Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. Thank you.

We are on Resolution 12.3 Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (3) Water Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,036,800. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Yesterday, at the end of our discussions on Estimates, we were dealing with the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer, and I had asked some questions on some concerns that had been raised on the amount of water in the aquifer and the amount that was being replenished as opposed to the amount that was being drawn out.

What I would like to concentrate on just for a few minutes is the quality of the water within that aquifer. I would like to ask the minister whether the department can produce any kind of a study indicating whether there is a problem with the quality of the water, whether there are contaminants present within the water to any extent that the people of the area should be worried about. Is there a study suggesting any problems with the water quality at all in the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer?

* (1440)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, two points. On the question about volumes, first of all, that was asked yesterday and I provided some general answers. It just happens that I have a report here from Assiniboine Delta Aquifer management study, their publication, which says that the average annual supply, use in summary, amount available for development is 109,000 acre-feet. The sustainable use limit that has been imposed by government, which, I guess, would be the way to characterize that, is 51,000 acre-feet; the current amount licensed for use is 23,500 acre-feet; and the actual annual use is 16,000 acre-feet. So you could, in rough terms, indicate that about a third of the sustainable use limit is actually being used today. That is a publication from the Assiniboine Delta management study put together by the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board under Mr. Ball. So it is that type of information that leads me to say with some confidence that we are not approaching the level of sustainability on the aquifer. That does not mean to say that there might not be regions of the aquifer, ongoing concerns on the part of a number of people to make sure we stay on top of the issue, so that in fact we never damage the sustainability of that aquifer.

On the second question about quality, the Department of Natural Resources does not have any studies available on the water quality. I know there were some studies done across Manitoba, not specifically on the aquifer, on water quality that were reported to the Department of Environment, and we may be able to provide some information. But, obviously, the water quality is of concern to the aquifer users as well. The irrigation association is very conscious of the need to maintain the quality and the quantity, as if this is their lifeblood, when you have got the investment of hundreds of thousands on to millions of dollars' worth of investment in agricultural production that is based on irrigation.

But, as I said yesterday, a more immediate concern is the washing down of nutrients, and that is where the aquifer users will want to be vigilant. On top of that, there is a blind study that was done in order to have information gathered quickly and professionally but without attribution to where the source may have been in order to get an overview in various parts of the province. There is a concern that some of the heavy livestock production units, if they do not distribute their waste appropriately, could contribute to fertilizer or nutrients like nitrates from their waste getting down to a depth that cannot be retrieved. So it was always the view of the Department of Environment and the people in the field that anybody--and I have since encountered professional agronomists who are serving on behalf of private sector to individual operators--who have provided advice on managing their affairs, so that they do not expose themselves to that liability. In fact, that could be a significant environmental liability.

Mr. Struthers: I certainly believe, though, that there is never a shortage of information, that information actually empowers people to make good decisions. It allows the people who are living in the area some kind of comfort in knowing all the facts, all the information they possibly can about the aquifer that they live on. I am certain that people in the area--I know I am glad to hear that about a third of the total of the aquifer is in use. I would want to ask, though, of the minister what the time span of that study was that says that there is a third of the aquifer in use. He did not mention a date on the study that he had said. Was that up to date as of this year? Is that back over several years? What was the time span of the study that monitored the water that is in the aquifer?

Mr. Cummings: I am reading from a report, information that was provided to the study group on March 3 that consider the aquifer a single entity. It can be seen as a combination of 13 sub-basins, each with its own characteristics. At 16,000 acre-feet per year, current water use from the aquifer as a whole is only about 30 percent of total available for licensing, that being 51,000 acre-feet. The amount of water available for licensing is determined by sub-basin and, in four sub-basins, the amount currently committed is at or in excess of the licensing unit. So that was my reference to the sub-basin issue.

Of course, the quantifying of the sub-basins is ongoing to make sure that that sustainable yield is correct, but remember, the sustainable yield is less than half of the estimated yield. In other words, we have given ourselves a 50 percent sleeve to make sure, as the former M.P. for that area, who was very much in the middle of this debate, used to say--Charlie Mayer, obviously--you cannot stick your head down there and have a look and see what is down there. On the other hand, when you see wells with 12-inch casings that can make a 150 horsepower motor work and deliver water at a tremendous rate, you know that there is a very accessible source of water and very valuable resource there. It is up to us to make sure we manage it correctly.

It should be remembered that all of the allocation is not being used either. About 70 percent of our irrigated land is in the aquifer as well, but almost all of the heavy licensed water users are for irrigation purposes. So that also puts in context the importance of the aquifer and the importance of maintaining it. The Spruce Woods Park, of course, is part of that natural region as well, but that is not where the majority of the heavy industrial irrigation is going on.

Mr. Struthers: The concerns that have come to me in this area, having to deal with this aquifer, were that at some point we are not going to have an aquifer there to sustain the activities that are in the area. The number that was tossed to me was that it was projected that there was a 50-year lifespan for this aquifer.

Now, I am not going to pretend at all to be some kind of an expert in the area, but it seems to me that if you measure the amount of water going into the aquifer, if you have an idea of what is in the aquifer now and how much is being drawn out, then you may be able to make the projection on the lifetime of an aquifer. And my hope is that there is enough going into the aquifer to make it so that the lifespan question becomes irrelevant, that there is going to be enough water going into the aquifer for in perpetuity, that we would never get to the stage where we use too much of that water. The question becomes a question of rate. Are we taking out more water than what we are putting into the aquifer?

Mr. Cummings: I do not want to harangue the member from Dauphin, but--

An Honourable Member: Go right ahead.

* (1450)

Mr. Cummings: Well, no, I will be gentle. We have just finished explaining the principles of sustainability on this aquifer, and I think he heard me, but he wants to put on the record concerns that have been brought to his attention, because he surely does not believe what he just put on the record. Either that or he does not believe what I said. And he is correct. If we adhere to a plan that quantifies the sustainable yield of this aquifer, then it is a limitless resource, provided we continue to have snowfall and rainfall. That is the other reason why there is a sleeve. There will be fluctuations in an aquifer, particularly one that drains. This aquifer is an elevated aquifer which makes it very unique. In fact, whether you use the water or not, it is going to run out of the aquifer. I had a little trouble with that concept, the first understanding of it. The simplest concept, as I understand it, is to look at the elevation of the aquifer and look at the known depth. Then look at Pine Creek, Boggy Creek, numerable other creeks that run out along the edges of the aquifer.

In fact, they normally do not quit running ever, 365 days of the year, but during drought periods, and during the period of time when irrigation was beginning to be implemented in the aquifer, a lot of people confused or connected--I withdraw the word confused--a lot of people connected the two. I do not think it was necessarily correct. Nevertheless, they connected the idea that some of these streams were beginning to reduce their flows, recalling however that we have just come through a significant drought cycle, and recalling as well, opposite to what we have this year, that you had vegetation growing for--I should not say when things will green up this year--but in the fall, for example, to use the example to follow it through, a term I had never heard until we began debating the aquifer out in my area, but the evapotranspiration that is caused by the vegetation takes out hundreds of millions of gallons of water daily, weekly if you will. The volume is measured by those who understand aquifers. I should not try and put a figure on how much goes out daily. The fact is, these streams in many cases start to run again in the fall when the leaves come off the trees. I think that helps to substantiate the issue.

In terms of the sustainability, and I know no other way to repeat this unless the member, as some people do, chooses not to believe the quantification that has been done on this aquifer, then he can say the sky is falling, she is going to blow away again. In my view, it will not.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, first of all, I appreciate the minister for being gentle. At the same time, my point is not just to put the concern of people on the record, which is part of what we do in this House, as well. Further than that is to make sure that we understand that one of the factors in any aquifer is the amount of water that you draw out, the amount of water that you use. What prompted my question was the increased usage of the water in this particular aquifer.

The minister, I think, knows that what we have been talking about are the factors that come into play in determining the lifespan of any aquifer anywhere. One of the factors that I want people to consider, and most of all the Department of Natural Resources to consider, is the factor of overuse of our water supply. We are very lucky people to be living in Canada where there is so much water. We also have to be absolutely vigilant in the way we use that resource.

So, Mr. Chairperson, I just want to make sure that the usage aspect of management of an aquifer is taken into consideration. I want to make sure that we are concerned about the contaminants that flow into these aquifers because that has an effect on volume as well, because you cannot use the water that is subsequently infected with contaminants from the outside world, whether they be nutrients or whatever.

If the minister can provide me any information as to the sources, I know he has touched upon this a bit, but I would like to know more detailed sources of where contaminants are coming from on this particular aquifer.

Mr. Cummings: Perhaps I can add some further information to the record that will give the member some comfort. Interestingly enough, the more that knowledge has been gathered about this aquifer in the last few years, it has actually caused the department to raise the level of acre-feet that they believe are available under sustainable yield. So, again, unless he chooses not to accept the information that is being gathered, there should be some increased level of confidence in what is being allocated within the aquifer.

The aquifer is about 1,500 square miles which is quite significant. It contains about 12 million acre-feet of water, and recharge, of course, would be from rainfall and snow melt. As I indicated earlier, there is no way you can get water into the elevated aquifer from a stream. Ninety percent of that precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration--that is the word I was trying to say earlier--but 10 percent then enters and eventually discharges annually as stream flow.

In many respects. it could be argued that, while the rate of flow is very slow, you are interrupting some of the stream flows to use this water for irrigation, but on that point alone, I have been at an irrigation site that is essentially a stream and a bog that sits in the middle of the aquifer. At that particular site, the irrigator did not have to sink a well. There was a little pothole there, with no bigger diameter than this room, in which he irrigates 24 hours a day. Essentially he is pumping off the top of the aquifer. There is a depression in the sand cap there, or the aquifer sand pile, if you will, there, and the way I understand it, that has got to be the top of the aquifer. That is the level. It comes up that high, and then it runs off or just sits there. But he can run and irrigate three quarter sections of that land from that one sitting of his pump. If he goes a little further over--we have to go up the hill--then, of course, he is dropping a well down 150 feet to locate a pump deep enough in the aquifer. It is an amazing resource.

The member's comment about let us not degrade it is very accurate, and one which, I believe, will be the next level of research that needs to occur on the aquifer. A lot of people would argue that instead of using surface water, as we are for some communities, we should simply be going back into the aquifer and sinking a well. You have all of the filtering effect of a natural aquifer to provide very good water.

There are contaminants that will occur naturally, however, that may be as a result of pumping. There are some quadrants of the aquifer apparently in which there can be some iron found. That, of course, is not very desirable and is quite a pollutant for domestic use. For someone who has a water softener and an iron filter in his basement, I can attest how costly it is to deal with iron in water. Generally speaking, for commercial uses in a town or village, it is too costly.

* (1500)

So this leads me to the next figure; the estimate is that there are about 166,000 acre-feet that are discharged annually out of the aquifer. This was done as a result of a three-year study that was completed last year in March. This is the basis upon the 50 percent increase from the 1987 estimates of the available yield in the aquifer. About 109,000 acre-feet out of that total of 166,000 average annual discharge is available in irrigable areas. Local ground water availability and usage vary within those various sub-basins, an allocation of 50 percent replenishment rate over irrigable areas within 11 of the sub-basins, and a limit of 15 percent has been applied to two other sub-basins.

So all of this, I think, points towards a pretty good body of knowledge about the aquifer and the possibilities that are associated with it. Interestingly enough, some of the land that was situated over top of the aquifer was probably some of the least productive soils in that area. Again, from personal experience, I know how poorly some of it would produce, primarily because it was easy to erode.

The fact is you talk about the modern man destroying the resources that we have, or we tend to think that is always the norm, when this land was subject to prairie fires there probably was very little other than a bit of grass that burned off. Certainly, according to what we believe and what studies would tend to prove, there was very little vegetation that grew on this site. Therefore, it blew, it eroded and everything else. When people came to the Prairies and settled the Prairies and the prairie fires were eventually eliminated, that is when this area began to get treed over, and that is when the evapotranspiration would have begun to use the water in the aquifer, before it ran out. But now, of course, people are criticized for clearing those same trees off the land so they can return it to possibly potatoes or whatever other product they want to produce under irrigation.

So it is very unique, very fragile. People who farm on that area are well aware of that. Not only are there those poor lands that I refer to, there are also some lands that are heavier and are still over a good portion of the aquifer, and they are extremely valuable soils. In fact, the highest assessed soils in the school division in that area are located over top of the aquifer. So it is not all of poorer quality. There is also some exceptionally high quality soil.

Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, may I bring to the attention of the honourable members the gallery where we have with us today three students from Thompson and one student from Finland who are part of the Operation World Scholarship. This is in the constituency of the opposition House leader, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). On behalf of all honourable members, we thank you.

Mr. Struthers: The figures that the minister just read into the record on the annual discharge were exactly what I was looking for when I first started asking these questions. I appreciate him giving those to me. What I was not clear on, though, was that the figures that he gave me on the annual discharge of 166,000 feet, is that from the same study that he referenced before by the Assiniboine Delta, or was that a different group?

Mr. Cummings: They are all the same figures. Assiniboine Delta management study was incorporating the figures that I extrapolated from my briefing notes as well. Remember that what they said was there were 109,000 acre-feet available for development. Of that we are only using 16,000 acre-feet. The aquifer is far, far larger than that, but some of it is simply not suitable for development, probably because of depth and quality--I am not sure.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (3) Water Planning and Development (b) Other Expenditures $118,600--pass; (c) Waterways Maintenance $3,834,700--pass. 3. (a)(4). Surface Water Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $688,100.

Mr. Struthers: Surface Water Management. As I was looking through the Estimates book, I came across a reference to communities that are flood prone, and I took it from there that there is a list of flood-prone communities that have been designated. According to this information that I have in front of me, there are 16 flood-prone communities. I am wondering if I could have the minister indicate to me which communities those would be. If he has a list, maybe he could have it sent to me at some point, but I would like to know that information.

Mr. Cummings: We can supply the names of those communities that were referenced there, but I am pretty sure this would include a list that is as simple as situations that would include Brandon and Winnipeg, which are the obvious large ones. I think I may have--in fact, I do have the names here. Flood Damage Reduction Plan, here we go: Arborg, Brandon, Carman, Dauphin, Elie--in fact, Dominion City, which is on the verge of being flooded, potentially being flooded this year--could make that list swell to 17--Fisher Branch, La Salle, Lorette, Melita, Neepawa--now that is only the low parts, obviously--Riverton, Sanford, Souris, Starbuck, Swan River, Wawanesa, and Winnipeg.

I think the difference here between the list that I just gave the member and the reason that places like Dominion City are not on it is that there are different levels of status for where flood reduction programs have been in place. Those are the communities where the flood reduction programs are in place. There is also a list of risk areas that may be yet designated. That includes part of Gladstone, MacGregor, Minnedosa, Morden, The Pas, and Virden. Not areas that you normally hear of flooding, but MacGregor had a bad event last year, and Minnedosa has some low-lying property, but not others. Not designated and no plans for designation, and so on. There is quite a list of various statuses, and this is useful to know for communities. This is probably, I think, information that is directly related to EMO, and having permanent structures in place, or something that is known on an annual basis that can be protected and put in place.

Basically, what it does is give the department an overview of the potential risk and damage, and certainly tie that to flood predictions which are now available. The new flood prediction levels would allow people, frankly, within a very short period of time, to designate where they have to concentrate their energy.

Mr. Struthers: I notice that these are communities, I believe, towns. Do R.M.s not have a list, or are they designated as flood-prone areas at all? Is this just strictly towns, urban?

Mr. Cummings: This lists communities as opposed to R.M.s. R.M.s have plans where they have difficulties as well. You are looking at individual properties there more than communities. The other purpose for which this list is put together is to assist with planning. When I saw my hometown of Neepawa on the list, you noticed I paused for a moment. There is a low-lying part of the town that used to be subject to flooding, but there are very few houses located there now. Those that are there have been elevated, I believe. I know that there are people wanting to develop down in that flood plain, but they are going to have to put in six or eight feet of fill before they even think about laying a street.

Mr. Struthers: Who makes the decision and what criteria are used to establish a flood-prone community?

* (1510)

Mr. Cummings: I am reminded of a friend of mine who was complaining about not having any water in his well. He was at a public hearing, and somebody asked him, how did he know he had no water in his well? He said, I took the lid off and I looked. That is pretty much the simple answer for whether or not you have got a flood plain. These communities, in conjunction with Natural Resources, the list I gave you, have actually developed a plan. There are others where we know there are floods that occur, but they do not have a plan yet that is registered and known in advance to everybody. It is really done in conjunction with known water levels. We are responsible, the department is responsible, for keeping track of levels, and giving that information to a local council, and then a plan evolves if they are desirous of it.

Mr. Struthers: I would assume that the local history of the amount of times you are up to your eyeballs in water in a certain community would maybe suffice as a criterion. I also understand that there may arise situations where a community wants to be designated as a flood-prone community. Then somebody in the Department of Natural Resources or Emergency Management or some place would have to say yes or no. That is what I was after. Who makes the decisions on whether they are designated or not?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, it has worked out with provision of information and discussion with council whether or not they would be considered a flood-prone area. But remember that list that I gave the member, is Winnipeg flood-prone? Most people would say, well, it is protected by the floodway, but not every part of the city is protected by the floodway. Therefore, it is still classified.

A moment ago my question to myself was, so why is Ste. Rose not on there? We have got a ring dike around Ste. Rose. In fact, all of the urban properties are inside the ring dike, and they manage their own affairs there. If that is where the member is heading, which he might be because that is an area he is also familiar with, the criterion for federal-provincial funding to put in a diking structure, for example, is based on a cost-benefit analysis. That happened with the Carman by-pass as well. It is pretty difficult to get that tripartite funding, frankly, these days. Carman is, I believe, the last one that was done on tripartite funding.

Mr. Struthers: As I listen to the answers that the minister gives me, I keep coming up--as I think he is doing, thinking of Ste. Rose--with different examples of towns, and I wonder why they are not on the list, too. A couple that spring to mind are Morris and Selkirk, and maybe there are logical reasons for why those two communities are not on it. I know that Selkirk is, I think, quite wisely listed as an area where you have an office set up for this year's flood.

I am wondering why those two communities, for example, are not on there. I realize we could get into this all afternoon coming up with different names of different towns, but it seemed to me that those two were a little more obvious than some of the others. I will just leave it at that for a minute.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I may have mischaracterized one of the reasons why this list is put together when I said that you look at the water level and you decide whether or not it is flood prone, but another reason is to provide advice on where people should build based on the probability of flooding.

The member referenced Morris and Selkirk. Morris is, in fact, referenced but not on the list that I indicated to the member. Morris is not designated as having flood risk and has no plans to be designated. When you look at the ring dike around Morris, you would say what is the poop. It would sure be flooding around there if they did not have the ring dike. The fact is you close the dike, and I guess the probability of protection is high. They do not have a flood problem inside the ring dike.

So do not put too much importance on this. I am not sure of the question, however, when you said how do you get on the list or what good does it do you getting on the list. Well, one of the benefits that come from it is that if you want to build in the flats of Selkirk--the town of Selkirk is not subject to flooding, and I am not sure about the flats along the river. That may not be considered a community. I cannot answer that portion.

There seems to be some pretty obvious reasons why portions of these other communities are designated, but the other aspect is that there has to be a balance where they have to want to be designated, for that matter.

Mr. Struthers: Well, my colleague for Selkirk who asked some questions the other day and also hosted a meeting up in the area in Selkirk was giving some people up there who were very worried about the flood an opportunity to talk with a lot of folks in Water Services and in Emergency Measures, and they were very concerned about the flood situation. That is why Selkirk just kind of popped into my mind as to why they would not be listed on that list.

Maybe what I would like to get from the minister is, is there a listing of criteria that they follow, or is there--I am just trying to think of what, and he partly answered this question last time as well, is what the benefits are getting onto that list, a full account of what a town like, say, Selkirk could gain by being put on this list.

I am certain that the folks in Selkirk would just rather not be on the list and not have flooding problems at all, but they are going to get flooded year after year. Recent history tells us they are going to get flooded. Looks like they will again this year. They are talking about all kinds of ideas about hovercrafts and drilling holes in the ice to weaken the ice jams, and then I realize that they are not on this list. Can the minister explain to me why East Selkirk would not be on the list?

Mr. Cummings: Two or three aspects why it is likely that they are not listed as an area that is developing a plan. Part of it is that it is a little hard to develop a plan that addresses unpredictable ice jams. The other thing that I think the member might find, if you check the attendees at the meetings around Selkirk, was that these were rural and R.M.-located. They were not the townsfolk. They were in the rural areas around Selkirk who felt their properties were at risk for being flooded. I am not sure where the property line is at, where the town line is at Selkirk, so I am quite prepared to be corrected on that. But, when you look at the history of where the ice jams have caused damage, it has not been in the town site. The museum that received damage there last year, I believe, would say that maybe that was one of the first times it had ever been in that area. That was predicated by the ice jam. It could be somewhere else further down another time, as I understand the nature of the ice jams.

* (1520)

It goes also back to the responsibility of local communities in terms of what can they do to in terms of flood protection. One of the aspects of this is to make sure that the number of areas where regular damage occurs is identified and also make sure that there is an opportunity for local people to have input into what should occur. I do not think anybody has been suggesting to build a dike along whatever the number of miles along the side of the Red near Selkirk, but it has been primarily the ice jam concern. I can see why some of that property would be quite prone to flooding. Some of it is quite high, but some of it is quite low. I guess that raises the question for a lot of people, which is about the concern of building in a flood plain. The whole Red River Valley can flood. We understand that from last year and other years, but there are also areas where communities have traditionally built up that are flood prone and they either have got to have a permanent work in place to protect them or have some other means. All that speaks--some of these communities have been much more active in terms of what they are concerned about with flooding.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I mean Brandon is on the list as a risk-area designation, and they have indicated that their study is complete. All those flats in Brandon is still prone to flooding. The soccer fields were 10 feet deep down in the flats, but they, I do not believe, had very much housing that was subject to flooding. Some of the houses that I remember used to flood in the Brandon plain ran on flats are either protected or no longer there.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I am interested in getting a better idea on what, being on this designation as a flood-prone community, does that entitle the town to, if anything. Is it tied to compensation at all, or is it any special consideration in any way?

Mr. Cummings: It is simply a tool to identify areas. It is not a criterion for any programs that we or anybody else runs. Obviously, people can use this information in any way they want, though, once they get it.

Mr. Struthers: Just to switch gears a little bit. Many of the flooding problems that occurred up in the Parkland area last year or the year before, particularly the year before, got blamed on our Canadian symbol, the beaver.

An Honourable Member: Pesky little feller, that beaver.

Mr. Struthers: Pesty little fellers. I am wondering if the minister can update me at all on where the stage of the beaver control program is today.

Mr. Cummings: Same program; same level of support as last year.

Mr. Struthers: What is the process then for the local farmer in my area to go and get a beaver control problem dealt with?

Mr. Cummings: They could contact their local Natural Resources officer, and I believe the municipalities are involved in many cases.

Mr. Struthers: Is there funding that flows from the department to the R.M.s to help out with this program?

Mr. Cummings: The question was the amount of money. The province will support beaver eradication at $15 a head. The municipality wants to run a program if they cannot get someone to do it at that price. Given the price of fur or given the time of the year, that is all that it would be.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Moving on to (3) Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (4) Surface Water Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $688,100--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $371,800--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Water Quantity Surveys $302,400--pass; 3.(a)(5) Groundwater Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $555,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $163,900--pass; 3.(a)(6) Computer Graphics (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $452,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $25,000--pass.

Item 3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,300.

Mr. Struthers: Before we get into a discussion on the parks, Mr. Chair, I just want to get some clarification, maybe from the minister. With the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund--I have the Estimates book in front of me and maybe you could give me some guidance on this--do we pass the Main Estimates for Natural Resources and then start this separately, or is it all rolled up into one?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable minister, just for clarification.

Mr. Cummings: The administration expenditures are part of this department. The Innovations Fund dollars are technically under the Department of Environment funding. As chairman of the Sustainable Development committee, I can answer questions on this or on other matters related to the fund as well if the member wants to, but this appropriation--I am seeking guidance here-- this appropriation number is technically part of the National Resources total appropriation. No? [interjection] It is a separate appropriation, so it can be dealt with separately after passing Natural Resources, I am sorry.

Mr. Struthers: Afterwards, when we come back around to Minister's Salary, we get all that done and over with, then we start again with the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. Okay, thanks.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Perhaps I should point out to the group here that that could be dealt with under the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. Is that correct?

* (1530)

Mr. Cummings: This appropriation, the administration of it is all included within Natural Resources, the dollars for the fund. We do not want to confuse the sustainable development support with the actual fund, which is a block of funding that is included in the funding of the Department of Environment, so we can handle this any way the member and I decide to, but I will not exclude discussion on this whether he passes Department of Natural Resources or not. As long as his House leader agrees, we can proceed on and do this once we finish with the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Struthers: I assumed that is how we were going to do it, but I thought I had better check anyway just to make sure we do it properly.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Do we have any further question on that, or do we proceed under--

Mr. Struthers: No.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Okay, then we will proceed. Item 3. Resource Programs (b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $278,000--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $133,500--pass. Moving on then to 3.(b)(2) Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, under the area of Planning and Development, I thought it might be appropriate to have a little bit of a discussion on the province's move towards hitting its target that it signed onto through the Brundtland Commission of 1987, I believe, where we committed ourselves to designating 12 percent of the province to green space. Last year when I asked this question in Estimates, if my memory serves me correctly, we were just under the halfway mark to 12 percent. I am wondering and hoping that the minister today can report that we have moved substantially more towards the target of 12 percent, as I believe that it is a good target to move towards, and I think that most Manitobans agree with those of us in the province who are intent on having more of our province set aside for green areas to be enjoyed by all the people of the province. So my questions are, what percent are we at now in terms of our commitment to the Brundtland 12 percent, and what are our plans in the course of the next little while to get even closer to that 12 percent target?

Mr. Cummings: As of today, we are at 7 percent. That is a significant move forward; plus we have a plan that was tabled that will allow us to move forward over the immediate future to achieve the balance of our goals. That plan has been tabled.

The fact is that we are well on our way to exceeding the expectations of the World Wildlife Fund in this area. They have been very satisfied with the process and the progress that has been made and how it has unfolded over the last few months. I want to give credit to my predecessor for having brought this program along. Unfortunately, World Wildlife Fund was taking a show-me attitude to the work as it proceeded last year and indicated that with the measurement that they applied to the province. But I am confident that members opposite will be eating a lot of crow including the feathers this spring when we receive the rating for this coming year.

The fact is that in tabling the plan for the future we now can identify park lands that will increase our designated protected area by about almost 700,000 hectares into protected areas.

Mr. Struthers: I can understand that, from a government that has had to eat so much crow over the last few years, they are pretty much experts on that area, issue after issue. If we have to eat crow over anything as important as a 12 percent set-aside of land, then I will not mind doing that.

An Honourable Member: You like that with salt?

Mr. Struthers: On that one again, I would have to defer maybe to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), who has probably eaten a lot more crow than I have. Maybe he can recommend what I should eat with the crow, what kind of fixings I should have with it?

Would the minister be able to give me some sort of a breakdown of the 7 percent that has already been allocated? Can he tell me where the green spaces have come from and where he intends to get the rest?

Mr. Cummings: There is a huge percentage of land that is held in the park system today. Fifty percent of that is now designated under the World Wildlife designation. The lowlands effort that has been discussed will contribute significantly. But remember we are talking about lands all over the province. We are even capable of and will receive designation for a number of wildlife management areas. I guess I was somewhat serious when I asked the member if he read our press releases because, in fact, our park plan, which I do not have in my fingertips and perhaps I should have, lays out the answers to all of those questions. We have laid out the direction and the process.

Remember that one of the reasons this process takes some time is the very criterion the World Wildlife Fund puts on it, which is whether or not there is adequate consultation. It happens that Manitoba has a lot of native interests in lands that we are designating and sometimes they are not too pleased to see some of this land as designated and restricted access if it happens to be something which they have in mind a different usage for. I do not mean that in a critical sense; I am just reflecting the reality of the process. That will take some time, but we are forging on. By putting out the plan with all the various areas in it, we will be able to show very quickly progress or, if in fact the consultation process for some reason should not go well, lack of progress, but I am confident by fall we will be able to show further progress in the areas that I referenced, because we will be getting the consultation process.

The consultation process when you get into those areas can be time consuming, and it is that very factor that gives us cause for concern in terms of the rate at which we are able to designate these lands. I have been very impressed with the capabilities now for laying out park boundaries in remote areas where we can use global positioning to indicate boundaries in areas that may not have been surveyed and be able to do it very accurately. That is a tremendous asset in and of itself because, if you are into areas where there is potential around development which, perhaps people believe, is available but may not be available for quite some time, you have to be able to accurately define those boundaries, or you are simply going to create a situation where you stay out of an area completely or whether you can accurately display some boundaries. In fact, if staff is listening on the monitor, they will maybe be able to bring down a parks plan, and I will table that for the member.

* (1540)

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I have in front of me a schedule in which it names the park and the description, the classification, and the land use category. The minister has stated that 50 percent of our parks fall into the 12 percent that we are looking for if it makes up the 7 percent so far that we have set aside. What I am trying to understand is which of the land use categories make up that 50 percent. In the category of back country, I understand that development is off limits. That would then strictly be found in the 50 percent of the parks that qualify for this green space under the Brundtland Commission.

Mr. Cummings: The back country designation would be as the member so described. That is a very specific designation, as he knows.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I think it should be clearly put on the record that to pluck 12 percent out and indicate that that is nirvana, that that is the goal that we are going to have, there is still some discussion within the entire natural resources community, the World Wildlife Fund people. I would indicate, first of all, before I get into this discussion that my relationship since I came to this portfolio has been quite productive with the people from World Wildlife Fund. So this is not intended to have anything more than to context the debate that we are having.

Let us take native prairie grasses as an example. That is the very area that our forefathers went to first with the plow. There is almost none left in Manitoba. Now, if you want 12 percent, you are going to have to start reseeding some of that fairly productive prairie out there to get 12 percent of prairie grass set aside, although we have areas where we are able to do it.

I think there is an area of discussion. In the early stages of this program there was a discussion. I did not have this responsibility at that time, but, as I recall the discussion, we talked about 12 percent of the province, including representative areas of all the various ecosystems within the jurisdiction. That was some people's view of it. Others' view of it was 12 percent of every ecosystem set aside. That is different interpretation from the one I gave earlier. So this is the time in our history to be worrying because, as I pointed out about the prairie grass situation, that is the very time in our history to be making sure that we get on with this designation and set-aside because prairie grass is the absolute example of where we may almost have none left that would be anything close to its original natural state.

But let us then remember that there are huge tracts of land that are available for parks that are under discussion, and they are under protected designation, under protection today for potentially future designation. That is why we are confident that we can achieve a far greater percentage in the next short period of time. But we need to be sure of what is included in what we are designating, and the other thing is that--and I believe the people representing the World Wildlife organization would agree--we have a much better way of demarcation of what the areas are that really should be protected to represent one of the appropriate representative areas of the various ecosystems out there, the various representative areas that we should have protected.

That, too, changes a little bit of the work--a lot of the work, frankly--that our Parks people are now capable of doing. So it is something that I had not contemplated until I became more familiar with the details of what is being done with our parks' and our natural lands' designations, because there can easily--and even the New Democrats, I think, would respect the concept that there are areas out there where there is potential economic development so that it would be foolish to put ourselves in a situation where future generations might not be able to access that without being seen to be ripping and tearing at what is the very core of setting aside some unique and important areas for preservation.

In fact, because we are capable of better delineation than we were even five years ago, that becomes much more practical. I understand an example is--and I am not as familiar with it as my predecessor--along the Hayes River, a heritage river, but there are also some valuable resources in close proximity, and those areas can now be better designated than they could have been a few years ago. So all of that adds up to significant confidence on my part that we will reach those goals.

Mr. Struthers: The land use category called back country then falls under that 50 percent in the parks. Do any of the other categories count towards the set-aside at all, whether they be resource management, recreation development, any of the others--wilderness, I would venture a guess at?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I still do not have the precise plan in front of me, but there are three areas. Back country, wilderness and natural areas, I believe, are the three that would be eligible in the future.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe some more specific questions about some of the specific concerns about specifics parks that have come up. Several people contacted me about a road being built between Florence and Nora Lake, a private road being built in a public park, i.e., the Whiteshell.

Can the minister report whether this is still a matter under consideration? Can he tell me if there has been any money allotted towards this project?

Mr. Cummings: There have been no monies allocated. The decision on that is still being discussed by the local advisory committee. There have been further meetings. It did receive a preliminary stamp of approval, I guess for lack of a better word, but further review of it by the local people is being done in the spring. You saw that information recently. No money has been set aside. That project has been around for a number of years. Individuals there have--I think the member is being a little unfair to talk about a private road on public property. You may well end up with a situation where you will have private people paying for a public road.

* (1550)

Mr. Struthers: Would not that be something. Would the money that is allocated--if money is ever flowed to fund this road, would that money come from the Natural Resources department, or would it be something that would be funded by the Department of Highways?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, that area was accessed by rail. I think the member knows that. These people lost their ability to access when the rail line closed. The only way that government would become involved would be for forestry or for safety or for fire purposes.

Remember there are 50-some cottages in there. I think that some of them might be a little concerned about access to emergency health care as well, so there are legitimate reasons for discussion to be going on, but beyond that his question is quite hypothetical.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to move on briefly to Winnipeg Beach and talk about condominiums for a little bit.

An Honourable Member: Did you buy one?

Mr. Struthers: I wish. Recently, the project to build some condominiums in Winnipeg Beach has hit the papers. It has hit the media. It has been quite controversial. I am sure members on both sides of the House have been contacted and consulted on this issue. I am wondering, first of all, what stage this project is actually at, because there has been a lot of confusion so far as to just what phase the whole project is at right now. So maybe if the minister could update me on exactly where we are with this condominium idea in Winnipeg Beach, I would appreciate that.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there should be any confusion. The fact is that there is strong, local support for this project. There are people who own cottages from a distance away who have expressed a concern, and that is why the meetings were held, to hear those concerns. If a development agreement is finalized, they must provide proof of sale of the units and get their financing in place so that the project can proceed. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that the Lions Club has found themselves in this situation.

There are a lot of pros and cons as to what should happen in that particular spot. There are some people who have said that there is a principle here, that once something is behind a park line, that is sort of like the demarcation line that should never change. There was a principle that was put through as part of the multiple use--recognition of multiple use in our parks and the difficulty. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had about how you designate and set aside the various areas for park protection.

I am sure the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and I both think we are pretty smart today. We can tell a century ahead where things should be. Once we have made up our minds where the road is going to go or where the boundary is going to be, anybody who would dispute us, no matter how long we have been dead, would be wrong, and that is one way of looking at park lines. I even tie that back to the park that he and I live on either side of. The federal authorities will not let you take a piece of moss out of the park at Riding Mountain, because it is a pristine park--right? Big chunks of it were logged over before he and I were born, so it is not an original, pristine forest that has been dealt with. Yet I am sure he and I both grew up thinking that Riding Mountain National Park was a pretty nice place--and it is a beautiful place--but it was not always a park. It was used and maybe abused in some cases, but I think the fact is that that is maybe as good a demonstration of anything as why there is a decent reason to have a process in a place that allows reasonable-thinking people to look at where park boundary designations should be.

The Winnipeg Beach question is an example of where there is a legitimate debate about whether a few acres could be used differently than it is today. Interestingly enough, inside that park boundary and right roughly where this development is to go, is an old railway wye, which mainly means, I guess, some use has been made of it before. It was not always, and it is not today, a pristine natural setting, but it is set aside and designated. It must today go through a process to change that park line. We will tabulate the information that came from the consultation process, and we will take our responsibilities seriously in how we view the concerns that have been raised, both pro and con. There is, I think, a majority, some of the local people who are quite pro. There are other people who have an interest in the area, who consider that their summer home and feel every bit as much pride of ownership in the area, who say that this should not happen.

Let me expand that discussion a little bit. I just met this morning with people who operate services in one of our provincial parks, and their question was, well, are we not a community too? They were there before it was a park. Their businesses were there. They serviced the camp cottaging and camping community. They lived there year-round, and they have desires to see how their community will change. I suggest that this area can be thought of in somewhat the same vein. Does this community-- it does, but do you agree that this community should have an opportunity to express a view on how it wants to develop? I know the arguments, well, it could go 200 yards further south and back on the main street perhaps, and maybe that is where it will go in the end, I do not know. The opportunity to develop in what was considered by many people to be a piece of property that might not have to stay in the park is what precipitated this discussion, but we always fool ourselves a little bit when we start using the term "park."

* (1600)

I can give the Riding Mountain example. I can also give the example of where we have a business that has been using an area for 15 years, I guess. It is all gravel and oil. Even the Parks workers, when they put the posts along the edge of what they thought was the park line, looked at that and said, well, that cannot be park, but the boundary shows that that chunk of gravel is really in the park. Now what are we going to do with that? We probably should depark it, so that that person can buy it and continue to use it for what it is. Surely reasonable-thinking people would not object to that type of a revision; but, when we talk about changing park lines, it becomes very emotional--and rightfully so. We need to make sure we use rational thinking when we consider what we are talking about when we talk about adjusting a park boundary.

Mr. Struthers: I think the minister brings up a lot of things there that are worth discussing and worth considering. I used the word "confusion" because from the history that I have been told about this specific project in this park is that the deal was on at one time, it was off again, it was on again. I think the confusion is coming simply because of that, because it has a history to it. It has been here; it has been there; it has been back and forth.

I do not like to see people's expectations get all built up and their hopes all built up and then have them fall apart again. If I were in a business community in that part of the world, I would probably be pretty frustrated about that in terms of confusion. I would also be very frustrated as somebody who uses the park out at Winnipeg Beach.

The minister put his finger on a question that I have wondered at ever since I have become aware of this issue: Why are we going to build anything on that particular site when we could build it outside of the park and not have this kind of split in the community or an argument go on, because we are not only talking about that local park? I really get concerned about the bigger issue here in the way we treat our parks generally, and that, of course, springs from my concerns coming out of the proclamation of The Provincial Parks Act not too long ago. I believe it is Section 14 that says you cannot sell, you are prohibited to sell land from within the park, so instead you just go and redraw the boundary and sell that chunk of land anyway. I understand what the minister is saying when he talks about Riding Mountain and other parks and that they have changed and that you do not have a line absolutely drawn out in the bush some place that is going to remain stagnant until the end of the earth.

The park lines are going to be moving. My preference is that they move to make the parks bigger, but at the same time I do not want to see actions taken by the Department of Natural Resources which simply circumvent their own acts that they bring in. I am afraid that that is what has happened in this case. If I am wrong, I am sure the minister will correct me on it, but I do not want to see the Department of Natural Resources simply drawing boundaries in any of our parks just to get around their own regulations and their own acts.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing that we need to consider is the size of the amount of land that is being drawn out of the park in relation to the size of the park that is already there. I realize that we are dealing with this in an incremental way. First, we are going to be dealing with the condominiums, and then we are going to be dealing with more land in a future development, a future phase. From what I have been told, we are looking at quite possibly up to a quarter of the amount of this provincial park being drawn out, being excluded from the park and used for development. So it is not just the one issue that we are dealing with. I am worried, and I think the minister needs to look down the road as well. Maybe he can shed some light on some of the comments that I have just made.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I guess there is some advantage at a time like this, although I would say that the worst day in government is better than the best day over there, but it is easy to sit there and ask and be critical of how we are looking at these issues, but the member is reluctant to--he says if you are going to change a park boundary, you should just make it bigger. I am not sure that he would always want to support that unless he, in fact, supports multiple use in our parks.

I mean that is one the reasons that Manitoba has developed--and maybe even the kind of thinking that has helped Manitoba to develop--a park system that it has. In some respects, it creates criticism around the world when people who do not want to treat the issue fairly say Manitoba allows logging in its parks. I mean, horrors, I get letters from California. You know, they sit alongside the paved-over desert and say, why are you cutting trees in your parks? The fact is that, when we laid down boundaries originally in this province, we drew the boundaries around what were designated cutting areas and we said: There, you guys can continue cutting in there; we are just going to have a little more control over it.

I would argue that those people that made that decision maybe made a very wise decision because they were applying some restrictions on there, but we have 60-some parks and four of them allow logging. Now, there is maybe a reality check that we need to do about how our parks are viewed and how we talk about them. But we sell leases in our parks for people to cottage. Is that how the member believes a development such as this should occur at Winnipeg Beach, a long-term lease? Or is he saying that development should not be there at all? Maybe he does not want to take a position now because he can wait and criticize whichever one this government makes, but that is fair. Well, it is not fair, but it is what is going to happen. The fact is that we have a process under the act that we are going to follow, and I simply have been trying to encourage him to look at it in the bigger picture that this is not the end of parks. This is not the end of opportunity.

However, you must be aware of the frustration that some people have in terms of trying to simply acquire a cottage lease. There are areas of this province that are highly desirable, and we just do not have enough capacity to make leasing available to them yet. That is what we talked about earlier; we will have more lots available. It does not need to be an elitist situation. Manitoba makes very wide use of the cottaging opportunities in this province, and people should have some security. Some people, as he would know, put their life savings into a retirement or a summer home that they may well wish to have in an area that is designated for cottaging within a park setting. We allow them almost all of the rights of ownership through a lease, but ultimately it remains in public hands.

When you relate it to the already gravelled-over piece of a small park that someone with a garage has been using for a number of years and now finds out that really he has been using a piece of park property, then it makes ultimate good sense that some of that flexibility should be in the act. We would only be creating hardship and probably confusion and difficulty if we were so narrow minded in our decision making.

* (1610)

I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked earlier about the park properties that are part of our plan, and there is a proposal for a number of parks. I would expect the member has our park plan and the list of all of the different parks. For example, Amisk Provincial Park has been designated as a park reserve. The designation will be determined after there has been further consultation, but you are looking at almost 2,000 square kilometres of park space in that one area. The Asessippi Park is smaller, but it is designated as a natural park. Another small one, a wilderness, Atikaki, which has almost 4,000 kilometres of park designated as a wilderness park. Birds Hill, small but designated as natural designation, and Beaudry Park a natural designation.

There are some significant parks that have been laid out in the development of this plan. The Caribou River park, which would still require some further discussion with the Dene, there are almost 8,000 kilometres of park there, which will help us to reach our designations. Clearwater Lake, smaller, designated as a natural park, is 607 kilometres. The Duck Mountain Provincial Park, almost 1,300 square kilometres, designated as a natural park; Elk Island, a natural park, small site; Grand Beach, a small site; Grass River, 2,200, almost 2,300 square kilometres of designated as natural; 1,000 square kilometres in the Hecla-Grindstone area; another small park at Kettle. Nopiming, a natural park, 1,400 square kilometres, designated today as a natural park--in other words, it is receiving the protection that will allow us to take portions of it the further step to meet the World Wildlife designations. The wilderness park in Numaykoos Lake, 3,600 square kilometres; Paint Lake, 200 kilometres; Sand Lake, 8,000 kilometres, a wilderness park. Spruce Woods has 250 square kilometres, designated as a natural park; Turtle Mountain, designated as a natural park, almost 200 kilometres; and the Whiteshell almost 3,000 square kilometres, and it is designated natural at this point.

I think that that should give the opposition and anyone else who wants to examine this progress some considerable confidence that not only have we made a gigantic leap forward, but we will be able to proceed with considerable haste to deal with setting aside and preserving further representative areas of the province. But tying that back to the Lakeside Lions housing corporation, I suppose the opposition is going to have to decide if they want to see this go through a logical process as we have put it through and are still following the process or whether they simply want to be on record as being opposed to changing any park boundaries.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem at all indicating to the minister our position on any and all issues. I do not want the minister to think that everything over here in the opposition is all peaches and cream and that we have got no responsibility at all. I am perfectly aware that in two years time, if I am sitting on that side of the House and he is over here, he will remind me of everything I say because everything is in Hansard. So it is not like the best day in opposition is anywhere near the worst day in government, but I do not want the minister to think that it is just easy over here.

If the members across would listen for a minute, I can tell them exactly what we think with the condominium proposal for Winnipeg Beach. It is my thinking that we could avoid all the concern and avoid all of the fighting that has been taking place simply by building the condominium outside of the park and not redrawing the park boundary at all. If there is a valid reason to redraw a park boundary, given whatever the specific situation is, then maybe that can be considered, but I am not impressed by simply redrawing a park boundary to allow a development to take place within the park when the Provincial Park Lands Act in Section 14 says you cannot sell land from inside a park. It seems to me that it makes sense to try to work out an arrangement where the condominium is built outside of the park and not have to redraw the boundary in the first place.

Historical things that have happened, if somebody has built something and had been given permission years ago to build in a certain area and they find out later it was actually part of a park, that is a whole different topic, something that is totally different than what the situation is right now, and I think the minister understands that.

I put forth probably the worst-case scenario that says that the minister has taken his 22 acres of land, redrawn the boundaries to allow the development to take place, and in his answer he did not dispute that so I am assuming that I am correct in saying that he redrew the boundary because of Section 14 in the Parks act simply to allow this development to take place. Maybe he will take the opportunity to address that the next time he stands on his feet.

The minister also mentioned his work towards including these parks in the goal of 12 percent according to the Brundtland Commission. I want to suggest to the minister that if he keeps redrawing boundaries and making our parks smaller, he is making his target of 12 percent that much more unattainable.

Mr. Chair, unless the minister has any comments on that, I would ask that we move to another part of the same line but another set of questions, but I want to give the minister an opportunity to respond, if he wants to, to what I just put on the record.

Mr. Cummings: Well, the member has been clear, do not develop inside the park boundary. We set aside a million acres in this description that I just gave him, and he is unwilling to share two or three acres.

Mr. Struthers: I have some questions having to do with another one of our provincial parks. It has to do with the Pine Falls forestry company proposal to build a road north along the east side of Lake Winnipeg, the Bloodvein road. I understand what their proposal is to, in Phase I, go up as far as the Bloodvein River and then in Phase II go on beyond that, I am told, to Long Body Creek. Now in different submissions that I have become aware of, eventually the goal is to construct the road as far as Island Lake and some suspect further.

* (1620)

There are a lot of questions that have arisen in terms of environmental licences and approvals that have been put forth by the Department of Natural Resources. I would like the minister to indicate to this committee what he knows of the stage of this road being proposed and what the Department of Natural Resources involvement is in the whole process.

Mr. Cummings: We are involved as we would under usual circumstances. We are responsible for logging that may or may not occur in that area, and this is strictly for discussion. There is no progress other than information being gathered as far as I am aware at this time. This is a pretty enormous project.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate what environmental assessments have been done to this point in regard to this road?

Mr. Cummings: I indicated that was simply under discussion and there have been no reviews.

Mr. Struthers: Have First Nations communities in the area been included in the discussion so far?

Mr. Cummings: This is pretty early on in terms of discussions. I believe Island Lake has had some input.

Mr. Struthers: Has any discussion taken place, maybe again it is too early, but concerns have been expressed about the effect of this road on wildlife in the area. Has any discussion at all taken place in terms of its impact on wildlife?

Mr. Cummings: It is away too early in discussions to be able to give you any definitive comment on that.

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate to me what the goal of the Department of Natural Resources is in terms of how much lumber you project can be taken from that area that you are trying to access with this road?

Mr. Cummings: No, I do not think I could give him an answer on what cubic--or how many cords may be taken out. But remember there is a little history to Pine Falls being able to access timber and/or pulp logs, and maybe it would be a good time to remind ourselves that when they were told to leave Atikaki, you know where they were told to go and cut? They were told to stay out of Atikaki, it was a park. You know where they were sent to cut? Up in his backyard and mine in another park by administration of the same political stripe as the member for Dauphin.

Mr. Struthers: Listening to that answer, somehow you knew it was going to become the same political stripe as the member for Dauphin. They always start that way when this government gives those answers, and that is how they always end. That is enough questions there.

Mr. Cummings: There is a very logical connection between cutting rights and whether or not you can cut within a few miles of where your mill is sitting.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable minister does not have a point of order.

Mr. Struthers: Pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Pass.

(b)(2) Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $646,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $198,400--pass; (3) Parks Districts (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $403,400--pass; Other Expenditures $51,600--pass; (4) Park Operations and Maintenance (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $9,264,900--pass; (a) Other Expenditures $3,556,400--pass; (5) Support Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $177,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures;$50,300--pass.

(c) Policy Co-ordination (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $952,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $202,000--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $10,200--pass.

(d) Forestry (1) Administration.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe I heard you wrong, but did you read the right number for Other Expenditures under 12.3 (c)? Two hundred and twelve--202? Is it 202? I have 212.

An Honourable Member: 202 in this.

Mr. Struthers: Oh, okay. That is good.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): (d) Forestry (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,600--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $256,200--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $465,800--pass. (2) Forest Resources Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $770,200.

Mr. Struthers: Mr Chairperson, in this category I would like to get the minister to give us some information, briefly an update on the Repap situation. I know that there are a lot of people who work at The Pas for Repap who have been quite concerned the last several months in terms of the long-term viability of the--not so much the viability of the operation at The Pas, but the overall business outlook of the company, given all the moves that have been made in the last little while. I would appreciate a bit of an update from the minister on what he can tell me in terms of the sale of Repap and just where that situation is right now.

Mr. Cummings: Mr Chairman, there really is not much that I can or should add regarding the future of Repap. Everybody would agree that it is a good operation. I think everybody would agree that its very likelihood of continuation is close to being a given when you have a plant that is operating efficiently with a good workforce, good supply of wood. It will be a desirable commodity whether it is part of the Repap chain or some other company. There really is not much else I can add. It is well known that if Avenor had acquired it that they intended to market it, not because it was a money loser but because of their own, they stated up front, corporate strategy. So I am confident that it will continue as is, but it may, in fact, change ownership, and I guess that would be as good an answer as I can provide today.

* (1630)

Mr. Struthers: The concern from a labour point of view in the area from the workers is that there would be any type of downsizing in the workforce at Repap should the ownership of the company change. Now I realize that it is not a given that every time you sell a company you downsize the workforce, but I do notice, as the workers in The Pas notice, that quite often when there is a change in ownership, change in direction, that downsizing does follow at times. Has the government been able to get any kind of a guarantee, any kind of correspondence with Repap that indeed if they sell this mill in The Pas that the same number of workers will still be working there once that transaction is completed?

Mr. Cummings: Essentially, it works probably from the other direction from which the member is approaching this, and that is that the present agreement, the agreement the present company is operating under--they have made certain commitments to develop the plant and if those are honoured, then their cutting rights would continue, and if they are not going to honour those commitments, then there are other people who want to have access to timber. It is not quite that stark. The bottom line, I guess, that I am trying to describe is that we expect status quo and whoever would buy would honour their cutting commitments, ergo the jobs would continue. But we have always got to remember that this is a fluctuating market. Repap went from chips to saw logs pretty quick depending on how the pulp market unfolded as against the saw logs. They have been running what at one time was considered to be the less profitable side of the plant. I am not telling the member anything he does not know. I am sure that he is also aware that that can change, given world markets, but right now some very valuable cutting rights out there.

Mr. Struthers: The minister talked about the markets, and that probably leads into a discussion as well as to what is going on at Pine Falls. We have seen what has happened with the markets with newsprint over the last little while, not just that the newsprint market is not going anywhere but that the large mills are being constructed in different parts of the world--Asia, South America. In the middle of this, Pine Falls is looking at an expansion of their forest management licence.

Can the minister maybe put some words on the record for the public in terms of where he sees Pine Falls headed, given the fact that natural resources is what their livelihood depends on, along with the workers there at the Pine Falls Paper Company? What can he tell me about the long-term viability of this company, given the way the market is situated on the world level right now?

Mr. Cummings: Well, I think my answer will confirm what I said earlier, that the value of the raw product out there, combined with the efficiency of the operation, can take history in directions that some of us might not have predicted. Almost everyone was predicting the demise of Pine Falls when Abitibi withdrew. They have drawn very little of their credit line down. They have an extremely efficient operation today, hitting a market that has been rising as they have invested. Let me rephrase that. They have been very efficient. They are about to invest to become more efficient, and that is why they are seeking further security on logging and cutting opportunities.

There is a potential for them to invest at least $80 million more in the plant. That translates into hundreds of millions of dollars in investment when you tie that to an expansion. Most people, and this I suppose could still change, but most people who talked to me were skeptical again about the recycling plant that they added. I am told that it is running very nicely right now, and they are recycling everything they can get their hands on in Manitoba and bringing in more besides. So I am not disturbed by the thought that they want to expand. They have to make sure they have a strong business plan, of course, for these types of considerations to take on any shape or any hard numbers.

They have to be prepared to back up their aspirations, but as the new de-inking plant was opening, at the opening event, one of the main principals in the company indicated that he could see an expansion very soon and that is probably the path that they have been embarked on ever since. It also shows, however, that when you have a workforce that is prepared to have some confidence in themselves and put forward the effort, I mean, these workers at Pine Falls have done an absolutely admirable job of saving their mill. They had some good leadership, but what they did was choose leadership from who were already at the mill, and they took salary freezes and reductions, I believe, for a few years while they were in the formative stages. They literally kept that wood room together with baling wire at one time, but their workmanship and their dedication to their community paid off.

Now, they are not the same workforce that was there 50 years ago. They are in the modern era, and they have to be efficient. Guaranteeing of jobs is not an easy thing to do. Guaranteeing opportunity for jobs, of course, is what investment is intended to do, and I think the member would agree that whether it is Repap or Pine Falls their ultimate success will be based on the quality of their workforce and the access to reasonable and good quality raw product.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 3.(d)(2) Forest Resources Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $770,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $137,700--pass; (3) Forest Health and Ecology (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $809,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $898,000--pass; (4) Forest Economics and Marketing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $375,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $41,500--pass; (5) Forest Renewal $4,282,600--pass; (6) Pineland Forest Nursery, no amount--pass.

Item 3.(e) Fisheries (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $192,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $137,900--pass. (2) Fish Culture (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $599,800.

* (1640)

Mr. Struthers: In so much of our province, especially around the Parklands area and the northern Parklands, the fishing industry has always been part of our area. It has always been something that has been of a great benefit to those of us living in that part of the world, and one of the main components of that fishing industry was Lake Winnipegosis.

As everybody, I think, is aware, Lake Winnipegosis does not quite provide the amount of economic activity as what it used to and for a variety of reasons. What I have been impressed with over the last number of years is the willingness on the part of local fishermen to step forward and have their say in what they think can help to regenerate a fishery, a commercial fishery and a sport fishery that at one time provided a lot more to our local economy in the Parkland area.

I am wondering if the minister can outline for this committee the plans that he hopes to put in place to rejuvenate this Lake Winnipegosis and the fishing industry that has been involved with this lake over the years.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the member raises Winnipegosis because that is, in fact, a fishery that has had its problems recently, but he indicated that the fishermen were more than willing to have their input and that they wanted to have a say in their future and provide advice on how the lake can be restored.

I look forward to that because, in fact, the Lake Winnipegosis fishery, we extended the perch fishery this winter. It, first of all, was not going to be a fishery. The local fishermen said that they wanted one. There was no opportunity for economic development of any kind, or any income of any kind, if they did not have the perch fishery. It was implemented, albeit a little late, then it was extended for a week, and they said they were catching a lot of suckers the last week, but at least they were getting fish that they said they could market. The walleye are very scarce.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I am on record, and I am anxious to go on record here again, that this may be a lake where it is small enough that we can pull together all of the involved fishermen and ask them to develop a sustainable development plan for the fishery. I am not sure what has happened, whether there has been some lack of effort on our part, but we have asked for a sustainable development strategy. There has been some reaction, but nothing official was responded to. I have just received some further communication that may be the basis for a plan. I have not read it entirely. Certainly, I have gotten good feedback from the people I spoke to when we said we would listen and that we would work with them.

There is very often a significant degree of disagreement between Natural Resources expertise and what the fishermen on the lake believe is the right thing to do for the fishery, and maybe this is a lake where we can test the level of co-operation that perhaps needs to be put in place. I mean, you can tell people not to fish, but they do not believe you sometimes, that they should not, and maybe they are right. On the other hand, I read something last weekend which sort of said is there a million-dollar prize for catching the last pickerel in Lake Winnipegosis.

That is pretty harsh criticism, frankly, and we need to get away from that sort of thing and discuss with the fishermen--so there is no pickerel there; what are we going to do about it? If we do not know the answers, and you do not believe we know the answers, and you do not think we are going to provide the answers, then you tell us what the answers are. I am prepared to say that we will work with them, but they have to work together among themselves and respond. Then that raises the second question about, why are they reallocating existing unused licences on the lake among themselves?

Maybe they have a good reason, but I do not know what it is at the moment. So this is a lake that I would like to see a very consultative plan developed for the future, but that is a two-way street. If the member believes that the majority of the fishermen on the lake want to work out a plan with me or with the department, then we are all ears because I am told the fishery is not very good and that there are very few fishermen who are still actually active.

My view, at the same time, of quotas is that we do not have to eliminate the opportunity; we have to manage the quotas so that people are not seen to be giving up opportunity at a time when they are asked to reduce their take. I am not sure if that actually sounds better in theory but is impossible to implement or not, but that is the approach that I am bringing to the table, and I hope that we can have some productive discussions because this is not a big lake by fishery standards, I guess.

So it should be small enough where we can get everybody together and have some productive work done on a plan, and I am willing to hear out the fishermen and have them tell us what they think that plan should be, all the way from spawning enhancement to how we manage our quotas. I do not mean any disrespect to the department in making these comments, but if there is a bone of contention out there, an ongoing disagreement on what should be done, then let us all pull together and decide on some middle ground because we have not won yet.

Mr. Struthers: Certainly, I must commend the minister for the words he just put on the record. With the people that I have talked to in the Lake Winnipegosis area, I think they have come to the realization that their backs are up against the wall, and if they do not do something in a co-operative manner, then they are going to kill what was a productive life. I say that not having met formally with groups in the area, but having talked to individual fishermen around the lake in each of the parts of Lake Winnipegosis.

Having said that, I would like to get an understanding of the groups that are there that the minister could approach to meet with him. He is right; it is a small lake. It should not be hard. There probably should not be too many groups to meet with, but could the minister tell me what groups are there for him to meet with?

Mr. Cummings: Well, No. 1, of course, would be the quota holders. In a sustainable development strategy, all aspects of the people who have interests in the lake should be at the table. I do not see myself meeting, or the department meeting, in groups of individuals, going from group to group. I see bringing them together, primarily the people who have a stake in the resource, but there are also people with sporting interests who should be at the table, and the department needs to be at the table, biologists and people who have some knowledge of how to manage the resources. There is an advisory board that has been in place for quite a while, I am told.

I am open to suggestions, frankly. I mean, it is a concept, and one of the principles of sustainable development is that everyone who has an interest in the matter that is being debated or discussed or decided upon should have an opportunity to be heard at the table. The difficulty is, and I say this with the greatest of respect, the fishery-dependent people are going to have to play a significant role in advising how we take this forward.

* (1650)

It is not a matter of putting more Natural Resources officers on the lake. It is a matter of having those who are the users of the lake decide how they are going to use it. There are all sorts of theories from one end of the spectrum to the other, including high water problems may be damaging spawning interests. I have no idea if that is relevant or not, but there certainly have been a multiplicity of events that are an effect on the lake. There is the Wildlife Federation. I suppose the various communities where you have services supplied out of that may desire to have people at the table as well.

Mr. Chairperson: [inaudible] Excuse me, I am just going to go over that again. Shall the item pass? Pass. (b) Other Expenditures $300,600--pass.

We are now on (e)(3) Fisheries Habitat Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $323,100.

Mr. Struthers: I would like the minister to speak a little bit about the sustainable development strategy for fisheries. I listened intently in the throne speech for an announcement for a complete Sustainable Development Act--missed it, but what did come through in the throne speech was a line about the sustainable development strategies for fisheries and for wildlife. We are on the Fisheries line, so I would like to know what process the minister is going to undertake in terms of a sustainable development strategy, and who will be involved in that process.

Mr. Cummings: It will be a broad-based consultative approach from fisheries, from recreation, from all of the impacted areas related to our fish community, if you will. It is certainly not something that is going to occur overnight; it will take some considerable length of time.

The sustainable development, the development of policies has followed a certain format over the last few years but in developing a strategy, it is the same development strategy on fisheries. I have already had enough experience with meeting with the communities and various interests. This is a highly volatile--and Lake Winnipeg more so than probably the other lakes, but very volatile. It has some overtones to it that I do not particularly like, and it will take a long process. I do believe that if people who have a vested interest meet face to face amongst themselves to make decisions that they will come up with some advice, and we can come up with a strategy that will be quite workable.

Mr. Struthers: Is there a time frame that the minister can indicate that discussion will take place? I am especially interested in an end date as to when we can look forward to some actual strategies coming out of the discussions.

Mr. Cummings: There will have to be some initial work done to develop a bit of a generic plan that can be taken out for the basis for discussion and that will take some time. As I say, this is going to be longer in development probably than some of the other strategies that we have pulled together, because there are a wide variety of interests that are involved today and that is not going to make the process any easier.

Mr. Chairperson: Should the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (b) Other Expenditures $70,300--pass.

(e)(4) Sport and Commercial Fishing Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $457,600.

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate whether he is considering regulations regarding ice fishing contests?

Mr. Cummings: No, we have developed some guidelines, but we have not moved towards regulation.

Mr. Struthers: I am wondering if, given the publicity that some of the ice fishing contests got in the last little while, over the last winter, and some of the hardships that were created, would the minister at some point consider regulations as opposed to guidelines?

Mr. Cummings: It sounds like the member is asking if we should be regulating the prizes and the guaranteeing of the prizes and those sorts of things. I am not inclined to move in that direction unless he can give me a better reason.

Mr. Chairperson: [inaudible] I am going to go back to the beginning here. Where was I? Sports and fishing? Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (e)(4)(b) Other Expenditures $80,500--pass; (5) Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance $250,000--pass; (6) Fisheries Enhancement Initiative $350,000--pass.

(f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $283,700.

Mr. Struthers: Again, springing from the Speech from the Throne, the minister at that point indicated, much like he did with the fishing strategy, a sustainable development strategy for fishing, and I would like to ask the same question in terms of wildlife. What is the process he will be using to develop some strategies under the sustainable development with wildlife? I would be interested in the process again, and also who would be involved in that discussion, in the strategy towards sustainable development for wildlife.

Mr. Cummings: It would include the complete range of involvement from conservation to the users of the resource, community interest. We have already seen a fair divergence of opinion, for example, on hunting regulations that were considered this fall, so we know there again you are going to have a--these are the types of strategies, I suspect, that will develop a lot more debate than, for example, water strategy did. Water strategy might have been discussed in detail when there was an issue around the Assiniboine, but other than that, it does not create a debate situation for as wide a segment of the public. We intend to develop a base document that we can use for the genesis of some discussion and pull that discussion together. Again, I see a process that will be a little bit longer than perhaps some of the other strategies were and try and have it built from the bottom up.

Mr. Struthers: The people that would be involved in that strategy, would that include the Manitoba Wildlife Federation?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, and I should indicate, and I guess it goes sort of without comment, that we expect to involve the Sustainable Development Secretariat. They would help co-ordinate all the different work, along with the department, to pull together these strategies. That is one of the strong points of having the structure that we do so that we can have policy development that is somewhat independent but works closely with the day-to-day line workers in the department.

* (1700)

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. Thank you.

We are on Resolution 12.3 Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (3) Water Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,036,800. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Yesterday, at the end of our discussions on Estimates, we were dealing with the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer, and I had asked some questions on some concerns that had been raised on the amount of water in the aquifer and the amount that was being replenished as opposed to the amount that was being drawn out.

What I would like to concentrate on just for a few minutes is the quality of the water within that aquifer. I would like to ask the minister whether the department can produce any kind of a study indicating whether there is a problem with the quality of the water, whether there are contaminants present within the water to any extent that the people of the area should be worried about. Is there a study suggesting any problems with the water quality at all in the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer?

* (1440)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, two points. On the question about volumes, first of all, that was asked yesterday and I provided some general answers. It just happens that I have a report here from Assiniboine Delta Aquifer management study, their publication, which says that the average annual supply, use in summary, amount available for development is 109,000 acre-feet. The sustainable use limit that has been imposed by government, which, I guess, would be the way to characterize that, is 51,000 acre-feet; the current amount licensed for use is 23,500 acre-feet; and the actual annual use is 16,000 acre-feet. So you could, in rough terms, indicate that about a third of the sustainable use limit is actually being used today. That is a publication from the Assiniboine Delta management study put together by the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board under Mr. Ball. So it is that type of information that leads me to say with some confidence that we are not approaching the level of sustainability on the aquifer. That does not mean to say that there might not be regions of the aquifer, ongoing concerns on the part of a number of people to make sure we stay on top of the issue, so that in fact we never damage the sustainability of that aquifer.

On the second question about quality, the Department of Natural Resources does not have any studies available on the water quality. I know there were some studies done across Manitoba, not specifically on the aquifer, on water quality that were reported to the Department of Environment, and we may be able to provide some information. But, obviously, the water quality is of concern to the aquifer users as well. The irrigation association is very conscious of the need to maintain the quality and the quantity, as if this is their lifeblood, when you have got the investment of hundreds of thousands on to millions of dollars' worth of investment in agricultural production that is based on irrigation.

But, as I said yesterday, a more immediate concern is the washing down of nutrients, and that is where the aquifer users will want to be vigilant. On top of that, there is a blind study that was done in order to have information gathered quickly and professionally but without attribution to where the source may have been in order to get an overview in various parts of the province. There is a concern that some of the heavy livestock production units, if they do not distribute their waste appropriately, could contribute to fertilizer or nutrients like nitrates from their waste getting down to a depth that cannot be retrieved. So it was always the view of the Department of Environment and the people in the field that anybody--and I have since encountered professional agronomists who are serving on behalf of private sector to individual operators--who have provided advice on managing their affairs, so that they do not expose themselves to that liability. In fact, that could be a significant environmental liability.

Mr. Struthers: I certainly believe, though, that there is never a shortage of information, that information actually empowers people to make good decisions. It allows the people who are living in the area some kind of comfort in knowing all the facts, all the information they possibly can about the aquifer that they live on. I am certain that people in the area--I know I am glad to hear that about a third of the total of the aquifer is in use. I would want to ask, though, of the minister what the time span of that study was that says that there is a third of the aquifer in use. He did not mention a date on the study that he had said. Was that up to date as of this year? Is that back over several years? What was the time span of the study that monitored the water that is in the aquifer?

Mr. Cummings: I am reading from a report, information that was provided to the study group on March 3 that consider the aquifer a single entity. It can be seen as a combination of 13 sub-basins, each with its own characteristics. At 16,000 acre-feet per year, current water use from the aquifer as a whole is only about 30 percent of total available for licensing, that being 51,000 acre-feet. The amount of water available for licensing is determined by sub-basin and, in four sub-basins, the amount currently committed is at or in excess of the licensing unit. So that was my reference to the sub-basin issue.

Of course, the quantifying of the sub-basins is ongoing to make sure that that sustainable yield is correct, but remember, the sustainable yield is less than half of the estimated yield. In other words, we have given ourselves a 50 percent sleeve to make sure, as the former M.P. for that area, who was very much in the middle of this debate, used to say--Charlie Mayer, obviously--you cannot stick your head down there and have a look and see what is down there. On the other hand, when you see wells with 12-inch casings that can make a 150 horsepower motor work and deliver water at a tremendous rate, you know that there is a very accessible source of water and very valuable resource there. It is up to us to make sure we manage it correctly.

It should be remembered that all of the allocation is not being used either. About 70 percent of our irrigated land is in the aquifer as well, but almost all of the heavy licensed water users are for irrigation purposes. So that also puts in context the importance of the aquifer and the importance of maintaining it. The Spruce Woods Park, of course, is part of that natural region as well, but that is not where the majority of the heavy industrial irrigation is going on.

Mr. Struthers: The concerns that have come to me in this area, having to deal with this aquifer, were that at some point we are not going to have an aquifer there to sustain the activities that are in the area. The number that was tossed to me was that it was projected that there was a 50-year lifespan for this aquifer.

Now, I am not going to pretend at all to be some kind of an expert in the area, but it seems to me that if you measure the amount of water going into the aquifer, if you have an idea of what is in the aquifer now and how much is being drawn out, then you may be able to make the projection on the lifetime of an aquifer. And my hope is that there is enough going into the aquifer to make it so that the lifespan question becomes irrelevant, that there is going to be enough water going into the aquifer for in perpetuity, that we would never get to the stage where we use too much of that water. The question becomes a question of rate. Are we taking out more water than what we are putting into the aquifer?

Mr. Cummings: I do not want to harangue the member from Dauphin, but--

An Honourable Member: Go right ahead.

* (1450)

Mr. Cummings: Well, no, I will be gentle. We have just finished explaining the principles of sustainability on this aquifer, and I think he heard me, but he wants to put on the record concerns that have been brought to his attention, because he surely does not believe what he just put on the record. Either that or he does not believe what I said. And he is correct. If we adhere to a plan that quantifies the sustainable yield of this aquifer, then it is a limitless resource, provided we continue to have snowfall and rainfall. That is the other reason why there is a sleeve. There will be fluctuations in an aquifer, particularly one that drains. This aquifer is an elevated aquifer which makes it very unique. In fact, whether you use the water or not, it is going to run out of the aquifer. I had a little trouble with that concept, the first understanding of it. The simplest concept, as I understand it, is to look at the elevation of the aquifer and look at the known depth. Then look at Pine Creek, Boggy Creek, numerable other creeks that run out along the edges of the aquifer.

In fact, they normally do not quit running ever, 365 days of the year, but during drought periods, and during the period of time when irrigation was beginning to be implemented in the aquifer, a lot of people confused or connected--I withdraw the word confused--a lot of people connected the two. I do not think it was necessarily correct. Nevertheless, they connected the idea that some of these streams were beginning to reduce their flows, recalling however that we have just come through a significant drought cycle, and recalling as well, opposite to what we have this year, that you had vegetation growing for--I should not say when things will green up this year--but in the fall, for example, to use the example to follow it through, a term I had never heard until we began debating the aquifer out in my area, but the evapotranspiration that is caused by the vegetation takes out hundreds of millions of gallons of water daily, weekly if you will. The volume is measured by those who understand aquifers. I should not try and put a figure on how much goes out daily. The fact is, these streams in many cases start to run again in the fall when the leaves come off the trees. I think that helps to substantiate the issue.

In terms of the sustainability, and I know no other way to repeat this unless the member, as some people do, chooses not to believe the quantification that has been done on this aquifer, then he can say the sky is falling, she is going to blow away again. In my view, it will not.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, first of all, I appreciate the minister for being gentle. At the same time, my point is not just to put the concern of people on the record, which is part of what we do in this House, as well. Further than that is to make sure that we understand that one of the factors in any aquifer is the amount of water that you draw out, the amount of water that you use. What prompted my question was the increased usage of the water in this particular aquifer.

The minister, I think, knows that what we have been talking about are the factors that come into play in determining the lifespan of any aquifer anywhere. One of the factors that I want people to consider, and most of all the Department of Natural Resources to consider, is the factor of overuse of our water supply. We are very lucky people to be living in Canada where there is so much water. We also have to be absolutely vigilant in the way we use that resource.

So, Mr. Chairperson, I just want to make sure that the usage aspect of management of an aquifer is taken into consideration. I want to make sure that we are concerned about the contaminants that flow into these aquifers because that has an effect on volume as well, because you cannot use the water that is subsequently infected with contaminants from the outside world, whether they be nutrients or whatever.

If the minister can provide me any information as to the sources, I know he has touched upon this a bit, but I would like to know more detailed sources of where contaminants are coming from on this particular aquifer.

Mr. Cummings: Perhaps I can add some further information to the record that will give the member some comfort. Interestingly enough, the more that knowledge has been gathered about this aquifer in the last few years, it has actually caused the department to raise the level of acre-feet that they believe are available under sustainable yield. So, again, unless he chooses not to accept the information that is being gathered, there should be some increased level of confidence in what is being allocated within the aquifer.

The aquifer is about 1,500 square miles which is quite significant. It contains about 12 million acre-feet of water, and recharge, of course, would be from rainfall and snow melt. As I indicated earlier, there is no way you can get water into the elevated aquifer from a stream. Ninety percent of that precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration--that is the word I was trying to say earlier--but 10 percent then enters and eventually discharges annually as stream flow.

In many respects. it could be argued that, while the rate of flow is very slow, you are interrupting some of the stream flows to use this water for irrigation, but on that point alone, I have been at an irrigation site that is essentially a stream and a bog that sits in the middle of the aquifer. At that particular site, the irrigator did not have to sink a well. There was a little pothole there, with no bigger diameter than this room, in which he irrigates 24 hours a day. Essentially he is pumping off the top of the aquifer. There is a depression in the sand cap there, or the aquifer sand pile, if you will, there, and the way I understand it, that has got to be the top of the aquifer. That is the level. It comes up that high, and then it runs off or just sits there. But he can run and irrigate three quarter sections of that land from that one sitting of his pump. If he goes a little further over--we have to go up the hill--then, of course, he is dropping a well down 150 feet to locate a pump deep enough in the aquifer. It is an amazing resource.

The member's comment about let us not degrade it is very accurate, and one which, I believe, will be the next level of research that needs to occur on the aquifer. A lot of people would argue that instead of using surface water, as we are for some communities, we should simply be going back into the aquifer and sinking a well. You have all of the filtering effect of a natural aquifer to provide very good water.

There are contaminants that will occur naturally, however, that may be as a result of pumping. There are some quadrants of the aquifer apparently in which there can be some iron found. That, of course, is not very desirable and is quite a pollutant for domestic use. For someone who has a water softener and an iron filter in his basement, I can attest how costly it is to deal with iron in water. Generally speaking, for commercial uses in a town or village, it is too costly.

* (1500)

So this leads me to the next figure; the estimate is that there are about 166,000 acre-feet that are discharged annually out of the aquifer. This was done as a result of a three-year study that was completed last year in March. This is the basis upon the 50 percent increase from the 1987 estimates of the available yield in the aquifer. About 109,000 acre-feet out of that total of 166,000 average annual discharge is available in irrigable areas. Local ground water availability and usage vary within those various sub-basins, an allocation of 50 percent replenishment rate over irrigable areas within 11 of the sub-basins, and a limit of 15 percent has been applied to two other sub-basins.

So all of this, I think, points towards a pretty good body of knowledge about the aquifer and the possibilities that are associated with it. Interestingly enough, some of the land that was situated over top of the aquifer was probably some of the least productive soils in that area. Again, from personal experience, I know how poorly some of it would produce, primarily because it was easy to erode.

The fact is you talk about the modern man destroying the resources that we have, or we tend to think that is always the norm, when this land was subject to prairie fires there probably was very little other than a bit of grass that burned off. Certainly, according to what we believe and what studies would tend to prove, there was very little vegetation that grew on this site. Therefore, it blew, it eroded and everything else. When people came to the Prairies and settled the Prairies and the prairie fires were eventually eliminated, that is when this area began to get treed over, and that is when the evapotranspiration would have begun to use the water in the aquifer, before it ran out. But now, of course, people are criticized for clearing those same trees off the land so they can return it to possibly potatoes or whatever other product they want to produce under irrigation.

So it is very unique, very fragile. People who farm on that area are well aware of that. Not only are there those poor lands that I refer to, there are also some lands that are heavier and are still over a good portion of the aquifer, and they are extremely valuable soils. In fact, the highest assessed soils in the school division in that area are located over top of the aquifer. So it is not all of poorer quality. There is also some exceptionally high quality soil.

Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, may I bring to the attention of the honourable members the gallery where we have with us today three students from Thompson and one student from Finland who are part of the Operation World Scholarship. This is in the constituency of the opposition House leader, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). On behalf of all honourable members, we thank you.

Mr. Struthers: The figures that the minister just read into the record on the annual discharge were exactly what I was looking for when I first started asking these questions. I appreciate him giving those to me. What I was not clear on, though, was that the figures that he gave me on the annual discharge of 166,000 feet, is that from the same study that he referenced before by the Assiniboine Delta, or was that a different group?

Mr. Cummings: They are all the same figures. Assiniboine Delta management study was incorporating the figures that I extrapolated from my briefing notes as well. Remember that what they said was there were 109,000 acre-feet available for development. Of that we are only using 16,000 acre-feet. The aquifer is far, far larger than that, but some of it is simply not suitable for development, probably because of depth and quality--I am not sure.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (3) Water Planning and Development (b) Other Expenditures $118,600--pass; (c) Waterways Maintenance $3,834,700--pass. 3. (a)(4). Surface Water Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $688,100.

Mr. Struthers: Surface Water Management. As I was looking through the Estimates book, I came across a reference to communities that are flood prone, and I took it from there that there is a list of flood-prone communities that have been designated. According to this information that I have in front of me, there are 16 flood-prone communities. I am wondering if I could have the minister indicate to me which communities those would be. If he has a list, maybe he could have it sent to me at some point, but I would like to know that information.

Mr. Cummings: We can supply the names of those communities that were referenced there, but I am pretty sure this would include a list that is as simple as situations that would include Brandon and Winnipeg, which are the obvious large ones. I think I may have--in fact, I do have the names here. Flood Damage Reduction Plan, here we go: Arborg, Brandon, Carman, Dauphin, Elie--in fact, Dominion City, which is on the verge of being flooded, potentially being flooded this year--could make that list swell to 17--Fisher Branch, La Salle, Lorette, Melita, Neepawa--now that is only the low parts, obviously--Riverton, Sanford, Souris, Starbuck, Swan River, Wawanesa, and Winnipeg.

I think the difference here between the list that I just gave the member and the reason that places like Dominion City are not on it is that there are different levels of status for where flood reduction programs have been in place. Those are the communities where the flood reduction programs are in place. There is also a list of risk areas that may be yet designated. That includes part of Gladstone, MacGregor, Minnedosa, Morden, The Pas, and Virden. Not areas that you normally hear of flooding, but MacGregor had a bad event last year, and Minnedosa has some low-lying property, but not others. Not designated and no plans for designation, and so on. There is quite a list of various statuses, and this is useful to know for communities. This is probably, I think, information that is directly related to EMO, and having permanent structures in place, or something that is known on an annual basis that can be protected and put in place.

Basically, what it does is give the department an overview of the potential risk and damage, and certainly tie that to flood predictions which are now available. The new flood prediction levels would allow people, frankly, within a very short period of time, to designate where they have to concentrate their energy.

Mr. Struthers: I notice that these are communities, I believe, towns. Do R.M.s not have a list, or are they designated as flood-prone areas at all? Is this just strictly towns, urban?

Mr. Cummings: This lists communities as opposed to R.M.s. R.M.s have plans where they have difficulties as well. You are looking at individual properties there more than communities. The other purpose for which this list is put together is to assist with planning. When I saw my hometown of Neepawa on the list, you noticed I paused for a moment. There is a low-lying part of the town that used to be subject to flooding, but there are very few houses located there now. Those that are there have been elevated, I believe. I know that there are people wanting to develop down in that flood plain, but they are going to have to put in six or eight feet of fill before they even think about laying a street.

Mr. Struthers: Who makes the decision and what criteria are used to establish a flood-prone community?

* (1510)

Mr. Cummings: I am reminded of a friend of mine who was complaining about not having any water in his well. He was at a public hearing, and somebody asked him, how did he know he had no water in his well? He said, I took the lid off and I looked. That is pretty much the simple answer for whether or not you have got a flood plain. These communities, in conjunction with Natural Resources, the list I gave you, have actually developed a plan. There are others where we know there are floods that occur, but they do not have a plan yet that is registered and known in advance to everybody. It is really done in conjunction with known water levels. We are responsible, the department is responsible, for keeping track of levels, and giving that information to a local council, and then a plan evolves if they are desirous of it.

Mr. Struthers: I would assume that the local history of the amount of times you are up to your eyeballs in water in a certain community would maybe suffice as a criterion. I also understand that there may arise situations where a community wants to be designated as a flood-prone community. Then somebody in the Department of Natural Resources or Emergency Management or some place would have to say yes or no. That is what I was after. Who makes the decisions on whether they are designated or not?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, it has worked out with provision of information and discussion with council whether or not they would be considered a flood-prone area. But remember that list that I gave the member, is Winnipeg flood-prone? Most people would say, well, it is protected by the floodway, but not every part of the city is protected by the floodway. Therefore, it is still classified.

A moment ago my question to myself was, so why is Ste. Rose not on there? We have got a ring dike around Ste. Rose. In fact, all of the urban properties are inside the ring dike, and they manage their own affairs there. If that is where the member is heading, which he might be because that is an area he is also familiar with, the criterion for federal-provincial funding to put in a diking structure, for example, is based on a cost-benefit analysis. That happened with the Carman by-pass as well. It is pretty difficult to get that tripartite funding, frankly, these days. Carman is, I believe, the last one that was done on tripartite funding.

Mr. Struthers: As I listen to the answers that the minister gives me, I keep coming up--as I think he is doing, thinking of Ste. Rose--with different examples of towns, and I wonder why they are not on the list, too. A couple that spring to mind are Morris and Selkirk, and maybe there are logical reasons for why those two communities are not on it. I know that Selkirk is, I think, quite wisely listed as an area where you have an office set up for this year's flood.

I am wondering why those two communities, for example, are not on there. I realize we could get into this all afternoon coming up with different names of different towns, but it seemed to me that those two were a little more obvious than some of the others. I will just leave it at that for a minute.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I may have mischaracterized one of the reasons why this list is put together when I said that you look at the water level and you decide whether or not it is flood prone, but another reason is to provide advice on where people should build based on the probability of flooding.

The member referenced Morris and Selkirk. Morris is, in fact, referenced but not on the list that I indicated to the member. Morris is not designated as having flood risk and has no plans to be designated. When you look at the ring dike around Morris, you would say what is the poop. It would sure be flooding around there if they did not have the ring dike. The fact is you close the dike, and I guess the probability of protection is high. They do not have a flood problem inside the ring dike.

So do not put too much importance on this. I am not sure of the question, however, when you said how do you get on the list or what good does it do you getting on the list. Well, one of the benefits that come from it is that if you want to build in the flats of Selkirk--the town of Selkirk is not subject to flooding, and I am not sure about the flats along the river. That may not be considered a community. I cannot answer that portion.

There seems to be some pretty obvious reasons why portions of these other communities are designated, but the other aspect is that there has to be a balance where they have to want to be designated, for that matter.

Mr. Struthers: Well, my colleague for Selkirk who asked some questions the other day and also hosted a meeting up in the area in Selkirk was giving some people up there who were very worried about the flood an opportunity to talk with a lot of folks in Water Services and in Emergency Measures, and they were very concerned about the flood situation. That is why Selkirk just kind of popped into my mind as to why they would not be listed on that list.

Maybe what I would like to get from the minister is, is there a listing of criteria that they follow, or is there--I am just trying to think of what, and he partly answered this question last time as well, is what the benefits are getting onto that list, a full account of what a town like, say, Selkirk could gain by being put on this list.

I am certain that the folks in Selkirk would just rather not be on the list and not have flooding problems at all, but they are going to get flooded year after year. Recent history tells us they are going to get flooded. Looks like they will again this year. They are talking about all kinds of ideas about hovercrafts and drilling holes in the ice to weaken the ice jams, and then I realize that they are not on this list. Can the minister explain to me why East Selkirk would not be on the list?

Mr. Cummings: Two or three aspects why it is likely that they are not listed as an area that is developing a plan. Part of it is that it is a little hard to develop a plan that addresses unpredictable ice jams. The other thing that I think the member might find, if you check the attendees at the meetings around Selkirk, was that these were rural and R.M.-located. They were not the townsfolk. They were in the rural areas around Selkirk who felt their properties were at risk for being flooded. I am not sure where the property line is at, where the town line is at Selkirk, so I am quite prepared to be corrected on that. But, when you look at the history of where the ice jams have caused damage, it has not been in the town site. The museum that received damage there last year, I believe, would say that maybe that was one of the first times it had ever been in that area. That was predicated by the ice jam. It could be somewhere else further down another time, as I understand the nature of the ice jams.

* (1520)

It goes also back to the responsibility of local communities in terms of what can they do to in terms of flood protection. One of the aspects of this is to make sure that the number of areas where regular damage occurs is identified and also make sure that there is an opportunity for local people to have input into what should occur. I do not think anybody has been suggesting to build a dike along whatever the number of miles along the side of the Red near Selkirk, but it has been primarily the ice jam concern. I can see why some of that property would be quite prone to flooding. Some of it is quite high, but some of it is quite low. I guess that raises the question for a lot of people, which is about the concern of building in a flood plain. The whole Red River Valley can flood. We understand that from last year and other years, but there are also areas where communities have traditionally built up that are flood prone and they either have got to have a permanent work in place to protect them or have some other means. All that speaks--some of these communities have been much more active in terms of what they are concerned about with flooding.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I mean Brandon is on the list as a risk-area designation, and they have indicated that their study is complete. All those flats in Brandon is still prone to flooding. The soccer fields were 10 feet deep down in the flats, but they, I do not believe, had very much housing that was subject to flooding. Some of the houses that I remember used to flood in the Brandon plain ran on flats are either protected or no longer there.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I am interested in getting a better idea on what, being on this designation as a flood-prone community, does that entitle the town to, if anything. Is it tied to compensation at all, or is it any special consideration in any way?

Mr. Cummings: It is simply a tool to identify areas. It is not a criterion for any programs that we or anybody else runs. Obviously, people can use this information in any way they want, though, once they get it.

Mr. Struthers: Just to switch gears a little bit. Many of the flooding problems that occurred up in the Parkland area last year or the year before, particularly the year before, got blamed on our Canadian symbol, the beaver.

An Honourable Member: Pesky little feller, that beaver.

Mr. Struthers: Pesty little fellers. I am wondering if the minister can update me at all on where the stage of the beaver control program is today.

Mr. Cummings: Same program; same level of support as last year.

Mr. Struthers: What is the process then for the local farmer in my area to go and get a beaver control problem dealt with?

Mr. Cummings: They could contact their local Natural Resources officer, and I believe the municipalities are involved in many cases.

Mr. Struthers: Is there funding that flows from the department to the R.M.s to help out with this program?

Mr. Cummings: The question was the amount of money. The province will support beaver eradication at $15 a head. The municipality wants to run a program if they cannot get someone to do it at that price. Given the price of fur or given the time of the year, that is all that it would be.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Moving on to (3) Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (4) Surface Water Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $688,100--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $371,800--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Water Quantity Surveys $302,400--pass; 3.(a)(5) Groundwater Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $555,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $163,900--pass; 3.(a)(6) Computer Graphics (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $452,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $25,000--pass.

Item 3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,300.

Mr. Struthers: Before we get into a discussion on the parks, Mr. Chair, I just want to get some clarification, maybe from the minister. With the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund--I have the Estimates book in front of me and maybe you could give me some guidance on this--do we pass the Main Estimates for Natural Resources and then start this separately, or is it all rolled up into one?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable minister, just for clarification.

Mr. Cummings: The administration expenditures are part of this department. The Innovations Fund dollars are technically under the Department of Environment funding. As chairman of the Sustainable Development committee, I can answer questions on this or on other matters related to the fund as well if the member wants to, but this appropriation--I am seeking guidance here-- this appropriation number is technically part of the National Resources total appropriation. No? [interjection] It is a separate appropriation, so it can be dealt with separately after passing Natural Resources, I am sorry.

Mr. Struthers: Afterwards, when we come back around to Minister's Salary, we get all that done and over with, then we start again with the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. Okay, thanks.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Perhaps I should point out to the group here that that could be dealt with under the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. Is that correct?

* (1530)

Mr. Cummings: This appropriation, the administration of it is all included within Natural Resources, the dollars for the fund. We do not want to confuse the sustainable development support with the actual fund, which is a block of funding that is included in the funding of the Department of Environment, so we can handle this any way the member and I decide to, but I will not exclude discussion on this whether he passes Department of Natural Resources or not. As long as his House leader agrees, we can proceed on and do this once we finish with the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Struthers: I assumed that is how we were going to do it, but I thought I had better check anyway just to make sure we do it properly.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Do we have any further question on that, or do we proceed under--

Mr. Struthers: No.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Okay, then we will proceed. Item 3. Resource Programs (b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $278,000--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $133,500--pass. Moving on then to 3.(b)(2) Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, under the area of Planning and Development, I thought it might be appropriate to have a little bit of a discussion on the province's move towards hitting its target that it signed onto through the Brundtland Commission of 1987, I believe, where we committed ourselves to designating 12 percent of the province to green space. Last year when I asked this question in Estimates, if my memory serves me correctly, we were just under the halfway mark to 12 percent. I am wondering and hoping that the minister today can report that we have moved substantially more towards the target of 12 percent, as I believe that it is a good target to move towards, and I think that most Manitobans agree with those of us in the province who are intent on having more of our province set aside for green areas to be enjoyed by all the people of the province. So my questions are, what percent are we at now in terms of our commitment to the Brundtland 12 percent, and what are our plans in the course of the next little while to get even closer to that 12 percent target?

Mr. Cummings: As of today, we are at 7 percent. That is a significant move forward; plus we have a plan that was tabled that will allow us to move forward over the immediate future to achieve the balance of our goals. That plan has been tabled.

The fact is that we are well on our way to exceeding the expectations of the World Wildlife Fund in this area. They have been very satisfied with the process and the progress that has been made and how it has unfolded over the last few months. I want to give credit to my predecessor for having brought this program along. Unfortunately, World Wildlife Fund was taking a show-me attitude to the work as it proceeded last year and indicated that with the measurement that they applied to the province. But I am confident that members opposite will be eating a lot of crow including the feathers this spring when we receive the rating for this coming year.

The fact is that in tabling the plan for the future we now can identify park lands that will increase our designated protected area by about almost 700,000 hectares into protected areas.

Mr. Struthers: I can understand that, from a government that has had to eat so much crow over the last few years, they are pretty much experts on that area, issue after issue. If we have to eat crow over anything as important as a 12 percent set-aside of land, then I will not mind doing that.

An Honourable Member: You like that with salt?

Mr. Struthers: On that one again, I would have to defer maybe to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), who has probably eaten a lot more crow than I have. Maybe he can recommend what I should eat with the crow, what kind of fixings I should have with it?

Would the minister be able to give me some sort of a breakdown of the 7 percent that has already been allocated? Can he tell me where the green spaces have come from and where he intends to get the rest?

Mr. Cummings: There is a huge percentage of land that is held in the park system today. Fifty percent of that is now designated under the World Wildlife designation. The lowlands effort that has been discussed will contribute significantly. But remember we are talking about lands all over the province. We are even capable of and will receive designation for a number of wildlife management areas. I guess I was somewhat serious when I asked the member if he read our press releases because, in fact, our park plan, which I do not have in my fingertips and perhaps I should have, lays out the answers to all of those questions. We have laid out the direction and the process.

Remember that one of the reasons this process takes some time is the very criterion the World Wildlife Fund puts on it, which is whether or not there is adequate consultation. It happens that Manitoba has a lot of native interests in lands that we are designating and sometimes they are not too pleased to see some of this land as designated and restricted access if it happens to be something which they have in mind a different usage for. I do not mean that in a critical sense; I am just reflecting the reality of the process. That will take some time, but we are forging on. By putting out the plan with all the various areas in it, we will be able to show very quickly progress or, if in fact the consultation process for some reason should not go well, lack of progress, but I am confident by fall we will be able to show further progress in the areas that I referenced, because we will be getting the consultation process.

The consultation process when you get into those areas can be time consuming, and it is that very factor that gives us cause for concern in terms of the rate at which we are able to designate these lands. I have been very impressed with the capabilities now for laying out park boundaries in remote areas where we can use global positioning to indicate boundaries in areas that may not have been surveyed and be able to do it very accurately. That is a tremendous asset in and of itself because, if you are into areas where there is potential around development which, perhaps people believe, is available but may not be available for quite some time, you have to be able to accurately define those boundaries, or you are simply going to create a situation where you stay out of an area completely or whether you can accurately display some boundaries. In fact, if staff is listening on the monitor, they will maybe be able to bring down a parks plan, and I will table that for the member.

* (1540)

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I have in front of me a schedule in which it names the park and the description, the classification, and the land use category. The minister has stated that 50 percent of our parks fall into the 12 percent that we are looking for if it makes up the 7 percent so far that we have set aside. What I am trying to understand is which of the land use categories make up that 50 percent. In the category of back country, I understand that development is off limits. That would then strictly be found in the 50 percent of the parks that qualify for this green space under the Brundtland Commission.

Mr. Cummings: The back country designation would be as the member so described. That is a very specific designation, as he knows.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I think it should be clearly put on the record that to pluck 12 percent out and indicate that that is nirvana, that that is the goal that we are going to have, there is still some discussion within the entire natural resources community, the World Wildlife Fund people. I would indicate, first of all, before I get into this discussion that my relationship since I came to this portfolio has been quite productive with the people from World Wildlife Fund. So this is not intended to have anything more than to context the debate that we are having.

Let us take native prairie grasses as an example. That is the very area that our forefathers went to first with the plow. There is almost none left in Manitoba. Now, if you want 12 percent, you are going to have to start reseeding some of that fairly productive prairie out there to get 12 percent of prairie grass set aside, although we have areas where we are able to do it.

I think there is an area of discussion. In the early stages of this program there was a discussion. I did not have this responsibility at that time, but, as I recall the discussion, we talked about 12 percent of the province, including representative areas of all the various ecosystems within the jurisdiction. That was some people's view of it. Others' view of it was 12 percent of every ecosystem set aside. That is different interpretation from the one I gave earlier. So this is the time in our history to be worrying because, as I pointed out about the prairie grass situation, that is the very time in our history to be making sure that we get on with this designation and set-aside because prairie grass is the absolute example of where we may almost have none left that would be anything close to its original natural state.

But let us then remember that there are huge tracts of land that are available for parks that are under discussion, and they are under protected designation, under protection today for potentially future designation. That is why we are confident that we can achieve a far greater percentage in the next short period of time. But we need to be sure of what is included in what we are designating, and the other thing is that--and I believe the people representing the World Wildlife organization would agree--we have a much better way of demarcation of what the areas are that really should be protected to represent one of the appropriate representative areas of the various ecosystems out there, the various representative areas that we should have protected.

That, too, changes a little bit of the work--a lot of the work, frankly--that our Parks people are now capable of doing. So it is something that I had not contemplated until I became more familiar with the details of what is being done with our parks' and our natural lands' designations, because there can easily--and even the New Democrats, I think, would respect the concept that there are areas out there where there is potential economic development so that it would be foolish to put ourselves in a situation where future generations might not be able to access that without being seen to be ripping and tearing at what is the very core of setting aside some unique and important areas for preservation.

In fact, because we are capable of better delineation than we were even five years ago, that becomes much more practical. I understand an example is--and I am not as familiar with it as my predecessor--along the Hayes River, a heritage river, but there are also some valuable resources in close proximity, and those areas can now be better designated than they could have been a few years ago. So all of that adds up to significant confidence on my part that we will reach those goals.

Mr. Struthers: The land use category called back country then falls under that 50 percent in the parks. Do any of the other categories count towards the set-aside at all, whether they be resource management, recreation development, any of the others--wilderness, I would venture a guess at?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I still do not have the precise plan in front of me, but there are three areas. Back country, wilderness and natural areas, I believe, are the three that would be eligible in the future.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe some more specific questions about some of the specific concerns about specifics parks that have come up. Several people contacted me about a road being built between Florence and Nora Lake, a private road being built in a public park, i.e., the Whiteshell.

Can the minister report whether this is still a matter under consideration? Can he tell me if there has been any money allotted towards this project?

Mr. Cummings: There have been no monies allocated. The decision on that is still being discussed by the local advisory committee. There have been further meetings. It did receive a preliminary stamp of approval, I guess for lack of a better word, but further review of it by the local people is being done in the spring. You saw that information recently. No money has been set aside. That project has been around for a number of years. Individuals there have--I think the member is being a little unfair to talk about a private road on public property. You may well end up with a situation where you will have private people paying for a public road.

* (1550)

Mr. Struthers: Would not that be something. Would the money that is allocated--if money is ever flowed to fund this road, would that money come from the Natural Resources department, or would it be something that would be funded by the Department of Highways?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, that area was accessed by rail. I think the member knows that. These people lost their ability to access when the rail line closed. The only way that government would become involved would be for forestry or for safety or for fire purposes.

Remember there are 50-some cottages in there. I think that some of them might be a little concerned about access to emergency health care as well, so there are legitimate reasons for discussion to be going on, but beyond that his question is quite hypothetical.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to move on briefly to Winnipeg Beach and talk about condominiums for a little bit.

An Honourable Member: Did you buy one?

Mr. Struthers: I wish. Recently, the project to build some condominiums in Winnipeg Beach has hit the papers. It has hit the media. It has been quite controversial. I am sure members on both sides of the House have been contacted and consulted on this issue. I am wondering, first of all, what stage this project is actually at, because there has been a lot of confusion so far as to just what phase the whole project is at right now. So maybe if the minister could update me on exactly where we are with this condominium idea in Winnipeg Beach, I would appreciate that.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there should be any confusion. The fact is that there is strong, local support for this project. There are people who own cottages from a distance away who have expressed a concern, and that is why the meetings were held, to hear those concerns. If a development agreement is finalized, they must provide proof of sale of the units and get their financing in place so that the project can proceed. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that the Lions Club has found themselves in this situation.

There are a lot of pros and cons as to what should happen in that particular spot. There are some people who have said that there is a principle here, that once something is behind a park line, that is sort of like the demarcation line that should never change. There was a principle that was put through as part of the multiple use--recognition of multiple use in our parks and the difficulty. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had about how you designate and set aside the various areas for park protection.

I am sure the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and I both think we are pretty smart today. We can tell a century ahead where things should be. Once we have made up our minds where the road is going to go or where the boundary is going to be, anybody who would dispute us, no matter how long we have been dead, would be wrong, and that is one way of looking at park lines. I even tie that back to the park that he and I live on either side of. The federal authorities will not let you take a piece of moss out of the park at Riding Mountain, because it is a pristine park--right? Big chunks of it were logged over before he and I were born, so it is not an original, pristine forest that has been dealt with. Yet I am sure he and I both grew up thinking that Riding Mountain National Park was a pretty nice place--and it is a beautiful place--but it was not always a park. It was used and maybe abused in some cases, but I think the fact is that that is maybe as good a demonstration of anything as why there is a decent reason to have a process in a place that allows reasonable-thinking people to look at where park boundary designations should be.

The Winnipeg Beach question is an example of where there is a legitimate debate about whether a few acres could be used differently than it is today. Interestingly enough, inside that park boundary and right roughly where this development is to go, is an old railway wye, which mainly means, I guess, some use has been made of it before. It was not always, and it is not today, a pristine natural setting, but it is set aside and designated. It must today go through a process to change that park line. We will tabulate the information that came from the consultation process, and we will take our responsibilities seriously in how we view the concerns that have been raised, both pro and con. There is, I think, a majority, some of the local people who are quite pro. There are other people who have an interest in the area, who consider that their summer home and feel every bit as much pride of ownership in the area, who say that this should not happen.

Let me expand that discussion a little bit. I just met this morning with people who operate services in one of our provincial parks, and their question was, well, are we not a community too? They were there before it was a park. Their businesses were there. They serviced the camp cottaging and camping community. They lived there year-round, and they have desires to see how their community will change. I suggest that this area can be thought of in somewhat the same vein. Does this community-- it does, but do you agree that this community should have an opportunity to express a view on how it wants to develop? I know the arguments, well, it could go 200 yards further south and back on the main street perhaps, and maybe that is where it will go in the end, I do not know. The opportunity to develop in what was considered by many people to be a piece of property that might not have to stay in the park is what precipitated this discussion, but we always fool ourselves a little bit when we start using the term "park."

* (1600)

I can give the Riding Mountain example. I can also give the example of where we have a business that has been using an area for 15 years, I guess. It is all gravel and oil. Even the Parks workers, when they put the posts along the edge of what they thought was the park line, looked at that and said, well, that cannot be park, but the boundary shows that that chunk of gravel is really in the park. Now what are we going to do with that? We probably should depark it, so that that person can buy it and continue to use it for what it is. Surely reasonable-thinking people would not object to that type of a revision; but, when we talk about changing park lines, it becomes very emotional--and rightfully so. We need to make sure we use rational thinking when we consider what we are talking about when we talk about adjusting a park boundary.

Mr. Struthers: I think the minister brings up a lot of things there that are worth discussing and worth considering. I used the word "confusion" because from the history that I have been told about this specific project in this park is that the deal was on at one time, it was off again, it was on again. I think the confusion is coming simply because of that, because it has a history to it. It has been here; it has been there; it has been back and forth.

I do not like to see people's expectations get all built up and their hopes all built up and then have them fall apart again. If I were in a business community in that part of the world, I would probably be pretty frustrated about that in terms of confusion. I would also be very frustrated as somebody who uses the park out at Winnipeg Beach.

The minister put his finger on a question that I have wondered at ever since I have become aware of this issue: Why are we going to build anything on that particular site when we could build it outside of the park and not have this kind of split in the community or an argument go on, because we are not only talking about that local park? I really get concerned about the bigger issue here in the way we treat our parks generally, and that, of course, springs from my concerns coming out of the proclamation of The Provincial Parks Act not too long ago. I believe it is Section 14 that says you cannot sell, you are prohibited to sell land from within the park, so instead you just go and redraw the boundary and sell that chunk of land anyway. I understand what the minister is saying when he talks about Riding Mountain and other parks and that they have changed and that you do not have a line absolutely drawn out in the bush some place that is going to remain stagnant until the end of the earth.

The park lines are going to be moving. My preference is that they move to make the parks bigger, but at the same time I do not want to see actions taken by the Department of Natural Resources which simply circumvent their own acts that they bring in. I am afraid that that is what has happened in this case. If I am wrong, I am sure the minister will correct me on it, but I do not want to see the Department of Natural Resources simply drawing boundaries in any of our parks just to get around their own regulations and their own acts.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing that we need to consider is the size of the amount of land that is being drawn out of the park in relation to the size of the park that is already there. I realize that we are dealing with this in an incremental way. First, we are going to be dealing with the condominiums, and then we are going to be dealing with more land in a future development, a future phase. From what I have been told, we are looking at quite possibly up to a quarter of the amount of this provincial park being drawn out, being excluded from the park and used for development. So it is not just the one issue that we are dealing with. I am worried, and I think the minister needs to look down the road as well. Maybe he can shed some light on some of the comments that I have just made.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I guess there is some advantage at a time like this, although I would say that the worst day in government is better than the best day over there, but it is easy to sit there and ask and be critical of how we are looking at these issues, but the member is reluctant to--he says if you are going to change a park boundary, you should just make it bigger. I am not sure that he would always want to support that unless he, in fact, supports multiple use in our parks.

I mean that is one the reasons that Manitoba has developed--and maybe even the kind of thinking that has helped Manitoba to develop--a park system that it has. In some respects, it creates criticism around the world when people who do not want to treat the issue fairly say Manitoba allows logging in its parks. I mean, horrors, I get letters from California. You know, they sit alongside the paved-over desert and say, why are you cutting trees in your parks? The fact is that, when we laid down boundaries originally in this province, we drew the boundaries around what were designated cutting areas and we said: There, you guys can continue cutting in there; we are just going to have a little more control over it.

I would argue that those people that made that decision maybe made a very wise decision because they were applying some restrictions on there, but we have 60-some parks and four of them allow logging. Now, there is maybe a reality check that we need to do about how our parks are viewed and how we talk about them. But we sell leases in our parks for people to cottage. Is that how the member believes a development such as this should occur at Winnipeg Beach, a long-term lease? Or is he saying that development should not be there at all? Maybe he does not want to take a position now because he can wait and criticize whichever one this government makes, but that is fair. Well, it is not fair, but it is what is going to happen. The fact is that we have a process under the act that we are going to follow, and I simply have been trying to encourage him to look at it in the bigger picture that this is not the end of parks. This is not the end of opportunity.

However, you must be aware of the frustration that some people have in terms of trying to simply acquire a cottage lease. There are areas of this province that are highly desirable, and we just do not have enough capacity to make leasing available to them yet. That is what we talked about earlier; we will have more lots available. It does not need to be an elitist situation. Manitoba makes very wide use of the cottaging opportunities in this province, and people should have some security. Some people, as he would know, put their life savings into a retirement or a summer home that they may well wish to have in an area that is designated for cottaging within a park setting. We allow them almost all of the rights of ownership through a lease, but ultimately it remains in public hands.

When you relate it to the already gravelled-over piece of a small park that someone with a garage has been using for a number of years and now finds out that really he has been using a piece of park property, then it makes ultimate good sense that some of that flexibility should be in the act. We would only be creating hardship and probably confusion and difficulty if we were so narrow minded in our decision making.

* (1610)

I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked earlier about the park properties that are part of our plan, and there is a proposal for a number of parks. I would expect the member has our park plan and the list of all of the different parks. For example, Amisk Provincial Park has been designated as a park reserve. The designation will be determined after there has been further consultation, but you are looking at almost 2,000 square kilometres of park space in that one area. The Asessippi Park is smaller, but it is designated as a natural park. Another small one, a wilderness, Atikaki, which has almost 4,000 kilometres of park designated as a wilderness park. Birds Hill, small but designated as natural designation, and Beaudry Park a natural designation.

There are some significant parks that have been laid out in the development of this plan. The Caribou River park, which would still require some further discussion with the Dene, there are almost 8,000 kilometres of park there, which will help us to reach our designations. Clearwater Lake, smaller, designated as a natural park, is 607 kilometres. The Duck Mountain Provincial Park, almost 1,300 square kilometres, designated as a natural park; Elk Island, a natural park, small site; Grand Beach, a small site; Grass River, 2,200, almost 2,300 square kilometres of designated as natural; 1,000 square kilometres in the Hecla-Grindstone area; another small park at Kettle. Nopiming, a natural park, 1,400 square kilometres, designated today as a natural park--in other words, it is receiving the protection that will allow us to take portions of it the further step to meet the World Wildlife designations. The wilderness park in Numaykoos Lake, 3,600 square kilometres; Paint Lake, 200 kilometres; Sand Lake, 8,000 kilometres, a wilderness park. Spruce Woods has 250 square kilometres, designated as a natural park; Turtle Mountain, designated as a natural park, almost 200 kilometres; and the Whiteshell almost 3,000 square kilometres, and it is designated natural at this point.

I think that that should give the opposition and anyone else who wants to examine this progress some considerable confidence that not only have we made a gigantic leap forward, but we will be able to proceed with considerable haste to deal with setting aside and preserving further representative areas of the province. But tying that back to the Lakeside Lions housing corporation, I suppose the opposition is going to have to decide if they want to see this go through a logical process as we have put it through and are still following the process or whether they simply want to be on record as being opposed to changing any park boundaries.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem at all indicating to the minister our position on any and all issues. I do not want the minister to think that everything over here in the opposition is all peaches and cream and that we have got no responsibility at all. I am perfectly aware that in two years time, if I am sitting on that side of the House and he is over here, he will remind me of everything I say because everything is in Hansard. So it is not like the best day in opposition is anywhere near the worst day in government, but I do not want the minister to think that it is just easy over here.

If the members across would listen for a minute, I can tell them exactly what we think with the condominium proposal for Winnipeg Beach. It is my thinking that we could avoid all the concern and avoid all of the fighting that has been taking place simply by building the condominium outside of the park and not redrawing the park boundary at all. If there is a valid reason to redraw a park boundary, given whatever the specific situation is, then maybe that can be considered, but I am not impressed by simply redrawing a park boundary to allow a development to take place within the park when the Provincial Park Lands Act in Section 14 says you cannot sell land from inside a park. It seems to me that it makes sense to try to work out an arrangement where the condominium is built outside of the park and not have to redraw the boundary in the first place.

Historical things that have happened, if somebody has built something and had been given permission years ago to build in a certain area and they find out later it was actually part of a park, that is a whole different topic, something that is totally different than what the situation is right now, and I think the minister understands that.

I put forth probably the worst-case scenario that says that the minister has taken his 22 acres of land, redrawn the boundaries to allow the development to take place, and in his answer he did not dispute that so I am assuming that I am correct in saying that he redrew the boundary because of Section 14 in the Parks act simply to allow this development to take place. Maybe he will take the opportunity to address that the next time he stands on his feet.

The minister also mentioned his work towards including these parks in the goal of 12 percent according to the Brundtland Commission. I want to suggest to the minister that if he keeps redrawing boundaries and making our parks smaller, he is making his target of 12 percent that much more unattainable.

Mr. Chair, unless the minister has any comments on that, I would ask that we move to another part of the same line but another set of questions, but I want to give the minister an opportunity to respond, if he wants to, to what I just put on the record.

Mr. Cummings: Well, the member has been clear, do not develop inside the park boundary. We set aside a million acres in this description that I just gave him, and he is unwilling to share two or three acres.

Mr. Struthers: I have some questions having to do with another one of our provincial parks. It has to do with the Pine Falls forestry company proposal to build a road north along the east side of Lake Winnipeg, the Bloodvein road. I understand what their proposal is to, in Phase I, go up as far as the Bloodvein River and then in Phase II go on beyond that, I am told, to Long Body Creek. Now in different submissions that I have become aware of, eventually the goal is to construct the road as far as Island Lake and some suspect further.

* (1620)

There are a lot of questions that have arisen in terms of environmental licences and approvals that have been put forth by the Department of Natural Resources. I would like the minister to indicate to this committee what he knows of the stage of this road being proposed and what the Department of Natural Resources involvement is in the whole process.

Mr. Cummings: We are involved as we would under usual circumstances. We are responsible for logging that may or may not occur in that area, and this is strictly for discussion. There is no progress other than information being gathered as far as I am aware at this time. This is a pretty enormous project.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate what environmental assessments have been done to this point in regard to this road?

Mr. Cummings: I indicated that was simply under discussion and there have been no reviews.

Mr. Struthers: Have First Nations communities in the area been included in the discussion so far?

Mr. Cummings: This is pretty early on in terms of discussions. I believe Island Lake has had some input.

Mr. Struthers: Has any discussion taken place, maybe again it is too early, but concerns have been expressed about the effect of this road on wildlife in the area. Has any discussion at all taken place in terms of its impact on wildlife?

Mr. Cummings: It is away too early in discussions to be able to give you any definitive comment on that.

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate to me what the goal of the Department of Natural Resources is in terms of how much lumber you project can be taken from that area that you are trying to access with this road?

Mr. Cummings: No, I do not think I could give him an answer on what cubic--or how many cords may be taken out. But remember there is a little history to Pine Falls being able to access timber and/or pulp logs, and maybe it would be a good time to remind ourselves that when they were told to leave Atikaki, you know where they were told to go and cut? They were told to stay out of Atikaki, it was a park. You know where they were sent to cut? Up in his backyard and mine in another park by administration of the same political stripe as the member for Dauphin.

Mr. Struthers: Listening to that answer, somehow you knew it was going to become the same political stripe as the member for Dauphin. They always start that way when this government gives those answers, and that is how they always end. That is enough questions there.

Mr. Cummings: There is a very logical connection between cutting rights and whether or not you can cut within a few miles of where your mill is sitting.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable minister does not have a point of order.

Mr. Struthers: Pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Pass.

(b)(2) Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $646,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $198,400--pass; (3) Parks Districts (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $403,400--pass; Other Expenditures $51,600--pass; (4) Park Operations and Maintenance (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $9,264,900--pass; (a) Other Expenditures $3,556,400--pass; (5) Support Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $177,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures;$50,300--pass.

(c) Policy Co-ordination (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $952,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $202,000--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $10,200--pass.

(d) Forestry (1) Administration.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe I heard you wrong, but did you read the right number for Other Expenditures under 12.3 (c)? Two hundred and twelve--202? Is it 202? I have 212.

An Honourable Member: 202 in this.

Mr. Struthers: Oh, okay. That is good.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): (d) Forestry (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $296,600--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $256,200--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $465,800--pass. (2) Forest Resources Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $770,200.

Mr. Struthers: Mr Chairperson, in this category I would like to get the minister to give us some information, briefly an update on the Repap situation. I know that there are a lot of people who work at The Pas for Repap who have been quite concerned the last several months in terms of the long-term viability of the--not so much the viability of the operation at The Pas, but the overall business outlook of the company, given all the moves that have been made in the last little while. I would appreciate a bit of an update from the minister on what he can tell me in terms of the sale of Repap and just where that situation is right now.

Mr. Cummings: Mr Chairman, there really is not much that I can or should add regarding the future of Repap. Everybody would agree that it is a good operation. I think everybody would agree that its very likelihood of continuation is close to being a given when you have a plant that is operating efficiently with a good workforce, good supply of wood. It will be a desirable commodity whether it is part of the Repap chain or some other company. There really is not much else I can add. It is well known that if Avenor had acquired it that they intended to market it, not because it was a money loser but because of their own, they stated up front, corporate strategy. So I am confident that it will continue as is, but it may, in fact, change ownership, and I guess that would be as good an answer as I can provide today.

* (1630)

Mr. Struthers: The concern from a labour point of view in the area from the workers is that there would be any type of downsizing in the workforce at Repap should the ownership of the company change. Now I realize that it is not a given that every time you sell a company you downsize the workforce, but I do notice, as the workers in The Pas notice, that quite often when there is a change in ownership, change in direction, that downsizing does follow at times. Has the government been able to get any kind of a guarantee, any kind of correspondence with Repap that indeed if they sell this mill in The Pas that the same number of workers will still be working there once that transaction is completed?

Mr. Cummings: Essentially, it works probably from the other direction from which the member is approaching this, and that is that the present agreement, the agreement the present company is operating under--they have made certain commitments to develop the plant and if those are honoured, then their cutting rights would continue, and if they are not going to honour those commitments, then there are other people who want to have access to timber. It is not quite that stark. The bottom line, I guess, that I am trying to describe is that we expect status quo and whoever would buy would honour their cutting commitments, ergo the jobs would continue. But we have always got to remember that this is a fluctuating market. Repap went from chips to saw logs pretty quick depending on how the pulp market unfolded as against the saw logs. They have been running what at one time was considered to be the less profitable side of the plant. I am not telling the member anything he does not know. I am sure that he is also aware that that can change, given world markets, but right now some very valuable cutting rights out there.

Mr. Struthers: The minister talked about the markets, and that probably leads into a discussion as well as to what is going on at Pine Falls. We have seen what has happened with the markets with newsprint over the last little while, not just that the newsprint market is not going anywhere but that the large mills are being constructed in different parts of the world--Asia, South America. In the middle of this, Pine Falls is looking at an expansion of their forest management licence.

Can the minister maybe put some words on the record for the public in terms of where he sees Pine Falls headed, given the fact that natural resources is what their livelihood depends on, along with the workers there at the Pine Falls Paper Company? What can he tell me about the long-term viability of this company, given the way the market is situated on the world level right now?

Mr. Cummings: Well, I think my answer will confirm what I said earlier, that the value of the raw product out there, combined with the efficiency of the operation, can take history in directions that some of us might not have predicted. Almost everyone was predicting the demise of Pine Falls when Abitibi withdrew. They have drawn very little of their credit line down. They have an extremely efficient operation today, hitting a market that has been rising as they have invested. Let me rephrase that. They have been very efficient. They are about to invest to become more efficient, and that is why they are seeking further security on logging and cutting opportunities.

There is a potential for them to invest at least $80 million more in the plant. That translates into hundreds of millions of dollars in investment when you tie that to an expansion. Most people, and this I suppose could still change, but most people who talked to me were skeptical again about the recycling plant that they added. I am told that it is running very nicely right now, and they are recycling everything they can get their hands on in Manitoba and bringing in more besides. So I am not disturbed by the thought that they want to expand. They have to make sure they have a strong business plan, of course, for these types of considerations to take on any shape or any hard numbers.

They have to be prepared to back up their aspirations, but as the new de-inking plant was opening, at the opening event, one of the main principals in the company indicated that he could see an expansion very soon and that is probably the path that they have been embarked on ever since. It also shows, however, that when you have a workforce that is prepared to have some confidence in themselves and put forward the effort, I mean, these workers at Pine Falls have done an absolutely admirable job of saving their mill. They had some good leadership, but what they did was choose leadership from who were already at the mill, and they took salary freezes and reductions, I believe, for a few years while they were in the formative stages. They literally kept that wood room together with baling wire at one time, but their workmanship and their dedication to their community paid off.

Now, they are not the same workforce that was there 50 years ago. They are in the modern era, and they have to be efficient. Guaranteeing of jobs is not an easy thing to do. Guaranteeing opportunity for jobs, of course, is what investment is intended to do, and I think the member would agree that whether it is Repap or Pine Falls their ultimate success will be based on the quality of their workforce and the access to reasonable and good quality raw product.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 3.(d)(2) Forest Resources Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $770,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $137,700--pass; (3) Forest Health and Ecology (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $809,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $898,000--pass; (4) Forest Economics and Marketing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $375,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $41,500--pass; (5) Forest Renewal $4,282,600--pass; (6) Pineland Forest Nursery, no amount--pass.

Item 3.(e) Fisheries (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $192,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $137,900--pass. (2) Fish Culture (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $599,800.

* (1640)

Mr. Struthers: In so much of our province, especially around the Parklands area and the northern Parklands, the fishing industry has always been part of our area. It has always been something that has been of a great benefit to those of us living in that part of the world, and one of the main components of that fishing industry was Lake Winnipegosis.

As everybody, I think, is aware, Lake Winnipegosis does not quite provide the amount of economic activity as what it used to and for a variety of reasons. What I have been impressed with over the last number of years is the willingness on the part of local fishermen to step forward and have their say in what they think can help to regenerate a fishery, a commercial fishery and a sport fishery that at one time provided a lot more to our local economy in the Parkland area.

I am wondering if the minister can outline for this committee the plans that he hopes to put in place to rejuvenate this Lake Winnipegosis and the fishing industry that has been involved with this lake over the years.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the member raises Winnipegosis because that is, in fact, a fishery that has had its problems recently, but he indicated that the fishermen were more than willing to have their input and that they wanted to have a say in their future and provide advice on how the lake can be restored.

I look forward to that because, in fact, the Lake Winnipegosis fishery, we extended the perch fishery this winter. It, first of all, was not going to be a fishery. The local fishermen said that they wanted one. There was no opportunity for economic development of any kind, or any income of any kind, if they did not have the perch fishery. It was implemented, albeit a little late, then it was extended for a week, and they said they were catching a lot of suckers the last week, but at least they were getting fish that they said they could market. The walleye are very scarce.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I am on record, and I am anxious to go on record here again, that this may be a lake where it is small enough that we can pull together all of the involved fishermen and ask them to develop a sustainable development plan for the fishery. I am not sure what has happened, whether there has been some lack of effort on our part, but we have asked for a sustainable development strategy. There has been some reaction, but nothing official was responded to. I have just received some further communication that may be the basis for a plan. I have not read it entirely. Certainly, I have gotten good feedback from the people I spoke to when we said we would listen and that we would work with them.

There is very often a significant degree of disagreement between Natural Resources expertise and what the fishermen on the lake believe is the right thing to do for the fishery, and maybe this is a lake where we can test the level of co-operation that perhaps needs to be put in place. I mean, you can tell people not to fish, but they do not believe you sometimes, that they should not, and maybe they are right. On the other hand, I read something last weekend which sort of said is there a million-dollar prize for catching the last pickerel in Lake Winnipegosis.

That is pretty harsh criticism, frankly, and we need to get away from that sort of thing and discuss with the fishermen--so there is no pickerel there; what are we going to do about it? If we do not know the answers, and you do not believe we know the answers, and you do not think we are going to provide the answers, then you tell us what the answers are. I am prepared to say that we will work with them, but they have to work together among themselves and respond. Then that raises the second question about, why are they reallocating existing unused licences on the lake among themselves?

Maybe they have a good reason, but I do not know what it is at the moment. So this is a lake that I would like to see a very consultative plan developed for the future, but that is a two-way street. If the member believes that the majority of the fishermen on the lake want to work out a plan with me or with the department, then we are all ears because I am told the fishery is not very good and that there are very few fishermen who are still actually active.

My view, at the same time, of quotas is that we do not have to eliminate the opportunity; we have to manage the quotas so that people are not seen to be giving up opportunity at a time when they are asked to reduce their take. I am not sure if that actually sounds better in theory but is impossible to implement or not, but that is the approach that I am bringing to the table, and I hope that we can have some productive discussions because this is not a big lake by fishery standards, I guess.

So it should be small enough where we can get everybody together and have some productive work done on a plan, and I am willing to hear out the fishermen and have them tell us what they think that plan should be, all the way from spawning enhancement to how we manage our quotas. I do not mean any disrespect to the department in making these comments, but if there is a bone of contention out there, an ongoing disagreement on what should be done, then let us all pull together and decide on some middle ground because we have not won yet.

Mr. Struthers: Certainly, I must commend the minister for the words he just put on the record. With the people that I have talked to in the Lake Winnipegosis area, I think they have come to the realization that their backs are up against the wall, and if they do not do something in a co-operative manner, then they are going to kill what was a productive life. I say that not having met formally with groups in the area, but having talked to individual fishermen around the lake in each of the parts of Lake Winnipegosis.

Having said that, I would like to get an understanding of the groups that are there that the minister could approach to meet with him. He is right; it is a small lake. It should not be hard. There probably should not be too many groups to meet with, but could the minister tell me what groups are there for him to meet with?

Mr. Cummings: Well, No. 1, of course, would be the quota holders. In a sustainable development strategy, all aspects of the people who have interests in the lake should be at the table. I do not see myself meeting, or the department meeting, in groups of individuals, going from group to group. I see bringing them together, primarily the people who have a stake in the resource, but there are also people with sporting interests who should be at the table, and the department needs to be at the table, biologists and people who have some knowledge of how to manage the resources. There is an advisory board that has been in place for quite a while, I am told.

I am open to suggestions, frankly. I mean, it is a concept, and one of the principles of sustainable development is that everyone who has an interest in the matter that is being debated or discussed or decided upon should have an opportunity to be heard at the table. The difficulty is, and I say this with the greatest of respect, the fishery-dependent people are going to have to play a significant role in advising how we take this forward.

* (1650)

It is not a matter of putting more Natural Resources officers on the lake. It is a matter of having those who are the users of the lake decide how they are going to use it. There are all sorts of theories from one end of the spectrum to the other, including high water problems may be damaging spawning interests. I have no idea if that is relevant or not, but there certainly have been a multiplicity of events that are an effect on the lake. There is the Wildlife Federation. I suppose the various communities where you have services supplied out of that may desire to have people at the table as well.

Mr. Chairperson: [inaudible] Excuse me, I am just going to go over that again. Shall the item pass? Pass. (b) Other Expenditures $300,600--pass.

We are now on (e)(3) Fisheries Habitat Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $323,100.

Mr. Struthers: I would like the minister to speak a little bit about the sustainable development strategy for fisheries. I listened intently in the throne speech for an announcement for a complete Sustainable Development Act--missed it, but what did come through in the throne speech was a line about the sustainable development strategies for fisheries and for wildlife. We are on the Fisheries line, so I would like to know what process the minister is going to undertake in terms of a sustainable development strategy, and who will be involved in that process.

Mr. Cummings: It will be a broad-based consultative approach from fisheries, from recreation, from all of the impacted areas related to our fish community, if you will. It is certainly not something that is going to occur overnight; it will take some considerable length of time.

The sustainable development, the development of policies has followed a certain format over the last few years but in developing a strategy, it is the same development strategy on fisheries. I have already had enough experience with meeting with the communities and various interests. This is a highly volatile--and Lake Winnipeg more so than probably the other lakes, but very volatile. It has some overtones to it that I do not particularly like, and it will take a long process. I do believe that if people who have a vested interest meet face to face amongst themselves to make decisions that they will come up with some advice, and we can come up with a strategy that will be quite workable.

Mr. Struthers: Is there a time frame that the minister can indicate that discussion will take place? I am especially interested in an end date as to when we can look forward to some actual strategies coming out of the discussions.

Mr. Cummings: There will have to be some initial work done to develop a bit of a generic plan that can be taken out for the basis for discussion and that will take some time. As I say, this is going to be longer in development probably than some of the other strategies that we have pulled together, because there are a wide variety of interests that are involved today and that is not going to make the process any easier.

Mr. Chairperson: Should the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (b) Other Expenditures $70,300--pass.

(e)(4) Sport and Commercial Fishing Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $457,600.

Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate whether he is considering regulations regarding ice fishing contests?

Mr. Cummings: No, we have developed some guidelines, but we have not moved towards regulation.

Mr. Struthers: I am wondering if, given the publicity that some of the ice fishing contests got in the last little while, over the last winter, and some of the hardships that were created, would the minister at some point consider regulations as opposed to guidelines?

Mr. Cummings: It sounds like the member is asking if we should be regulating the prizes and the guaranteeing of the prizes and those sorts of things. I am not inclined to move in that direction unless he can give me a better reason.

Mr. Chairperson: [inaudible] I am going to go back to the beginning here. Where was I? Sports and fishing? Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (e)(4)(b) Other Expenditures $80,500--pass; (5) Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance $250,000--pass; (6) Fisheries Enhancement Initiative $350,000--pass.

(f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $283,700.

Mr. Struthers: Again, springing from the Speech from the Throne, the minister at that point indicated, much like he did with the fishing strategy, a sustainable development strategy for fishing, and I would like to ask the same question in terms of wildlife. What is the process he will be using to develop some strategies under the sustainable development with wildlife? I would be interested in the process again, and also who would be involved in that discussion, in the strategy towards sustainable development for wildlife.

Mr. Cummings: It would include the complete range of involvement from conservation to the users of the resource, community interest. We have already seen a fair divergence of opinion, for example, on hunting regulations that were considered this fall, so we know there again you are going to have a--these are the types of strategies, I suspect, that will develop a lot more debate than, for example, water strategy did. Water strategy might have been discussed in detail when there was an issue around the Assiniboine, but other than that, it does not create a debate situation for as wide a segment of the public. We intend to develop a base document that we can use for the genesis of some discussion and pull that discussion together. Again, I see a process that will be a little bit longer than perhaps some of the other strategies were and try and have it built from the bottom up.

Mr. Struthers: The people that would be involved in that strategy, would that include the Manitoba Wildlife Federation?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, and I should indicate, and I guess it goes sort of without comment, that we expect to involve the Sustainable Development Secretariat. They would help co-ordinate all the different work, along with the department, to pull together these strategies. That is one of the strong points of having the structure that we do so that we can have policy development that is somewhat independent but works closely with the day-to-day line workers in the department.

* (1700)

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.