ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlahed under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 63A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 9 MAY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the O,,_s Printer. Province of Mllllitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC ND P ND P NDP PC PC NDP PC ND P PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP ND P NDP NDP PC NDP ND P NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 9 May, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports By Standing and Special Committees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 75 students of Grade 5 standing from the Edward Schreyer School under the direction of Mrs. Kozussek.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of High ways and Transportation. There are 6 students of various grades from the Hugh John MacDonald School. They are under the direction of Mr. Devine and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Education. There are 11 students of Grades 4, 5 and 6 from the Prince Edward School under the direction of Mrs. Botting. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minis ter of Fina nce. In the loge to my left is a former member of this House, Mr. Morris McGregor.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - car insurance & claims MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: My question is to the Honourable - (I nterjection) - I see the members opposite have recognized my clean, neat and tidy appearance now, Mr. Speak er. In

preamble to my question, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome back the Member for Springfield and the Member for Wolseley, glad to see them back with us from their little holiday in B.C.- "where they were able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." Mr. Spea ker, my question is to the Honourable Mini ster of Corpor ate and Consumer Aff airs, the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

I wonder if the Mini ster could tell the House if it's a policy of the corporation to ind icate on the app roval of claim forms where the claimant should make the replacement purchase for parts or whatever it may be, on automobiles. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that having taken place. I'll certai nly make some inqu iries and I'll report back on that. I would appr eciate some specifics though, if the member can provide me with those. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, apparently it is taking place.

I am aware of one particular case that happened awhile back on a replacement of jewellery. It was ind icated at what jeweller the replacement jewellery should be purchased at - it was one in Winnipeg. Also it appears now as happening in the case of hub caps, and as the Mini ster may well know that if you were to phone a particular supplier for four particular type of very expensive hub caps he may not have them in stock, but he'll say I'll have them for you tomorrow. You can maybe surmise where they may come from. My point in making the question, Mr.

Speaker, is that if this is a policy, and it appears to be, that it's a very very unsati sfact ory one because it leaves the corporation and the adjusters or those involved very very open to charges of kickbacks or favouritism or wha tever - if the Mini ster would look into that immediately and let us know probably tomorrow what the policy is. Minimum Wage Board MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Labour. Has she received a report and recommendations from the Minimum Wage Board on any changes for this year? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Yes, various groups that deal with our wages, whether it's with construction wages or minimum wages, are doing that presently and those things are proceeding to government at this time. Government Employees - Brandon by­ election MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting First Min ister.

My question is, can the Act ing First Mini ster ind icate how many employees of the government, on employee salaries, are currently working in the Brandon by-election on behalf of the New Democratic candidate out there? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Speak er, I'll have to take that as notice, but I can tell the members of the House and the member that asked the question, the policy is that no one will be during working hours now, 2495

Monday, 9 May, 1983 if they are taking holidays on their own. I think we have had legislation here a number of years ago that this is allowed. This is recognized as being permissible of course. But I will take it as notice, that is, how many are there while they should be working and they are getting paid for it. I will take that as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, I have a question for the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs, but at the outset I would like to welcome the Mini ster back to the House.

I understand that he has been off sick for a number of days, and we are all very pleased to welcome him. Main Street Manitoba Program would like to ask the Min ister if he can advise whether or not his department has receiv ed an application under the Main Street Manitoba Program, from the town of Swan River? If so, when can the Town of Swan River expect a reply to their application? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the honourable member for his kind expression of well-being for myself.

I have been away sick for a week, yes. I would also like to thank my colleagues who enquir ed and dropped in at the office and phoned to see how I was doing as well. I would advise honourable members if they want to leave this Assembly, not to leave for the same reason that I left, because I had a very rough wee k. Nevertheless, in regard to the question: yes, there has been, it is my understanding, more than a week ago, the Town of Swan River has made a formal application for the Main Street Project. It is a very substantial project, Mr. Speaker. It's the second one.

The first one of course was rejected because there was only one storefront in the original proposal. The second proposal, while I haven't seen the application, I have been inf ormed by staff th at ther e is appr oximately 40 storefront people. These are people who are involved in this second submission. Staff will cer tainly be reviewing this and looking at it very closely and I am hopeful that it will be accepted in due course. MR. D. GOURLAY: I thank the Mi nister for his answer. I would like to point out though that this is the Town of Swan River's 75th Anniversary.

They are anxious to proceed with the project, including the 42 applications from pr ivate busi nesses, so the y cert ainly would appreciate an early reply to their application so that th ey can hopefu lly pr oceed this year with that improvement to Main Street. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that if the application meets the guidelines, and I believe it does, it will certainly receive favourable review from our staff. Dangerous Chemicals - transportation of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. 2496 MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speak er, my question is for the Mi nister of Highw ays.

Yesterday in Brandon there was a truck turned over with a load of anhydrous ammonia. Again, this morning there was another accident involving anhydrous ammonia in Ni nette. Can the Min ister tell this House what specific regulations there are for the transporting on our hig hways of dangerous chemicals of this nature? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Hig hways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, I don't know that I can be that precise without having been given notice of the question.

Aside from the rules that app ly, I presume to Manitoba's statute law, I think the member is aware that we are introducing very shortly a bill with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods which will be a measure that will bring us into conformity with the rest of Canada under national legislation and pr ovincial legislation across the country. That is something that is yet to happen. Regulations will be followed before the end of the year, hopefully, but we're not certain as to their timing.

So this is relatively a new venture for the department as far as the whole business of transportation of dangerous goods is concerned, but I will take the matter under advisement as to what now is in existence as to what our rules are. Manitoba Cattle Producers Act MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, my question is for the Mi nister of Agriculture. Can the Mini ster of Agriculture advise the House if he intends to make any changes to The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association Act this Session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member will know that any changes would be a matter of policy, and when that is decided upon all members will be informed. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Mini ster of Agriculture then. Has he been discussing the possibility of changes to the Act with the Cattle Producers Association? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the honourable member that I did have discussions last year about possible changes to legislation, amongst other matters, and those discussions were done last year.

We've had a number of meetings with cattle producers this year and we will be having further meetings I believe either today or tomorrow with them on matters pertai ning to a bonding manifest and legislation may be amongst some of those items discussed. MR. B. RANSOM: A further supplementary to the Mini ster of Agricu lture. Ha s the Cattle Pr oducers

Monday, 9 May, 1983 Association asked for any changes in their Act with respect to the check-off provision? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be made aware that we've had many calls from producers in this province including pet itio ns and individual letters asking this government to remove the compulsory aspect of the checkoff in legislation and make it a truly voluntary plan for the checkoff under the present legislation as it is now in place. MR. B. RANSOM: A further supplementary to the Mi nister then. Is he planning on taking action on those requests which he's received? HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr . Spe aker , I an swered that question earlier in terms of policy. The honourable member will be advised if there will be a change and if that change will occur, he will know fairly shortly. Major Rating House - Moody's MR. B. RANSOM: I have a question to the Minis ter of Fina nce. Mr. Speaker , has the Min ister of Finance or his department been contacted with in the last week by the other major rating house, Moody's? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Fina nce. HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not. We've of course been in contact with them on several occasions this year.

Small Schools Funding MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speak er, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Education. Has the Minis ter received any ind ication from the Federal Min ister of Employment and Immigration that he will be providing funds to assist in keeping open all small schools in the province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Speaker. Robert H. Smith School - financing MR. G. FILMON: There was a report over the weekend, Mr.

Speaker, that the Federal Mi nister has come up with some funds to keep open one particular school and I'm wondering whether or not the Minis ter of Education feels that he might be approached for funds to keep open the Robert H. Smith School, for instance, which is currently before the Public Schools Finance Board? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speak er, I don't have any direct information about what Mr. Axworthy is or is not considering doing in terms of providing funds. I suppose that he will be communicating, whatever that is, to the school division, but I have had no contact or no communication with them on that.

Earl Grey School - financing MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, in the absence of the Minis ter of Urban Affairs, I wonder if either the Mini ster of Education or his backup could answer whether or not the funds that Mr. Axworthy has promised for the Earl Grey School will be coming out of the Core Area Initiatives or the North of Portage Redevelopment Fund. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , we'll have to take this as notice. The Min ister of Urban Affairs is attending a meeting now on the core area. We will have more information after that.

Manitoba Assessment Review Commission - submissions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mini ster of Muni cipal Affairs. It has been months sinc e the Muni cip al Committee was touring the province and listening to petitions by the municipal people regarding the Manitoba Assessment Review Commission. Can the Min ister indi cate when he plans to call the Muni cipal Committee to deal with these submissions? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't give him an exact date, but we will have to work the date in, perhaps before the end of May or certainly the beginning of June. I am hopeful that we will have all the information. We have to work it in with the other committees that are taking place so that it doesn't conflict with other dates, but most of the work has been completed. There is still some work being done by staff, but I will be in a position I believe to present a paper, at least a working paper, to the committee based on all the briefs that have been received. Things are falling into place very nicely, Mr. Speak er. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: A further question to the same Min ister then. Has that working paper been prepared already at this time? HON. A. ADAM: No, Mr. Speaker. Crow rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister responsible for Hig hways. In view of the fact that the Federal Min ister Jean-Luc Pepin has shifted his position in dealing with the Crowsnest rate, I am wondering if the Min ister has had any communication with the Federal Min ister to see if he has included the Port of Churchill in any changes they may have made. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Highways. 2497

Monday, 9 May, 1983 HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, I believe the member is aware that there is a committee of this Legislature that is dealing with that question in a very comprehensive manner. It is my expectation that the report from this committee will deal with that question. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Would the Min ister responsible be prepared to put a Manitoba position forward which would include Churchill as being a part of any grain transportation movement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Highw ays. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speake r, the Government of Manitoba is on record expressing concern about the fact that the Churchill line and the Port of Churchill has not been included in the package of upgrading proposals that the Go vernment of Canada ha s introduced, so it's a matter of record. We now have to await the decision of the committee, after which a furthe r communique will be unde rtaken with the Government of Canada. Loan Guarantee Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Thank you, Mr. Sp eake r. My question is for the Mi nister of Agriculture.

Under his announced $10 0 million Loan Guarantee Program, could the Min ister ind icate how many applications he has received to date, or MACC has received to date, under that program and how many of those applications have been approved to date? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUKSI: Mr. Speake r, I'm advised that under the Loan Guarantee Program, 63 approvals have been given, totalling over $4.3 million under the program and an additional 29 are in process.

There have been 10 declines totalling $590,000, and reasons for those declines would have been a combination of equity and viability. In addition to the 10 that I said, there's 39 more applications in process totalling approximately $2.5 million and that was as of May 5th, Mr. Speaker, the information that I have. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speake r, in view of the fact that given a total approval of the remaining 39, the Min ister may use less than $7 million of his $10 0 million announced program, is the Min ister now considering changing some of the criteria to open the program and make it available to more farmers who obviously could use the assistance of a guarantee under their operating loan for this year? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to get a further update, but my advice from staff is that the program is being taken up.

In fact, what we have found on the other side of the question where farmers are and had been having difficulties in arranging credit and have difficulties with their financial institutions, the req uests for review panels and req uests for staff assistance is continuing, but the request for review panels is actually not as great as we had anticipated, that there are eight - (Interjection) - Well, Mr.

Speak er, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain says, "What do you expect?" The honourable member should be aware that we have been involved in the past year, through the Interest Rate Relief Program, in assisting farmers in putting together financial packages, re-evaluating their financial position and assisting them in obtaining additional credit. But there is approximately eight applications in various stages to go to review panels at the present time.

In terms of the Loan Guarantee Program, our advice is that the 20 percent equity provision, using viability as the overall guiding criteria, is not an unusually difficult measure to have in place at this point in time. MACC - Loan Guarantee Program MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced, the Mani toba Agricultural Credit Corporat ion indicated that they would process applications with approximately a three-day turnaround time.

Could the Min ister indicate what particular reasons there are for up to two weeks being required to process applications, and because of this length of time farmers are now waiting to go to the field and commence their farming operations but cannot do so, or are reluctant to do so because of lack of approval by MACC? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou ra ble Min iste r of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speake r, any reason that there would be a delay would be a matter of two areas. First, a non-completed application form from the financial institutions.

There have been some institutions that have forwarded applications even though they did not wish to make the decision themselves, that they would not recommend forwarding on an application form to MACC for app roval; th ey ha ve taken the appl ications notwithstanding that they would not provide the credit to see whether MACC would, in fact, actually turn down those applications. There have been some of those applications and they have been dealt with by MACC in discussions with the financial institutions, but I'm not aware of any long pending delay in terms of many of the applications that have been received.

I should ind icate to the honourable member that on a note that was provided to me, there are approximately 15 applications coming in daily as at the reporting time of May 5th, Mr. Speake r. MACC - Loan Guarantee Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speak er, another question to the same Min ister. Can the Mi nister advise the House how he's dealing with those applicants from the farm community who are renting land and renting equipment who have made application?

As recently as a week ago, one in the gallery had said that he was not able to gain financing. 2498

Monday, 9 May, 1983 MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Spea ker, viability is the key question and equity is the key question in dealing with any application. The case that the honourable member alluded to, I should mention to him that this instance was not a case of the total farming operation being handled on the basis of lease. There was a lot of owned land.

Although all the circumstances were not known to us, I encouraged that producer to put his case, through our staff, through a review panel if there was a great difficulty between himself and the financial institution. Interest Rate Relief Program re farmers HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Spea ker, while I'm on my feet, I should answer a couple of questions that were posed of me earlier. The Honourable Member for Arthur raised a question dealing with the Interest Rate Relief Program, as to the number of farmers who are on the program who were no longer operating.

I'm advised that as of April 21 st, there were 808 farmers app roved for Interest Rate Relief and three had ceased farming. These three who have ceased farming voluntarily, there were no foreclosures or declared bankru ptcies, they sold their operations out. MACC - loan Guarantee Program HON. B. URUSKI: As well, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Pembina asked earlier about the Loan Guarantee Program, as to how the method by which the Loan Guarantee Program will be used by lending institutions and who may have to collect on the 12.5 percent guaranteed by the government.

Will banks be allowed to collect only a prorated base on an individually failed loan or will the entire loan value be covered by the 12.5 percent gua rantee? Mr. Speaker , MAGG guarantees 12 .5 percent of the aggregate total of all loans approved under the guaranteed program. This 12.5 percent is applied after the banks have realized on the securities they have taken. Rail-bus transportation - re Northern areas MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan Riv er. MR. D. GOURLAY: I have a question to the Min ister of Hig hways and Transportation.

We've all read with interest the experiment to have a rail-bus service to provide service to remote communities in the North. I wonder if the Minis ter could indic ate today as to when he would see this rail-bus making its maiden run in Northern Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would have to assume that the member is aware that we're dealing with a proposal that is yet to be decided upon by the Government of Canada with respect to support of it and financing of the same.

We understand that there may be money avai lable for that particular project on a pilot basis, and that it would probably take somewhere in the order of several months before we could ind icate very positively one way or the other. Our impression is that there is a tremendous amount of interest by federal authorities in this concept of transp ortation for Northern communitie s, remote communities throughout Canada, and it is very likely that they will proceed with at least one rail-bus. I think the thought was that we would have about three, but that may be something that we will have to wait for.

But our understanding is that there is probably a good chance of having acceptance of at least one such unit for a trial period, and we would have to then make a new determination from that point on based on the experience. Task Force Reviews MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garr y. MR. L SHERMAN: Mr. Spea ker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Community Services and Corrections.

I wonder if he can advise the House on the status of three investigations, task force reviews, that are taking place under his authority: (1) the Kimelman Review of out of province adoptions, Native and extra Native adoptions, (2) the Kimelman Review of community group homes in the province, (3) the task force that was established to look into conditions at Head ing ley Jail and the pr ovince's correct ional institutions in general. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. L EVANS: Thank you, Mr.

Spea ker, with regard to the commission looking into the question of Indian international adoptions by Judge Kimelman, I can advise that we expect a report in a matter of weeks. We've had discussions with Judge Kimelman and we do expect something on that aspect in a matter of weeks, late May perhaps, early June. With regard to the other element that he is studying, that is, the question of group homes, this will take a bit longer. I'm not quite sure when he will give us a paper on that. With regard to the corrections study, the targeted date for a report is September. Headingley Jail - study re conditions HON. L.

SHERMAN: I thank the Mini ster for that in formation, Mr . Speaker . I would ask him a supplementary question to determine the terms of reference of the Correctional Institution Review, the Headingley Jail Study, can he confirm that the terms of reference for the study go beyond overcrowding and inmate activities? HON. L EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can certainly confirm that. As a matter of fact the terms of reference were outlined in the News Release at the time we appointed the Garson Committee. 2499

Monday, 9 May, 1983 MR. l. SHE RMAN: Mr . Sp eaker , a further supplementary , it's in view of the Min ister's last comment that I asked the question, do I believe, Sir, that the terms of reference at that time, as reported, were relatively limited? I would ask the Mi nister if he can confirm further to discussions and debates that he and I have had in this Chamber in the past year that the terms of reference include looking at the adminis tr ativ e structu re, di scipli narian authority structure and the morale situation among staff at Headingley Jail? HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member continues to refer to Headingley Jail. I would remind him that it relates to all adult correctional institutions with in the Province of Manitoba, not just Headingley Jail. Indeed, we are concerned about staff-management relations; we are concerne d about adminis trativ e matters generally. I would say that the committee has a fairly broad mandate to review the system as it now exists.

As a matter fact I believe I've been advised that this is the first time such a comprehensive organizational type review has been done of the correction system in Manitoba I think since the inception of the province. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Mi nister just assure the House that the study will not be so broad that he loses sigh t of the specific problems at Headingley Jail? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I would only hope that we will have a good report. I know the committee is ha rd at work and th ey' re in ter viewi ng people at Headingley, as well as other parts of the province.

I am hopeful that we will have a meaningful productive report that will be of guidance to this government and to this Legislature. Crop Insurance Office - re Minnedosa location MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture took as notice a question the other day on the relocation of the Crop Insurance Office at Min nedosa. I just wondered if he had been able to get an answer on that for me. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eak er, I advised the honourable member that I had enquir ed of the board as to whether they have finalized their decision following the presentations that were made.

I have not received that reply as yet. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, just for the Min ister's information, the rumoured date was the 15 th of May and it's becoming close to that date. It would be of some comfort, although cold comfort, to the staff to know whether they will be required to move to Neepawa or whether they'll be remaining in the present location. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, as I indi cated to the honourable member, the board is reviewing all the information and they will be finalizing their decision. As soon as I have it, I will advise the honourable member. MR. D.

BLAKE: I might ask the Min ister, will the Mini ster be abiding by the decision of the board in this instance? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would expect so, unless there was some new evidence that would be induced at some later date that one could reconsider it. I reconsidered the decision. Mr. Speaker, the decision is a Board of Directors' decision. That is one reason why Boards of Directors are appointed in places of managing policy of a corporation. Number of Bills this Session MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General in his capacity as House leader. Can the Attorney-General tell the House how many more bills he expects to see introduced in the House this Session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speak er. Order for Return - Lionel Orlikow MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Spea ker, my question is to the Attorney-General as well and it has to do with the Order for Return that I placed some time ago regarding the employment of Lionel Orlikow with the government and I'm wondering when I can expect a response on that. HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice as well, Mr. Spea ker. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a committee change on Law Amendments for May 10th. The Member for St. Johns will be substituting for the Member for Elmwood. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House �eader.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Sp eak er, with resp ect to committee meetings I'd like to announce the following: On Tuesday, May 24, the meeting of Public Utilities to further consider Manitoba Telephone System. On Tuesday, May 31, a further meeting of Public Utilities to further consider Manitoba Hydro. On Tuesday, June 7, Public Utilities to further consider Manitoba Hydro as required. On Thursday, June 9, Law Amendments, holding June 2 open for a possible further meeting on Public Accounts. 2500

Monday, 9 May, 1983 I should have announced, I'm sorry: On Thursday, May 19, Manitoba Mi neral Resources; that's Economic Development. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speake r, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Northern Affairs and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources. CONCURRENT COMMITT EES OF SUPP LY SUPP LY - NATURA L RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We have now reached Item 9.(a )( 1) Wildlife, Administration, Salaries - Mr. Min ister. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I don't think I will take the time of the committee to deal at any length with the generality of the work of this

section or the issues that we are faced with. I would like to introduce to the committee, the Director, Rich Golden, I think who is known to most members of this committee. I might say that this

section of the department has been a very busy one. We are faced with decisions about the reduction in habita t for wildlife facing that issue, facing the concerns about the continuance of hunting seasons and fishing seasons for, in some instances, a resource that can be under pressure, so we have to adjust seasons and limits according ly. I might say that Mr. Golden and I were on Friday afternoon involved in, what to me, was a very very happy occasion. I must say that the The Member for lnkster was with us.

That was the presentation of the first Natural Resources Conservation Award, a new award in the province, given to Alexander McPhail, the son of John McPhail, of Vista, Manitoba. Mr. Alexander McPhail has dedicated 16 0 acres, or a quarter section, of excellent wildlife habita t land to the province and to the people of Manitoba for use as a wildlife refuge. We had the privilege of tramping around on the quarter section. It was a delight to see that it not only has adequate water, several good-size potholes, it has good stands of aspen bluff and some other mixed species.

I really didn't stop to ident ify them closely, but it had natural hayland and some hayland that has never been touched by the plough. It was of course a delight to see, when we have a diminishing number of sharptail grouse, that there was almost a dozen sharptail grouse on that quarter; a couple of ducks in one of the potholes, too, at some distance. Mr. McPhail gave this quarter

section to the people of Manitoba in tribute and in honour to his father who homesteaded in that area in 18 82. He ind icated in his remarks that his rationale for the dedication to the people of this land for a wildlife refuge was that he and his father and their families had enjoyed the benefit of wildlife and knew of that benefit, valued that benefit and wanted to see a continuance of wildlife for a long time to come. One of the ways that they knew that they could do that was by making a gift of land to the province for a wildlife refuge. A sign has been erected on the quarter

section right off the road. It's an excellent sign; it's a big wooden sign. It's one of the newer ones we've got. It was a very great pleasure for me, for Mr. Scott and Mr. Golden to be there. I indicated my pleasure for the donation to Mr. McPhail and to his friends who were gathered there. It's one of the things that we want to encourage more of, the conservation awards that we have instituted, will reflect that kind of concern. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the members have questions. I don't know whether it may be particularly on this item, but in the balance of the items under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: On that subject, Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to have had an invitation to attend that. I never knew a thing about it. I don't know whether the gentleman is actually in my constituency; it must be right on the border. HON. A. MACKLING: I don't know why. MR. W. McKENZIE: I learned about it on Friday in the paper that it was being held and I couldn't change my plans, but I certainly join with the sentiments of the Min ister in what has happened.

The Village of Vista is part of Roblin-Russell now, but I think this is a little bit south of the village. I would have liked very much to be present, but I didn't know a thing about it until Friday. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, as we were driving from Strat hclair to the site, I was wondering whose constituency it was in. There was some doubt as to whose constituency, and whether it was in yours or Harry Graham's, I'm not sure. But I think the point is well taken.

Regardless of which political party it is, I think it's important that we, as legislators, recognize the commitment that is involved in this sort of thing and encourage it. I recognize the honourable member's concern. I apologize, I only had the concern after I was on my way there, but apparently there was some doubt as to whose constituency it was. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just concerning this wildlife award, that's an award I assume that follows on an initiative that was undertaken some time ago to develop this type of thing.

I'm wondering if the Mini ster would give some consideration to naming that award after the former long-time Director of Wildlife, Mr. Gerald Malagher. It certainly had been our intention, when we were in government, to consider 2501

Monday, 9 May, 1983 that possibility of a person who has over the years made an outstanding contribution to the management of wildlife in Manitoba. I'm just wondering if the Min ister has given that any consideration or would give it any consideration. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I quite frankly had n't gi ven consi deration to using a name in connection with the award. I want to associate the province with this and not an individual.

I would think that in light of the significant contribution that Gerry Malagher has made to the conservation of natural resources in this province during his lifetime that certainly we could give consideration. I will ask my staff to do that to highlight that, give consideration to the presentation of an award to Gerry Malagher, one of these awards. It is our intention, Mr. Chairman, that this award is the highe st conservation award that can be granted in the province. It will be recorded; they will be numbered.

We want this award to be the most prestigious natural resources' award and highlight the kind of contribution of a dedication of land like this. might say that Mr. McPhail is a real enthusiast about wildlife and it's reflected in his dedication. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Min ister about the Annual Report which is now required by The Wildlife Act. Last year, the Min ister tabled a separate report which gave a considerable amount of detail, substantially different from the normal type of, what I might generally call, PR sort of annual reporting that the department does.

This year, the Min ister has reverted back to the old standard kind of reporting and has simply made the report on the wildlife resources part of the repo rt of the Depa rt ment of Na tural Resources. I must say that it is not as illuminating as the information filed last year. I, especially, find very little reference to any type of allocation of the resources which a specific reference is called for in The Wildlife Act.

I would like to ask the Min ister whether it's his intention to go back to the type of report which was done last year. whether this year's report had reverted to the old style because it happened to coincide with the Five-Year Report, or just how he intends to handle the requirement that exists in The Wildlife Act? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, this being the year in which a Five-Year Rep ort was being tabled, it was considered by the branch to be adequate to provide the Wildlife Branch Report with the departmental report.

It's planned that in the off years, in the other four years, that the other fuller type of report would be presented. MR. B. RANSOM: I'm pleased to he ar th at, Mr. Chairman, because I think that it is more useful if that's done. I would ask the Min ister and his staff to pay special attention to the wording of the

section of the Act which makes reference to allocation of resources and just how these resources are being used. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the Five-Year Report to the Legislature on Wildlife, which of course also is required by the Act and which many of us have awaited with considerable anticipation and which we find to be very interesting.

It is normally the situation in the department whereby reports that are put forward by the department under the Mini ster's name are reviewed by the Mini ster and occasionally questions are asked in terms of whether or not statements that appear within the report are totally substantiated by the information that's avai lable; whether they can be backed up or not; and, in some cases, statements have been changed in the past on that basis, as well as, of course, there might be editing changes or there might be change s in statements concerning government policy.

My question to the Min ister, specifically with respect to this report, is were there changes made in this report by the Min ister himself? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I perused the draft report, made some observations in connection with some of the sections, and I haven't re-read the report since I read the draft, but believe that some adjustments were made to some of the commentary, reflecting some of the concerns I did have. MR. B. RANSOM: Could the Mini ster give us some indication, then, of some of the concerns that he had and the sort of changes that were made?

I think it would be of considerable relevance to the committee and to the public to know whether this report is really an accurate reflection of the technical information and the reco mmenda tions, the conclusions of the professional wildlife managers; or whether it reflects some changes that the Mi nister might have seen fit to make, so I would appreciate any indication from the Minis ter as to what areas he had asked for changes to be made. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, of course, I believe that this is a report to the Legislature and should not be a report that only the Mi nister approves.

I don't believe that this Min ister, or any other Min ister, should vary fact; the presentation of the report should be factual. Where there is wording which is used to interpret the facts, and the statistics can be interpreted many ways, then I think it's open to the Min ister, or anyone else who is drafting or involved in the preparation of the report, to recommend stylistic changes and, as I recall, those were the only areas where I indicated some concern, that perhaps the

interpretation that was being drawn on some facts that were presented, may be overstated, understated or otherwise. I couldn't give the member exact reference to where I had some concerns, but so far as the presentation of fact, of course as I've ind icated, I don't think in any way anyone should change that. MR. B. RANSOM: Then I'll ask the Min ister, specifically, Mr.

Chairman, since we have had some fairly extensive discussion in the House concerning a Private Members' Resolution dealing with methods and equipment that are used by Treaty Indians in their pursuit of hunting, I note that some of the wording, such as, on Page 6, in Point No. 1 of Page 6, is very similar to wording that was used in the debate before the report came out. Specifically, there is a sentence, I think the third sentence in Point No. 1 on Page 6, "legislative changes to assist in the conservation of these big games species may be required should other init iatives fail." I am, 2502

Monday, 9 May, 1983 specifically, wondering in this case, whether or not the Min ister had any hand in changing the drafting of this section, specifically, or others dealing with that subject which was under discussion at the time. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that I recommended specific wording at all in any of the observations that I had about the language of the report. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr . Chairman, I have got a suggestion, or a request, to make of the Minis ter which is quite unusual, I guess.

This is a report, of course, as I have said many times, that is of great interest to the people of Manitoba. It could take up a very considerable amount of time in giving it the kind of scrutiny and review that it should have really in order to fully understand what's happening; the implications of it and where we're going with the management of the resource. I would like to ask the Min ister, whether he would consider having this report referred to the Standing Committee on Utilities and Natural Resources, in order that we might be able to give it very thorough review?

It only comes out once every five years, it isn't the sort of thing which is done on an annual basis. I think if that were done, that it would contribute greatly to an und ers tanding of our wildlife resour ces and the problems associated with their management, and where we might expect management to be going. In fact, it would seem to fit, perhaps, with some of the indi cations from the government side as to the desirability of having di scussion concerning managment of resources, involving everyone who is interested in the resources, before the government moves in any area to make specific legislative changes.

HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have to give some thought into that recommendation. I would have to take into consideration the concerns, the views, of my colleagues, including the views of the honourable member. However, I think that this committee does give all members an opportunity to, at any length they determine, to review the policy decisions involved in each of the specific funding req ui rements of the department. I have no reservations, Mr. Chairman, of spending whatever time the members want discussing, and I will take

part in discussion, about those policy issues. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I expect that this is the heading and I just have a very short question. The Min ister might possibly thin k it may come under (

b) under Grant Assistance, or Other Expenditures, but it'll be a short question anyway, and this looks like the heading it would be und er. Mr. Chairman, I have a constituent that's extremely interested in ranching or raising elk and doing some experimental work in cross-breeding. This is being carried out in other pr ovin ces and he's done considerable research on it. Now, I don't know whether he's got to the point of submitting a formal request or not, but he's interested in some rather unproductive Crown land, probably up around Riding Mountain National Park.

He's very excited about it and feels there are great prospects in doing some cross-breeding with elk in view of their conversion rate of low-quality feed and various other things. Outside of that, of course, he is even interested in raising elk by themselves and I just wondered if the Minis ter had been in consultation with this chap - it's Ed Shamray from Oak River - and what his views were on allowing someone or providing, not so much assistance, as he's willing to spend a considerable amount of his own money as long as he can get some leased land.

Naturally he would have to fence it and you don't fence land to keep elk in very cheaply nowad ays , so th ere is going to be a considerable expense to him. He's prepared to expend that kind of money to experiment with in an endeavour such as this, and I just wondered what the Mi nister's feelings were on a type of venture like this or if he has had some discussions with Mr. Shamray. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, that name is not recalled by me as someone who we have been in touch with. Mr. Golden is shaking his head too.

But while we're there, I suppose I might as well confirm to honourable members that there have been a number of concerns brought to me in connection with proposals for not domestication per se, but the raising of wild species in captivity for meat and some for antler velvet and so on. I'm saying that, quite frank ly, I approach this in a small conservative way.

I know that there are strong feelings in respect to any proliferation of this activity, strong feelings on the part not only of hunters, naturalists, but I think there's a large body of public opinion that is relatively negative towards some people's wish to convert wildlife for domestic purposes. I think that if we move at all in that way it does significantly compound the pro blem we ha ve in respec t to enforcement of our game laws. That is one of the major things that would occur.

We also, of course, are subject to criticism that we are removing from the community-at-l arge the opportunity to enjoy recreation involved in hunting, photography, or otherwise, of wild species. So I have not given a green light - even an amber light - to those who want to expand in this area. I have signaled that we ... MR. H. ENNS: That being your favourite color. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . Yes, the honourable member says red being my favourite colour.

The honourable member will note that from time-to-time I have a propensity for blue, but that's not political, it's purely the colour blue; like your eyes, Harry, most of the time. MR. H. ENNS: Great color. HON. A. MACKLING: I'd better pass from that one now before I get too far astray. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can see the Mi nister's concern with maybe domesticating or semi­ domesticating wild animals, but I would refer him back 2503

Monday, 9 May, 1983 a couple of thousand years, if it hadn't been for someone domesticating wild animals, we wouldn't have too many domestic animals with us today. There's a promising possibility here, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Min ister, I just would encourage the Min ister, if he gets a proposal from this particular individual, because he has done a lot of research on it, is quite excited about it and, as I say, is willing to expend a considerable amount of his own funds to try it out.

He's certainly willing to comply with government regulations and inspections and whatnot; he's not going to be slaughtering and wholesaling wild game; there's no question about that. It will be done under very controlled circumstances to see if the experiment does have merit or whether a lot of it has been projections that could never be fulfilled. I just wanted to get that on the record. I felt this was the right time to bring it up. It is being carried in other provinces without a great deal of red tape, I understand.

In view of the election promises by the existing government of a year or so ago, they were going to listen to the man-on-the-street sort of thing and cut red tape where at all possible and allow for a free flow of in formation, open ­ government type of policy. I hope that the Min ister will receive this gentleman when he does get his proposal together and give him a good hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the Min ister. I believe that it is a regulation laid down by your department, Mr.

Minis ter, that no illegal hunting on private land will be permitted. It's been brought to my attention that north and east of Portage la Prairie, in a heavy area that is traveled by hunters in the fall of the year, they disrespect very much that law as laid down. MR. H. ENNS: That's those city hunters, not us country boys. MR. L. HYDE: I know that, on occasion, the landowners have reported this to the conservation officers and very little, if anything, has been done toward correcting the problem there. I'm wondering if you, as the Min ister, would like to expand on that? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, there is no doubt that some hunters disobey the laws, and they have done that and will, I suppose, unfortunately, some will still continue to do that no matter how reasonable those laws are. I think that the provisions of requiring consent or permission to go on private land to hunt are reasonable. It is true that there are people that do not comply with that; we have prosecuted a number. I think I could probably refer to some statistics somewhere to confirm the numbers, but I don't think it'll ever be possible, of course, to eliminate this.

We couldn't have the number of conservation officers to be available at the many, many places throughout the province where people can go on private land without consent. I think we try in our educational programming, in our enforcement.to get a firm message across that it is illegal to hunt on 2504 private land without consent. I don't know whether we can ever eliminate it. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Min ister, the complaint that has been brought to me is that the landowners have reported that the incidence from time to time and, as I say, little, if anything has been done on behalf of their complaint.

I'm wondering, Sir, if you could step that up but bring this to the attention of your conservation officers in the area in the height of the hunting season to patrol that particular area with a little more vigourous steps. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly staff are here from the department and have taken note of that. I might say that we will be under Regional Services somewhat later in the Estimates, but nevertheless, Mr. Golden is here, Mr. Stewart is here and others in the department will take note of that concern. MR. L. HYDE: I thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to support and add to the requests made by the Member for Turtle Mountain about seriously considering the presenting of this Five-Year Report and future Five-Year Reports to the Standing Committee of Natural Resources and Public Utilities. Mr. Chairman, I read to put on the record your final paragraph of the report which indicates that, "For a variety of reasons those who use and cherish wildlife, the most have not been particular adamant in its defence. If wildlife is to survive, this must change. An awakened public awareness is the best and perhaps only security wildlife resources have.

No significant protective effort can be sustained without public backing. Attempts to rebuild the devastated resource will be expensive and largely unsuccesful." Mr. Chairman, those are the words that are used to conclude this first Five-Year Report that we have before us. I remind honourable members and this Min ister, that it's, in my judgment, particularly appropriate that that committee be considered to review it.

It's the same kind of committee that we have over which we make the important decisions when we dedicate the use of some of our resources, such as some of our river systems; whether or not a portion of the Nelson River system should be dedicated for hydro-electric power prod uction always at some cost, always at some in conv eni ence or in deed loss tem pora rily or permanently of other resources, in this instance, wildlife resources. That's the kind of committee that we've had; some very wide-r anging, full debates on whether or not the people of Manitoba are best served to so dedicate a particular resource.

I can't see anything but good coming from having that same committee play the role of creating a public awareness tha t this repo rt refers to as being so important if we wish to preserve and enhance our wildlife resources. It's a committee, Mr. Chairman, that of course would enable us to hear directly from experts within the department. I appreciate that the Min ister has indicated to us that he's prepa red to sit in this committee on this item as

Monday, 9 May, 1983 long as we wish to pursue it, but it is not the committee where we can call upon outside groups; whether it is interested spokespeople for the Federation of Wildlife or interested people from the Native community who are concerned about the regulations and legislative changes that might be contemplated from time to time.

But all in all, it is precisely the kind of committee and the kind of committee structure, that would enable us to, in a serious way, take stock of our resources, of this particular resource, the wildlife resources of the province and to be able to measure our successes and our failures in five-year inte rv als as the situation improves or deteriorates, and then take the kind of corrective action, the kind of action that would have the broader support of the community, that this report recognizes as important other than just a hardworking department or, indeed, a dedi cated Min ister.

It needs to have that kind of more widening circle of support than obviously is currently being brought to bear on the resources. Mr. Chairman, that is what my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, was asking this Min ister to consider. We ask that very seriously, in the recognition that it may well be another government, another Mi nister that will be charged with the responsibility of carrying out that hearing five years hence. But, I would ask the Mini ster to take a second look at that suggestion that was put forward. It was put forward in a very serious manner. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, and colleagues, I will indicate that I will personally consider it in a serious manner. I think any question as to the husbandry of resources in the province is something that has to be given thoughtful consideration. However, one would have to determine where we would be going if each

section of the department will be subject to review by Standing Committee when we will call people before us, and I don't know how the legislative process will be affected. It is not traditional for departments to have their husbandry or their management of the departments reviewed by a different forum. It has been traditional pa rliamentary practice for departments, line depa rtments, to ha ve thei r spending Esti mates analyzed, criticized, dissected by this committee. I don't know whether reference to a different committee would be in anyway taking away from the parliamentary tradition of accountability.

It's true that it may be argued that that forum would be dealing, not with spending, but overall management program - but it does involve spending. I know the review that presently takes place by the Public Utilities and Na tural Resour ces Sta nding Committee is one involving Crown corporations where their line bud gets are not revie wed by anot her committee of the House. I think we would be duplicating committee efforts if we have one review here and a second review by another committee, and I would want to know what we're doing with the parliamentary process in the whole.

I think there is an obligation on this committee when reviewing the Estimates of each department that comes before it, to spend whatever time is necessary to demand what further reports to make whatever requests members feel is appropriate to justify what the department is doing or is not doing in respect to its program.

But I can't readily accept the suggestion that, notwithstanding the tradition of this committee or a Committee of the Legislature's review of the spending Estimates, and therefore of the program of this department, that we will have an additional review of the department and its management and programming. I would want to think very carefully about that before I agreed in principle or otherwise in respect to that. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to think the Minis ter is not willfully confusing the facts.

We're not sugges ting that the line-b y-line, or inde ed the Directorate of Wildlife be subj ected to tha t other committee. We are not talking about something that is traditional; this report isn't trad itional. This is a first­ time report; the new legislation was called upon to present a five-year review which will be coming up next in 1987, according to the existing legislation. Under those circumstances, I submit that you can treat that quite differently. It would not be a duplication of reviewing part of the Department of Natural Resources in front of yet another committee. However, Mr.

Chairman, it wouldn't be the first time this government chose not to accept good advice. I just want to assure the Honourable Min ister, it is good advice. Mr. Chairman, just one other item before I leave that report. It has already been mentioned, but the report also in its last-page conclusion, dr aws out that nightlighting, night hunting among others, the illegal sale of wildlife, the illegal hunting, etc., but night hunting is specifically identified as a very serious problem. It is difficult for us to understand the Min ister's continued obfuscation.

The Member for Fort Garry needs to be around to help me with these words. On the question of really coming to grips with the question of nightlighting, it is one that has virtually un iversal suppo rt to do something about. The Federation of Wildlife, recently meeting again, makes that very clear to this government, to this Mi nister and everybody, even people like Frank Johnston who doesn't hunt, knows that nightlighting is abhorrent. Your experts can tell you that it is taking a terri ble toll in terms of game.

It is an indiscriminate, cowardly way of taking game, with no opportunity for any selectivity in terms of the kind of game that ought to be taken at a given time, a given season. I can't understand and I can't let this part of the Estimates get past the Mini ster without registering the strongest protest possible about the Min ister's lack of willingness to acknowledge that problem and to do something about it. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I must vigorously deny the suggestion that I am trying in any way to pull a cloud or pull a blanket or sweep something under the rug which the word "obfuscation" implies.

The problem is there; night hunting is a problem. We have ample record of the problem and when I spoke in the House on a resolution dealing with, focused on this question alone, I made it clear, I believe I did, that I do not approve of night hunting. We prosecute people for night hunting. We prosecute people who are not Treaty Indi ans for night hunting 2505

Monday, 9 May, 1983 because we think it is undesirable. Because of the

interpretation by the courts of rights which Treaty Indian people hold, we are constrained not to prosecute Treaty Indian people who are hunting at night, safely. Now the

interpretation of hunting at night, safely, has been one that gi ves us difficulties because there are times when hunting at night can be dangerous, and when we believe it's dangerous we lay a charge and they're prosecuted. Mr. Chairman, we have made it clear that we think the practice is not a good one. It's my concern to get the Native people, who have a vested interest in a continuance of the game, to be those who are in the leadership of the concern to conserve the resource; to be part of the concern in respect to the diminution of the resource, and to be actively involved in promoting conservation.

We believe that it is possible for the department, working with Native people, to convince those who have been night hunting within the Indian communities, to eliminate that practice. We believe that discussion consultation is the most effective way. It's not open to us, short of an application to the Federal Government, to make any change. We don't think that if we change the law that it would be a simple matter of enforcement, if the law were changed. It's a very complex area, and particularly, when you're dealing with hunting that takes places in remote areas.

We don't want to have to have thousands of Conservat ion officers everywhere enforcing laws; we want people everywhere in Manitoba to recognize the laws as reasonable and necessary for the continuance of the resource; that's the attitude we want. We don't think we bludgeon people into a conservation attitude; we think we build that attitude.

That's why I warmly endorsed the thinking that, not only our government had, but previous governments had, in connection with - maybe it's not an a-typical example - but the Barren Ground caribou herds, the Beverley and Kamin uriak he rds, faced with the tremendous hunting pressure that was occurring there - and the hunting pressure was primarily Native hunters - did come together. The governments came together with the Native people and adopted a strategy for long­ term conservation, and that approach is the right one, I'm convinced, Mr.

Chairman, because no way could we en force ourselves with a cadre or cadres of Conservation officers, that kind of conservation of those animals. The Native people, most dependent, most concerned about th ose ani mals, ha ve to be in volved in th e conservation practices and knowledgeable about them. That why I feel, and I hope I can speak for all members of the Leg islature, we must get Native people in Manitoba very much onside in con nection with conservation practices and I think that we are making significant progress in respect to that.

The department, not under my direction, but under direction from past Min isters - and it certainly is continued under myself - has been consulting with Native Indian people, with Indian Bands, about resource conservation and I think is making some significant progress, and we hope to do much more of that. I don't think that hunting animals at night is desirable. I don't say it's necessarily a cowardly act; I think it's a wasteful act. I think that it's something that adds nothing to the stature of the hu nter; that's not hunting.

As the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek has ind icated, there's no sport involved in it. I am very, very anxious that we build a framework of trust and responsibility because, Mr. Chairman, not just our government, this present Ne w Democratic Party Government of this time; not merely the government that was in office before us; but governments for some decades - I don't know how long this policy existed - has established, in connection with the use of wildlife, the first priority is the domestic use of Treaty Indian people, and I assume, Mr.

Chairman, that commitment was made, that policy direction was given to the Wildlife Branch because of the historic Treaty rights that pre­ existed the transfer of Natural Resources, including wildlife, to the province in 19 30. So, Mr. Chairman, while I, and my colleagues, are very, very much concerned with the waste, with the terri ble - I shouldn't use the word "terr ible" - but certainly the serious concerns we have about night hunting of any kind. We believe that we must get the Native people involved in answering that question themselves, and I think we will do that.

So far, despite the night hunting, our deer populations are holding reasonably well; it's variable in accordance with the weather, but our deer are holding out reasonably well. Where we have - and this Wildlife Report indicates it - a significant concern is in respect to moose. While there is a downturn in the moose herd, in some areas, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that our proposed hunting regulations for this year will not dramatically reflect any critical reduction of the moose herds.

There are some changes proposed in the regulations, but I can tell you there is one area that's being opened for moose hunting that did not exist before because there is a herd there that can stand some hunting pressure. I want again to ind icate that I'm prepared to debate at length if the .committee wants to, this issue, but I will try as carefully as I can to ind icate my concern that we get Native people involved in conservation, rather than having confrontations with Native people about our desire, and I'm sure their desire, to make sure that the resource is continued for generations to come. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: The Mini ster can wax eloquent but the fact remains, it seems to me, that if we dedicated our efforts to making nightlighting a dangerous and unsafe hunting manner, and if we had to, if the department would advise the Min ister what had to be done to do so, what particular court case, what kind of regulation or legislative change would be requ ired to make nightlighting an unsafe hunting practice, it would seem to me that would be a step that then takes away the ambiguity as to when the night hunting is safe and when it is not safe.

I'm aware of the fact that the province can enact such legislation. can enforce it with respect to our Treaty Indians, if it can be demonstrated ifs an unsafe practice, and I'm suggesting that's the direction, perhaps, the Min ister ought to go. Mr. Chairman, on another matter, can the Min ister confirm that our duck population, waterfowl population is approaching an all time low? HON. A. MACKLING: First of all, in respect to specifics, I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether we can do more 2506

Monday, 9 May, 1983 than what has already been done. I'm grateful that we do have provisions in The Wildlife Act that make it an offence to hunt in a dangerous manner and we're able to prosecute, and I ind icated that I could probably give you statistics in respect to that. I had them here a moment ago and I've set them aside somewhere, or maybe Rich has. But we have continued to prosecute those who have been hunting in a manner which, pursuant to the provisions of the present Wildlife Act, make it an offence.

Total occurrences in the season '82-83 were 8,520; total occurrences in the period April 1st to May 4th, 354. Of the totals that I've referred to, the total number that involved a problem or nuisance wildlife were 2,8 61. I guess it's skunks and all sorts of things, problem wildlife, racoons, too, they get down chimneys and what have you, Mr. Chairman. Total prosecutions in that period, 2,289; total prosecutions in the period April 1s t to May 4th - that's very current, 101.

Of the total prosecutions, that is 2,289, the number that involved Treaty In dians was 252, so we had over 2,0 00 prosecutions that did not involve Treaty Indians. Of the prosecutions, the nightlighting prosecutions, Indians were 91, as they were considered to be hunting unsafely, but we had 79 non-Indians hunting at night. Mr. Chairman, I've indicated we've had consultations, perhaps I should give more specificity to that.

We've had discussion with Treaty Indians and Treaty Indian Bands at the Big Eddy and Moose Lake Reserves, the Western Region Tribal Council which composes the Crane Ri ver, the Ebb and Flow, the Gamb lers, Kee­ See-Koowenin, Pine Creek, Rolling Ri ver, Waterhen, Way-Way-See Kappo, the Valley Ri ver, and we've had individual meetings at Pine Creek and Valley River; a number of meetings, again, with the Waterhen and meetings with Fort Alexander, Little Black River, Hollow Water, and Brokenhead. We are continuing in our follow­ up in respect to meetings with Treaty Indian people in connection with these issues.

In respect to the waterfowl, we do have an indicated reduction in the population. One of the problems we have, Mr. Chairman, is that we are involved in a five­ year - this is the last of the five years - Waterfowl Hunting Agreement in which there is a recognition that we will not manipulate the regulations and therefore skew the balancing or the research that all of the governments want to see involved in longer programming of resource management.

I have had representation to me and the department that because of the decline in certain species of ducks, mallard, pintail, redhead, canvasback - the puddling ducks, that's an appropria te description - that these ducks have been under more pressure, that there be sharp reductions in the bag limit of these species. While our bag limit has been decreasing, however, pursuant to the management understandings involved, the U.S. harvest in the Mississippi flyaway has been increasing.

So while people urge upon myself, as Min ister, and the department that we ought to restrict bag limits in Manitoba, it really is to me somewhat unfair that we do that and yet there is no reduction in the take or the bag limit of those same species south of the border. Now, I'm gi ven to understand tha t the mallard population index in Ma ni toba, that is the nesting numbers, actually increased last year compared to previous years. That's a good sign.

I think that, although I haven't asked them specifically for it, my observation is that we've got a pretty good nesting season thus far, and the signs are very hopeful that we are moving into a fairly good production this spring. Of course, a lot of things can change that, a severe late frost or anything like that. What we are planning to do is to consult with western Ma nitobans, for example, southwestern Ma ni toba, concerned about the hunting pressure of some species there. We're concerned th at it ha ve much more consultation in connecton with seasons during the course of this year.

Now, maybe I'm answering at some length but the other thing, Mr. Chairman, that we want to do is at the conclusion of this season be able to review with other signa tories to that waterfowl convention changes in seasons and bag limits reflecting the five-year history. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a comment regarding the Five-Year Reports and register some reservation in regard to the Minister's position regarding the night hunting by Native people for the simple reason we had a resolution in the Legislature which was basically requesting that the nightlighting be negotiated to be changed. The Min ister and his colleagues saw fit to amend it which basically makes it almost meaningless or certainly takes away all of what the intent of that resolution was.

If the Minis ter was very sincere about thi s nightlighting problem, I think the members of the government had decided to support that, I think it would have gone a long way because that in itself by supporting it would not necessarily make it so anyway. It would still have to be negotiated, so the negotiation aspect of it could have continued. I hold the Min ister a little suspect as to how sincere he is. But to pursue that further, and the conclusion of that Five-Year Report, it ind icates some concern about certain species being on the decline and this possibly could continue for the next five or 10 years.

I'm wondering if the Mi nister has any specific programs that he is working on in terms of trying to resolve that long-range planning, or what specifically is the Min ister doing in regard to the decline of some of the wildlife populations. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I've indicated earlier, and I don't want to speak at any length on that, the one species identified in the Five-Year Report that is in a state of decline, particularly in some areas, is the moose species and we are involved in consultation programs, particularly with Treaty Indian Bands.

We have effected some measure of agreement already in respect to some areas; we have reflected the decline in the moose population in our hunting regulations. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Is the Min ister indicating that there's going to be more restrictive hunting coming out regarding the moose for the next season? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the specifics of the recommendations before me, but there is not a great deal of change. I do recall that non- 2507

Monday, 9 May, 1983 residents of Canada will be permitted a smaller take of moose this year. MR. A. DRIEDGER: There's a comment there might be less of them coming through for certain reasons. I just want to repeat, aside from the consultation that is taking place with the Native people, are there any other programs, besides the reduction of possible harvest for sport hunters?

A concern I have is, even if that reduction takes place and there's less of a harvest for the sportsman, if the other area is not addressed and resolved, to some degree, there's going to be more pressure again on the Min ister, because the sports hunter is going to then feel even more concerned if the av enue of ni ghtlighting is still allowed to be continued and the harvest for sportsmen is going to be restricted even more. So that, in my mind, will not necessarily resolve it, it will probably create bigger problems.

Is the re any other areas where the Mi nis ter is concentrating on in terms of any programs that he has in place, not just for moose but maybe for some of the others that are on the decline or where some concern is expressed? For example, let's say, are there areas designa ted where people maybe, a thought that has been coming to mind is, for example, the habita t aspect of it, whe re farmers possibly get some compensation program worked out for retai ning of habitat for wildlife of all species.

I think this is part of the thing, that the conclusion here ind icates is that the lack of habitat for wildlife generally is going to be creating a long-term problem. Maybe now is the time to address it where we make some provision for the farmers, that we retain some of the habi tat that they cannot necessarily make good use of, in terms of cultivated acreage, but somehow try anyway. If there was some incentive, either through a tax incentive or monetary incentive, to try and encourage farmers to retain some of the habitat. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the honourable member for his observation.

Certain ly, as I indicated in my opening remarks in respect to the dedication of the quarter

section for a wildlife refuge, we are most anxious to protect a wildlife habitat, and encourage those who are concerned about conservation of the resource. We are looking at moose habitat; we hope that we will be able to reflect our concerns, in respect to habit, into practical program. We have been studying moose, particularly on Hecia Island; it's a small herd of animals and we are going to hopefully enhance our information about moose habits by studies we've been carrying out about the relatively small herd of moose on Hecia Island.

In respect to the broader consideration the gentleman is refe rring to, enc ourag ing individual farmers to maintain habitat, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Many people in the past have, quite properly, identified the concern that farm folk who own land have to have some incentive, some encouragement, not to drain their wetland and not to clear the marginal land of the bush cover, because it is important that our wildlife species have this essential habi tat.

One of the ways, of course, is to eliminate taxation on such property; that's one of the recommendations that the Assessment Review Committee, I believe, made in their report, and I think that's one that we all certainly want to give very serious consideration to. At the present time, assessment on wetland and assessment on marginal bush land is very low, but there's still, as I understand it, some degree of taxation on those lands. It would be very helpful, I think, as an incentive to people who own such land if, providing they're left in their natural state, there is no taxation.

We are certainly looking, as a department, at ways in which we can enhance wildlife habitat, existing wetlands; we're looking at ways in which we can get a heavier propagation of ducks by such things as nesting islands in our marshes; some ways in which we can maintain habitat that otherwise would be destroyed. We have, of course, proposals to enlarge wildlife habita t in various areas, and I hesitate however to take too long in giving detail on this, Mr. Chairman. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: I have a few questions specifically regarding the proposed wildlife management area that I think three or four of the clubs have been working with, and I wonder if the Mi nister could ind icate the position where it's at right now. I'm referring, specifically, to the St. Malo Wildlife Association that went ahead and proceeded to buy certain lands so that a designated block could be worked on. I wonder if the Min ister can indicate where it's at with that proposal right now? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I would rather not give all of the details at this stage, because I would rather give recognition to the efforts of all of the people that have been involved in the proposals for enlargment of wildlife habi tat in their region, southeastern part of Manitoba that's commonly the lle de Pilotte area. There have been extensive efforts. I have met on a number of occasions with representatives from that area, including representa ti ves of the LGD of Stuartburn; the Wildlife Association down there.

We are close to having a position where we'll make a formal announcement of a dedication of some land there in respect to the wildlife development. I would rather that I share that announcement with those folks. MR. H. ENNS: Why should he share it with you, you're only a member, Albert? MR. A. DRIEDGER: I can accept that, I suppose, I'll have to. The thing that I would like to know, when the Min ister says a proposed announcement coming in the near future, how near is that future time-framewise? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, certainly before the summer is out. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We really haven't been getting a great deal from the Mi nister here beyond generalities. I'd like to get some specific answers from the Mini ster and some firm positions from him. For instance, this is a pretty fundamental question. Can the Min ister tell us whether any big game population can sustain unlimited harvest? 2508

Monday, 9 May, 1983 HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think any big game population, in any part of the world, can sustain unlimited harvest. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, what limitations are there on the harvest by Treaty Indian people? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member kno ws that Treaty In dia n people ha ve recognized that in order to sustain the use of the resource they do not hunt indiscriminately. They hunt for food.

When they need animals for food, and if the animals are avai lable and can be obtained, they have done so in the past and have continued to do that successfully without eliminating the herds thus far. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, that's nonsense. It is absolute patent nonsense that we're hearing from the Min ister now. There are Indian people who hunt just as ind iscriminately as there are non-Indian people who hunt indiscriminately. There are Indian people who have a great regard for conservat ion, the same as there are non-Indian people who have a great regard for it.

The truth of the matter is that when it was necessary to undertake conservation measures on behalf of non­ Indi an people, it has always been necessary for the government to move in and pass some laws. Because human nature, being what it is, people simply don't agree to go along with what is in the public interest. The Mi niste r doesn't simply ask the rest of the population to agree to conservat ion measures and not have any laws involved. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, there are many situations where hunting by Treaty Indi an people has virtually wiped out the big game populations.

To the best of my knowledge, across Canada, of all the hundreds of reserves there are, there are only two cases where the Indian people themselves have moved to pass by-laws governing conservation on the lands over which they have direct control. I suggest that what you really have is that the Indian people are no different than anybody else, is that they are basically no more inclined towards conservation of the resource than any other group of people is inclined to it. They happen to have a right under the Treaties, which was given to them at a time when all of the rest of the people had the same right.

When those Treaties were signed in 18 71, in 18 73, in 18 74, everybody had the right to hunt unlimited, without limitation. At the time that the Treaties were signed, the game populations had already been decimated to the point where the Indian people were largely starving. Now, since that time, there have been a lot of changes take place. The application of the laws have varied over the years. In the 19 20s and 19 30s, the moose population, for instance, had declined to the point where there was almost no hunting available for anybody.

Because of application of laws in the '30s, '40s and '50s, which perhaps was not technically defensible and has since been shown not to be technically defensible, at least lead to the recovery of moose populations specifically, so that both the Indian people and the non­ Indian people have been able to benefit from that. We now have a situation where we're going back to where we were in the 1920s, in the 1930s. There are situations where 20 years ago, 15 years ago, moose populations were abundant - I am speaking of the North Interlake, for instance.

Today, there are very few there; the sport hunting in much of the area is not allowed. It is strictly a take by Native people under the rights that they have through the Treaties. There are a number of quotations through this Five-Year Report, just for example, Page 21, I quote, "Even complete closure to licenced hunting will not reverse the decline in the provincial herd because of Treaty Indian harvest of cows and calves." There is another place, I can't lay my hand on it just immediately but there is a quotation here.

Well, no, it's on Page 16 with reference to moose, "At present, habi tat is not a limiting factor in moose populations." What do we have from the Mi nister a few minutes ago is a wishy-washy statement that he's looking at moose habi tat when this report says habi tat is not the problem. It has to do with population, management, Mr. Chairman. It goes on to the conclusion where it says on Page 14 9, "Treaty Indian use of wildlife has increased signif icantly and at current rates will necessitate further curtailment and in some cases, cessation of licenced recreational and tourist use.

In extreme cases, the viability of some wildlife populations could be jeopardized." Mr. Chairman, why can't the Minis ter face up to the fact that there is a problem? A set of circumstances prevail whereby the Indian people have rights under the Treaties, but there also were provisions in the Treaties which allowed for the Federal Government to apply regulations concerning conservation. The one area more than anything else which is causing problems is that it has to do with the hunting methods and the equipment that the people are able to use under the Treaties.

I have to tell you these are not illegal activities, that debate before has alway centered around the so­ called illegal activities of Indians and saying that other people have undertaken illegal activities, too. These activities haven't been illegal for Indian people because the courts have said they had the right under the Treaty to use lights at night to hunt providing it couldn't be proven that in that particular case it was dangerous.

Now, why can't the Mi nister simply face up to the fact that there is a very serious problem out there and try and move in that one small area that does not infringe upon the basic Treaty rights that the Indian people have? But it would move to remove one of the serious points of contention that exists; it would move to make some improvement in the management of the population. And I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that there would be a great many people and a great many Indian people individually who would agree that type of hunting should not be carried on.

I am sure the Mini ster isn't going to extend those privileges to non-Indian people. If it isn't a very serious problem that we have here, then presumably those same hunting privileges could be extended to everybody else and then we would all be equal. We wouldn't have any wildlife left. So, Mr. Chairman, we've got to see some action on the part of the Minis ter when he says that this has been going on for decades. I would point out to him that it hasn't been going on for decades, that the populations have been suffering to the extent that they have.

Ten years ago this province still had rather abunda nt moose populations. I would suggest that the hunting opportunity for moose probably was somewhere 2509

Monday, 9 May, 1983 near the peak around 19 70 or thereabouts, so that this situation that we have now has only come about lately, Mr. Chairman. Something is going to have to be done. On specifics in some other areas then, Mr. Chairman, talking about the necessity for habitat programs, and again I hear the same kinds of discussion that we've heard for a number of years about things that could be done, but can the Min ister give us an indication of how many acres or square miles of deer habitat have been lost in the province during the past year or the past five years, whatever period he'd like to use? HON. A.

MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I'll see if I can give answer to the specific question that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has addressed to me. Let me very briefly respond to the patent nonsense that I've heard from The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. Mr. Chairman, he suggests that Treaty Indi an people have been eliminating, obviously, critical wildlife species in this province. I would like him - of course, I really don't expect him to answer - to ind icate what particular wildlife species Treaty Indian hunting has eliminated from this province.

I know that in the early days we had the buffalo and the passenger pigeon; we had game hunters who hunted for food; we had thousands of animals and birds slaughtered on a commercial basis, not primarily by Treaty Indian people - (I nterjection) MR. J. DOWNEY: Now we've got turkeys like you. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will accept the cackling of the bird that just came in as somewhat unusual to the work of this committee. Mr. Chairman, we know that wildlife species have been eliminated but I don't believe they've been eliminated from the face of Manitoba as a result of Treaty Indi an hunting.

That's not to say that there isn't a problem, and for the honourable member to suggest that somehow I'm dodging it, and the The Honourable Member for Lakeside at least used a more decent expression; he suggested I was obfuscating. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain thinks tha t I'm talking patent nonsense. Mr. Chairman, we know that there are many people in Manitoba, not Treaty Indian people, who have been breaking the law. I read the statistics about night hunting by non-Indians. Mr. Chairman, breaches of the law are not exclusive to any one group of people.

We know, for example - and other jurisdictions have faced this difficulty - about the number of trophy hunters who have flown in and shot anima ls, wasted ani mals, because they wanted a nice rack, and all they took was the rack. Well there's a time and a place for program, but to suggest that the real and only problem is Treaty Indian hunting is painting too dark a picture one way. Let's be fair. Yes, there is a problem and I've indic ated there is a problem in connection with night hunting.

I don't like it; I believe it has to be changed, but it has to be changed with the consultative efforts that we think are possible with Treaty Indian people. The honourable member says we ha ve to do something decisive, we have to change a law. The opportunity, Mr. Chairman, was his, as Mini ster of Natural Resources. It was his government that could have insisted, they could have made application to the Federal Government to change the law. Here we had, in parts of Manitoba, two herds of very precious animals, the Kaminuriak and Beverley herds, that were under pressure - and under pressure for what reason? Mr.

Chairman, becaus e of the ch anges in hunting techniques; snowmobiles, capable of driving down the herds, automatic guns, telescopic sights. Now did the honourable member, who was Mini ster of Natural Resources, or his government, suggest that the law had to be changed? No, Mr. Chairman, because that wasn't the route to go to get Native people co-operative and working for conservation of the resource, didn' t go at it from a confrontationist point of view to change the law arbitrarily; no, get the co-operation of Native people and that was the initiative. I, Mr.

Chairman, as a succeeding Min ister was happy with that kind of precedent. That's the kind of initia tive that will restore and maintain critical herds. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have today in respect to our moose resource in particular, is that we've been building more and more roads in the North to extract resources. We have many more miles of resource access roads and that has a detrimental effect on the wildlife species, because now hunters are able to get access to resources that were otherwise very difficult and they have now been able to harvest or take a great many more animals. Mr.

Chairman, I was asked a specific about the number of acres of deer habi tat that have been lost. I refer to Page 31 in the report, the penultimate paragra ph, "Deer in Manitoba are facing a steady decrease in habitat because of clearing of woodland for agriculture and urban development. Habit scarcity will become even more serious during the next decade when a further 20 percent loss is expected to occur." The actual habitat loss apparently is referred on Page 98 of the report when an estimated 51,800 hectares - pardon me, I'll have to convert that, Mr.

Chairman - of upland cover and 12, 000 hectares of wetlands are bulldozed and drained for conversion to cropland each 1 year. Agricultural practices such as burning, cropping to the edge of marshes and intensive livestock grazing further reduce the capability of thousands of hectares of habita t to support wildlife. Those are the specifics that I'm able to provide from the report, Mr. Chairman. MR. B. RANSOM: First of all, let me say to the Min ister and correct the record that I didn' t, anywhere, say that the Treaty Indian people had been responsible for the elimination of any species from the province.

I'm quoting to the Min ister from the Five-Year Report, on Page 14 9, it says that, in extreme cases, the viability of some wildlife populations could be jeopardized. That 's where I'm quoting from, Mr. Chairman.

That wasn't a statement that I had put together on my own and statements such as the one on Page 21 where, even complete closure to licensed hunting will not reverse the decline in the provincial herd because of Treaty Indian harvest of cows and calves, indicates that there is an extremely serious problem, and it is one, by the way, which we were in the process of putting together recommendations for 2510

Monday, 9 May, 1983 Cabinet in terms of dealing with this and dealing with it differently than the question of the Kaminuriak caribou herd was dealt with because the two situations are entirely different. What one has with the caribou herd is a situation where the Native people are the only people who have direct involvement with that herd of animals, and if the herd is eliminated, they are going to be the people who are going to suffer the most. There isn't another group of people that's involved to the extent that is the case with the moose population, Mr. Chairman. It's entirely different.

In respect to moose, there are thousands of other people who have a direct interest involved as well. Furthermore, the same basics app ly, in terms of trying to optimize the production. Why is it that the Min ister says that in terms of applying restrictions on the hunting methods that are used by Indian people - and I stress again, this is not a call to limit the numbers that they could take or the time of year that they could take them, but only the methods.

Why does the Min ister insist that that has to be done with the consent of the Indian people any more than the other people who use our wildlife resource could only be asked to conform to the general provisions of The Wildlife Act with their consent? HON. A. MA CKUNG: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain wants me, and obviously my colleagues, to develop a controntationist attitude in respect to Treaty Indi an people in respect to changes in the manner in which they conceive is in their interest to hunt. I'm not prepared to adopt a confrontationist attitude.

I have earlier indicated and I don't know why the honourable member has difficulty and wants to distinguish between the Treaty Indi an Bands at Lac Brochet in respect to the barren-ground caribou. I earlier indicated that it is not this government's adoption, it has been governments for years and years. have adopted as a priority usage of wildlife, that domestic use, that is, Treaty Indian use of wildlife was the priorty over recreational use of wildlife. It wasn't the priority I established, Mr. Chairman, since our government came to office.

I found that there; I found that implemented by the previous administration and presumably the administration before. So the people who are most affected have the prior right above the recreational hunters from United States or from other parts of Canada or from Manitoba. The prior right is that of the Treaty Indi an and he or she has a vested interest in that resource. in the moose resource, and the y are as much affected by any diminution of that resource where they have relied upon it trad itio nally for part of the ir food, as tho se communities that were relying on food from the barren­ ground caribou herds.

The principle is the same because of the adoption of the priority that governments have given over the years not just recent years, many, many years in respect to the domestic use of wildlife by Treaty Indian people. So, Mr. Chairman, I say that we are involved in a consultative process. We want the people who have most at stake in connection with the resource. who have the priority in use of that resource to be involved, actively involved in promoting conservation. I think. Mr.

Chairman, we will get that kind of commitment; we are getting it now in some areas in respect to some Treaty Ind ian Bands where they have seen a diminution of the resource and they are anxious about it. We need co­ operation, we need their assistance to go otherwise and try and force people to try and exhibit conservation is very difficult and the rewards may be very, very slight. That's not to say that we're not concerned to make every effort to encourage people to conserve but to try and force conservation on people who have great sensitivity at this point about their rights is, I think, the wrong way to go.

MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, how does the Mini ster see this approach working? How will it be applied in the field? He's going to talk to the Indian people, that's fine. But how does he actually see it working? HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Chairman, staff have had conversations with bands, in particular, band councils have ind icated a concern about this, a concern to monitor any hunting to try to ensure that certain types of animals are not harvested. For example, the concern in the report is that Treaty Indian hunting has, in some areas, had a significant effect on moose because of hunting of cows and calves.

We have, I belie ve, established a considerable measure of agreement in respect to some areas in respect to that form of hunting and that is significant. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, how is this respect evidenced, Mr. Chairman? What can we expect to see? Are we going to see the Indian people voluntarily agreeing to comply with laws that everyone else has, or is it going to be on the system where it's simply up to the invidual to decide whether they comply? How is it going to work? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, the band and council of Treaty Indian Band in an area where it is, from our analysis, an area where moose are in decline because of the nature of the kill, we are seeking their co-operation to hunt certain species only, to limit the number of their kills. We have an ind ication from at least some bands, that they are prepared to do that. It's too early to say to you today, yes, we have this formal or informal agreement with this band and there has been a reduction.

We are actively working at that; we expect that there will be in the statistics file because we do get a return on kills by Treaty Indian people - that there will be a change in hunting pattern. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking primarily about the hunting methods. Has the Min ister even talked to Indian Bands about placing restrictions on hunting methods and equipment, as separate from any type of limitation as to season and bag limits? HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Chairman, I won't elaborate at any length. I have had some discussion personally, I say some, I haven't engaged in extensive discussion.

I know the department has had discussion; we have ongoing discussions at the present time with Treaty Indian Bands on these questions. MR. B. RANSOM: Does the Min ister agree that it would be possible to amend The Natural Resources Transfer 25 11

Monday, 9 May, 1983 Act in order to make it possible to carry out those provisions in the treaties that said that the government could, in fact, apply laws governing hunting of game - I forget the exact wording - from time to time? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I would hesitate to give an answer to that question because I haven't really weighed the difficulties. I know that it would involve considerable controversy.

I would assume that because of the sensitivity about rights that now exist by virtue of the concerns about entrenchment of rights in the Charter, that the process would not be an easy one if it were decided to be embarked upon. I think that, Mr. Chairman, we are facing up to the fact that there is no quick, simple way to answer the concerns; that it's an involved process, one that will work ii there is goodwill, consultation and a dedicated purpose of conservation on the part of all people concerned. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, there's goodwill and dedication on the part of all people about conservation, whether they're Indi ans or whether they're not Indians, but governments have found it necessary to legislate conservation and to legislate controls over the harvest of game. I know of no situation where it has ever worked, that it could be done on a voluntary basis when you have public ownership of the resource, such as, we do in our country. The Mi nister continues to talk about rights. Our position is, Mr.

Chairman, that we are not talking about a right when we talk about the hunting methods; we're talking about a right when we talk about hunting, generally, but not with respect to the hunting methods that are involved. You will find, if one looks at what is going on in the country, that the Federal Government has always had, and has always practiced, the right that was given to them under the Treaties to place restrictions, not only on the methods of equipment to be used in hunting, but also to limit the Indi an people to seasons and bag limits; the Federal Government is able to do that under the Treaties.

What the problem has been was that when the responsibility for the resources was transferred to the provinces, that right was not fully transferred to the provinces. The courts have since determined that the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement doesn't give that right to the province, to place restrictions on the Native people. For the Mi nister to conclude that we're dealing here with a question of rights, when it hasn't been tested to that point, I think is an abrogation of his responsibility.

Surely everyone wants to see people getting along and avoiding a confrontation, if possible, but one should not be attempting to avoid confrontation with one group by abrogating responsibilities to another group, Mr. Chairman.

I'm afraid that if the Minis ter simply takes the position that it is a right of the Treaty Indi an people to hunt by whatever means they wish, then I think that the Min ister is incorrect in taking that position, and that he should be examining that position to determine whether or not it could, in all likelihood, succeed; and then if he wishes to go to the Treaty Indi an people and say, look we've got a problem and it's getting more serious, and we have the right to make changes in the legislation; we would like your support for doing it, but we recognize that in the end we're going to have to act because it's in the overall public interest to do so.

Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of approach that I would hope that the Mi nister would be willing to undertake, because thi s problem is very very serious. One can try and make it seem as though it isn't as serious as it really is and you can go back and talk about what the United States Army did to the buffalo, or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is a very serious problem, both in terms of the status of some wildlife populations, as well as the social tensions that have been created. I know some members didn't like to talk about that when we were debating the resolution.

The fact of the matter is there are social tensions that exist because of this because most people don't fully understand the kinds of rights that were given to the Native people under the Treaties. We have had situations, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the Attorney-General is aware of it, where a person's life was lost as a consequence of an incident relating to night hunting.

So it is not just a hypothetical issue that we're dealing with here, it's a very real issue when one gets out in the field and talks to people who feel threatened, both in terms of their own physical safety, by the kind of activities that are going on out there by a small minority of the people who have the right - I would want to stress that. There are a lot of other people who feel threatened by that; there are a lot of other people out there who feel threatened because their access to the resource is disappea ring.

I acknowledge that the Native people have the first call on it; I think we were probably the first government to set that down in writing, that we acknowledged that they had the first call of it, but there are things that can be done that will protect both the basic rights that the Treaty Indian people have, as well as provide some access for other people to the resource as well. Unless we can accomplish that, Mr. Chairman, then this is going to be a problem that will be much more serious next year and the year after when we're back before this committee. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Hour being 4:30 we are interrupting the proceedings of this committee for Private Members' Hour. SUPPLY - NORTHERN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs. Does the Minis ter have an introductory statement to make? HON. J. COWAN: I do, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. It's a pleasure and a privilege to be able to introduce the Northern Affairs Estimates for the upcoming fiscal year, that of 19 83- 19 84.

I'd like to precede the line­ by-line in detailed review of those Estimates with a few opening remarks which I believe will provide an overview for the members opposite, and through them to others of the activities of the department of the past year. I'll also spend a few moments addressing some of the anticipated actions which we believe may be of more significance for the upcoming year. However, I hasten to add that I will not cover all of them at this time, but 2512

Monday, 9 May, 1983 will use much of the debate on the line-by-line part of the Estimates to go into more detail on them. Mr. Chairperson, these are not easy times for any level of government. As you are aware difficult economic circumstances confront each and every elected body and elected official as we seek to meet increased demands for programs and services with in the context of limited resources. These are times that challenge us all to work together to meet those needs in a creative, compassionate and co-operative fashion.

Nowhere is that more true than in the Department of Northern Affairs or in the No rthern Affair s communities, where even in the best of times there ha ve never been enough resource s to meet longstanding and historical ina dequacies in a totally comprehensive manner. So this year in that regard is little different. For the scores of communities that are Northern Affairs communities, times have always been hard. In spite of that history and the present day circumstances of the economy, I would suggest that we have managed to make some progress in many important years over the past number of months.

We have had to chart our course with care and with caution to ensure that wherever possible we were able to use the lowest possible cost solution to meet existing problems and that's what we mean by creativ ity. We've had to test new ideas, new programs, new policies and new projects against their cost efficiencies and their antici pated benefits in order to maximize the value of our very limited dollars. This has not always been an easy task. Certainly there have been many disagreements on what provided for the appropriate course of action.

There have been disagreements as to what might be the most cost-efficient way to solve a problem. There have been disagreements about the timing by which we would address those problems. There have been dif ferences of opinio ns about the relative value judgments on programs and projects and policies of all sorts and that was to be antici pated when we knew right from the start that we would be un able to accomplish all that we felt needed to be accomplished.

Our departmental staff knew well from their own experienc es over a number of years th at th ese dif ferences when th ey did exis t , that th ese disagreements when they did arise could best be resolved through co-operation and flexibility. It is exactly that approach that allow for the effective resolution of many difficult situations. Staff were prepared to work with, and indeed they did work with the elected officials at all levels to iden tify both problems and solutions.

In this way we were able to resolve difficulties in a manner that proved acceptable in most instances to all the in volved and affected in div id uals. As a department I believe we learned many important lessons from the past years of difficult economic times. In some sense the approach of creative co-operation is as much a product of our times today as it is a part of any philosophy which we carry with us as a political party or a movement. It arises out of a need which we all share to make the most of what we have.

It is also true in these days that we all have to accept less than we would under other circumstances. It's a reality that we don't wish to see carry on any longer than necessary but we know that under the circumstances of the day, it is indeed something which we must face up at this time. So we have to be prepared to accept less than we would under other times.

Having said that I want to talk briefly about the Northern Development Agreement because I believe this is one of tho se areas; that the No rthern Development Agreement is a recent example of a government that accepted less than it would have under different circumstances. After a number of years of both negotiations and extentions, a New Northern Development Agreement was finally signed on November 29, 1982.

I for one have been quick to agree with those that suggest that this new federal-provincial initiative is not a perfect agreement, nor is it all that we would wish to see, and certainly it is a product of negotiations. If it were up to the province alone - certainly that's not the case when we're dealing with federal-provincial agreements - but had that been the case, had it been up to us to shape that multimillion dollar agreement, I can assure you that it would take on a somewhat different form than it now has. As a province we were prepared to commit more dollars to many parts of the agreement.

As a province, we felt that there should be more money provided for infrastructure in the agreement. As a province, we felt that there was a need for more cost-sharing of economic delivery and development monies. We would have preferred a much stronger provincial input into certain delivery mechanisms that are a part of the agreement. Those are the types of positions that we laid on the table and we negotiated with the Federal Government. The agreement that we got back, as a result of those negotiations in difficult times, is not perfect and we did not sign it because it was perfect.

We signed it because it was needed and it was workable, that it provided for something by way of economic development, social development and the development of human resources in those difficult times. It must also be said that even with all its limitations, this new agreement has much to offer in regard to the de velopment of the North. It provides for the contin uation and enha ncement of exis ting programming, a policy that has proved successful in the past. Programs, such as BUNTEP, are continued.

Expansions of programs based on that format such as ACCESS are being included in the agreement, and we are building upon their successful format of previous programs. The agreement also calls for a significant inflow of federal money into Northern Manitoba through direct delivery programs on the part of the Federal Government. This aspect of the agreement has been criticized by many and , in fact, as I ind icated earlier, were it up to the Provincial Government alone, we certainly would have had it a different way.

The agreement, however, does commit the Federal Government to spending tens of millions of dollars in the North over the next number of years. It also provides for that money to be spent on programs that are developed in consultation with both the Provincial Government and the communities they are intended to serve. Of course, the same can also be said for the direct delivery provincial programming that is included in the agreement. So while we would have had it differently had we been able to do so, we do believe that in these 2513

Monday, 9 May, 1983 difficult times to get the Federal Government to commit that sort of money to the North, even if they're going to deliver it in a direct way, is an accomplishment in itself. It must also be said that to my knowledge no other province has been able to negotiate even that with the Federal Government over the past number of years in respect to Northern Development Agreements, that we stood alone in that area. I think we have to take some pleasure in the fact that we did accomplish even that.

Another important initia tive that is contained in the agreement is a provision that has been made for client and target groups to be involved in decision-making at all levels of implementation. I just returned from an Agreement Adviso ry Committee meeting in Thompson last week at which we had representatives of the various groups which are represented on the Advisory Committee. We talked about the agreement in general terms.

We talked about where we had been able to go in four months; we talked about where we wanted to go over the next period of time; we talked about some of the problems that we're having in getting the agreement up and running, up into speed. We talked about how we wanted to solve those problems. We talked about how we wanted to expand the knowledge about the agreement and bring more people into the decision-making process. That, to me, is one of the key parts of this new agreement.

Not the money, that's important; not the provision for infrastructure development, that's important; not the provision for the development of economic opportunities and human resources, that too is important, but the opportunity for those who are going to be most affected by the programs to be able to involve themselves in a meaningful way in shaking that program and making it work. That is somewhat new, something we had to argue for when we were discussing what final shape that program would take. It is something which we acc omplished.

I look forward to talking about that part of the program, as well as the monies, with the members opposite because I think it is in fact an example which can be and should be used by other jurisdictions and by ourselves in other ins tances to develop more meaningful participation by client and target groups in programs which affect them. This expanded process for reviewing progress, developing the general thrust of the agreement, will allow for a more responsive program that can meet the needs of those and the needs that are thought by those that are most affected to be most important.

So the re we have it, a New Northern Development Agreement, a total of $18 6.2 million of which probably only a $1 00 million to $1 05 million is money that is directly related to the agreement. However, we put it together in a package, and we believe that package in the final result has benefits which outweigh any disadvantages of it. Most assuredly, it is not all that it could be, and probably is not all that it could nor should be, but an agreement that does provide for continued and expanded progr amming and for meaningful involvement by northerners in the development of the North is before you.

For those reasons, I am pleased to commend it to you. The past year we've also seen the publication of the report of the Treaty Land Entitlement Commission. At the same time we've undertaken the discussion of its recommendations with the Federal Government, with the Treaty Land Entitlement Chiefs, and of course we've been represented as a Provincial Government in those discussions. The report itself and the recommendations contained therein have provided a productive and a positive focus for the discussions which are still ongoing.

As I have indicated earlier in this House, in response to questions from the Member for Turtle Mountain, it will still be several months before those discussions are completed. However, I can sincerely state at this time that the meetings that we have had to date have been both productive and positive. I am optimistic that through that sort of dialogue, which started with the public hearings, we will be able to resolve this longstanding issue. As a Provincial Governm