ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publl•hed under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• Welding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 618 - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 5 MAY, 1983. Printed by the Offlce of the O,_,,s Pnnter, Province Of Men/,_

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 Minnedosa 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 Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 5 May, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee please come to order. We are now considering Item No. 7.(c)

(1) Forestry Development and Economics: Salaries. 7.(c)(1)-p ass; 7.(c)(2)- pass; 7.(d)( 1)- pass; 7.(d)(2)­ pass; 7.(e)( 1)- pass; 7.(e)(2)- pass; 7.(e)(3) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could have an indication here from the Minister as to the seriousness of the Dutch Elm situation. It is one that we all know has been developing in the province ever since about 1975. I recall taking some steps while we were in government by way of bringing in The Dutch Elm Disease Control Act and providing some additional funding. I believe the Minister expanded the program last year.

There has been some fear that the programs that are in place, particularly in the City of Winnipeg, simply aren't adequate to contain the problem that Winnip eg may face - the kind of difficulty that Minneapolis faced - in having a burgeoning disease problem there that lost, I think, hundreds of thousands of trees and costs millions and millions of dollars for the city to try and control. So I would appreciate having an upda te from the Min ister as to what's been happening in Manitoba and how serious he views the situation in the City of Winnipeg? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Laws has given me a bit of a fact sheet here that does, by way of a brief synopsis, provide some relevant information in respect to Dutch Elm Disease. In 19 82-83, the Provincial Government entered into 26 cost-sharing agreements with urban and rural municipalities in Manitoba and I will read the list for the purpose of Dutch Elm Disease Control. Negotiations are presently going on with a number of other communities who will qu ite likely become involved in the program as well in 1983-84.

The ones where negotiations are going on are Gladstone, Altona, the R.M. of Cornwallis, the Town of Rivers and the R.M. of Gimli, among others. The 26 cost-sharing agreement communities are the R.M. of Glenwood, the Town of Morris, the Town of Neepawa, the Town of Manitou, the Town of Virden, the Town of Ste. Anne, the Town of Stonewall, Minn edosa, Ha rtney, Pina wa, Morden, Bran don, Portage la Prairie, Pine Falls, Boissevain, Carman, Deloraine, Dauphin, Emerson, Selkirk, Lac du Bonnet, Winkler, Killarney, Winnipeg, Gimli, Souris.

In the City of Winnipeg in addition to cost-sharing to the extent of $350,000, the provinces also granted the city a special agreement for $60,000 to facilitate 2451 the removal of diseased and decadent elm trees along the waterways surrounding Winnipeg. Some particular work activities in conjunction with the Department of Community Services and Corrections and the muni cipali ty involved, the department participated in buffering programs or removed diseased and decadent elms surrounding the cities of Brandon, Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg.

The contribution by the Foresty Branch to these projects was $11, 000, a further $11, 000 and $12 6, 10 0 respectively. Thes e projects created five to six months of employment in excess of 10 0 people. The City of Selkirk and the R.M. of Br oken head obtained federal mone y through Community Development and NEED respectively to carry out river bank and flood plain elm clean-up projects. Both communi ties were given technical support by our department as required. Mr.

Chairman, we also have I believe a clean-up of dead elms along the Brokenhead River where there was a virtual elimination of the wild elms along that stream. The elms were falling into the river creating a buildup of debris such that flooding would be enhanced along the river. That program has been completed. It cost about $500,000.00. In respect to this disease itself there's no question but that it continues to spread.

We have, in addition to the programs outlined, been involved in advertising in connection with the need for sanitation on the part of individuals in respect to their elms, being careful to look out for the onset of the disease. One area that we want the assistance of all individuals is in respect to the removal of wood, either the limbs, or the branches, or the trunks of elms, because it's in the bark of the dead wood that the beetle lives and winters. We have an ongoing program and there's no question that we could even do more than we're doing. The disease will continue probably to run its course.

To be quite candid I think the best we can hope for is to, as far as possible, protect the elms in our communities so that the disease will not eliminate all of the elms. I mentioned our public ity. We have developed pamphlets in connection with it and we have also advertised on billboards. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, why is the amount of money down? HON. A. MACKLING: We had budgeted for more money in the previous year than actually was taken up. There were communities that didn't take up the program and this year we believe that we have sufficient money to cover those communities that will execute an agreement.

I might say also that to date where we have a control program, our success rate has been very good. It's indicated to me that our losses of elms where we have an active program is less than 1 percent. MR. B. RANSOM: Can the Minister tell us how many trees were lost in the City of Winnipeg each year for the last five years?

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 HON. A. MA CKLING: We don't have that information, I'm sure that we could get it. It is the city's responsibility to record because they do have their program and it's share-costed with us. MR. B. RANSOM: Has the city asked for any further assistance from the province beyond what the province is providing? HON. A. MACKLING: I'm advised, Mr.

Chairman, not at the present time - although this whole area is under active review at all times - the initiatives that I talked about were brought about, I think, largely by the provincial impetus to look at ways of containing the spread of the disease primarily in the fringe areas of Winnipeg. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the numbers of trees that have been diseased in the City of Winnip eg have been going up fairly significantly over the past few years.

Perhaps it is not a dir ect resp onsibili ty of the Mini ster of Natural Resources, but is the Minister of Natural Resources not concerned that there may be consequences even beyond the city in areas that the Minister does have greater responsibility? If the city doesn't have an adequate control program in place, has he discussed with the city the possibility, for instance, under the Jobs Fund of providing some extra funds to help limit the spread of the disease in the city? HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I'm given to understand that our discussions with the city are such that the city has indicated they are quite satisfied with the control program to date. As I've indicated the success rate is very good, less than 1 percent loss. I don't know what further I can add. In respect to the developments in the fringe area, they were of the nature of job creative work and I think they were highly successful. So far as within the city itself, of course, if the city is prepared to spend more I think that we'd be prepared to look at that.

By and large I believe that the towns and the R.M.s, like every other government, have been feeling somewhat restricted in their spending and that's to be understood. There could be a larger take-up in this program if there were more dollars available. MR. B. RANSOM: This is one of those cases I think, Mr.

Chairman, where money should not be cut if it's the desire of a municipal government or the provincial government to control this disease, because if it isn't controlled at the very early stages then it's inevitable that there will be greater expenditures later on which would simply mean then that either it's allowed to go out of control and we'll lose the most beautiful shade tree that we have, or else the necessary money is spent to keep it in check.

I think the experience has been elsewhere, in Minneapolis especially, that when the money wasn't spent it ended up costing far far more money later on to try and hold it in check. I hope that the Minister is doing everything that he can. In this case he's indicated that less money is required this year than was required before but I'd urge him to take a special interest in this area and provide the funding that's necessary to try and keep an active and effective program going or we're going to lose this shade tree throughout much of the province. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I can assure the honourable member that I am very interested in the problem and have had a number of discussions with both Alan Scarth - his son has written a treatise on this subject - I also had dialogue with the gentleman in Minneapolis who was the lead person in respect to their Dutch Elm Disease Program. I need no reinforcement in respect to my concerns in that respect. We have a very very valuable resource in the elms we have and we certainly don't want to lose them.

One of my concerns and the department is looking at this to obtain the largest or the highest possible involvement of volunteers and individuals that have elms on their property in Winnipeg, to assist us in ensuring that the disease does not spread. It's not merely sanitation in respect to dead limbs and the wood itself, but I've asked staff to look at ways in which, perhaps, we can get the chemical Dursbanphonetic which, when sprayed in the lower trunk of the tree in the fall, acts as an excellent way of ensuring that the beetle does not have a happy wintering ground.

One of the problems we've had is that Dursban hasn't been licensed for domestic use. I would like to see it licensed in a manner in which we could get it out to individuals in small quantities so that they could make application to their own elms. We have some road blocks in connection with that, but hopefully we will be able to overcome them. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, just a little further on this same question. My colleague asked a little while ago about any estimate of the number of trees that have been lost, perhaps we can arrive at it another way.

Is the department furnishing municipalities and the City of Winnipeg with replanting stock? I'm aware that other varieties are being introduced, such as the Japanese Elm, but is that part of our assistance? Where do the municipalities go to to get replacement stock? HON. A. MACKLING: I'm advised that the city is provi ding it's own stock, but we do assist them somewhat on that. MR. H. ENNS: You have no figure, for instance, as to the amount of trees that the department has provided generally in this area, in this program, specifically for replacement for trees that have been lost to the Dutch Elm disease? HON. A.

MACKLING: We don't have the specifics here; I think that information could be obtained. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the program that is in effect in the city is limited in the first instance, to the city property, city boulevards, city lands. I'm aware that there's authority for the city to act on private property to have trees removed, but just how does that relate to diseased trees on private property? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I consulted somewhat longer with Mr. Laws on this because it really 2452

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 isn't within our department, but we are aware of the fact that the city under their program, they can enter on private property and remove the diseased elm. I think that more can be done in respect to getting more volunteer effort, more appreciation on the part of the citizens of Winnipeg, the citizens of Manitoba, as to the nature of the disease and the way in which sanitation can reduce the incidence of the disease. We are very concerned to get that information to the citizens of Manitoba generally.

I mentioned the billboards, they are up in the City of Winnipeg, but the pamph let material and the general information is to be used right throughout Manitoba. MR. H. ENNS: What is the problem about certification of the particular chemical that the Minister referred to that appears to be useful in the prevention of the disease? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the chemical is authorized for use by government in the program. The problem is getting certification for the use by individuals.

It is presumably considered to be a relatively volatile chemical if not properly used and care must be taken in respect to its use by individuals. There is some concern about getting another chemical that could affect health if not properly used. Like all chemicals, there is a reluctance I think on the part of government to get more chemicals out in public use. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, the difficulty though is - I appr eciate that it is a preventive measure not a cure - but if the alternative is a massive and substantial loss of shade trees, then some crash program or effort ought to be considered to find a way of wider and more consistent use of this chemical. I just leave that matter with the Minister and reiterate what the Member for Turtle Mountain said. It would seem to me a program that lends itself to the kind of things that this government has talked about in terms of their job creation, their Jobs Fund Program.

The Minister looks for greater volunteer efforts, which of course is to be encouraged particularly as it relates to trees on private property, but under the direction of the departmental and city staff where that expertise exists, it would seem to be the kind of program that lends itself to a bit of innovation on the part of the department, on the part of the government to see whether we can't redouble our efforts in this regard.

Again on the application of this chemical, if it can't be allowed to be in the hands of the general public then a crash course with some student help, currently and anxiously looking for some jobs, in providing them with some grounding and basic training in the proper application, the handling of this chemical. These are some of the suggestions that I would make to the Minister to give serious consideration to try and save or to lessen the impact of the disease on Winnipeg's beautiful shade trees, the elm. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the honourable member.

If one looks at many parts of the City of Winnipeg, the elms add so much to the character of the residential neigh bou rhoods, that without them the city would look very stark indeed. We have, as I've indicated, successfully empl oyed in excess of 10 0 people for six months of employment in the past programs. I'm hopeful we'll be able to do more of that again this corning winter, and in respect to the need to get this chemical certified we are pursuing that with the Federal Government. But the Federal Government has many many chemicals that they have to check and you kind of stand in line. MR.

CH AIRMAN: 7.(e)(3 )- pass; 7.(f)( 1) - pass; 7.(f)(2)- pass; 7.(g)(1) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: This funding, under the Northern Development Agreement, I assume that's part of the Northern Development Agreement so proudly signed by the Minister of Northern Affairs November 29, 1982, a five-year $18 6.2 million agreement. Was this an ongoing program under the Northlands Agreement prior to this year? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I'm given to understand that this is not cost-shared with the Federal Government. MR. B. RANSOM: Why does it show under the Northern Development Agreement then?

HON. A. MACKLING: I'm given to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement provides for three methods of payment of projects. One parHs 100 percent federal; another portion of the agreement provides for delivery of services that are 10 0 percent provincial; and another portion of the agreement, another part, is cost­ shared. The details of that would be available through Northern Affairs, who have the agreement. MR. B. RANSOM: Is this amount of money part of the $18 6.2 million agreement then which has provision for funding directly from the province, directly from the Federal Government, or cost-shared? HON. A.

MACKLING: This one? I've indicated it was 10 0 percent provincial. MR. B. RANSOM: But is it part of the $18 6.2 million Northern Development Agreement? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes. MR. B. RANSOM: And is it an extension of an ongoing program that was in place previously? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(g)(1)-p ass; 7.(g)(2)- pass. Resolution No. 12 2: Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7, 17 7, 10 0 for Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1984 -p ass. 8.(a) ( 1) Fisheries, Admin istration: Salaries - Mr. Minister. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you.

I welcome to share with me the question box here, Worth Hayden, who I think needs no introduction to most people here. Worth 2453

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 is in charge of the Fisheries section. By way of introduc tion, I'd like to ind icate that pu rsuant to arrangements that Worth and his staff effected, I did, along with my colleagues, spend some very happy hours - although some of them I admit were a bit tedious travelling - meeting with some very friendly people, but very concerned people, in fishing commu nities in Northern Manitoba. I recall one visit with great vividness when Mr. Carter, I think, Mr. Hayden and others and myself were at Oxford House for a meeting with the Oxford House community.

Although it was relatively early in the fall, there was a tremendous snowstorm and we spent the night in Oxford House. We spent a very pleasant time there, but we have had the benefit of meeting first­ hand with many people in the communities in the North involved in commercial fishing and getting to appreciate first-hand their assessment of the problems or the needs in the fishing industry. It was a very useful experience and I hope this coming summer to learn more about the other half of our commercial fishing and that is our sports fishery.

I look forward to that and I might say that almost the most recurrent request from commercial fishermen was a concern, in light of the diminished prices and in light of their escalating costs, to receive a greater quota. It is not easy to deal with those earnest requests because one appreciates the fact that fisherman, like farmers, are faced with this squeeze. a reduction in price of the commodity they sell, while the commodities they need for their industry keep going up. We have made some changes to quotas in some areas and I'll deal with the specifics of that as members request. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, some general questions on this Administration item and prior to coming to the specific areas of concern in this division, Commercial Fishing and Sport Fishing. Mr. Chairman, the department had some difficulties, I was given to understand, in the last year or the last few years with the disease in the hatcheries.

Can that be confirmed and the question of course, the concern of course, is did that have any serious impact on our stocking program, generally speaking, level the stocking program that we have traditionally carried on in the province? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the honourable member is correct. There was some pr obl em in hatcheries at Grand Rapids and the Whiteshell in respect to a disease affecting trout for sports fishery stocking primarily.

It did not affect our commercial white fish and pickerel stocking but did impact on the exchange of trout, which takes place with other jurisdictions normally, and did involve loss in respect to the trout being diseased and had to be destroyed. The problem has not been fully eradicated. The department is still working on it. MR. H.

ENNS: Can the Minister - it's always of interest to members of the committee to appreciate just what the department is doing in this area - give us some idea of what kind of stocking was done and we'll break it down in the commercial area, and as well in the sports area what is the level of stocking of the important species of fish? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the commercially stocked waters in 1982, Lake Winnipeg, 6.5 million whitefish; Lake Manitoba, 48 million walleye, 2 million whitefish; Lake St. Martin, 6 million whitefish; Lake Dauphin, 14 million whitefish. I've just rounded these figures.

In respect to further 19 82 commercial stocking, Pelican Lake, 20 million whitefish fry; Archie's Lake - most everyone knows where Archie's Lake is but the Minister -1, 500,000 whitefish fry; and Moose Lake East Arm, 2 million whitefish fry; an experimental stocking in Landry Lake near The Pas, 2 million whitefish fry. MR. H. ENNS: This is the normal stocking ratios that have been applied to our rates, or are the up, are the down, or are there reasons if they're down, money restraints? HON. A.

MACKLING: The stocking program does vary from year to year somewhat, primarily depending on the success of obtaining the spawn and the emphasis the department feels is necessary in respect to different species. Presently there is more emphasis on walleye than on whitefish, that is for the current year. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the relationship with the department, the government and fishermen is always a matter of concern and sometimes somewhat tenuous.

On the Lake Winnipeg Fisheries an advisory board was operating and my question to the Minister, I assume that the board is still in effect, operating and acting as an advice-giving counsel to the department, to the Director of Fisheries on matters pertaining to the fisheries on Lake Winnipeg? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, they're functioning very well, I believe, and as a matter of fact there was a meeting just today which staff attended. MR. H.

ENNS: Just covering off another small size and that has to do with some of the difficulties that have cropped up particularly on the Lake Manitoba Fisheries, the problem of net sizing and the enforcement of fishermen using the appropriate net size in their fisheries. We had quite a discussion about this several years now running when we got to this point in the Estimates.

There is a problem of control of the quality of the manufacture of the nets, I understand, that has created problems in the past both for the fishermen and for the department, the net result being that nets have been decl ared illegal, that fishermen in their judgment felt they were purchased in good faith with the appropr iate mesh size. The de partment I know has looked at more convenient or simpler ways of providing the measuring tool that would tell the fishermen quickly as to its elegibility for use in a given fishery.

The system now in place, I believe it's called the Allen measurement, has its problems associated with it. It seemed to me at the time although I must confess that we resolved 2454

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 the issue when it was my responsibility, that there ought to have been some simpler way of coming to grips with this matter and qu ite frankly also a less expensive way as I'm given to understand. So, Mr. Chairman, I invite the Minister to tell me how he has resolved the problems that I failed to resolve when it was my job. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't record such humour about the problems but I appr eciate the humour of the fact that these issues are not readily solved. They don't lend themselves to easy solution.

However , in respect to the net sizing problem, I concur with the honourable member that the guages or the devices for measuring to me seem to be a bit too intricate. I believe that a much simpler device could be developed. As a matter of fact, I've suggested to my staff that a simple wooden cone with graduations marked on it could be developed so that the net sizes could be determined fairly qu ickly and very inexpensively. I'm sure my department's going to be looking at that thought.

In respect to the net problem, I know that some of my colleagues - I specifically recall the Honourable John Bucklaschuk talking to me about the idea of having nets manufactured in Manitoba - we use a great many nets in this province and most of them come from places like Japan and Korea. I think I certainly want to see a review of all of the potential for initiative here in respect to the fishing industry. I agree with the honourable member that there have been complaints by fishermen that the sizing was inadequate by the manufacturer and that's led to some problems.

As to misunderstandings about the area for using different sizes, I think that the system has over the years finally established where approp riate sizes are to be used. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Minister, that of course is one that fishermen will take issue with the department from time to time, and one has to yield to the best biological advice that the department can bring to bear on the subj ect matter and one won't always find an agreement among the fishermen.

But the specific concern was that at the wholesale or retail level, nets were being sold, purported to be meeting the regulations and fishermen then purchased them on that basis. The Member for Interlake is aware of what I am speaking of and under those circumstances I think the fishermen really were wanting some consumer protection, if you lik e in a sense that they were purchased in the belief that they would meet the regulations set forth by the department.

Then upon inspection on-site in the lake, either because of the quality of the manufacture or other reasons they were found to be in some instances microscopically out of line with the requirements of the department. That's pretty tough on the fisherman when he has 40 or 50 nets yanked out from under him. There was some effort made, I believe to contact the suppliers of the nets in question. We are after all, Mr. Minister, not speaking about a commodity that is being sold at every corner grocery store. There are relatively few outlets, there are relatively few dealers.

I suspect one can number them on your hand that are importing these nets, where these nets are being sold or made available to fishermen, very often through their co-operatives and it seems to me it should not be that difficult to either have those nets pass muster before they ever get into the fishermen's hands.

In other words to have departmental people from time to time meet with the sellers of the nets, the distributors of the nets and either declare nets, a certain quality of nets, certain types of nets unfit for fisheries' use in Manitoba, then at least the fishermen know that in advance prior to the purchase of them and prior to their being put in place in service in the lakes. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I know that the honourable member would welcome a suggestion that I go over to Japan and check with the manufacturers MR. B. RANSOM: Have Cherniack do it while he's over there. HON. A.

MACKLING: . . . but I really have declined to do that thus far. Seriously we have put pressure on the distributors of the nets because the manufacturers are not here in Manitoba, I think the major distributors being Lecky's in freshwater fish and asked them in turn to demand qu ality and precision from the manufacturers. But as the honourable member has pointed out, the net result is that it is a difficult problem for the fishermen. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister makes an intriguing suggestion. I am going to take it up with him, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, I will make a deal with him.

He goes to Japan and talks to the Japanese about straightening up their manufacturing process on nets, and I'll go to Washington and talk to the Americans about Garrison. We'll see how well we make out. HON. A. MACKLING: I think we'll go together Harry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(a)( 1) - pass - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, one more item on this general item. It's not a new one, but I raise it because it is a perennial problem and one that the fishing industry in Manitoba should continually try to resolve.

That is the issue of better utilization of upwards to - I don't want to use figures that I am not totally familiar with now anymore, but anyway they are in the millions and millions of pounds of rough fish that are available, in some instances, in fact are a problem to the fisheries industry and that some continuing effort be expended by the department to resolve the issue or try to find some beneficial way of turning that now dormant resource into a useful resource both by the fisherman and for the province.

In this connection I do want to acknowledge the work that one Dennis Herendy (phonetic) was doing and bringing at least some interest to bear on the part of, in this case the west coast, Japane se people that were at one point in time getting pretty interested and coming up with some pretty attractive-looking proposals that could utilize this resource. It required, and it would requ ire some accommo dation on the part of the 2455

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 Freshwater Fish Marketing Board to set the proper climate for somebody to seriously take a look at the situation. Certainly prior to anybody getting seriously interested to actual capital investment in terms of plant and processing facilities, there would have to be a clear understanding with the marketing agencies that they would not be unduly hindered or impeded from doing the same. By that, I really mean that they would require an exemption because it simply doesn't work. I know the Marketing Board has in itself on its own right, made numerous efforts and I am sure they are continuing.

I know they have had some measures of success in marketing some of the rough fish but really we're just scratching the surface and haven't really broken that barrier. I am aware of course that we have a project going on, I bel ieve at Eddystone that's involved in the processing of some rough fish. Perhaps the Minister could just give us an updating of what's happening in this area. It's an opportunity that has been there and simply not found a resolution to date.

I encourage the Minister to continue to impress upon his staff that it's really perhaps one of the most - the one area, the fish, which is after all a finite resource. We have x-number of bodies of water that for many different reasons, the commercial fisheries can be viable in. Other factors enter into it, freight, transportation. While I talk about that, we'll talk about the Freight Assistance Program, how that is working, if it's still working at the same level that it was last year, or whether that is being increased.

Perhaps the staff can supply the Minister with some information on that program, but specifically what, if anything is happening in our search to find some resolution to the problem of rough fish. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, I want to confirm what the honourable member has said, and maybe this isn't a fair analogy, but the so-called course fish, the mul let and to a lesser extent the carp, are to fishing what the aspen or the poplar is to forestry. There is a tremendous potential there. Lake Winnipegosis alone, there are thousands and thousands of pounds of mullet. It is an excellent food.

It's a first-class protein food. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion there is not a fish that comes out of our waters that is not a good edible fish. Even the lowly maria is an excellent eating fish, although most people don't appreciate that I consider the mullet to be excellent, and the carp. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has been doing a good deal to promote the sale of mul let and carp; they get orders for mullet and carp for specialty lines, specialty markets. I met with the Mani toba representative on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board just recently. His name is Mr .

Ray England , very kn owledgeable about fishing and the indu stry. He indicated to me that the corporation has developed some market, particularly in the Third World countries, in some countries in Africa, for whole mullet. There has been a fair number delivered to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation for marketing overseas, but it is still a very very small portion of the available resource. I share the concerns of the honourable member that further pursuit of the Japanese market wou ld be valuable.

I'm almost half serious about talking about the need to go there directly and maybe promote the processing of the mullet and other fish here in Manitoba, maybe joint ventured or something like that. Certainly, I still believe that further initiatives are possible there, not that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation hasn't tried. I'm given to understand, and I have a note here from Mr. Hayden - maybe it was from Dale here, Mr. Stewart - that there have been about 12 studies over the past years in respect to utilization of this excelle nt resource.

But because I sup pose the appearance of the fish, maybe the quality of the fish, the fact that it has a great many little bones, there are factors that put people off in respect to its consumption, but it is an excellent protein fish. In respect the Eddystone operation, they're still there. They continue to look for further development through appropriations of money by both the Federal and the Provincial Governments. The problem with the lake fresh fish operation, I think, is marketing; I think that's the key. We certainly sympathize, they have a good product, but a very very considerable problem in marketing.

In respect to the Freight Assistance Program - I have a note here - I don't think I want to deal with all of these things, a bit too much detail. The payments were $300,000 paid in '81- 82, and a little bit more than that in '82-83. The program is to be reviewed to better direct these payments to be more cost effective. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(a)(2) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, my colleague for Lakeside mentioned Garrison. There was a report today in the Winnipeg Free Press about a study, I believe, done at the University of North Dakota concerning fish species in the Missouri system.

Does the Minister have a copy of that report? HON. A. MACKLING: No, not yet, Mr. Chairman. MR. B. RANSOM: Will he be seeking a copy of that report or is _he familiar with my reference? HON. A. MACKLING: Indeed, I will. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(a)(2)- pass; 8(b)(1) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: How many regional biologists are there? HON. A. MACKLING: Six. MR. B. RANSOM: Is that any increase in the number, Mr. Chairman? HON. A. MACKLING: Not in the last year. About two­ and-a-half years ago there was an increase of one. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 8.(b)(1) -p ass; 8.(b)(2)- pass; 8.(c)(1) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: How have the experiments with the rearing ponds been progressing? Also, there had been a project that was under discussion with respect to 2456

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 Lake Dauphin, I believe it was, as a possible initiative; it might have been cost-shared with the Federal Government. Perhaps the Minister could give us an upda te on those? HON. A. MA CKLING: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was orienting my Estimate Book here. If the honourable member would n't mind repeating the question? MR. CH AIRMAN: Would the Me mb er for Turtle Mountain be kind enough to repeat the question, please? MR. B.

RANSOM: I just would like the Minister to give me an upda te on the pickerel rearing pond projects that have been under way, and also I recounted that two or three years ago there was a proposal being put forward with respect to Lake Dauphin stocking pickerel in Lake Daup hin as a possible federal-provincial initiative. What was the status of that proposal? HON. A. MA CKLING: In reverse order, in respect to Lake Dauphin, the federal Fisheries Department is carrying out an experimental program. We are co­ ordinating information with them, but we are not involved in the funding of that.

We have our own project there. In respect to the pickerel rearing ponds, we are continuing to use them. We've expanded our horizons somewhat in looking at an association of the efforts of Ducks Unlimited in some areas where we can enhance not only the wetland for waterfowl, but for raising fingerlings. MR. B. RANSOM: The Minister makes reference to the province having its own program at Lake Daup hin. What is the program then that the province has and how does it differ from what the Federal Government is doing? HON. A. MACKLING: In respect to Lake Dauphin, the federal program is more in line with basic research.

The province is primarily looking at spawning stream rehabilitation and selected stocking. A further comment in respect to the pickerel rearing ponds, in addition to the province and the interest I've indi cated, Du cks Un limi ted, the Comm ercial Fishermen's Association have been very interested in that and have been, I guess, very instrumental in making sure that our activity level is high. MR. B. RANSOM: There is a project on the government's wish list having to do with control of water levels at Lake Dauphin.

Does that have any relationship to possible development of fisheries in the future, are there any benefits attributed to fisheries that would be attached to that project? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have seen documentation about Lake Dauphin and, although he's not here, the Member for Dauphin, the Honourable John Plohman has impressed upon me the history of that lake and the fact that years back it was an excellent commercial fishery for walleye and, as we all know, it's way down now.

The water commission is doing a review, or they had that lake as a reference, I think it's common knowledge, however, that the level of the lake has diminished. If the lake was deeper, if there was more water, I think the majority of the opinion is that it would be a better commercial fishing lake.

It has probably been silting up for many, many years but that silting up has, no doubt, been accentuated by agricultural development on the fans of the mountain areas from which streams carry the silt and shale down into the lake and we have, therefore, lost a good deal of the depth of Lake Dauphin over the course of our lifetimes. MR. B. RANSOM: A gener al de scription of the problems is not that hard to come by, Mr. Chairman. What is the probability of anything being done to offset those impacts? What's the probability of the project that's on the "wish list" going ahead? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I don't like to speculate on that. I haven't been very enthusiastic about what the Federal Government has indicated by way of its Capital commitment, or the amount of dollars to its Capital funding.

I don't think that Manitoba is going to have that many dollars but we don't know what the federal interest will be and I don't know what the Water Commission's Report is going to recommend, but I do know that the department - now it's not under this branch but under Water Resources - has spent a fair bit of time looking at the streams, small rivers flowing from the mountains, trying to come up with ways to arrest the tremendous amount of erosion and silt that's carried down these fast-moving streams into Lake Daup hin. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(c)(1) - pass; 8.(c)(2)-p ass, 8.(d)(1) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR.

B. RANSOM: What does this

section do, Mr. Chairman? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I just quickly read the activities of the section; this is the Biological Services section.

A review of the chronology and type of land use activities in the Valley River Watershed; to determine cause and effect relationship affecting fish and development of land use guidelines; to assist in minimizing these impacts on fish stocks; assess the current or potential impact on fish stocks and fish habitat by resource development and use and provide guidelines for impact mitigation; develop techniques and provide training to branch staff who analyze and interpret data collected by commercial catch and experimental fishing; and tagging studies for the determination and modification of catch quotas and mesh sizes; analyze and report on status of whitefish and walleye stocks in Cedar Lake and whitefish, walleye and sauger stock in Lake Winnipeg; fish aging; fauna enumeration and identification and statistical analysis; review and analysis of biological and socioeconomic aspects of the bait fishery on the Red River, Lake Winnipeg ; evaluation of the Sask ram marsh fish resources and the effects of the Ducks Unlimited Control Regimes on fish production in the marsh, and the contribution of the marsh to the Saskatchewan River.

I might say that, Mr. Chairman, in respect to the effect of structures on fish propagation, when we were 2457

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 dealing with water resources we did discuss the removal of the Clande boye Dam. It's also been brought to my attention by people , particularly in the Whitemud Conservation District, that a number of structures exist on the Whitemud River that were put there years ago. We are concerned, as a department, to look at this type of intervention that has occurred in streams, waterways, that can reduce spawning run and has disturbed the natural propagation of fish. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(d)(1)-p ass; 8.(d)(2)-p ass; 8.(e)(1) - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: The Minister said the Lake Winnipeg Advisory Board was alive and well, is it reporting to the director or is it reporting to the Minister? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, it reports and I think fairly frequently to the director and, of course, the director and I meet fairly frequently. MR. B. RANSOM: The Minister doesn't meet with the Lake Winnipeg Advisory Board then, they don't bring their recommendations to him, they bring them to the Director of Fisheries. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have met with the Advisory Board but their regular line of communication is with the director. MR. B.

RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I placed an Order for Return some time ago which the Minister promptly responded to, and I'd like to ask him some questions about that. First of all, I had asked some information concerning increases in commercial fishing limits and quotas. On Lake Winnipeg there were quota increases on Mossy Bay, and in the Grand Rapids area, Poplar River, Big Black River and Sturgeon Bay, what was the basis for increasing the quotas under those circumstances in those areas? HON. A. MA CKLING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the basis was the best optimistic assessment that the department could make in respect to utilization of the Lake Winnipeg fishery. The north end of Lake Winnipeg has held up very well to the quotas that had been in place. The long-term average of fish take is about where we're at right now, as I recall, looking at the volumes that we're taking, as against the historic level.

Mind you the department has recommended, and in some instances we have granted enlarged quotas knowing that we believe we're pushing the upper limits of the fishery, but we think that, for example, particularly the whitefish stocks have been greater than I think have been utilized. So we felt it was possible to increase quotas.

Mind you as I say, for example in Grand Rapids that is a commitment for a period of time; we've cautioned that we want to leave the quotas the way they are; it's hard to resist the continual request for increased quota, but we want to hold the quotas that we now have for a period of time so that we can see whether or not the lake will sustain those levels. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Are these increases, in every case, supported by sound biological information? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, we do follow a biological base.

We continue to monitor that biological data by samplings during the course of the commercial seasons and there is no question, but we have to monitor the fish stocks very closely. MR. B. RANSOM: In these cases, Mr. Chairman, did the staff identify that there was an opportunity to harvest more fish and, therefore, approached the fishermen and said, we've got an extra resource and let's take advantage of it, or was it the other way around that the fishermen came to the Minister, to the Department, and put pressure on to increase the quotas and then that was subsequently done? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, it works I guess from both directions. The department had identified that whitefish were in larger supply and it appeared that quota increases were logical; and in addition to that commercial fishing communities, of course, pressed from the other way for increases in quota, and to that extent we have increased the quota in response to the continual request for larger quota. We have admittedly pressed the quota to the point where we think it's as far as we can take it safely.

It's one of those things where we are not enthusiastic about going too high but, nevertheless, we feel we can't honestly deny the quota increases we made because we have no biological base for saying that they shouldn't fish to that extent. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I know what kind of pressures that the Minister faces, but I guess when one gets into the position of doing things in the absence of information to indicate otherwise, that one begins to run some risk in doing that, and it would have to certainly be carefully monitored.

The annual report of the department refers to the existing 5-year Cedar Lake Fisheries Management Agreement. Now that, as I recall, was negotiated while I was Minister of Resources. It was done on the basis of having the people that fished Cedar Lake involved in a committee with the department, and they set a criteria ahead of time, as to objectives and measurements, to see whether or not increased quotas could be sustained over a period of time. How is that agreement working out and how was the lake holding up? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I apologize for taking so long before I respond, but there is a fair bit of detail on this. The honourable member is quite correct about the 5-year agreement, it is still in effect, modified somewhat. People in the communi ty, of cour se, participants in the fishery have changed somewhat. The 5-year agreement provided for a lake quota of 800,000 lbs.; we have increased that to 1 million lbs.

Also the 800,000 lbs. was a lake quota as we are endeavouring to do elsewhere in the fishery, emphasizing the individual quota, and we have established individual quotas now, but not everyone has the same qu ota; it was a compromise arrangement worked with the fishermen based on past fishing experience. 2458

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 MR. B. RANSOM: How is it working as a mechanism for co-operation between the department and the fishermen? It was considered at the time to be a method of op erating which would give the fishermen a considerable degree of input, but not remove the ultimate responsibility from the department. At the time, four or five years ago, feelings were running pretty high in the community at Easterville and, in fact, people in the department were temporarily detained in the village.

So I am interested in knowing just how it is working, from a human relations point of view as much as a fisheries management point of view. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the agreement has been of assistance. I have been in Easterville, I'd say two or three times, and there was no suggestion, they never detained me, I think they'd like me to stay longer, but ... MR. B. RANSOM: I don't understand that, Al. HON. A. MACKLING: . . .

I think they made it clear that I was most welcome and I found the people very cordial, but like other fishing communities they were very very sincerely concerned to have the ultimate that they could by way of quota. It continues to be a concern in every fishing community to get the maximum quota. The Cedar Lake Fishery seems to be holding up very well. However, we have indicated to the community, the fishermen at Easterville that again we're hoping that we can hold the quotas for a long enough period that we can be more certain that we are right to the extent the quota has been set. MR. B.

RANSOM: Is the Minister contemplating, in any case, simply transferring the authority, the responsibility for managing the resource, to a community? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, I have to say yes, only I'd like to qual ify it. During the course of the visits that we had, my colleague, Harry Ha rapiak was with me, my colleague Jay Cowan, colleague John Bucklaschuk, a number of my colleagues in whose constituencies we have commercial fishermen, attended with me and with Mr. Hayden, Mr.

Carter, I made it clear that from my perspective, that the commercial fishing industry will prosper and the people in the industry will be happier if fishermen in their communities have more to say about the administration of the fishery. That is to say, not necessarily setting quotas and seasons, but advising and having greater measure of control as to the allocation of licence quotas, determining who is most qualified to fish and that sort of thing.

I really think that we need that kind of a dedicated input in respect to the commercial fishery, because there's no way in which we can have sufficient monitoring by staff if fishermen themselves are not involved in having a good deal of say and a dedicated interest in the fishery themselves. MR. B.

RANSOM: The fisheries resource belongs to all the people of Manitoba and if the Minister turns it over to a particular group of people or a community and gives them the responsibility for managing it, that seems to create a condition whereby the province is really abrogating its responsibility to all Manitobans to retain the ultima te authority. The Ma nagement Agreement, the 5-year Management Agreement seemed to provide the opportunity to have a much greater input at the community level but still retain the ultimate authority and responsibility in the hands of the Minister.

After all, when we get together in this committee to talk about the management of the resources, we can still ask the Minister about the responsibility or what's happening to a resource because the Minister still has that responsibility. If he's going to give that up, then I would be concerned about that. The Minister is shaking his head; maybe we'll hear an explana tion of that. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I didn't make myself very clear.

I indicated that where I felt the community could be very effective and really produce an atmosphere of co-operation and dedication to the industry, is where the local community would be very much more involved in the decision as to who fishes. I have had a succession of people tell me that there are fishermen who really, while they hold a licence, they don't fish; they have someone fish on their behalf and some people in the community resent the fact that people hold licences but really other people use them. I've had fishermen tell me of instances where some fishermen did not fish properly.

They had left nets - now, maybe there was an unusual circumstance happen that the net could not be removed - but some fishermen are very concerned about the way in which fishermen generally operate and I think that much more can be done to effectively monitor the industry if fishermen themselves have much more to say about who fishes. That's not to say that I, as a Minister, am wanting to turn over to people who are not elected or unaccountable to the people generally, control of the fishery. I've indicated that so far as seasons. quota, pretty well everything.

I can see no delegation of that, but I can see a greater measure of - maybe not complete delegation - assignment of greater input in respect to the community in deciding who fishes. MR. B. RANSOM: There was a system of allocating fishing licences that was largely handled through the advisory boards, worked I believed on some sort of a point system, one had to quali fy, get on the list. move up the list, etc. In the Order for Return which was filed in response to my question, there were quite a number of licences that were issued at Ministerial discretion.

Now I've never heard of issuing licences at Ministerial discretion before. They always were done with the advice of an advisory group which seemed to allow the basis for the input that the fishermen were looking for and provided a known set of guidelines. People knew what they had to do in order to be able to qualify for a licence and if they did, then they got to the top of the list and when they became available they got a licence, and that would seem to be fairly consistent with the position that the Minister's just given us.

Now we have a list here of quite a number of licences that were issued by Ministerial discretion. Perhaps the Minister would give us an explanation of just on what basis then he was able to exercise discretion and on what basis he actually exercised it. HON. A. MACKLING: First of all, the point system is still in being, the advisory committee still assists in 2459

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 respect to advising as to eligibility and provides for an appeal mechanism from the decision to licence or not licence. In respect to the discretionary licences, let me indicate that there was a fall fishery introduced for Big Black River and Grand Rapids. By and large, those licences went to existing fishermen, this is the people that had fished the summer season. I don't know whether they were listed as licences issued - they probably were - at Ministerial discretion. In addition to that, we issued 40 new licences on Sturgeon Bay. Sturgeon Bay is northeasterly from Lake St. Martin.

At the same time we did that we placed a quota on Lake St. Martin. There had never been a quota on that lake. We believe that a fair number of fish were coming from Sturgeon Bay by way of the commercial fishery on Lake St. Martin. The 40 licences were allocated 10 each to four communities in that area. The licences issued on Mossy Bay were to one fisherman in Norway House, or two? Two in Norway House. No, wait a minute. Warren's Landing it was one or two. MR. B. RANSOM: Warren's Landing was four. HON. A. MA CKLING: Well, pardon me. Mr. Chairman, I don't recall the numbers with precision.

We don't have that here, but we opened to the Playgreen Lake fishermen an opportunity to fish Mossy Bay. MR. B. RANSOM: Was that something that was recommended by staff? HON. A. MA CKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, in our tour of the fishing communities, the fishermen in Playgreen Lake made a strong case for an allocation of the fishery on Lake Winnipeg. They pointed out that Playgreen Lake had become subject to debris, pollution from the two channels that were cut. The fishery had suffered as a result. We felt that they had some reason for concern.

They had fished in Mossy Bay prior to the closure of Lake Winnipeg; they had for a long period of time. When the lake was closed to the commercial fishery because of the mercury contamination, they were allowed to fish Playgreen only. When Lake Winnipeg was opened up they were not allowed to return to Lake Winnipeg. We felt that on the merits there was a basis for some greater flexibility in that fishery on their behalf. MR. B. RANSOM: Does Ministerial discretion mean then that the Minister made the judgment, that it was not something that was recommended by staff, as such? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I can assure you that I have involved staff in every decision that is made in the department. I don't think that staff were bludgeoned into submission on any change in the fishery. MR. B. RAN SOM: What is meant by Min isterial discretion? That is one thing that the Minister hasn't answered yet. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the buck stops with the Minister, and I have the final decision as to the licensing. MR. B.

RANSOM: Is the Minister saying that he ultimately can determine who would get the licence then, irrespective of any point system or recommendation from an advisory committee? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is probably the case, but that isn't how the system works so far as I am concerned. As to who is licensed is determined by the Advisory Committee and app lication of the point system to the greatest extent possible. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(e)(1) -p ass; 8.(e)(2)-pass; 8.(f)(1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps the Minister wants to indicate to us what's in store for the sports fisherman in the coming year. We note a number of changes to the regulations, regrettably, not always all is clear as perhaps they could be, of course, in most instances, reductions in allowable limits. I would invite the Minister to make some comment with respect to the 19 83 sports fishing season that is now upon us. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope our regulations are not unclear. It is true that the allowable catch in some instances has changed, but we did that last year.

We reduced the three-day licence limit to half the num ber. We felt that these were tourists who were here for the fishing experience primarily, the joy of fishing, rather than acquiring a great deal of fish to take home. We still feel that it's reasonable. We have reduced the number of trophy fish that can be taken in Division One, that's the southern part of Manitoba, to one trophy only because of the relative numbers of trophy fish available in southern Manitoba.

One other change in the regulations is that we have effected a regulation that the limit for fishing in High Lake, which is a lake which borders Ontario-Manitoba, is to the Ontario limit, so that anyone fishing there under reciprocity with Ontario, an Ontario resident can fish on our side of the imaginary boundary, and a Manitoban can fish on the imaginary boundary in fishing really in Ontario water, but the lower limit appli es. The lower limit happens to be an Ontario limit in that lake.

The only other one that I can recall is the Molson Lake one where we provided that a non-resident, and by a non-resident we mean a non-Canadian resident, is required to employ a guide, a licensed guide, when fishing on Molson Lake. That was introduced; it had been brought forward because of a concern that because of Northern road development, non-Canadian resident fishermen were being unable to get onto that lake which had been a remote lake for decades. We had there a lodge that made a considerable investment and was employing a large number of Native people from the Norway House area.

The continuation of employment was considered to be somewhat imperilled by the fact that because of a road system that made access to the lake now possible that we wanted to reduce the number of non-residents of Canada going onto that lake, not necessarily staying in the lodge, but without having a guide. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just dealing with some of these specific changes, I'm just looking at the 2460

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 Manitoba Sports Fishing Guide 1983. On Page 3 of that little booklet, I assume that is what the Minister just described, having arrived at an agreement with Ontario that the border lakes, the More Lake and High Lake, both situated on the Manitoba-Ontario border, have their walleye and northern pike limits reduced from eight to six. That is to conform with the lower Ontario limit. I am told that in the past one had to have two licenses.

Would it not have been advisable to also indicate that, if you're already making a notation there to indicate, how does the Manitoba fisherman know that he doesn't require an Ontario licence now? Is that posting on the lake or why would it not have been put into the guide? The law minds us of all Manitoba fishermen who, particularly fishermen who have fished these lakes, if they have in the past been required to purchase both the Ontario and the Manitoba fisheries, I see nothing in the guide that tells him that only the Manitoba licence will now suffice. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member makes a good observation. We will post a lake to indicate that. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge somebody who is obvi ously no stranger to the department, I don't think he'll mind me reading him name into the public record, one Mr. G. L. Thompson, 343 Albany Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, who has had ongoing correspondence with the department, some with the Directors of Fisheries, I suppose some with Mr. Nelson ... HON. A. MACKLING: I just wrote a letter to him today. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . and some with the Minister directly, and he has been kind enough to assist me in bringing some of these matters to your attention, Mr. Chairman; such as, another one being the fact that we, of course, are going metric and so the new regulations here all spell out the prescribed sizes and limits of fish in the centimetre form, but then I notice - and you do provide on Page 20 of your Guide a metric conversion chart, to make it a little easier for the fishermen to, particularly our Yankee friends, to convert inches to centimetres, or centimetres to inches.

The only trouble is that the allowable size of the fish can, in the one instance, be 60 centimetres or 23.5 inches, but your conversion size only goes to 13 inches. So somewhere you stopped a little short where . . . HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I understand - and this is new to me - that we provide a paper measuring strip, a glue-back thing that the angler can stick on his boat to measure his trophy. MR. H. ENNS: Where is this available, Mr. Chairman? HON. A. MACKLING: At our licence outlets. Most of the lodges have them. MR. H. ENNS: Most of the lodges have them. Mr.

Minister, the regulations are getting more complicated and I think it's extremely important that inasmuch as people can be charged with an offence if they don't fall within the regulations, that whatever information we provide them in this handy Guide be as straightforward and all-inclusive as possible. Mr . Chairman, one of the areas of concern is restricting the angler to the one trophy fish, and I'm always concerned about just how a regulation of that kind actually works out to the benefit of the conservation of the resource.

Knowing frailty of human beings the temptation surely will be to go along and have that size fish on your stringer, the biggest one that you last caught but, should you catch a bigger one before the sun sets, why then that becomes your trophy fish. However, to make sure that you are not in difficulty with the law, when you dock your boat at the dock or run into conservation officers, you release what's left of the other fish.

Now, can the Minister really assure me, or can the department assure me, at least acknowledge the possibility of abuse in this particular case, and have they really thought through their position on this? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Me mb er for Lakeside and I share a common appreciation for human frailty, but I say that fishermen are fun-loving sports people. I think that the majority of our piscatorial friends are receptive to the view that, if you restrain yourself, there will be something for your children to catch another year.

I know that, particularly with our lodge operators, and I've talked to the lodge and outfitters on more than one occasion, and they tell me that the Catch and Release Program goes over very well; that the tourists, particularly, appreciate the concern that it's one trophy only, because they want their friends to be able to come back and catch one of these marvellous trophy fish. As a matter of fact, we are promoting, pretty vigorously promoting, the "Go barbless" at some of our lodges, and it's working.

When they catch a large fish without a barb it's much easier to release and George Nelson has been enthusiastically promoting that and I think it's going very well. MR. H. ENNS: Well, the Minister raises a point that data would seem to bear out, that the loss is high in the release program. Without some proper education, and again perhaps without full information in the Guide that the loss ratio can be as high as 90 percent, the fish that are being re-released, you're not really doing the resource that much of a favour. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, there's a growing understanding in the fishing public about the thrust of the programs. As Mr. Hayden has reminded me, in addition to the program that we have, the lodges and outfitters do promote that program and we have guide training programs where we promote this philosophy of conservation. So that, particularly for our non­ resident fishermen, they have surrounding them people who are practising and indicating conservation and the reception for the program has been good. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(fX 1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the Director of Sports Fishing, Mr.

George Nelson, whom I have a great deal 2461

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 of respect for, indicated at a recent Manitoba Wildl ife Federation meeting that these regulations were being essentially brought into force, or being altered and changed with the downward reduction in terms of the limits, principally for reasons of overfishing; that stocks were being deple ted unduly and the fact that the changing in the various sizes or limits or catch really is, in my judgment, questionable in terms of the impact that that has on the overfishing problem. I say that, particularly, and I encourage the Minister to discuss for a moment the problem of enforcement.

Enforcement probably has more bearing on the over-fishing problem, particularly in view of continued stories about the very substantial amount of bootlegged fish that is being marketed from our lakes in really very large numbers. I think the department has - and I was trying to look for that press release here earlier on, the statement that the news media picked up - somewhat in excess of 1, 130,000 kilograms.

Other less authoritative sources indicate that could be considerably higher; could indeed be as high as 5 to 6 million pounds of fish that are being bootlegged out of our lakes bypassing the recognized marketing sources. I appreciate that a substantial amount of this would fall in the commercial fishing class, but is the Minister really satisfied that kind of activity, and the obviously not sufficient enforcement that's being carried on, impacts to a greater extent on the overall fishing problems?

Are we really attacking the problem by reducing limits, changing sizes, all in all, putting more regulations to bear on the legitimate sports angler, and then still not accomplishing what the regulations are to some extent trying to accomplish, that is, to try to resolve the problem of over fishing? HON. A. MACKllNG: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt that enforcement is very important. Of course, the department is heavily engaged in that, not only in the commercial, but in the sports fishery. We do get from time to time people who want to take an inordinate amount of fish; they do want to exceed their limits.

In respect to the sports fishery, the trophy size pike, particularly, and trout are considered by the lodgers and outfitters to be essential for them to attract the tourists. They want to have the big lunkers available.

So they are very anxious that we not encourage people taking too many large fish out, because the appeal that the lodgers and the outfitters - and I was down in Minneapolis with my colleague, the Honourable Muriel Smith at the Minneapolis Boat Show recently and toured the promotion we had there - it was reinforced heavily with me that the appeal is catch the big one, so they're very concerned about preserving the big fish in the lakes that they have. I'm advised of the interceptions that our conservation officers make in checking licensed fishermen; 96 percent of sport anglers are within the regulations.

There were 20,000 sports anglers checked in 1982. There was only 1 percent that were over their limit, so there is a high degree of respect for the regulations, and that is really commendable on the part of our residents and our tourists. I think most people want the pleasure of the catch and are not concerned to harvest for a great quantity for the table. Part of the concept and part of the utility of the regulation in the one trophy size is 2462 educative in itself, that people then get a clear message that there are only so many trophy fish. The lake is not full of all trophies.

There are a lot of smaller ones, too. The emphasis is on in trying to preserve a fair number of the real Junkers for everyone to have a go at. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8(f)(1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is telling me then and is satisfied that the - (Interjection) - HON. A. MACKllNG: Excuse me. I'm sorry there was one other area. The Member for Lakeside indicated some concern about illegal fishing and I should have commented on that, Mr. Chairman. I can only say that there are one or more cases before the courts presently.

The honourable member is quite right, they involve a very substantial amount of what we contend to be unauthorized fishing activities or transporting of illegal fish. I can't comment further about that because the matters are before the court. MR. H. ENNS: A couple of further comments, Mr. Chairman. The Minister is satisfied then that, by and large, particularly the regulations re the trophy fish and the restrictions surrounding them are ones that have been requested and are going to be well received by the outfitters and lodge owners in our Mani toba fisheries? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson. MR. S.

ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise a number of brief concerns in regard to sport fishing in my area. llll R. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just conclude with one or two more questions. llll R. S. ASHTON: Sorry, sure. llll R. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. llll R. H. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, I think though, nonetheless, having said that, there's always the concern that not undue influence is being exercised by any one particular segment of the sport, of the industry, in this case, the lodge owners.

I continue to put on the record the fact that while that may well be the desire, I would hope the department would monitor that program reasonably well in terms of its checking with the lodge owners; the checking of the anglers' catch from time to time with a particular view in mind that how successful this particular regulation is being accepted.

I must commend, and I agree with the Honourable Minister, that the kind of compliance with the rules and regul ations by Manitoba spo rts anglers, spor ts fishermen, is an enviable one and one that seems to bear out the fact that, as the Minister says, most fishermen do abide by the rules. I think therefore it's all the more encumbent upon us, who from time to

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 time are charged with responsibility of making the rules, to make them as understandable and as acceptable to the general public as they can be. You see, Mr. Chairman, just let me throw in a little aside while I'm at it, that's why I can't support the seat belt legislation that this Minister is going to bring in. - (Interjection) - Not so much because I . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. H. ENNS: . . . have any particular position on the matter, but because I know that I will make 50 percent of my constituents lawbreakers the morning after the law becomes proclaimed. I don't like doing that.

Legislators, regulators should do their best not to pass laws and regulations if they know they are going to be broken in any substantial way. In fact, some sociologists say that if there's failure to comply with upwards to 5 or 6 percent of the general public in any given matter you are asking for serious problems in what you're attempting to do.

I would ask the Minister to take that into regard and to continue to listen to the constructive advice that's offered to the department from time to time by people who are obviously knowledgeable in the sport; who are actively engaged in the sport; and to try to keep these regulations to a minimum and to ones that are easily and properly understood and any information that is being supplied by the department. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(f)(1) - the Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: I've been waiting patiently, Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting patiently.

I just wanted to raise at the end of the discussion on this item, as I am sure we are reaching the end of that discussion, the concern in my area of the decline in sport fishing in the prime recreational areas that we have in our region. You know, it's still possible to find lakes or rivers where it is possible to catch plenty of sport fish. I don't want to discourage any potential visitors we might have in that regard, we've still got the fishing up there. How ever, there has been a decline in recreational areas and this was recently highlighted in regard to Paint Lake, our prime recreational area in Thompson.

I understand at the recent Wildlife Association meeting representatives of the Minister's department indicated that there has been a major decline in sports fishing in that area because of a decline in sports fish populations. So I'd just like to briefly ask the Minister to look into this problem, perhaps to look at the aspect of providing greater access in some of these areas. For example, in the Paint Lake area there's the Partridge Crop Lake which offers great fishing potential, but which doesn't really have any access to it at the present time.

Perhaps that's one way of looking at it, perhaps there are ways of increasing the fishing populations; either way, as one person who has gone out fishing in some of these areas and not had much luck in recent years, I'd certainly ask the Minister to look into it. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly we are conscious of the fact that there is a great demand on Paint Lake by the people who have cottaging there and fish there. We are quite cognizant of the fact that there is a need to monitor that closely and we will. We do have a stocking program in lakes in the northeast, I won't elaborate on that.

I confirm what the honourable member has indicated, that Partridge Crop Lake in the vicinity may become accessible with the development of forestry roads in the vicinity. I want to, again, while I have the floor for a moment, Mr. Chairman, confirm to the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that his observations are sound in connection with regulation. They must be clear and they must be readily undertandable and I think that's one thing that we have to guard against, making it so complex that it is difficult for people to understand the limits and if you can't understand them, how can you follow them.

I app reciate his observations there and I think the staff here is hearing that and hearing my confirmation of that concern. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(f)(1)- pass; 8.(f)(2)-pass; 8.(g)­ pass; 8.(h)-p ass. Resolution 12 3: Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,807, 10 0 for Natural Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 19 84- pass. Committee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCA TION MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, H. Harapiak: We'll call the committee to order. We're on Education Estimates, No. 6. Universities Grants Commission. 6.(

a) Salaries - the Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILl\ll ON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To begin with, I would like to ask the Minister if she has any current plans for dismantling the Universities Gr ants Comm ission and absorbing it into her department as a direct part of her department? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Starting really slow, starting with the slow one, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr.

Chairman, I can quite honestly say that I have absolutely no plans at present, or no thoughts of di ssolving or absorbing the Un iversities Gr ants Commission into the Department of Education, Post­ Secondary Education Branch. I do, though, still say that we will be looking at the role of the Universities Gr ants Com missio n, I think as our provinces' Universities Grants Commissions across the country doing so at this present time. I think that's probably all I have to say at this time. No plans. Certainly no designs or intentions or thoughts of rolling it into the department. l\ll R. G.

Fll l\ll ON: I'm glad to hear the Minister's assurance that she has absolutely no plans to dismantle the Universities Grants Commission and absorb it into her department. I remind her that last year she had absolutely no plans to change the Field Services Branch of her department and things happened very quickly, so I just want to get that on the record and we will follow, with interest, the pursuit of events with respect to universities and the governance and operation, funding, in the future. 2463

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 The next question I'd like to ask the Minister is, when was the last time that she met with the presidents of the three universities, the three Manitoba universities? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, approximately four to six weeks, I think in that range, as my memory serves me. MR. G. FILMON: I'm sure that the Minister's memory is accurate and I will accept her response. I then ask, how many times she has met with the Presidents of the three universities formally, I don't mean as guests to the opening of the Legislature or that sort of thing, in her 16-or-so months as Minister? MR.

CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Madam Minister. HON. M. HEMPHILL: As I recall, I think that perhaps the Member for Tuxedo has a letter that spells out exactly, or he might have in his possession, that spells out exactly the number of times and the dates of the meetings because it was a question that came up previously and I think the question was, when had I last met. Wha t I did was send a letter that communicated the exact sequence of events and the numbers of times that I had met.

So I would just say that, while I am going from memory and haven't reviewed the letter, I would be guessing in trying to think through which times or which occasions we met. He probably has the more specific, the exact information in front of him. I would think that it was a few times, that there were about three times. MR. G. FILMON: Two or three.

Would it be safe to say that the Minister meets more regularly with others in the field of education, for instance, the President of the Manitoba Teachers' Society or the Past President of Manitoba Teachers' Society than she does with the presidents of the three universities? HON. M. HEMP HI LL: It's ha rd to make a dir ect comparison because then I'd have to stop and think of what were formal meetings with other organizations. Had I known the member wanted a complete record of all my meetings with organizations, I guess, we could have added them up and given an exact reply.

Since he's going after sort of a general point then I'll try and respond in that way.

His first question, about how often I meet with the presidents, I took to mean how often do I meet with the three presidents of the universities together, and that is something that happens less frequently because the times when the three are coming together it means we're discussing general issues or trends or sort of general agendas, and there is also meetings with individual presidents, meetings and di scussions on the telephone with the individ ual presidents related to items of concern or interest to them, or particular to their university.

So I don't think we can just go by the formal meeiings that I have with the three university presidents together. It changes, there are times when I might meet, I guess, first of all, we can say that the school

section of my responsibilities, which is the Educational Sup port Program portion of it is about four times as large as is the universities of the post-secondary section. Even by that alone, in terms of the numbers of people, the size of the beast, the complexity, the structure of it, one would assume that it would take more time and more attention, in terms of dealing with all the issues, just because of its size, if no other reason alone, than would the smaller area of the universities.

There are periods where I am meeting more frequently with one organization or another, depending on the time of the year, and depending on the kind of activities, for instance, wh en we're looking at legislation or something like that, then there might be a high degree of interest. An example would be the sick leave changes that we made last year where there was a lot of interest in the changes and the wording and understanding what we wanted it to say and what it was going to say, and during periods like that you meet more frequently with a group that has an interest in a particular issue.

When the grants are coming out, or just prior to the grants coming out, when decisions are being made on allocation there is a lot of meetings and discussion with school boards and school trustees who are particularly concerned about lobbying, giving information, getting support and making recommendations about changes.

So I don't know if it's possible, and I guess the Member for Tuxedo can try to make a point about numbers of meetings in relation to activities, but I would suggest that because of the nature and the complexity of the thing that it's very hard to make a general statement about how often I'm meeting with groups and why. MR. G.

FILMON: Since the Min ister has already responded in anticipation of what direction she feels I'm pursuing, I'll accommodate her and pursue that direction and say that there is a perception - and let me state clearly for the record that this is not a perception that has been expressed to me by any of the three presidents of the Manitoba universities - in the academic community that the Minister is less concerned or interested in the univ ersity level of education than she is in the public school side of things, not just in proportion to the 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 ratio of financial commitment, but in terms of overall interest and concern, funding aside.

Whether the point of the number of meetings makes a case or whether it's just overall, her involvement with the university level of education in this province, I say that point has been made to me, and it's one that I agree with. Whether or not that's a matter of concern, I leave it up to the Minister. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister whether or not she did any analysis or stud ies or had any recommendations made to her that caused her to fault the university tuition freeze this year. HON. M. HEMPHILL: I'm getting a little slow as the evening wears on. I think that there was a recognition everywhere, Mr.

Chairman, that we had less money to go around this year and that we were going to have a difficult time, and we did, in being able to fund the universities and the school divisions, in fact, the entire education system to an adequate level where they could maintain programs and staffing. There were some limitations placed on the resources of the province that meant we had less money that had to be shared by 2464

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 more people and we, in general, had less to go around. So that I think we have to be realistic, and we certainly still want our tuition fees to not preclude people from having access to universities, I think that's a very important issue, but also recognize that there may have to be some tuition fee increase this year, but that it should be a reasonable one. The time when we were hearing about 20 percent to 25 percent increases, we did not think were sort of acceptable, in terms of the level of increase or the impact on students.

But that, under the circumstances, particularly because of the fact that our university tuition fees are one of the lowest in the country, that a reasonable increase of 9.5 percent could be tolerated, and the combination of the 9.2 percent increase that we gave universities this year, plus the offsetting of the health and post-secondary education levy at 1. 5, which takes it up to 10 .7, an additional 1.7 percent that they received through having access to the Skills Growth Fund, brings them up to 12 .4 and a 1 percent increase coming through tuition fees is a reasonable balance, in terms of raising a revenue that doesn't place an undue burden on any individual sector.

It gives them an overall increase that is - I've said this before and I continue to use the word - unparallelled by any other province in the country of 13. 4 percent. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I make the point with the Minister that last year the tuition freeze was placed on, I believe there was a specific amount of money - and at the present time it escapes me - it was about $2.3 million I think was set aside, and that extra funding was based on the commitment of the universities not to increase tuition.

I said at that time that it was a phony tuition freeze and I repeat it again; I mean phony in the sense of having been based on rational policy. The reason the Minister says - and I'm sure that obviously that has proven to be the case because it has not remained a priority decision of this government - there is less money to go around this year than there was last year. But last year the increase in Estimates of the government were about 19 percent over the previous year.

This year they're in the same range 18 .5, 19, the same sort of thing, so the amount of additional money that this government is spending this year over last year isn't too dissimilar. The deficit last year was $496 million; the projected deficit this year is $577 million, $579 million, something like that, so we're still talking a half billion dollar deficit or more. The conditions are not that dissimilar.

I believe that last year, as I said and I repeat, the freeze was done out of a political decision to sort of appeal to the kind of thinking that the Minister's colleague, the former president of UMSU, Thomas Thompson, and others. It was taken in a context of attempting to do some instant symbolic gesture towards the universities that would say to students, look, we are your friends. If that is the case, then I assume that this year they can say, look, we're no longer your friends, if that being your friends is or isn't based on whether or not the tuition is frozen.

The Minister made some reference to accessibilities to universities and I say to her, as I said last year, that accessibility is based on an adequa te Student Aid Program. I complimented her last year in some changes to the Student Aid Program, but I wondered out loud whether or not the $2.3 million that was spent on the tuition freeze, or was all ocated for the tuition freeze, could not have been better used in Student Aid, going to those who need it, and I tell her why.

Because of the students attending the universities in this province, and I don't have the numbers in front of me, and with a nod or a shake of the head the Minister can indicate if I'm in the right ball park. There may be attending the three universities in the range of 15 ,000-20,000 students who might be eligible for Student Aid. HON. M. HEMPHILL: 9,000 getting Student Aid? What were the figures? 20,000 for the . . . MR. G. FILMON: Maybe 20,000.

The number of people who received awards just two years ago - the figure can filled in now - but just two years ago the number of university students who received awards was about 3, 10 0, it may be up as high as 5,000 if there's been a rapid increase. I'm saying that still, something in the range of 1 in 5 received Student Aid, yet the measure, and the concern for accessibility, by virtue of some freeze in tuition, was taken for all 20,000;

whereas those who are receiving awards, 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. So obviously it would have been of much greater value to direct those resources toward those who really needed it if there was a concern for accessibility. So be it, the Minister has changed her position. The freeze has begun to melt; the universities are applying increases not quite in line with what the Minister would have lik ed them to be, 9.5 was the objective or something like that, the ceiling it's, on average, 10 .3 at the U of M and 11 .-something at the U of W and so on.

Some courses are greater experiencing increases of pushing 20 percent for particular areas of science at the U of W and so on, but leave that all aside. The fact of the matter is that we're going back on what was a policy last year. The only reason we are going back on it is because that policy was based on no information; that policy was based on no firm kind of footing for analysis or for determination that there was a need for a freeze. It was a straight political gesture, as I say, designed to be symbolic and the symbolism has changed this year.

It's not dissimilar to the sort of thing, and I understand that it's a highly political kind of thing, but two years ago the Minister's colleagues, when they were sitting in opposition, screamed about sort of tightening up on Student Aid regulations.the whole process of auditing and of ensuring that those people who need it, get it, and those people who don't need it or don't qu alify aren't getting it by some other means. That whole process was something that was very greatly criticized by her colleagues in opposition.

Now with some varia tions, and we've had that discussion, the Minister is doing something similar a thing in tightening up and ensuring that there's more contributions from the families toward housing costs; that there's more contributions from savings toward this and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that we're going back now on the kinds of policy criticisms that were being laid on the former government with respect to Student Aid. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me express the concern that the long-range picture ought to be looked 2465

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 at by this government with respect to the universities. Let me say that I had intended to bring forward a Private Members Resolution this year to express that concern.

I thought that I could adequately perhaps express the concern to the Minister in Estimates and lay the matter on the table, and say to her that, as much as it is important to review education financing in this province, by virtue of the Nicholls Commission that she has put together, I would say that one of the things that we were considering and, in fact we were searching for the right individual or group of individuals to act as a comm ission to review the role, function of the universities, because I suggest the role, the function, the financing, the concerns for accessibility, the whole picture, Student Aid, whatever, growth of faculties, expansion of areas, dupl ication of cour ses, one university to another, sharing of resources amongst the three univerities, the whole broad gammit.

It seems to me that it's been a long time since that was done. I beli eve there was a study done in the Schr eyer administration which led to virtually no tangible kind of moves. I think, to a large extent, that study was rejected in a public policy sense. It was done by the former president of McGill I think. I'm trying to recall the name. It doesn't matter. What I am saying is that there is a need today in the 1980s to look ahead for the next 25 years and say, where are we going, in terms of our public policy development for the universities of this province. We have three of them.

They all have strengths; they all have excellent qual ifications and characteristics that they bring to the mix of post-secondary education in this province, but I sense a kind of a drift. I say this, having had discussions with the former Minister of Education, having sat in Cabinet with him and knowing that he had put together the case for this kind of over all commission and we were looking at, as I said, finding the right person or persons to do this.

It goes beyond the mere act of funding; it goes beyond the kind of exercise that is gone through every year, where the universities submit their budgets and say that we can't exist or we're being cut to the bone, we've gone beyond the flesh and this whole thing that goes on. I accept all their arguments and I accept all those things, but there's always been the constant conflicts about internal utilization of resources and whether or not there should be reallocations, whether or not we should be endeavouring to set out our speciality areas.

Brandon University has a wonderful School of Music; build on it, don't dup licate it or don't conflict with it by developing further schools of music elsewhere. This university, say, the University of Manitoba, strong in Physical Education and other programs, don't set up two law schools. I'm not suggesting that it's going to be done and so on, but there are overlaps. Ther� are constant kinds of conflicts for the same precious resources and all of those things.

I'm not suggesting that, and because if it's done in the course of decisions that just take the view of one proposal to the Universities Grants Commission, I'd say, then it can tend to be a rather narrow view.

Whereas if these decisions are taken in the context of an overall commission that studies the thing that goes throughout the province, that talks to people from all sectors of society, everyone who has an interest and a concern about the universities of our province, if it's done on that basis, it can be done I believe on a more objective basis with some idea of setting up a master plan and a master view that says where our university is going in the next 25 years; what are we looking at in terms of demographics, in terms of growth of enrolments or decline or whatever; what are we looking at in terms of need for new buildings; need for expansion of certain faculties and on and on.

As much as possible, look at it at a time when we're dealing with these things on a non-pressure basis. I say that can only be done on this kind of basis where you're trying to take the long view of it. That will get away from these kind of short-term measures, this snap reaction that says we'll freeze tuitions and the next year we won't freeze tuitions. Another year, well, we'll give them 9 percent because that's all we have; another year it's an election year, we'll give them 15 percent or whatever, whatever, whatever. That kind of view is not good; that kind of political response is not good.

I think it leaves the universities, their staffs, their administration, their sup porters, their constituents wondering what do they really have in store for universities. Every time there's a new administration or a new Minister, does this mean that the new Minister is favourable toward us? Does this mean that the new administration is going to give us what we ask for? Does this mean - and so on? So I say that there's a need to take a very very long­ range view of our universities now. It's been a long time I think since we did it, and many things have changed in the university community.

I remember when - I'm not that old - we only had one university in this province. The others were colleges and so on. It was a great change to have, first, the University of Winnipeg and then Brandon University. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Did you attend university? Which ones? MR. G. FILMON: Did I attend university? Yes, I'm an alumnus of the University of Manitoba - to the Member for St. Johns. I'm a Past President of the Alumni Association of the University of Manitoba. I spent seven years, more or less, as a student there.

But that doesn't mean that I'm talking to the Minister only on behalf of the University of Manitoba, I hope that I'm taking a broad view and I'm saying to her that a broad view ought to be taken of all the university affairs, concerns, obj ectives, goals, and whatever, organ ization, administration, funding, everything, for the future. So this is as good a time as any for me to go on record as saying that to the Minister, because I'm not going to argue with her on details. That's not because I'm not interested or concerned, but I do my research and I've got tons and tons of clippings.

For every comment that the Minister would like to make to me about the universities, I'll give her another comment from somebody else in response and so on. This will go on and on. I say this to her, that what she has done for the universities this year is respond, and I believe the best way in which she could, according to the resources that Cabine t and her colleagues would allow her. Whether or not that was adequate or is adequate remains to he seen. Right now the universities are our 2466

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 growth industry in this province; the universities are growing by leaps and bounds in terms of their enrolment. I believe it was up something like 12 percent last year; they're projecting an even greater increase this year. That is a reflection of course of the fact that people cannot find jobs, so they're staying longer in education, longer particula rly in post-second ary education, so enrolments are burgeoning. We have the projected demographics of the '80s before us and we know that there will probably be a continuing growth for a little while.

All of these things will have effects on the universities; all of them will cause decisions to be made. I say to her that there's a need for her to withdraw herself in terms of a political response on a year-by-year basis to the universities and give it the long-range, broad view. I commend to her the idea that, as I say, we were pursuing of striking a commission to do this for Manitoba's universities. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for Tuxedo for perhaps not getting into the nitty-gritty, as he suggested, not because I don't think he has the material, I'm sure he has.

For every quote or statistic that he has, we probably will find one in response. I think the point he was making is that he's not sure at what we accomplished by getting into small detail when what we really have before us are big issues. I appreciate that and I agree with it.

We could go on and I suppo se from my point of view, and I think he will understand this, that while I don't want to get into a back and forth debate at this time and I want to add ress some of the issues that he talked about, I do want to say that - and I think it's important for me to go on record as saying - I believe this government has been very supp ortive of both our education system, our post-secondary education system and particularly our univ ersities.

It's been demonstrated by the fact that we are continuing and recognizing the importance of the role they play, and we're building, we're adding to their equipment in their buildings, we're giving them quite a good shot in the arm to maintain their buildings, to upgrade them. We're giving significant increases in grants; we gave new program money that was the first new program money that had been available for years.

I reiterate that giving them access to the Skills Growth Fund, which was unusual for provinces to do, was an indication of how strongly we support them and how important we believe their expansion and there were gives by giving them an additional $2.5 million through the Skills Growth Fund.

Having said that because I felt that there were some points made there that I should respond to, I do want to say that I agree with the Member for Tuxedo when he talks about not going year by year and not making decisions, either by the government or the Univ ersities Grants Commis sion on pr ograms, expansion and major decisions without really looking at the role and functions of the universities, where they're going, what they're doing, who should do it and how they should do it, because I think those are the major questions. He raised some of them, and we do have to look down the road.

I also agree that I think the Universities Grants Commission is not either set up or does not have the capacity for that long-range examination at this time, nor was that perceived to be a function of theirs, although they do have some responsibility to do some projections. They clearly are dealing with funding, allo cation of money and decisions that are on their plate about expansion of buildings or expansion of programs that they have to deal with. It does not give them the time to look at the fig questions, they're there and we have begun to discuss them.

I fully support the notion that he raises and in fact I think that it was one that I communicated to the three university presidents in our first formal discussion about two months after I took office and the point was, that the universities should be centres of excellence; and that they should be unique; and that they all do some things very very well and are set up to do them better than others; and we should be identifying those; they should be doing them; they should not be trying to have everybody do everything and do the same things; and build and copy just because you get a program or just because somebody else has it.

The Brandon University is an excellent music centre and is recognized, I think, certainly beyond Manitoba's borders for that. Of course I think the University of Manitoba clearly sees its unique position and potential as a university that serves the urban centre of the city; that they are doing a lot of thinking about how to serve their unique target populations and people and how to be what they really can be, given the advantage they have of being in the heart of the city.

We have been talking about not dupl icating, not overlapping and making very careful decisions about where program expansions will come and who is going to do them. So I think, having both said that and both having recognized that point and both admitted - or I have suggested and I saw some nods from the Member for Tuxedo - that we probably don't have the present capacity now.

I think we are looking at having a study on the role and function of the Universities Grants Commission and the universities; and making some important decisions about the universities of the future, who they are and what their role is, both in our education system and our society because they have a much larger role to play than just the education of our children.

But the programs that they undertake, the training and the teaching that they do has a tremendous impact on the quality of life, partly because they are the institutions that have the academic sort of freedom and thought where they sh ould be going beyond the traditions, the norms and the usual; and looking down the road, exploring, researching and defining, that we want them to do those things. So I appreciate that we both feel strongly about their importance; that we both agree on the importance of looking at the big picture and not getting caught up in all the small detail.

I hope that when we are going through our next set of Estimates, if it is you and I or the members of this House, that we will have something more specific to talk about and report to this House on about how we either want to or are able to start dealing with these important questions. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for her remarks on that. I just wanted to say that this whole area of what's adequate and what isn't adequate is like a lot of things, I suppose, open to argument and 2467

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 open to discussion. As I go through all of my clippings here, amongst all of the various things. the Minister has indicated that I think she gave an increase of 9.2 plus the 1. 5 percent, plus some out of the Skills Growth Fund - (I nterjection) - 13 .4 is the additive, yes, some of which came from the federal Skills Growth Fund, and not all of it was exactly in line with, say, the manner in which the universities were budgeting and I say this because I'm reading from the Winnipeg Sun here, "U of M goads for cuts.

University of Manitoba Deans predict they'll have to take drastic steps if the university doesn't receive a requested 18 percent increase in funding from the province. Students could face tuition hikes; teaching and sup por t jobs could be cut, enrollment restricted, if the province sticks to its tight­ fu nding pol icy. The Dean of Science, Dr. Ch arles Bigelow, said a 20 percent jump in his facul ty's enrollment this year has left the de partment understaffed and facilities overtaxed.

Any cuts would mean teaching science without a laboratory; that's like teaching swimming without a pool, Bigelow said," and so on and so forth. Dr. Bigelow, I think, is well known to the Minister and some of her colleagues. In fact I guess he's the current President of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba so I suppose he speaks with authority on this. So you have that kind of thing. You have another

article in the University Bulletin saying, "18 .3 percent needed to maintain university's current activities," and then the Minister says that the universities were satisfied with getting considerably less, 5 or 6 percent less. "University sites battle to keep researchers," is another one. Incidentally, this university, as the Minister well knows - the University of Manitoba - probably on a per capita basis, gets more research funds than any other university in Canada, certainly maybe even North America. It was very high.

I recall that in terms of the medical research, when I was President of the Alumni Association. They used to get a great deal of medical research money from all over North America, including from the American Medical Association and so on.

We have standards of excellence that are recognized, recognized throughout this continent, not only by the award for instance that was given to the Brandon University for their BU NTEP Program; not only for the great awards for research that are given to many of our staff, professors and so on at universities, not only U of M, U of W, Brandon and so on, but there are all sorts of indices that will tell you of the excellence of reputation. Yet, as I say, there are always these constant letters and articles and so on. There is one here from the Faculty Association, an open letter to Dr.

Naimark about the underfunding of the library. I know these are ongoing problems; these are certain faculties, their accreditation is at risk; this is an ongoing thing. When it happened under our administration there was great hue and cry and great concern on our part, I know, as well as the public's. I am sure that the Minister has the same concerns which she reads about possible da mage to the reputation of the university, or a particular faculty, because what it means is that the reputation of the graduates is at stake.

Those people who go out looking for jobs may not be able to find good jobs if they are not recognized as coming from a faculty and a university that turns out an A-1 product. That's why I, as an engineer, have great concern when the Engineering Faculty is having its accreditation reviewed; that's why dentists, simi larly, because they may not then be accepted into graduate studies in one of the large and impressive universities in the United States.

All of these things have an effect, so I say that we're not just dealing with these comments because, as much as I have clipped them from this year, I can bring the Minister the clippings from two years ago when we were in government and there will be other concerns, but these are ongoing.

So let's take the opportunity to agree that what we need to do is look forward in a much broader context and the whole thing, the role of how the univ ersities are going to be funded, administered, the role of the UGC, the role of the government, the role of the universities and all those things, let's take the broad view on it. Mr. Chairman, just one minor question. The decrease in salaries, does that mean that the staff of the university, the overworked staff of the Univ ersities Grants Commission is more overworked now because we have less salaries? Have they agreed to take a reduction in their pay this year?

HON. M. HEMPHILL: I believe that we have a saving there because we're getting two for the price of one in the form of Dr. Duhamel, we have eliminated one staff year. MR. G. FILMON: Well, I already expressed my concerns about the excessive workload that Dr. Duhamel has and I know that the Minister will be looking into that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, I would like to know the amount of the grant that the Department of Education gave to the Marxist Study Conference at the U of M, it was held in March? HON. M. HEMPHILL: My recollection, because we are not on that

section right now, and have passed that, my recollection is that it was $3,000.00. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a further question. Were any members of the Department of Education, any of the staff involved in the conference? HON. M. HEMPH ILL: Not to my kn owledge, Mr. Chairman. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I have an editorial from the Manitoban, it was dated, Thursday, March 17 th. The heading is A New World Order. I am not going to go into the hole editorial. I am just going to read the last paragraph, and I quote, "There is no doubt that the conference was a huge success.

Everyone involved should feel a keen sense of accomplishment to helping propel forward a new generation of Marxists, and hopefully, a new world order." Now, Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent an area that certainly is not thrilled to have anyone involved in this government help propel forward a new generation of Marxists. I would suggest that probably in the whole of St. James-As siniboia I doubt if we could find half 2468

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 a dozen who would be very thrilled that this is where their tax money was heading and this is what their students might be propelled into. I would suggest even the Minister for Natural Resources, the Member for St. James, would probably have the same problem with parents in his area just being a trifle concerned about that kind of funding, and then the hopes coming out of the Manitoban that this would be the results. I really qu estion that the funds used for this kind of a conference under the guides of hospitality grant giving it respectability.

When I go back to the Hansard where the Minister of Economic Development was answering a question. She seemed to feel that it was in the same category as giving a grant to the Association of Gerontology, a national conference, or the Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Mr. Chairman, my own feeling, and I would suggest that a great majority of Manitobans would not put these in the same category. I would like the Minister to comment on that particular grant please. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I think I would like tell the Member for Kirkfield Park that I gave that grant on the basis of a request from the, if my recollection is, the Faculty of Arts at the University of Manitoba; that we have just spent a lot of time talking about the role and function of the universities and, of course, one of them is to explore ideas. I don't think they're supposed to be sort of closed shop and that the question of academic freedom and the right to explore lots of alternative thinking, is one that we would fight for, one that we would fight to maintain.

So that I have a grant request coming from what I consider to be a very legitimate organization and repectable group of people, the Faculty of Arts at the University of Manitoba, and that my recollection is that they brought about 650 people into the city from dozens of countries.

My guess is that had the university put an international conference on in bringing that number of people in from so many countries on any other su bject, perhaps, that it would have been acclaimed as an achievement in terms of being able to host a major international conference, bring that many people into the city which sort of is a boost to our tourists and also stimulates thought and a variety of thoughts and opinions at the universities which, heaven knows, none of us want to stifle. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest that the reason it wasn't acclaimed as an achievement is because that is not the sort of conference that the people in Manitoba wish to have their money spent on. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)-pa ss; 6.(b)- pass; 6.(c)-p ass. Resolution No. 58: Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $14 8,594,000 for Education, Universities Grants Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1984- pass. HON. M. HEMPHILL: They're just wishing me luck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1.(a) - the Minister's Salary - the Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I want to make a few remarks before the department ends, and I also want to make it worth the Minister's while so that she doesn't feel bad about not being able to go to British Columbia to celebrate the victory of the Barrett forces. We'll celebrate them here tonight. - (I nterjection) - Yes, I have, right here. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks. I wasn't present for the Earl Grey demonstration this evening. I don't know whether the critic for the Conservative Party was present at that rally or spoke to them, but he should have some interest in their particular plight.

I just wanted to point out that the whole school question in Winnipeg south is all interrelated, and that the responsi bility of the Me mber for Tuxedo is also somewhat involved or he should have some interest in the outcome of that particular complicated set of circumstances.

I want to point out though, in particular, that the closing of the Junior High Program at Earl Grey is causing a great deal of concern in the area and that people are saying, for example, Olive Reimer, who is the Council President, that people in the area are extremely distressed and she went so far as to say at one point, "We pay large school taxes but maybe not for long. No school, no taxes." That was one of her particular comments. Mr. Chairman, I want to note that there is an amount of money that could be put into this program that might in fact save that school.

I notice, for example, that the Member of Parliament, Mr. Axworthy, has indicated an interest in that particular question. I note that, for example, the division administrators project - and I'm talking now about today's Free Press - according to the Free Press report they project $13 9,500 a year can be saved by eliminating three teaching positions and a school administrator's position and sending the 12 5 or so Earl Grey Junior High Students to Churchill and Grant Park Jun ior-Senior Highs which are up to three kilometers from home, that's a quote from the Free Press. So they are claiming, Mr .

Chairman, that $1 39,000 could, in effect, save that school. Also, I note that in terms of Robert H. Smith that there is a structural problem there and according to another

article in the Free Press and this is again a quote from one of the citizen members, a person named Debbie Riley, who is an Osler parent spokesman, and I believe that William Osler is in the Tuxedo Legislature, and she said that the boards whole reorganization proposal would, "Fall like a house of cards if the province doesn't spend $600,000 fixing up Robert H. Smith ... " Then this quote goes funny, Mr. Chairman, I'll just read it as it is because it's some typographical confusion here. The figure quoted was $600,000 to fix up Robert H. Smith School and . . . I raise these points, Mr.

Chairman, because I think it demonstrates and underlines how regardless of whether the Winnipeg School Division should provide these funds, or whether or not the province should get involved, or whether or not Mr. Axworthy can spring some funds free somehow or wave a wand, regardless of that, it is a relatively small amount of money that could make a big difference in two public schools in Winnipeg south. In one case $1 39,000 on an ongoing basis; in the other case a one shot $600,000 grant. I also want to mention that I was very surprised that, first of all, we have had not comment at all, have had 2469

Thursday, 5 May, 1983 no comment I don't think since this whole affair started from the Member for Tuxedo, nor have we had any comment from the Member for Roblin-Ru ssell about the fact that there are some serious school cuts being contemplated or implemented right now in his division, talk of eliminating Industrial Arts and Home Economics classes in Grades 9-12, eliminating Music in Grades 1-7, cutbacks in sports, cutbacks in the teaching staff from 83 down to 73, for a total projected saving of $200,000 this year and $500,000 next year. Mr.

Chairman, in my own constituency there are some cutbacks in Glenelm School, which is a local elementary school; violin programs being eliminated for some 30- odd students; nurses' visits being eliminated not elimated but reduced from a half day a week to a half day every couple of weeks; gym equipment that isn't forthcoming that is needed; and a staff reduction which means that instead of having a small number of students in particular classes, a much higher ratio will be in effect