NATURAL RESOURCES

* (1440)

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 12.3 Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 117 of the main Estimates book. Shall this item pass? The item is accordingly passed. No, it is not, I have to read it first.

Item 3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $370,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $385,500--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $25,000--pass.

3.(a)(2) Water Licensing and Approvals (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $615,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $32,400--pass.

3.(a)(3) Water Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,215,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $134,000--pass; (c) Waterway Maintenance $3,818,000--pass.

3.(a)(4) Hydrotechnical Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,446,000.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I just have a couple of quick questions about the situation involving a dam out at Swan Lake. I was better organized when I was late. I will attempt to go by memory.

I have received a submission or a request from the Pembina Valley Protection Association. They have some concerns surrounding the dam at Swan Lake, and my understanding is that the minister has undertaken a commitment to a survey in the area. Can he enlighten me on the status of that survey?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, maybe just so I get a better feel for it, if the member could clarify a little bit what the concern is, because the member knows that there are the trilakes, there are three lakes. There is Pelican, basically, where we have a structure built, and that is working well; we have made a commitment to do the structure on Rock Lake; and on Swan Lake, we have a group there as well. There is an advisory group of municipalities that basically have been asking for--first of all, Rock Lake, we agreed on the Rock Lake end of it. I think the plan is in place and we are working on that.

There was also representation made to me to do Swan at the same time as we did Rock Lake, but we are not advanced as far with Swan Lake as we are with Rock Lake. There is also--because of the people living around the lake there we have to or we are trying to get a comfort level as to what the level should be in terms of the structure. I am wondering if the member could clarify if this is what his concern is.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, you have answered the part about the survey and that would be at Rock Lake. My understanding though is that there is an obstruction at Swan Lake that is causing the problems for agricultural people upstream from Swan Lake. There is a slab of cement across the river. There are no gates within this dam, and the water is flowing over the dam, but it is seen as an obstruction in clearing that water out along the Pembina River.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, to the member, I was out there last year having meetings onsite with them related to the advisory group on the Rock Lake thing. At the same time, we then took and travelled and personally viewed the bridge which is there where the Swan Lake exits into the ongoing river. There is not a dam in place really that I am aware of but there is some work that was done, I do not know whether by Highways or something like that, in terms of building up a berm on both sides. The opening, if I can recall correctly, was wide open in terms of the flow out of there. Now, I am not quite sure. Staff is not quite sure either as to whether we have a structure there. I do not think we have a structure there.

There have been a variety of suggestions made from time to time, including the member for that area, the former Speaker, who has been very concerned about the project. Our concern has been all the time that, our information basically tells us to construct a concrete weir, which is not there. It would be about $620,000 to do the job right with a proper structure, but we still do not know to what extent we would want to increase the water levels because of the impact it has upstream from this point where the water flows out of Swan.

I do not know how to explain this. When you are there you can explain, because there are certain people that are being affected that have cottages and properties against the lake. This is one reason why over the years, I guess, Swan has really not moved forward.

We have done it piecemeal now. Like I say, we have done Pelican. We are in the process with Rock, where we have an agreement, we know that we are doing it, we are going to be doing it. Even there we had long discussions but, ultimately, we finally came to accept the recommendations of the councils and the committees over there. There is still an individual there who is not very happy with it and, on Swan, we still did not have that comfort level in terms of, how high do the people in the municipalities basically want that level to be?

Everybody has their own view and this is again coming back to almost like the Dauphin Lake group, you know, you have different views on it and stuff of that nature, but I am not quite sure in my mind, I did not think we had a structure there, nothing that I could recall thinking back being there last summer and our information staff is not quite sure.

If the member can maybe outline specifically the problem, I will try and get detailed information for him on that project, okay?

Mr. Struthers: The complaint that I was made aware of was that there was a structure that was in the river that was backing up the flow from Swan Lake back through, I suppose, it is the Pembina River to Rock Lake and flooded conditions were in between Rock Lake and Swan Lake.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to think now, there was one place where there was, not a concrete structure, there was a rock weir that was in there, but I think that is between Rock and Swan, somewhere along the line. I am not sure. I am wondering if I could maybe be helpful to the member if he could follow through with his contact and itemize on paper maybe the concern that he has, and then I will get the detailed information from my people out in the field so that I can address specifically what he is requesting.

Mr. Struthers: I think the material that I was privy to, at least part of it was letters from the Pembina Valley Protection Association to various ministers, including Natural Resources. So I think the information is probably already in his hand some place, but I will undertake to look further into that concern.

I wonder if part of the concern is the dam that Ducks Unlimited has constructed in the area and whether the request has been to review the water licence that was given to Ducks Unlimited several years ago.

* (1450)

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the only place where Ducks Unlimited is involved with is at the Pelican Lake, where that structure is and where they control the level, but that is not what the member is referring to. We have trilakes, there are three, there is Pelican, Rock and Swan. The statement that I made at the time, when I was out there last year, that we would not make any movement until we had co-operation from the affected landowners and the municipalities, that is why we are trying to get appeal for that as to what level they would want it on Swan.

I am still a little confused as to--the member mentions a cement weir, and the member mentions Ducks Unlimited, and that to me does not add up. So I am wondering if he could maybe, by checking his information and putting it in writing to me personally, we will get him the detailed information on it. I am prepared to then discuss it further with him at any given time, if that is acceptable.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, that sounds fair. I have about a billion more questions to ask in the area of Water Resources, but time is not going to permit me to do it, I do not think. But over the course of the next period of time, I probably will be able to ask a lot more questions and I appreciate the answers I have been getting.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the concern the member has, that the area of water is such a big and important and complex issue that we could probably spend days debating it. I want to maybe assure the member that I put very, very high value on anything that happens in the province with water, whether it is aquifers underneath or rivers, et cetera.

We are hoping, I am hoping very strongly to move forward and develop some policy based on our water policies, and I think the member maybe has a book of the water policies. If not, I will make sure he gets one, but in conjunction with that, to develop some water retention and water usage programs, we have ongoing pressure for irrigation and, at the same time, I think we have to start looking, contrary to just doing drainage work, we have to start looking at keeping water back for flood protection as well as usage.

As these things evolve I will try and make the member as apprised as I can of things as they come forward and we can always discuss these at any time during the year. It does not have to be in the course of session or things of that nature. I am in my office virtually year-round anyway. If the member comes in and has some concerns we can sit down, he can maybe, if it would be helpful, maybe itemize three, four, five, six issues at a time. We will set up a time and he can drop in and if I can get a little advance notice we can set up a time and I can try to address some of the concerns for him just to be helpful to him.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(a)(4) Hydrotechnical Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,446,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $391,400--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Water Quality Surveys $286,900--pass.

Item 3. Resource Programs (b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $379,500.

Mr. Struthers: Under this section, I was interested in reading about a feasibility study as a special operating agency for a parks program. I am not familiar with what a special operating agency is, so I might want to start with an explanation of that.

Mr. Driedger: First of all, a special operating agency, the government has embarked on this over the last number of years and has established a few of them. I could maybe give an example. The government vehicle garage is set up as a special operating agency. What that basically means is that all services, because it is a service to a department or a service organization, all the services they provide to the various departments are charged out at cost so there is no deficit within that system.

Under the Pineland Nursery, which is our tree plantation that we have out at Hadashville, we are now establishing that as a special operating agency which basically means they can cost recover all their total operations. So they can actually go out and bid on other provinces for the selling of seedlings. Organizations that they sell to, they can cost recover. That is what is meant by special operating agency. That group or segment of a service industry has to recover their total costs, so it is not a liability anymore. The government has been moving in that direction on various elements of that.

I say that as background, if the member is asking whether we have a special operating agency for parks, we are not at that point. There is discussion on it and basically what the concept would be. That is further down the pike somewhere along the line, and we are not there because we have other things we have to take--and I believe first we have to proclaim the parks act, which was passed in '93. We are in that long convoluted process of getting input from the public. I believe that would have to be done first before we would ever get down to the point of talking any further about a special operating agency for a park.

Ultimately, let us say, if we wanted to use the concept for the Whiteshell area, where the cottage owners are, the services that we provide, that we recover those costs through charges, whatever the case may be. That would be sort of the concept that we are developing, but we are not in that process at this time. There are some outside discussions, but we are not moving on it yet.

Mr. Struthers: It says here there is a feasibility study going on. Is there a date for when that feasibility study would be complete or are you expecting a report by a certain time?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, my deputy tells me we are looking at possibly late summer, maybe fall, to get sort of a preliminary report coming forward in terms of some ideas. I personally have not been involved with it to any degree, and I am going to be very slow and cautious because, like I say, my first priority in the department would be under the parks end of it to get the parks act proclaimed.

I think our target date is next spring sometime really, if we get all the consultation done. To further clarify to the member that when the parks act was passed, it gave us the then--part of the concept was going to be to set up classes and categories of parks, parks that were basically where there is no commercial development allowed, no cottage development, basically virgin wilderness parks, and then we have parks where we allow cottage development, and then we have some parks that we do not allow anything. That is where we allow commercial development--Falcon being one, West Hawk. We have five classes. Then within the classes we also have categories as to what would be allowed.

This is sort of going to be brought before the public, because we have well over a hundred parks of varying sizes. When we think of a provincial park we think of something like Falcon or West Hawk or Birds Hill or Grand Beach, the provincial parks. We have many, many in much smaller categories right down to roadside parks. We want to classify these and then establish under the categories what is allowed in these.

It is a major undertaking. I have been a little frustrated that we have not been moving faster, but there is an awful lot of work that has to be done.

That consultation is going to be starting in July, approximately at that time, when they will be going out advertising and asking for input from the general public. All the stakeholders then can come forward. I have used that approach. I think it is a good approach. The member probably is aware of the criticism that some of the communities up north have made with the four parks that we announced and have said repeatedly that those four parks as well will come under that kind of scrutiny, that people basically can come and say this is what should happen or not happen in these parks.

I am not prepared to revisit or to cancel the parks. They are established. How we deal with them and what we do with, for example, the concerns of the aboriginal groups that say traditional hunting rights, these are not affected, nor will anything be affected if there is going to be treaty land entitlement allocations out of that. I have said this many times as well. If there are lands like that, we will take and move them out of the park.

Just to allay some of the concerns of some of his colleagues, the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and some of the others that have raised some concerns with that, I just want to say that process will apply there as well, and everybody is going to have a chance to get involved.

* (1500)

I think possibly why there was not more involvement and it was sort of a reaction after we announced was the fact that I guess people did not really pay that much attention when the first initial notices were sent out in terms of what we were trying to do. This gives everybody another kick at the cat, so to speak.

I could go on in terms of the parks about the federal park, the national park that is being established at Churchill, and what we are doing with the national park, what we call the Lowlands Park. The member is probably aware of it. We had three areas that were under consideration. If he wants further information on that I can embellish on that in terms of the process where it is at right now.

I just thought, I am replying based on the member saying, you know, the special operating agency but I gave him a little bit of a background right away.

Mr. Struthers: I just love it when I ask one question and I get my next three answered. That saves me some time. The only concern I have in what you had just said to me was that you were talking about aboriginal land entitlements and the public hearings and you prefaced it all by saying that the parks will be there. I think one of the concerns that comes forward is, if you have already made up your mind that the parks are going to be there and these are the boundaries of the parks, then why are we going through all the public hearings if you are not willing to change anything?

One of the sentiments that I have been aware of is that they should have been looking at settling up on land entitlements before we started drawing the boundaries of provincial parks.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, let me just maybe give a little bit of background again to the member that the treaty land entitlement process has been going for a hundred years--not quite that bad, I guess--but for a long, long time. If we had wanted to wait with many of the decisions till that is totally resolved, I do not think the member or myself both would have the patience for that. However, just in defence of the process that we took with the established parks, notices were sent out, and I tabled the list in the House in terms of how many aboriginal groups were all sent information based on what we were going to do. There were individuals who responded or groups that responded, and we responded again and allayed their fears. So it is basically a bit of a misunderstanding that they did not have any input or opportunity.

However, they will again have that chance and if there are things that they want to bring forward--the member says, well, we cannot change--we can change whatever we want, I suppose, based on the rationale and the reason for it, but the parks are now established. They are there. That does not mean that the aboriginal people want for treaty land entitlement a block out of there, we will take and exempt that. What can be done one way can be done the other way as well. But those parks are established.

Now if they want to say, well, we do not want any hunting or fishing in there by anybody, we can do that. All they have to do is come through the process and tell us what they want or if they want hunting and fishing for their traditional uses out there, no problem. So there is enough latitude in the way we have established these parks that whatever they want to do can still be done. So I have encouraged them many, many times when they have been critical about the way we did things that you had your chance but the door is not shut. You can come back when we do the process, and you can come and make your views known and we will try and accommodate as best we can.

Mr. Struthers: I have no more questions here.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Resource Programs (b) Parks and Natural Areas (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $379,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $343,400--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $131,500--pass.

3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (2) Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $644,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $188,400--pass.

3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (3) Park Districts (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $405,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $41,000--pass.

3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (4) Park Operations and Maintenance (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $9,260,800.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to get an indication a little bit about what is happening with the cottagers and the whole question of the Florence-Nora road that has been talked about in the Whiteshell Park. My worry is that we are using public dollars to build a private road in a public provincial park. I certainly hope that is not the direction that the park is taking. I think there is some evidence that leads me to believe that that may in fact be the case.

Could the minister update me on just what is going on with that road?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I could probably give a little bit of background. Initially, when this issue first started up was--as the member is probably aware--when CN basically cut back services under VIA at that time which provided a service for these people to these lakes. Well, they did not really cut it off. What they did, they gave them one car a week or something like that and it was creating a real problem.

Right or wrong, somewhere along the line in the past there was provision made that these people could establish cottages there and have service to it. When the feds made that decision, these people were left in the lurch where they could either walk in--take a half a day to walk into the lakeshore--either they could fly in which they could not afford. I was then the Minister of Highways and Transportation, and they came and asked what the possibilities, whether we would insist on trying to put pressure on the federal government to participate because there is the Florence-Nora ones but also the ones in Ontario that have the same problem, you know. Mostly these are Manitoba citizens.

At that time, being the Minister of Highways and Transportation, we offered technical assistance in terms of we brought one of our specialists in from up north that was qualified to designate roads, things of that nature, used him to sort of maybe outline a road. I also wrote in support of this group to the federal minister and talked to him personally about the fact that I felt there was some commitment that should be made by the federal government towards assisting these people to be able to continue utilizing their cottages. Progress was very, very slow.

Ultimately, the federal government said, well, there was an environmental process as well that had to be gone through. So application was made to the Department of Environment and they went through all kinds of--and the group met with the various lobby groups and environmental groups. You know, there was a lot of liaison went on. Ultimately, the hearing process proceeded and a licence was issued for them to be able to build a road after they had addressed the concerns in terms of impact environmentally on the wilderness area, how close do they get to cottages and some other trails, et cetera. All these things were sort of worked out with an understanding, and based on that the Minister of Environment issued a licence.

Now there was talk initially, many discussions took place, as to whether there should be any provincial money. We always said it is a federal responsibility and it is the private people that have the cottages, their responsibility. To date there has been no commitment in terms of monies for the construction of the road. It is considered a private road.

I would have to update myself as to exactly what the environmental licence reads and that, but the Minister of Highways, after the member raised a question the other day, I checked with him. There is no commitment from Highways, though I was privy to discussions prior to me moving to Natural Resources almost two years ago.

You know, they have always wanted some participation and we have always said, you go and see the federal minister, and the federal minister sometimes made reference back and said, why could this not be part of the infrastructure program, whatever the case may be.

There is no commitment from the provincial government from my perspective, or from the Minister of Highways, in terms of financial participation on that road. That is sort of the status of where it is at right now.

Mr. Struthers: The environmental licence that was given for the construction of this road, was that from the provincial government or was that a federal government okay on the environmental licence?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, that licence is a provincial environmental licence. There is no requirement really for a federal responsibility, but the federal minister at some time--and they have been changing a few times, the federal ministers. This initially happened under the Mulroney government when the first activities were made and there were three different ministers under that administration that already played a role.

* (1510)

This is a long, long history that has been involved here, so the environment licence is basically the Manitoba licence. One of the requirements for even the feds to do any discussion at all was that the environmental requirements would be addressed and met, and ultimately the licence was issued after a long protractive period.

Mr. Struthers: This is where my problem comes in in this whole matter. My understanding is that the environmental licence was granted this spring or February and that the environmental licence was contingent upon getting federal money. Yet the federal government back in August of '94 had said that they were not going to put any money into it. I do not understand how an environmental licence was granted to go ahead with the construction of the road given that one of the contingencies was federal money.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, that comes as a surprise to me. I do not think that is my recollection of it, and certainly not staff, that there was any new condition. I can try and get a copy of it. The environmental minister would have a better idea, but I am sure that would not be one of the conditions in there.

My recollection, if I can recall, was basically the province issued the licence. It is just like when we talk of any other development, the environmental department issues the licence but it is not related to funding at all. I would be surprised if there was this funding condition in there, because that would be separate. Really, I do not know if we have ever done that, whether that has ever been done by the Department of Environment.

I have not seen the licence, but I am prepared to take and see whether there is anything. I doubt whether it would be in there unless the member can correct me.

Mr. Struthers: Just in case I am right, I would ask then that somebody in your department look this up and investigate and report back to me at some time.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I will ask my ADM to maybe contact the environmental people and get a clarification on how the licence reads.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Resource Programs (b) Parks and Natural Areas (4) Park Operations and Maintenance (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $9,260,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $2,979,900--pass.

3.(b)(5) Support Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $175,900.

Mr. Struthers: Under Support Services I notice in your Expected Results that it says there: Produce a recreational travel guide for one provincial park. I would be interested to know which park, and are there any plans for such guides in other parks?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what really that means in there. I do not know whether staff knows what it means in there. When you look at the amount of material that basically is printed I cannot really--produce a recreational travel guide for one provincial park. I would have to assume that maybe it was for Lake Mantario area where we have, let us see, the hiking trails and stuff of that nature. That is the only thing I can assume at this point. I will have to get details.

You know, tongue in cheek, I will have to tell the member I will have to get back to him. My deputy says he recalls that there was one park where we were trying to do some specific kind of a recreational guide, travel guide, but he does not remember the park. We will respond back. We will take that as notice and get back to you, okay?

Mr. Struthers: There was some other information--this is not connected with this line I suppose--that I asked for yesterday that I would be waiting for as well. Is there anything new on that?

Mr. Driedger: No. I remember making commitments to the member in terms of the structural--the regional offices, et cetera. We do not have all that. We just have not had enough time to get that all packaged together. My ADM has made note of every one of your requests, and it will all be itemized and come forward to you.

An Honourable Member: Two weeks, Sunday.

Mr. Driedger: No, it will be sooner than that.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(b)(5) Support Services (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $175,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $50,300--pass.

3.(c) Policy Co-ordination (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $909,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $235,900--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $17,200--pass.

3.(d) Forestry (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $456,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $306,200--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $275,800--pass.

3.(d)(2) Forest Resource Surveys (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $713,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $140,600--pass.

3.(d)(3) Forest Landscape Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $790,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $898,100--pass.

3.(d)(4) Forest Economics and Marketing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $312,400.

Mr. Struthers: I have just a couple of questions concerning Louisiana-Pacific. I noticed, as I read the forest management licence, that it was your signature that was on it, so I feel pretty safe in asking the questions here as opposed to in Environment Estimates. It does deal with the environmental controls that are at Louisiana-Pacific that are being put into the plan right now in Minitonas.

What technology is going into controlling emissions from the plant?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, this is not passing the buck, but on the emissions end of it, this is where I just do not have the knowledge or information, because we do not play a role in the emissions end of it. Our involvement with the environmental process and licences is based on the forest management plan that is developed between our department and Louisiana-Pacific in terms of how they will take and do the cutting; how they will take and do the restoration of the forest, et cetera; and that we leave room, that we leave proper zones for rivers for fish, the fish reproduction, the fishing, for wildlife that we channel so that they do not do the clear cut all over the place. That is all part of a forest management plan that we get involved in.

Unfortunately, on the emissions and on the plant end of it, I am totally disadvantaged and have no role there. So I cannot help the member on that.

Mr. Struthers: Okay, I will hold my questions till a different time then, except that--no, I will hold that one too. Never mind.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Resource Programs (d) Forestry (4) Forest Economics and Marketing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $312,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $30,300--pass.

(5) Pineland Forest Nursery (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits; (b) Other Expenditures.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, we touched on this just briefly this morning. I received a good explanation of what an SOA is, and I am not sure that I understand the benefits of converting the Pineland forestry into a special operating agency.

* (1520)

Mr. Driedger: Well, part of the rationale that government uses when establishing a special operating agency is that where services are provided to various departments or organizations or even outside organizations like Repap or Abitibi where we have forest management plans--the challenge is that by making them a special operating agency you get the efficiency out of it. The challenge is for the people who are involved with this they can take and have their own initiative in terms of being more efficient, whereas prior to this there was always, you know, it is part of the big government system and efficiency was not there.

By doing it this way, by and large, we get much more production out of it, and they take ownership of the whole thing, and it gives them a lot of flexibility. It is a cost recovery. You know, there is more independence, more flexibility for them and less administration costs. That is what government is looking at because we now have groups of people who basically work together as a team, almost like the private sector, and still have the protection of basically being part of government, but they have to operate cost efficiently among themselves. That is why if the member looks at the top of page 119 where there is no cost affiliated in that, that means there is no dollars going in. They have to be efficient on their own.

Mr. Struthers: How many people worked at the Pineland Nursery when it was part of your department? How many people were employed there?

Mr. Driedger: I think during the summer months we run approximately 50, more or less. It varies because at certain times depending on when the planting that takes place or in winter time at a certain time when they do the packaging and the freezing of them, it is quite an operation. If the member ever has an opportunity, our operator out there his name is Richard Cameron. If he ever gets into that area and if he wants to make a point of it, Richard is very receptive. He is our CEO or director of the operations out there, and he will give him a great insight into exactly what is happening. It is just a fantastic operation.

The employment varies. At certain times when they do the packaging, the freezing of the seedlings, we have more than 50, 60 people operating there. At certain times it varies, it drops down. There is not a stable figure on that, unfortunately. That is why I am inviting the member to maybe go down to give him a good bird's eye view. I do not know whether he has ever had the opportunity to be up in that area. It is at Hadashville down No. 1, and it is just a great operation.

Mr. Struthers: No, I have not been to the nursery. I have been to Hadashville, but someday maybe I will just do that. The deputy minister was one step ahead of me there with one of his comments. My concern would be that fewer people would be employed there now than what was previously the case. Will there be any reductions in the number of people working at the nursery?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, it is not intended that there would be any reductions. But under the special operating agency they have to find the efficiency end of it in there. I would expect that probably there would be with the latitude that we have given them maybe more employment than less because they are now bidding on projects and supplying on the open market. So it gives them an opportunity to even expand.

Mr. Struthers: Is there any public money at all going into the nursery now, or are they totally separate from the public purse?

Mr. Driedger: When we set up the special operating agency the one thing to make sure that they find their feet under them to operate efficiently, we guarantee that we as government would buy 10 million seedlings for the next three years. They still have to provide it at cost, but we give them that guarantee. After that, if they cannot get the market and we can buy them cheaper somewhere else, tough beans. But I have to say that they feel very confident. The people themselves feel comfortable with being a special operating agency. In fact, they have just landed a big contract in Ontario. So that is basically what the challenge is of it.

Everybody takes ownership of it and wants to make it work. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, if I could still continue, it was basically people like Richard Cameron and his people who felt that they were being hindered to some degree by the government bureaucracy and the system and basically requested that they be given the opportunity to do that. As we negotiated the whole process, that is where the guarantee came in--put three years to buy 10 million seedlings, because we use them anyway. I mean, we were supplying them till now, and this is the guarantee that we gave them. They feel very comfortable. They are off and running.

Mr. Struthers: What about buildings or land or equipment, supplies, anything that was there before, did that just turn over to the nursery or was there a price for that? How would that work?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, there was a total management plan developed, and all the values of buildings and assets, equipment, and there is lots out there, it was all part of the process as developed in the management plan for it. So it is not that they have been disadvantaged or terribly advantaged. It was a business plan basically that was developed, and these things were all taken into consideration.

Mr. Struthers: So the provincial government then never received anything from private people in terms of money for the capital and the buildings and equipment.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the business plan, by and large, in establishing the SOA, these are assets that ultimately they can use to take and borrow money on and expand, let us say, if they wanted to expand. The assets belonged to the special operating agency. It is almost like private sector, but it is still not private sector. I do not know how to clarify that further, but everything that was there, every tractor, every building with, you know, all the planting equipment, et cetera--and we have some pretty sophisticated, nice equipment there. You know, the gathering of cones, it is a real art these things.

That is why I am encouraging the member, not to get off the subject, but to go down there and look because, if you gather cones in northern Manitoba, for example, and you try and seed them in the south, your success ratio is going to be very poor even if it is black spruce to black spruce. But if you take and gather the seedings of black spruce in northern Manitoba and then, you know, return--as you take the seed or whatever the case may be, you develop it to seedlings, you move it back. In fact they freeze it. It is being flown in in wintertime, stored in caches up there, and then, in springtime, when the time comes, we move crews in there. Basically it is tendered for either through the companies or partly government, whatever the case may be. They get out there and move in and plant the trees. It is quite an art. One very often thinks, well, it is a matter of just planting a tree and away you go. It is a real science, and so these people take great pride in what they are doing. So, again, I encourage the member to go.

Mr. Struthers: These special agencies, are they part of the private sector?

Mr. Driedger: No, Mr. Chairman, they are not private sector. This is basically operating under government, an arm of government, almost like a Crown corporation, similar to a Crown corporation. I mean, we still have the authority. If they do not operate efficiently, government can step in and take over the operations of it, but this gives them, as a unit, the flexibility to operate as they see fit, giving them the flexibility of decision making, responsibility of decisions, et cetera. That is the part that actually intrigues government to some degree and intrigues the people that are in there. They do not have to come and run and report to us all the time. They ask permission to do certain things. They make decisions, run the place. If they are not going to run it, well, of course, we have the option of moving back in there and dealing with it.

* (1530)

Mr. Struthers: When the Pineland Nursery turns a profit, where does the profit go?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the profit, if there is profit and we hope there will be, would stay within this special operating agency. They could then use that for upgrading of equipment, expansion, et cetera. My deputy tells me that if they would be profitable enough, if they wanted to, they could even pay dividends to their employees out of that special operating agency.

Mr. Struthers: Do they pay taxes?

Mr. Driedger: I think I put wrong information on the record. I want to correct it right away.

The profits or the dividends come back to government. Dividends come back to government.

As for the other question that the member asked, as is the case with most government property when it is within a local government district, as in this case, or a rural municipality, governments pay grant in lieu of taxes, and that goes either to the LGD or the municipality. That would be the case here with the Pineland Nursery as well. I believe the LGD of Reynolds basically would be the benefactor there, but that would not have changed from--because it is a special operating agency, that was done before, where a government then paid grant in lieu of taxes and it would continue on that basis to the LGD.

Mr. Struthers: Are there any groups out there in competition with the Pineland Nursery? Are there any small, private-sector people doing the same sort of work?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of nurseries throughout the province even closer to the city, but they specialize in a different type of nursery: shrubs, specialized trees, et cetera. They are not in this category basically. This would be more in the line of Indian Head, the kind of nursery that the feds have out there. We had a nursery up at The Pas, which has been closed down, and we were agonizing how to--my deputy informs me that there is only one competitor along these lines, and that would be the Long Plain band. They have a long-term commitment through the federal government to provide seedlings for various--you have the federal parks, federal lands, et cetera. They have a long-term lead contract for that, but that would be the only one that would be in a competitive position in this category.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(d)(5) Pineland Forest Nursery (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits; (b) Other Expenditures.

3.(d)(6) Forest Renewal $4,754,600--pass.

3.(d)(7) Canada-Manitoba Partnership Agreement in Forestry.

Mr. Struthers: Is there any plan to carry on the services that were formerly provided through this program? I know a lot of students ended up getting jobs for the summer out of this. I think they would like to know.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is a sad, sad story. I think it was a sad day for Manitoba when the federal government discontinued the cost-shared arrangements that we had in the forestry agreement, because it was a very substantive program to us, dealing with the woodlot programs, et cetera.

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

We had a lot of research, and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) made reference to some of that the other day already. As the line shows here, there is no further participation. The question was raised exactly, what the impact of that is, I think we are working on that. We are continuing the program. I am told by my staff that the forest renewal is continuing at the same level, but there are some things that obviously we cannot participate and do the full shot as we did under the feds, and that has to do with research, that has to do with some grants, et cetera. So it is really in my view, as I mentioned to the member for Crescentwood, a sad state of affairs when our resources which are so valuable to us and to all Canadians and Manitobans that this is an area where we start taking and really cutting back. I think the impact of it is something that is going to be felt a long ways down the track and we will all rue and regret the day that this happened.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 3.(d)(7) Canada-Manitoba Partnership Agreement in Forestry--pass.

3.(e) Fisheries (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $196,500.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Just very briefly, Mr. Chairperson, following up with my questions the other day, has the minister had a chance to consider whether some strategy that involved other provinces and some public information might be effective in hoping to bring to the attention of the federal government the error of their ways in cutting the federal role in fisheries research? This may not be exactly the right line but I did want to ask the minister the follow-up question.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the member raised it with me the other day, and I told him at that time I was not quite sure exactly what we were doing. Based on the question that he raised, we are gathering the information that we can. We are also comparing and looking at what other provinces have done to see whether we can take jointly with them, get more support in terms of putting the pressure on the federal government, and I will take and give a written response to the member if that is adequate once we have a little bit more detail. I do not have enough of it now that I feel comfortable in putting too much on the record.

I am told that my director of fisheries, Dr. Joe O'Connor, is meeting with federal officials right now, so once we have sorted this out a little better, I will give a more definitive position to the member in writing.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister very much for that. I think that he could count on the support of at least our members in the House in taking a very strong stand against what I think is clearly both short- and long-range stupidity on the part of the current federal government.

Mr. Driedger: Yes, I thank the member for that. I am just going to say that I think it is important that we all should get support from the other provinces. I will be looking for that endorsement from them and may be working together in terms of developing some strategy as to how we put the pressure on.

Without wanting to sound dejected, despondent, we will have to have a good plan. Otherwise, I do not see just by screaming, do not do it, that anything will happen. We will have to maybe develop the benefits in such a way that there is going to be an understanding. Maybe we can appeal to the common sense in terms of making it happen. I will try and give an update on that and if there is any further advice the member wants to give at that time, I am prepared to accept that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Moving on then, item 3. Resource Programs (e) Fisheries (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $196,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $172,600--pass.

3.(e)(2) Fish Culture (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $592,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $300,400--pass.

3.(e)(3) Fisheries Habitat Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $323,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $71,500--pass.

3.(e)(4) Sport and Commercial Fishing Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

* (1540)

Mr. Struthers: I notice that there is going to be--the Central Region and commercial fishermen would develop and implement a comprehensive Lake Winnipeg Management Plan. I am wondering if there are any moves in that direction for Lake Winnipegosis.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the member keeps reading stuff here that, you know, I have to go back and check exactly what we have said from time to time. I want to tell staff, watch what you write here from now on so that I do not get confused all the time.

Just for clarification, "In conjunction with the Central Region and commercial fishermen, develop and implement a comprehensive Lake Winnipeg Management Plan by May 1995." Is that what the member is referring to?

Mr. Struthers: I was asking in terms of Lake Winnipegosis. The minister is aware of some very grave difficulties in the fishing industry in Lake Winnipegosis and I was wondering if there was any move towards a plan for that lake as well.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the member that even before we started dealing with the Lake Winnipeg group that we already had been having active discussions with the advisory group from out of Lake Winnipegosis; it is where we put the challenge to work together with them. They voluntarily basically levied on their own quota a certain percentage that everybody had to pay. We have gone into a cost-sharing arrangement with the Lake Winnipegosis people--you have the north end and the south end there--and put the challenge to them and gave them the option.

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

In fact, depending on when we get through here today, I think we have some representatives coming from that area to talk to us again because we have entered into an agreement with them for the fish hatchery end of it and the management of it.

If the member is aware of Lake Winnipegosis, and he probably is, there used to, at one time, be where we had these rearing lakes in various areas. A lot of money was spent, and invariably since I came into office they were always critical, the commercial fishermen, that government did not know what they were doing. So we put the onus on them and they are basically running the fish hatcheries. They are running a rearing lake out there as well, and it is just peaceful all of a sudden because the onus is on them. We basically give our approval, work with them in terms of making sure that it makes sense, but we let them take the ownership of many of these things and we feel very comfortable with that. So there is one going for Lake Winnipegosis, just like we are trying to develop the strategy for Lake Winnipeg.

Ultimately we want to do this even on the sports fishing end of it in other communities. Anybody who shows interest and wants to work with us, we are prepared to develop virtually any potential fish rearing under the program. We have just got into it a little over a year, and I am really looking forward based on the additional funding that we got.

I just want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that initially there was under the fish stamp which basically set up the fish enhancement program, we have an additional $100,000 in there. We have $350,000 to spend under the fish enhancement program which we then take and share with municipalities, organizations, commercial fishermen groups. We do not care who. If they come up with a good plan we cost-share with them and give them ownership of it to some degree. So I am very enthused and elated with the response we are getting from many of the organizations, and I am looking forward to gradually expanding this substantively.

Mr. Struthers: What are the groups that you are meeting with later today?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, could you clarify? Who am I meeting with in the Lake Winnipegosis area?

Mr. Struthers: The representatives of what groups?

Mr. Driedger: We met with the north end group and we also met with the south end of Lake Winnipegosis group and then put the challenge to them that they should work it out as to where they wanted it.

My understanding is that Parker Burrell and the advisory group from up north have come to an agreement with the southern people and that the fish hatchery is going to be in the south portion of Lake Winnipegosis.

It is surprising what you can do when you make them responsible and say, you decide where you want it, I do not care where you want it and they manage to work it out. But when you have the kind of pain that the people in Lake Winnipegosis have gone through in terms of the deletion of the fishing industry out there, they are almost desperate and willing to do anything. Not that a person should have to get that desperate before you want to co-operate, but certainly there is a sense of co-operation among themselves.

If the member knows anything about commercial fishermen, to get them to come to an understanding is quite an accomplishment, and they have come to that. So I am very pleased, you know, when you put the onus on them that they basically have responsibility of making the decisions, and I am there to play with them.

Mr. Struthers: I am wondering if he can give me some figures. How much money has flowed from his department to the Swan Valley Sport Fishing Enhancement group and how much to the Intermountain Sport Fishing Enhancement group.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that. We have flowed money to them. The special amounts, I would have to get the details of that, and I am prepared to do that. I think in most cases the maximum that we look at is $25,000 for any project. The limit that we do in terms of a cost-sharing is $25,000.

Now, on some of these fish hatcheries what we have basically looked at doing, if they have enough organizations, other than one, we will maybe fund two of them just to give them the extra shot in terms of getting the money. The two specific areas that the member has referred to, we will have that information--you know, we have to go back to the records and get it.

Mr. Struthers: That will be a yearly figure for Swan Valley and for Intermountain, and I would also be interested in knowing how much money would come from your department to the Winnipegosis commercial fishermen, a group that they have there.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, to the member, I will get you a list of--basically, it is not private information. It is open information, the funding that we do towards various organizations. So any of the information that he wants related to his area there, I am prepared to provide that and will forward that.

Mr. Struthers: That would be appreciated. I also understand that any money that comes to the sport fishing groups has to be matched by the sport fishing group. Does the same apply to the commercial fishermen at Winnipegosis?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, yes, what we do, the policy that we have is basically that it has to be cost-shared. Now that does not necessarily mean dollar for cash dollar. It could be in kind in terms of doing the work, et cetera, so that it is basically sharing but, in some cases, where some people are hard pressed for the cash, using the commercial fishermen, for example, they undertake to take and catch the spawning fish, and the work that they do, this is all considered part and parcel of sharing.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Resource Programs (e) Fisheries (4) Sport and Commercial Fishing Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $450,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $80,500--pass.

3.(e)(5) Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance $250,000--pass.

3.(e)(6) Fisheries Enhancement Initiative $350,000--pass.

3.(f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $441,200.

* (1550)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, the other day we were into elk management, and I had asked the minister about an elk advisory board and where that board fit in, whether it was a board of government, whether that board was still in existence and whether or not it was receiving any funds. I would like the minister to indicate whether they have been able to find that information.

Mr. Driedger: I was afraid the member would get into elk stories again. Staff has some information. They are just digging it up, and I will try and get it right away.

Ms. Wowchuk: I do not want to belabour the issue of elk, but there is a really serious situation that has arisen in my constituency, and the family that is bothered by elk, Don and Marilyn Gade, have written to the minister. They had a really serious situation where the elk kept destroying their hay, and they had called and called on the Resources department to deal with this problem. They had some assistance. They ended up with having a crop insurance claim and are very frustrated because they are only getting a percentage of their hay covered. In fact, out of desperation, these people shot an elk and are now being charged with this, and it is very serious. I know the minister has received this information. I would ask whether or not he has responded to Mr. and Mrs. Gade and whether he has been able to resolve the problem and answer the many questions that they have asked as to how they should deal with this situation.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, let me first go back to the Elk Management Board which is set up in Swan River. The Elk Management Board is comprised of 12 to 15 members. They are from different groups, game and fur associations, Chamber of Commerce. We, from time to time, have some of our NROs attending these meetings, but they are nonvoting members; they are basically only advice givers or there for information. Other groups that basically attend, I guess, and are part of it are Louisiana-Pacific, Repap, who wish to be kept informed because they affect the habitat to some degree.

Basically, to clarify the financial participation, secretarial assistance is provided to the board from the department. Fulford is the chairman, and the board was developed in response to elk depredation and with the support of the minister. The board makes recommendations to the department. It is not our board. It is a private board, and they make recommendations. The minister and the department have the option then to either accept recommendations or not.

I want to deal with the Elk Management Board first. This is sort of a private board there, and let me just see what I have here. I have a list of the people that are on it. I do not know whether that is important to the member or not.

Ms. Wowchuk: How much money do you give them?

Mr. Driedger: We do not give them any money other than--what we do is provide the secretarial service. There is no other funding that is taking place. I know that the group has asked me for certain licences and privileges in terms of raising that as part of fundraising that has not taken place, you can tell her that.

Now, to deal with the second portion of the problem that she raised with the particular case where an individual was so frustrated with the damage done by elk and where that individual took the law into his own hands and shot an elk and, as a result, has been charged, I know of the circumstances. It is on my desk. We have not resolved the issue yet. I am just asking the member whether she has any advice or input that she will want to give me at this time. It is a very difficult situation.

Ms. Wowchuk: In fact, I do not have the advice for the minister. I am seeking his advice, and, in fact, I have some very serious questions that have been posed to me that I will be referring to the minister in the hopes that his department can find a way to address these issues. So he will be receiving a letter from me on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gade, seeking some very specific advice on how they can take this matter into their own hands since they are not getting the help they need from the department. So I will look forward to an answer from the minister to those questions which he will be receiving in a day or two.

Mr. Driedger: Just to make sure I can clarify, the member from Swan River said that she will write me details and make some recommendations, but that has not happened yet. I look forward to that, and once I have that--because I am having a difficult time resolving this. I would like to be fair and reasonable. At same time, the member knows the implications of allowing this to happen, and, you know, where do you finally draw the line on it? So I look forward to the information that she will be sending to me, and, once a decision is made, I will definitely keep her informed.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 3. Resource Programs (f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $441,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $288,400--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $160,000--pass.

3.(f)(2) Game and Fur Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $493,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $254,900--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $89,900--pass.

3.(f)(3) Habitat and Land Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $432,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $290,000--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability $516,000--pass.

3.(f)(4) Nongame and Endangered Species Management (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $461,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $95,200--pass.

3.(f)(5) Canada-Manitoba Waterfowl Damage Prevention Agreement (a) $331,500--pass.

3.(g) Sustainable Development Co-ordination Unit $232,400--pass.

3.(h) Habitat Enhancement Fund $50,000--pass.

3.(j) Conservation Data Centre $50,000-pass.

3.(k) Snowmobile Network Opportunities Fund $175,000--pass.

Resolution 12.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $40,312,200 for Natural Resources, Resource Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 4. Land Information Centre (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $676,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $472,800--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($18,000)--(pass).

4.(b) Crown Lands Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $421,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,134,600--pass.

4.(c) Crown Lands Registry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $193,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $180,800--pass.

4.(d) Survey Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,368,000.

Mr. Struthers: For the last five minutes, as we have been going through here, I had about a billion questions, but I am going to have to leave them until a later date--just a billion.

Under the area of Survey Services, I am wondering if the minister can explain to me the relationship between his department and Linnet Graphics.

Mr. Driedger: Maybe just to clarify this for the member, the Survey Services and Linnet are two different entities. The survey thing is basically just the survey of land, and Linnet is basically the information system. It is on the next page under Land Information Systems, on page 122. That is where we, under Linnet, gather the information based on land, the geographical, the topographical, all this information that we gather under Linnet. Surveys is a different component. It is not the Linnet thing.

Maybe, if the member has some further questions on the surveyor or on Linnet, then I will try and clarify some of that.

* (1600)

Mr. Struthers: My questions will deal more with the Linnet side of it. I think I understand what goes on in Survey Services of Natural Resources. What I am interested in is the relationship between the department and Linnet. Is Linnet Graphics--could I consider it a special operating agency?

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

Mr. Driedger: Getting into Linnet, Linnet is basically a private company, and the composition of that company is: ID Engineering group owns 38 percent of it; and SNC of Montreal owns 38 percent; and the Manitoba government owns 24 percent. That is the composition of the ownership. The role of the provincial government with regard to Linnet, we have a two-fold objective with regard to the activities of the Linnet Geomatics.

The first objective has been to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its land-related programs through improved availability and access to land-related information. Secondly, utilizing this activity, the province wishes to create an export-driven geographic information system, which is GIS in Manitoba, and that Geomatics is the vehicle through which the province wants to accomplish these objectives. What are the funding arrangements with Linnet? The province has signed a three-year contract with Linnet, ending in 1996-97. Linnet will submit an invoice within 30 days at the end of each quarter for work during that quarter, providing the work is that which was agreed to in the work plan which was established before the start of each year. The province will then make progress payments, less a 20 percent holdback.

So we are a 24 percent owner of the Linnet company, but we basically do funding through it, and we provide information through our land information services. We have much information on there. It is in conjunction with the private sector that this is being developed. This information then is being made available to the general public in terms of environmental things that people would want to do. If a company wants to establish, we have all this information that they then draw out and basically use. It is a bit of a complex jungle, really, in terms of how it is done, but, ultimately, almost like the firefighting, everything fits together and makes sense in terms of providing the information.

I think the way we are moving on this thing, we are probably almost leaders in terms of developing this kind of information technology. I am just trying to check here, Mr. Chairman, as to what other things there would be at this time that would maybe help a little bit. I can just say that the City of Winnipeg and Manitoba Hydro have companies that basically have contracts with Linnet. I know that Manitoba Crop Insurance is utilizing a lot of the information for their programs and geographic information. I know that, ultimately, as a private sector, that they have sold their information bank and system to Saskatchewan Crop Insurance and are looking at selling their technology and some of the information on a national and international scale. So ultimately the intention would be that this is going to be a profit-making organization.

At the present time, the people that are the directors on here are working with even South Pacific countries. Venezuela, was that not one? Many of these other countries are basically looking at using this kind of system, buying the system from us in terms of providing that information. It is a very complex type of thing. When I sit down with my professionals on this, they sort of make it exciting to listen to the things that are happening on this thing. It is new technology, using the kind of equipment that is available. A lot of information is being fed into these things.

I have to plead a little bit of ignorance because I am not necessarily a computer whiz; in fact, I am computer illiterate. I mean, somebody has to explain to me exactly how all these things always work. I have the confidence that with the professional people, some of the good people that I have, we are on the right track and that this is a very positive move.

Mr. Struthers: That was very helpful. What was the situation before the contract with Linnet was signed? Actually, what year did they sign that contract? What happened before the contract with Linnet? How was the work being done then?

(Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Driedger: Under my Land Information branch, basically we developed our own information banks, I suppose, very limited and not very professional. What has happened, for example, we would have the forestry information as a separate entity. We would have the water information. We would have the various components all separate. Now this is all being put into a massive central system that basically makes this information available in terms of the geographical terrain, soil conditions, all these things that we used to have in little pockets all the time. Each department, I am just talking my department, but we have other departments that all did the same thing, all had their little pockets of information.

What we have done under Linnet, we have co-ordinated the whole approach from all the government departments plus the private sector. We have this land bank of information there that is related to all the things. For example, ultimately--it will never be completed--but we could have every telephone wire, hydro wire, every sewer pipe in the city, every road, you know, everything could be documented in part of the information machine that can be pulled out.

If somebody wanted to do something at the Department of Highways, for example, wants to build a highway, the information as to the soil conditions, the type of terrain they are in, all these things that are--I am not trying to oversimplify it, but there is such a complex amount of information that can now all be put together and be pulled out by those people that need it. So before where you had all these little pockets of information, it is now into a system where you can take and punch the necessary keys, I am told, and here comes the information that you require. That is sort of the concept of the new technology in terms of Land Related Information services.

* (1610)

Mr. Struthers: I wonder how many people, within your department, or maybe it is a fair statement to wonder how many people in provincial government were displaced as Linnet Graphics takes over the work that is being done? Maybe it is not fair to ask about the whole government, maybe just within the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am told that no individual has been displaced or replaced because of this. We used to have all the various components, like I say, the information was accumulated and is still there. What this basically does is it brings it altogether. So there is nobody that has lost anything or lost a job or stuff like that. These components are still all important, the only thing is that it now comes under an umbrella organization where it is all stored basically. Am I right?--I want to make sure.

I can maybe just give a little bit of further background. This concept with Linnet was developed even by the previous administration prior to us taking government in '88. The concept was already being worked on in terms of the storage shed, if we could call it that in layman's language. It has been slow coming along because it is very complex. It is definitely coming along and looking more positive all the time.

Mr. Struthers: I was not suspicious before, but now that you are comparing it to the last NDP administration I have got to think there must be something up here. [interjection]

What about companies who were doing surveying work with the provincial government previous to the signing of this contract, which I do not know what date it was yet? I hope that I could find out what date the contract started. What about companies in the private sector who are working with the Department of Natural Resources with survey work? What has happened to their workload as a result of this amalgamation, or whatever word you want to call it?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman I want to repeat again. The survey element of it has nothing to do with the land information bank that we are working on. Under the survey end of it, and I want to make sure the member understands that it is separate from Linnet. You cannot combine the two. Under the survey system that is under my department, we do the survey work for the Department of Highways, Department of Northern Affairs, certainly for my department when we have Crown lands and subdivisions in the northern parts of the province or wherever we do these things. That is separate, no relationship to the Land Information Bank. Basically, our department does the survey work for the government.

Mr. Struthers: What year was the three-year contract signed?

Mr. Driedger: Is the member back to Linnet now?

Mr. Struthers: Yes.

Mr. Driedger: The initial contract was signed in 1993-94, a three-year contract with the option of renewal or not renewal. So the program terminates in 1996-97. At that time there will be a re-evaluation as to the effectiveness of it and the partnerships and whether things are still on track. It has been a slow, evolving thing. There used to be different pairs in there; I, T and T used to have a role in it, am I correct? My deputy chairs a government group from the various departments, so all of them have a role to play in it to develop the work plan for each year. When that agreement is over at the end of 1996-97, then the group will again evaluate and decide whether our participation will continue in that.

Mr. Struthers: At that point, I am interested in what the options would be. Would one be to go back the way it was before 1993? Would another option be to look at other Linnets? Are there other companies who could perform the same function as Linnet?

Mr. Driedger: Because we are 24 percent owner, we would hope that the company ultimately would make money, that there would be profit in it for the government as well. We certainly would not want to, with the storage system that is there, go back and disseminate it again. I think efforts would be made to either negotiate or come to some understanding that there would be continued availability of the storage bank or storage shed, if I can use layman's language. This would continue to operate under some pretext or other.

Mr. Struthers: The provincial government is into this arrangement for the tune of 24 percent. Presumably, then, that would mean if there were profits to be made, the province would recoup 24 percent of those profits. If there were losses, the province would cover 24 percent of the losses then. Am I correct?

Mr. Driedger: That is correct.

Mr. Struthers: Does Linnet Graphics pay taxes?

Mr. Driedger: The member asked whether Linnet pays taxes. They would pay taxes like any other corporation.

Mr. Struthers: Does the Manitoba government pay a quarter of those taxes?

Mr. Driedger: Being a shareholder in there, we have no option, but I suppose we cannot say, well, our 28 percent is, you know, we are not paying that. Being a shareholder in the corporation, whatever the corporation has to pay under their structure, they pay that, and if there is profit or if there are expenses, we are all part of that, and we do not segregate our portion of it out.

Mr. Struthers: I do not have any more questions.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Land Information Centre (d) Survey Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,368,000-pass; (2) Other Expenditures $473,300--pass.

4.(e) Remote Sensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $431,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $113,300--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations, deficit ($23,700).

4.(f) Distribution Centre (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $355,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $263,700--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations, deficit ($170,000).

4.(g) Land Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $588,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $659,500--pass.

Resolution 12.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,672,400 for Natural Resources, Land Information Centre, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 5. Expenditures Related To Capital (a) Equipment and Infrastructure $538,400--pass.

5.(b) Water Projects $2,211,600.

* (1620)

Mr. Struthers: Just quickly, the amount that is listed under Capital Expenditures for Water Projects, I am wondering if there is a list of projects that I could be privy to in the next little while, say, over the next budget year, that the department will be constructing?

Mr. Driedger: Under Water Projects, these are basically my capital drainage projects that I made reference to, and we have a capital program, aside from the miscellaneous, where we do all kinds of little works, and I will not give the member necessary all that, but the ones where we have, that addresses the capital projects, I will get him a list of that if that is acceptable?

We will do the same thing under the Parks capital programs because, now, I want to clarify to the member that I am not going to give him the details of where we are spending $150 so that they can chop down a couple of trees or stuff like that. I want to try and address the capital portion of it so that he has an understanding where the capital goes, whether it is an electrical contract within a certain park, you know, updating the electricity, or whether we do a new bay somewhere or upgrade the roads within a provincial park. I will take and provide those two lists for water projects and park facilities.

Mr. Struthers: That is exactly what I was asking for, and thank you.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Item 5. Expenditures Related To Capital (b) Water Projects $2,211,600--pass; (c) Park Facilities $3,102,300--pass.

Resolution 12.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,852,300 for Natural Resources, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 6. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Special Conservation and Endangered Species Fund $450,000--pass.

Resolution 12.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $450,000 for Natural Resources, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary on page 115 of the main Estimates book.

At this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $22,800--pass.

Resolution 12.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,552,000 for Natural Resources, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This now completes the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources sitting in Room 255.

The next set of Estimates to be considered in this section of the Committee of Supply sitting in Room 255 are the Estimates for the Department of Housing.

* (1630)

HOUSING

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Housing. Does the honourable Minister of Housing have an opening statement.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I am pleased to present the 1995-96 spending Estimates for Manitoba Housing. The Department of Housing has a three-fold mandate: to enhance the affordability of and accessibility to a suitable and adequate supply of housing for Manitobans, particularly those of low and moderate incomes, and those with specialized needs; also to maintain and improve the quality of the existing aging housing stock; and to facilitate the housing market while otherwise limiting intervention measures to situations where it is deemed essential to the public interest.

Over the course of its history, Manitoba Housing has provided close to 21,000 units of subsidized housing to ensure that the housing needs of Manitobans are met. Its portfolio is comprised of elderly and family housing, housing for nonelderly single individuals, crisis shelters for victims of family violence, and housing for individuals and groups with special needs. While the major portion of the housing stock is directly owned by Manitoba Housing, the portfolio also includes projects which have been financed through Manitoba Housing, which are owned and/or managed by private nonprofit organizations.

In addition to the housing projects which have been developed by or with the assistance of Manitoba Housing, the department's Shelter Allowance programs house or subsidize close to 6,000 elderly and family renters in private rental accommodation throughout the province. Over 93,000 Manitoba renters have benefited from shelter allowances since the program was implemented in the early 1980s.

Even with our activities in these areas, however, there is a continuing need for housing assistance in Manitoba. Of the 380,000 households in the province, it is estimated that almost 11 percent are in core housing need. That represents 41,000 households who are unable to obtain suitable and adequate housing at average market rents without spending more than 30 percent of their household income on shelter. More than two-thirds of those households in need are located in Winnipeg, with about 14 percent located in other urban centres, and 18 percent in rural areas.

Of these households in need, renters are more than twice as likely to be in need as homeowners, and the largest clientele group in need is family households. For two-thirds of those households in core need, affordability is their only housing problem. Our ability to meet this continued housing need has been significantly reduced in recent years. Although housing is typically an area of provincial responsibility, provincial housing policies have been, and continue to be, heavily influenced by federal housing policies and expenditures.

The federal government through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has cost-shared with the province in funding the majority of social housing activity in Manitoba. Unfortunately, the federal government's decision to terminate delivery of new social housing across Canada, effective January 1, 1994, has had a significant impact on our ability to meet the housing needs of Manitobans.

Both the previous and the current federal governments advanced a cap on social housing expenditures, indicating that a major priority was the maintenance of existing social housing stock, and funding for any initiatives had to come from savings generated to improve deficiencies in the administration and management of the existing social housing portfolio across Canada.

With the introduction of the 1995 budget, however, the federal government has effectively terminated the potential for any significant new cost-shared initiatives by the provinces. The federal budget reduced the overall social housing budget across Canada by a total of $270 million over the next three years. Further, the provision for only $13 million nationally to be used for additional maintenance of the existing housing stock over the next three years significantly weakens the previous federal commitment to the existing housing portfolio in the longer term.

The Department of Housing is faced with two major challenges over the next year. Firstly, we must continue to exert influence over how federal housing dollars will be expended across Canada. Secondly, we must do all in our power to ensure that any savings generated within the existing framework in Manitoba will continue to be invested in this province. Our success in meeting this second challenge will provide the resources necessary to protect our Housing portfolio.

The last 30 years has witnessed a major investment on the part of the government and taxpayers of this province. The area of property management therefore cannot be overlooked as it relates to the department's mandate to maintain and improve its existing housing assets.

The major problems facing Manitoba Housing are similar to those facing any large diverse property management entity, to operate in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, thereby generating sufficient financial resources to maintain units at an acceptable standard. Considerable progress has been made since 1992 when responsibility for this social housing portfolio was amalgamated under a single entity. By standardizing operating practices and procedures, Manitobans have fair and equitable access and treatment in all communities throughout the province.

Initiatives have been undertaken to enhance the efficiency of tenancy processing, rent calculation and collection and arrears control functions. It should be remembered that the bulk of the Housing portfolio amounting to two-thirds of the units was developed prior to 1978. Given that these units are greater than 20 years in age, reinvestment is now necessary to maintain physical integrity and condition of the portfolio. Staff have completely inspected the Housing portfolio in some detail to establish the current condition of each project and to develop a long-range plan for its maintenance and improvement.

At the same time, because we share a common concern with respect to the safety of women and children within our projects, a review of the landscaping and lighting on building sites was undertaken with the intent of noting and trying to correct immediately if possible any blind spots or areas that require improvement. As landscaping is renewed or major upgrading to sites is performed, this objective continues to receive every consideration.

Where possible, staff consults tenants on capital maintenance programs in order to maximize the benefits of scarce capital resources and to allow tenants a voice in their project development. Further, a proactive communication program has been initiated to provide mayors and councillors in each community with information on work being undertaken.

Typical modernization and improvement work includes interior and exterior refits, upgrading ventilation, repairing or replacing roofs, replacing doors and windows, correcting site drainage and grading and landscaping repairs.

Activities undertaken to upgrade and maintain the housing stock, improve energy efficiency, repair deterioration, modernize heating and mechanical systems, prolong the useful life of the units and generally improve the quality of public housing.

Over the past two years, an average of $6.5 million has been expended annually for modernization and improvement activities. We will continue to strive for and make progress toward operational efficiencies in the management of the roughly 21,000 social housing units throughout the province. These endeavours will include the continuing enhancement of tenant and community involvement in the management process and the development of short-term and long-range plans to meet the continuing challenge for the maintenance and renovation of aging housing stocks.

The Department of Housing recognizes that housing is an integral part of the social and economic development of this province and that adequate and affordable housing has a fundamental influence on the health and well-being of individuals and of the community as a whole. Through our ongoing commitment to and involvement in housing activities, the department will continue to address the challenges of ensuring access to an adequate standard of housing and equity in housing opportunities for all Manitobans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable Minister of Housing for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Radisson have any opening comments?

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Considering that we are nearing the end of the departments being considered, I will simply ask questions and will not make an opening statement.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic for those remarks.

Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with the consideration of the next line.

* (1640)

Before we do, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff that will be present.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to introduce Jim Beaulieu, who is the Deputy Minister in the Department of Housing; Gary Julius, who is the Executive Director of Finance and Operations with the Department of Housing; Ken Cassin, Director of Program Development & Support with the department; and Ron Fallis, the Executive Director of the Manitoba Housing Authority.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: We will now proceed to line 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support.

Ms. Cerilli: Having never had the opportunity to meet a number of the minister's staff previously, you just ran through the list of names, but I do not know who is who. So I would just ask for him to--

Mr. Reimer: Jim Beaulieu, Gary Julius, Ron Fallis and Ken Cassin.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: We will now proceed to line 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 93 of the main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Cerilli: I am just clarifying for the Chairperson, I am working predominantly from the Supplementary Estimates book. So is the minister, and it looks like that is also the strategy for the staff.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Just for clarification, do we wish to go line by line or page by page? What is the will of the committee?

Ms. Cerilli: I would prefer not to at this point. I think that, again, because we only have a few hours available to this department I will just deal with the issues I want to deal with and we can move on.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Is that agreed, committee? [agreed]

So we will have general discussion on the Estimates of the Department of Housing. Each line eventually will be passed in accordance with the main Estimates book.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I think, given even the minister's opening statement, the bulk of the work in this department is in public housing and then some of the support programs for other low-income housing.

So I just want to ask a few questions about what is happening with Manitoba Housing Authority properties. One of the things that I have been concerned about is that the vacancy rate in a number of the properties is quite high. I know that the minister and I had the opportunity to visit the Lord Selkirk Park, which has a vacancy rate of over 50 percent.

So I guess just to start, I would like for the minister to give some explanation and clarify what the vacancy rates are for the different regions of the city and the province in the Manitoba Housing Authority properties.

Mr. Reimer: In looking at units instead of a percentage, there are 13,065 units. This is out of the districts that range right from Gimli right through to Winnipeg. We are talking about 13 districts. So in the 13 districts we have a total of 13,065 units. The vacancy rate in that amount is just over 1,100 units. I guess between eight and nine percent, more or less, overall. They would vary by district and in certain areas. As the member mentioned, in the area that we were, it was a very high percentage. Overall, throughout all of Manitoba, it is between eight and nine percent.

Ms. Cerilli: Where else are there vacancy rates, other than the Lord Selkirk Park housing development of over 10 percent?

Mr. Reimer: On the individual projects, we can get those figures for the member. I will give you a bit of an indication of the current situation. As of March 1995, the vacancy rates for housing throughout Manitoba was actually 8.5 percent. The national average is 8.8, so we are just a little bit lower.

In Winnipeg there are just over 1,000 vacant units, 1,033, which is 8.6 percent. Vacant units in the North, there are 117, which represents 10.6 percent. In rural central, there are 178 units, which represents 7.4 percent; and in rural south there are 242 units, which represents 8.1 percent. The housing developments that the member is referring to, I am sure that we can get those figures on an individual basis.

Ms. Cerilli: The vacancy rate for the Transcona area?

Mr. Reimer: It is actually a very low percentage actually in Transcona--pardon me, in that region--I should not say just Transcona because it is in a specific region. But in that region there are 1,915 units and there is only a 44-unit vacancy which is just over 3 percent or around 3 percent. So that is a very low ratio in that particular area.

In the Lord Selkirk area, there are 95 vacancies out of 314 units in that particular complex that the member was asking about. It also appears that number has been growing in the last little while too, up to 95, mainly because of social problems.

Ms. Cerilli: That is in the Lord Selkirk Park; it has been growing. You commented that it is 95 vacant out of a possible 314 units, so that is not 50 percent then.

One of the things that I have been looking at is comparing the vacancy rate in the public area to the private rental market and this gives me a little bit less concern--these numbers that I have just received--than what I was figuring out from some of the visits we had made and the other numbers. Especially in Transcona, I know that recently there was a private vacancy rate of around 3 percent. So it seems like there is more of an equilibrium between public housing availability as well as private. I am wondering if the department does this kind of comparison. It seems like then we may be able to say there are specific problems targeted in developments like the Lord Selkirk Park, but there is not a general trend in the urban core area with public housing, or if the minister can correct me, maybe there is. Does the department look at this?

* (1650)

Mr. Reimer: In looking at the analysis of the housing stock that is available, one of the highest percentages of vacancies are in the bachelor units themselves. That is basically on a regional basis, but that seems to be where the biggest vacancy is within this whole system.

It has just been pointed out to me, of the units that are vacant, which is just over 1,100 units, 453 of them are bachelor suites themselves. It seems to be a problem, as pointed out, not only within the social housing stock, but also in the private stock. That is their highest vacancy rate also.

Ms. Cerilli: Has that always been the trend or is this something new? Has it always been more difficult to rent the properties that are bachelor units, or is this a new trend?

Mr. Reimer: It has been a growing area of vacancies within the housing stock, mainly because of the fact that when the public housing market came into being in an aggressive manner, a lot of the suites that were built because of the time and the direction that was implemented at that time were of the bachelor-type of suites. It seems to be a concern because of the age of the stock. It is going towards the realization that the units are small and the people are looking at a bigger type of unit.

Ms. Cerilli: Do you think that part of the problem is--because I understand there is a wait for larger family dwellings, family-sized dwellings. There is a wait for public housing. Is that not the case, that if you want to get particularly up above a two-bedroom, that there is a waiting list in certain districts?

Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out that, a lot of the time what happens is, it is a mismatch in a sense of the expectation of where the people want to be located and the availability of the units in that particular area. There are cases, there are vacancies right now in certain areas of the city that are three-, four-bedroom units, but because of the location and the social mix, the units are not being filled because of a desire for the people to be in a certain area.

Ms. Cerilli: What you are telling me is that there are vacancies in those larger units, but is that in the Lord Selkirk Park area or are there vacancies elsewhere?

Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out that the larger units that are referred to are in the Gilbert Park area, and in Lord Selkirk there are four-bedroom units that are vacant, too.

Ms. Cerilli: I wonder if this has anything to do with the price, if there has been any comparison done to see if the availability and the cost for bachelor suites in public housing are compatible with the same kind of accommodation in the private sector. With that, if you go to the larger units, more than two bedrooms, then we do not have the same cost difference.

Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will interrupt the committee of Housing for some important business in the Chamber. We will recess for whatever time it takes.