The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

On motion, Mr. Walsh was elected Chairman.

CHAIR (Mr. Walsh): Order, please!

I don't know if any of you have had the privilege or otherwise to sit with me during these Committee hearings. The way that I like to proceed is: under normal circumstances, each member would have five or ten minutes and then we would move on to changing back and forth. I have found, though, over the years, that it is a lot easier sometimes to allow, in particular, members of the Opposition to finish their train of thought. At any time, of course, I would welcome any member and rotate back and forth. I have found that the hearings go a lot easier. Not only that, we tend to move a little quicker.

We also have to elect a Vice-Chair this morning.

On motion, Mr. Ottenheimer was elected Vice-Chairman.

CHAIR: Minister, again it is customary, if you wish, to go with an opening statement and then we will take questions from there.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to introduce my officials and staff first, Mr. Chairman. On my left is Allan Masters, the new deputy minister with the department; Ed O'Reilly, the Director of Policy and Agrifoods. To my right is Mohammed Nazir, Associate Deputy Minister of Forestry - all of those people you know, in any case - and Len Clarke, the Director of Financial Operations. He tries to keep us all in line over here.

CHAIR: For the sake of your officials, I will ask also for the MHAs to introduce themselves in getting us started.

MR. TAYLOR: Trevor Taylor, MHA for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, MHA for St. John's East.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, MHA for Windsor-Springdale.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Ross Wiseman, MHA for Trinity North.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

CHAIR: I would ask also, for the sake of Hansard, that we identify ourselves if we are answering a question and when deferring, Minister, possibly to your officials, that we could identify them immediately, to help the folks with the microphones.

Go ahead, Sir.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just take a few minutes on the first of it to outline some of the functions of the department and highlight some of the program activities and issues in order to set the stage for a meaningful discussion and debate on my department's budget considerations and estimates.

The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods have three branches: forestry, agriculture and corporate services. I will deal with the Corporate Services Branch first. This branch provides financial, human resources and Information Technology services to my own department and the Department of Mines and Energy, and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The department has 425 permanent employees and 200 to 300 seasonal and temporary employees, and a gross budget of some $48 million.

The forestry mandate of the department, among other things, consists of managing the forest resources of the Province on a sustainable and ecological basis. This is done through a decentralized forest management and decision-making process. As a result, forestry operates out of forty different localities and communities in the Province, and those are mostly - pretty well all - rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It supports an $800 million forestry industry which consists of three pulp and paper mills, over 1,000 commercial sawmills, including twelve medium to larger-sized integrated sawmills, and numerous small valued-added enterprises.

Over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive domestic cutting permits to obtain firewood for home heating and logs for home building, repairs and other uses. Forests are also home to the Province's wildlife which supports the outfitting industry and provides recreational and economic opportunities to Newfoundland and Labrador hunters and trappers. Forests ameliorate our climate and environment and regulate our water resources. Thus, it is vital that we manage these resources wisely.

In order to encourage the natural character of our forests, we depend heavily on natural regeneration. Planting is carried out only to give a helping hand to nature when natural regeneration does not provide the adequate stocking levels. The Budget Estimates before you will allow us, in cooperation with pulp and paper companies, to conduct silviculture programs of planting, thinning, site reclamation on about 11,000 hectares. We will need to construct and reconstruct about 80 to 100 kilometres of forest access roads in order to provide adequate access on Crown lands, especially in Labrador for harvesting and silviculture operations.

Mr. Chairman, you will note a significant increase in our budget for insect control. This has been necessitated by more than doubling of our forests for hemlock looper infestation, especially on the Northern Peninsula, as compared to last year, thus requiring an expanded insect control program. We are also continuing to be plagued with the balsam sawfly and the yellow-headed spruce sawfly. We need to conduct a spray program against these insects as well.

In Labrador, a large part of the forest resources are located on lands which are currently subject to land claim negotiations between the Innu and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Recognizing the nature of land claim negotiations and the need for adequate management of the Forest Resources in Labrador, my department signed an MOU with the Innu to facilitate Innu participation in the forest management planning process and seek ways and means of co-management of the resources. The Budget Estimates provide the necessary funding for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, an important part of forestry organization in the Province is law enforcement for both forestry and wildlife functions. My department has about 140 officials involved in this important activity. Our conservation officers are well-trained and are a dedicated group of men and women. We need to provide continued improvement in their skills and equip them with necessary equipment in other facilities. I am glad we will be able to do so.

With mountains of snow on our doorstep and the forests, the fire season will most likely commence later than usual, but nature is always unpredictable. We will be ready, however, with our firefighting organizations just in case.

I might as well raise a number of issues which have been in the public eye in the past few months. These are the Main River harvesting issues, conflicts among various users of the resource, and lack of adequate wood supply for industry and domestic users. These conflicts stem from society's desire to balance various values and uses of the resource. We attempt to listen to all points of view and then involve local stakeholders in discussions and decisions on the use of the resource. Hopefully, this approach will enable us to reach decisions which provide the necessary balance between various uses and values, and hopefully resolve the conflicts.

On the Agrifoods sector, I will outline the department's leadership, the department's roles, and what we do in the Agrifoods industry. The intent of the Agrifoods branch is to provide a leadership role to the Agrifoods industry through program support and a highly-trained professional staff. As noted, as you will see in the Budget Estimates, Agrifoods development provides for farm business evaluation, production and marketing, planning, soil and land management, animal health, food safety and related regulatory programs. The Agrifoods industry has seen positive impacts on the Province, employs over 4,000 people, and sales at the primary production and secondary, further processing levels, of over $500 million. Between the two Departments of Forestry and Agriculture, there is some $1.3 billion realized from those two industries, almost all of it in rural Newfoundland.

Consumers spend over $2 billion on food in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there are definite opportunities to grow locally and on an export basis as well. So, where is the Agrifoods branch in industry moving? Industry must be competitive. Markets and competition are on a national and international basis. Newfoundland and Labrador's climate and soil resources are unique. We must work on what we are good at or can be good at.

To meet the challenges of these two characteristics, the branch and industry are focused on the following: Diversification, looking at new opportunities such as new crop and livestock development and alternative feeds. This will be accomplished through research and development, technology adoption, and good solid economic analysis, marketing, value-adding and secondary processing. Our traditional and up-and-coming industries need to focus on these areas. Knowing what the consumer wants and meeting those needs is very important. A focus on value-adding and secondary processing will catalyze the primary producer, the farmer, to grow more product. Good marketing strategies and focus to further process our agriculture produce is a key for success and growth in the industry. Some examples of these: wine production, dairy processors, production of ice creams and butter, a $100 million industry, Sharpes Farm production of soups and cooked greens, Dark Tickle production of jams and jellies.

Northern food production: my department is intent on further developing the Agrifoods industry in Labrador. Stakeholder meetings, research and development, technology adoption, economic analysis and training.

Life science economy, a big thing on the national scene now and no exception for this Province, is an economy based on new and alternative products and services based on renewable biological material. My department will focus on developing a life sciences economy strategy to identify the further development of this industry. Long-term risk management is critical to the Agrifoods industry. The focus will be food safety, environmental sustainability, transition and adaptation.

To summarize, the Agrifoods branch and industry stakeholders are working together to create growth and opportunity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is just a little outline of both departments. It may generate some discussion other than what the Estimates themselves portray.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Based on the information provided, I guess the Committee is ready for the questions.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, I move the acceptance of the Estimates as presented in 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ross.

Are there any questions for the minister?

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to start off -

CHAIR: I would ask you to identify yourselves again, just for the sake of Hansard, so they will not have to scurry and find out who is speaking.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Ray Hunter, MHA for Windsor-Springdale.

I do agree with what the minister was saying in his comments and report there. There are certainly a lot of positive things that he has been saying, but I do have to make a few comments on the department as a whole. I will start off with forestry, if I may have a few minutes to make comments on it, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: By all means.

MR. HUNTER: We recognize in the Province today that our forest industry is really important to our economy, because it is the third-largest natural resource and employment generator in our Province. We must look at our forests in a sustainable way to protect the rights of all the shareholders, particularly when it is pertaining to the people as a stakeholder, the workforce, the environmentalists, and people who enjoy our environment and enjoy the outdoors. That is a big area where we must recognize how we must maintain and take care of our forest industry.

Other users in the forest industry, as the minister mentioned, some of the stakeholders are the firewood users. We must make sure that the people are aware and are educated to a point where we use firewood in a responsible way, that no part of a tree is left behind that could be used for firewood. Sometimes people go in, take the best part of the tree, and leave the limbs and branches behind. That could save a lot of other trees, if we utilized every part of the tree.

Another thing in forestry, that I see, is the input from the federal government. It is unbelievable to me why our federal government does not have a forestry agreement deal with this government, why we do not have it in place to do the things that we need, particularly with silviculture. We are way behind in silviculture projects. Silviculture projects are not announced early enough. They should be announced well before the spring. Projects should be in place, and who is sponsoring the project should be aware of it so they could be up and running by the time the spring comes; and the same thing in the fall of the year when they need to be ready to do their projects in the fall of the year when it comes to silviculture work; particularly when it comes to areas of forest fire devastation. That is an area that we need to enhance and give nature a bit of a boost to get the new generation up and running and get plantation in there. We need to do that in areas where forest fires have devastated that part of the country. It is important to do that. Pre-commercial thinning and commercial thinning is very, very important. We are not doing enough of it. We should be doing more when it comes to the silviculture part.

Last year, I visited the Corner Brook operation over there and went through some of their areas where they did the pre-commercial thinning and it was enjoyable just to see the effect that the silviculture projects are having on the forests there, and it is encouraging because we have to do it for our future. A lot of people in this Province today still do not agree with interfering with nature and enhancing silviculture projects or forest projects. There are still a lot of people who do not believe in it. I do not know if we are getting the message out clear enough, but if we can save twenty or thirty years in the growth level of the harvestable tree, then we have to do it. We have to be prepared. We have to be ready for the future. We are in a state now because we did not do it forty years ago when we should have done it, or thirty years ago when we should have been doing it.

In order to do that, we need more input from the federal government. We need a forestry agreement in place, and we need that as soon as possible. I do not know if the minister is working on a forest agreement now with the federal government. I know the previous minister told me last year that they were working on an agreement and there should be something in the near future, but that was over a year ago and we still do not see anything; so I do now know how close the minister is on a forestry agreement there. If he wants to just butt in and tell me if there are any negotiations, if there are any things put in place to have an agreement put in the near future, that is one question I would like for the minister to answer, if he could, right now.

MR. WOODFORD: When I was at the ministers' meeting in Quebec City a couple of weeks ago, I just brought this up with some of the ministers there because some of them are still associated with forestry in the other provinces. Some are not; it is just Agrifoods and so on.

I agree that the federal government is out of the forestry industry and so on, especially in this Province. As far as I am concerned, they could be doing more here. However, even with the federal government out of it, we are not falling behind now with regard to silviculture. We did in the past and, as far as I am concerned, in the Bowater days, if everything was done then like it has been done now, there is no question about it, that our forests would.... Having said that, even with the catch-up over the last number of years, I think we are getting there with regard to the silviculture program; because, if you realize, there is approximately 16,000 hectares harvested in the Province every year. In the silviculture program, we are treating approximately 10,000 or 11,000 hectares. Out of that, there is around 7,500 hectares done with regard to pre-commercial thinning. Correct me if I am wrong, now, while I am going. Actual planting of seedlings is around 3,500; so we are up around 11,000 or 11,500 with regard to hectares of treated silviculture. Some places are no good anyway. Some other places are pretty sparse when you look at it. Considering our agreements with the two paper companies in the Province now and our own holdings, and our own money that we are putting into it, we are doing a fairly good job with regard to the silviculture industry, but that is not saying we cannot do more. I would like to see more in every area of silviculture.

Your point about starting earlier is another good point. That is an argument that I have had for years, that it has been a bit too late getting at it and so on. There is a window there in late spring, in the summer, especially for seedlings and so on, you know, that you can get into and get at, but overall I think we are doing a fairly good job now with the silviculture but we need something long term. Personally, I do not like this going every year to try to get an agreement for this or an agreement for that. There should be something long term, not one year. It should be at least five years with regard to a silviculture program.

To get back to the federal part, yes, I will be lobbying the federal minister with regard to some input. My understanding is that over the years, although the federal government is not involved directly in the forestry as an agreement as such, we do access funds through HRDC to do some work, approximately $1 million over the last year, I believe, to help out with silviculture programs, different programs and so on, plus our own monies. Overall this year, the whole silviculture part of it, we would probably be spending $10 million or $11 million, won't we?

WITNESS: Eleven.

MR. WOODFORD: About $11 million in silviculture in the Province. That is the companies' share and our own share. Overall we are doing fairly well, but there is still a lot of work to be done, no question.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, if you are spending $11 million, in the twenty-year plan that the minister came up with in 1996, a minimum of $15 million per year was suggested. That is a minimum, nothing less than $15 million per year. In the last five years - the plan runs out, I guess, this year; at the end of this month the first five years of the plan runs out - we are falling behind quite a bit if we are only spending $11 million, $12 million or $13 million a year. We are falling back when it was required, back in 1996, that we spend a minimum of $15 million a year in a silviculture program.

Maybe the extra money that was supposedly the federal share of the money that they were supposed to be putting in, I don't know, but if we did have a federal program then we can ensure that over the term of the twenty-year plan we could ensure that we could spend the minimum amount that was suggested that we should spend, the $15 million a year. We are falling behind in silviculture.

I do agree with you that we are doing a good job in the Province on a yearly basis, but, like you said, it is not a long-term plan where we can look forward every year to certain projects that are planned out each year, so that when the spring comes we know exactly what projects are going to be going ahead as soon as the weather allows us to do it, and we know exactly who is going to be doing the projects, whether it is going to be companies, through unionized members, or through sponsors, development associations or whatever. Each year we need to know what the plan is, instead of wondering right up until the end of March if there is going to be anything for the year. I would like to see something in place where we could have that from year to year, exactly where we are going.

I do not know if you have been meeting with the paper companies and their affiliates with respect to the unions or whatever, on what the plan is going to be for this year for silviculture. I did not see anything over the winter, any plans come out that say what we are going to do this year in silviculture work. I do not believe that the unions or the paper companies know exactly. Maybe they do now, but a month ago they did not. They did not know what the plans were going to be for this year's silviculture plan.

These are the things we need to know long before the time of year comes when we have to start these projects. I suggest that we would have something in place year after year so that everybody involved in silviculture work could be ready, gearing up, and their employees could know exactly when they are going to return back to work. A lot of these people who depend on silviculture for work are leaving the Province because they do not know exactly when they are going to go back to work. They do not know when they are going to be required to go back into the projects. I do not know if you have been meeting lately with the stakeholders in that, but I suggest that from year to year we be prepared and be ready to go into that.

The Labrador issue with the forestry is a big concern of mine. I think we should have had an agreement long before now, but I realize that your department is working on getting an agreement there in Labrador. We cannot wait a long time, because the longer we wait the more detrimental it is going to be to our forest industry in here, in the Province, on the Island portion. We need to protect the rights of the Labrador people too, protect and make sure that they get full benefits from the forestry in Labrador, and that it be a sustainable industry so that it will be there for the people of Labrador for many years to come.

Hopefully, we will not do in Labrador what we did on the Island in the last fifty years. If we do it in Labrador right, it will be there for everybody for a long time to come.

Forest protection plan: we need a more intense forest protection plan with respect to protecting the investment that we did put into silviculture over the years. Millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars have gone into silviculture work. I know there are spray programs, but we do not know from year to year exactly what the spray programs are going to be and if they are going to be approved by environment or not. From year to year we do not know where we are going. It should be more of a long-term plan so that each area is identified where problems are, so that we know exactly how we are going to protect that taxpayers' dollars.

CHAIR: Excuse me. In fairness to the member and also to the minister, in the last couple of minutes I saw at least seven potential questions. I do not mind the preamble, or not a preamble, but -

MR. HUNTER: Does the minister want to answer the questions as I ask them?

CHAIR: I am not sure if you are asking a question.

MR. HUNTER: I am just giving comments.

CHAIR: I am just wondering, are the questions related to the comments?

MR. HUNTER: If the minister feels that he can answer some of the concerns that I have, he can step in and address any of the comments that I am making.

CHAIR: I am not sure if you want an answer.

MR. HUNTER: Not really. I told the minister he could step in at any time, earlier, when I started, to make any comments.

CHAIR: Again, in fairness to the Committee, there are a number of items that you brought up that perhaps other members might like to hear an answer to. If not, we might end up going back through them again, if there is anything specific you want to cover. I do not mind the freewheeling at all, but -

MR. HUNTER: When we get into the Estimates, I will bring back some of the concerns that I have and ask questions on them, if that is alright.

CHAIR: I understand that, but traditionally the minister would make an opening statement and then we would go to line items for discussion. By all means, whatever should evolve from - I do not necessarily mean take a line and do it, but I would almost prefer -

MR. HUNTER: My comments are too long. Okay, I get the message.

CHAIR: I am not saying that, but I am afraid that the preamble - with the answers coming back, you may not get the answers.

MR. HUNTER: I asked how long they wanted to be here, and they told me it is up to me. I asked the deputy minister and he said: It is up to you, boy, how long you want to be here.

CHAIR: I am good until Easter, so it does not matter to me.

MR. HUNTER: Okay, I will just make a couple of more comments and then I will ask the minister some questions on some of the comments that I made.

With respect to enforcement, I am very concerned about that. We do not have enough enforcement officers. I can ask the minister questions as I am going.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: Okay.

With respect to the enforcement officers, I understand that wildlife enforcement - and it still comes under your department - I understand that there is not going to be any extra employees hired to enforce regulations with respect to forestry and wildlife. Can the minister tell me what the plans are for this year with respect to increasing the employment force for that?

MR. WOODFORD: I do not see any increase in the numbers of enforcement officers this year. Over the past number of years, especially with the integration and the cross-training and everything that has taken place with regard to forestry, wildlife park, inland fisheries and so on, I think it is working out really well. Numbers, in some case - not everything - but in this case there is no question you could probably use more people because it is so huge, such a big area, such a large land mass in this Province, to try to police it is not easy. Having made the adjustments over the last number of years, especially with the cross-training and the integration of the other departments, forestry people being able to go in and look after some of the wildlife, and the wildlife people being able to go in and charge with regard to forestry infractions and so on, it is after making it a lot better. There is no question that our enforcement is up, the number of warnings in up, the number of charges is up. We are after making, in the last few years, some major seizures and so on with regard to the wildlife part of it, with regard to the forestry part of it. Policing in forestry is very important. You alluded to it earlier with regard to even the domestic cut. We have to watch all this stuff. It is all so vital to the Province.

With regard to a plan for the insects, I would love to be able to do that. I would love to be able to predict where that bloody looper and budworm are going to be next year; whether the yellow-head is going to be somewhere, whether the sawfly is going to be somewhere. We cannot predict that. It was based on forecast with regard to the fall. I believe they do the forecast in the late fall and have a look at what happened for that summer, and then we get ready for the next season. Any further than that, we cannot very well go. For instance, last year on the Northern Peninsula, I think there was somewhere around 15,000 hectares sprayed. This year, we are going to need around 85,000 on the Northern Peninsula alone for the looper and the budworm. That is an example of what can happen in one season. I would love to have the luxury of being able to predict where they are going to be and what kind of damage they are going to do. Having said that, at least we have the year before forecast to rely on.

Your questions with regard to Labrador, yes, it is very important, and very important that we do it right; that we do not devastate the forest and put nothing back; that we do not go in and devastate the forest and use it for the benefit of everybody there, and utilize it in the proper manner. Those saw logs will go to sawmills and so on; the fibre will go back to the mills on the Island so that it can be used where it is necessary and where it is much needed - no question.

As long as it is being utilized for the benefit of everybody involved, and especially for the people of Labrador, in that area, then it is a win-win situation, no question. Those stands down there are starting to get pretty old. They are starting to get over-matured. There is an awful lot of wood there, that is just going to blow down. Nobody will get the benefit if we do not soon do something about it.

I am fairly optimistic that we will be able to come to some agreements with the Innu and other people in the areas of Labrador, both on the Coast and over in Southern Labrador as well, for the benefit of everybody in the Province.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, I am hearing a lot of stories about wildlife enforcement. Pouching is becoming a problem in Newfoundland because of the lack of enforcement and the freedom that the existing officers have to be in the field of enforcement: the times of the day, the times of the night and stuff like that. People know exactly where they are all the time. There are not enough of them to go around. One officer is probably covering an area where ten years ago there were three officers.

There is a big concern, particularly when it comes to the small game: partridge, rabbits and fish. People know what they can get away with. They know there is only one officer or two officers in the area. I think pouching is on the rise. I think we have to hire more enforcement officers. We need them in the field at all times of the day and the week, not just a certain number of hours a day, because people know their schedules. If you do not alternate officers and have them in the field, then our small game is going to take a big beating.

MR. WOODFORD: It has just been noted and passed to me that our charges - I knew they were up, I alluded to them earlier, but - I did not realize they were up 50 per cent, our charges over the last three or four years, I guess. If you put officers out there, it is like RCMP officers on the road. When you get your first ticket on a certain section of the road, the next time you go out, you watch it. I don't know; you can put them out there one for every hectare and, by gosh, sooner or later you will still have infractions.

MR. HUNTER: I know the guys are doing a great job in enforcement, but the numbers are up because the number of incidents is up, not because they are doing a better job than they did five years ago. They have done a great job in the last five years, but pouching is on the increase and violations are on the increase. That is why you are seeing an increase in charges. If you are catching that many, how many more out there are getting away with it? If it has increased by 50 per cent in your charges, then what is to say the incidents are not up 200 per cent and 300 per cent?

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, there is no question about that. I think one of the reasons why the charges are up is exactly because of what I mentioned earlier about the cross-training, about the other officers being able to do what they could not do before.

While we recognize there is a problem, we have problems in the forestry, we have problems in wildlife, we have problems in inland fisheries, but you do your best with the resources you have, under the restrictions you have, and under the budget you have. You do the best with what you have. As far as I am concerned, our officers in the field today are doing an excellent job; no question. We are not going to catch them all. No way in the world but -

MR. HUNTER: I agree with you. The problem is it is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: The violations are up.

MR. WOODFORD: We are cognizant of that and we realize what is going on. We are doing different things all the time to try to minimize the impact that poachers will have on our resources, and I realize where you are coming from with your question as well.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, probably not only your department now that comes under enforcement, but the non-resident hunters who come in and hunt small game, I guess that is over in wildlife. That does not come under your department now, does it?

MR. WOODFORD: No.

MR. HUNTER: So anybody -

MR. WOODFORD: The enforcement is still with the department but wildlife is over in tourism.

MR. HUNTER: Yes, but you do the regulation when it comes to non-resident small game?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, regulation of those.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, I want to get into some of the Agrifoods issues, if you do not mind. Just a couple of questions.

CHAIR: Were there any questions from other members with respect to the forestry aspect?

WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIR: Well, probably we will stay with the forestry and then maybe move on to Agrifoods. Is that okay?

MR. HUNTER: Okay.

WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if we could start with the heads and come down and (inaudible) questions as we get to each head?

CHAIR: Yes, I do not have a problem with that.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But some of the questions are more general though, Mr. Chairman, and they kind of go all over the place. So, maybe if we stick to forestry, as you suggest -

CHAIR: Well, let's go all over the place for another few minutes and then let's deal with the heads. Is that acceptable?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Sure.

CHAIR: John, if you would introduce yourself.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am sorry. John Ottenheimer, MHA for St. John's East.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions specific to the Estimates, and then I believe other members may have a couple of questions as well. I have one general question, but I will get to that afterwards. I realize we are still dealing with forest management.

There are a couple of figures in the Estimates that just jump out at us in terms of the difference in the revised 2000-2001 figures, and the Estimates for 2001-2002. The first one - and I guess it is just for comment by either the minister or one of his officials - is on page 117, under Insect Control. We see the revised figures of $876,800. This is under Transportation and Communications, 2.2.01.03, at the top of page 117. We see an significant increase, I might add, under Transportation and Communications of over $4 million. On page 117, minister. You have that there, do you?

MR. WOODFORD: What is the section?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is page 117 in the Estimates, and it is under -

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, Insect Control.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Insect Control. It is the estimate figure compared with the revised 2000-2001 figure. We see last year's figure less than $1 million and in the Estimates for this year an increase in excess of $4 million.

WITNESS: That is the aircrafts.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is under Transportation and Communications.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, my understanding is that it is mostly aircraft related with regards to the spray program.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But why is there such a difference though in both years?

MR. WOODFORD: Because it was different - pardon me?

DR. NAZIR: We sprayed only15,000 last year.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, only 15,000 hectares last year. That is all we sprayed. This year we are going to spray 85,000 on the Northern Peninsula alone, plus 50,000 in the south of Corner Brook with regards to the Balsam Sawfly.

DR. NAZIR: Fifty is the total but part of it will be sprayed.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, part of it will be sprayed. So we are going way over 100,000-odd hectares this year with regards to spray, and it would be rental of aircraft and equipment. Now, that is what is projected if everything goes right but if it does not with regards - you know Mother Nature plays a role in this but that is primarily what that is. It is way up this year. Our spray program is way up, as you will note from the figures here and the amount of monies that we have allocated for this year for the spray program.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: From the departmental point of view, minister, what sort of forecasting is done? Is it done on a year by year basis? Is there some projection in terms of a one to five year basis for insect control? How is this done? Is it done on a rather immediate basis? What is the philosophy that is used in determining the amount of control and therefore, the approximate expenditure that would be involved?

MR. WOODFORD: My understanding is that we will do an assessment after the summer, in the fall of the year, because there is no other way to do it. This is a prime example, between last year and this year, of what can happen in one year. My experience over the years, just out in the industry myself, was that you did not know until the fall anyway, what kind of an infestation you had; and really you did not know what kind of an impact your spray program had, until the fall. Then you can get a pretty good assessment and pretty good idea of what is needed for the next year, but you cannot go beyond that because next year there may be nothing.

You could have a spray program where it is probably 50 per cent or 60 per cent efficient, so that would have to be carried over. There are all kinds of reasons for not going beyond that one year. As you know, all those spray programs, depending on what you are going to use, needs environmental approval as well. So you can only do it on a yearly basis based on the type of spray you use, whether it is B.T., Neemix, or whatever. You can really only base it on one year. You cannot go beyond that because of two reasons, one: you do not know how effective your spray program is going to be; and two, you do not how much is going to be needed the next year or the infestation in different parts of the Province by different insects. If it was one insect even, but different types. This year we have four or probably five; it is four for sure.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If I could, again it is just a point specific. It is back on page 115 of the Estimates, under Operations and Implementation, 2.1.02.07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Again, we see last year's figure of less than $500,000 and this year's figure in excess of $1 million. There may be a fairly straightforward answer for that.

MR. WOODFORD: Which is it?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under Operations and Implementation, 2.1.02.07.

MR. WOODFORD: Page 115?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, page 115 in the Estimates.

MR. WOODFORD: I alluded to that in my statement. It is regard to helping with new equipment and so on for enforcement.

Getting back to the hon. Member for Springdale's comments earlier about enforcement. We have new monies this year. We asked for new monies for vehicle replacement and we got some allocations in the budget. That is where it is going, for enforcement, to cover all the enforcement department.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: One general question if I may, Mr. Minister. It seems to me that silviculture has to be an area of focus and attention within the department, and I am sure it is. When we are dealing with improvement and renewal projects, is there a long-term plan? Is there a vision that the department has in dealing with silviculture projects and renewal projects? Keeping in mind what the industry does on a season-to-season basis and keeping in mind, of course, the importance of this resource to the people of the Province, what long-term silviculture plan is there? I do not know if you would call it a strategic plan, but what do you envision for silviculture projects and the long-term sustainability of forest resources in our Province, say over the next five or ten years? As I see it, and I speak perhaps now as a layperson, that is where it is. In order for this department to grow and develop, and continue to have the impact that it has had in our past, how confident can we be that this resource will be an industry and a resource of the future because of long-term silviculture plans that the department has developed?

MR. WOODFORD: There is no question about it, this is one area where we, as a department in this Province, have to make sure that we do not slack off on. With regard to planning in this particular area, silviculture program, it just comes with the territory. Where we cannot fall down on the job is with regard to silviculture. We have to make sure - now, the agreements that we had with the companies before, I believe, was a three-year agreement.

WITNESS: Five year.

MR. WOODFORD: A five-year agreement. That is up now isn't it? That is up now, so we have to try to negotiate a new agreement. Like you said, I think it should be at least a five-year agreement. It is for the benefit of everybody in the Province; the stakeholders as well as everybody else in the Province. The beauty about this industry, and the Agrifoods one, is that they are both renewable and sustainable. They can be with us forever and a day if we manage it properly.

I agree with you, there needs to be a planning process; and we are. However, this year we are in sort of a little rut there with regard to - between the end of an agreement and the possibility of a new one, but at least we are going to have a good silviculture program this year. A lot of it will be on our Crown stands this year as well, so that will help out with regard to that. A long-term agreement with the paper companies is a must; with regard to being vigilant, with regard to the silviculture program in the Province, it is a must. There is something to it - it is also involved and included in all our planning around the Province, with regards to the five-year plans in the planning areas, like District 16, District 17 and District 6. All of this is included in it as well, because it can be done when you look at the AACs that are tied into those areas. You can pretty well plan for that because you know what has been done before. You know what AAC is in that area so you can pretty well put your finger on the amount of silviculture programs that need to be done in that particular area, whether it is by the companies or by us.

Your point is well taken. It is one that we - I know myself, as a minister - have to be very cognizant of because if we don't put it back and we don't properly look after it, it is not going to be there. So we cannot let that fall back at all. In fact, if there is anything that has to be done it has to be increased.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is why I raised the point, because usually at Estimate hearings if we see a big difference in last year's figures and this year's figures, in terms of why there is an increase, obviously as members of the Committee we question it.

MR. WOODFORD: Sure.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But on silviculture, quite ironically, an area as important as it is, we see this year's figures actually less than the revised figures of 2000-2001 in terms of a total overall amount to be voted. It seems to me, minister, that this is one area where the public of the Province would not be at all offended if, in fact, we seen increased expenditures because it is an investment in the future in terms of what the silviculture projects are all about.

MR. WOODFORD: You are right; exactly. It is pretty well the same as last year but I would like to see increases in it, there is no question about that. When we are negotiating with the companies we will be looking at those types of things.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Trevor, just introduce yourself (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: John, sort of stole one of my questions, but anyway.

I have two questions. The first one is more of a concern, I suppose. I do not know exactly if this is the appropriate place to bring it up or not, but somebody will tell me if I am out of order I am sure. I have a question on the spray program - and you probably have some concerns passed on to you from some communities on the Northern Peninsula - a concern about their water supplies more than anything else. I do not know if it is appropriate to bring it up here or not. You can tell me if I am wrong.

The Town of Roddickton and some communities in the Caster River area have been concerned about the expansion of the spray program this year and what potential impact that might have on water supplies. I received a couple of letters in the past week, I am not sure if you did or not - but certainly the Town of Roddickton, whose entire existence depends on the forest industry, is still pretty concerned about the impact of a spray program on their water supply. I do not know if you want to offer some comments on that, minister?

MR. WOODFORD: On that subject; once we come up with a spray program to do whatever area or whatever we are spraying for, or with, we must make application to the Department of Environment for approval in order to use that particular spray. Once that is approved we have to go by their guidelines, and all those things that you are talking about are usually taken into consideration. In fact, I believe they have been widened over the last number of years with regard to the buffer zones around those water supplies. I suppose the Department of Environment will have to look at the type of spray you are using and so on. We are pretty cautious with regard to that. I have had those concerns for years over in my area, a heavily forested area - used the spray programs over the years.

Those concerns are all addressed by Environment, and we can only go on what they are telling us and their recommendations. We will be cognizant of that and very vigilant because it is very important that the water sheds and water areas are protected.

MR. TAYLOR: The other question is the same thing as John's question, I suppose. I do not know if I am allowed to call him John in here or not, but anyway, it is on the silviculture. You say there is not much difference - when I look at the Roddickton area, again I guess we are probably looking at a reduction in the allowable cut in that area. Is that -

MR. WOODFORD: Area 17, next year.

MR. TAYLOR: Next year, yes. While there is not a great deal of difference in the budget for last year and the budget estimate for this year, the revised from last year, 2000-2001 and the projected for this year, there is about a $1.6 million difference there. I do not know if you might be able to elaborate a little more on that. It is about $1.6 million, as I see it anyway; $8,500,000 last year and $6.9 million this year for silviculture development.

MR. WOODFORD: I alluded to it earlier; I think we got $1 million from HRDC last year. I think it was mentioned earlier in comments made by the Member for Springdale. There is a possibility that we may still get some of that this fall. The Roddickton area, I think, is the only place on the Island where we have silviculture people who are -

WITNESS: And Bay d'Espoir.

MR. WOODFORD: And Bay d'Espoir - who go every year. They are trained for that. They come back every year on those programs, and that is working really well. They are really professional at their jobs. So we still hoping to access some federal money again this fall through the HRD program, whether it will be successful or not, I do not know.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: Your other question with regard to the AAC in District 17; there will be a reduction next year in the AAC. That is nothing new. It was implemented and recommended in the plan - I think, the 1997 plan for that particular area - that there would be an AAC reduction of approximately 10,000 or 11,000 cubic metres. That is supposed to come in for next year. So your point there is right, there will be reductions.

Now, having said that, when you reduce the AAC this year, as far as we know now based on our plan - this is why those planning areas and those plans are very, very good, excellent as far as I am concerned, working in the Province, working pretty well everywhere - is that we do not see any fluctuations after that. With regard to anything less in the AAC in those particular areas right now - unless there is a devastation of something later on, or something with regard to a forest fire or insects; even with insects you can go in and at least salvage it. But there is a reduction for this year, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

That is it for me for now.

CHAIR: Mr. Hunter.

MR. HUNTER: On page 117, under the heading Insect Control, 2.2.01.05, Professional Services. Minister, call you tell me why the revised amount there of $140,000 over $10,000? Why was that cost increased there under revised?

MR. WOODFORD: Which one are you talking about, Ray?

MR. HUNTER: Professional Services, 05.

CHAIR: 2.2.01.05.

MR. WOODFORD: Insect Control; I would say that is revised - yes, go ahead.

MR. MASTERS: Last year we did a lot of environmental studies, that is why it went to $140,000. When we went to environmental assessment they came back and said approval based on these particular studies taking place. Our estimate was $10,000, but because of all the additional studies we had to go to $140,000. Where we did that last year we are not anticipating that again this year.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, back on page 113, 1.1.01 Minister's Office, under .03, the budgeted was $71,500 and the revised amount was $150,000. What was the reason for the increase in the revised amount there?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know exactly, I wasn't there. I am only here now for a month, to be honest with you, on this one; but my understanding is that the minister of the day did quite a bit of traveling with regard to this de-inking project and so on, with regard to the paper companies looking into that. That is one of the reasons. I questioned that this morning, to be honest with you, or yesterday, and that was one of the reasons given. They did quite a bit of traveling with regard to the de-inking project and so on.

WITNESS: Also IPL.

MR. WOODFORD: Remember the one that was in Stephenville for Abitibi-Price and there was something else, too, with regard to a (inaudible) with Kruger.

MR. HUNTER: I guess that is the reason why Transportation and Communications - further down the page under Executive Support, .03 - is up $50,000 under the revised amount over the budgeted amount? Is it the same reason?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is the one. It was budgeted at $71,500 and was revised up to $150,000.

MR. HUNTER: Yes, and Executive Support was also increased by $50,000 under Transportation and Communications, further down the page.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: So that is for the same reason?

MR. WOODFORD: No, I do not know what the reasons are for that one.

WITNESS: The deputy was going with the minister.

MR. WOODFORD: I guess that were traveling with the minister. He always had someone with him, I would think.

WITNESS: We had one extra executive (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And one extra person hired last year in the executive branch.

MR. HUNTER: Was that with respect to the - you mentioned the de-inking process, how far has that gone now?

MR. WOODFORD: When that was set up last year there was a consulting firm hired to do a review of this and an analysis and so on. They were supposed to have their report in by the end of March - the end of this week, I guess. That was the deadline for that. Now, I do not know exactly what is in it. We will know at that time and then we will see what happens; but that is their deadline, the end of March.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, on page 114, 1.2.02.06, Purchased Services; this year you have it increased to $447,600. That is a big difference between what was budgeted in the 2000 Budget of $37,600. What is the reason for that?

MR. WOODFORD: That has to do with the relocation to the West Coast, the regionalization issue. That is tied in with that. That is a one-shot thing there and tied in with the move, as you know. I do not think wildlife is in this one. No, wildlife is out of that one, they are gone. It is to deal primarily with the Agrifoods branch to the Corner Brook office.

MR. HUNTER: So other costs would come under the wildlife division, not your division now?

MR. WOODFORD: No.

MR. HUNTER: You knew this before it was budgeted in the Estimates for this year, was that taken into account?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: That wildlife would come under the other department?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is taken out. My understanding is that it is taken out.

MR. HUNTER: So that is strictly -

MR. WOODFORD: Strictly the Agrifoods and Forestry, whatever is involved here, yes.

MR. HUNTER: I guess that is the same on page 115, Administration and Program Planning, 2.1.01.12, Information Technology. There was a big increase from what was budgeted in 2000 to what was actually estimated for 2001.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh yes, the revised. That is last year's revision.

MR. HUNTER: (Inaudible) in the revision there for last year.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I don't have an explanation for that one; 2.1.01.

MR. HUNTER: Why is it so high this year?

MR. MASTERS: Maybe I can answer that.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, go ahead.

MR. MASTERS: What happens with the IT budget; it is based on a project-by-project from year-to-year, so it fluctuates. It is done through a central agency, certainly, but last year we did an upgrade to our GIS system in Corner Brook, so that is where the additional funding came in. In any one year we would go forward with a bunch of projects that we would like to get under IT. Some get approved; some do not. That budget can fluctuate a fair bit from one year to the next, based on a project-by-project basis. Last year it was GIS, that is why the numbers are up.

MR. HUNTER: Would that have anything to do with preparing for the relocation?

MR. MASTERS: No, not in this particular case.

MR. WOODFORD: That was much needed, by the way, out there. I am glad they did that because if not, we certainly would have had to do it this year. That was really important.

CHAIR: Are we ready for the question?

WITNESS: That's it for forestry.

CHAIR: Do you want to hold all the estimates for the tail end or do you want to move the forestry estimates now and then go on to Agrifoods? I am asking the Committee's direction.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: That's fine. Let's carry on then with Agrifoods.

MR. HUNTER: Can I make a few more comments towards the Agrifoods? I will try to keep them brief.

CHAIR: The Chair has no problem with the comments or even a preamble but the Chair would like them to at least be tied to the Estimates themselves, at least in some way so that we can deal with them. What the Chair is afraid of is that if we opened up, totally, all members may have the right to do the exact same thing, and we are here to discuss the Estimates. Try to keep it a little bit focused to the Estimates, the Chair has no objection.

MR. HUNTER: I understand, Mr. Chairman, but it is once a year that we get all the top brass together and get a chance to let them know some of my views as critic for the department.

CHAIR: The Chair fully understands that, but one would suggest also that you have the top brass everyday in the House of Assembly.

MR. HUNTER: I know that.

CHAIR: Carry on.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to let the minister and his officials know some of the concerns that I have - probably it would be better for me to bring it up in Question Period - with respect to some of the livestock industry in the Province today. Minister, I will ask you the question: What are the department's plans for coming up with a program on the inspections and grading of our livestock industry? Are there any plans in the near future for the department to get more involved in the inspection process?

MR. WOODFORD: On a provincial level; that has been done now pretty well on a provincial level, anything that is required there. Anything that is required on a federal level, through the abattoirs and so on, is tied in with them. However, the one in Corner Brook is closed. There is only the one out here now. I do not know what they do with regard to custom killing or anything like that. I don't think they are doing very much.

We have a concern with regard to the federal inspection process. Some of the retailers in the Province - especially the Sobeys of the world, or the Dominions and so on - require a federal inspection process - or they are saying it anyway - before they will, say for instance, buy lamb or anything like that for sale in local areas. So that is something that we are looking at to see if it can be enhanced and see if there is some way we can tie it in with our provincial scheme and so on so, so that those operators will be able to slaughter. I know in my own area we had a very successful operation with regards to the abattoir there in Cormack. The development association started it, then transferred it and sold it to a private operator. He is doing almost everything in the area now with regard to custom killing, bringing in your few hogs or whatever and doing it, especially in the fall of the year; but we do have concerns in other areas of the Province with regard to the federal inspection process, and we are looking at it.

MR. HUNTER: I guess I had better keep my questions short. I have some questions that I think would be better brought up at another time.

MR. WOODFORD: You get more (inaudible) then.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, the coyote problem in the Province: What is your department doing now?

MR. WOODFORD: They are running wild.

MR. HUNTER: I understand there are 50,000. Is that right? Someone told me there were 50,000 coyotes, that can't be true.

MR. WOODFORD: We may joke about it but I remember back years ago when I asked that question and - someone hit one on the Hughes Brook Road, but nobody believed it. That was only seven or eight years ago, as I recall. Someone was driving out one day and ran into one on the Hughes Brook Road. They said: there is no way that could happen; but now it has happened. They are, you know, running wild. They are prolific breeders, from my understanding. They were having all kinds of problems with them around the Province.

WITNESS: They fit right in here in Newfoundland.

MR. WOODFORD: We don't have any numbers. We don't have a count or anything done on that, but it is a concern. We are working with farmers, I think Eddy, with regard to programs and how to handle them and so on, but there is no easy way.

MR. HUNTER: Probably it is time to look at what we are going to do with respect to the future when it comes to coyotes and the livestock producers, because it is becoming a problem and it is going to keep getting bigger. I was just wondering if you had any money budgeted for studies for that?

MR. WOODFORD: I think there is some money in a program there. You tie it in where it will work with the farmers on highlighting it and telling them some of the risks and so on, what they should and should not do to try to minimize the impact on their livestock herds, especially sheep and lambs.

MR. O'REILLY: We just recently funded a seminar with sheep producers in Gander whereby we brought an individual in from Alberta to discuss all aspects of coyotes and that sort of thing. We have staff now who are trained and who will be able to assist the producers in coyote control in a sense, I guess, whether it is fencing or - there are talks of using guard dogs, such as the Komondor, and there have been some attempts at using donkeys which will dissuade coyotes and other dogs from attacking sheep and so on.

WITNESS: Bugs Bunny.

MR. O'REILLY: Bugs Bunny, yes. So we are working on this.

MR. HUNTER: I have a job to believe that coyotes were not introduced intentionally. I have a job to believe that they came over on a pan of ice. I guess we will never know the truth.

MR. WOODFORD: It was either on a pan of ice or in someone's car or someone's suitcase or something, but they got over here.

MR. HUNTER: They got here definitely.

I have a few notes and questions here on the Agrifoods area (inaudible) some of the Estimates.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 119, Production and Marketing, 3.2.01.01, Salaries, budgeted and estimated, it is up over $100,000 under Revised. Minister, could you tell me why it was increased?

MR. WOODFORD: Which one?

MR. HUNTER: Administration and Support Services, .01, Salaries.

MR. WOODFORD: You are talking about the Revised last year, $883,000 to $991,500?.

MR. HUNTER: Yes. What was the reason for the increase?

MR. WOODFORD: I do not know.

WITNESS: We had some reclassifications.

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, yes. There were some reclassifications in the department as there were in other departments. I can remember when we were going through the Budget for this year, that was a concern we had. One thing was reclassifications, but there were also appeals and so on. That is why that Revised increased for last year.

WITNESS: Some of those date back to 1994.

MR. WOODFORD: Some go as far back as 1994, by the time it went through the appeal process and so on.

MR. HUNTER: In the same section, .05, Professional Services increased by $26,000. Could you tell me why it was revised to that increased? Was there any reason for the Professional Services to be increased by that amount?

MR. WOODFORD: It must have something to do with research or technical support because this here (inaudible) like it is from the production and marketing division. There must be something extra done in that particular area.

MR. O'REILLY: We have taken on a more aggressive view of R and D, as far as - the minister referred to diversification and that sort of thing. Diversification requires testing and the production and marketing division is solely responsible for that aspect. So there has been increased activity in that regard.

MR. HUNTER: On page 122, minister. This comes under the heading: Farm Business and Evaluation, Administration and Support Services, heading 3.4.01.06, Purchased Services. Last year it was budgeted for $8,700 and revised to $27,000. Can you tell me why the increase in that?

MR. WOODFORD: 3.4.01.06, Professional Services and Purchased Services; that was two veterinary trucks that were down for some time and they had to get two rental trucks. Those veterinary trucks, we cannot keep them - once they are down that is it, we have to have something else in place. That was the problem there. They are on call, as you know, all hours of the day and night, so they must have something dependable to drive in.

MR. HUNTER: Across the page there, on page 123, Extension Services, heading 3.5.01, Administration and Support Services, there was an increase from the budgeted to the revised for 2000-2001. Under 3.5.01.06, Purchased Services, that was also increased by $50,000. Can you tell me why that was increased that much?

MR. WOODFORD: According to this, I would say - this is what I said from the start, that we had new monies put into vehicles this year, vehicle replacement and so on. It includes repair, maintenance of vehicle fleet, and property assigned to the division. That could have to do with maintenance and repairs because we had a lot of old vehicles in the fleet. This year we are going to make some adjustments to that - not to this in particular but with regard to new vehicles, especially for enforcement.

MR. HUNTER: One question I have in mind, minister, is the relocation to the West Coast. Where would the majority of the budgeting monies go to in these Estimates that would be put into that transfer, that relocation program? What area would it be put into?

MR. MASTERS: Maybe I can answer that for you.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, go ahead, Allan.

MR. MASTERS: It is in the administration support, Mr. Hunter. In general administration, right upfront. I think we had a question earlier in one area there that the minister alluded to relocations. If you go to page 114 in your Estimates -

MR. WOODFORD: You asked a question earlier on it (inaudible).

MR. MASTERS: Yes, that is where the funding has been placed for the relocation initiatives.

MR. HUNTER: So the majority of the cost would be in that area?

MR. MASTERS: Yes, and that is for space rental, relocation of employees, recruitment and that sort of thing. It is in that area.

MR. HUNTER: That is all I have to say. If some of my colleagues would like to have a -

CHAIR: Are we ready for the -

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague here would like to ask a question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a question on relocation. I understand that from what was originally planned there has been a significant change in the actual numbers of individuals and perhaps actual offices in terms of the relocation from one part of the Province to the West Coast. Do we now know the actual numbers of people within the department that are being relocated? Now that the analysis has been done and choices have been made by individuals who are directly affected, do we now know the numbers?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't think we know exactly yet because we have some - I think, under the program, once we advertise for the positions, even when they closed, the people who were involved before still got an opportunity to say yes, they want to go before we really put someone in the job. However, to expand on that, I will ask the Deputy Minister to -

MR. MASTERS: With respect to the numbers, the total numbers of the move has not changed. The site of animal health, which very early on was left behind in St. John's. The big change for this department is the wildlife division moving to tourism has changed our numbers. Our numbers right now is forty-one for Agrifoods; eight for legislation and compliance; for a total of forty-nine with this department that will be moving to Corner Brook.

With respect to the number of bodies within that, it is changing as we speak, because as we advertise positions people are coming forth that either want a promotion because a position is on the board, or it gets to the point where: What decisions do I have? As the minister alluded to, they have, right up until the time that the job is offered to somebody, the opportunity to move into their position. So it is really difficult at this stage to nail down the exact number that -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But the maximum would be forty-nine?

MR. MASTERS: Forty-nine for this department, and the rest is with the wildlife division, yes. The number themselves originally was around 100 or 102 or something. That number has not changed significantly, other than the five in animal health that early on was decided to leave in St. John's. The rest of the numbers, when you add them all together, should come to the same.

CHAIR: Are you ready for the question?

MS JONES: (Inaudible), Mr. Chairman, please. I apologize for my absence for a few moments, but I do want to make one comment as it relates to the MOU that the department has negotiated with the Innu Nation.

I would like to indicate that this is a major step forward for forestry development in Labrador. I commend your department and your officials for having the interest and also the commitment to see that through to the stage that it is today. I am glad to see that monies have been allocated to continue with that because people who are familiar with forestry development in Labrador, while some may hope that it would move much more quickly than it is, we, in Labrador, understand the importance of taking our time, doing the proper planning and being able to implement this industry in a way that is going to be beneficial to all. It is certainly no small accomplishment to have to negotiate and reach an agreement with any Aboriginal groups as it relates to forestry or any resource developments. I am pleased to see that this has been done with the Innu Nation, that their involvement has been recognized through this development and that they will indeed be a part of it.

The other thing that I would like to say is that in Costal Labrador, I think the process that has been put in place is working very well. That is the process of proposal development before allocations are made. In the last year we have seen a number of proposals come forward for forestry development in both Cartwright and in the Port Hope Simpson area. These proposals look at the full stages of development within the industry, including secondary processing. The allocations, I feel, are made to companies and individuals who are fully committed to developing this resource for the benefit of communities and people first.

I just want to commend you, minister, and your officials, especially Mr. Nazir who is here and has been very close to this particular file, for the job that you have done in moving that along. Also, I hope that this is a new way that we can look at future development in the industry for the entire Province because it involves the communities, it involves the stakeholders, it involves government, and it is ensuring that all interests are protected, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. So if we can certainly move forward with these plans and have them realize their full potential over the next five years, no doubt it will be precedent setting for the Province. I just wanted to indicate that this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair will accept a motion to move the Estimates for Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.5.01 carried.

On motion, Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Minister and officials, on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for your participation here this morning and your assistance and the readiness and willingness to answer the questions put forward by the Committee.

On motion, Committee adjourned.