LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN, Alb ert Driedger (Emerson): Call the Committee to order. Page 96, Natural Resources, Item 6, Lands, 6,(aX 1) . The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before the supper hour the Minister gave us some statistics on the amount of Crown land that had been sold and I believe he mentioned the figure of $1. 2 million that had been received for the 16 6,000 acres I believe; 201 rejected, 947 in the process. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakesid e): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could correct that figure. That figure was 597. not 900. MR. ADAM: Ap proved for sale. MR. ENNS: Approved for sale. MR. ADAM: I wonder if the Minister could give us a breakdown, region by region, of where this land is being sold. MR. ENNS: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by staff that I can't do that tonight. It's not any state secret; if the honourable member would give me some time I'll provide that information for him. I'm advised, Mr.

Chairman, that because the sales are on comp uter we could provide him with a computer print-out that would give him the sales location by municipalities or LGDs, but that's not possible tonight. MR. ADAM: Tha t would be satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if we could the breakdown of the amounts from the lands in those particular areas; along with the amount of acreage if we can get the amounts that were received by the province for the lands sold in those particular areas. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, we will undertake to provide that information to the honourable member. MR.

ADAM: As well, if we could get the breakdown on the other items as well. Those that have been rejected, to give us a better idea of where the requests are coming for land. Also, I'd like to ask the Minister, while we're on Crown lands, I am in receipt of a copy of a letter from the Four Nations Confederacy Corporated to the Minister in regard to a difficulty of Native people to obtain Crown land. I think we discus sed this in the House on Resolution No. 5 introduc ed by the Member for St. Matthews.

The letter to the Minister - if he wishes to have a copy he's welcome to have a copy, I think we can have copies made. It think it rises out of a letter from the West Region Tribal Council in regard to the problems that Native people experience when they apply for Crown land. I think we made the point in the House of the difficulty of Nat ive people being able to have access to sufficient land in order to establish a viable operation of, say, livestock operations, etc. There is another letter here.

I think the letter that the Minister has received is the result of a letter that was sent by the West Region Tribal Council questioning the point system, I presume, of allocating Crown lands. If the Minister wants a copy of that I could provide him with a copy. This seems to be a longstanding problem which I believe we should addr ess ourselves to.

There has been some Crown lands allo cated to Natives and I think in an effort to provide citizens of Native descent who would like to establish themselves in agriculture it seems to me that they are frustrated by this inability to qualif y for allocation of any available land that comes up. I want to ask the Minister as well if he could comment; I posed some questions in the House in regard to the application for a Crown land right-of­ way to build a road to Shoal Lake. I'v e not had a reply yet from the Minister in the House to my questions.

I wonder if he would like to avail himself at this time to respond to my questions in the House on this. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, attempting to answer some of the questions that the member posed. I'm not aware of any specific polic y that mitigates against Native people from acquiring Crown lands for agricultural purposes. My understanding though is that they then have to come under the same point system that has been developed by the Department of Agriculture in the allocation of these lands.

I would have to point out to the honourable member that the allocation process, in this instance, lies within the ju risdiction of the Department of Agricultur e. I suspect that some of the problems are that the request very often is for Crown lands to be allo cated to Na tive people immediat ely adja cent to or surrounding existing lands that they have by way of reserves.

But I can only indicate to him that there is no policy that mitigates against them having that land but they do not have special status, if you like, that will put them ahead of the established point system; a point system which, by the way, I would have to remind the honou rable mem ber was instigated and put into practise at the time the previous administration was in office.

Further that I could add to that and specifically to the letter from Grand Chief Long Claws in his letter to me that the honourable member has a copy of, when I mentioned earlier this afternoon that the whole question of Crown land sales is under review, included in that review is the suggestion that some appeal body be established that applicants could turn to when their app lications are rejected; that is under active consideration at this time.

There has been a suggestion, for instance, that the existing board that presently deals with appeals adjudicating on leases in the Crown Lands division of agricultur e may 2517

TIJesday, 7 April, 1981 perform that board and that is being given active considera tion. So I can positively answer to that concern of Chief Long Claws that we ar= giving active consideration to establishing an appHal body that applicants who have been rejected, can turn to. That is being considered.

Furt her to the qu estion of the department providing necessary Crown land to provide a11 access road to the Shoal Lake Band, I believe it is No. 40, you kno w I bel ieve that I made my pos ition reasonably well known, publicly well known as has been reported in the press in the last few days. 1 have had an opportunity to communicate with His Worship.

Mayor Bill Norrie of the City of Winnipeg, I ack nowledge that there have been sugg estions, proposals made, draft proposals, that we d1scussed this I believe the other day during the consideration of these Estimates; but that's all that thHy were, about possible land exchanges or land pu rchases. That meeting is scheduled within a matter •Jf a few days. in fact it was scheduled for this afternoon but had to be delayed because of Governor Olson's visit and my own involvement in my Estimates. My position is very straight forward.

It oug ht to be very clear that we have a very considerable amount of concern that the department or the provincial government does not act in any way that is not consistent with recognizing the concerns of the City of Winnipeg and if we can arrive at an accomodation that is agreeable to the City of Winnipeg, then we are prepared to consider some resolution to the problem. MR. DEPUTY CHAIR MAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: I thank the Minister. It seem s to me that there is a change in policy here if I un,jerstand the situation correctly.

I do have the Environmental Impact Statement on the cottage develo pment, but I see where in the House the Minister indicated the reason for not allowing right- of-way acces:; to the reserve was because of the development on the cottage lots, but on the agreement that has been going forward from the Band and the department, it seems to me the only thing that is holdin�l up the access road to the reserve is the willingness on the part of the Indian Band to transfer certain Ia 1ds over on the reserve.

The first agreement proposes so many feet or acres on I believe - well I haven't got the rnap with me I don't think here, well, maybe I do - 1t seems to me that there was a request from the department, if the Indian Band would provide some land on the one side and then on the second agreement they wanted a much larger amount of land on t�e other side of the point on the Indian reserve, on the opposite shore. This is the way I understand this agreement.

I'm wondering if the Minister is saying the only reason they are not providing an access roc;d to the reserve is because they are waiting for the Environmental Report? Why are these agreements and why have these agreements been goi �g back and forth between the department and the Indian band? I presume it could have been accepted by the reserve and they would have had an access right-of­ way. I understand that they were willing to pay a large percentage of the construction cost� of this 2518 road.

In fact, I understand that they would be willing to construct the entire operation themselves if they could have access on the Manitoba side to proceed to Highw ay No. 1, or something, somewhere around that area. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we went through this to some extent yesterday and let's be very clear about the use of the word agreements. I refute that as I did yesterday. These were proposals that were suggested, none that ever got to a Minister's office and none that were pursued to the point where you could call them agreements.

Agreements denotes that in fact an agreement has been arrived at between the two parties. These were draft proposals that were presented as pos sible solutions to a problem. But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, I would be interested to know if the spokesman of the New Democratic party in this particular instance is suggesting that the province should grant access to this particular sensitive area that involves the entire water supply to the City of Winnipeg, without any concern for the feelings of the City of Winnipeg?

If that is the position of the New Democratic party then I think that ought to be put on record and we can deal with it in that way. MR. ADAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is trying to put words into my mouth and we can deal with it in that way. We will not allow him to place words in my mouth on the record which may be incorrect or may not be incorrect but nevertheless the point I was making is that the position, as I un derstood it in the Ho use when I asked the questions, do not correspond with the correspondence that has been going back and forth with the Band itself.

The complaints that have been made to me, as the highway critic for the opposition, was that they wanted access to the reserve on Crown lands, that is on the Manitoba side. There was no suggestion to me about any roads on the reserve or any development when the complaint was brought to my attention. I was asked to ask the Minister in the House what was the reason for denying the access to the reserve itself, in other words, the two issues were separate as far as the information that came to my attention.

The fact that there was a change in the policy, one request was for a certain amount of feet - I have n't studied this very thoroughly but it seems to me that there were so many feet that were requested in exchange for the right-of-way. The understanding that I have of this situation is that there are no impediments as far as the road is concerned if the Band is willing to turn over certain lands. That's the understanding that I have at this moment. Now the Minister is saying no, there is a situation of the cottage lots development.

Well, that's fine, but then after further correspondence it's suggested that the department requires more land than had been originally requested. Perhaps the Minister can clarify where the land is required, what lands are required on the reserve, from the Indian Band in order for them to receive approval from the Minister so that they can go ahead with their access road, so that they can get out of that reserve instead of going across a lake or a bay, on the ice in the wintertime to get in the supplies and in the spring no way over

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 ice that is breaking up and planes can't land so how do they have access, say, for a month. That is the Situation as I see it. I realize that there is a problem there as far as the supply of water for the City of Winnipeg which has to be safeguarded. But I'd like to get a clear statement because there seems to be some disagreement on what the Minister is saying and what is going on insofar as letters between the Band and Mr. Jarvis and others. MR. DEPUTY CHAI RMAN: The Minister of Community Services. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr.

Chairman, I, as a former councillor in the City of Winnipeg and Chairman of Works and Operations responsible for the supply of good quality water to over half the population of our province, I would like to commend my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, for the stand that he has taken on this particular issue because while I can understand the Honourable Member for St. George's concern about access, or Ste.

Rose my apologies to the honourable member, that he has concern about access to an area; if it meant, by giving an access to that area, that development of either a major recreational area would threaten the quali ty of the water for Winnipeg and possibly mean that the City of Winnipeg might not be able to utilize the water in its natural state, that has meant savings to the people of Manitoba, and particularly half of the people of Manitoba, the fact that we have good pure water coming from there.

I have to com mend my col leage, the Honourable Member for Lakeside, for the approach that he has taken on this, recognizing the pressures that he has. But I have to say to the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose that we have to not just look at the fact that we want to give access to some of our citizens or to make access to a lake for recreational facilities that will jeopardize the quality of water for over half the population of Manitoba, that I would think we have to take another look at it. I would that the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose would recognize that fact and really commend the Minister of Natural Resources for the action that he's taken in this particular situation. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member tor Ste. Rose's concern when he regards what I believe to be qu ite acceptable and in the norm activities on the part of a previous Deputy Minister and/or other officials that, among other suggestions, suggested a possible solution to the problem that could involve a land exchange of one kind or another; whether it is changed from one letter to another letter doe sn't really matter.

I can only reiterate that was never accepted as policies by the Department of Natural Resources, then or now, isn't being considered now as a fixed matter of policy, will only be considered after the legitimate concerns, as expressed by the Honourable Member tor St. James, are satisfied; that the resolution to the problem can be carried out without endange ring, without jeopardizing, without adding perhaps considerable cost to the residents of Winnipeg in the del ivery of their water system. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1) - pass - the Member for Ste. Rose. 2519 MR. ADAM: Yes. It's my unde rstanding, Mr.

Chairman, that there are other activities or things going on around the lake at the present time that may just do wha t the Minister for Communi ty Services hopes will not happen. There are other activites in my und erstanding.

I spoke to the Manager for the Band and he has informed me, and I can only take his word for it, that there are mines going on around there and other activities that are taking place that could have a far more detrimental effect on the water qual ity than any development; although I certainly agree with the Minister that anything that happens, insofar as development of the cottage lots or wh atever takes place on the shores of Shoal Lake, that assurance has to be there that the qual ity of the water for the City of Winnipeg will not be affected. I agree on that.

Nevertheless, there are other things that are going on there and it seems to me that there are two different issues here. The provision of an access road to the reserve doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a development of cottage lots and if that is the case, what happens then? Will the people there have a way of getting out from that reserve or will they have to continue to do as they have for many many years I suppose and the hardships that go with it? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member has to realize that we have no planning authority, none that we can exercise as a province, over Indian lands. We would in essence be abrogating our respon sibility to a federal agency, namely, the Department of Indian Affairs, to hold and trust if you like the concerns as the Member for St.

James has said on a few occasions, that could provide the kind of possi ble planning control necessary to limit development in that area, that is the source of the safe, clean and pure water supply, probably unexcelled on the continent of North America tor over half the residents of the Province of Manitoba. So, Mr.

Chairman, we dealt with this matter yesterday at some length and the honour able member would be well advised to recognize that Ministers do change, Deputy Ministers do change, initiatives entered into - not agreements - feelers that were entered into by previous Ministers or Deputy Ministers qu ite legitimately so, but were never consumma ted in any formal sense that they could be granted the status of being called agreements. There simply never was an agreement.

These were suggested resolutions to a problem and may well still be in the final analysis a resolution to their problem if other concerns can be met, if the planning concern can be met, if fixed and firm commitments that would satisfy the City of Winnipeg could be met. I'm not ruling out the possibility that some resolution along the lines that the honourable member keeps referring to may not eventually take place.

I'm simply stating my position that as the current Minister of Natural Resources supp orted by my staff, that we will not move in this direction without the full concurrence, without full consultation process having taken place with the people directly affected, namely, the City of Winnipeg. MR. ADAM: I'd like to get back to another item on the allo cations of Crown lands and the Minister

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 ----------------------------- suggested that there should be an appeal body. Now there is an appeal body there already insofar as agriculture Crown lands are concerned. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just by way of clarification, only for the allocation of the leases. If there is a dispute arises as to how the Department of Agricultur e allo cates a lease to a pa rticular individual, that individual can come before a board - the member is correct - for adjudication if you like, arbitration if you like, of the fairness of that allo cation. There is no such board presen1 for the sale of Crown land.

When an applicant receives a notice from the department rejecting his application for the purchase of a piece of Crown land, that's it, there is no further recourse. We have under some pressure 1rom the general public and certainly from members of my caucus that we should consider an appeal aoparatus in that instance as well. A suggestion has been made to me that we may well consider using the same Crown Lands Lease Appeal Board for that purpose, rather than setting up an entirely new and additional board. MR.

ADAM: I'm wondering if the Minist•�r could advise how long can a lessee hold on to Crown lands after he has sold out his cattle and that. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the Depart 11ent of Agriculture is a jurisdiction that has administrative control over this matter.

I would suspect - and I'm aware of - that they, being of the agr icultur al community and serving the agricultural community, would be aware of the fact that the cattle business, like politics, has its ups and downs and tt at there well may be occasions where for a period c•f time a lessee doesn 't always have the prescribed numb er of cattle on lands that he holds but that's pa11 of the administrative responsibilities of the Depar1 ment of Agriculture and does not come under the jurisdiction of this department. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, there are sorne cases where people have gone out of business completely and moved away from the farms and still he lding on to Crown lands in the hope that they could sell their own farms at a fair price and they're hanging on to the Crown lands just to be able to sell a piece of private property to the detriment of other pi'Oducers who would like to have access to that land.

There are some cases - I don't know how many but I am aware of some - and it seems to be a bit unfair when that kind of a situation takns place because we know that there's a shortage c•f Crown land and there is always more applicants than there are leases that are available. It's unfortunate if someone is able to move out completely away from the farm, live in the town and just hang on to his leases until such a time as he find a buyer that will buy his own private property and able to get a fair price for it because he has leases that can be transferred, to me.

I'm not sure whether this is a fair way to handle it or not - maybe the Minister feels that it is. I don't know - but it seems to me that there's a problem there when there is a shc•rtage of land particularly in periods of drought where there isn't enough pasture and you may have sorne party that has maybe half-a-dozen quarter section�; of land 2520 that he's holding idle until such time as he can sell his own land along with the transferring of the leases. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, without in any way denying the responsibility that the Department of Natural Resources has in an overall way of Crown lands, but I do remind the honourable member again that the questions that he's now asking are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture in the manner and way in which they administer the Crown lands under question, namely, agricultural leases. It's done under the directorship of one Graham Somers, who reports to the Minister of Agriculture.

I can only indicate, as a practical farmer myself, and I know the honourable member also ackno wledges this from his own experience, that a degree of judgment has to be exercised as to when lands are being held for speculative purposes, as the member suggested, future sale, or when lands are being held that may not always be fully utilized, but for other reasons such as dep ressed cattle cycle, could be reasons of health, could be reasons c' occupation, that for a period of time make it difficult for a lessee to operate the cattle operation, for which he has been originally qualified to have the Crowr lands, to continue holding those lands.

I would ask and invite the honourable member to bring to my attention any specific and individual cases where abus es of the kind that he refers to are taking place. I would certainly take it upon myself to refer them to the Department of Agriculture for consideration. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1) - pass; (2) - pass; (a) - pass; (b)(1) - pass; (2) - pass; (b) - pass; (c)( 1) - pass; (2) - pass; (c) - pass; (d )(1) - pass. The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: I wonder if the Minister could tell us now what's happening in this area. MR. ENNS: Crown Lands Registry.

The objectives of this division of the department is to maintain a register of all dispositions of Crown lands including sales, lease, permit, easement and reservations; to provide a system for storage and rapid retrieval of lan d-related information; to implement a central register system incrementally where all lands owned by the Crown are eventually recorded and may then be uniformly administered under the authority of The Crown Lands Act.

Activities un dertaken at the current time are that an outside consultant is designing and programming the Autom ated Crown Lands Registry System; we are going the computer route. Three term staff, three years, are determining and entering data for the registry. Su bsystems are being developed for permits, vacation home lots, LGD programs and sales, and maintenance of a manual system and land record is continuing while we are transferring this to the computer system.

In other words, gentlemen, the system is moving smoothly and effectively to a modern, computerized registry of land information that will be at our fingertips for instant retrieval. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1) - pass; (2) - pass; (d) - pass; (e)(1 ) pass; (2) - pass; (3) - pass; (d) -p ass.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 The Member for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Wild Rice Development Area. Could the Minister indicate what he intends to do with the meager funds that he has left in the appropriation, seeing that he indicated in response to my statement this afternoon that he is prepared to look at all kinds of new initiatives, particularly in the area of seed money for operators and so on, and so forth? Could the Minister indicate where he intends to find the funds to do these ma rvelous new initiatives that he promised me he would look into? MR. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, essentially the activities to be und ertaken in this division is to administer the Wild Rice Leasing Program, as I said this afternoon. We have a determination to bring to order, out of a somewhat chaotic situation. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the honourable members opposite wish to acknowledge some responsi bility for having developed that chaotic situation they would have to do so on their own. I am not suggesting that; I am acknowledging that the wild rice situation is one that has bedevilled the attempts of many good efforts on the part of staff, on the part of dif ferent administrations.

I think that possibly with the best of intentions the previous admin istration felt that by essentially leaving this area of activity predominantly in the hands of our native brothers, setting up organizations such as the Manominake Corporation Ltd., etc., that perhaps would be an appropriate way to bring about the kind of developments that both the Member for Rupertsland and I would like to see in the wild rice industry. I have, as a relatively new Minister to the departme nt, in consu ltation with some representatives of the industry - and I emphasize and underline the word "some".

In my very short experience as Minister of Natural Resources I find that every delegation I get on the subject of wild rice is quite different from the last one that I received. It is difficult to then attempt, in a reasonable and fair and equitable way, to bring about a rationalization of the situation.

I think we had a good discussion about the subject this afternoon, particularly with the Member for Rupertsland, I really felt on this particular issue - it may be one of the few issues - there was a degree of mutual understanding, in terms of the objectives that we were attempting to achieve at this particular time.

Esse ntially the mo neys all ocated in this appropriation will be to assist producers by providing the technical advice, market information, to liaise with the Department of Agriculture with the Paddy Rice Production Program that may well lead to some of the potential types of programs that are currently under way in Saskatchewan that seem to work well in that province, that could bring about the kind of hoped for resurgence in wild rice production in the Province of Manitoba. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, one of the things we had talked about this afternoon, in terms of a potential initiative on the part of government, was to have the government assist the wild rice growers by way of providing them with first quality seed so that they could enhance their production in the various lakes that they're attemp ting to cul tivate. This afte rnoon the Minister ind icated that he was prepar ed to look at that possi bility, and it's something I would commend him for.

However, just in looking at this appropriation, I note that the emphasis on wild rice development seems to be reduced in this Minister's Estimates from an appropriation of $250, 000 last year to approximately $87,600 this year. So, in terms of these new initiatives, I would simply ask the Minister where, if any place in the Estimates, would we find he has the flexibility to be able to accomplish this new initiative if he intends to follow up on it? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I acknowledge that the Estimates in terms of dollar values don't signal any new initiatives, but as I think the honourable member agreed with me this afternoon at least, that perhaps the first problem to resolve is to establish a degree of stability within the industry and that can be done simply by secu ring tenure and providing the kind of mechanism that provides for longer term tenure of the rice lakes to legitimate rice-harvesting operators.

I thought I had made it clear that I was certainly not attempting to indicate that we had in these appropriations, in these sets of Estimates dollars attached that may well flow in subsequent years from having brought about those initial changes.

Our submissions that we have received from the operators is that the first priority is to establish a stable regime of lessees, of a leasing policy, that would in the first instance encourage the producers themselves to begin some of the development work and when that is in place then certainly I would expect, and I would recieve as legitimate requests, similar types of support programs that for instance the Minister of Agriculture accepts in a routine way for crop production in his field of concern, namely, the fodder field of general agriculture. But these Estimates do not reflect that.

We do not feel the need to and we are not in a position quite frankly, to expend additional moneys at this particular time even if we wanted to. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave that item, I'm just wondering if the interests of the people who have been involved with harvesting of wild rice for many years, if their interests are being protected.

There has been information that has come to us where some people who have developed rice patties, have seeded rice and have harvested for many many years, have apparently been squ eezed out of their area because of the new policy and the area had been leased to somebody else, somebody else comes in from outside and takes over.

I'm just wondering if the Minister has any information in that regard or whether the reports that have come to us are unfounded, I hope they are, but it seems to me that there was a report last year where some Native people had been harvezting a particular area for many many years and in fact had developed it and introduced the wild rice to the area and subsequently that area had been leased to someone else and these people had been squ eezed out. I hope the Minister can tell me that I'm wrong. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I just underline what the honourable member himself has noted, that in 19 78 there were some 95 individuals involved in the harvesting of wild rice, that has grown despite my earlier comments about wishing for even greater 2521

T1J1esday , 7 April, 1981 growth, that has grown to some 14 4 in '79, 17 9 in 19 80 so that we are obviously interesting and bringing more people into the wild rice industry. While this industry, however, suffers from very substantial fluctuations in price, dollar value s fluctuate as much from 19 75 figures of 142,000 to 19 80 figures of a million, pardon me, pounds. Pardon me, we are talking about pounds, 14 2, 000 pcunds in 19 75 to a million pounds in 1980. Price fluctua tes just about as badly as cattle prices, I say to the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose, again from 90 cents to well over a dollar to $2.26 to $2.1: ! in '79 back down to 60 cents in 1980. So, I think there needs to be a considerable amount of concern expressed about the marketing, the proce!.sing of the product. But as I indicated this afternoon our first intention is to concentrate on the production of the product and we believe we can be successful if we provide and offer the longer term leases to the inl erested operators in the indu stry. The honourable member talks about people being squeezed out of the business.

I would again invite the honourable mem ber to speci ficall y detail individuals to whom that has happened. There have been some situations where, particularly with respect to the Metis, where plot leases were given or granted to the Indian Corporation that was set up I bHiieve to some extent interfered with the leases that wBre held previously, But again, Mr. Chairman, I don't say this in any way to reflect on the previous admini�;tration, but I do point out that happened during that time.

It was I believe, a legitimate attempt made to encourage the Indian Community to take hold of the industry and to develop it to its benefit. Reqretably that hasn't quite happened. I'm not giving up on it and I'm hopeful that we will find our way t•J assist and to make them successful but there ha11e been difficulties with the specific corporation that was set up some years ago to handle this matter.

There have been trial and test plots run ·that the department has been involved in, particularly with the Metis people in the Waterhen area wh ere informat ion, I bel ieve even seed ing wa!; done, extension work if you like, was done by the department and we of course hope to continue that. MR. ADAM: I wonder if the Minister could tell us, how is the rice marketed?

I know how much I have to pay for it and the information the Mini!.ter just gave us that it fluctuates from 8 cents a pound, or 9 cents a pound to over $2.00 a pound seem:; to me that we have to pay $8.00 or $1 0.00 a pound for wild rice and have been for many years at the rei ail level and I'm wondering how it's marketed. It seems to be marketed in a disorderly way and perhaps it's time that we had some order in this industry and maybe we should set up some kind of a rice board, a Manitoba Rice Board. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I invite the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose to spend an hour or two in advising my Deputy- Minister about how to bring about orderly marketing of rice. He will appreciate that advice and no doubt accept it. Seriously there are essentially two major buyers, Continental and Uncle Ben, not the Uncle Elen that used to market beer in Manitoba, but Uncle Ben Long Grained Rice, they are U.S. buye rs that purchase the major supply or product that is being produced here in Manitoba.

I don't refute the suggestion that some degree of orderly marketing may well be required in the future aga in to maximize, not unli ke the aims of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, which is after all to maximize the return of the final price to the producers, that some marketing mechanism may be of assistance to the wild rice producers; but I'm suggesting to honourable members of the committee that first things first, let's produce the product. We haven't been doing the job that we believe from a resource point of view that is capable of being done in the Province of Manitoba.

There are indications that other jurisdictions, notably Saskatchewan, are doing a considerably better job in this instance than we are doing, and we have in terms of priorizing our efforts and our direction to the production aspect of it, but not losing sight of the fact that the marketing is a very important part as well. MR. ADAM: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, ttt4 marketing is very orderly at the retail level. It �-· extremely orderly as far as I'm concerned - $7.00 \': $10. 00 a pound for the last numb er of years as f<iJ as I can see.

I'm concerned, I'm not sure whether the philosophy of this Minister is amenable to orderly marketing at the producer level. We know that the Minister of Agriculture wants to wrestle the Wheat Board to the ground and I hope that this Minister would no t want to wrestle the efforts of any producers who would like to set up orderly marketing and I hope that this Minister would not try to wrestle their efforts to the ground. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (e) - pass. Resolution 104 - Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 441 ,10 0 for Natural Resources - pass.

Resolution 105 - Item 7, Forestry, (aX1) - pass - the Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Well, perhaps the Minister would like to have an opportunity to introduce this

section and in so doing indicate any new initiatives that hi�: department is proposing in the area of forestry development in Manitoba. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could indicate and read into the record some general information that may be helpful in the dis cussion of this particular portion of my Estimates and discuss with you the 20-year Forest Management Plan that is being activated by the department.

The general goal for the Manitoba Forestry sector is to optimize the economic and social benefits of the forest resource to Manitobans, through full utilization of the forest capacity to generate employment, primary and secondary manuf acturing, and provincial product , export income and to enhance community prosperity and good environment. One of the goals of that the Forestry Branch has adopted is to increase the use of the forest to the extent that the potential of Manitoba's renewable forest resources should be fully utilized by the year 2000 on a sustained yield basis. Mr.

Chairman, the Member from Ru pertsland indicated earlier that we have in some way lacked planning or lacked initiative, particularly in the field 2522

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 of forestry. I read this statement to the honourable member to indicate to you the kind of staff work and direction that the department has taken with respect to our forest resources, that we have a long-term goal in mind that will fully utilize our forest resources and this is very important on a sustained yield basis for generations to come. The provisional objectives for the Forest Management Plan - Manitoba 19 80 are as foll ows: 1. Planning forestry consistently with the long-term provincial goals.

This implies an effec tive and economic utilization of the forest resources and requires continuous research, appraisal and follow­ up of the forest resource and of its utilization. It also requires identification of opportunities, assessment of the feasibility of alternative action programs and implementation of viable projects. 2. Providing information for provincial agencies and ente rprises enabling them to practise and develop profitable production in forestry and forest industries.

This implies organization, compilation and •resen tation of information that describes forest ands area by site cla ss, growing stock and nerchantable timber crop by location, tree species �nd cutting class, current and potential increment of timber, logging and transport conditions and cost. 3. Defining intensity levels of forest management, principal items to be specified are available quantiti es of timber crop, periodic and annual amounts of final cuttings and thinnings, regeneration and stand improvement techniq ues, forest production methods and volume of feasible timber production in the future. 4.

As signing and describing intensity levels of forest management for each forest section. The principal factors determining the intensity level of each

section are: merchantable timber crops, increment of timber, volume of feasible timber production and genera l conditions for loggi ng, transport and industrial production.

In addition to the general objectives described above, the following specific issues which characterize the provincial conditions shall be taken into account in the Management Plan: Maintaining the forest land base to the maximum extent by reconciling various uses of forest and thus minimizing the withdr awal of land from timber product ion; creating conditio ns under which the presently un used forest land and mature timber crop could be ec onomically brought into logging, transport and silvicultural systems at the earliest practical time; dev eloping silvicu ltural and regeneration measures which would insure growth in logged areas and create new forest resources; devel oping measures to decrease logging waste and producing information about the feasibility of whole tree utilization; allocating forest resources to their most profitable end use in the long term; providing year-round logging and transport and work for the labour force in remote communities; optimizing the harvest and transport of scattered mature timber.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief capsule description of the twenty-year Management Plan that the Forestry Division of the Department of Natural Resources has embarked upon; one that we have every intentions of pursuing. We hope that we will not suffer the kind of adverse weather conditions that we suffered last year when the very serious fire conditions caused us a great deal of concern, a great deal of expense in fire suppression.

But I want to indicate to the honourable members of the comm ittee that in the Forestry Branch of the Department we are moving with a plan in mind, with a program in mind that involves the full resources of the department, includes the resources of the private sector and we hope will lead to the goal that we have set out for ou rselves that will enable Manitoba to fully utilize it's timber and forest resources on a sustained yield basis by the year, 2000. MR. DE PUTY CH AIRMAN: The Memb er for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, the Minister reveals that he can read very well.

He is obviously reading from an academic document which was obviously prepared for him by his Planning Branch, but I believe that actions speak louder than words and this government's actions in the area of forestry is what I was referring to earlier in the debate. When I said that were very few if any initiatives, I'm looking at the gove rnment's record in forestry. When the government claims to be doing great things in the area of planning for the future, I have to look at what they are doing now in terms of preparing for that future.

If you look at reforestation in this province, it's not keep ing pace with the cutting ; it's not keeping pace with the losses of trees due to the disastrous forest fires that we've had. Last year, for example, even in the Minister's own words, there were 8 million cords of timber burned and if you look at the Minister's statistics on reforestation in the Province of Manitoba, the total trees planted in Manitoba were some 2.4 million trees. Now there are 8 million cords, which means many more millions of trees that were lost just in forest fires alone and in addition to that, Mr.

Chairman, you have to look at the cutting operations that took place. If you're going to talk about 20-year plans and maximizing the return from our forest resource, you have to also plan in the area of reforestation. If you compare what Manitoba is doing to what Saskatch ewan is doing, and I think that's comparable, because in Saskatch ewan they probably have a smaller potential in the forest industry than we have, since they have a larger agricultural area in their province. In 19 80, they planted 12 million trees, that's compared to our government record of planting 2.4 million trees. Mr.

Chairman, that's a not a very good comparison. In the other area, Mr. Chairman, when he talks about maximizing production and providing for the industry to be more fully utilizing the forestry and increasing employment, etc., that's a laugh. It would be a laugh if it weren't so tragic, I should say. Because even in the Minister's own statement he says that losses at Sn ow Lake, Wal lace Lake, Bloodvein, etc., will have limited immediate economic impact upon the provincial economy because the timber burn ed was primarily jack pine where surpluses exist. Mr.

Chairman, if you're going to talk about a long­ term plan in a forestry industry you don't talk about surplus es, you talk about making use of those surpluses. You should be talking about providing the means by which those surpluses can be utilized and fully utilized in order that there can be greater production and through greater production and 2523

______________ T:....:uesday , 7 April, 1981 greater development more employment opportunities and a greater return to the people of Manitoba. Just in the trees that were lost in the forest fires alone, Mr. Chairman, 8 million cords of trees at the average royalty rate of $2.00 is $16 million in royallies that were lost. It you look at the full economic �alue of those trees. the market value even at $50 a cord is $400 million. Now the government spent something in the order of, if I take the estimates as being accurate, I believe they spent a considerable amount.

I'm not qu ite sure how much it is, perh 1ps the Minister could provide me with that information, but there was considerable millions of dollars :;pent in the area of forest protection and in spite of that expenditure there were significant losses. Now in the area of developmental wo rk, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister's words are hollow indeed when you consider the action> of the government.

One of the actions which this party, the New Democratic Party, deplores is the signing of the agreement with Abitibi, which did not in Clny way require them to expand or improve upc•n their activities in their plant in the Pine Falls are�,.

Now I think the government had a marvellous op�·ortunity at the time that they were negotiating that ag ·eement when they were offering a 20-year agreement, a 20- year access to resources, that they should have been able to say, look, we want you to util ize the· under­ utilized species of timber on the east side of Lake Winn ipeg which are in the area which we are allocating to you. The Minister indicates in a statement that jack pine has surpluses in that area. Well, Mr. Chairman, there should not be surplus es.

The y should have negotiated with Abitibi in such a way, if th•3Y were going to reduce the royalties the way they dicl to that company, they should have required that company, negot iated with that company, to imp ro11e their capital expenditure in this province, to improve their capital plant. There should have been prospects tor expansion or improvement of that plant in Manitoba which would have hopefully utilized the species that are no w un der-u tilized and provided mo re employment opportunities in that area. lnste•ad , Mr.

Chairman, all this government did was they ·educed their royalties and provide more opportunity tor them to cut timber in the more accessible areas. If you want to look at another aspect of this st�ttement, which the Minister referred to in reading his planning statement about providing opportunities tor local communit ies tor timber resources, wetll, Mr. Chairman, the local communities are bringinu timber and lumb er in from outside of the commun ities and in some case from outside of the province. Why are they doing that?

Because this government is making no effort to assist those communities to establish any kind of domestic industry to even produce enough lumb er tor their own domestic uses. MR. ORCHARD: Balderdash, balderdash. MR. BOSTROM: That's the truth and, Mr. Chairman, they are not assisting these communities. In fact, on top of that, Mr. Chairman, they are allo v. ing the Abitibi Company to cut timber right up to t11e edge of the community boundaries so that the future wood supply and the fut ure timber supply :>f that community, even tor their own domestic use will be eliminated.

That is something which I think is a 2524 serious consid eration. The govern ment, on the contrary, should have made it pos sible tor the communiti es to have a reasonab le-sized timber resource which they would have access to tor their immediate needs and for their future needs for a wood supply and for at least their domestic uses. (Interjection)- We don't need the assistance of the Minister of High ways. If he wishes to enter the debate, I'm sure you will give him the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. BOSTROM: I still have the floor, I believe. MR.

DEPUTY CHA IRMAN: The Member tor Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: So, Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the govern ment's and the Minister's broad statements that someho w they are eff ectively planning the use of the forest resource in Manitoba. Actions speak louder than words and their actions show us that they are not effective in planning the resources of the province. They are not effectively protecting the resources from the forest fires; they are not effectively managing the resource in terms of the utilization of that resource by one of the major companies in the province.

Another way in which they could have assisted, Mr. Chairman, is to provide opportunities for the smaller businessmen that are involved in the forest industry, the timber quota holders, the timber operators.

In tact in their press statement at the time that they annou nced the Province of Manitoba had signed the Abitibi Agreement, May 29, 19 79, they indicated that the existing timber quota hol ders will remain protected and that opportunities for other timber operators will continue throughout the agreement area, and that timber needs of the communities and the licence in the wood supply area have been provided for. Mr. Chairman, none of those statements are proving to be true - none of them.

The timber quota holders are under the thumb of the bigger company and they're being pinched by the bigger company in terms of price, in terms of the control that the government has allo wed the larger company to have over the smaller businessmen in the area. The opportunities for other timber operators are not continuing. The idea that the timber needs of the com munity has been provided for is absolutely untrue. The communities as I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are being deprived of a future wood supply and a future timber supply by allowing the harvesting of resources right up to the edge of the community.

I think that's an absolute negation of the statement which the government made at the time they announced that Timber Agreement. So, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister talks in the way in which he does and making the flowery statements about future planning and so on, they're empty words to the people who have to watch his actions. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, let me reply by first of all perhaps surprising the Ho nourabl e Mem ber for Rupertsland that on one subject matter I am in total agreement with him, and that is to maximize the

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 returns of this valuable resource to the people of Manitoba. The difference is that we have different ways about going about it. In 1977, the last full calendar year of the NDP administration, Abitibi, that favourite company of the Honourable Member for Rupertsland, contributed through stumpage rates to the people of Manitoba some $380 ,000 .00. This las t year, under our ad ministration, Abitibi has contributed $81 0, 000, more than doubling of the amount that has been returned to the people of Manitoba. That, Mr.

Chairman, is what I am interested in - that is responsible management of resources on behalf of the people of Manitoba to ensure that return comes back to those people who own the resource. It is the people of Manitoba that own the resource, not Abitibi, not ManFor nor anybody else. They have been provided management agreements from time to time because they have demonstrated a particular capability and efficiency to manage those types of resources. Mr.

Chairman, on the question of initiatives and concerns for that forestry resource there's probably never been, and I'll be the first one to acknowledge that under the impetus of the severe fire situation that we faced last year, there have been I would suggest unprecedented in terms of the department's involvement heightened concern about being in a state of preparedness for fire suppression. We had last year, thanks to the fast action of my colleague, the Minister of Transportation, the second CL-215 to start the season with.

Over the winter new props fitted on the first CL-15 to provide better and faster capa bility load at higher speeds, safer and will enable us to carry out more drops. The fire rates for the fire attack crews were adjusted upwards to retain more qualified personnel during the summer period. Major thrust this year ha s been made to strengthen our initial attack strategies. In this regard we have retained a medium lift helicopter to be stationed at Bissett with three fire attack teams. Bissett is a key location for quick response to fire action in the lightening-prone areas on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

Meetings with indus try are now under way to fully utilize - I know the previous administration had difficulty in working with the private sector in this regard, but if our concern is preservation, protection of our forest reserves, then we work and I'll work with anybody. I don't let ideology get in the way. We are having those meetings right now with the private sector; meeting with Abitibi members from the Fire Management

Section and the eastern region to manage efficiently the use of Abitibi personnel and equipment in meeting the th reat of fires that we could well be facing as we proceed into this season. Regions requiring fire control officers have been staffed, and a change made in the thrust of fire control officers to have strong fire generals with strong leadership qual ities and fire management expertise. Treasury Board has app roved acquisition of 10 special four-by-four crew . . . rated units for fire attack operations, we expect these to arrive within the next month.

Steps are to be taken that all these factors will be place at the onset of the fire season, which I hope we will no t experience. But, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that this administration has not 2525 in a most diligent way, and, Mr.

Chairman, I might point that this administration is sometimes charged with showing some lack of concern in expending the necessary moneys from time to time, that this kind of fire suppr ession program that the Director of Forestry has asked and received that is being impl emented, demon strates a concern for the protection of our very valuable timber resources that is unprecedented in this province. Now, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to further initiatives in the case of forestry management, we have signed or are in the process of signing a five­ year agreement with the federal authorities under the Canada-Manitoba Northlands Agreements that will increase our nu rsery production from two million seed lings to well over five million. We are negotiating currently with the Department of Northern Affairs a two-year prog ram, sharable program aimed at enhancing forest ma nagement activities in the province.

We have included reforestation and forest renewal activities, stand improvement, tree improvement, stock development, cone collect ion, tree planting and site preparation, forest harvesting and development plan, the development of a 20-year forest management plan which I earlier referred to. Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat ad nauseam the aggressiveness with which this department has tackled the management of forestry resources in this province, but I am confident that they stand any test, any examination by way of comparison to any previous administration in this province. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, they don't stand up very well to examination. The comment of the Minister that the gov ernment is now receiving $800,000 from Abitibi must be balanced against the fact that the government is giving back to Abitibi over $.5 million in this fiscal year as a so-called forest management and renewal grant. So the net return to the Province of Manitoba is only $300,000 plus. Mr. Chairman, that has to be taken into consideration. One of the question I would like to ask the Minister in respect to that is what exactly is the government receiving for the money which they are paying?

If we look at the entire budget for forest management, this department, for the entire Province of Manitoba under this Minister's Estimates for Salaries and Other Expenditures it's $825,700.00. Now on the other page, if you look at forest management and renewal grant to the Abitibi Paper Company for one small little area of Manitoba, a very miniscule part of Manitoba in comparison to the total forestry area, the Government of Manitoba is paying to Abitibi Paper Company, $514,5 00 for forest management and renewal. Mr.

Chairman, it has to be compared in that way, because I think that if you look at that, you see that there's an unusual amount of funds being allo cated to that particular area of Manitoba. In comparison, it appears that there is an inordinate amount of moneys going to the Abitibi Paper Company for that specific purpose. I would like to ask the Minister if he could provide us with a detailed accounting of the amount of money which they give to that company, and the reasons they give it to the company. Mr.

Chairman, to be very specific, I would like to ask the Minister if, according to the agreement, which states that the company shall maintain and provide to Manitoba

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 ----------------------------------- records of all expenditures related to renewal work, includin g the cost of salaries, wages, e·tc., for evaluation, planning and implementation cf forest management and renewal work, and the cost of transporting and sustaining personnel engaged in forest management renewal work, and the cost of acquiring specializ ed forest ma nageme nt and renewal equipment. Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to table with the Estimates Committee at some point during these Esti mates, that detaile d accou nting, wh ich is available to his department on the amounts of money that are paid, so that the Opposition would be able to at least assess some of the value that thE! people of Manitoba are receiving for the moneys that the government is expending in this regard. In addition to that, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he would table w 1th this Comm ittee the plan which the company has for forest renewal, which areas are being refores·ted , and to what extent reforestation is taking place, and what type of reforestation is taking place, so that we may assess what value the people of Manitoba are receiving for these dolla rs that are expenoed. Mr.

Chairman, it appears that there's a sign ificant amount of money going to this company over a period of 20 years there's many millions of dollars being paid, which we pointed out at the tima of the signing of this agreement, could have been paid to the Government of Manitoba by way of reve11ues for forestry royalties. Those moneys could have been used by the Government of Manitoba to • forest renewal and mana gement wo rk, whi :h the Government of Manitoba is responsible for doing. I still maintain that the government abdicated its responsibility when it turned over those functions to a private company.

Why should a private company be doing that function in one little area of Manitoba, and the Department of Natural Resources is doing that function all over the rest of the province? There must be some economies of scale here If the government is doing forest renewal and forest management, reforestation work in all other areas of the province, why can't they also do it there, and do it in the same way they're doing it in the otht!r areas of Manitoba? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, although I haven't been involved with this department's Estimates fc•r some time. but I'm well aware, having listened to the honourable member in the House in his debates with my predecessor, the Honourable Member for Souris­ Killarney, that Abitibi is a burr in his bonnet. I can only ind icate to you that I have absolu tely no difficulty in providing the information that the honourable requests. The honourable mem oer will acknowledge and accept the fact that when I give my word that 1 will provide information, that information will be provided.

I'm advised that it can be provided by tomorrow afternoon , the kind of c etailed information that he requ ested with respect to Abitibi's program. But let me make it very clear. We entered into a ma nagement agreement with a world- renowne d company that has proven its capability in m.3naging and in running efficient forestry operations. Now, Mr. Chairman. if the honourable mem ber wants to suggest that government per se can run forestry operations a great deal better than they can build 2526 airplanes at Gimli, then of course we can pursue that path again.

I suggest to the honourable member that the functions that are being carried out by Abitibi on our behalf, under the strict terms of a management agreement, are in the best interests of the forest resources of this province, the best interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba, and one that absolutely needs no apology and certainly none that I'm offering. I'm quite prepared to offer the kind of statistical information that the honourable member requests. We are not providing Abitibi with any special services.

They are, by cont ract under the management agreement, carrying out some of the functions that the department, as the member keeps pointing out, we are in a position where we have to provide in other portions of the province. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that there is a net benefit to the Province of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba by entering into that agreement. We are satisfied, Mr.

Chairman, that the agreements, the management plan that we entered into with Abitibi are being lived up to on behalf of the company, and that it is a sound management plan that ensures the kind of sustaining yield production of our overall resources, particularly in that area. I should remind the honourabl e mem ber that overall in our forestry operations we have, even despite the severe fires of last spring and early summer, maintained our cuts within the allowable limits, that we are not mining our forest resources. We are concerned about the tolerance that we're arriving at.

My Di rector of Forestry has expressed those concerns to me, that should we experience another season, similar intensity of fires, we may be in some difficulty. In fact, that probably was the convincing argument for him being successful in convincing myself as Minister and the government to so con siderably enhance the fire suppr ession capability of the department. However, I repeat again, we are not mining the forest resources of this province; Abitibi isn't, and the province generally isn't.

We are maintaining and staying within the allo wable yield, and for the member's edification, in Manitoba, not being blessed as such jurisdictions with perhaps heavier, denser growth areas, British Columbia forests or perhaps certain portions of Ontario and Quebec. In that case, we'd calculate that on a 70-year basis, which means that we cannot cut more than what our total resources can refurbish or renovate on that 70-year basis. That determines the formula that we call the allowable cut. So, Mr.

Chairman, I invite the honourable member to continue to chastize me and this government for our relationship with Abitibi. I have no apologies for it. I believe it is sound. It's providing meaningful employment for a large number of Manitobans. It's providing for an acceptable return to the people of Manitoba, both in royalties by way of stumpage, far more meaningful by way of economic activity that this company creates in an area that needs employment, and a sensible har vest of our timber resources. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, to carry the Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, to listen to him you would think that he is suggesting that the government should turn over to a world-renowned

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 forestry company all of the adminis tration and reforestation for the Province of Manitoba. In other words, he is so confident that a world-renowned company could better manage and look after the forests of Manitoba, it would be better for them to be doing that than the Government of Manitoba. I reject that philosophy outright. Perhaps that is where the Progressive Conservative Government and the NDP are most clearly divided on this kind of an issue, because, Mr. Chairman, we believe there are some functions that government can do, and can do better than a company like this. Mr.

Chairman, the management of the forests is not only for the use of a single company. The management of a forest is for many uses, and the government has a responsibility to all the people of the Province of Manitoba to manage that forest for all of its uses, not only for one use. There are other people that want to have access to the forest resource, and it's not fair for the government to turn over the complete control of the resource to a single entity, whatever it may be; in this case, it happens to be a world renowned company.

Nobody is arguing that the company is not doing a good job in terms of what they are doing, and that is harvest ing a resource and ma nufacturing that resource into newsprint. No one is arguing that. No one is arguing that the employment benefits that company provides are a valuable thing for the Province of Manitoba, and in particular for that area. No one is arguing that point. In fact, Mr. Chairman, that

part can be appreciated for what it is worth, because those things are valuable for the people who live in that area and who enjoy the benefits of the employment provided. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a value in the resource itself, and the New Democratic Government of the day decided that resource could return a greater return to the people of Manitoba. We still believe that would be the case, that a greater return can be possible from the resource. Mr.

Chairman, this government saw fit to us e the manip ul ation techni que of providing a forest management and renewal grant, which in a sense and which I believe to be a grant to the company, a return of the resource revenues that are legitimately paid to the people of Manitoba as royalties on the resource. Mr. Chairman, that is the neat little trick which this government played in that regard.

If we want to look at resource development, a government which is headed by the Progressive Conservative Party is the last one, in my opinion, to provide a good return for the people of Manitoba for the basic philo sophical reasons this Minister is outlining tonight. The Progressive Conservative Party does not believe that government can do a good job in resources. That is the basis of their philosophy as far as government is concerned.

Therefore to follow logically from that, when they are in government they tend to turn over the resources gratis, almost free, to the resource companies and say, "Okay, you guys can run it better than government, so therefore you run it". Mr. Chairman, the result of that is that people may receive jobs as a result of the ha rvest and exploitation of the resource, but they don't receive any of the other revenues of the resource.

This is in sharp contrast to the way in which resources are 2527 administered in the Province of Saskatchewan, where we have a New Democratic Party Government that's been in government for many, many years and has had the opportunity to develop resou rce development policies that haven't been butchered by right wing governments. Mr. Chairman, that province is receiving a very high degree of return from their resources. At the same time they're accepting the responsibility of managing the resource. If we look at just the reforestation alone.

Their reforestation program is five or six times what it is in the Province of Manitoba. Even under the new agreement, which the Minister is bragging about here, if you com pare it with Saskatchewan, Sask atchewan is still more than double, and I'm using the 19 80 figures here. The 198 1 figures may even be higher, I don't have those available to me. So, Mr. Chairman, if you compar e the NDP Go vernment appr oach to resources and a Conservative Government approach to resource mana gement, you see the basic philos ophi cal differences and the results of those differences.

The basic philosophical difference is that Conservatives don't bel ieve the government can do a job; therefore, they don't deserve to be in government. They should get out of government because they do not believe that government can do the job which it should be doing. Mr.

Chairman, the New Democratic party on the other hand believes that government can do a job and the Province of Saskatchewan, when they've had the time to develop those policies and put them into effect, they are proving that they are most beneficial policies to develop resources, because people not only get the benefit of the jobs, the employment from the resource, but they get the benefit of a higher rate and degree of return from the revenues of the resource.

In a case where the government is involved directly in resource development, such as in the potash indus try, the government there is getting a very high deg ree of return from the resource, something which the Progressive Conservative Party I am sure if they were in government there would be letting those kinds of profits from the resource go out of the Province of Saskatche wan . It's no t happening there because of that basic philosophical difference at work. Here we see in Manitoba the results of a P.C.

Government only three years in power; on the one hand, with Abitibi giving away much of the resources· in the area of mining in Manitoba, Mr. Chairman: giving away much of the resources; not taking advantage of the resource opportunity they had in the Trout Lake Mine which could have brought the people of Manitoba some $90 million, which they have foregone because they didn't believe government should be in the resource development business. Mr. Chairman, that kind of policy at work is going to deprive the people of Manitoba from their just and right return from resources. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, my years of experience advise me even without the advice of my staff that 1 should remain silent at this time. I should acknowledge that the honourable member has every nght to un burden himself of his philosophical and ideological beliefs. I hear a strang rumour from time to time; 1 even get it from as far away as Ottawa that the

TIJesday, 7 April, 1981 ----------------------------------- government in Alberta has a little Heritage 1=und of some kind that is apparently belonging to the people of that province. Is he suggesting that government, which I don't think can be described as left of centre, is not husbanding resources in the itlterests of the people of Alberta? Is he suggesting that only a leftist NDP adm inistration can so hus ba nd the resources of a province to th e benefit of their people?

If that's the case then I suppose the myth of an 8, 7, or 6, or 8 billion, whatever it is today, Heritage Fund in Alberta is really a myth that we sho uldn't take too seriously. The fac;t that Saskatchewan has been endo wed with constderably more resources, particularly in the highly profitable oil resources, of course helps, Mr. Chairman in that province's husbanding of the resources for the benefit of that particular province. But, Mr.

Chairman, to bring it back home, I repeat, in 19 77, under the New Democratic admini:;tration, Abitibi paid that ad ministration $380,0 00 in stumpage fees, just one measure, just one royalty, that government allo wed them to harvest in this province; in the year, 19 80, that fiuure is $8 10 ,000.00. So. Mr. Chairman, to that extent I am a pragmatic Conservative.

I will take my pleasure from time to time in suggesting to the honourable members that acknowledging expertise in a particular fi·�ld and even if it is outside of government that it has a role to play in the development and in the providing of the good life, if you like, for our people. I'm not aware and my Director of Forestry is not aware of any company, Crown or otherwise, paying a higher stumpage fee or royalty fee east of the Rockies than Abitibi. So the continued implication that .ll.bitibi is somewhat favou red by this government simply doesn't stand to the actual truth of the matter. Now. Mr.

Chairman, let me also make it clear that under no circumstances does the government, the Department of Na tu ral Resources, ab roqate its responsibilities in the overall policy setting cf all the resources that we are charged with. We continue to set the policy and if that policy isn't met there are conditional cl auses in any agre emen ts, any management agreements, whether they be of long duration or short duration, they can be superseded by direct government intervention and will in such a manner be acted upon.

If the honourable members are suggest ing to me that we cl ose our eyes to the fact that the honourable member was part of an admir istration for eight years that could have brought about some of the rhetoric that he speaks about at thi� time, if he's suggest ing and he's usin g by example that Saskatchewan through allocation of a $2!i million DREE Program turned most of those resources into a very major effort in their forestry program and thereby increased to the level that I don't di� pute the nursing plantings in that province, that v. as their decision and I congratulate them for that.

The administration that he was part of chose I o divert most of the DREE moneys that were coming to the Province of Manitoba during his administration to basket-weaving courses in the north but that was their decision.

I'm suggesting and I am suggesting to you and I indicated to the members, the committee that we have entered into the Canada-Manitoba Northlands 2528 Agreement in this instance - and I don't mind being compared and taking a leaf out of Saskatchewan's book - into directing in a more specific way the substantial moneys that are available to us through these agreements in the kind of basic infrastructure improvement that have a lasting effect for future generations of Manitobans, whether it is in forestry, whether it is northern road construction or otherwise.

I've indicated that is precisely what we are doing in the agreement that we are currently entering into with the Cana da-Manitoba Northlands Agreement with respect to forestry initiatives which will bump up our nursery operation in excess of 5 million trees per annum. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, I'm sorely tempted to debate with the honourable member the philosphical differences that he and I will continue to have on this matter, but I will refuse to do so and let the matter stand. MR.

BOSTROM: I notice the Minister took about 15 minu tes to refuse to deb ate with me on the philosophical differences that we have. One of the philosophical differences we have resulted in the government receiving right now $800,000-and-some in revenue from Abitibi and receiving from that only a net of about 300,000-and-some because they gave 500 of it back to Abitibi. The difference between his philosophy and mine, Mr. Chairman, is that $500,000, which would be in the province's general revenues if it were not returned to the Abitibi Paper Company. So, Mr.

Chairman, there are definitely differences in the way in which the NDP and the Progressive Cons ervatives appr oach the management of resources and the net result of that is a lower return to the people of Manitoba from their resources when the Progressive Conservatives are handling the administration of resources. Mr. Chairman, I think it's reasonable to compare Saskatchewan with Manitoba because they are comparative provinces in terms of size and they are certainly comparative in terms of forest resources. In terms of Saskatch ewan resources, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister may be aware that much of the resource devel opment in Saskatchewan is done through Crown corporations and they in recent times have purchased the private ownership of a major mill in Saskatchewan in order that they may accomplish what they are setting out to do and that is to produce an even greater return to the people of Saskatchewan through the profits from the resource staying in that province, rather than being turned out to a world-renowned private company or whate ver the term may be. Mr.

Chairman, t think it's a greater benefit to the people of that province that the profits stay in that province than for them to leave the province. I think that's a basic point that anybody can understand and if the government is in ownership of the corpor ation it means very little what the stumpage rate is, so it's not useful in that sense to be comparing stumpage rates. Mr.

Chairman, when we are dealing with a company in Manitoba that's privately owned , then we must talk stumpage rates or at least some mechanism by which a company can return to the people of Manitoba some reasonable percentage of their production in the form of royalty. t do not believe that $800,000 is an undue amount to be paid to the people of Manitoba

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 from the forestry resource of the east side of Lake Winnipeg. Mr. Chairman, there are some 500,000 cords a year, I believe, that goes through the mill in Pine Falls under full production, so $800,000 is not an undue amount to be paid to the Province of Manitoba. In fact, I believe it indicates there would be something in the neighbourhood of less than 100,000 cords that were actually paid for at the stumpage rate of $9.00-and-a -few cents, whatever it was in the agreement, at that rate. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is not an unusual amount.

It's not something which is a burden on the company but it provides a reasonable revenue to the people of Manitoba from the resource. But, Mr. Chairman, if the government is going to turn around and give two-thirds of it back to the company, it certainly doesn't provide a very good return for the people of Manitoba. The government may call it whatever it wants but that's what I believe they are doing. MR. DEPUTY CHA IRMAN, Lloyd G. Hyde: The Honourable Minister. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, just one point, essentially Abitibi is paying what un der the previous administration the people of Manitoba paid for and either ma nagement programs, reforestation programs, that under the previous administration the taxpayers of Manitoba were called upon to pay for. That is not the case today. Now, Mr. Chairman, I suppose we have to simply agree to dis agree; however, the Honourable Member for Rupertsland has been offering me a great deal of advice, which I accept with humility and which is my usual style.

I wou ld ask for one other piece of advice, is he suggesting that we nationalize Abitibi, that we take it over as a government? I'd be interested in that response from the official spokesman for forestry for the New Democratic party. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting that is the alternative open to the government.

There is a company that's been operating on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, which is recognized by the New Democratic Party as well as the Conservative Party, that's providing a useful function in terms of its harvesting of the resource and turning that resource into export dolla rs; in so doing, to provide employment opportunities for people in that area. Now, in recognition of that fact, it's reasonable for the people of Manitoba to expect a fair return from the utilization of their resource.

That is something that the New Democratic Party Government tried to put into place and it's something which I believe the Progressive Conservative Government sabotaged. I belie ve that the Progr essive Conservativ e Government is getting a lower return from that resource than the Ne w Democratic Party Government would have received, and at the same time, Mr.

Chairman, the other factors involved here the emp loyment of people in the area, th� oppor tunities that are ava ilable to other timber operators, the opportunities that are available to communities to harvest resources are also at a lower level than were the case under the New Democratic Party pol icies. I belie ve that there were mo re opportunities for independent operators in that area, at least more flexibility for them than there is now. There was certainly more oppor tun ities for community resource development opportunities in that area than there are now. So, Mr.

Chairman, at the same time that the resources of the province have been reduced the opportunities have also been reduced . So I think that there has been a general dis advantage to the province, not only on the revenue side but on the employment side. I think it's one thing to argue the way in which the Minister tends to argue that the employment opportunities are so important that's all we need to worry about.

I agree with him that the employment opportunities are very important and the only difference that we may have is on the revenue side and that is one place where I think we have to agree to disagree in the sense that the Minister seems to believe that the province is not entitled to as good a return from the resource as the New Democratic Party would believe we are. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I now do want to cease and desist from further comment because if I continue I will be characterized as an apologist for Abitibi; that is neither necessary nor am I that.

Let me give you the final word from my point of view with respect to Abitibi's operations in Manitoba. They are paying the same as any other cutter of wood in the Province of Manitoba. In addition they are paying the province and the people of Manitoba $6 per cord extra to provide reforestation and forest management services that otherwise would come from the taxpayers of Manitoba. Now that to me, cutting all ideology aside, makes good business sense. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Lloyd G. Hyde (Portage Ia Prairie): 7.(a )(1) - pass; 7.(a)(2) - pass. The Member for Rupertsland. MR.

BOSTROM: That's where we have to disa gree, Mr. Chairman, because that mone y was being collected before by the policies which were in place by the New Democratic Party Government, and they were not returned to the company in the way in which they're returned under this administration. So I think that's where we differ. Mr. Chairman, I also believe we differ in the area of providing opportunity for employment in that area because I think the government is content to leave that entirely in the hands of the company.

I think it's the government's responsibility here to manage the forest resource and to ensure that there are opportunities for all the people not just for one company. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 7.(2) - pass; 7.(a)(3) - pass; 7.(b)( 1) - the Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister in addition to the information I requested with respect to Abitibi, if he could provide me with an estimate, which I'm sure his department has, of the revenues that were collected in total from the forestry resource by way of stumpage or any other charges which they have on operators of the resource. As the Minister indicated in his Estimates, there's some $400 million production in the forestry area in Manitoba in economic terms. I would simply want him to indicate to me what the total return from that in terms of a revenue to the Province of Manitoba is. 2529

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, we are attempting to provide that information for the honourable m<�mber. MR. BOSTROM: It does not necessarily hav<� to be provided right now. I'd simply like to hav e the information. MR. E"fNS: If the member will agree to thCit, we'll ask staff to provide that specific information to the member when next this committee meets. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (b)(1) - pass; ( 1>)(2) - pass; (c)( 1) - pass; (c)(2) - pass - the Member for Rupertsland. MR.

BOSTROM: In this area of forestry deve opment, I believe it would be appropriate here to ask the Minister what involvement he has had in recent weeks with the problems related to Channel Area Loggers. I brough t certain matters to his attention several weeks ago and also to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs, who the company directly reports to. I would ask the Minister if can upda te us, from his point of view, on the problems associated with that company and what if anything his department or he is doing to resolve the problems. I believe that he's aware of the concerns.

I raised them to him personally. I also raised tham in a committee when Channel Area Loggers repo rted to the Economic Development Comm ittee and they related to access to resources; they related to the problems of co-operation they were experiencing with Abitibi as to their pricing of wood and also access to resources and the competition between the two in terms of their production in that area around Bloodvein and Berens River. I wonder if the lv1inister could indicate what his policies are with respect to this company and what, if anything, he is doing to resolve the problems. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I well recall havirg been present at the time the company in que stion, Channel Area Loggers, appeared before us at the other Commit tee of Public Utilities, Economic Development. I have not been apprised of and in checking with the Director of Forestries the branch has not received specific requests from Chanr el Area Loggers. We are aware that the company has had its ongoing financial difficulties but these are met with and dealt with by the, I bel ieve, the Ec onomic Development Fund. The company has its Board of Directors.

We have a liaison with that Board of Directors by having a senior member of sta•'f serve as a member of that Board of Directors, but upon inquiring with staff the Depar tment of 1\latural Resources has not been approached with re�pect to specific problems that we can address ourselves to. The question of adequate funding for the company is one that the Economic Development Fund is c:harged with in terms of its responsibility.

The que!>tion of settling . 1 unde rstand there has been some discussion with respect to perhaps teaming up with the Bloodvein group to provide in a co-operative way timber resources to Abitibi, but I turn to the department again, we have not been specifically addres sed or charged with the resolution of some problems since last that company through its directors and management appeared before the committee of the Legislature. MR. BOSTROM: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I'll follow up that concern when we come to the Minister of Northern Affairs Estimates.

At least the Minister is aware of the concerns as I have expressed them and perhaps he will get together with his colleague and see whatever can be done. One final question on this section, Mr. Chairman, from my point of view. That relates to the statement within the Minister's opening remarks about a provincial forest management plan being prepared to the year 2000, being developed by the department through the consulting firm of Forestry International, Vancouver, B.C. I wonder if the Minister could provide us with a copy of the terms of reference provided to the company.

I kno w the Minister outlined in very broad terms earlier this evening the general planning objectives of his department, but I wonder if he could provide us with the specific terms of reference of this study. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, that would be the kind of information that I would readily agree to. It could be perhaps more appropriately addr essed to me for an Addr ess for Papers in the House.

I obviously don't have it with me but again we have no difficulty in providing the member with the, as I understand his question, the terms of reference that were provided to the consulting firm and/or any other information that we believe might be helpful to the honourable firm with respect to that consulting contract. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the process of address for papers. I'm simply asking the Minister if he would co-operate and provide it as a matter of courtesy through the Estimates process.

It need not be presented tonight, but if he could put it in the mail to me or table it before the end of his Estimates, either would be satisfactory as far as I am concerned. MR. ENNS: I'm advised , Mr. Chairman, that we will be in a position to make that available to the honourable member when next the committee meets tomorrow afternoon. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (c)(2) - pass; (d)( 1) - pass; (d )(2) - pass; (e)(1) - pass; (e)(2) - pass; (e)(3) - pass; (f)( 1) - pass; (f)(2) - pass; (g)( 1) - pass; (g)(2) - pass; (h) - pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,03 1 ,9 00 for Na tur al Resources - pass.

Section 8, Fisheries (a)(1) - the Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister in his opening remarks on this

section could indicate any new initiatives or new developments that he's proposing. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I will have to again refer to my enlightening remarks when I first introduc ed my Estimates and indicate to honourable members opposite that for purposes of refreshment, although it grieves me that having made those comments once that they haven't been indelibly impressed into their memory, that the annual harvest was some 36 million pounds, totalling some $17 million in return to the commercial fishermen of this province this year. 2530

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 We ha ve contin ued to enha nce the anglin g opportunities by stocking of fish and rehabilitation of techniques on water bodies in the fisheries, through the Sports Fishing

Section of the branch - that co­ ordi nates activites with other agencies such as Tourism and tourist industry associations to facilitate viable long-term development programs. Again for memb ers general information , approximately 15 0, 000 resident anglers and more than 40,000 non-resident anglers participate in sport fishing each year in Manitoba. I find those figures rather surprising having been apprised of them for the first time myself. These anglers contribute some $50 million to the economic well being of the Province of Manitoba.

The branch is also funding two programs offered to commercial fishermen; the first of these is the Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program which all members opposite are well acquainted with, which I will acknowledge was initially instituted by the previous administration. The second is the provision of funding for adminis trative costs through the Fishermen's Loan Program which was administrated by the Manitoba Agricult ure Credit Corporation under the direction of my capable colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Mr.

Chairman, these are essentially the programs that are being offerred by the Division of Fisheries. I approve the Estimates before you for your hasty approval. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Pass - the Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Yes, when I last discussed this matter the Minister ind icated that he would be coming forward with some information in response to questions that I had asked him; I wonder if he has that information available at this time. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, if my memory is correct it involves the situation at Savage Island, or Island Lake; the difficulties that the processing plant is encountering?

MR. COWAN: Yes MR. ENNS: I would ask the honourable member to refresh my memory as to the specific nature of the questions. MR. COWAN: Perhaps before I do that, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to correct the record. We were talking about the support extended by the Province of Manitoba to that Savage Island Fishery over the past number of years and then indicated in 19 76 that $85,000 was extended by the province in 1977, $96,000. At that time it was suggested that those were for the transportation subsidy.

Persuant to that conversation I have found that in fact in 19 76 that money was spent entirely on fish out-camps and the ice harvest in the area and in 19 77, $54,000 of the $96,000 I am informed was spent for freight subsidy and $42,000 was spent under the SNEP program. In 19 78 I am further informed that the $63,000 was all freight assistance and that there was an application for SNEP funding at that time which was not granted, which was rejected by the province.

So that is my information that has been given to me. 2531 I'd ask the Minister if he can verify that and confirm it so that we are both certain that the record is now clear as to where the money was coming from for those years. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I am obviously going to have some difficulty in satisfying the Honourable Member for Churchill's search for further information in this particular area. Let me simply say that it is a complic ated, complex crossover of various jurisdictions. Federal Indian Department of Affairs owns the building, Mr. Downey owns the equipment and the mortgage of some $200,000.00.

Another federal agency has come along and said we have to close the plant because it doesn 't meet safety and public health standards and has asked our Department of Labour to come along and corroberate that. All in all it's a case that could confirm my belief in less government and certainly right about now the emplo yees that are being endangered of losing their jobs might agree with me. MR. COWAN: It all matters on which perspective one wishes to take in analyzing and reviewing this.

I would suggest that perhaps it's a case for more involvement, especially of a financial nature, by the Provincial Government in order to assist that fishery during difficult times. So I guess it is a matter of the philosophical perspective from which one approaches a province such as this, but the Minister and my philosophical differences are going to have very little effect on the fish plant at this time and they are going to do very little to soothe the anxieties of the fishermen who are effected at this time.

So I just suggest that we lay them aside for the time being, acknowledge that we have chosen to disagree or we have agreed to disagree, to use the more common phraseology and try to use this opportunity to find some way in which assistance can be provided in order to keep that plant operating or failing that and I hope it does not come to that, find some way to ensure that the impact of the plant closure is as little as possible on the fishermen in the area. We discussed the matter in general the other day.

I have done some further research since that time and at that previous meeting we mentioned that in 19 78 a $40 ,000 subsidy was provided by the province in order to keep the plant open. It was my understanding that it was suggested in '78 that the plant would shut at the end of July unless there was more money. The province at that time came through with $40,000 and the plant was able to operate for the full season because of that.

I would ask the Minister quite simply if there is any intention on the part of the government to come forward with that sort of an ad hoc grant once again to ensure that the fishery is maintained for the upcoming year?

I recognize the compl exity of the situation, I recognize the jurisdictional difficulties of the situation and I recognize that it is going to be difficult to sort out all of the jurisdictional responsibilities, but I do not think that should prevent us from trying to work as cooperatively as possible and as efficiently and as quickly as possible towards a solution which will in fact keep the fishery operational for this upcoming year. I'd ask the Minister, therefore, if there is an intention on the part of the government to make that sort of a commitment? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, part of the difficulties is that to initiate a government response certain things

TL1esday, 7 April, 1981 have to happen; in the first instance the Federal Department of Indian Affairs, which is the owner of the plant, is requesting by the other agencies both federal and provincial to declare the plant unsafe or not meeting health requirements. The'{ have indicated that upon that decision by those agencies that would then trigger a government response.

I remind the honourable member, although I don't think he needs that reminder, that in the first instance it is very much the responsibility of the Federal Department of Indian Affairs; but I would not preclude and the suggestion that once the re!�ulatory problems have been cle ared away that this government would then be in a position to assess their position as to whether or not any assistance by way of funding would help the matter. There are serious problems about the co 1tinuing viability of the plant in the first instance.

Thn owner of the plant has informed the community and us that they are not prepared to take any action or initiate any action until another agency of gove rnment makes their decision known to them. That is the current status of the situation at Island Lake and we'll have to wait for events to follow. I don't wish to leave the impression, however, that the future and the livelihood of the employees involved is not of concern to this government. The member's remarks from the previous day are well taken but I think in this instance it is fairly clear.

We have a 5-ituation where the owner of the facility surely ha:; some responsibility in initiating the action. MR. COWAN: I don't wish to belabour the point and I promise the Minister that I wouldn't belabour the point and I won't.

However, I do believe that a number of things have to be said and there is new information since we last discussed this and that is, I have been informed and it is not an off icial acknowledgment, it is an inofficial statemE:nt that discussions with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been productive and that in fact they are willing to review the situation and it looks as if they will grant a temporary permit, or they may grant a temporary permit to keep that plant operational, if certain improvements are mad e and those improvements are not overly costly.

Further to that, it's my understanding that the Federal Government is now awaiting the results of an investigation by the Department of Labour a:; to the suitability of the plant as a workplace per se. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans of cou 1·se was concerned primarily with the quality of the product coming out of the plant, the health standards within the plant and the environment. We are now waiting word from the Provincial Government in re5.pect to the safe condition of that workplace.

I'd ask the Minister, therefore, if he knows if the Provincial Government, Department of Workplace Saf,�ty and Health is intending to investigate the plant and if so, when they might be doing so? MR. ENNS: II is my understanding that the Minister responsible is very much aware of the situation and will be addressing himself to it very quickly.

I must point out that while I concur generally with the information the honourable member has pl<�ced on the record I have not seen, or the department is not apprised of a rescinding of the Federal Ocean people of their initial order that condemned the plant for 2532 health and sanitation reasons. I'm aware though, that discussions have taken place and that what the member suggests may well be the case, that they are prepared to under certain circumstances provide for an extension with the other proviso attached that the workplace and safety regulations can be met. Mr.

Chairman, I think what this demonstrates is that there is a willingness on the part of the different agencies involved to recognize the serious nature of the situation and are attempting through discussions and negotiations to address themselves to it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)( 1) - pass - the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I don't want the record to be such that I implied that the order was rescinded.

I don't think I said that, I think there was discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it was determined that there was room for movement and in fact they may be willing to grant a temporary permit on the basis of repairs which are not overly expensive being accomplished. MR.

ENNS: Just on that point, if I may interrupt the honourable member, I should indicate that a letter did go from our department requesting the federal authorities to back off from their decision to close the plant for health and sanitation reasons until we could resolve the issues that are the responsibility of the Provincial Department of Labour with respect to workplace and safety regulations. I just want to pl�ce that on the record that that initiative has been taken by this department just recently. MR. COWAN: I'd ask the Minister if it would be possible to see a copy of that letter in the near future? MR.

ENNS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to table that letter with the honourable member. MR. COWAN: Whenever it's available it would be appreciated. In that case it appears as if the initiative is up to the Department of Labour at this point in order to either make an inspection or to make a determination and inspection is not necessary, one or the other. I am not apprised of all the facts, I'm not apprised of all the information that they have, so I would hesitate to suggest which course of action they should or will in fact take.

However, I think it is incumbent upon them to act quickly and I would hope that the Minister through his involvement with this matter would provide that encouragement to the Minister of Labour to ensur e that he does act quickly. Now, I would like to discuss that which I would really not like to discuss. I don't mean to be cryptic but if in fact it is found that the Savage Island Fish Processing Plant can't be kept operational for this year, it is going to mean a significant loss in emp loyment for 18 0 to some where over 200 fishermen in the area. Some of that can be taken up in other projects.

However, there will be a significant increase in the rate of unemplo yment in the area, there being no other alternative employment on a large scale available to those fishermen. It means there is going to be increased welfare costs, and we all know what happens in respect to the social

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 disruption which accompanies that sort of a closure under the best of circumstances. It would be even worse under circums tances such as this. When a plant such as Maple Leaf Mills or a plant such as Swifts close, there is a committee that is set up in fact to investigate that plant.

When an airline such as Lambair is put out of business, there is a committee that is set up to ensure that the workers are in fact gaining their rightful due to ensure that they are being assisted in trying to find alternativ e employment, and to look at alternative employment projects and activity on the part of all levels of government.

If, and let me just reiterate that I don't want this to happen, but if it were to happen, would the government be prepared to initiate a committee of that sort in order to ensure that the closure is accomplished in as orderly a manner as possible, and with the least amount of social disruption? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is addressing questions to me that are not entirely within my jurisdiction, as I'm sure the honourable member acknowledges.

I am confident that in the first instance, with the cooperation of the Minister of Northern Affairs and with the cooperation of those groups, whether it's the Department of Labour and Manpower, that as the member suggested were instrumental in setting up the mechanism that he speaks of, the committees to concern themselves about the job loss situation that occurs in any industry would come to play in this instance as well. The Department of Natural Resources principal responsibility is managing the resource, in this case, fish.

I'm advised that we will do everything we can, and we intend to provide maximum fishing opportunities in that area with or without the plan, and ind eed perhaps seek out some inno vative measures which can ensure that happens. It may require calling upon the freight assistance program, but the Director of Fisheries assu res me that it would be our intention to do everyth ing possi ble to maintain the fisheries as such in that general area, and that really is the area of responsibility that the Division of Fisheries and the departmment really has.

I want to assure the honourable member though, that the Minister of Northern Affairs is with us at this committee meeting and that I know that his concern for that situation developing within an area of his jurisdiction as Minister of Northern Affairs, along with our other colleague, the Minister of Labour, that we would view any closure of a plant in that part of the province just as we have responded to that situation happening anywhere else in the province. MR.

COWAN: Just so I understand the Minister correctly, I hear that he's saying that in the event that we got to the point where it appeared that it was feasible to keep that plant operational with adde d assistanc e from the province, that the province would be prepared to look at providing additional assistance in the area of freight subsidy, and also in the area of special employment programs and finally in the area of a direct subsidy.

I'm not asking the Minister to commit himself to those three items, but rather to make a commitme nt to a thorough investigation, an invest igation that approaches it from the positive side of those three items in the event it appeared as if those or any other actions on the part of the Provincial Government could be instrumental in keeping this plant operating and keeping a couple of hundr ed fishermen working for another season. MR. EN NS: We are quite prepared to be the catalyst in this situation, as I've indicated.

From a fisheries point of view, we are prepared to do everything possible to keep the fisheries active and healthy. We cannot, however, act alone in this instance. In the review of possible assistance that might be given, discussions have taken place with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, and certainly the other agencies involved , principally the Department of Indian Affairs would have to show a willing ness to cooperate in the joint effort.

The recognition of where the appropriate responsibility lies wou ld have to be very much taken into consideration in any assistance program that the province could undertake. MR. COWAN: Every body's going to have to move a bit on this and I think that's obvious. It's a difficult situation and it calls for compromise and it calls for a willingness to bend. However, I will point out to the Minister that the Federal Government has made a commitment of $250,000 to the operation of the plant during the 19 81 season.

At least that was the offered amount according to my unders tanding of the situation, which is up $40,000 from last year, which is up $1 53,000 from 19 77 benefits to the plant. At the same time, the province's financial support of the plant is down significantly, as I said before, that 19 77 the provincial support is a percentage of the entire support, both federal and provincial, was 41 percent. In the last year, 1980, it was only 7 percent, so I think if there is room for movement on the part of all parties, there is especially room for movement on the part of the province.

They are desperate times, no one is denying that. I only can encourage the Minister to provide the sort of assistance, extraordinary assistance, that is necessary, and also to assure the Minister that I will provide him with as much suppor t and encouragement as I can through different vehicles to make certain that the government lives up to that particular responsibility. I don't want to antagonize the Minister at this delicate time in respect to the operation of the plant.

I do wish to assure him that we will be watching very caref ull y and will be encouraging him in whatever way possible, so that . he may gain support among his colle agues and so that they can come forward with as much as possible on the part of the province to help keep the plant open. I'm certain he will do that. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I do genuinely appreciate the confidence the Honourable Member for Churchill is placing in me in this particular instance.

I would want to just for clarification point out though, that it is not clear to the department that the $250,000 that has been mentioned on the part of the Federal Government through the Federal Department of Indian Affairs is a commitment to the maintenance of a plant. There seems to be some doubt about that. That is a commitment to the maintenance of the fisheries operation in the general area. That I'm sure the honour able mem ber appr ecia tes, is quite different than a fixed and firm commitment on the part of the federal agency to the supp ort, the 2533

Ta11esday, 7 April, 1981 maintenance of the plant. That doesn't help the situation any, but I place it on the record so that it is clearly understood. MR. DE PUTY CHA IRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Y<e have been discussing at great length the Island Lake closure of the fishing plant. We discussed lhis the other da y and at that time, we received the assurance from the Member for Churchill and the Member for Rupertsland that if they could discuss fisheries under 1. (aX2), that we would be passing fisheries . when we got to it in the Estimates.

Now here we are having the same questions over again that were asked the other day when we received the assurance from these members that they were not going to ask these same questions over. Now, I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, where is the word that they gave us the other day that they were not go ing to - (Interjection)- I would just like to remind these members that they gave us the assurance th•�Y were not going to ask the same questions that ha11e been asked the previous night. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

On the point of order, and I'll end with the point of order, I think if the member who just spoke would review the Ha nsard he will find that at the time of our discussions the other day, the Minister promised to come back with further information, which he has. At that time I suggested and he agreed, that on the basis of that further information, there may in fact be further discussion and it wou ld be of a limited nature, which there has been and which it has been.

I thank the Minister for his interest in this matter, and I thank the Minister for providing us with further detail as was suggested at the previous meeting. I look forward in working with the Minister in whatever way possi ble to ensure that the Federal and Provincial Governments are able to do as muo:h as is within their capacity to ensure that this plant remains operational for the upcoming year.

I don't think that in any way we have reneged upon our word of the previous day, and I think that the member who just spoke previous would review the Hansard, hn would agree with that analysis of what has happennd both then and this evening. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (aX 1) - pass. The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Minister a few questions on fisheries. First of all, I wonder if the Minister could advise the committee on the number of licencees there are now on the lakes. summer and winter? MR. ENNS: I believe that was again contained in my opening remarks.

If I'm correct, the figure is some 3,000. I'l l have it for him in a moment. We ha•te what we call 200 commercial fisheries. By that I take the designation of areas or lakes on which commercial fisheries occur, involving somewhat in exc:ess of 3.000 commercial fishermen. MR. ADAM: The report for 19 79 I guess, gives some records. but I'm wondering if the Minister has a breakdown of the 1980 in his records. 2534 MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, again that kind of statistical information we are more than happy to provide.

I'm informed by the Director of Fisheries that the majority of licencees are in the summer fisheries generally across the province. But if the honourable member is asking for a breakdown in the various lakes, is that not indicated in the Annual Report? We have it broken down roughly on Page 10 3, if the honourable member refers to the Annual Repor t which ind icates such designations as Northern Lakes for summer, winter and the annual Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosi� and other lakes, and then the overall figures on Page 10 3 perhaps provides the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose with the information he is seeking. MR. ADAM: This would be the total numb er of licences that were issued for this 19 80-81? This would be for 19 79-80, I believe. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the member is correct. This is for 19 79-80 but there is not a substantial difference or change in the numbers for 1980-8 1 that he's requesting. MR. ADAM: There was a proposal to change the licencing on the lakes by the Minister's predecessor which has caused a lot of anxiety and concern amongst the fishermen. We know that there are some people who are obtaining licences and others who are not.

I'm wondering what the policy is. I have before me a petition here that was add ressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs from the Winnipegosis area, a bit of Portage area, which contains quite a number of names. I'm not sure whether the Minister has received a copy but I would be happy to pass this copy on to him providing that I can get a copy back for my records if the Minister is interested. But there is a great deal of concern on people who would like to get into the indu stry and are unable to obtain the licence; particularly on Lake Winnipegosis, it seems to be more difficult than other lakes.

There is a heavy summer fishery there. I think the summer fishery is the big fishery on Lake Winnipegosis but there are a number of people who were perhaps former fishermen as well and did have licences on Lake Winnipegosis that would like to get into the winter fishery. It seems almost impossible for them to get in whatsoever. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, in a general way it's understandable that better prices have considerably increased the interest in people wishing to enter into the fishing industry.

There are different criteria and point systems used on different lakes and different fisheries that regulate the entry of new fishermen into the fishing industry. The honourable member must appreciate and understand that the fishing industry is not open to all; it is restricted and done so for a very good reason - to assure reasonable incomes to those engaged in the fishing ind ustr y.

Mo re spec ifically to the question that the honourable member raises with respect to Lake Winnipegosis Fishery, I'm advised that from a management point of view, the senior biologists within the department have a serious concern that that lake is being harvested at a level that is causing concern to the department; that if any added pressure be put on the lake in the next year or two that it could cause serious consequences in terms of future harvests.

Tuesday, 7 April, 1981 MR. ADAM: Then is the Minister saying that the production has gone down this winter over last winter? MR. ENNS: My advice, Mr. Chairman, is that it has basically maintained its level of production but again I have to rely on the expert advice that I am being given that there is some concern being expressed within the Fisheries Division as to the capability of that lake maintaining that level and certainly a greater concern about any increase of that level. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)(1) - pass - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR.

ADAM: I'm not sure whether the petition that was sent to the Minister of Northern Affairs whether that has been ... There are a number of people who have signed this petition now holding licences and have fished for a number of years on Lake Winnipegosis and I'm sure the director will recognize some of the names on this petition and these fishermen are saying, yes, allow some people to come in and fish - others - in competition with them. I received a copy of the petition that was sent to the Minister of Northern Affairs and I'd be happy to hand a copy over to the Minister if he wants it. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I would appr eciate receiving a copy of that petition. It always helps to have the petition before a person to be able to first of all und erstand precisely what it is that the petition is about. I'm assu ming that it is for granting additional fishermen the right to fish on Lake Winnipegosis. Mr. Chairman, I'm further advised that there is a possi bility that we, through a fairly substantial stocking program, particularly with pickerel stock that to some extent we may be in fact through that stocking program maintaining the present level of production on that lake.

On commercial fisheries, the goal of cour se, the optimum ma nagement, the proper management of this kind of resource is to harvest the lake that it will carry itself and sustain a level of harvest over the years that can within itself be generated. We have a very active enhanc ed picke rel restock ing program involving Lake Winnipegosis and biological advice is that it may well be that over the years it's that program that is in fact making it possi ble for the present level of fish production to be taken from that lake.

That is not an ideal or a desirable way of managing a la rge commercial fishery such as exists on Lake Winnipegosis and it's for that reason that departmental officials are expressing concern about any increase in the harvest of that lake and indeed some curr ent stud ies are under way that will hope fully provide us with further definitive information as to what indeed the pulpit levels of harvest should be on that lake. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would have to suggest to the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose that the department cannot at this time entertain additional pressure on the lake. MR.

ADAM: The summer fishing is the fishery that takes out more fish because it's .. MR. ENNS: Peter, the summer fish don't go to Florida in the wintertime. The same fish stay in the same lake all year round. MR. ADAM: Well, yes, but what I am saying is that is where the big fishery is, is in the summertime and you could move around, you can move your nets around from place to place in different areas of the lake. In the wintertime it is not near as easy to move around and . MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, if the honourable member were talking about ducks and geese that do travel from place to place, we could discuss harvest limits in the way that the honourable member is now di scussi ng. But if the la ke is in difficulty with sustaining a yield, we have to take into consideration the poundage that is being taken out of that Jake, summer or winter. MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: (a)( 1) - pass - the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: On another matter, I wonder if the Minister could advise us what has been the final results of the und ersized mesh on Lake Manitoba? How has that problem been resolved?

Has it been resolved satisfactorily for the fishermen? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I can only indicate to the honourable member that my phone has stopped ringing. To suggest that it has been decided to the full satisfaction of the fishermen would possibly be not correct. There has been no change in the regulation. I believe there has been some reason to believe that there has perhaps been, if you wish to be generous, some misunderstanding with respect to the pur chase of nets that might have been purchased in good