ISSN 0542-5492 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlalted under n.. au#rorlty ol The Honourable b. Ja,,,_ Welding ,,,....,. VOL. XXXI No. 638 - 8:00 p.m. , MO NDAY, 9 MAY, 1983.

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, a.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 Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flan 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 Monday, 9 May, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT CO MMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We are still on 9.(a)(1), where we started - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We may be where we started almost until we finish.

I'd like to ask the Minister some questions about the management imperatives which have been identified in the five-year report, the continued loss of habitat obviously being one of the main concerns; the two principal concerns of Wildlife Management being the ability to control the harvest or to manipulate the habitat. The Minister gave us some information earlier that 51,800 hectares of upland habitat are lost each year as a consequence of agricultural development.

Can the Minister tell us how many hectares or how many acres, square miles, whatever, of habitat are developed or saved as a consequence of the government's programs on a yearly basis? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, yes, I'll endeavour to do that.

By way of preliminary, I might indicate that I am certain that most people appreciate the fact that this is a difficult time for government to spend considerable money in connection with the development of wildlife habitat when dollars are precious for job creation or initiatives that have a high labour input; but nevertheless we have over the course of a relatively short period of time that I've been Minister developed some additional wildlife habitat. It's not anything like the numbers of hectares or acres, whichever honourable members would prefe r, that we lose, and there's no question about that.

By way of additional information, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by Ducks Unlimited that the acreage that is lost to wetland in the United States per year is something like 500,000 acres per year. We have throughout North America a very serious problem in connection with retention and preservation of wildlife habitat. It is disappearing on a very large scale. In 1982-83, a wildlife management area was established as an addition to the Narcisse Wildlife Management area to encompass the snake den area. It's 320 acres or 130 hectares.

It was a land trade of agriculturally suitable land deleted from the Clematis Wildlife Management area, and I suppose being a trade, there's really no additional wildlife management area. Not really, the director indicates. In 1982-83, we did acquire some additional wildlife habitat in southeastern Manitoba to the extent of 480 acres or 194 hectares, and as I indicated earlier, I hope to be making some further comment about that. In my answer to the Member for Emerson, I indicated that groups were involved in that and I wanted to share with them any announcement in connection with the overall development.

I might also add that private lands that are currently being acquired for inclusion in Wildlife Management areas, an area of 840 acres or 340 hectares, these lands are being exchanged for Wildlife Management lands, 230 acres, 53 hectares, better suited for agriculture. So, there is a net gain there in wildlife management acreage. We propose, for new wildlife management areas, an area of 72, 700 acres, or 29,400 hectares.

As I indicated earlier on, I was pleased - and this isn't reflected in these statistics, I assume - to receive the dedication of the 160 acres and I don't have the immediate translation for hectares, I'm sorry, as a wildlife refuge in the Vista area. As well, a major facility to bring people closer to wildlife proceed that at Oak Hammock and other points. MR. B. RANSOM: Having had this problem identified to him now, and it's evident from the program just outlined that it's relatively small compared to the magnitude of the problem, what, if anything, is the Minister contemplating by way of expansion of programs?

HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I did indicate the numbers of the proposed additional Wildlife Management acres that we proposed to acquire as quickly as we can and when funds are available. MR. B. RANSOM: That is the Minister's response then to the problems outlined in the Five-Year Report and to the facts stated, for instance, 20 percent loss of habitat for the next five years, I believe the figure is. HON. A. MA CKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not accept the abbreviation of everything that I've said earlier, by the honourable member.

I've indicated that there is no doubt that we have to get more Alexander McPhails in the province donating land to the people of Manitoba as a place for wildlife. We also have to convince all of our legislators and all of the people of Manitoba that consideration for the exemption of marginal land, either wetland or in cover, is appropriate in order to stop the drainage or the clearing of land that should not be drained or cleared.

I might say, also, that we continue to work with the Conservation Districts in respect to rehabilitation of land that was once put under the plow and should not be and it, again, adds to the potential for wildlife habitat. There are many segments of an overall thrust in connection with public education in respect to this problem. Honourable members may have recalled the fact that during National Wildlife Week, we had a poster contest, and although it may seem rather insignificant or not all that meaningful, let me assure honourable members it is important that young people, particularly in schools, 2535

Monday, 9 May, 1983 understand and appreciate the problem of wildlife and the need to preserve wildlife habitat. So the focus of our poster contest and our prose contest in which a large number of schools participated, particularly a large number of rural schools, focused on the question of wildlife habitat. I was pleased, on behalf of the people of Manitoba, to be able to present the successful winners with binoculars and books on wildlife. In this way, Mr.

Chairman, we instil! early, I trust, a love and appreciation for wildlife and the necessary base for wildlife and that is habitat, that we need to preserve it. We have to get this message to each individual owner of land in Manitoba so that there will be a continued preservation of land. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, we're not getting very specific answers from the Minister in that area. Perhaps I would try him on another area.

Page 56, refers to a p roblem that exists in the Oak Hammock and Whitewater Lake areas where there are very large numbers of non-resident hunters competing with the resident hunters there, and that it's an area of emerging concern. Can the Minister give an indication whether or not he plans to make any changes in the regulations governing hunting by non-residents in those areas? HON. A. MACK LING: Mr.

Chairman, extensive discussion took place recently within the department in which I participated, in focus on the problem that exits in some areas of the province where there is concern about the issue of non-resident hunting seeming to provide a very substantial pressure not only on the resource, but I suppose competing with resident hunters. Southwestern Manitoba - or I think parts of it in particular, I think Whitewater Lake and some other portions of southwestern Manitoba - are focused as areas where this pressure has seemingly developed. However, there seem to be several points of view.

We have, through the branch, talked with people in the area. I admit that I haven't talked to the the Member for Turtle Mountain or the Member for Arthur and others to date to weigh their opinion, and I'd appreciate their opinion here as to the problem. There seem to be several points of view; one point of view that the towns in the area welcome the influx of the hunters. It does produce some additional benefit. There are licences purchased. In some instances, I'm sure, there are shells, supplies purchased.

There are hotels that are used by these hunters, some of them; I admit that some of them may come self-contained in their own camping units and so on. But there seems to be a mixed view about how and how quickly and to what extent we apply any differentiation in the policy that existed in the past in respect to hunting in this area.

After discussing this matter at some length, I am persuaded that the way that we will deal with it is, this year, have a very full consultation in the communities, particularly in the southwestern part of Manitoba, where these complaints have arisen to determine what the perceived problems are with precision, and to get an appreciation for what people in the area believe might be reasonable alternatives to consider. What we did - and we discussed a number of alternatives.

I might confirm to the honourable members that there will be an increase in the non-resident, that is non-resident of Canada, game licence this year. There was a consideration of a partial closing of some areas to non­ resident hunters; a consideration of closing some areas for non-resident hunters during certain periods of the week, say Saturdays and Mondays - that's one of the prop.osals we looked at. We also looked at the proposal to sharply reduce bag limits for non-residents and a number of options.

Quite frank ly, it was not an easy problem to resolve, and after, I say, a very lengthy discussion on this question, having heard the views, I should also indicate, of those in the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, we decided that we would have to look at alternatives, but consult over a period of time with area residents, area hunters, area businessmen and that is our intention during this year, Mr. Chairman, to monitor the situation very closely, consult it as effectively as we can with residents and concerned people, including the municipalities in the area, and see what course of action can be recommended.

I might say this will also co-ordinate with the completion of the five-year waterfowl bag limits and seasons, so it will give us an opportunity to make some, I think, better-balanced and weighted decisions in respect to that problem. MR. B. RANSOM: So really the Minister isn't going to make any change in this area this year then. He's going to be monitoring further.

I can just briefly tell the Minister that as far as I'm concerned, and as far as a lot of people in that area are concerned, that they have passed the point now where the non-resident hunters are having a negative impact on the quality of recreation that's available to Manitobans and to other Canadians.

That kind of experience, the quality hunting that is available there, is one of the things that attracts people into rural Manitoba, to live in small towns, and it's been one of the things that has made that area attractive in the fall and we now find the situation where non­ resident hunters are coming in in great numbers. They're extremely well-equipped.

The local hunter who simply goes out after work, or on a Saturday to hunt, simply isn't in a position to compete anymore and we find that areas in publicly-owned land, that presumably are kept primarily for the benefit of Manitobans and Canadians, are no longer available to the local people because they can only accommodate so many hunters. So I would urge the Minister to consider taking action.

One of the very simple things that he might do would be simply to confine the non-resident, non-Canadian hunters to private land to which they can gain access, and that the publicly-owned lands would be retained primarily for the benefit of Manitobans and other Canadians and the non-residents of Canada who could gain access to private land would be able to do so. I think you'd find there were still substantial numbers of people coming into the area and making use of local facilities and doing business there, etc. HON. A. MACKLING : Mr.

Chairman, I thank the honourable member for his observations and certainly that was one of the alternatives that was suggested as well. There is, as identified in our discussions in 2536

Monday, 9 May, 1983 respect to that particular proposal, kind of an ancillary problem that has been developing and that is, it's maybe not in that area but that focus of the non-resident hunter on private lands in southwestern Manitoba could produce a continuation or an enlargement of a problem we're getting in the Oak Hammock Marsh area, where Manitoba-resident hunters are contending at least, that non-resident, particularly American hunters, have been enabled to buy up hunting rights for blocks of time and Manitoba hunters are being foreclosed of their hunting option in that area.

It's something we have to look at very carefully. I neglected to mention also, that because of our concerns and the concerns of the residents in the area we've been talking about, the Federal Government has assured us that they will provide an enhanced enforcement effort in this coming hunting season. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple of different concerns I'd like to raise.

First off, following up some of the concerns raised by members opposite on habitat itself, and I'm very much concerned and as the Minister has already mentioned, we certainly need more Alex McPhails. I think there is something we can be working on with rural landowners in particular, because that's the primary group of people who are involved with it, in raising awareness of things they can do in their communities.

One proposal I have that I think I would like to see reaction, not just from the Minister but also from members of the opposition too, as to how they feel about it, would be to move in towards wildlife corridors along rivers and streams. Prior to 1931 and The Resource Transfer Act, I understand title was given to the riverbeds and streambeds as well, but after 1931, on lands deeded after that date, I believe there was a 99-foot limit from the upper water shore of the river or stream, that that distance back remained as Crown land.

Now a lot of that land has now been under cultivation and was cultivated in some instances right up to the riverbanks.

I would like to make a proposal, and I would like to have some reaction to it from members, not necessarily here tonight, but also just in general about what they would feel if we tried to work on a co-operative program with landowners and farmers leasing some Crown lands as well along rivers and streams, for them to move back the intensive agricultural use of the land, say, to 99 feet from that river or stream, therefore creating a substantial network of wildlife corridors much more so than they are currently throughout parts of the province where wildlife has been very detrimentally affected by the destruction of habitat.

This area along the rivers and streams is quite an extensive network of corridors that would be created there, or at least they are there present ly, but with the assistance of the department for reforestation in some instances, other instances it may not be appropriate, but it would work in extreme bank stabilization as well.

It would work along the enhancement of the rivers and the streams; and because the buffer of non-cultivated land between the agricultural use of the land and the rivers itself is also a tremendous buffer for absorption of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers from getting into the river systems, which can cause both death to the aquatic as well as to the land-based animals using that habitat. Well, I guess that's the first thing I'd like to put out for a bit of general comment. Would you like to respond? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment from the Member for lnkster.

It's something that certainly we can look at. I know that one thing we have to be concerned with is bank stabilization, and if we've got cultivated land right up to the edge of the rivers and streams, we are risking the stability of the banks and so on, and I would think that some growth along the banks is appropriate to maintain them, and that growth can certainly provide suitable habitat. I might say, and honourable members may have some fun talking about this one or in my comment about this one, but I've made some further observations from aircraft.

While flying to Vista the other day - it was a remarkably clear day despite the haze - we saw quite a number of snow geese migrating north, but we also saw the Assiniboine River in its closest point to flood stage along its course; but what was very interesting to note was the old oxbows of the river path from days gone by.

I have asked the director and we are going to look at the question of the use or the propriety of the use of some of the oxbows that really are far too low - they are parts of the old river bed - for a realistic agricultural cultivation because most of them contained a lot of water in the spring, gradually dry out towards fall, and are very marginal habitat lands because of that. I would like the department to look at those oxbows from the point of view of enhancing the opportunity for wildlife habitat and I have an assurance that we're going to do that. MR. D.

SCOTT: Well, those words are certainly most encouraging, Mr. Chairman ... A MEMBER: Were you with him in the airplane? MR. D. SCOTT: Yes, I was with him in the airplane and something else I noticed from the airplane. HON. A. MACKL ING: They were key observers, gentlemen. MR. D. SCOTT: Key observers. Yes, it's amazing what you can see from the air. On a nice clear day you can see forever.

One of the things like canvasbacks, they show up just beautifully and I wish in some ways that we'd had the Congressman Conte (Phonetic) from Massachusetts with us as well, because he could have, as a very keen observer and hunter for the canvasback in particular, in his office he has one, and I'm sure he would have been just tickled pink to see the number of the canvasbacks we saw, especially in the Minnedosa area. That brings me to the other point from aerial observation, is the amount of pothole consolidation that is going on.

We have, I guess, one department that is encouraging pothole consolidation in the Department of Agriculture. At the same time we have 2537

Monday, 9 May, 1983 another department that is spending considerable amounts of money to maintain and to restore areas for waterfowl, in particular, waterfowl habitat. I would like to see us taking some efforts, I guess - (Interjection) - Can I have a little order, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. D. SCOTT: You do not get anywhere near the habitat for waterfowl, in particular, out of two or three consolidated potholes, rather than five or six that were on the land originally. I can appreciate it as well from the farmer's perspective that having to farm around all those potholes is darn inconvenient.

But having travelled a couple of years ago into southern Saskatchewan and what was, at one time, prime pothole land and they have pretty near all of those potholes drained now and the place is now a virtual wasteland for waterfowl because everything has been drained. We can work as much as we want in preserving areas like the Saskeram, but they're not going to produce anywhere near as much waterfowl as land in its natural state in the southern part of the province with the potholes in their normal state.

So we have to, I think, look very clearly at what we are doing, both as industrial and agricultural land, towards the habitat. I don't see that we've learned that many lessons. The other point I wanted to raise and this is a final point, Mr. Chairman, is dealing with Sunday hunting. I have a number of the regulations and also copies of the Act dating back to 1971 and going up until 1982. In 1971, The Wildlife Act stated under

Section 15(1) Hunting on Sundays, "A person who kills or hunts a wild animal on a Sunday is guilty of an offence and is liable under

summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or both such a fine and such imprisonmen t. " In 1980 that was softened up a little bit. In

Section 25 of the 1980 Act, The Wildlife Act again, I'm referring to, under the title Sunday Hunting, "Except as otherwise permitted by this Act, or the regulations, no person shall hunt or kill, or attempt to kill a wild animal on Sunday." So there they were opening the thing up so there could be some potential under the Act for Sunday hunting. The 19 regulations of that year, 1980, made only one reference to Sunday hunting and on the cover page, the first page, I guess, of the regulations, it states very clearly that hunting is not permitted on Sundays.

In 1981 on that same page, right on the first page of the - at least I believe it's the first page - of the 1981 regulations, under Non-Game Hunting it states, "Licences are not required to hunt unprotected, non­ game species such as rabbits. Unprotected species may be hunted at any time of the year, including Sundays." That's clearly a dramatic change from what was in 1971, or even the previous year, where it stated very emphatically that hunting is not permitted on Sundays and now we have it for a so-called non-game species in 1981, and it's expanded so that the non­ game species can be hunted on that day.

A MEMBER: Who was the Minister then who did that? MR. D. SCOTT: The Minister at that time - 1981, spring of 1981, I guess would have the Member for Lakeside. I don't know if he was acting on his own or under pressure from outside groups or other forces within his Cabinet. In 1981 the regulations further stated . MR. H. ENNS: I never did like rabbits. MR. D. SCOTT: That's what I was afraid of. Harry, you see ifs your antipathy towards rabbits and squirrels that has me worried.

In 1981 under General Regulations, General Closures and Restrictions it says, "Hunting for game birds and big game species is not permitted on Sundays. " Then in 1982, once again on the first page, it says, "Hunting for game birds and big game species is not permitted on Sundays. " But then under Licencing Information, it states that, "Under small game hunting licences are not required to hunt unprotected small game species such as rabbits. Unprotected species may be hunted at any time of the year including Sundays. " So, Mr.

Chairman, you can see that the concerns that I and an awful lot of other people have towards Sunday hunting have been able to go out into the bush, particularly on Crown land, and not have to be worried about someone out plinking away at squirrels, or whatever. You're not supposed to even have a rifle. If you're out in the bush, you're usually out in the bush with a rifle to hunt and for the non-hunter and for other people, I think Sunday is a time of peace and it's not a time for target practice.

It's not a time for going out and trying to kill various small critters just because they're not classified under The Game Act. So I would like to let my objections state with my previous statements, quite clearly, that I am very much opposed to what seems to be and what clearly has been the erosion of the principle of no hunting on Sundays. In one decade we've gone from a clear statement of no hunting on Sundays to a

section in 1982, where it says that the other species are allowed. We have a couple of members here - the members of the opposition have been catcalling me all through this short presentation, Mr. Chairman, but I don't know if they don't share my concerns towards hunting on Sundays or that they want to open it up more and I guess while they were in office they certainly opened - I hope it's not a floodgate - but they certainly opened the gate towards hunting on Sundays.

Whether it's plinking at gophers, or whether they want to shoot on gophers, people know and knew in the past that it was clearly against the law even to hunt gophers on a Sunday .. . MR. L. HYDE: Oh, put another conrol on it, for heaven sakes. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, when the Act in 1971 stated, "A person who hunts or kills a wild animal on a Sunday is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such a fine and to such an imprisonment." And if the Member for Turtle Mountain doesn't think a gopher or a rabbit or a squirrel isn't a wild animal, then I don't know what the heck he thinks a wild animal is. Maybe out his way he's got them all tamed. I don't know. That's how he shoots them. 2538

Monday, 9 May, 1983 A MEMBER: The last time I was attacked by a rabbit, he was very tame. MR. D. SCOTT: If it was Jimmy Carter - he got attacked on a Sunday afternoon on a rabbit hunt, I know. So, Mr. Chairman, that's my comments on this and I would like to see us move back towards the spirit of the original Act for 1971. It clearly stated, as the regulations in 1980 clearly stated, that hunting is not allowed on Sundays, be it for small game or non-game species or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record for target practice on Sundays. HON. A.

MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, to take them in reverse order, dealing with the latter question the Member for lnkster has brought to my attention, he has indicated to me his concern about that. I haven't had an opportunity to review that concern with staff of the department. Part of the difficulty may be in the definition of what a wild animal is that one is not allowed to hunt. Wild animals are defined in the Act and therefore it may be that from time immemorial rabbits, squirrels and so forth were not identified in the Act as wild animals where the Act would apply.

However, I have undertaken with the member to look at that whole question, because I think that the common understanding in Manitoba has been that you don't go into the woods with your rifle, a .22 rifle or otherwise, on the Sunday shooting rabbits. Now that was always the common perception, that you didn't shoot on Sunday. - (Interjection) - I hear honourable members saying - at least that was the common perception that I had and I - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, I am hearing that there is some doubt about the accuracy of what I say.

Maybe that's gross understatement, but in any event let me say that the question is one that I indicated to the member I would look at the regulations and confirm to him and the other indivduals that I've heard from in connection with this. In respect to pothole consolidation, there is no doubt that there has been the draining of potholes in this province that did not make sense; that is, there have been attempts to make usable, arable land out of land that should stay wetland.

However, there are instances where farmers have shallow, depressed areas on their land, and with effective drainage into one depressed area, there could be a usable pothole developed for waterfowl and you would get a net gain of more arable land and you would get a pothole that would actually be the base or the habitat for wildfowl over a nesting period. So there is a basis of looking at pothole consolidation.

Maybe the description, pothole, may not be appropriate to the kind of improved drainage that I am talking about, but I have indicated to the Conservation District Board my concern about this issue; that we don't try to eliminate potholes where we shouldn't be trying to; and that the consolidation should be such that we really do get a net ga in to agriculture. So I think the Conservation Boards are aware of the merits of responsible drainage, and I anticipate that they will follow those guidelines. MR. CHAIRMAN: Still on the same line of questioning? The Member for lnkster. MR. D.

SCOTT: It seems that the Wildlife Branch, itself, didn't have any trouble in 1980 in determining what wild animal, whatever it was, because it said simply that hunting is not permitted, and not is in a heavy type or heavier type than the rest of the sentence - (Interjection) - bold, yes. Hunting is not permitted on Sundays. Now maybe shooting - they want to get into some identification or some new definition of what hunting is. Hunting, to me, is taking some form of a weapon or your hand or whatever else and shooting something or killing something.

If that's what hunting is, then it says it is clearly not permitted on Sundays. So it's pretty clear in the mind of the general public, I think, that hunting must not be permitted on Sundays. That's all I have to say on the matter, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: I want to be fair. He's next . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, he is? Okay. The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister , I don't think, clearly answered the question of the Member for lnkster. I'm wondering if he can tell me what the definition of wild animals are in the Act. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I will read The Wildlife Act,

Section 1, in the Definition Section, "Wild animal " - this is (y), Clause (y) - "means an animal or bird of a species or type listed in

Schedule A or declared by the regulations to be a wild animal. " Then

Schedule A has a very long list of animals and birds. MR. A. ANSTETT: Rather than read the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, can the Minister tell us if it includes rabbits, gophers and tree squirrels. HON. A. MA CKLING: Not that I can see. MR. CHAIRMAN: It says of the type, it is only listed. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister then confirm that the hunting of animals such as rabbits, gophers and squirrels that has been going on in rural Manitoba for many years despite the amendment in 1980, and it's that parti.cular practice that has occasioned municipalities, such as my home municipali ty, the R.M. of Springfield, to have passed a by-law over 50 years ago prohibiting any hunting whatsoever on Sunday, and other municipalities which might have had some concern and felt The Wildlife Act was not adequate in terms of banning Sunday hunting, have, by local option, banned any hunting whatsoever on Sundays?

Can the Minister confirm that's the case? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can confirm that . I should correct one point. I didn't read the extensive list, but the red squirrel not the grey squirrel, but the red squirrel is a wild animal and cannot be 2539

Monday, 9 May, 1983 hunted on Sunday - (Interjection) - well, yes and I don't know whether we've changed that by the regulations. MR. B. RANSOM: Can it be trapped on Sundays? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, it can be trapped. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister then advise this committee what the effect was of the change then in terms of the way his department administered the Act and the regulations thereun der, of the change that was made in 1980 to the Act and to the

section quoted by the Member for lnkster? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, my department confirms that from their perspective there was no change. It could be that there is some misunderstanding because of the

interpretation of the Act by laypersons and the fact that the wording in the regulations was changed somewhat. MR. A. ANS TETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is confirming that, in effect, there has been change in hunting practices with regard to Sunday hunting or no Sunday hunting since 1971 or whatever the consolidated statute reference was that the Member for lnkster used? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman. I won't confirm what change in practice has occurred by people. I don't know that. I know the department says that from their perspective there's been no change in the law or the regulations. MR. A.

ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I guess my question wasn't carefully worded enough. I was referring to department practice in administering the Act and the regulations. There's been no change in the last 15 years or thereabouts. Can the Minister confirm that? HON. A. MA CKLING: Yes. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you. There was some further discussion on hunting this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, that gave me some cause for concern. We were talking about Crown land.

Peripherally to that discussion I was wondering if the Minister's given any consideration to the concerns of many persons having Crown land under agricultural lease and the abuse of the privilege which is granted. I call it a privilege, because I have some difficulty calling it a right, to hunters to in many ways infringe upon the leasehold rights of the farmer in their use of their privilege of access through that land, across it and whatever.

I'm referring to damage done by four-wheel drive vehicles, the cutting of fences, the use of fields for target practice, especially haystacks and things like that set up as backdrops even when there's cattle in fields. I have some serious concerns about that and I'm wondering what the department's been doing. I know this has been an ongoing problem, it's existed for many years.

I realize that a whole series of governments of various stripes have attempted to maintain the rights, because Crown lands are so pervasive in the good hunting areas of the province that limiting access is not something we could consider, but what are we doing to control the kinds of abuse that are taking place? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member knows Crown land leases for agricultural use do allow hunting access during the legal seasons. The Wildlife Act does provide for the prosecution of people who damage agricultural property or equipment.

There is no question, but there is a minority of hunters who will offend, in some instances, their rights by damaging property. The difficulty is in apprehending them at the time. The honourable member refers to interference with haystacks, or using haystacks for a backdrop for shooting, and cutting fences. These things do occur. We do have a program for compensation for livestock that have been lost during the hunting season. We have made no provision for miscellaneous damage to farms, because I think it might be a very, very difficult area to administe r.

We do our best in trying to educate the licensed hunter to obey the law and to be mindful and respectful of the rights of the landowner. For some time the Manitoba Wildlife Federation had a program called Operation Respect. It was well­ received. I think that with the passage of the new Wildlife Act that made it mandatory that any hunter obtain permission for going on private land, that that program has not been pursued as it had been in the past. It may well be that we can persuade user groups such as the Wildlife Federation to reinstitute a more vigorous program of that nature.

Certainly there are ongoing problems, but we think that it would be far too restrictive to take the agricultural leased lands out of the areas where hunting can obtain. In most instances, the hunting seasons are targeted, if I can use that expression, to ensure that most livestock should be or certainly could be out of the leased land when the season is on. I think that's all I'll say right now, Mr. Chairman. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister advise how many dollars were paid out by his department last year in compensation for livestock shot during the hunting season on any type of land, either under agricultural lease, or under private ownership? And does the Minister have a breakdown between the land on which compensation was paid if the land was leased as opposed to under direct private ownership? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, no we haven't got a breakdown. I think that the most current statistics we would have would be those contained for the conclusion of the 1981-82 season.

Staff are looking for statistics on that now as may be contained in the Annual Report. If not, we'll try and get that information to the committee. MR. A. ANSTETT: The second question, Mr. Chairman: Has the Minister's department given any consideration to some suggestions I've heard with regard to this whole question of obtaining permission to hunt under the rules 2540

Monday, 9 May, 1983 that were made a few years ago; specifically to providing a standard form of sign for use by farmers where farmers had some concern about this, or perhaps requiring a standard permission agreement where farmers were concerned about the use of verbal permission, which is the current practice, and some sort of standard contract or standard agreement, or letter of permission that would be entered into, and standard form of sign which would show those farmers who had a special concern about this?

Has there been any discussions about providing that, since particularly on agricultural-leased land, there's some real concerns, because this tends to be in those areas where you've got grazing leases, and it seems that it's in those areas where you're going to have pressure on cattle by deer hunters? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate there can be a conflict between seasons in some areas. I would disagree that it would likely be in respect to deer hunters and those with livestock, except perhaps maybe in some early seasons. Quite frank ly, I don't see that as any very significant problem.

I know that we did have discussions with people in the wildlife federation about the question of getting a written permission to go on private land, because of the concerns that people of enforcement, people saying well they thought they had permission or something else, and it would facilitate enforcement if there was a written requirement. But we quite frankly want to weigh that pretty carefully before we go that route because it becomes pretty difficult to implement. In some instances, for example, people make decisions to go hunting whether it be for migratory waterfowl, or upland bird, or big game animals.

In order to get the written permission, oftentimes they'd have to awaken someone or find them in the area after they've driven to the countryside and often that is a very grave inconvenience, not only to the hunter but also the landowner. - (Interjection) - Yes, as the honourable member says, it's kind of like double hunting. We certainly haven't ruled that out, but we haven't decided that should be mandatory this year. We are promoting the idea of operation respect. We're using that sort of sign where we have concerns about people going on the land where it's agricultural leased land.

In respect to the numbers, in 1982-83, we paid out $9, 100 for compensation for livestock lost; in 1981-82, the previous season, we paid $6,300, and those were determined to be hunter accidentally shot livestock. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, does this indicate that the present government is more generous or that there has been more dangerous hunting taking place since the change in government - these figures? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I think the statistics can be interpreted many ways; it could be none of those things. · MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, if we're talking $9, 100 last year, and I take it the bulk of the animals, the livestock that would have been shot would have been cattle, and yet the Minister suggests that particularly with regard to cattle, there is no conflict between hunting for deer and the shooting of cattle or other large game, deer, moose, whatever. From what we're hearing, there aren't that many moose to be had out there. I'm just wondering how the Minister rationalizes the fact that he's been paying out this amount of money in the department over several years if there aren't any cattle in the way of deer.

If there is no conflict - well, if these were people, we'd be looking at 25 or 30 people a year in terms of taking a rough estimate in terms of value of these cattle. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, of course, I couldn't recall a reconciliation of the claims, but I'm sure that some of the claims involve the accidental shooting of cattle very close to farm or ranch operations, hunters not realizing that they were in such close proximity to the buildings or the areas where the livestock were herded.

I might say that in respect to the quantum, 691 as to 6.3, it largely depends on the quality of the cattle, or what have you. I recall recently signing a confirmation in respect to a horse, and that had a fairly substantial value because it was a relatively young horse and a good horse, and it seems to me that it was far higher than most of the claims that have been authorized. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Member for Arthur hasn't lost any cattle and that's why he's not concerned about the double hunt he's suggested be involved in finding the owner of the land. Mr.

Chairman, I have constituents who have lost cattle in this situation, who have some serious concerns about what's been happening. If the Member for Arthur isn't concerned about that, that's his problem.

I certainly support the compensation progam, since he's asked that question, but I have some concerns about how it's being organized and about how the enforcement is taking place and the whole question of permission; because when the Minister tells me this is happening close to buildings or farmsteads, he's increasing the level of my concern because that confirms the fact that these animals are no longer far away from the farmstead in a grazing situation maybe on leased land, but are close to buildings and that hunting's taking place close to the farm and the farmstead where the owner is easily identified and cattle are being shot or horses there.

That concerns me about the hunting practices that are taking place and the adherence by hunters to the regulations requiring them to seek permission.

So I look to the Minister. for some assurance that his department is taking some action to reduce these costs because I believe that every dollar paid out in that program, although it's necessary and I agree with the compensation, is a demonstration of the failure of the government to prevent this kind of careless hunting activity; and in many cases, because it's not possible, I understand, to identify the hunter, providing further evidence that those hunters aren't seeking permission by identifying themselves to the farmer on whose land they're hunting, which indicates another problem with the program.

I'm wondering how the department is addressing that. I agree with the program, but I believe every dollar that comes out of that fund is further proof 2541

Monday, 9 May, 1983 of the failure of the regulatory system to ensure that these kind of activities don't take place. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, my chuckle is at your note; I won't read it. Mr. Chairman, you and I are entitled to have our private correspondence. (Interjection) - Yes, that's right, and I may agree or disagree with your private note. However, in respect to the observations made by the Member for Springfield, the department does not take lightly the loss of animals and the consequent claims that are put to the government. We are concerned about it.

We can't have conservation officers everywhere watching over the operations of individual hunters. We do operate a Hunter Safety Program. We make it mandatory that persons starting out hunting take a Hunter Safety Program. When people have had any problems with hunting, we recommend that they take the hunter safety training course. We counsel safety; we provide in our regulations, in our guidelines, as much public education as we can about the need to respect rights. It's not a simple matter.

We just can't simply eliminate the irresponsible hunter, just like we can't eliminate the irresponsible driver on our highways - people who drink and drive. There's always going to be a small number who disregard the law, and we have to contend with that. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, do the compensation figures for 1981-82, 1982-83, include in the figures we were given this evening compensation for livestock killed by means other than by hunters ; for example, depredation by other forms of wildlife? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, there are other statistics for that. MR. A.

ANSTETT: Can the Minister advise how much money was paid out in either one of those years in that category? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, staff will look up the statistics, but we have compensation programs dealing with apiaries. We have, particularly in the region of the mountains - the Ducks, the Porcupines, the Riding Mountain - extensive claims for damage to beehives and loss of honey by black bears primarily. We also have claims in respect to damage to crops, of course, by waterfowl and we have claims for damage to standing crops from bears.

Big game compensation paid 1981-82 for damage was 159,000 - I'll say 160,000 - and 1982-83, 176,000. The breakdown - yes I have - this appears in the Annual Report. Compensation for big game damage to crops: Deer, 105 claims of $102,915; Elk, 12 claims, $14, 144; and Bear, 84 claims, $44,487.00. Now the Waterfowl Damag e Prevention and Compensation is a separate item. I could touch on that, but I think you know that the numbers are significant. There is a shared-cost program between the province and Federal Government in respect to crop depredation. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, what about the killing of livestock by, for example, wolves affecting sheep? HON. A. MACKLING: No compensation, Mr. Chairman. I might say also that some animals are obviously killed by hunters who do not appreciate the fact that they actually accidentally did kill an animal. They may shoot at an animal that they do not find. They do not realize that they have killed a domestic animal because they don't find it; they don't see it. It may be a stray bullet. It may not be a premeditated kill at all. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, has the department given any consideration to provision of compensation for livestock killed by wild animals, particularly in relation to the concern expressed in portions of eastern Manitoba over the last several years, and in the Interlake, about the increasing presence of a very elusive animal, the cougar, which very few people see; but there has been some fairly regular suggestions of killings by cougar of farm livestock, particularly sheep and young calves, some as recently as in the last two weeks in my constituency. What is happening in that regard? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I haven't had a report up until this point about the killings alleged to be by cougar. I know that earlier on this year - or was it last fall - we had a number of sheep that were killed in the Interlake. The department finally tracked an older she-wolf that was finally slaughtered, and it was contended that a number of sheep had been killed by that wolf. It could well be, however, that a lot of the sheep had died from natural causes or other things. A very strict accounting was not readily obtainable by the branch in respect to those claims. MR. A. ANSTETT: I'm wondering, Mr.

Chairman, how sheep that have been torn limb from limb have died from natural causes. I have some difficulty when the farmer finds a sheep in their field - (Interjection) - no, Mr. Chairman, natural cause may have been loss of blood, yes, as the Member for Minnedosa suggests, after some wild animal has torn them limb from limb. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I did not suggest that sheep had died from natural causes having lost their head or lost a shoulder or lost a leg from causes unknown. I am indicating that the sheep rancher contended he had lost large numbers of livestock, large numbers of sheep.

It was not possible to find the carcasses of these animals. It was not possible to determine, therefore, that they had actually been destroyed by predators or how they had been lost. They could have been poached or any number of reasons. There might have been a wrong count on the number of lambs that had been born. We don't know. We know that there were a number of kills. We did find and track one she-wolf, and it was eliminated . Mr.

Chairman, in most instances, good husbandry, good count, good watch over animals, particularly animals that are ranged, is necessary because it's very difficult to prove losses otherwise. I know that there are people who contend that the public should pick up the expense of animals that are destroyed by predator animals, domestic animals destroyed by predator animals. That is a very large area of administrative responsibility, and I question that we would want to consider that at the present time. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister confirm that in March of this year, staff in his 2542

Monday, 9 May, 1983 department, the Wildlife Branch, suggested to individuals in the Monominto area in eastern Manitoba that the tracks found near cattle, recent kills of calves, were the tracks of cougars or a cougar? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, staff present can't confirm that. There may have been words to someone else, but we don't know about that. MR. A. ANSTETT: These would have been the field staff who, I assume, aren't present here tonight. HON. A. MACKLING: That's right, Mr. Chairman.. MR. A. ANSTETT: Two other questions, Mr. Chairman.

Section 1(h} of The Wi ldlife Act,

Chapter W-140, provides that definition of hunting which includes trapping. I recall hearing the Member for Turtle Mountain suggest that trapping of red squirrels was allowed on Sundays. If I am to interpret properly what the Minister has advised us by the regulations, since trapping is included in the definition of hunting and hunting of red squirrels is prohibited on Sundays, does that then mean that trapping of red squirrels, which the Member for Turtle Mountain suggested was legal on Sundays, is or is not legal on Sundays? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman. Hunting is defined in the Act.

If you want me to read it . MR. A. ANSTETT: I have it in front of me. HON. A. MACKLING: All right. It does not include trapping, as I understand it - oh, includes trapping? MR. A. ANSTETT: Second line, last word. HON. A. MACKLING: Just a minute. I'm getting a lot of advice, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that hunting includes trapping, and trapping has always been permitted on Sundays. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, on this same point, prior to the change in the Act in 1980, how was trapping permitted on Sunday if the Act specifically prohibited all hunting on Sunday? HON. A.

MACKLING: There has been no change, Mr. Chairman. Trapping was always permitted on any day of the week. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, as I recall from the excerpt quoted earlier in this committee, all hunting was prohibited on Sunday and that the definition of hunting has not been changed. At least, it doesn't show as having been changed. HON. A. MA CKLING: Hunting of game animals is prohibited on Sunday. Mr.

Chairman, I might read from the General Trapping Information Guide, and it reads as follows: "Trapping on Sundays is permitted, provided that the trapper holds a valid trapping licence and trapping occurs during the period of the year and in the area where trapping of the species is permitted. " MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman,

Section 15(1) of the old Act that was in effect in March, 1971, provided ". . . a person who hunts or kills a wild animal on Sunday is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction, etc. " There's no provision for any further exemptions from that in the regulation. Mr. Chairman, I apologize; 15(2) does allow trapping on Sundays. I'll go to my next point. Mr. Chairman, there was an argument this afternoon and I didn't get an opportunity to enter into it. - (Interjection} - Mr. Chairman, maybe the Member for Portage la Prairie wants to take a trip and I suggest that if he does, that he not burden the committee with his itinerary. - (Interjection} - Yeah, the Member for Pembina suggests that the Member for Portage wants to go sample the magic mushrooms.

They have those on the West Coast too. A MEMBER: He got into them already. MR. A. ANSTETT: Or he's been into them already. Yes, we're not sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. You are bordering on the irrelevant. The Member for Springfield. MR. A.

ANSTETT: There was a suggestion this afternoon by the Member for Turtle Mountain, when he was commenting on the practice of nightlighting in the Province of Manitoba by non-Natives and Natives, that his only concern in raising the matter was to limit hunting methods, but he didn't want to in any way infringe upon the rights of Natives on the numbers that were taken or the seasons in which they were taken. Mr.

Minister , I'm wondering if you can see any way in which the limiting of hunting methods would in any way further protect those species whose numbers are endangered if there's no cap put on bag limits or on seasons. In other words, if the former Minister is suggesting that he wants no limitations or further regulation on numbers taken or seasons allowed by Natives, how is a limit on hunting methods going to in any way protect those species the member was concerned about? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, in total, I agree with the logic that the Honourable Member for Springfield is arguing.

However , the short-term argument; that is, the loss of wildlife that can occur without there actually being a harvest and a use of the animal is substantially greater when the hunting occurs at night. In other words, animals can be shot, wounded and never recovered, and therefore lost to those who would otherwise be able to shoot that animal and actually consume it, so that there will be, therefore, more pressure to continue to hunt in order to get an animal to put on the table; I mean, to put meat on the table.

But you're quite right when you say that unless there is consideration for the totality of the resource and the numbers that are available for consumption, that merely limiting the instrumentality of the hunt or the nature of the technique of kill will not provide the solution. The solution is conservation - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Chairman, I refuse to be drawn into a ... 2543

Monday, 9 May, 1983 MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, a further question on this subject. Is the Minister suggesting then that the suggestion of limiting hunting methods might have the desirable effect of limiting the total kill, particularly the wastage of animals, even if no changes were made in terms of regulating the number of game taken or the seasons in which the hunting can take place? In other words, would just an agreement to abolish nightlighting limit that activity, succeed in increasing population, because of the wastage which would then not occur? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? HON. A.

MA CKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that a very limited objective of eliminating night hunting will not necessarily have the desired effect at all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out and as the Five-Year Wildlife Report highlights, the problem area by way of wildlife at the present time are not those animals that are hunted by nightlighting. Moose are not animals that are customarily hunted by nightlight hunting. So the answer to the question from the Honourable Member for Springfield is, no.

The concern that we have to have is not only conservation by the user groups including treaty Indian people, residential hunters, non-resident hunters, but we also have to establish a policy where we can ensure the retention of necessary habitat for wildlife. MR. A. ANSTETT: One final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, has the enforcement

section of the Minister's department increased in any way their attempts to limit dangerous hunting practices, particularly as those relate to nightlighting of big game in the last couple of years? Have they done anything as part of the Minister's expressed concern about this - what I consider a very dangerous form of hunting and to which I have some very strong opposition - to further limit that activity under those provisions which declare it to be dangerous hunting and therefore an offence.

In other words, what has this Minister done which was not done by previous Ministers, because of his concern in this area and because of his knowledge about the loss of some of these big game species to limit what he considers to be not only a dangerous form of hunting, but a form of hunting which is directly leading to the wastage of these animals? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member should know that we deal witn those concerns under a different

section of the Estimates. However, in view of the fact that I've answered similar questions of other members after having pointed that out to them, I will point out that yes, we have increased the kind of communications equipment - we've upgraded the communications equipment that the branch has. We have a vigorous program of surveillance, including surveillance from aircra ft. I don't say that it is substantially different from anything that has gone on before, but certainly it has increased the capacity of the force to deal more effectively with some of these problems. MR. A.

ANSTETT: How do the prosecution numbers compare with previous years, last year over previous years? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, when we get to Item 12, we will deal with them. I've answered some questions; I'll answer no more until we get there. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'll resist the opportunity of challenging some of the Minister's comments just recently about the method of hunting not having much impact on the game taken.

Surely, this Minister wants to familiarize himself with what an airplane, for instance, can do to a herd of caribou swimming a lake, or certainly what a high-powered spotlight can do equipped out of the back seat of an all-terrain four-wheel drive vehicle, snowmobiles, etc. So I think the Minister may want to reconsider those comments, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, aside from having an interesting discussion about Sunday hunting and what is permissible and not, and other than suggesting that perhaps the Minister take the time occasionally to invite some of his caucus members into his office and chat about this with his staff and get that straightened out, it has, of course, brought out another significant point. I'm always quick to point that out, because there is that fundamental difference that keeps coming up once in a while between those of us on this side and my socialist friends on the other side.

You see, you believe that unless a law or regulation tells the Manitoba citizen what he can do, the citizen can't do anything. We believe just the opposite. We believe that a citizen can do anything unless a law or regulation says he can't do it. That is the fundamental difference between us. A MEMBER: That's his problem. MR. H. ENNS: No, that's very true, The fact that . MR. A. ANSTETT: Nobody said that. MR. H. ENNS: The Wildlife Act spells out what a wildlife is, what a wild animal is. It's not just somebody's imagination or somebody's suggestion.

The Wildlife Act spells it out very succinctly how and what can be trapped under . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! A MEMBER: Red squirrel in order. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside has the floor and I cannot hear him. MR. H. ENNS: The Wildlife Act spells out what the Manitoba citizen can do with respect to taking of game, and it's from that point of view that we conduct ourselves. Mr.

Chairman, one specific project that I know the department spent some time on - I haven't heard too much about it - and that is the efforts that were being made over the past number of years to establish a wood bison herd in the northern Interlake. Is work still 2544

Monday, 9 May, 1983 proceeding on that? I know that departmental staff spent some considerable time in discussing that certainly with the Native communities involved, whose co-operation would of course be paramount. But can the Minister indicate if any further action is being taken on that project? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman I can, but let me first address a couple of the concerns the honourable member had earlier; and that was his indication to me that I didn't recognize the effect that hunting, different modes or techniques of hunting, would have on the wildlife base.

I wasn't agreeing to that proposition. I was agreeing to the concern that if there is unregulated hunting in respect to limits of animals taken, when they're taken, and what species are taken, and there is obviously a growing or an intensive use in respect to that; the mere fact of changing the technique would not in the long run answer that problem. But I did not say that the type of hunting, the technique of hunting wouldn't have any effect. I agree with the honourable member completely if and when he suggests that if you use aircraft, well, if you use an atomic bomb you'll wipe them all out.

What limits - sure there are limits to the kind of technique and there ought to be for that, but the overall concern, the preservation of the species for the priorities that we have all confirmed still exist.

Now, in respect to the other matter, and it's kind of a backhanded reference to my colleagues asking questions on the record, I appreciate that members of the Legislature from both sides of the House have constituents who have concerns about lost animals, about hunting practices, and want to put on the record their concerns even though those colleagues on both sides of the House who may be in my office, members of the opposition and members of my own Caucus are in my office from time to time and they're welcome there.

Nevertheless, if they want to put on the record, the formal public record, their concerns, that doesn't trouble me in the least. In respect to the concern about the wood bison herd, yes, that proposal is very much of concern to me. We have had recent meetings with representatives of the Waterhen Band and representation from the Federal Government through its Department of Indian Affairs. We are pursuing a probable agreement in respect to a reintroduction of that species.

There are a lot of contingencies; there are a lot of problems that have to be solved in connection with funding, but we certainly are very much in sympathy and very much desirous of seeing an introduction of that species to Manitoba. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, allow me simply to encourage the Minister to redouble his efforts.

I always counted among one of my failures in not having succeeded in reintroducing the wood bison back to Manitoba, and it seemed like an excellent opportunity to do several things; to not only reintroduce a species that has vanished more or less from Manitoba, but also provide a very worthwhile program involving our Native people both in the management of this same herd and the eventual economic production from this herd that could assist in communities where a lack of economic base is always of utmost concern to governments. Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Springfield expressed references about hunting on agricultural leased Crown land. The Minister is, of course, aware of the fact that the Act permits him to pass the necessary legislation or the further posting of these same Crown lands. Has the Minister any intention of doing same? It's my understanding that no such regulations have been passed either by the previous administration or in the first 15-16 months of this year. I'm asking the Minister what his plans are? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I've had meetings with representatives from agricultural interests who would clearly like to see that. I've had indication from wildlife groups that they wouldn't welcome that in the least. We have made no change in the existing policy. I know the provision exists, that by regulation we can require posting. We have not done so. It's a policy decision that would not be entered into lightly and we have no intention at this time certainly of proclaiming or providing for that regulation. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope that we pass this

section of the Estimates tonight and I don't wish to preclude, of course, any further questioning that other members have, but allow me to ask one general question about not just this appropriation but, Sir, it runs through much of the department, and that is the question of why the reduction in the listing of Other Expenditures. In the Department of Wildlife, for instance, it's fairly significant. In virtually every appropriation, there is a fairly substantial reduction in the item under each heading listed Other Expenditures.

We note that the item listing the Salaries, of course, reflects the general increase in Civil Service salary agreement, but in the Other Expenditures, you will note, and I draw members' attention to that, that virtually every case the reduction is there. In the case of this one branch, and it's not that big of a branch, a rough tally indicates some $170,000.00. In the case of, for instance, the Canada-Manitoba Wild Fur Agreement, the reduction is from $236,000 to $166,000.00. My question has to be a general one.

I assume that the Other Expenditures item covers the other expenditures that staff have in carrying out their programs; the mileage, other costs related to service in the field.

My concern has to be is that we are aware, of course, that the Civil Service have concluded a successful agreement with respect to salaries, but are these same civil servants going to have to spend more time in-their offices, less time out in the field servicing the programs that we are responsible for, or how can the Minister explain - not only in this expropriation, I may say, the same thing can be said about the Department of Fisheries that we just dealt with a little while ago, and others - the appropriations show under the item , Other Expenditures, as being decreased in a considerable number?

I would solicit the Minister's comments on that. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is quite correct. There is reduction in many instances of other expenditures, if not all of them. They 2545

Monday, 9 May, 1983 reflect part of the result of the agonizing process of what we could call belt tightening. We have squeezed this department - like I can say that other departments have been squeezed hopefully to like amount - to ensure that we don't have any additional fat in the department. I might say that there are some minor savings. I shouldn't say just minor savings because, if you add them all up, there are quite a few thousands of dollars in the Centrex telephone cost savings. I see 1,900 in one section, another 3,400 in another, 3,500 in another and so on.

Overall, it adds up to a number of thousands of dollars, but the honourable member is quite right that it is a belt tightening, it is a reduction. We don't believe that there will be reduced service. If there is, of course, I'm going to hear about it in the level of complaints, not only from the public, but from those who have been limited in their other budget expenses, and I'll have to live with that. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's comments aren't really all that reassuring.

We know, for instance, that the Minister of Transportation is going to build $20 million fewer roads in the coming year and less roads for maintenance, and he is going to have his own little consolidation of a potho le program, unfortunately not on the wetlands of Manitoba, but right on the provincial highways, trunks highways and roads of Manitoba.

But at the same time, this government - and we're not dealing with the Civil Service right now - they've committed themselves to a no reduction, no cutback on staff, a substantial salary increase for the Civil Service but, by the Minister's own admission, cutting back in the area of Other Expenditures. That leaves you with the distinct impression that the staff will be there and they will be well paid, as they should be, but they will be cut back on being able to provide the services of their programs to the users, to the consumers. I put on the record, Mr.

Minister , that we will be watching very carefully how this is affecting the capability of the department to deliver their services. Mr. Chairman, I leave it at that. The Minister can respond, but I have one further question and it has to do with the - and I appreciate the Minister's allowing us to deal with the branch in total. I have indicated to him that we will be prepared to pass it in total, but why is the fur flying in the fur department? Why is it that Melis leaders are all of a sudden calling those fellows alien individuals? What's gone wrong in that fur department?

That used to be a pretty nice tight little organization, reasonably well-run. There were even some pretty decent guys running that operation. All of a sudden, as I say, the fur is flying in that department. Can the Minister tell me what's going on in the fur department? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what reductions - I will ask staff to see if they can find, through the fur, what's happening here. In respect to the reductions, there were three staff positions in Wildlife that were unfilled and that were cut. We have some fewer publications. We have reduced travel to conferences somewhat.

We've, in effect, done belt tightening. In respect to the fur management, Mr. Chairman, I can indicate we're doing a lot of things, program management. I could read the highlights of every aspect of fur management. Maybe I'll just touch on a few highlights for the honourable member. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to be rude to the Minister, but the Minister has been doing this throughout his Estimates. I asked a specific question. There is some trouble in the fur department. If the Minister wants me to be more specific, I'll quote the Vice-President, I beli eve, of the Manitoba Metis Federation, Mr.

Head I believe it was, that refers to this particular

section of the department in the manner that I earlier alluded to. I am asking the Minister a specific problem. What caused that recent difficulty with the Manitoba Federation, the trappers, in the fur

section of the department? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. The Minister is not listening. HON. A. MA CKLING: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, to the member. I was distracted. MR. H. ENNS: Well, I'll repeat the question again and without a general sermon about the fur industry, I'm simply wanting to ask: What is the specific problem in the trapping industry that has aroused the ire of the Manitoba Metis Federation, for instance, and other trappers? HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of there being a problem that has attracted the ire of someone in the Trapping Association.

I have had meetings with anyone with problems; I haven't had a request to meet with anyone recently that I am aware of that I haven't been able to satisfy. My staff are somewhat at a loss to understand what issue or what item of concern the honourable member is reflecting. Mr. Chairman, my door is open. I insist that when people have problems, we deal with them as quickly as we can. I'm at a loss to understand what the problems are. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the specific issues is the question of licensing cabins, trapping cabins on the traplines.

That recently made the front pages of the Free Press. It was in that

article that trappers came down rather hard on the department. It referred to them as "alien individuals. " HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Chairman, there is a concern within the department to be able to monitor what buildings are established in areas of registered traplines.

I know, and I thought the honourable member was referring to one problem that was brought to my attention some many months ago by someone who was very annoyed that a vacation residence or a vacation cabin had been permitted to be erected on a trapline and as I recall there was very emotional concern about this interrupting the quiet enjoyment or the pursuit of the trapline, and yet, this cabin was very proximate to a railway and all the rest of it. My staff tell me that they are concerned now to make sure that any building is confirmed to the department. So, they have requested trappers to advise the 2546

Monday, 9 May, 1983 department if and where any cabin is erected on a trapline. The department has not indicated that they insist on the person getting a permit, but it is very useful to have this information so that we can deal with people who otherwise may be squatting. Because we identify a building from the air, we would not know whether it belongs to the registered trapper on the trapline or someone is actually erecting an illegal building there.

We are concerned from the point of view of the conflicting uses and concerned about monitoring people who would otherwise be using those properties and using fire, either outdoor fires, camping and so on. It is a matter of concern. We would like to be able to identify every building that is built on Crown land. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just while we're dealing with the trappers. A question of humane trapping always is a matter of concern to many Manitobans, perhaps more so those that are not involved in the industry.

I know the Minister receives from time to time submissions in some instances wishing to ban trapping, period, or particularly the leg-hole trap. The department has over the years worked in various ways with the different experimental programs. Can the Minister update us on what is happening with respect to humane trapping in Manitoba? HON. A. MA CKL ING: Yes, Mr. Ch airman, the honourable member's concerns here are very worthwhile.

We are very conscious of the need to continue the efforts that Manitoba has established for many years in this field as being a leader in respect to the development and use of more humane trapping techniques, because the raw fur industry is subject to the pressure that is being mounted by those who are concerned to eliminate all forms of trapping. It doesn't stop with seals. Seals are just part of it. It is obvious that there are people who would like to eliminate all forms of trapping, not just humane traps. We are concerned to establish humane traps.

Some of our actions to maintain this effort include: Continuation of mechanical and laboratory testing of new devices; assistance to inventors of humane traps; expansion of the experimental trap line system for field testing; new inventions and tech niques; and the formulation of a co-operative field testing program in northwestern Canada; the continuation expansion of eduational efforts for the general public; and a lead role in the development of the Fur Institute of Canada involving both public and private sectors to co-ordinate humane trap development and rationalize the entire wild fur industry. MR. H.

ENNS: Can the Minister indicate what level, in terms of gross value, trapping reached in the year we are considering, as say, compared to the previous few years? Do we have that figure by any chance? HON. A. MA CKLING: I think in the Annual Report. MR. H. ENNS: In the Annual Report? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I think in the Annual Report we have some statistics. While my staff is looking for those actual statistics maybe I could indicate the 1982-83 Humane Trapping Program.

It involves a field test program that I mentioned earlier, 15 trappers who have volunteered to conduct field tests and work with 172 traps of nine different models. The major emphasis was placed on improved traps for muskrat with tests being carried out in the Netley and Libau Marshes. Controlled testing and education program and I've indicated the highlights earlier. Now the numbers: 1981-82, total value of all species for the year ending August 31st, 1982, 5,564,491; prior year, 1980-81, was $8.2 million. This largely reflects not only the numbers of animals harvested but the conditions of the market, Mr.

Chairman. MR. H. ENNS: Can the Minister indicate whether or not roughly speaking the same number of trappers are in the field? I know we have the two kind of groups, the ones with specific traplines, but is the number of trappers, particularly in the North, still of the same number? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the numbers are holding up very well. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Mr.

Minister , much has been said this year in the last while about the nightlighting, and from the reports that I'm getting from the part of the province that I represent, not only is this act taking place by the Native people of our area, but also by the hunters of the white race. You, a moment ago, stated, Sir, that you have presented binoculars and trophies, etc., to school children of the province to encourage them to appreciate the wildlife of our province. My question to you, Sir, is, how can you and your government support this deplorable practice of nighlighting? HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I indicated that I had participated in a presentation of binoculars and books to the winners of poster and prose contests in respect to this contest associated with National Wildlife week. In respect to my position on nightlighting, I had earlier, I guess, on at least two occasions before this committee and earlier in my statements in the House indicated that I do not support nightlight hunting. Certa inly, we prosecute it when white people are involved in it. We are committed to upholding the law.

The courts have indicated that Treaty Indian people are entitled to do that and we can't defy the courts, Mr. Chairman. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to realize that you're saying what you are at this point in time when the resolution was presented by the Member for Turtle Mountain on that particular issue. It's difficult for the people of the province to accept that. However, I want to go onto a next question. During the Schreyer years, many acres of farmland adjoining the Delta Marsh, south of Lake Manitoba, was purchased for the purpose of increasing the wildlife inhabitat project.

Some development was made on that project and I believe completed. During the four years of the Conservative Government, the project, as I understand it, was shelved. 2547

Monday, 9 May, 1983 My question to you, Sir, is: Is it your intention and the Government of the Day to further develop the wildlife habitat area of the Delta Marshes? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, we have not purchased any land at the Delta in the last two years. There is land at the Delta that is under development and certainly we'll be doing more in respect to that area in the near future. MR. L. HYDE: The Minister has just stated that they haven't purchased any land of recent months, of recent years in the area.

I believe that, but I know it for a case that there is a farmer who has been badgered on concluding an agreement that was made many years ago - in fact, back in the Schreyer years. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, yes, I know the honourable member is referring to George Love, who has an appointment with me. He's corning in to see me to talk about his case. MR. L. HYDE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that will certainly be interesting to find out just what takes place on that particular case, because it is a concern of not only Mr. Love, but it certainly is by many of the adjoining farmers of the area. Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister about a report or a study that he had done in January, I believe. He had sent out letters to members of the Legislature requesting input on big game hunter safety, wanting members to have input into the report or the study that he was doing. I would ask the Minister if that study is complete, and if so, can we have a copy of the department's report? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, the Safe Hunting Review that has been initiated is not complete.

I trust it isn't, because I haven't even seen any drafts of any of it and it was at my insistence that this review was commissioned. MR. J. DOWNEY: When will the report be ready, and when it is ready, will all members of the Legislature receive a copy of it? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when it will be completed. I hope it'll be completed in reasonable dispatch, but after consultation with all that have an interest in it, certainly all members of the Legislature will be entitled and will get a copy of the review. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, how widely publicized was this review?

Was it put in the public media and fairly well advertised, or was it just fairly low profile type requests? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the honourable member that the department has done their utmost to make sure that everyone had an opportunity to know that we were looking at this. What we have done, Mr.

Chairman, is evaluated past accidents; evaluated the Hunter Safety Program that we have now; requested public inputs from over 250 agencies, organizations, or individuals, such as, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. the rural municipalities, members of the Legislative Assembly, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, etc. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9.(a)(1) - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, it's interesting to note that you're anxious to move it through when there are some questions of a little bit more of importance than the trivia that we are getting from the members of the government, who are asking questions of the Mini ster. Mr. Chairman, a further question ... MR. A. ANSTETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member for Springfield state his point of order? MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Arthur has reflected on other members and their participation in debate in a pejorative fashion and I think he should withdraw that.

Any suggestion that any contribution or questions asked by members on either side of the committee are trivial or unimportant is an insult to the process. Every member on the committee has an equal right. I've never decried members opposite for wasting the committee's time. I think members have every obligation and opportunity to raise the matters that are of concern to them and to do it here in the committee. I think that's an affront to the committee and to all members, when the Member for Arthur does that. MR. J. DOWNEY: To the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I did not particularly say there was anything terrible about it. I just indicated that that was the type of information they were putting on the record and if the member is sensitive to it, then let him be sensitive to it. It's in my opinion and let him feel the lumps if he feels he should wear them. Further questioning, Mr. Chairman . . MR. CHAIRM AN: Order please. The Member for Minnedosa had a point of order too. MR. D. BLAKE: I didn't have a chance to speak on that point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to point out to you that there was a difference of opinion there and really a difference of opinion doesn't constitute a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken. The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is dealing with the report or the information that the Minister was requesting during his Hunter Survey Study and also dealing with the same question that the Member for Springfield had brought up on hunter safety or compensation paid to producers. MR. A. ANSTETT: Well that wasn't a trivial question then, is that right? 2548

Monday, 9 May, 1983 MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member likes to speculate about all different things that are said over here and comments, but it's like everything else, he is not very well-informed and should possibly listen. I have a constituent who, approximately a year ago, Mr. Chairman, had considerable damage done to their house with big rifle bullets going through it - an accidental shooting and a considerable financial loss to those individuals.

We're unable to - (Interjection) - Well, the members opposite find it quite humorous, but I don't find it humorous when people have bullets flying through their house. I think that the question has to be asked why is it more important to pay for livestock loss to a farmer than it is to pay for house damage or other property damage?

If the principle of compensation due to hunter carelessness or hunting accidents is payable for one cause on the farm community or in a village - I don't say necessarily a farm, but if the principle applies for damages for one loss of particular item of personal proper ty, why doesn't it qualify for other losses of personal property? I would think, in view of the small amounts of money that have been spent, the Member for Springfield seemed to make big issue, or take big issue with how you were spending some $9, 100 and $6,000 respectively in the years past.

That is a very small amount of money to pay and I would hope you, Mr. Minister , through you, Mr. Chairman, would reconsider your policy of paying for losses due to hunter damage, and would respectfully submit that be taken into consideration in your review and acted upon. Second point dealing with that, Mr. Chairman, I as well had a constituent who is a farmer, lives in a very heavily-hunted area in the southwest part of the province, as well requested consideration be given to morning hunting of white-tail deer.

In view of the fact that a lot of the hunting does take place on private land in the southwest corner of the province; and in view of the fact that a lot of farmers have to pursue their work activi ty, whether it be fall work in the fall of the year or whether it be livestock management or feeding of livestock or whatever, that to leave half the day open for normal chore activity around a farm without the worry of hunters and the traffic of hunters and the danger that could, in fact, incur with the hunters on the property of that same individual. It was a sincere request, and I would like your response.

I know that the hunting of geese, particularly in some of the regions or the hunting zones, have been limited or restricted to mornings only. I would, in a very brief reply, like the Minister's comments and wonder if he is sympathetic to those comments. Thank you. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, indeed I am sympathetic to anyone who has suffered damage as a result of someone's negligence. There have been individuals who have been shot and seriously injured as a result of hunter negligence. In those instances, there is no compensation paid by the Crown.

The right of action, of course, exists on the part of the injured party to bring proceedings in court, and proceedings are taken in court for damages that are caused by the negligence of hunters. The compensation program that exists, Mr. Chairman, is one that provides for compensation for accidental hunting, accidental loss of livestock. It does not cover loss by intentional wrongdoing. Where that occurs, the right of action, of course, exists on the part of the owner if he can identify of course who it was that caused the damages and prosecute.

One of the things that I would point out is that it's not customary for ranchers, farmers to have to insure their livestock, but it is usual that people do insure their property from various causes. Hopefully, most people's insurance do cover miscellaneous damage. Mr. Chairman, the program is a limited one. We can't, in any way for example, guarantee that all people who have losses occasioned by people exercising their rights under any number of licences that are granted are going to be compensated by the Crown by the wilful neglect of people who are obviously misusing their rights. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was interested in the safety aspect of the Minister's Estimates. I could relate this lntermountain Handgun Club problem that has been addressed to the Minister and his department who are practising exactly what that is, the handling of guns and the safety of same. Now they have been asked to vacate the property that they have been using for some time, and they've also been using it for RCMP to come and practise the use of handguns there.

I am wondering the change of location, has the department found a change of location for the lntermountain Handgun Club - they are short of funds - or will the department pay them, compensate them for the removal of their equipment and that from that site and help them install it on another site? They have been offered a new site, I understand, north of Grandview where the fire ranger's tower is, but there are livestock and horses and cattle in that area.

So, as late as today, I was speaking with the president and they're still wondering what can be done or what arrangements can be made, and asked me to raise it with the Minister in his Estimates. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, as I'm quickly advised by staff, it is Crown land in which this target or practice shooting takes place. There seems to be some local issues involved in this. I assume that we are not involved in the program itself, and the local land staff are involved in trying to resolve these differences. MR. W. McKENZIE: I just wonder - certainly it's Crown land. There is no problem with that.

I guess the option that the Parks Branch maybe have offered them is another parcel of Crown land. The other problem is then, because they don't have that kind of money to move their equipment and that, they're wondering if some kind of arrangement could - or are they just going to have to pack it up and forget their hunter safety and their handling of these handguns? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope, and staff would, that this issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties, but it's not our responsibility. It is not our program. They are merely using Crown 2549

Monday, 9 May, 1983 land. Certainly any way that we can assist in the resolution of this problem, we will, but it's not mandatory that we come up with a solution for them. We're trying to help. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's No. 21.

I had occasion to be out in the southeast corner of the province on Saturday, celebrating Ukrainian Easter with some of our friends out in that area and, after we had celebrated supper, we went out to my farm and we saw many, many white-tail deer, great numbers of white-tail deer which feed on the alfalfa in my garden that I have over the summer.

I have no complaints about that, but you know I would think that we had a count of about 18 on Saturday night and, with the middle of May and the end of May approaching very rapi dly, I know that there are going to be many more mouths to feed inasmuch as they will be having their little babies before too long - (Interjection) - Bambi's, that's the ones. What I am interested in is the compensation that the Honourable Minis ter had mentioned a little earlier concerning some of the crop damage.

Now I know that there was a count of 18 that we saw and probably another few before too long and there is a loss of crop, particularly in this particular case. Last year, my whole lettuce crop was wiped out and my whole cabbage crop was wiped out also, and much of the alfalfa. Now as I mentioned earlier, I have no complaints. Is there any consideration, and what type of compensation and how does one go about receiving compensation for losses that come about because of these white-tail deer eating the crops? Now, in addit ion, Mr.

Minist er, is there any consideration given to people like myself who have farm property out in that particular area to be given special times that they could shoot deer, particularly two or three days ahead of hunting season? It's all got to be considered. I know that the white-tailed deer are part of the natural resources of the Province of Manitoba and are owned by all of the people of the Province of Manitoba or anybody else who has enough money to go out an buy a licence. (Interjection) - That's right.

Now, is there any consideration given to people like myself, who don't make a claim, or people other than myself, farmers in the area, who don't make claims for compen sation for losses, to be giv en special consideration to hunt these animals two or three days prior to hunting season opening? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could repeat, I don't know whether the honourable member was here when I did review the compensation that has been paid in respect to white-tailed deer: 105 claims, total $102,915.67.

These claims are really, I would think, comprised of all agricultural claims; that is, people who are making their livelihood from the crops that were damaged, destroyed or consumed. If it was a commercial operation, then, of course, we would look at it, but we'd also look at whether or not it was possible for the comm ercial operator to reasonably protect the crop and it, of course, depends on all of these factors.

In respect to the member's concern about the landowners being given an earlier opportunity to hunt, there is some concern for that on the part of landowners and is part of the technique that has been suggested we consider as an incentive for landowners maintaining suitable wildlife habitat, to give them an opportunity to ensure that they get something from the wildlife that they have held on their property for most of the time before non-residents or hunters from elsewhere come and harvest those animals. It is something we are prepared to look at. We have followed the principle in respect to elk.

We have provided for a landowner season, somewhat earlier. They still pay a fee, but they have a somewhat earlier opportunity to hunt elk on their own property. Certainly, it's a suggestion that is worth considering. We haven't adopted it for the upcoming season, but it's one that's a package of concerns that we're looking at. MR. A. KOVNATS: To the Honourable Minist er, I would advise him that this time I'm not really speaking for myself, I'm not a hunter, and I don't think I could ever shoot one of those animals.

It's a beautiful sight at sundown to see them running across your land, and I enjoy that, and I'm not about to change my attitude towards destroying these animals. - (Interjection) - Well, when I say I was wiped out in my lettuce crop and my cabbage crop, it could have been rabbits besides, and I don't want to blame the deer for something like that. MR. A. ANSTETT: Do you shoot rabbits? MR. A. KOVNATS: No, I don't shoot rabbits and I don't shoot the gophers ei ther. It's just not within myself to do so. I don't mind anybody else coming on my property and doing it. It's just the way I feel.

If the honourable Minis ter would take that into consideration so these people, my friends in the area, and other farmers in the areas, because God knows what's happening to these farmers, they're getting pushed around all over the place and I think they should be given some compensation. If they would be given some compensation also in being given some special privi leges in moose selection when it comes time for moose selection, also, I think they should be given some consideration. The only thing I'm asking the Minis ter is for some compensation for the two bullet holes in my cottage out on the farm. HON. A.

MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I've indicated, the principle is one that has been applied in

part in respect to big game animals, in respect to elk. There have been representations about white-tailed deer. In respect to moose, moose generally do not inhabit land that is privately owned. The prime moose habitat is on Crown land. A moose is not an animal that thrives in close proximity to man like the white­ tailed deer and game birds like the sharp-tailed grouse and ruffed grouse. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, to the Honourable Mini ster, my property is the very next piece of property next to Crown land, so I'm very very close to where moose are available. Again, I'm not about to go out and shoot 2550

Monday, 9 May, 1983 them, but some of the people in the area have just mentione' · you know, shouldn't they be given some special consideration and I think that they should. I'm just bringing it to the Minister's attention. Please do whatever you can to appease these people who really help this department look after the natural resources of the Province of Manitoba, and I think that they should be given some special compensation. They're not about to go and make claims to the Minister for $100 damage, because they've stomped on some alfalfa or they've eaten a little corner of alfalfa.

They're not about to do that, but I think the Honourable Minister should give them some special consideration. With those remarks, I thank the honourable Minist er. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just when the Minister is considering the damage that those 18 deer that my colleague has mentioned, I have a very close friend and former colleague who counted 296 deer in one herd on his fall rye in one evening not too long ago. So, when you get his claim, I hope that you give it some consideration as well as the crop of lettuce that was eaten.

Also, when you're considering those special permits, Mr. Minist er, I have applied for four years in a row for the special elk season in Spruce Woods, and I haven't been drawn yet, so I hope you consider that. I have one question, Mr. Minister and I'm sorry that I missed it under (

c) Habitat Management, I just wondered if you could bring me up to date on what's happening in Proven Lake area, in my area just south of Erickson - Proven Marsh? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we are considering the development of a Wildlife Management area in that location. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9.(aX1) - the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: That wouldn't preclude hunting in the area? HON. A. MACKLING: No, not necessarily at all, Mr. Chairman. In Wi ldlife Managment area hunting is permitted, but there is some degree of control for all other things. MR. D.

BLAKE: I think the Minister may be getting some recommendation or resolution from te wildlife people to make it a wildlife sanctuary, but that's still in the mill. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9.(aX1) to 9.(

h) were all read and passed. Resolution 124: Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,809, 100 for Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984- pass. Committee rise. SU PPL Y - NORTHERN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, Item 3.(aX1) - the Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, I wonder if the Minister could indicate how many co-ordinator positions there currently are and how many of these positions are vacant if any? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: We're just doing a quick account right now. It's my understanding that none are vacant at the present time and we have a total of 15 co­ ordinators in place. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, I wonder if the Minister could indicate why he felt it necessary to transfer the Director from the Dauphin office, to The Pas? A man that had considerable experience in the field from a heavy area office, like Dauphin, to The Pas area where it was considerably less demanding? HON. J.

COWAN: Well, that was a decision that I arrived at with staff after a period of time during which we considered the overall structure of the departmental activities in the field, that individual's capabilities and the way by which we wanted to proceed with the internal development of staff. As a result of those deliberations and discussions it was felt that we would ask the area manage r, who was in The Pas, to transfer to Dauphin, and the one in Dauphin to transfer to The Pas. There were a number of reasons. I don't want to go into all of them as you can well appreciate.

It would probably be inappropriate to do so here although I'd be more than pleased to discuss them in a different forum with the member opposite as the opportunity presents itself. We did as well want to lessen the workload of that individual, for reasons which were known to that individual, and to the department. We felt that was the best use of his capabilities. At the same time we wanted to challenge the person that we had in The Pas by putting him into a situation where he would have more communities to look after and be able to provide for further development for his own abilities.

So for those reasons, we decided to make that internal transfer and it was not done without some concern on the part of all parties and it was not done without some disagreements as to the appropriateness of the action, but it was a management decision, which we felt was in the best interests of the department as a whole and for that reason, we undertook to make those transfers effective as of a number of months ago, I believe. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, l wonder if the Minister could tell us whether he received any complaints from the various communities for making this switch? HON. J.

COWAN: It's my understanding that there were two communities which indicated concern about the transfer. Staff did meet with them. The Assistant Deputy Minist er, I believe, was at those two meetings and it's my understand that while there still may be concerns 2551

Monday, 9 May, 1983 in a general way, the issue has been thoroughly discussed and for the most part resolved. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, was there any change in the director located in the office of Selkirk? HON. J. COWAN: No, there's been no change in either the job description or the activities or the individual of the director located in Selkirk. MR. D. GOURLAY: I wonder if the Minister could bring us up to date on the activities - perhaps we could pass - I wanted to ask questions about the Fire Program and I guess that's in another section, so maybe we could pass the . . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Item 3.(a)(1)(a) -p ass; 3.(a)(1)(b)­ pass; Item 3.(a)(2)(a) - the Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: I wonder if the Minis ter could bring us up to date on the activities under the Fire Program during the last year? I understand that the manager transferred to another department. Is that position filled and what other activities have taken place with respect to volunteer firefi ghters, the addition of new firefighting equipm ent, fire engines and the like? HON. J.

COW AN: It's my understanding that the indiv idual who had been filling that particular position asked for a transfer to Natural Resources. If I understand the situation correctly and I'm going only on memory and perhaps my staff will advise me if I'm wrong; he was in Natural Resources as a member of the Civil Service a number of years ago. I'm not certain what position he went to directly in Natural Resources, was it a promotion of sort. It was a promotion, at least in terms of job duties and monies.

He'll be training northern Conservation Officers, I'm informed by staff, and therefore it has to be looked at as a promotion from, I guess, his own personal perspective. We have had his position filled on an acting basis since that time. I understand that the job has been bulletined. The competitions are closed and interviews will be taking place on the 24th and/or 25th of May. So that is the status of that position and that individual. I understand that was an entirely voluntary transfer over to another department and a promotion of sorts for him.

You asked about major activities in the Fire and Emergency Program

section over the past years. Generally, the

section is designed and developed to assist regional staff in establishing fire brigades in the remote northern comm unitie s. That involves co­ ordination and the training of the fire brigades in consultation with the region al staff and the Fire Commissio ner's Office in another department and community representatives. We also provide funding for fir e brig ades in their activities in regard to suppressing and preventing fire in the communities. Through this program, approved fire and emergency equipment for the entire program is bought, purchased in consultation with the Fire Commissi oner's Office.

Therefore, we are maintaining an inventory of that equipment through this particular program, and we provide funding assistance to community councils or local committees to allow for unexpected expenditures relating to the operations and mai ntenance of the local fire department. In 1982-83, there were seven new fire halls and shelters. I'll go through the list for the member by community. There were, I believe, fire halls and shelters in Pikwitonei, Sherridon, Berens River, Homebrook, Dallas, Red Rose, Harwill, Anama Bay, and some of that was cost-shared with LEAP, I understand.

Just the Anama Bay one was cost-shared with LEAP. It was a total expenditure on the part of the department of $352,000.00. There was the completion of two fire halls. One was 80 percent completed in 1982-84, and that was at a cost of $30,900.00. That took place in South Indian Lake and God's Lake Narrows. Two fire shelters were renovated, one at Herb Lake and another at Stevenson Island. The one at Stevenson Island, we're still involved in some discussions with as to the final form of that fire hall and place of that fire hall, but there was some work done in that regard. Seven fir e trucks were purchased.

Two were purchased new at a cost of $63,000 each. That was for Wabowden and Bissett. Five were fabricated fire trucks which, as the member is aware, is a new fabr ication on a used three tonne chassis, at appr oximately $3,500 each. Those trucks went into Berens River, Pikwitonei, Sherridon, Dallas, Red Rose, and Crane River.

There was about $90,000 worth of equipment purchased, $89,500 to be exact, and that's just the standard equipment, training aids, hoses, coats, helmets, etc. $21,500 was spent on training for a basic firefighting, vehicle search and rescue, dangerous goods, fire prevention inspe ction, fir e service instructors, level one and level two. Those are ongoing activities. So that was what happened last year. Does the member wish me to go through what we anticipa te to do in this year's Estimates at this time, while I'm on my feet? MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, that'd be good, sure. HON. J. COWAN: Okay.

For this year we're talking about new fire halls and shelters in Duck Bay at $80,000; Matheson Island at $20,000; Pine Dock at $20,000; Stevenson Island at $75,000; and Wabowden at $60,000, for a total of $255,000.00. Fire hall renovations or completions are anticip ated in Barrows at $3,500.00; Manig otagan at $10,000; Big Black River at $2,000; and Moose Lake at $6,000, for a total of $21,500.00. One fire truck is anticipated as being purchased by the department at a cost of $37,500 for Manigotagan.

Fire tank and trailer units are being purchased at a cost of $20,000 for Matheson Island and Pine Dock, each being $10,000 each. We anticipate purchasing equipment for the fire tower for Wabowden for hose drying and miscellaneous fire equipment, as I mentioned earlier, at the cost of $60,000.00. Then we plan on spending $55,000 for training of fire prevention courses, fire chief courses, and fire service instructor courses; $5,000 in school firefighting training at Thompson and Brandon; and $40,000 for local training in the communities. 2552

Monday, 9 May, 1983 Last year, the vote adjusted for 1982-83 was $179,000. 00. This year, it's $178,000 for a reduction of $1,000, or just a little over a one-half of 1 percent, . 61 percent. I can go through the expenditure detail if the member wishes while I'm on my feet and that would take care of the general information I have in this regard for the Other Expenditures. Construction, the 1982-83 adjusted vote was nil, we're asking $15,000 this year.

Fees, it was nil last year, and nil this year; facilities and equipment was $50,000 last year, down to $3,000 this year; specialized equipment was $10,000 last year, but up to $45,000 this year; operating cost was 19,000 as compared to 15,000 and subsistence was 100,000 last year, and 100,000 this year, for 179,000 versus 178,000 this year, a reduction of one-half of 1 percent approximately. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, I wonder if the Minister could indicate if there were any major fires in any of the Northern Affairs communities during the past year and any casualties as far as injury to people? HON. J.

COWAN: Firstly, I've been informed as well that I should have indicated that all this money is cost­ shared under the Northern Development Agreement so that the record be clear on that. No, we don't know of any major fires such as the type that took place in llford a number of year ago in which in a lot of ways precipated the activity which is ongoing here.

There were house fires and I think perhaps the program should be given some of the credit for the reduction in fires through the training of local residents on proper fire control programs in their own communities, and the fact that there is a facility now available in many communities very quickly to fight fires and there are trained staff. So, I would think that the fact that we haven't had those sorts of tragedies indicate that the program is working.

I'll be quick to add that if, in fact, we do have a tragedy which happens even in areas where you have the best of fire equipment and the best of fire departments, I don't think it should be used to condemn the program, but should indicate to us that we need to do work in a specific area. But the program has been in place for awhile, it seems to have been successful, and I think we're starting to reap the benefits of the work which has been ongoing for five, six, seven years now in this particular area. MR. D.

GOURLAY: Are there any of the 51 communities that do not have a volunteer fire department, I guess you'd call it, or brigade, or equipment of any kind for fire control? HON. J. CO WA N: I'm certain the member can appreciate that the development of the fire brigade is part of the overall development of a commu nity, therefore, as I indicated earlier, you have a number of communities in different stages of development No, we wouldn't have a functioning fire brigade in every community.

I can find out the ones which would not have a functioning fire brigade in the communities for the member and give him that detailed information perhaps later on by having staff review the records. But, I think there is an opportunity for each community to have a functioning fire brigade if they so wish. We will provide the training. We will provide the assistance which is necessary. The extent of the equipment which we have in different communities differs community by community as well.

Some have new fire trucks, some have reconditioned fire trucks, some only have tanks, some only have extinguishers, if I understand the situation correctly, but over a period of time, we hope to provide the equipment necessary for a functioning fire brigade to operate effectively once we have that training program and the ability to support that brigade, or the ability of that brigade to support the use of that equipment when it's in place. So it's not because of a lack of opportunity nor lack of direction on the part of the department.

I think we're there to aid at whatever stage of development the community may find itself in, but acknowledging that there are different stages for different communities. Not all of them have fire brigades which we would consider to be functioning effectively at this point. There is a lot of work that needs to be done yet in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions to the Honourable Minist er. I was listening very attentively and I didn't hear Red Sucker mentioned at all, whether there's any facilities there or not.

So I will leave that with the Honourable Minister , and so he can answer me on Red Sucker whether there's any facililites available. When I was there last, there just wasn't anything but I don't see why Red Sucker , particularly when we have an honourable member from Red Sucker, is not being looked after.

Now, the Honourable Minister also mentioned that there was cost-sharing with the Federal Government on all of this, and I know the program and I've got to compliment the Honourable Minister for even mentioning that the program was started under the previous administration and carried on well under this administration - no complaint on that regard - but is there any assistance other than cost-sharing that there is an involvement with the Federal Government, either with training supervision, particularly at locations that have an airport that might be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?

Does the Federal Government have any involvement with the actual training, with the personnel, any other type of personnel? Can the Honourable Minister advise what control there are over the facilities, the shelters, the fire halls, to see that they are used strictly for the purposes of firefighting equipment? For instance, and I'm not saying that this is a true fact, but in some locations maybe they take the firefighting equipment out and they move in winter road-building equipment in so that it would be available to start the next day when they are working on winter roads.

Is there any control that this type of thing doesn't take place? I'm only suggesting that it might; I don't have any specific cases where it has. HON. J. COWAN: Well, it's good to have the member rise to speak of Red Sucker Lake. We both remember that day we spent together in Red Sucker Lake with a great deal of pleasure, I thi nk. It was a good 2553

Monday, 9 May, 1983 experience for both of us and I think we both benefited by it. You didn't know that, to the Member for Flin Flon, but we did spend a very enjoyable time at the opening of their reserve. It was a historic occasion for the community and one which we were honoured and privileged, I think, to be able to participate in. I'm not certain of the level of equipment they have in Red Sucker Lake. I was there over the break between the Sessions, and I just can't recall what sort of equipment they would have in place. I'll find out; I don't think it would be much.

I'm certain that the Member for Red Sucker Lake will appreciate the fact that you, Sir, brought it to the attention of the House and myself. I'll certainly be discussing it with him to see if, in fact, we can provide more equipment if it is needed in the communi ty. The Federal Government does assist - or we work with the Federal Government might be a better way to put it - in respect to a course in emergency planning. That's about the only interface that staff inform me exists at the present time, and I wouldn't suggest that it's a major part of the program.

Certainly, there might be areas where we can have a larger interface with the Federal Government. A lot of the communities, as you are aware, are Metis communities or Northern Affairs communities right on the boundary of a reserve. For that reason, there are a lot of times that our equipment is used to fight fires on reserves. I believe we are involved in discussions with the Federal Government right now in respect to cost-sharing that sort of activity or reimbursing the brigades when they undertake firefighting on reserve communities.

There are a lot of questions about that and how we want to proceed on that, because we are not certain that the fire brigades that we're developing in Northern Affairs communities are large enough to adequately serve the community that's adjacent to it which may be much larger. So we want to find a better way to work together with the Federal Government, particularly the Department of Indian Affairs, in regard to cost-sharing that activity; and have been involved in discussions, I think, as far back as when the Member for Swan River was Minister and continuing those discussions.

We may be able to resolve that issue some day soon. I would hope it would be sooner, rather than later. Again, it does bear repeating, however, that the entire program is cost-shared with OREE or ORIE (phonetic), however they're saying it now, and so there is that federal money that's coming in. The control over facilities is an area that I have not given a great deal of personal attention to, because it has never been brought forward to me as a problem. I have been impressed, though, when I've travelled through the communities, with the pride that the fire chief and the brigade had in their facility.

They are spotless and it really is quite impressive. The ones I have seen, at least, have always been hosed down. The trucks are spotless. If the trucks aren't in good running order, they soon let us know about it in the most vehement of terms, but it's important to them. There is a great deal of pride in their training activities, in the fact that they are a volunteer fire brigade that are out there functioning. You can see the awards that they have won at the different contests and the plaques and the certificates that they have gotten. They are all prominently displayed.

So I would not think that there would be much of a difficulty in regard to the fire halls being used for purposes other than storing that fire truck and the equipment then for training purposes. I have not seen any indication of it, and I usually try to visit the fire hall whenever I'm in a community because I like to see what's happening there; so I just haven't seen the problems. As well, in a small communi ty, the residents of that community themselves have a great