Companion programs, yes. We have this issue about developing land. We don't have a lot of land when it comes to agriculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we have to use everything we have. Almost, sometimes, when a little bit of dirt falls on the rooftop, we need to go after it.
But we have a policy that we don't develop land in this country. We have to develop land, and you know what we did with our APF agreement? We came in the back door. We said okay, we have an environmental filler that tells us if we expand our dairy industry, we have a certain amount of land to spread our manure on, so we came in the back door and said we want 150 acres cleared and developed to spread manure on, not to develop because we need forage.
We shouldn't have to use the backdoor approach. We should have a companion agreement that allows us to meet the goals and objectives of the environmental filler and also to have some level of economic sustainability. It did both. What's wrong with that?
We are seeing now the development of the life sciences industry in this country as we've never seen before, and we're going to see a lot more. I see the main focus being on ethanol, on biodiesel, biofuels, and so on. That is not the main focus in Newfoundland and Labrador and I would suggest other parts of the Maritimes. We are looking at a different component of life science. We're looking at functional foods and nutraceuticals.
I don't see the same kind of focus, and I'm worried that we're going to slip through the cracks on that. We can produce a multi-million, probably a multibillion, dollar industry in our province because of biodiversity in terms of what we can do with northern berries and the benefits of that and other products, but if we don't have companion programs that fit into that overarching arrangement of how we do strategic development in the life sciences, then we're going to fall through the cracks again.
So that's a somewhat better example, and I'll just leave it at that.