The Acting Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Good evening. Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
We are on Resolution 12.3(f) Wildlife (2) Big Game and Fur Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $488,200. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I would like to move on to another area of questions for the minister. I would like to ask him some questions about the special investigations unit.
I think what I need the minister to do to begin with is explain just what is the role now of this investigation unit, so we can get an idea of just what its parameters are, who it answers to, its role generally.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): I suppose there are some questions about the unit I might not want to respond to at this juncture. It is, as its title describes, a special unit with responsibilities, sometimes undercover, responds to enforcement issues and reports through the policy branch to the chief enforcement officer.
I would think it is fair to say that in many respects their direction is as directed, where special circumstances arise that might require other than a normal uniformed NRO's response.
Mr. Struthers: The minister indicated that the special investigation unit reports to the policy branch of the Department of Natural Resources. I understand the intricacies involved in what the minister, the answers that he has to give. I also am concerned about this investigation unit being totally free from any kind of politics, and that it does operate at some kind of arm's length from those of us in the Legislature here.
Mr. Cummings: I said it reports to the chief enforcement officer.
Mr. Struthers: It reports to the chief enforcement officer. Now that is the line going from the special investigation unit and the connection to the department. What are the parameters when you flip the coin around, when you look at the flow from the other direction? What is it that the department can ask of the special investigations unit? What direction can the department give to this unit?
Mr. Cummings: There is a policy framework within which they operate. They would respond to concerns in Fisheries and Wildlife, issues that perhaps could be some undercover requirement or assistance that would be necessary. They are not, in any way, free-lancing, nor are they reporting or dealing in any kind of direction that comes from the minister's office. It is strictly an enforcement process, but it has its uniqueness and is not part of the uniformed enforcement for what I would think would be obvious reasons. Perhaps it would be useful to indicate that, while I have not been fully briefed in this area, there have been instances recently where there have been some successful apprehensions of people dealing in animal parts and other things that would be illegal, that this unit was able to function in a way that we might not otherwise have been able to accomplish the apprehension.
Mr. Struthers: The one example that springs to mind maybe is the recent case with the people who got caught with the bear galls. Is that the example that the minister is alluding to?
Mr. Cummings: No, Mr. Chairman, I was not specifically referring to that one. There are other examples. I suppose the member can press me if he chooses to. If I were to name some of the charges that have been laid, and successfully, with the aid of this unit, I might be breaking cover for some of the people who were involved. I am more than willing to indicate the area in which they work and the nature of their work. Poaching, obviously, given the responsibilities of the department, is a major area where this type of reconnaissance would be invaluable. It is kind of hard to hide a big black four by four by four with flashing lights and a full load of equipment and a four-wheeler in the back when officers are trying to observe those who they think are involved in illegal trapping or hunting or fishing for that matter.
Remember that there are a lot of things that would not happen if there was not value attached to it. Very often where they might intercede as well, I suspect, is where trade is involved, and I think you can extrapolate what that might mean in terms of undercover work.
Mr. Struthers: Who is today the chief enforcement officer?
Mr. Cummings: Dave Purvis.
Mr. Struthers: In any kind of an issue such as this one, there has obviously got to be a lot of co-ordination between not just the Department of Natural Resources but the Department of Justice, and not just within the provincial government but I would think the federal government as well. Can the minister describe the relationship with the federal government and the special investigations unit?
* (2010)
Mr. Cummings: The relationship with federal authorities is largely a liaison, unless you get into other areas where obviously this type of a unit might end up coming across criminal, illegal, even drug operations that they might stumble onto or find in association with other work that they are doing. So it is all done through the chief enforcement officer. Justice assists with any laying of charges if it gets into areas that we would not normally be involved in.
Remember that in wildlife and natural resources, the province is generally the lead responsibility. In that area we would be liaising, but when other issues come up, obviously we work with the appropriate authorities and the Department of Justice.
Mr. Struthers: Does that mean there is any money at all coming from the feds at all, or is it strictly a provincial funding?
Mr. Cummings: Strictly provincial, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Struthers: A while ago in the House, we were asking some questions about a special investigations unit in regard to an issue that came up. It was more than just the issue of animal parts and the smuggling, some of the international smuggling ring kind of overtones to the case. It had to do with the process, the line of hierarchy, within the Department of Natural Resources and the fact that Mr. David Purvis at one time tendered his resignation, because in a letter he claimed that he was being pressured by the then minister to wrap up a case that involved about 300 charges under both federal and provincial wildlife acts.
What eventually happened was that the charges were reduced from somewhere over 300 down to eight. I think what the concern is, is the politicization of the special investigations unit, thinking that it is not operating in an arm's length position from the minister's office. What I would like to know is what path the directive from the Natural Resources minister would take to the chief executive officer, any kind of an order to drop charges. Can the minister explain to me the pathway that that kind of a directive would have to follow?
Mr. Cummings: There is no path for me to provide direction to this officer.
Mr. Struthers: So any kind of directive given by the Resources minister would not be normal or would not be acceptable, or in certain cases could probably be considered illegal in telling somebody within his own department to knock off with the case or make changes to a case where somebody has been poaching animals and selling into a smuggling ring of some kind.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, we do not get involved in that scenario as the member has described. I am not sure if he is implying that I should be or that I should not be, or that somebody else should or should not have been, but I want to indicate that would be a very unlikely scenario.
Mr. Struthers: Exactly who decides what charges are going to be laid on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources in cases involving poaching or any other breach of this provincial government's acts?
Mr. Cummings: Only the unit that is involved and the Ministry of Justice.
Mr. Struthers: Is the Minister of Natural Resources completely free of any responsibility in determining what charges are laid and who they are laid against?
Mr. Cummings: Well, either the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has got a lack of trust in my judgment or a lack of discretion in how he believes the political arm of government and the enforcement and the legal side of enforcement would interrelate. Surely he is not implying that the minister should be directing what charges are being laid. Only the people in the field could do that, and it is no different than when I was in the Department of Environment that if the environment officer feels there are appropriate charges that they should be brought forward, he works with Justice to deal with it. Obviously there is always an issued amount of time that is available in Justice. That is not a criticism of the department. It is a reality of the workload that they have here and everywhere else in the country, but that is the relationship where those who are in the field and those who would go to court, that is where they interface to decide what they will do.
Mr. Struthers: I am afraid, though, Mr. Chairman, that it has gone past a level of what should and should not happen. I agree with the minister in what he says about how the system should operate. The fact of the matter is, though, that Mr. Purvis wrote a letter, a letter of resignation, stating that there was ministerial interference in the laying of charges. It was a letter that I believe I tabled in the House so that everybody would know that this was not just some kind of fabrication from the MLA for Dauphin. The fact of the matter is that the charges in this case were directed by the minister to be changed.
What I do not want to have happen is the same kind of thing happen over again. I trusted the last Natural Resources minister not to do something like this. I trust that this minister will not put pressure on his people in his department, particularly the chief enforcement officer. I trust him not to do that, but the fact of the matter is that it did happen. According to Mr. Purvis, he was so upset about it that he resigned over it, and then withdrew his resignation once he was assured that the charges were going to go ahead. That was outlined in the letter that he wrote.
Mr. Cummings: Mr Chairman, where I come from, that is referred to as male bovine excrement. The fact is that my understanding of the situation is not the same as the member from Dauphin. I think that he might want to test the accuracy of his comments about Mr. Purvis' reasons for his actions. I am sure that if does not know, I want to tell him that Mr. Purvis withdrew the letter. As I understand it, the reasons were that it was not because he was being pressured or given direction. There was a serious misunderstanding about some issues that arose, and he eventually, when that was cleared up, withdrew his letter. I am sure that he would probably confirm that.
* (2020)
Mr. Struthers: This case that prompted the letter of resignation and all the ensuing questions in the House I understand is proceeding today. The person who is being charged has had the number of charges decreased from over 300 down to, I believe, nine. Can the minister explain to this committee why such a drastic drop in charges occurred and why the person up on the charges was not pursued with the other almost 300 charges that I presume that this special investigating unit had done a lot of work on in co-ordination with the federal government to obtain? What would be the rationale for dropping those charges?
Mr. Cummings: I appreciate the member indicating that this is in front of the courts as recently as today. I think that we should both probably be very careful what we say in this forum while something is proceeding through the courts. As I understand the process, and I will relate it to another department where I was until a few months ago, that in the end it would probably be the Department of Justice that would decide what would proceed to court.
It does not mean that there is not a high level of frustration on somebody's part. Certainly I will reflect it as I saw it with the work the Environment officers did in the other department. It would be a similar relationship, because it is the Department of Justice that deals with the issues in the courts. Frankly, even in something as simple as stubble burning, it is not just a simple matter of an officer deciding on his own what will proceed to court. I am quite prepared to get into debate, but I think the member might want to give some thought to how far he wants to go with specifics on this particular case, given that it has not been settled. Frankly, I was not aware that it had not been settled until he brought it to my attention.
Mr. Struthers: It is either the eight or the nine charges that the individual is facing before the court. The other charges that were worked on and then dropped before they ever got to court, unfortunately, are not in front of the court now. I would still like to know, and I would still like an answer, as to why those 290-whatever charges were not pursued.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the implication, and unsaid in this line of questioning, is that there was someone who interfered and said that 90 percent of those charges that were initially thought to be possible did not proceed to court. The information that I am given, it certainly did not go through the senior administration or through the minister. So you can probably assume that the decision was made between Justice and the people in the department as to what charges were laid. Beyond that, I do not think it would be wise for either him or me to pursue those details at a time when this is being dealt with in court.
Mr. Struthers: I am not so sure that I agree with the minister in what he first said. It is not that I am not saying something. I said that there was interference on the part of the former Natural Resources minister, and I said there was a letter from the chief enforcement officer indicating that. I would still like an answer to why these charges have not been pursued. I would hope that the Department of Justice, in some kind of relationship with the Department of Natural Resources, was able to sit and talk about the charges--all 300 or so charges in this case--and have some rationale for not pursuing the vast majority of them.
Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is very serious when someone challenges me, or one of my colleagues, interfering in the laying of charges, and I would be interested if the member cares to repeat that outside of this Chamber.
Mr. Struthers: We are not right now outside the Chamber, and I think that the minister should answer the question that I posed.
Mr. Cummings: I did. There was no inference of influence by the minister's office, and I think the member should choose his words carefully, particularly if he chooses to talk about this outside of the House.
Mr. Struthers: Has the special investigations unit been active at all in terms of elk in this province and investigating the capture of the elk and the obtaining of elk that are not legally obtained?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that this unit operates under the direct direction of the chief enforcement officer. I have no idea whether he has assigned anybody in this area.
Mr. Struthers: I think what we can do is change the angle of the questions, and I would like to talk a little bit about the elk ranching program that this department has undertaken, that this government has undertaken.
The legislation has been passed allowing the government to capture elk and eventually ranch elk. Definitions have been changed to suit the purposes of ranching wild elk. So, at least from the point of view of passing the legislation to allow this to happen, even though the capture did begin well before the legislation was ever proposed to the House last year, the legislation is now in place to retroactively make okay the elk capture that went on last year. My understanding is that the Department of Natural Resources obtained 117 elk last year and have been housing them at a farm site in Grunthal, and that this year, again, the province embarked on an elk capture program.
I would like to know from the minister, to begin with, what the total number of elk was that the Department of Natural Resources captured.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chair, 139--129, pardon me, and 109, which would be a total of 238.
Mr. Struthers: Would the minister indicate to me--I would like to know some more details about the 238 elk. Could you give me a breakdown of where the elk came from? [interjection] I am interested in knowing about the 238 elk that were captured. Where exactly were they captured, and were they captured in Manitoba?
* (2030)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, if the member is adding up the numbers and hoping that I will make some kind of a error in totals, I probably have already done it. I do not want to mislead him on the numbers, but I am pretty close in the total that I just gave him. If he is asking where the elk came from, the majority of them came from the Swan River Valley, and that was intended. I gave a commitment, after coming into this office, as had my predecessor, that we wanted to deal with the heavy depredation in the Swan River Valley, that also a good number came--last year's capture came from the McCreary area.
The number of elk that were captured, almost half of them, I believe, came from around McCreary last year and, well, not quite half. This year they all came from the Swan River Valley. I think there were six or seven different sites that were used, but some were taken to Grunthal. Some were stored at Crane River as well; they have a very competent compound there. Another example of an aboriginal community that wants to get into business, and, by the way, they seem to be very progressive in approaching the province and wanting to be part of the provincial elk ranching industry, as it is now beginning to unfold.
The total number of elk captured is 235 that the province has in captivity. Remember, there will be some gain from cows that will calve shortly.
Mr. Struthers: Now, part of the problem that I have arising from the elk capture is trying to get some figures from the Department of Natural Resources. Last year I asked the same kind of questions, and I was told that the majority of the elk were not from the Swan Valley, but 77 or so were from the McCreary area and 40 from Swan Valley, which was the second answer I got last year, which was backwards from the first answer I got. So I appreciate the minister giving me these numbers, and I do not want him to think--I do not want him to be suspicious that I am adding up numbers over here to test whether his addition is okay. All I need to know is, basically, where the elk have come from, and he has indicated that, of the elk trapped this year, 100 percent of them came from the Swan Valley area.
The one thing I was not sure of, when you said 235 elk, is that the total that you have now? That is the total of the two years together?
Mr. Cummings: That is the total number of elk that we have in captivity today, including last year's calves. Again, I am not sure how relevant it is, whether there were 50 or 77 that came from the McCreary area. I do not have any figures in front of me to indicate that one way or the other. I was going by my own memory, but there were roughly 50 or 57, I thought, that came from McCreary. If the member has information it was 77, he is probably right. I can dig that out if necessary, but that one capture site at McCreary was quite successful.
Mr. Struthers: We had 117 that were caught last year, and I am told that at Grunthal there were 23 calves this year. Is that an accurate number?
Mr. Cummings: The number I have is 29 calves from last year. If the member wants to get this 100 percent accurate, I can make sure that he receives the precise information, but there is no reason to give him anything other than the accurate information as to what is available and where they came from.
Mr. Struthers: So that leaves about 80 or 81 elk that have been trapped in the Swan Valley area this year. Is that close enough to say that without being inaccurate?
Mr. Cummings: The number from the 1997 capture is 105.
Mr. Struthers: The targets for capture over the five years that the province has been talking about capturing elk I believe were 200 a year. Obviously two years in a row the department has fallen way short of their target. What is the government's plan on getting back closer to the figure that you had targeted in the first place?
According to these figures, you are 70-some animals short of what you--well, no, sorry, you are farther back than that, but you are a substantial number of elk back. The minister is much quicker at those kinds of numbers than I am by the looks of it, but you are significantly short of the number of animals that you wanted to have captured at this time. I would like to know the plans that you have got to get back on track with the number of elk that you are capturing.
Mr. Cummings: Well, I am not sure where the member got the figure of 200 per year. I suppose, if we had got 200 this year, we would have thought we had hit nirvana. We were looking for an average catch, perhaps of 150. So, yes, we are a little short, but that is also, of course, a good result of having started a year in advance as well.
Knowing the introduction of the bill and having announced the direction that we were going, the province was able to begin the initial capture, which puts us virtually a year ahead of schedule, so we do not think we are--and the schedule in this case is not a make-or-break number. Obviously, if we caught none or if we only caught 50, I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) would have some concern about whether or not we were going to get to a critical mass quickly enough.
There is a very logical and practical reason why there should be a reasonable number caught annually for a given number of years and then cut off the capture, because if this is going to be a commercial agricultural operation--and the member said earlier that we changed the definitions so that it was now legal to farm. I suppose that is one way of approaching it, but what Manitoba has done--as I understand the bill that we introduced and the capability that we have in the province now of farming certain what would be called game animals or wildlife--is that we have designated them under the Department of Agriculture that they could be legally farmed, and elk has been designated under that other species, could be, if necessary. That has been seen to be a very progressive move by people operating in some other jurisdictions.
* (2040)
It makes it pretty clear that responsibility between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Natural Resource is those that are in the wild are still clearly within the realm of responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources. The herd health, maintenance of records, all of those things that those that are being ranched are handled under the act and regulations managed by the Department of Agriculture, because that is very similar to what they would do with what are existing domestic lines of livestock. So it is seen to be a very good approach, and interestingly enough, I believe one of the reasons that--I am told and I stand to be corrected, because I am not a pure historian in this respect--but the fact that bison ranching has proceeded as well as it has in this part of the world is that they were never designated as an endangered species; in fact, the only remaining ones were in captivity. So they were able to develop the herd from there, the ones that are being used for ranching I believe, plus, of course, I am sure that there is a trade between those who have legal ability to do so. The elk capture is the responsibility of this department, management of the herd until they are put into the hands of the domestic operators. As that transition is made, they will be DNA tested and identified and health checked by the Department of Agriculture, and then they will be entirely out of the hands of this ministry.
Mr. Struthers: The minister kind of got into exactly where I was headed to next with some of the questions having to do with the elk that are in capture right now and the treatment that they get within being held. What I mean by that is who would it be that would inspect where these animals are being held, and who would monitor what is going on with the elk within the spot where they are being held? The minister also mentioned a while ago that there were some animals stored at Crane River. We have established that there are 235 elk that are in pens held for the Department of Natural Resources at various locations. Crane River is one of them. What I would like to do is go through and get kind of a ballpark figure as to how many are at these different locations and where all these locations are.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, there are 170 at Grunthal, 55 at Crane River, 10 at Pine Creek. A moment ago I referenced the division of responsibilities and how the herd health identification was being managed as they moved into possession of agricultural operations. For obvious reasons, they are being jointly managed at this juncture, because we have to keep the health up and the identification appropriate so that they can, in fact, be parcelled and moved out once the calves have reached an appropriate size. So I did not mean to imply that Agriculture was not deeply involved at this juncture, but once they are into the hands of the actual elk ranches they will be managed by Agriculture.
Mr. Struthers: That is good. I made that connection too. Can the minister indicate when the move will take place? When will these calves and the rest of the herd be ready to be dispersed? I mean, physically be ready to be dispersed, not when will the regulations be ready. I think that is a different question. When will the animals physically be ready to be moved?
Mr. Cummings: That will ultimately be managed by Agriculture, but I understand that, for obvious reasons, we do not want to move the herd when they are heavily pregnant or when the calves are very young. You can do that with fully domesticated animals, but that would be unwise with this herd.
So the draw is being organized now, because those who would be able to acquire elk from this capture, will have to prepare their pens. Ultimately they will never get licensed if they do not have the appropriate facilities. People will know early on if they have been successful in the draw and then fall, maybe late fall, the herd will be dispersed to those who have been successful in the draw.
Mr. Struthers: Now that is when the herd will be dispersed. How soon can we expect the draw for these elk to be made? Unless I am asking a question, that should maybe be answered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).
Mr. Cummings: Can you repeat that, please?
Mr. Struthers: Yes, when can we expect the draw for these elk to be made?
Mr. Cummings: I am looking to the Minister of Agriculture. I believe the applications are out there now. I cannot give you a precise draw date, but if you know someone who wants to be in the draw, they should be getting an application from their Department of Agriculture representative.
Mr. Struthers: In some of the media there have been reports--and I probably read this in a government news release--even though the minister last week did not think I read the government news releases, it may have been in one of those that I actually read, where he was talking of an additional capture. Are there plans to have another capture? Are there plans for a program later on this year to bulk up the numbers of elk that he has got so far? Maybe he can indicate if I did read that in a government news release or not.
Mr. Cummings: Probably more than likely the member was visiting with some friends from Swan River. I think I may have made those comments at the Elk Advisory committee. The fact is I think I should be clear that it is a poorly kept secret that there were a lot of unhappy people about the capture that occurred up there last year and this year. I clearly stated to the people who were working with us, or who were on our advisory board, that it was not a question of whether or not they supported elk ranching or not. It was more that we perceive that there are a lot of elk in the area. We would not be capturing elk at the east end of the valley and the area where we were this year. Unlikely we would ever do that again, but we would be seeking the co-operation of all parties in the valley. If there were private individuals anywhere in the valley who wanted to co-operate under supervised capture with the Department of Natural Resources, we would be interested in talking with them. In fact, the advisory committee, a fairly broad based group that Mr. Driedger put together, I think, maybe has considered the options and, I understand, had some very useful discussions about whether or not there was even the capability of a summer capture. I have no idea if there is or not. It might not be appropriate, but I asked them to give me their best advice on what might be available.
* (2050)
Along with the fact that there are a number of known areas where there are problem elk, they may well be on private land or very close to private land, and capture may be possible. But, if there are other areas, including McCreary, including other areas well known in that part of the country where elk are very likely available for capture, we would be more than willing to co-operate with and work with anyone who would want to participate in the capture. On that aspect there certainly is a desire on the part of a number of the aboriginal community to get involved. Several First Nations have said that they see this as a natural, and we are quite prepared to work with them. There have been some proposals made about their involvement in a capture for the future. Those are all under discussion. It is an open-ended discussion, but one which, I think, has a good possibility of success, so we could see fairly aggressive capture over the next two to three years. But, again, there will eventually have to be a deadline, a time when we will stop any further capture from the wild, and we will have then considered the herd in Manitoba to be closed and to become part of a commercial trade, if you will, or a commercial entity.
Mr. Struthers: I take it from that answer that the answer is no for this year, that there will not be an elk-capturing program.
Mr. Cummings: No, I said the opposite, Mr. Chairman, that I am anticipating there could be quite an aggressive one if we get appropriate co-operators, but the question--I do not think it is going to be a long or ongoing problem, but certainly our objective was to reduce the herd in the Swan River Valley. But, if we do not have a little bit better success there, we will take the opportunity to also capture elk in other parts of the province. That is what I was referring to.
Whether they will all come out of the Swan River Valley, I suppose I would doubt that they will all come from the Swan River Valley, that we may in fact get some other elk, but my predecessor and I both said that we wanted to deal with the problem in the Swan River Valley and went back to the depredation of crops. There is always a question over the last few years at least about the number of elk that are in the valley and some of them coming out of the park and some of them actually calving in the valley, and the associated problems that come with that.
But there will be, I think, a good number of elk taken for this program taken over the course of the next year. I am hopeful that most of them will come from the Swan River Valley. That is, in a nutshell, what I was trying to say.
Mr. Struthers: I would suggest that, if the objective was to deal with the crop depredation problems in the Swan River Valley, if that was the objective, then issues raised by the Elk Management Board would have been taken a lot more seriously a lot sooner than they were. Issues of compensation would have been dealt with a lot sooner than what they were and other alternatives suggested by the Elk Management Board over the years would have been taken a lot more seriously as well.
I would suggest that, if the minister or any of the ministers want to write this off as a crop depredation alleviation kind of a solution, then there should have been a lot more serious consideration of relocating elk as opposed to elk ranching, which was something that the Elk Management Board suggested. There would have been the--a lot sooner, more licences, more tags issued for the elk hunt in the Swan River Valley. I noticed this year that some additional ones have been granted, and that is a good step, but if it was the crop depredation problem that the minister was worried about, that would have happened last year as well.
This is not the first year that we have had crop depredation problems in the Swan River Valley or elsewhere. It seems to me that, if that was the reason, then this government would have moved on that a long time before. That is just a rationale that I do not accept. Quite frankly, I do not believe that is why the government got into this program. If the government wants to make the case that it is good to begin an elk ranching industry and provide for diversification in agriculture, then they may have a better chance of making that argument, and the facts would bear them out a lot better, but I do not think that the minister can logically argue that they are doing the elk ranching program to alleviate crop depredation problems in the Swan Valley.
I think if that was the case as well, then the first year that they were doing the elk capture they would have captured a lot more elk in the Swan Valley rather than going down to McCreary and luring elk out of the federal park with their trap that they set up south of McCreary. So I would hope that the minister would not try to argue something that at least I think is illogical and, in that vein, I would wonder why he did not go back to McCreary again this year and trap some more elk out of the federal park.
Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, well, the member for Dauphin may have gleaned a lot of knowledge about the elk business in the coffee shop at Dauphin. I am not so sure that he was able to ascertain the veracity of the business of elk ranching, the $50-million business that may well evolve in this province as a result of getting into elk ranching. To say that we could have captured more elk this year at McCreary and not bothered with Swan River Valley sort of indicates that he does not accept the rationale that there are too many elk in the Swan River Valley.
If I did not care about the situation in the Swan River Valley, we probably could have caught a couple of hundred elk this year and we would have taken them all from somewhere else. It is as simple as that. My predecessor and I both said we wanted to deal with the situation in the Swan River Valley and neither one of us are naive enough to think that we would capture enough elk and we surely did not intend to consider justifying the elk business on the fact that we wanted to reduce depredation in the Swan River Valley. What we tried to do was combine a number of things, including the capture of elk, increase of the hunt and all the other things that were associated with the '96, '97 winters.
You might recall, if he has been listening to his colleague from Swan River, a lot of the crop did not get taken off up there last year, and we even had an elk season just prior to Christmas and after Christmas which was entirely counterproductive to the capture that we intended to run, but it also drove the elk out of the valley where they were depredating on a lot of the crop. These are not domestic cows we are dealing with that got over into the neighbour's crop. You are talking about animals that can travel several miles over the course of one night, and they are capable of congregating in large enough groups that they can wipe out 40 acres worth of swath in a couple of nights. So I think the member is poking at a sore that is not going to do a whole lot except make me angry, because the fact is, the Swan River Valley--he says we should have gone back to McCreary to capture the elk. That is exactly the attitude of a lot of people in the Swan River Valley who simply do not want elk ranching. I assume that is his position as well. He does not want elk ranching. He wants only to have a little bit of politics at the expense of those who are trying to get into an industry that is well known for its controversy. If he is truly concerned about some rural diversification and the opportunity associated with elk ranching, then he may not be so critical of the fact that we tried to combine that with an opportunity to deal aggressively with what was a problem that we felt should be corrected on behalf of the Swan River Valley.
The member should also be aware that we are now the only jurisdiction, I believe, in western Canada that provides 100 percent compensation for wildlife depredation. That is predicated primarily on some of the enormous losses that people in the valley have suffered, along with a number of his constituents and mine around the edge of Riding Mountain. I suppose that I am sure he would support me in saying that we do need to accept our responsibility in managing appropriately the numbers of animals that are moving from park to farmland and back to parks and, in some cases, causing enormous damage.
The place where we captured the elk last year at McCreary, we captured them virtually in the farmer's yard. I mean, these are situations where sometimes you cannot build a fence strong enough without spending an enormous amount of money to keep the Queen's livestock out of your feed supply. It is a very troublesome situation for some of these people who live in close proximity to where the large herds are.
* (2100)
The capture is only part of the program--and it is not even the lead part of the program--to deal with the depredation problems in the Swan River Valley. I guess that is the message I gave to the advisory board, as well, that if they want to provide some advice and some assistance as to how we can deal with the resident herd in the Swan River Valley, then we can probably all collectively make some progress in dealing with that herd. If perchance we catch another 300 or 400 elk over the next few years to enhance the elk ranching industry, then I suggest it comes a little closer to being a win-win for everybody.
Mr. Struthers: For this minister to assume that the information that I get is gleaned completely from the coffee shop talk around Dauphin indicates an arrogance on the part of the minister that pervades the whole government. I want to say that it does not look good on the minister, because I have gotten more used to the more straightforward, honest talk that the minister has given me otherwise in these Estimates. If the minister wants to proceed and continue along thinking that, then I would encourage him to do so, because the information that I get is not completely--although the minister should have his ear to the ground too and hear what is going in the coffee shops--based on the restaurant talk going around not just Dauphin but the rest of rural Manitoba when it comes to elk ranching.
The other thing that I would like the minister to reconsider is putting words in the mouth of the MLA for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). At no time did I encourage him to go to McCreary. I just as soon he not trap elk near McCreary. I would just as soon he not trap elk anywhere as, indeed, the position of the NDP was absolutely clear. When the minister and this government brought forward its legislation on elk ranching, we did not support it. So let not the minister throw innuendo out that we do not support it. I would sooner the minister just come right out and say the NDP does not support it, and that would be the truth.
Mr. Cummings: I want to hear it from you.
Mr. Struthers: The minister says he wants to hear it from me. He can check the records. It is in black and white. We are not ashamed of what we have voted on this legislation that you have put forward, and, indeed, I would encourage the minister to tell people that we are against the way that this government has approached elk ranching in this province.
(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Do not leave any innuendo out there. Tell them exactly how we voted on this. I do not mind a bit. I also do not mind a bit the fact that it was our government that put the moratorium on in the first place, whatever year that was, back in the mid-'80s when my former school principal was the Minister of Natural Resources and sat where the minister is right now. So, if the minister is going to put words in my mouth, I want him to put honest words in my mouth, and I will stand up and I will defend those in any of the coffee shops, whether he wants to come to Dauphin or anywhere in rural Manitoba. Just make sure you have got everything straight there.
An Honourable Member: It is pretty clear.
Mr. Struthers: Good. The minister, though, failed to answer the question that I did ask, and that was, if he could not get as many elk in the Swan Valley as he would like, why did he not go to McCreary this year?
Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was trying as politely as I could to inform the member for Dauphin that we had committed ourselves, along with the increased wildlife crop damage compensation, along with a commitment to look at hunting numbers, to do what we could to concentrate our efforts in the Swan River Valley for the winter of '97, and I try not to go back on my word, No. 1.
Number two, by the time it became apparent that the capture was not going to be as plentiful as we had expected--and there were a number of influencing factors, but not the least of which the weather was better in the valley than anticipated and the feed was a lot more plentiful than anticipated. By the time that we had realized that we were not going to exceed 100 by a lot--and he should know that one capture alone netted 40 animals, so there was certainly reason to continue with our efforts--by then the cows were probably getting heavy enough that we would be ill advised to move.
At the same time, he should recall that we did not necessarily have a plethora of equipment to facilitate a capture either, and the very equipment that we had used a year ago at McCreary was unavailable to us this year, and that somewhat militated against our opportunities.
Mr. Struthers: Could the minister tell me if he received any correspondence from the federal government concerning the elk that were being captured near McCreary out of the Riding Mountain National Park? Other than what we read in the quotes in the media, was there any indication from the federal government that they opposed the capture of elk in that area?
Mr. Cummings: Well, no, we had no correspondence from the federal government. There may have been some local park officials who implied that these were their elk. Perhaps you should go back and look at the delegation of authority for Natural Resources. Those are Manitoba elk even if they are in the national park.
Mr. Struthers: Can the minister give me an indication of how many elk have been exported from Manitoba to other jurisdictions?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I do not have a compilation of the number of permits that have been issued. There have been some, but not over a period of years. As the member might recall, when he proudly pointed to the fact that his predecessor from his alma mater had--not his predecessor, but the principal of his alma mater--had authorized the shutdown of elk ranching in the province, even as part of that shutdown, I believe there was an export out of the province allowed by those people who had elk in captivity at that time. So it has been sporadically allowed off and on for a number of years. The only time it would occur legally, however, is by permit, and that would be the numbers that I have. There has also been trade within the province. Remember that the Assiniboine Park zoo has sold surplus elk from time to time. In fact, that is where some of the elk have come from that have been declared within the province.
Mr. Struthers: I realize that this might not be a fair request on the spot to get those kinds of numbers, but I am wondering if the minister can undertake to provide me with the numbers of licences that have been and indicate the number of elk that have been exported outside of the province.
Mr. Cummings: It will take some research. We will undertake to do that. It would be permitted exports that would have occurred.
* (2110)
Mr. Struthers: I would assume that the same implies for elk that we have imported to Manitoba, that there would be licences required and that there would be numbers available for that?
Mr. Cummings: I do not know off the top of my head whether or not there have been any imported, but we will review that as well.
Mr. Struthers: Whether these animals were exported or imported, I would imagine that the Department of Natural Resources has a process in place to track the movement of disease from one to the other, to provide some kind of assurance for the wild population that we have. I would want the minister to explain to me how the Department of Natural Resources actually goes about insuring that disease is not transferred back and forth from one jurisdiction to the next.
Mr. Cummings: That would be contained the same way it is with the domestic livestock coming from, in the case of domestic animals, foreign soils in some cases. It is through quarantines and blood samples and tracking of any of the noted diseases that we would normally test for. But there are some interesting things that occur and lest the member be too concerned whether or not there were animals that were moved, certainly we will have any records that were moved legally.
There may, however, be some interesting situations. For example, there were red deer imported into this province. They are illegal here, but we did not know that they were imported. The feds went in, sampled them, blood sampled or health inspected them, said they were fine and never informed the person that they were illegal in this jurisdiction. They are legal in other provinces but they are not legal in Manitoba. So it is a shame that two levels of authority would not be a little bit more cognizant of each other's responsibility to have communicated appropriately at a time like that. Fortunately, the people who brought them in were very conscientious and nothing negative came of it, but they lost heavily.
Mr. Struthers: One of the questions that I asked last year during Estimates having to do with the storage of elk at Grunthal dealt with disease, and I asked, I made the assertion that the prevalence of brain worm was high among deer in the area in the southeast part of our province. I eventually got a letter from the department indicating that there was a very high percentage of animals in the area affected with brain worm. I was also told that the possibility existed that that could be transferred to the elk that were captured and held, stored at Grunthal. On the basis of that, I am going to assume that the department has been monitoring that since the elk had been stored in Grunthal, and I would like to know if any of that disease has been detected amongst the herd there.
Mr. Cummings: To the best of our knowledge, brain worm has never been documented in elk, and they have not been documented at Grunthal, that is for sure. So I guess the question the member is asking is: Is there a possibility of transmission? It would appear not, but I do not know. Just to finish that response, I do not know, but there are animal health officials, who are dealing with this herd, and when the issue was raised a year ago, it was in fact referred so that there would be appropriate examination.
Mr. Struthers: Kind of switching back to Swan Valley and the capture that went on there, could the minister indicate how much money was spent to Les Nelson and to Jerry Dushanek for the contracts they signed with the department to capture these elk?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the capture was done on a percentage basis and that would be roughly equivalent to agreements that we offered to other people to capture, which would be approximately at the $500 per head ratio.
Mr. Struthers: At $500 a head, Mr. Dushanek would--no, I have that wrong. Okay. Try it again. Thanks.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, it was done on a percentage basis, 10 percent of the capture. You can apply a different number to it, if you wish.
Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate to me then how many elk Mr. Dushanek caught for the Department of Natural Resources?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the capture total was 92, which would amount to a share of nine.
Mr. Struthers: The capture total of Mr. Dushanek or the capture total between the two? [interjection] So between Mr. Nelson and Mr. Dushanek, they caught 92 elk. So each one, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Dushanek, would receive nine animals.
Mr. Cummings: Between them.
Mr. Struthers: Between them. Okay. Nine between the two of them.
What is the length of their contract?
Mr. Cummings: The date is eluding us at the moment, but the date was tied to our knowledge of the length of pregnancy of the elk. It was within our control whether it would be extended or not. I believe there was a definite termination date, and if it went beyond that, it was only at our discretion for capture based on how long the cows had been in calf or how close they were to calving. So the date is no secret, but we just do not have it in front of us here.
Mr. Struthers: Would I be correct in assuming that there was a definite beginning date though and an end date, and then the end date was flexible that it depended on the word from the minister as to what that end date would actually be and when the capture would actually end?
Mr. Cummings: There was a definite end to the contract, but understandably we could extend it a few days if we chose to. I do not remember whether it was extended for one or two days or a week at the most. Once we reached the termination date, it was entirely within the hands of the wildlife people whether or not it would be extended.
Mr. Struthers: The pens that were used to catch these elk, I hope, would be pens that are inspected by the Department of Natural Resources before the capture has taken place.
Mr. Cummings: The entire capture was under the supervision of the Natural Resources officers in the area, and, yes, the facilities had to be inspected and be shown to be competent, or we would not have engaged the people in the capture.
* (2120)
Mr. Struthers: Was the minister ever alerted to the possibility of Mr. Nelson operating a trap that was not inspected and was not known to the Department of Natural Resources during the span of the capture, during the life of the contract?
Mr. Cummings: No, Mr. Chairman. There certainly might have been a rumour in the coffee shop but none that was ever brought to my attention or to senior management.
Mr. Struthers: If it was just a coffee shop rumour, I think the minister would probably be glad that it was not spread around by members of the opposition and that we came to the Estimates here to get his confirmation, yea or nay. I am glad that the possibility exists that it was just a rumour.
I have also been made aware of instances where orphan elk have been taken in by different farmers around rural Manitoba and kept, then have been confiscated by the Department of Natural Resources. I am wondering, why the double standard? As I came into Winnipeg one morning, caught a cab and listened to the radio station, I could not believe what I was hearing on the radio where it was announced that the government was going to be--for the low cost of $1,000 a head, people could come and register their elk and get into elk ranching. Being a positive kind of a guy, I just assumed that it must have been a mistake in the news release or a mistake that the announcer made on the radio or a simple mistake that the minister made; but. when I got into the city, it was made painfully clear to me that it was not a mistake. It was not just a misprint; it was not the news announcer misspeaking; it actually was a policy of this government to let people register their elk for $1,000 and get into elk ranching no matter where they got that elk from and no matter how they went about capturing these elk, legal or otherwise.
I am wondering if the minister can indicate how many elk were actually registered at $1,000 a head.
Mr. Cummings: I think that would be more appropriate asked in Agriculture Estimates. That is the area for which they are responsible. But let me clarify a couple of issues for the member for Dauphin. He seems to be implying that, if I had an elk in the back 40 and I nabbed him just before the date of registration, that would somehow allow me to register him for $1,000, and that is simply not the case. The fact is that I think the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) must have been slipping questions for him on this orphan elk issue.
We have certainly no intention of being abusive or restrictive in terms of those who are trying to help orphaned calves that have been found in the wild, but let us remember that we cannot or we should not, in my view at least, put wildlife in the position where it would be profitable for somebody to make sure that an orphaned calf was indeed orphaned and then obtain an opportunity to get into the elk ranching industry via that means. I mean, that would be the downside of regulation or accommodation that could go awry and could encourage abuse.
The one or two circumstances that we have been made aware of where people had in fact saved an orphan from a sure death and that orphan is now in Grunthal or wherever under the supervision of Natural Resources, it is not our intention to be unreceptive to some of their concerns about whether or not they have not been treated fairly in terms of having the elk removed from them, but that is the situation. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has often said, we have to struggle to fairly bring this industry into legal operation. That means that decisions going into the legalizing of elk ranching will have to be made with a large number of factors taken into consideration.
While I have got the floor, Mr. Chairman, I might as well put it on the record, because I am sure the next question either to me or to the Minister of Agriculture will be about what if any knowledge there was of elk in this province prior to the date when they were to be declared. I think I have used the word "registration" a couple of times already. I should have used the word "declaration." The fact is that there were no elk that showed up to be declared that the Department of Natural Resources did not know about. Pardon the double negative.
Mr. Struthers: The minister has indicated that there are 235 elk right now in captivity waiting to be distributed. I do not understand why he cannot tell me how many of those were of the $1,000 a head variety.
Mr. Cummings: None of those.
Mr. Struthers: None of those.
Mr. Cummings: The elk that are in captivity, the property of the government of Manitoba on behalf of the people of Manitoba, and they are all the ones that we have brought into capture. The elk that are declared are the elk that were on licensed and unlicensed ranches, but I want to put the record straight, compared to the headlines that were in the newspapers, and some fairly reputable newspapers, that somewhere out there, there were 1,000 elk being squirrelled away behind some poplar bluffs somewhere, and that simply was not the case. That did an enormous amount of damage to the reputation of the industry, and I think there was a deliberate attempt to do some damage to the reputation of some individuals, some in this House. I think it was most unfair that occurred and that is why I take every opportunity to repeat, there were no elk that were declared that the Department of Natural Resources was not aware of.
Mr. Struthers: When I was asking the questions about how many elk were in captivity, maybe I assumed that that 235 included those that were declared $1,000 a head. That leads me to believe there is a lot more than 235 then that are actually up for distribution when the distribution finally occurs. No? Maybe the minister can explain that.
* (2130)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, my numbers may be out by one or two, or a dozen one way or the other, but let us talk about the principle that is involved here in the declaration of the elk during the period that the Department of Agriculture set up to prepare for the industry to get underway. There were only 88 elk that were declared that were not on licensed premises. Those 88 elk, without, I do not think I can appropriately go into detail at this point, but the Ministry of Agriculture is determining and it would appear that those were all purchased elk. Now we know that the Keesee Band would be the exception to that, but all other elk would appear to have been purchased.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3.(f) Wildlife (2) Big Game and Fur Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $488,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $214,000--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $89,900--pass.
3.(f)(3) Habitat and Land Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Struthers: On this line it has listed $645,000 in grants for Habitat and Land Management. I am just interested in two questions here. What groups can access that money, if there are any groups? What is the process they go through to access the funds?
Mr. Cummings: The entirety of that line goes to the Habitat Heritage Corporation.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 12.3. Resource Programs (f) Wildlife (3) Habitat and Land Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $626,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $175,100--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability $516,000--pass.
3.(4) Conservation Data and Nongame Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $447,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $132,700--pass.
3.(5) Canada-Manitoba Waterfowl Damage Prevention Agreement $331,500--pass.
3.(6) Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Initiative $225,000.
Mr. Struthers: Again, I am interested in knowing the groups that can access that $225,000, and what process they need to go through to get in on the funds.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, that fund is a result of the wildlife conservation fee that we will expect to receive revenue from. What we will do is we are intending to demonstrate to the hunting fraternity that we will reinvest those dollars in the wildlife management. We have not yet designated all of the appropriate areas. It could go into areas of monitoring. Aerial surveys would be one thing that we want done under that area. We have a problem-bear dispersal issue. There could be some useful work done there, and also information systems around that. Traditional uses of wildlife, that is an area that we could usefully work in. Wildlife management, inventory, wildlife management systems areas for mapping.
The Conservation Data Centre is doing a website expansion. That is information that would be useful in the long term for support of wildlife management and work within our wildlife management areas. There are several things that could be done in conjunction with those. So those are the general areas that will be spent, but this is not exactly a granting fund. This is a fund that we want to demonstrate that we are reinvesting the money back in the wildlife resources in the province.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3.(f) Wildlife (6) Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Initiative $225,000--pass.
3.(g) Sustainable Development Co-ordination Unit $235,900--pass.
3.(h) Habitat Enhancement Fund $50,000--pass.
3.(j) Special Conservation and Endangered Species Fund $432,100--pass.
3.(k) Snowmobile Network Opportunities Fund zero--pass.
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I skipped a page here. I was intending to ask a question on the Habitat Enhancement Fund. I went over it and did not ask my question.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): That is okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you. Again, just like we have in the last two questions I have asked, there is $50,000 available in the Habitat Enhancement Fund. Again, what groups could be eligible for that money, and what is the process they go through to get those funds?
Mr. Cummings: The monies go to the Critical Wildlife Habitat Program. It is about 13 percent of the total budget for that.
Mr. Struthers: I am not sure I understood that; 13 percent of the $50,000?
Mr. Cummings: It is 13 percent of the total budget for Critical Habitat. Slightly over 10 percent, I guess, is another way of putting it.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3.(k) Snowmobile Network Opportunities Fund, zero--pass.
Resolution 12.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $40,819,800 for Natural Resources, Resource Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1998.
4. Land Information Centre (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $625,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $478,300--pass.
4.(b) Crown Lands Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $395,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,082,500--pass.
* (2140)
4.(c) Crown Lands Registry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $223,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $137,700--pass.
4.(d) Survey Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,399,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $477,200--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,470,200)--pass.
4.(e) Remote Sensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $601,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $127,200--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($23,700)--pass.
4.(f) Distribution Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $351,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $272,100--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($95,000)--pass.
4.(g) Land Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $469,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $612,700--pass.
Resolution 12.4: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,664,800 for Natural Resources, Land Information Centre, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
5. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Equipment and Infrastructure $535,600--pass; (b) Water Projects $3,790,400--pass; (c) Park Facilities $3,527,300--pass.
Resolution 12.5: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,853,300 for Natural Resources, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
We will now revert to item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. I would ask that the staff please leave.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the critic of the opposition: Did the House leaders agree that we would deal with the Sustainable Development Fund as well? We have dealt with the Co-ordination Unit. I could attempt to answer some questions on the Sustainable Development Fund if that would be deemed appropriate.
Mr. Struthers: I was operating under the arrangement that we made last week, where we would go to the end of Minister's Salary, and then we would go back to the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund and pass that after the Minister's Salary.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Agreement on that? [agreed]
Mr. Struthers: Does that mean your staff has to come back in again or can they--whatever is easiest for them.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): If we could just ask the staff to wait outside. Thank you.
Item 1(a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.
Resolution 12.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,630,700 for Natural Resources, Administration and Finance.
If I could bring to the attention, it has been pointed out to me that the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund is further down the list, and this will create a bumping. I would like to ask the House leader to make a suggestion. I guess if we could proceed with this and with agreement, could we finish tonight? Are we that close? There is some suggestion that we could get through this tonight, therefore not causing any bump in the system.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Chairman, I have had preliminary discussions about this with opposition House leadership, if I can put it that way. The one thing I am trying to--and it has not necessarily been concluded, but I am sure the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), this being part of his portfolio as critic, will have something to say about this, but the point that I would like to get clear is, and I maybe seek direction from the table on this point, the list of Estimates filed by myself as agreed upon between myself and the opposition House leader has the Sustainable Development appropriation in a different place than the Minister of Natural Resources' Estimates.
The direction I need is as to whether we would require agreement in the House or whether agreement could be obtained in the Committee of the Whole in order for that to happen. I would not want to do something indirectly which I am not supposed to do directly, so that my understanding may be that we would require agreement of the House. It may be that could be obtained, but, if that were obtained, perhaps the honourable member and the minister could wrap these matters up shortly after that depending on the way the discussion goes. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, subject to advice you might give from the table, is that we may need leave from the House in order to move directly to that particular appropriation.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Leave from the House is granted to pass the resolution, but there is nothing to say that we could not have the discussion and the questions take place without leave with the idea that we could ask for the House to give leave to pass the resolution at the end.
Mr. McCrae: From my standpoint, I understand of the minister responsible, that would be a reasonable way to proceed, simply to discuss it for a few minutes this evening and perhaps pass it at another time, pursuant to agreement in the House.
Mr. Struthers: My understanding is that if we had agreement of the House tomorrow, we could deal with this and pass it tomorrow afternoon. If not, we would have to wait until it comes up in its regular rotation on the list of departments.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Right. If you were to ask the questions now and basically get that out of the way, we can ask for a passage through the House at another date. It would just be to pass the resolution at that time.
Mr. Struthers: And all the discussion then next time would have taken place.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Right. We would just be passing the resolution at that time. Is that agreed upon? [agreed]