*(2000)

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Good evening. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs.

When the committee last sat it had been considering item 2. Northern Affairs Operations (a) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 124 of the main Estimate book.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Chair, unless the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) is finished, I believe there was a question being put for me to answer.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Chair, as I was saying before we adjourned at six, I was asking the minister, or I was telling the minister what my perceptions of the role of the Minister of Northern Affairs was. I was asking him to explain to us what he saw Northern Affairs doing, particularly in light of the many changes that have happened.

I mentioned demographics for one thing. I also mentioned that when I came here four or five years ago the budget was $20 million a year, a very small department, and now it is $17 million. I was just going to conclude by saying, what if the budget of the department gets down to, you know, say $1 million, $2 million? It would seem to me that when it gets that low it gets redundant, and what would happen to the mandate then? What is the mandate now, the relationship between the department and First Nations people and aboriginal people, because it has got a another name attached to it and sometimes it is called Indian affairs and aboriginal affairs. So maybe I will give the minister some time to respond to that.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for The Pas for this question because it really gets to the general issue of the role and function of the department. I am glad he has asked, and I have some time to respond.

I think if one looks at the history of this department--and certainly many others were around at the time in the late '60s and early '70s in the early days of the formation of this department. But if my recollection of history serves me well, I believe there was a commission struck by the Roblin administration to look at how government dealt with northern issues in the '60s, and it resulted in a Northern Commission which then became the Department of Northern Affairs.

He, like I, when we come to this place where we have to deal with the department, one makes the assumptions that the Department of Northern Affairs deals with all aspects of the North, and to some degree, my assumption, when I came to this place. But when one analyzes a little more specifically the mandate and responsibilities and role of the department and the things that come under it, you come quickly to appreciate that many of the functions that it has could be housed in other departments.

But in the spirit of which it was created in the '60s, first as the commission, then as the department, I think the intent of government was always to have a department in which uniquely northern issues, or issues relating to the North because the North accounts for such a vast amount of the land mass of this province and traditionally has been a very isolated part of this province, that barrier has been broken somewhat. It still is a vast area with a small population spread over a large area, many isolated communities, et cetera, that it is somewhat unique from the rest of the province.

So, ultimately, the department does have a role to advocate within government or ensure, at least, within government that general issues relating to the North are taken into account by other departments. I think in the '70s there was a period where the Department of Northern Affairs had almost paralleled departments of Highways and Natural Resources and other areas in a very large staffing, and that proved not to work either. It somewhat took the role of the department too far, where we had parallel structures being created.

Today, what we have in the Department of Northern Affairs is really a number of things that have either no other home or are uniquely situated in the North. Obviously, the largest component of the active work of the department on a day-to-day basis has to be our communities that we are responsible for, the 56-or-so communities which are neither large enough to be municipalities, because we have municipalities and LDGs in the North. They are not large enough, either population- or tax-wise, to warrant being Local Government Districts or municipalities and, secondly, are not First Nations communities. So they fall truly between the cracks and which no other part of the province has that particular set of communities, and so they are Northern Affairs communities, and the Northern Affairs department is their municipal authority, for lack of a better description, and I guess that makes myself the mayor and my deputy, the deputy mayor, sort of in law.

That takes the lion's share of our work, and often people forget that. But those communities have a very special relationship with us because we are, in essence, their government, and it always has been and probably will be, where the Department of Northern Affairs spends a great deal of its effort and a great deal of its time and obviously a great deal of its money with respect to those communities. And so from the perspective of Local Government Districts or municipalities--and I know the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) represents an LGD of Consol, Town of The Pas--there is a sense that the department may give special treatment to those Northern Affairs communities. That is because we are their department. The municipalities, of course, have the Department of Rural Development and have a relationship that is the same as any other municipality's across the province.

The member for The Pas talked about aboriginal people, and the other large area of responsibility in this department is the managing of a host of agreements and issues that relate to northern aboriginal people, the Northern Flood Agreement being one, treaty land entitlement being another in which those areas have been housed in this department. They continue to occupy a very significant time of the senior staff in dealing with those agreements.

Our budget reductions over the last couple of years have been very much the result or significantly the result of reductions in dollars needed to finance the negotiation of those agreements. Inevitably, Mr. Chair, when those agreements are settled, a whole piece of our budget, in essence, will disappear. That should not reflect on the service delivered to northerners. That will reflect on the fact that a mandate of this department, a significant mandate in managing those agreements, managing or dealing with the federal government on land claims has come to an end.

* (2010)

The Native Affairs Secretariat, and as the member very well knows we have discussed before, has a mandate to manage the provincial government's relations with aboriginal peoples dealing with Status peoples and the federal government on those issues. It is a co-ordinating unit of bringing services together from other departments. That role is one that increases or diminishes depending on the set of issues that are there, and it is going to be an interesting one over the next few years as the federal government gets into the dismantling issue, but it is not a direct service deliverer.

It is a policy and contact department, in essence, a co-ordination department, primarily for aboriginal governments, their representatives, et cetera, organizations that meet or deal with government. Even though our budget is a small one, it is consistent with the mandate that we have. I must admit to the member, it is always a difficult issue being Minister of Northern Affairs when it comes to larger issues involving a multitude of departments because just getting them all to the table is not necessarily an easy task and always a challenging one for ministers of Northern Affairs. But that is only a small part of the mandate of the department. I think in the areas where we have direct responsibility, we do much better in dealing with northern issues simply because we do not have to bring together a lot of other departments and issues and co-ordination. It is an interesting overview.

The last point I make just to put it into perspective on our capital budget, which is often criticized as being somewhat small for the North, but it is a capital budget that is only there for those 56 communities which represents some 10,000 people, approximately. When we look at the per capita spending on 10,000 people on our capital budget, it is very similar, sometimes over the capital expenditure of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on Status people on reserve. So on a per capita basis, we are fairly consistent, even though again we do not meet all the needs or wants that would be there at any given time.

We have to be judged as a department, I think, in that way and we probably never will fulfill all the expectations northerners may have from the department simply because we do not have the mandate to be a major player in all issues. I appreciate the member's comments and it is one I struggle with regularly when it comes to issues that involve a host of departments.

Mr. Lathlin: I wonder if the minister or his government--with the way the development of aboriginal people has unfolded over the last several years, both First Nations and Metis people, and he himself admits that the department has a certain mandate, maybe too restricted a mandate for the expectations that aboriginal people have, and northerners generally have, on the department. With the way things are changing, does the minister ever consider perhaps revisiting some of those statements of purpose, goals and objectives, expected results, and so forth, to reflect realistically the reality that is out there today? Does the minister see a need to change the mandate of the department, and does he see it expanding? Maybe the Department of Northern Affairs has fulfilled its original mandate and it is now time to try something else.

Mr. Praznik: If you look at the mandate on page 2 of our Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, I think it is important to appreciate that the context of that mandate is for our Northern Affairs communities that we are responsible for. When we talk about local autonomy and local control we are talking about it in the context of those 56 or so Northern Affairs communities which range in size, I guess we have some on our books that have no people--as a politician, I must admit they are the easiest ones to represent, we never get any phone calls; Warren's Landing is one that is now just a fish station--to probably about 1,000 people at South Indian Lake. In between there are communities of the whole gamut.

Obviously the goal of the department, at least set back in the 1970s, was to build the governmental infrastructure, the community infrastructure, the experience of people locally that at some point in time they could be spun out, for lack of a better term, of the Department of Northern Affairs and become a municipal-type local government complete with a tax base to support their activities.

Some of these communities may reach that point. Some of them, two in particular, I believe, Camperville and Duck Bay, are very close to that point. There are still some issues surrounding that that have to be settled, but for many of these communities, to be quite frank, I do not know if the day will come when they will be large enough or self-sufficient enough to be municipalities in their own right, some for very practical reason. Their populations are aging and diminishing, and in another generation they may not exist. Long Body Creek is an example of that kind of community.

So you change the mandate. It is the goal, and in some communities, it is not going to work; in others it may. I guess the bottom line reality is, the expectation is, that the Department of Northern Affairs for many more years to come will be the municipal authority for most of those 56 communities simply because of their size. Fifty or 60 people do not have the tax base to have their own municipal government. Do you change the mandate? I do not know how much I would change it. I think it is still a goal, but time tends to sort out what is practical and doable and what is not.

One problem, of course, is the mandate is for those communities, and yet when one reads it, one views it perhaps as the whole North. Again, the Department of Northern Affairs, one of its prime areas of responsibility are those 56 communities, yet the perception, the public perception in northern Manitoba and elsewhere, is maybe not the same as the reality of the mandate.

Mr. Lathlin: I have just one more question on that, Mr. Chairman. You see, that is what I was alluding to when I was asking the minister whether he saw the need to rework the department, expand it, decrease it or change the mandate or whatever, because as I listen to him from time to time in the House and even in Estimates, when he talks about local autonomy and development, I know that he is referring to the 56 communities.

I am not misunderstanding him, but when he talks about 56 communities striving to achieve those goals that are listed in the book here, or at least the department is, we are talking about two and a half million dollars worth of infrastructure money, and I know that earlier he talked about the capital allocation process, how it is done. I know the communities do it at the regional level, and then from there they go to the central body.

I often talk to those mayors and councils who take part in those proceedings, and I also know how it is done on the First Nations side because I did it myself for quite a few years, both as a chief and also as a government employee with the federal government.

As far as I can gather, just from observing from the outside and also from talking to the people, I think that is where, because of the way the process is set up, a lot of these people that the minister talks about as falling between the cracks, through the cracks, I think that is where a lot of that happens.

* (2020)

When you have, for example, a community of, say, 55 people being invited to participate in this capital allocation process, and even though some neighbouring communities may be submitting supporting resolutions and all that, the bottom line is the department decides at the end as to which communities are going to be receiving capital funds.

So, for me, that always makes the exercise a bit redundant because, yeah, the mayors and councils go there, perhaps sincerely, but I think for the most part, they realize that it is not a useful exercise. They know that, ultimately, the decision lies with the department.

So that is why I was asking the minister as to whether he had plans or whether his government had plans in reorganizing the department or maybe even changing the mandate, because, to me, that is how I see it. He says we help a lot of people out, particularly those who are in those 56 communities, but if we have a department like that, that is more or less outdated, its mandate too narrow, to me that has more potential for people being left out, communities falling through the cracks and attaining nothing in terms of community development and especially their own people development.

So that is why I am asking the question.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, if you do a quick calculation from our Estimates book, our operating budget for those 56 communities is about $6.8 million. I look to my financial staff. It is about $6.8 million. Our capital is about $2.6 million.

So we spend approximately 9.4, just under nine and a half million dollars on just under 10,000 people. That does not include staff time, those costs. That is what we spend in the community. So it is just under a thousand dollars on a per-capita basis to provide municipal government in essence. I think if you compare that to a number of municipalities throughout Manitoba, it is probably somewhat higher, the total amount.

I appreciate the member's point. Let me say that, first of all. I guess the answer or my comment depends on which community you are talking about at any point in time.

Some of our larger communities that have elected councils, because they are large enough to have elected councils and have mayors and councillors who work very hard at it, are much, much closer, I believe, to municipal autonomy and make a fair number of their decisions on their own. Some of the smaller communities where you are 50, 60 people, sometimes with two family groupings in a community, it is much harder to see that autonomy.

I share with the member some of the trials and tribulations that the department has told me about over the years that they have had in decisions that get made. I think the member is aware of some communities that have been added to the list with a very, very small population and asking right away for a whole bunch of municipal infrastructure that with their population and their circumstance it makes very, very limited sense to make the investment.

So there is a balance that goes on. I appreciate for smaller communities it may be more frustrating because they do not necessarily get everything that they particularly want or they may feel they are very small, and even in the organization of NACC, that they get pushed out at the particular table.

There is no magic to any of this, I guess. When you are investing as provincial dollars approximately a thousand dollars per capita on these communities, you want to make sure that the money is spent reasonably well. I can tell the member, from time to time we have had situations that there has not been a good use of funds, and the department has had to take a variety of steps to ensure that this did not happen again.

We had one community, it was brought to my attention where they received a fair bit of advice on their operating budget, and this year before the end of the fiscal year ran out of money. If you compare their operating to most other communities, they were just overdoing it, quite frankly. So they learned a very strong lesson. When you run out of your budgeted money you have to close down your operations, which they did for a while. That is a hard lesson to learn.

Needless to say they were not happy. If I guess, yes, they complained. I am sure some of the complaints made it to the ears of members of the opposition, but ultimately not everyone gets what they want. When you are dependent on another government or source of revenue for your expenditure or for your budget, you are still going to have to live with rules and regulations probably to a greater degree than one does when you are entirely self-sufficient with your own revenue base.

We as a province accept a fair bit of money from Ottawa that comes with a host of rules that we do not always agree with, and we have to live with those rules and regulations. The same is true here, so we try to develop a sense of ability to run one's communities.

I have to share with members as well, we had one particular community that had an elected council and mayor. It was a small community, Princess Harbour, I believe it was, where they just made the decision that this was not for them. They were too small to continue to elect a council and they asked us to remove the elected mayor and council authority, the delegated authority, and to take it back and just appoint a spokesperson for the community, which we did, because they just found it was not really practical, given their size.

The member's point is noted. It is one that one struggles with in the balance of running the department, but its application varies from community to community.

Mr. Lathlin: I wonder if the minister can tell us, on the federal infrastructure program, in addition to the $2.6 million infrastructure money, provincially under Northern Affairs, how much additional money was accessed through the federal-provincial program? What would have been the total amount of extra money, additional money, that would have been added onto the $2.6 million of Department of Northern Affairs capital money?

* (2030)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, we are endeavouring to get the exact amount of money that was spent, from my staff, as they go through the notes. We did two projects, water service for Brochet and a similar project in South Indian Lake. We spent somewhere in the neighbourhood, in infrastructure projects, of around one and a half million dollars, of which two-thirds would be the provincial and federal share. The Department of Northern Affairs would have paid the one-third municipal share. So it added, and I am guessing here as we get the exact information for you, approximately probably just under a million dollars of additional infrastructure for those communities.

Mr. Chair, the exact amount was, the Brochet project, $710,000, and as I look to my staff, I understand that would be the project funding. So we would have paid a third of that, and two-thirds would have been paid for by the province under the agreement and the federal government. South Indian Lake was about a $415,000-project, so two-thirds of that, somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over $800,000, would be additional funding.

Mr. Lathlin: I do not know where we are on the book, but I would like to move on to other areas. Before I do that, maybe I would like to ask the minister one more question in this area before we move on, and that is, most of the communities that the minister talks about, the 56 communities--I know it is the case with Easterville, Cross Lake, Moose Lake, Norway House--many of these communities are right adjacent to First Nations communities, and I had suggested this to the former Minister of Northern Affairs here, I think it was the second year that I was here, during Estimates, I asked him whether he had ever considered doing joint ventures with First Nations communities, whenever the First Nations communities are able to access some federal money through the Department of Indian Affairs. I have been asked that question many times by the Metis communities. To me, it would make sense to encourage those 56 communities whenever they are right adjacent to First Nations communities, to encourage them to work with First Nations. I am sure the First Nations community would be only too willing to--you know, like after all, most of these communities, their families--brother living on the treaty side and the sister living on the Metis side. That is how most of these communities are.

I am sure the First Nations communities would be more than willing to go into joint capital projects like that, you know, for example, in Moose Lake, Easterville, Norway House or Cross Lake. Has the minister ever considered, or has anybody ever approached the minister with that kind of approach from those 56 communities or even from First Nations communities? Would he consider doing that?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the member for The Pas asked the question and there are two parts to it, I would believe.

One is obviously on municipal infrastructure joint venturing, and one would be other things outside of the infrastructure.

I am pleased to tell him it has been a regular practice for joint venturing in the area of infrastructure. A host of our communities have agreements now with their neighbouring First Nations to provide for water, sewer, garbage disposal, in some cases, fire services, grader service, et cetera, where they share equipment, and they share costs for those types of projects.

So that has been underway in the department for some years. The War Lake Band is one. South Indian Lake has an agreement with Nelson House. I know Cross Lake has an agreement. Moose Lake, Brochet, again, have water--sewer--water agreements, so on the infrastructure side that is underway.

If it was other projects, or another area project, that the member is talking about, whether it be economic development, et cetera, we have not had any proposals to date coming forward. Certainly if we did, I know I would work with my colleagues, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) to pursue them if they were certainly viable projects.

To date we have not had any that I am aware of as minister.

Mr. Lathlin: I have one last question on that, Mr. Chairperson.

My question was really this. How many Metis communities do you have where sewer and water lines were actually installed as a joint program with the neighbouring First Nations community? By that, I mean one system for the two communities with Capital coming from Northern Affairs and the other Capital coming from Indian Affairs. Do we have any communities like that in northern Manitoba?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the member's question a little more with his supplementary, and he raises a very interesting point. I am advised by my staff that although we have lagoons we share and lines that we share on occasion and a host of other things, very rarely have both projects been done at the same time. Often one community or another would build a lagoon first and set up their system, and the neighbouring community would follow a year or so later and work out an agreement to share the lagoon.

There is an interesting psychology to this, and the member for The Pas, he raises a very interesting question, because I asked my staff, have we had any proposals come forward, to their knowledge, where a community has said, look, the neighbouring First Nation is putting in sewer and water. Could we advance our project this year and build it at one time as part of one contract?

They tell me that to their knowledge, we have not had that request. It does not mean it has not been made or been lost somewhere on the way up, but from my experience in the last two years as minister, what has impressed me considerably, as I have travelled in many of our Northern Affairs communities, is the uniqueness, the distinctive nature of those communities.

You can have a few hundred people in a very isolated area, half of whom belong to a First Nation and half of whom belong to a Northern Affairs community or a Metis community, and their sense of individual identity is very strong. Where we might think that 300, 400 or 500 or 1,000 people living so close together in such a remote area would have one identity as a community, it does not often seem to be the case, and yet again, is that unusual?

I have communities of Pine Falls, Powerview, and the surrounding LGD of Alexander, all of whom are three different government entities and for the last 40 years or so, they have not been able to work out an arrangement where they have been able to form into one community. They tend to, up until recently at least, not co-ordinate their municipal services together. Their own identity as Powerview or the LGD of Alexander or the town of Pine Falls is very strong and very important to them, even so much so that two high schools until the last two years had two separate graduations on different nights.

It does take a long time to build that sense of co-operation, and one does not know if it is because one side feels poorer than the other or weaker than the other or if it is family relationships over years.

* (2040)

It is interesting to note. The member asks a very logical and good question, and the answer to it is that, to the best knowledge of my staff, we have not had to date this kind of a proposal, although one should make the observation that with the coming of greater local autonomy, certainly with the dismantling of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we may see some more of this happen, but to date we have not had it that common.

Mr. Lathlin: I would now like to move on to another topic that the minister and I discussed during the last Estimates.

That topic had to do with the--it was an arbitrator's decision which had been made favourably to the Cross Lake First Nation, but apparently or subsequently after that decision by the arbitrator, an appeal was made by governments, federal, provincial, and whether it was made by Manitoba Hydro, I do not know, but in any event, an appeal was launched, and I spent quite a bit of time asking the minister or trying to get him to clarify why an arbitrator's decision would have been subject to an appeal.

I have since understood a little bit more about arbitration proceedings, but, in any event, the appeal was made, and it was during the end of those discussions that the minister was given a letter by one of his senior staff members. Apparently the letter said that there was light at the end of the tunnel, that eventually the Cross Lake First Nation would realize their objective and that negotiations were going to resume.

Since then, I have been sort of following the issue whenever I go to Cross Lake, and so, today, again, I am interested in hearing from the minister as to what happened to that bridge because, incidently, I read the arbitrator's decision, and I thought it was a very good decision.

Mr. Praznik: I just hope, as my deputies pointed out to me, that the light was not an oncoming train coming through the tunnel but, indeed, the end of it.

If I may, for members of the committee, introduce two more of my staff whohat have joined us. Mr. Harvey Bostrom, who is the director of our Native Affairs Secretariat, has joined us. Harvey is no stranger to this room. Having served as a minister in a previous government he had to defend Estimates in this very chair, I am sure, and he is a very valued member of our staff today. Of course, Mr. Merv McKay is one of our senior negotiators on the Northern Flood Agreement.

The particular question and letter being rushed in last year, I remember it well. It was Mr. McKay who rushed in to tell me, if I remember correctly, that we had reached an agreement to negotiate further on that particular issue. If the member will allow me a moment, I will have an answer, more fully, to his question.

If I remember correctly the details of the issue which the member for The Pas raises, what we had was a dispute over whether or not the current road and ferry system was in fact an all-weather road. That went to arbitration. The arbitrator made the ruling that was not an all-weather road. After some discussion, negotiation, it was determined that we would appeal the decision of the arbitrator. That appeal is not yet heard. I have to say to the member, I appreciate the people of Cross Lake wishing to have a bridge access as opposed to a ferry access. They, of course, continually petition their local member to pursue this issue. Whether that be built as part of the Northern Flood Agreement or part of the regular budget of the Department of Highways is in itself an issue.

Northern Flood is one means of settling that; the regular budget of the Department of Highways is another. If the construction of that bridge does not, in the final analysis, form part of the agreement with Cross Lake for the Northern Flood, then that does not mean that a bridge will not be built at some time. But I raise that to put a context around the member's question because there is an issue, and I think a legitimate one, whether or not a bridge is in fact part of the package that was contemplated in the agreements that have been signed to date with the Cross Lake First Nation.

Mr. Lathlin: I guess the only other question that I would have of the minister on that issue is, as I recall it, the arbitrator was a part of the negotiation process, I guess, with Northern Flood. So from there I took it to mean that there was a connection with Northern Flood. So I am wondering, what is that, a year ago or less than a year? How long would it be before we would get a court decision, even though we had already received an arbitration decision?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think it is important to appreciate that the issue whether or not the road is an all-weather road, whether a bridge or a ferry make it an all-weather road, is only a decision within the negotiating process. The end of the day, all of these issues come together to form a package. So even if that particular point were to be concurred to at this time without another further appeal, as provided under the process, but, yes, then that bridge is part of the package and there is a value allotted to it.

That does not mean it is going to be built because we do not have an agreement on Northern Flood yet with Cross Lake. And there I can inform the member today that there are a host of new issues that have been brought to the table, as I understand it, by Cross Lake, that were not acceptable to the administration, and at the current time both parties, although there is some discussion going back and forth, we are not in active negotiations.

* (2050)

So even if that one issue were to be settled tonight or tomorrow, it is until the entire package is satisfactory to both parties in its entirety that we have a deal and anything would be acted on. So I would not want anyone reading or listening to this record to have the impression that that particular issue being decided by an arbitrator means that point gets built. Even if we were to cede that point or we lose that appeal, and that point is established that it is an all-weather road, it is still in the purview of Cross Lake to say, okay, we will give up that point for something else that we particularly want.

So it is part of a larger negotiating table, and an arbitrator's ruling does not result today in the construction of the bridge if, at the negotiating table, we accept the construction of the bridge, and it becomes part of the regular trade-offs of other issues, and we have a complete agreement, and it is ratified by the community, then if it were a term, then we would move it towards construction. So we are still a long way from that point.

Mr. Lathlin: Yes, I do recall that that is one thing that I tried to impress upon the minister, when we last had Estimates, was that the decision was made by the arbitrator. It was appealed, and then it was chased up to the courts, and I was suggesting to the minister at that time that if that is how eventually this issue is going to be settled, we could be sitting here forever and ever, appeal after appeal, depending on what level of court that it would be chased to.

Now the minister is saying that even though if a decision was made to build a bridge, it would not be built until the entire agreement had been gone through and a signed agreement was in place. But, in the meantime, we have a whole community of some 4,000 people who are left without certain services in the fall and in the spring. I realize that where the ferry crosses it is fast flowing so they are able to get rid of the ice a little bit faster than Norway House can, so the disruption is not all that long as compared to Norway House. But still, we have a community there that is cut off from the outside world other than the airport. I wonder then if he can give us an update as to where things are at in terms of the Cross Lake negotiation with Northern Flood.

For example, I would like to ask the minister to tell us, are we a third of the way there? Are we half way there? Are we three-quarters of the way there? Or are we back down to square one? Or where are we?

Mr. Praznik: As in all of these negotiations or any negotiations, sometimes one can be right around the corner from seeing them resolved and not even realize it. I would not even begin to indicate we are a third, half, or three-quarters of the way. We could be halfway there or we could be just around the corner from being there. It depends on a host of things.

Let me tell the member that, as he may have seen in the Free Press, in the advertisements from Nelson House and York Landing First Nations, in both those cases, we are down to a couple of issues that, from my point of view, have been resolved in principle and both sides are working through now their appropriate field work that has to be done. I have some things to do internally in government on one of their issues at Nelson House. They have some work in terms of specific land selection. We have been working things through the system. So Nelson House, York Landing, I think, very close, where we are down to really the short strokes and I think the principals, barring some unforeseen problem that we cannot deal with, both see the resolution of this and have a meeting of minds. It is now just specific details, which could cause a glitch. Certainly land selections have a tendency to do that. But I would think we are going to see them resolved before we are here at the table again.

In the case of Norway House First Nation, again to put into context, Norway House has had a host of internal debates going on over the last year or so with their chief, between their chief and council. They still have a fair ways to go with us at the table in terms of specific issues where we have to find a meeting of minds, but it is moving ahead in a very positive and constructive way.

It is Cross Lake, as the member asks about, where at the current time we are not at the table directly dealing with issues. There are still discussions going back about how we get back to the table and back on track.

The member may be right in that the bridge may be a significant issue to be resolved, but I can tell him that there are a lot of very significant issues that are on the table there now. It is unfair, although this is certainly a place to have a discussion generally about the negotiations--and I must say, I appreciate the advice that he offers with respect to the importance of the bridge to that community, but there are, as I am told by our negotiators, a host of issues on the table.

I would suspect at some time in the next while--I am hopeful we will see a willingness on both parts to get back at it in a stronger way and see our way clear to resolving the majority of them. His advice with respect to the bridge or the importance of the bridge to that community and the internal politics of the Northern Flood Agreement and reaching a settlement are certainly noted by me at this table, and I appreciate his advice.

* (2100)

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, following up on that bridge issue or going from there, from the bridge issue, you see, when the minister talks about certain issues that are being negotiated with regard to the Northern Flood Agreement, sometimes, at least the way I understand it, sometimes the understanding that I am given or the messages that I am given is that some parts we cannot touch because of the way the negotiating is going. Some parts we can proceed, in some cases without prejudice on the part of both parties, and when that happens, whatever funds that may be expended on the project could be charged to whatever settlement money that the band might come on to at a later date.

So when I was apprised of the ferry situation in Cross Lake during the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs conference here--I do not know who to be the most upset with, but in any event I was made to understand that the ferry operation will be expanded in terms of hours. It could run on a 24-hour basis. It could run into December provided that Cross Lake First Nation paid something like $45,000 towards the cost of the ferry operation. I found that quite disturbing because, as I told Cross Lake councillors, Ernest Monias and others, I do not see any other community in Manitoba having to pay additional money in order that they have some kind of road access. As far as I am concerned, the ferry is not really an all-weather road, as the arbitrator has decided once already.

I find it disturbing that this department would enter into that kind of an agreement with Cross Lake First Nation, charging them $45,000 to increase the hours of operation for the ferry. I am wondering if the minister can elaborate on that and perhaps clarify the issue for us. In what context was the agreement made and so forth?

Mr. Praznik: I appreciate the member's question but the detail would be better answered by the Minister of Highways who administers that particular ferry. His comments are certainly noted and appreciated with respect to settlement of the Northern Flood Agreement and I would hope he would have an opportunity to put the specific questions to the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Lathlin: Thank you for that answer. I will make it my business to approach the Minister of Highways if the Estimates are still going.

The other area that I wanted to move into, Mr. Chairperson, is the meeting that was held in Thompson, I believe it was in the spring of this year. I do not know what format the meeting took but I understand it was like a workshop where, for example, roads and highways in the North were discussed. I was listening to the minister on the radio, on one of my trips back down to Winnipeg on a Sunday evening, talking about how fruitful the meeting was, how successful it was. I am happy to hear that the meeting was successful because now whenever I go to Cross Lake or Norway House I will be driving on paved road and everything will be all right.

I would like to ask the minister what, if anything, has transpired, anything concrete? Are there any roads paved since last spring? After all, when I listened to the minister on CJOB the meeting was quite successful.

Mr. Praznik: I know that the Minister of Highways has included some of the projects that were discussed in his Highways program for this year. One will have to discuss with him those specific projects. I would not want to speak for the minister. My job was to facilitate some of those communities working with the department to set some priorities off the list of projects that were asked for in northern Manitoba.

Just generally on that meeting, what I was trying to achieve as Minister of Northern Affairs--and I think it is somewhat of a difficulty when you sit in government offices, and northern Manitoba is no different from any other part of the province. When its elected officials come, whether they be First Nations, NACC, municipal, to lobby government, it is most difficult when you have a number of groups coming and saying to a minister or to government, these are our priorities, and the priorities are different from the next group that comes in and still different from the next group.

Government, at this particular juncture in our history, is more about making choices between projects than it is about funding everything, as maybe it was in the 1970s when money seemed to be a lot more plentiful in those inflationary times and governments were borrowing, the beginning of their great borrowing that has got us into the situation we are today.

So what I endeavoured to do, after discussing with many of those people locally and following up on the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission report was to see if we could forge some sort of working group between the elected northern leadership--First Nations, NACC and municipal--and perhaps modelled on the MAUM or UMM examples where that elected leadership would get together on a regular basis a couple of times a year, have an annual meeting, do some prioritizing, meet with provincial government ministers in certain areas of interest and speak not with a totally united voice on every issue, no organization does that, but at least be more involved in the planning and policy development and creation of infrastructure.

I left Thompson that weekend feeling pretty good because we had reached an agreement between those three groups to sit down and put together that working relationship. With some regret I tell the member tonight that it has bogged down somewhat, and I have to say not because, in my opinion at least, the provincial department or our person at the table, Mr. Boulette, or my ADM has bogged the thing down. I think it is bogged down somewhat because within those three groups, and one in particular, there is not agreement as to what that organization should be or how it should be funded or some tough choices that have to be made internally among northern leadership. As a result, there is a considerable difference of opinion between the three with our department as to what is doable.

The easy answer is just to come to the provincial government and say, give us a half million dollars or $400,000, we are going to set up another bureaucracy, and we are not going to review the current economic development we have in the North, Norman and their contribution and operation. That is the easy way of doing it, but the ground rules at the beginning were that there was not more money to fund bureaucracies. We would have to look at how we could do this effectively, inexpensively and by reprioritizing what was spent.

I think both MKO and NACC have been very co-operative in that regard, but the urban industrial communities have a very big difference of opinion internally as to their expectations and how they want to be involved, and until they work that out--and if there is one thing I have learned from First Nations people in my dealings and following of issues in the last few years, it is you sometimes have to let people work these things out for themselves before you have got the kind of agreement that is going to work in the long run, so I am hopeful.

I plan on meeting with the three principals over the summer when I am in northern Manitoba, and I am hoping that they can still hammer out something that will see the group in a working form by the fall and being able to have another meeting with us as ministers and get down to some of the important infrastructure issues.

Mr. Lathlin: Yes, when I was listening to the minister on the radio that evening, driving to Winnipeg, as I recall it, he seemed to have spoken with a great deal of authority, I thought, for example, on roads. Not once did I hear him say, well, I will have to consult the Minister of Highways. I mean, I heard him clearly on radio saying that, yes, they had discussed roads, and this is what was decided, and this what was going to happen.

I guess what troubles me when I listen to the minister talk about northern groups not being able to decide as to what to do, you see, it is akin to blaming, it was like the Premier one day blamed the weather for all his bad economic works in Manitoba. The minister in fact is blaming northerners for the fact that there are no roads and highways or good roads, decent highways up north. Because when I listened to him, he said: You know, you see, guys, if only you would have come to this kind of an agreement many, many years ago. Hell, we could have had roads here by now. But you know what? It was your fault, because you could never agree to work together. And now that you have finally agreed to work together, gosh, we are going to do things.

That is what he told them. That is what he said on radio. That is what I heard. I heard the minister say that, and when I listened to him, I thought, how can you blame northerners? You do not say that to southern Manitoba. You do not say that to Morris or Emerson or Steinbach, you know, like, if you guys would work together, we would do a lot of things.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, that there is $117 million in the Highways budget, and the minister knows full well that around 5 percent of that $117 million is spent for road work up north.

Now, is that the fault of the northern leadership? No, they do not sit at the table. They do not sit in the cabinet, deciding expenditures for up north. This government and this minister in cabinet, they do that. The northern leadership absolutely has no input. They have no say as to where that $117 million is going to be spent.

* (2110)

So do not give me this whatever, that it is the fault of northerners, it is because they cannot work together, they cannot get together, that we have roads that are in dire need of repair up north. That is simply not the case, Mr. Chair.

So I thought I would say that to the minister, just to bring him down to earth a little bit.

He talked a little bit about the Northern Economic Development Commission. My last question is on this because after this I am going to give it to my colleague member for Rupertsland. There were, while the commission was going--incidentally, the commission was talked about, I believe, in 1988, I used to hear about it. In 1990 I heard about it, and, finally, 1992-93--no, 1992, I guess, it was finally commissioned. Eighteen months later it was supposed to be finished. It was finished when--a year and a half ago? Much money was expended. A lot of good people volunteered to sit on a commission, mostly northerners; I was glad for that. A lot of good ideas were put forth in the recommendations. There were a lot of women who went to the hearings to give their ideas, women's groups, women's programs. There were aboriginal groups who went in.

KCC was talked about as providing post-secondary education up north. There were all kinds of other ideas relating to economic development that were talked about. The Port of Churchill was talked about. The rail line. And on and on we go. But, since the release of the report, we have not heard too much from this minister as to what he is going to do as far as implementing those recommendations.

I would like to ask the minister: Is he going to do anything about implementing those recommendations, or can we just forget about that report because nothing has been done to date?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, let me say to the member for The Pas, the purpose of getting people together was not going to solve every road problem. But, after I was appointed as Minister of Northern Affairs, I was invited, almost on a regular basis, to meetings in the Minister of Highways' office, as community by community groups came in and said, we want this piece of road fixed, and it should be a priority now. By the way, we get that regularly in all our regions of the province, and, if I remember correctly from the Deputy Minister of Highways, just that one project alone--I think it is the road to Lynn Lake--if we did everything on it that those communities wanted, it would consume almost the entire Highways budget for a year. So the reality of it is that in every area of the province you never get all the road projects one would like done.

What makes it much easier for a Minister of Highways, and which, I think, gives northerners a greater input into how the road dollars are spent, is when their elected leadership can sit down and give a list of priorities, so the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) knows, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, what are the priorities to be done in what order across the region. There may be some very good reasons for prioritizing that have to deal with local economic development.

The member talked about the road into Cross Lake or the bridge into Cross Lake. That is a six- to 10-million-dollar project. It is not a small amount of money. It is a very substantial amount of money. I will tell you, if Cross Lake is successful in putting together its mining project in the next while, the kind of revenue that that potentially could create would more than pay for that bridge, and it is going to happen very quickly, just like we have seen other roads developed in the North and other parts of the province that have come or been created because there has been a major significant economic development take place that creates and generates the revenue that pays for the infrastructure. So I hope that his constituents in Cross Lake, who now are dealing with their partner, Gossin Resources, DuPont and others for the development of, what we understand, could be an active mine and generate a significant amount of revenue and will lead to a speedy construction of that particular bridge.

But that is a story that is repeated over and over again throughout all of Manitoba. There would not be a highway to Pine Falls today if there were not a paper mill there. Those stories get repeated over and over again--or a road into Bissett because of the mine. The examples go on.

The member for The Pas makes it sound as if no one else prioritizes. I can tell the member in my constituency of Lac du Bonnet, as I, year after year, lobby for highway work in my own constituency, I have to make choices in my recommendations to a minister representing that region, and that I have to work with my municipalities because we cannot do every project all at once. It took many years to get, in fact, Highway 44, the four-laning to Beausejour, which his party began when they were in government, we are now just finishing this year because it had to be a phased-in project. Resources were scarce. Again, there are road projects in my own constituency where I get regular complaints. Highway 59 is one of them that is a major hazard on the weekends with that traffic.

When rated against some of the other highway needs in the province including northern needs, the resources have not been there to do it over the last number of years, and it remains undone. So let it not go unsaid, or let it not stand as the member would have it that northern Manitoba is always hard done by on road construction across the province. I think if one looked over a 20- or 30-year period, you would find that there was a very significant amount of dollars, probably a similar amount by whatever standard you are using, spent in northern Manitoba as the rest of the province.

I want to just say to him on his general question about the Northern Economic Development Commission report. Economies are not built by reports. Reports give us some benchmark, they give some ideas and some direction, and they give us a sense of where we may be at and some opportunities that are there. As I go through the Northern Economic Development Commission report, a number of those recommendations that were felt to be critical to long-term development, one being the settlement of lands claims, have been very much a priority with this administration and with my department. In fact, I would say now, in the Department of Northern and Native Affairs, the settlement of Northern Flood and advancing on our land claims or at least the creation of interim protection zones to give certainty to both those with claims and those who want to do economic development in those regions is our No. 1 priority over the next while which was one of the significant recommendations of that report.

If you look at one of the largest generators of wealth in the North, it is certainly mining. If you look at the history of mining in Manitoba over the last 30 years, you will see a stretch of time, 15, 20 years, where we virtually had no exploration of consequence throughout most of this province. That was the result of a host of policies that made us, for a time, one of the worst places in Canada to be involved in the mining industry. My predecessors in this department, particularly the former member for Pembina, Mr. Orchard, worked very hard. The Deputy Premier Mr. Downey worked very hard to make Manitoba the place to be involved in mining in Canada. My perspective and my mandate as new minister is to make it one of the best in the world.

If we look just at explorations it takes 15, 20 years of exploration often to see the development of new mines employing people and creating the wealth. Most of the exploration we have had has been by the major companies in their own neck of the woods, in the Flin Flon, Thompson, nickel belt, et cetera. We have seen very little on the eastern side of the province in a host of greenstone belts that have great potential, perhaps another Voisey Bay, and that is absolutely fundamental. This government has invested and will be investing more, I suspect, in the next few years in seeing a great increase in the exploration programs in northern Manitoba done by junior companies and others in areas that have not yet been explored. That is absolutely critical to the future economic development of the North and that is long term.

One of my challenges, and something that I have never seen happen yet, is where we are working with northerners to make them aware of opportunities that come with the mining industry to be suppliers to that industry. That is one of the projects I would like to take on this winter.

If I may, Mr. Chair, on Cross Lake for a moment, and the potential mine--more than a potential mine, because the evidence we have to date suggests there is a significant enough deposit to lead to a fairly significant mining operation in that community. Those mining claims are held jointly by Gossin Resources and by the Cross Lake First Nation.

* (2120)

I hope, very sincerely, that we will see that development happen there, because it will be the first time in the history of our province where we have a First Nation actively involved as an owner in a mining development, with the wealth that comes with that going to that community as a partner.

Just to give the member a sense of the potential investment there, a mine in the kind of smelting operation that they could put into place has an estimated capital value of half a billion dollars. Just think about it, half a billion dollars in construction going on in that community. It would be a huge, huge boom to that part of the world.

So again this government has made that a very top priority, and if you look at the future of northern Manitoba, that is very much a part of it.

So we work there, we work on settling land claims, certainly to issues. We work on a number of other fronts that are there that we hope to develop.

I will say this to the member for Cross Lake, if he asks whether or not this government will establish another commission to talk about economic development or another bureaucracy to talk about economic development, and not get down to those key fundamental issues and do some of the things that have to be done, as I have said, in mining that we have taken on, the answer is certainly not. I do not mind being judged by what we are doing, but I think one has to look at the whole plate, which involves some of those very significant infrastructures.

Again, the development of the northeast power line into the Island Lake communities, which I understand is just about ready to go, there are a few things that are being sorted out. Once again, it was this government that took the initiative to see that project completed with the federal government and those communities. Bringing lower-cost electricity into the Island Lake area is a big plus to what they are able to do in the future. That is economic development.

I see at this committee my predecessor, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), has joined us. In his tenure, whether it be in mining, basic infrastructure issues, he has worked very hard to ensure that Manitoba has become the place to be. That is where the future is. It is not a future in more committees to talk about a host of things that often do not turn out to be practical at the end of the day.

I hope that I have made this perfectly clear. Thank you.

Mr. Lathlin: One final question, absolutely final question.

You know, the need for road repairs, road construction, pavement, and so on, the need for that is not as great in the South. The need is greater in the North. Who can argue with that? I travel around the South all the time and there are lots of good roads in the south. Do you know why? Because that is where the votes are. That is where the people are.

Yet, when I look at that $117-million budget, Mr. Chair, the minister says--and again I can tell when he says that that he was not listening to the people, because the people are not suggesting for one moment that all of those roads are going to be magically fixed in one swoop, in one year.

That is not what the people are saying. What the people are saying is, hey, how about sending more than 5 percent of $117 million up here, because we need it too. Even if you do it over five years we will be happy. As long as we know that something is getting done, we will be happy. That is what people are saying. They are not saying to the minister that we are going to fix that road to Norway House or Cross Lake or to Lynn Lake in one project. The people are not stupid, they are not. They understand that.

For example, as far as I am concerned, the South could well afford, without suffering anything greatly, could well afford to wait for five years, send $60 million or $70 million to the North for five years and then you can do something, over five years, not in one, because it is needed.

The former minister of Northern Affairs used to talk to me incessantly about tourism. What do we have to have in the north if we are going to have the tourism industry? We need roads, we need infrastructure. We need all kinds of things. Otherwise, people are not going to come.

* (2130)

For the minister to say, we cannot afford to do that road to Lynn Lake because do you know how much it is going to cost? Hey, people understand that. Do it over two or three years. They will be happy.

I guess, when the minister talks like that--for example, he said that bridge that Cross Lake is looking at is anywhere from $6 million to $8 million. Well, if we were looking at the amount of money the Jets are getting, you know what, sir, we could build five bridges, each worth $8 million. We could do that. Of course, you would have to pay it back. I just finished telling the minister, Mr. Chair, in tourism and everything else that comes along with a well-developed infrastructure, we would have payback. I can guarantee him that.

Another example is whatever is happening in the back here somewhere. [interjection] Yes, over there. If we started prioritizing, as the minister likes to say--I do not know what we are building back there--a fountain? We are laying asphalt anyway. I am sure it costs a lot of money. If we could prioritize just a little bit more, send that money up north, people would be happy. Anyway, I just thought I would say that because I did not want the minister to create the impression that northerners want everything in one swoop. They are very reasonable people. They will wait five years if you phase in the project.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Chairman, there are some questions I have. I do not want to take too much time. There are other members of our caucus here that have questions as well.

I took some interest in the remarks by the minister on the mining activities that are potentially going to be happening in this province of ours in the next little while. We fully understand that there have been a thousand mining jobs that have been lost in this province at Lynn Lake, Snow Lake; others have shut down. But there is potential for mining activity, most of it in northern Manitoba at Pipe Lake, in Thompson, Snow Lake, Pipestone Lake and Bissett, and I look forward to the Energy and Mines Estimates. Perhaps we can get into greater detail about those potentials that do exist in northern Manitoba with respect to this same minister's responsibilities in that area.

I, too, heard the radio program that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was referring to on the northern round table, and was most enthused about the--just that we were, I suppose, looking for a hockey game that night. But driving back from our constituency, it just so happened that we turned the radio to this certain station in a lower band section and we found--I found it anyway, that the minister was on this program. I was enthused by what I heard, particularly in relation to a Northern Development Agreement that we did once have in this province and which expired about five years ago.

I would like to ask, as a first question, Mr. Chairperson, to the minister as to what stage this government is at in negotiating a new--we used to refer them as ERDA agreements with the federal government.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, there are no ERDAs anymore. The federal government is not doing them. We all as provincial politicians watch federal budgets. It is very obvious that the federal government is reducing its obligations everywhere, and my expectation is that for many, many years to come we will not see the kind of dollars provided for those economic development agreements as we have seen in the last 20 to 30 years, nowhere near. In fact, we will not see any.

Mr. Robinson: Have there been discussions with federal counterparts on that very same issue with respect to Northern Development Agreements involving the other levels of government, including, particularly, the federal government?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, there has been no interest shown to even get to having any kind of discussions. The federal government is just not in the business and not open to talking about it.

Mr. Robinson: In this province we have the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that has undertaken with the federal government, particularly the Department of Indian Affairs, what has been referred to as the dismantling process, a long overdue process in the opinion of First Nations leaders in this province. They have geared in on three particular areas that they would like to move on immediately, that being education, capital management and fire protection.

I would like to ask what the minister views is the provincial government's role in the whole dismantling process, or what was referred to by the federal Indian Affairs minister as something different than dismantling but rather empowerment for First Nations people in this province.

Mr. Praznik: This will take a few minutes, which I would ask for the indulgence of the committee, because the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has raised an issue which I think is at probably one of the most challenging facing First Nations people and all governments over the next few years, very exciting process, and the relationships between the parties become very important as to their roles that they have to play in this process.

As minister, I am very cognizant of the importance of jurisdiction and relationships. In conversations I have had with other governments that have gone through these processes, particularly in the Territories, their advice to me has always been understand and respect and appreciate jurisdiction and relationships. That does not mean one cannot be supportive of the overall thrust of where things are going, but one must respect the differences in jurisdictions.

Manitoba as a government was not invited to the table as part of the discussions on the dismantling agreement between First Nations and the federal government, and I say very clearly to the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), I am not in any way offended by that. That was not a place for us to be. We are not in the jurisdictions involved. We are not a party to that agreement because we do not have jurisdiction in those particular areas. And so it was not appropriate that we be there, and I am not insulted, offended. I appreciate that fully, and I respect that position.

As we study where we fit into this role, obviously there are some very practical areas and some jurisdictional areas where the province will probably be asked to come to the table, and I would like to just take a moment to review those for the benefit of members of the committee who may not be as cognizant of this issue as I know the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) is.

Under the Canadian Constitution with respect to, and I use the constitutional phrase of Indians and Indian lands, the federal government has a jurisdiction if they so choose to exercise it. If they do not--and, this, of course, is putting aside any relationship, or special arrangements between the federal government and particular bands because of treaty. I want to just remove that from the discussion for a moment because those are clearly obligations from the federal Crown to those bands. But in terms of constitutional law, in the case of Manitoba, or any province, our laws of general application where we choose to exercise our authority under the Constitution apply, of course, equally to all our citizens, whether they be First Nation citizens or not. It is only where the federal government has exercised its jurisdiction over, and I use the constitutional phrase, Indians and Indian lands, that a special scenario or situation arises. A good case in point is the Indian Act which exempts taxation for purchases or payments on reserve. Our general tax laws apply except the feds have used their jurisdiction and taken that area out of the jurisdiction.

The reason I raise this with the member for Rupertsland is that I suspect that, on some of the issues that are going to come forward in the dismantling process--and the signal I have had from the federal minister, Mr. Irwin, is that the federal government will be looking to the province to, by agreement, cede part of its jurisdiction to this process. The area that comes to mind very quickly where this is likely to be the case is that of Child and Family Services. Under the constitutional scheme, the laws of general application apply, so our Child and Family Services legislation applies on and off reserve unless the federal government uses its jurisdiction to override ours.

So what we are asking in this process--and this is what I would hope the member for Rupertsland appreciates in our position, as we develop it as we go through this. What I envision as minister, what the province is looking for, is where the federal government and the First Nations communities wish to see that empowerment of First Nations or the establishment of that right to make decisions or that jurisdiction or responsibility, whatever term one wants to use. What we would expect as a province is they would do it, not through an administrative agreement, where the jurisdiction may still end up lying with the province, but we would want to see that jurisdiction created through the federal authority where it exists or through treaty where it exists so that the lines of authority and responsibility are firmly there.

Now, having said that, that does not mean, as a matter of practical fact, that the province of Manitoba will not want to deal with those new entities that are created to share information, to work together, to have coservice agreements, to develop standards together on a shared basis or do all of those practical things that, I think, become important to the success.

But our insistence is that the federal government use its proper authority, that the Parliament of Canada, where they so wish to see a jurisdiction created for First Nations, so use the authority of the Parliament of Canada to create it, as opposed to coming to the province to have us seceded in some administrative arrangement where we really cannot secede that jurisdiction. And I fully expect that there will be implementation periods, et cetera, that can be accommodated by federal legislation.

My one disappointment that I share with members of the committee and the member for Rupertsland is that Mr. Irwin, the federal minister, in discussions we have had with him has said to us that it is not his mandate from the Prime Minister to go to the Parliament of Canada and that he will have to do things without going to the Parliament of Canada. I find that very disheartening, because it is the authority of the Parliament of Canada that will be needed to fully give constitutional and legal life, in the opinion of our legal advisors, to some of the things that they want to accomplish.

If I may, I know the member for Rupertsland has many other points that he wants to raise, but he raised three particular areas of education, capital management and fire protection.

In the case of capital management, in my opinion, that is very simply an issue between the First Nations and the government of Canada, which now provides that capital budget, and I look forward to I hope a very successful program that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs will be able to create.

In terms of education, now, in most cases, the authority for education, if I remember my briefings correctly, there is some obligation relationship under treaty with respect to education, so that is an area that already has a special role, and I would expect that when, as First Nations develop their educational planning at the primary and secondary levels, that they will be speaking to us about working, as happens now already, about common curriculum and grading and those types of things so that students are able to enter outside institutions. I do not know what plans are for post-secondary, so I really do not want to comment on that.

* (2140)

I leave for last probably my personal favourite of the three because of my involvement in the Fire Commissioner's office, and that is fire protection. We have an anomaly in our law currently in Manitoba that I share with members under our Fires Prevention Act. The act clearly defines municipalities as not including First Nations, and just as a matter of practical fact now, every time there is a fire on a First Nation, the firefighters, whoever they may be, who enter a premise, commit trespass because they are not afforded the protection of our Fires Prevention Act, and just as a very practical consequence, because our legislation does not apply, I have raised that with Mr. Irwin and with Grand Chief Fontaine as this is one area, clearly, where the establishment of the proper authority just to ensure that First Nations firefighters are legally protected when they fight fires on First Nations, that something will have to be done legislatively to ensure that.

We have had meetings with the native firefighters association, who I understand have a mandate from the chiefs to be working on fire protection issues, and we started to build a relationship with the Manitoba Fire Commissioner's office, our training facilities. We do not charge any additional fees for accessing our programs, et cetera, for those First Nations firefighters, any out-of-province fees or any of those types of things.

We have also started to work with them to develop a relationship with the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs, which is a very significant organization in fire protection in the province. I am hoping as the aboriginal fire service develops, as many communities are fairly far along now--I think of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation at The Pas being one--we have to work out some arrangements for mutual aid. Many aboriginal fire departments are in close proximity to nonaboriginal fire departments, and it makes perfect sense to have mutual aid agreements.

The problem we have now is those aboriginal fire departments are not covered by our fire protection act, nor is there federal legislation. Consequently, there is a legal void that has to be filled. I think the fire protection one is going to be one of the first where we are going to be able to work out some of these difficulties. There is a very good relationship developing. I think on the others, as we go along, in practical terms it will be very exciting. Obviously, mistakes get made. That is how we all learn.

I have to come back to my first point. We as a province are very insistent that the federal Parliament provide under the constitution for the jurisdictions that it wishes to see transferred or the empowerment it wishes to see transferred to First Nations as opposed to looking for administrative agreements, tripartite agreements which really do not transfer the jurisdiction or authority. That would be our one concern with the process to date. That concern only arises because of the comments of the federal ministers to both us and the First Nations that they do not want to have to go to Parliament to do that.

We think they should go to Parliament and will have to go to Parliament if they want to give legal effect to some of things that I think they are planning. That does not mean we intend to stand in the way, we just want to see it done correctly in law, as opposed to through administrative agreements which may satisfy no one at the end of the day.

Mr. Robinson: I want to thank the minister for his response to my question on those three areas that I wanted to talk about, about the dismantling process that is currently underway in Manitoba. He mentioned, and I am very concerned about the issue about the fire protection program that it is going to be fast track in the next little while. I was glad to hear about some of the gaps that appear to be evident in The Fires Prevention Act restricting First Nations people in becoming recognized, if you will, as communities, as municipalities are recognized. I want to talk a little bit and ask a question on the Fire College. The way we understand it right now, $50 per day is required of an individual to attend the Fire College if that person is not from a recognized municipality according to The Fires Prevention Act. I believe it is section 67(1) of The Fires Prevention Act. I am not totally familiar with The Fires Prevention Act. I wonder if the minister would comment on why First Nations people have to pay that $50-a-day fee.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question. As he is well aware, I was the Fire Commissioner's minister up until a month or so ago in the cabinet shuffle, and I recall a meeting earlier this year between the representatives of the association of native firefighters and our Fire Commissioner's people. That issue was raised, and at that time I understood that they would if they were members of a First Nations fire department--that additional charge was to be waived.

If that has not been carried out, I do not offer this as an excuse, but in the interim the member may appreciate that our Fire Commissioner, Mr. John Matheson, who has passed away, was quite ill during that period and there may be some gap in the flow of information. So I will endeavour to raise this with the new Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). My recollection of our discussions at that time was that fee would be waived for members of recognized First Nations fire departments in the province of Manitoba. That whole issue, of course, stems from The Fires Prevention Act, which specifically excludes First Nations under the definition of municipalities.

As the member can appreciate, there is some sensitivity here about whether or not we should amend our Fires Prevention Act to include them and define them as municipalities because there are some sensitivities in the First Nations communities with that definition or that wording and how that takes place. So, when I left office--and the advice I will offer to the new Minister of Labour when we discuss this issue is, this is certainly one of the points that has to be raised with the First Nations about the legislative scheme that they wish to govern their fire departments. Today they have none.

If they so choose to want to opt under the provincial Fires Prevention Act, that will require an amendment of this Legislature that I do not think we as a government have a difficulty in making. We would want to do it, of course, with the concurrence and the recommendation or request of those First Nations. If they want to have their own jurisdiction for a Fires Prevention Act, then the federal Parliament in essence will have to provide for that amendment because First Nations themselves today do not have the authority to do it. It is not one of the delegated authorities.

So they are in a void, and when they decide which route they wish to take, if it is one where they want provincial amendment, I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) would be willing to provide for that. If they wish to deal on the other side, then the federal Parliament will have to provide for it. In the interim, my understanding is that a $50 fee was to be waived for members of recognized First Nations fire departments.

Mr. Robinson: I do want to move into some other areas, but this, as the minister indicated, is a very important area that we are talking about here, the area of fire protection. The way I understand it, The Fires Prevention Act, section 66(2) provides for an amount to be paid annually by the insurers to a fire protection fund. Now, under Regulation 2991, section 1(c), since 1993 and for the subsequent years, the rate has been set at an equivalent of 1.25 percent of premiums written off for property insurance less any return premiums, cancellations or money returned or credits allowed to subscribers in respect of property insurance.

* (2150)

Now, insurance companies pool all property premiums received and annually submit the equivalent of 1.25 percent to the Minister of Finance. They do not track premiums by ethnic origin and in fact are not permitted under legislation to even ask the question. This latter point will make it difficult to determine what percentage of that 1.25 percent First Nations should be requesting as their fair share. Per capita or percentage of population formula might be the easiest and best course to pursue. We do not know.

Now, the disbursement of funds: all money paid under Section 66 shall be credited to the account known as the Fires Prevention Fund and the money at the credit of the account shall be paid out of the order of the minister, which order shall certify that the expenditure is for the purposes of this act only. Part I of the act deals with forest and prairie fire, fire protection, powers of fire guardians and forest officers, wooded districts, burning permits, travel permits, fire hazards, fire suppression, fires resulting from railway operations, and the duty and responsibilities of the fire commissioner.

Section 35.3(e) and (f) provide for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a central fire college and the establishment and operation of regional fire schools for the training of fire officers. From the Public Accounts money that is transferred from the fund to the operation of the college, the authority to do this would seem to come under section 66. The Legislative Library review had Orders-in-Council for such authority and found them, so it confirms what the minister said.

I do want to talk about what the minister was talking about earlier in his assessment in the situation and the predicament that First Nations people find themselves in with respect to this one very vital area. I wanted to ask the minister, Mr. Chairperson, what ideas he has to influence his government in correcting some of the deficiencies, if you will, that do exist in this particular area.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question from the member for Rupertsland because although fire protection may seem like a very small issue in the overall table of dismantling, it is one that is probably very vital and very important and one which I believe can be an early success to the process.

By way of the budget and the use of the fire fund, the fire fund has been used primarily in the province for the operation of the Fire Commissioner's office which provides an investigatory element, a training, public safety element. We have used it for the operation, construction of the Fire College in Brandon and our training programs we offer across the province. We offer to the 17 southern and three northern mutual aid districts, and the reason why we make the difference between southern and northern is because in the north it is very hard to offer mutual aid in many cases, because fire departments are physically just so far away, but we use them for the purposes of training and equipment.

The fire fund has been used to pay, over the years, somewhere between $8,000 and $10,000, depending on the year, of match dollars to the mutual aid organizations for training that is offered to the mutual aid districts. When I was minister, we put a great emphasis on train the trainer. So we were training individuals in the mutual aid district who then could go back and train individuals in the department, various departments. We also did a number of equipment purchases over the years for the Fire Commissioner's office in support of mutual aid districts, not to individual fire departments. We have provided air compressors for mutual aid, radios for emergency equipment, training tapes and the like.

It is very important to note that we have not been funders, under that fund, of individual fire services. We have not bought firetrucks for departments, we have not built firehalls for departments, we have not bought equipment for departments. We have provided some equipment for the mutual aid system that they share, which no department owns but the Commissioner's office had put in place, but we have not funded individual departments. It is important to keep that in mind, how the fund is used.

Because of the definitions--and the member has the act in front of him, I believe--dealing with First Nations and municipalities and who is who, First Nations fire departments have not been part of the mutual aid system. It is my personal belief that as First Nations fire departments develop, becoming part of local mutual aid systems is going to be very important. Mutual aid systems have a host of rules that they require any department to meet before they join. They have to, obviously, have the equipment and the trained personnel and be able to respond to calls in other jurisdictions when they are needed in order to have those jurisdictions come to your area when you need them. So it is going to be important as First Nation fire departments build up their equipment and their training when they meet those standards that are there. Some do already, The Pas is a perfect example, the Opaskwayak First Nation, and I think they have some arrangement with The Pas fire department now, outside of mutual aid. But if they choose to become part of the mutual aid system, then they of course could be the beneficiary of those same resources.

If they choose to go on their own, and this is a decision that the chiefs have to make and one that I had some discussion with Phil Fontaine about when I was the minister, and if the federal parliament provided for the jurisdiction for First Nations to create their own fire commission or whatever avenue they chose to pursue, then there is certainly the ability for them to levy the same kind of 1.25 percent levy as we do on fire insurance premiums written on First Nations property. In that case the division of dollars becomes fairly clear. If the policy is written on a property situated in the First Nation, then the 1.25 percent of whatever levy would go to that fire commission or body that was created under the jurisdiction that the federal government would pass or provide for First Nations.

If First Nations want to be part of our regular Fire Peventions Act, then obviously we would have to look at amending that act to allow for that. I do not think that would be a significant problem, but I would say this to anyone reading this record. The dollars raised under those premiums now for the fire fund have not been used to pay for individual departments. I would doubt if that kind of arrangement could be made to fund individual departments because if in one case, yes, why not everywhere, the fund gets quickly depleted. If that option of joining the provincial Fire Services is the one First Nations would choose, then certainly they would be entitled to the same as part of mutual aid districts, the same training grants, the same access to joint equipment, the same access to expertise and support as any other fire department.

So there are two possible streams that I see now; there may be more. First Nations' native association of firefighters is very much a lead in this. They are going to have to decide where they want to go. In the interim, however, we have waived that $50 fee, and we have been providing some support, et cetera, to date with the training and the contacts and the use of the Fire College and advice to those departments as we would do to any other department in the province.

Mr. Robinson: I have the honour as well as representing some Northern Affairs communities, including Manigotagan, Seymourville, Bissett, Gods Lake Narrows, Stevenson Landing, and Aghaming, and I have had the privilege of talking with the mayors and councils of those communities on some very specific issues. Aghaming is, you know, next door to the Hollow Water First Nation. Of course, there are some communities, I guess, that we can call--basically, nobody is at home, including Long Body Creek for the time being, but I am sure that they will be occupied

point in the future.

* (2200)

We want to address some issues as well for those communities, particularly Manigotagan, Seymourville and Hollow Water, which is a First Nations community. They have rallied around in their opposition on a Pelican Harbour resort. I did communicate with the minister on March 10, 1994, and he responded to me promptly on the 31st of March of that year on the Pelican Harbour resort development initiative. I am wondering if the minister has had dialogue with the mayor and council of Manigotagan, of Seymourville, and chief and council at Hollow Water with respect to what is happening there. I know that the argument is that the development initiative is not located in the local boundaries of Manigotagan or Seymourville, but is located within Northern Affairs jurisdiction.

But there have been some concerns raised by the community members of those three communities that I am talking about with respect to the initiative because some of it could be over traditional territory. Some of it could be on traditional land that our forefathers once used for ceremonial purposes. I believe that, for the most part, most people in Manigotagan, Seymourville and Hollow Water, a good proportion of them, are of the aboriginal ancestry. So I am just wondering what dialogue the minister has had with respect to this concern that was expressed to us by the three communities through their leadership.

Mr. Praznik: I must admit to the member that I am not going to be able to give him as full an answer as I would have liked. As the member may appreciate, my assistant deputy minister, who looks after these particular areas and I know has been very actively involve in working with these communities through this project--I am speaking, of course, of Mr. Oliver Boulette--is not able to be with us tonight as he has remained in Thompson, his base of operations, due to the evacuations that are going on. I apologize to the committee. As minister I believed it was just far more important that he be in the North tonight doing that work as opposed to being here, and I am sure no one would disagree with that decision.

I can tell the member that over the last year or so, it is my understanding that many of the concerns have been met locally and there are a number of different issues that were raised. I might just run through with him some of those specific concerns.

There were some concerns with regard to commercial fishing, and now the Department of National Resources has had some discussions there with fisherman, and that issue seemed to have been alleviated. There was a bald eagle nesting area and the development is not near the existing nesting area. There was some concern with respect to graves, particularly where there were graves. We understand that the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship located the grave or graves and stipulated a variety of methods to ensure preservation and respect for those graves. Those have been agreed to by the developer.

I think the member, who travels Highway 59 from time to time with me as we share some communities and a common boundary, appreciates the difficulty that can be as there is a gravesite in the meridian between the two highways. It was one of those things that happens from time to time. I also know there is one in Bird's Hill Park. One must treat them with respect and of course try to preserve them. I would trust that this would be better than what we have done on Highway 59 over the years.

There are existing trails that are used by local communities. Their new access survey was developed by the developer, which will ensure that there is no interference with the existing trail system. Seymourville Community Council had some concerns and there was some land within Seymourville boundary and that was removed from the particular application to purchase.

I believe most of these have been worked through and, as I have indicated, Mr. Boulet, my ADM, is in charge of this particular issue. I wish he was here tonight, but I will arrange if the member so wishes when he is next in Winnipeg following the fires to perhaps arrange a meeting with the member if there are any particular issues the member wishes to have an update on.

Mr. Robinson: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairperson. I look forward to sitting down with the ADM and going over some outstanding issues that have been raised with us by our constituents in the Manigotagan-Seymourville-Hollow Water area.

There is another concern that has been expressed to us, and I have had numerous conversations with Mayor Brenda Boulet [phonetic] and members of her council and the mayor before her, Mayor John Deer [phonetic], and others, on issues that they have there. Sewer and water and issues of that nature have always come up. The whole area of septic fields in Manigotagan particularly, because of the kind of terrain that it is built on, I understand according to local community members that I have talked to, the people there will be faced with a problem in the next few years. I am just wondering what the minister's department's officials have done with respect to addressing those potential problems that we may be faced with in Manigotagan particularly.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, a concern I share with him. I remember visiting that community and its neighbours when I worked for its Member of Parliament, the Honourable Jake Epp, some years ago. And those were certainly issues then, and I know on the federal side, with respect to Hollow Water, there was a fair bit of federal dollars that went in on sewer and water upgrades.

I can report that Phase 2 of the single water treatment plant in Manigotagan is in our capital budget for this year, which is now just going through its final stages of approval. There are significant dollars for carry-over on the water treatment plant and sewage work that has to be done there. So the answer, it would appear, is to go to the water and sewer system in the community, and we are working towards that as we have with the capital budget. So we certainly want that addressed, and hopefully this year's work will bring it pretty close to completion.

Mr. Robinson: There are other issues that I would like to bring up with the minister, including matters that are very important to the constituents that I represent in this Legislature, but I want to give my colleague, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), an opportunity to ask some questions that are very important to her as well and the constituents that she serves in her area.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): As my colleague has indicated, there are several communities in my constituency, in fact nine, that come under Northern Affairs' jurisdiction, and I have some questions that I would like to ask relating to these communities and the services that are provided there.

Earlier on in the day, I had the opportunity to ask a few questions about the allocation of capital funding to Northern Affairs communities and the community of Camperville and the process that takes place to allocate the funds and, in particular, on the Camperville firetruck. Now, the minister indicated that one of the things that went against the community of Camperville was that their firefighters were not properly trained.

So I want to ask the minister, since he has known for some time that the community of Camperville has been trying to get a firetruck so that they could provide better protection for the area, including Duck Bay, which is another Northern Affairs community. They tell me that they do some work when there is need for fire protection at the Pine Creek Reserve. They also help out there. And they also have a mutual aid agreement with the LGD of Mountain, so they do serve a fairly large area.

The minister had indicated that the firefighters were not properly trained, so what I want to ask is, if the minister is aware of that, and he knows how important it is that they have proper fire protection, does the community provide the opportunity or the resources to ensure that people are properly trained, so that there is the fire protection and the people in place, should they be so unfortunate to have a fire, as they did just a few years ago when the hall burned down in Camperville?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, Mr. Chair, I think three issues with respect to the Camperville firetruck: One, of course, that that project had to be judged against other projects throughout the province, and I think when I am able to table the list of capital projects, which is still in the final stages of approval for Treasury Board, once it is completed, I will be pleased to share it with her. I think she will appreciate some of the other priorities in other communities. That is one.

* (2210)

Two, the first question that has to be answered is the state of the current firetruck. Is it adequate, does it work, et cetera, is it a useable piece of equipment? That obviously is going to change the priority of that project compared to other choices that have to be made.

Following the member's questions in the House, I spoke directly with the acting Fire Commissioner whose staff recently inspected that firetruck. He assured me that although there are better models of truck, it is certainly a useable piece of equipment. It is not state of the art, but it is comparable to the type of equipment used in many fire services in rural Manitoba. I think it is a 1976 body with about 1981 pumping equipment. Although the member may look somewhat surprised at that age, I can tell her in terms of lives of firetrucks that is not an old piece of equipment.

I recently opened the Bird River fire department in my constituency which has been in training for about four years now. Their firetruck is a 1964 truck with, I believe, original tires. Fire equipment does not wear out. It has a long life. The fact that it is a '76 body and engine does not mean it is a poor piece of equipment. It has been inspected by the Fire Commissioner's office and they have reported to Northern Affairs staff that it is certainly a very adequate piece of equipment.

The third issue in terms of training of firefighters, and this again I learned from my own staff who were part of the process of prioritization and work with Camperville, is that--and I may be wrong here but I do not believe that currently the Camperville fire department has any firefighters who have achieved Level 1, or very few, if any, who have achieved Level 1 firefighter training. The Dauphin regional office has worked with that community and made available offers to get their firefighters into that Level 1 training program, and they have had no response from the Camperville fire department.

I just have to share with the honourable member, someone who has been fire services minister for the last number of years, that there has been a big push across our volunteer fire services across the province to achieve Level 1 firefighter training. Most departments now across the province have a number of firefighters, if not all, who have achieved it, and those who have not are working through the program.

So I think there was a sense from our program staff that to invest in a significant piece of new equipment, which is probably in the $100,000 to $150,000 price range, and I know the new truck that was purchased by this department for the community of Waterhen, which I happened to be there when it was presented and turned over, it was around $150,000 for that truck. That fire department had worked very hard to build up their own training and took great pride in achieving a higher skill level. They put the horse, in essence, before the cart. The Bird River fire department, which is a new fire department, began training about four years ago. Their firefighters have all been working towards or have achieved Level 1 training, and they are working with some very old equipment. They have a new truck with a water carrying unit but it is not a firetruck, which their municipality purchased for them.

Another bit of history to this that my staff have shared with me is that in terms of, sort of, three--and competition between fire departments is a good thing, do not get me wrong. Rivalries of departments are part of the fuel of building the pride in fire services. But of the three relatively neighbouring communities of Waterhen, Camperville and Duck Bay, it was Waterhen who had the, I think, first firetruck and first department, then Duck Bay and then Camperville. Now it is Waterhen and then Duck Bay got new trucks and there is a bit of a rivalry in there among communities. I may be wrong but this is what my staff have pointed out to me. So, inevitably, I would think Camperville at some point will get a new truck. When, I am not going to commit to that, but while they have a usable piece of equipment I think there is a challenge to their fire service to get into the Level 1 training and demonstrate the kind of commitment to excellence that we are trying to instill in all of our fire services and the vast majority are responding to.

You know, I just see when you visit some of our very isolated communities, and I think of Cross Lake for example, the Northern Affairs community, I know the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) is very familiar with it. Darlene Beck, the first woman fire chief for the province of Manitoba who I think almost single-handedly built that department, you see the work that goes on in training and building up course after course and the skill level, it is certainly where we want fire departments to be. I think staff were somewhat disappointed when the Camperville fire department did not respond to the offers for Level 1 training.

So my message to the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and to Camperville is to, you know, put the shoulder to the grindstone and to be building up their own expertise. A firetruck does not make a fire department. In essence that is only part of it. It is the training that is probably one of the most significant parts of fire fighting, and their piece of equipment will be kept in good repair.

At some point, you know, there likely will be on the agenda a new firetruck, but not having one is not the end of the world. They still have a perfectly good firetruck. They have a fire service. They need to do some more work in the training. That they do have control over, that they are not dependent on this minister making a decision or the capital process producing that decision.

I would hope they would continue to work at it, demonstrate their commitment to fire service through the training, and inevitably they will have a new firetruck at some point in time.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates that they will get a truck at some time and I can accept that, but what I want to know is Camperville has been applying for a firetruck for some three to four years. They were told they were on the list before their community centre burnt down, then they said they had to go on hold because of the insurance that had to be paid on that hall but they would get a truck the following year. That was the commitment that was made to them.

Now if their crews, if their volunteers were not properly trained that is one thing, they should have been told that. I do not know that they were but if they are not properly trained, I can accept that. They have to do some work, but I have difficulty with the fact that they were told their firetruck was put on hold because their hall burned but they would be getting it the next year.

This is a few years down the road, and if there are problems with the way their volunteers are trained they should be told about that, but they should not have been told they were going to get a truck when it actually was not in the cards and that is the area that I have difficulty.

If there is a problem that they do not have the right requirements, if there is a problem with the volunteers there, then tell them that is how it is. Tell them that they have to get their firefighting volunteers up to the level that is required. Do not play games with them and tell them, oh, yes, you cannot get a truck this year because your community centre burnt down but you are on the list for next year, you are going to get the truck next year.

Then now, two years later we find out that no, they are not going to get a truck because even though they have the support of the surrounding communities, the problem is their firefighters are not properly trained. I think that the message has to get to them to say, and the first question I asked was also what kind of resources, are their resources available to ensure that these firefighters do get trained? It is a very important service, that we have the protection in that area for all the communities.

* (2220)

Mr. Praznik: The member for Swan River makes the assumption that someone has said they were going to get it. I have not heard a name behind that assumption. I do not know who would have committed it, but it is not a commitment that I find a record of and it was not a commitment I made. So I was not minister when their hall burned down. Maybe others have made the commitment, but it is not one that I certainly made at that time.

I want to clarify for the member for Swan River it is not because their firefighters are not properly trained. You do not have to be a Level 1 to be a firefighter. You can start and be at a certain level, but the fact that the course is offered and that no one responds is indicative of a fire department that is not committed to ongoing improvement and training or has the commitment that we would hope most fire services have. So it is not a matter of necessarily training for a truck, but it is the commitment to the fire service.

Obviously, if you are going to expend $150,000 on a piece of brand new firefighting equipment, you want to ensure that there is a commitment there to carry through. I share with the member out of my own constituency or next door to mine in Mr. Robinson's constituency, Fort Alexander which is in the process now of setting up a fire department and a fire service. There was a fire there just a few days ago at the All-Care Centre and only three firefighters arrived on the scene from the Fort Alexander department. It was in the evening, and the Pine Falls department came to put out the fire and save the building.

That is not necessarily an unusual scenario in the early stages of a fire service. Before one is going to invest significant equipment, one wants to ensure that the commitment is there. The Bird River fire department--I will just tell you--when that fire department started off, they had 30 or 40 volunteers and they worked at it a number of years before they were able to prove to their own municipality that they had the commitment to make even the investment in an old firetruck and a hall.

So Camperville has to demonstrate that kind of commitment as well before one makes that purchase, but I think a critical factor in that decision was the fact that they have a piece of usable fire equipment now. They have a truck. It may not be state of the art, but they have a truck that has been inspected by the Fire Commissioner's office, is a usable piece of fire equipment that in fact is newer than equipment used in many fire departments throughout the province and certainly whether or not that be replaced with a state of the art--we are not talking about a community that has a fire department with no equipment that has no truck and is fighting fires with an old tanker and a pump. We are talking about a community that does have a firetruck, a usable firetruck. It may not be as new as its neighbour's. It may not be state of the art, but it is still a firetruck and it will be kept in repair.

So I think there are a multitude of issues. My message to them would be they have a piece of equipment. They have to work I think to demonstrate their own long-term commitment to fire service and will have to wait on the priority list to at some point that they are high enough on that list to be eligible for that type of capital piece of equipment within the budget.

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I can make a suggestion to the minister seeing as how we only have so much time for the Northern Affairs Estimates. Could I respectfully request the minister to try and make his responses to the point so that in that way instead of asking two questions we may be able to ask six questions. Thank you very much.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, I am pleased that my colleague for The pas brought the point up because the answers are getting very lengthy.

I have a question to ask with respect to the Louisiana-Pacific deal. I have asked the minister many times during the last session on what role he was playing in ensuring that the negotiations on treaty land entitlement were taking place and that the reserves in the area and also the NACC communities--first of all that in the NACC communities that they get jobs from the Louisiana-Pacific plant. With respect to the reserves, there is a concern with the cutting on treaty land, land that has not been settled.

I have asked the minister many times if he would meet with these people and ensure that treaty land entitlement is settled. Where are we at? Have there been any negotiations with the Shoal River and Indian Birch bands?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, the two First Nations in the vicinity that the member refers to have been represented in this whole process by the treaty land chiefs entitlement committee and that is the process we have used to deal with all of these issues. So it has not been my habit to go around that established process.

Secondly, we offered this winter to that treaty land chiefs entitlement committee the concept of--actually their request of interim protection zones for treaty land entitlement, and it is the obligation of the provincial Crown to provide sufficient unencumbered Crown lands to the federal government to satisfy their treaty land obligations. The treaty land obligation is not owed by the province directly. We have proposed those interim protection zones. We have made the offer. Each one is to be dealt with individually. I have asked the treaty land chiefs to come forward with their proposals, where they wish to have those interim protection zones.

We have set some criteria for them by the 30th of September in which case I must take each one back to cabinet for approval and then we will hold any issues or any entitlements in those areas in abeyance for two years pending the settlement of those land claims. So a vehicle is available to deal with those issues and those chiefs are aware of it. It is up to them to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Robinson: Keeping in mind what the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) advised, I will try and speed up my questions here as well.

The community of Berens River is a unique one as well. The community is governed by the Northern Association of Community Councils.

In discussions with Mayor Lawrence Disbrowe and members of his council and some of the elders of the community of Berens River, he told us about the high number of medivacs that have occurred there for the period of January 5, 1995, to March 1 of this year; 144 medivacs took place in that community. I expressed deep concern with respect to the condition that the roads are in in that community and the lack of material that is available in the community, particularly gravel.

Now, I have written to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). I have still yet to get a response with respect to Berens River Metis community. I did get a response on the Metis community, excuse me, but I did not get a response on the reserve portion of the community, the 10 miles of road that the reserve community wanted to maintain on its own at Berens River.

These are some of the concerns that the Berens River community council has. In addition, the arena is in very poor condition. It was never completed and it is not suitable for use or safe use at the current time, but yet it is an opportunity for the community to participate in such activities as hockey and other activities. They look forward to this government's support in addressing the arena issue in Berens River. Yes, we do have an arena issue in Berens River as well.

As well, again, the problem of the $50 user fee was brought up by the residents of the Berens River Metis community with respect to that fee being imposed on non-Status and Metis people.

Another very serious issue has been job cuts at the airport and also the budget of this department. They believe that with the job cuts at the airport there in Berens River that it puts the travelling public at risk. I think that the minister has heard me say this before, particularly when we have raised the issue of northern airports, which I would like to ask his opinion on a few matters as well as we go on here.

I would like to ask the minister very briefly if he could respond to me on how he and his staff are going to respond to some of these very deep concerns that Mayor Disbrowe and indeed his community share.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, it is so hard to respond with short answers to four or five questions in one block, but the member for Rupertsland and I could go on together for hours in these discussions in such an amiable way--only wish the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would go find another committee in which he was interested.

* (2230)

All of these specific issues, there are many of them, I share with the member some information but he is probably far more aware than I. With respect to the road, I gather there is an issue of difference between the community council and the First Nation there. The road which runs through the First Nation is owned by the province and the band would like us to give them jurisdiction and they will maintain it. The community council does not want to give it up, and I understand this is further complicated by the fact that there are only three graders in the community that can do the work. There seems to be a great disagreement over who can hire who to do what. As a consequence, it is a rather messy situation that may require the wisdom of Solomon, which I do not possess, to inevitably solve.

We will try to do the best. If the member for Rupertsland has some specific advice that he would like to offer us, perhaps even privately, on how we can resolve the situation here, I would be most willing to hear it. With respect to the other issues he has raised, the arena issue, I am not really familiar with that particular issue. If perhaps he could provide me with some more specific information, I will endeavour to discuss it with him and again he might have some solutions to the problem that I might be able to do.

Thirdly, with respect to northern airports, we have certainly seen generally as the federal government has changed its airport policy on the airports it maintains, I do not know where we are going to go on this. Obviously we have to push the feds to continue to maintain safe airports because they are the most vital link to most of these communities. They are virtually the only way to get in and out most of the time on a regular basis.

I do not know where this is going to lead but I know the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) has had a number of meetings with federal officials and, hopefully, we will be able to maintain in the long run, as a nation and as a province, this very vital link of northern airports. It may have more technology associated with it than human endeavour, as it has in the past, but certainly to maintain those airports is absolutely critical.

Mr. Robinson: Another very quick point, Berens River is in the area of the need for a permanent detachment of policing in that community. I have asked this government previously its position on a First Nations policing policy, otherwise known as a 52-48 formula which is a federal initiative that was driven by the previous government prior to the current government that we have in Ottawa today. I believe it to be a program that has a lot of potential and I do believe that it has a lot of potential here in Manitoba. I did take my hat off to this government when it announced its participation with the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Police force, and finally there was an agreement made to police those communities that are part of the DOTC.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has given some consideration on the First Nations policing policy and at the same time trying to work out arrangements for Metis communities like Berens River to have policing services.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the member for his compliment on the initiative. I think this has been one that my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), who negotiated this agreement with the federal government, has been a win-win for everybody. The provincial taxpayer pays a smaller share than we used to on policing. First Nations are able to support a policing service.

I can tell him that we do not have that particular information, because this issue has been dealt with primarily by the Department of Justice, but I can tell him from my recollection of my latest briefing from the Minister of Justice that we have of course signed the agreement with the DOTC, and we have numerous other agreements now in process of being negotiated.

With respect to our neighbouring Metis communities and policing, I would find it, just from probably the sheer weight of organization of trying to establish in some small communities equivalent policing authority, probably very difficult to do, just the logistics of it. What makes the policing agreement work, in my opinion, is the fact that you have the tribal council system. You have a number of communities sharing in that central administration, setting standards, being able to move officers around, et cetera. I do not think we would be able to do it given the size generally of the communities that we are responsible for, but that does not preclude at some point in time working agreements with neighbouring First Nations police forces to share in policing and maybe even sponsoring some members of the local Metis community, et cetera, into that tribal police.

His point is taken, and perhaps we can find a way to do it as these tribal police forces develop in Manitoba.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, another area of concern that has been brought to our attention--and I know that this is primarily a federal issue, but I would like to ask the minister if he has taken any action since it was first raised more than a year ago, a couple of years ago, and that is on remoteness allowances for employees of community councils, and particularly it is not particular to the community of Gods Lake Narrows but indeed to other communities that are part of the NACC.

I would like to ask the minister whether he has intervened with the federal government as a correspondent with the federal government on the remoteness allowances.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, if the member for Rupertsland is speaking about a tax treatment by the federal government of dollars paid in the North, no, I have not communicated with him. If he is talking about the salaries we pay our own employees, I think we did have some increase last year in our budget for them. We are certainly cognizant of the levels of our salaries to community council employees in relation to social allowance, the incentive, et cetera, issue and we struggle each year with our budgets to try to augment those salaries and will continue to do so.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, another issue that was raised with us from the community of Bissett, and the minister and I have communicated on this matter now, is the property taxes that were assessed to some individuals in their community.

I would like to ask the minister as to the process of assessing property taxes in some of these communities, particularly Bissett.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, we do the assessment on property in Northern Affairs communities the same basis as is done across the province, a market-value assessment. I think there was a specific issue of a place the member and I have corresponded on, and there were some changes made in the rate of tax as opposed to the assessment.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, there is a quick question I would like to ask on the Provincial Municipal Tax Sharing Program, otherwise known as the unconditional grants system, to First Nations communities and also Northern Affairs communities.

The money, I understand, comes from the Department of Finance, is given to Rural Development and then to Northern Affairs. The numbers that were authorized by Order-in-Council to Rural Development are less than what Northern Affairs says it did receive from Rural Development in their annual report. The shortfall seems to add up to about $80,000 from the year 1988.

I would like to ask the minister, I would like to get an explanation as to this imbalance.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I believe this question flows from a similar one in the House the other day to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) with respect to First Nations.

* (2240)

I look to the member for Rupertsland if that was the gist of the difference between the populations that the community says it has and the amount paid to those communities. I can tell him this was an issue that was brought to my attention when I first became minister. I know a number of First Nations have raised it with me.

The numbers that are used for the distribution of those tax-share dollars are the numbers of the last Canada census, so we have appealed from time to time on certain communities in terms of the way the census was done, but very rarely. This is a problem that happens everywhere, but more so in northern Manitoba.

I think just by the nature of people being out of communities, et cetera, at census time, that the numbers always seem to be lower than what the community says its population is. It is particularly true with bands, where their band list will be a certain size and their census will be considerably lower.

We use those numbers because they are the basis on which the federal government makes its transfers, et cetera, to the province, so the census number, although not always accurate, is the one consistent number that is used by all governments in terms of making these transfers to other entities. It has led to a lot of confusion and a lot of problems, and I guess I do not know another way in which to do it. If the census is wrong, we lose considerably as a province.

All I can suggest is that we all have some responsibility the next census to ensure that we put a little more effort in our communities in making sure we get people recorded, because it does mean money both to us as a province and to those communities individually. I believe that the genesis of the problem that the member has raised is the difference between what people think the number is in their community and what actually is recorded on the census.

Mr. Robinson: It is an issue that we could probably talk about all night, but I know that we have to move on to other areas. There are indeed some concerns with respect to the unconditional grant system currently being used in this province, Mr. Chairperson, and I raise it because it was raised with me by the constituents that I represent.

I would like to ask about--and this is something that I raised in the last process of Estimates that we went through--the urban aboriginal strategy. In 1988-89 there was an extensive consultation process undertaken with the aboriginal organizations in the city of Winnipeg. Some 79 consultation meetings were held with organizations in the city of Winnipeg in developing an urban aboriginal strategy and this government issued a draft Memorandum of Understanding on addressing the Indian and Metis situation in the city of Winnipeg.

I am just wondering if the minister, with the new mandate that he and his government have received, will do something in trying to address the long-standing issues faced by off-reserve Indians in the city of Winnipeg and also, overall, aboriginal people as the broader term is now used. I am wondering if he has given that any consideration since his new mandate and his government's new mandate.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is an area where I am sure the member for Rupertsland and I could have an interesting and I think mutually informative discussion for several hours. Since the new mandate it is an issue that I certainly want to address with some thought. I have mixed feelings on approaches that have been tried in the past.

One thing that is for certain as one looks at census data and others--and we just spoke about census data--is year by year people from isolated communities, whether they be northern and aboriginal or nonaboriginal and southern, have been voting with their feet in moving into urban areas, whether they be at Dauphin, Brandon, Winnipeg, Thompson. With that comes a host of difficulties and challenges for them, whether it be access to education, housing, opportunity, they come, I believe, to look for a better life and more opportunity for them and their families.

With each generation that passes or each generation that comes forward, we seem to see success and advancement and people move into the mainstream of society and have lives where they are full contributors to society. How do we ease that? How do we deal with some of those difficulties? How we accommodate those needs is obviously a great challenge to all of us. I do know, Mr. Chair, as I look at some of the traditional methods that governments have used, such as developing a host of programming and bureaucracies to support it, they have not always been successful. Sometimes they have--I hate to generalize--but many times they have not been.

I am not sure where we are going to be or where we have to be, and I do not want for a moment to pretend that I have any or all of the answers certainly. But over the next number of months, as I settle in in the beginning part of this mandate, that is an area that I want to have a very fresh look at about some of the things we can be doing. I do not believe that they have to be dramatic or necessarily put into a grand program that we as politicians love to announce from time to time. I think probably some of the most solid things that can be done are already happening, things like the Children of the Earth school, we have seen such a good success with that or at least apparently so. As we see more aboriginal people take up jobs, become trained for positions, begin businesses, we see the successes there. How do we see more people work their way through to those successes?

Over the next number of months, as I sit down and figure out where I want to advise the government that we should be going in this area, I would welcome most sincerely the comments and advice of the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). I know his colleague the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is very much interested in this area. Perhaps we can sit down come the early fall or when we return to this place in September and have some lengthy discussions about this and share some thoughts and ideas. I would make that invitation to the member.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, I do welcome that invitation, and I will look forward to it when we come back here in the fall.

* (2250)

I believe it is an issue that we all have to address. I think it is an issue that knows no partisan politics. I believe it is an issue that has to be dealt with, a critical situation. I think seeing aboriginal people in soup lines and a high proportion of them in jails, I think that collectively as members and as responsible people we have to begin addressing this issue. I thank the minister for his comments with respect to the urban aboriginal strategy.

Another very important issue that I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairperson, is the potential all-weather road that the Norwin company has been talking about. The Norwin company, of course, is primarily the southeast regional development corporation chiefs and the member First Nations of that company.

The possibility of an all-weather road, I know that the minister does have some influence within his cabinet with respect to the development of that, and I know that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was talking somewhat to some degree on the potential of improving the road situation in northern Manitoba. In this case, I am talking about an area where we do not have a road, but there is indeed the potential there, an all-weather road. Over a period of time, I think that it is entirely possible through cost-sharing arrangements with the federal government and with the First Nations and with the provincial government that such things could be achievable.

I would like to ask the minister's opinion on the all-weather road along the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. I know there is a road that was previously built, I believe 18 miles this side of Bloodvein, and the potential is there. I want to get the minister's ideas on what he feels is possible in beginning dialogue seriously with the Norwin organization on the possibility of an all-weather road along the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg.

Mr. Praznik: I thank the member for Rupertsland for this question. He and I sharing a common boundary in a part of a common region, both I think have an interest in seeing a road inevitably push its way up along the east side of the lake in the future.

Whenever one is asked this kind of question on a very significant matter of policy, significant because of the dollars attached to it no doubt, and the minister uses the opportunity late in the evening to muse a little bit about his thoughts, one does not know if one is just adding to the long history of rhetoric about a road or one is a visionary who, in a few short years, well, people will point to this moment and say it was laid out this night in the Legislature.

What we do know today is that there are a number of players who have an interest in seeing a road constructed and either are spending money today on some degree of road construction or are suffering the consequences of not having a road and very high freighting costs.

We know that we have the Pine Falls paper company who every year spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars on pushing road systems up resource roads.

We know that Manitoba Hydro has an interest in some road access in that area to service its transmission facilities and its generating facilities in isolated communities.

We know, as well, that the First Nations in those areas represented by the Southeast Resource Development Council have an interest in reducing their freighting costs, so they have a block of money that they spend in high freighting costs. If all or a portion of it were to become available for road construction, again, it would be another source of dollars.

How one puts all of those dollars today that are being spent, whether it be by Hydro in serving its installations, Pine Falls Paper Company in the expenditure it is already making, Southeast Resource tribal Council, our Northern Affairs communities that are in there, our winter roads program--how we bring those together and what mechanism we use that we see year by year, bit by bit those resources being available, to advance at least a resource road up the coast of the lake is an issue that this ministry is going to have to explore in the next number of months.

I can tell the member, as I am sure he is already aware from his constituents, that there have been discussions among those parties. I suspect that sometime within the next number of months some proposal could find its way to government between them with a proposal how this can be done with the kind of resources that is currently being spent. I am impressed with the kind of co-operation I have seen to date in some of the preliminary discussions those groups have had, and I would hope that in the not-too-distant future they could come forward with a financially feasible proposal that makes this happen. Certainly, the mining incentives that we are creating in exploration and other things that are possible add to the viability of that kind of road.

I sincerely hope that the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Lac du Bonnet can some day, in the not-too-distant future, share a platform at the kick-off or the completion of such an endeavour. I do hope Mr. Robinson and Mr. Praznik are the two sitting members.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, I know that in the earlier comments of the minister and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) with respect to the responsibilities of this minister over 56 communities and roughly 10,000 people throughout northern Manitoba--and I know that I have heard about the progress that has been made in Brochet. I have heard it I think more than once, I am quite sure of it. I would like to know that--just about every community has raised the issue of basic needs that almost all Canadians, I think, take for granted: sewer and water, going to the bathroom in relatively warm weather as opposed to going outside in 40 below weather. I think that members in our caucus definitely were raised in that sort of environment. We are also very familiar with the problems in the urban environment as well.

There are a lot of needs in northern Manitoba with respect to sewer and water, catching up with the rest of the world, so to speak, with respect to the conditions that many northerners have to live with every day, and particularly aboriginal people. What course of action or what plan of action has this minister considered to begin the process? I know it is a long process. It is a very hard process. I know in the early '70s we did make some dent into some of the needs that were required in northern communities. I am just wondering what sort of long-term plan of action there is by the minister with respect to dealing with these outstanding issues in northern communities.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, obviously, in terms of responsibility, the First Nations communities, as the member is very well aware, are involved in the dismantling process, control of capital budgets. Obviously, part of that is the ability to address many of those infrastructure needs.

Over the last few years, just to give you an example, I have mentioned Brochet. We have spent a fair bit of money on water and sewer projects there. South Indian Lake has been another where we have spent dollars in the North; Easterville, a community where we last year put in a sewage treatment plant. The list goes on over the years with that budget.

My plan as minister with the department--and this is why we are into this new capital program. Obviously basic infrastructure like potable water to the house and decent sewage disposal are going to rank as the highest priorities. We are hoping through that program over a number of years we will be able to address in our 56 communities where that need exists, the sewer and water infrastructure needs of those communities.

When I was in Brochet--I speak a lot about Brochet because I enjoyed my experience there so much. To see, for those of us who grew up in the South, I can remember 1966, when my great uncle got running water in the house and gave up his cistern and the outhouse. I was five years old and that was a big deal. It was hard to appreciate, as you who are northern members see more regularly when you get into a community like Brochet and you are taken into people's homes, just absolutely spotless. They are so proud to have you in there, and the big thrill is to turn on that tap of water. We take that for granted every day.

* (2300)

As a society we spend a lot of money on different things. I hope with my limited resources in this department that we are going to be able to ensure that we have clean running water and appropriate sewage disposal systems in the communities that I am responsible for.

The member asked me earlier about my objectives in a renewed mandate. The completion of our significant water and sewer projects in our Northern Affairs communities would be one of my prime goals over the next four years, four and a half years of this mandate.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairperson, the budget of the department has gone down from $26.5 million in 1987 to $18,481,000 last year and then this year to $17,771,000.

I believe that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) did say that he did have some concerns as to whether or not we can deliver in being able to address the many needs of northern Manitoba to catch up with the rest of the world, as I said in my comments prior to the question that I asked with respect to the minister's objectives in his new mandate.

There has been no change from what we understand in regional services or grants. The Selkirk region, as we understand it, has lost a job when the budget was announced in March of this year. The $100,000 for corporate projects I understand has also been terminated. The Northern Flood program was cut by $430,000 to over $1,230,000. I am grateful that we do have a Native Affairs Secretariat, but I guess, like the member for The Pas, I would like to see that given more meat, so to speak, particularly in this time of the dismantling and huge undertaking by First Nations in this province. I would urge the minister to consider that suggestion in a time to come that the Native Secretariat have a much more meaningful role within the Department of Northern and Native Affairs. As I understand it, there have been no increases in capital expenditures for Northern Communities and Community Access and Resource Roads.

Mr. Chairperson, I just want to conclude my comments by thanking the staff of the Department of Northern Affairs. We did not have the opportunity of giving our welcoming remarks, but I do thank the staff for the help that they provide and as well to the minister for the help that he--give Harvey a raise definitely--and the other staff that are not here tonight.

I am bound by tradition to always acknowledge the efforts, whether or not they are to my liking or not, of people who do work for the good of people in this province. I think that we are here for a common purpose, the way we share our constructive criticism, although sometimes it is not viewed as such. But I think that particularly as aboriginal people we are like that anyway by nature. So thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Praznik: I would like to thank the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for his comments. I always enjoy this part of my Estimates with him and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). I enjoy our discussions immensely. The member may not believe this, but I do from time to time gather information and comment from him which I find very useful carrying out my work and appreciate his advice.

I just want to indicate to him that, despite the reduction in the overall budget of the department, the capital budget has remained consistent or has grown somewhat over the last number of years despite the general budgetary restraint of the province. Some of the issues that he has referred to where there have been reductions have to do with completion of negotiating certain segments of the Northern Flood, moving to a comprehensive settlement instead of claim by claim, which is much more efficient and cost-effective, et cetera.

It is not always fair to judge a department by its total expenditure but rather where it is being spent. This department, as I pointed out earlier to the member for The Pas, has some very significant portions which at some point in the very near future I hope will end, Northern Flood and Treaty Land Entitlement being the case. When those are resolved there will no longer be a need to maintain staff and spend dollars in those particular areas. When that happens our budget of course will go down, but I think all will hail that as a good thing.

With respect to the Native Affairs Secretariat, I cannot think of a more significant player to have in charge of that department than a former minister of the provincial government. I say to the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) the current occupant of that directorate, the director, Mr. Harvey Bostrom, bridges both the current member for Rupertsland and myself in that he is a former member for Rupertsland when it included parts of the Lac du Bonnet constituency and parts of the current Rupertsland constituency. He knows our respective areas very well, and he was a very able member of the cabinet of this province and certainly a very high-profile member of the administration of this department.

I say this today very proudly, that I am very honoured to have Mr. Bostrom as one of our staff. Mr. Bostrom is a very capable individual, as I said, and I think very effective in working on the issues that we have to address. I am very glad to have him here. I know he shares part of the world with the current member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and myself. We know him well, and I cannot think of a more prominent individual to have in that particular position. So I thank the current member for Rupertsland for his comments.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $382,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $113,700--pass.

2.(b) Program and Operational Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $233,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $90,600--pass; (3) Community Operations $5,040,800--pass; (4) Regional Services $692,300--pass; (5) Grants $258,900--pass.

2.(c) Thompson Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $459,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $167,400--pass.

2.(d) The Pas Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $238,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $101,100--pass.

2.(e) Dauphin Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $404,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $116,600--pass.

2.(f) Selkirk Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $357,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $148,100--pass.

2.(g) Technical Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $308,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $100,100--pass.

2.(h) Northern Affairs Fund (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $325,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $58,000--pass.

2.(j) Inter-Regional Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $352,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $82,900--pass.

2.(k) Northern Co-ordination Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $517,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $163,400--pass; (3) Corporate Projects, no amount.

2.(m) Northern Flood Agreement (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $113,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $24,500--pass; (3) Northern Flood Program $1,230,000--pass.

2.(n) Native Affairs Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $458,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $137,300--pass; (3) Aboriginal Development Program $637,600--pass.

2.(p) Communities Economic Development Fund $1,434,100--pass.

* (2310)

Resolution 19.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $14,748,500 for Northern Affairs, Northern Affairs Operations, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 3. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Northern Communities $2,379,600--pass; (b) Community Access and Resource Roads $235,000--pass.

Resolution 19.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,614,600 for the Northern Affairs, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

19.1(a) Minister's Salary $11,400.

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairman, when we first got going here earlier I got totally muddled up in where I was supposed to go. I know that the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) asked several questions. I know that the member for Swan River asked questions on treaty land entitlement. I wonder if I can ask the minister at least one question on treaty land entitlement and ask him to bring us up to date as to where the treaty land entitlement negotiations are?

I know that earlier he described a process that is being followed by the TLE chiefs committee and his department and the federal government. But I would like to nevertheless ask him to perhaps bring us up to date on how many bands, and has land been set aside by the province? That is part of the process. If that has been done, when does he think that these negotiations will be completed?

In addition to that, I would also like to ask him whether he has been in communication with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) when the provincial parks were designated in the northern part of the province, because although there is treaty land entitlement activity going on in the South, for the most part I think the activity in regards to treaty land entitlement work will be happening in the North. Therefore, I am interested in getting some sort of an indication from the minister as to whether the designation of provincial parks are in fact conflicting with the direction that has been set by the TLE chiefs, the province of Manitoba, as well as Canada.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I thank the member for The Pas for this question, a very important area.

First, just by way of background, the province's responsibility and obligations flow solely in law from The 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act in which is contained provision that the province, in receiving federal Crown lands, must make available to the federal Crown such unoccupied or unencumbered Crown lands--I believe it is unencumbered Crown lands--as is agreed upon for the federal Crown to meet its obligations for unresolved claims for land by various bands arising from treaty.

Our obligation is not to the bands per se but to the federal government. We have a double bilateral process where the treaty land chiefs and the federal government are at the table negotiating the specifics, and we are at the table, too, with the federal government. That process has worked reasonably well.

To date, outside of that treaty land chiefs' table, a number of communities with claims have negotiated outside of that table. The four communities, or First Nations, at Island Lake have concluded an agreement a year or so ago.

I recently had a meeting with their representatives, and I believe they have completed some 90 percent-plus of their land selections both for the acreage they are entitled to under TLE and the additional 100,000 acres that the province has agreed to sell in fee simple at $25 an acre. That was an option under the agreement. There has been some slowness in working that entirely through the process. We hope to have that done over the next couple of months where we can take that to cabinet as we get down to the final selections.

Long Plain signed their agreement with the federal government. Because there was no provincial land directly involved, the province was less a participant in that, but Long Plain is done.

I believe Swan Lake is also the community that is just completed. We gave our approval, and we should be into a signing ceremony there early in the summer.

So those six communities are done. There are approximately 20-some other communities represented by the TLE chiefs.

The issue, or the crux of issue, that the member for The Pas raises is availability of unencumbered Crown land to meet the federal government's obligation. What we have indicated that we are prepared to do, and, again, there are a lot of processes at play here, but we have indicated to the treaty land chiefs and to the federal government that we are prepared to create, as a province, interim protection zones with criteria attached to them. We have made that offer to the TLE chiefs that if they could identify--not entirely all, but about 90 percent of, we would expect about 90 percent of their entitlement to be chosen from these areas.

We have established some guidelines around them--two for one acres. For every acre to which they are entitled, we would set aside two, some continuity to the First Nation community. We have asked that they give us their proposals for those zones by the 30th of September. I must take each back to cabinet for specific approval.

If we are in agreement on those interim protection zones, and there are not encumbrances, et cetera, in them, we would be prepared to set them aside for a period of two years to be available for settlement of those issues. In this way, we would have clearly defined some boundaries on land in which the province would no longer place encumbrances for that period, so that it is available for settlement, and then we would know the area that is outside of these zones where we could carry on the regular business of the province.

If the communities do not wish to avail themselves of that method of giving some certainty to availability of the land, well, then we are on the current course which is one, from time to time, there are going to be conflicts between people wanting to do things on Crown land or wishing Crown land or current encumbrances. I hope that most communities will avail themselves of this zone.

* (2320)

With respect to the parks that you asked the question, I know that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) and his staff had written to neighbouring First Nations about the parks on some issues with the parks. Perhaps, those letters were not as clear as some would have wanted them to be. I know when the issue was raised with me as minister, I looked at the area where the parks were being created and the First Nations communities in the vicinity who had land claims and we did some from checking to see the size of the claims and how close some of them get to the parks.

In all of the cases, the areas designated for the parks were fairly distant from the area that would be likely available for Treaty Land Entitlement, but I think the point those chiefs were making was one of principle. I certainly respect that principle, but I must make a fundamental point that when the parks were created they were created with the caveat that if, by chance, the Treaty Land Entitlement areas came within their boundary that the area would be removed from those parks to satisfy Treaty Land Entitlement.

Mr. Lathlin: One last quick question, Mr. Chairperson, and that is sometime in February or March--I was not given this directly but I certainly got the impression from Norway House First Nations that Northern Flood negotiations might be close to coming to a conclusion. Then in February or March there was some anticipation and then all of a sudden there was nothing.

I am just wondering if the minister is aware of why after all that anticipation that an agreement was on the horizon when all of a sudden there was nothing.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the intricacies at the negotiating table on Northern Flood continue to amaze and puzzle me from time to time as all of us who have watched this and many who have grown old watching it will probably note. I notice the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had more hair when he started this business than he has today.

With respect to Norway House, one of the difficulties that has been there--and I am sure the member for The Pas will appreciate--that over the last year or so there has been an ongoing dispute between the chief and councillors and that has added somewhat to the process because the chief has, on occasion, raised issues and been at odds with the councillors and that has caused some concern. My understanding is that over the last while that things are still progressing.

I would expect, although Nelson House and York Landing are likely to be settled earlier, that Norway House is on, I believe, a positive road to settlement in the not-too-distant future. I only wonder how many other ministers have said this at this table only to find five or 10 years later we were still dealing with this issue, but I would hope that it will be settled. [interjection] Yes, be settled on a fast basis.

The only one of those negotiations that currently is not back at the table but deciding how to get back to the table is Cross Lake. All the others seem to be moving ahead positively.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one or two questions this evening.

Last Friday in Question Period the minister was reading a copy of a new book out by Sheila Jones Morrison called Rotten to the Core. I see he has a copy with him for easy reference. Perhaps he may want to take advantage of that. I would like to know what action the minister has taken as a result of reading this book.

Mr. Praznik: I have not finished the book yet. I am glad the member has noticed that I am reading. I notice the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) issued a press release before the book was even issued, so one has to wonder whether or the not the member has himself read the book cover to cover. I am sure he would enjoy particularly the early chapters and the political history of the MMF and its relationship to the party of which he is a member.

Having said that, I think the crux of the issue that he raises is the relationship or the concern raised by the auditor's report, the Deloitte and Touche report, which has been discussed in the Free Press. I can tell the member for Elmwood that during the interim period when, as the member knows--and I know his Leader, Mr. Doer, and I had some discussions about that when we were both at The Pas at the Trappers Festival and in the House.

There was certainly a recognition that there were two warring factions within the organization. A great concern was being raised, in fact, even with me, by an individual who sought the nomination for the member for Elmwood's party in the Flin Flon constituency. She raised with me a host of concerns about the interim board and its executive director, who, I understand, was the member for Elmwood's candidate in Ste. Rose in this recent election, about the way things were being handled on the interim board.

What I did as minister at that particular time was that I had a number of discussions which are referenced in the book, not entirely accurately, with representatives of the interim board. What the book is missing because the author never bothered to ask, quite frankly, was what I think is some important information. One is the letter which I provided to the interim board on March 31, 1994, in which I was prepared to pay to the interim board the annual grants. The MMF and I imposed a number of, I believe, reasonable conditions to ensure that the money was used for its intended purposes, which were staff salaries, building costs, accounting fees, costs of the elections, et cetera. The interim board, of which Mr. Schreyer, Ms. Szwaluk, and, I think it was, Mr. Menno Wiebe--I may have the name wrong--were members, said that they were not prepared to accept those fairly reasonable conditions, so the money did not flow.

Following the completion of the election, and it was obvious that the MMF had a significant constituency, several thousands of people casting ballots, and there were no irregularities in the election or things that would void the election, I forwarded the quarterly operating grants for the next fiscal year that were due the day after the election. They were received by Mr. Morriseau, who is still the executive director of the organization, despite the accusation in the book or the inference that somehow they were being sent to Mr. Delaronde because he won the election. That is not true. They went to Mr. Morriseau. I would remind him that Mr. Morriseau, I believe, was his party's candidate in the Ste. Rose constituency in the last election. So the money did flow.

We also had a number of meetings between members of my department with the interim board and discussions with the new board that was elected respecting the Deloitte and Touche audit and discussing the changes that had to be made in their flow of accounting procedures, et cetera. The staff who were in charge of this in my department were satisfied that the proper steps were going to be taken to ensure that those items were corrected. They have been in contact from time to time, and we are awaiting, of course, this year's audited statements. If the new management, the new executive of the organization, have not taken significant steps to improve the shortcomings that were highlighted, then obviously we will have to look at whether or not we continue to fund. If the organization has made its significant improvements and met the auditor's report, that is a different story, and I would hope that they have in fact done that. And, as I have said, members of our department, both with the interim board and immediately following the election, held those meetings and have satisfied themselves, and the advice that they have offered me as minister is that those items are being corrected.

* (2330)

Mr. Maloway: I thank the minister for the answer. According to the book, the minister handed over cheques totalling over $230,000 the day after the election, for the Manitoba Metis Federation president. Can the minister confirm that he approved such cheques for $140,000 and $98,300 the day after that election?

Mr. Praznik: Well, I do not have the exact amounts. Obviously the member has waited until my staff have departed for me to give him the exact amounts. What they received was the regular operating grant, which goes to them and which goes to other organizations that we fund. I believe the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, I think there is the Indigenous Women's Collective--are also two organizations that we fund. Their annual operating grant is paid in quarterly instalments, and when we got into the new fiscal year there was one--I think it was one or two that were due, I cannot remember exactly. I look to my staff.

The interim board, who was in office up to the period of the election to conduct the election, had not agreed to accept the conditions that I imposed on those dollars. And just so the member is aware what those conditions were, I had asked that the funds were to be deposited in the trust account of the board's solicitor, that the funds were to be used for the following expenditures only, and each expenditure was to be approved by the interim board, that being salary and benefit costs for regular MMF core program staff, mortgage payments, rents, utilities, maintenance costs for premises leased or owned by the MMF and the seven regional corporations, legal fees associated with the operations of the interim board, accounting and auditing fees associated with the operation of the interim board, fees or honorariums for the interim directors and the costs incurred by them in conducting the business of the MMF, and operational costs incurred in the conducting of the court-ordered election. I also asked that the province be provided with an accounting of these funds, either upon request or following their total expenditure. With respect to tripartite, we wanted to ensure that those dollars, again, were dealing with the specific issues.

Those were the conditions under which I would have paid the regular quarterly instalment to the interim board. They did not accept those conditions. At that particular time there was a fair bit of accusation being made about one side or another, how money was being spent by the interim board or the executive director. In fact, the member's leader and I had a discussion about this in The Pas that winter, and we both recognized, if I recall correctly, that there was a dispute and no one should be in the middle, nor should funds be perceived to be being used by one side or the other.

Immediately following the election, when the issue was resolved as to who the leadership of the MMF would be, we forwarded the two quarterly payments, I believe, and the appropriate quarterly payments on the tripartite funding to the MMF offices, and they were received by their acting director, Mr. Morriseau, because the issue as to who the governance of the MMF was settled by the election and the interim board would shortly be turning itself over to the new governance. So it was an appropriate time to send the dollars. In fact, they were somewhat late because they were not accepted by the interim board. So the allegations, or the way they are written in the book, I do not think are quite accurate.

Mr. Maloway: What legal advice, what sort of legal advice did he get before he issued these cheques? Presumably, given the situation, he would have had some sort of legal advice.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I am not sure what the member is getting at. We had an obligation and the approval of our Estimates, which were voted on by this committee, that there was, in effect, an operating grant and tripartite funding to the MMF. I do not recall any members of this assembly moving to delete those items from my budget. That organization, to some degree, once those approvals, have some reliance upon those particular grants.

Our concern was, because of the nature of any major internecine fight in an organization, until it is settled at the ballot box, that there has to be some, I think, tight controls to ensure that one side or another is not perceived or, in fact, using those dollars to further their cause in the election campaign. Those are the reasons why we imposed those conditions upon the interim board.

After a discussion with my colleagues in cabinet, and once the election was over, the governance issue was settled and so the dollars were forwarded per the regular process as allotted by this legislature and this committee and approved by the legislature of Manitoba.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, this is from the same government that in 1993 withdrew all the financial support to both the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and MKO along with Indian and Metis Friendship Centres.

I would like to ask this minister to explain why his government withdrew all the funding from these organizations but continued to financially support the MMF.

Mr. Praznik: Again, the member forgets to also mention that we continued to support the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and the Indigenous Women's Collective. I was not minister at the time that those decisions were made, so I cannot answer directly as to the reason behind them. I know in those particular years there were, if I have the information here with me, there were a host of organizations where either funding was eliminated, advocacy organizations where funding was eliminated or reduced.

The Native Affairs area also had reductions in its budget like most others and, if I recall correctly from the discussion that took place at the time, there was a sense that in terms of aboriginal issues, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and MKO were organizations whose prime area of discussion and advocacy was with the federal government and that in terms of priorities of a provincial administration, since Metis issues and Metis people are within the jurisdiction of the province, that the funding that was available would go to the MMF as opposed to organizations that represented Status people dealing with the federal government.

We also maintained the aboriginal Women's Collective because it was felt, I believe, that they were dealing with issues relating to women with the provincial government and also the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg because of their representation of aboriginal people in the urban scene with the provincial government. So, I think the member's questions have to be put into that context, the proper context.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister whether he has read the Deloitte and Touche audit of the MMF.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, I have read the accompanying letter that outlines from Deloitte and Touche, a review of their report which highlights some of the inadequacies in their structure and makes recommendations. I also understand that our financial staff and my staff, who is assigned to dealing with the MMF, have reviewed the report. When that report was issued, following that report, our staff met with the interim board at the time. I believe we had three senior staff attend that meeting, including the Director of the Native Affairs secretariat. They had discussions with the interim board and the executive director about the shortcomings in that report.

* (2340)

My understanding is that report does not highlight or make accusations of wrongdoing but of shortcomings in accounting processes and procedures, if my recollection of my briefing is correct, and as the member appreciates I do not have staff here with me who are more familiar with the specifics. There were discussions with the interim board that led to commitments on how the organization was going to attempt to achieve, to meet those recommendations of Deloitte and Touche. Following the election and the decision by the MMF membership as to who would be its governance, discussions I understand were held with the new board, and the staff that I have to entrust with this responsibility were satisfied that the board was taking the steps that were necessary to meet the shortcomings and problems that were outlined in that report.

Ultimately, the test of that will be when we receive this year's audited financial statements, which are a requirement of the grant. I spoke with our staff, Mr. Morrisseau, who is the main contact here, and he expects that report sometime within the next 30 days. That will tell us whether or not, in fact, all of those recommendations have been met.

Mr. Maloway: I am interested in knowing what efforts this minister has taken to deal with the irregularities that were outlined in the Deloitte and Touche audit, and they ranged from double-billed expenses, unauthorized expenses and salaries. I know the minister--I will let the minister answer the question.

Mr. Praznik: I think, first of all when they came to light, our department, the staff of the Department of Northern and Native Affairs is certainly on the ball on these issues. As I have outlined earlier, they endeavoured to meet with the interim board to discuss this report and the specifics. The interim board, I think, recognized that there were problems and were endeavouring to work them out in their reporting relationships.

My understanding in discussions I have had with MMF executive members from that time was that the genesis of these problems stemmed from a move to decentralize decision-making in budget and operations within the MMF from their central office to their regional offices and that proper accounting procedures and the like were not necessarily put in place to allow for that kind of accounting responsibility. The interim board, I think, recognized that, once the report was out, and they were endeavouring to-- remember at that particular time they virtually shut down all of those regional operations as they worked out those relationships. I know one member for The Pas region, who members opposite are very familiar with and who was a candidate for nomination for a northern seat and whom I have a great deal of respect for, was raising many of those issues and concerns about the fact that the regional office was shut down.

Having said that, the interim board endeavoured to, I believe from the information I have, put in proper procedures. The new board when they assumed office, we were assured--and our staff monitor this as best they can. We are endeavouring to do that. The ultimate test as to whether or not those undertakings given to us are met will be this year's audited statement for the previous fiscal year. If they have not been met, then obviously the department is going to have to review its continued funding even for this year. If they have been, well, that is obviously a different story. Then the problems that the member for Elmwood is concerned about, just like anyone else should be, then have been rectified.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to know what efforts the minister has taken to recover some of the money which, according to Deloitte & Touche, was documented at at least $18,000 and likely more than that. What efforts has the minister taken to recover some of this money?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, one has to appreciate that the MMF budget, which is, I think, significantly over $1 million, has a small percentage, a relatively small percentage composed of our provincial core funding. Consequently, when these things happen, the question for us is whether or not we continue to provide our funding to an organization if it is unable to have proper accountability and proper processes and has difficulty in its flow, or if there is wrongdoing. Ultimately, I understand that the responsibility of the organization, the interim board, the new board, as to recovering these monies, is to ensure that they are recovered for the benefit of the organization.

I think the member will recall, over the last year or so, the MMF has been working at cleaning up its financial situation. I think the member will be aware that there have been issues that have been settled and cleaned up with respect to expenses, and dollars returned, and proper tax being paid, et cetera, as these have been sorted out.

The question for us this year when we receive the audited financial statement is, has the MMF been successful in recovering any double charges or overpayments, et cetera, that were made? If not, why not? Those are questions we will answer. We have given them a period of time in which to clean up their operation, and we will know very shortly, when we receive that audited report, whether or not they have done that.

Mr. Maloway: Has the minister employed or used any forensic accountants or forensic accounting methods in this case?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, we have to appreciate the time frame in which events occur. I would appreciate that the premise for many of the member's questions arise from this particular book that was released last week. The auditor's report is over a year old. I know that members of the party had access to that report like anyone else. I do not recall these specific questions coming at another time.

This book raises a host of questions about the funding of advocacy organizations in general anyway, and it has some specifics, as I have indicated to him. Some of the references to myself in this book and to some of my colleagues who were never asked about them, or given an opportunity to provide any other information, are not always accurate, or they tend to, I should say, omit some very relevant facts. So I gather his questions arise with respect to forensic audits, et cetera, out of this book which has only recently, as I said, been released.

The Deloitte & Touche report did not in itself, from the briefing I have had from my staff who have been working with this, raise with them the need to be requesting anyone to do a forensic audit. They, I understand, in examining that report, and the advice they offered to me, was that their problems had to do with accounting, bookkeeping and processes in the way they were dealing with things and that they had recognized that and were endeavouring to correct them.

I should tell the honourable member that one of the major funders has been the Government of Canada, which even recently awarded a $15,000 contract to the MMF with respect to doing intervener work on the application of Atomic Energy of Canada for their proposal of a system of dealing with long-term nuclear waste. Their people have been in contact as well with our staff, and they have not felt the need to do a forensic audit, I understand.

Revenue Canada has had some issues which have been public over the last year relating to the way that per diems and other things have been paid. They, in fact, have done work and have issued whatever notices or paper they have to to collect back taxes. There have been a fair number of governments and government agencies dealing here, and the need for a forensic audit has not at the current time been raised by any of those other parties nor have the staff that advise me made that suggestion.

I should just remind the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), although a great deal of public money through various governments is involved here, the fact of the matter is, the question for us--because we are not the only funder, nor is this a government agency, nor do we probably have the power to ask for a forensic audit. The choice we have to make is one as to whether or not we continue funding. It is up to the members of the MMF to seek that or an agency that is concerned and has some power with which to do that.

* (2350)

Because the issue has not been raised with me, no one has pointed to a particular legal provision that I would have to require a forensic audit. So it does create a bit of a problem if one were to proceed with it.

The real question becomes, is one satisfied enough that things have been corrected that one will continue to fund?

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, it seems logical to me anyway that a forensic audit would be the logical route to take when there is a situation of unaccounted sums of money. I am surprised that the minister is telling me at this point that the department, if not only for its own purposes, has not embarked on forensic audits in this particular case or perhaps in others when it has found things amiss.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, perhaps the member for Elmwood and I have different views as to what a forensic audit is. We have the Deloitte and Touche audit of the MMF operations which flagged a host of problems, very specific problems, that the interim board was working to address and the new board has committed to address. My view and perhaps his are somewhat different. The current auditors had the power to go through and deal with all of these issues. The fact that the Deloitte and Touche audit flagged all of these issues, some very specifically, should point to the various problems that were there.

If the member for Elmwood has more information about wrongdoing, I am sure within the MMF as they review and clean up their books--and I understand that there was some court action or some concern or seeking of an injunction by Mr. Delaronde when he was elected president before he was sworn in to deal with preservation of property, et cetera, which the court rejected, that there were not sufficient grounds.

I say to the member for Elmwood, we have an audit. We have a very good audit, and it has flagged or pointed out a host of inadequacies, some very specific. Those are being addressed. If the organization fails to address them and come to grips, then this government will have to certainly question and will no longer likely fund. If they fulfill the requirements and obligations of a proper audit, then they are certainly to be treated like any other organization.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairperson, clearly the government's current auditing procedures are not adequate. It seems to me that the minister in this particular case should have been looking at this much earlier. Certainly the fact that they have left it go this long I think makes it almost certain now that somebody will be conducting a forensic audit into the affairs of this particular organization.

I would like to ask the minister, how much money has been recovered as a result of provincial government action so far? What sort of efforts has he been taking to recover these bad-debt losses that were identified in the Deloitte and Touche audit?

Mr. Praznik: As I said, Mr. Chair, to the member for Elmwood, the bad debts or some of the issues that he flags are recoverable by the organizations from the people who owe the dollars. The new board has endeavoured to do that. We will see the results of their work over the past year when the next audit comes out.

If they as an organization are loaning money or losing money to their own members in an improper or unaccountable way, that is a matter they as an organization should be dealing on with the appropriate legal authority, and we as a government, if that is their practice, certainly have to question and likely remove their funding as it would be not appropriate.

They have undertaken to work through these problems over this last year. One has to appreciate that, in their election last year after a very divisive period, they elected a new president and a board of directors who undertook to assess and clean up their financial inadequacies. I think it is only fair that we give them the opportunity to do it.

From the tenor of the member's questions, I get the impression that he is painting all the members of the MMF with the same brush, and he is saying as an organization that they are unable or should not be given an opportunity to meet the issues raised in the auditor's report.

Mr. Maloway: On the contrary, Mr. Minister, we have a situation where we have--

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member, when you are making remarks, make your remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, the minister is well aware that we have asked questions about certain grants that have been made, where allegations have been made that a $12,000 grant that was supposed to go to a rare birds sanctuary ended up for the purposes of building a road. We are holding the province accountable here, and we want to know why the province has not done a forensic audit to find out exactly what has happened to that money. That is just one example that we want to discuss with the minister.

I would like to ask the minister whether he could table tonight a list of all the grants that have been given to the MMF under this government. I would like them broken down by the year and the amount, along with an explanation as to what the funds were allocated for and what the results were of each grant.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, first of all the member for Elmwood raises a question of some grants, and I was in the House when he asked the question about a Community Places Program. What I found most interesting was he raised, as this book does, the question of a grant for the purchase of land and building for the MMF regional headquarters in the Interlake and community hall. He raised it with great accusation that somehow my colleague, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), and this government had done some terrible thing. I think he played up somewhat on the way this same grant is referenced in this book, with again the author not even bothering to do, I would think, proper research to ask the government about this grant, because I can tell the honourable member for Elmwood, who comes to this issue with such certainty--if I may share a letter with the member for Elmwood.

It is regarding this exact grant. It says: An initial review of the Manitoba Community Places Program applications has been completed, and I am pleased to inform you that a Manitoba Community Places grant of up to $50,000 has been tentatively approved to assist your organization with this $109,000 project. I am sure that you can appreciate that the program cannot formally approve your request for funding at this time. We are aware of and sensitive to the fact that organizations such as you are anxious to get underway. It is signed by the Honourable Judy Wasylycia-Leis, minister, on the 18th of April 1988.

The member for Elmwood, like the author of this book, came with a story with great intrigue about this terrible $50,000 grant that his colleague who sat next to him in the Legislature had approved during a provincial general election campaign, no doubt to try and influence the people of that community to support her party.

I would suspect the Minister of Natural Resources has undertaken to the House to look at the other issue he raises about another particular grant. It may very well turn out to be similar to this one that the member raised, that there is no issue at all.

I find it somewhat interesting that the member for Elmwood did not do his homework in checking out that particular grant.

With respect to funding to the MMF, I cannot say to the member that I can provide a list of every grant the MMF has received from any provincial department or agency. What I can do is provide a list of the core funding and tripartite funding that the MMF has received since it was incorporated as an organization in the 1970s, because I think if the member reads this book, which I hope he has done, I think if one looks into the early days of the MMF you will see the reference to his party on many occasions.

I know now Metis Senator Ed Head making a comment about how his organization was all there for the New Democrats and, you know, had helped to get them elected and expected things in return.

I think if you look to the references to the 1981 election here you will find that the MMF, which was just about bankrupt at that time, was revived by the new Pawley government with very significant dollars.

Needless to say, if the member wants to look at these issues, I would be more than pleased to provide the complete history with respect to their core funding to the MMF over all those years. If the member wants to discuss the issues related to whether or not government should fund any advocacy organization, I would be more than pleased to have that debate with him.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: The hour being twelve o'clock, what is the will of the committee?

An Honourable Member: Carry on tomorrow.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Committee rise? Committee rise.