MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Committee on Supply will now reconvene. Before this committee this afternoon, we will be debating the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. I would now invite interventions. The honourable member for Lunenburg West actually does have two minutes remaining. However, it has been the practice and protocol in the House, if the minister is present, we can proceed with debate. So if another honourable member would like to commence.
HON. ERNEST FAGE: I would like to respond . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That certainly would be permissible.
The honourable Minister of Agriculture.
HON. ERNEST FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think certainly it is very important to respond to some of the allegations made by the member for Lunenburg West. First of all, the member for Lunenburg West was very strong in his presentation of how hard he had worked, personally, and what he had achieved for many years. It is very important that you note your family.
So since the member for Lunenburg West did not note his father, I would certainly want to say to the House that Mr. Downe's father is a well-respected member of the farming community in Nova Scotia and certainly without his considerable financial support, his considerable management skills and years of being at the farm and making sure the establishment was run properly, it would not have afforded Mr. Downe the opportunity to partake in leadership and presentations across agriculture in Nova Scotia. Certainly I want to acknowledge that Mr. Downe, as President of the Federation of Agriculture a number of years ago, worked very hard to lead the industry here in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important also to note that Mr. Downe talked quite liberally, I would say, on former ministers and certainly one that I knew very well, that being the former deputy minister, Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant offered me my first job off the farm and he was a huge supporter of agriculture. Mr. Grant was also one of those people who did give sound advice, but the sound advice that Mr. Grant, as I recall, would offer me as a young employee in the Department of Agriculture and a young farmer in Nova Scotia was to stand up for what you believe in and allow the industry to take the lead, that the department was there for a supporting role and not to set the policy.
So I think it is important to state that and certainly to state my high regard for Mr. Grant. He was a wonderful Nova Scotian, a strong industry leader and certainly a deputy minister who did great things for agriculture, who encouraged young people to stand on their own. To his credit he encouraged individuals to be forthright, that the industry should be the drivers, not the department, as the member for Lunenburg West seems to feel.
Also, it is certainly my pleasure in the farming industry, from organizations to an individual, to work with the subsequent deputies across Nova Scotia and those individuals worked very hard as well. Anybody who attains the position of Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Nova Scotia is an individual, Mr. Chairman, who spends many hours organizing, many hours, not only with the political side of it with their minister, but with the department side, again providing that support role and ensuring that the industry has an opportunity to move forward. Those deputy ministers, including our present one, Mr. Steel, that is their objective, to ensure that the agriculture industry has an opportunity to grow and to prosper.
I think it is extremely important to point out that the member for Lunenburg West in his remarks was at times pitting small farmers against larger operations, pitting one commodity against another commodity. Those are not the ideals of this minister or this department. We feel the department does its very best and will continue to do its very best to ensure that all commodities, all farmers, large or small, receive resources, receive the opportunity for their input and are extremely important to the Province of Nova Scotia. Such inflammatory remarks stating that the department would be encouraging such things only reflects on the poor judgement of the person making those statements in my view, Mr. Chairman.
Also, I think it is very important to realize the budget we are at here and what we are doing in the industry at this point is we have taken over from an administration that was in power. The former Minister of Finance, the member for Lunenburg West, was part of that in the last government as Finance Minister. I can certainly tell the former minister that as he rose to his political challenge and used various means to ensure that his view and the industry was put forward, people like myself did what they could to help support his political aspirations and certainly when campaign donations were asked for his leadership bid, members of the agriculture community were canvassed extensively, myself being included, and certainly there
was a great opportunity to see a member of the agricultural community do his best to rise to that platform or that leadership ability although he was unsuccessful. Certainly many of us in the industry were canvassed using his contacts of many years to help support that bid.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we in the agricultural industry at that time thought we had a champion of our cause. This gentleman said that the Agriculture budget would receive funding. It would not go down and the funding would be increased. Well, over $40 million was in the Agriculture budget when this provincial government came to power. A year ago the budget was down to $34 million. So when I looked through the . . .
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you indicated when you began today that the member for Lunenburg West had two minutes left in his time. Now, if he was here in his place, the usual procedure is you would shut him down after two minutes, him and the minister responding to his question, and then move on to the next member. I would ask that you would follow that procedure and ask the minister to end his debate and move on to the next member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that intervention, but I would advise all honourable members that the practice in this House has been that the ministers of the budget estimates, in this case the Minister of Agriculture, is entitled to respond to comments by the questioners on behalf of the respective caucuses, in this case the Liberal and NDP caucuses. So I would again recognize the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party on another point of order?
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, again on a point of order, I ask you to consult with the Clerk because that is not, in fact, how things have been done in this House. I have seen ministers stand in their place and respond to a question of mine and had the Chairman sit them down because the time is up. I would ask you to consult with the Clerks. That has been the general procedure and, frankly, I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is trespassing on the time of the Opposition to ask questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would thank you for that intervention and for the honourable member's benefit, I have consulted and have been advised that it is quite appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to respond in budget estimates and that is irrespective of whether an honourable member's time has expired or not.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: That is not true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would recognize the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: No, that is not true. Do you mean he is allowed to talk as long as he wants? Is that what you are saying? That is crazy. He is taking up . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important when we look at program delivery over the last number of years (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the honourable member please let the honourable Minister of Agriculture have the floor.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: He is using up the time and you are letting him and I disagree with that. Ron, you know the difference. You are the Government House Leader here.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, during those years (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Don Downe was up for an hour. He said he had two minutes left.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. (Interruptions)
AN HON. MEMBER: This has never been done before. It is the NDP's time. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Agriculture has the floor.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to address some of the concerns raised by the member for Lunenburg West.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the purpose for estimates is we divide time up between the Opposition Parties and we put questions to the minister responsible. We are kept to an hour each, each side, each Opposition Party, and the minister is not allowed to stand in his place. That was one of the deals why we went to 40 hours in this committee because government members were not going to trespass on the time of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: This is completely in contravention of that practice, Mr. Chairman, and I would say to you and to the Government House Leader, if he is not going to intervene and make that correction, that you are abusing the time of the Opposition and that is a matter we will have to get into later. (Interruptions)
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Agriculture has the floor.
MR. FAGE: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, once the government of the member for Lunenburg West came to power, the Agriculture budget was severely reduced during those years. I think it is important to take a few minutes and note some of the changes. What we have seen deleted were programs that were extremely important to the agriculture industry, like the New Entrants Program. That was deleted. The livestock veterinary services subsidy, that was eliminated. When we look at policies like land clearing that had served the agriculture industry in every corner in this province, eliminated. This former minister who we felt would champion the cause of agriculture in Nova Scotia eliminated feed freight assistance, never even stood up as that was eliminated by the federal government.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to see if we could get what the established rules are in this committee. The previous member who was chairing the committee, the member for Eastern Shore, when his Party's time had expired, even if a minister was giving an answer, told him that the time for that caucus has expired and sat the minister down. Now what we see happening here is a new procedure where the minister in an attempt to avoid answering questions is filibustering with a long speech. In the interest of fairness which I know you, of course, would be interested in, I would ask that you tell the minister to take his seat so that another questioner can begin to ask questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that helpful intervention, but it wasn't a point of order. The honourable Government House Leader on a point of order.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid, the thing is that if a member chooses to take the hour and sits down and the minister has no opportunity then to respond to that member, another member could get up and speak for an hour and the minister wouldn't be able to respond. That is nonsense. The minister is accorded the right to respond. In fact, every member in the House is entitled to speak on estimates. (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps in the spirit of cooperation and fairness, the Minister of Agriculture could perhaps take five minutes to respond to the several questions and comments that were raised and thus enable the Opposition Parties to place questions and make comments.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, the member for Lunenburg West's question was 58 minutes long, so I was trying to cover some of the issues that he raised. What I am attempting to do here is just straighten a few of the facts out. So what we have here . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it has been my understanding that during estimates that the member asking the questions of the minister has a right to a preamble to that question and if the member does not ask a question of the minister, then the member who is asking the questions is allowed to continue asking the questions. That has been precedent in this House. (Interruption) Yes, but I understand. For the Chairman to suggest that you are going to get five minutes to answer a question is . . .
MR. HOLM: He has been going for 15, and the member hasn't even been here to ask a question.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Well, the rules are though that a member can if he wants to take his whole hour and do it in preamble he can. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just on the intervention from the honourable member for Cape Breton South, I have been advised that it is quite appropriate for an honourable Minister of the Crown to respond to questions and comments that have been placed. Thus, I am permitting the honourable Minister of Agriculture to respond. (Interruptions)
AN HON. MEMBER: One rule the whole time.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: I guess the difficulty I have, Mr. Chairman, is that it seems the rules are being changed here as we go along all this week. (Interruption) Pardon me? (Interruption) No. You know the Government House Leader who is afraid to allow the Premier's estimates to be called in the Red Room . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. This is getting carried away. The honourable Minister of Agriculture has approximately four minutes to wrap up his comments.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I am not looking to be disruptive or anything. (Laughter) All I am doing is trying to address some of the comments and issues raised by the member for Lunenburg West. I think it is important in summation that there were many programs vital to the agriculture industry that went by the wayside during his tendership in government and to stand in his place here in estimates and say that the Department of Agriculture and the present administration is being gutted is simply not true.
Mr. Chairman, instead of reducing programs as the former administration did, as did the former member in not standing up for agriculture, we have increased programs in agriculture spending and we are offering alternative service delivery. As far as the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, the estimated budget or presented budget from the previous year
to this year is $135,000 less. Other than that, that is as quick as I can sum up the hundreds of questions posed by the dissertation of the former member. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I certainly welcome an opportunity to speak. I have a few comments and then I will have some questions. To start, I would like to read some comments from Hansard, which are:
"We want to move the industry forward, to create a climate where agriculture-related activities can flourish and new ideas for even greater prosperity can be developed and implemented quickly and efficiently . . . The Nova Scotia Agricultural College plays a key role. As well, the Nova Scotia Agricultural College takes a leading role in providing education, research, public service in the agricultural, food industries, aquaculture and related disciplines . . . The Nova Scotia Agricultural College is dedicated to helping people acquire the skills, wisdom and independence needed for a lifetime of learning and contribution to the well-being of Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada, and other regions of Canada, both in Canada and internationally."
"We are committed to revisiting the present New Entrants Program within the current budget for this fiscal year to look at new and innovative ways to make the industry viable for young people . . . Our second step is to create a climate where the industry can grow and diversify, and where new ideas are encouraged and supported, to help us compete in an ever-changing global market place."
"We are committed to consulting with Nova Scotians as a government and we will consult with farmers about the role of the department and its programs and services in meeting their present and future needs. The department has a history of consulting with the industry and that will continue. A majority of the department's staff work closely with clients as part of their daily work. We will capitalize on this network to get feedback, and collect new ideas on what is best for the industry and how best we can help the industry."
"We have maintained a number of key programs such as the Limestone Assistance Program. The true test of this government's commitment to the industry and its future potential is in the work we do from today until April 1, 2000, and beyond. We are committed to working smart and to working hard to find innovative and creative ways to increase agriculture's contribution to Nova Scotia and to Nova Scotians."
Mr. Chairman, those are comments from Hansard that the minister made in his speech last year when we entered the budget estimates for Agriculture. I have to say that from what he said and what he did in the last few days, there is a major deviation by the minister. (Interruption) Well, the one he mentioned there, the Limestone Assistance Program is gone, and the only thing I can see that the minister has done anything is in trying to top up or secure
safety net programs. If the minister believes for a second that safety net programs are the way to secure an industry, then where has he been? As a farmer who has come up through the system, from the grass roots, built an operation on their own as a family, then I cannot believe (Interruption)
Well,actually, if the minister was concerned about the hog industry or the beef industry, he would set up some type of supply management system whereby they have security of price and he is going to say you cannot do that because (Interruption) Well, talk to them. I have talked to them and actually supply management in the hog industry is something that was fielded a number of years ago and the members in the industry thought that was the direction they were going. It was scrapped and I will bet if the minister sat down to talk with them, he would find that they would be interested in some form of price stabilization.
If he does not want to call it supply management, he can call it whatever he likes, and maybe there is a different way other than supply management, but at least the minister could look to see whether or not there is some way to secure a stable price so that those farmers are not left out on a limb every time global markets shift. We have been able to do that with poultry, we have been able to do that with the dairy sector and those are two of the strongest, most vibrant sectors in this country. So why is it that we are so reticent to doing it in other sectors? Is it in such a way that it has to be a national program? I am sure when dairy quotas first came about, it was not a national program. There were provincial programs that later amalgamated to control the national supply.
So in a province that only supplies 65 per cent of its pork needs, why would farmers have to have a safety net program. They are not producing a surplus of pork for our needs in this province and they should be getting a premium for what they produce. I cannot for the life of me look back at these comments that the minister made about the people in the department and how they work with their clients on a daily basis and this is the network that is going to provide information and yet cut one of the most important branches, Production Technology, from the department and assume that that is a good thing. Actually, if you were looking at securing the agricultural sector without depending on safety nets, I am not saying abolish safety nets, what I am saying is if you need them, it is good to have them, but don't base your industry on charity or pumping money away for a disaster. Base your industry for growth to the future. Secure the price (Interruption)
Yes, Mr. Minister, I would assume that in Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions they would want safety nets. I just said I am not asking to abolish safety nets. What I am saying is secure a price structure so that farmers can get a decent price for what they produce and farmers have said this time and time again, if anybody is listening, pay us what it is worth for our commodity and we will not need safety nets. The minister must have heard them say that. Why is it that there are apple producers in the Valley in this province getting 13 cents a pound for apples and Sobeys is selling it for $1.13? The farmers are going out of business. You don't
have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that somebody should look at securing a decent price for these people and I don't know if they are doing that in Saskatchewan and I don't know if I care if they are doing it in Saskatchewan. What I care about is what we are not doing in Nova Scotia.
The people in the agricultural sector are not impressed and I don't think it matters how much the minister tries to cover himself by threats to anybody in any organization so that they will not speak out, that the disdain for where the government is going in the Department of Agriculture is apparent. I don't think that the members opposite need me to tell them. They have to be hearing it. I know the honourable Chairman in his riding has heard it from his constituents. I think he has tried to open a door for them to speak, but the question is, is anybody listening? If we intend to move the industry in any type of forward direction - this is the year 2000 - and I asked the minister in the last budget estimates in the fall about his vision for the province.
Well, it was a little bit vague. I was kind of hoping he could be more pointed, but there are those areas where people are trying to bring new initiatives to the province and I cannot see how eliminating the Production Technology Division, which is the specialists, is going to help those fledgling sectors. The hemp producers, for example, in this province, they are barely getting off the ground, but there is an area with real growth potential and to expect them to foot the bill for specialists, and the minister is going to say the money is available, $2.7 million is there to help them in hiring specialists to give them the advice they need for their sector. Well, baloney, the people who are going to get at that $2.7 million are the larger commodity groups, those that have dollars. They still have to contribute. This isn't entirely paid by this $2.7 million and if you look at some of the sizes of the farming operations in this province and think about the millions of dollars generated by them, $2.7 million for the whole province to do this? The minister talked about the former Liberal Government and what they cut, but the minister did not say that he was willing to put those programs back.
I don't know what happens to people on the journey to where they get to, but I know that there must have been some point in the minister's life when his view of agriculture would have been one where he would need some support. His operation, today, may be at a point where he does not need a lot of support, but I can tell you in his particular sector, the dairy sector, that this is a part of the agriculture economy that even though it generates a good livelihood for the participants in that sector, it is a very difficult sector to get into.
The way this system is set up with value placed on milk quota, it takes practically a millionaire to get into the dairy sector today. There are no easy steps anymore and if he expects people to start small in the dairy sector and build, those days are gone. Unless the minister is willing to set up some strategy, some steps and some support in his department to allow for that, it is not going to happen and actually even those who are in that sector and wanting their children to stay there, are finding it quite impossible for their children to garner the funds, even to give them a break to buy the farm. I think that as far as family farms in
Nova Scotia go in the dairy sector, they are going to be a thing of the past because this direction will only make them bigger and bigger.
It is the only way that they can survive with very little support to try to bring people into that sector, or any sector, and especially in the case of those new commodities where markets are only starting to be developed and you have to have some time-frame to develop the expertise, develop the market and have some way to do that in a small way. (Interruption) But no experts to help them with the crop they grow, that is great.
Well, obviously, the minister hears some of what I say. He just has selective hearing because even the industry is saying that the $2.7 million is not enough. The specialists are going to be leaving this province and people don't know, or are not aware, that three years ago the Province of Ontario did this and guess what they are doing now? They are courting our specialists to get them to go there to work because they realized the stupidity of what they had done. So by the time the minister gets through this process in July, or whenever it is that the federation and he and the department are going to figure this all out, there will not be anybody for that fund to work on. They are all going to be gone because I cannot think of anybody who is going to sit around and wait for a call that they might get a contract for five months, or three months, or six months, to do anything.
So how the minister expects the people who are in the Production Technology Division to stick around until he figures out what he is going to do for them, I don't know, because I think they have lives to lead. I think they have families to feed and I think they are worried. I have a funny feeling that from what they have seen so far, they are not going to be waiting on the minister to help them out because I think they have probably got their wake-up call as to exactly how much this minister intends to support them.
I think it is clear that there is an obvious agenda. The agenda is not to move this industry forward. It cannot be. You cannot do it this way and I would think that if this government is concerned about its revenues, if it is concerned about bringing down the deficit, if it is concerned about its power base in rural Nova Scotia, it would give a little more thought to the action that it takes regarding renewable, sustainable resources - and Agriculture is one of those - rather than cutting the legs out from underneath the department. The minister should realize that the Production Technology Division is the interface between the bureaucracy of the department and the farming community. The faces of those specialists are basically all those farmers know; those are the people who for the most part they want to see. Those are the people who they want to know. Those are the people who come to their farms and advise them, to help them move their operation forward so they don't need safety nets, so they can try to cut their costs, get the best from their commodity. That is what those specialists do for them and those are the very people who are gone.
So what is there to ensure that that sector is secure? Nothing. What is there to ensure that a $1 billion industry in this province that employs 16,000 people is secure? Nothing. I would think that the one thing that we have seen lacking on the part of this government and this entire budget, and we see it lacking in the Financial Measures (2000) Act, is anything that will increase revenues. We don't see it in the forest sector. We don't see it regarding gypsum, other minerals, gold, you name it. There is nothing there and I would think that if they were to look at the forest sector, fishing sector and agriculture, which can be here forever, (Interruption)
Well, if we get to Natural Resources, we will talk about the silviculture fund. (Interruptions) Yes, it never has occurred to the minister that his silviculture fund will not be much good when all the trees are cut, if he considers 80 years for a tree to grow, puts no limits on the amount of wood that we cut in this province and thinks the silviculture fund is going to secure that. Those numbers from his other department are based on 1998 numbers and the level of cutting in this province which is about 5.8 million cubic metres. If we go beyond that, then those numbers of sustainability don't mean anything and the minister should be aware of that in case I don't get to that with DNR. All the money in the world, if we woke up tomorrow with all the trees cut, isn't going to replace them. Time does that.
MR. FAGE: So you are not happy with . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am not happy without putting a limit on what we cut in this province, Mr. Minister, because your numbers will not work. We are in serious trouble as far as growing this economy and we are in serious trouble now in the Department of Agriculture and the whole agricultural sector because there are those sectors of this economy that have no price stabilization mechanism. When they use up their safety nets, which the minister has seen in the pork sector, did we not just give them a loan a year ago, in the fall of 1998? Did we not give more money to that sector to try to carry it through? Did they not exhaust the NISA program? (Interruption) Right, they had the loan exhausted a year before. (Interruptions)
The point I am trying to make to the minister is the safety net program for the hog industry has not worked. They are getting the lowest prices historically. They need a mechanism to sustain a price that is related to their cost of production so that they don't need to use their safety net. As a matter of fact, it has to be in some way so that they don't exhaust the whole safety net and then come looking to government for more dollars. How you build an industry with that type of thinking, the idea that every time there is a disaster, that that is how you secure it, isn't going to work.
I do have some questions for the minister. I would like to know, does the minister have any market studies to show the private sector can absorb all of the laid-off specialists?
MR. FAGE: I thank the honourable member for his question. He had a number of them in his discussion there and certainly I would just want to clarify that the New Entrants Program is a new one. It is being reinstated to encourage new farmers in Nova Scotia. I certainly would not want to leave the impression that we in any way would pit small farmers against large farmers. The member has those concerns and certainly I think he should be careful in articulating who he wants to support and who he wants to penalize in the agriculture industry as far as producers or commodity goes, but on the issue of alternative service delivery, I think it is absolutely important for the member to realize that the services from the Production Technology Division are services that are very important to the agriculture industry. He has pointed that out very eloquently and those services are what we are trying to maintain in the overall reduction in the size of government.
From our perspective on this side of the House, we had a $600 million deficit to deal with. Each department had their share or role to play in it and part of making those tough decisions - and they are tough decisions, honourable member - is looking at alternative service methods that allow departments to be smaller in numbers of people who work, but employ alternative methods to supply those essential services. So in that regard, what we have done is we have established a fund of $2.7 million that will be ongoing from year to year. Of that $2.7 million, approximately $500,000 of it will be used to resource five regional offices and $2.2 million is set aside for commodity groups, not private enterprise, to hire their own specialists and establish the priorities that they in turn wish to champion and the direction they want their industry going because for years, decades, commodities and farmers have been saying research isn't going in the right direction.
You have pointed out a number of situations where, although without studies or even antidotal evidence that supply management in a limited area in Nova Scotia would work in a national and international market on beef or on pork, and those things, if you can get all the other provinces to agree to leave you alone and you find somebody who has pockets to pay a premium on doing that, it may work and then you can convince the industry that they don't want growth and that could happen. Those are the types of ideas that are good ideas, that need nurturing, but the industry has to decide them, not you as an individual or me as an individual. Those are industry decisions and decisions that the industry should make cooperatively and then they lobby for support, whether it is government or regulatory institutions, to get that.
[4:30 p.m.]
That is why it is so important that alternative service delivery allows the funding of those special services because I don't think we can have a difference of opinion. I think you and I would both agree the services are extremely important. What we are having a discussion about in the estimates here, in my view, is alternative service delivery or would there be a main line budget item in some form and what we are looking at at this point is alternative service delivery that, yes, the industry would be in charge. We will supply the money for the
specialist services that they want to hire and they will designate the terms of reference of what is the priority of the industry and what is the quickest and the best way to grow the agriculture industry.
Industries in Nova Scotia, or any other jurisdiction, if they are in charge of their destiny rather than living somebody else's dream or expectation, thrive and that is what we are trying to do, is offer those industries that opportunity and meet our terms of budget that we can live with and that can be contained year after year in regard to the amount of civil servants or the amount of department staff related to maintaining it.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask two questions together and the first one is the one I just asked. The other one is, in the $2.2 million that the minister is allowing for the commodity groups to access through the federation, I want to know when they hire a specialist, does that fund pay the whole fee for the specialist or does the commodity group pay part of the fee for the specialist and, if so, how much? My original question, does the minister have any market study to show the private sector can absorb all of the laid-off specialists?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member would repeat the second question, I did not hear it clearly to understand.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: My second question was the $2.2 million that is to be allocated for commodity groups to hire specialists, I want to know if the commodity group pays part of the specialist's fee as well or if the $2.2 million pays the entire fee for the specialist and the commodity group does not pay anything?
MR. FAGE: Certainly on the first question, if the member opposite is able to obtain a copy of the Public Investment in Agriculture, this is a document by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. A number of sections in here ask for better ways to deliver service more efficiently and more professionally and the present structure leads to that. I guess I could probably read a couple of quotes to him.
It says, along with the necessity to be competitive, a single characteristic that prevails among all farm businesses is improved access to information. All farm business managers have enhanced an extended access to information about their business and to agriculture related information networks. Part of that $2.2 million, is answering that request, 1-800-numbers reflecting technology and allowing that expertise into their home and into their business in that way.
It goes on to say that the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing has yet to adjust its administrative structure and programs and service delivery mechanisms to accommodate these trends. More specifically, the administrative structures that were put in place to oversee highly targetted and rich agricultural programs of the 1970's and 1980's are
still in place. The service delivery mechanisms extension of the Nova Scotia department has failed to recognize the elevated levels of professionalism and independence among farm business managers. It is the opinion of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture that the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia needs not so much to be directed and coddled as it needs to be empowered to make the decisions that will allow it to adapt to new conditions as an industry collectively and individually.
I think even documents from the farm community themselves are the ones showing it. If you look at a case study, the University of Texas, land banking systems through many states in mid-West United States, other service deliveries across the continent, you will see where alternative service delivery has a place and works very appropriately.
On your second question, if the commodity group, the fund is set aside, those discussions, there are a number of commodity groups now coming forward to begin the process of negotiation on (a) what they would want as far as specialists and (b) the allocation of those funds. If they chose a specialist, we would allocate the funds to pay that specialist to them.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I think the answer is that the funds will pay the entire cost of the specialists and the commodity group does not kick in any funds. Can you nod, say yes.
MR. FAGE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I had been nodding there but, yes, we would be paying, after that negotiation and agreed upon that that was a specialist and that was a service they wanted, we would be paying the cost of that out of that fund to that particular commodity group to employ that specialist.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not answer my first question about whether he had any studies that would show that the private sector can absorb it. I know that there are private agricultural consulting businesses out there. There were before this budget. So I know that there are people trying to generate through their entrepreneurial spirit, you know, a livelihood doing that. So he does not need to tell me that there might be a place for them. What I am asking is, does he have anything that shows that the people he is letting go from his department can be absorbed in the private sector in this province?
MR. FAGE: I certainly would like to respond to the honourable member's question. The honourable member in his preamble informed me that he had jobs for all the specialists in Ontario already. The guarantee that each and every person who is employed will be re-employed by a commodity group, no one can give. The guarantee that they would not choose to work for private industry, no one can give. The guarantee that the possibility that they would work other places in the department because of their qualifications and seniority through human resources, that process has to take place.
I apologize, the previous question, I had thought you had asked me if there were studies out there that show that alternative servicing would work. I guess alternative service delivery, with us providing the money, is a completely different circumstance than hiring independent consultants. Yes, there are many firms out there that will do resource-based consulting for you, hundreds of them across Canada, a large number in Nova Scotia, and certainly when you look at the livestock industry and fertilizer, most of those companies would have on staff a nutritionist, a soil scientist, someone to provide that expertise on their products. The majority of rations, let's say, would be formulated by representatives from the feed company, not our services. We will maintain the lab services to ensure that the delivery of those analyses of feed stuffs are proper, but many farmers now have the technology to program a formula like their own rations, let's say, and a huge majority would use the consultation presently of feed companies and that would just be one example of what is taking place out there in the industry.
Certainly, yes, there is a huge amount of opportunity if you want that expertise and I probably should also add for the information of the House, two of those new programs that we have announced that are independent of alternative service delivery, the two new tech programs, one for individual farmers up to $10,000 a year at a 50 per cent funding level, and the other one up to $50,000 for an organization, could be used for technology too or information as well. They could use that and that would be for a specific service we envision where somebody needs some expertise or information on a given subject on a very short time-frame. It would work perfectly for that type of situation.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I guess I am wondering how it is that a particular commodity group can hire a specialist who is not in the province, if they are not going to stay, then you cannot hire them. I wonder if the minister could tell me, I think, if I have my numbers right, the department's Production Technology Division, and if he wants to separate the money that he thinks he would save in the Production Technology Division by the 54 people who were laid off there, plus the other 45 or so in the rest of the department, but I understand that in the range of $5 million is what the province is trying to glean from doing this?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, if I interpreted your question properly, you are asking me what was the size of the Production Technology budget last year?
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: . . . from the people you laid off?
MR. FAGE: The size of the Production Technology department budget the previous year was $3.7 million; $2.2 million of that is going for alternative service delivery. The five regional offices, we are putting in $500,000 which brings it to $2.7 million and if you give me a moment, I can give you the figure that would have come out of that particular branch. In Production Technology, with the majority of alternative service delivery - and bear in mind it is not a question of reallocating resources, we had our share of the deficit reduction. I think
it is also very important to point out to the House and the member opposite we have $1 million more in programs this year than we had in previous years.
I think it is absolutely critical to point out to the member opposite and the member for Lunenburg West that the former government was unable and unsuccessful in negotiating any agreements with the federal government, in essence. We certainly worked hand in hand with the agricultural industry in Opposition and put forward the point very strongly that our share should be farm gate. I, as minister, on behalf of the department with staff and my colleagues in other provinces achieved that in this budget with the federal government and so safety net funding, which the member is a little critical of, is greatly enhanced here in Nova Scotia.
Commodities that are not supply management depend on NISA, crop insurance and companion programs for their underpinnings or stable pricing when problems occur in the market place or in production. This has risen from $5.9 million, honourable member, to $11.9 million which is virtually a doubling of the amount of money we were able to put into the underpinnings in support of all those industries that are not poultry or dairy related which is a huge opportunity to restore funding that has been missing to those commodities for years and to protect them against the down times.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned $3.7 million, I think, from Production Technology, but he did not give me a number for the other . . .
MR. FAGE: I have the numbers for the honourable member. For Rural Leadership, it has decreased from $1,530,600 to $500,000 for those five offices. So that would be a decrease of approximately $1 million.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Minister, I guess maybe this comes to the crux of where you and I differ. Well, I am starting to think we differ in a lot of ways, I don't know how I can make it more clear, that I am not against safety nets. I am against safety nets as a mechanism of sustainability in an industry. If we are not offering something that sustains price, then if you have safety nets, then you can help save some people some of the time, but you cannot do that in the long term, you know, because we have seen that in the case of the pork sector, they zap whatever savings that they had in trying to carry on until the price got higher.
Also, I noticed the minister tends to state my comments, or states what he thinks my comments are, and I noticed in this article that was in the Truro Daily News, and you mentioned earlier in the House about the fact that I was supportive of the harness racing industry, but yet not supportive of the $1 million that went to it and you mentioned that that was reported somewhere. I just realized it was reported by you in this paper. So I want to be categorical about my position there. I do support the harness racing industry and I did support the money going into it and I stand here to say that. My concern is where will that money go, whether it will get evenly disbursed throughout the rural economy, will it wind up at the three
tracks and promote jobs in Nova Scotia, that is my concern. I want to be assured that that is going to happen. I think the harness racing sector is worth saving and I think the jobs in it are worth saving. I am not sure what I will read tomorrow about what I just said, but I am sure that I will get an opportunity to present that again to the minister.
When I look at the $3.7 million cut out of Production Technology and losing 54 specialists, to put $2.7 million into this fund, well, $2.2 million plus $500,000 to sustain those five regional offices, and to think that the difference is $1 million on a $4.5 billion budget, that we are letting these specialists go for the sake of $1 million, I cannot believe it. I was going to ask the minister, how will the minister keep all this talent from leaving Nova Scotia and going to the United States, but I can see from his previous answers that he cannot stop that. I cannot believe that he thinks there will be specialists for these commodity groups to hire when they go. So I want to know, what plan does the minister have for the commodities to hire specialists who are not here?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the honourable member for his questions and his observations. First of all, I think it is very important to get a clear understanding of the larger picture. It is wonderful to muse that you would like to have a Utopian type of system that covers someone with supply management but, first of all, I think it would be nice to convey to the honourable member that NISA and safety nets are the accepted safety mechanisms across the entire country. Every provincial government in this country, every producer organization from hog producers to cattlemen, to grain growers, to NDP Governments across western Canada, to the federal minister, have agreed that the one rule is if you are supplying management commodity, you don't qualify for NISA if you are not in supply management. All the industry, all the farmers and those industry representatives have voted for it. So having some other system that runs contrary to those two and does not contravene the rules is a bit of a fantasy.
This comes to another point of the member, I guess my taking the liberty to try to paraphrase, to understand what he is trying to convey to me, and the member does that every day in the House on my behalf and certainly the interviewers who would come from the Truro Daily News, he takes extreme liberal, not socialistic, but extreme liberal interpretation of my words and policy and then instead of addressing it to me, he would send it to a paper. So I am just trying to understand what he is saying and as far as the harness racing, the comment there, I think it is really important to point out that that was this week. His comments when he was in the media before, the last week of March, were he wanted the harness racing to have money, and then afterwards announced in this House that he was against harness racing having the money. I think those things are important for the public and the members to understand.
The harness racing industry though, the protection of that money, we have an industry committee that is working with our department right now and they are disbursing that $1 million - we do not want them to run out of money halfway through the year - and we are setting up a system; the industry will make their recommendations of how to disburse it, but we will be the ones to actually disburse it and make sure that we manage it properly. There is enough support and it is there for the year because in reality, they only have one-third of what they had last year.
On the member's intervention on the last question raised, I think the most important document to read again is the Agriculture Industry. If the member opposite agrees that the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture represents all commodity groups, and is the voice of agriculture, I think it is important to read from their report. This report has been virtually the same for the last 5 to 10 years and at their annual meeting they, as a group, collectively pass it and ask that the publication be sent on to government.
It says that the defining feature of the entrenchment in spending on agriculture by the Government of Nova Scotia has been cuts to programs; that is, the provision of direct and indirect assistance to farm business. While there has been a marked decrease in public expenditures on all forms of direct assistance to farm business during the past decade, there has been no corresponding decrease in the administration, operating expenditures of the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture.
That I think is a sentiment that has been expressed broadly in the industry for the last 5 to 10 years. I can assure the member opposite if he looks at the estimates, in meeting our budgetary reductions, in making sure that the department is leaner and smaller, that we have ensured that there are more programs for those farmers out there in Nova Scotia.
We have also allowed the industry through the commodity groups to take charge of their destiny and set their priorities, such as has been recommended by many commodity organizations and people professing to support the agriculture industry, by allowing alternative service delivery and that is that $2.2 million fund so that those commodity groups which wish to hire specialists in their field and wish to ensure that a core group of specialists are there for the industry, that the funds are there to ensure that they are there and that the industry takes that leadership role in deciding where they want to go: (a) putting money on the ground for farmers so they will build to make something out of it and this industry will grow; and (b) ensuring that the support services that they designate that they require through their specialists by providing the funding with them in control allows them to set their own course and direction. Thank you.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, I have this and I have read it and I guess we can both put our spin on this, but I would bet that the minister thanked his lucky stars the day he saw this because it doesn't say to do what the minister did, but he sure seems to be drawing a long bow in trying to get there as far as I can see.
The minister still didn't answer my question as to how it is that these commodity groups are going to hire specialists that aren't here. I can't see that the setting up of this fund, the $2.2 million has anything to do with the commodity groups setting their own direction - they have been doing that for years, with the help of the Department of Agriculture to see them get to it. They know where they want to go. They have been going to the department to help them get to where they want to go. They didn't need this fund to know where they wanted to wind up, the question is, is the fund appropriate in getting them there? I am asking the minister again, how are they going to hire specialists if they leave the province?
MR. FAGE: First of all, I am not aware that farmers are leaving the province. Some do leave the province on occasion and have moved their farm operations or have ceased their farm operation and have moved to other provinces. I am not aware that any specialists or people in the employ of the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture have left. There are one or two - which is normal - who would be talking to other employment opportunities, but certainly I think the honourable member is prejudging in that these are all valued employees of the Department of Agriculture. They continue to perform their duties; the human resource aspect and the Civil Service agreement all have to be respected and the negotiation and discussion on each individual commodity group on what arrangement they would like needs to occur between the department and the commodity group and then they would decide what special services they want and require.
During that period of the next several months, those employees are still employed in the department so that service delivery will change, but service to the agriculture industry across this province, hopefully, should be seamless.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Maybe it will take months for these people to know, but I would think that before this budget ever got tabled in this House three weeks ago that the word would have been out there in the department as to what was coming down before we ever knew it. I would say that we have been dealing with this budget for three weeks so I would like to understand that in the department, the people who know they are going and if you say 54 employees of the Production Technology Division will be gone, nearly 1,000 years of experience, then in three weeks I would tend to believe that any jostling that is going to get done, people pretty well know where they stand. They are going to know whether they are going to be here or looking for work elsewhere. I am amazed that the minister can regard them as valued employees and yet let them go.
How is the $2.2 million fund supposed to replace a $4 million branch of which salaries alone were $3 million?
MR. FAGE: Again, I tried to impress upon the honourable member, and being a former civil servant himself, I would hope he could recognize that the Civil Service Act takes precedence over this process here. Those contractual rights to each one of those individual employees, whether it is this department or any other department where there are
readjustments in numbers, have to be worked out with the Human Resources section of the Civil Service Act, not here in discussion. I think it is very important to put that down and put that forward, this is no different than the employees' rights and heaven forbid if you are trying to ensure that these employees' rights are abrogated because they have their rights and we are here to defend those rights of those employees to just and fair treatment, to the opportunity to seniority and all those other issues that deal with proper recognition of notice, the entire continuum. Those have to be observed and I think the honourable member as a former civil servant would recognize that is paramount in how we deal with these valued employees in their particular position. They do have many rights and we do have many obligations to them.
Again, back to the numbers and we will go through them. I think, once more, the entire Production Technology was $3.7 million; $2.2 million is the adjustment fund suggested for that quotient. If you do the math, $3.7 million minus $2.2 million, you end up with $1.5 million, not in excess of $3 million. I think that is extremely important. I think it is really important to come back to the reason we are fighting a deficit in this province. That $600 million is a huge amount of money; it gives me no joy or pleasure to look at alternative ways to ensure that we can spend or deliver our services, but we have obligations to the taxpayers in this province to ensure that we spend less money.
[5:00 p.m.]
The Department of Agriculture and the agriculture industry has done its share in the fight against the deficit and that is why you would not see the two numbers equal, you would see them less.
What is extraordinary that has happened in this department is more money is going to programs. Instead of cutting programs, which has happened for the last 10 years as documented in this document, the request of the general direction of the agricultural industry has been followed. Please look at how the amount of money allocated in your department is delivered. Does it go to programs? Does it go to the delivery mode? It challenged the industry, this department and this government had to look at alternative ways to deliver that. Thus, the $2.2 million was offered for the delivery of specialist service to the industry - not individual private contractors - to employ specialists and to set their own priorities.
That frees up enough opportunity to ensure that there are more programs. Again, this government, this budget, has huge gains for the agriculture industry, that they have not seen in programs in over a decade. There is a New Entrants Program reinstated which will help new people get into the agriculture industry, help those farms turn over. Large animal veterinarian services have been reinstated. The farm community wanted that reinstated. It was important because many livestock farms are out in rural Nova Scotia. You yourself, honourable member, are a rural member and you know how far it is for veterinary service to travel and it is important that if your sheep is not feeling, well, that veterinarian should be able to get there. The farming industry asked for that.
The farming industry, because of their high incorporation of technology and computerization and knowledge-based component asked for new programs that would allow them to access and infuse technology even quicker under specialized operations as stated here. They need that professional expertise that they can plug in quickly and it refines, we have general specialists now, they need refined specialist services for a few moments a day. That allows them to access that and allows their operation of the industry to grow and allows groups of participants on the group component of that new program. I think both of those new programs are highly important to the agriculture industry.
The safety net component is huge, a doubling of the amount of money so we can offer enhanced protection to those commodity groups. Enhanced protection, a doubling of protection. Those are huge numbers in a province our size and a huge achievement. Those numbers are 60/40 numbers, so obviously, we had to put more money into that. We have been able to do that.
Also, we have kept our commitment to hard-pressed farmers, whether they are apple farmers, whether they are horticulturists, livestock producers, pork farmers, we have been able to ensure that the accelerated drought program is maintained there. What we have is a budget that puts $1 million more than was there before into programs. Obviously, how we deliver that service was where we had to address our portion of the budget cut and we chose to do that by offering alternative service delivery; thus the $2.2 million, which is that decline of $1.5 million from what was in that branch.
The other one, which was approximately $1 million there - I think it is important to point out, we realized that the 4-H program, from representations from fine members like yourself, said no matter what, don't touch 4-H. Those are the sentiments that you and other members and the farm community were expressing - $770,000 of that $1 million we talked about, rural leadership, was a transfer, not a decrease in that program. Between those two programs, the real change is about $1.8 million.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I thank the minister. I guess I recognize his number, $3.7 million and my understanding is that was the dollars gleaned from Production Technology for the most part. I guess what I am asking is, from your $3.7 million that supported the Production Technology Division, how much of the $3.7 million was salaries, if anybody can tell me that?
MR. FAGE: How many were salaries? If you can bear with us, we will try to get an accurate figure for you.
I would like to comment that it is wonderful that we have a New Orleans band outside providing a little background ambience for us and certainly puts us in the mood for a festive time here in the Chamber, deliberating the Agriculture budget. As most Nova Scotians realize, and certainly people from the Cape Breton area especially, but all Nova Scotians, our wealth
of talent in this province surely links food production and surely links our culture and music being part of that culture. There isn't quite as much New Orleans culture in Nova Scotia as there is probably Gaelic culture, but it is a welcome addition to this afternoon.
If you would allow a few minutes for us to find it and then maybe proceed with a different question.
I can give him that answer now. We have that number. Out of the $3.7 million, $2.957 million.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, that brings me back to my previous question. How is the $2.2 million fund supposed to replace the branch for which almost $3 million was salaries? That was my question.
MR. FAGE: Obviously the funds are not to replace the branch, that was never the intention. We are talking about alternative service delivery, not replicating the branch. The branch is not there to replace. What we are doing is offering $2.2 million in alternative service delivery funds to those commodity groups so that they in turn can hire the specialists that they wish to employ and empower them with their priorities.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Am I to understand that the minister has basically gutted the Production Technology Division for the sake of $750,000, that those 54 employees are gone? I realize that there is going to be some bumping and they might wind up, because of the collective agreement, in other departments, et cetera. But it would seem to me if they are working in another department, they are not going to be available to the farming community either, so they are still going to be gone. Is that what we are to believe, that the $2.9 million now which is basically $2.2 million and we have lost $0.7 million, so close to $750,000 is the reason that we have lost our Production Technology Division? That is what we gave to the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association to build roads, $750,000.
MR. FAGE: I thank the honourable member for his question again. We are looking at a $600 million deficit. We are empowering the industry and we are looking for a reduction in the number of employees in this department and we are looking for a reduction in overall expenditure. We are looking to improve programs as has been the request from the industry for a number of years. We hope we have been able to achieve that properly and again, the $2.2 million is there to allow the commodity groups if they wish, to provide this year's funding, next year's, the following year, each one of those years we will allocate the funds to employ their own specialist and set their own priorities in relationship to charging their own destination and growth in those particular commodities and industries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like at this time to advise honourable members that relative to time allocation, in Supply, where possible, we will try to keep the time to one hour. I do apologize for any inconvenience and upset that may have transpired this afternoon as a result of exceeding the one hour time-frame.
The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: I am sure that this House and the Chairman wanted to do everything right here today. I am sure that giving the minister two minutes plus 10, or whatever extra, so that he could try to discredit the fact that farmers are screaming about the cuts to this industry, were not intentional. I am sure that the Chairman was taking advice, appropriately, but nevertheless, the minister obviously had a script prepared to try to make his point that he is right to devastate and cut agriculture to the bone. Maybe the minister in his enthusiasm to rise up higher in the so-called pecking order of the right-wing agenda Cabinet offered these massive cuts to an industry that, in his own words, has been cut in the past. Maybe he is just trying to impress upon the Premier and his colleagues that he doesn't mind slashing and burning the Agriculture Department so that he personally can receive the star of success by the Premier and his upper echelon.
I thought of asking questions, but I went to my colleague who just asked questions and found that he had to ask the same question four or five times to get an answer and if he didn't get that, then what he did was literally try to talk the time out.
If I honestly felt for a minute that I could ask the minister a very straightforward question and I would get a straightforward answer without going the extra mile, I would love to just have a straight conversation about specific questions in agriculture. I feel that this minister probably would want to have a chance to stand up and run the clock. I shall continue . . .
MR. FAGE: On a point of order. I just would like to relay to the member for Lunenburg West with two minutes short of the hour last time and over two minutes now, it has been over an hour and a question hasn't been asked yet. Certainly if he, as he pretends or emulates, that he would ask direct questions, I would entertain answering direct questions. Since this is an estimate question period rather than a preamble for a leadership platform.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, honourable minister. A point well taken, but not a point of order.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is a point well taken that he had referred to me as a potential leadership candidate. Is that what you are saying? Is the Chairman taking a position now of playing a political role in this process?
MR. CHAIRMAN: What the Chairman had said, just so I can repeat for the honourable minister because there is some noise, we seem to be in competition with some noise. Essentially, what I said honourable member, is that the point was well taken, but it was not a point of order. You have the floor honourable member.
MR. DOWNE: I won't walk down that little track. I want to say, as I said last night and as I have said for the last two weeks, what this minister and this government have done to destroy the agricultural community, in my view, and in the view of many farmers in this province, is unacceptable. This is a government that led a campaign that said trust us, the Conservative Government that will stand up and fight for the rights of rural Nova Scotia. We will stand up for the rights of rural Nova Scotia because we are rural and we are Conservative and we are the Party that believes in representing the farm community.
I wonder if the members who are in the backbenches from Kings County and Annapolis County and Lunenburg County and Colchester County and Cumberland County and Cape Breton, who actually understand what agriculture is all about and have heard from their communities and their constituents what this minister and government have done now realize that what they have actually accomplished is to clearly abort the support for agriculture in rural Nova Scotia.
What this government has done on the basis of $750,000, as my colleague has pointed out, the difference between the crumbs of $2.2 million and the balance, for about $750,000 this government is prepared to throw away what the Farm Focus and other farmers have said is the heart and soul of the Department of Agriculture and Marketing.
Maybe the $750,000 could have been found in the $88 million transition fund or the fund that the Minister of Finance alluded to today that will be there to inject money into education, which is needed. Maybe this Minister of Agriculture was not as strong and not as powerful as the Minister of Education in getting his point across as to why this is important. Maybe this minister is not as strong and powerful enough in that Cabinet to be able to say to the members that agriculture has had cuts, federally and provincially in the past. I would agree. They have.
This minister as I understand, paraphrasing some of the comments he made, that this Department of Agriculture and Marketing has had substantive cuts. Well, I don't know if they have been substantive, but there have been cuts. This minister is saying that because of those cuts, that this government that said they were going to be the government of the communities of rural Nova Scotia would have been able to stand up and fight for rural Nova Scotia. This minister in the Cabinet would have been able to say to his colleagues that these cuts to agriculture have gone far too deep into the rural community to the extent where we are actually taking away the foundation behind the development of the agriculture community.
I am sure if he had asked his staff, the front-line staff, he would have learned all too well the terrible mistake he is making. I am sure if he had asked the individual members of his government who are in rural Nova Scotia, they would have said, wow, you mean to say you are cutting 100 jobs from our Department of Agriculture and Marketing? You are taking a 20 per cent cut in the Department of Agriculture and Marketing? You are taking away the extension service provisions within the Department of Agriculture and Marketing? I am sure if he had sat down over a glass of milk with his colleagues and said, what do you think about this, they would say, hey, just a minute here. Is there a better way to deal with this issue? Is there another way we can deal with this without destroying the basis of the Department of Agriculture and Marketing?
They have cut the limestone subsidy in the department for all farmers across this province; big or small, rich or poor, mixed or non-mixed, horticultural or beef or whatever sectors they are in, they have cut that subsidy. Well, that was a priority of the government saying they had to make cuts. I have said it before, this government has to make cuts. My colleague, the member for Dartmouth South, just stuck up a big question mark. Well, that question mark is the same question mark that every single Nova Scotian has today about this budget because they don't know what this budget is all about. They don't know the full implications of this budget in agriculture. They don't know the full implications of this budget in its cuts in education. They don't know the full implications in the cuts that will be there in the areas of health.
I know the Minister of Transportation would love to get up and talk about what is going to be there. I am sure he would be forthcoming in his budget, but there are an awful lot of budgets out there, and there is an awful lot of misunderstanding of what this overall budget is going to do to the future of this province. What we have asked for is simply the truth, simply the answers. What is there? What is not there? What is in? What is out, and why? This government refuses to answer those questions.
The Premier drew the line in the sand on the opening of this House when he said to the Opposition, ferret out the facts. Little did he know the backbenchers were asking the same questions, and they, too, are scrambling to find out just what this budget is all about and how in the name of heavens the agricultural community is going to be affected by the cuts this government has made to the department.
Today, the comments were made in regard to comments made by a memo circulated by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, I understand, and if the minister would look and at least acknowledge this comment - no, he won't. Mr. Minister, the notice or the letter? Oh, he won't look at me I guess.
The minister I guess answered the question, but there was an article or a letter that was sent to all the different farm leaders in the Federation of Agriculture. There was a comment at the bottom that I understood paraphrased - whether it was a specific quote or
not, I am not sure, or if it was a reference to the direction that this minister was giving to the federation - that if the farm community and the people in the department don't stop criticizing what is going on in agriculture, then what he is going to do is take action without the consultation of the Federation of Agriculture. Now if that is a paraphrase of what the minister said or if that is what they understood the minister was referring to then, Mr. Premier, you were the one going around this province promising consultation, open access, transparency and a willingness to work with individuals.
People believed you, Mr. Premier. That is why you were elected. They trusted you. They believed you. (Interruption) No, they don't. (Interruption) Well, we will soon find out how much they do. We will soon find out how much they really do; if we defeat the budget, we will soon find out.
All it is going to take, as the good House Leader over there would know, is a few people with the blue flu; a few of those backbenchers with the blue flu that would make them not be able to come to the Legislature to vote, because they know that deep down inside the cuts to agriculture are wrong. They know deep down inside that the level of cuts in education, which now are possibly being corrected by the infusion of a slush fund out of the Minister of Finance's budget which is going to answer the problems, notwithstanding the all-of-a-sudden revelation of $20 million of deficits of the school boards that all of a sudden miraculously appeared overnight and is now going to be added to the debt when for the last eight months they have thrown everything they can throw to the debt of the Province of Nova Scotia, whether it walked or crawled, slept, moved, stood, it was thrown into the budget.
In fact, they threw so much stuff in the budget, they threw Sysco which is still in operation into the budget, and they even threw some $78 million of what they say will be the clean-up cost. Well, if they think for five seconds that the overall clean-up costs of the mess of the tar ponds is $78 million, then those guys have been eating the wrong food or doing something. I think what they are saying is that whatever those numbers are going to be, they don't know. They don't know those numbers, but they guessed at the number, they threw it on the table, and they added it to the numbers. They added it all up. How would they ever, ever miss $20 million when they have thrown everything else in there. It just happened to materialize after we have gone through two weeks of demonstrations and petitions and phone calls and frustration.
Maybe it was just the possibility that it was just fate that this all came together today. Maybe the stars and the moon and all that kind of stuff all lined up perfectly for the Tories today to find the window of opportunity to fix this mess that they created in the Department of Education. But never did I hear the Minister of Education put out the words to the people, you be quiet or I will be even meaner to you. You be quiet or I will do something very painful to you. The threat. Never once heard the minister say that. Those old days when people used to threaten others because they expressed their concerns I hope are gone. But I am hearing maybe they aren't.
It seems to me I read an article somewhere in the paper about the Minister of Agriculture up in his riding about a hospital. Somebody was critical of what was going to happen to that hospital. Allegedly the minister had said, you be careful what you say, or I will tell everybody what you make for a salary if you don't jump on board to support us.
[5:30 p.m.]
I can't understand why anybody would want to threaten people from expression and to be able to say what they really feel. (Interruption) I don't remember that. I remember the chairman continually after me when I was minister of whatever portfolio I had; he seemed to be like a bad magnet. He kept being there all the time (Interruption) He liked me. He was critical and forthcoming. He didn't have a lot of compassion. He was out there fighting. I always respected that. He just sometimes went a little overboard I thought from being a rational person that I thought he was, but nevertheless, I respected the fact that, if nothing else, he fought for what he believed and what his community believed was right. If I was doing something that he thought was wrong, he was not ashamed to voice his concern. I don't remember anybody else who was there and is still here being any different than that.
I remember the Minister of Health standing up on whatever issue it was, not afraid to stand up and fight for what he believed fundamentally was right. When he thought there was a serious problem, he was the first one to stand on his feet and fight the battle for his people. I don't remember anybody going over to him saying to his people you tell him to be quiet or we are going to take more away from you. Those are Draconian measures that I thought left in the Buchanan era. Why they are coming back I don't know, but they should never ever influence democracy by using threats. I hear it, we will get him, we will do this to him, we will do that to him. Well, I can tell you, you might be able to get away with that with certain people, but that is not how you treat the farm community, and that is not how you treat Nova Scotians, because Nova Scotians, when they get mad, they get real mad.
When Nova Scotians are saying about this Agriculture budget that they have worries and concerns that we are being pushed back for quite a while in time because of these cuts, then they have a right to express that. When I read articles that were set out by staff that say that the minister expects a report from the federation by the end of June and he is seeking their input. They also go on to say that this is a difficult time for the minister; he, like ourselves seeks support. That is of course the letter to the department staff. It goes on to say that it would be inappropriate to be seen as attempting to influence the consultation that will be going forward.
I don't understand why the department staff are not allowed to express what they believe is right. As a farmer, and as I said yesterday, when I travelled this country representing the farmers of this province, large or small, whether they were from Pictou County or Richmond County, wherever they were in this great province, I always knew that I had a Department of Agriculture and Marketing I could talk about and people would be envious of
not only the department but the relationship our farmers had with the Department of Agriculture and Marketing. That relationship was respected, admired by every single province in Canada. It was without question that the farm community and the Department of Agriculture built that unity on trust. They built that respect on trust, on commitment, on understanding. I talked to some farmers the other day. They said, Don, I know we need to take our cuts.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, certainly in no way has anybody been bullied or gagged. I think it is improper that the member for Lunenburg West would choose to mislead and misguide this House in regard to remarks by an executive director. If anyone cares to read it, then read it in its proper context. He is informing members of his staff that consultations are occurring between myself and the federation and he is asking them after he has done that observation that they are professional and they will move forward.
In no way have I in any way asked staff not to talk to the media. Clearly, as the honourable member has said, Farm Focus, members of the department, anybody has had free access and has not been restricted to the public press. To impute otherwise that restrictive measures have been happening, that people have somehow been bullied is purely not true. Certainly the member opposite knows that. Those may be tactics that he employs with people around him, but certainly not the tactics that this department employs or people on this side of the House. I think it is very important to make that point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps I could say that we certainly have two very contradictory views on the same issue. That is not unusual around this place. I recognize the honourable member for Lunenburg West to continue.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I assume that is not a point of order. Is that right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are certainly entitled to your assumptions.
MR. DOWNE: On a point of order, was he in order?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Lunenburg West is asking a question?
MR. DOWNE: I am asking, he stood up on a point of order, did you rule on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the honourable member for Lunenburg West asking a question or is he rising on a point of order or is he continuing with the estimates on Agriculture. I am just asking the honourable member to clarify his position.
MR. DOWNE: It is just like this whole government. They are so confused about what is going on, and they try to shell-game everybody out of business, smoke and mirrors. He knows darn well what I am talking about, but that is his prerogative to play the game. I can
tell you something, Nova Scotians understand this game. They understand this game in spades, and that is why you are having people outside. That is why you have people in the gallery watching. That is why you have people watching throughout Nova Scotia and phoning and writing letters and petitioning this government, because they are concerned. They have not been given the facts on the reality of what is going on in this budget.
Mr. Chairman, the minister says that I shouldn't make these comments. I understand that the federation had made a written statement or comment. I wonder if this minister will get that head on the table. We have the Department of Education that all of a sudden didn't like the school boards' noise of what was going on. So what did they do? They shut down the western side and basically said to the rest of the school boards, hey, you guys don't play this game our way, we will find another way to take you out. They have done it with the health boards. They shut them all down. They fired them all. They fired a bunch of volunteers because they didn't want anybody to speak out on what is going on in those respective departments.
So, yes, they have the capacity of doing that. Have they done it? Well, one would have to wonder the good Minister of Health shut down all these boards so that nobody could speak out. Everybody I talk to keeps saying, I am not allowed to say anything. I can't talk to you. Don't stand near me. They can't see me with anybody because if they see me with you, they think something is going on, and I could be fired. Why would they be so scared to stand with me? What threat am I to anybody, or anybody else on this side of the House?
I think they are getting paranoid because they thought they had all the answers and they realize this is not just a little sand box they are playing with. This is government. This is people's lives. This is the future of agriculture. This is the future of all the different departments in this province.
I am going to table for the House - the minister repeatedly stated that there is only $135,000 less in the budget for the Agricultural College through the Department of Agriculture and Marketing. He stood on his feet the other day and made this comment and how dare we ever say anything other than that. I have a letter from the Nova Scotia Agricultural College to the staff. I am half afraid to table this - and he probably got it - because he would want to go and fire the individual who wrote this, but it certainly doesn't leave the impression that it is only $135,000.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just want to point out to the honourable member for Lunenburg West that I did not answer that question in the House. I was not in the House if he asked the question last week. The first time a question was asked on the Agricultural College to myself was in estimates today from the honourable member over here. He may have asked that question or it may have been asked in my absence, but it certainly was not asked to me.
I certainly want to table this letter from Garth Coffin for all in the House to see. It went to every member of his staff and it is from the principal. He clearly states in it that this is only $135,000 less than the budget allocated to NSAC through the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing last year. It goes on to explain some extraordinary expenses and other circumstances, but it clearly, even Dr. Garth Coffin with this document, shows that it is $135,000. I think it is important that we deal with facts.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is more clarification than a point of order, honourable member.
MR. DOWNE: This minister is just itching to get up, isn't he? He is just itching to get up. Well, I wish this minister was itching to fight for agriculture and fight for the farmers of this province as much as he is itching to get up and try to talk to this House. I wish he was itching as much to be able to fight in the Cabinet for money properly allocated to agriculture. Now, maybe he has a different letter and maybe after this letter was discussed in the House, aspects of this letter were brought up by a colleague of mine because he indicated in one of the debates, whether it was a question or whether it was some aspect in the House, nevertheless it was brought up, and the minister had made some comment about it. You can check Hansard to get the facts of it, but it was the thing.
It goes on to say, salary adjustments and everything else, effectively this means that we must reduce our expenditures by approximately $1.5 million when all these other cost increases are factored in.
MR. FAGE: Read the first part of the paragraph.
MR. DOWNE: So, yes, the first part of the paragraph, absolutely, Mr. Minister, I will read the first paragraph for you. I will read the first little bit, this is only $135,000 less than the budget to NSAC through the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing last year. However, as you know, last year's authorization was temporarily increased to cover additional costs. So on and so forth, effectively the principal of the Agricultural College has a $1.5 million problem.
I will ask the minister this question, would he agree or not agree that according to the information we have as of April 11th, that the principal at AC does have a $1.5 million challenge before him? No, no, I know he is going to get up there and he will not answer that question. He will take off because I have been told, I cannot tell you which one of you guys told me, but I have been told that the minute he stands up, he is not going to let you ask him another question. So I am a little nervous because he is trying to threaten me by doing that, but are you prepared to answer that question? Can I take the minister at his word that he just wants to answer that simple question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if the honourable Minister of Agriculture could just answer the question.
MR. FAGE: The member for Lunenburg West knows I am always good at my word anytime he asks me a question and he does receive notification. The situation, as we all know, at the Agricultural College when you compare last year's budget estimate to this year's, there is a difference of $135,000. Extraordinary expenditures did occur at the Agricultural College last year and depending on how you add them up, you can get $1.2 million, $1.3 million, $1.5 million. There is no question Dr. Garth Coffin and his staff have a situation where they have some budgetary pressures related to salaries, staff and other situations that they have agreed that they can handle and would fully expect them to handle. The normal operating grant for the last five years has been approximately $5 million and that is what they have this year.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, thank you for acknowledging they have a $1.3 million, $1.4 million or $1.5 million challenge before them right now. No matter how you want to compare estimates to estimates, estimates to forecasts, however you want to do that, they have a $1.5 million problem and as Minister of Agriculture responsible for the Agricultural College, that is a problem for you as well as for them and that is all we are acknowledging here.
I can tell you that music really can throw a guy off. I would not mind a little Willie Nelson down on the farm and so on and so forth, but anyway (Interruption) Well, I can sing. I can dance. I cannot sing very good, but I can sing. I can dance pretty good.
I want to go on now, Mr. Minister, to the fact that we have all sorts of comments out there that you are trying to stifle the process. If anything happens to the poor guy who wrote that letter to the farm leaders that got an impression of what the meeting was all about, if anything happens to him and his position because of that, one would have to think that the minister has had his way about silencing any comments that anybody makes.
The Federation of Agriculture is a very respected body and I am a senator in the Federation of Agriculture. That senate position is held by both political Parties, maybe all three political Parties, I am not sure, but that does not matter because we are non-political. What is important is that we are all farmers who really care about farmers large and small. That is one of the reasons why, today, I stand up in opposition to the cuts in the Production Technology side because of the fact those services have an absolute direct impact on all farmers large and small throughout the province. The 140 to 160 programs that are there are gone.
The other day I asked the minister a question about the fact that these programs that he talks about that are expanding, that are in fact going to actually increase agriculture, and he named a couple. I congratulate him for the couple of programs he enunciated, but how can you compare one or two programs to 100 or 150 you are taking away? These programs are
not what you call frivolous programs. These programs are a direct contact with the farm community that deal with very specific applications. I go back to this Farm Focus because, my gosh, this Farm Focus, this is the one that wrote, Nova Scotia Government butchers the Department of Agriculture and Marketing. This is a page we would say in loving memory and these are in loving memory of all the programs that are gone. This is what they are writing. This isn't me. This is the industry.
When you go into the different assistance for horticulture, these are not grants that they provide. These are individuals who provide scientific, research and technical support for our people whether it is in marketing, or cranberries, or strawberries, or raspberries, or other crops. It is about how we can deal with these things from an environmental and production point of view. The same goes on to other departments. Now, the minister says I have $2.2 million to pay for all these 100-odd services that are now being provided so that the farmers can get together and hire these staff. Well, I don't know how $2.2 million is going to be able to do that, Mr. Minister. My question to the minister will be, if $2.2 million would answer the concerns and the problems of the Production Technology Division, service delivery to the farmers of Nova Scotia for $2.2 million, then why doesn't he himself keep that division there and keep the $2.2 million to pay for those costs?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to take a couple of moments. There has been quite a bit of rhetoric and very few questions answered. On the rhetoric side, I would like to reiterate that the member opposite's tactics may be intimidation. Mine is dealing openly and honestly with the industry. In dealing with the question at hand, certainly $2.2 million is a reasonable amount of money to deliver Special Services alternatively to the industry. Those services are there for commodity groups to deliver Special Services. They will decide their own priorities. They will decide how they want to build that industry and where they should take that industry because we are there for the basic support. I think it is important to keep it in context with the kind of rhetoric we have heard that this particular budget, when the member opposite became a member was in excess of $40 million. We have a huge amount of programs that have gone missing during their tenure. I only need to look to programs such as New Entrants, the livestock vet, land clearing, FFA was eliminated without a squeak from that administration by the federal government. (Interruptions)
All those types of issues wouldn't even defend the farming community. We have a budget down by approximately $10 million over those years. I think it is important to note that this budget offers over $1 million in new programs, and we service the entire farming community, large and small, of different commodities. We intend to do the best job that we can to deliver that in light of a $600 million deficit. Yes, $2.2 million is less than $3.7 million but, Mr. Chairman, the important thing is the service is what we recognize, the specialists we recognize. Those services are extremely important. In light of the deficit and ensuring that the farm community has asked that more programs be delivered, we are doing the best job we can to ensure there are programs and there are monies set aside for Special Services that those commodities would want to employ.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister made a mistake here, and I know he probably realizes it now that feed freight assistance was a federal program. It wasn't a provincial program. It had nothing do with the provincial government. We fought it. I think this minister knows all too well as a former president of the Maritime Farmers Union, this guy here, myself, fought that battle big time as well as every single farmer in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. (Interruptions)
Mr. Chairman, this minister over here is so arrogant, he is so arrogant in what he is talking about, he is so arrogant about his position, he is so full of himself about his position, he doesn't even understand what is going on. That is what is so frustrating to the farm community because the farm community is coming to me and saying, my gosh, I can understand if this guy didn't know anything about agriculture, but this guy understands this business. This guy grew up understanding this business. For him to get his head so blown up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I know the honourable member is very concerned about what he speaks, but I wonder if the honourable member could perhaps try to stick to the estimates a little closer. We do allow a lot of latitude and leeway in this committee, but the honourable member is getting a tad bit personal there.
MR. DOWNE: It seems to me it great in here every time you are really trying to get somewhere, you get somebody that makes a comment like what he did, and of course, he is afraid to talk about the reality of the farm community. If this minister for two seconds thinks that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, then I don't know why he is even over there worked up. Just sit there and relax, because if you think the farmers of Nova Scotia are happy, why don't you just sit back there and relax? We will soon find out how happy they are, and I am sure the good minister over there will soon find out exactly how the farmers feel. He is so sure this is perfect for them and they are going to be happy with this, then don't pay any attention to me. Just go on your own little merry way, in your own little world.
I wouldn't want to interrupt it. But I am going to because I know it is wrong and you are going to wake up some day and you are going to say, my gosh, the good member for Lunenburg West was right, and I made a big mistake. I let down all my guys and my team of the Tory Party, and especially those guys in rural areas that were counting on me to fight the battle for the benefit of agricultural development in the Province of Nova Scotia. My gosh, the farmers knew the cuts where coming and gosh, they understood they are going to have to take a little bit of water in their wine, and they are prepared for that. They were prepared for that, and the minister knows that. But when you take all the wine out, or fill the glass with just water, they are saying, what happened, where is the consultation? Where is this dialogue of trust and openness? It was with a couple of people but we don't know who they are.
Mr. Minister, I want to compliment your government on one thing that was good. Just to show you I am trying to be very fair here, and I am trying to be objective. That is how you kept the 4-H program. I realize how important that 4-H program is in Nova Scotia. My
question to you is now that you have kept the 4-H program, in Lunenburg County they are hosting for the first time the 4-H Show. It has always been in Truro, and the 4-H had agreed to move it out to Lunenburg County, first time I believe ever. The 4-H rep in that area plays a vital role in helping that. This is a major deal. It is going to mean a lot of money to the local economy, to the Town of Lunenburg. My colleague across the way, the Minister of Justice and others will see the benefits in areas. They are asking the minister whether or not the 4-H representative will actually be located in Bridgewater in an office to be able to help look after and assist on this major event.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, certainly I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The member has put a lot on the table. I certainly would apologize if the member was taking anything personal. I hope I have never made any accusations that would make him feel that way. I know he is a little heated with his passion there. Certainly, he defends agriculture as I do. I would not want his personal attacks on me to be considered personal. I would not affront him in that way.
In regard to the 4-H program, I believe the 4-H program has been in areas other than Truro for their pro-show through the years. Is that correct? I recollect that it has been in a few areas other than Truro. I think it is positive that they have returned to a situation where they do rotate it. It is wonderful that it is going to be in the Bridgewater area. Certainly at this point, we are looking at the full retention of the 4-H program where we will be maintaining 4-H personnel. I can assure the member opposite that right now under consideration is somewhere in Lunenburg County, the exact location certainly I can't give it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Honourable minister, we have arrived at the moment of interruption. The committee will adjourn until 6:30 p.m. and reconvene at that time to continue with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The honourable member for Lunenburg West would have approximately 12 minutes left. I would advise all honourable members I don't have any control over all the entertainment in the Chamber. Thank you very much.
[6:00 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[6:30 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to say that the committee has now reconvened and we are going back to the Liberal caucus for 12 minutes in turn.
The honourable member for Clare.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Marketing. Overall, the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Marketing was cut by $8.675 million and 99.4
positions will be cut. (Interruptions) This represents a cut of 18.6 per cent in positions and a 21 per cent cut in budget dollars. A lot of the cuts in this budget will have a negative impact on rural Nova Scotia, including seven agricultural offices.
I can say in our end of the province, in western Nova Scotia, the agricultural office in Yarmouth will be closing. Support and staffing for Community and Co-operative Pastures across this province will be cut, eliminating two branches in the department. The Rural Leadership branch, it is a $1.531 million cut. Production Technology will disappear. That is a $3.793 million cut. Rural Leadership branches, we are looking at 44.3 positions that are being cut. I understand some functions will be transferred to Resource Stewardship which will pick up responsibilities for extension services and administering the 4-H program. I look at the Production Technology branch. We are looking at 67 positions that will be lost. Some of the services that are being provided by the department, I understand, will be provided by the federation by commodity or by industry groups. The loss of the Production Technology advisors and researchers is considered by many farmers to be a major blow to Nova Scotia agriculture. I will have a chance later on to speak further in detail on that one.
In spite of comments about support for the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and education as a leader in the agriculture-related programs, the budget of the NSAC is being cut by $1.128 million. That is an 18.6 per cent cut in positions.
Mr. Chairman, who did the Minister of Agriculture consult with to recommend these cuts to agriculture in Nova Scotia? Were these recommendations approved by the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers Association? Were these cuts approved by the Nova Scotia Pork Producers? Were these cuts approved by the farmers in Nova Scotia?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. GAUDET: Well, when I look in the Farm Focus, that is an agricultural magazine that is being printed by a printing firm down in our end of the province, The Vanguard in Yarmouth, an article appeared, entitled Farmers and Cents which says that farmers are appalled by the cuts to the Nova Scotia Agriculture Department. That wasn't cuts, that was murder, said Charles Keddy. Charles Keddy, I know him. He was the former President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. Basically, there is no one left in the department you can put a face to. All the front-line people are gone.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that reminds me of exactly what happened to education. This minister was told by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that his budget was cut and he had to meet the target that was given to him. No consideration was given to the farmers of this province when this budget was drafted. Now we are ready to sit down with some of the commodity group representatives of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture just like the Minister of Education did with the school boards. She had no interest in meeting and sitting down with representatives of the school boards across this province before the budget was
drafted. Now all of a sudden probably because of the demonstrations and protests that students, teachers, parents, home and schools and everyone else that have come forward to support education, there is a reality check.
Well, no consideration was given to the farmers of this province when this budget was drafted. So now it is up to the Minister of Agriculture and Marketing, and I have sympathy for him, to come up and meet these target cuts in his budget. Now comes the interesting, the frustrating part. I am sure the farmers tonight are probably asking themselves, will we get more funding from this Tory slush fund, just like school boards will be getting tomorrow morning? Cabinet is meeting tomorrow morning to look at this crisis that is currently happening in education across this province. Now, yes, there has been some back-pedalling. But I don't know if farmers will be getting more funding. I honestly don't know. I can tell you, since the budget was introduced in this House on April 13th, we have seen students, teachers, support staff, parents, school boards and everyone else come out and do their part to convince this Tory Government to put more money in education.
Now with the budget vote coming down tomorrow, I don't believe farmers in Nova Scotia will get more funding by tomorrow. However, this government put aside $88 million for restructuring. That is what the Minister of Finance called it, this budget item set aside $88 million for restructuring. I think we are seeing today some of that money has been put aside for damage control, the famous Tory slush fund. So the obvious question today, Mr. Chairman, can some of these dollars be redirected to agriculture? No, not by tomorrow. I honestly don't know. Yet maybe, because I think we remember the Premier of this province saying time and time again, we need to pay our own way. We have heard the Minister of Education saying, this is what she has to work with. There is no additional funding. Let me tell you, for the last three weeks, I don't know if you have the chance at home, but every chance I have, especially on weekends and throughout the week, returning phone calls to constituents back in the municipality of Clare, people were very clear about education cuts.
I am sure, just like the minister has been hearing, there are lots of farmers out there. In Clare, Mr. Chairman, we have many mink ranchers. We have quite a few pork producers. Last weekend I had the opportunity to talk to several in each of these two groups. Believe me, they do not support these cuts in agriculture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, you have two minutes left.
MR. GAUDET: Two minutes left. So, Mr. Chairman, if I believe what the Premier of this province has been saying to Nova Scotians all along through the session and since this government was elected last July that we need to pay our own way, then when the pressure increases, the pressure increases on his office, on himself personally, on his Cabinet colleagues, on the government backbenchers. Well, guess what? He backs down, he gives up, and more money is found. So, tomorrow we have to wait until Cabinet approves, and we still don't know what the magic number will be, how much more additional funding will be
provided to education. So, is there hope for more funding for agriculture? Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess time will tell, especially across this province how farmers will react to these cuts, how farmers will certainly react to these cuts brought down by this Minister of Agriculture and Marketing.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Federation of Agriculture in this province doesn't support this budget. I know, having heard the minister in this House say repeatedly that he did consult with the executive of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. Well, when we actually called these members, lo and behold, we found out, yes, the minister was right, he did consult with some members of the executive. Did he consult with the full executive of the Federation of Agriculture? No, that did not take place. So with those few words I will take my seat and I will resume at a future time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank the member for Clare, and I would like to go to the NDP for their opening comments and questions. Start time is 6:42 p.m., closure at 7:42 p.m.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have at the minister again. I do have more questions and concerns. I think probably the minister can guess from my questions during Question Period where some of my questions were coming from, so my question right now is around his former executive assistant. I would like to know if that individual had any input into the budget process.
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, my former executive assistant was involved in helping me generally with many situations dealing with a number of departments and individual members such as yourself; when you would raise a concern or need a situation addressed, my assistant would be involved in them. But that particular assistant left my employ at the end of January. The budget process, as you will know the timetable, we were into program review prior to that, during that time leading up to the budget that took place after he had left my employ.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, so I guess I would like the minister to be even more clear that his executive assistant would not have sat in on any meetings with you that were directly connected to the budget then?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, again my assistant would not sit in with me on budget meetings. Certainly he attended program review meetings with me with various organizations through a number of departments and certainly some department personnel, but program review, as the honourable member will remember in our agenda, had to be completed before we could move into the budgetary process. Mr. Connell who is a very fine individual, whose character is above reproach, who is a native Nova Scotian, who has gone back to private
business, has his own company, is exemplary of what we all profess should happen in Nova Scotia: you start your own business, you work hard and you employ a number of Nova Scotians, and you fulfil your obligations. Again, he was certainly involved in program review, attending annual meetings with me through the fall. But his last day of employ was actually February 4th.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Did that business exist while he was employed as your EA?
MR. FAGE: Yes, to the honourable member. I can't give you an exact date for Mr. Connell's business, but it has been ongoing for at least five years I believe. Mr. Connell transferred the business to his other partners, and they ran the business while he was in my employ. Certainly I was privileged to have a gentleman of that calibre contribute and help with the department. I would also hasten to add in that light that Mr. Connell had no contracts with the departments we were involved with when I hired him, during his employ, nor has he had any contracts with the department since that time.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you. I will move on. Rural Leadership. I am wondering if the minister could tell me if, I think in the past the Women's Institute of Nova Scotia would have received funding through that branch. I am wondering if that funding is still available to those institutes?
MR. FAGE: In previous years, if I am reading your question right, Women's Institute was granted $17,000 and secretarial services. The Women's Institute this year were able to apply under the tech program for their funding; as well their secretarial services will be supplied to them.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: So you are saying they can apply to the tech program, so there is no assurance there will be any funding from that?
MR. FAGE: Again, like all participants to a program, there is no guarantee, but that is how that type of funding will be accessed in the future by that group and all groups. Certainly, I would see no reason why their application would not be as favourable as any other year, but I cannot prejudge until an application form is filled out. I certainly would not see why they would be in any less standing than any other year, but again, I cannot, until the department receives an application, be talking in that manner.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Minister, I think prior to you giving that answer you had said that they could apply to that program, but also along with that the secretarial service would be provided, so I want to be clear. Will the secretarial service be provided anyway, and they apply to the program for other funding, or do they have to apply to the program to get their secretarial funding? So are there two different things there?
MR. FAGE: I apologize for being unclear. The secretarial funding will be supplied to them, it is ongoing. That is a service we do supply to them. As well, the funding for the $17,000-odd would be accessed by them forwarding an application through the program.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you. I am going to come back to a previous question because it was just at the time when we left, and I am not sure if I remember exactly what the minister's answer was. We had pretty well clarified the notion that in the Production Technology branch salaries made up $2.9-some million, and my question was, how was the $2.2 million in the adjustment fund supposed to replace pretty near $3 million in salaries of the people who would be leaving the Production Technology branch? If we are assuming some of those people will have to stay in the province to give the same level of service to the commodity groups, how is $2.2 million going to fulfil the $3 million of salaries?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, clearly, it is not intended to cover the same amount of money or we would not be making reductions and offering alternative services to meet our budgetary requirements this year and meet the requirements and the challenges of the industry in the years to come. That is why that amount of money is being offered to the commodity groups on a ongoing yearly basis to finance specialists that they want and that apply to the direction in their priorities. That is why we will be able to achieve some reductions in overall costs to the department. It also allows more money into programs.
As the honourable member will remember I had said earlier, the paramount requests for the last five years put forward at every annual meeting of the federation as their top priority was more program, less government intervention. So $1 million approximately more in programming this year than last year is a significant gain for the agriculture industry. It is certainly with pride and pleasure that we were able to step forward with more programming for that particular budget in that industry. I think it is extremely important to remember that a department exists for the backbone and the servicing of the industry. If the industry is not there, then obviously the department that would be the resource group is not needed.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, if you believe the department exists for the servicing of the industry, then taking these people from Production Technology would be the wrong place to go. We are actually only looking at $1 million. You said an extra $1 million went into programs. I think that if the Federation of Agriculture and the farming community were given a choice as to whether or not to have their Production Technology branch back or have that $1 million go into programs, I think, from what I am hearing, they would rather have their Production Technology branch back. I think from what I read in this, this is a generalization, it doesn't specifically state anything, although I am sure when the federation met with you, they may have been more specific than they would have been with me because there was a lot more chance of you delivering something to them than there was for me to deliver.
I can say from what I am hearing, and I have talked to an individual who was with the Council of Leaders, and supposedly the federation gets their direction from them and he is not impressed with what the department has done in this regard. How exactly will the $2.2 million be allocated to the commodity groups?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, everyone would love to have extra programming. In a severe budgetary situation where deficit reduction is paramount and required and they would like to have all the services retained at the same time. Clearly, that was not an option that we were faced with, and it was not an option that the industry was faced with. Either/or druthers, is a very hard question here. Individuals, whether they are related to someone or not, or their very circumstances will give you a paternalistic answer. Again, I come back to the $2.2 million. Those are the discussions that I and my senior staff are now having with the industry committee and with individual commodity groups how the allocation of that funding will be appropriated to the various groups and the industry committee to ensure the special services that the industry wants are transferred with alternative service delivery and the funds will be transferred to them.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, I guess I want to say, Mr. Minister, if the representatives of the federation were to come to you and were to say, listen, we would rather have that production technology branch back instead of the increased $1 million to programs, what would your response be?
MR. FAGE: Again, the estimate is the estimate. We are not here to debate philosophy or hypothetical questions. Those discussions in alternative service delivery are occurring between myself and members of the industry committee at this point. The funds set aside for that transfer is $2.2 million. Certainly in discussions as recently as yesterday with those esteemed members and that esteemed group, we are talking about the flexibility around the $2.2 million to ensure that the alternative service delivery delivers the specialist services that the industry are putting together. It would be improper for me comment on a philosophical question at this point in relationship to the industry. I can answer questions on how much money is set aside and the budget, and it is $2.2 million.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Let's assume for a second that another MLA represents a different area, wants to make a suggestion to the government. My suggestion to the government would be - because, when I stand here in the House, one of the first things I hear yelled across to me is, what is your solution? What are you offering? Well, I am offering something right now - a notion that you could take your $1 million from programs and put it back to the Production Technology branch and restore the $1 million you took from it, therefore, maintain the Production Technology branch, the staff that is there. If you took the $2.2 million that you have set aside in your adjustment fund along with the $1 million you put into programs, you would have $3.2 million, then your $500,000 from your regional offices.
I am just wondering, what is the minister's reaction to my suggestion that that may appease the farming community more so than the direction he is taking?
MR. FAGE: Again, it is very hard to reply to the member's hypothetical question. Obviously if the member opposite wants to cancel the New Entrants Program and disallow any support to new people that want into farming, that can be the option he would put forward to help achieve his $1 million. He can approach the federation and make that recommendation. Again the hypothetical situation is one I can't comment on. My staff and I are dealing with the agriculture industry, and that is the leader of the industry group. We are dealing on a fund of $2.2 million to ensure that special services that they deem the priority