Manitoba Hansard — 25 April 1985 (Sitting 35B, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-35b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 25 April, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURA L RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Commit tee, please come to order. We are now about to begin Item No. 9.{a)(1) and 9.(a)(2), but before we do, the Member for Emerson wants to ask some general questions about Fisheries. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to maybe just raise this issue at this time.

Unfortunately, I wasn't here in the afternoon when Fisheries was passed, but it's just a matter of maybe raising the question of the use of live bait in certain areas. It is a concern that has been raised over a period of time in terms of the use of live bait, and certain areas have been allowed and certain areas not. I know that the Minister obviously must have had dialogue or correspondence with people tha t are involved in this aspect of it.

The one thing with the previous Minister, when I wrote them and exp ressed some concern as to the licensing of operators who have a fair amount of equipment in that respect - and there are not that many, it's a small group really that is concerned - the concern that was exp ressed to me was the threat of long-term resource and environment degradat ion resulting from the introduction and transfer of noxious fish species via the bait bucket, this type of thing. All I want to do, with the indulgence of the committee, is just ask the Minister what his approach is going to be with regard to the use of live bait. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, we've had a number of discussions with people in the industry, certainly within our department, and we are really not in a position to know what we intend to do with that at the present time. There has been really no new policy initiative decided upon, although I think we will be looking at it within the next 12 months.

If we decide to move on it, we will have to engage the people that are involved in the industry to ascertain whether or not there is a means of doing it, which would somewhat modify the impact on those that are in the industry, or at least assist them in the process if necessary. That's something that we would consider if we were to move in that direction. We have not yet decided that question in any event. MR. A. DRIEDGER: The fishing season is just about on us now and the individuals involved obviously have considerable investment involved, and we're looking at not that many weeks till the season opens.

Is the Minister going to be issuing licences to the present operators to some degree until this review has taken place, or is it terminated and then we are going to review it after that? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is going to be a new policy for this season. MR. A. DRllEDGEIR: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour it because of the consideration given me, but it was my understanding that the licence for the individuals that operate with live bait is issued on a year-to-year basis.

The question I have is, are the same licences that were issued last year going to be issued this year until the department has a chance to maybe review the picture? That is the question that I have. HON. S. USKIW: We intend to continue business as usual, so to speak. We will not issue brand new licences for new op erators, but the exis ting ones will be honoured. MIR. CHAIRMAN: That terminates, I hope, this line of questioning. Thank you, the Member for Emerson. We are now formally beginning Item No. 9.(a)

(1) Wildl ife, Admin istrat ion: Sala ries, 9.(a )

(2) Othe r Expenditures - the Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to indicate that this is probably going to be a pretty lively

section here, because of keen interest from members on our side of the House. We would like to just float along with this thing and, instead of going on a general basis, maybe we'll just start off with, you know, general things with the acceptance and providing that the Chairman allows us to proceed. We will take and run at everything under Administration, and then keep passing things as we go along. It's worked relatively well, and I hope we have the indulgence of the Chair in that respect now. The first concern that I'd like to raise is with respect to the wildlife feeding programs that we had this past winter.

I want to express some disappointment and concern as to how the thing developed within the depart ment. Since the time when the problem was flagged by many people that probably have good knowledge of it, which was early winter when that first snowfall came, already the warning signs were out. We already started getting calls at that time. I'm sure the department must have, at that stage of the game, already had got some warning news or notifications from people that have a good understanding of what happens.

The way the thing developed is it seemed that the government, the Department of Natural Resources, almost came in as an afterthought once the problem was a major problem. I want to pay special tribute to the many wildlife associations and the Manitoba Wildlife Federation who sort of took the initiative in this thing and, I think probab ly, have to take most of the credit for the deer and elk that are in existence at this time in the spring. 1274

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 It seemed that we had a sort of aftermath in terms of the way this program deve loped, in terms of the assistance, the pellets and stuff like that. As I indicated before, ther e are many people that are very conscientious of this. Once the signals were out that there were problems, money and individuals came forward and did a remarkable job, and government ultimately came in and allowed additional funding to proceed lo take place in this end of it. What has happened, I think we have a major problem at the present time.

I'm sure the Minister must now be aware of it because, as this whole cycle developed where concern was raised about deer and elk utilizing feed that farmers had in short supply, especially in the southwest part of the province, I had the occasion to do some touring out there and see the damage done by wild deer. The farmers and the people locally have by and large accepted the fact in certain winters that our wildlife population, whether it's elk or deer or whatever, that there is going to be a certain amount of impact on them in terms of their feed.

What happened this year that sort of, I suppose, drew the whole thing to a crisis stage was the fact that in the southwest part of the province - my colleague from Arthur can probably substantiate that - was that we had a drought; there was a shortage of feed; farmers were very concerned about that aspect of it. Then we had the early snows and then the deer populations in many cases came down and started utilizing the farmers' feed. In a normal year, probably, the farmer would not have been that concerned about it.

What happened though because this general problem seemed to roll down, and we didn't have any positive direction, is that many farmers were feedi ng. Some were started to be compens ated or promis ed com pensat ion; other s were not. The wildl ife associations, as well as government, with the money that they were putting into the thing, anticipation started to develop that there would be compensation.

As a result of that, we now have a situation where once somebody gets com pensated, then the anticipation is there for many others that, okay, we have fed them all these years, it's costing us some money this year, we want compensation as well, and the thing sort of mushrooms. I am not critical of the work that was done in terms of the individuals, your wildlife associations, or the money that government put in.

I felt that there should have been possibly some development organization or direction developed from the Department of Natural Resources in terms of how this would be handled because I feel confident from the calls that I get, and I am sure that the Minister and his department do, that there are many farmers out there that feel they are qualified for some form of compensation because some people got, others have not, and now we have a problem. I wonder whether the Minister could give us some indication as to how he views the ongoing process because I'm sure there must be claims coming in yet.

I know, for example - and I want to stress this at this stage of the game - that I met with a group in the Spruce Woods Park area where there was a group that had set up and started asking farmers how much damage has been done by elk. When I met with that group, they were looking already at $70,000 plus in that area where I think 20 licences were issued and they were just starting to item ize all these things.

I suggested to the farmers, I said, well, if there is going to be that amount of damage, that we have upwards of $70,000 to $10 0,000 worth of damage claims for the amount of elk that we have in there and for the amount of licences that we issued there, maybe we should issue licences and have them all shut out and then there is no more problem, which is an exagg erated position of course, because by and large I think the farmers feel they are prepared to accept a certain amount of damage.

But now the perception is out there that if there is damage by elk and deer because some people have been compensated because wildlife associations - the Manitoba Wildlife Federation - have stepped in and have come up with money being forwarded and now we have a problem, in my mind. I wonder if the Minister can maybe give me a better background as to where it stands with the department at the present time, whether that is a major probiem now or not, because maybe he's got it all resolved, maybe everybody is paid off and there is no problem.

But if not, I would like to maybe just get an insight as to where we are at with all the claims that are coming in and how the department is dealing with that. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member is correct in the sense that there was a crisis period because of the harsh early winter. He is incorrect when he says that there was slow response because the additional response from the depart ment, I believe, came in about the month of December or January - December. The end of December we were already augmenting our program in recognition of the problem that was out there.

So we moved from about $60,000 some-odd to $300,000 towards feed supplies for deer and elk, which by and large was about equal to what has been raised by farmers and supporters of wildlife, I think that's correct. So in essence, what it ended up being is that the public through the tax system has supported this year's winter feeding program at about 50 percent, and private donations, fund-raising campaigns, have raised about 50 percent.

The department has worked very closely with those private groups and it was a very harmonious exercise for that matter, a lot of consultation and a sort of cross-refer encing took place between the department's effort and that of private individuals and groups, and especially the wildlife associations. We have had many compliments from the Wildlife Association people with respect to our augmented effort and the co-operation that we extended to their effort. So I have not detected any problem with respect to a perception that somehow the government was not ready to deal with the prices that were there.

In total, with respect to claims for damages, we've had about 460 claims which we anticipate will cost about $295,000 this year, and which we have provisions for. So there is no problem with that issue either, Chairman. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Can the Minister indicate where we're at in terms of the claims that have come forward thr ough the department or through the wildli fe 1275

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 associations? Are there still claims coming in? And what is the time element involved in terms of from the tim e that a person ma kes a claim until it gets investigated and gets authorized? Or are all the claims of the 485 claims, is that what the Minister said? HON. S. USKIW: 460. fAR. A. DRIEDGER: 460. Are those the amount of claims that have been paid out already, or are those the amount of claims that have come in? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's the total and most of them have been paid out. They are paid out on the basis that as they come in we process them.

So there is no significant backlog at the present time. It's about a six -week turnar ound time between application and response. MR. A. DFllEDGER: Well, I want to just touch on the one group specifically - and I think possibly the Member for Gladstone will follow up on that - but the elk damage in that area - and I think this is ongoing - every year there is some elk damage in that area because, all of a sudden, there was the element of compensation available. I think maybe the claims came forward at a more rapid pace than maybe for things that were standardly accepted to some degree.

Can the Minister indicate roughly how much money was paid out in that specific area, or is it all lumped into a package? Spruce Woods? HON. S. IJSKIW: We might be able to break it out of our numbers. We'll attempt to provide the member with that information. We wouldn't have it readily available. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Maybe just for the record, could the Mini ster ind icate what would be the normal procedure in terms of somebody who feels he's had damage and makes a claim?

Can the Minister maybe outline the procedure, the steps it goes through just so that we have it on record so that if somebody feels concern that they have not been dealt with rightly that we know exactly what the process is? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the front line on that whole issue is our local C.0.s, our conservation officers, in the field. They're the ones through which everyone must process their application. They in turn fire it into the central system and it's processed. But if there is a problem with respect to any of them, we'd certainly be prepared to check into it. MR A.

DRIEDGER: Just to maybe illustrate the procedure, if a farmer has had damage by deer or elk, whatever the case may be, especially in the past winter, and feels that he maybe qualifies for some kind of compensation factor, he would make application to the local C.O., and the local C.O. then does the investigation himself, or send somebody out to do the investigation; then it gets put into the system, to the department, and ultimately the payment comes within a six-week period. Is that what the Minister is indicating? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the C.O. does the investigation and sends in a report with a recommendation. We have paid out all the claims that we have had in the previous fiscal year by the end of that fiscal year. The only outstanding claims we have are those that have been received in the new fiscal year which is since April 1st. So we are right up-to date with respect to payment. We have paid out $320,000 for the last fiscal year. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I assume that would be up to the 1st of April. HON. S. USKIW: That's right. MR. A.

DR!EDGER: And I would assume that the majority of the claims would have come in prior to the 1st of April, because the concerns and damage were prior to that normally. How far back are we accepting applications? There must be a time somewhere along the line, because there are some individuals obviously that haven't realized, maybe don't participate that much actively in the community, realize that all of a sudden there's a payout and want to put in a claim. How far back are we looking at in terms of accepting a claim? HON. S. USKIW: We'll accept a claim as long as it can be verified.

There has to be proof of damage. There is a well-established procedure for that, it's not a new thing, it's a 10-year-old program, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person in line is the Member for La Verendrye. The .Member for Gladstone is next. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm having a little trouble following just how this procedure works with the damage claims, because I have been sort of led to believe it's a little different than that.

Anyway in my area around the Spruce Woods Park, for years people have been subjected to heavy losses from wildlife damage and this winter they decided they'd had enough and called a meeting to discuss the problem. Now they booked a small room and thought there would be a few people there and, as the Member for Arthur can attest, there were over a 100 people gathered and there were a lot of angry people. One of the things that I got, and have got from them through subsequent meetings, is that they've been putting up with this for a ·long time.

Some of them feel that it's just part of their farm operation, that they generally can look forward to losses through damage by wildlife, but it has got to the point where, as we all know, the farm situation isn't that great and these losses are weighing more heavily upon them than they may have in good years. So, with all this in mind, out of this large meeting a committee was formed and they have held subsequent meetings to discuss the problem and to draw up the objectives of their organization and to prepare a brief for the Minister, which they hope to present to him in the near future.

I'll read to you the objectives of the group so that you will realize that they're not a group that are out to strictly get compensation, they're also looking for some remedy for the problem. So, their objectives are as follows: 1. To obtain reasonable compensation for any game bird or wildlife damage to crops, hay buildings and fences. 1276

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 2. To suggest methods of decreasing incidents of damage by use of control methods in the Spruce Woods Park. 3. To suggest adjustments to hunting seasons to minimize damage to fences and crops. 4. To inform farmers of methods of deterring wildlife and obtaining compensation. Because I think they feel that there are some people that probably don't know you can get compensation.

Now they have a good relationship with the people that work in the park, the C.O.'s and the park staff there have been co-operative, very helpful, and in fact, have offered to help them with information that they can give them.

A lot of people feel there is no point in claiming so they prepared a form for people to fill in just exactly what damage that they had - sort of an assessment of what the value of the crop was, what the value of the fences that were broken down, and this sort of thing - and they went to some people and found that they said, oh, heavens no, we think there's no point in it because we've been putting up with this for so long and nobody's done anything , there was not point.

So I think, when the Minister tells us what damage has been paid out, I think, probably that is the tip of the iceberg from what we're finding out from this group. One thing that has come out of it is that they feel that the elk have chased the deer out of the park into a new range and the deer, in turn, are causing damage where they did n't cause damage before. And out of all this I was a little surprised maybe. I thought when they were really in such a state about this I had envisioned them saying, get rid of the elk, but that isn't what they want.

In fact, some of the people that are most upset about it are avid hunters. They enjoy the elk. They feel that they should be there, but they don't feel that they should be subsidizing the rest of the country in feed ing these elk all the time. Some of the problems that came out have to do with the way that the compensation was handled. I was under the impression from them that crop insurance handled damage claims, that you reported this to your crop insurance agent, who in turn had to get a form from the Wildlife people.

Of course, it had to be assessed before you went out on the combine and harvested the field, because of course somebody had to see it. So when you're ready and the weather is right and you're ready on your combine to do the harvesting, you're waiting for this form and this person to assess the damage. So that can sometimes cause a problem. They're not complaining about the crop insurance people. The y feel th ey've had a very excel lent relationship with them, they are doing the best they can. But there are some things in the crop insurance part of it that I hear a lot of complaints about.

One, of course, is the $25-per-qu arter fee that's charged, which is sort of a deterrent fee, I guess. So if you have several quarters, then you're paying $25 on each one which you get back if you have a valid claim, but still it's a problem. Now when they do get all this assessing done, they receive a cheque in the mail, and there is no indication of what it's for, whether it's for Claim One or whether it's supposed to be 75 percent of the damage, they don't know. It's 75 percent of what. The crop insurance people tell me that they don't get a report back at their office telling them the details of this claim.

So everyone is at a loss to know exactly what they're being paid for, why they're being paid it, and they don't know when they are going to get it. They are beginning to feel that it should be probably handled the same as the waterfowl damage has been changed right into the Department of Agriculture with the crop insurance. They, I believe, will be making a recommendation to the Minister to that effect. Of course, the compensation does not pay for the hours you spend chasing your cattle when the elk have broken the fence, when you would be really better employed on the combine harvesting the crop.

If the elk knock the fence down and the cattle get in and damage the crop, then the compensation people say well, the elk didn't do it, the cattle did, so that's your problem. So all in all, it is a very frustrating and bad problem. The property damage, of course, isn't paid for, the fences and the time, as I say, spent in chasing cattle and rounding them up. One farmer told of a problem he had with purebred cattle. The elk broke the fence. His bull got out, and the neighbours were not happy that their purebred cattle were viola ted and of course, this sort of thing can happen.

There goes the value of those cattle, because you can't sell a calf as a purebred registered animal if another bull has got in with the herd. So there we have problems that probably are peripheral, but they still are definite problems to this farm operation. So I'm sure that the Minister hasn't got an instant answer for the problem, but I would be interested in hearing his remarks on it. MR. A. DRIEDGER: He has all the answers for everything else. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, he will have an answer. HON. S. USKIW: Well, I have to appreciate the fact that the Member for Gladstone knows her agriculture.

She must have some knowledge or she wouldn't have put her argument across as well as she has. It's always difficult to keep the bulls in the fence for very obvious reasons. MRS. C. OLESON: More difficult if the elk break the fence. HON. S. USKIW: I don't know whether or not I really should belabour the point one way or the other. These are inevitables. When you have a co-existence situation between wildlife and domestic, you are going to have tho se inci dents oc curring from time to time. It's something that we can't legislate against or for.

Nature plays a big role in how animals behave, having to do with various seasons, reproduction, grazing needs. All those things play a

part in the behaviour of animals. In fact, it's not that much di fferent from people. Sometimes fences don't keep animals out. The process that we use is that the C.O . has to establish that there has been big game damage. The C.O . leaves a form. That form is subsequently filled out by the crop insurance agent, and then it's subm itted to the department for payment. That's the process. I don't know whether there is an answer to the problems that the member has illuminated for us. We 1277

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 know they're there. In some years they're more of a problem and in other years they're not much of a problem. It depends on the circumstance of the natural environment, feed supply and a whole host of other things. Farmers also have some responsibility that they have to try to protect their assets to whatever extent they can. When they run out of ways of doing that, then of course they inevitably do call the C.O .s into the act, and try to resolve their problem. But it's like everything else. We only have so much capacity and beyond that, everything takes its course. MRS. C.

OLESON: This committee feels that one of the problems is with timing of hunting season, that late crops, say, like sunflowers and corn are the worst hit by this and of course, that gets us into hunting season, and the elk get spooked by the hunters probably, and are running through the fences. They, of course, are more prone to damage fences than deer are. Deer manage usually to jump over them. But just to give the Minister a little indication, just a preliminary report that I got, I believe it was this morning, from one of the members of the committee.

The Member for Emerson had given you an estimate figure of $70,000.00. Well they haven't got all their information in but on the 18 claims or forms they have in, it's interesting, the deer damage is higher. It is $34,352 as part of those 18 claims, and the elk, $12, 376.00. So it gives them a total $46,728 just on 18 forms that they have got in and when they get in the rest of them. The highest one they have to date is $7, 700.00. They asked for figures to do with repairing fenc es and so forth which aren 't covered by com pensation. Another thing that I neglected to mention in this is contract crops.

The compensation doesn't take into conside ration the price of the contract crop when compensation is paid. The committee has some feeling that there should be, with all compensation, 100 percent compensation for the damage. As one fellow put it, he says, when I go to the bank and I haven't got the money to pay the loan and the banker says, where is the rest of your money and the farmer says the elk ate it, the bank manager isn't too impressed. I know of one case where the wife, who is a partner in the farm, decided that since things were not that great on the farm that she would get a job in town.

Well, she made a certain amount of money and it pretty well coincided with the damage they'd had from the elk so she figured she was working all summer to feed the elk. There is some thought by some members in that group, and I don't blame them, that if this was a city yard and a herd of elk came stampeding over many yards that probably there would be a state of emergency decla red and th ere would be a fair amount of compensation paid. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Member for La Verendrye want to reclaim his speaking order? Does he want to? MR. R. BANMAN: No, we can vote on this issue. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. I have a mental speaking order here. 1278 MR. D. BLAKE: If it'll help solve the Minister's problem on the elk damage in the Spruce Woods Park, Mr. Chairman, my good frie nd, Jim Ferguson from Gladstone and I have been applying for about the last six years and we haven't got drawn yet, so I can assure him that there'll be two elk less if we ever get our names drawn for that hunting area. But, my colleague from Gladstone, I think has another question she would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, before the Member for La Verendrye and I take a shot at the Minister. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: I'm sorry about that, but I had asked at the beginning of the Estimates for numbers on the elk population in Spruce Woods Park. As I had mentioned at that time, the five-year report a while ago - in 1982 I guess it was - stated that there were 750 elk in the Spruce Woods Park area and it was forecast that it would increase. This spring, when they did an aerial count, the last figure I had was 289 and that seemed to be very low, unless the count had not been completed when I heard the figure. HON. S. USKIW: We anticipate 350 elk in Spruce Woods.

We had a count of 289. MRS. C. OLESON: I think that number must be way off because . . . HON. S. USKIW: Low. or high? MRS. C. OLESON: Low, because I'm sure half of them ran in front of my car not long ago - a small herd - when I was coming home from Carberr y. But, yes, I would suggest that since there's such widespread complaint about it and more problems than ever, I think that must be a very low count. There's a herd north of Carberry that apparently hasn't entered into the count at all - north of No. 1 Highway. HON. S.

USKIW: I've just had a suggestion that maybe we appoint the Member for Gladstone to our C.O. group. MRS. C. OLESON: Help the elk. You lend me the plane, I'll go and do it. HON. S. USKIW: We have counted 289; we estimate 350. Now, that's the best guess we've got. What else can one say, unless one has to ask an independent commission to count the elk. MRS. C. OLESON: Has there been a count in between that five-year report count of 750 and this current count HON. S. USKIW: No. MR. A. DRIEDGER: There must be a lot of poaching going on. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson is right. MR. D.

BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, how many elk are there in Riding Mountain National Park? Is that strictly up

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 to the federal people to count and give you those figures or does your game branch have those? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, we don't have authority there, but we can get the figures from the federal authority; we don't have them here. MR. D. BLAKE: I know there is compensation paid for damage around Riding Mountain Park, also, although it's not as widespread or as concentrated as it is in the Carberr y or Gladstone area, but the problem there, of course, is that there is such a wide area.

I think there is something like 6,000 or 7,000 elk in there, but it's a very large area and the damage is scattered over a wider area and doesn't receive the same attention, or it's not as concentrated damage as you see in the Carberry area.

I fully support the Member for Gladstone in her plea to have some solution to the problem that those people are facing because it's pretty discouraging to a farmer who works and tends a crop and sees a reasonably good crop coming in to wake up some morning and find that there have been 30 or 40 elk ravaging through it, because I've seen what they can do and it's a pretty discouraging event. But, there are others, I think, that want to carry on this same topic and maybe we can finish that off and then move onto other subjects, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I have a few comments and questions I'd like to put on the compensation part of the Estimates, Mr. Chairman. The comments the Minister made on the si x-week turnaround, I have to definitely question because I have had constituents that have waited some six months to get settlement on some of the wildlife claims. One of the problems I can see - I don't totally blame the department or the politicians - I think there is some frustration, as my colleague from Gladstone has pointed out.

I think the main frustration is between the two bureaucracies, one in the crop insurance and some in the wildlife management

section that possibly, if it were streamlined a little bit, it would be somewhat helpful. The other concern that I have in dealing with this, and that is the amount of compensation.

I have a constituent who has ma de repr esenta tion to the department, and to the former Minister of Natural Resources, from the Turtle Mountain area and he has pointed out that the maximum that anyone can get, because of the way the formula works, is 50 percent of the value of the crop, whether it be hay, bails that are in the feed yard for winter storage, or whether it be sunflower loss; and the deer, as we're well aware, find sunflowers very tasty and have ravaged many many crops of sunflowers in the southwest area of the province, particularly last year with the extreme shortage of product.

I have a bit of difficulty when the Department of Natural Resources - and I'm not certainly against wildlife, I'm a very strong supporter of them. I've got some property that I'm leaving particularly for the production of white-tail deer. But, I have a concern when I come into the southwest part of the province where we have 11 ,000 acres in the municipality of Cameron to produce wildlife, and then the farmers around there, who do a lot of the winter feed ing of them, have a di fficult time in ge tting adequa te compensation to carry the deer herd that comes into their alfalfa bails to feed.

The same applies in the Turtle Mountain area, and I would request that a major review of the wildlife compensation program be looked at, the adjustment portion of it, because I have a letter that my colleague wrote to the former Minister of Natural Resources, colleague from Swan River, who had a problem with a constituent of his whose name was Mr. Hogg from Kenville who had - and I'll just make comments from the letter which Mr. Gourlay wrote to the Minister - Mr. Hogg had 60 acres of red clover but was only able to harvest 20 acres in the fall of 1982.

He contacted the conservation officer and requested assistance in keeping the big game out of this area during the winter of'82-83 so that he could harvest the remaining crop in the spring of 1983. This is the argument against the six-week turnaround. The department responded but after some time and effort in discouraging crop depredation, advised Mr. Hogg he should put in a claim for crop insurance. Mr. Hogg compl ied and subseq uently contacted crop insurance. The crop adjuster appeared in the field on May 24, 1983, and com pleted his crop loss report. That was the 24th of May, 1983. Mr.

Hogg subsequently made inquiries as to his loss claim but was told he would have to wait until the spring of 1984. We are now another year later, Mlirman - it's been now from the fall of'82 to the spring of'84 - the above noted individual is now being advised that he is not eligible for crop loss assistance because red clover is not covered. So he has gone two years and now he found out he wasn't covered. However, this is not being very consistent because a neighbour of Mr. Hogg, Mr. David Brundage, received compensation for red clover in 1978.

I think that there is a real frustration out there, and I think a lack of clarification of the policy, as I am pointing out here, not only did it take six weeks, it took two years and six weeks and then found out that it wasn't applicable. So I think it would have been fairer to the individual to have told him from Day One that he wouldn't be eligible and it would have helped. I wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chairman, because it again points out some of the frustrations that some people run into when two departments are involved. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to follow that one up because there is an inconsistency in treating people and we should addr ess that. Perhaps the member could, for the benefit of our staff, give the details of that to them directly. But in the meantime the Member for Arthur is correct; there is a problem and nothing stands still; we always have new ones. In the sense that we have tried to replenish our big game herds in Manitoba over the years, I guess we have created a larger problem with that policy. There is nothing wrong with the policy but the question of co existence is where the problems are.

There are commoditie s that are not covered and that doesn't make any sense, because if you are going to 1279

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 cover agricultural production and cover one commodity, you should cover them all. Damage is dama ge, notwithstanding what the production is. But there are two things that we have to look at and I think we have to do that soon. First of all, let me put on the table the facts. In these Estimates was a cut of $50,000 out of compensation, Big Game Damage Compensa tion.

So to be able to replenish that and to then add other crops in and to award more generously, if you like, we would probably have to do two things, put more money back into compensation, and introd uce a mechanism of raising more money in order to pay for it I think that's really where we have to go. We may have to impose a higher fee for those that benefit from that resource directive. We may have to impose a higher fee for that very purpose. The claim is legitimate. There is inconsistency; there's unfairness with respect to length of process.

By and large, that should not be a problem other than when there is a dispute as to the claim. Once you get into that scenario, then I agree it would take months and months and even years to determine the end result. But by and large it shouldn't take more than - I would say at the most - two months, you know, so we should sharpen up our effort if it isn't happening within that time frame. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there is a copy of this letter, from my colleague the Member for Swan River, in his office, but I am prepared to have the Clerk make a copy of it now and they can return the letter.

I would like to just follow up on one other area and that was the compliments that were paid to the wildlife associations this winter in their efforts to establish deer feeding stations. There were in the southwest corner - which the Minister may not be aware and the public may not be aware - my colleague who is from Emerson travelled through that area and we did meet with quite a few individuals - there were a lot of individuals that privately put money out and feed ing stations out on their property.

In fact, right at the Souris River, right in the Town of Melita, there was probably for two months some 50 to 75 deer being looked after. I know personally, I had an individual tell me the other day I should put a bill into the Department of Natural Resources. I was unfortunate in losing a crop of corn to drought, and we had several hundreds of deer through the winter that pastured that particular crop - but it wasn't good enough for harvest - and without the feeding stations and without the support of private individuals and different groups, then we would have seen a massive starvation.

Now the question has to be brought up again, as was earlier toda y, to what point do we go to support them? But I go back to my earlier comments. As long as the Department of Natural Resources is encouraging habitat, increasing acreage and producing the deer, then somebody had better be prepared to look after them in the wintertime. - (Interjection) - Well, the Member for lnkster says that there isn't enought habitat. Well, I would say that most farmers . . . A MEMBER: How many acres has he ded icated to them? MR. D. BLAKE: He doesn't know a buck from a doe. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The members will address their remarks to the chair. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you. Most farmers, Mr. Chairman, like to see wildlife on their property and in their different areas. I don't think there is any real strong feeling that they shouldn't be there, but with the enhanced production areas, and there are - I think it's fair to point out I made one particular comment about the 11,000 acre one in the southwest - that after the grasshoppers ate most of the feed off it last summer, there wasn't much left for the deer summer or winter.

So there had to be some feeding stations put in place because if there aren't feed ing stations put in place, they just move into the farmers' yards and they take advantage of what's there. So I appreciate the fact the Minister is going to look into the policy of compensation and look into the problems that have been derived, particularly on an equity basis as between the dif ferent crops. As the Member for Gladstone pointed out, I was at that mee ting in Carberr y. One of the other main problems that was pointed out to me and that is the elk, as we are aware, lunge through the fences of farmers.

The farmer that was telling me, he said, when I go to where a bunch of elk have gone through a fence, I hope I don't find any wire because it's a lot easier to rebuild a fence than it is to try and fix a fence that a whole herd of elk have gone through, that they are in such a tanglement. So he said I would just as soon that everything be gone and I could start afresh. I can understand having to do some fence fixing; it's understandable. The other thing is, as we see the increase of special crops, particularly sunflowers in the Carberry area, and the expansion of the elk herd, we see they complement one another.

Some of the farmers say you should see a bull elk or an elk with a big rack of horns go down two rows of sunflowers and see how many sunflowers are left after they've gone down. They are better than any combine that goes down a row of sunflowers. So it is a problem; I think it's one that isn't insurmountable. I know my colleague from Emerson will be bringing it up, as I will be, about tlie possibilities of other ways of maintaining elk herds in the province and hope that the Minister is receptive to some of the suggestions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Thank you.

I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask of the Minister. I think a few years back, we had some discussion on the possibility of going into reindeer ranching in the north, or along those lines, going into reindeer farming. I know that we have, on an experimental basis, it's gone beyo nd an experimental basis, and that is, the Waterhen Buffalo Ranch. It brings me back to the question of feeding the deer. You know, on the surface to me it seems the right thing to do.

My tendency was when this was about that I should arrange to have 15, 20 big large bales of hay taken out in the wild somewhere and let the deer eat. It didn't happen because a farmer Cqme along and 1280

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 said, look, I have no hay and I need hay. So the rancher ended up getting the hay for his livestock. It brings up the question of has there been any comments from the biologists on the advisability of feed ing - these are not domesticated animals, they're wildlife - have the biologists made any comments in regard to the impact? What are we doing there? Are we turning the wildlife into kind of a zoo? Is it the right thing to have deer coming to one fe eding sta tion? Th ose kinds of questions. I'm not an expert in that area, I don't know whether members opposite are experts in that area.

I would suspect that very few of us are experts in what impact that has on the wildlife. I know that wildlife is under pressure, they are losing their habitat. I know that this has probably more impact than a severe winter, you know, one bad winter out of ten. It seems to me that the loss of habitat is far more harmful and damaging to wildlife than storms, and so on. I'm not an expert on it, and I was just wondering what the experts are saying about this; what are the biologists saying? Should we be doing that every year? We're in the northern fringes, as the Minister mentioned earlier, up in this area.

This is really the northern end of it and you're going to have some tough winters and you're going to have some nice winters and , you know, if you have a few nice winters the deer are going to move north, they'r e going to move further north, because they're losing habitat then, all of a sudden, you get a boomer, and you have a problem. So what should we be doing on that? I don't know because I'm not the expert, and I would like to know if our people are speaking to biolog ists and the experts from the University and so on. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the question of policy with respect to feed ing of wild animals has two answers to it. You know, when you're in a crisis situation like we had this past winter, the animals are there and the natural response by everyone is to make sure they survive the winter.

On the other hand, there's an argument that is being made by biologists that will say that overly stimulating production and encouraging it beyond its normal habitat area, will either lock you in into a permanent expensive feed ing proposition for more and more of the animals, or if you don't do that, you will end up with a big disaster down the road when the harsh winters set in and the capacity to feed them naturally isn't there. The policy has been to feed them only as a means of minimizing the damages that they create to farmers; that's been the policy.

This past winter we fed them to survive them, so we extended our normal policy into a survival program for the animals, from that of solving the farmers' problems. And there's probably a limit to how far we do that. That has to be evaluated as to its worthiness. There's an argument to be made that nature should take its course and, when they go beyond a certain level, they should be set back by nature itself.

On the other hand, statistically, the Member for Arthur alluded to the fact that we are setting aside more habitat areas and, therefore, we are creating problems for farmers by having a higher density of animals in the area. But, statistically, we're losing habitat at the rate of 4 percent per year in southern Manitoba. So there's a perception here that we are increasing potential for wildlife while, in fact, it is going the other way. We are maintaining a level program. The habitat is reducing in size, and the animal population is reducing in size, year after year.

We are depleting the animal population, we are not increasing it. I should add one more point. Because the habitat is shrinking, the animals are venturing out and becoming a little more domesticated than they otherwise would be, just simply searching for food. And that's why they are at the farmers' haystacks and I guess that's why I have a picture of one in my front lawn. Took a picture right through our front window. You know, they are becoming a little tamer because of their own environmental situation. So there are many arguments on both sides of that question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.

ADAM: I'd ask the Minister what the biologists are saying, and I don't know whether he answered that or not? What is their argument? HON. S. USKI W: The biologists? MR. A. ADAM: What are they saying, should we proceed with this every year, or in just very exceptional cases? HON. S. USKIW: The biologists recommend that we have a program as a means to solve the problems that animals create. I don't think that they are stressing, at least not overly so, that we stimulate artificial feeding to have more animals fed through the winter. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to indicate there's been a fair amount of discussion about the aspect of damage by wildlife and what have you, and I think possibly if you have a winter like we've had it sort of highlights the situation because it seems more severe and everybody becomes more conscientious.

I would like to indicate to the Minister that I firmly believe that our farmers, by and large, are the best conservationists that we have in terms of deer and elk, and everybody becomes a bit more conscientious in a winter like we've had the past winter, and I think it is a matter of maybe trying to work out some kind of a general co-operation factor with our farmers that are putting up with the wildl ife and I am really not that much concerned about it except during some specific tough years.

And the one thing that comes forward sometimes is, when we were in government, we initiated a program where a landowner could apply for a licence for hunting of elk on his own property for a certain period of time. It was done as a trial thing at that time. It was relatively well-received by the landowners, and now there is some dissatisfaction because the time that these licences are issued or available to the landowner in conjunction - it's my understanding, it's a short period of time. 1281 For example, with the elk there, they move up and down. They don't stay in one spot necessarily.

As a result, a farmer picks up a licence for the hunting of elk on his property, and the elk don't show up for the

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 two weeks or whatever period of time that he has the licence. Three days later, they come marching through his fences, you know, and his hay crops and stuff like that. I realize the problem, but what I'm suggesting is that maybe - when we initiated it, it was on a trial basis; there was good reception to it - whether we could maybe expand on that, because if we can keep the landowners basically happy who are putting up with the elk and deer, I think in many cases there would not be that much concern about some compensation. But now they're sort of caught in this dilemma.

We have tried to appease them. They accepted that and it isn't working out well. There is some flexibility there I think, but also create flexibility on their aspect of it when they have some damage, because, by and large, they've learned to live with these animals, except in extreme cases. If we allow them a little bit of a concession there, that we have our best conservationists right there. I just want to th row that forward as one suggestion. The other suggestion is that I think that our hunters generally would even be prepared to accept an increase.

I criticized the Minister for, or raised some comments about the increase in fishing licence, but I think generally that our big game hunters, whether it's deer, elk or whatever the case may be, are prepared to accept an increase in fees to some degree. But I think after what happened this past winter they would like to see a desire to see a bit of a fund buildup. You know, if we build a bit of a stabilization, if you may, in terms of the good years versus the bad years so that there's a fund available that it can click into place.

Because some of the people, very much to their credit, scrambled pretty heavily in terms of the wildlife association in terms of raising funds and stuff like that. I think that if there was an increase in the licence fees and it was indicated that this was to establish a fund for times when there are bad times or bad winters, that there's a feeding program in place, that would probably be very acceptable. I'm just throwing that forward because at the present time I think we're building a bit of a problem from time to time.

The other comment that I want to make to the Minister is he indicates that initially I believe there were $50,000 or $70,000 in the Wildlife Feeding Program, and I think you've expended $320,000, and you might have to expend some more. I want to say to the Minister, don't feel bad about that, because this is a renewable resource like we have with forestry, for example. When we have forest fires in an extreme year, there is not too much concern. If their money is needed to fight the forest fires, we send out people, equipment, and money is there. This doesn't happen every year.

So if we have a case - and relatedly the amount is minimal compared to that - every time we spend a dollar, it's a concern, of course. But in that sense, I don't think we should feel that concern just because the Minister had to kick in through his department more monies into this thing. When you compare that to something like forestry and when you consider the income from hunting and the related spinoff in terms of fuel and all these kinds of things, hunters are guys that spend money not necessarily just on shells and guns and gas and even other things a little bit.

So there is a good spinoff; it's a healthy industry. And I just wanted to draw this to the Minister's attention that these are kinds of things that I think the department could look at, because when you talk to enough of these hunters after a year like this, you get a sort of a feedback of what is acceptable. They all, I think, want the same thing. They want to have a healthy hunting resource available to them and they would like to have the habitat there. Maybe a program could be worked out over a long period of time through the licensing aspect of it so that habitat could be set aside for this.

You know, there are many ways of looking at it. It's basically, I suppose, a desire of maybe working something out in conjunction with the sportsmen to try and resolve this. HON. S. USKIW': Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised in one way and yet maybe surprised in another way that the member suggests that we raise our revenues for this very purpose.

I would like to respond to that by saying to him that from my limited knowledge, the way the wildlife associations are working and thinking, I have to be impressed with the fact that they appear to be a very responsible type of organizations and people that are really expressing the viewpoint that they are prepared to pay, if necessary, to improve wildlife habitat. They are not worried about licence fees per se, if they know that money is ded icated for that kind of a program. So I think there is a sense of responsibility that is felt there by the various participants.

So, as I said earlier, I think we will have to look at that as a means of trying to fund a more stable, participatory rate on the part of the department for the purpose of meeting these crisis years from time to time. I think that can be worked out, and we can work that out with the wildlife people and their associations. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, now I'd like to move on to the aspect of the poaching end of it to some degree. HON. S. USKIW': We're going to eliminate it, Albert MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, it would be desirable if it could be eliminated. I don't know.

Certainly at the present time I don't know whether we're even making a dent, whether the poaching is increasing or not. I just know that it's very high in people's minds, even those who are not hunters. People genera lly have a concern when our wildlife in the province is being illegally hunted. If somebody has a licence - there are those who feel that there should be no hunting, and they're allowed to have their thoughts on that aspect of it, but I think when game is taken illegally is when everybody's ire is up.

The Minister indicated initially when he started off in the opening remarks that he had instructed his staff to clamp down and pursue to the maximum any nightlighters, for example, or any poaching generally. I certainly commend him for that aspect of it, but I think we would want to have a little bit of discussion on exactly besides that how to deal with this problem. I suggested initially that maybe the involvement of our wildlife associations could maybe play a role in it. Certainly they play a role, and we very much accept it when it comes to feeding of deer in an emerg ency 1282

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 situation. Maybe we can enha nce our wildli fe associations to get i.nvolved and to help control the poaching aspect of it. Maybe our general public can be encouraged to maybe help control the poaching aspect of it because when I see, even in a small rural station like Piney, the amount of calls that are coming forward regarding infractions and the taking of game illegally and I know this happens all over, then I think there is room for reviewing the whole situation. I would like to, at this stage of the game, Mr.

Chairman, ask my colleague, the Member for La Verendrye, who has some very interesting suggestions that I would like to have the Minister maybe conside r, and maybe he'd like to bring them forward at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think many of us over the years have been concerned with regard to problems of poaching not only in the field of big game but also in the field of fishing as well as in the migratory and upland game bird field.

In travelling through some of the states recently, I noticed that the State of Wyoming had adopted a program which I would like to commend to the Minister. I've got some brochures and a letter which was sent to me by the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Wyoming. They have adopted a program which I think was pioneered back in 1979 by New Mexico and it basically is a program which is aimed at catching the poacher. It's a program which rewards, in a monetary way, anybody who reports someone who has been poaching.

The interesting thing about this program is that the reward is paid out whether there is a conviction or there is not a conviction. In other words, when someone calls in what happens is, that person who is reporting the particular poaching activity is given a number and the payment of the reward is made to the individual after the arrest, in cash, and at any location that the particular individual requires.

Now I say to the Minister that I think one of the biggest problems is people see someone taking too many fish and hiding fillets in the back of a pick-up truck, or for that matter involved in some big game poaching activity and many people are somewhat concerned about getting involved. It might be someone who they know who has done it.

It might be someone who they particularly don't want their name mentioned to, as far as any legal action is concerned, and therefore they, I believe, if were given the opportunity of having a toll- free numb er to call, would bring forward information which would lead to the arrest and probably conviction of many people who are now involved in poaching in the province. The program, as outlined by the officials from the State of Wyoming, seems to have had very good results.

They instituted the program in the fall of 1980 and have had some pretty impressive figures as far as, not only the amount of people who have called in to claim the reward money, but also the convictions that have flowed from those calls. So I would ask the Minister two questions, No. 1, whether he would not have his staff and have the government look at this type of a program to see if it could be instituted in Manitoba.

And No. 2, whether or not the department along with the Minister could, in conjunction with the wildlife associations in the Province of Manitoba, see if they could be plugged into this program also? I know it will require the support of the game and fish associations and I believe, if implemented in the right way, would provide us with another vehicle of trying to cut down on the number of poachers who are involved in the province. So I'll give the Minister a copy of the letter and a copy of the brochure that was sent to me.

I think it's rather self-explanatory as to what the State of Wyoming has found it has done for them, and hopefully something along this line can be instituted in the province to catch some of these people who are abusing and misusing our natural resource to the extent, in many instances, that it's hurting the recreation fishermen and the avid hunter. It's unfortunate that there is a small percentage of the population that does engage in that type of thing, but like in so many things that happen in society, there are always a few who spoil it for everybody else.

If we can catch a few of those and maybe make them aware that the eyes are on them and that there is a toll-free number that somebody near or around them can call, it might make them think twice and hopefully not only would this be a way of catching them, it might also be a deterrent. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion is not a new one; it's been around for some time. I appreciate the information the member is willing to table for my benefit or the benefit of the department. We have advised the Wildlife Federation that we are prepared to take a look at those options.

That was one of the main items in their brief, the proposition that there be a mechanism for voluntary policing of some sort or at least to assist the C.0.s in apprehending people who are violating the laws and regulations. So we have an open mind on that issue and we'll be getting on with the discussions with them in the near future to determine just what the potential is and may even examine the experience in other jurisdictions in Canada where similar things or programs are in operation. So we are very much interested in that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, just to follow up on the comments by the Member for La Verendrye, I think we do have to try some new and perhaps mor e inno vative ways to capture th ese poachers. I personally cringe every time I see a report in the newspaper of someone getting a $500 fine for having been caught with meat in their freezer, or caught red handed in the act either in the process of hunting with the equipment and also with jacklights and that sort of thing.

But I really question where we have a sport hunting season, how someone who has broken all the rules and principles of sport hunting, that they would ever be allowed to have a licence again. MR. R. BANMAN: Within a year. MR. D. SCOTT: Not within a year, within a lifetime. We have some members opposite here that when 1283

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 something is as totally counter and as detrimental to the environment and to the species being hunted, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would consider review ing both the penaltie s along with other methodologies, be it alongside the Neighbourhood Watch Program or the Rural Watch Call, arrange patrol, whatever. I think it's valid, but I think the penalty has to fit the crime.

And in this instance, I would even go so far as to say that if a person, with the new codes on firearms, the basis of a person having a firearm primarily is either as a hunting weapon or in some instances, as well, for target practice. And when a person has used that firearm illegally I think they should have also lost their right to ever possess firearms. I do not think that is at all overly severe. Citizens have a tremendous responsibility when we have these weapons in our homes, in our possession, and when we misuse them, I do not have any difficulty.

There's no such thing as a right to bear arms; it is a privilege granted in our society. And I think maybe if we move towards similar approaches of that line, we would shut off a significant amount of the poachers. The deterrent may be there for some. Many, I don't think that any deterrent will be of any benefit, but once they're caught, if they lose their right to bear firearms as well as the right to ever apply for a hunting licence, I quite frankly think we won't have anymore; at least the number of repetitions will be down conside rably. I'll let you comment on that now. HON. S.

USKIW: Well, there's one major flaw in this business of what kind of penalty fits the crime, and that is if one is breaking the law to begin with, then what's to stop one from breaking another one and another one after that. You know, if you want to break the law, you don't need a licence and you can use a gun that isn't registered and that's what crime is all about It's not obeying the law. I think the one point that the Member for lnkster made has some validity to it. But I would give it a different

interpretation, a different

interpretation than he has. I would think tha t an appropriate penalty for someone violating our game laws in Manitoba is an effort that would somehow help the department carry out its program. Rather than incarceration - (Interjection) - as a penalty - I guess they're not interested in my Estimates, Mr.

Chairman - rather than taking away their privileges as a penalty, our department is so short of manpower resources that I think we can find room for them in this department and we can put them to work to help us enforce the rules. - (Interjection) I hope not Because as far as I'm concerned a person is wasted when one is just simply hauled into jail and spends his time playing cards with his mate in jail, or his friend behind bars.

There are much more productive things that could be done and which could serve the purpose of our penalty sections in law, and that's the direction that I would hope to push for within this department. So that if we have a violation that perhaps then we could clean up our parks a little better. We can help our C.O .s in their ende avours, do all sorts of things. - (Interjection) - No, that's not Co nservative philosophy; that is very practical commonsense philosophy. So, yes, there's a problem and we have to try new ways of grappling with it. Poaching and nightlighting go together.

And I said earlier in the introduction of my Estimates that we are going to try to apply very harsh rules to that activity, henceforth much more than we have in the past. MR. D. SCOTT: I don't have any difficulties with, instead of incarceration on a first offence, to have the person give some service as part of the sentence to work alongside of the department. I still think that they should not ever have the right to even have a hunting licence again in their liv es for any species.

On the other side, under the Criminal Code, for someone who is banned from possessing a firearm, was caught with a firearm, then they are really in Dutch and it's not going to be just given a little bit of time out working alongside a C.O . or cleaning up some of our parks, they would be much more in Dutch at that point in time. HON. S. IJSKIW: The problem with that scenario, Mr.

Chairman, is it doesn't afford the sinc ere individual who went over to visit the Pope and asked for his forgiveness, that then becomes nullified and there's some merit in maintaining that process as well, and the member's answer wouldn't allow for that. MR. D. SCOTT: I never thought I'd hear that from you, Mr. Minister. Is this a new leaf? Before we leave Wildlife, I'd like to make a few comments on the deer feed ing program that we had just discussed a few minutes ago before we moved on to poaching.

As you're very aware, we've had some discussions on this in the past, and I have very serious doubts of the validity of getting into, be it the emergency feed ing programs and especially sustaining feeding programs on an annual basis. It's very easy to get wrapped up in the terrible sight of seeing wild animals starve. It is also I think equally cruel for us to play or to try and turn wild animals more or less into almost an open-zoo policy which is what we are in effect trying to, in a way, almost domesticate the animals. - (Interjection) - - Well, Dieter Brock had a few troubles at the Zoo, I think.

I think maybe he spent a bit too much time there. - (Interjection) - Depends on the zoo, some zoos have the people inside and the animals outside; and others have the animals inside and the people outside. I've been in both of them, and I've usually been alongside the people. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, I've tried, as the Minister is aware, to seek out some professional opinion on this from people from both within Manitoba and also outside of the province and gone to some ungulate specialists, in particular, Dr.

Bill Prewitt at The University of Manitoba's Department of Zoology, and also from the Un iversity of Calg ary, one of the continent's eminent specialist in ungulates, a Dr. Valerius Geist. Both of these gentlemen express very strong do ubts of programs, getting especially emer gency programs, coming in late in the season, wanted to have extensive follow-up to see what kind of results that the actual program had. I suspect tha t from what I understand of the program it was very well conducted. 1284

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 I must give my congratulations to the departmental people and the other volunteers who participated in the program. They got started, I believe, early enough so that it could be effective - and further west, in Alberta, where Dr. Geist was more familiar with the situa tion.

It's my understanding it didn't start until quite late and trying to feed ungulates food that they cannot then digest more often than not, and frequently, just ends up in a packed rumen in which they cannot digest, and for people who think starving deer are a sad sight, deer who are starving and with a stuffed rumen are even worse from wha t I am led to bel ieve from my communication with these gentlemen.

Both of them had given very strong recommendations that the emphasis and the monies that we put into habitat feed ing programs would be much better used if we put them into habitat, both restoration, habitat maintenance, and got into better zoning requirements in our developed areas of the province where the habitat is disappearing at the fastest rate, so that, as Dr.

Geist refers to in Switzerland, for every area a person goes in and cuts trees in an area of that count ry, they have to plant an equivalent number of trees in another location, so that they are trying to maintain their forest cover at the same level for wildlife habitat. We, I think, often shy away from zoning practices. I think that we have to recognize our responsi bility if we are going to keep any aspects of our natural environment, especially in the southern part of the province.

We need those zoning requirements; we need, in some instances, special tax concessions through the municipal tax levies, even though the taxes right now on non-agricultural land that's in a natural state is exceptionally low. My understanding is it wouldn't cost a heck of a lot to write it off altogether. But the emphasis that both these gentlemen put on, as the Minister mentioned earlier, is that these critters are at the northern range or northern limit of the range. Also in something, if I could read from Dr. Prewitt's letter, and I will just read a paragraph of it.

He says, and I quote, "There are some biological facts that must be outlined fi rst as a foundation for fut ure understanding. First, each species is tied to a habitat or a particular set of environmental factors. These include climate, topog raphy, vegetation and other animals. Second, there is an ecological law called the 'law of the minimum'.

It states that no matter how many ecological factors there are, no matter what their concentrations, survival of the species depends on the factor in shortest supply." He gives an aviarian example, birds, "For example, if a certain bird species requires tree holes for nesting, then ideal weather, excess food, lack of predators will allow no more birds to nest in confined tree holes. Tree holes are the minimum.

If one wishes to increase the species, the only way is to increase the number of tree holes." A classic example of that is the bluebird and the bluebird trails that have sprung up throughout North America, and the popu lation of tha t species has expanded very greatly. Wood ducks are similar, their limiting factor is the number of nesting trees that are available for them, or on number of nesting grounds. MR. D. BLAKE: Do you get a blue star for that? MR. D. SCOTT: Dave, I will give you a gold star for pointing up more. The wood duck is probably the most beautiful of all the ducks.

So recognizing the limits that we had, and the primary limit being habitat, and when we are feed ing, artifically, species to try and maintain population levels in that species and they aren't in danger of crashing - they are in danger of crashing to a fair extent but not as far as for elimination of the species by any stretch of the imagination - we also, therefore, stress their critical lack of habitat that much more. In other words, there are that many more animals trying to still exist or more likely subsist on the same amount of habitat.

So you are actually even creating a greater problem down the road, I suspect, in carrying forth with that.

Another thing that I found kind of sad in a way with the policy is that we, in the province, through co operation, I understand, with the people of Riding Mountain National Park, made sure that we did not put feeding stations close by the park boundaries because they, in effect, drew the animals out of the park because in the park the food supply was short as well when you had that heavy snow conditions as we did this year, which were not that abnormally high levels with more normal levels after several years of very low snow levels.

But there is an awful lot of farmers, on the other hand, I believe, especially in the western end of the park, who were feeding very close to the park boundary. They are drawing out deer and elk and, in some instances I have heard of, the deer feeding stations turned into excellent wolf feed ing stations. Because of the bias against the wolf, which is just as critical if not more critical, but far more critical the predators are the ones that determine the quality of the prey species in the area. It's probably the largest, I think. A MEMBER: Tried eating wolf lately? MR. D.

SCOTT: Well, there is a common response. If those who want to eat the prey species, but don't recognize the role of the predator species in maintaining the prey species, you will not have a healthy population of prey species without a healthy culling factor of the predators. You had people there lying in wait shooting the wolves, which already it's ama zing th at the population has been able to maintain in that park because of the amount of predation along the edges of the park. A MEMBER: Don, use smaller words. You are talking about the wolves in here. MR. D.

SCOTT: I don't expect to get there to entertain the Minister in great debate, I just wanted to get some of these comments aired publicly that we have spoken of privately. I am very pleased to hear the Minister's comments at the start of this discussion when I came in the room, at least, and I think that we need to sit down and do a good policy analysis of what direction we want to go in the future. Do we want to end up getting into emergency feeding programs? The feed ing programs we have now, how beneficial are they? Should we be doing it, and what 1285

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 is the basis for the feed ing programs? Would it be better to put the additional effort, instead of into the feed ing programs, into acquiring more habitat, even the zoning along rivers and streams to keep the tress and what not from being knocked down along rivers and streams, which would vastly increase the amount of habitat in the province if we allowed the streams to go back to treed perimeters alongside our rivers and streams? With that, I will conclude that part.

I've got one other question, and if the Minister wants to make a comment, and then I have another question on reintroduction of Native species. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, you know everyone is right on these arguments. I am advised by staff that one can have very cred ib le credentials behind arguments that would go the other direction as well. So really, so really, when it comes down to it, it's a matter of opinion to a large degree. But I could sum it up with one statement, and that is, things are never the same and they've been changing for thousands of years.

If you were to apply the logic of the natural process of elimination and balance of na ture and so on, then the Min ister of He alt h's departmental Estimates could be cut by 50 percent by not applying the newly found methods of keeping people alive. It's the same scenario. It is the same scenario to say let nature take its course with wildlife. It is a solution, but it ignores the fact that we're not living 2,000 years back; we're living toda y. The mechanic s for doin g thin gs or solving problems are readily available which they were not available at that time.

The mechanics of control of animal populations in North America, by and large, were determined by the activities of the North American Indian for a long time. The buffalo, I guess, were pretty well annihilated, if you like, by the uncontrolled practices there. So, the biolog ists will argue that, yes, you can, if you decide as a policy that you want to sustain a larger deer and elk population, if that were the government's intent, that you can do it successfully, effectively, without the negative aspects that the Member for lnkster is alluding to.

On the other hand, if you don't manage it properly, then the Member for lnkster is correct, and the case in point is our program here this last winter, versus a program started in another province much later, and that's where the problems arise when you don't come to grips with it early enough in the season. The animal has to be in a certain physical shape in order to be able to adjust to the artificial feed ing program, if you like. If they are past that stage, then you can do them perhaps more harm then good, you see, and so timing is crucial.

That's why, when we make these decisions, we have to really predetermine them at the beginning of the season, anticipating that you might have a program and gear up for it, even if you don't have to use the progr am. To launch a program after the season is sort of halfway through and the animals are already showing starvation signs, then I guess it can be argued that we are wasting money and increasing the period of pain for the animals that are going to be demised anyway. I suppose that's the way one can put it.

Sir, I would have to say to the Member for lnkster that both arguments are right and it's a matter of how you do it In the end, the public policy has to determine whether or not we want to make a commitment and how big that commitment should be. How large a herd do you want to maintain? Wild animals can be farmed like agricultural and domesticated animals if you decide to do that. I mean, the Russians do a great job at that, the Scandinavians and so on. They actually herd wild animals and they have a major meat industry as a result of their operations.

You get all sorts of breeding and cross-breeding mechanisms that are employed. So there is nothing new about that. Whether it's a wise policy to do it or not is the question, and we have maintained a policy, which I think has been the right one, that we don't want to overstimulate increased populations throughout artificial means, but yet we want to be in a position to have the capacity to protect people who are out there who are going to be harrassed by these animals because of their hunger.

So we have to have offsets for that, and that's essentially been the program, to try and detract or distract the animals from the farm hayfields, or haystacks, if you like, or whatever, grain bins, you name it. It was never a program to enhance th e capa city of wild ani mal production in Manitoba. MR. D. SCOTT: Just as a final comment on that and then I have another couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

I always worry about our ability to manage, because to manage you have to understand, and I don't think anyone understands the natural economics, if you want to use tha t terminol ogy, of the interrela tion ships between all the species. We're learning all the time, and the more we learn, the better chance then we have of being able to input.

But, when we do manage, let us remember that our management has always had an incredibly strong bias towards the species that we like, the species that we sell hunting licences and whatnot on, and not on the preditor species which are probably more important to the health of those herds than any other factor. From my experiences a couple of years ago in Finland, I wasn't as far up as where the Laps herd the reindeer, but now the country has a national program on as a major treasure is a few, equivalent of our woodland caribou, that are coming back into the eastern side of Finland.

There are only a few hundred of these animals and they are protected just the same as our cougars are, because the northern species is no longer any Barren Ground caribou.

The Barren Ground are mixed blood now with the woodland and they have, in effect, lost one of their species and it's of significant concern to them, so now they've gone to that extent, they're trying to protect the other species as well for the sake of protecting species in gene pools, even though other people may not like the idea of protecting the broad base of gene pools, but it is essential to be able to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. Mr. Minister, are there any attempts being made, or any efforts, or any continuations of studies, whatsoever, for the reintroduction of the swift fox?

I remember there was a chap from the NRI a couple of years ago who did his Master's thesis on the reintroduction of the swift fox. Unfortunately , job opportunities weren't the greatest 1286

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 in Manitoba and he ended up in Frobisher Bay, I believe, and there is not too much habitat up at Frobisher Bay, to say the very least, for an introduction of swift fox. But, the swift fox, and I'm also wondering about the mule deer, the mule deer are deer that are the native deer to this area, not the white-tail.

I would like to know what has been done to see if it would be possible to be introduced, and I understand the habitat that one has out in the Spruce Woods area is the ideal type of habitat that they need, both to imprint on, to calf on and , if it would be possible, to reintroduce that speciies in that area? What kind of research has been done into it? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the member raised a question about the swift fox and there is a program in the Spruce Woods area. They're not here yet, but we want to bring them in. We're working with the Canadian Wildlife Service to bring them back into Manitoba.

With mule deer, I'm advised that it's deemed to be a futile effort, costly and the white-tail deer simply outpace and outmaneuver them anyway, and it's not seemingly recommended by departmental people. MR. D. SCOTT: First, with the swift fox, are you planning to start that reintroduction this year, or how far along are we getting on that? When can we expect the start of the program? HON. S. USKIW: The projection is based about two years down the road for the introduction of the swift fox. MR. D.

SCOTT: With the mule deer, is not the greatest difficulty in hunting season their response to hunters very different from that of white-tailed deer? I wonder if we were to reintroduce them, we'd certainly have to cancel hunting seasons in the general area that they were reintroduced, because most hunters just aren't going to be able to tell the difference between a white tail and a mule deer. And until that education process took place, they're just sitting ducks, because they wait until you move before they move

whereas a white-tail scatters a heck of a lot quicker into the brush. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, just before I would like to respond to the Member for lnkster. I'm told that the mule deer were not killed off by hunters in Manitoba, but rather they've been sort of squ eezed out of the province and you will find them in abundance in the Province of Saskatchewan in the Sandhills area, but it's really nothing that we have done by way of hunting that has depleted them in this province - (Interjection) - that's right, yes.

They apparently are not a competing species and aren't able to challenge the white-tailed deer that are here. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the time you've taken. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. There was a government press release in March a year ago announcing some grants. One was 2,600 to the Department of Zoology to determine why there is an unusually low number of males in the Shilo Sp ruce Woods elk population. This study will be completed in 1984.

I wonder if the Minister could give us the results of that study. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take that question as notice. MR. D. BLAKE: Sure. HON. S. USKIW: We don't have a ready answer for the membe r. We don't have an answer to that one right now, but we'll take that under advisement. MR. D. BLAKE: Oh. If that is true, they've been doing a pretty good job the ones that are left there by the complaints we're getting of the damage there, Mr. Chairman.

At the same time, there was one to the Department of Zoology for 3,000 to determine food preferences and habitat use of the wood bison introduced in the Waterhen area. I just wondered if they'd found, with the $3,000, whether they still eat grass and small shrubs, or do they like oats and barley now better? Ther e was anothe r one, $2,4 00 to the Na tural Resources Institute to determine the feasibil ity of reintroducing the greater prairie chickens in Manitoba, and I just wondered if there was anything happened on that study. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I think what we'll have to do is respond to the member, but not right now. MR. D. BLAKE: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, who has to attend to other duties this even ing, he's asked me to put on the record a communique he has from the Rock Lake Game and Fish Association affiliated with the Manitoba Wildlife, add ressed to him re the casing of firearms. "We of the Rock Lake Game and Fish Association feel that it is our duty as taxpayers and concerned citizens to bring to your attention the issue of casing all firearms.

We feel tha t this law will be an en croac hment on our rights and freed oms as Manitobans and Canadians. "We as an associ ation can find no plausible explanation for a mandate such as this. We feel that forcing all sportsmen to case their firearms is going to serve no purpose except increasing the income of sporting goods stores and giving the government one more issue to discuss using the taxpayers' money. There are far more important issues at hand, such as the state of the agricultural industry, unemployment and the deficit, to name a few.

"If the government feels that casing firearms will eliminate or reduce violent crimes and stop poaching of wildlife, they are sadly mistaken. Laws and gun cases will only keep the honest people honest. "We have sent letters to the local papers, our municipalities and the Minister of Mines and Resources. We ask you, as our representative in the Legislature, to deal with this issue. Help us preserve some of our 1287

Thursday, 25 Apr il, 1985 personal rights. We look forward to hearing from you on this issue." It's signe d by the "R ock Lake Game and Fish Association, Bruce Kinley, President, and Leonard Enns, the Secretary." Now, Mr. Chairman, I know there have been some regulations introduced, and I support resolutions such as this. I have hunted in areas where it has been necessary to case your gun and in areas such as we have here where it is not required. It serves no useful purpose. All you do is snap out gun cases and a whole variety of methods so you can get your gun into use as quickly as you can, if it's not cased.

So it serves no purpose whatsoever. It's like every law, there is a way around each one. Also it has become pretty much of a way of life in the rural areas, people who are out a lot, to have the gun rack in the back of their half-ton, and the guns readily handy when they see one of Mr. Scott's wolves crossing the field and heading for the chicken coop, they're able to dispatch it quite rapidly. HON. S. USKIW: I think there's a thing going on between those two gentlemen. MR. D. BLAKE: If the government's interested in red ucing the chic ken herds to 99 chickens, Mr.

Chairman, all you've got to do is introduce a few more swift foxes and let the coyotes run rampant, and you won't have any problem. HON. S. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to discuss that issue during the dialogue meetings of recent days. I am of the opinion that the Member for Minnedosa is probably right. I'm not sure that we want to proceed with regulations in regard to - what is it? - cased firearms. You know there may be a case made for them, but I would suspect that those incidents are probably rare. But for the moment, I think we have to accept that we're not going to proceed with that. MR.

D. BLAKE: Another one that may require some modification is the road allowance rule where you have to be so far off the road before you can take your gun out of the case. I'm sure the Min ister and his whole approach to it, as he said earli er, was the common sense approach. I'm sure that will prevail in this instance and he will listen to those who are knowledgeable in the field of sport hunting and maybe take a somewhat opposing view to the Member for lnkster. A MEMBER: You don't have to take that, Don. Give him a list. HON. S.

USKIW: Well, just on that one, there has not been an attempt to impose that rule as well. So we're not even looking at that. MR. D. BLAKE: Good. Too bad you didn't get this portfolio a year ago, Sam. HON. S. USKIW: Pardon me? MR. D. BLAKE: It's too bad you hadn't this portfolio a year ago. We could have avoided a lot of problems. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rupertsland. MR. D. BLAKE: Okay, Elijah, you're on. MR. E. HARPER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the resource priori ty for big game, from the government? I believe the first priority is given to Treaty Indians, then to sportsmen. Is that it? HON. S.

USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is well aware that federal obligations apply to Native hunting universally and therefore that rule governs. We are not in a position constitutionally to alter that. MR. E. HARPER: You mentioned about nightlighting. You said, they go in hand with poaching. Do you include nightlighting with the hunting out of season or hunting without a licence? Or is that considered poaching? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Native community of Canada has certain privileges with respect to that question. When we talk about nightlighting, however, we look at it from a different perspective.

Nightlighting, as we perceive it, is a dangerous practice. Therefore, it's disallowance will be based on the fact that it's a dangerous practice and that would apply to everyone. I don't think that one can say that it's dangerous for white or non-Native people to hunt at night, but not dangerous for others to do so. If it's danger ous, it's dangerous for everyone, and we will apply the law uniformly. MR. E. HARPER: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to clarify that in terms of the federal obligation, the Treaties that exist with the Indian people, that there might have been some misunderstanding when they hunt out of season, that they might be poaching and a lot of times, maybe members would feel that they are poaching and defying the law. I just wanted to put that on record, and also the Native people also see the problem of poaching as something that would have to be resolved. As a matter of fact, I've had several meetings with them and they would like to have some sort of resolution to this problem. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to respond to that. We have had discussions with Native people, and there are a good number of leaders within the Native community that are very much concerned with poaching. It's not as if it's a Native, non-Native issue. It is an issue that everyone is concerned about. So I would expect that we will have a fair amount of co operation from those Native leaders on that issue. I think they are taking a responsible position. Now they have the same problem that we have and that is, if someone wants to break the law, you know you have to catch them in the act sort of thing.

I guess they can't police their membership on the reserves any more than we've been able to police our membership in society with respect to hunting regulations. We're all equally guilty, if you like, when we do that - (Interjection) - that's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The time being 10:00 p.m., what is the pleasure of the committee? 1288

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 HON. S. USKIW: Comm ittee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY - HEAL TH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Comm ittee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Health. INTRODUCTION Of GUESTS MR. CHAIRMAN: Before beginning I would like to draw the attention of membe rs to the gallery where we have a group of 10 Scouts from the 10th Transcona Scout Troup. They are under the direction of Mr. Dave Abel. They are from the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. On behalf of all members, I would like to welcome you here tonight.

I believe we have an agreement to begin with Item 5, Sport - Mr. Minister. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the agreement is to begin and end with Sport, No. 5. To make it easier for the critic of the opposition, I would suggest that we go line-by-line and then roam all over the place just before we finish Sport Directorate. That might be easier. We'll see what we can cover on this, including of course the funds from the lottery that is spent on Sport, the share that comes to Sport. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 5. (a)( 1) Sp ort, Executive: Salaries - the Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister has mentioned that perhaps going line-by-line would be the appro pria te way of handling this sect ion of his Estimates. That's fine with me. I would just like to say, if this Minister's colleagues and other Ministers within the government could hold the expendit ures in their departments the way that this Minister is successful in keeping the increases to a minimum within this

section of his responsibilities, we would see very little in the way of increased deficit and so on within the provincial budget. For the year ending March 31, 1984, the total amount spent in the area of Sport was $635,000; for the year ending March 31, 1985, there was a slight decrease from the 635,000 to 632,600 for the year ending March 31, 1986, there is a small increase from the 632,600 to 654,000.

When you go line-by-line, you can see that the only area that there is an increase in expenditures is really in the salaries of the employees and the increases in expenditures don't look as if they have created a new position because the increase is a total of 12,500 in Salaries. So, this would be the normal increase that employees who have stayed with the department would be entitled to. So, it's all right with me, Mr. Chairman, if we want to cover the waterfront and the Minister would prefer to do it, we pass (

a) Executive: Salaries; and get right down to (

b) Sport Directorate, because I have about six or eight areas that I would like to discuss with the Minister based on some questions from last year. They are just general questions in sports, and they're not line-by-line questioning of the Estimates. So I am prepared to pass (a)(1) and (2), and we'll get on to (b), and try and cover the waterfront. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)(1)- pass; 5.(a)(2)- pass; 5.(b)(

i) Sport Directorate: Salaries - the Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I must simply rise after the opening statement of my honourable friend, because if anything was misrepresented in a very few words it was the money spent on sports. My goodness! It is true that there is very little increase that you see in front of you. There is very little increase, because we're talking about mostly salaries and some grants for the External Agencies. There is only one area, External Agencies. Mr.

Chairman, all one should have is check with the Sports Federation to see if they're not getting more mon ey. I think that we'r e the only provinc e that surrendered, and there's no other better word than that, a large portion which is as good as tax revenue when you're talking about the Lottery revenue.

I might say that, to everybody's surprise in sports, just the share of the Sports Federation instead of going around $1 million, $1. 4 million like last year, the Sp orts Federat ion and all the money that they allot to sports, we've been told at times that, fine, and I think my honourable friend was the one that certainly encourages the government to be less involved and to make it possible for the Sports Federation to run the association in the sports. Mr. Chairman, I would want to turn this around.

I would say, I would be very happy to have this kind of increase in the Department of Health, and I think I have the largest increase usually - well not I, I wish it were - but my department anyway, the Department of Health. The share of the Manitoba Sports Federation should be somewhere between $3.5 million and $4 million. So I consider that a pretty good increase from anywhere between $3.4 million to $4 million. A MEMBER: 1.4 last year? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Roughly 1.4, 1.5 that they had last year, which was a transfer by the way, of a respo nsibil ity.

They received mone y when my honourable friend was in government, but they had to accept the res ponsi bili ty of running the Spor ts Admi nistration Centre. In fact, they were practically on their deathbed. They had no money to promote any programs at all. I can say that the Sports Federation is very enthused. I think it made the Sports Federation. The Sports Federation now is in a commanding position. If anything, the sports have been coming closer together, working together. I think that they're very happy with what they have.

In fact, sometimes they can't believe their eyes, and they're talking about making sure that they keep what they have, and that's only part of it. Although we haven't got this money yet, our programs are not ail announced for the year, but the sports, also the government gets a share of it. The share of 1289 ,--, .

Thursday, 25 Ap ril, 1985 government certainly was peanuts before making these changes in the Lottery. That should go between, besides what you see here, another $2.3 million, $2.7 million. So I will pretend that my honourable friend was joking and let him start afresh because that wasn't a very good start when he talked about less money being spent in sport. They've never had it so good. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Minister said.

I wonder if he could inform me and the House what guidelines or restrictions are placed on the funds used by the Sports Federation, by his de partment, or are there any? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Cha irman, when thi s government took the responsibility of changing the set up in the lottery, when I refer to lottery it is the bingo, lottery, casinos, the whole thing, we try to maximize the profits to the charities - we call them charities, or groups that would benefit by this - we try to make it as fair as possible and safeguard and get accountability, and we also try to have fairer distribution.

Now all we're asking - we're not looking over the shoulder all the time, we have confidence in them. I think the chairman and executive director and all the executive, I think they've done an excellent job of getting their sports togeth er. As I said, there's very little complaint. You'd think there would be, because the more money you have, the more expectancy there is out there. And all we want them to do is be fair.

Part of their revenue is used to finance the Sports Adminis tration Centre and, of course, we have a signed agreement as the previous government had; in fact, it was the previous government who transferred the re sponsi bility of the Sports Admin istration Centre. We've had no problem; everything has been working very well.

We want to make sure that all the sports including the Special Olympics and the Wheelchair sports - in fact, maybe I should take this opportunity to say that the volunteer who won the most outstanding volunteer award in Manitoba, was somebody that's with the wheelchair sport and I certainly would want to congratulate her again - I did yesterd ay, and I'm talking about Peggy Hayes, I'm sure that my honourable friend knows. In that agreement that we have, they have to be represented and they have to run the place fairly. There is an interchange between the government and the Sport Directorate.

The Sport Director, Don Stone, sitting here to my right is on committees with the Sports Federation on many of their committees and it's working quite well and our Bill Crook also, who's sitting next to him is working on programs and working with them constantly and the President of the Sports Federat ion was suggesting to me yesterday that with some of these extra funds that we should share responsibility of certain programs. I certainly told him that we would welcome that. We should look at the situation.

It is true that in the last two years we haven't done that many changes because there was, as I say, a transfer of funds pretty well directly through the Sports Federat ion, but we've solidified what we had . There were some good programs there. We were familiar with them. Most of them had been, at least worked out, during my previous term as Minister responsible for Sport. So there is very little condition where they have to abide by whatever condition all the umbrella groups have. They have to be representative.

They can't decide, for instance, that the money will be theirs just to spend as they want, they must work with these sports groups. The y are working mostly through the di fferent associations, who then have the responsibility to look after their own sports and they have a large committee. A big part of their responsibility is the allocation of funds, so we're not putting any conditions, actually. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I would wonder if there are written di rect ions and/o r guid elines or restr ictions on the Sports Federat ion that the Minister could provide us with.

And could he also advise us whether there is any - I don't think there is, but he could confirm it - provision for appeals of decisions by the Sports Federation, sports associations, within the Manitoba Sports Federation to the Minister. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, I think the best information that I can get - and I'm asking the Director of Sp ort to provide me for the members of the opposition - a copy of the agreement that we have with the Sports Federat ion re: the Sports Administration Centre, anything that governs any dealing that we might have, and I'll try to get from the Minister responsible for the Lottery Commission the agreement that they have signed between the umbrella group. I think this would tell us all. Of course, as I said, they have to be representative. As long as we feel this is being done, we certainly wouldn't interfere.

As far as the appeal, they would appeal to the Sports Federat ion, as such, and it would be only at the last minute, of course, that we would get involved if there was something very wrong. We'll let them make the distribution of their own funds; after all, it is a very democratically set up association. It is a creation of the different sports associations and they appoint or vote the members representing different associations to the Sports Federation. The Sports Federat ion, also, whenever they've had people who weren't quite satisfied in the distribution of funds have involved these people in the committee.

So, from what I understand, I had a pretty good report. I happened to be at this function where the volunteer of the year was honoured and I had quite a discussion with the President of the Sports Federation and he tells me that things are going quite well. If there was something wrong that was brought to our attention, of course, we'll discuss it with them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heig hts. MR. W. STEEN: The Minister made reference to the agreement between the province and the Sp orts Federat ion. It's my understanding that this agreement hasn't been signed for one reason or another.

Can the Minister enlighten us as to why it hasn't been signed? My un derstanding is that the Sports Federation are totally satisfied with it. I would take it that the Minister and his department are satisfied with it. Why has there been a delay in making it an official agreement? 1290

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 HON. l. DESJARDINS: There is no special reason for that. We wanted some minor correction and that was done. I've had a couple of meetings, the Sport director and myself, and between the executiv e director also of the Federation and the president and myself, and I'm satisfied. It was just the question of signing. In fact, I was informed two seconds before my honourable friend made that known that it hadn't been signed. I thought it was signed. I'll see to it that it should be signed very soon. MR. W.

STEEN: The Minister made reference earlier that I perhaps belittled the Department of Sport when I made my opening statement about the slight increases and so on, and then he went on to mention about the Lottery monies that had been made available. Yes, he is correct that Lottery monies have become available and I compliment him for being a champion around the Cabinet table and making sure that sport gets its fair share from the Lottery monies when it's battling for much-needed money for community activities with so many other worthwhile causes.

The Sports Federation which was, as the Minister has said, the previous adminis tration of which I was a member of that caucus was fully in support of having the Sports Federation being the volunteer group in many respects, a group representing some 70 sports with a limited number of paid personnel, running it. They run on a budget of - a year ago - $1. 3 million. Yes, if we didn't have them, they would be within his department and be on the government payroll in all likelihood.

It would likely, in my opinion and I'm sure the Minister would agree with me, be costing the taxpayer of Manitoba more money if they were part of government rather tha n the unique and, I think, an excel lent arrangement that the last two governments have been prepared to agree with the Sports Federation, and have them administer sport in the Province of Manitoba.

I think by having the volunteerism aspect, and the Minister made reference to the fact that last night the Volunteer of the Year Award was presented to a sportsperson, and I think this is something that we have got to try and encourage is greater volunteerism. I can recall in the City of Winnipeg, and I know this has nothing to do with the Minister's jurisdiction, but when the late Charlie Barber was with the City of Winnipeg, he placed a professional recreation director in each one of the community clubs. That meant that Winnip eg had 36 communit y clubs, each with a professional recreation director.

Then when Unicity came along, or the one-city concept came along, there were some 80 community centres and they couldn't afford to have a professional located in each one, and they had to go back to a regional system. This is why I would agree totally with the Minister, and I compliment him for steering his department and his government along with the idea of maintaining a good working relationship with the Sports Federat ion, because I think it is an ideal recognized body carrying out sport in Manitoba.

In talking to the people over at the Manitoba Sports Federation, many of whom I know - and I have served on that board some years back myself - they likely have the best system that exists in Canada. They are totally happy with the arrangement that they have with government. 1291 In some other provinces, the government may fund the Sports Federation of that given province, but each time they write a cheque to them, they want to know what's this going to be spent on. They get involved in each and every aspect of sport, where this Minister keeps an arm's length away.

Yet he is still responsible to the taxpayer, because he has staff members that sit in on decisions. They are in the minority on boards, but they are there to put their input in and to keep the Minister informed as to how the Sports Federation is guiding sport in Manitoba and how they are encouraging the volunteer aspect of it. The Minister mentions that there have been millions of dollars through lotteries spent on sport in Manitoba and spent through the good offices of the Sports Federat ion. I have a list dated March 31, 1984 and it's trust fund statements from the Province of Manitoba Lotteries Foundation.

This is lottery money spent for various sports. I would like to ask the Minister if the $100,000 sum that is on this particular "paid for university athletic scholarships," if lottery monies increase, as I believe they are, if the universities are one of the first groups within the sports area receiving lottery monies that might receive an increase in the future? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, this evening I think that it could be practically a repetition of last year's Estimates.

You will find very little increase, as I said, especially because of the large increase directly through sports of the lottery funds. That money is all expended but it's the same. In fact, when that was first started, we talked about that was supposed to be for a year or so, and we kept it on at their request. They were very pleased with it. We should remember that one of the conditions from Day One, that they would match it dollar-for-dollar, so that doubles that amount.

Now having said that we have very little increase, I want to say that what we are looking at now under the Sport Directorate and the people that are with Bill Crook and so on that are looking at the programs that we have, we are very satisfied the way it's going. It's not a large crew; it's a small group of people. I think there are five or six, - (Interjection) - oh yes, eight with the secretarial staff that's there. We are very pleased, but it's something that will be announced later, as I said, we haven't got all that money from the lotteries.

They will be new programs and it will be some programs that will be increased, but so far, what I have to discuss today is pretty well nearly the same as last year. There has been very little change; that will come later on. We are not ready with that yet; we haven't got the money. We didn' t know, when you are talking about revenue from the lotteries, it could change quite fast, but we will have a complete list and that will be announced as we develop programs. The staff is hard at work to develop these programs.

As I say, there is a possibility that some of them will be joint programs with the Sports Federation also. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, just a question to the Minister. In view of the fact that the Sports Federation really governs the activities of sport with the funds provided

Thursday, 25 Ap ril, 1985 from the government, could the Minister advise what, ii any, decisions he's made with respect to sport in the last year other than with respect to the funding of the Sp orts Federation? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Last year, I guess my main contribution to sports was to pilot through some very meaningful changes under pretty difficult conditions, and I am talking about the reform of the lotteries, of course, which brought a lot of fun. What we have tried to do, we certainly need some funds.

We have, for instance, if you left it all to the Sp orts Federation - and I am not saying this in a critical way - they would be more interested in working with the sports associations. They are interested in having these associations progress and have good coaches and so on. But we also have a respon sibil ity. Our main responsibility is probably to make sure that there is mass participation. One of our important programs that takes an awful lot of time and efforts of our staff is working with the organizer . So there have been the regional games.

We're talking about the possibility of getting this back to the Manitoba Games. That has not been decided as yet. That is something that we're looking at. We're working with the people that normally would not participate in sports. I guess the supervision that we've done and the coaxing and the lobbying and whatever you want to call it, we want to make sure that all people in society have a chance to participate in sports. I'm talking about, of course, the seniors. I also, as you know, have the responsibility for the senior citizens and the Special Olympics and the Wheelchair and so on.

We felt that, as we were doing in health, we're trying to get everybody involved. For instance, if we have Manitoba Games, what we want to do is to make sure that this is not going to replace the Seniors' Olympics which has been a fantastic success. We're working with that. There is very little contribution from the Sports Federation. They'll help wherever they can. The Parks Board of the city has always been helpful and, of course, the Society of Seniors is getting better organized all the time, and they're working with that.

We would like to see at the Manitoba Games, if possible, I've had some discussions with the officers of the Special Olympics to make sure that they can participate also. We have been watching to make sure that women's sports also have been progressing and we're satisfied with that, together of course with the Sports Federation. We have also had the responsibility to recognize our athletes, including the professionals, since we were as happy as any other Manitobans when the Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup.

We felt that it was a fantastic year as far as being a good year for sports in general as far as participation, but the success that the curlers had last year was pheno menal. I think that you had two world championships in the.one year from the same - world? - (Interjection) - No, two worlds. I'm having an argument here with my Sport Director. I say, two world championships because the junior men always play one year later, and they won this year. But I mean it was the squad or the rink from last year, and then five Canadian championships. That was fantastic.

So in that area, I might as well say something about hockey here. I've been very perturbed by hockey. Hockey was one of my first loves, but I've had a chance to go and see some of my grandchildren play. I think it's awful the way some of the parents behave, and also the situation of what they get away with in high sticking and cross-checking and so on. Now we have a President of the MAHA who is, I think, a very interesting and interested person who used to work for the department at one time.

We've had some talks, and that is being followed through now by the Director of Sport with him to see if we could - it's not our place to interfere in that, but we certainly can control the grants. I think that we, before taking a hard line because that would reflect on the organizer and that's the last thing we want to do, but we would want to promote some kind of a better behaviour with the parents, better officiating and maybe tougher rules that there is not so much cross-checking.

I'm very concerned because, as you know, for a certain age these hockey players here wear the face mask with a cage, and at the year when they don't have to wear it anymore, I would like to see them continue. But if anybody dares continue, well you know how their peers react, that they're a bunch of sissies and so on and then the sticks go up, and I think it's unfortunate. Now that cage, if the referees are not careful, will encourage high-sticking. You figure you're protected. You can do anything you want, so you carry that stick pretty high. That has to stop.

Why I mention that, why I single out hockey, is because I think we have to be careful and start to clean it up a bit. The professionals can do what they want, but this is not professional hockey. So these are some of the things that we do. Of course, there is the organizer of the games. The games keep us very busy also. As you know, the Canada Games will take place in August in St. John, New Brunswick. Our staff are holding meetings on that with the Mission. Also they are working with volunteers from the Mission. Actually, I consider them very busy.

They're working mostly in mass participation, mostly for those that would be left behind, and very closely with the Sports Federation also. Now their main task is to come out with some exciting new programs, because we will have new funds. We expect to, after the Estimates and after the Session, meet and to map out our programs for this year after we know exactly how much money we have. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, if the truth were known, I suppose that during the past four or five years, whilst we on this side were in government and now with the Minister who's in government, we were often paired at many hockey rinks throughout the city, he watching his grandson and I watching my son when the y played agains t each other in the league - (Interjection) - yeah, I married late in life. But with respect to the Minister's comments about the state of hockey, Mr. Chairman, as reluctant as I 1292

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 would ever be to involve the government in sport because I think it's certainly the last, last resort that should ever occur, but I would ask him whether or not, and I think he has already exp ressed some concerns, when you have as great a sport as hockey should be in this country and when he knows, as well as I'm sure many members of this Chamber know, we have young boys quitting hockey at ages 13, 14, 15 because of the manner in which this sport is conducted, fearing frankly for their very health and safety.

I think, as reluctant as I am to see government interfere in a sport, I think it's about time that the Minister of Sport seriously considered, not personally getting involved because I don't think he would want to do that and I don't think either I would want to do that, perhaps considering the appointment of a well qualified task force or commission of people who have been involved in the sport and who have expressed concerns. Mr. Chairman, I not only have boys who play the game, but I have had the opportunity, as I'm sure the Minister has, to talk to many parents of boys who play hockey.

The truth of the matter is there are many parents who go to hockey games, not so much out of the enjoyment of watching their sons play, but out of a very real concern for their safety and a fear of their being injured. It seems to me that this is a situation that simply should not be accepted. Young boys should be able to play the game. Certainly there is always going to be body contact in this sport of some kind, but I suggest to the Minister that the state of minor hockey is in a very poor condition once you advance past the age of 12 when bodychecking starts to occur.

It concerns me, and I know it concerns many many parents throughout this city. There is no reason on earth, in my view, that boys of age 13, 14 and 15 should be virtually forced to quit playing hockey because of a fear of physical harm which is, in fact, what is happening to many young boys in this city. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to see that we both agree, my friend and myself, and it's true. We have been at many hockey games, watching together, cheering for opposite teams, and we've seen that.

At times, we've seen how the crowd gets involved; the parents of kids 12 years old, and they act worse than the kids. I think that's one of the reasons also. I would go along with everything that was said. I would have some hesitation only in one thing, it is a task force. I think we know what's wrong with hockey. I think that there have been enough task forces. I've seen the MAHA Task Force and all kinds of task forces. I think that it's the programs now and maybe the government's sta

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-35b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 35b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	80d8d79a703469716f19beafb2f2d62e8953b2ce

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).