Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): The Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 115 of the main Estimates book.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Before we continue on, I would like to ask the minister if he would want to take the time for another forest update. Is there anything new since this morning?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, I want to, if I could, give some humble advice to the member for Dauphin. I have been known in the past to be very forthright with the information that I try and provide for my critics and my colleagues in the House, and there are two ways that these things work. We then have developed a matter of understanding and a certain amount of trust between ourselves as to whether the information that I present--or if there are problems out there that the individuals want to have proper information on, I try and provide that.

I just want to say that the member does not do himself or the general public any favours by trying to raise issues in the House, as he did today, and try and make some political points on the thing. If there was some concern about equipment, which, I think, by raising it in that perspective, without having ascertained some of the facts, it creates concern out of the people in the northern communities that we are not basically doing our job. In each one of these communities, we have many, many trained firefighters. We have a very efficient system that we are running, and by raising sort of the kind of questions and the concerns that he did, in the public view, at a time when we are having a major disaster, I think, does not do anybody any good.

So I want to just caution the member. If he has concerns, I would rather that he then brought them forward, because out of a thousand firefighters that we probably have out there, I can tell him right now that if he wants to run around, he will find some individuals that have some reasons to feel that they have better knowledge as to how this should be run. We have very professional people out there, so I just want to raise this as a caution.

You can make the choice as to how you want to play this. I then make the choice as to whether I co-operate with you or not. So I am saying this as a gesture of co-operation to you: be a little cautious. There is always that desire to play the politics. I do not play that way. When I do, I do it very, very efficiently. I have been here for eighteen years. So I would rather take an offer to the member to be as co-operative as possible in terms of getting information, working together, and I will give him a copy of the latest update of the fire situation right now and just raise this as a gesture of friendship and co-operation to the member that you cannot have it both ways. It is either politics that we will play, as to how we operate, or we are going to have a bit of a confidence measure between ourselves that I will try and provide all the information I can, with the most sincere, best efforts, and that we can both get as much as possible out of the process of the questions in the House as well as the Estimates process.

Mr. Struthers: I want to first begin by thanking the minister for humbly giving me the advice that he just gave. I am not so sure whether I would consider it advice or a threat, that he just made. I came here absolutely willing to co-operate with the minister. I have no doubt that the people in his department or the people that are out fighting the fires in northern Manitoba right now are doing an excellent job. Not once do I doubt the ability of the people in his department and the volunteers and the people that he has hired to work on these fires, not once do I doubt their ability or their integrity.

I want to make sure that the minister knows that I understand a political answer and a political question when I hear it. I yesterday simply raised a concern that was brought to me by people within his own department, three people that I had spoken to and another person who I had listened to on the radio, who were making the claims that there is not enough firefighting equipment in the North. If the minister thinks that brushing the question off by simply complimenting the people who are there is an answer that is acceptable, then I just have to disagree with him.

I get a little bit offended when once again by a member of the provincial government cabinet get accused of playing politics on an issue. The advice that I want to give the minister is that at no time will I ever ask a question without doing my homework first. My homework was done yesterday. I did not get an answer yesterday in the House. I left it at that. I re-asked the question today to try to get an answer from the minister. Again I got the same answer as I got yesterday. I got an answer from a different minister who again skirted the issue. I, too, am here in a spirit of co-operation and I am willing to be friends. I also want answers to the questions. Maybe I will just stop there and get some response from the minister in that regard.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, based on the question that the member raised about the firefighters at Brandon, these trainees are basically specialized in building fires. They have no knowledge of a forest fire or how to fight a forest fire. That is why, you know, bringing it forward and saying, why do we not utilize those kinds of people? They do not have the ability to get up into the northern outposts where we have trained people and fight forest fires.

In terms of the equipment question that he raised today, we have warehouses full of equipment in Winnipeg with semis standing by. As equipment is needed, it gets moved out to the field, so if an individual who has possibly not been hired at the present time because of the way we deploy our troops out there out of the 1,000 people that are trained, has some kind of a hang-up about the equipment end of it, I take exception to that because that is not factual.

We have all kinds of equipment and we have people that basically sit and operate the whole fire system and move people across the province. We have people in our Tac crews that when we have fires up in Flin Flon or whether it is Thompson or wherever it is, we move the Tac crews, which is our first initial Tac team unit, we move them into wherever it has to be done in a high-speed, efficient way of doing it. This is the five-man crew that basically we have scattered around the province.

The moment there is a hit and it starts burning, we basically have a helicopter, we drop these people in and these are the first contact people, highly trained and specialized. Then, subject to that, we have 1,000 people trained throughout the province in isolated communities, the communities up North; 75 percent of these people are native, and they are the best firefighters in the country. That is why last year when B.C. had problems with fires the request came, and we moved some of our people out there to basically assist. The people take great pride in knowing that they are the best forest firefighters in the country.

But that does not mean that every individual is going to be hired out there. I can tell the member that by and large when we bring our crews on, first the initial Tac crews, we move them out, the other people move in to do the clean up and do whatever is required. Each one has a card and our forest fire bosses out there, most of them native, they sign the amount of hours that are put in. We know exactly which are our qualified fighters and which are maybe not as qualified. We use whatever we have to use when the time comes.

Mr. Struthers: Well, given that answer, Mr. Chairman, why then did the minister not tell me that yesterday instead of in the House--

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. This is outside the area of Question Period. We are here to discuss the Estimates of Natural Resources, and we have ended up into an extension of Question Period. I would ask that the committee please proceed with the question on the Estimates process. That is why we are here. That is the process that we are here for, not an extension of Question Period.

So I would ask the honourable member to get on with his line of questioning, line-by-line, as we agreed to yesterday.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chair, I will always take the opportunity to defend my reputation when it is--

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to get on with the line-by-line questioning on the Estimates. We are not in here to provoke debate. We are here to ask questions, and that is the process.

So if the honourable member has questions on the line-by-line that we are on now, then please ask the questions, or we will move on from there.

Mr. Struthers: On the organizational chart, there is a box underneath the Resource Programs category entitled Policy Co-ordination, G. Baker.

I wonder if I could get an indication of what the services are that are provided by the Policy Co-ordination branch, what their connection is to the rest of the organizational chart and the duties that the box in this chart provides.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, while staff is getting me the precise information on it, I would just add that G. Baker is Grant Baker who basically runs the policy portion of it, dealing with, for example, the environmental concerns that we have in forestry operations, for example, developing together with my Forestry people the forest management plan, the environmental concerns that we have in forestry or whether it is water.

Policy Co-ordination co-ordinates and integrates departmental natural resource policy, legislation, environmental impact assessments, co-management agreements, land use planning, and resource allocation in accordance with the principles of sustainable development; undertakes reviews to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of departmental programming; provides for a grant in support of research of value to the departmental mandate.

Objectives are to integrate and co-ordinate departmental policies and programs related to land use, co-management, resource allocation, environmental impacts--I think I said that--sustainable development initiatives and enforcement; to review, streamline and develop integrated and co-ordinated resource management policies and programs; to co-ordinate, develop and standardize departmental enforcement programs; to provide strategic planning, analytic and evaluative support services in order to assist management to improve the effectiveness of departmental programming.

Activity Identification is Crown land planning for northern and Agro-Manitoba and natural resource planning for municipalities and planning districts; research, analyze, evaluate and integrate new and existing resource programs, projects and policies; integrate natural resource policies and programs with those of other departments and governments.

Expected Results are that we have integrated departmental management and allocation plans, sustainable development strategies, area management strategies and environmental impact reports; Crown land policy and procedures manual, resource allocation policies and Crown land classification, including land use and zoning plans; standardized departmental enforcement programs; resource allocation decisions based on principles of preservation, conservation and sustainable development; monitoring of cross-boundary water projects and co-ordination of departmental settlements arising out of hydroelectric and water-control projects and treaty land entitlements.

That sort of summarizes--incidentally, this is where our special investigative unit is, as well.

Mr. Struthers: It certainly sounds like a busy directorate. Who does the policy co-ordinator report to?

Mr. Driedger: The policy co-ordinator reports to Dr. Merlin Shoesmith, who is the assistant deputy minister of Resource Programs, and Dr. Shoesmith reports to the deputy minister, sitting on my left here, and the deputy minister reports to myself.

Mr. Struthers: I understand the line up through the assistant deputy minister and deputy minister to yourself. What about reversing that line?

Does that necessarily mean then that if we reversed everything, that the minister could give direction back through the system to the deputy minister, ADM and to Mr. Baker again?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the normal process would be that myself, as minister, if I have areas of concern in any one of these areas that I read to the member, responsibilities under that end of it, I basically give direction to my deputy minister, who then takes it up with his assistant deputy minister, who gives direction to the Policy Co-ordination department, which then has to develop a position and a policy.

As it comes back through the system, if I do not like it, I send it back and have it corrected, because, ultimately, the decision is still mine, not theirs.

Mr. Struthers: The connection then between the policy co-ordinator and any of the other areas would go through Dr. Shoesmith and from him to, say, Regional Operations or to Land Information or Management Services?

Mr. Driedger: We have an executive group basically that is composed of myself, first of all, the deputy minister, and then we have four basic ADMs who are involved, one being Mr. Harvey Boyle, who is the ADM for Regional Operations, Dr. Merlin Shoesmith, who is Resource Programs. We have Jack Schreuder, who is the Land Information Centre, and then we have Mr. Podolsky, who is here with us under Management Services.

* (1500)

Those six people, by and large, form the executive. Then, depending on the issue, they can pull in any one of the other people who are basically directors of their certain element.

For example, if it has to do with Land Information Centre, Mr. Schreuder and the executive would bring in Mr. Elke, or if it was under Management Services, Mr. Podolsky would bring in Mr. Lockett and develop whatever direction we wanted there.

All activities basically come, first of all, through the individual ADM, then to this executive group and the deputy. Ultimately, we then set these decisions. If he is questioning how the decisions are getting made, they are not made in isolation that much, other than the policy direction where the minister wants to go. I tell them where I want to go with these things, and I say make it work. They will then try and make it work.

If they cannot make it work, they come back and say, it cannot be done unless you change legislation, unless you do this or that or change regulations, but, basically, there is a close-knit working group, because if you do not have that, you are not very efficient.

Mr. Struthers: The Policy Co-ordination section here, is that a new body?

Mr. Driedger: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not, certainly not during the time that I have been there. My predecessor was there for four or five years. I believe it was there during that time.

My deputy informs me that virtually every department has a policy co-ordination unit that basically deals with all the things along the same guidelines that I outlined here. So it is not that it is unique in this department.

But I have to tell you that I am very dependent on the policy group as we develop policies and strategies to make sure that the proper information comes back to my table to ultimately make the right decisions, because many elements, not only within my department but other departments, how that whole things gets co-ordinated. You have to have things that affect--many of the departments are sort of interrelated on some of the various activities that take place and responsibilities that they have, so it is a very important component. They are all important. But this one has more of an importance, I suppose, in terms of the decision making.

Mr. Struthers: Has Mr. Baker been the director of that policy co-ordination for some time now, or is he new?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am told, at least five, six years that Mr. Baker has been there--about five or six years.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 12.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $388,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $83,400--pass.

1.(c) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $608,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $333,400--pass.

1.(d) Financial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,212,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $232,500--pass.

1.(e) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $825,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $147,200--pass.

1.(f) Resource Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $639,600.

Mr. Struthers: You were on a roll there, and I had to slow you down a bit. Under Resource Information Systems--I am reading in the Estimates book that I have been provided here--it states that it provides for human, financial and material resources required to deliver information technology in the department. Could the minister give me some examples of human, financial and material resources?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the program co-ordination takes place under this: programmer analysts, the computers, purchase of computers, hardware and software, the basic operations of everything in the department.

Mr. Struthers: I would be interested in knowing what the relationship between resource information systems is, the information systems, what the relationship between them is and the Treasury Board.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I might just say that any expenditures related to hardware, software, anything along these lines, everything basically goes back to Treasury Board. As we develop the budgetary process in terms of expenditures, we get targets. Ultimately the various departments get targets; the various directors get targets. Ultimately, when the package is finally completed and we have certain figures, it does not mean that these things do not go back to Treasury Board. Invariably, the expenditures still have to get Treasury Board approval irrespective of where they are listed throughout the department. So it is not as if we have a carte blanche, once we have the budget approved, that we can go and merrily spend it. Virtually every expenditure still goes back before Treasury Board and gets final approval, especially when it comes to the computer things and things of this nature.

As my deputy tells me, we have to develop a plan in advance for the year so that we cannot take in the midterm, all of a sudden start changing directions and say, oh, by the way, we want to do something else. The plan has to be submitted in advance to Treasury Board. You have to get approval for the projects that we go ahead with, and if there are any changes from it, I can tell the member that there has to be pretty strong justification for it.

Mr. Struthers: The plan that you mentioned, is that the only form of input that you have in to Treasury Board, influencing the amounts that you get for each of the expenditures that you are looking to spend?

Mr. Driedger: I want to make sure that I understand the direction the member is going. For example, let us see, within the various components of my department, Fisheries for example, when we establish what amount of money are they going to spend and get approval, we have to develop the whole plan, present it as part of our budgetary process, and that is a process that basically starts anytime now and goes on for six months.

Ministers spend a tremendous amount of their time, together with staff, working out what we plan to do a year in advance. Once that plan is filed, together with the figures, once you deviate from that then there has to be a pretty extensive discussion taking place with Treasury Board. My affiliation with Treasury Board is not necessarily weekly but very often because, as we have certain things that we want to expend, there might be certain things that would change in terms of, maybe, some of the funding.

Everything basically goes before Treasury Board. It is sort of said tongue in cheek, you know, that it is, how am I going to put this very discretely, that facing Treasury Board is almost like having your teeth pulled at times, when you do not even have any teeth anymore, you know. It is a pretty extensive system as a safeguard set up so that no department, whether it is this department or any other department, can take and run rampant with what they want to do and make changes. It is very tightly controlled throughout the system between the various components in the various departments.

Treasury Board, of course, being responsible to the Department of Finance, it is just an ongoing progression in terms of things that have to be gone through, so very, very seldom, I think, is it possible to have--besides, their own people that have their reputation at stake and jobs at stake, there are so many places where you have the safeguards that it is very, very hard for any department, any individual, to not deal very aboveboard with all the dealings.

Mr. Struthers: I appreciate the answer that the minister gives me in terms of tight controls over the expenditures of his department. I realize too, though, that the priorities may change along quickly within any given department. If you do have your yearly plan put together, submitted and okayed by Treasury Board, is there any kind of flexibility that allows you to go ahead with expenditures that may come up from time to time?

*(1510)

Mr. Driedger: Maybe I could clarify this in a different way because we normally take and put into our Estimates approximately $2 million for firefighting.

Over the years, irrespective of who the government was, this is sort of the figure that is always put there, $2 million, knowing that that could go way out of whack, like in '89, we spent well in access of $50 million.

Even in the case of firefighting, what happens on a weekly basis, my staff prepare, update. It then has to go to Treasury Board for approval for the additional expenditures. So there is always this kind of scenario that takes place.

We know that in a year like this that we will say, well, like, see the $2 million, we are up to $10 million approximately right now, but every week we go back and we say, this is what we anticipate. We go to our professional people and ask, what is the weather condition, what are we looking like for seven days in advance? We go to our firefighting people and say, what are we looking at? Based on these weather conditions, what can we expect? Then we make projections, and then we package all this in sort of a plan. Then we go to Treasury Board on a weekly basis and update them and say, for this week we expect to maybe expend two and a half million dollars, ask for approval for it and outline exactly this many machines, approximately so much manpower, and then, of course, the details come in after it has happened.

We have to get approval for those kinds of expenditures. It is not a problem, necessarily, but we have to make sure that they have all the information.

Mr. Struthers: A little further down under Expected Results, I was interested to see that there would be a redesign of the department's Crown Land registry system. How is that going to be redesigned?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the system that we have for Crown Land registry is relatively outdated. We are working together with the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Mines, Justice and our department in terms of trying to establish a more modern, updated system in terms of Crown Land registry.

So that is what is happening. This, again, I guess, gives the member the example of how many departments are always interrelated with the registry end of it. You have to have the Justice end of it there. Energy and Mines basically have their portion. Then we have Agriculture Crown lands--you know, how does that component fit into the Crown lands that I administrate. So you have all these players always involved. It is very seldom that one department moves ahead on a project all by itself without having an interrelationship with other departments.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, I am still unclear as to what specifically within the Crown Land registry system will be different once the redesigning is done.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I do not know either until I see what they are going to do. People in the department feel that our system is antiquated, and we need to have a better system of doing it.

I have to tell the member that almost on a weekly basis before cabinet, I take forward pieces of information, of corrections, where survey corrections have taken place. Having had the opportunity to serve as reeve, many years ago, we had to resurvey whole communities where we found out basically that on the legal survey, the next guy's house was partly on the property of the other guy's house. I will tell you something, if you do not think that creates a big fight and fuss, you know, because it is basically just the way they did it with a survey. It was not always done properly, so things were out of whack. These are the things that I think we are correcting to some degree.

My deputy tells me that by this fall, these four departments will be coming up with a plan which at that time will be reviewed. Myself, too, I want to know what we are changing. I do not know that at this point.

My deputy tells me it is not policy that we are changing, just the way that we do the registry. As the member is probably aware, under land title registrations, there are ongoing changes, how it is done. You used to have a title. Now you get a piece of paper that basically tells you this is your title. So there are changes there and we have to make our changes. I believe this is some of it, but I want to see when the plan comes forward.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, that makes it a little more clear for me, but my original thinking was that maybe it was policy that was changing, or you are talking about new equipment or new procedures. Am I on the right track in thinking that or not?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, my staff tell me that the member's assessment is correct.

Mr. Struthers: So it will be new equipment into the department and new procedures in which you go about registering Crown lands?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they will be coming forward with a plan in terms of what should be done, but whether that plan can be implemented immediately, because we do not know exactly what the costs are going to be--it could be substantive, and if it is going to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars to implement this, then there is going to have to be a plan devised together with Treasury Board as to how much we do at one time.

It is not just simply saying, well, we have a plan; now we are going to spend this money and do it. It will have to be worked out within the financial possibilities that we have within the department, as well as what Treasury Board will allow us to do, the big Pooh-Bahs, so to speak. I should not say that.

Mr. Struthers: I hope this has nothing to do with the big Pooh-Bahs, but who initiated this kind of an initiative?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting question because after the years of having once been a backbencher, then a critic and then becoming a minister, it would be almost mind-boggling to see the number of ideas and plans that staff within the department have, all the things that they would like to see, to have the Cadillac system, the most up-to-date systems. They have more plans and ideas than you can shake a stick at in most cases.

What we ultimately do is try and prioritize which ones are the ones that we feel are the most in need of bringing up to a certain standard or up to a certain speed, but it is certainly not for lack of ideas coming forward.

If I go through my department, and it is a pretty substantive department, each one--whether it is Wildlife, Fisheries, Forestry, land-related--every one of them have great ideas in terms of all the things that should be done differently, and most of them related to big-time money, too. That is why they sometimes do not come forward as fast as we would like to see them come forward, but this is one that basically is prioritized.

Maybe this ties into, again, when the member asked how these decisions get made. When we sit as executive, there are all these ideas bouncing around. We identify what we think are the most pressing needs, where we want to move forward with changes, and that is basically then done with the advice of my ADMs, my deputy and myself having a discussion, and that is where a lot of time and hours are spent in terms of deciding which direction to take the department within the financial realms that are available.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chair, I believe the question I have to ask comes under Human Resource Management, which we just passed a few minutes ago, and I would ask whether it would be possible that we revert back to that line for a few minutes.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am always co-operative that way. The member can ask whatever she wants.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Agreed.

Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for his co-operation. When we left yesterday, we were talking about the flexibility that people had as to where staff people could stay, and the minister indicated that he would provide that information when he had it available, and I look for that information at some point.

* (1520)

But I am also interested in looking at the facilities that the department has. I understand Natural Resources has cabins or lodgings in various parts of the province, and that staff from time to time can stay at those facilities. I had raised this issue with the department a couple of years ago, looking for what the policy is with regard to who can stay at those facilities, which employees they are available to.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, without getting too confusing and into too much detail, by and large, we have areas where we need resources, human resources, let us say, our NROs, in isolated areas. Over a period of many years, the department has built certain cabins throughout the province, for example, at Nejanilini Lake, which is an isolated lake way up north. There is a cabin out there because when our people have to go there for research or for whatever reasons up there, they need a place to stay.

Then we also have areas where we have staff on a more permanent basis, which is basically not a community but where we have cabins available for the individual and family to stay if that is required, and then we also have what we call some summer residences in certain areas where bunkhouses and things of that nature--so there is no cut and dried saying these people qualify for low-rent residences from the Department of Resources, because it depends on the category of part-time work that they do. The member is probably aware that our staff falls off dramatically during the course of the winter, when we basically just have our permanent staff on.

During the summer all the parks and other activities that take place, the figures just go way up. In some of these cases we need to have facilities. I do not even know the extent of how many buildings we have. I just know that from time to time government is getting a little tougher with this and that from time to time we have liquidated or sold some of the cottages and cabins that we have out there for some of the people. We will probably be doing some of that again.

Ms. Wowchuk: I am looking for information on change of policy that the government has made, because in Swan River there is a temporary residence, a bunkhouse as the minister calls it, that is heated year round. In fact, that bunkhouse was used for years; the employees were able to stay there. I know a couple of employees who stayed for long lengths of time; however, it appears that the policy has changed. There is a bunk house now in Swan River that is vacant, and there are employees who come into Swan River but are not allowed to use the facilities. One of these is a temporary employee.

I am looking to the minister. I have asked for this before, to see when the policy changed, why it was that that bunkhouse could be used, and now it sits vacant even though the department is paying the Hydro and the water and it has all the facilities there. There are no people coming in from the outside; the facility is staying empty. What changed in policy, and why is Swan River bunkhouse being treated differently from bunkhouses in other parts of the province? I understand that the same does not apply to other areas of the province.

Mr. Driedger: I beg the member for Swan River not to try and say that we are discriminating in her area. My understanding is that there was a policy change a number of years ago related to providing accommodations in certain areas for certain people. There is some sensitivity, because we have some people out there who really enjoyed having the accommodations at very, very low rates, and when the policy change took place this was removed, and as a result we have some miffed people out there. Probably this is what the member has probably heard about.

Lest she feel that it is just in Swan River that is taking place, that is not the case. In fact, we are reviewing right now as to how many of these kinds of buildings we will take and really require, whether we should liquidate. We have liquidated some--how many more we will be liquidating--so, yes, the policy change took place two, three years ago, and we are now looking to see how many of these building do we need.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister then provide us with a copy of that policy change? I am looking for something in writing that would indicate when this policy change took place and, again, let us know where it is being carried out, whether it is being actually applied in other regions. That is what I would like to know, just for the satisfaction of my constituents, because the people in my constituency, the two gentlemen who work for Resources, in fact feel that they are being treated differently from other parts of the province. They have said that they are willing to pay for staying at the facility, but that has not been allowed, and the building sits vacant.

I guess what I would ask is a copy of the policy and perhaps some indication in which other regions this is happening.

Mr. Driedger: I think the question is reasonable. I do not have that policy change here, but staff are going to be preparing something, and I will have it back to the member in a couple of days or so in terms of the policy change, when it took place and exactly what we are trying to accomplish with it so that there is no misunderstanding with it. She can tell the people that raised this with her that we are very sensitive in terms of having the same policy consistent throughout the province, because--I will tell you something, everybody talks to everybody. There is no way you can have one policy in one area and not the same in the other. She must be well aware that the MGEU is the watchdog over these things, that everybody gets treated very fairly. Maybe some of them want to have a little extra care. Maybe this is where it comes from, but I will get a copy of the policy so that she can maybe understand where we are going with that.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that. I do not think that these people are looking for extra care. They are looking to be treated fairly, and in particular if there is a facility that is not being used, I think that if there is a way--these people are away from their home, they are doing a job, they are seasonal employees, and if there is a way for the minister to recover some of the costs of operating these facilities, because they are paying Hydro and water there anyway, so if he could recover some of the cost, it would be in the best interest of the department. The minister knows that any revenue that he can get into his department would be beneficial. So I look forward for that information, and I thank the minister.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, just to conclude that, I repeat the commitment I made in terms of getting that information in writing. I will do more than that. I will get her the specifics on the Swan River cabin itself so that she knows exactly what we have in mind there.

* (1530)

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 12.1(f) Resource Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $639,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $58,400--pass.

Item 12.2 Regional Operations (a) Headquarters Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,244,700.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, under the heading of Headquarters Operations they talk about all hunting guides in the province are licensed under Expected Results. I am a little unclear on that. Am I to assume that they are not all licensed now, and that the move is towards getting them all licensed?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I have been getting advice here. I wonder if I could ask the member to just repeat the question based on what he did.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, I read under the Headquarters Operations section under Expected Results, "All hunting guides in the province are licensed." I read into that that they are not all licensed now, and I wonder if the move is to get them eventually all licensed.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, no, all hunting guides are licensed or supposed to be licensed, but we have--well, let me use the scenario of the white-tailed guides, nonresident deer guides. Basically what happens--let me put the scenario where we have a lodge operator who trains maybe three or four guides to guide nonresident Americans or whoever it is that come to hunt deer, and once he has got them trained properly the individual sort of gets cootchie-coo with the nonresident people and he says: Next year, you know what? Instead of going to the lodge and paying big money, why do you not come to my place, and I will sort of take Clif and Stan out, and you can hunt for a fraction of the cost--and it might not be licensed. So we will be reviewing that end of it. That is basically under the regional headquarters where we do all the licensing of all guides, whether it is lodges, outfitters, whether it is black bear hunters, moose, they are all licensed through that. That is basically what is referred to. All hunting guides in the province are licensed.

Mr. Struthers: You answered my next question by throwing in the bear guides and all the rest. Do all the rules apply no matter what the species we are talking about then?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Struthers: What would a guide have to go through as far as a procedure in getting or obtaining a license?

Mr. Driedger: The member is getting into an area where we have been having some sensitivity with the lodges and outfitters. Since the time that I took over the department we have been trying to work very closely with them in terms of making sure that we have proper standards for all our lodges and outfitters, because there is an opportunity to have a gray area among the lodges and outfitters in terms of how they operate. The majority of our lodges and outfitters are just super people, because they deal with non-residents. They are almost tourist ambassadors, but they are not all that way. In all walks of life there is a percentage that by and large maybe push the marginal end of it a little bit in terms of the hunting techniques and in terms principles to some degree. We have been working to try and see--together with the lodges and outfitters group we have formed a committee, because if an outfitter gets caught, depending on the severity of the charge, maybe we should take his licence away.

I just want to tell the member that if you do that to a lodge outfitter, he has to have a million-dollar lodge sitting there. You go and take his licence away, it is going to get very exciting and loud. We have asked the lodges and outfitters people to be involved, to tell us, to work with us as to the severity of the crime or the charge that they are going to be charged with, what would warrant disciplinary action. We have people out there that have as many as 80-some-odd nonresident bear licences. They deal with a lot of Americans, mostly with Americans, and if they do not operate within the guidelines, within proper conduct, it gives a bad eye to the province. We have been working with them.

The member is asking how do we give them a licence. They have to apply in the region, they have to fill out a form, they have to get experienced, first aid, et cetera. Part of this is being reviewed with this committee that we have set up now, based on the participation by the lodges and outfitters. They are very pleased with our setting up of that committee.

Mr. Struthers: So when Clif and I come to you looking to set up a lodge in northern Manitoba, those are the only criteria that we have to meet then before we get the licence?

Mr. Driedger: No, Mr. Chairman, the difference between getting an outfitters licence or getting a guiding licence is a big, big difference. In an outfitters licence we get applications, yes, and we have a committee that basically then reviews them. Where do you want to set up your lodge? This is where there is a lot of conflict very often. You have a lodge that basically sells, and then the guy moves a mile down the lake and starts operating again. He has sold somebody his lodge for a million bucks and starts operating on the same lake. I am just illustrating some of the problems and examples that basically we deal with all the time. This is not a rare occasion, this happens. We have all kinds of problems like that.

We have to work together with them, and we have to have input from them in terms of making sure that everybody gets treated fairly. If you and the member for Interlake wanted to make an application, we would take the application, and it would go before a committee. We would first want to see whether you were both reputable people and where you would want to set up your lodge, the type of service that you want to provide. For example, if you would want to set up a lodge in southeast area, my area there, and said you wanted it for nonresident moose licence, that is what you would be catering to, it would not sell because we do not have nonresident moose licences there.

So it has to be some kind of resource that is available in that area and the need is not basically serviced at this time. And we have lots of activity out there so it is not that simple. Getting a licence to operate for an outfitter is a lot simpler than getting an outfitter's licence.

Mr. Struthers: I think you just put the idea in my partner's mind that he is going to build a lodge downstream from me, too.

The same rules, then, apply across the province. They do not vary from one region to the next.

Mr. Driedger: No, the rules apply equally across the province but the rules vary, whether it is nonresident bear licences that you are dealing with, because we have guidelines that apply in terms of the baiting process and that you cannot bait on private property and the type of baiting that you do. That is with bears.

Moose licences, again, nonresident moose licence is a little different, just like the nonresident caribou licences, which we are issuing for the first time this year--nonresident caribou licences, which are, basically, for the lodge owners up close to the Northwest Territories.

So different rules apply again, based on certain things, depending on the species that we are dealing with.

Mr. Struthers: Given these times of floods and fires, do the people with lodges, are they expected to carry their own insurance, or is there any money available for compensation if, heaven forbid, they get burnt out?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the lodges and outfitters that are out there in the countryside with substantive investments are responsible for their own insurance. The government does not provide any insurance. What we do when we have fires, and this always gets to be a little sensitive issue, somewhere along the line a lodge outfitter will phone up and say, listen, there is a fire 10 miles from here. I think it might be coming my way. I want to have equipment and staff, people on standby here at my lodge, in case the fire comes closer. Well, this is where judgment calls get made by our firefighter veterans in terms of whether it is in danger or not. Certainly we do not ignore them, but it all has to fit into the picture of priorities in terms of saving property. Safety first, property next.

Very often we have some of these lodge outfitters saying, well, instead of worrying about some timber out there in the back 40, I have a big investment here. You better have all your staff here. We try and make fair and reasoned judgment calls. And most of them understand. In fact, they have been out there for a long time. They know the implications of it. They look after many of their own requirements. They have pumps and equipment.

In fact, I was down a few years ago at a lodge, Bolton Lodge, where fire had come, and the individual flew in his own people, set up his own pumps and did his own firefighting, his costs, because at that time there were major problems with many fires, and then if it is a community versus a lodge, you know where we go. Of course, if it is a good stand of timber versus a lodge, we would probably go to the property first, the lodge operation, try and save if at all possible.

* (1540)

As you understand, they are scattered throughout the North. It is pretty costly to take and move crews and equipment in to save a lodge operator. Once we know he is in danger, of course, we will do that, but we cannot do this on a standby basis and because he feels--of course, fires are very erratic. There are so many things that can happen in a forest fire within a day, in terms of the weather movement, the self-generated breeze directions, the heating system of a fire as it goes through the forestry area.

So our people, by and large, have a pretty good feel for it, but so do the lodge operators. They know what the rules are, and the odd time we have a little conflict, but normally it works.

Mr. Struthers: I want to move on to another part of what is written here in the Expected Results under Headquarters Operations. It says that there is--it is kind of unclear, I think. All legitimate claims for livestock killed or injured by hunters are processed. Who determines what is legitimate?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, my NROs, my staff people in the field are the ones that basically would establish that.

Mr. Struthers: Does this statement mean that there is compensation paid to ranchers who have livestock killed?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, that is correct. Where livestock have been killed by hunters in hunting season, they make a complaint, and our staff go out and basically do an assessment. If there is a legitimate claim, then it is paid. Now, if you have a 25-year-old horse that got shot in the back quarter, you probably would not get very much for it, because maybe it was done on purpose or something like that, but we are talking of legitimate claims. This is what our people establish, and we do pay.

Mr. Struthers: I am glad to hear that that is the case. I support compensating farmers and ranchers when their livestock is killed through hunting. My concern was, how do you go about proving that it was a hunter who actually killed the livestock and trying not to be abused by somebody looking for compensation?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all repeat, we pay compensation only in hunting season, not when somebody is poaching. Basically, our NROs, I think, are pretty talented in terms of being able to assess it. If it is deer hunting season and, you know, somebody has lost a beef cow, it has been shot, I do not think there would be too much argument. Somebody shot it during the hunting season. Whether it is done purposefully or not is actually immaterial. They get compensated at that time.

They have a pretty good idea. They work on this all the time. It is not like you or me. We would go out for the first time and say, holy smokes, how did this happen? They are pretty polished individuals in terms of knowing. They can read circumstances together with the farmer. It is surprising. We try to do it on a co-operative basis as well.

Mr. Struthers: I am also interested in knowing, just to further go on with what I was just asking, if my cow is shot and it is in hunting season and the NRO tells me I do not qualify, is there an appeal process that I can go through, or does it just stay at the NRO level?

Mr. Driedger: There is only one appeal process: moi, right here.

Mr. Struthers: Related to this as well, the cattle producers who lose cattle to wolves or to bear, is there any compensation for cattle owners there?

Mr. Driedger: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no compensation available for that. It has been an ongoing debate for many years, where people say, well, there should be some compensation when wolves come and chew up your sheep or cows or calves. Normally we try and deal with the problem. We try and get rid of the problem, but there is no compensation. But it has been an ongoing debate for many years as to whether that should happen or not.

It is not quite that simple to do that because, whether there are dogs, coyotes, fox getting into your chicken coop, as an example, it gets to be very difficult to always do the proper assessment. You would probably end up with more controversy than you would in terms of solving the problem, so, no, we do not.

Though, again, our people in the field, by and large, if it is really, let us say, a renegade bear, honey keepers are always after the renegade bears. We have now worked things out with the outfitters that we issue special licences for them to take the renegade bears, or our NROs are going to go out and see whether a bear, once they get into the honeybee beehives, can be a real pain. Ultimately we have to take down some of them. So these are, sort of, things that we deal with then if we can. We also work with them in terms of trying to take corrective measures. We have, for example, the elk problems with the leaf cutter bees, we use equipment that keeps them away, and we have fencing for the beekeepers around their hives, with electric fences. These things work. We have experimental projects that we keep doing all the time to try and help some of these things, but, no, we do not pay.

Mr. Struthers: I suppose then that that would include damage done by the flooding caused by beavers and beaver dams. Farmers would have no recourse to compensation in that area either.

Mr. Driedger: I wish the member had not gotten into beaver stories. I want to take a few minutes just to tell the member what has happened with the beavers in Manitoba, specifically, since the European lobby against the fur industry. Fur prices went down to the point where people or trappers have been not taking beavers because it did not pay. Where the average beaver population was between 300,000 and 400,000 a year, we are at 1.2 million and going through the ceiling, and as a result, we have mega-problems with beavers.

We have a control program that I have entered into with the municipalities in terms of paying a certain amount of money for each beaver taken in the off-season. Fur prices got a little stronger last year so the take was a little stronger for the fur industry. We still have major, major problems. In fact, right now, I think beaver are taking more trees down than our cutters are out there, you know. The damage every time they have a dam, whether it is close to a road or drainage ditch, problems relate to flooding. They back up the water. Roads are damaged. Fields are flooded.

Farmers are out there shooting beavers and blowing up dams. My people are out there shooting beavers, blowing up dams, and we cannot keep up. It is a losing battle. We do not compensate. However, we have made our staff available to do the removal of certain problem-beavers where it is requested, and where we do not have the program apply, we also have made money available for removal of dams in certain areas, but there just is not enough money to take and basically do a good job on that. We are hoping that, ultimately, the correction of prices, to some degree, and the program that we have in place should, over a period of the next few years, maybe settle out the problem a little bit. But right now it is a big big-time problem and not just in certain parts of Manitoba, across Manitoba. In fact, we have complaints coming from even in Winnipeg where beavers along the Assiniboine and the Red come out of the river and chew up the shrubbery trees and things of that nature, and people yell at us, and I say, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to kill them? Well, no, they do not want them necessarily killed but do something. Some of them put nets around there. Some of them do all kinds of precautionary measures, but it is a big, mega-time problem.

Mr. Struthers: The reason I bring up beavers is that one of my constituents approached me on this not so long ago who had beaver problems, and he was mad enough to suggest that somebody was paying him a bounty to shoot the beavers, but when an elk came across his land and kicked the daylights out of his grain bin, he was not allowed to shoot the elk. He considered them both pests, and thought that one should be treated the same as the other. He may have a point there. I have no doubt that elk will also end up in his freezer for the winter.

* (1550)

Mr. Driedger: I could try and put the member on the spot and ask him whether he is promoting the idea that we shoot the elk like we do beaver, but I do not think I want to do that to him necessarily. I would not promote the idea that we--with the elk end of it, this has been an ongoing issue, as well, over a period of time, not as dramatic as the beaver problem, but those people that basically live close to the parks, and where you have elk populations, have been exposed to some of the damage from time to time with a haystack. It does not just apply to elk, it applies also to white- tailed deer. I have been in the southwest part of the province where big, round bales, and you get 40 or 50 deer in there, and what they do not eat, they ruin so that nothing else will ever eat it. It has been an ongoing problem there. But most of the people that live in these areas, a majority of them, sort of have an understanding of it and live with it to some degree, or from time to time, take their own corrective measures, I guess, which we do not necessarily condone or support that much, but it has been done.

Most individuals that live close to, especially, where the elk herds are, really enjoy the elk. They treat them almost as their own. They are not always happy when the damage is there, but you have individuals that take a different approach and would like to get compensated for all these things. It is one of the things in life that we are not in a position to start paying. We will work with them.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: 2. Regional Operations (a) Headquarters Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,244,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,313,400--pass; (3) Problem Wildlife Control $272,000--pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($260,000).

2.(b) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,935,800. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Struthers: I notice under 12.2(b) that it says, to provide a level of protection from forest fires and floods that is consistent with values at risk. I just need an explanation of what it means by "values at risk." What is playing off one against the other?

Mr. Driedger: You know, sometimes the way staff writes this up, I have trouble following it properly. Questions, myself, sometimes come to mind, but basically, to provide a level of protection from forest fires and floods that is consistent with values at risk--I am told, for example, that we have fires farther north that do not have maybe the timber value. It comes back to, do we action all fires? Is there a percentage in doing some of this?

The first priority, of course, is safety in terms of addressing floods and fires. The second priority is property at risk, whether it is flooding or fire again, whether we action fires that could endanger, let us see, homes, buildings, livestock, I guess. This would certainly be a priority over, let us say, forestry.

Then within the forestry end of it, we have what we consider very valuable stands which are the pine, black spruce, white spruce, valuable stands versus the more marginal popular, let us put it that way. These are always the things, values at risk, so it is prioritized as to where we would spend the amount of money that we would in terms of flood versus fire.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Let me give the member a bit of a scenario maybe that would help him understand how this works. With the operation of the Shellmouth Dam, we have to make a decision as to how much water we let out at a certain time based on how much water we think is coming in, knowing that when we open it we will be flooding a certain amount of land downstream from the Shellmouth Dam. How much do we flood, to what extent, when and where? Based on the waters coming in, we have to weigh that against, you know, do we save water and then if it goes over it floods everything anyway? Or do we try and control it? That is sort of where we establish values of risk, to what extent. What is it downstream? For example, the Town of St. Lazare is going to be flooded to the tune of three or four feet. If we cannot dike it then maybe we should not let that much water go if we cannot control it. I am trying to give the member a bit of a sense of how some of these values and risk judgments get made.

Mr. Struthers: Judging from the answers that I have received so far, I keep getting in my mind a list. I do not know, maybe it is a priorities list with the minister and throughout his department. Number one would be safety, talking about human lives, No. 2 would be properties, buildings and homes and livestock and that sort of thing. The other one that he mentioned was timber. Does agriculture and tourism fall into a list of any kind? Is there a list of any kind?

Mr. Driedger: I was sure that I had provided sort of the guidelines. It is not cast in stone, but guidelines that we use in terms of addressing this. I thought I had made that available to the member, or did you not receive it? Some time ago when he raised these questions, I thought I had made that available. If not, I will then made sure that if you have not got it, we will give you what we call the guidelines in terms of how we prioritize where we protect.

Mr. Struthers: What I received was in terms of a fire question that I had asked a couple of weeks ago. I read that to mean in terms of just fires and where you would attack fires first. I was not aware that included flooding and if there is a list of the different priorities you have.

Mr. Driedger: The member is correct. The information we gave was based on fire. We do not have a prioritized list for flooding, because basically it is common sense. Very often these things come on us so fast that invariably we set up what we call deputies' committees, and they address the matter of evacuation, property damage, what can be done. Diking, to what extent do we bring in equipment, et cetera, in conjunction with municipalities who always play a very major role in this. They are the basic authority as to whether they designate an emergency situation or not. It is a common sense approach. There is no specific cut guideline as to how we operate.

Mr. Struthers: Thinking back to our discussion yesterday afternoon about advisory boards, I think I have a good understanding of how you go about doing that then. What, though, is the role of public hearings in these kinds of decisions? Is there any role for them or is it a situation by situation basis on which you and your department make these decisions?

Mr. Driedger: When establishing these advisory committees we try and set up terms of reference, and part of the terms of reference that we invariably work out is that there should be public input of the people affected. If we do not take, and want to ask for public input, let us say we want to take sort of a hush-hush type of thing and just try and do imagery to some degree, then we would set up terms of reference a little differently. I personally believe that if we are going to go through the problems and the costs of setting up an advisory committee, that the public input is one of the key things, and this is what basically helps alleviate a lot of the problems.

Mr. Struthers: In terms of each of the regions, what I want to get a handle on is who in the department--I do not need names--who in the department, what position, is responsible for gathering data in terms of snow levels and water levels and then turning and forecasting a flood, in each of the different regions?

* (1600)

Mr. Driedger: This would be done through water resources. Through the department we have engineers in each of the regions, together with the regional director, who would be doing the assessments and forwarding the information to central, basically. That is how the process would evolve.

Mr. Struthers: Has it always been the engineers in each of the regions that perform that duty?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in conjunction with professional people from other provinces as well. All the information basically gets centralized and sorted out, and based on that, recommendations and decisions are made. So the engineers within the department are always very crucial in terms of getting this information. If they do not give us the right information, it is big-time trouble, and being a layperson I sometimes question them quite extensively as to whether they know what they are doing in terms of gathering information. By and large they are trained professional people, and ultimately if challenged and if they can justify to myself and to the deputy that they know what they are doing, well, then we base our decisions accordingly.

Mr. Struthers: Within water services, what is the role of the water managers?

Mr. Driedger: I just want to correct the member so that there is not a misunderstanding. There is Water Resources, which is under my department; water services is under Rural Development which basically provides--just note, because it is easy enough to sort of get the two confused. Water Resources basically, which is my people, the engineers, the director of Water Resources, that deal with all the water issues. In your area I believe it is Shorty Levesque. He is considered one of the technicians out there in your area I believe. We rely very heavily on these technicians, that they have the training and the knowledge in terms of being able to provide the kind of information that we require.

Mr. Struthers: We have in each of the regions then water engineers, water managers, and water technicians. I am not clear on what the job description would be for water managers.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the deputy says that we could make that out to be a three-page job description. Water Management basically would deal with the operations of structures in the area. It would deal with the third-order drains for which we have the responsibility in terms of clean-out, whether there has to be replacement of culverts, bridges, et cetera, et cetera, all part of the Water Management. The levels that we control certain lakes or retention areas where we have structures, Water Management is working also with--an example is Minnedosa where there is a structure there that basically we are working on together with the feds, together with the town and my department in terms of fixing up the structure. Ultimately, we will maintain it, but we will have the Town of Minnedosa operating it.

So when we talk about Water Management, these are just a few of the things, in terms of anything related to water, drainage, retention, whatever the case may be, that is all part and parcel of it. I do not know, I can get technical information on it, but by and large anything to do with water, that is their responsibility. I rely on my people then to say--when I have somebody phoning up and saying, listen, you know, this municipality, they have taken out a culvert or opened a culvert here or put a culvert in and it is flooding. What are you going to do about it?

First of all, I get a hold of my regional people and say, get my water people out there and establish, is it a provincial responsibility. If not, is it a municipal responsibility. If the municipality wants the information, we then have our people take and do an assessment and provide the information to the municipality or to the individual--all part of Water Management. Basically anything to do with water comes under that category, so it is a big-time headache and a big-time job.

Mr. Struthers: I understand and sympathize with the big-time headache comment that the minister made. I am kind of struggling with this right now, and I would appreciate your responses in helping me out. What, then, is the difference between what the engineer does and what the manager does in each of these regions?

Mr. Driedger: I will try again to outline it a little better. Maybe I am not doing a good enough job.

We have five regions throughout the province, and we have regional directors there. These regional directors are each basically responsible for all the activities within their designated geographic area. Under that they have NROs, which are Natural Resources Officers. They have Water Resources people: the water manager, the technician and various components. How many people would we have in our region? Roughly 25 to 30, depending on which area it is. As for the kind of people--for example, in some regions, we might not have any commercial fishing, so we do not have the commercial fishing technicians there, whereas the next region we have. So it is not consistent all the time.

We have the people in there that are required to provide the service for that region based on the requirements for that region, whether it is water, whether it is NROs, whether it is forestry, whether it is commercial fishing. The water resources I mentioned already. The regional director then co-ordinates it. Then we have the director of Water Resources, who has his people in each one of these regions because he is a professional on that. It is like Harvey Boyle being the ADM responsible for my Natural Resources Officers. Again, in each one of these regions, we have a bunch of NROs. Harvey Boyle, the ADM, is responsible for the activities of the NROs, how they conduct themselves, but the regional director in the member's case is Bob Wooley out of Brandon. That is the regional director; he has to work with the people under him in the various categories and to work with Harvey Boyle, to work with the director of Water Resources, to work with the director of Forestry, depending what it is.

It seems a maybe a little complex, and it did to me to, so I am not being critical of the member in that. It all fits in like a nice puzzle. Everybody knows their responsibility; the chain of command is set up. It covers all the various aspects of it. That is why it is not so simple as in Highways, where you either build the dang road or you maintain it. Here there are many complexities in the Department of Natural Resources, but it all works. It fits well. It has been designed over many years and it fits.

Mr. Struthers: Believe it or not, it is starting to become more clear with me as well. I appreciate the time the minister takes to educate me on this organizational chart of the Department of Natural Resources. In my area of Dauphin, it was mentioned that Shorty Levesque is the water technician. Who in my area would be the water manager?

Mr. Driedger: Berg Wopnford.

My deputy is making reference to the fact that one of our senior people out there passed away very suddenly with a heart attack just a number of months ago in the member's area there, Bob Lawrence.

Mr. Struthers: Who would perform the function of the engineer in that area?

Mr. Driedger: Berg Wopnford is the guy now. I will try and get the spelling for it.

Mr. Struthers: This might start to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine, but who is the manager then?

Mr. Driedger: Berg is both because the position since Bob Lawrence passed away, that position has not been refilled at this point yet.

* (1610)

Mr. Struthers: That is the Western Region?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, that is the Western Region, yes.

Mr. Struthers: So if we were to go through the list of all the regions then, I could get the names of three people in each of those regions who perform the duties of engineers, managers and technicians.

Mr. Driedger: By and large, yes. That would be the structure that is there. Now, from time to time, you have movement, or somebody passes away like in the case of Bob Lawrence, but that would be the concept, basically, that is set up for there.

Now that could vary where, let us say, in some areas, you do not have the pressure on as much as in other areas, so there might be some movement, interdepartmentally, to help out in one area where we have, for example, let us say, in the western region with the flooding of the Assiniboine, we might be bringing in other people there now when an assessment is being done of the damage, et cetera, and, maybe, because we have it very dry at Thompson, maybe we do not need that kind of staffing out there. So, you know, we have that flexibility.

The structure is set up that way, but, by and large, we have flexibility to have movement within the various regions.

Mr. Struthers: Did the goings on with the water manager in the western region, did that have any kind of adverse effect, do you think, on the flood situation that occurred this spring?

Mr. Driedger: Absolutely none whatsoever because irrespective of the fact that we have the structural organization, the five regions and the various components in the various regions, if we run into a pressure situation as we did with the Assiniboine River, to illustrate that again, we have all kinds of people that basically we utilize from other areas, to move them there to address the problem.

That is why you have the director of Water Resources who basically then is the individual who makes the movement in terms of what happens. It is just like, coming back to the fire situation, we have a fire co-ordinator who is looking at all the information that is on the wall, technically, in front of him, who knows and can see in an instant where the fires are, what is happening, where the storms are going, then makes decisions well in advance in terms of movement of staff people from, let us say, from the western region to the eastern region, from north to east.

It is a very fluid and liquid type of arrangement within the department. It is not that cut and dried and rigid. We have the structures there, and that structure basically functions with lots of fluid motion in there to move everything. We have to have the responsibility of the people involved.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not--the member made reference to the fact that we are having one individual missing and whether this had any bearing on the severity or change in the flood that took place.

I just want to tell the member that the flooding that took place on the Assiniboine this year virtually doubled any record flooding that ever took place on the Assiniboine River. It virtually doubled anything we have ever seen.

So we feel that we managed very well in spite of the severe circumstances we were under. We had something like 800,000 acre feet that came into the system, when the capacity of the Shellmouth Dam, for example, is 370,000 acre feet, so the member can imagine what happened.

We were trying to jockey with the Shellmouth Dam. We were jockeying with the Portage diversion, moving water from there into Lake Manitoba, until we had a capacity there, moving water out at the Fairford Dam which anticipated a certain amount of flooding with the reserves down there, and controlling the water flowing down the Assiniboine, so that we had minimum disruption and damage on property.

We did a remarkable job. I feel very good about the job that our people basically did, because we really jockeyed and made some call shots. If we would have had a three- or four-inch rain any time during these decisions, our whole arithmetic would have been thrown out the window, so to speak. We would have had major problems on top of the fact that we had an all-time double record flood this time.

The member made reference as to whether that one position had made a difference. No. We moved a lot of resources into there to make sure that we did everything that had to be done in terms of dealing with the structures. This is where water managers come in again. The operation of the Shellmouth Dam, the operation of the Portage diversion, the Fairford Dam, these people are charged with that responsibility. If they make mistakes, then I get it. Then it comes to me and we have to make decisions.

It affects people's lives dramatically, and if we do not make the right decisions, government is liable. Everybody that is in the system knows this really well. We have people who have been there 25, 30 years. They know full well the implications of it and understand the situation. You have to rely on people like that to give advice. A new minister gets in there, and you are not going to change the system and start making people make decisions other than the right decisions for whatever reason.

That is always the challenging part, an educational thing that people like myself, as well as the member now, as a new member, gets exposed to, to find out exactly the goings on and how things operate. It is a great experience.

Mr. Struthers: Was the position of water manager cut in 1990?

Mr. Driedger: The member asked whether we have capped the water management position since 1990?

Mr. Struthers: I asked, was the position of water manager in these regions, was that cut in 1990.

Mr. Driedger: I want to try and explain something to the member now, that over a period of years, during our government though, when my predecessor, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), was responsible for Natural Resources, there were major revisions that basically took place in the Department of Water Resources, in the department as a whole but specifically in Water Resources, where we had a very big, at least perceived to be big, engineering staff and very little capital money to do any projects, and it was considered to be top heavy with engineers.

So there was a total reorganization in terms of Water Resources, I guess in the 90s, between '89 and 1990, in that area. A major realignment took place within the Department of Water Resources. Of course, that created a lot of anxiety among municipalities which perceived that the requirement was always there for water projects, water works, et cetera, but we have basically learned to function with what is available to us and are trying to do the best job we can related to municipalities and to the individuals, as well.

I would not have it available to me in terms of the exact figures as to how the adjustments took place, but I have always been very supportive of the Department of Natural Resources, and I felt that it probably took maybe a bigger than ordinary chunk of some of the readjustments that took place within government at a certain time, but, of course, it is very hard to fight against increased spending in the Health, Education and Family Services part of it.

Many of the other service departments like Highways and Natural Resources, Agriculture, were the departments that carried the brunt end of it and bit the bullet there for a while.

Yes, adjustments took place, but to what extent, I do not know. I do not have that information here.

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Struthers: Was part of the realignment the loss of the position of water manager in these regions?

* (1620)

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to, sort of, give the member some comfort that there is nothing dramatic that took place. Under the readjustment, it was felt that we--and we feel that way today--are still doing the job, maybe doing it a little differently than it was done before with the tremendous amount of staff. The water management position, to me, is meaningless, really, as long as we, through Water Resources, through our people, the technicians, engineers, get the job done that is required from us. I do not know whether the water management position that was or was not deleted in 1990 has a big bearing on how we operate.

I can, they can check to see whether it is, but if the member, if there is something that he feels concerned about, if he wants to give me the specifics, I will check it out. But I do not think it really affects as to how we operate five years later now within the department. I make do with what I have and try and make things work as best we can with the municipalities.

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Struthers: The problem that I am having is that 10 minutes ago I was told that there was a water manager in the western region, and now when I ask if the position had been laid off, it seems like the possibility was that that position was laid off. Why would I be told there is a manager in the western region by the name of Bob Lawrence and an engineer in the area by the name of Berg,--whoever you were talking about?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am going to check with staff to see whether I can clarify or get a comfort level for the member. I have tried to outline what the structure, the basic structure is in the various regions, and the fact that one of our people passed away and that we have not filled the position yet does not mean that it is cut. The position is still there. We are very protective and make sure we do not lose those positions. I do not have that here right now, but if the member wants that, I can sort of give him a structure of the region.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to establish whether there is a concern here for the member. I can try and get the structural setup for each region, but it varies for each region. I have to go back and outline, possibly, 1,200 to 1,500 people that are within my system, how the system works in terms of getting to where the member, basically, is wanting, or I can be specifically for the Western Region, try and see what people we have in the area of the Water Resources, people that do the work for me, if that is acceptable. I am trying to do--but I hope the member is not asking me to give him a breakdown of the detailed staffing throughout each one of my regions. It is pretty substantive.

Mr. Struthers: Before he died, was Mr. Lawrence the water manager in the western region?

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Driedger: Maybe it is a matter of use of words. My deputy tells me that we have people with positions that do the water management in the area, but they do not necessarily have a title of water management. Maybe this is where we have some confusion. We have so and so many people doing certain things related to water, to the various resources that we have, and Mr. Lawrence was the water manager in that area. It did not necessarily mean that he had that title of water manager, or that we had deleted the position of a water manager. Maybe that will help to clarify the confusion to some degree.

Mr. Struthers: I think we are getting somewhere then. So it is Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Berg--whoever that name is--and Mr. Levesque in the western region, who, at one time, were in charge of finding out how much water and snow there was before the water and snow melted into the rivers. There were three people--an engineer, a manager and a technician then at one time--who were responsible for doing that. When Mr. Lawrence passed on, that left two people to do it. My information tells me, though, that in 1990 the position of water manager was axed, leaving two people then in 1990 performing those duties. That does not add up with what I am hearing today in which it is being portrayed as simply somebody dying and not being replaced yet. That is where the confusion is.

Mr. Driedger: I will give the member an undertaking that we will go back to that point where there was some reorganization, and give some indication as to the figures and how many people we had dealing with water resources in whatever capacity in the western region. If he can find that acceptable, I will try and give him an outline there, as long as I do not have to do it for every region. Just so that he has a comfort level as to how the readjustment took place. The member is concerned about the forecasting, how it was done, with technicians and engineers that we had available to us. It is not just that two people would be making that decision. It would also be the regional director involved. It would also be a fellow like Dr. Merlin Shoesmith. There would be a raft of people involved that bring information forward. Then an assessment is done in terms of predicting how much precipitation is there and whether we are going to experience a flood or no flood.

I am trying to understand where the member has concerns. I am trying to allay those concerns by saying that I feel very comfortable that we have the qualified people out there, irrespective of whether they are called water managers or are water managers, water resources, technicians, whatever the case may be. We have the necessary people there that feed the information forward for decision making in terms of making predictions as to whether we will have a flood or not. If this is the area, I will try and get that level back to him somewhere along the line. We will take and check to see exactly what has happened in terms of people within the department of Water Resources in the western region so that he can track it whichever way he wants.

Mr. Struthers: My concern, too, is that the cut that took place in 1990 did not just occur in the western region, but that all water managers in each of the regions were cut at that time. Do I have a legitimate concern there?

Mr. Driedger: Without going into details, I could well envision that under the reorganization there were water managers, or whether they called them, whatever name they wanted to give them--under reorganization there were a whole swat of them that were deleted and removed at that time when reorganization took place in 1990. There were dramatic changes that took place. Now titles, whether titles mean anything, water manager or water supervisor or technician, but that is why I am going to give him a bit of a flow for that area. But it was not just the western region, it went across the whole department of Water Resources. The whole Department of Natural Resources was reorganized.

We used to have, I do not necessarily want to give the member a total history lesson now, but there used to be under the NROs, for example, we had fish specialists, we had wildlife specialists, we still have some of them. But our NROs were in different categories. We had forestry people that were running down the road and behind him ran the wildlife guy, and behind him ran the fisheries guy, you know, in their different vehicles, because they all had their responsibilities. Ultimately, it was reorganized where the NROs have all the responsibilities. It was quite a change, and this was years ago when it took place. It makes for much more efficient operations, and that is why our NROs are not just enforcers either, they are also public relations people in terms of running our parks, running our wildlife programs, our fisheries programs, forestry, they basically do it all. They have the training for it.

* (1630)

At one time it did not used to be that way. They had the training but everyone was specialized in a certain area. So over the years a lot of history has changed in this very important Department of Natural Resources. This is what has happened with the water end of it too. Just to maybe illustrate, we will get that information, just so the member has a sample of what happened

in one region, but that happened across the province.

Mr. Struthers: I do not intend to go through each of the regions and ask you for names of different staff people in different positions, but I want to do it for the northeast region. Could you tell me who the water manager is, the water technician and the water engineer?

Mr. Driedger: I apologize, I was not following--for the northeast region, which would be basically the Thompson area, the member confuses me to some degree when he talks water managers. I am talking of people who manage water, and technicians. Is the member asking for a breakdown of the northeast region? He wants one for the western, and I promised him one for the western region. He wants a breakdown of the Water Resources people in the northeast region. Can we clarify? I wish the member would not put titles on these people because titles do not mean anything to me and I do not think mean anything to the department.

My deputy tells me we have no water engineers, Water Resources engineers in Thompson.

Mr. Struthers: The reason why I am asking these questions is that earlier when I was looking for a bit of an education on what positions there are in the area of forecasting floods, I was told that there were three titles in the regions, and one of them was water manager.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairperson, then I want to apologize, I have given the wrong impression. The member is putting titles on things and I am looking at water managers, not necessarily a water manager position type of thing. I also indicated that when we had our structures that we have it for each region, and that is the basic structure, but that we do not necessarily have the same component in each one.

For example, we would not have commercial fishing in the eastern region, would we? We would not have the commercial fishing component in there. We have more tourism there versus the commercial fishing, whereas in certain areas we have more requirement for water. At the time when the hydro developments were taking place, we had components move forward into the Thompson area because that was the area, the Northeast Region, where they would then be very actively involved, and we would probably have half a dozen there.

So the basic structure is there and within the department we take and move people into the various categories. So if the member says, well, I said there should be three of these in the northeast region, then I apologize. That is not really how it is. We have the provision for that.

There could be six as well, but the structure is there to take and address all the requirements, such as there are at a certain time. I want to repeat again that, for example, along the Assiniboine River during the time of the stress and the flooding that took place, we had lots of people out there. The same thing applies, for example, with the May long weekend when we opened the provincial parks. We had the extreme rowdyism that took place over the many years, and, ultimately, we put in a liquor ban. But we would bring people--we would have an extra 30-40 people that we brought in from across the province where things were quieter. We brought them into the problem spots. We do the same thing with fires; when the fires move from the western side to the eastern side, we move a whole raft of people. We are very fluid and liquid with movement of people to the various responsibilities.

I know the member has a fixation--not fixation. I should not say it that way, but he has the idea that these are all frozen in one spot like that, in one region. That is not the case at all. We have the regions and we have the chain of command that is there, but we could take and bring in--the regional director, by and large, could bring in 10 people, 10 engineers, from wherever if he had the requirement for a certain period of time and be out again in a month's time, or six months or a year.

I am trying to explain and get the member to understand that the department is not that cut-and-dried. The only thing that is cut-and-dried is in my office. I am the minister. I have two executives, and I have three staff people in the office. That is cut-and-dried. That does not change too much, except when the deputy walks in. The deputy has his people. Out in the regions there is so much activity, such a diversified activity that the figures are not always constant out there.

Maybe it would be beneficial if I could take and, for the member's benefit, establish how many people we have working in the department of Water Resources and how many we have in the regions, sort of just to get a bit of a feel for it. It might be helpful for the member so that he can see how many people we have, lest he feel that we only have two or three. We still have lots of people, so I am going to try and gather more information by the time we meet next. If the member then wants to take and ask for additional information, I will take and embellish on that further to that. Maybe that would help solve some of the concerns that he has.

Mr. Struthers: Just to sort of finish off the question I had for the Northeastern Region, the Thompson area. You said there were no water engineers, and I can just take from that that there is no such thing as a water manager there or a water technician?

Mr. Driedger: That is correct, at the present time.

Mr. Struthers: I think, then, what I need to establish is that before this realignment in the Department of Natural Resources in 1990, were there then positions called water manager, water engineer, water technician in each of the regions?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, without going into a tremendous amount of research and work on that, I will try and get a bit of a snapshot as to what circumstances were prior to reorganization so that the member can maybe get a feel for how we--but, as I said, this has happened five years ago. We can see whether--not that it makes much difference, because good, bad or otherwise, the changes have taken place. Basically, I am dealing with what I have now and try and provide the service. If the member wants a case history, I will try and get some of the case history for him, as much as I can, but he cannot even be critical of me, you know. It has been done five years ago, and I do not really care. What I am doing is working with the people that I have and trying to provide a service for the municipalities, but I will try to get some information so that you have a bit of a snapshot.

Mr. Struthers: I will promise not to be too critical. I think that is all the questions I have on Northwest Region.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 12.2, 2. Regional Operations (b) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,935,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $634,700--pass.

2.(c) Northeast Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,937,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $869,700--pass.

2.(d) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,118,500.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I would appreciate a little bit of time on the Central Region, being that it does entertain my constituency of Interlake. A few questions for the minister with regard to water resources in this region and projects--the minister was written by the LGD of Armstrong, requested by the LGD of Armstrong, what the problem was with the Walker Drain licensing approval within that jurisdiction. Can the minister enlighten me?

* (1640)

Mr. Driedger: If I am correct, this is the issue that the member raised with me the other day, about a licence that had not been issued, and, as a result, the municipality could not undertake the drainage under the Infrastructure program. I have not the detailed information, but my understanding is that there are some problems in terms of the complications, if they do that drainage work, of the downstream effect of it, according to the preliminary report I have. I am looking for the detailed report, because there is some concern that the department has attempted to take and issue the licence until there is a clear understanding of what the impact will be downstream from that. I do not have the detailed information on that because I would like to have more specific information as to whom it affects downstream. I have put that request in to the department. I will be expecting an answer shortly.

Mr. Clif Evans: In the letter to the minister from the LGD of Armstrong, again, with respect to a meeting that was held between the minister and the Intermunicipal Drainage Committee on December 12, 1994, speaking to the Reeve yesterday, when he passed this letter on to me, he has indicated that there still has been no response to their request with respect to the concern of Netley Creek. Can the minister enlighten me on that?

Mr. Driedger: I am trying to recall. I understand there was some concern that we had not informed them as to what was happening with Netley Creek. At the time, when we met with the--it was not just the one municipality; it was a group, basically, that came forward and talked about a variety of drainage projects, at which time I had mentioned that it would be in the intention of the government to take and start from the mouth of the Netley Creek and start working back, because there is major--if you do not have the outlet, by and large, and much work has to be done, my understanding is, from our staff people, that we have done design work, that we are ready to do some preliminary work.

Mr. Chairman, without putting things on the record that I would have to retract tomorrow, I would like to ask the member if he would let me just wait with this information tomorrow. I will check my records, because I know I had information on it. I do not have it here, and I do not want to recall off the top of my head, because we have many water projects throughout the province, and I just want to make sure I update myself properly on this particular one.

Knowing the full implications of the Netley project, basically, it is like an octopus. We have the main channel here, and all the municipalities are feeding into it, and we had said that we would--and it is a tremendous cost to do the project, the portion that is our responsibility, and we wanted to move forward with it.

I have to say that I had asked the government, my government to allow us to put more money into water resources and drainage capital programs, because they have approximately 50 megaprojects. What I consider megaprojects are projects that are in excess of a million dollars plus, throughout the province, that are in need of attention, and we have been sort of nickel-and-diming many of these projects. We have done design work. We have done acquisition in some cases and then started piecemeal working at some of these things, trying to spread the few dollars that we have in my capital program for water resources as far as we can. It is not really adequate. I am hoping that I will be more successful in terms of being able to get more money into the capital programs. It has been very frustrating.

During the drought years, the issue was not as dramatic. What has happened in the last two years, all of a sudden we have normal rainfalls, in some cases above-normal rainfalls, and now all those drains that by and large municipalities and, I guess, government allowed to blow in and grow in, all of a sudden are major problems, and we are scrambling to do as much as we can in terms of interim work, but we are really not getting too much done on the major megaprograms.

That is why I would try and have an update for the member by tomorrow on the Netley, to be specific on that. And I will also check why, as the member says, I have not responded, because--maybe I can just clarify that for both members--by and large when requests come in I review them and send them down to staff, as a rule, to ask for clarification and updating and drafting a response, and then I just assume that this automatically will happen. It does not mean that sometimes from time to time something has not dropped in the cracks, and I will just check that out.

Mr. Clif Evans: I want to bring up a concern with the minister and a request through resolution. I would like to put it on record. I am sure, being as busy as we all have been in the last month or two, just to let the minister know that the letter and resolution was only forwarded a month ago, May 15, but it is a concern that the R.M. of Bifrost has brought to the attention of the regional people that the Laufus bridge, in their correspondence to me and the--[interjection] L-a-u-f-u-s, north 35-22-3E over the Icelandic River. They are requesting, of course, that it be replaced as soon as possible. There are road restrictions on that bridge. It is a main transportation route.

Has the minister's department made an effort--what effort have they made to assist the municipality with this request?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, on the specific bridge here, the Laufus stream, the Icelandic bridge and the request to replace it, I might tell the member that I am not belittling the request from his area there, but one of the biggest problems that is being faced by my department as well as the Department of Highways and Transportation is that all the hundreds and actually thousands of bridges that were built at one time, many of them wood structures have come to the point where, because of the increased loads, just by itself the kind of vehicles that are basically using the bridges, many of them are restricted and invariably before they get restricted the heavy loads get on there and help deteriorate the bridges a lot faster than it would have been done at the time when they were built.

The problem that both Highways and myself face is the fact that to replace these structures, whether it is with covered crossings or ford crossings, whatever the case may be, is a very slow process. That is why when, during the time I had the privilege of being the Minister of Highways and Transportation, I developed the bridge program within the department, cost-shared with the municipalities. It started off as a pilot project, I guess. I was very pleased, we managed to do some good projects.

Even in the member's area out there we did that. In fact, I thought we actually opened one together, did we not? One of the pains that happened and some of the revisions that took place within the department, the bridge program and Highways got put on hold. This department here, I am encouraging very strongly that that program should be back on the docket. From our perspective we have so and so much money, not belittling the requests that come in. It is a matter of their prioritizing in terms of economic impact, the life impact on some of the people. We try and set up priorities and move forward as fast as we can.

I have to tell the member that we are losing the war, so to speak. We just cannot catch up fast enough in terms of replacement of structures that are all being limited in terms of access. We try and amalgamate in some cases. People have to travel further distances to get across in certain crossings, whereas we used to have a crossing every mile, half-mile in some cases.

We just have not got enough money to keep replacing them, so we do it on as close as we can to a priority basis to try and deal fairly with people in the various areas. I am just giving the member some background. On this specific one I will have to check exactly to see whether we are in a position to do anything to that and how we will respond to that.

I have to say, though, that I hope that basically our government together with the federal government will ultimately again maybe develop some infrastructure program as we had last year, because many municipalities took advantage of the infrastructure program in terms of updating their own drainage, because now they spend 33-cent dollars in the municipalities instead of taking the whole shot. With the provincial government picking up a third and the feds picking up a third, many municipalities took advantage of it and got a lot of their projects which they would not have done now.

I would like to see this being grouped forward by our government. Of course, you have the other provinces as well, but I think it was a good program where we now have a sharing arrangement and many things that individually we could not do or the feds would not do or the municipalities could not do could now be undertaken.

* (1650)

That would maybe help alleviate some of the pressures that I am facing with the reconstruction of bridges.

Mr. Clif Evans: A project that has been on the books or on the promise or on the maybe or on the we-will-see category perhaps is the Washow Bay drainage program. It was brought up at some debates during our campaign time this previous election and of course in 1990. I was not that much aware of it in 1990, being new to the area, but the previous Minister of Natural Resources, this minister can go back or I can provide him records of Estimates and Question Period asking the minister about the Washow Bay drainage project.

The municipality has it as a priority, Bifrost. Is there something that we can go back to the community and say that, yes, we are going to be doing something in the very near future with the Washow Bay? This is Phase 2. It has been years. I have been promised and so has the municipality that it will be undertaken.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, maybe some of the background, it was not the previous Minister of Natural Resources that basically initiated the Washow Bay project to quite a degree, it was the minister before, namely, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), who was then the Minister of Natural Resources who basically undertook substantive work to some degree at that time. That was at the time too, of course, when there was more money available at that time within the department for capital works under Water Resources.

The project, I am well aware of the project. This is one of the, when I made reference to the 12 to 15 bigger projects that we have outstanding there that we are sort of not paying lip service but very little more than lipservice. In the Washow Bay case I think we are undertaking certain culvert installations. I think we are doing a little bit of further acquisition of right of way.

Again, like I say, I have my list, you know, and I do not want to confuse myself or the member in terms of exactly--but I believe this is the case, along with the other one that he made reference to me, I am going to take and bring him an update on this, because I believe monies were expended.

The frustrating part I find is that by doing it piecemeal like this it will be like the twinning of Highway 75; it will be a 25-year project. That is the way they get some of these things done. I really do not like that. I would rather get one project done and then move onto the next one.

This piecemeal thing is sort of a painful process, both for municipalities as well as myself. I am hopeful that I am still going to be successful for the future, either myself or whoever is going to be in this chair, to take and see whether we can get more money into the capital requirements for these kind of projects because, whether it is the Netley or whether it is the Washow Bay, that is only two in the member's area, and I can go through and probably pick another two in your area that are of major importance.

What is that lake called, the one that we talked about--Dennis Lake, another one there. Now we are up to three major ones within the member's area, and then I think you have some other municipalities that we are talking about, aside from the bridges that the member has.

We are talking of only his riding. I can take him across the province and show him endless ones. For myself it is very discouraging I suppose knowing the kind of things that have to be undertaken out there and how much can you do. Here again I will specifically get the information.

I think we allocated certain funds, but out of the 15 mega, bigger projects that we have--I should not call them megaprojects. They are not really megaprojects, but they are bigger projects within the department, megaprojects I guess. I know that we are addressing some to a small degree, and then the money is gone. Some of them do not even get touched, and that is the frustrating part of it. That is aside from all the structures that are coming at me.

I am sure that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) as well as the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) along the mountain sections there have major concerns with what has happened. What happened is--what is it, two years ago when we had that washout when I was still in Highways? You have a high rainfall up in the hills, the water rushes down, it takes out every crossing that there is. So that takes care of one-year's budget in a heck of a hurry, you know.

This is the difficulty that I have. That is certainly not belittling the fact that there are many, many projects, very worthwhile projects that would be economically beneficial to municipalities and to the constituents that we, I would like to do and cannot do.

I will get him an update as to the amount of monies that are being expended on these two projects.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that response.

In doing some research on the Washow Bay project, I was informed that in fact some years ago--not too many, but some years ago--there were, within the department, monies available for the next phase. Where it went, I do not know.

If that is the case, then what bigger priority--if there was that money available, where did the money go?

Mr. Driedger: That is sort of a vague shot because I cannot justify the decisions that were made, but I believe the member is correct that there was some kind of commitment made in terms of proceeding on a priority basis. Then I believe that, when funding was cut within the department, all of a sudden everything had a different perspective. Now, if there ever was that money on the table for the project or not, I can only go by hearsay. The member is going by hearsay as well, and that will not change anything. If there was money and it is gone, it is gone.

All I can say is that I am receptive to seeing whether we can get more funding and see whether we can get some of these projects moving forward. I do not like to leave them that way. It is a very fertile area out there. It is a progressive area out there, and over the years they have had dramatic flooding situations out there. I think those people are entitled to be given consideration just like anybody else across the province.

That is why I will give him an update because I know, I believe, and I want to confirm that with both the Netley project and the Washow Bay project some monies are being expended. Then I will also give the member the list of the ones outside of this area that are not getting anything just so that you have a sense of fairness here along the line.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I can just relay to the minister that I have been told that same story for four and a half years already--

Mr. Driedger: To me it is sort of new.

Mr. Clif Evans: A new story for this minister, yes, but it is just story No. 1 or story No. 2. I have heard all the stories.

Mr. Driedger: How long have you been here?

Mr. Clif Evans: Four and a half years and asking the same thing. So, yes, I would like to see and appreciate the minister getting back. It is a request from the municipality directly, too. I am just not getting on a pedestal myself and asking to gain points; I am saying that this is a request.

First of all, further down in Estimates under Fisheries, is the minister planning to have staff come in for that area, or can I ask some fishing questions under Central Region?

Mr. Driedger: What staff you see is what I have now and for the rest of the Estimates. You can ask me anything you want. If you want to get into Fisheries, you can go at it right now. This is sort of the way I decided that we would operate. My deputy and my resource person here, Lou Podolsky, director, and if I cannot get the information from these two people who are basically responsible for the money spending end of it, then I will undertake the information to get it back. So you can ask me questions on Fisheries if you want. I assume it has to do with commercial fisheries.

* (1700)

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: For the benefit of committee I would just remind the committee that at the outset of the Estimates we did agree to go line by line rather than to address all the issues. What is the will of the committee?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I know it is going to drive you nuts, but I do not care. I mean, we will deal with it whichever way the critics want. Basically the minister, in my view, is responsible to answer questions, and whether they answer them on line by line or all at one time and pass the whole thing, I do not really care. I will deal with the issues as they bring them forward. So it is up to them how they want to do it.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to proceed in general discussion? Is it the will of the committee to proceed? Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that.

Some years ago, I believe back to '92--it was before this minister's time--there were some situations had occurred on Lake Winnipeg fisheries, some requests made by different area fishermen to test or use smaller-mesh nets during a specific time of the fishing year. Some problems came out of that at that time in '92. The idea of areas of boundaries, it is an ongoing thing. I think the minister has been contacted, this minister has been contacted, and actually I, too when I was Natural Resources critic. I had a lot more information passed on to me, of course.

I would like some clarification from the minister. In '92, the whitefish fisheries situation was in trouble because of the poor, low cost of whitefish. The situation arose, I believe, that at that time--and if I am wrong I stand to be corrected by the minister--there was a quota that the whitefish operators were able to fish pickerel, sauger to a certain limit to offset the low cost of whitefish. Now, we are all aware that the quotas for whitefish are approximately 35,000 pounds.

Can the minister enlighten me? First of all, after the situation in '92 where the costs were so low for whitefish, was there anything put in place to allow the whitefish fisheries to catch more on their quotas than the 5,000 pounds, at that time? Were they allowed to offset, for a year or whatever, the low cost of whitefish? Was that implemented at all?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a bit of a lengthy answer, because this is not a simple problem. The member is well aware of the tremendous amount of history that is involved with the commercial fishery on Lake Winnipeg and the various components that are involved here. The whitefish fishery which basically I think is down to eight or 10 fishermen basically is what they consider the big whitefish fleet that used the five-inch mesh. At the time when the markets went down, it made the request for a short period of time to have the mesh size reduced to four-and-three-quarter inch.

I am just going to go through a little bit of a history here. What happened is that once the whitefish market improved again, the commercial fishermen were loath to go back to the five-inch fishery. We had the Grand Rapids group, when we made the decision last year that we would now go back to the five-inch mesh size, raise concerns that they had invested money into the four-and-three-quarter, that they wanted to continue using it until it was sort of used up, at least another season. So we capitulated and allowed them to do that. This spring, we had the same request saying well, they wanted to still use the four-and-three-quarter ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, and we did that again. Correct? We have allowed them to use the four-and-three-quarter again with ultimately wanted to go back to the five-inch. I say that only as some of the background.

The member is aware of the various fishing groups around the lake that have certain areas whether it is Berens River, whether it is Grand Rapids, whether it is Poplar River, whether it is at Long Point. Over a period of time, if you want to look at the history of Lake Winnipeg and the various elements on there, fishing areas were established for each area so and so many miles this fish zone, so many miles that way. It is the smaller fleets basically that are fishing; they do not get into the big lake that much.

The big fishing fleets say that the smaller operators, the ones that have these limits with three and three-quarter inch--that they are exceeding way past their limit in the area that they have been designated. The people in these designated areas with the three-and-three-quarters say they want to have their limits extended, and that the people that basically are the whitefish fishery, you know, the poundage that they have, are basically catching pickerel and not whitefish.

Accusations are flying a mile a minute, hot and heavy, and requests are coming down to me on an ongoing basis of we want to expand our area for the three-and-three-quarter. Everybody is suspicious of everybody else getting the advantage you see, and I am sitting in the middle here getting a little nervous with this whole thing.

So the decision by and large that I have made, and just within the last two weeks, I guess, that I want to have an impartial review done of the whole lake because I cannot knee jerk and start giving Berens River a further quota or Norway House, who now want to take and have a quota outside of the Playgreen area, and they have some quota there, plus we have allowed the transaction people to sell quotas among themselves.

What has happened is one community buys from the other, and then the rest of them say, well, what about our community? We have sold out. You know, we need more quota now, but they allow it to be sold because it is an individual decision anyway, somewhere along the line, in some cases. Then you have the co-operative element in there that basically says, we need quotas for our area to keep this fish plant going and to keep our people going, you know, we need more quota. In the meantime, the individuals go and sell it to the next community because they get a good buck for it and then come and ask me to produce more fish and more quota.

I am giving this just as a bit of an insight into the problems that I am facing out there with the fishermen. What has happened over the years, as political pressure came down, irrespective of the government of the day or the minister of the day, decisions were made saying, okay, we will allow you to have a three-and-three-quarter-inch fishery here. You go five miles from this point to five miles into here and three miles that way. This is where you can fish, and the spawning rivers, there is a controlled area of about half a mile, a mile, whatever the case may be, where you can fish.

Well, we are to that point now where we have people that want to fish in the spawning rivers, which again creates problems for me because I have a very strong feeling about protecting our spawning rivers. I mean if we do not start looking after protecting the resource, and you know without this being a reflection on the commercial fishermen, but if we do not have some management tools in place, we are going to have that resource depleted and nobody will be able to fish anything.

There has to be some management system set up. I cannot do that on the basis of Norway House coming and saying we need; Berens River saying we want to expand; Grand Rapids saying we need this; at a time when I am starting to work and develop the fish hatcheries throughout the province in conjunction with these fishing groups.

It is always on a share basis that I am setting those up. I think we have got four or five in the mix where we do fish hatcheries. I am very high on this. I think we are trying to tie-in the sports fishing as well as the commercial element of it as it is very successful. I am very high on that, but that is only a drop in the bucket.

* (1710)

If you consider that we allow our spawning rivers to be taken and decimated by people having nets in there during spawning time and taking them not for spawn but supposedly for private use. They have the right to take for sustenance. Unless we all start accepting responsibility, we will deplete the resource, and then there is not going to be a problem anymore.

So I say this is back on; when the member started asking me about commercial fishing and some of the problems with it, I wanted to tell him the problems that I am facing with that, aside from the sport fishery, which I would like to get in somewhere along the line too. If he will ask me a question, I will give him an hour on that one.

Aside from that, there are major problems. This is only Lake Winnipeg we are talking about. Then we have Lake Manitoba that we have to talk about. Then we have to have Lake Winnipegosis, which the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) is going to be excited about the things that happen out there. Then we have the Island Lake people who basically are dealing with FFMC and federal Minister Tobin in terms of being excluded and getting the rights to have representation on FFMC elected and having all the rough fish removed from the FFMC.

Does the member get the idea of what is going on out there? This is why I made a decision that we are going to have an independent study done, and not the long one. I need to know by fall because decisions have to be made. We will make a decision and see whether we can get some rhyme or reason into this thing because I am shadowboxing with every group that comes in that have their own wishes, and nobody trusts each other out there. They do not trust me either. I say that tongue-in-cheek; I do not mean it that way.

No, they come and they have concerns. I cannot deal with it ad hoc. I have my Fisheries people out there that basically give advice, but the feeling from the individuals out there or the groups out there is they hold my people suspect in terms of how decisions get made. So we need to have a different snapshot view of this so that we can deal with not one community at a time, but the general picture in terms of what we do.

That is what I am going to try and accomplish, and we hope to have a system in place very shortly. We will be tendering the project shortly; and, once we have that, a decision will be made, a selection will be made, and terms of reference are going to be outlined.

I would expect that the report should come back to me. This is not a two-year hideaway. This is going to be a movement action in terms of getting results back. We are looking at having results back by fall some time, so decisions can be made because I have put some of these people off, specifically saying, I am going to do this. I have given an indication that we will do an impartial review of it and that I will be able to make decisions by this fall. That is an undertaking.

Having said that, what was the next question?

Mr. Clif Evans: You did not answer the question that I asked, but I thank the minister for some history lesson on it. Even though I may be new to the commercial fishing area, I have spoken and heard a lot in the last five years about commercial fishing from all different people, from all different areas, so I appreciate that.

I asked the minister specifically, and he answered kind of partly. He told me that the whitefish fisheries are still allowed to use four-and three-quarter inch. They are not required to use five-inch. There are no regulations on the five. I also asked the minister that three years ago when the whitefish fisheries were in trouble with finances as far as the price of the whitefish, were they allowed at that time through any ministerial statement or through the Fisheries department or anywhere allowed to fish more than 5,000 pounds of their 35,000 pound quota?

Mr. Driedger: The member is correct correct that when the price for the whitefish market dropped then there was provision made to use four-and-three-quarter instead of the five-inch. The decision as to whether they could take and fill up their quota with a requirement with pickerel was made long, long before that, and that has always been a sensitive issue.

That is why the people in the outlying areas that have fish areas that are fishing with three-and-three-quarter are accusing the whitefish fleet, so to speak, of catching pickerel and not catching the whitefish. This is another part of that whole puzzle and problem that is out there.

But that decision was not made at the time when the reduction in the gill size from five to four-and-three-quarter was made. That decision to allow them to catch pickerel or to fill up their quota with pickerel was made long, long before that, I am told. Possibly my deputy should know, he used to be one of the commercial fishermen out there. It does not make it easy for me to have had a deputy that has been involved in the commercial fishery who believes he knows all the answers, but I do not really necessarily agree. So there is so much history in the whole commercial fishing end of it both on Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba.

The member does not want to talk about Lake Manitoba, not right now, so there is, when I look at the history of it, it is worse than farming; it is worse than supply management in farming. This is really something, so for that reason, rather than stumble into this thing and start making ad hoc decisions, I repeat, we are going to get as much information as we can, hopefully get good recommendations and then make decisions that I think will probably be able to address the concerns of all these people.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister, and please bear with me. From what you are telling me, what I am asking, you are saying to me, and this question and that answer that you gave me has never, ever come up before to me, that the whitefish fleets quotaholders were able to fill their quotas with anything else but whitefish to a 5,000-pound limit. I have never ever, ever heard that from anybody, and I could be wrong. I have not heard from anybody that they, years ago or whatever--I want to just clarify something. I am as concerned about the whitefish fishery and the trouble that they are having with prices and everything else as any other fisherman.

I just want clarification on the rules and the regulations--four-and-three-quarter for how long? Five-inch, when is it coming back, if it is? And really, is it there somewhere that says, 35,000 pounds under your quota, you can catch 35,000 pounds of pickerel, sauger alone to offset, or is it 5,000

Mr. Driedger: Well, the member is correct. I will start back with the mesh size. I gave in again this spring as I did last fall and have allowed them another year to use a four-and-three-quarter-inch mesh, warning that it is going to be five-inch after that. I have capitulated twice. I do not like to do that but they came forward with reasons that basically I thought were relatively sensible and allowed them to do it.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

But after this year, after this fishing season, there is no more four-and-three-quarter. It is back to five-inch. You see, that is what happens when you make an exception to accommodate a situation, then it gets to be the norm, the standard. It is always a sensitive thing and I want to just raise that. It never seems to work out the way you think it will when you take and make the exemption, and this was done prior to my time. Then when you want to change it back to where it was, it is not that simple anymore.

The same thing happened I guess somewhere along the line. Long before my time and I think long before even this government came to power, a decision was made to allow the whitefish fleet to fill their quota with pickerel and sauger if they wanted to.

* (1720

It has always been a very sensitive issue. It is still a sensitive issue out there. They were always known as the big ships or the big boats, the whitefish fleet, because they fished in the middle of the lake because they have the equipment and capacity to do that. But somewhere along the line a decision was made that they could also, instead of whitefish, fill their quota with pickerel and saugers. I am led to understand that there were years when they filled their total quota with pickerel and sauger and not with whitefish.

That is a real dicy, sensitive issue out there. I could suggest to the member that if he ever wants to get into the middle of a big rhubarb and fight, visit an establishment where people have entertainment and relax from time to time and start talking about five-inch versus four-and-three-quarters, and talk about three-and-three-quarters and who is doing what out there. I mean, that would be the fastest way to have the entertainment of the night going on. Those are the sensitive issues that are out there. You can listen to every side of the story, and you get more confused the more you listen.

That is why I do not think the member has any solutions for me at this point. I am desperately trying to get some support in terms of getting a study done to get some information so that proper decisions can be made. I am not even sure whether we can necessarily, by the time we get around to having that information and make decisions, make everybody happy either, but I would like to think that ultimately when we have the information, we will make the decision based on what is good for the resource, the fish resource and for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Clif Evans: The minister indicated that the allowable filling of the quota for whitefish, the quota holders, has always been that they were allowed to fill their quota.

Mr. Driedger: Let that member not put the wrong information on. I said there was a decision made quite some time ago previously to allow that. It was not always there. It used to be a whitefish quota that they had. Then some time ago there was a decision made to allow them to fill it, a portion of it initially, with a percentage initially with pickerel and saugers. Then ultimately the limit was removed and they caught whatever they dang well wanted. That is a sensitive issue out there, because it was supposed to be when they were out with their nets fishing the whitefish, they caught a certain amount of pickerel and sauger, so they were allowed a percentage. I do not know all the details. They were allowed some of it. Then ultimately a decision was made that they could catch it all in pickerel and sauger. And it has happened apparently, I am told. I do not know, but it has happened. No, it was not always there. There were definitely different rules at one time, and then the rules were changed.

Mr. Clif Evans: That is why I was asking, because the minister, if he looks back on Hansard he will read, I think, the way he said it was that is has always been. But no, and I can appreciate that. I am going to plead not knowing this for sure. I do not recall previous to '92 anybody making mention to me that that could actually be. Five thousand is something that I have always heard, and it was asked perhaps to be increased because of the very poor price of the whitefish. Our whitefish fishermen, some of them have had to sell off because of the price of whitefish. I have not heard that, and I appreciate the minister letting me know. I want to clarify those issues.

Mr. Driedger: I will get the date as to when that change took place. It was prior to 1992. I can assure him of that, because history itself dictates that it was a long time before that. Maybe the member did not get that information because this minister tells it all. It is a very sensitive issue. I am not prepared to skate around it. I am prepared to face it head-on somewhere down the line and try to see whether we can get it resolved.

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the chair

Mr. Clif Evans: I just want to let the minister know that I have these concerns brought to me. The communities that are involved in my constituency really depend an awful lot on commercial fishing. Unfortunately, at times when I am asked to go out with some of the fishermen, for them to show me that in certain areas in the south basin there is nothing. They are pulling their nets with nothing. There is a concern. In the north basin in some areas there is decent fishing and the fishermen themselves are saying to me that we want to get some co-management together. We want to work together to sustain the fishing industry in Lake Winnipeg.

I get calls, I get stories. People talk to me all the time. I, too, would like a solution to this because it is too important. Specifically it is too important in the areas that--I will tell the minister, last week I had six calls telling me that the skiff fishermen were leaving the south basin, the northern part of the south basin, leaving because there was nothing, no fish. So there has to be some sort of control, I agree, but there has to be some co-operation. We have to involve the fishermen with a solution.

Mr. Driedger: That is why I think I want to just assure the member that once we have established who will do the review and set out the terms of reference that a review will include consultation with fishermen. I can tell you, anyone who is going to undertake this project is going to get a variety of versions and stories thrown at them, because it is a very complex and difficult situation. If it was easy, somebody in this department would have already made that decision and made it happen. It is not that simple anymore.

That is why it comes back to the point that I was making earlier on that ultimately when we have the information, we will make decisions that we feel are going to be important to make sure that the resource stays healthy, because there is no sense in having a bunch of commercial fishermen flying around the lake with nets in the water and not pulling up any dang fish. We have to make sure that we have that resource that we try and protect it to some degree so that people who basically rely on that to make their living that the opportunity is there.

I do not want to end up with the reputation of being the minister responsible when they finally caught the last pickerel out of Lake Winnipeg. I am overexaggerating, but you look at what happened to Lake Winnipegosis. That basically destroyed the whole commercial fishing concept out there, the way of life for very many people. We will try and see what we can do with the review, and if we can get the information together we will make some decisions. Like I say, it might not please everybody, but hopefully the decisions that are going to be made are going to be made in terms of sustaining the resource and good decisions for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Clif Evans: In closing, I thank the minister for allowing me to clarify these issues, not only for my benefit but for others who have asked. I think the minister has to appreciate, and again I could be wrong. I was wrong back '68, I think, once before, but I would like to say that--and this is being biased--my area is so important to commercial fishing and not only the whitefish quotaholders, the skiff, the co-ops that are on my side of the constituency of the lake and, of course, for the other areas. I would like to see the industry continue to strive and I would like to see all types of commercial fishing do the best that they possibly can without any problems and without any further problems.

* (1730)

I just want to thank the minister for taking on to meet with the IRTC people, the Lake St. Martin. They called me today to let me know that they are meeting with you next week. Am I correct in that? I just want to thank the minister for taking the time to do that.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, today in the morning it was the intention to proceed with setting up a meeting with the Lake St. Martin fishermen group. We are having some complications that are developing, and we are not sure whether that meeting will take place or not. I will have a better idea in a day or so as to whether we continue with that issue, other complications that have developed dealing with other issues with the group. So, I do not want to leave it on the record that the meeting is definitely on, it probably could not be on.

I just wanted to add something for the member for Lakeside.

An Honourable Member: Interlake. I am a lot younger.

Mr. Driedger: Interlake. Yes, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is better looking, too.

I just wanted to make reference to the Icelandic River fish hatchery that we basically have set up there between the Gimli-Riverton commercial fishermen and the Gimli District game and fish association, where we have the fisheries enhancement initiative, put in $25,000 for the fish hatchery and the fish enhancement thing, and basically 350,000 eggs were collected and fertilized and 200,000 fry stocked in the Icelandic River. So these are the kinds of things that--but that in itself was only a drop in the bucket from my perspective. By and large we have to still protect our spawning rivers and we have to protect the taking of the resource in such a way that there is going to be sustainability in it.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, yes, I am well aware of the hatchery, of course. The minister is not going to try and get something by me that I was not aware of when it comes from my constituency. The minister knows since he became minister, and the previous minister, that I am fully supportive of fish hatcheries. There are other areas in my constituency that have been requesting fish hatcheries and a process to be put in place in their areas. I will be dealing with that on an individual basis with the minister as I have previously.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I want to make sure I understand what the undertakings were of the minister earlier in our conversation regarding the different positions in each of the regions. For when we next meet, which will be tomorrow, I can look forward to some information on numbers of managers or technicians or engineers from each of the regions from 1989 and the total number for 1995 in each of the regions? Is that possible?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify. We are going to try to put together as much information as we can. I cannot assure the member, because we are sitting at ten o'clock tomorrow morning again, and most of the staff, basically, have taken off. That makes it very difficult to make a commitment that we will have it here by tomorrow morning. I will give the undertaking that we will try and have that information maybe by the afternoon session or as soon as we can. I cannot expect, especially if we sit here until six o'clock, that these people go back there and spend the next four hours doing that. We will try. I will give the undertaking that we have the specifics that we have interpreted, and we will get the information back to him. Okay?

Mr. Struthers: I do not intend to make it a give-me-the-stuff-now kind of a request. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on what information it was that I was receiving. The other thing that I would like to ask about, in each of these regions are there forestry managers, forestry engineers, and forestry technicians?

Mr. Driedger: Most definitely, forestry people, forestry and wildlife people. I will try, Mr. Chairman, to sort of give a bit of an umbrella picture of what we have in each of the regions so that member has a bit of a comfort level as to how we cover that. I think we can do that, if he allows us a little bit of time to do that. We have a lot of employees, but I am going to see whether we can give him sort of a comfort level in terms of the umbrella organizations within each of the regions. It varies, depending on what we have in that region.

Mr. Struthers: I understand, then, that there are the same positions in Wildlife, in that department, as there are in Fisheries and as there were in water: the engineers, managers and technicians.

Mr. Driedger: I am going to try and save some time for the member and myself in terms of, rather than belabouring it, not belittling it, but if I maybe do a bit of a structure. We did the organizational chart in front; I will try to do something on that basis for the regions, so that he has a bit of a comfort level how this system works within there. Then we can maybe go back and see whether there is other information that he needs. If that is acceptable, then we can save some time, and just because we pass this does not mean that we cannot go back to it. The member knows I do not operate that way.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, thanks, and would you include Fisheries in that as well, for each of the regions?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to member, that is why I say, I want to sort of try and give you a bit of an umbrella comfort as to how each of the regional districts is structured so that you have an understanding basically what is happening within them. Then, if he has more questions, we will deal with it from there.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I do have a couple of questions for the Minister of Natural Resources. This question I initially asked, I believe, was in the summer of 1994 on a call I received from the Berens River fisherpersons. They did have some concerns about boundaries and things of that nature. I am wondering, as the minister indicated to me in the House, that he would undertake to have that meeting with the Berens River fisherpersons, if that meeting was ever undertaken, if it ever happened and what the result was of that meeting.

Mr. Driedger: No, I have not met with the Berens River--it is Berens River the member is referring to, right? I just went through extensively with the member for Interlake clarifying the difficulties and the requests I have from people all around Lake Winnipeg, various groups besides Berens River. There is Norway House, there is Grand Rapids, there is Dauphin River, Poplar River. Each one of these groups basically that has a designated area has been getting in touch and asking to have the area expand, to have the quotas expanded. On top of that, I made reference to the fact that we have the whitefish fishing fleet that basically is another component of the whole lake there.

I told the committee just a little while ago that instead of dealing with each individual group and community at this point in time in a knee-jerk reaction because of not knowing fully the implications of it, it is my intention within the next two weeks to tender for an independent consultant to take and do a total review of the whole Lake Winnipeg issue, including the whitefish fishery, the boundaries, the three-and-three-quarter-inch, the five-inch, the four-and-three-quarter-inch mesh. We need to get all the information together so that by this fall--I made a commitment that I will be making decisions in this department by fall. So it is not going to be a long undertaking.

* (1740)

We are going to do the tendering now. Within two weeks, we hope to have established and selected a group or individual that is going to do the study and gathering of information. They will go out. It would be my expectation under the terms of reference that they will go and make contact with each of the groups, independent fishermen groups, et cetera, come back with recommendations, so that we can ultimately make decisions.

I made the statement before, and I will repeat. If the member wants to, maybe by tomorrow in the Hansard he can get a better comfort level of it, because I went into it quite extensively. Ultimately, when we have the information, we would make decisions that I think would be--possibly not everybody is going to like them, but I would hope that they would be made on the basis of sustaining the resource, protecting the resource so that those people who are dependent on making their living from commercial fishing or a good portion of their living from commercial fishing, then we can take and sustain that for the future.

So I am not trying to take away from the question that the member raised, but we just finished going through this. I can repeat detail if he wants, or he can wait until tomorrow. I am prepared to cover it later on after he has read it and has further questions on it. But I am trying not to meet with the individual groups at this point, because even the Lake St. Martin group wants to meet with me and deal with the commercial fishery, and that is on Lake Winnipeg as well. There are so many components to it, and there is always that suspicion that if I meet with one group and do not meet with them all, what commitments have I made? So I am hesitant to start meeting with them individually until I have more information, and then maybe we can see whether we can come to some logical conclusion with this.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, I do look forward to reading the Hansard and coming to my own conclusions about what the minister is telling us in committee this afternoon. There are a couple of possibilities I would like to recommend, and that is to convene. Since the fishermen in the Lake Winnipeg are organized within their communities, I would recommend the minister consider perhaps convening a meeting of all those groups and perhaps talk about the different possibilities, the different limitations that he has as minister in charge of this particular department.

There are a couple of issues that are very pressing upon me to raise with the minister, and I believe we communicated it with a letter a very short while ago concerning Mr. John Guimond from the Sagkeeng First Nation. Now, he did not renew his commercial fishing licence for a number of years, and we had a problem there with two John Guimonds. As it turned out both John Guimonds--one was John George Guimond, the other was John Baptiste Guimond--did not renew, I believe, dating back to the '60s or early '70s. Now what method is available, and being that the John B. Guimond that I wrote on behalf of considers fishing to be an aboriginal right, a treaty right and fully his right to exercise his rights based on Treaty No. 1 and sustain a living by utilizing the fishing industry. What are avenues that are open to him to obtain what basically is a treaty right, and that being in the form of a licence for him to embark upon commercial fishing?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this is a pretty sensitive and tough issue. It has been out there for a long time, and, of course, the individual is entitled to the subsistence fishing that he needs for his own sustenance, but for a commercial licence, to continue to have a commercial licence, I am advised that the decision long ago was made that both licences were terminated at that time. I believe both of them. Whether we can turn around and renew it, the only thing that I would want to say to the member at this time is that I will get myself further updated on it without making a commitment that I can resolve it to his satisfaction or the gentleman involved with the licence.

I will have a look at it and, because of the history involved and the long period of time, of course, the value that is involved with quota at the present time. And I do not know what the history basically has been in terms of why the licences were not renewed, whether it was poor prices, were there no fish or other circumstances that had a bearing on it, and why whoever was the authority at that time made the decision not to renew either one of the commercial licences. Whether we can do a corrective measure after 30-some-odd years in that area, I do not know.

I would have to have a comfort level because, without getting into the details at this point, I want to tell the member that I assume that probably if there was a way to do a corrective measure here that we might have many, many claims come forward that felt there had been an unjust decision made somewhere along the line. By giving consideration--I am not saying that I am not--I am just saying that I want to look at it, but I would hate to have to deal with about 50 different cases that said an injustice was done by somebody making a decision long prior to our time and now correct it. Because if you do it for one, you almost have to do it for others. I am not belittling that. I am going to have a look at that, and if I do not in committee, I will take and respond to the member for Rupertsland directly.

Mr. Robinson: I do look forward to that response from the minister. One thing that we should take into consideration that there is often a language barrier with aboriginal people, particularly people that utilize the fishing industry as a way of life, and many times there have been gaps in the communication between the various levels of government and aboriginal people. Aboriginal people, for the most part, including myself, English is not a first language to myself so there are times in the past that there has been miscommunication with people and, particularly, on matters like this. So I do look forward to the minister's response to my inquiry.

Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if I may have leave to go back to one quick question on the northeast matter that, I understand, you just concluded.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is there leave to revert back?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: It is agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Robinson: This relates with the situation in the Island Lake communities. I believe that we are all aware of the four communities there--Red Sucker Lake, St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack and Garden Hill, of their intentions to opt out of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In the meantime, we are faced with a situation where the industry is not being utilized in that area. I think that we have talked about it in the House, and we have talked about it this committee prior, about what happens to the so-called rough fish that aboriginal people and fishermen cannot find a market for. Of course I think that we all know the story of the Island Lake fishermen and the kind of markets that they would like and the potential they see and what they feel they could acquire by finding markets for not only rough fish but also the fish that is wanted the most at the current time.

With that in mind, I am wondering what dialogue the minister has had with the Island Lake fishermen with respect to the current state of affairs, with respect to this sort of impasse that we are experiencing with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation up in the air with particularly the Island Lake fishermen.

Mr. Driedger: I thank the member for raising that issue. I want to tell him that I had the occasion quite some time ago, a long time ago, basically when some of this activity started, to meet with some of the representatives from Island Lake who expressed to me the concern that they wanted to take and be exempted from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and whether I would be supportive of them and their request.

* (1750)

This was early last fall, I believe, when we started some of the conversations at the time I met with them. It was prior to the ministers' meeting that was held in Victoria with Minister Tobin, and I told him at that time that I would be taking the issue forward with the federal minister. In the meantime, I think some representatives met with the federal minister raising the concerns with him as well. Subsequent to that I also spoke with the federal minister and said I had no objection that it could be supportable. That was in the initial stages.

What happened since that time, the federal minister appointed a commission of some kind to do a review. I felt a little sensitive, because the people that basically the federal minister appointed, there was not one from Manitoba. It was people from all other provinces except Manitoba who came out and made some recommendations. Basically the major recommendation was the abolishment of the Freshwater Fish Corporation, which created all kinds of anxiety and concerns with many of the commercial fishermen who strongly believe that they need that marketing system in place.

Subsequent to that, I think various representations have been made to the federal minister, and in my latest conversation with him, because I believe he was prepared to make a statement in the House and make some decisions--and there was three points basically that my staff brought forward to me that we thought the decision was going to be made on and that I had conversations with Tobin on the issue, one, that the four communities that the member for Rupertsland mentioned were going to be exempted out of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. One of the requests that meant to include another group around Pukatawagan, that federal minister apparently is not receptive to, but he was receptive to taking and exempting these four communities, and that was totally out of the question for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, that they could set up their own marketing whether it was pickerel, jack, whitefish or rough fish, and they could run competition to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Obviously the corporation has not done a very--I want to be careful--but they have not been able to provide the service for the people in those communities that they would have expected. It is my understanding that a plant has been built, or is in the process of being built, a fish processing plant, that they want to move on with this.

The second point that the federal minister was going to move on was the exemption of all rough fish for the rest of Manitoba from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation because for years there have been efforts made to see whether we could establish some kind of market. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has never established a rough fish market. There have always been all kinds of suggestions, talk, and people interested, saying: We can make a living from this; it is a good investment; we are throwing all these rough fish away. The member full well knows this story. So my understanding was that the second point was that all rough fish would be exempted. They would be itemized as to ones that were on there.

The third point that the federal minister was going to address was the allowing of elected representatives on the board, designating certain areas, and they would be electing their own people.

Those are the three points, it was my understanding, that the federal minister was going to announce, and that this was going to be done on a three-year trial basis. My understanding is that the announcement has been made. I just want to tell the member that I had no difficulty in supporting the position basically that the communities and the groups asked me to support. Those were the three points. In fact, I did not even have a major concern whether Pukatawagan was going to be exempted or not, because this is another area where they have not been able to get the real benefits from the corporation.

These are the three that the federal minister's staff told my staff. I talked with him on the phone and concurred. One thing I did ask when I talked with him was to get a precise definition of the area that would be exempt around the Island Lake's four communities. I do not know whether to date we have a definitive description as to exactly what that includes, because some lakes basically were commercial fishing lakes at one time. There are some that are sport fishing lakes with lodges on them. I do not know exactly the definition of that, and I had asked him to forward that to me. We traded some calls. I do not know whether that has come forward to us at this time. I am still hoping to be able to have that to get a definitive idea as to exactly what area is exempted for the four communities.

Mr. Robinson: I did not want to take up as much time as I did from my colleague from Dauphin, but these are, indeed, concerns that are expressed to me regularly by the constituents that I serve as well. I think that this is a very important movement, in the Island Lake area particularly.

There are a number of elements that lead us to the situation we find ourselves in. First of all, the elimination of the freight subsidy by the federal government, namely the Department of Indian Affairs, and, of course, the cuts on the freight subsidy by this government a couple of years ago with respect to subsidizing the costs of freight, therefore not making it viable to consider fishing as a way of making a livelihood in many northern communities.

I would just like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairperson, if the minister would be kind enough to keep us abreast of any further dialogue that may be occurring between the federal minister, his federal counterpart, and the fishermen in the Island Lake region on this issue that seems to be still in a slow way resolving itself.

Mr. Driedger: I just want to tell the member that if there has been any tardiness or lack of action, it certainly has not been because of my position or my department's position. I have given the indication very early on that I was supportive of their position with that and have been encouraging the federal minister to move as fast as he can. There was a fair amount of confusion out there and I know that the people from the poor communities by and large have been impatiently waiting, and I do not criticize. I feel they have a reason to sort of feel that things should have moved a little faster. Hopefully it still moves ahead. I do not know whether any fishing will take place this year but at least maybe the system can move ahead.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, I believe that my remarks were on those matters that relate to this government for which the minister is responsible. There is no doubt in the future there are going to be issues that will arise from the Island Lake area. Not only that, Lake Winnipeg and all other areas of Manitoba, the province will be asked to take a certain position on or express a certain view on a certain matter. I believe that was where my remarks were geared towards, that the minister would kindly keep us updated. I think we would be very appreciative of that.

Mr. Driedger: Aside from the issues that I made reference to on Lake Winnipeg, you know, the problems that are facing us with the communities, it would be my intention once we have information to look for support and share this information before decisions get made in terms of the impact it will have. It might not be positive for everybody. When in trouble I always like to have a lot of people around to hug, come with me. So I might be asking the member to be a part of that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 12, 2. Regional Operations (d) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,118,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,536,100--pass.

2.(e) Eastern Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,099,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $852,000--pass.

2.(f) Western Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,236,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,440,200--pass.

2.(g) Fire Program (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,674,300.

Mr. Struthers: I am wondering, I have a whole raft of questions on the fire program, given what is happening around the province these days, and it is pretty close to six. Should we start with it?

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being six o'clock, the committee will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning (Thursday). Committee recess.