, the department's program either directly, or

through cost-shared agreements with the pulp and paper companies, will result in

silvicultural treatment of about 13,000 hectares of forest land. Approximately

7.6 million trees will be planted on Crown and company-held forest land. Over

5,500 hectares will be thinned to enhance the growth rate of young forest

stands. Other silviculture treatments will include restoration of old high

graded forests to new, vigorous stands, preparing forest areas for next year's

planning programs, and the control of competition. The cost-shared funds will

also help continue the private woodlot program in the Western part of the Island

and on the Avalon. Currently, there are eighty-seven woodlots involved in the

program. Others are joining on a steady basis.

The department will continue to provide assistance

to the sawmilling industry in technology development and technology transfer. It

will also be supporting the work of the Newfoundland Lumber Producers

Association in improving the viability of the sawmills.

Another cost-shared program is the Forestry Youth

Training program, which is in its last year of existence and will see an

expenditure of $1.2 million in training young people for various silviculture

operations.

While we have been fortunate during the last few

years that we did not have insect epidemics of the proportion of the 1970s, we

still have significant infestation of hemlock looper and some pockets of the

spruce budworm. We will therefore be treating approximately 20,000 hectares of

forest in Bay d'Espoir and Central Newfoundland with the biological insecticide

Bt. This program is cost-shared with the pulp and paper companies.

This year's budget provides for an ongoing level of

forest access road maintenance which is the bare minimum. Despite our desire to

increase the funding available for this purpose, we had to live with the reality

of constraints. I am, however, very pleased that this year's budget provided

almost 100 per cent increase in capital funds for construction of forest access

roads. This was necessary and important to access the wood for maintaining the

wood supply to the industry. I feel a certain amount of satisfaction on this

increased funding for improving access to the forest resource.

At the end, I want to acknowledge a serious

situation with availability of federal funding for forestry. The current

Canada/Newfoundland co-operation agreement on forestry development expires on

March 31, 1995. The Federal Government, last Fall, reduced funding in the

remaining two years of the agreement. Again, in last month's budget the Federal

Government announced its intention to totally withdraw from forestry agreements

after the expiry of the current agreement.

The forestry program in the Province depends very

heavily on federal funding. I shudder to think of the consequences of lack of

dedicated long-term funds for silviculture and other forestry development

activities. I raised the matter with the federal minister responsible for

forestry and I will be pursuing vigorously the continuity of funding for

silviculture and other important forestry programs.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, for the last three years

we spent approximately $12 million per year in silviculture, and when you

understand that 70 per cent of that money last year, and in previous years, was

Federal Government money under the agreement, and that the Province would have

spent approximately $3.5 million out of a total of $12 million, you can imagine

the devastation to our forest enhancement programs and silviculture programs if

the Federal Government doesn't change its mind and is not prepared to negotiate

any new forestry agreements.

That concludes the comments relative to the

forestry side of the department, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister should be informed

that if he were to take more than the designated fifteen minutes, the Chair will

be more than lenient and all we will do is just allow an equal amount of time

for the Vice-Chair to respond, so there is no problem.

MR. FLIGHT: Surely - of course.

Mr. Chairman, this past year has been an extremely

busy one for both the agriculture industry and for government. Last year, 1992,

saw farm cash receipts top $62 million, which was an increase of just under 3

per cent over 1991.

Let me highlight some of the activities of the past

year and also some of the planned activities for the next year. Last June, as

everyone is 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 agriculture industry.

The strategy stated a provincial meat inspection

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

by the department and are now being forwarded to other interested departments

for consultation. Training is under way for three inspectors and has started for

the regional veterinarians. Equipment purchases and laboratory renovations are

almost complete. An evaluation of the current facilities has been undertaken and

implementation of the program is expected this Fall. Funding has been secured in

1993-1994 to continue and expand our research and trials utilizing local feed

sources to livestock and poultry feeds. In the past couple of years, the

department has carried out work with fish offal and meal - actually, we are

talking about the seal meat program. Four feeding files were implemented and two

feeding files have been completed that investigated the use of this offal as a

protein supplement for growing lambs. These investigations have shown that

further work would be very beneficial. Work is also under way or planned to

determine the feasibility of feeding offal to broiler chicken and dairy cattle.

Funding has also been approved in the 1993 Budget under the Strategic Economic

Plan to assist producers in the construction of vegetable storage, thus allowing

industry to expand their marketing season. A lack of good quality storage is a

major impediment to this sector of the industry.

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

allocated as government's contribution towards the school milk program. We have

worked closely with Municipal Affairs and in consultation with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Federation of Agriculture with respect to an equitable and standard

municipal tax structure for farms, and I expect to be bringing a paper to

Cabinet shortly to deal with this matter.

Several of the items in the Strategic Economic Plan

can only be accomplished through a federal/provincial cost-shared agreement. The

Canada/Newfoundland Agri-Food Development Subsidiary Agreement has been extended

to March 31, 1994 but we are now seeking additional funding. While the Province

is ready and anxious to sign, the Federal Government has yet to give its formal

approval. Program details have been worked out in anticipation through the

co-operation of both levels of government and industry. What I am referring to

here is the extension to the Agri-Food agreement, worth approximately $2.8

million to the Province. The details have been worked out and we are ready to

sign but the Federal Government has not, to this point in time, seen fit to sign

the agreement which, in effect, means that we don't have access to that $2.8

million. But we are living in hope that the Federal Government will, indeed,

sign the agreement and flow the funds so that we can continue with the type of

work we are doing under the Agri-Food agreement.

A farm management agreement has also been signed,

for which a total of $1.8 million has been committed to this program over a

three-year period beginning in the fiscal year 1992-1993. Last year, I spoke of

one of the issues facing the industry, that of the GATT negotiations and its

potential impact on supply management. To date, no agreement has been reached

and formal talks are expected to begin again this Fall.

In conclusion, let me add that the commitment of

this government to the supply/manage commodities remains unchanged and we

continue to support Canada's negotiating position at the GATT talks with respect

to agriculture. That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, if I could make a correction: When I

was reading the statement a little earlier, I said, a farm management agreement

has also been signed. My assistant deputy tells me I said a total of $1.8

million, but it really should be $1.08 million. A little over - not quite $2

million. A total of $1.08 million has been committed to the program over a

three-year period, beginning in the fiscal year 1992-1993.

Mr. Chairman, having concluded my comments, I will

look forward to the comments of the Vice-Chairman or any members of the

Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I now

turn it over to the Vice-Chairman for his fifteen-minute response.

Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: This is not so much a point of order

as just a clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, Mr. Tulk.

MR. TULK: I was under the impression that

always after the minister had spoken you allowed the shadow or the Opposition

critic to reply for fifteen minutes. That was always done.

MR. FLIGHT: That was always done, yes.

MR. TULK: It is four years since I was here,

but that was always the procedure.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was by leave, wasn't it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is quite prepared to

allow that to happen. I think if you recall, what I said was, it will be the

Vice-Chair or his designate, and it is entirely up to him whether he wants to

designate any particular person.

MR. TULK: I notice that has been happening in

this Committee - the Vice-Chair knows all.

MR. FLIGHT: To that point of order, Mr.

Chairman. In this particular case -

MR. TULK: There are two very intelligent young

men back here, one in forestry and one in agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: To the point of order, though, in

fairness. If you remember, Mr. Chairman, last year the critic was the

Vice-Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, okay. I just thought I would

make that point. The Vice-Chair was, indeed, the official critic of the

department, so that made it easier, I suppose.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, to that point of

order. There is nothing in the Standing Orders and nothing in Beauchesne or

anywhere else to say who can respond in a committee, whether it is the shadow or

not. Because, in most cases, the shadow or the critic is not even there, not

even a member of the Committee. He would have to be designated as a member of

the Committee over and above the three members who are already on it. I say to

the hon. the Member for Fogo, it being four years since he was in the House, he

probably should get a new copy of the Standing Orders and just take a look.

MR. TULK: Well, I don't want to (inaudible) the

Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I figured that, but I

figured everything was a bit too quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair would appreciate hearing one person at a

time.

To that point of order, there is no point of order.

I remind members that the Committee is the master of its own destiny. In this

particular case, the decision has already been made and the ruling of the Chair

is that the Vice-Chair will respond unless he designates somebody else to do so.

I will again recognize the Vice-Chairman. Your time

will begin as of 7:55 p.m.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you, too, for the protection of the Chair.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned the Agri-Food

extension. I understand that was supposed to be an extension in which the

funding would come from ACOA.

MR. FLIGHT: Through ACOA.

MR. WOODFORD: Through ACOA. So, you people are

ready to sign that and it is held up by the feds. Is there anything new on that

in the last few days?

MR. FLIGHT: It has been budgeted because we

were so sure that we would have the agreement. The amendment was negotiated and

agreed to by both sides but the money had to flow through ACOA, and when Mr.

Mazankowski indicated that they wouldn't be renewing the subsidiary agreements

they also apparently included, in their way of thinking, the two amendments. As

a matter of fact, there is one for forestry and agriculture.

MR. WOODFORD: Has there been anything new in

the last few days?

MR. FLIGHT: No, every day I ask and we are

still waiting and hoping that they will, indeed, sign. Shortly we will - I

realize I am taking up your time and I am prepared to let you have all the time

you want. We have to - it is coming to a head pretty soon because we have

programs ongoing that are intended to be funded by those amendments, and the

time will come when those programs will have to be dead-ended and people laid

off.

MR. WOODFORD: Not only that, whether the

funding is there or not right now, the season is here and people want to get

moving. I talked to them on it last week and I understood there might be

something as of last Friday.

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Minister, Abitibi-Price: last

year the subject came up pertaining to the importation of pulpwood from outside

the Province, and as well, from the Island part of the Province and Labrador. I

understand now that Abitibi is thinking about bringing in another ten or eleven

bargeloads from Labrador. Will there be any subsidy paid on that? There is

rumour out my way now that there is possibly a subsidy being paid for Abitibi to

bring that in. Is that true or not?

MR. FLIGHT: No, there is no subsidy paid from

Labrador but the Federal Government, under the Maritime Freight agreement -

MR. WOODFORD: Freight Assistance.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Freight Assistance. The

Federal Government provides a freight subsidy for the wood that came from PEI

last year, but there is no freight subsidy for wood being barged from Labrador

to Newfoundland. It was purely a freight subsidy that was paid. The Province is

not subsidizing in any way, shape or form, nor is the Federal Government, other

than providing the freight subsidy that is there anyway, that they can take

advantage of if they move wood from PEI to Newfoundland.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes but did you - I couldn't get

hold of anybody from Abitibi this evening. Did you hear anything about them

bringing in these ten or twelve bargeloads?

MR. FLIGHT: They intend to bring in 30,000

metres from Labrador, 30,000 metres from Bay d'Espoir and 30,000 metres from PEI

this year.

MR. WOODFORD: I can understand them bringing in

wood, regardless of where it is from, I mean, you need wood to run the mill, but

I can't understand their turning down wood that is so close to the mill. Why

won't they take the - there are cutters out there for the last ten or twelve

years and they won't take their wood.

MR. FLIGHT: I say to the hon. member, this

causes me concern, and as the member knows, last year the arrangement or

contracts or whatever, had been signed before we even became aware that there

was wood coming from PEI. It concerns us very much, and I had many meetings with

Abitibi-Price about it, but it is a fact of life, apparently, that they can

deliver PEI wood to the mill in Stephenville more cheaply than they can get wood

from any source in Newfoundland. So, I would say that our industry has problems

from that point of view.

MR. WOODFORD: Our fellows now, on the West

Coast, have been told that they can distribute four loads in June, and the

maximum that they can take off some operators is fourteen in July, and that is

it for the year. I mean, that is terrible.

MR. FLIGHT: But, in the meantime, remember that

the 30,000 metres that comes from PEI - what is that? about 12,000 cords. But

that is really still only a drop in the bucket compared to Abitibi's overall

requirements that they will get on the Island.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and they want fresh wood and

they want it freshly cut.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: And there is wood that is close

to the mill but yet, they have been told - I had three phone calls this weekend

from people saying that they have been told, `that is it' after July; and the

wood is spruce, which is what they are looking for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: It is spruce and it is a good

fibre plant.

MR. FLIGHT: The best fibre, obviously, is the

wood from Labrador.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right.

MR. FLIGHT: Again, while we are into this, I

might say for the Committee's information that the PEI wood justifies their

bringing in the Labrador wood and the Bay d'Espoir wood because (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the minister if he could speak into the

microphone. We are having some problems getting the volume picked up.

MR. FLIGHT: I am sorry.

They are justifying, if they need to justify, I

guess, bringing in the PEI wood on the basis of the low cost of PEI wood and the

high cost of Labrador wood and Bay d'Espoir wood. The fact that they are

bringing the 30,000 metres from PEI justifies, from a cost point of view,

bringing the wood from Labrador and Bay d'Espoir. It is a blended price, and the

low cost of the PEI wood makes it possible, economically, for the company to

bring 30,000 metres from Labrador and 30,000 from Bay d'Espoir.

MR. WOODFORD: On the access roads for the year,

Mr. Minister, Chouse Brook especially - I understand the contract is called for

the White's River - Bridgers Pond area, in the Chouse Brook area. I have been

told that wildlife has some concerns pertaining to that particular section, the

next

section to be done. Is that so, and is that why the tender for it has not

been let?

MR. FLIGHT: No. The real reason, I say to the

member, is that the wildlife people have some concerns that they want resolved

relative to the Chouse Brook Road, and our information is that will be resolved

shortly and we will be calling a tender for an extension.

MR. WOODFORD: So the concerns are not enough to

really stop the project from going ahead?

MR. FLIGHT: No, we don't think so.

MR. WOODFORD: They had some concern, I think,

pertaining to the caribou calving grounds there, and it didn't make much sense

when there were roads on either end of it.

MR. FLIGHT: My information now is that we will

be able to resolve the concerns of wildlife in the next few days and then tender

the extension.

MR. WOODFORD: With respect to the agricultural

sector, Mr. Minister - even in the Strategic Economic Plan, I think, it has been

addressed - there has been some talk for the past couple of years about raising

the limits to the Farm Loan Board from $75,000 up to at least $150,000. As you

know, there are no limits now anywhere, I don't think, in Atlantic Canada. I

don't think PEI, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia have any limits - I don't think

there is a limit on it.

Is there anything new on that particular item? Has

anything been done? There is nothing in this year's budget again. Is it possible

there will soon be something on raising the limits to the loan board?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, I want to inform the member

that in the very near future, as a matter of fact, I will be going to Cabinet

for approval to raise the limits, and I think we are talking - because there is

a limit in Newfoundland, as you know, of $75,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Seventy-five thousand, yes.

MR. FLIGHT: We are looking at a limit of

upwards to at least $150,000 for the first move, anyway, and I expect that will

be approved.

MR. WOODFORD: There will be something on that

soon?

MR. FLIGHT: Very soon. The process now, I

guess, is the Cabinet committee process, and I will be asking that it be dealt

with as quickly as I can get it to Cabinet.

MR. WOODFORD: Your Green Plan, Mr. Minister, in

agriculture - I think it is 3.1.06: Green Plan Administration - Grants and

Subsidies of $75,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: What is the status of that plan

now? What is this $75,000? What is going to be done? What are the plans for it?

MR. FLIGHT: The Federal Government is paying

100 per cent of the capital cost of the Green Plan, as indicated here, $75,000.

That is current account - I'm sorry, yes, it's the current account portion that

the Federal Government funds 100 per cent. We spend the money, I guess, and get

the money back from the Federal Government. Are you asking me what we are doing

with that $75 million?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. Seventy-five thousand is in

here. Is it signed?

MR. FLIGHT: It is basically for environmental

improvement and, yes, it is signed.

MR. WOODFORD: It is signed.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. Isn't it?

No, the ADM reminds me, Mr. Vice-Chairman, this is

not in place, but we budgeted for it because there is every expectation that we

will have this particular - and what it is for, is environmental improvements on

farms. It is almost 100 per cent, actually. The environmental sustainability

initiative is a program designed to take action in a number of areas, including

soil conservation, water management and waste management. Action can include

technical or financial assistance for research, demonstration, monitoring and

awareness, but is by and large environmental.

MR. WOODFORD: An environmental program.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Is there an agreement signed with

the feds? I understand PEI has one signed. Do we have one signed?

MR. FLIGHT: On this agreement?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: No, the agreement, itself, is not

signed.

MR. WOODFORD: What is the hang-up? Because

everything seemed to be in place with respect to that program. Why would there

be a hang-up on signing that?

MR. FLIGHT: There is no hang-up, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: Or further implementation.

MR. FLIGHT: It is going through the process.

The hon. member will know - and we know the kind of work we intend to do with

the funds that are available. Was it a three year agreement - funding over three

years? It is funding over three years and this is the first year of the

agreement. We have budgeted for the program. It is in process and it is

negotiated. There is no indication that there will be a problem in actually

signing the agreement.

MR. WOODFORD: Last year, didn't they have 50

per cent up to a maximum of - forty or something like that. Pertaining to manure

pits.

MR. FLIGHT: That was under a different

agreement, though, it was under the Environmental Sustainability agreement.

MR. WOODFORD: For one year, that was, I think.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, for one year.

MR. WOODFORD: So the other one is not in. Mr.

Minister, the contract for the White's River road, that is out, isn't it? Is the

tender out on that? The White's River - Bridgers Pond area.

AN HON. MEMBER: The White's River road.

MR. FLIGHT: Tenders have been called for that.

MR. WOODFORD: Tenders have been called.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Are there any other agreements

around the Province now, something like the one we have in Chouse Brook and

White's River, with Abitibi-Price or Kruger?

MR. FLIGHT: You mean land transfers? We are

talking to the companies all the time but there isn't one of the magnitude of

either of those. There is the St. Margaret one on the Northern Peninsula, Chouse

Brook and White's River road, but there is nothing of that size being talked

about to Abitibi or Kruger right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair now recognizes Dr.

Hulan for ten minutes.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Minister, it is a little

different sitting across from you and calling you `Mr. Minister,' Sir, but I am

happy to do that. I have a couple of questions on, first and foremost, forestry

- although I notice that `A' always comes before `F' but it is always Forestry

and Agriculture. I tend to turn it around, you know, put the `A' before the `F'.

Anyhow, I have a couple of questions on forestry.

I was pleased to get some material from the

department some time ago, from the deputy, on the new proposed forestry

agreement, which I have gone through. I was very pleased to see what your

department has been doing with regard to private woodlot management. It is

something that has been long overdue in this Province. Coming from an

agricultural background, as I do, and from a farm that had a fairly large

woodlot to manage, I commend the foresight of those in forestry in going in that

direction. As I said, it is long overdue.

One of your assistants will be able to answer this:

What total acreage is involved now in private woodlot management, and what is

the rate of increase over the next five years, for instance?

MR. FLIGHT: I don't know if Dr. Nazir could

give me the acreage. Off the top of my head, I know we have eighty-seven private

woodlot operations in Newfoundland right now, and that is a major improvement

over the last few years. Most of them, by the way, or a lot of them, are in the

hon. member's district, as he will know. Do we have the information?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: I say to the hon. member, we don't

have it, and there is no point in wasting the Committee's time on it now, but I

will prepare that and make sure it is made available to the hon. member.

As I indicated, there are eighty-seven private

woodlot operations. I don't have the information the member asked for. Maybe my

officials will have it before the night is over; if not, I will provide it to

the Committee.

DR. HULAN: The other area that I am keenly

interested in, and again, because of what has happened over the years on the

West Coast of the Island with so much clear-cutting, is your silviculture

program. My understanding is there is going to be a sizeable reduction in that

program. Is that fair to say?

MR. FLIGHT: Not this year.

DR. HULAN: Not this year.

MR. FLIGHT: Or next year.

DR. HULAN: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: Because the funding for

silviculture is, by and large, under the agreement, 70-30 and, as I indicated,

we spend about $12 million per year in silviculture. Silviculture encompasses

site reclamation, planting, thinning. We have the same level of funding this

year as we had last and there is no reason to believe it will be less next year.

The big concern, as I said earlier, is that if the

Federal Government decides to dead-end those co-operation agreements, then our

silviculture spending would be cut by at least 70 per cent, which would be

devastation to that particular industry. But there is no reduction from last

year, in the amount of money being spent on silviculture this year. I would say,

by now we have identified most of the areas where silviculture will take place -

the areas for planting and thinning and site reclamation.

Now, the paper companies - we cost-share the paper

companies' silviculture programs. In conjunction with the department, they

determine where on their limits they want the silviculture dollars spent, and

whether it is in thinning or planting. We are responsible for the silviculture

treatment on Crown land, as the hon. member would know, and again, as he knows

also, the bulk of his district is Crown land. The Bay St. George area always

accounts for a fairly hefty portion of the Crown lands silviculture budget and I

don't know that there is any reason to think it would be different this year.

DR. HULAN: The other area I want to touch on -

and again, I am pleased to see it receiving some attention - is the whole issue

on the private sawmilling operators in the Province. You know, we bring in an

awful lot of materials to build a house when really, years ago, that wasn't the

case at all. I think, about 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the materials going

into houses now are imported.

The sawmilling industry, of course, is suffering,

logs. What is the situation in the future with regard to the large paper

companies and the number of sawing logs that will be available to private small

operators? I understand that is about to change somewhat - there are

negotiations under way.

MR. FLIGHT: We do land transfers with the paper

companies and normally, any of those land transfers are driven by our desire to

provide a sawlog supply to the sawmillers. We demand 100 per cent utilization so

the sawlogs go to lumber and the pulp goes back to the company by way of

pulpwood or chips. As the member indicated, we are negotiating with both paper

companies to have sawlogs on their limits even if the sawlogs are cut by their

employees. We are negotiating with the companies to have arrangements where the

sawlogs go to private sawmills and we are obligated, of course, to provide the

fibre back in return.

As a matter of fact, there have been meetings held

in the past and I will be sitting in on meetings very shortly where I will be

looking to get a progress report from the companies' point of view. My officials

are aware and keep me briefed as to what is happening with those talks, but I

will be looking for some sort of progress report from the companies as to just

how far they have advanced towards making sawlogs off their limits available to

the sawmilling industry.

I think, if we are going to retain a viable

sawmilling industry in this Province, we are going to have to access sawlogs off

company limits. One of the reasons why sawmill industries cannot expand now is

because of the unavailability of sawlog material on Crown limits. I am

constantly saying no to sawmill operators who want to expand their operations

and increase their production, but I just don't have the timber available on

Crown lands, that is if we are going to manage our forests on a sustainable

basis and to guarantee that we are not overcutting and it is all gone in ten or

fifteen years. We are getting enough sawmills in this Province now, and with the

kind of technology and the rest, if the Department of Forestry were to permit

them to cut what they want to cut, or permit them to cut what they know they can

market, we would probably be devoid of forests in certain sections of

Newfoundland in the next ten years.

So, that is the challenge, maintaining the

production and helping to increase production but, at the same time, managing

the forests on a sustainable basis. To do that and to even maintain the present

rate of production, we have to get an agreement with the paper companies, and

you don't need sawlogs to make pulp. The companies understand that, the

economics and everything else, but it can be worked out. In fairness to the

companies, they have indicated willingness and are receptive to that idea. Five

years ago that would have been unheard of, I think, but the companies are

starting to accept the argument and they are receptive to co-operating and

helping us to achieve that. Where sawlogs off their limits are made available to

our sawmilling industry, we have to provide them, of course, with the fibre in

return. We can probably manage to do that off Crown lands if we are getting the

sawlogs off company lands, because they get 70 per cent of the tree anyway,

whereas only 30 per cent is turned into lumber. This has been a long convoluted

answer but I hope I dealt with some of the question.

DR. HULAN: One final question, Mr. Minister.

Because of the serious problem that is created in

this Province as a result of clear-cutting, the serious problem with regard to

soil erosion - let us take the worst scenario, in which we lose 70 per cent of

the dollars that might be going into a proper silviculture program in the near

future. Are there any other plans in mind to put in place to prevent soil

erosion? Because it takes about 100 years to replace one inch of topsoil in this

Province because of our climatic conditions and so on. Is there something else

in mind to - if you can't plant trees, if we don't have a silviculture program,

we had better get something under for a cover.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, you know, we don't plant -

when you talk about clear-cutting in Newfoundland, if you compare our clear-cuts

to those even of New Brunswick or definitely of British Columbia, ours are very

small. As a matter of fact, we prefer to refer to it not so much as

clear-cutting as selective cutting in the sense that the clear-cuts aren't that

big, and there is no other way - not with the requirements of the companies

these days.

I think it is fair to say that we do not, and would

not if we had the money, plant most of the clear-cuts because, as you know,

there is great regeneration in Newfoundland. So, even with the $12 million, we

only identify the areas that will not regenerate, or for some reason are not

regenerating naturally, and we go in and do a site reclamation and plant. It is

fair to say that the bulk of the clear-cuts, or the bulk of the forest harvest

in Newfoundland, whether it is clear-cutting or selective cutting, regenerates

on its own and therefore we do not treat it silviculturally.

Most of our silviculture expenses now are being

directed to thinning as opposed to planting, and the reason is simple. When you

plant a tree you have to wait seventy years to harvest it. If you thin one, it

gives you that tree twenty years quicker than it would if you didn't thin. So,

from the companies' perspective their money is better spent and our hours on

Crown by thinning as opposed to planting.

DR. HULAN: I thank you, Mr. Minister, for

referring to the fact that it does take seventy years to grow an acre of trees,

but one year to grow an acre of cabbage.

MR. FLIGHT: It is the same principle, by the

way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start off by telling you, Mr. Minister,

regarding the Federal Government's intention to cut back on silviculture, I am

very concerned also and I am pursuing that. As a matter of fact, I did so when

the leaders were here - the potential leaders. We brought it up with them then,

I will be doing it again this weekend, and I will continue on with you, also,

because I think it is very important to this Province. They have to reconsider

that, I think, and we have to push from both sides of this House on pursuing it.

The first one I will get into, and I suppose it is

more for learning regulations and clarification, is on the harvesters. How many

harvesters in the Province are operating right now? That is the first question -

in some area, anyway. Just generally, how many men working in the woods is

equivalent to one harvester, for example? I am trying to get some reading on the

number of harvesters.

MR. FLIGHT: As the member will understand, I am

sure, I may have to take some of those questions under advisement and supply the

answers to the Committee.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, that is good.

MR. FLIGHT: We don't have the figure available

to us, on how many harvesters are operating in the Province. We can get it.

MR. SHELLEY: It can be gotten, okay.

MR. FLIGHT: We can get it from the paper

companies.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: We have taken note of the question,

I say to the hon. member, and I will provide the answer just as quickly as I

can, most likely tomorrow.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. I have heard some general

statements, but one of those harvesters, how many men does that replace - ten,

eleven, or something?

MR. FLIGHT: I have heard as high as - I guess

it depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about how many

loggers it would replace if you were working with the bucksaw, or with skidders

- so it changes. But I tell you that there is a great difference in the number

of men required to harvest a cord of wood with skidders and chain saws as

compared with a harvester.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, just in general.

MR. FLIGHT: I am not sure that it is possible

to get that figure, definitely, but I will go as close as I can to it.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, not that figure so much as

the number of harvesters. I know that is a tough thing to nail down because of

the different factors that you have to include.

MR. FLIGHT: Just for the member's information -

it is in keeping with the question that has been asked - both paper companies

produce roughly 30 per cent of their requirements by the harvester technology

now. So, there is still 70 per cent of the wood requirement of the paper

companies being harvested by skidders - that type of operation.

MR. SHELLEY: As far as the harvesters go, there

are a couple of types that I am not so familiar with but I hear of some. When

they are used - I know there hasn't been an environmental impact study on the

damage they do, but have there been some general observations or things through

your department where they say that these harvesters actually damage the growth

of especially young trees?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, the harvesters are, by and

large, working in areas of prime timber. They are in prime timber stands where

they are, indeed, clear cutting, as Dr. Hulan indicated a minute ago. So I

wouldn't suspect that damaging young trees would be a problem unless they were

going to go back in over it two years after type of thing but once they are

finished, they are finished. The clear cut either grows up and regenerates

naturally or we plant it. If there is any silviculture, there are no harvesters

or any other kinds of equipment going in over our plantations or their

plantations.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, that was the question I was

about to ask you. That is good, too. I am trying to get to reality here. You

know, if these harvesters are continuing, they are probably going to keep

increasing. I realize that is inevitable with technology advancing and

everything else, but the concern I have, and I am sure you have heard it from

other people, is that if these machines are going to increase in number in the

forest and if there is damage, especially to the younger trees in the areas

where they are being used, eventually it is going to become a major

environmental problem because they are damaging what could actually grow.

So that is why I am trying to get to this point of

the environmental study. There is damage - I know there is damage; I have seen

where they have worked. But I am just wondering, on a scientific level, how much

damage is actually being done. As I said, although I know you have not done a

study on it - because I think I asked the question; I was asking Ms. Cowan but

she was not there that day to reply to it so that will lead into - and I will

probably ask you again yet, too, are you going to consider in the near future,

even if it is two to three years down the road, an in-depth study on that

particular situation?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, number one, both paper

companies follow very rigid guidelines. Although we haven't had to commit forest

management plans on the Island of Newfoundland to environmental studies, we have

always had an understanding with the Department of Environment that our forest

management plans would mitigate the environmental damage. If Environment said,

Well, we don't want you to cross this brook or you have to cross it a certain

way or this is a sensitive area for a road or we are not permitting you to -

once the road is laid out you can't be running all over the country after that

with skidders or tractors. So there is all kinds of co-operation - there always

has been co-operation between the two departments. The paper companies are

constantly under pressure from the department to build their roads and access

their stands in a way acceptable to the Department of Forestry which is always

cognizant of the environmental damage as possible and always directing the paper

companies to minimize the environmental damage.

Getting back to harvesters again, I can tell the

hon. member that I am not - one could guess that there will be more harvesters

but I understand, a couple of years ago, Abitibi-Price, for instance, had

intended to bring in six or seven harvesters. They thought they had the

economics worked out, but they decided not to do it and it was purely an

economic decision. So there are some areas where it is to the company's

advantage to harvest their woods with harvesters, in areas that they can't get

at with skidders or with men, so they put harvesters in. We don't have any

conclusive evidence that the company would be looking to do all their harvesting

with mechanical harvesters.

MR. SHELLEY: I can see that would change

depending on the economics of it, as you say, and if it is profitable for them

to bring them in they are going to bring in more. So we really don't know - and

I know you don't know. There are some there now and, of course, some men have

lost work due to -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, no doubt about it - no

question about it.

MR. SHELLEY: No doubt about it. They have lost

work due to these harvesters coming in. In fact, two years from now there could

be another big influx of these harvesters, we don't know.

MR. FLIGHT: You see, the difficulty -

AN HON. MEMBER: They could do it by helicopter

in ten years - no, seriously.

MR. FLIGHT: Not on a steep slope.

MR. SHELLEY: No, no. I've concurred with that.

That is technology and it is inevitable. We have made that point. But you go

ahead, you were saying -

MR. FLIGHT: The difficulty, when I or any other

minister deals with Abitibi-Price or Kruger on the type of harvesting to go, is

their cost, the bottom line. These companies are into major competitive markets

and they have to get their wood at the lowest possible cost. Now, at the same

time, there is a cost if you wipe out your environment, as well. So you have to

mitigate and try to reach a happy medium.

It is a very difficult spot to be in, when the

companies tell you that in order to be cost-competitive they want to use

harvesters, because the cost of wood is less and therefore their newsprint

remains competitive. If I, as minister, were to take the position: no, because

of our concern for environmental damage or whatever, I am not permitting the

paper companies to use harvesters, I mean, I wouldn't want to be the minister

that the company turned to and said: We have just shut down three paper mills

because our wood is not cost-effective. There has to be a happy medium here.

MR. SHELLEY: I realize that, and that is why I

said to you, I am quite aware, you know, you have to consider the technology and

the economics of it. The question I was going to get to - I know you can't

answer that question about how many harvesters are coming in, but is there

anything that your department has considered for those workers who have been

displaced, or maybe will be in the future, so that they stay related to the

forestry sector? Are there any programs in the future for those people?

MR. FLIGHT: Roughly two years ago when

Abitibi-Price shut down number six machine - you would be familiar with that -

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: - there were some two hundred and

seventy jobs affected. Seventy-eight logging jobs went out of a community in my

own district, Badger - seventy-eight. I'm sure the hon. member's district was

affected, too.

MR. SHELLEY: We lost some.

MR. FLIGHT: No, there was no - government

couldn't. We didn't have the means of providing jobs for all these people. What

we have done is, up until last year, anyway, and we will decide whether or not

we will have the same this year, we have had a program that we refer to under

emergency response programs where, in the Central area - now the program is

applicable all over the Province, but in the Central area, in particular in the

Badger area and areas, we designed forestry-related programs with a view to

hiring those loggers who had lost their jobs with Abitibi-Price.

When I became minister, or four or five years ago,

Abitibi-Price employed in excess of 800 loggers in their Stephenville and Grand

Falls operation. They are now down to just a little in excess of 400, almost 100

per cent reduction, in four or five years, and going down. I am pleased, as the

member is, I am sure, that the company union signed an agreement months ago that

guarantees there will be no cutbacks in the woodlands work force for at least

three years. That is three years' stability. Because there was an indication -

the union was aware of it, I was aware of it, and the company of course was

aware - that they had plans to reduce their woodlands work force by another 120.

But they have agreed with the - the union has negotiated a settlement that

guarantees job security in the woods for at least the next three years.

What is happening also is that, from Abitibi's

point of view or Kruger's point of view, they are saying they have to have what

they call a fresh wood supply. So now it appears that instead of having 800

loggers working for four months a year, they are going to have 400 loggers

working for eleven months a year. Then, with the new technology and all the

rest, they will get the wood supply that they need and we are probably getting

into an area where, from the two companies' point of view, they will have what

they refer to as professional loggers who will work eleven months a year, and

the numbers will be down greatly.

MR. SHELLEY: I am out of time, am I? I will

come back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Shelley, but we will get

back to you.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tulk.

MR. TULK: There is a point, just purely of

curiosity on my part: Bt - How does it work? Because, as I understand it, there

was a change made some years ago. Bt is a biological agent,

whereas before, we

were using - what was it?

MR. FLIGHT: Fenitrothion.

MR. TULK: Yes, what was it called?

MR. FLIGHT: A chemical.

MR. TULK: A chemical. And there was some debate

ongoing in the Province as to whether Bt, as I remember it, could solve the

problem. Did Bt solve the problem?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, it solved the problem.

MR. TULK: As well as the other agent?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, there is a difference. The

reason we went - and it was in 1989, by the way, that we changed. I was the

minister who had the privilege of changing from fenitrothion, a chemical, to Bt.

There is an argument. The problem with Bt is that

you have to be a little bit more exacting. You need two applications. It is a

little more expensive. It doesn't kill the insect on contact, that kind of

thing. The insect has to actually eat the -

MR. TULK: It is more environmentally friendly,

though?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, it is totally environmentally

friendly, and that is the reason why we are prepared to assume the higher costs

and a little greater risk that it wouldn't be as effective. Anyway, past spray

programs have shown, depending on efficiency, depending on the weather, on the

conditions sprayed, and if we had the proper weather to do two applications,

there have been cases where it has been just as effective, and cases where it

may not have been as effective as if you had sprayed with fenitrothion. At the

same time, I suggest to you that during the years when we were spraying with

fenitrothion, there were applications and areas done where it didn't appear to

be that effective either.

MR. TULK: I want to congratulate you, Minister,

on taking that stance, because I think I know, from the days I spent in

Opposition with you, how strongly you felt about it, and I just wondered if it

had worked out the way you wanted. I suspected that it had, but I didn't know. I

congratulate you on having the foresight to be an environmentally friendly

minister as opposed to the other crowd when they were there. They didn't care

whether they burned out your eyes or what they did. So I just want to

congratulate the minister on that.

Also, I want to ask him about another -

MR. WOODFORD: Come clean.

MR. TULK: I beg your pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: Can the minister come clean now

with the hon. member?

MR. TULK: He has always been an advocate of

being friendly to the environment - that is his strength. The member should take

a lesson from him.

The school milk program: just how successful has

that been? The school milk program is another great liberal thing that the

minister did, I think, since he has been there. How successful has that been?

MR. FLIGHT: It has been very effective. I

understand that the industry is producing close to three million litres of milk

for the school milk program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We are producing now about two

million litres of milk, so that is added production from the industry point of

view, but to me, the most important thing is that we are making milk available

to school children and making sure they have that nutritional pattern.

MR. TULK: I have seen that in the last four

years, myself.

MR. FLIGHT: I am sure you would have seen it.

It is amazing. It has been very successful in the schools. Practically every

school in Newfoundland now is taking

part in the school milk program. We are

putting $150,000 this year into it, as the budget shows, and I think it is

probably some of the best-spent money in the whole darn Budget. I could feel

good about the fact that children who might not have been able to afford milk at

the regular prices can, indeed, afford it at the reduced prices being provided

by the school milk program. The important thing, I think, is the value for

school children themselves. Of course, the other thing is that if kids, the

young people, young children start drinking milk, then you are guaranteed that

they will always drink it, and when they become parents they will probably get

their children to drink milk,

whereas in the past, we didn't have that -

MR. TULK: It moved a lot of kids away from the

soft drink can, too, a great many kids.

MR. FLIGHT: That is right, and the other side

of the benefit, of course, is the increased production for our dairy industry.

MR. TULK: The minister, I think, just now made

some reference to the - let me ask one more question, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you made some references just now to the

exploration of the federal/provincial forestry agreement. Did you indicate that

there was some hang-up in that? It is not progressing as it should, what is the

hang-up? I know it is on the minister's side.

MR. FLIGHT: The existing agreement is a

five-year agreement that was signed in 1990 and expires in 1995. It has two more

years to go, and there is no threat to that, but we have been told by Mr.

Mazankowski in the Budget that the Federal Government don't intend to negotiate

or sign any more of those agreements. If that is so, at the end of two years

then we don't have the $8.5 million federal dollars to spend in our silviculture

programs that we have been spending these past five years. We started doing

these federal/provincial forestry agreements in 1975 and basically that is when

Newfoundland got into silviculture and good forest management, because that is

where the funds came from.

So, as the hon. the Member for Baie Verte -White

Bay said, if we don't find a way to change their minds and have them rethink

that, then, particularly in these times of restraint and economic difficulties,

I don't know where the money will come from to replace that federal share, the

70 per cent. Further than that, we have an immediate problem. We had negotiated

a $4.1 million extension to the existing agreement because things were

identified. We needed money to do it. It had to be done on a priority basis and

the Federal Government agreed with the Province that they would give us an

extension, an amendment to the agreement, that would pay roughly $4.1 million

that was not really funded in the original agreement. It was negotiated, ready

for signing and the feds have decided they are not going - well, to this point

in time they haven't signed and I am getting indications that they do not

particularly want to sign. But we are working on that and we hope they will meet

their commitment. They negotiated it and they agreed, so we are hoping that they

will, indeed, sign the agreement; if they don't, we have immediate short-term

problems in our forest management program.

MR. TULK: The Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay, the other day in his speech - I understand he was (inaudible) Question

Period; I was not there, I was out somewhere - but the member was comparing our

forest stocks to our cod stocks and I think he made a very good point. Because I

am of the firm opinion - and it is no fault of the minister - that the number of

trees in this Province are fewer than we are going to need if we are to sustain

the forest industry in the Province, just as a greater number of codfish out

there in the water, or the turbot of the flounder, are needed to sustain the

fishing industry. I think it would be a shame, quite frankly, if they - and

silviculture, that is the answer. If the trees don't grow you can't cut them,

and if they don't grow they aren't there. So, silviculture is the answer, and I

think it is a shame that if the Federal Government don't sign the agreement -

they will have to sign it soon so that people in the department can carry on

their planning - that we will lose some valuable time, and the trees in this

Province may, indeed, go the way of the Northern cod.

Has the minister given any thought to using the

Legislature - I mean, you know we at all times use the Legislature to put

pressure on the Federal Government about the state of the 2J+3KL cod stocks and

the Gulf stocks. Has the minister given any thought to using the Legislature to

put the same kind of pressure on? The other day we had an unanimous resolution

of the House, as the Member for Humber Valley will recall, where we are pushing

the Federal Government to do something about the overfishing. Silviculture is

just as important.

MR. FLIGHT: Sure. As far as the existing

forestry agreement is concerned, we have two years, and we only became aware of

it a month ago, so everybody will use their good offices from the Premier down,

I am sure, to convince the Federal Government that we can't lose those

agreements, that we must have them. When the time comes, if it becomes apparent

that we are not making any headway and the Federal Government persists in not

going ahead with these agreements, then if I am still the minister - or whoever

the minister is - we should give thought to having the House of Assembly,

itself, address it.

I might point out, there is an event that will take

place sometime in August, September, or October in Ottawa that may change the

way the federal bureaucrats treat Newfoundland and all the programs. I am

referring to a federal election in September or October. It is the stated policy

of this particular federal government to dead-end those agreements. It may not

be the stated policy of the ensuing government to change those agreements.

MR. TULK: Well, we are looking forward to

people like the Member for Humber Valley putting pressure on the leadership

candidates this coming week to do it.

MR. WOODFORD: It is a provincial

responsibility.

MR. FLIGHT: There is no question that it is a

provincial responsibility.

MR. TULK: Yes, but you have to put pressure on

the Federal Government. Is the member trying to tell me that he doesn't believe

they should fund the silviculture program?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair will not entertain a debate between the

Vice-Chair and any other member of the Committee.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask

the minister one more question, or is my time up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Tulk, but

the Chair will recognize you again.

MR. TULK: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. ROBERTS: No more leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Roberts said no more leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the other members of the

Committee are willing to grant leave to Mr. Tulk, the Chair will entertain that,

certainly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the question I have for

the minister concerns the supply of birch in this Province for firewood. I

believe we have to start moving away from using our spruce and, I suppose it is

softwood, is it - moving away from the use of softwood for firewood and moving

into the hardwoods and trees that are more or less not that valuable to us, for

firewood. I find, almost every time I go out over the Trans-Canada, or wherever

you drive in the Province, that you meet huge tractor-trailerloads of birch

being pulled all over the Province and particularly on the Avalon Peninsula for

sale in St. John's. Is the supply of birch there, and the other kinds of trees,

ample to take care of that for the foreseeable future? Has the sale of birch

firewood become a viable component for the forest industry in the Province?

MR. FLIGHT: I would guess, that 90 per cent of

the birch you see being trucked in to St. John's is probably coming off paper

company limits, Abitibi or Kruger. I would say that is a fair guess.

No, I don't think there is enough birch in

Newfoundland birch stands to sustain the kind of pressure we see on it now, and

we are getting more and more requests to the department to use birch for other -

a lot of people are arguing that we shouldn't be burning birch, that there are

many more valuable uses for it. We are getting enquiries now from people who are

identifying markets in Europe, particularly for birch, and we are getting

enquiries, and people doing research on manufacturing various types of

furniture.

MR. TULK: I could tell the minister, outside

this place, the story that I, myself, identified about white birch in this

Province.

MR. FLIGHT: Sure.

MR. TULK: It turned out to be a joke, but it

isn't really.

MR. FLIGHT: Okay. So, no, I think, as a matter

of fact, that we are going to start getting into the same situation with birch

stands as we are with softwood stands. We are encouraging people not to burn

softwoods. As a matter of fact, we are not only encouraging them, we won't

permit them, we won't give them cutting permits on Crown lands to harvest

firewood in prime pulpwood stands or sawlog stands. We direct them to areas of

low volume, insect-killed, hardwood, softwood, where it is not commercial

hardwood or softwood.

What is happening now is our best commercial birch

stands, particularly located on the paper company limits are, by and large,

being harvested for firewood.

MR. TULK: Because they want to be rid of them.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, they don't care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Good evening, Minister.

My questions surround some of the recent reports

from your department, the first one dealing with the Simmons report. What was

the total cost of that report to your department or to the government?

MR. FLIGHT: To the hon. member, we budgeted

$50,000 for the Simmons review. We are talking about the review of the zone?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes we are.

MR. FLIGHT: We budgeted $50,000, but that did

not include some of the - we allowed some of our own staff to be seconded to do

things, and that was done to save money more than anything else. I would think

the total cost, if you include the wage cost of people we made available from

the Department of Forestry and Agriculture and the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, was probably in the vicinity of $50,000 to $60,000.

MR. E. BYRNE: I know I asked questions in the

House about it but this provides, I guess, a greater opportunity to deal with

that report in more depth.

MR. FLIGHT: Sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you, as the minister, have any

plans, really, to implement any of those recommendations whatsoever? Does the

government have any -

MR. FLIGHT: No question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you have a timetable in mind?

MR. FLIGHT: It is a process.

MR. E. BYRNE: There are groups of people -

families, individuals and groups - who are certainly anxious to know what the

minister's thoughts or the government's plan would be for that report.

MR. FLIGHT: One of my priorities is to

implement the recommendations of the Simmons report. The hon. member will

understand that there is a process you have to go through. We have the Simmons

report. My department had to take the report, analyze it and look at the

recommendations. There are something like forty-nine recommendations, I think.

Some of them are, well, all forty-nine - one recommendation is that lands be

taken out of the zone or added. I think that one recommendation covers something

like forty-two or forty-three deletions, changes to the zone.

The other forty-seven recommendations regard the

future administration of the zone, and various things the department should be

doing relative to administering the zone. We had to analyze and study it and my

officials indicated to me what they felt the implication would be if everything

was implemented. We are now in the process - and that has to be a Cabinet

decision, as the member will probably know. To delete land from the zone, or to

add land, must be a Cabinet decision, it is not ministerial discretion. So only

an MC can authorize changes to the zone.

We have been working, and the instruction from me

to my staff, particularly since the election, is to prepare me to go to Cabinet

to get the decisions we want. We will be implementing the recommendations that

we intend to implement. I am not suggesting to the member that we will implement

every recommendation that Mr. Simmons made.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no.

MR. FLIGHT: But we will be implementing every

recommendation that does not cause real concern in the department for future

administration, or that kind of thing. It goes without saying that there are

recommendations in the report that would be fairly costly, and obviously, again,

even though it might be advisable and desirable to do what the commissioner

recommended, if the funds aren't there, they aren't there, so there is no point

in implementing a recommendation that is going to cost the Province a million

dollars when we don't have that kind of money budgeted. So I guess those types

of recommendations would be kept in abeyance and probably implemented when it

made sense from a financial point of view.

I can tell the hon. member that he will probably be

- if it is important to him that all the recommendations of the Simmons report

be implemented - I think he will be pleasantly surprised with the number of

recommendations that will, indeed, be implemented as soon as possible, given due

process.

MR. E. BYRNE: As you know, Minister,

representing a district where many of the recommendations contained in the

Simmons report will affect, I guess, residents in the district, it certainly is

important to me, and what is most important is to try to get your thoughts, as

minister. I am not saying that you should implement all of the recommendations -

what is important is to get your thoughts as minister. I am a member, you are

the minister in charge of that department. To see when you will be implementing

any or all of the recommendations is what is most important.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I have learned through

experience, and I hope the member appreciates this - early on in my career as a

minister I wanted to do something, and intended to do it, and somebody asked me,

`Well, when do you think this will be done?' and I said, `Well, let me see, it

shouldn't take any more than three weeks.' And then I ran into the bureaucracy

that I had to deal with in getting that decision through the system and up to

Cabinet. So I am very leery to say - I personally don't see why -

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to nail you down

to next Friday or next week. I am just trying to generally get a time frame.

MR. FLIGHT: No, I understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometime during your term of

office.

MR. FLIGHT: No, I will be more definitive than

that. I would like to do it next week, but I don't think it can be done next

week because I know the various steps in the process, but just taking a wild

guess, not to be pinned down, I will be disappointed if I haven't dealt with the

Simmons report within a month.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

My next question deals with the decisions made

related to the hog industry. I am not going to debate, necessarily, the merits

on why there be subsidies to the production of hog, in the hog industry, why you

made those decisions, but, I guess, more or less I would like to talk about the

fallout of the decisions made in the recent budget by your department and how

you, as a minister, and how your department, is dealing with some of those

people who are affected, particularly the hog farmers, themselves, who have been

dramatically affected by those decisions.

MR. FLIGHT: You are thinking about

compensation?

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, not necessarily. It could

be. It could be retraining. Are there any plans? Are there negotiations ongoing

with -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, negotiations are ongoing with

the farmers. As the hon. member would know, there are something like seventeen

hog producers in the Province. We dealt, I think, very fairly with them when we

announced that we were going to close the industry, or withdraw government

support from the industry. We paid them the production subsidies that they would

have earned if the hogs had been grown out nine or ten months (inaudible). We

paid that up front if they chose to take it up front. We paid the cost of moving

the hogs out of Newfoundland to the markets. Those were the two major

concessions, I guess, to them at the time. Now, we are in the process, the

industry believes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, that's right, and we forgave

the debts at Farm Loan Board, which is all we have the jurisdiction to forgive.

We recognize also - and, of course, the industry made a case, and the Federation

of Agriculture made a case, and members on both sides of the House made cases to

me, that we had put the hog producers in a very difficult position. They owed

more money than to Newfoundland Farm Products, some was with FCC, as the member

would know.

We are now in the process - and I committed myself

to the industry to discuss and to consider a compensation package that would

have the effect of helping them exit the industry without major debts and being

in a position to find another way to make a living, whether in agriculture or

otherwise.

We have talked about - although there hasn't been

anything definite yet, we are getting added quota, for instance, in chicken

quota. it seemed natural to these people as farmers, they were into that kind of

farming. It is possible, and I have said publicly that when that quota is - if

there is new interest coming into the chicken producing business it would seem

natural that a hog producer would be given consideration for a quota. And if one

or two or three of them accepted that it would be -

Apart from hoping to put together a compensation

package that will treat the hog farmers fairly, and apart from supporting the

hog farmers in getting into another branch of agriculture that is possible in

the Province, there is nothing more definite than that. I am prepared,

obviously, as the minister, and the department is prepared, to help those hog

producers access any existing programs or to take advantage of any opportunities

that they want to take advantage of in agriculture in general. I think they know

that.

MR. E. BYRNE: The second question deals with

the task force on Agri-food that was completed some time ago. What was the total

cost of that report?

MR. FLIGHT: I don't know to the exact cent but

it was somewhat in excess of $800,000.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the status of that report

now?

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the status? Is the

government moving on any of the recommendations in that report?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, we have implemented roughly 30

per cent of the recommendations. I think there were 210 recommendations. We have

implemented sixty.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long have you had the

report?

MR. FLIGHT: We have only had the report for a

little over a year. Sixty of the recommendations have been implemented. Sixty

more are ongoing - we are considering sixty more and they are not implemented to

their totality, but we are moving in a way that was recommended by the task

force on Agri-food.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: There are about another ninety

recommendations that at this point in time we haven't dealt with, or at least we

haven't implemented.

MR. E. BYRNE: Some of those -

MR. FLIGHT: Let me make clear to the hon.

member, too, it was never intended - anyone who thought that the Hulan task

force report was going to be done, as it was, and submitted to me, and suddenly,

overnight, all the recommendations of that task force would be implemented, is

not being realistic. We were looking for a report that, number one, recognized

where we had been in agriculture up to now, and number two, where we should be

going in agriculture in the future.

There are recommendations in that task force

report, or topics dealt with, that will be a road map or a guideline for the

Department of Agriculture for the next twenty years. That report was more than

just saying: here are ten recommendations, implement them. It was a long-term,

short-term report.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wasn't trying to pin you down,

asking when are you doing this, when are doing that. It was a point of, for my

information, what the cost of the report was, how far had your department moved

on it, and that was it - seeking information only. I wasn't trying -

MR. FLIGHT: No, no.

MR. E. BYRNE: I know full well what a report is

to a minister or to anybody else. It is a report that you have complete

discretion to move on or not move on, or your department has.

MR. FLIGHT: I am probably too defensive, boy.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am fully aware of that and

looking for information, basically. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

It being one minute past the hour of nine, we will

now take a short recess until eleven minutes past nine, that's approximately ten

minutes. We will recess to the Government Caucus Room where there should be a

pot of coffee on for us.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I wonder if you could bring us up to

date on the status of the Christmas tree industry? During the last year or so I

haven't heard a great deal about it. There was a flurry of excitement there for

awhile. I don't know if it has fizzled out or what.

MR. FLIGHT: We have, in the Province, twelve

commercial Christmas tree operations, that is, domestic operations where the

trees are grown for the purpose or silviculturally treated - private Christmas

tree farms, we will call them. There is still a lot of interest and we are

working with other people who want to establish Christmas tree farms. There are,

as the member knows, a lot of Christmas trees coming in from Nova Scotia, from

Christmas tree farms. There is a lot of activity on Crown lands. We give an

operator farm a permit to come in and cut 100 Christmas trees for sale off Crown

lands. We have always accommodated these operators and allowed them to cut 100

or 200 trees, whatever they requested; normally, it is around 100, 200 or 300

trees. But there is potential for more growth in the Christmas tree industry.

The department has supported Christmas tree operators in the past, or people who

wanted to establish farms, and we will continue to do that.

MR. TULK: Just as a point of curiosity, how long

does it take, Mr. Minister?

MR. FLIGHT: It takes about ten years before you

get your first crop.

MR. WHELAN: What is the estimated potential for

the Christmas tree industry? Perhaps you don't have figures on it - if you do it

would be great.

MR. FLIGHT: No, I don't, but I can take the

question under advisement and get it for the hon. member. My deputy tells me

through the ADM that there are about 30,000 Christmas trees imported into

Newfoundland every year. At $10 a tree, that would be $300,000, but I understand

those imported trees sell for $25 or $30.

MR. WHELAN: So it is potentially $1 million,

probably.

MR. FLIGHT: I suppose if you had enough Christmas

tree farms it would relieve the pressure off the forests because there is an

awful lot of waste. We have changed it; we have made great strides in convincing

people not to cut and waste trees. The Newfoundland psyche, or whatever, has

been that if you cut down a tree you don't like, you just leave it there and go

cut another and another.

MR. TULK: You have to take home two - one for the

wife to turn down.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

So the savings to the Province by way of trees alone,

by way of the forests is immense. There is evidence that if we could produce all

the Christmas trees required in the Province people would not bother to go in

and cut five, six or seven trees looking for that nice Christmas tree, they

would go to the local farmer. Of course, there is also the potential for export.

If Nova Scotia can export millions of Christmas trees into the United States,

there is no reason why Newfoundland cannot, if we had the right -

MR. WHELAN: You mentioned in your opening remarks

- and the reason I am asking is because I didn't pick it up - a three-year

agreement totalling $1.08 million.

MR. FLIGHT: That is a training program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: What were you thinking of?

MR. WHELAN: I am not sure. That is why I am

asking.

MR. FLIGHT: A farm management agreement has also

been signed, and a total of $1.08 million has been committed to this program

over a three-year period.

MR. WHELAN: It is a program to train people who

are already in the industry. Is that right?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, for farm management - doing the

books, so to speak, the accounting or the planning that is required for better

farm operations, fiscal or otherwise.

MR. WHELAN: I just wanted to bring your attention

to the area in the estimates under Limestone Sales - 3.1.05.07, the total, just

below 07. There seems to be a considerable decrease in the money allotted for

limestone sales.

MR. FLIGHT: What is the question?

MR. WHELAN: Under Limestone Sales there seems to

be quite a decrease in the money being spent.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, that is because over the years

we had an agreement with Havelock Lime to provide the Province with certain

quantities of limestone. It turned out last year that we had probably in the

bank, so to speak, three or four years supply of limestone that we had paid for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just not mined.

MR. FLIGHT: It is not even mined, so we are now in

a position, for the next two or three years, to draw on that limestone that we

had - in effect, owned, that has been paid for, and that lime will now be

provided for the next two or three years until it runs out, and the only lime

expenditure budgeted here now is for bagged lime as opposed to bulk lime.

MR. WHELAN: Bagged lime - I assume that is the

lime that comes in from the mainland?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes - and the transportation.

MR. WHELAN: Is there any lime bagged in the

Province - local lime?

MR. FLIGHT: No, not now.

MR. WHELAN: I just wanted to mention that again,

as I have had a few enquiries with regard to local lime as opposed to the bagged

lime that is imported.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, the only difference -

MR. WHELAN: A number of farmers, especially the

smaller farmers, are not prepared - they do not have the equipment to spread the

lime, and the cyclone spreader that they have won't spread the local lime. In

order to use the local lime, they would have to hire a fairly heavy tractor, and

pay for spreaders from the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, at a fair

expense.

I understand that this year there was some problem

with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture approving purchase or the sale

of bagged lime. Could you clarify that? Are you not bringing in bagged lime

anymore?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, we are bringing in bagged lime. I

might tell the member that we have also just signed an agreement whereby we are

providing the funds for ten development associations to buy spreaders.

I am advised those spreaders are already purchased and

are being put out to the various groups, the development association, in

particular; and the idea is, those spreaders will be available for the farmers

that that particular development association services. So, in that case, they

(inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: At a cost to the farmer?

MR. FLIGHT: It will be a nominal cost.

MR. WHELAN: Something like $100 a day?

MR. FLIGHT: $100 a day? Would it be that high?

Well, my ADM tells me, even if it were $100 a day - I

can't confirm that it would be, but even if it were, you could probably lime the

biggest farm in Newfoundland in three days with one of those machines.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

MR. FLIGHT: Is that close, Dr. Hulan?

Getting back to bagged lime, we are still supplying

bagged lime, are we not? So the farmer will have the option. It is more

expensive, that's the problem.

MR. WHELAN: Yes. There seemed to be quite some

difficulty this year in farmers getting the bagged lime. The Department of

Forestry and Agriculture, the bureaucrats, I suppose, if you want to call them

that - there seems to be reluctance on their part to sell bagged lime to

farmers.

MR. FLIGHT: There is reluctance by my department

to sell it?

MR. WHELAN: By the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, yes, that's right.

MR. FLIGHT: I would have to go to my ADM. The

member indicates there is reluctance - a perceived reluctance - by our

department to sell bagged lime.

MR. HOWLETT: I guess there is not a reluctance to

supply bagged limestone, what it comes down to is cost. Bagged limestone is

costing us about double the cost of bulk limestone in the Province; therefore,

last year, these spreaders were acquired to be put out to agricultural societies

and associations so that they would be able to use the bulk limestone. And using

the bulk limestone also keeps the expenditures in this Province as opposed to

going off to New Brunswick to bring in the bagged limestone. So it is not

reluctance, if someone needs it, it will certainly be supplied. The reason we

move to encourage producers to get into bulk - and we have been doing everything

within our ability to provide the spreaders and the resources so that they can

do that.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I can see the fact is, we need to

keep the money in the Province. But especially a smaller firm - I could

understand a larger dairy farmer, or whatever, not worrying about the cost of

$100 a day, but you have to understand that you have to hire a machine that can

haul it, you have to pay for some sort of machine to pick up the lime spreader

and bring it to your farm and return it, you know, it is quite cumbersome.

Anyway, be that as it may. The lack of centralized

storage areas in the Province seem to be somewhat of a concern. As I went around

my district during the election, a number of farmers, especially younger

farmers, expressed an interest in possibly lobbying the government to construct

some of these centralized storage areas. I ask the minister, are there any plans

in the future to do that?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, well, I can quote a paragraph out

of my opening remarks that the member may have missed, and he may wish to pursue

other questions on the issue; but, in my opening statement, funding has also

been approved in 1993, this year's Budget under the Strategic Economic Plan, to

assist producers in construction of vegetable storages, thus allowing industry

to expand their marketing season. One of the problems for root crop producers

who grow potatoes, turnips, cabbage, carrots, is their inability to store and

having to sell. As they take them out of the ground they have had to sell them

because there is no storage. So, for a very short time the market is flooded and

prices are depressed as a result.

Whereas, if they were in a position to hold

back that production or at least sell it as they see fit, they would do a lot

better, with the continuity of reasonable prices as opposed to one big splurge.

So, for those reasons, we have budgeted something like $200,000 to assist with

the construction of vegetable storage facilities around the Province. There are

a considerable number around the Province now but we are endeavouring to

increase the number of storages and the efficiency of the storages that exist.

MR. WHELAN: Okay, thank you. You mentioned

something about local feed services and particularly you -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Mr. Whelan

that his time is up; however, if he were to ask for leave and the other

Committee members agree -

Will you give him leave?

MR. WHELAN: Okay, well, I have just one more

question, if I may.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to local feed services,

you mentioned specifically, seal meat, in your opening remarks. I was wondering:

Is there any excitement with regard to this? Is the potential great?

MR. FLIGHT: We are not sure yet, because it is

still in research as to how effective seal meat production will be for lambs,

dairy cattle or chickens. There are studies being done and the indication is

that we need to do more studies, but I can tell you that the fur farm, the fur

business, the fox farming business probably survived this last year or so as a

result of the seal meat program, because it turned out to be very successful -

the foxes prospered on it. There are indications that the condition of a pelt

was even improved by that particular diet and, of course, the big factor was the

low cost for that protein to the farmers, themselves. Without that low cost,

given the economy of the business - it was really down; the prices are really

depressed.

There has been some upward movement this past year or

so, but in the market environment it is doubtful if a lot of our fox farmers

will survive without that particular program. Whether it will be successful to

the same extent with chicken - in my opening remarks I indicated we are looking

at the broader industry, the dairy industry and the sheep industry; the extent

to which a seal meat program or an offal program will be effective, we have yet

to see. Research is still going on, it is going on this day in trying to

determine whether or not this is a good source of food for the other livestock

industry in the Province.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Minister, I think, over a year ago,

a statement was made by the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board with the request

to Brookfield to stop making reconstituted milk in their plant in Lewisporte.

Has anything been done on that lately? What is new? What is the status of that?

MR. FLIGHT: The status, Rick, is that - you're

right - early last Fall, I think, the Milk Marketing Board requested the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board to approve an order that would stop the

production of reconstituted milk in the Lewisporte - Notre Dame Dairies. They

wanted it effective immediately. They reconsidered that at some point and agreed

that they would have it discontinued effective December 1993, of this year.

The process, as everyone knows, is that the Milk

Marketing Board would go to the Agricultural Products Marketing Board for

permission to gazette that order, which they did. It became a very controversial

issue, as you know. Practically every town council in Newfoundland, practically

every Chamber of Commerce in Newfoundland, practically every individual in

Newfoundland - it was a major lobby to save, so to speak, the Notre Dame dairy

plant.

There were all sorts of concerns expressed,

allegations made. People had up to fifty jobs being supported by Notre Dame

dairies. We did a lot of research on it. I took the position at the time,

because I was coming under a lot of pressure to deal with it as the minister.

And that is the problem with these darn commodity boards, they do the thing and

the department has to answer for it, or justify what they - I mean, it is the

minister who gets caught in the decision-making process. They look to the

minister to deal with the issue even though it is the mandate of the Milk

Marketing Board.

The situation right now is that the Milk Marketing

Board applied to the Agricultural Products Marketing Board to gazette an order.

The Agricultural Products Marketing Board have met and have dealt with the

issue, and they have passed their decision to the Milk Marketing Board, and to

myself as the minister. In the next little while, I have to decide whether or

not - because, under the legislation, I have the right as the minister to

intervene one way or the other, either to accept the recommendation of the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board or not accept it. Whatever I choose to do,

I have to notify the Agricultural Products Marketing Board and the Milk

Marketing Board.

So, that is the status. It is being dealt with by the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board. They have spent considerable time in

considering the issue and have informed the Milk Marketing Board of their

recommendation, and have so informed me. Now, the end of the process, of course,

comes when I decide whether or not I am going to accept, without question, the

recommendations of the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, or either suggest

to them or direct them to issue an order.

MR. WOODFORD: Before - I believe it was changed by

you since you became minister - the Board used to have the right to gazette any

order. Now the APMB has that right to do the gazetting.

MR. FLIGHT: No, not the right to do the gazetting

- they have the right to approve or deny the gazetting of an order.

MR. WOODFORD: Before anything is gazetted.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Before that the ruling was reversed.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So the APMB is in the process now of

coming close to a decision with regard to the Lewisporte plant.

MR. FLIGHT: They have made their decision.

MR. WOODFORD: They have made their decision. Now

it is in your hands. So the only other ruling, then, is that if you should rule,

let's say, against whatever their wishes are, their only recourse then - they

still have recourse through the appeal tribunal. If they ask for an appeal, you

would have to set up a tribunal like you did under the - what was the one

appealed?

MR. FLIGHT: If who asks for an appeal?

MR. WOODFORD: Say the Milk Marketing Board wasn't

in favour of the decision, then they would have the right to ask for an appeal.

Then the minister, under the Act, would have to set up a tribunal, isn't that

right? the same as you did last year. What was the ruling last year on the -

MR. FLIGHT: No, I have never intervened as a

minister to - I have never overruled. I have convinced them, I suppose, through

negotiations with the Milk Marketing Board, to do something different from what

they wanted to do, so to speak, but I have never intervened with a decision of

the Agricultural Products Marketing Board.

MR. WOODFORD: No, the appeal tribunal was set up,

I just forget what it was, through the Milk Marketing Board a couple of years

ago and they ruled. You don't have the final say on it, the appeal tribunal has.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I just forget exactly what it was. I

think it was on pricing.

MR. FLIGHT: It was on pricing.

That is a different situation from a decision by the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board to order Brookfield, in this case, to

discontinue the production of reconstituted milk.

MR. WOODFORD: So it is up to them to make the

decision - APMB in conjunction with Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Do you expect that decision soon?

MR. FLIGHT: I would expect that decision fairly

soon. I would like to be allowed to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, and get the

hon. member's advice as to how I should deal with it.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, if you want my honest opinion,

I think the reconstituted milk should be stopped immediately. No question. With

me, there are no holds barred. It is the only place now in Canada where

reconstituted milk is being processed. The danger with it is that if it is

allowed to go on, there is no reason why the other plants shouldn't be allowed

to do the same thing, and you know what we have. We are right back to where we

were at day one in trying to get rid of reconstituted milk in the Province. That

is the problem with it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). I have no problem with

that, but -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, Mr.

Tulk?

MR. TULK: No, I am just wondering if somebody - I

am just sitting here as an amateur. Those two people are the experts - one is

more expert than the other, but that's alright. I didn't say who it was now,

Rick. You didn't see which way my finger pointed either, you never looked up.

Why do you say, why is anybody saying it is a good move to close that - I am

just trying to get some information here. Just educate me. There are some things

I don't know, Rick, I am not like you. Why is there -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Are you asking for clarification on the question and

answer?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To whom was your question directed?

MR. TULK: Well, whoever can answer it - the

minister, obviously. I don't answer questions (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Your question is -

MR. TULK: Why are we saying we have to close this

plant?

MR. FLIGHT: We are not saying we have to close the

plant.

MR. TULK: Well, why is somebody saying we have to

close the plant?

MR. FLIGHT: Everybody is saying `close' the plant.

What we are saying is, that plant does more than produce reconstituted milk. The

Milk Marketing Board people are saying they want the production of reconstituted

milk in that plant discontinued.

MR. TULK: What will happen then?

MR. FLIGHT: The production in that plant is

500,000 litres annually of reconstituted milk. I guess what the industry is

saying is that if it were stopped, then an equal 500,000 litres of fluid milk

would be produced by the fluid milk industry, by the seventy-six dairies.

MR. TULK: In other words, Mr. Minister, would it

require more cows, more hay, more of all that kind of stuff? Could that plant

then be used to do something with the milk that those cows produce?

MR. FLIGHT: No, because Brookfield Ice Cream -

when I say no, I base it on the information that I have. Brookfield Ice Cream

has the capacity in their fluid milk plants now to produce twice as much milk as

they are already producing.

MR. TULK: They don't need it.

MR. FLIGHT: So, if we say, you must discontinue

producing reconstituted milk and produce fluid milk in that plant, they will

simply say, no, thank you, we will produce the fluid milk but it will be in our

plant in St. John's, or in our plant wherever -

MR. TULK: One more question: What will be the job

differential then, say, if you close Notre Dame Dairies? If you say, `Alright,

there are going to be a few more cows and more hay grown in the Province,' what

would be the job differential? Did anybody look at that?

MR. FLIGHT: It is hard to be definite. The people

who are in support of keeping the plant open, or maintaining the production - it

went as high as fifty jobs but, I mean, that is off the wall. We determined, to

the extent that we could. The only total direct jobs are those in the plant in

Lewisporte, about six jobs, but then the argument was that you had people - the

delivery people for instance. It is hard to get a handle on exactly how many

delivery people there were, because they were delivering reconstituted milk but

they were also delivering ice-cream, yogurt or whatever else. The owner of the

plant in Bishop's Falls that produces the jugs for the reconstituted milk,

suggested that they would lose 40 per cent of their production, so he charged

that off. I have been using, with some confidence, the figure of 12-15 jobs to

be affected if you stopped producing reconstituted milk.

MR. TULK: I understand the farmers wanting this to

stop but I am not sure it is best for the Province.

MR. FLIGHT: There are some people who will argue

that -

MR. TULK: You are not a farmer.

MR. FLIGHT: - if you produce 500,000 litres of

fluid milk - 500,000 is what they have reached for a dairy farm in Newfoundland.

MR. TULK: How many jobs are in that?

MR. FLIGHT: Some people are suggesting that those

fifteen jobs would be created in the production of fluid milk, but if it were -

there are some very highly mechanized plants in this Province that have the

capability of producing more than they are producing now.

MR. TULK: Without adding any more jobs.

MR. FLIGHT: I doubt very much if they would

require any more staff to produce, given the technology they have.

MR. TULK: I am just asking the minister for my own

information.

MR. FLIGHT: The problem is that the Lewisporte

area would be hurt badly. You might not notice in any one particular area the

increase in jobs, it might be half a job on this farm or half a job on some

other farm or half a job somewhere else, but whether or not you would replace

all the jobs lost by the discontinuation of reconstituted milk -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been more than lenient in the

questioning on this topic.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), Mr. Chairman, we are

talking about your district.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you can appreciate, the Chair has

an interest in both the question and the answer on this particular topic, being

the member for that district. I will now go back and recognize Mr. Woodford

again and allow him the extra time that was taken up by Mr. Tulk's questioning.

MR. WOODFORD: I think the minister has answered my

question. We can argue the point all night but I just want to leave it with the

last comment pertaining to the danger and the principle of other companies

looking to make sure that they can get in on the recon market. All we are doing

is mixing Newfoundland water with skim milk from the mainland and making

reconstituted milk. That is all we are doing, and really, it is not a fluid

product.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I mean it is immaterial -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like for the questioning to go back to Mr.

Woodford, and the questioning should be directed, not at other members of the

Committee, but at the minister.

MR. WOODFORD: Minister, referring to your

estimates, on page 144 -Soil and Land Management, under 3.1.07, Land

Development: as the Member for Kilbride mentioned, I think, one of the

recommendations in the Simmons Report was that government put more money into

land consolidation to try to protect agricultural lands. Has the department

looked at - I notice from those estimates, there is no extra funding there. It

has also, I think, been mentioned in the Strategic Economic Plan. Are there any

plans now in the foreseeable future to put more monies into that particular

program, and not only put monies into it but to expand it to other areas of the

Province where land would be much cheaper and you would be able to consolidate a

lot more agricultural land in the land banks than you would in this particular

area?

MR. FLIGHT: Well, as the member would know, both

issues were dealt with by the Simmons Commission, and Mr. Simmons did, indeed,

recommend that more money be put into the land consolidation program. And it is

good advice. It is something that we would want, as a Province, to do, but again

we got caught in the fiscal reality under which we are operating, and even

maintaining - if the hon. member would look through the estimates for the

department, or the fourteen departments, almost every head in every department

took some kind of cut in order to accomplish what we had to accomplish with

regard to our budgetary problems. So, just maintaining the program at $400,000

this year was somewhat of an accomplishment, and I am proud of the fact that we

could maintain the funding at last year's level - $400,000.

We haven't implemented it, as the member would know.

He would know the recommendation was there, because the Simmons report was made

public and everybody is aware of what Mr. Simmons said about land consolidation.

However, for this year, at any rate, we are maintaining the same level of

funding. Obviously, we would want, and it would be an admirable thing, to be

able to increase the level of funding in that particular program, but until the

financial picture in the Province improves, I don't see, in the immediate short

term, that we would increase the funding in that particular vote.

With regard to land-banking or with regard to applying

the land consolidation program to other parts of the Province, Mr. Simmons'

recommendation in that area has been noted and has been considered by the

department.

MR. WOODFORD: In your department's last budget,

one of the cuts, one of the places where you are going to try to recover more

funding is in the cost of the APMB which will be recovered through fees charged.

What fees do you think will be charged? Will the whole agricultural industry be

charged a fee, or will you deal primarily with the commodity groups?

MR. FLIGHT: We were dealing - the member will

notice that we have budgeted the $97,000 required, and we balanced it off with

revenue provincial. And it is a concept more than a reality. The ideal

situation, of course, would be that if the commodity boards, or the commodities

that the Agricultural Products Marketing Board deals with, in particular dairy,

chicken, eggs - if by some levy they could help offset the cost of maintaining

the Board, that would be a goal worth trying to achieve, and we are looking at

the possibility. We have discussed, with the industry and with the Board, the

possibility of doing that but, as the member can see, if it is not achievable,

then the money is budgeted to fund the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, in

any event.

MR. WOODFORD: There is a reason I say that,

because the APMB really is supposed to - correct me if I am wrong - promote the

interest of all sectors that are not covered by commodity groups -

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: - and to protect the consumer. If

that is the case, I don't see a reason why certain commodity groups in the

Province should protect other sectors that are not willing to get together, and,

at the same time, protect the consumer. Why can't the Consumer Affairs

department look after its own?

MR. FLIGHT: I agree with some of the reasoning,

but I also point out to the member that, for instance, the vegetable production

people now, the people in root crops, have organized themselves, not into a

marketing board to the same extent that the Milk Marketing Board, the Hog

Marketing Board and the Chicken Marketing Board have, but they are organizing

and forming their own association. And they will, I suspect, be looking to

incorporate some of the principles that govern the other marketing boards, in

which case, they will become a commodity or a sector that will look to the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board for protection or advice, or for

regulation. It is on that basis, anyway, that we looked at and budgeted for the

possibility of raising some of the costs of the Agricultural Products Marketing

Board from the commodities they serve.

MR. WOODFORD: But you haven't come, really, to any

hard decision on that yet?

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions on agriculture. I, of course,

won't let my keen interest show through too much. But I want to take a little

liberty here, since things have been raised in this hon. Chamber and a recent

editorial in the press makes me believe that a lot of people are making comments

about the task force report who didn't read it, or if they read the report, they

didn't understand or comprehend it. That is really too bad, especially when they

start talking about recommendations not being implemented.

My, oh my, Mr. Minister! I was just listening to you

and jotting down so many recommendations that are referenced in the task force

report, such as limestone spreaders, for instance - I hear they are already

purchased; the school milk program; emphasis on forage production in this

Province; the issue of research on alternative feedstuffs; increasing the farm

loan credit to $150,000; and I can keep on going.

Mr. Minister, you and your staff are to be commended.

I hope I will have a chance to say this in a larger forum sometime and I am sure

I will take that chance even if I am not allowed to. Anyhow, as far as

Newfoundland Farm Products is concerned, it is the only one major recommendation

that was made. There are no dollars for Newfoundland Farm Products. To build a

new plant would have cost about $10 million, but a couple of years ago we lost

three new plants in another agricultural venture that went down the drain, and I

won't even mention which one it was.

I had a question, Mr. Minister, on limestone in the

Province. I was alarmed at the reduction in the dollars. I think I understood

you correctly, but if you would just quickly repeat what you said -I didn't

catch all of it - in explaining this reduction in dollars for limestone.

MR. FLIGHT: Over the past four or five years, we

have had an agreement with Havelock Lime to supply certain quantities of lime to

Newfoundland and we paid for that lime in advance even though the lime wasn't

even mined. It was a binding agreement and then officials realized, based on the

amount of lime we use, we have five years of lime paid for; therefore, we told

Havelock Lime the situation, that we would take delivery of that lime as opposed

to purchasing any more, and that is what results in the major reduction. In

other words, we will be getting lime for the next four years that has been paid

for this past five years and, as a result, our cost for limestone for the next

four years will be almost nil.

DR. HULAN: Had that not been the explanation, I

was going to have to chastise you, but now I don't have to, of course, because

it wouldn't fit very well with the recommendation that we are going to increase

productivity on existing lands and so on, if we start removing our limestone.

MR. WOODFORD: The price has gone up.

DR. HULAN: The price has gone up. Yes it has, that

is true.

The other area on which I am interested in getting a

response is Market Development on Page 145.

As you are fully aware, Mr. Minister - and I know you

are, a major problem in the Agri-food industry of this Province is in the lack

of organized marketing and marketing intelligence. I assume that $42,000 is for

one person, again, as was in the past. Is that right?

I have to say, that bothers me very much, because

marketing is so important to a real, concerted effort on the development of the

Agri-food industry of this Province. I have to make that comment.

MR. FLIGHT: I share the hon. member's concern, but

again, we are caught up in fiscal restraints. If our fiscal situation were to

improve for next year's budget, one of the areas to be looked at might well be

an increase in funding, but that's the way it is now, and I accept and share the

member's concern.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, that is all. I

will save you some time at this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of

quick questions. First, I am going to refer to the Estimates, Page 135, under

Forest Protection Facilities, 2.4.05.

Just for clarification or information, basically, I

guess - I just noticed a big variation there. Under .07, Property, Furnishings

and Equipment, it went from $25,000 to $100,000 to $540,000. I just wanted some

- a point of information, really. Is that for a helicopter?

MR. FLIGHT: No. There is a company in Newfoundland

called Helitactics Limited, and they have developed a fire fighting concept -

MR. WOODFORD: In Bishop's Falls?

MR. FLIGHT: It has been established in Bishop's

Falls. As a matter of fact, they are into production of the first prototype now

- I'm sorry, they did a prototype. It was tested. We looked at it, and we

believe they have developed a technology with probably worldwide application. My

officials, having seen the model demonstrated, recommended that the Department

of Forestry and Agriculture purchase one of their systems for our own inventory.

When the system is finished we will take delivery of it and it will be part of

our fire fighting equipment, the same as a water bomber, but it is a technology

that you should see, actually.

MR. SHELLEY: Can you give a brief description, or

are you not at liberty to do that?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, very quickly, it is designed as a

high-pressure pump. There is a fibreglass boat - we will call it a boat, for

argument sake - and the pump is placed in this boat, and the chopper just - if

there is a fire somewhere in the woods, the chopper takes the kit, flies it, and

drops it right into a pond. Then the hose is all spread by chopper. It is a very

high-pressure pump and it takes off with three or four large size hoses, and

then they are reduced by couplings to smaller hoses, but all of these hoses are

spread out by a chopper, so you can cover a fire front -

AN HON. MEMBER: And then there is a remote control

nozzle at the end (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: There is a remote control nozzle at

the end that controls the direction and the pressure and the whole thing. It is

an unbelievable concept. You can be fighting a fire with a mile front with one

helicopter laying hoses and a guide with a remote button, as opposed to having

twenty-five fire fighters along that front.

MR. SHELLEY: So that explains the $540,000.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, last year, we paid $100,000 and

this year we are paying the balance of $540,000 - the system cost in the

vicinity of $650,000.

MR. SHELLEY: I have one final question. This is

more a constituent-type question, I guess. During the weekend, I met with some

loggers, on request, and also some truckers came in to see me. I am just asking

the questions, basically, that they are asking me because, to be honest with

you, I am ignorant of a lot of things as far as the truckers and scales go.

They even gave me some examples, and I have them here

if you want to look at them sometime. I am sure you have heard it all, probably

a lot more often than I have. There are a lot of complaints from the truckers

that they are being, I guess I can use the word `harassed', at the scales. They

gave me some examples. I can see why they can get pretty upset about it. I have

an example here: One guy was making a trip, and from the time he started off, he

would have been making $372; then, by the time he finished, with expenses and a

fine, he ended up with something like $62.

MR. FLIGHT: Could I interject and tell the member

he should have gone to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Because I am fighting that all the time - but anyway, go ahead.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I should, I suppose, take it up

with that minister. I probably will have to end up with these questions there.

The couple of things they mentioned, the ones I will try to relate to Forestry,

are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will bring up the harassment

situation. I know there is nothing to be done there because that is going to

turn into a legal matter, but there are a couple of things, for example, they

said that at each of these government scales they see that there isn't legal

tender on the scales. Are these scales legal?

MR. FLIGHT: They are legal, obviously, for the

purposes for which we are using them, weighing trucks carrying goods through the

Province. I suppose they wouldn't be if you wanted to try to weigh a pound of

butter on one of them, for the purpose of items for sale. This is more or less

for the purpose of controlling weights on our road beds.

MR. WOODFORD: For fines, they are legal.

MR. FLIGHT: For fines, they are legal.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Has any consideration been

given for the different weights, especially this one - you know, they go on

meters now; but with green wood, as opposed to dry wood, and wintertime snow.

One guy gave me an example, in which he was leaving with a truckload of wood and

by the time he got through a snowstorm he was overweight. I mean, that is pretty

logical, and common sense has to prevail at the end of the day. But there were

actual cases where a fellow had green wood one day, no more than he had the day

before, but that was drier wood, and he got nailed for it. There will have to be

some consideration for that.

MR. FLIGHT: I can tell the member, I am very

conversant with this problem, not because I am a minister, but because a lot of

truckers in my own district make a living trucking wood. I've heard all the -

you're right, and you have a great cause, a great issue, as far as I am

concerned. I have, over the years, and since I have been minister, supported the

concept of block loading.

MR. SHELLEY: Block loading.

MR. FLIGHT: That is being negotiated right now and

I believe and hope we will come to some kind of consensus with the Department of

Transportation, whose mandate is to protect the road bed. Well, my mandate is to

make it possible for people working in forestry to make a living, and not be

harassed, and not run the risk, as you say, of having to decide between the

weight of dry wood or green wood, or leave Glenwood with a legal load, and by

the time they get to Stephenville, have picked up 10,000 pounds of ice, and then

have to pay for that.

We are hoping that block loading will help solve the

problem, and this department is encouraging the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation to introduce a system of block loading.

MR. SHELLEY: That is great news. Because these

guys were really upset about it. I didn't know, and I said I would bring it to

you tonight here, because they knew I was meeting on this particular one. That

would solve a lot of problems, as you see it.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: So negotiations are ongoing now with

the transportation department to try to come to a consensus on it.

MR. FLIGHT: In conjunction with the Department of

Forestry, yes -

MR. SHELLEY: That is good news.

MR. FLIGHT: - and the companies, by the way,

because they have a great interest in this, as well. As a matter of fact, the -

while we are on the record, I guess - the problem with

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1993-06-07
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga42session1_1993-06-07_rc-fa_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b81c7ba2f5a921d944e1c4e2b38b457677ef4121

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).