NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon, would the Committee of Supply come to order please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Would the minister's staff enter the Chamber at this time. Thank you.

We were on Resolution 12.3 (f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $283,700.

* (1450)

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I know I am not exactly on the same line item as perhaps I should be, but I am wondering if the minister would entertain a few questions that came to mind.

Actually this weekend I had office hours in Flin Flon this Saturday. A very distraught constituent came up to me. His concern was that he has licence to fish-farm three small lakes around Flin Flon. He has access to the two smaller lakes. There is another, a third lake that has road access, but he is denied road access because the mine was once owned by Granges Exploration Limited, I believe is the name of the outfit. The mine is now defunct, but the road is still there, I believe some 14 kilometres. Now this little lake is four kilometres up that road, but there is a gate there. Despite this gentleman's best efforts since last December, he cannot get permission for a key to that gate, yet his fish have to be in the lake early in May. I do not know who to turn to, but I am just asking for some information from the minister what would be the best way to resolve this problem.

Mr. Chairperson: Seeing as we have already passed the Fisheries line, is there leave of the committee to revert to some portion of Fisheries, so the honourable member can ask these questions? Leave? [agreed]

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, I think the best thing to do is--

Mr. Chairperson: Do you have the minister's mike on? He is not sitting at his seat, eh. He is sitting at Mr. Downey's seat.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the best way to approach this probably is that we should get the details and review the situation. I know that very often remote access roads are closed in order to maintain or keep a certain level of remoteness to an area if it is not to be readily accessed for hunting and some other activities that may have been opened up when a resource road was first put in, but I have no idea if that is the situation in this case.

Mr. Jennissen: I do not believe it is the situation. I think what is happening here is, and I am guessing a little bit, that the mine, which is no longer operational, is perhaps worried about liability, people using that road and perhaps getting hurt on mine property. However, some people do have a key to this gate, and there is one person in Flin Flon who has been designated by the former Granges Exploration Company. I think it is now called Vista Gold because the former company has been taken over or has amalgamated. Anyway, one person does have access to this key. He has given this key or similar keys to at least several cottagers and one trapper but not all cottagers have a key. This gentleman, who has the licence to put fish in the lake, cannot get access to the key no matter how he has begged and how he has phoned, and he is very frustrated because those fish are coming in early May.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Cummings: Again, I am convinced that we will need to get further detail. It does sound like the member is describing what may be a correct situation. It might even be a lease involved in some respects, so if he could give us as much information as he can, and we will pursue it.

Mr. Jennissen: I will indeed do that, Mr. Minister. I just want to impress upon everyone though that there is a very tight time line here. That lake is open early May, those fish have to be in there early May, and this gentleman has been trying to reach the people responsible in Denver, Colorado, since December. They are not returning the phone call. They did not return my phone call this morning either. I finally did get a hold of him this afternoon, and it is sort of, well, wait till the manager comes back, which has been sort of the standard story since last December. So this gentleman with the fish is obviously somewhat irritated and would like a speedy resolution to this, but I will provide the information to the minister, and I hope the minister will help us perhaps lean on the right people.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chair, I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to give this member leave to revert to Central Region and different departments that I may make some points with fishing and drainage, et cetera.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there leave of the committee to revert? [agreed]

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, I thank the minister. I just want to touch on a few things, some of the issues in the Interlake region and the central region have been discussed with the previous ministers over the past seven years, but I would like to just discuss a few of the same issues with the now minister and ask, first of all, what his department has, if not decided yet, are they going to decide on whether they are going to go ahead with the Washow Bay system and onto the next phase for the Washow Bay area.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, this was obviously an old and ongoing concern about whether or not there is enough capital being prioritized to meet the needs of this project. There have been some discussions with the council in that area. There was an acquisition for 3.5 miles of terrain back in 1990-91 acquisition of right-of-way, and there have not been major capital allocated however. It is our hope that there may be some portions of it that we could provide some relief, but it has not been elevated to a high priority at this time.

Mr. Clif Evans: I want to thank the minister for that. The Washow Bay area--and I could be wrong--but part of the Washow Bay system is south of the proposed and future development for peat moss, I believe. I would certainly hope that with the potential in the future ongoing discussions with the peat moss companies that hope to establish there, we could, if it ties in at all, assist with the drainage that is going to be needed and that hopefully the Washow Bay system will be able to provide a better opportunity.

I am certainly hoping that the department looks very favourably at going along with the next phase as possible and hopefully enhance that economic push for the peat moss operation. Drainage as a whole--and I know drainage is a problem throughout many areas of Manitoba and with the water that we are having now--but over the past quite a few years the provincial drainage system within the Interlake area and within central region, we have had a lot of problems with it. There have been communities, people, councillors who have indicated that there has to be some ongoing maintenance work being done on our provincial drainage systems. There are a few drains right now that do need the work.

* (1500)

One of the problems that I was faced with a few years back when questioning the previous minister was the fact that they wanted to establish a better system with the Netley Creek system. They had indicated to this member and to the House that they were going to begin work on the Netley Creek system from Lake Winnipeg. The Netley Creek drainage system would alleviate a tremendous amount of water in the R.M. of Armstrong through that whole system. Councillors and people are being told that a lot of work cannot be done in that area because Netley Creek cannot handle it. Then we are being told that Netley Creek was going to be enhanced and improved and that the work would start. I believe if I remember correctly, and the minister can correct me, that the work was supposed to have been started either the summer of '93 or the summer of '94.

Can the minister enlighten me on where that drainage system and the upgrading of that is?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, we do intend to do some work starting on the area closer to the lake, obviously, and work up. That project is going to consume a lot of money, but we have made a commitment to do some work this year.

Mr. Clif Evans: I am pleased to hear that. I believe the minister can enlighten me that it was supposed to be approximately a $2-million project, $2-million to $3-million project from start to finish, but having said that, whatever cost it is, I can assure the minister that that area that would drain into Netley Creek would save the communities and the people in that area a lot of money over the long run if that drain can be improved to the point where we can drain more water into that system.

I am glad to hear that it is going to start this summer or this spring. I think, seeing what we have seen in the last couple of years with the unfortunate moisture conditions we have had, there have been people who have suffered extremely. Even before the moisture content we have had in the last three years, the situation in that area is very, very bad, and it is very serious when there is any moisture whatsoever, so just to discuss it with the minister and to say I am pleased that we are going with that, and hopefully it will be quick enough. I hope it is past the stage already of planning and into the stage of construction, if you want to call it that.

Mr. Cummings: I am told that there will be work done this summer. It will not just be paperwork.

Mr. Clif Evans: On a topic of drainage or of flooding, Mr. Chairman, the last couple of years the department has had different areas as offices in targeted areas for flooding that people can communicate with. I asked the former minister why, understanding it in one way, but having seen what has occurred in the Interlake area around and between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg, why we might not be able to set up such a communications office and a flood assistance office, say, in the community of Ashern. I know that the other areas are going to be in dire straits, but so are we in that area, and I do not think it would be a problem to put one in there.

Mr. Cummings: I suppose there are opportunities to put in place more offices. We zeroed in largely on the main rivers. Is the member saying that there is difficulty in co-ordination or getting information? Perhaps that is something that we can review. We zeroed in on the areas where we thought the highest level of need would be.

Mr. Clif Evans: I do not know how much of a difficulty it would create by not having such an office there. I believe after seeing for the last couple of years, and also with the Fairford dam area, and I understand there is work that has to be done on the Fairford dam this year, I hope, but I believe that in seeing what I have seen in the last two years that it is a major flood area, as are other portions of Manitoba. I think it would be a plus for the area to have such an office there so that they can co-ordinate the problems and deal with the problems as they come. I am sure they are going to be coming pretty soon.

I realize the department and the people out there work pretty diligently as far as trying to keep up with the whole situation there on Lake Manitoba and the Fairford River and the Dauphin River and Lake Winnipeg, just as an extra mind-thought to have something like that in that area so that it will be more readily available.

Mr. Cummings: I will certainly take that under advisement. I would suggest that, tongue in cheek, we are trying to co-ordinate the solutions not the problems, but certainly we want to make sure that where possible we can be of assistance. That is chronically a high-water area in that part of the province, there is no question about that.

Mr. Clif Evans: I have had many discussions over the past many years about the fishing situation. As the minister is well aware, he has had meetings with different fishing organizations, different fishing groups in different areas, organizations who have brought their issues to him and to the previous minister, and there is still a lot of concern, there is still a lot of uncertainty as to just exactly where the fishing industry is going. In some areas there do not seem to be problems, in other areas there are.

I know that certainly one of the messages I have heard from the fishermen is that cutting quotas is not the answer to the future of the fishermen. Some have told me that they are going to quit fishing altogether because they just cannot make a go of that. They do not believe that that is the answer, what the answer is. We have heard many times different requests about boundary changes, the issue on mesh size.

* (1510)

Another issue that has been brought to my attention, and it was dealt with by the former minister, that fishermen are telling me that there is a fair amount of fish being sold throughout the whole area without going through the quota. The previous minister, I believe, and I only go by what I am being told, had promised fishermen that the department would upgrade its investigation units to be more forceful, I guess, in checking on some of the alleged black market sale. He told the people from one area that that was going to be beefed up as far as checks. Now, I know that on the west side they have the black lab that is in place--I forget his name--but the fishing industry itself as a whole is concerned, and these are fishermen who do not want to see the fishing industry go down the drain, want to see it enhanced.

Has the minister's department done any study or anything to go along with what the previous minister said about that?

Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is an obvious long-term issue in the fisheries, not just in Lake Winnipeg but in Manitoba and Winnipegosis as well, Winnipegosis particularly, but one of the concerns that the member raises is quite legitimate about information and feedback from the people in the fishery.

I have held meetings since coming to this office, I believe with representatives of all of the areas, with those who are more or less formally recognized as representing their communities and various basins within the Lake Winnipeg fishery, and everybody has an opinion, that is for sure, and probably with a greater or lesser degree of correctness with them all, but, nevertheless, they are probably all valid in their own right. What we have to do is make sure that we ultimately bring some balance and a sustainable approach to the fishery.

The member indicates that there are people on the lake who are saying that they are not able to survive. I do not know whether he was meaning they are not able to survive because of the restrictions that we are putting on the fishery or because they acknowledge that there is a problem with the fishery. There are two schools of thought that come through the door on that very item. There are those who say I am a good fisherman; I can catch my limit; leave me alone. There are others who say he is catching his limit; he is not leaving enough for me; you have to cut him back, and it is the guy from the south basin who is coming up and taking all the fish out of the north basin, and it is the guy in the narrows who cannot get access to what he sees in one of the other basins and so on. I am speaking in generic terms, but the member is well aware that those are the types of issues that have been raised.

I want to go on record that we will very soon have to put to rest all of the concerns that have been raised and make announcements about what will occur for fishing opportunity this summer, but in that context, I did say to the various groups that came through the door that I was willing to look at different ways of managing quotas, that when you reduce a quota too often what has happened is that is seen as taking away an opportunity from someone permanently.

Now, if you buy the quota, of course, then you are, but there may be other ways of looking at the quotas as well, where a reduction does not mean that that particular quota allocation is gone forever. We see that all the time in agricultural production. I do not know why it would not apply with some possibility in this area of endeavour as well, but there is the question of boundaries around the communities. I do not think it hurts to put on the record that I suppose it is fair to say they were put there in the first place to protect the communities, and now they would like them expanded but with the same protection. That is not unanimous, but those are some of the views that are out there. There is also an opportunity to look at other ways of improving the hatchery. Maybe it is the farmer in me, but I wonder about better control on the starting of the seasons to protect the spawners. I do not think there is an argument that can assail that type of thinking, so I guess I am flagging for the member opposite that in a general sense that is how I look at this issue.

We have to look at habitat, as well. We do have to look at the total fishing pressure, but, in fact, there are a lot of people out there who are not fishing now. He is right. There are some, however, who transfer their quotas to others who then end up filling them, and it creates a situation where there are people who no doubt would like to be bought out, to be frank about it.

We have, in fact, contacted federal authorities to see if they might be willing to provide some relief in that respect in terms of economic development, using that as some leverage to provide alternative sources of income for some of the areas, but I think the member opposite on that line would have to agree that there are some of these communities which are relatively remote. What are their alternatives for economic activity? Fishing, lumber, some hunting and other traditional areas of endeavour. They do not have a high level of alternatives, but there may be some things that can be developed.

There is a variety of theories on mesh size. I, personally, coming from having constituents along Lake Manitoba, believe we need to keep the perch down which probably means that there is in that lake--and I guess it is less relevant for Lake Winnipeg--good reason to look at various mesh sizes, but that creates a battle in its own right.

The real fundamental problem we have is the habitat being impacted, and, No. 2, the valuable species are--there is quite a range between the value of the species, and the valuable species are the ones that are being pressured, the pickerel and sauger. If you try to protect them and cut back people's opportunity to catch them, of course they are very angry unless you have a plan.

So that speaks to where I hope we will be able to take the fishery in a number of areas, and that is to have a broad agreement on a sustainable development plan for the lake among the users of the lake. Now, that in the first instance means the commercial fishery in the context of which this question was raised, but there are lots of other interests that also want to have a say about the future of the lake.

In terms of enforcement, I did give my commitment that if enforcement was as lax as some of them were claiming, that we probably could deal with that. Others within the fishery will tell me that there is not an enforcement problem, that there is not as big a black market as is occasionally suggested. I will have to reserve judgment on that because we will only know otherwise if we are able to prove what is going into the, quote, black market, or the direct sales.

But remember, we are probably in tough over the long haul because of competition from the Great Lakes, and right now, I am told, the competition, would you believe, from Alaska is enormous and is driving down the price of the fish that would compete for the market that our pickerel are being produced for. So that was my general thought on the problems we are going to have to deal with in the fishery.

On the enforcement side, the member did mention that we had a dog available now. We also have spot checks and road blocks that are used from time to time to determine if there is very much fish moving that is not going under the auspices of the Freshwater Fish or being properly permitted. I know that people are saying it does not really pay anymore to run your own fish shed given the prices. The member may have another view.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments. I guess I would also say to him that with the commercial fishing industry being so dominant in my area I would like to see something done and some sort of co-operation, co-ordination, to be able to maintain the commercial fishing industry. I understand that the competition and the prices are also creating a lot of problems for our commercial fishermen in our areas, but one of the other suggestions is a comprehensive plan, review, to have fish hatcheries implemented.

* (1520)

I hear this all the time from my different area fishermen. They are telling me that they would know the spots that a hatchery could benefit. They are looking at that. They are talking to me about it, and I am sure they are talking to the minister's department about it. Does the department have some plans to establish a system of hatcheries, if you want to call it that?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, there has been an ongoing program of mobile hatcheries. We have, I suppose, as aggressive a plan as there was, but we certainly got encouragement from the fishermen that I met with in all three lakes, and there are varying levels of success around that. I think the hatchery program needs to be enhanced with some work done on some of the tributary streams. That, I think, needs further clarification however. Everybody has their own theory about where the fish will spawn the best and why they are not spawning as well as they might be right now.

That is why I tend to go back to the question about how long we give the spawners before we open up the fishery in the spring, and I know that is not as simple as it sounds because it can impact on the fishery, but I suggest that is a pretty good way of approaching it because how can you assail the fact that we want you to leave the spawners for a little while except by being told that the fish may be quite difficult to catch if you do not get some of them at least while they are spawning or still carrying spawn, but we do run a number of programs, and we need co-operation, not that we have not been getting it, but we need to co-opt various organizations to help with the running of fish spawning sites.

The Lake Manitoba fishery which is, again, separate, it would appear has had a very successful spawning program and would like to enlarge it. I think on Lake Winnipeg we can do more of the same, but we are still looking for the assistance from the various communities, not only the sport community but the commercial community to help us with the spawning, and the mobile spawning is one aspect of it. Certainly, you have a higher level of success if you can keep the fingerlings a little longer before they are allowed to be released, but I am told by those who have been working in this area that we have learned a lot over the last few years about how to maybe increase the survivability in the big lakes.

I am only repeating, frankly, what I learned through the discussions with these various groups, but it seems to make sense. In fact, that is the direction I believe the department wants to move in terms of enhancing the spawning opportunities, but we need to do some more work identifying where some of the good spawning areas are and whether or not they have been impacted by, for that matter, the hydroelectric development. I think people will still blame that as causing the demise of the fishery.

There are probably a multiple of reasons, and the best that we can expect is to mitigate some of those impacts more than we have done in the past--rivers right in the member's backyard that are no longer as good for spawning as they used to be. The last department I came from, people would be very anxious to blame agricultural interference as the reason why the fish spawning grounds have deteriorated, but I think the member would, and I hope if he agrees he will stand up and acknowledge this, that unfortunately one of the things we have to deal with is the beaver influence on these rivers. It is in fact probably doing more to destroy the spawning grounds than almost anything else.

In fact, the quote, environmental disaster, unquote that some people brought to my attention a couple of years ago, where there was literally putrid water found oozing out of, I believe, the Fisher River or one of the rivers in that area was seen to have been primarily the result of beavers damming up that part of the river, and the water simply was not moving. It became stagnant and simply had no oxygen in it, and all those other things that occur. So I guess the issues that we discussed in Environment the last couple of years, some of them such as this are demonstrating that they are cross-sectoral in the responsibility and we will have to continue to deal with them in that respect. I personally--and I want this to be on the record actually--believe there are areas where we probably should have a very aggressive beaver control program because of the other impacts that flow from it.

Mr. Clif Evans: I agree with the minister on that. I would hope that his department is looking at the constituency of Interlake, because it seems as far as the beaver problem, the farmers and the fishermen do complain a fair amount about the beaver problem in that area. It is causing us problems, not only for the producers but for the fishermen. Also, just to put on record, as far as the hatcheries go, I know there was a problem in the past, and I am hoping that the department and the minister seriously look at working with the Dauphin River community that had a hatchery there at one time. It was providing jobs and it was providing the fingerlings.

I know in discussions with the chief and council and people around there, they have indicated that they would really seriously want to look at establishing a hatchery again at the Dauphin River community and would want to work with the minister and his department to establish such a hatchery, re-establish it I guess and basically deal with it and forget about what had occurred in the past. I believe that was some over 10 years ago. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) would probably remember that issue. So I am putting that on record, and hopefully the minister, if and when approached, now will encourage the communities to approach the department with that, and hopefully they will want to deal with it.

I want to finish up with a question on Hecla Island. How far is the review study or proposal, how far is it along to have the cottage developments established on Hecla Island?

Mr. Cummings: I would like to respond, first of all, to a question that was asked previously about Dauphin River.

We are, in fact, talking to the people in Dauphin River to establish a fishery enhancement spawning program there, and I should put on the record, we do have three spawning collection areas--spawning and release, I guess, would be the way to describe it--at the Whiteshell, Grand Rapids and Swan Creek that we are operating. Last year, we released about a hundred million walleye fry, 800,000 trout, 40 million whitefish fry and about 3,500 sturgeon fingerlings as a result of--and I am sure the member realizes those numbers are all probably plus or minus 10 percent. You do not count them one by one as they are going out the gate.

* (1530)

The current question the member is asking is about what stage is there in terms of discussions around Hecla Island? Would he like to expand on that question a little bit, please?

Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, my question was is there a review or is there a study being done? Has it been completed? Is it going ahead, if it has been completed, for a cottage development on the island, and if so, what stage is this proposal at, and where are we going with this?

Mr. Cummings: There are a number of studies and information-gathering processes that are going on of which I would assume the member is probably reasonably well aware because they are not clandestine at all. There is pressure from former islanders, if anything was ever to happen, wanting to be given an opportunity to return to what was their ancestral home.

There are a number of other people from all walks of life who have raised the question about whether or not there should be a review, and we, in fact, are reviewing the area to see what the concerns and the issues might be. But, as you can guess, Hecla Island, I think the member would agree, the park there and the infrastructure dollars that have been put in there over the last few years, we have done a great deal to try and encourage the economic activity, and, in fact, the viability of the Hecla Island resort.

The golf course, of course, is a good attraction. The resort is well known and very capable, but it still needs to attract people in numbers probably beyond what it does today, so that is also part of the formula.

Mr. Clif Evans: So the minister is saying that they are looking at a proposal for cottage development, that there is really no specific plan already in place to go ahead with selling any portions of the land to anybody, of course without dealing with former residents and ancestors. So there is no real proposal or plan developed for the establishment of cottage sites and community on Hecla Island to date.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I am not trying to be coy with the member. I have indicated we are looking at what opportunities or possibilities there are. We are not looking at re-establishing the old village or anything of that nature, but there certainly has been some desire to look at what might be available in Crown lands and that sort of area on the north shore, but no decisions have been made, and we certainly will be continuing to look at that, and I will make sure that there is an open process if anything, in fact, is discussed further.

Mr. Clif Evans: I thank the minister. I am done with questioning, but if there was or if there has been, that I might not have as yet, because usually when I was Natural Resources critic, I would get a lot of the information with respect to anything being done within a department, but I would appreciate if there was anything in the last little while up to date with respect to Hecla Island and with respect to a future development that the minister could provide this member with that information.

I would appreciate it and I know that it would be a lot easier for myself as the representative for the area to be up to date and up to snuff with what is going on for Hecla. I have had a lot of people come to me on the street in Riverton asking me, so I am taking the opportunity to ask the minister and would appreciate anything that there might be with respect to the island.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I am hoping that perhaps the member might even go a little further and indicate whether or not he would want to encourage me to look at some opportunities for leasing on the island, on some of the Crown properties. Let us face it, this was a crucible upon which several people politically and numerous families locally had their futures rise and fall. Even the fact that we were discussing whether or not there should be a review of that and potentially looking at some opportunity for leasing of lots, even that will create a lot of interest obviously.

I want to say, too, and given that there was a question raised about an hour or two ago, I want to take the opportunity to indicate that while my deputy is a former Hecla Islander, he has already declared his conflict of interest in this area and the ADM will be acting on any issues that are raised around Hecla Island. This is a far bigger issue than you or me or Mr. Tomasson's family for that matter. It is an issue of population of that area or nonpopulated, and, frankly, I suspect, whether he wants to put it on the record or not, that the member would want something to occur in that area, given the economic activity and the repopulation of the area that might be quite beneficial to his constituency. Obviously, he is asking the questions, so if he chooses not to rise on that, I guess that will be his prerogative.

Mr. Clif Evans: No, I am not afraid to put anything on the record. I did ask the minister, of course, is there something--I mean, I am not going to yes or no anything until I see what is on paper, am I? Of course, I encourage any economic development for my constituency, and I have had the opportunity, I have got the file--the Hecla Island file that is probably a foot thick, and I have read through it and I know all about the situation. But as far as the development goes or the future development, I mean, I am being asked to make comments from my constituents as to what I know about it and I am asking the minister. So to make any comment whether I yea or nay it, I would like to see it first and then deal with the minister after that. No, I am not afraid to put anything on the record. You show me and discuss it with me and the community, and I will certainly provide you with an answer after that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and Mr. Minister for the opportunity to bring some issues to you to light. Thank you.

* (1540)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Good day, Mr. Chairperson. I do appreciate the opportunity to ask just a few questions. I understand that we are--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I do not know if your mike is on, the member for Inkster.

Mr. Lamoureux: A little red light is on.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Okay.

Mr. Lamoureux: I imagine that means--thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for your concern.

My question to the minister is: Over the last number of years, in the department's opinion, have we seen our fish populations, if you like, being depleted overall through the province of Manitoba? Is there reason for us to believe otherwise, that the number of fish is actually on the increase?--if you can just give some sort of an idea.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, I would not claim to be an expert in responding to this, but I have had, as I said a few moments ago, a lot of discussions with the department and with various interests, particularly around Lake Winnipeg, but I also have the west side of Lake Manitoba as my constituency. So I have had some ongoing interest in the issue, and it is quite legitimate to ask when the only headlines you see from time to time is where there are difficulties.

We do have a lot of lakes that are increasing and they are in very good shape. A number of them may be catch-and-release sport lakes. I think we believe that we have seen some increases right here in the downtown area; actually there is becoming a little bit of increase in fishing activity. But Lake Winnipeg has seen some declines in the production. Whether that means that the lake is in trouble--you can only use the statistical information in whatever way you deem appropriate when you look at it. I can share the numbers.

In 1988, for example, in Lake Winnipeg, pickerel and sauger would have been in excess of two million pounds, millions of kgs., pardon me, which would be four million pounds, roughly, and now, last year, we saw the production slightly over one million. So it roughly dropped in half in eight years. On the other hand, there were years--in 1994, there was quite an increase in sauger, and they went back up; sauger alone went back up to a million and a half, exceeded the pickerel that year. So I am told you can graph this, you can follow the production, but there are a whole lot of things that go with it.

The commercial production of fish is partly driven as well by price. There are a lot of whitefish, I am told, in the north basin of Lake Winnipeg but they are not worth a lot. I believe the figure is something like a spread between 60 cents a pound to $2 a pound for pickerel. I stand to be corrected on the figures, but that is the type of spread we are talking about. So fishermen are saying it is hardly worth their time to go after the whitefish. The second part of that is they are not easy to market right now, apparently. That is what is driving the price down even though they are a very desirable fish in the minds of a lot of people, but there is competition out there that is filling that market.

Lake Manitoba, actually I can show from '82 to '95, and the figures the department has produced is that the annual production of fish has gone up. That is different than what we just described for Lake Winnipeg. It is hard to answer the question generically without talking about a specific lake.

We know Lake Winnipegosis is in bad shape in terms of what it is producing. The pickerel are virtually nonexistent. On the other hand, I was berated by a number of the fishermen for not allowing more perch to be taken, and there are those who argue that the perch are predatory and taking the fingerlings anyway, so we should reduce them when we are trying to increase the pickerel. They were down to catching suckers this spring and it turned out there was actually a bit of a market for them. So they are having a bad time, and we are challenging them to produce a sustainable development strategy for their whole lake.

In the broadest sense, the sport fishery has been reasonable in almost all areas. Lake of the Prairies however has been down, and I do not have any scientific information in front of me, but I was told by a resident of that area this week that they think it may be beginning to recover, looking at the age of some of the fish that are now in that area.

Lake Winnipegosis, I guess I will just repeat what I said before, that the '96 summer season was extremely low. They only produced 24,000 kgs in each year and a rehabilitated lake could produce upwards of half a million kgs of walleye if it was producing as we think it should.

Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I ask, in most part, is because I can recall a discussion I had with some fishermen--it might have been a few years back--and their concern was with respect to the size of mesh on nets and the impact that was going to have on the fish stock. Even though we do not have one of the oceans on either side of our borders--with the Port of Churchill, of course, being an exception in terms of we do have direct access to our oceans.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

The concern is at least, in most part, that we do have some sort of fish management, that this resource is going to be around. With the numbers that the minister was referring to with respect to Lake Winnipeg, it is hard for someone such as myself to gauge whether it is good or bad when you say 2 million kgs in one given year. But if you say the previous year it was 1 million, is that a good or is that a bad thing? I really could not tell. Nor am I naive to believe that you can give an accurate projection of how many fish are in any given lake. What is important is that--and I would look to the minister to see if in fact the department actually has something of this nature and that is graphs of sorts that give indication--and Lake Winnipeg is probably the most--is quite often the one that is referred to because of its size. It does play a significant role in the overall economy in the province of Manitoba just by the amount of commercial fishing that actually takes place.

Does the minister have access to some sort of graphs that indicate fishing for the last, let us say, in the last decade? What I am looking for more so is towards trends. Is the province of Manitoba, do we have reason to believe that we should not become overly concerned about the amount of fish that is being pulled out of our lakes? That is the commercial side of it.

The other aspect, of course, is more of the leisure, the family that decides to go out. On that point, I have always been surprised with just the number of people, particularly the number of constituents, that come to talk to me. They are very avid fishermen. They derive a lot of enjoyment, justifiably so. I am wondering if the minister can just indicate in terms of some of these, what he anticipates for costs, because there have been increases in licensing fees if you wanted to fish. Does the department have any sort of multiyear budgeting for annual increments in the costs of licences? I would look for some sort of a comment with respect to that.

* (1550)

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, yes, we could share graphs. There are lots of them available in terms of following what the production has been off of various lakes. I can believe, and I have been told, that the fishery is always cyclical. So you can have a three-year graph that shows that things are dropping through the floor, but if you do not know or if you do not balance that against what is the known availability of a year-class that may be becoming mature the next year, you can be surprised by a spike where it will come back up again. That has been known to happen as well. So I guess I like to think that a decade-long display of what has been harvested is useful.

Fishermen will argue, well, then, you need to balance that against what the year has been like. Particularly in a winter fishery, they will tell you this winter that they had a rough time getting out there enough. Now others who had lots of equipment and were in the right place did very well. So there is a limitation to only looking at graphing of what could happen in terms of predicting the availability for the coming year.

On that note, however, the department does test netting before seasons begin. Very often, I guess right now, we use the test netting to determine the stage of spawning, but the opportunity to check whether the fish are running and the condition of the fish, we do that as well as, of course, checking what is actually being brought in.

The biologists within the department are advising that they have some concern about the trends on Lake Winnipeg right now, but there are always long-term trends that rise and fall in any fishery. It is something that we are going to have to watch carefully. My predecessor took some steps to protect the pickerel harvest, to reduce the pressure on pickerel, and we believe that we need to make sure that the pickerel numbers come back and, ultimately, the production comes up.

You mentioned economic activity. There is $14-million worth of activity that comes off of the commercial fishery. That is just Lake Winnipeg, I believe. So you can see that it is a significant impact, particularly when a number of those areas that receive income from it are smaller and remote communities. It is a very complex industry in as much as the remote fish stations where they deliver to have to get enough volume and have to have enough capability of operation to maintain the quality of the fish, at the same time the marketing board has to be able to market at an appropriate price.

We have come through a period of time when the price on pickerel and the final payments on pickerel and sauger, for that matter, were very high; I believe a record high a couple or three years ago. The prediction is that we may not be able to sustain that, so the fact is the pressure on the pickerel fishery might go down because of economic factors. That is not good news. I am not standing here to say that may happen for sure, but that is the other type of influencing factor that the fishermen continually point out to me in the series of meetings that I had, and that is, that people have other things to do or need to do other things. In fact, if they are not catching fish when they are out on the lake--and they may stay there for three weeks or six weeks depending on how their catch is going.

I am talking more in the summer season than I am in the winter, but those kinds of things also influence the production. I am terribly conscious of the well-known problems that have occurred on the East Coast and the West Coast and various other areas, but interestingly enough, in the name of sustainable development and whether or not man can untangle and unwind some of the problems that he has created over the years, I think there is no better example than the fact that we are starting to receive marketing pressure because of the production going up in the Great Lakes. There has been some serious cleanups and improvements undertaken in the Great Lakes and their production of fish is now coming back, possibly to the detriment of our market.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I was also wanting the minister to comment with respect to fishing licences. Does the department have any intention on annual incremental increases, in particular for the leisure fisherman that just wants to be able to have a family day out or get together with some friends and go out and do some fishing?

Mr. Cummings: I am not sure if the member is concerned about the cost of the licence or whether we have a long-range plan to increase licences in order to enhance revenue. If he is thinking about revenue, I do not mind addressing that as well. The only increase that occurred in the recreational licences this year was the rounding up in order to cover off the GST. Instead of it being $5.43 or some odd number like that, we rounded them up to the next highest dollar and made it 6 bucks or 7 bucks or 15 bucks. We are not apologizing for the fact that we rounded it up, but it really only created about, I believe, $20,000 worth of income, if I am not mistaken. [interjection] Twenty-one.

The fact is the other increase was--and there is no use beating around it, we did for the first time impose a licence fee on seniors. It is a reduced fee--$6. I do not think it is an arduous responsibility to impose on the seniors. This makes it much easier to send information to them. It may, in fact, encourage them to fish more once they are on the mailing list for other information that can be provided to them.

Combined with that, of course, was the Fisheries Enhancement stamp that my predecessor introduced three or more years ago, and those monies have been used for significant projects for fishery enhancement. While we are talking about revenue, I do have to point out that the nonresident sporting licence has increased, including the full rounding. We got an increase of $100,000 from that as well, so those would be the major dollars. Remember that we also increased the commission to the licence retailers, the vendors, that becomes a negative figure because that has to be reduced from the total dollars worth of income that comes from licensing.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I would be interested in knowing the rationale that was used with respect to having the reduced rate now for seniors.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, seniors licences were free. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons showed that not all but almost all jurisdictions do charge seniors a fee of some level. I believe the $6 fee puts us in at the low end of the schedule where a fee is charged at all. As I said, it certainly is not intended to be punitive at $6, but it does also make sure that we can include the seniors, some of whom are very active, the majority of whom are quite active when they want to go recreational fishing. I think the opportunity for them to be involved with information and knowledge and all of the other things, interaction that occurs with that licensing program, that this is a useful approach.

They do have a conservation limit. A regular fee would be $16, so it is a little more than a third. Fifteen, sorry. The regular would be $15, Mr. Chairman.

* (1600)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the temptation is great in terms of to continue the discussion with respect to the fee, but I will resist that and rather go into the small lakes and rivers.

Manitoba has thousands of bodies of water that contain a lot of fish. I had a constituent who had visited me at a local restaurant and had expressed concern about lakes that do not necessarily have, that you do not have access via roads, that you actually have to fly in. I was interested in the restrictions, in particular, for individuals to set up camps around there or the potential of even cottages. Have we seen more cottages being built in those areas where they are being flown in? Is the government seeing an increase in sports fishermen lodges being established in Manitoba? I am also interested in knowing to what degree we have had more, in particular, Americans, coming in to fish in our waters. That is not to say it is negative or positive, just out of curiosity.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I am told there is a very high demand of people wanting to establish permanent residences on lakeshore property--cottages, pardon me. There is more demand than what we have allowed, I suppose, is the correct terminology, but this does not restrict all other access to the lakes. Certainly people are welcome to fish and whatever else they wish to do in terms of an outdoor experience in these fly-in areas.

I am not sure what concern the member is expressing, whether he is expressing the concern that there should be more cottaging permitted on some of these lakes or whether it is just a matter of access. Certainly access is not restricted, but remember this is the age-old debate about--there are those with a very strong environmental view of our resources who say that permanent access and permanent residences should be restricted. Then, however, that can lead to a bit of an environmental elitism, as a matter of fact, because then only those who can afford to fly in or who have three weeks to paddle in and out again can have access to the area. So in my own view--and after having watched, frankly, I believe it was David Suzuki recently, complaining about access roads into the remote areas in terms of resource extraction. Access roads for any purpose lead to some concerns in that area. I personally believe that we should have more access, but we do not at this point.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the department has any sort of a mechanism that allows for some sort of public input, other than just the minister who happens to be an MLA who consults no doubt with his constituents. Is there some sort of a forum that allows for people to have direct input on how we are developing some of these more remote lakes? The establishment of cottages, I know that there has been an increase in demand. I know this particular individual that brought it to my attention was greatly concerned that the government seemed to be authorizing any sort of request that was being put before it. So does the department have any mechanism that allows for some sort of an overall plan on the development of some of our lakes, in particular in northern Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings: The short answer is yes, there is a policy in place and the various lakes are identified. The policy is developed by a public process so that there is input from the general public. If a classification were to be required to be changed, or if there was a request to change it, I am sure that it would take the same type of public process to change it.

Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, it is kind of, some might say, somewhat of a different question. I had heard that the province, and I found it a little bit difficult to believe, that there was some looking into lobster farms. Is the minister aware of maybe a lobster hatchery or a lobster farm, I was told, somewhere in the Elie area? I look to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) who I know keeps his thumb on so many things--

An Honourable Member: Red ones with the claws?

Mr. Lamoureux: The big red--yes, with the claws. If, in fact, there was something. The reason why I asked is because I know in a government document, whether it was maybe an application through Grow Bonds or REDI, that there was something to do with lobster, and I am asking if the minister is in fact aware of it at all.

Mr. Cummings: The lobster, I am not aware of. There are certainly a number of people who are looking to establish--

An Honourable Member: Crayfish.

Mr. Cummings: Yes--the opportunity for fish farming. There are in fact huge opportunities available. That may well become very competitive with our existing fisheries, because the capability of producing fish under a farming format, if you will, a fish farm format--and I am extrapolating a little bit from the idea of whether or not somebody might be in fact breeding lobsters in this area. It has not come to anybody's attention at this table. The opportunity for losses are very great, but the opportunity for profit is enormous, I am told, in fish farming, given the world's demand for fish today. It is going up and not down, and it is a very efficient conversion of foodstuffs as well.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I thank the minister for allowing some of my colleagues to revert back to other parts of our Estimates that we have already covered, and I am very pleased to understand that he is always ready to please the opposition.

I believe we are on the Wildlife section under Administration.

Mr. Chairperson: That is correct.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister a few questions about the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk which I need to get a little bit of guidance on from the minister. My understanding is that it is a federal accord that several of the provincial jurisdictions have signed on to, and it is supposed to provide the immediate protection for endangered or threatened species, provide the protection for their habitat and recovery plans for animals that are listed as at risk.

Could the minister tell me if the minister has formally signed on to the this national accord?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this type of issue follows me around or not, but I used to always argue that harmonization of environmental process was one of the most important things that could happen to encourage and provide a new way of demonstrating that this country was a viable working entity, that we did not have jurisdictional blind spots or that we could have interjurisdictional co-operation.

* (1610)

My predecessor believed, does believe, in very much the same approach because the accord that the member is referring to, I believe, is the one which was signed in Charlottetown and was not the Charlottetown accord, believe me, because this thing--after all of the Natural Resource, Wildlife ministers signed on to what they thought was an appropriate approach to a federal bill that recognized provincial jurisdiction and encouraged provincial co-operation, for some reason unknown to most of us or to any particular brand of logic, this did not translate into a working bill in Ottawa that reflected the principles which the ministers agreed to in Charlottetown.

I represented Minister Driedger at the Environment ministers' meeting where we implored Mr. Marchi who was responsible for both areas, both environment and wildlife and natural resources, to reconsider what he was doing with this bill. We asked that there be another meeting at a ministerial level. We asked that they consider the gravity of what they were doing because, frankly, I was rather flattered at one stage when Sheila Copps was the minister and said that Manitoba's bill was the model upon which Ottawa should be building their endangered species act, and if they followed that act that was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) when he was in this portfolio, a model being considered a model for all of Canada, the act that is--[interjection]He missed it.

The fact is that is not what we see in this bill. We see this as another contradiction in the national view of Canada that Ottawa politicians seem to have today which is that all good things come from Ottawa on high and the rest of us should comply. The fact is the bill, in my view and in the view of a number of other people, when it comes to the protection of endangered species is that it may create a shoot, shovel and shut-up mentality, frankly, that people who should be co-operating and who would want to under normal circumstances co-operate and support the protection of endangered species may view this bill as being so intrusive that they will not tell anybody when they find some endangered species on their land. Then it becomes the terrible three, shoot, shovel and shut up, and that leads to situations where you really do end up having species eradicated because people are afraid of what will happen. We do not want that to happen. We may have made some headway in talking to other jurisdictions.

I believe on the part of many people there is a lot of good intention that went into this bill, but I submit that there are some people who are overzealous in their support of it and say that the rest of us are seeing shadows behind every rock. It can encourage compliance virtually with American law is one view that has been expressed. Others say that is not right. I do not have a high comfort level. In fact, I am concerned about it. There is an element in this, the same as the gun registration frankly, and that is that there seems to be an inability to provide a high level of satisfaction that it will not lead to the type of interference that those who are the critics of it are opposed to. This is a bit like motherhood, however.

I mean, our bill in Manitoba, the bill we referenced earlier, Manitoba's legislation, the minister of the day had a lot of discussions with groups who were concerned about where this legislation would lead. He was able to answer those concerns because the bill is seen to have some opportunities in it that are not just punitive. There are opportunities in this to really do something to protect and enhance, and a reasonable process for identification, frankly.

That does not seem to be available in this Endangered Species Act that Ottawa has introduced, and it leads also to the concern in the agricultural community, which a large number of us in this House represent, and I think we have good reason to be concerned. The example, I think, of the problems and what may have come off the rail in introducing this bill is that the government is trying to show how strong it is in protection in this area without really considering what might be the interpretation of some of the thrust that they are including in the bill, and particularly when you understand that at the hearing process someone talks about the fact he has several thousand acres of land under his protection and management in his ranch, and he said he could easily have no idea whether he has an endangered species on part of his ranch, but he was worried about losing control of it if that did happen.

One of the committee members, in an unguarded moment later on asked him, well, if you have all those cows out and all that land--words to this effect--do you have to bring them in every day to milk them? I mean, even my city colleagues in this House, I think in Manitoba at least, would recognize that this was not an informed view of the concerns that the rancher might have had. So I say that with respect, because I understand how remote urban communities can become from what we do day to day on the land, but what we need to have is a bill that reflects the reality of protecting the species and works with those who are private landowners.

Crown lands are another matter. Some of them are leased; some of them are strictly for Crown and public use, and we can deal with them as well. But the jurisdiction in this area was returned to the provinces 50 years ago, I guess, now, and should not be interfered with in the way that we believe this bill might, so we have encouraged the minister not to pass the bill. It went through committee with some amendments that we had encouraged, but we are not sure that they answer the questions either. So there is a hope that perhaps the minister of the day has decided not to press this forward as aggressively as he once was, and we believe that that would be positive because we want to work with them.

I do not particularly want to be on record as being unalterably opposed to the protection of endangered species. I simply want some legislation that allows us to exercise our responsibilities. We are the closest to the ground, frankly, and should be able to provide the enforcement and the management as it was foreseen decades ago.

Mr. Struthers: If I understand the minister correctly, he is saying that his government agrees with the concept that was originally embarked upon by this group, by the intent of the accord, but he is worried about how it is going to play out in legislation here in the province.

Can the minister explain to me then what his government is going to do to maybe improve the accord, so that it does not have a harmful effect on the wildlife endangered species at risk here in the province? I also want to know, just mechanically, where does this leave us? If there are six jurisdictions already signed on, how can the minister go now--what is the process in getting the whole accord changed when already six jurisdictions have signed onto this national accord?

* (1620)

Mr. Cummings: I believe that one of us is probably talking about something a little bit different here. The accord itself is no longer the issue. What was in the accord, I believe all jurisdictions, frankly, were prepared to sign on stating that these were the principles that they wanted incorporated and some of the specifics around it.

The point is that we are one of four provincial jurisdictions that already has an act, and I believe every jurisdiction except B.C. had said that they were prepared to implement legislation. B.C. said that it was not that they were opposed to implementing legislation, they believe they already have legislation in place, although they do not call it an endangered species act. So, it is a case of where there is almost unanimity across the country among the provinces as to how they will handle this.

In the first place, most jurisdictions did not think there needed to be a federal act. I suppose that is a true statement, but if the federal authorities saw that they had some leadership role in this area, then they should try to practise it with a more realistic view of federal-provincial responsibilities. The act that is introduced is not consistent with the accord that was signed. I worked with colleagues in other jurisdictions since coming into this office, and they are unanimous in asking the federal authorities to rethink what they are doing in this area.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Perhaps I will review this thought for a moment, because the act was understood to apply to a wildlife species under provincial jurisdiction only if the species is found on federal land. So what that does is that this would create some significant concern to allow the act to apply to an animal that is within provincial or territorial jurisdiction without the agreement of that jurisdiction. There are a number of examples where we have a herd of caribou, for example, woodland caribou, who travel a number of areas. We are probably quite confident that we are able to protect them, that they will not be endangered, but they might be in the eyes of somebody else in another part of the country, and all of a sudden we have got ourselves a jurisdictional wrangle that was unanticipated. So it really does not need to be this complicated, and we would just like the federal authorities to reconsider the thrust of the act.

Mr. Struthers: I think maybe we can pass that line.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3. Resource Programs (f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $283,700--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $252,900--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $7,000--pass.

Item 3.(f) Wildlife (2) Big Game and Fur Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Struthers: In this line of the Estimates, I would like to get into a bit of a discussion around a proposal that this government has to open up the southern part of our province to big game hunting by U.S. and other foreign hunters. I understand that the government has sponsored several public meetings in the southern part of our province and has collected some information and has collected some opinions and has heard quite a number of proposals and concerns brought to them by hunters and other stakeholders in the southern part of our province. I also understand that several groups have pressed upon the minister concerns that they have with this proposal in southern Manitoba including groups like the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. In takes in not just the southern part of our province but into the Interlake as well.

There are many people who are concerned with this proposal, and I would like the minister to begin the discussion on this by explaining the process involved so far in gathering information and what the stakeholders involved have told him to this point and to indicate when we can look forward to some decisions in this area being made.

Mr. Cummings: It is interesting. By and large, the public likes consultation and process and wants to feel that they have input. A problem generally arises when any results of consultation and input do not agree with their view of the right answer of course. That becomes then the political responsibility to make sure that the process has been adequate in order to defend any potential decisions that might be made. But this was and is a consultation process as a result of concerns and interests being brought forward to press for an opportunity for out-of-country hunters in southern Manitoba and also driven by a number of issues. One is economic spin-offs, one is the view that there is a good herd of whitetails, particularly in southern Manitoba. Zone E does take in the whole south of Manitoba.

I guess I have expressed my frustration a little bit in this pretty big area, but then I realize that within that area there is a number of game-hunting areas, so it can be broken down. Zone E was last reviewed back in 1972, I am told. So I think it has been a useful exercise to raise the issue and to discuss it. Of course, the very time that we are discussing it, we have had a couple of years when the deer have been heavily impacted. We have done some feeding and other things to mitigate against that, but it should not be any surprise, given the mood of some of the meetings, that most people who came out to the meetings were objectors. Probably those who were supporting may not have even come out to all that great an extent.

I can say with all honesty that there were people whom I know quite well who have far too many deer on their land who went to the meetings believing that this was a good thing and left deciding that they did not want it. I guess that is a sign of a good citizen who is prepared to have an open mind on a topic and not go with a blind made-up position, but we do have too many deer in some parts of southern Manitoba. The problem is that increasing the hunting probably will not even get at most of those considering where they are located. That is a broad statement. It may not be entirely borne out by the facts, but people raised the concern about private land being tied up for hunting. I think it is fair to say that there are a huge number of hunters come out of Winnipeg who see the present situation as a good one, and they want to keep it the way it is. So be it, I do not have a big problem with that, but it was an exercise that I think there should be.

* (1630)

We have had a lot of discussion with the member for Dauphin and others about revenues that Natural Resources brings in, and I hope there is a willingness on the part of all parties to discuss the real economic spin-offs because we spend millions of dollars enhancing habitat, enhancing hunting opportunities, fishing opportunities, game ranching, logging, lumber versus chips, recreational camping, cottaging, all those things. They are all a part of the mix, whether or not we adequately gain the type of spin-offs that are beneficial to the society, produce the type of revenue that assists with the dollars that we need to spend to support the lifestyle and expenses of running our communities.

There are some parts of southern Manitoba who think they are being severely cheated by not having the opportunity to bring in--particularly American--but out-of-country hunters, and the concern would be of course that all they are looking for is trophy bucks. There are those who live here who say, well, they do not want them all gone, that they want their share of them to stay here in Manitoba and are we giving away the resources. Well, a good hunt for a whitetail in southern Manitoba would bring you somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 plus what they spend in other spin-offs from that, so that is not a bad kick, economic kick, in a small community where you have a guiding operation. So you can take those figures and extrapolate them any way you like, but I can tell you that the review that has gone on so far is receiving largely negative response.

Mr. Struthers: The minister brings up some good points I think that need to have a full discussion with all the stakeholders involved, and I suppose we could start that or continue it at least here in the Legislature. First of all, the concern that we bring forward has to do with the amount of deer in the area. What the minister says about trading off one spin-off for another is true. What I want to get clear is that the deer population in Zone E, from what I understand, is pretty buoyant for all of Zone E, and if I am not accurate in that, then the minister can correct me. The minister mentions different districts within Zone E, and I would suspect that the number of deer in each of those districts fluctuates up and down as well.

Can the minister indicate how many licences will be issued for deer in this area and whether some of those licences will be earmarked for specific districts of Zone E where the amount of deer can sustain the extra licences?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Cummings: If the member was asking how many nonresident licences will we issue in Zone E, there will be none, but there will be resident licences of course in pretty much the same numbers as before. There is one area, particularly in the east side, primarily from Winnipeg east, I do not remember the number of the game-hunting area, but we have got people telling us that we probably should not even have a deer licence there this year, that the winterkill two years in a row has been enormous. I understood that there was a better than expected survival last year. I do not think that is true this year. You go to southwestern Manitoba, I am not sure what is there. I know in my area, which would be still in Zone E but closer to Riding Mountain, the population is probably in very good shape.

Mr. Struthers: The proposal, however, that the department is putting forth and holding the discussions on, I assume, or I am led to believe through reports that I have read, will increase the number of licences in the area. Now I have heard and read it may be upwards of a thousand licences. If that is something that is not accurate, I would want the minister to indicate that that is not true, but I would also want the minister to tell me how many extra licences over and above from last year is the proposal proposing to increase, and I want to be assured that the deer population in the area can sustain this increase in licences.

Mr. Cummings: Setting the precise numbers aside, I do not suppose the member knows anymore than I do about how many deer there are in a particular zone. I am sure what he wants to know is do we have a sustainable harvest of deer, and I will not even attempt to dispute his numbers. They might be right. I do not think entirely right, but nevertheless the number of licences that will be issued will be based on the department's best knowledge of what is available. He might be referring to the issuing of licences to a number of hunters and outfitters across the areas where there are large numbers of outfitters, Riding Mountain north, up into the Ducks and Porcupines and all the way up, and there was a considerable controversy about how many licences should be issued in particular game-hunting areas and whether or not people could transfer into other areas where there were more deer.

All of these licences are based on the clear understanding that we have a knowledge of how many deer are in each area and we are not going to over allocate. So he is correct. He should be given the assurance, and I will give him the assurance that we are not going to overharvest. We tell each outfitter if he has 24 tags or 10 tags or whatever it is that the right to change that number down is arbitrary and possible on the part of the department if in fact we believe there has been a drop in the population that we cannot sustain. It can be increased as well from time to time if the population warrants it or if the demand is there, and it is not being taken up by others who want an opportunity to hunt, but the ability to reduce it because of reduced population is clear.

Mr. Struthers: Before I asked the questions, I made the assumption that the Department of Natural Resources, even before it went out and even talked about a proposal to increase licences in Zone E, would have had a fairly good understanding of at least an approximate number of deer in the area available to be shot. My understanding right now is that in Zone E somebody from outside of the country can use the bow and arrow but they cannot use the rifle, and the proposal is to go to rifle use. Maybe the minister can take another crack at the question.

Mr. Cummings: Maybe I misunderstood the first question when he said was there a possibility of increasing the licences by a thousand in Zone E, if that is what he meant, and then extrapolating that to his present question is whether or not we have enough deer, or do we know how many deer. We have a population count. What I referred to a minute ago however is that, as I understand the department's management policy, we have a count or a good estimate of the amount of game that is available, but, remember, when you publish the--you are working six months in advance, sometimes three-quarters of a year in advance when you are issuing the numbers of licences, and you can have a number of things happen. You can have a winter kill.

* (1640)

You cannot wait until April to determine your winter kill in publishing your big game hunting guide because people who are interested in making their reservations now would like to know what the fees are, where the approximate number of licences will be available, and so on. That is why I said the government through the department always reserves the right to arbitrarily downsize the hunt if something has affected the game or if they have just screwed up in their numbers. I mean, that is possible too.

Disease is also something that we hope we never have to deal with, but that is another thing that could influence the numbers going down. So, yes, I can probably give you a number of deer that is estimated to be in any particular zone, but remember too some of those deer are clustered heavily in certain areas. One of the problems we had frankly is you have an awful lot of deer in heavy populated areas around the Red River Valley. You cannot have a rifle season there. The deer like the fruit trees and shrubs and everything else that grows around here, but this winter they had even worse problems. So that is the other type.

Speaking of numbers, I am advised that we probably have well over 100,000 deer in this province. Some would say twice as many as that, but we know for sure we are well in excess of 100,000. About 40 percent of our resident hunters hunt in Zone E, so you can see why there is a high level of local interest in what we might do with Zone E. In fact, that was a figure that I had forgotten or overlooked. When you consider 40 percent of the whole of resident hunters in this province operate in Zone E now, they are not looking to have a lot more rifle hunters from out of the country.

Mr. Struthers: I appreciate the number of 100,000 deer for the province and that 40 percent hunt in Zone E. Does the department have any numbers on how many of the hundred thousand would be located in Zone E?

Mr. Cummings: I do not have the number with me, but whitetailed deer like agricultural country. Second-cut alfalfa is just about the ideal deer pasture, and where there is browse available, the combination of the two--we are pretty sure that the majority of our whitetail are probably in Zone E. I do not have the figure in front of me.

Mr. Struthers: If it is just a case of the minister not having the information in front of him and he can get it, I would appreciate having that sent to me once he can. It seems to me that 40 percent of the resident hunters are located in the area, that that is going to be quite a strain on the deer population, especially if the deer population has not wintered very well and there are the number of deaths over the winter that we have been hearing about, at least from the department through the media. The concern is if you add more licences on top of that, you increase the strain on the number of deer in Zone E.

The other thing that I was asking about was whether different hunting areas within Zone E were going to be earmarked differently. One thing that I know just from driving through the area--this is far from being scientific, but I drove up north from Boissevain through the valley, and I saw quite an impressive herd of deer through there last spring. I understand that different areas of Zone E will have varying amounts of deer in different numbers. I am wondering if it does not make sense to be specific in locating those licences within areas of Zone E that can handle better the increased number of licences, if the minister decides to go ahead with this proposal.

Mr. Cummings: We have not made a decision and obviously will not change this year, given that the guides are already out about nonresident hunters in Zone E, but it is correct to say that we can adjust the harvest in various regions within Zone E. That is why I was clear on the fact that we can arbitrarily downsize or eliminate the hunt in certain parts of Zone E, if necessary.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for that. I want to stay on the same topic but just switch the angle a little bit to the effect on the hunters who have been hunting in the area in Zone E, the resident hunters. I am interested in trying to get a handle on what the effect of a change towards this kind of a proposal will be on the fellows who have been hunting there over the years. Will there be any decreases in licences that the minister would look at, and secondly, is the minister contemplating any increases in fees for the licences?

Mr. Cummings: No. I hope the member would give me a little bit more credit than to think that we would reduce the resident hunt in order to accommodate nonresident hunters. That would be stupid and suicidal, and I hope I have learned to avoid those types of decisions, but resident hunters will continue the first two weeks, and there is no nonresident rifle hunting season and none will occur this year. There are no reductions in numbers today, but I have to reiterate that the southeast region may well be subject to reductions unless we get some better reports.

Mr. Struthers: I am glad that the minister would not do anything that would be stupid and suicidal, something that he should probably go back to caucus with and inform some of the rest of his colleagues in other areas of government that they should take those words as wisdom from the minister.

At the same time, there are still people who have been hunting over the years who are going to the minister's public hearings and expressing their concerns about that very issue. Maybe they do not assume that the minister is not going to do something suicidal, and I would suggest to the minister that all I am doing is bringing their concerns to the Legislature as I am supposed to do as the critic of Natural Resources. I think it is good to put on record as well the fact that nothing is going to change this year, but that does not preclude something from happening next year, in next year's hunting season.

Just to kind of finish up on the area of the deer hunting in Zone E, I would like the minister to have a chance to explain a little more fully the economic benefits that would be gained in this part of the province through the proposal for increasing the deer hunt. He had mentioned $2,000 to $3000 for tracking down a white-tailed deer. I would like for him to maybe explain that a little further. I am not just sure what he meant by that. I would also like the minister to indicate the benefits for outfitters from outside of Zone E, north of Riding Mountain and north of Winnipeg, the benefits maybe that the northern outfitters would have in expanding their work south into Zone E.

* (1650)

Mr. Cummings: The member is getting into some pretty hypothetical questions. He has managed to make it sound like we are out there advocating for an additional nonresident hunt in southern Manitoba. We were asked by a number of areas, private interests and public interests, to review the possibility of a nonresident rifle season in southern Manitoba. We all know the nonresident hunt must be a guided hunt so there is significant opportunity for guides to be involved and to earn from that. We are looking at Manitoba lodges and outfitters being about a $16-million industry per year, so you can extrapolate that in a number of ways.

The member should not assume that this discussion is about whether or not existing outfitters would be able to expand their business, because the province is in fact taking some heat from the existing outfitting industry in the manner in which we are making outfitting of, for example, white-tailed deer in areas where out-of-province nonresident hunters are allowed today, where landowners are being given the first crack at providing an outfitting licence to hold a deer tag. So you do not have to be a professional outfitter. If you want to be an outfitter, the opportunity has been enhanced over the last couple of years with the types of decisions that we are making.

An outfitter can sell any variety of a package. He can sell residents room and board and guided hunts, meals, provide entertainment if he chooses to. It is a package that he can put together, and included in that is a tag to take one deer. He can run two to three nonresident hunters per guide, and nobody is getting rich but I think it is a good business. When you go out into the part of the country that the member for Dauphin and I are both familiar with and on into some of the areas where there are a lot more Crown lands, what a great asset.

I mean, it ties right into our tourism. People come up to hunt. It does not mean they will not bring their family back. They will certainly talk about it if they have a good experience when they are here. The opportunity for spreading good word and good news about hunting in this province flows from this. That is why I am quite serious about working with the Manitoba Lodges & Outfitters Association to make sure that we have it set up so that there is a guarantee, virtually, of a good quality hunt for those who come here. We cannot provide a guarantee of them taking home game, but you can guarantee that they will have a quality experience. So you need to context this in the full measure of what people do.

I mean, it ties very much into tourism. It is the hospitality industry. In some parts of the province, it is not that well accepted, I suppose, but it certainly is in the part of the country I come from, and I know that there is a lot of very successful lodges and outfitters. Before I came into this office, I thought that maybe there was only a handful south of The Pas, and everyone else who had a lodge or an outfit was on a remote lake somewhere, but that is not true. We have a wonderful array of wildlife and hunting experiences that can occur out there, and given that the American dollar is at a 30 percent premium over ours, that is primarily where some of these customers come from. It can be very worthwhile to provide them with a decent experience when they come here.

Mr. Struthers: The minister should not be so suspicious sometimes at the questions I ask. I asked the question so that he could stand on his feet in the House and explain the economic benefits and all the spin-offs of the proposal that, in fact, the Department of Natural Resources went into southern Manitoba and got an earful on.

So I wanted to give the minister that opportunity to put his case forward as far as this proposal is being proposed. The fact is this government has put the proposal forward, has put it out there for public discussion. They were told, quite loudly from what I hear in public hearings, that there was a lot of concern having to do with the proposal that the minister has put forth. So I just thought I would give him his opportunity to explain the good side of his proposal.

What I would like for the minister to do, as well, in the same vein as the question that I asked previously, is indicate the number of outfitters in Zone E that are there and ready to benefit economically from these increases in licences and give me an idea of how many outfitters will be benefiting in Zone E from the proposal that he is putting forward.

Excluding the outfitters in the north, what I am concerned about is the ones in Zone E in the south who will get a direct benefit from this.

Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member encourages me not to be suspicious and then he gives me a real reason to be suspicious because he stands up and says that the hunting in Zone E is my proposal. It is a public consultation where we are genuinely attempting to take guidance from the public about how they want hunting, particularly deer hunting, to unfold in the populated part of the province.

I just received information from the department. There are probably in excess of 75,000 and perhaps a hundred thousand deer in Zone E. In other words, the person in the department who sent up this information believes that there are closer to 200,000 deer in Manitoba. So the amount that we are taking hunting--remember I said earlier that there are at least a hundred thousand, and there are those who would argue there are as many as 200,000. This estimate, if we have that many in Zone E, would say that we have 150,000 or more in Manitoba, which means that unless there are dramatic winterkills or disasters of that nature that there are a significant number of deer out there.

The conclusion that many people are drawing at these public meetings is that they would like to see--there are many who went to those meetings who were looking at this as an opportunity to reduce the number of deer that were problem deer, frankly. Many of them left the meetings saying this is not the way to eliminate the problem deer because the hunting pressure probably will not be right where they need it in terms of reducing the number of deer in agricultural Manitoba that are problem deer. I mean we have significant economic spinoffs that are available.

When the member asked how many lodgers and outfitters would benefit from this occurring in Zone E, I get a little suspicious because I am not here to advocate on behalf of the lodgers and the outfitters. We are asking the question, first of all, from the point of view of management of the wildlife. There are in some parts of the province an excess of deer. From that, we have an opportunity for an economic spinoff that could be of value to a lot of people--hoteliers, restauranteurs. To start off with, it does not have to be the lodgers and the outfitters who will gain. In the fear of some people, it might also be the landowners because we have a policy that says the landowners would have an opportunity to enhance--

* (1700)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. I am interrupting the proceedings and I will return at 8 p.m.

Call in the Speaker.