The Committee met at 9:00 a.m.

{Due to technical difficulties, a portion at the start of this committee was not recorded.}

CHAIR (Mr. Walsh): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: (Inaudible) management, and I have spoken to the department many times about it.

The biggest problem that I see is with the bigger contractors on the West Coast. Too much of the resource is being left on the ground. Thousands of cubic metres of wood, whether it be pulp wood - hardwoods are being cut and left on the ground. Anybody who travels over cut-overs in the Province, whether it is moose hunting, berry picking or whatever, sees the devastation that the forest resources are getting. Every tree that we leave on the ground could be of value to this Province, and save a tree that is still standing.

The West Coast, particularly Corner Brook Pulp and Paper limits and Crown limits, it is just unbelievable and ridiculous to see the amount of wood that is there. I do not know if the minister and his department get a lot of calls over it, I do.

The other area is the Bay d'Espoir area. Now the Bay d'Espoir area is more or less private and domestic operations down there. I have tapes, letters and pictures of the same type of situation. Ticketing is not being done; not enough people available in the department to do the surveillance and enforcement; not enough equipment in the department when there are enough people to do the job; not enough pickups available to get these people out in the field. The jurisdiction is being divided amongst CO IIs and their supervisors who are tied up in offices dealing with paperwork and everyday work. Surveillance and enforcement is not being done because the bodies are not there to do it.

When it comes to fire protection we do have some bodies in place. In some cases I don't see enough vehicles. I know of one area where we have six forestry protection workers and one pickup truck. They have to take turns going out on either training or fire protection. If we have more than one fire, I do not know what they do. I guess they get somebody to drop them off or rents a (inaudible) or something.

The solution that the department has been giving over the last couple of years or what they have been doing, instead of increasing the tools to do the job they were decreasing the workforce. If you have six people in one truck, the solution would be to buy more trucks, but what the department was doing was decreasing the workforce. So, you have less people with the one same truck. Some of the money that has been spent in the department is going through directors and supervisors when they are driving around in $55,000 pickups and outboard motors and boats that do not be used for fire protection. They are being used privately for their own purposes. I find that very, very despicable. With the restraint on the dollars that we have in this Province today, we should not be doing that kind of thing.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: I say to the Chairman, I had to get these comments out.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) then he can certainly come on with the other ones, but I am up to nine questions. We have gone from the staffing of vehicles to fire protection, to - that is why I was going to try and stay within the subheads, so that at least we can flow. But, we have nine questions and the answers, as we all know, (inaudible) can be as long or longer than the question. But, now we are into nine questions.

MR. HUNTER: I am only making my comments yet, Mr. Chairman. After I make my comments I will ask questions, going through the subheads. Now, if that is not the way you would like me to do it -

CHAIR: We were going to try to open with the questions, if we could, to deal with the subheads. But, you can carry on.

MR. HUNTER: Okay.

CHAIR: You are up to nine.

MR. HUNTER: Well, you pretty well interrupted me right at the end of what I had to say.

I must say, with Agrifoods, it is an area where I did not spend a lot of time dealing with the issues. I am finding that Agrifoods is operating pretty good. The only problem I see is we are not doing enough in land base preparations and stuff like that, and specialized equipment for the farmers. We can go through that in the subheads as we go through. I guess everybody recognizes that we have a lot of problems in our forestry in this Province. I know the minister is working hard, and his deputy minister is doing a good job of working with the public and the people involved. I have been working with both of them. I just want to say this to be part of the record, that I appreciate the minister and his deputy minister, but we need to do more.

I will get through the questions for the subheads as we go, if that is fine. These are my opening comments, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I will now go back to you for your opening questions.

MR. HUNTER: I can probably start by asking the minister what he plans to do this year with the fire season. Do you plan to increase the pickup fleet, the tools for the people to do the jobs in fire suppression, or are there other plans where you are going to decrease the vehicle fleet? Are you going to increase the workforce with the firefighters?

MR. WOODFORD: No, there is no difference. Pretty well every year there is a base for fire suppression and fire protection in the Province. I think we use the figure of somewhere around 100, somewhere around that figure; what they call man-up. The fire season starts and we usually keep those people on staff.

MR. TAYLOR: The minister's mike is not on. The assistant deputy's mike is on.

CHAIR: I guess it is Kelvin Parsons chair today, or it is Beaton Tulk's old chair. Perhaps that microphone should be on.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, it is on now.

CHAIR: There we are. Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: At this time of the year, or when the fire season starts, we usually use around 100 people for what they call man-up for fire suppression and fire protection for the summer. Now, the rest will dictate that. The fire season itself will dictate what comes after that. If we have any amount of fires, if those people can keep it contained, if our water bombers can keep it contained, well then we do not need anybody else.

If there are any fires like - for instances, if the hon. member will remember back in 1999, I believe it was, the one in Badger. That was a big operation. There was a lot of destruction there; a big cost. Then you go back looking for more people, more money, or whatever it is, to fight. With regard to fighting the fires, there is never a hesitation with regards to the fighting of the fire. There are always people to be called in after to deal with that, and we will deal with the other problems after. There are usually around 100 - I stand to be corrected, deputy - that we use for man-up to start the season in regard to the fire department.

MR. MASTERS: I do not know if my mike is on, my voice is loud enough anyhow.

MR. TAYLOR: Turn on Tom Lush's mike, Kevin.

MR. MASTERS: With respect to the issue around vehicles and that sort of thing, that is not an issue for us on fire. Fire takes priority in the summertime. If there are dedicated fire trucks, which there are in each district - and you may be alluding to a district with a six-man depot and one vehicle, I think I heard you say. During the fire session there would be a second vehicle automatically put there, loaded with equipment and ready to go. So that has not been an issue for us. Fire is given priority from May through to September. We have not had a problem to date with respect to actioning fires and getting to them. In actual fact, our fire vote this year in the base has been increased somewhat, which is encouraging to see, but it has not been a big issue in the sense that we have always been given the direction, if there is fire you obviously go fight it. If you fight it, whatever costs are incurred are accumulated at the end of the summer and we take it from there.

Last year, for example, we were something like $1.9 million above our base in fighting fires in this Province last summer. Some years it is a lot less than that and other years, like the minister alluded to in 1999, we went as much as $6 million or $7 million over base. It is difficult to predict now how many fires we are going to have. They give us a base to man-up and go out and start. As the fires are given priority, all staff are plucked, just about every staff. In the case of Badger, as the minister alluded to, we had as many as 280 personnel on that fire. So, it is given a priority. If there is not a dedicated truck this time of the year to firefighting, there will be as soon as the season starts.

MR. HUNTER: I would like to ask the deputy minister a question on page 117, 2.2.02., Fire Suppression and Communications.

MR. MASTERS: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: In last year's Budget you budgeted $185,900 and it was Revised to $572,400, and this year you have budgeted $446,000 for supplies. What was the difference? Did you purchase - it was not pickups, what was purchased?

MR. MASTERS: If you look at the bottom column in 2.2.02., Fire Suppression and Communications, we had $1.9 million.

MR. HUNTER: 04., Supplies.

MR. MASTERS: In the 04., the increase this year is part of the $600,000 that has been added to the base. Last year our base was $1,940,200. This year's base is $2,588,000. The reason we have $446,000 versus $185,000, that is where we anticipate needing the additional funds. The $185,000 was a base number that we have been working with. As soon as we had fires last summer - you will notice in Transportation, 03., that is usually helicopters and that sort of thing. That one was up and the Supplies were up. That is normal in a firefighting operation, that your supplies and helicopter, gas and oil, and that sort of thing goes up.

MR. HUNTER: In 04., what type of items would you buy?

MR. MASTERS: 04. is primarily gas and oil. It can be anything, from fire pumps - well not pumps, but hose. Mostly gas and oil is a big one.

Under 06. is where you pick up a lot of your maintenance stuff. In 04. you pick up a lot of your fuels and that sort of thing. For last year we went $1.9 million over. If you look at the $3.4 million - I guess it is $1.5 million showing here. The difference is in actual expenditures throughout that column there. This year we have added additional to our base, hoping that will get us through the year. We have no way of knowing, but it has never been an issue with respect to pumping.

MR. HUNTER: In 07., under the same heading, you increased to $150,000 for Equipment. That is not like firefighting equipment here?

MR. MASTERS: Yes, it could very well have been. Replacement of pumps - we have a fire equipment bank in Gander and every winter, of course, we replenish anything that was destroyed last year or worn out, broken or whatever. That is normally done right after the fire season. How it would normally work, sir, we would have the fire season, for example, from May to September. Come September we would take an inventory of what got destroyed in fires: burnt hoses, pumps broken, and what have you. Then that would be requisitioned throughout the winter to replenish the fire depot for this year gearing up. So that is how that works.

MR. TAYLOR: Can I jump in there?

MR. MASTERS: Yes, if you like, sure.

CHAIR: Trevor Taylor sitting in the Leader of the Opposition's chair.

MR. TAYLOR: Just on number 07. You budgeted $6,900 last year, revised it to $150,000, and you budgeted $6,900 this year. How realistic could -

MR. MASTERS: It is not realistic.

MR. TAYLOR: You probably cannot predict it, given what you have already said.

MR. MASTERS: It is not realistic, the $6,900. The average is probably going to be $100,000 or $150,000, but we will not know that until we get in. If we have a good fire year - and we have had years where we did not have to come for additional funding. We have an extra $600,000 this year to work with. So we may, indeed, need money down in 07. We may not spend everything in 04., for example. It is impossible ahead of time to predict exactly where we are going to have the expenditures. We could have just as easily taken some of that $600,000 and put it in 07. as opposed to 04. That was just an arbitrary thing when we did it.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR. HUNTER: The rentals for the hanger in Gander, does that come out of this part?

CHAIR: I am sorry, Ray. Once again, if we could, for Hansard, identify ourselves because we are all sitting in different seats. They will not recognize it.

MR. HUNTER: The rental for the hanger in Gander, would that come out of that budget too, Purchased Services, and stuff for the year, for that amount of money?

MR. WOODFORD: The rental for what?

MR. MASTERS: For air services?

MR. HUNTER: Air Services.

MR. MASTERS: No, that would be in Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. HUNTER: That does not come out of your budget at all?

MR. MASTERS: No.

MR. HUNTER: That is it for fire suppression. I would like to get into some other issues in forestry. It goes back to the law enforcement planning and program.

CHAIR: Which page and which number?

MR. HUNTER: Page 115, heading 2.1.01.

CHAIR: We are back to page 115, 2.1.01.

MR. HUNTER: Does the department plan - I know they had an ad out for a couple of positions in CO IIs - to increase the workforce with the conservation officers this year?

MR. WOODFORD: No. There is no plan to increase any of the conservation officers this year, absolutely not. As you know, in the budget there is a freeze on hiring and so on, and this would be applicable to our department as well. We have no flexibility whatsoever there to do any increasing with regard to conservation officers, or anywhere else in the department on that subject.

MR. HUNTER: Perception in the public now - I read your news release back a little while ago saying the number of violations are down. But, public perception is, the reason they are down is because there are not enough officers out there to catch the people who are violating. We have areas now with one officer patrolling, where ten years ago there were six and seven officers. One officer cannot cover that same area as it was done ten years ago. It cannot be done. It is impossible to do. The public knows that.

If we do not increase the number of CO IIs, then poaching and violations are going to continue and get worse. They are already getting worse. Statistics show that the number of offensives are going down, but that is because there are not enough people out there to catch them. I have talked to a lot of officers across the Province and they said: We do not have the time to get out of our pickups and get on a snow machine or a quad, and go check in woods, roads, cabins and so on, looking for people who are breaking the law. There are not enough hours in the day to do it. This is a very serious problem. There is nothing in the budget this year, under these headings here, to hire extra CO IIs?

MR. WOODFORD: No, there is nothing in the budget there for it. The question becomes - and I can appreciate the question but the answer is: When is enough, enough? It is like a police officer, how many do you determine is enough?

MR. HUNTER: What was enough ten years ago?

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

MR. HUNTER: How much was enough ten years ago?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, if we hire another 100, for instance, this year - I know, I get it in my area and I am sure each member is getting all kinds of complaints about infractions or perceived infractions or what have you. While every department would like to have more bodies and more people in certain areas, especially in this one when it comes to conservation. That is one that we are very much aware of environmentally. With regard to, like you say, poaching - whether it is a tree or whether it is an animal or what have you - the more bodies you have you would think that the better practices you would have and less infractions. Right now we are operating with, I think, around 140 to 150 officers and administration around the Province. Those people are doing an excellent job. We will always have complaints, there is no question about that, in certain areas - well everywhere, pretty well every area of the Province - about people who are poaching and otherwise. Right now that is the number of people, and we have no more extra money in the budget this year for any other officers.

CHAIR: Do you have any questions, Trevor, on that?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: You can go.

CHAIR: We can stay with one person and go through a number of items if you wish, or you can bounce back and forth. Just let me know so that I can identify whoever it is.

(Inaudible) Ray, or are you going to stay with it?

MR. HUNTER: I will stay with it and clue up the questions that I have because there is not a big lot there.

CHAIR: It might be easier to do it that way, and then we can move on to other members. That way you might actually cover something. The reason I am doing that, Ray, is where you are the critic, I would rather have you cover as oppose to say one of the members from the government side asking a question that you have already covered or one of your own colleagues. Where you are the critic, I am going to allow you that freewheeling. If you want to cover yours, then we will move on to another member.

MR. HUNTER: Yes, okay. I will clue up my comments and my questions for the minister.

This year, minister, you announced that there would be an extra 2 million seedlings for forestry in your silviculture program. Those seedlings, will they be produced and planted at the Wooddale Tree Nursery? Are they going to be used in the Province or will some of that be for resale to other provinces or other places?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, like you said, we have announced that we are going to try to go from 7 million to 9 million seedlings over the next year, or two years. There will be a need for extra growing capacity at the Wooddale Nursery in Grand Falls. That will require, I think, something like four to six other greenhouses in that area. So, there will be extra growing capacity there.

There is a demand for more and more seedlings, as you know, in the Province. With regard to outside the Province, I do not know of anything that we sell outside the Province. All our demand is within the Province, from the companies and our own limits, with regard to seedlings. I do not think there is anything outside the Province. That will be for our own use in our own silviculture programs. It is a real good program right here in the Province with regard to silviculture. It is only one part of our silviculture program. As you know, it goes into the pre-commercial thinning and so on, our seedlings. The planting is one part of it, but it is a big part of it, a very important part of it. I think it is a good step, the right step with regard to the silviculture protection of our forests in the Province.

MR. HUNTER: If that is going to be done at Wooddale, then in your Estimates there is no increase for extra salaries; not a lot of increase for extra salaries. If you look at section 2.1.03.01, last year's Revised budget was $2,223,200 and it is pretty close to that budgeted for this year. If you are going to increase that with an extra five or six greenhouses, wouldn't the staff increase?

MR. MASTERS: No, we do not anticipate. We anticipate up to six greenhouses, four for Forestry and we are using two greenhouses at Wooddale now for the Agrifoods branch. They are doing some work there.

No, the way the greenhouse complex is set up at Wooddale, we do not see an increase in staff affiliated with this. It may mean that when the staff are on with respect to the pruning or the thinning and that sort of thing, it is an extra week or two for the additional couple or three greenhouses, but we do not anticipate hiring another crew of people. Our staff there are adequate to do it. It may mean a slight extension of their work weeks.

MR. HUNTER: Where would the money come from to purchase supplies to increase these greenhouses? In your Estimates, 04. on Supplies, you have a decrease in the Budget, so how will you build these extra -

MR. MASTERS: Within the silviculture program - and it has always been a problem with us on the budgeting because the budgeting is done in the fall or early winter. Our program, with the actual projects, is finalized in the spring. Within silviculture, the figure I watch all the time, I guess, is the bottom line, the $7 million figure. Then within it, the amount of salaries is fairly certain because we know we have crews in Bay d'Espoir, Roddington, the nursery and that sort of thing. That is consistent from year to year. However, within Supplies and that sort of thing, that would hinge on where the project is that year.

You will notice we only had $88,000 last year. We actually spent $275,000 and this year we are at $189,000. We anticipate being able to do the additional supplies because the only supplies we are talking about are the actual greenhouses themselves. We are hoping to get two of them out of our Agrifoods branch and four out of our Forestry. It does not mean putting in new heaters and that sort of thing. The existing infrastructure at Wooddale is simply adding on plastic houses. So, it is not a huge cost item to allow us to go there.

MR. HUNTER: We are not talking about a big increase in employment, a big increase in services and stuff like that?

MR. MASTERS: There will be some increase in employment but the big benefit out of this is an additional 2 million seedlings that we are going to have out on our sites.

MR. WOODFORD: We don't have to put a big lot of capital into extending that operation in order to get a real good return with regard to investment into the actual silviculture program itself. I mean, an extra 2 million seedlings and very little - because the infrastructure is there as it pertains to heat and people and workers and so on; employees. It is just a matter of getting those plastic coverings up in order to get the seedlings started; to get them tied into the program that is already there.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, or deputy minister; in this silviculture program, will there be any decrease in the amount of silviculture work done in the field? Will it be on par with last year, or increased or decreased this year in the amount of silviculture areas? For example, the Bay d'Espoir area, will that continue the same as last year or will that be changed?

MR. WOODFORD: That depends on where it is in the Province. As you know, the silviculture work is determined by where the need is. Whether it is a thinning project or whether it is a planting project, that will be determined by companies if it is their limits and ourselves if it is ours. The actual dollar value and the investment into the silviculture program in the Province is the same. It is around $7 million. (Inaudible) around $4 million from industry this year. It should be around $11 million-plus this year with regard to the silviculture program.

The need, and where it is in the Province, will be determined by the companies and ourselves as it pertains to Crown properties.

MR. HUNTER: I know the amount has been increased but will the amount of acreage be decreased or increased, the number of hectares that you do?

MR. MASTERS: There has been a move, over the last two years, from thinning towards a little additional planting. That is because we are getting a lot of the backlog thinning that we had out there caught up. Area wise, we are probably going to be increased because it does not cost as much to plant an hectare as it does to thin a hectare. We will probably do more area with the same dollars because we are shifting the focus more towards gap planting and planting.

To answer your question. Yes, there will be more area but it is the same amount of dollars. There is no decrease in the effort. There is just this little shift in the focus of the effort from thinning to planting.

MR. HUNTER: The Bay d' Espoir area, will that be increased or decreased this year?

MR. MASTERS: I do not anticipate Bay d'Espoir being increased, but whether it is decreased or where it is will hinge, again, on what is available there, as you probably know. I know you are familiar with that particular area. That will hinge again on the program as it comes in.

MR. HUNTER: When will you know?

MR. MASTERS: Usually our program really firms up in May. We start calling our contracts on planting in May and the other contracts in June. So within the next month we should have a firm figure on all those areas.

MR. HUNTER: Okay, if we just move down the page now to 2.1.04., Resource Roads Construction. Minister, in the budget you allowed an extra $600,000 this year for forest access roads?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: Could you tell me what types and what areas, or if this money is going to be spent in non-accessible, non-profitable areas, or is it going to be done over the year in areas where the paper companies figure that it is feasible to access wood? Will this money be spent through the paper companies, the sawmill operators, or through the department? How are you going to spend this money this year on access roads?

MR. WOODFORD: The same as we did every other year. There is always a need, as you know. Every year we could probably spend $4 or $5 million on resource road construction. We have always had a budget of around $2 million and we have an increase this year, which is good. We will be able to do some of those other roads that are inaccessible to people, whether they are integrated sawmill operators, domestic cutters or what have you.

The other part we have to take into consideration here, and what we are looking at, is Labrador. We are hoping to have something in Labrador where there is a need on the South Coast of Labrador for extra access roads and there will be a need in the north as well.

On the Island and in Labrador, I would say the program will be the same as every other year. It has nothing to do with the companies. When I say nothing to do - the partition stands, and you are talking about the new AACs - that depends too on if someone should come in. If an integrated operator should come in, depending on the circumstances, if we have a five-year sales agreement with them or a timber sales agreement with that company, then there are a lot of variables there when you are talking actual road construction.

Based on the program that has been there over the years, this one is needed now. This will give some stability and some security to the operators who are already cutting, different operators around the Province, down on the Coast and what have you. It will give them some security, knowing full well that they can go in. What we have been doing sometimes is, for instances, if they need a kilometer this year, we will do the kilometer. Probably the two should have been done so they will be ready for next year, to extend and go on and continue with their operations. That is what we have been doing. This will give us a little bit of flexibility with regards to that, in having them ready for another year so they will not be hung up. This is under the same program.

MR. HUNTER: I have been meeting with the paper companies too. With the decrease in the AAC from 2 per cent to 12 per cent, depending on where they are going to fill their AACs, the companies are saying: We cannot afford to go after this wood if it is ten kilometers in on an old road and we have to build a road. We are not going to build that road. There is lots of wood in areas that are non-accessible, and it is not profitable to go after that wood. So if the department says to Abitibi or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, that road is going to cost $50,000 to put in, but we are not putting it in, even though there is enough wood in there to put their men back to work, the company is not satisfied with the profit they are going to make on it. Will some of this money be allocated to the company? If a private contractor says, yes, we will go in and cut that wood and sell it to a paper company, will they be able to avail of this forest access program to put that road in to this non-accessible area? Will that be the case?

MR. WOODFORD: In those cases, if someone should come in to us with a good business plan, and show us that they can access timbers in those partition stands on a viable basis and on a non-sustainable basis, then we will look at it. We will look at everything. I told them that, because there are about a million hectares out there that can be utilized and looked at. There is a big portion of that with a lot of timber stands on it. But we are not going to continue taking wood, cutting it in your backyard and leaving over-mature stands around the Province that are just going to blow down, fall down, rot or something else. We are telling the companies, as well as the integrated millers, that you have to go outside and get some wood as well, you are not getting it all in your backyard. So, it is time to start looking at it a bit more seriously in order to have a good sustainable industry in the Province.

MR. HUNTER: We have that problem on the Northern Peninsula, in Trevor's area. We have a lot of wood up there that it is not feasible to go after and they need help putting in these access roads to get at this wood. Nobody is going to go into an area and lose money cutting wood, and this is what is happening on the Northern Peninsula. There could be thousands of jobs created. The government would get their money back, easily, and create jobs in rural Newfoundland by accessing this wood. The Northern Peninsula is a prime example. We may have to be a little bit freer with who gets this -

MR. WOODFORD: We will look at everything. On the Northern Peninsula we have a problem. As you and Trevor know full well, there is an example of wood being left. It is an example of what I was just talking about under this new AAC. Wood timber down there is about 20 per cent, 35 per cent in some cases, wastage. It is just blowing down, it is just rotting on the stump, over-mature stands. We have another seven or eight years of that in that area before you can get into the good new growth stands of timber. After that we are pretty good.

Do you want to add something to that, Allan?

MR. MASTERS: With respect to the Northern Peninsula in particular, we have been successful up there in partnering with the local RED Board, I call them, the Regional Economic Development Board, to trigger some federal money through them. We have had an arrangement there were we put in fifty cents on a dollar and we have triggered a million dollars over three years through that board, in addition, and we have used this as seed money to that. It is still not enough, we are still going, and we could be faced, as the minister alluded to, with a salvage program up there in the next year or two. It is an area that we are very concerned about. I think when you see the allocation or breakdown of the roads this year - and I have had the luxury of at least seeing the initial priority list - that will be recognized.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, do you have a breakdown out of the forty-six kilometres of new road this year and sixteen reconstructed roads? Do you have a breakdown on what part goes to Labrador and what part is for the Island, out of those allocated kilometres of road?

MR. WOODFORD: We should have that.

MR. MASTERS: I do not have that figure right in front of me, Sir, but in ballpark numbers it is millions of dollars. If you look at it from the forestry, there is a million to Central and Eastern Newfoundland, there is a million to Western Newfoundland and about a half million to Labrador. That is ballpark. I don't know right to the exact numbers, but it is $1.1 million in Western, it is $900,000-something in Eastern and Central and a little over $500,000 in Labrador. That is the way this particular bit of money breaks out right now.

MR. HUNTER: So it is not broken down in kilometres?

MR. MASTERS: Oh yes. We have it by road. It is prioritized by road. My memory is not that good, because there are a number of roads, obviously. You would be looking at probably thirty or forty small roads in that amount of money.

What happens is, each particular region of the Province prioritizes their needs, then it gets wrote into a provincial priority based on that, and then it comes to us. The first draft has just come to the executive and the minister from the staff. That is about what the breakout is.

MR. HUNTER: So, the full amount of the Budget, $3 million, is going to be spent this year on those roads?

MR. MASTERS: Very much so.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh yes, every bit of it, unless something happens, something unforseen or some other circumstance. As far as I am concerned, it will all be spent.

MR. HUNTER: That could include some silviculture work too, roads to silviculture, or is this strictly for harvesting?

MR. MASTERS: When we put in roads, obviously, we capture the silviculture by default, because if you are going in for harvesting, a lot of our efforts are switching to planting, then the road will serve, obviously, a dual purpose there.

MR. WOODFORD: Usually, the silviculture work is done in areas where there have already been roads. It has already been accessed. Usually the silviculture work comes after you do an access road in most cases.

MR. HUNTER: So, that is why you would have the sixteen kilometers of reconstruction after cut?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: The numbers look good in the Estimates for every heading there. The insect control is the one that is bothering me the most. Even though they look good, there is a big increase in 2.2.01.04., Supplies. It is estimated $2,850,000. The revised last year was $1,559,000. So, that is the increased spray program for this year, the reason why you got that?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. We have $2 million extra - it was announced, I think, in the Budget - put into the spray program this year which brings it to around, I think, $6.5 million. We have a big problem this year with regards to infestation, especially as it pertains to the looper. There are around 190,000 hectares that are infested with the looper. We have about 65,000 with the balsam fir sawfly. So, we are going to need that money this year. We are hoping to get at least 50 per cent or 60 per cent of that sprayed this year, because we have it all over. The Northern Peninsula is really hit. We have the Main River area and the Sop's Arm area hit. We have the Bay d'Espoir area, we have the West Coast, the Corner Brook-Bonne Bay Pond area. So, we have a real problem there this year with regards to the looper. As you know with the looper, it kills fast.

MR. HUNTER: You have budgeted for 100,000 hectares this year. With the controversy now to environment because of the spray, are you planning on doing any other type of program where you will not have to spray, such as cutting practices and things like that, to get ahead of it?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, you can't. The thing about it with those insects - I mean, you determine in the fall of the year what kind of egg larvae and everything they leave on the trees which gets you ready for the next year. You know, we can go in after the fact and determine that there is going to be an infestation; say, for instance, the looper on the Northern Peninsula, which is an area we are looking at. We can go in and say: There is a good area here that has not been touched, and we are supposed to cut that this year. Well, we are saying, no, this is infested, so you have to go over here; so called directed cut. Now, some of it can be salvaged that way. With the looper, we have to try and get it fast. With the balsam fir sawfly or anything like that, we can probably go a few years with that. The only thing with that is they are getting into the new, nice stands, we will say, you know, stands that we are already after spending millions of dollars on, with regards to silviculture. That is the sad thing about these other insects. With the looper, yes, we can put in a directed cut and say: Do not cut there, you are cutting here. We can salvage some of the timber that way.

Other than that, we have to spray it. If we do not, we are going to be in a sad - this 190,000 hectares this year represents approximately 19 million cubic metres of wood which would be a nine-year AAC for the total Province, which represents approximately $7.2 billion. That is not counting the 65,000 hectares that is infested with the balsam fir sawfly. If we took that and looked at what was in the190,000, just imagine; you can add another one-third to that $7.2 million. So you are looking at around $9 to $10 billion in resource gone just because of an insect in one year.

We have to spray. We are looking at spraying with mimic and neemix, the same as since 1988. The mimic is a biological insecticide. It has been approved for the environment since 1988. The neemix is a botanical insecticide - correct me if I am wrong here, Allan - that has been used for some time and with some success. This is what we are looking at using for this year.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, on the West Coast, the Stephenville area, what are you plans for this year to find wood for the cutters in that area? I understand that 45 per cent of the cutters in the Stephenville area, the West Coast area, got notice not to return back to work this year. Promises were made over the last three years that the wood supply is there for them and that they would be getting - the minister at the time, a couple of years ago, said the wood would be there for them to cut over the next few years, and now they are being told that the wood is not there. What happened there? Why isn't the wood there now and it was there three years ago?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, we did not tell them that. That is Abitibi, isn't it, Abitibi limits?

MR. HUNTER: It is on Abitibi limits, but the minister at the time was dealing with it. I will ask the Deputy Minister because he was involved in it.

MR. MASTERS: Yes, I was around dealing with that. The cutters you are referring to are Abitibi's unionized loggers. Abitibi has wood tied to the Stephenville mill that was issued to them in 1979 and expires in 2004 or 2005. The amount of wood on those limits is starting to get scarce, Sir, as the time comes closer to the end of the duration, certainly. They have been through attrition, really, over the years, reducing in numbers within that particular collective bargaining unit. Right now they have it down to about fifty people left in the unit and they want to reduce that by eighteen or nineteen. That is my understanding. You may have the exact numbers.

The issue with the company is, they are saying the wood is not there, although I have not heard it this time around, and they have been dealing with the union. We know what their AAC is there, and from the Resource Department's point of view, that is all we can deal with. We cannot deal with the collective bargaining issue between the company and its union. All we can do, as a Resource Department, is say: Here is your AAC for these limits and then use whatever resources; more men, less weeks, you know, less men, more weeks, however you want to do it. So, that has been our role in that to date.

I understand the latest issue only came up within the last month. We have not heard the argument - at least at my level - this time around, with the lack of wood being the argument. We have not become involved because, again, it is an issue between an employer and employee. We will simply issue the AAC and it is up to the company to decide how it wants to utilize it.

MR. HUNTER: I think that is pretty well it for the forest resources part of it. You can relax now Deputy Minister.

MR. MASTERS: No, I have the other side too. He said I can relax. He is finished with forestry, but I have Agrifoods.

MR. HUNTER: With Agrifoods, I would like to ask the Deputy Minister: Your farm equipment usage program, last year there were a lot of problems with different farmers trying to avail of services with government's equipment. Are you planning on expanding that this year, expanding your equipment? I do not know if it is a rental or a loan out program?

MR. WOODFORD: What is that?

MR. HUNTER: Particularly the ditching machine.

MR. WOODFORD: Are you talking about the bog - what do you call it?

MR. HUNTER: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: Peatland development and so on?

MR. HUNTER: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: That is prioritized. They come in with a list of who needs this done, it goes through the department and you prioritize it like everything else. You look at it and say, who needs this, when do they need it and so on, and so much is done every year under that program. That has been a really good program, especially the last couple of years since the addition of this new machine. What is it called?

WITNESS: Drainage.

MR. WOODFORD: Tile drainage. We have a new piece of equipment in the last couple of years in that. That has been fairly successful, but I must say there have still been requests from people who, for instance, want so much done and we can only leave the machine there for so long because it has to go somewhere else. There is a need there, there is no question.

MR. HUNTER: The demand is really high. Do you have any plans for purchasing another machine?

MR. WOODFORD: No, not right now. You have to watch this too with regards to peatland development. I mean, how much of it is really viable. That is what you have to watch, versus the other type of land around the Province. That is one of the things to watch. We have no plans right now for another one, but if it proves to be - as you know, we need a lot more land now in the agricultural part of it, especially as it pertains to the dairy sector. So, a lot of that might have to be looked at in the future. That is a part we can determine.

To give you some of the exact numbers and probably some of the exact acreage we have been doing with that, I will pass it along to my associate, the Deputy Minister of Marketing.

MR. HOWLETT: As the minister just said, we have a high demand in that area for peatland drainage and tile drainage. The way we operate, we have a list and we have guys on the list. In the last few years, I guess, the demand has gone up. What we have tried to do, in terms of peatland itself, we have to tried to do five acres for a guy, especially a new guy, to get him started; taking it based on the priority list when the applications came in.

The question you asked is quite right. We did have a problem with just one gentleman. I guess we tried to accommodate it, but it did not work.

In terms of our tile drainage, we had a new piece of equipment that we purchased last year. Last year was the first year. We did some projects right across the Province to try and spread it out so that we could get it in different regions of the Province to see how it worked. That program has worked extremely well. Tile drainage is expensive. We do it on existing land that has a drainage problem. It is a situation where you almost have an immediate return because what happens in terms of productivity, from one year to the next you are probably seeing an increase in productivity of anywhere from 35 per cent to 50 per cent.

It is an area we would like to do more in, but as the minister outlined, it is very expensive. Tile drainage equipment alone, that machine - we bought her used, but if she were new it would be roughly in the vicinity of $600,000 just for one machine. Tile drainage itself, just for the piping, runs about forty cents a foot. At some point in time I guess, if our budget's increase, we will certainly look at more. Now, with the equipment we have and the personnel to operate it, we have the one piece for tile drainage. On the peatland side, we go with two crews, one to do some of our research and so forth in cranberries and ‘nutraceuticals' and the other one to do drainage work for existing producers who are into sod production, drainage production and what have you.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Howlett, the last couple of years you have been implementing a cranberry experimental program. Is that going to continue this year? Is money available in this budget for that experiment?

MR. HOWLETT: The money available in the budget is under our safety net subhead. We will be continuing, but not as large as we have been doing because what happened, we did the R & D, the research and development, and we partnered with private industry.

There are five individuals out there - who we have agreements with - that made some investment, and we made some investment to kick start them. We have moved to the stage now, I guess - we are putting two greenhouses in Wooddale for plant propagation. There is a fair demand out there. We are going to do some propagation work and increase the plant material that is going to be available to the public. Hopefully, next year, we will be able to get into an increased program that there will be more investment and interest from individuals.

What we have done right now is had some work done on the berries themselves, through companies like Rodrigues Winery, just to kick off the product development. So, we have moved into the product development stage. He has done some experimental work now on some wines, some fruit drinks and what have you, which are just basically coming off the production line almost as we speak. We will be moving along in that area. We have the research and development done. We know cranberries can grow in the Province. We have had some real good success in terms of quality materials. As a matter of fact, right now we have had some real good success in the quality of wines and juices and what have you, in terms of colour and that type of thing. In the marketplace, in cranberries, cranberry juices and wines, the more natural colour that is in the product the better quality product you have and the more acceptable in the marketplace. So, it is a good project. There is no doubt about that.

MR. WOODFORD: As the associate deputy said, this program takes in the developmental stage, mainly. To continue on and on and on putting money into something - you know, there comes a time when you have to cut that off, if it is one year or two years. You get to a point where it is going to be determined whether something is viable or not; whether it is cranberries, whether it is blueberries, whatever it is. Then you get into a program where, like Marty said, the developmental stage where it is going to be either - you know, quality is one thing. You can probably grow something great. It depends on the money you put into it. At the end of the day, viability is the bottom line, whether it makes good business sense or not.

I guess that is the stage we are at now with regard to the cranberries, but it is a good program. The nice thing about it here, that I find, with all those - whether it is cranberries, blueberries, partridgeberries, or whatever you had with the winery that Rodrigues has out there, it seems that you can use it and utilize it into other value-added products, which is wonderful. We are lucky that way.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, what are you going to do this year with respect to land base that is not being utilized? Do you have any plans this year to do any expropriation of land base or finding land base owners who are sitting on large chunks of land and not utilizing it for agriculture? Are there any plans in your department this year to go forward with some type of program to free up this land and to put it back into usage again?

MR. WOODFORD: We have no plans right now, as such. I cannot give you a dedicated plan or something like that and say that we have it in the department. But, we are looking at the land, the lease versus grant part of it. A lot of that can be taken into consideration there. We are looking at that. That is one of the areas that I am looking at because of the large need for a lot of acreage in the Province over the next number of years.

As you know, the dairy industry has been given a new MSQ of 31 million litres. Over the next fifteen years we are going to require, I don't know, probably - we are only about 7,000 acres in production now in the Province to sustain the dairy industry, and that is not enough. They are not self-sufficient. So, you have to remember, we are pretty well going to double what is needed. We need a lot of land base to sustain that industry, and the people in it today already know that. Our biggest cost of production in the Province, versus any other province in Canada, especially Atlantic Canada, is in land; land base, food and feed production and so on for those animals. So, it is an area - yes, good point - that we are looking at while we are trying to address the lease versus grants. We are taking all that into consideration because there is a sizable acreage of land out there that is not being utilized.

MR. HUNTER: That is pretty well it, Mr. Chairman, for me.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Trevor, did you have any questions?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, a couple of questions I guess.

The first one is going to seem a little bit silly, I suppose (inaudible) applies to all of them. I can only assume that it is -

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, why is it those seats do not work?

CHAIR: The connection does not seem to be as good as it was with the old system that we had, so good luck.

MR. TAYLOR: I was just wondering, it is a bit odd - it is going to seem silly I know - that right on through in most subheads the numbering is off. Like I said, that is going to seem silly, I know, to bring that up. I was just wondering if it was - maybe I should know this but -

MR. WOODFORD: The numbering, you mean the heads?

MR. TAYLOR: The numbering, like 2.2.01. The actual estimates that are there, 01., 03.,04.,05., 06., and 07. The number 02. is missing. The next one then, numbers 08., 09., 10. and 11. are missing. Can I ask a stupid question? Why is that?

CHAIR: Just to answer the question. This was information we did not want you to have.

WITNESSES: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: For the sake of Hansard, that was definitely tongue in cheek. The Chair has been sitting here noticing the same thing, Trevor. I have absolutely no explanation for it, other than the fact that the bean counters decided not to count properly. I cannot explain it because even then it goes from seven and jumps to twelve.

MR. TAYLOR: I wonder, does that point to the report that came out last week about the performance of our math students. Maybe they were right.

MR. WOODFORD: Cruel versus the other (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Seriously now.

CHAIR: It appears that Employee Benefits becomes number 02., in most of the items. It is almost like the computer said, if there are no Employee Benefits in a particular one then it is not there. Number 03. seems to be Transportation and Communications through the whole item, and so on.

MR. TAYLOR: You are right, because Information Technology is always number 12.

CHAIR: Number 05. seems to be Professional Services, and if it is not required somewhere it is not there. I think what they did was categorize each item for the computer and if it was not in a subheading then the number and the item were left out. That appears, to me, to be the answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, maybe it was not such a silly question after all. It seems like a good answer anyway.

CHAIR: I appreciate the fact you think it is a good answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, it works for me. Number 12. is always Information Technology, so I guess you are right.

On 2.1.02.07., page 115, Property, Furnishings and Equipment. I am not sure if Ray brought this one up, I do not think he did. In last year's budget there was $1.1 million budgeted and $606,500 Revised, and this year we are looking at $264,000. Would you give us some indication of - two things, I suppose: What it would be spent on and secondly, why the huge difference in what was budgeted, what was actually spent and what we are projecting for this year?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, on that one there, I am pretty sure that was for maintenance on equipment, I think, and operational. If it wasn't spent there - usually what we do, in all those subheads that you see, we transfer it around where there is some flexibility, if we need it in another area. We might need it for maintenance on vehicles in one area and it is in for furnishings and property or whatever. We will transfer that up into another head.

I will let Allan explain that one there, but I am pretty well sure this one is on vehicles and so on.

MR. MASTERS: The reason it was $1.1 million, we had a one-time allowance for vehicle purchase in that one year of $400,000. So that drove the number up. That is where we would normally purchase vehicles and that sort of thing. Then the difference was moved around.

If you look in 04. and 06. - and 04. I always refer to as gas and oil because I have been at this too long, I guess. There are other things in there but mostly gas and oil. This is the field operations implementation. This is where the bulk of our people and the bulk of our vehicles and equipment is. You will see in gas and oil, which I call 04. and again down in 06., which is maintenance on equipment, that we over-expended the budgeted areas. So we used money out of 07. to go up and balance that out, I guess, is the best way to put it.

MR. WOODFORD: The same as we do in the fire one.

MR. MASTERS: Yes. If we had an overrun in gas and oil last year, we would have balanced it out of that account. The reason it was $1.1 million and then dropped to $600,000, there was a $400,000 vehicle purchase; a one-time arrangement we had with Treasury Board on that.

MR. TAYLOR: How would you take - you can move your money around, I guess that is what you are saying, with your $606,000 reduction to $264,000. Am I following you here?

MR. MASTERS: Well, with this year's budget, of course, we have taken a hit on our operating budgets; all departments of government. That is where it was taken from right there. We took it from there because I look at that one as vehicle replacement, if you want to do that, I guess. We took it from there for now and then we will have to - we have asked each of the divisions to come forward with a plan on how we are going to save this. In our case it was 8 per cent and then that will be rejigged again. The reason it is so much less than last year is we took the full 8 per cent out of that operating budget.

MR. TAYLOR: How can you reconcile in 04. Supplies, 05. Professional Services, and 06. Purchased Services - we already talked about number 07. - that there is, on average, I suppose - my math is maybe a bit rough here - probably about a 30 per cent reduction in those areas? Those, it would seem to me, to be the core of the operations of the department. It is your personnel out in the field, your vehicles running around, your enforcement. It seems like a pretty big hit in a key area. I could understand 5 per cent and 8 per cent.

MR. MASTERS: It is. Eight percent in operating is a challenge. There is no hiding behind that. It would be a challenge; no question. That is what we are dealing with.

MR. TAYLOR: Given that last year, in every one of those subheads, you were over by anywhere from 10 per cent to 30 per cent.

MR. MASTERS: If you look at the bottom one there, that is the key one, last year our budget was $10.1 million. This year it is $9.5 million, just less than $9.6 million. So we are down. To be exact, the operating cut was something like $536,000 for the department. We took it all out of right there, because that is our operating budget. Now, how it actually pans out, because we have asked each director to come forth with a plan to say: How am I going to achieve this 8 per cent reduction and still maintain services? Because we cannot cut services. We have to keep the COs in the fields. We know that. That is critical. That may alter that at some point, but that is what is going on there. That is where we took the hit on the operating budget.

MR. TAYLOR: It is 10 per cent from what you actually spent.

MR. MASTERS: From what we actually spent, yes, it is closer to 10 per cent. But, from our actual budget base, it is 8 per cent.

MR. TAYLOR: Moving over to page 116, the same position, 2.1.03.07, Silviculture Development, Property, Furnishings and Equipment again. Last year's budget was $1,500 and I see we spent $71,700 there. Could you enlighten us a little bit on what happened there?

MR. MASTERS: That was for two pickup trucks that were purchased in 07., that at the beginning of the budget season had not been anticipated.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

MR. MASTERS: So that was for two pickups purchased there, two vehicles.

MR. TAYLOR: Moving over to the Agrifoods Development section, 3.2.01.06., Purchased Services. What type of services would those be?

MR. WOODFORD: This one here, if I am not mistaken, is rentals. It had to do with the new regionalization.

Marty, could you handle that one?

MR. HOWLETT: Under 3.2.01.06, Purchased Services, your regular is $73,400. That is vehicle repairs and maintenance, printing services and -

MR. WOODFORD: Subhead 3.2.01.06.

MR. HOWLETT: Yes, Purchased Services, $73,400. That is vehicle repairs, maintenance, equipment, printing services and what have you. Revised $163,400: That was a transfer in there from general administration to cover off parts of our rental for the new Corner Brook offices for last year. That was just partial rental bringing it up to $163,000. That is transferred from general administration.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

On that rental then, why would that not be there this year?

MR. MASTERS: What we did this year, instead of breaking the rental out, having a bit in each division - with respect to agriculture, you will see it is spread through - we rolled it altogether back into one shop, in administration. The total rental for Corner Brook equates to one sum, it is all in one shop and it is easier, rather than spreading it all up through the divisions. That is what -

MR. TAYLOR: So that is back at the beginning of the -

MR. MASTERS: That is back in the forestry -

MR. WOODFORD: That is general administration.

MR. TAYLOR: Administration, okay.

Where to? I am sorry.

MR. MASTERS: It is in Administration and Program Planning, 2.1.01. It is in 06 there. You can see the big amount was $933,000 and now it is $1.3 million. That was the additional rent in Corner Brook which equated to some $400,000.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.

Back to 3.2.01.10 again, Grants and Subsidies. Probably I should know this, but I am not involved with agrifoods very much, other than mom has a garden on the road across from Bogside Crafts just outside of St. Anthony. I just wonder what Grants and Subsidies are included there, what those are for?

MR. WOODFORD: I would say that one there has to do with, for instance -

MR. TAYLOR: Mom is looking for some assistance on her garden.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is just school milk?. Oh! Because we have some other ones out there. We give a grant to 4-H every year, the Newfoundland Pony Society and everything. That is not that one. This one here, because of the heading it comes under, Administration and Support Services, is the school milk program.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: We give that around $200,000 a year.

MR. TAYLOR: I thought I had another question there somewhere. Actually, I think that is about it. The other ones that I had there, I think Ray pretty much covered them off, so I will stop there. Tom has a few questions.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I will just refer back to 1.1.01 for a moment, Minister's Office. Last year's revised amount was down $40,000 over the budgeted amount. Was there somebody let go in the minister's office last year to account for that?

MR. WOODFORD: Not that we know of. They certainly did not approach me anyway. No, I have the same staff as I had previous to that in Works, Services, pretty well the same. We have a communications person there, but I have pretty well the same staff. Give an explanation for that one there, the $40,000 - not that I did not spend any money.

MR. MASTERS: The minister came in around this time last year. The previous minister, Minister Aylward, had an additional temporary staff in the office at the time. He went to Tourism. He left us for Tourism, Culture and Recreation. So, when this minister came, the staff is one less temporary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is back up again for this year. So, do you anticipate -

MR. MASTERS: Yes, we left the funding there. When we did the Budget, we left the funding there for students, primarily. We always hire a few students through the office. So, rather than adjust it at this point, we left it in place hoping to take on a few students this summer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under 03, Transportation and Communications, there.

MR. WOODFORD: That is in the minister's office for travel and whatever, charged out to the minister himself. As far as I am concerned, the $50,000 there for this year is too low to be honest with you. I cannot run this department on $50,000 a year. Last year it was $71,100. The reason it was up to $71,100 was the federal-provincial agreement on agriculture. I do not go, I do not travel, if you looked at my travel, but there are other people who have to go and look after this. I am supposed to, but I just - the federal-provincial agreement on agriculture has been a real steady one this year. Softwood lumber has drained us this year with regards to meetings on that. The last two will not come in until next year. We had to have a fellow up there for almost two weeks in Washington. Next year it is going to be up again.

Anyway, this is too low, but it is my office, Tom, there is no question about that. The extra money is in my office and, as far as I am concerned, the $50,000 is too low.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. MASTERS: Just for your information, the $71,100 is down substantively from past years; just for the record.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So I can anticipate a large travel budget in Environment this year, you are saying.

MR. MASTERS: No, I am not saying that at all. I just said $71,100 is down substantively from previous years.

MR. WOODFORD: Tom's mike was not on.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will remember to ask Kevin that when we get to those Estimates.

Under section 06., Purchased Services: There was an increase under the revised portion for last year and it is back down again this year.

MR. MASTERS: The reason for that is the minister has an office in Corner Brook, so we geared up. You will see the same thing in Executive Support. That was the gearing up. Both myself and the minster have offices in Corner Brook as well as St. John's. That was the bit of furniture and stuff to gear up the office over there.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So that should remain steady again this year?

MR. MASTERS: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In Executive Support under Transportation and Communications, the Estimates for this year are up considerably from last year.

MR. WOODFORD: That is the same one I am talking about, Tom. You take the one with my office and come down here. Our staff, Allan and Martin in particular and some staff there in executive, this year have been going back and forth to Ottawa and other areas on this new agrifoods federal- provincial agreement. Hopefully it will be worthwhile. We are hoping to have something by some time this summer on a new federal-provincial agreement because, as you know, this one runs out the end of March.

The softwood : Primarily the softwood lumber dispute this year has been a real drain on us; no question. That included staff going, like Allan and other people, off to meetings wherever on that particular subject.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: That is why it is up this year, because that is not supposed to be concluded until some time the fall, the agrifoods one. They are going right across the country. They are still looking for input and so on, on that.

The softwood lumber: I am hoping that one will be put to bed one way or the other in the next little while. It seems like that is finished now, unless something new surfaces on it. It seems like that one has quieted down a bit, although it is going to hurt us because we have to pay the 9.9 per cent anti-dumping fee. That is what is tied into it primarily.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Administrative Support, 1.2.02, under Transportation and Communications: The Estimates for this year are down considerably from last year and the amount spent last year was down considerably from the estimated.

MR. WOODFORD: My understanding that has to do with Corner Brook moving to regionalization.

MR. MASTERS: Yes, that is where we place the regionalization money, the $599,200. That was there primarily for people moving, transporting and hiring new staff. We did not spend all that we had put into that account. That is why it is down from where it was. Most of that is already completed. I think there are two or three positions left, but for the most part that is done now. That is why we are back to the $108,600, if you look at the three numbers.

The same thing, if you move down the page, in Purchased Services, the $447,600. Again that was put in for increased rental and that sort of thing, tied to regionalization again. You can see we have taken that and put it, as I explained to Mr. Taylor, over in Admin. and Program Planning. So we are back to $37,600. Those two, which look like obvious cliches, were put there because that is where we placed the funding to achieve this move.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In Administration and Program Planning, Information Technology, there is $100,000 less this year than what was budgeted or spent last year.

MR. MASTERS: That is correct. How information technology works: It is within the departments, but it is centrally controlled within government. The departments come forward every year with a series of projects that they would like to implement. Last year our spending was up because we brought in a system called the FORST System which computerized all our permitting system in the districts. This year we do not have that system. So you will see big movements in IT from year to year within departments because it is all controlled in sort of a central agency. Departments come forward with their projects, and if they are successful, they will have a lot of money in any one year and it could be a lot less in the next year. So, that is why you will see jumping around there. That is the reason for last year's expenditure, and this year we do not have that program.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How long do you anticipate before you are back to needing an increase there?

MR. MASTERS: It depends. We have most of our district offices with LAN systems now. One of the big things we had to do was get these LAN systems in our offices hooked into what everybody else in here takes for granted in St. John's. It is not taken for granted if you live in Roddickton, but we now have Roddickton on line. So, that was a big program for us. Then the next big program was hooking up all the permitting system and trying to get that in place. That was a big program.

This year we do have some ongoing stuff but nothing that is brand new. The Load Slip System that was announced, that is brought in now. We could not do that without this FORST system or the permitting system. That is now in place, so this year we do not anticipate the same expenditures. Next year it could be something else as we further develop. We may be able to get a permit online or something, you know, depending where you move with this stuff.

I do not know when it will come back up. Next year it could be double or it could be the same. That is just the nature of the beast. We go in with projects and we get some approved and some years we do not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

In the Silviculture Development, 2.1.03, under Supplies: There was about three and one half times the amount spent last year than was actually budgeted.

MR. MASTERS: Yes. I think I eluded to this in Mr. Hunter's comments. When the silviculture budget gets put in and split out like this, it is early winter or late fall sort of thing. By the time the projects actually get done this time of the year, in May, the split outs are often different. So, the figure that we key on is the total $7 million figure. Then, depending on where the projects are - I know some of that $275,200 last year, as an example, went towards the nursery. The nursery needed some additional supplies and we had to replenish them last year. That expenditure would be down this year, but we may be up in Bay d'Espoir or some place else. It depends on where the projects are, really. So, it is really difficult, six or eight months ahead of time when we do the breakout of the Budget within Silviculture, to nail that figure down. That is why you will see wide fluctuations.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Do you anticipate that the estimated budget this year would be sufficient then?

MR. MASTERS: The $7 million figure, we stick to that. When we look at this figure this year, we have $7.1 million. That would be adhered to. The Supplies, $189,000, that could be down or up; the same way with Transportation. This is just a shot. I know the $l,500 is probably a figure, when we are here next year, or whoever is here, we will probably be saying: Well, you had $1,500 and you spent $50,000 or something. I know we are buying a farm tractor. I know that now because it is in the system. That farm tractor is going to come out of 07, which means there will probably be a reduction in 06, the transfer to pay for it. So I know right now that the $1,500 that we are looking at there, as an estimate, is going to be $50,000 next year and somebody is going to say: Well, why the difference? We are going to say, it was a farm tractor, just as this year it was two trucks. I know it is a bit loose, but when these things are put in, in the fall - the main figure to key on here; is it is all program money and it is the $7.1 million, of course.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Resource Roads Construction, I have one question there and that is under Salaries. There is some $61,000 less that was actually spent last year than was budgeted for.

MR. MASTERS: I checked that last evening in preparation for this. I could not understand it, because what we pay for here are our grader operators, basically. That is what comes out of this particular subhead. We have graders in a different region and we hire operators. Apparently, if you trace it back two or three years, it is the same thing, so it needs to get corrected. You will probably find - whoever is here next year - it will look the same. It will be a $105,000 budgeted, but actually only $45,000 spent. So it is one of those things that I only found out last evening is a long-standing thing that somebody needs to clean up.

MR. TAYLOR: Now that I know there is an extra $60,000 in Salaries for road graders, I will not be expecting the answers that I received last spring when I called to get Coates' road graded.

That is a big problem though. I do not know how you deal with it, but on the Northern Peninsula, I mean, one grader for that whole region. The road gets graded probably twice a year.

MR. WOODFORD: You cannot get private graders, because everybody is at road construction and stuff like that. It is hard to get a private grader to come in, and then you have to try to get transportation in some cases. They will only work on Saturdays and then they want triple time. It is a problem.

CHAIR: Tom, carry on.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Jim.

Insect Control, 2.2.01, under Transportation and Communication: There was only half the amount spent last year than was actually budgeted for. I am just looking for an explanation on that.

MR. WOODFORD: We had about 169,000, wasn't it, that was supposed to be sprayed - no, 119,000, and we sprayed around 69,000 or 70,000. I would think that was one of the reasons. But anyway, Allan, do you have the details?

MR. MASTERS: If you look it over, you will see $4 million was put in there and only $400,000 in Supplies. I would suspect when the program was developed, our two biggest costs were our aircraft and the actually purchase of the product that you are using, which is the supply cost. So aircraft is 03 in the supply cost. When the original budget was put in, there was $4.4 million between those two, and if you will notice across, how it got spread out into about $3.6 million. We did not spend all the money that we had last year in the insect program. Part of it is explained in that we did less area, but part of it is also explained because of where it was put originally within the budget. This year you will notice we have tried to overcome that problem and got a reasonable split out between 03 and 04 in this year's Estimates. Last year somebody simply plucked $4 million up into the 03, saying: Our big cost is going to be aircraft so let us pluck it in there without really having a full breakout.

MR. WOODFORD: It is hard to determine that because it depends on the weather. You know, there are a lot of variables there with regards to a spray program, whether you are going to spend the amount of monies or not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services, we have jumped from $10,000 budgeted last year to $191,000, and almost the same this year as what was actually spent last year.

MR. MASTERS: Do you mean Purchased Services there or under Professional Services?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Professional Services.

MR. MASTERS: Again, what happens there, a lot of Professional Services are contracts that we have to enter into for monitoring, for doing studies, that sort of thing, tied to the program. A lot of that comes out of the environmental registration process. Once we go through that process they will come back and say you need to do water studies, you need to do studies on different insects, the impact on birds, whatever. At the beginning of the year we were not anticipating a lot of issues around that, but as you can see, we ended up spending nearly $250,000 on some of these. This year, where the program has increased, we are estimating that to be increased again. That is a lot of the costs of physically doing -

MR. T. OSBORNE: What areas are you looking at the increased spending in this year?

MR. MASTERS: The size of the program has increased. Always, with these registrations, particularly with some of the products, we will have to do extensive monitoring that we pay for out of that program. We may not do the monitoring ourselves. It is contracted out.

MR. WOODFORD: We are saying we are only going to do about half of what the infestation is this year, but for example, if it is around communities, that will drive this up. If it is around - a lot more lakes, rivers and ponds and so on, are sensitive areas, perceived sensitive areas, that will drive it up as well.

As you know, it went from $10,000 last year up to $240,000 this year. We have another $2 million into the program with double the infestation. I guess it is taken for granted that that is going to be doubled.

MR. MASTERS: Just to explain a little bit on the insect program for clarification purposes. There are two main parts to the program. One is what we call research, which is your studies, your monitoring and everything else. That is cost-shared between the two paper companies and the government. One-third, one-third, and one-third is the way it has always gone. The second part of the program is actually applying the product on the ground, which are the planes and the purchasing of the product. The funding for that depends on where you are putting it. If the infestation is all on Crown land, Crown has all the costs. If it is all on Kruger land, they have all the costs.

This money we are looking at down here in professional Purchased Services is what I would call the research component of this and there would be cost-shared funding around that. Then the other part of the program, which is paid for in 03. and 04., if you look down under Revenue that is where we get a lot of that back because we have to - based on our forecast, we pretty well know where the insect is. This year, as an example, 60 per cent of it - unfortunately for Trevor - is up on the Northern Peninsula on Crown land. So we have to chew up about 60 per cent of the cost. The other 40 per cent though is spread between Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and Abitibi. So they will pick up the cost of the actual application there, but the research component, which is in 05. and 06., is cost-shared one-third, one-third, one-third. That is the normal. Just for clarification so you know how the system works.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are anticipating a lot more environmental costs this year than last year?

MR. MASTERS: No more than a program. If you look at last year, it was $240,000. This year we are moved to $430,000. That is simply because the program has doubled in scope. If it has doubled in scope, definitely we will have to do more monitoring, more measurements and that sort of thing.

MR. WOODFORD: It is spread out more.

MR. MASTERS: Maybe when we get the registration document back from Environment, which we are expecting around mid-May, that may not be there. I am sure some of it will. There is always some there but it is impossible - depending on what comments the Minister of Environment receives, hinged on the amount of studies and things that we have to do.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there is an increased amount there from $1,500 to $29,500, and now again this year $50,000.

MR. WOODFORD: That is the replacement of worn out equipment in the spray programs. Some equipment that may be (inaudible). So we are replacing some of it this year. I do not know what that would be, exactly what kind of equipment.

MR. MASTERS: Mostly, that is mixing tanks and reservoirs. All the stuff we have to have on site to prevent against spills. That is all departmentally owned. If we have a bigger program, we need more of that obviously, and that is where that cost will come out of.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The cost of spraying is generally one-third, one-third, one-third.

MR. MASTERS: Depending on where it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Depending on where it is.

MR. MASTERS: It is broken out strictly on where the hectares are. Sixty percent this year, our guess, is Crown. That is why the Revenue is only at $2.8 million.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Why would - or maybe they do - government be responsible then for the total cost of equipment, you know, the mixing tanks and so on?

MR. MASTERS: We have maintained that sort of piece of equipment. There is not a lot of it, but there is a bit of it out there that we have always kept and maintained. Of course it is government crews. Even though the spraying may be taking place on Abitibi or Kruger land it is all government crews trained, because as you can appreciate, there is a fairly significant level of training required in this sort of program. We have always maintained the equipment. That is everything from the suits the guys wear to the reservoirs around the tanks. That has always been part of ours. It is a question worth noting. Maybe some of that could be downloaded too, but we have not to date.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It seems to me that the pulp companies are getting a pretty good deal. We look after their supply and make sure that it is sprayed and control insect infestation. We pay for all of the supplies. They pay for one-third of the cost of the spray.

MR. MASTERS: Yes, but if you look at the cost of supplies though and the cost of the spray. I mean most of it is in 03. and 04., which they pay if it is on their limits; 05. and 06. is cost-shared. It is really only down in 07., and $50,000 on $6.5 million is not a huge cost that we have always been responsible for.

MR. HUNTER: I would like to ask the deputy minister a question. It just came to my mind now when Tom was mentioning that.

I think it was last year, there was a portable building built in Bishop's Falls. Can you tell me what that building was built for? Was that for the spray program? It seems like it is going to be relocated somewhere. It looks like there is lot of money gone into it. Could you tell me how much it cost, and where is this building going to go?

MR. MASTERS: I am not familiar with it at all, sir.

MR. HUNTER: It is in the yard at the forestry office in Bishop's Falls there.

MR. MASTERS: No, I am not familiar with that particular piece. We can check, and obviously we could find out but -

MR. HUNTER: I was wondering, why did they build it? It has been there a long time now. It was built to be moved. It was not built for the operation at Bishop's Falls. It was built to be relocated somewhere. It must have cost $50,000 to build it for sure.

MR. WOODFORD: More than likely it is going to Deer Lake.

CHAIR: Or at least it should.

MR. HUNTER: When we are talking about this now, I was wondering if that was for the spray program to be trucked around to different areas. Could you check that out for me and get back to me on that?

MR. MASTERS: I can and I will.

MR. HUNTER: Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I noticed under Silviculture there is a cost-sharing between the two pulp companies as well. Would that work out the same, one-third of the cost of seedlings, one-third the cost of reforestation?

MR. MASTERS: The way it works with the two paper companies is we pay one-third, they pay two-thirds. So they spend about $3 million a year each on silviculture; $2 million of which the company puts in and $1 million that is cost-shared through the Crown.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: That is over and above.

MR. MASTERS: If you look at the figure here, it says $7 million for silviculture. That is the Crown cost. There is an additional $4 million being spent; $2 million by Kruger and $2 million by Abitibi in addition to this, which is their portion.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One other question on silviculture actually. What would the rate of reforestation be as compared to the rate of harvesting now? I know that in previous years there was not enough reforestation. I am just wondering, for my own knowledge, if that has caught up? At what rate are we now for reforestation?

MR. MASTERS: We have catch up. We have been playing catchup with backlog for a number of years. So we have caught up with all of the backlog.

In round numbers, there are about 15,000 hectares harvested each year in this Province. There are between 11,000 and 12,000 of those hectares silviculturally treated, and there is about 3,000 that do not need treatment because of where it is. It could be domestic cutting, or whatever. We are physically managing over 75 per cent of what is actually being harvested, which is an extremely high rate for anywhere across the country.

There is no block of backlog area out there now. In actual fact, as I mentioned earlier, we are moving a bit from the thinning towards the planting because we are totally caught up on thinning. As each hectare grows to an area that can be thinned, it is being thinned.

The silviculture program in this Province is one of the success stories, from where we sit within the department anyhow, that we have one of the good success stories. So there is no backlog accumulating out there because somebody is not doing enough work.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: But that was, Tom, a problem in the past. There is no question about that. Many years ago - but when you sit down now to try to draw up the AACs for the Province and you look at what you have here in this Province, there is no question, it is well-off and well managed. Unless barring some unforeseen rash of fires or - but all of that is taken into consideration as well when we do our AACs, insect problems, infestation, fires and so on. But, we are in good shape, there is no question about that, despite what some people might say.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How are we doing with making up for previous mistakes? I know if you fly over the Province you can see vast areas of barren land, where I presume at one point that was through forest harvesting. It is still just barren. Are we making up for previous mistakes by not reforesting? How do you feel on that?

MR. WOODFORD: I feel good on it, because as far as I am concerned if it was harvested before it will regenerate. We have one of the best success rates in North America. I think it is around 80 per cent or 85 per cent natural regeneration in the Province; along with our silviculture programs, our thinning programs, our planting programs. We have a really good, there is no question, silviculture program. If there are any areas that are not regenerating I do not know where they are really. There may be some bogland or something like that, but they are not usually harvested in any case.

MR. HUNTER: Or a forest fire area.

MR. WOODFORD: Or a forest fire area. That is going to take longer. Like Grand Falls, out on back of Grand Falls - reclaim. That would be what we call land reclamation and so on, but that is part of the silviculture program as well. Those areas will take longer. Southern Labrador, I noticed last year the same thing right across the Straits, a bad area.

MR. HUNTER: Two hundred square miles of Labrador of burnt area.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, Labrador! I remember one fire down there in 1986. It took out something like 40,000 hectares - wasn't it? - in one day, twenty-four hours.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are ahead of the game then in comparison with other provinces on reforestation?

MR. MASTERS: Very much so. Where we do lose area, as you guys have correctly pointed out, if you have a fire that burns really intense and you are on marginal sites to start with, poorer soils that are not thick, what happens - particularly in black spruce in Central Newfoundland - the fire can burn extremely deep. So you actually, physically lose the soil component that the trees are growing in. If there is anything reverting from forest to barren, it is tied to old fires. The Avalon is a prime example, I guess, where it burned over many, many years ago. The poorer sites just went to these kalmia barrens, we call them, sheep laurel or goo-witty or whatever a Newfoundlander wants to call it. But, we lose very little of that now.

After a fire the area is surveyed right away. First, to see if it is going to get natural seeding, because fire is a natural component of the black spruce system. Fire and black spruce is usually not a problem because the cones themselves have a resin that sticks them together. It needs the fire to heat them up, to open them up, to release their seed. Fire after black spruce is usually not a problem. Fire in balsam fir is a real problem because it kills the cones and the fire will take everything out. Fire is not natural in fir, but it will happen through cutovers and that. If you get fire in fir you almost always have to plant right away, whereas in black spruce it is a different situation. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It looks after itself.

MR. WOODFORD: It needs the heat. It needs the heat to regenerate.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Agrifoods, Soil And Land Management, subhead 3.1.01. I just have one question there and it relates to Salaries. We have gone up from $700,000 spent last year to $915,000 this year. I am just wondering if that is a result of new hirings?

MR. MASTERS: What happened last year was, with the move from St. John's to Corner Brook there was a delay or a lag from the time somebody came off payroll in here until we physically got them hired and in place, some of the staff. So that is why we were down last year and then this year you can see, of course, we are back with full staff complement.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 3.2.01, Salaries: Would that be the same explanation there?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that would be the same.

MR. MASTERS: Yes and you will find that right through the different branches within agriculture.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, that is it for my questions. I thank the minister and his staff for the answers.

MR. HUNTER: Could I have a couple of quick questions?

I would just like the minister or deputy minister to bring us up to speed on the Heli-logging project that they had last year. How did that project go and is that being continued or being looked at again?

MR. WOODFORD: Our involvement in that, Ray, was we supported the project. They went through other avenues for funding and so on. They looked pretty good there for awhile. They took some of the logs out and brought them to the Sop's Arm area. Booming was a problem. We lost some of the logs at the boom there and so on. He still has to clean up that area. Whether he is going to go back in there or not, we do not know, we are still working on that, but he has to clean up that area. We are responsible for that and making sure that area is cleared. His funding and so on primarily came from other sources but we did support the project. That has been done in other jurisdictions. Whether it is going to work here or not, whether it is going to be viable or not, we do not know. The particular area that you are talking about, which is in White Bay, will be cleaned up one way or the other, whether he does it or we do it.

MR. HUNTER: Is he finished the project, the experimental project?

MR. WOODFORD: No, as far as I am concerned he is not. We are communicating with him now and he is supposed to be going back in there when the snow moves out of it in the spring, to make sure that - and there will be no other Heli-logging projects approved by this department until that one is looked at to see whether it is viable or not.

MR. HUNTER: The other question that was brought up a minute ago about the burnt wood in Labrador. What is the department doing to try to get this burnt wood cleaned up or something done with it? I know there are 200 square kilometres of burnt wood there in one area, one fire, thousands and thousands of cubic metres of wood. The older the wood gets, the less important it is going to be because it is going to rot and such. Is the government planning, in consultation with the Aboriginals, to get something done with that wood?

MR. WOODFORD: As you know now, we are into trying to get a process management agreement with the Innu in Labrador. We are supposed to have it in by the end of March. We are still talking. It looks fairly positive. We are hoping to come to some agreement there. As you know, there is an AAC of approximately 540,000 in Labrador itself. We have probably only taken - I do not know - 50,000 or 60,000 cubic meters out of it. Yet, that resource is needed here. You are quite right, there is a big resource down there, over-mature stands, fallen down and so on. If it is not going to come down by a harvester or people harvesting it for sawmills or domestic use, it is going to come down by fire, sooner or later. So we are hoping to get an agreement with the Innu to try and work out some kind of a management agreement so that resource can be utilized in Labrador. There is no question about that.

MR. HUNTER: Soon.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. Hopefully. Hopefully.

MR. HUNTER: The other question: Does the Minister plan to have funds in his Budget this year to allow the critic to attend consultation meetings across the Province in anything with regards to forestry and agrifoods?

MR. WOODFORD: There is nothing in there.

MR. HUNTER: It should be.

MR. WOODFORD: I am going to tell you something, the Minister had a job last year to attend a lot of the meetings.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 3.5.01 carried.

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

CHAIR: That deals with the Estimates part and, yes, by all means if there are any closing comments - I just wanted to do that and have it out of the way.

Before we ask for adjournment, I will ask if there are any other comments to be made.

MR. HUNTER: I would just like to say to the minister, I was reading the Economy 2002 - Newfoundland and Labrador, and I was reading the section on Forestry on page 33. It is starting to bother me a lot, particularly lately, when I see the paper companies more interested in producing electricity than they are in producing paper. In the Outlook section of 2002, it states, "Both newsprint companies are expected to complete hydroelectric power upgrades and begin selling power to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro." It really upsets me to see that, when I know that down the road we are going to see big changes in our paper mills. We are going to see No. 7 paper machine closed in Grand Fall-Windsor, with probably a couple of hundred jobs gone, and the profits that the company will make are going to come from hydroelectric. The hydroelectric generators at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill were put there to produce paper and to service the needs of the company and the mill and the town because it was owned by the company. It is the same thing in Corner Brook. The hydroelectric plant in Deer Lake was put there to service the needs and to produce paper to the Corner Brook mill.

Today we are seeing watershed areas drained, going back 150 to 200 feet from the original shoreline, after development of the project, with fifteen to twenty feet drops in water levels, all because the paper companies are looking now and saying there is more money, good money, in producing electricity than there is in producing paper.

Is this department or this government going to hold the companies responsible to the original contracts back in the early 1900s or are we going to start giving away another resource and taking away hundreds and hundreds of jobs from Central Newfoundland and the West Coast and letting this type of thing continue?

We have cabin owners by the dozens, probably hundreds, in the Grand Lake-Sandy Lake area, very concerned over the water levels, very concerned over the environment out there. I have nothing against paper mills making a profit. God Bless them, I hope they make all the profit they can make. But, sooner or later we have to take a stand. Are we going to have a forest industry that is going to include paper mills and protect and keep jobs in the paper industry or are we going to start (inaudible) resources, like water resources in Central and Western Newfoundland, so that the paper companies can make bigger profits on the backs of its workers? I am not anti big business, I am pro big business. I am for them and I would like to see them make lots of money. But, I say to the Minister: Is this the future outlook in forestry?

It is stated right here on this page, page 33, that the paper companies are going to start selling electricity to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Is this surplus electricity? If it is, then where are they going to get it? I know they are increasing the capacity out in Central, but, they are spending $65 million. That is to keep the mill viable and keep two paper machines going. Now this is telling me that in the very near future, when this project is finished, we could see the loss of a paper machine. They are going to wheel the power from Grand Falls-Windsor to Stephenville with one less paper machine in Grand Falls-Windsor and 200 or 300 less jobs to keep Stephenville viable. I know it is a big problem over there. I am dealing with it through the loggers and that. But, how are we going to do it through forestry? If these paper mills are put there to make paper, then where does this department stand with respect to these projects? Can the Minister just give me some idea what he is dealing with here?

MR. WOODFORD: Right off, I think it is a wonderful thing, when I see those companies increasing their production with regards to water power. Abitibi, I think, is the biggest purchaser of electricity in the Province, Abitibi in Grand Falls and in Stephenville. Corner Brook is about two-thirds self-sufficient because of the Deer Lake Power Company in Deer Lake. They still purchase one-third of theirs. The better it is and the more secure it is, the stability they have, the better for the log industry and better for the Province as a whole, as an economy. I mean we get about $700 million a year from them, the forestry industry in the Province, from primary and secondary producers; around $700 million, which is great for the Province. When we talk about the fishery, all we hear about the fishery is $1 billion. Even in agriculture, $500 million. So I think it is a great thing.

To get to your point with regards to, that is all they are going to do, produce electricity. I mean, I cannot answer for that, what the companies plans are. Based on what they are doing today and bringing stability to their operations - I mean, Kruger has been looking for years looking at co-gen. in Corner Brook, for instance, and they need it. Right now they are buying power from Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. HUNTER: I have no problem with accessed power.

MR. WOODFORD: That is right. Exactly.

MR. HUNTER: I have no problem with that, but if they are going to cut out a paper machine and hundreds of jobs to get that accessed power, that is where I have the problem.

MR. WOODFORD: I cannot answer for what they are going to do with regards to No. 7 and so on. We are keeping an eye on that, we keep dialoguing with them. It is a company decision, whatever they do along those lines, but we have to make sure that they do everything in the interests of the people of the Province and make sure that nothing is taken out of here. That is what we have to watch.

CHAIR: The Chair is going to interject and say that some of the questions -

MR. HUNTER: That is my final comment, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: - at hand might be even better for question period as opposed to here.

Having concluded the business at hand, I guess our meeting is adjourned. We will have a detailed schedule of the upcoming meetings in a matter of a day or so. Elizabeth has the tentative schedule. Tentatively our next meeting now is scheduled to be Tuesday, April 23, at 9:00 o'clock here in the House with the Department of Fisheries.

Minister, do you have a closing comment?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I would just like to thank the members for their participation, especially on short notice. Good questions, good dialogue and good communication. I call this constructive. I always consider the estimates to be a very informative part of the parliamentary procedure and parliamentary undertakings, and when they are constructive like this, done in this kind of a way, in this kind of atmosphere, I think it is good for everybody; everybody gains. As far as I am concerned, I want to thank the members.

CHAIR: Mr. Minister, thank you and your staff for attending. I thank my colleagues. You are correct, the Estimates are a vital part of what we do in the democratic process. I refer to a minister in the 1980s, who saw his salary reduced to a dollar during one of these Estimate committees, understanding that the democratic process works here as well.

Minister and your staff, thank you, and my colleagues, thank you as well.

On motion, committee adjourned.