NATURAL RESOURCES

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

We are on Resolution 12.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, during Question Period today, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in addressing the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), said he was wrong, wrong, wrong. Unfortunately, I have to, in my remarks, make that same statement to the member for Crescentwood based on the things that he was trying to put on the record yesterday. He was wrong, wrong, wrong. I will try and take and spend a little time, and I am going to try to correct the record, to some degree, with your indulgence.

First of all, there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the project that the government has undertaken together with Linnet Geomatics International Inc. Last fall, I arranged a full briefing for the opposition on this project.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask for the members wanting to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge or out in the hall. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable minister's presentation. Anybody who does not want to listen can leave.

The honourable minister, to continue.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, based on the questions they have been raising in the House, it is obvious that they have difficulty at comprehending the essence of the project. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on a number of these issues.

What does Linnet do? It has been charged that Linnet has been given the monopoly on all government mapping and that this is not being done accurately and completely. The truth is that Linnet is not doing the mapping for government. Linnet's focus is on bringing all the different land-related information together and then creating computer applications to enable nontechnical people to perform their day-to-day tasks. The mapping generally is a responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources, and to accuse Linnet of inaccurate mapping is a total misrepresentation.

The Land Information centre of my department has been charged with the creation of various topographical and parcel property maps. This is done to the standards set by professionals in the area, and the quality of the mapping that they produce is as good as that produced anywhere in Canada. For instance, the 1-by-20,000 topographical maps produced by my department fit perfectly the orthophotography which we have been acquiring through Linnet. By focusing these various mapping programs and giving them a common goal of supporting specific applications, we have enabled the rapid completion of a number of application projects spanning several provincial departments. This is in contrast to the previous approach for the topographical mapping program of having a 20-year cycle to complete the mapping for southern Manitoba. Anyone who wishes to wait until the year 2015 to receive a map and is critical of this accelerated program has to be seriously questioned.

It is important to understand that the nature of mapping has changed considerably with the use of computers. A computer or digital map has much greater flexibility and can be changed or added to at any time depending on the requirements of the user. Those who are stuck in the past and would like to see the old paper-based mapping practices carried on into computer age will not be the leading companies that will bring the geomatic sector of Manitoba into the 21st Century. This lack of foresight is what is creating the current conflict and whose cause is being supported by the opposition here today and yesterday.

* (1440)

In 1988, there was almost no use of this technology by government departments. Through the foresight of my government and the introduction of the current approach with Linnet Geomatics, we have brought this technology into a number of departments, including Agriculture, Environment, Natural Resources and Highways. Linnet now has 65 employees and continues to grow. The company was named Manitoba Business magazine's fastest growing company in 1994 and was in the top 50 for 1995. It was No. 36 in the Financial Post's recent ranking of the Canadian information technology companies.

It should be noted that less than 20 percent of Linnet's employees are working under contract for the Manitoba government. Others are working on Manitoba-based projects which would otherwise have been done by outside firms. This would cover projects being done for the City of Winnipeg, as well the current contract which Linnet won against 15 other Canadian and U.S. companies for Centra Gas.

In addition, Linnet has had or holds contracts in Mexico, Chile, the United States, Britain, Russia and other Canadian provinces such as British Columbia and Saskatchewan, refuting the fact that Manitoba is 10th among 10, when actually we have continued to be the leader across Canada and North America.

Linnet has been criticized for not creating 350 jobs. This was an earlier projection which assumed that the government would be entering into an $80-million contract with Linnet. To date, the government has spent $5 million and has 65 jobs. As you can see, the job creation is four times better than originally anticipated. For those who are analytically inclined, with an investment of $80 million, we would have created over a thousand jobs. Again, the opposition in its ignorance has totally misrepresented the facts and made untrue statements.

It is an unfortunate fact that Manitobans often underestimate their abilities to do something innovative and creative. The government has recognized that the global geomatics sector is growing rapidly and has tremendous potential for employing Manitobans. We have required some innovative approaches to get where we are with Linnet, and we would like to take on the challenge of getting other companies established in the province that can develop their expertise here and go on to be successful in the international marketplace.

For instance, the government recognized that the local Manitoba economy supports a geomatics sector with activities worth approximately $50 million a year. Only $10 million of this is done through the private sector. This has limited the size of many local companies, and because of their limited size they cannot effectively participate in the international marketplace. The government is open to interested suggestions and proposals from other Manitoba companies on how we can help them develop internationally as Linnet has successfully done.

Many of the current geomatic companies that are complaining about Linnet are two- or three-person operations which, with due respect to their professionalism, do not have the financial resources to compete internationally. Limiting the current contracts is not the solution.

Industry, Trade and Tourism has commissioned a study, which the member made reference to yesterday and tabled, to foster the growth of the geomatics sector. It focuses on redirecting a lot of the current inhouse services to encourage the growth of local geomatic companies and giving them a chance to develop a unique area of expertise to enable the total geomatics sector to grow. Those companies that are more interested in dividing up the current market rather than possibly the growth of the whole sector may not survive in this environment and will be forced to rely on the good will of the opposition to cry foul for them when they are not being competitive.

In the last days, my honourable friends opposite have made a number of comparisons to progress in other provinces, and the implication has been left that they are doing better than Manitoba. I would like to set the record straight and show that Manitoba is, in fact, the leading province in this area. Establishing the direction that we have requires new and innovative approaches which are not always appreciated by those who wish to protect the status quo.

Manitoba has received a number of compliments from individuals in other provinces and states who are amazed at the progress we have made in establishing a co-ordinated approach to the management of land-related information. Other provinces that have attempted similar initiatives have not succeeded. For example, the Province of Alberta has spent in excess of $75 million in their initiative before abandoning it due to lack of support from other Alberta government departments. Other provinces have spent in excess of $30 million on extensive mapping programs only to find that few users can afford to pay the royalty fees needed to maintain them. By comparison, Manitoba has done extremely well with its modest $5 million investment.

Finally, I would like to deal with some of the points raised in the news release issued by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) yesterday. It is amazing that the opposition always has more suggestions on how we can spend money. So far in this project we have managed to lever every $1 spent by Manitoba government to get an additional $4 spent by others in Manitoba. The suggestion in the news release will not leverage similar expenditures in Manitoba. They represent straight government expenditures of some $10 million to $15 million. To make this kind of an expenditure without guaranteed users of the mapping is to repeat the mistakes made in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we will not do that.

The other suggestion of updating the survey monument system is a favourite suggestion of the surveying community. While all the suggestions have a certain degree of validity, the opposition would cry foul if we were to divert funding from other crucial areas, for example, closing hospital beds, to these kind of activities. I am surprised to recognize what the priorities are for the members opposite, or the member opposite.

In conclusion, I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, if the members opposite still are not convinced of the merits of the approach and strategy being pursued at the present by my government, I think it is only fair that those in opposition and the news media would again, and I again extend that invitation, take time to visit Linnet, talk to some of the users and understand the creative and innovative ways that the information is being managed.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister's time has expired.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I am glad the minister had a chance to do some homework on this study. Unfortunately, if I was grading his homework, I might rank it somewhat incomplete, I guess. Let me tell the minister why. I did not ever suggest that Linnet had a monopoly on mapping. A quote from the backgrounder which we issued is: Since 1989, Linnet Geomatics has had a virtual monopoly on provincial geographic information systems (GIS) applications. Their monopoly expires December 31, '96, and so forth.

The memo which I issued to the press is about geomatics; it is about geographic information systems. It certainly talks about mapping as an issue, but that is only one element of geomatics, as the minister probably knows.

Secondly, to suggest that we are in favour of the maintenance of some old paper-and-pen system of mapping is, of course, to completely misrepresent reality. The problem is that the failure to move reasonably quickly towards digitizing the information that is available and towards the development of an accurate base map for all settled parts of Manitoba is precisely the issue that we were raising.

Thirdly, the technical capacity of the department, the reduced and diminished department responsible for mapping in the government, is unquestioned. According to the same people that are critical of Linnet, the government mapping branch produces extremely high quality, very accurate, very good work. That is not the issue. The issue is that that department has been reduced in its capacity to do work and that the amount of time required to finally get an accurate, adequate scale base map in place in all the developed sectors of Manitoba is far too long.

Now the issue of digitizing is not one that I think either the minister or myself is competent to advance expertise on. I will simply ask the minister in his next response if he can either confirm or correct my impression given to me by what I believe to be competent people in the field that digital orthophotographs have an accuracy, absolute maximum, everything working wonderfully well, of plus or minus a metre but, in real world applications, plus or minus 10 to 15 metres is the usual standard of accuracy for digital orthophotographs. So they are fine for crop mapping, nothing wrong with that, but nobody can use them for any other purpose.

* (1450)

When the minister says that they overlay perfectly on the 1:20,000 scale maps, I would challenge him to talk to any one of Manitoba's leading survey firms and make that same statement, because the experience in the field is that they do not in fact overlay, that substantial adjustments have to be made and that the underlying base of digital orthophotographs as a base map is simply functionally useless for anything other than crop insurance and perhaps tree cover or forestry mapping applications but certainly not adequate for roads and completely inadequate and inapplicable for any cadastral mapping. So I do not think the minister dealt very adequately with that question.

I would say, in addition, the Centra Gas contract which this company won is essentially the tracing and digitizing of maps into a computer database. It is the equivalent of script-driven telemarketing. It is not high tech. It is not particularly skilled work. It is grunt work that has to be done at high volume and low hourly cost. In other words, it is not terribly exciting work. I am glad that a Manitoba company got that contract, but it does not indicate wonderful expertise on that company's part, because the work that they are doing for Centra Gas is essentially the tracing of the existing maps and digitizing that information to place on base maps.

One of the primary reasons why this company has survived and has begun to get international work of course is that its majority ownership is SNC-Lavalin, which has international and more than a very major Canadian presence in this field, which involves in many cases geomatics applications. So their subsidiary in Winnipeg is well-placed to take advantage of its parent's work. I am glad they are doing that. Let me make it very clear to the minister, I am glad that Linnet has 65 employees. I am glad they are competing for international work that they can do, but I am saying that the minister has yet to explain to the committee why it is that if all is so well the report which he did not know about yesterday needed to be done in the first place?

If everything was working just fine, why did we need to commission the Nordicity company to do a strategic report and say, look, if we are going to survive and prosper in this field, there are certain things we have to do. The company identified quite a number of them. Why, if everything is so well in this field, have we one-third of the Canadian average employees in this sector? Why, if everything is going so well, and I ask the minister, do we have what he very disparagingly called a bunch of mom-and-pop shops, a few firms with one or two or three employees and one big firm, Linnet, which kicks all the babies out of the nest every time they try to crawl in?

I ask those questions and I would be very interested in the minister's response.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I have to express disappointment again in the member for Crescentwood when he puts down the position and the ability of the people operating with Linnet and operating within the province of Manitoba.

When he talks about the Centra Gas contract, which is well over a million-dollar contract which was tendered across North America and where Linnet basically won out over 15 or 16 major companies, he treats it as if it is nothing, it is a minor project. That shows the attitude the member has towards the operations of Linnet, and I am very disappointed, and then makes reference to the fact of how long does it take to make a map. [interjection] Mr. Chairman, I listen very patiently when the member speaks, and I do not interrupt him. I ask him to do the same thing, unless he has a bit of a problem somewhere along the line.

I want to tell the member, by and large, that in Alberta they spent $80 million doing their mapping, and it is sitting there virtually doing nothing. The whole thing basically collapsed. In Saskatchewan, they spent $30 million doing mapping, and they have no people who use it. What we are encouraging Linnet and my department to do is basically we respond to requests. If somebody wants to have mapping done, we have the expertise, the professional people. We go out there and do it.

The member is making reference again to that report. I am not surprised. The member made accusations that they did not know about the report. I did not either. It was done by I,T and T and Linnet, and if the member thinks that I am in the intricate day-to-day workings of the Linnet company, think again. My position and responsibility is in the policy area, and my deputy is the director on that board, and I feel very confident that the best decisions are being made for Manitobans and for the government of Manitoba.

Basically, this study was commissioned with the intent to see whether there was a better way to expand further in the business, which makes only abundant sense. If the member wants to go and read through that whole report--and I do not know whether he did or not--he is going to get different views because there is a lot of language in there that, basically, I do not know whether he knows where it is leading to. I certainly, in glancing at it, do not, but I am still having it further defined by my staff, and I will respond eventually, in due course, after I have had a chance to go through this with my colleague from I, T and T.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister still has not responded to the question and does not seem to have a response, so perhaps he wants to take it as notice--why is it, if all is well, we have a third of the Canadian average. Why is it, if all is well, we have, as he disparagingly notes, a small handful of mom-and-pop shops with two and three employees and one great big bird in the nest, Linnet, that essentially goes in and engages in predatory competition with the mom-and-pop shops and drives them out and, in fact, drove one company in Brandon out of business as a consequence of muscling in on a contract which they had virtually agreed to with the City of Brandon?

So if all is well, Mr. Minister, why are we in the situation that the report that your colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) commissioned said we are in, which said we have to have a new strategy; we have to have a strategy that looks at government regulation; we have to have a strategy that looks at price; we have to have a strategy that deals with the fact that we are underrepresented in this field?

You have not answered those questions at all, and I would appreciate--either I guess you could take them as notice, but you certainly have not provided an answer today.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, if the member went through the report and if he is comparing the figures basically shown in the chart in there, it shows that, yes, we are lower, and I am surprised that the member would take that kind of an angle and tangent on this because part of the rationale and reason for why it is that low in Manitoba is because we do too much within government departments.

He is promoting more privatization, that we should take it out of government? Let him put that on the record if that is what he is basically saying, which is not consistent with his philosophy or his party's philosophy. He is basically saying, take it away from government departments and privatize more. If we do that, it will show different figures in there.

Mr. Sale: The problem in Manitoba is that we have very little in the way of competitive industry in the geomatic sector, so the small companies have not been allowed or enabled to develop the kind of expertise or the staff size or the scale or the capital to enable them to compete effectively for big projects or medium-sized projects, either here or elsewhere. That is the problem.

The question of government procurement is always an open question about what ought to be done in-house and what ought to be done on a contract basis. This government has decided to in effect favour deeply one company and give them a great advantage over the rest of the field. Now, as has been said, there are times when incubating a new industry is an appropriate strategy.

The question that has been raised by this side of the House and in the report was, it has had a seven-year incubation period, it is now not only the biggest in Manitoba, it is by many multiples the biggest in Manitoba. Surely it is time to end the incubation, to let the rest of the industry begin to compete on a level playing field for the kind of contracts that small towns and medium-size towns in Manitoba and even cities the size of Brandon wish to let, to stop favouring one company, to recognize that you are in a conflict of interest, Mr. Minister. The conflict is that you have a government policy backed up by ownership of 24 percent of the shares of the company that is your policy instrument.

The business of government is government and the business of business is business. When you mix the two, then your judgment begins to be clouded because you do not want to have a bad investment, you do not want to lose money on your investment. So you are naturally tempted to favour the company in which you have a significant equity position over against companies in which you have no equity position because you do not want to be embarrassed by the failure of a company you have tried to incubate.

* (1500)

But we are not asking you to be embarrassed, what we are saying is, the incubation period, by any reasonable standards, is over. End the monopoly, let the other companies compete on a fair, open playing field, let Manitoba young people have better chances to get employment in this very exciting and emerging sector and make a public and open commitment to a base map strategy in which all can take place without unfair subsidies being provided to some. That is what we are asking for. I do not think they are unreasonable requests and, in fact, if you think about your own free market philosophy, what we are asking for is that you stop interfering in a market in which you have crippled many small Manitoba companies.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the member makes reference to me not being embarrassed with the operations of Linnet. I am not embarrassed; I am very proud of the operations of Linnet and I want the member to wake up and smell the roses. If he would, instead of encouraging a negative approach to this thing, take those people that he is championing, trying to be the champion for, if he would encourage them to come and talk to Linnet--we have six operators out there that basically take advantage of the information and the operations of Linnet, and it had its own business through that. We have this major company here that basically has this kind of ability and has the expertise.

Instead of keeping his head in the sand, why does he not encourage his people that are coming to him or that he is trying to be the leader of, ask them to come to Linnet? Let them go and talk to Linnet; let them go and see what Linnet has to offer. It probably would be to their advantage to be able to maximize the expertise that is out there and be able to create more employment and opportunities for them on their own instead of trying to say, no, you cannot do that, that we have a monopoly on it. It is not a monopoly. The information is available. Professional people and expertise are available for these people if they want it.

Mr. Sale: I wish the minister could hear himself. What he is saying essentially is, go to this one company, appeal to this one company to become a player in the industry. They are the big daddy, you are the little kids. You go there and they will share their wealth of information with you.

Let me tell the minister that Linnet does not share very much information willingly with anybody, especially if they are not members of the MLRIS in the first place. The cost of retrieving data is very excessive in this province now. The minister, I think, does not realize--the minister needs to get out and smell the roses himself and talk face to face to some other players in this industry, some impartial people who are not in an equity ownership position and defending the government's strategy.

I would say to the minister, he asked me to go to Linnet. In fact I am quite prepared to do that. I would ask the minister in return, will he go and sit down one-on-one with the other companies in Manitoba, the small companies that have come to us and said, we are dying? Will he go and sit down with them one-on-one and talk with them about the issues that they have raised in detail with us? Will he make that commitment?

Mr. Driedger: I have to tell the member that I have not had one request to meet about this issue, and I am going to repeat again for the member that basically we are the leaders in the country. Why would Saskatchewan and British Columbia have contracts with us? Why are we on the verge of signing contracts with Alberta? Because we have that expertise. Why would our own people not be able to want to make use of that expertise that we have? I have difficulty trying to understand where this member is trying to go.

Mr. Sale: Is the minister, then, saying that the monopoly will continue and that this company will continue to have a preferred role and status within the role of the public policy of Manitoba? Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Driedger: I will tell to the member what I said to the public yesterday, that the agreement that we have terminates at the end of March 1997. In the meantime the board of directors is looking at options and will be having discussions; and, once they have reached certain conclusions, they will be coming forward with recommendations at which time the Manitoba government will basically be taking a position as to whether we want to consider terminating, whether we want to renew the contract. I do not have any definitive statement at this point in time. I just know that discussions are taking place; and, once we have the information and recommendations, we will make that decision.

Mr. Sale: Would the minister make the commitment today that before that decision is reached he will proactively visit with, speak with, meet with members of the geomatics industry sector in Manitoba on a one-on-one basis, other than Linnet, and will listen, at least listen, to their perspective on the issues that have been raised here?

Mr. Driedger: I will make a statement that I have done very many times. If anybody wants to meet with me, all they have to do is request. Meetings will be set up and meetings will take place.

Mr. Sale: I thank the minister for that commitment, and I will make sure that the industry people are aware that he is willing to meeting with them at their mutual convenience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to--maybe you could answer a question: In your role, are you Mr. Deputy Speaker or are you Mr. Chairperson?

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Sale: Thank you. I never know which hat here.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to ask some questions about the Linnet contract with Louisiana-Pacific. First, the government has frequently indicated that this is a contract between Louisiana-Pacific and Linnet Geomatics. Is that the minister’s understanding?

Mr. Driedger: I was going to note here, I wonder if the member would mind repeating the questions.

Mr. Sale: My question was whether the contract in regard to the forestry mapping program is between Linnet and Louisiana-Pacific. Is that his understanding of the contract?

Mr. Driedger: Louisiana-Pacific has a contract with whomever they want to make a contract. We do not get involved or recommend. They have their contract with Linnet.

Mr. Sale: I wonder if the minister would like to reconsider his remarks and decide whether he either perhaps was misinformed by his deputy or is misleading the committee, I am not sure which.

The contract was made December 15, 1994, between Linnet Geomatics International Inc. of the first part and Louisiana-Pacific of Canada Ltd. of the second part and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba of the third part. Are we referring to two different documents?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am told that Louisiana-Pacific has their own deal with Linnet to do the geomatics work on the forestry end of it. Yes.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I am in a bit of dilemma here. The contract, there is the signature of one Albert Driedger, minister. Perhaps he was not entirely conscious when he signed it but it seems to be his signature and it seems to be L-P's signature and it seems to be Linnet's signature of Mr. Graham. It is a 13-page contract and, as I said, it is December 15, 1994, so I think the minister owes the committee a clarification and perhaps an apology.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get a clarification here as to why basically I would be a signatory to it, because we did not tell or instruct Louisiana-Pacific to get into a deal with Linnet. We had an understanding with Louisiana-Pacific that they should do certain works. Who they did the work with was not stipulated by us. I am trying to establish as to why we are a signatory as part of it.

If I could just continue, I am told why our signatures are on there, to confirm the fact that the agreement, the understanding we had with Louisiana-Pacific, that this work was going to be undertaken. That is why that signature is on there. I will get further clarification on that.

Mr. Sale: The minister I presume will also acknowledge that there is a contract between Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. and Manitoba in terms of the development of the oriented strand board. This contract is signed by Jim Downey and Clayton Manness and by two Louisiana-Pacific officials. In this contract it calls for the development, among other things, of some work on behalf of Louisiana-Pacific for what is called a forestry-managed licensing agreement to be supported by a GIS funding agreement, Section 9.04, which calls for the company to enter into an agreement.

* (1510)

This is a very interesting clause, Mr. Chairperson, and I want to read it into the record. This is Section 9.04 of the agreement made the first day of September 1994 between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Manitoba, et cetera, and Louisiana-Pacific and, as I have said, was signed by Jim Downey and Clayton Manness.

9.04 reads: GIS Funding--If the company does not enter into an agreement with a Manitoba company as referred to in Section 7.11, within three months of the date of this agreement (the GIS date), the company shall upon the issuance of all environmental licensing and permitting for the plant pay to the province the sum of $5 million at the rate of $225,000 per quarter, at the end of each quarter commencing on the GIS date, to be used by the province solely for purposes of creating GIS databases for the Forestry, Mountain Forest section. The company shall be entitled to access such databases during normal business hours from within the Province of Manitoba without cost, except for reasonable out-of-pocket costs.

Now the reference to Section 7.11 is to an agreement that the company, Louisiana-Pacific, shall enter into with a Manitoba company (MC). Now I wonder if the minister could suggest any other Manitoba company that had the ability to do a forestry management GIS system for Louisiana-Pacific. He has been very, very disparaging about these Mom-and-Pop shops, two- and three-person operations, and there is this one big elephant called Linnet, and the minister has the gall to suggest this was not a wired contract. Who else, what other firm in Manitoba had the capacity to do a foresty management GIS for Louisiana-Pacific of that scale? And it was not a wired contract? I do not think so.

Mr. Driedger: I do not know. The member just read into the record the fact that the agreement with Manitoba government and Louisiana-Pacific was that it had to be a Manitoba company. The member is asking me what other company. I do not know who would be capable of doing it. Can he suggest someone?

Mr. Sale: I think the point is very clear. This government entered into a contract which was destined for only one destination, and that was Linnet. When the minister said earlier, we have only given them $5 million; what he meant was we have only given them traceable $5 million directly from government operating departments. He did not tell the committee the numbers of millions that have been levered from other, somewhat unwilling or partially willing users of their service. He did not talk about Hydro. He did not talk about any of the other contracts, and he certainly did not talk about the $5-million contract with Louisiana-Pacific.

First of all, I think it was less than forthright of the minister to not remember that he had signed the document, and to try and indicate to the committee that the agreement with Louisiana-Pacific was purely an arm’s-length arrangement between two willing partners in the private sector, each doing business with the other to their mutual advantage. The reality was the government set up its contract with Louisiana-Pacific in order to wire the GIS contract to its friend, Linnet, in which it has a 24 percent share.

This was a wired deal from Day One, and if the minister cannot put on the record any other Manitoba company that could have done this work, Manitoba company, then he is going to have a hard time convincing the people of Manitoba that this was not a wired contract from Day One to its favourite geomatics company.

Mr. Driedger: First of all, the member for Crescentwood has still not indicated to me what other company he felt would possibly be qualified to do the work.

Mr. Sale: There are not any because your sector development strategy failed.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I have the members coming through the Chair. It would be much more appropriate and we will keep the decorum that way.

The honourable minister, to answer the question.

Mr. Driedger: First of all, the member says there is no other company that is qualified, but when you consider that we are a 24 percent shareholder, and if we can generate that kind of business, that is not a bad deal. I want to say though in further clarification to the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) who was concerned about why my signature was on that document, part of the reason was because a lot of that data belonged to the province, and that is why our signature was on that agreement.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I am glad the minister has confirmed that the intent of the agreement with Linnet entered into in September and the intent of the agreement entered into between Linnet, Louisiana-Pacific and Manitoba on the 15th of December was to ensure that Linnet would do the forestry management GIS for L-P. The minister has on numbers of occasions insisted to the press and he insisted earlier here today that the government had nothing to do with the granting of that contract. The truth is now clearly on the record, the government wrote its agreement with L-P in such a way that L-P was coerced to use Linnet, because Linnet was the only company of a sufficient size to be able to undertake the work. If Louisiana-Pacific attempted to use a company other than that, they would forfeit $5 million which the Manitoba government could then use to do what it should have done in the first place which is develop a forestry GIS some years ago. So I am very glad to have that sorry admission on the record.

I would like to ask the minister whether the forestry management GIS is a public data base that can be accessed by any person who wishes to access the data base for normal nominal fees or whether this is a proprietary and closed data base that is not available to the public.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would agree that the information basically is a provincial information that we have responsibility to take, and whichever means we use, in terms of making it available, either through purchase from Linnet, but ultimately we are still the signature that is required to release that information.

Mr. Chairman, the member is asking pretty technical questions, and I am trying to get the right information on that. My understanding is that information basically that the government has, for example, in the department of forestry or Crown lands, Land Information services, that is our information to not necessarily to be sold through Linnet. We can take and make that information available if that is the desire of the department.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, Article 6, specifically 6-6.02 of the contract indicates that all data shall be the exclusive shared property of L-P and the province. L-P and the province are to be provided a copy of all original materials, et cetera, et cetera. All information data, computer programs, et cetera, shall be the exclusive shared property. Section 6.03(b) Linnet Graphics International is entitled to a copy of the material for all purposes in connection with this agreement for other uses with the approval of L-P and the province, including the sale of the materials to a third party at a price and on terms agreed to in advance by the parties. When the sale of a material occurs, L-P and the province shall collectively receive 60 percent of the sale price, et cetera, et cetera.

* (1520)

In other words, Mr. Chairperson, these data that are developed at great expense using stumpage fees are not available to the public for any kind of nominal fee, and any future forestry licence review is going to be based on a geomatics information system, a geographic information system, that is owned by the party that is applying for the review, and it will be very difficult for Manitobans to access that data in a way that could allow them to review the request of L-P for forestry licence extension or, alternatively, for interested parties to monitor whether L-P is, in fact, living up to its forestry management licence, because the data are not going to be publicly and readily available according to this document. Could the minister respond?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, we can continue this debate, I guess, for as long as the member wants, but I could tell him again that basically the information, the provincial information that we have, each department within its own, you know, information bank has the right to release whatever they want to release or to sell it.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that a member of the public or an interested party who has a concern about the FML administration in the L-P cutting areas could go to the branch and request and require that the branch would release information that was up to date, complete and that the party applying for that information would not be faced with high fees for getting the information that they could not afford?

Mr. Driedger: I do not know how I can answer that. It would depend on the type of information, how extensive the information is, you know, what cost there would be involved in getting the information.

If the member has somebody who is interested--for example, the member himself, why do you not make an application and find out what the process would be? I cannot say off hand at this point in time exactly what would be involved when you ask for the type of information you ask for, whether it is readily available, whether all kinds of work is involved in making that information available. Do a trial run.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairman, the minister essentially, I believe, has confirmed the concern on which my question is based; that is that public resources in the form of stumpage fees and payments which are a reasonable cost of doing business out of which Louisiana-Pacific, presumably, is making good profit, provincially levied fees are being used to develop a geographic information system the data of which is not publicly accessible.

It is only accessible on request, in some specific format, at some price, and if it is anything like the prices that are being charged for other data sets in Manitoba, most groups will simply not be able to afford it.

I am not going to make a dry run or a test run. I do not have the resources as a member of this Assembly to go and spend a thousand dollars to get a picture of the cut area at the present time. My question is on behalf of the many groups, tourist groups, lodge operators, resort operators, who are concerned about the impact of the FML on their livelihoods.

They, I think, have a legitimate interest in any licence renewal or licence amendment, and it would seem from the minister’s answers that they are not going to be able to afford to get the data that would allow them to make a critical, thoughtful application to any FML renewal process.

Mr. Driedger: The member is making assumptions that I do not think he can back up. He is speculating and making a statement that this information is not going to be available, unless it is at high cost. I tell him, depending on the kind of information that is required. Have him give me an example. Let us work one through, find it out. It would be good experience for both the member and myself to find out exactly, you know, what information is available at what cost. [interjection] Then what are we talking about?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I want to ask the minister a few questions on our parks and our park system here in the province. We touched on it a little bit yesterday. I would like to go into it a little further today. Could the minister indicate what stage is the fulfilment of the promise that Natural Resources made to the Clean Environment Commission for two new protected areas in the Duck Mountains?

Mr. Driedger: I wonder if the member could repeat the question. I did not catch that.

Mr. Struthers: What I am interested in knowing is, at what stage--at one point Natural Resources has made a commitment to make for two new protected areas within the Duck Mountains--I want to know what stage that land is in for protection?

Mr. Driedger: I am going to try just to be a bit more specific. Is one of the areas that the member is referring to the Roaring River area and the Shell River area? Yes, we are reviewing the areas as part of the 1996-97 schedule. We are looking at designating them but we have not quite established exactly whether we would designate them as endangered spaces or protected areas. There are various categories and we have not made that decision. Once we have a better idea what we want to do with it then I will make the member aware of that.

Mr. Struthers: I am interested in more of a time frame and how soon it is that we can look forward to hearing from the minister on this.

Mr. Driedger: Maybe I should try and clarify it a little better. We have ongoing process in terms of areas that we are looking at. I think we made reference to it yesterday. As we were trying to move towards a target of 12 percent of endangered spaces, we have various categories that we are moving forward in various stages. I would like to be more definitive, but it would be within this fiscal year that we basically will be making the decision on that, but I cannot say that it would be by the end of this summer or fall or whatever the case may be, so I will say by the end of this fiscal year is when we will be making that decision and designation.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Struthers: Could the minister give me an idea of how much Crown land would be involved in this protection?

* (1530)

Mr. Driedger: Not at this time but I am just going to check with my staff to find exactly what the process would be in terms of how we establish this, whether we do this through a public hearing process, public input into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have the commitment from my deputy that this would be part of that process of a schedule that basically he is developing together with my Parks director and Parks people toward meeting the objective of the overall picture and ultimately the timetabling of the 12 percent by the year 2000.

I am told that I will be able to get back to the member on the acreage once I have a little bit more information on that. I do not have that specific information as to how many acres of Crown land would be involved.

Mr. Struthers: What would prevent a company such as Louisiana-Pacific right now from going in there and cutting, going into those areas that we have been talking about here?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that discussions have taken place with Louisiana-Pacific because of the consideration that is being given toward these areas, that they are not necessarily going to be moving into that area for cutting purposes. So I have to tell the member that by and large our discussions with Louisiana-Pacific and Repap too, for that matter, are ongoing negotiations all the time about some of the areas that are affected, and it is very positive. They are very conscientious about trying to be good corporate people and my forestry people are very conscientious, of course, with their responsibilities, so there is a good liaison.

The member was trying to pinpoint specific times or areas. Unfortunately, I cannot be that specific at this time and place, but related to those areas I think we have the understanding with Louisiana-Pacific that they will not be moving in there to do any cutting at this time at least.

Mr. Struthers: Another concern that I have with the area that Louisiana-Pacific could eventually be cutting in is its impact on the treaty land entitlement, the claims that have been made in the area and what kind of protection can bands in the area--for example, in my own area, with the Valley River Reserve, what kind of protection do we have in there that the entitlements that the bands of the areas have been putting forth will be honoured by Louisiana-Pacific or Repap of Canada?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I want to just tell the member that it would be our hope and desire, of course, as that is with the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), who is very actively involved with the treaty land entitlement and the settlements that are taking place, the sooner that they identify their land the sooner we can take and resolve the issue as to where cutting can take place and where not. I think the department and probably these questions will probably be more appropriate for the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs, but I believe there is a process in place right now where they are looking at setting aside a certain percentage of lands which the bands are setting aside or identifying, and those will then stay protected for the process. I am not quite sure of the process but the Department of Native and Northern Affairs is banking this land, setting it aside until, you know, final decisions are made on that, until the bands and the federal government come to some understanding and conclusion as to which areas should be designated.

In fact, I have to say to the member that I think a lot of progress has taken place. My understanding from my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs, is that we are very close to getting decisions made on that, and I think everyone is going to be relieved once we basically have done that. Certainly, I think all considerations, all departments, everybody is concerned to make sure that we do not take and pinch land that basically would be picked or chosen by the various communities.

Mr. Struthers: I am just not quite sure what the minister means by the process. My fear is that bands in the areas that are involved in the cut for Louisiana-Pacific and for Repap have not had their fair share of consultations. They have not had enough of an input to make their claims clear. I would like the minister to explain to me exactly what he means by the process that is being used here because it is important that the desires of aboriginal people be worked into this whole equation. From what I have seen so far, that has not been worked into the equation.

So far what I see is two very large lumber companies who have been proceeding along at will with the encouragement of the provincial government and the Department of Natural Resources. I am afraid that aboriginal desires are going to get walked on as we move along and that the process that the minister refers to is not so much a process at all for consultation but is simply an avenue for another company to come in and have its way with our natural resources.

I am hoping that the minister can give me some kind of reassurance that the aboriginal people will be involved in the equation.

Mr. Driedger: I repeat again, possibly my colleague the Minister of Native Affairs who is responsible for the negotiations right now will probably be able to give you a more definitive answer on that. I can just mention to the member that we certainly are not going to set aside all the lands that are out there. That is why I mentioned before the sooner they can pick their lands that can be set aside, big areas are going to be set aside and held in trust until the agreement between the feds and the bands can take place.

But I am not certainly going to direct Repap or Louisiana-Pacific not to cut because then I would sit back and this thing could go on for another 20 years with no action being taken. I would encourage them to move ahead. There is a process that is taking place and my understanding is we are very close to agreements on the overall picture, and I am very encouraged by the latest information that I have received, that it is very, very close to being finalized.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to know then, where does this leave the minister of Resources in his goal of getting 12 percent protected land by 2000?

Mr. Driedger: That is definitely a challenge and we have always accepted from the time that we started with, I think, 1 percent being designated at one point in time. We are at 5.5 right now. We feel comfortable and I hold my staff accountable that they are developing a scenario and a time frame so that ultimately by the year 2000 we can accomplish the 12 percent set aside that our Premier is committed to. I never said it was going to be easy. It is going to be tough, but I am encouraged by staff saying that they feel they can accomplish that.

Mr. Struthers: Does the land that is claimed by the bands in the area, does the minister consider that part of the protected lands?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, that land is definitely not under consideration for endangered spaces. It would be reserve land, especially once the entitlements are completed, and certainly will not be part and parcel of the Endangered Spaces Program.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Chairperson, I was listening very carefully to the remarks of the minister with respect to particularly the endangered spaces initiative and the 12 percent that has been committed of land space in Manitoba by the year 2000. The minister has not really, in my opinion, responded to the member for Dauphin's questioning with respect to how that is going to be done. I know we went through an exercise to achieve that 5.5 percent last year, but that was deemed as overriding the whole notion of treaty land entitlement in this province by the First Nations leaders.

* (1540)

Mr. Chairperson, I would like to go back and ask the minister exactly what processes and what mechanisms he has in mind, particularly his staff, in having some dialogue with the First Nations leaders and particularly the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee in achieving what he would like to do by the year 2000.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I made some comments yesterday in my opening remarks related to trying to--you know, how we intend to proceed to try and get to the objective as set out there. I made reference to the fact that we are having consultation process right now in terms of The Parks Act. We are looking at proclaiming The Parks Act. I would have liked actually to have done it sooner already. When the final round of consultation, where we will basically establish classes and categories--once having done that then I would believe that we would be able to take and possibly designate some of the provincial park areas, and we have well over 100 parks, designate some of those as endangered spaces parks depending on the classes and categories that they work into. We also have the lowlands park which we are working together with the federal government on on a very positive scale.

The member, I think, and myself had the opportunity to have just a brief discussion on that issue when we were coming back from Churchill after the signing of the Wapusk National Park. We are working on the lowlands park.

The member asked what kind of process of consultation is going to take place, and if he is making reference to the, I guess, controversy, differences of opinion that were developed when we designated the four provincial parks a while ago. There always was that reaction, and criticism came forward that we had not consulted with the native communities in the area. I have to take some exception to that, and put it on the record at various times that when that process took place communities were notified. I think the members have the list of all the people that were notified, including bands and councils, chiefs, et cetera, that basically were notified, you know, anybody that had any concerns that they should come forward. A few people did. I think I have tabled those letters as well. But because of the concern that was expressed, I want to assure the member that if we are going to move further in these areas that there is going to be--I will hold staff responsible to make sure that there is very definite consultation taking place. The member is probably aware of the consultation that is taking place under the designation of the potential designation of the lowlands national park that we are working on.

Mr. Robinson: I think that I join with the minister in commending the efforts that have been made with respect to the designation of the Wapusk National Park, and the signing that occurred. That was truly an indication of consultation at its best with First Nations communities, particularly the Fox Lake First Nation and also the York Factory people that had an interest in that particular area. I believe that differs drastically. The minister and I can sit here and differ on our opinion about what went right and what went wrong with the four provincial parks that were designated last year.

Our position, and certainly the position of First Nations people throughout this province that it was not done right, it was done wrong. However, the opinion is different with the Wapusk National Park. I simply want the players identified who are going to be consulted, who are going to work with this government in a partnership arrangement to begin dialogue in designating the remaining land that has been committed by the year 2000. I simply want the names of the organizations and the communities involved and the ones that are going to be directly affected by the designation of the land in the Endangered Spaces Program. That is simply my question, Mr. Chairperson.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair.)

Mr. Driedger: I just want to tell the member that, for example, in the process--and I concur with him--the process that was used with Wapusk National Park was a very positive one. I have not heard anybody come up with a negative comment. I would like to hope that as we develop the lowlands national park that that same kind of understanding and co-operation would be worked out.

The other thing I wanted to say to the member, that even if we set aside land for park, that the bands can still select, and we would consider if there were lands in there that they would want to take and be as part of their entitlement.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the minister, understanding that we are still in the Executive Support line and at times it can be somewhat flexible in terms of answering some of the questions, so I would ask for the minister to give that consideration.

The questions that I had to ask were in a couple of different areas, the first one being in the game farming area and if the minister can give us some sort of indication on what the current status is with reference to elk farming.

Mr. Driedger: I will try and do a bit of a recap of the status of where we are at. Maybe for the member's benefit he should be aware that between 1977 and 1981, under the Sterling Lyon administration at that time, there was an experimental elk ranch set up in the Swan Valley, and there was some difficulty in terms of how that process evolved because it was a pilot project. There were a number of players involved, and some of the elk that were being captured out of the wild. A certain percentage was supposed to be turned back. The program obviously did not go well somewhere along the line, and in 1986 the Premier's administration at that time decided to terminate the elk ranching. Payment was made to one individual to cease and desist and get rid of his elk herd, and invariably--you can criticize, I certainly do not feel very good about it--certain individuals throughout the province were into elk raising, I suppose, with viewing permits and continued to raise elk, including the individual that was paid out to cease and desist the elk ranching.

Over the years there has been a bit of problem developing and it has never been properly dealt with. The government of the day, this government made a decision some time ago that it would get back and allow elk ranching as a cultural diversification program. With that in mind, once that decision was made, my department was exposed at that time with certain difficult problems in the Swan Valley where we have a resident elk herd that is not up in the mountains but is down below in the valley and is creating problems for many of the agricultural farmers out there. Combined with the very cold winter, lack of feed and extreme weather conditions, elk were moving out of the mountainous area into the valley as well, and the farmers were asking us to deal with the issue one way or another way.

One of the things that they suggested--and they supported actually elk ranching at that time. We then made a decision because in spite of the fact that we knew legislation was required, and the disposal and the implementation of elk ranching will be part of the agricultural initiative, the Department of Natural Resources has the responsibility and the decision has been made that for four years we would, based on the amount of animals available out there--we do not necessarily curtail the hunting activities of the people that are interested in that regard--we felt our elk herds were getting very healthy. We have approximately 10,000 elk in Manitoba at the present time. The objective was to take, and based on the decision that we are going into elk ranching, that we would capture some of the resident elk out of the valley.

When we made our final move in that direction to try and alleviate some of the pressure--and that was only part of the initiative, the capture of elk--we had resistance from the farmers who felt that they did not want us to catch the elk and used it as a bargaining tool to try and get 100 percent compensation for the damage that they were receiving. Under the crop insurance program, all they do receive is 75 percent.

A study had been commissioned by the Manitoba Crop Insurance to address that issue. That report, I think, is coming to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) at this time, but we were not in a position to make a commitment of paying 100 percent compensation. What we did then with the department, rightfully or wrongfully I suppose, prematurely probably--I will accept that to some degree--was move ahead to try and alleviate the situation and catch some elk. We captured 114 elk and at the present time--and that is within the rights and the responsibility of the department to do that, but we have no right to dispose of them in terms of an initiative related to elk ranching. At the present time my departmental people and the Department of Agriculture are developing criteria and guidelines as to how the elk will be disposed of.

The legislation, I think, has received first reading by the Minister of Agriculture. I think second reading will take place very shortly, but as the member is aware, the rules of the House are such that the legislation in all possibility will not be passed until November 6 or 7, at which time then we would officially be able to, if the bill passed, would be into elk ranching. That is it in a nutshell.

Mr. Lamoureux: The 114 elk that were captured, were they then all captured from the Swan Valley?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we had a number of catches out there. I have to tell the member that it was quite challenging. I am actually, in retrospect, pleased that we did move in that direction and start capturing elk because it is a new--you are dealing with wild animals. It was a real learning experience for our staff people. We brought in people from Saskatchewan who have gone through this who, basically, were our mentors and gave us advice as to how to deal with the issue. The capture of wild animals in such a way that you do not harm them, kill them, is very challenging and exciting.

* (1550)

Then, of course, we had resistance there by the animal groups. The farmers themselves were concerned. Hunters were concerned. It was very challenging for people out there. We did manage to catch, like I say, 114 elk, I believe. We moved the male elk to the Pine Creek Reserve. They have a facility out there. That was another challenge that we had, to find a proper facility. We had hoped to take and store them actually close to Riding Mountain National Park where the feds have a pretty elaborate corral system, but they were not receptive to allowing us to use that. Ultimately we moved, aside from the male elk, the balance of 95 animals. We moved them into the game farm at Grunthal. The majority were caught in the Swan Valley.

Mr. Lamoureux: It would have been the department then that was ultimately responsible for the capture of all the animals. The majority came from the Swan Valley area. There was a supply of monies provided to one of the area farmers to build a fence from what I understand and to retain animals or elk. Can the minister comment in terms of the type of money that was allocated out. Was it tendered? How many animals of the wild elk that were captured would be at that particular facility?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, the initiative was taken by the department to set up--I think we had two traps that we basically--outcrops that the department developed and set up. We also had the venison council that basically consisted of people who have elk at the present time, at least some of them. So we basically--they offered to catch elk for us as well. However they also met with all kinds of resistance and concerns and ultimately, I think, they did not catch any.

I have to tell the member though that we had a tremendous amount of offers. Everybody wanted to get into this exciting business of catching elk and we were very sensitive. Initially we looked at offers by native communities, groups, and were toying with the idea of whether that was the route to go and ultimately made what I think is the wise decision not to take and allow anybody except departmental people to take and capture the elk.

Mr. Lamoureux: The other part of the question was in regard to the location of the elk after they were caught. I understood that there was money that was given in order to put up a fence. If the minister can confirm that and the amount and if in fact it was tendered, and did all the elk go there or do we have out of the 114 elk some at one location, others at another location? If he can indicate that?

Mr. Driedger: Under the Department of Agriculture, there was a certain amount of monies that was being set aside to take and embark on the program because I certainly did not have the money in my area but the Department of Agriculture set aside certain monies for the agricultural diversification to go into the elk ranching. It was that money which basically my department--it was transferred from Agriculture to Natural Resources and it was that money that was used basically to do the capture by some of these squeezes, to deal with the animals that had to be DNA tested, blood tested, et cetera and also that we built--some of the monies that were expended for the fencing and the game farm where the animals are at the present time.

The rationale that basically was brought forward to me by staff was that if we were going to do this for four years we need to have a base where ultimately we can take them, test them, take them and separate them and do the proper dispensing of the animals at a point in time once we have a proper policy in place to do that.

The member asked whether the fencing, whether that was done through tendering. I believe not. I believe we basically at that time, because we had the animals, moved ahead in 40 degree weather by and large, and we used some of the Parks staff that we had in the St. Malo Park that basically we utilized, bought the wire and just basically used most of our own staff people that were laid off for the winter and brought them on to basically build the fence.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would appreciate, if it is not available right now, if the minister could get back to me sometime over the next couple of weeks as to what the costs were in terms of administration and what the Department of Agriculture would have put forward, only because we have somewhat limited time during the Estimates. I would be very much interested in the actual cost to the government in taking this thing from the ground up to distribution.

So currently, from what I understand, all the elk then for the next four years are going to be kept in some sort of a containment under government jurisdiction with the idea of what, at the end of the four years the elk would be auctioned off? I am assuming that the private sector ultimately is going to be taking responsibility of elk farming. How, at the end of the four years--or if it is before the four years? When do we start to see the average farmer that decides that they want to venture into this area of speciality being provided the opportunity?

Mr. Driedger: I mentioned before that we are just in the process of developing some of the criteria and the regulations as to the disposition of the animals and what price we are going to put on them. I can tell the member right now that in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba’s elk are the most desired elk in the world, really, that if we put our animals up, possibly, for a public auction that--I might be speculative but I think we would probably be fetching prices of $12,000 to $15,000 for bred cows.

So there is quite an asset that is sitting out there, but if we are going to take maybe just some of the concerns one expressed--oh, incidentally, I will get the information related to the costs involved to date, but I just want to tell the member that the disposition of the animals is going to be very crucial in terms of how much money is generated. The idea is to take and have it fully cost-recovered in terms of the sale of the animals.

The decision that we are contemplating at the present time is that half the money will be going into the Treasury Board. The other half will be used to basically offset costs related to capture, handling, disposition of the elk, including enhancement of habitat throughout the province, to work with organizations for the animals in the wild to make sure that we can improve their habitat. By and large we think that it is going to be a positive program once we have it implemented to the stage where we start moving the units out.

* (1600)

The other question that we have to deal with is who can basically qualify for elk farming and how many. Do we put them on a public auction sale and the highest bidder buys them and then maybe two guys buy them and then we lose the impact of trying to accomplish what we want by agricultural diversification? The intention would be to try and supplement income for farmers and have as wide a coverage as possible. Now do we do that on a draw basis, that we basically pull somebody’s name out of the hat and he qualifies for so and so many units and then he has to build a certain amount of fence based on so many acres per animal? The cost of the fencing, et cetera and, you know, do we allow them to take and roll over and sell the animals? If we give them at a subsidized price, can they dispose of them at a full market value? There have to be controls on it. I am just illustrating some of the debate that is taking place that has not been resolved, but we feel between the two departments, they are working on recommendations. Once those recommendations have been finalized, then the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and myself will take these recommendations forward to the government of the day and hopefully make some decisions.

All this is still pending, you know, the fact that legislation has just been introduced and we will not pass that till November 6 or 7. So the sense if there is any criticism I am within my rights in the Department of Natural Resources to have captured animals, I am allowed to do that. This position is a different story again. So we might be accused of having moved prematurely and in the event that the legislation would not pass, we have the means of things we could do possibly with the elk that we have in captivity right now.

The member asked before and I think I failed to answer that. They are in two locations. The male elk are at the Pine Creek Reserve, the facility there where they are being held, and the female elk and the young male and female elk are in the Cottonwood Game Farm in Grunthal.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the government have any intentions on capturing more wild elk? Before this dispersement--and I understand we are talking somewhat hypothetically because the legislation has not passed that would authorize the minister to do it--but are we looking at optimum number before the elk become available?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, it would not be the intention of my department to catch any more elk until, first of all, we have legislation to allow elk ranching to take place. If and when legislation passes and provision is made for elk farming or elk ranching in Manitoba, at that time it would be our intention to possibly have three or four years where we take certain animals, you know, where we feel we have the surplus and capturing them and disposing of them in the same way that the initial group would be disposed. We would not intend to catch any more elk until we basically have done all the necessary things in terms of legislation and the process how we dispose of them.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, is it legal? I am not really 100 percent sure. Are there any elk farms today that Manitobans have ventured into outside of what we have just talked about in terms of the captured elk? Again, I would ask, if the minister is looking at some sort of an optimum number. For example, once we hit the herd at 400, then we would be looking at some sort of distribution, or is it more of an ad hoc number that they would be looking at?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, initially, I think, we looked at approximately catching maybe 100, 150 a year for four or five years. They would be disposed of on an annual basis as we captured them, did the proper testing. They would then be disposed of on that basis, whatever process we ultimately finally agree to in terms of doing the disposition. So we would not be banking a whole bunch of elk. We would be taking them--for example, the best time to catch them is usually in January where you have the coldest weather when they come down to feed. You can bait them, I suppose. So there would be no elk for the elk catcher captured now until we basically have legislation in place to have elk ranching.

Mr. Lamoureux: So the soonest possible time in which the government would actually enter into the dispensing of captured elk would be when?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could legally do that until the legislation is passed. My personal feeling was, and we did not want to try and be presumptuous and arrogant in terms of saying that the legislation will pass because we cannot say that and anticipate that necessarily, but it would be nice if we could possibly have allowed those people who qualified through a draw basis, if that is the approach we take, that they could basically build their structures and their fencing during the summer months instead of in winter when it is minus 30, minus 40 below. These are still questions that are out there, question mark, and have not been resolved.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister did not necessarily respond to the current--are there any commercial elk farms? Then I would add to that, does the government believe that there is going to be a geographical area in which elk farming would be allowed? Are they at that stage currently?

Mr. Driedger: I will start from the end first. Some of the consideration that is being forwarded and under discussion between the two departments is that there should be no elk farms established on Crown lands. The member asked about whether we have existing elk ranching taking place. We have viewing permits where five individuals have elk on farms right now, plus we have two reserves that basically have elk.

I believe the Department of Agriculture has been making an effort to establish exactly how many animals, elk, are out there at the present time in captivity and really, I suppose, the only one that would be an elk rancher at this time would be the operation in Swan River? Minitonas? There is no legal elk ranching taking place in Manitoba at this time. There is no legal, primarily elk ranching. [interjection] Not legal, no.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister says not legal. I am wondering if he can indicate if there is any illegal elk farming going on.

Mr. Driedger: It is a matter of interpretation, Mr. Chairman, as to whether they are legal or illegal or whether they are within the bounds of a viewing permit or not, but it is a problem out there, and I can tell the member that a lot of the problems were created by maybe doing the whole thing prematurely. But there is a lot of interest out there, I must say, and even now we are probably in the next week or so meeting with some of the native groups who have a very strong vested interest in getting into this as well.

So these are all things that are being evolved. I suppose I have escalated the whole thing and brought it to a different level by having captured the elk rightfully or wrongfully at the time that we did. We now have elk. Now all we have to do is see how we can take and work out a system so that we can dispose of them and accomplish basically what we wanted, once legislation is passed.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If I could just have one minute, I would like to bring attention of the gallery to my honourable colleagues. We have with us today from R.J. Waugh School, under the direction of Mr. Art Grant from the riding of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan), 30 students from Grade 6. Welcome to the Legislature.

* * *

Mr. Lamoureux: Ultimately we could even see elk farms out in Gladstone, quite possibly, you never know.

If the minister was made aware of an elk farm that is there today, a commercial elk farm, would it then be the intentions of closing that farm down?

Mr. Driedger: As I mentioned before, we are aware that there are elk in captivity in five places in the province besides two reserves where there are elk also in captivity. How the government is going to deal with them has not been established. That is part of the strategy that is being developed in terms of how we deal with the ones that we have captured and what do we do with the ones that basically are in captivity right now. I know that the Department of Agriculture has made an effort, the minister with his people, to ID how many animals are out there at the present time that are in captivity. That has to be part and parcel of the plan for disposition.

* (1610)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can indicate what sort of a role--and this is in essence probably a question that one could equally put in agriculture--what sort of assurances can the minister give regarding potential disease of wild animals? I recall, I believe it was in Alberta, where some disease that was very similar to the mad cow disease was found in an elk, and then as it turns out that elk was actually somewhere from the States I understand. It was not from the Alberta herd. I am wondering if the minister can give us some information in terms of the disease control, something that would alleviate right from the onset any concerns that many individuals might take issue in terms of the whole disease component of wild animals.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) I want to say that I guess because we were sort of the last kid on the block to get into it with the exception of Newfoundland, I guess, Saskatchewan and Alberta had been--all the other provinces have basically been into game farming and elk ranching for some time--we do not have to reinvent the wheel in terms of how we should deal with it. The Department of Agriculture has some very qualified people who have been working on this thing in terms of looking at the registration of the animals, how the movement would take place, you know, interprovincially, the controls of it. The health end of it is a very, very sensitive thing, and that is why even the animals that we captured, they have all been blood tested by the federal Health department, health of animals department, and will be retested again. There is very great sensitivity in terms of making sure that animals have a clean bill of health, that you do not take and have an element of disease because, if I can tell the member that even years ago, when the debate took place the first time around, there always was concern by the general public, by hunters, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, about the disease end of it, whether by getting into the game farm or elk ranching there is the possibility of cattle infecting the elk, vice versa, all these things. But there are very tight regulations that other provinces have established, and we are following that example, and we think we can avoid any pitfalls.

I might say that at the present time the way we are establishing this is once we have the rules and regulations established that by and large Agriculture is going to take and be administrating the elk farming end of it, the rules, the regulations, the transfers, registration, et cetera, et cetera. My responsibility in Natural Resources, by and large, will be for the four or five years, you know, based on the amount of animals that we think we have surplus, to provide those animals--Agriculture, once we have the system place, would then dispose of them and have their system in place in terms of how they deal with health, registration, transfer, tattooing, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister would ultimately be responsible, obviously, for the 10,000-plus elk that are out there, the wild elk. Is there an assessment of those elk in terms of disease? One would expect through time elk will die of more natural causes if they are not hunted down. There is some real concern that is out there, especially with the publicity that is going on in England over this whole mad cow disease, and the last thing I would want to be accused of is trying to spread a rumour of that effect in the province of Manitoba regarding our elk, but is that--

An Honourable Member: Rosann did that already.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would even put that particular heckle into the record. But is there any reason for Manitobans to be concerned at this point in time with regard to severe diseasing of our elk?

Mr. Driedger: I want to assure the member that, by and large, the management of our wildlife resources, like the fish resource as well, but certainly from the wildlife end of it, there are very qualified biologists out there that know what they are doing. I have no concern at the present time about the disease factor related to the elk. I just want to say that from time to time what happens, and I want to use this as a bit of an example, that we normally have 350,000 to 400,000 beavers in the province when the European Union basically started the ban on furs and the prices went all the way down.

People quit trapping beavers. As a result, we had a beaver explosion which is still in effect right now where we have well over a million beavers, and it is going through the roof. The member is probably aware or should be aware that municipalities, farmers, even the government departments have major, major damage and impact because of the excessive amount of beavers that are out there, aside from all the trees that they are cutting down. Ultimately, I am told that when you have an explosion of wildlife, whether it is beavers, ultimately if there are too many around then nature looks after itself and usually disease crops up in there and annihilates a good portion of them, unfortunately. So if we can control that without having these explosions--

An Honourable Member: Balance of nature.

Mr. Driedger: Balance of nature. We try and play a role in that, but the member is well aware too that we have cycles, for example, prairie chicken cycles, sharp-tailed grouse, the ruffled grouse, rabbits, deer for that matter. Things all work in cycles. We try and be good managers within the department to see through hunting regulations, et cetera, whether we can keep a healthy herd. I have to tell the member, though, that I guess in the last number of years our wildlife populations are very healthy, whether it is deer, bear, elk for that matter. We have to make sure that we, at least from my perspective, utilize, maximize the returns to the province in terms of using the resource and, at the same time, not jeopardizing it.

But from time to time you have glitches in there. For example, this winter we had anticipated because of the severe winter that there would be a tremendous amount of deer basically starving, and so we launched a feeding program together with the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. The lodges and outfitters in my department and many, many volunteers and wildlife associations set up deer feeding programs in various parts of the province, and my latest report is that we managed to stave off having a big winter kill of deer. What that basically does then is it allows us to have substantive hunting seasons for that coming year and giving people the enjoyment of the hunt as well as maximizing the returns financially to the province.

Mr. Lamoureux: A concern that we have is how this whole process--and we are at its infancy stage and the minister himself acknowledges to a certain degree that they might have acted somewhat prematurely in terms of the animal is caught but no dispensing. As time works its way through, ultimately we will see elk in amongst the different animals that are in captivity. One of the biggest concerns, of course, is cattle. Now this might be getting a bit out of the minister’s jurisdiction, but who knows, a cabinet shuffle in June or September, he might be the next Minister of Agriculture. At the very least he sits around the same table as the Minister of Agriculture and there is a great deal of concern not only from individuals that would oppose elk farming outright but also from more moderates, if you will, individuals in particular from within the cattle industry that are quite concerned in terms of the potential impact.

That is why, as I say, there is no doubt going to have to be somewhat of a process and would trust that the Minister of Natural Resources is working very closely with the Minister of Agriculture to make sure that the concerns that are, in fact, being expressed are being taken into account. The minister might want to comment on that.

Mr. Driedger: Trust me, Kevin.

* (1620)

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister says trust me. Well, we will wait and see and then ultimately find out. I do not know if the minister wants to comment on that area?

Mr. Driedger: One final comment to the member basically is, yes, we are very concerned about the disease faction and that is why, I think, the federal Department of Health and our own people are working very closely in terms of making sure that the testing is done, the proper precautions have been taken so that we do not create a disease factor out there which would naturally get everybody very, very upset that this had happened, especially prior to us even having established a proper program. So there is very much concern about that.

I can tell the member when we did the fencing at the game farm in Grunthal, we made very, very sure that there was no way that any--you know, there is a 30-foot span between the two fences so that there can be no contact with any other animals, strictly for health reasons.

Mr. Lamoureux: I have actually two other areas which I am going to briefly go into and unfortunately it is because of time that we are not able to go into the real detailed discussion as we probably should. Maybe we will get a better opportunity next year to be able to do just that. [interjection] Sure, and I appreciate the gesture.

The department, from what I understand, has now gone into some revenue generation with respect to the whole draw process for licensing. I had a constituent who visited me at the local McDonald’s who was somewhat disappointed in the sense that he said, you know, Kevin, that the government says that they are not increasing our personal income tax. Then he shows me a piece of paper and on that piece of paper it says, now you have to pay in order to get your name in for a draw. Whether you are accepted or your name is actually drawn is a secondary issue, but now there is a fee in order to submit your name for a draw purpose. I am wondering if the minister can expand on why that is being done and if he can indicate other areas regarding wildlife and fisheries where that is the new policy of the government.

Mr. Driedger: The member is accurate in making the statement that anybody who applies for a special draw has to pay additional monies. I want to illustrate to the member that over the years we have had the various draws in certain game hunting areas and certain species, and we have had people that if you get drawn one year, then you cannot be drawn the year after that. We have people that, by and large, apply and get drawn every second year. We have people that applied 10, 12 times and never got drawn because every name goes back in the hat. What we have decided to do is upgrade our system of having a draw so that if you get drawn this year and I get drawn this year, then the next year those that did not get drawn move up the slot and your name falls to the bottom. So it is going to be an ongoing basis.

We have to do that, we have to do equipment upgrades and stuff of that nature, and it is for that reason that we have a fee for anybody that makes an application for this special draw. You do not have to go to a special draw, you can go and hunt in the regular season if you like. There are still open seasons for moose, deer, et cetera. You do not necessarily have to go on a draw basis. On elk you have to on a draw, elk is always a draw. So if you want to hunt elk, basically you have to be in the draw basis.

I think the Manitoba Wildlife Federation is lauding the move that we are making in terms of making sure that everybody will be able to have a chance finally to get into the system, that it is not just the luck of the draw for certain people who invariably are more lucky and get drawn every second year. The guys who have been outstanding for many, many years basically will be able to get into stream, so we are moving it in such a way that everybody is going to have a crack at it. That was the rationale for doing that.

Mr. Lamoureux: So it had nothing to do in terms of revenue for general revenue purposes. It was more so just to be a bit more self-sufficient and provide more opportunities for other people that have not been as lucky, using the words that the minister has.

Mr. Driedger: I want to indicate to the member that in this particular case, it had nothing to do with money generation, it was cost-recovery in terms of setting up the new system. I have to tell the member though that I am on the verge of asking staff to do a bit of a study to find out whether we are maximizing the returns on our natural resources, namely, wildlife in terms of hunting. When you consider under elk ranching that if you put some of these animals on the block and they sell for $12,000 and here you buy a licence for $45 to go out and shoot an elk, is that something that we would have to start looking at?

Comparatively, when you look at the some of the lodge and outfitters, basically if you are a nonresident, you come into Manitoba and want to hunt a bear, you go to a lodge and outfitter and you pay two, two-and-a-half thousand dollars to shoot a bear. Are we maximizing the results or the returns basically from our resources? I throw that out only as a thought. It is not in place right now, but I think there is an opportunity that we have to look at. Maybe we have to compare it to what other countries are doing and the money that is being spent. Maybe we have to start looking at, do we have to charge more?

I have to say I am torn betwixt and between because basically I love to hunt, I am a hunter, I have hunted all my life. I do not want to have the price so high that I cannot afford to go, underpaid as I am. It makes me a little nervous. [interjection] I thought that would create a little bit of a rise somewhere along the line. I am just suggesting to the member that there is great potential in terms of maximizing the returns out of our resources and utilizing that money possibly to manage well our natural resources out there.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, to throw a thought also at the minister, did the department take a look into the possibility of charging extra then for those that were successful in the draw, thereby allowing individuals the opportunity to be able to participate at no cost? One would think that many would envision a draw where, you know, things are thrown into a barrel and you pick out names. Now, computer technology and programming the way they are today, it is actually a fairly complicated process no doubt in any given draw. But having said that, no doubt the same sort of costs that are being generated by entering your name into the draw, could they not be, that same money be compensated by charging that much more for those individuals that were successful? This way you are not penalizing someone from being able to participate in the process per se.

Mr. Driedger: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member says it is an option to look at. When staff came forward with various recommendations, this is what they basically brought forward, and when we had our discussion about it, we felt that this was an acceptable way to go with it. This is the first year, basically, that we have embarked on this. We will be monitoring it very closely. If we feel that the system is not accomplishing what we want, I am not adverse to changing again.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the minister's response, and I will be sure to pass it on. I understand, and I do not have a full understanding of this--I will start right from the beginning--but there are lodges that are operated on some lakes. They would be assigned that particular lake. I am a bit miffed in terms of exactly how that works. What I am talking about is lakes or lodges where there is no road access. Individuals are literally flown in in order to be able to get access to it. The question that I would have is, what about the average citizen of the province if they were to trail to that particular lake, take a three-week holiday type thing, walk through the woods for a week and a half, choose to fish for a couple of days and then come back? In other words, you assign out, from what I understand, certain rights to a particular lodge at some sort of cost one would think. What access does the average Manitoban have to that particular lake if it has been assigned out?

* (1630)

Mr. Driedger: I could spend a lot of time clarifying for members, I guess, the process that is out there related to lodges and outfitters. We have a variety of them. We have a committee that basically looks at--because there is ongoing activity, people getting into the business, out of the business, expanding in the business, and we try and control that. However, for Manitobans, they have the right to fish any lake in Manitoba. If you want to take a hike out to Bolton Lake, for example, God bless you if you can make it, you can fish all you like there, but there is a lodge there and that lodge by and large has a management agreement with us, so that it is a catch and release lake, for example, and you can have shore lunch. We get into an agreement with the lodge outfitter--I use that as an example--that he might allow you to take home two pickerel or a jack or a lake trout or something like that, but by and large we have management agreements with many of the lodge operators in terms of management control of the resource out there.

Manitobans can fish pretty well wherever they like, unless we have limitations on there, a lake is closed or stuff like that, but no Manitoban would be denied just because there is a lodge on there. However, many of these lodges--and that is on the fishery end of it--you, of course, have lodges and outfitters basically that go in for fishing during the summer and hunting in fall. They capitalize on the moose season, the bear season, deer season. Everything comes through basically at committee where applications get made, they get licensed for a lodge, for fishing. They get licensed, if they want to, to apply and whether the resource is out there for moose, or bear or deer, it is an ongoing process.

My committee works with this all the time. Every two or three months I have a stack, a wad of paper about this thick coming across my desk in terms of revisions where somebody wants to have an out camp to fly into and have a bit of an out camp, but it is all regulated. People cannot do what they want out there on their own in terms of setting up a camp and doing that. That all has to be done through a committee where we authorize it and control it so you do not overuse the resource in the lake, fish it out. We are very conscientious of that.

Mr. Lamoureux: I know the member for Dauphin has been patient with me and I appreciate that. Just one final question and that is in regards to forestry. Can the minister give some sort of indication, if you will, of what sort of reforestation, generally speaking, that is there? For example, you have L-P, you have Repap, you have forest fires that occur that take down a certain percentage, let us say, of our forests in any given year. In terms of not natural but reforestation efforts from the government, can the minister give some sort of an idea of what percentage of the forest is, in fact, replaced on an annual basis?

While the minister is thinking about that, I am just going to make a general comment, if you like, Mr. Chairperson, and that is there is a lot of area that is covered within Natural Resources. I know that the member for Maples was hoping to be able to get off a couple questions, but it is quite wide and varying in terms of the different issues that are in there, and it is only because of the time that we are not able to spend more of an effort in this area. Hopefully, in future Estimates we will have more time to spend more specifically in other areas, especially in environmental-related areas, areas such as the reforestation. What I am looking for is to get some sort of an idea of the government's attempts on reforestation.

Mr. Driedger: It is unfortunate that we cannot spend more time because I find this department a very exciting department, whether it is wildlife, whether it is fisheries or whether it is forestry. I could spend a great deal of time going through the whole process of what is happening in the forest industry. I will try and be relatively brief. We have management agreements with companies like Louisiana-Pacific. We have agreements with Repap. We have agreements with Abitibi in terms of reforestation that takes place. With the agreements that we have and with what the department does, we plant approximately 12 million seedlings every year, which is quite substantive, but we have these agreements basically in place, and it is all in terms of how much do we cut. I am not glossing over it, I am trying to give as much information I can in a short time, but we have what we call an annual allowable cut. That applies to quota holders, that applies to the big companies, that applies to everybody. There is so and so much wood that is allowed to be cut every year while we sustain the ongoing cycle. From the time that a tree is cut until you plant it, it is what, 30, 40 years sometimes until you have a tree that is harvestable again. So it is an ongoing cycle, and that is why we always talk about annual allowable cut.

That is why quota holders have a quota of 100 cords, 200 or whatever the case may be or metres. That is why Repap has so and so many cubic metres, that is why Louisiana-Pacific has so and so many cubic metres or Abitibi. It is all based on how much they are allowed to cut, and we factor into that disease to some degree. We factor into that forest fires to some degree. We factor into that the wildlife resources, for example, where we have sensitivity areas, where we have caribou areas, birds, like the great grey owl. We deal with all those things. They are all factored into it.

It is a very complex way of doing it, but it is not like this is the first time that we are in the business with me as minister. This process has evolved over many, many years with very qualified Forestry professional people that basically work on these things on an ongoing basis. I have very good people out there that would, and I just want to say that I offer this to pretty well all members of the House if anybody wants to--I have my Director of Forestry Art Houle, who I think is a very, very qualified person, or some of his staff people will be prepared to sit down and maybe just give a bit of an overview of some of the things and concerns and questions that people have.

For example, I think I offered last year during the forest fire fighting days for people to come and have a look at exactly what was happening. They should see the sophisticated equipment that we have. I want to extend that offer here right now as we are coming into the fire fighting season. We know that the North is relatively dry again. We could be getting into heavy forest fires again, and I will extend an invitation to members if they want. If they will let me know in time, I will organize, and that goes for my colleagues as well, to go and see exactly our fire station here in Winnipeg, where when lightening hits anywhere in the province, you can see it right there. It shows right up in the chart. You look at your charts on an hourly basis, and it shows you exactly where every lightening hit goes. We know exactly, with the equipment that we have, what kind of timber is there. Do we send out our initial attack crews? If it is sensitive forest area, we have them out there within minutes with helicopters. It is a very sophisticated system that we have.

In fact, I am hoping, for the benefit of the members here to maybe do a bit of a tape that we could be using for schools and for members just to see how basically our crews out there work. We have thousands of people that are employed in it. It is dangerous work as the members are aware. We lost a very important person, every person is important, in a helicopter crash and people were killed last year.

* (1640)

We are going to try and make the public more aware of basically how we defend our forests out there and what is involved with that. So I say that only because a member said he did not have much time to ask. There are very, very exciting and challenging things happening out there all the time and if you want information, we will get you information.

Mr. Struthers: I was glad that the minister made the statement that he did not want to come across as arrogant in the capture of these elk and in so suggesting that the arrogance had something to do with the fact that he has got 31 members who can ram through any legislation that they want to ram through the Legislature. I must say that he must be feeling very confident since he did start the capture already and we have got 114 elk captured and stored in a couple of different locations in the province.

I was a little bit confused there for a while, though. At one point the minister said that all 114 came out of the Swan Valley, and a little while later he said that the bulk came out of the Swan Valley. Was there not an elk trap at McCreary luring elk at that point? How many elk were taken from that part of the world?

Mr. Driedger: I am trying to recall now. I will get specific information on this, but I think the trap that we had basically set at McCreary was the one that was done through the venison council as we were trying to work with them to see before we changed our mind ultimately. I think they had set up the trap at McCreary. I do not think we caught any there, but I will confirm that and let the member know. I think the elk basically all came out of the valley--no? I will find out specifically, but I thought most of them came from the general area out there.

Mr. Struthers: So far this afternoon, the score is two times you said they have all come from the valley and once you said that the bulk came from the valley. The information that I have suggested not even the bulk of them came from the valley, from Swan Valley, that only a small percentage of them were trapped in that area and that the bulk of them came from a trap at McCreary and that the elk were being lured out of the Riding Mountain National Park.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I am going to get specific information exactly where the elk were caught so that I do not leave any vagueness out there as to whether we caught 90 here and 14 there, whatever the case may be. I will get specific information on that and have it by tomorrow.

Mr. Struthers: Could the minister shed some light on the contract that he has with the venison council? How much money would they be receiving to do the job that you have asked them to do?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I was that close to signing a contract with the venison council and at that time everybody was getting into the game. It was at that point in time I decided not to sign that contract, and as a result we never did proceed with the agreement so they got no elk out of it. I think staff had worked out an arrangement whereby if they captured so many, that some of them would be available to them. It was a proposal basically that I never did enter into.

Mr. Chairman, we are having some debate here, my deputy and myself. I would not have signed it anyway, my deputy tells me, that the director for the western region, Bob Wooley, would have signed it. We are not sure now whether the agreement was signed and then I cancelled it as the minister, or whether it was not even signed before I withdrew the offer or being involved in that. I just know that we terminated it.

Mr. Struthers: Did the venison council then capture some elk at McCreary?

Mr. Driedger: My understanding is no, but I want to confirm that. I will have that specific information by tomorrow, exactly where the animals were caught so that there is not going to be any confusion about me putting things on the record more than I have.

My deputy informs me that the venison council definitely did not catch any. If there was any catching done, I will have to check whether it was my resource people that did it. We had entered into a contract with an individual who was sort of doing the captures, was it not? I do not know. I will get details on that.

Mr. Struthers: The other comments that I was interested in earlier when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was asking some questions, the minister was, on several occasions, telling us that he has a responsibility and a right as the Minister of Natural Resources to capture these elk without ever having a law in place to allow him to do that, and on the other hand, he was saying that he may have done it prematurely. I would suggest that he would be correct in saying he has done it prematurely, taking on an initiative like this, hoping that the Legislature would then turn around and say it is okay as to what he has done. What I am trying to say here is, could I go out and capture elk as an individual citizen in this province?

Mr. Driedger: Most definitely not; only I. I do not want to be facetious. It is within the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources to be able to go and capture wild animals and hold them and dispose of them, transfer them. That is within the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources. Any private individual cannot do these things.

However, when I say having caught these animals prematurely because legislation is not in place, I mean, if the legislation would not pass, then I would have the liberty, together with my staff people, to decide whether we would transfer them into the southeast area of the province, stock them there as we have done in the Interlake, or we stock them somewhere else in the southwest portion of the province, Turtle Mountain area. There are many other options that basically myself and the department could make a decision on what to do with them if the legislation does not pass.

We could also, as an asset, decide to maybe sell them to Saskatchewan or Alberta. I do not know. I am saying there are many things that we could speculate about. I still believe that, all things being equal, the legislation is being proposed, and my department and myself will probably just mark time and see whether the legislation passes. If it does pass, then we will implement the disposition of it through the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Struthers: In the final analysis, the minister is doing something that most Manitobans, or any other Manitoban cannot do. There are laws saying that we cannot do that, but that the law allows him to do it. Can aboriginal people capture an elk and keep it in confinement?

* (1650)

Mr. Driedger: Legally, no, and the reason why, unless the member thinks I am trying to exert some kind of authority here, that is not the case, but the Minister of Natural Resources has certain powers that are granted within the department. For example, when we have the polar bears up North that we basically put them to jails and we move them around with helicopters to get them away from the town of Churchill. Those are the kinds of things that basically the minister is allowed to do within his department in terms of dealing with wildlife.

If we have black bears, for example, that harass people at cottages, et cetera, my officers have the right, under their jurisdiction, basically to take and dispose of them, or capture them, to tranquilize them and move them. I mean those are the things that basically go with the department, but individuals, whether it is native or anybody, other Manitobans do not have that right to do that.

We give them the right, under the system the way it is set up, to hunt at certain times. We control that, but, no, in terms of dealing with wild animals, that is the prerogative of the department, by and large.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that aboriginal people can capture the elk and confine them but they cannot sell them.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Driedger: No, that is not the case. The Natural Resources Transfer Act, and I do not want to get into the court cases and stuff like that, but it gave the natives the right to take and hunt for food on Crown lands by whatever means, and that is for food. They do not have the right to basically capture and hold wild animals.

Part of the discussion that is taking place right now with the native community and with the chiefs is going to be as we move forward into elk ranching, subject to the legislation being passed of course again, that what role do they play, where do they fit into this thing because they certainly have a keen interest in it. Like I mentioned before, I know of two of the bands that basically have elk on their reserves right now and they do not even have a viewing permit.

There has been a problem sitting out there for a long time. I know the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is well aware of that because her brother was the Minister of Natural Resources when a lot of this controversy was taking place and I was a critic at that time. Just when I was ready to pounce, then all of a sudden he cancelled the whole program.

Mr. Struthers: Could the minister break down exactly where the elk are now? We understand that there are some at the game farm at Grunthal. How many would be there? How many are at the Pine Creek Reserve, and are there any other places where the elk are being kept right now?

Mr. Driedger: Aside from the elk that are in captivity that have nothing to do with government, the ones that we captured, there are 19 at Pine Creek Reserve and 95 of them are at the Cottonwood Game Farm in Grunthal.

Mr. Struthers: On the basis of what criteria did you decide to keep these elk at Pine Creek and on the basis of what criteria did you decide to put 95 at Grunthal?

Mr. Driedger: The reason why there are 19 male elk in Pine Creek is because these were the big bulls and it was felt that for reasons of safety for the animals themselves, where you have cows with young calves, that you want to separate them, especially when you take and run them through the shoots and taking blood samples, et cetera. The big bulls invariably--you know, they are wild animals, it would be the tendency to hurt some of the younger animals. It is for that reason that ultimately 19 of them went to Pine Creek, and the cows with the young males and females went to Grunthal.

Mr. Struthers: My question more specifically then is, I understand what he is saying about Pine Creek, why Grunthal? There are lots of places in the province you can go to and spend money to build a fence to keep elk without going to Grunthal, Manitoba. The reason why I am asking is that the information that I have been given suggests that the deer in that area, up 60 percent of the deer, carry brainworm. Why would the minister take the chance of subjecting these captured elk to brainworm that is prevalent in the deer in the Grunthal area?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chair, the member asked why Grunthal. I could ask, and why not, why anywhere else? If I had moved them to Kelly Taylor's farm in the west part of the province, would he ask why there, why not Grunthal? But, by and large, I suppose I created some concern in everybody's mind when I made a statement to the effect to say I was very pleased that they were in the Grunthal area. It was basically staff that went around and checked, using various things, you know, where we have some management expertise in doing that.

I have to tell him that old Nick Janz there, who is 83 years old, basically has run the Cottonwood Game Farm for many, many years. He is the best operator of and has the best wildlife viewing farm in the province, if not in the country. He is a very qualified individual, a very easygoing man, understands wildlife, prides himself on it. Some time I would suggest that maybe the members take a drive out to have a look at his game farm. It is just very, very unique.

But staff were looking at some of the places that, by and large, had facilities, limited facilities, but facilities to hold these animals, and they are the ones that made the recommendation. Because of the pressure that was coming down in Swan where basically everybody was trying to get in there, you know, kill the animals, spook the animals, and things of that nature, the staff recommended that this would be a place where it was removed from the scene of the action, so to speak. We could take and hold them without having any difficulty, and when they made that recommendation, I jumped on it like crazy. I said I certainly support that and agree with that, and that is why they are in Grunthal. The other ones, basically because the Pine Creek Reserve had facilities as well that could handle the bull elk, that is why they went there. It was not that there were not other options being looked at. They looked at many places before the decisions were finally made.

Mr. Struthers: The minister said, well, why not there. I mean I gave him a good reason in my little preamble there about why not. I mean, 60 percent, so I am told, of the deer in the area are infected with brainworm. Could the minister deal with that part of my question?

Mr. Driedger: Without trying to be facetious here, I wonder if the member could clarify where he gets information that 60 percent of the deer in the southeast area have brainworm. That is certainly--I am flabbergasted. I mean, I do not know where the member got that information from. Certainly my qualified staff and people in the field have never, never mentioned anything of that nature. I will certainly look at that.

Mr. Struthers: I would suggest that the minister does look at that and ask the very same people that were telling me the information which are very qualified people in his department.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that I will certainly find out. He does or does not have to tell me who of my people told him that, but I will tell you something, I am going to find out anyway because that is a statement that has never, never surfaced in the department at all. Mr. Deputy, has anybody in the department every mentioned this? I will get details. The deputy says that it is not an uncommon thing to have brainworm especially in moose. There are not too many moose where I live, but if the member is saying that 60 percent of the deer have it, I will establish that. I will get that information.

Mr. Struthers: Earlier in the questioning, the minister had stated that they had, I believe, put a double fence around the compound. Why would you put the double fence around the compound if there was no danger of the elk contracting some sort of disease from another animal in the area?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had explained it before, that it was a precaution that we took so that no animals can touch or get in there. So stretching the disease factor, which we talked about before when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) raised it, we are not going to be taking any chances. I certainly do not need that kind of problem before we even get into the elk farming business. [interjection] Well, escape--I mean, I do not think it tends to necessarily make a difference in that regard, but certainly it was for health reasons, by and large, that we set up a dual fence system so that there was no opportunity for outside animals to make contact.

Mr. Struthers: Could the minister indicate how much money has been spent upgrading the facilities at Grunthal? How many taxpayers' dollars went toward that? How much is the minister projecting is going to be spent on medicine and veterinary services and that sort of thing while the elk are at Grunthal? How much overall is this episode at Grunthal going to cost the Manitoba taxpayer?

* (1700)

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I gave that undertaking to the member for Inkster that I would get all the detailed information, exactly what the costs have been in terms of the process. My colleague is now here, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), but it was out of his department where that money was set aside for the part of the diversification program of getting into elk ranching. I have to say that we both feel very strongly, we have a very valuable asset out there, depending what price you put on the animals. With 114 elk out there, even if you take $10,000 an animal, you know, we are well over a million dollars worth of assets that we have out there. I think it would be irresponsible--

An Honourable Member: What about the babies?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, and that is happening. My colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is talking about additions coming, and my understanding is that will be happening within the next 10 days, and so we will have some more animals as well. But it is a very valuable asset, and I think we would be irresponsible if we did not take every precautionary measure we could take to protect these animals. It is not like we are spending money foolishly. I think we are spending money wisely because this is going to be a return for the province as well as for the elk enhancement which we basically are looking to undertake throughout the province. So we feel very confident that this is a win-win situation.

Mr. Struthers: How many of these little bambinos will be left at Grunthal after the elk are all dispersed?

Mr. Driedger: I do not know whether I heard that question right. Is the member asking how many of the little elk are going to be staying there after? Well, I could be a little facetious here and say, well, you know, it would be nice if this happened, but I know the Minister of Agriculture, his people are doing the counting, and I suspect that they are going to make very sure that every one of these animals is going to be accounted for.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say, though, I do not know how many of these cows that we have there are going to have young, to be calving, but--

An Honourable Member: They will not be foaling, they will be calving.

Mr. Driedger: They will be calving, yes. So I do not know exactly how many will be. I will be checking with Mr. Janz in the next week and try and get an update. You cannot always tell exactly how many will be, but--

An Honourable Member: Prospects look good?

Mr. Driedger: Yes, they do look good.

Mr. Struthers: There are 95 elk at Grunthal right now. Will it be 95 elk that leave Grunthal when they are dispersed or will you leave some behind?

Mr. Driedger: My deputy says that the member is trying to imply that we have cut a deal with Mr. Janz to keep some elk. That is not the case. They get paid on a per diem basis per animal, you know, for feeding the animals. That is it. If Mr. Janz or his son want to get into elk farming they will have to go through the same process as everybody else in the province will have to do, which basically, once we have the rules and regulations established, whether it is by a draw basis, they will have to be subjected to the same conditions that anybody else would be.

Mr. Struthers: So I should not be worried about 95 elk leaving the site at Grunthal and this Mr. Janz keeping the elk that are born at Grunthal, or should I be worried about that? I mean, are you or are you not going to take 95 elk out of Grunthal when you disperse these across the province, or are you going to take all of the elk total, all of the elk born to the 95 that are there, and take them all out after you have dispersed them from Grunthal to the other parts of the province?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the 95 elk that are there will not all have young because there are a bunch of young animals of last year's calf crop that were there, basically males and females, many of them naturally would not have them bred yet. I am not sure exactly how many of the cows that are there, the cow elk, female elk that are basically pregnant and will be having young, because it is not abnormal that you have open ones as well out there. If the member wants to question the integrity of the operator out there, I want to tell him that I do not think there has ever been a straighter man that I know of than Mr. Nick Janz who basically has been the reverend in my church for the better part of 40 years. If any man has ever got integrity, this man has got integrity.

So it is not that an individual of this nature, God fearing minister that he is, would take and look for any corruption to take place in that operation.

Mr. Struthers: I want to assure the minister it was not Mr. Janz that I was worried about. It takes two to make a deal. Whether there is a deal or not, frankly I do not care. What I want to know is how many elk are going to be left there when you folks take off with your elk that you have moved in.

If your figures are correct, and earlier on you mentioned that an elk, a cow elk, could get $12,000 to $15,000, if you leave one single elk behind, that is a pretty good payoff for the amount of time that you have stored your elk at somebody's facilities.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I will allay the concerns and the suspicion of the member in terms of whether we are honourable or not, but I do not know of any herd that has ever got more attention and has been watched more carefully than this herd here, not just watching the Janz operation or my departmental people. We have the whole Department of Agriculture and a minister that is very sensitive in terms of the benefits that will be accrued out of this as well. So I would like to just suggest to the member, if that is the big fear that he has that there is going to be something untoward going on, there will be full accounting of all the animals that basically have been delivered there that will have been born there. We have many, many watchdogs, and he can be one of them as well.

Mr. Struthers: Speaking of watchdogs, how much money has been spent capturing the elk of the Swan Valley? I want to include the amount of money that was spent by the department on security, building and rebuilding fences, everything that was included in capturing the elk and then transporting them to Grunthal. How much money, how many taxpayers' dollars did it come to?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, twice I have given the undertaking that all the costs related to the elk operation, I am going to make that available. Like I say, the money by and large has been upfronted by the Department of Agriculture, and there will be a full accounting of all the costs that are related from the capture, the transportation, the storage, the fencing. I will make that available. I do not have that here, but we will make that available. I gave that undertaking to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and for the second time I am now giving that undertaking to the member for Dauphin that this will be available.

Mr. Struthers: Can I switch gears a little bit on this elk ranching project? I am concerned, as many people are, about controlling disease within the elk population, not only the captured elk but wild elk. Could the minister describe any kind of tests that can ensure Manitobans that the spread of disease will be somehow controlled by people in your department?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I think that question would probably be more appropriately put to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) who works with his counterparts, you know, the federal health of animals department, but I do not know what kind of assurance the member wants in terms of how do we control disease. We certainly have taken all the precautions. We were almost criticized a little while ago because we had double fencing to try and avoid disease impacts, et cetera, and I do not know what further assurances I can give in terms of guaranteeing that out of the 10,000 elk that we have in the province that they are all healthy, that they will not contact disease. I cannot give that kind of assurance other than the normal things that by and large my biologists do when we watch these herds to try and make sure that it does not happen.

* (1710)

Mr. Struthers: Is there or is there not a test that can be administered on elk to tell us what diseases they have got, and is it accurate?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had indicated to the member already earlier that each one of the animals that has been caught was blood tested and they will be retested again, you know, as part of the federal requirement to make sure that they are totally healthy, that there is no disease there. In the first round of testing all this took place. We have no problems to date, and they will be retested again this fall, I believe--well, somewhere along the line. Right after calving they will probably be tested again. So the federal government vets come out there and basically take the blood samples and do the analysis. They tag and identify the animals so that if there is anything at all they would identify that right away. There has been nothing coming forward to this point in time.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to suggest that one of the reasons why the minister has trouble answering that question is that there is no test that is 100 percent foolproof that he can point to to say to Manitobans that there is no problem with disease in the elk herds, that there is no way that this disease is going to be imported from other jurisdictions like Wyoming and Colorado and Saskatchewan and Ontario. There is nothing that the minister, or any minister on the other side of the House can point to that will absolutely ensure Manitobans that diseases such as tuberculosis, brainworm, mad cow disease, the list goes on, any of those diseases--[interjection] Then my question would be, why is the government moving to subject our elk populations to this kind of risk if the only thing that is certain in the world, according to them, is death and taxes? There is no assurance that you can give us that you are not inviting the spread of disease, and very costly, inhumane diseases, into this province.

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give any assurance that even if we had not captured one elk that there would be a guarantee that the elk herd is healthy, that 10,000 elk. There is no way. I mean, we are not going to be starting to catch, you know, the wild herd and try and test them to see whether there is disease in them. The only thing we can basically do is what is available to us right now, which is the taking of blood samples by the federal department of health of animals who then analyze and then have told us to date there are no problems out there.

There is nothing that I can give better assurance of other than what we are doing at the present time. There is no foolproof thing, and for all I know, a third of the elk herd out there has some kind of a disease. I do not know. We do not see animals dying. We assume that, by and large, they are healthy out there, but there is no way I can give a guarantee that there is not--you know, this disease portion of it is a thing that has been debated since '77 when the first discussion came up, and it has been debated in other provinces. By and large, whether it is on the beef herds in the province that have--[interjection]

An Honourable Member: Horses, cow, pigs.

Mr. Driedger: Cows--virtually anything, you know, where you can have an outbreak of some disease. But I will tell you something, our professional veterinary people, federally and provincially, basically when this happens somewhere along the line they quarantine areas, make sure that the spread is controlled. The same thing happened with the elk that the reference was made to--in Saskatchewan was it?--that apparently came from Kentucky or something like that, they instantly quarantined up the whole area, feel very confident they have controlled it. These are the only precautions that basically I would know of that we could undertake and, you know, that we would be able to do anything with.

Mr. Struthers: I think the minister deep down knows how ridiculous the statement is that he just made. You do not have a whole lot of elk these days wandering up from places like Wyoming and Colorado just on their own. You do not have a whole lot of elk just kind of wandering around the country. You do, though, when you come to elk ranching, buy elk in one jurisdiction and move it, transport it to the next, disease and all. So what the minister is saying here is not the whole truth. Now you have got to look at the whole truth, the whole big picture here, and you have got to see--[interjection] Maybe if the Rural Development minister would listen he might learn some of this, too. By all of a sudden deciding that you are going to go into elk ranching, you are opening up all the diseases that are across the country, including mad cow disease, and the Agriculture minister knows this, and you are inviting it right into--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If the honourable minister has something to say on a point of order, he is more than welcome to stand up on that, but other than that I would appreciate it if he gave the member for Dauphin the opportunity to finish his question.

Point of Order

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): On a point of order, it is extremely irresponsible for anybody to make any references to the so-called mad cow disease with respect to elk. There has been no, absolutely no indication, not a single animal that experienced that in Canada. To make those kinds of statements at this time when the cattle industry is already suffering ferociously is highly irresponsible, and I caution the honourable member to think twice about putting those kinds of irresponsible statements on the record. I do, as Minister of Agriculture, take a great deal of exception with that kind of irresponsible talk.

If he wants to cause more heartache to 15,000 cattle producers in this province, then let the official opposition party continue talking in that loose manner.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Dauphin to conclude with his questioning.

* * *

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a member of the opposition, I would think that it would be incumbent on me to do my job and ask the questions that could have a very devastating effect on the very agriculture industry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) are talking about.

Now, it might not fit into the democratic attitude of some of the members across the way, but the opposition should raise very valid concerns including mad cow disease which has been--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the indulgence of the honourable members in the Chamber to ask their questions when it is their turn. If they choose to get into this debate, we have a number of hours left within this depart--[interjection] Order, please. We have a number of hours left in this department, and everybody who chooses to put their words on the record are more than welcome to within this committee.

At this time, the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has the floor. Let us show common courtesy. The honourable member for Dauphin, to conclude.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will continue to ask the questions that are so important to agricultural producers in this country. I do not think any agricultural producer wants to lose cattle to any disease, including mad cow disease or tuberculosis, or any of the other diseases that this Tory government is inviting into our province through the elk ranching scheme. It is my job and I will continue to do that.

In connection with this, I am wondering if there are any plans to leave the borders wide open at Saskatchewan and to the States and to the east when we go to bring in elk from other jurisdictions. Will the borders remain open, or will there be any restrictions on the flow of elk back and forth from one jurisdiction to another into Manitoba?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all put on the record that there has been no identification of mad cow disease. The animal that has been referred to, the one case that was out there is called chronic wasting disease, that was caught and established and necessary precautions taken.

I want to tell the member also that the Canadian border has been closed to U.S. imports of elk since 1990, due to the threat of T.B. So the border has been closed. There are no animals coming in from the States related to that, you know.

Further to that, I am having difficulty trying to give the member some assurance in terms of--I am not sure what he wants in terms of an assurance that we are doing everything that is humanly possible in terms of guaranteeing that we are going to be dealing with the potential spread of any kind of a disease, and that is why the testing is so extensive and that is why the Department of Agriculture--and he can raise that question again when he deals with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) related to the precautions that are being taken, that are being taken in the whole livestock industry.

* (1720)

I do not know to what extent the member's background would relate to livestock farming, et cetera, but myself, having been a livestock operator most of my life, whether it was T.B. or whether it was any other kind of disease that basically established within a herd from time to time, you have all the necessary veterinary services and precautions. Basically the federal health of animals department is very, very sensitive to anything of this nature because it is such a tremendously big economic impact on the province and country. That is why the sensitivity of some of my colleagues comes forward when there are some random statements made, you know, about wild cow disease. Just the talk of it has nearly bankrupted the British beef industry, and it has never really been established whether that was necessary--it said may have caused. So you know by putting this kind of innuendo on the record many people who do not understand the kind of precautions that are out there would then start having spectres of concern that this could be happening out here. That is why my colleagues get, especially the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), very sensitive about the kinds of statements that are being made. I think we have to use a bit of common sense in this matter. The member certainly can ask any questions that he wants, but I am giving him the assurance that everything that can be done in terms of controlling the spread of disease is being done and will continue to be done.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that mad cow disease has been detected in other jurisdictions. There is no disputing that. The fact is that people from Manitoba who get into elk ranching have the potential to buy elk and bring them into this province with other diseases. Now, if I cannot ask those questions, if the government is afraid to answer those questions and they want to sort of muzzle anyone who wants to ask all the questions, then that just fits into the general attitude, the general formula, that I have seen with this government from the minute I have been here. They have got to deal with all the questions.

The other question that I think they have to deal with is what I think is going to be an increase in poaching because of this move towards elk ranching. What steps can the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for elk who are wildlife in this province, what steps is the Natural Resources minister going to take to control the amount of poaching that will develop as a result of elk ranching? I am thinking in specific to the cases of people who have come to me and said that what ranchers who are ranching elk will do is set up near a provincial forest and lure elk out and capture them. Now, how can the minister ensure and assure Manitobans that kind of practice is not going to take place?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am going to request leave. The honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is not in his proper seat. I ask leave of the committee, and this is mainly for Hansard's concern, is there leave for the honourable Deputy Premier to be recognized in that spot?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Well, I am not going to answer the question specifically. It is the Minister of Natural Resources' responsibility. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put a comment on the record because I think this is an extremely important subject which I would hope--and the member made reference to poaching and activities as relates to elk ranching. Let us be clear on what in fact has taken place over the past year. In fact, what we have seen has been a tremendous movement of what has been the wild elk herd into what would be the domesticated farm areas of which, if you have had any experience or seen any activities at all, there is a tremendous intermingling at this particular time. In fact, the elk unfortunately just do not eat the farmers' feed and come into the farmers' yards, they climb on top of it and they mess all over it, and there is a tremendous amount of activity already that has taken place.

The member makes reference to poaching, and I think we are certainly all opposed to it. The sale of poached animal parts is certainly illegal and abhorrent and cannot be supported. I believe that what is being proposed by my colleagues, the ministers of Natural Resources and Agriculture, will in fact help eliminate it, because what you will have are registered products that are coming out of an industry that are totally under control as relates it to sale and marketing and tracking of that activity. Today there is none of that. Every animal we track.

I think the member would be well advised to wait until the legislation is tabled--

Mr. Driedger: Tomorrow.

Mr. Downey: --and the minister says tomorrow, to pass judgment as to whether or not all their checks and balances are in there, but to come out and leave an impression that it is a potential of spreading disease or increased poaching--yes, this place is for debate and it is a place for questioning and I encourage you to do so, but I think to do anything that would deter or to muddy the waters on what is taking place would not be fair to an industry that we believe, I believe firmly, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, has a real opportunity of developing in a proper way.

We are one of two provinces left in Canada not to have an industry development, Newfoundland and Manitoba, as it relates to game farming. We should not continue to deny our producers the opportunity to proceed in a responsible way, and again I want to make one last comment on the record as he refers to the disease, an elk that was detected in Saskatchewan. That is not mad cow disease, Mr. Chairman, it is not mad cow disease.

The other thing is, as it was done three years ago when there was any chance of that type of disease spreading, it was wiped out and all the contact made with it. The animals that had contact with it were actually cleaned out, so the point again is that we do not believe we should deny an industry opportunities. On the poaching point, I firmly believe it will bring under control and regulate all the products that may or would be sold from that industry in a regulated way, and I would hope that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would see it as an opportunity.

Last of all, Mr. Chairman, what we do not need to see happen is what is happening currently to our PMU industry in Manitoba and the threat that it is coming under. I would hope that before members opposite go off on a political tangent trying to make some political marks for their own political benefit, they would consider very seriously the consequences of what they put on the record.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have been listening very intently to the debate. It is a very interesting debate, but we started off on the right track when we were dealing with the elk under the issue where it was under this line or under the minister's department, and that was in the catching of the elk, but we have moved off now into a direction where we are bringing it into the Department of Agriculture.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am not quite finished yet. You can get me on a point of order when I am done. What has happened is we are moving toward the Department of Agriculture and away from this line. As long as the line of questioning has been dealing with the minister's department, we are within the line, but when we move to Agriculture in the next few days we will have an opportunity to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) those questions, and this is for all members. So I would ask for the indulgence of the committee to wait for asking the issues of elk farming to that, and that also takes into account the disease, the transportation of, so your line of questioning on the transportation of elk into the province is under Agriculture, not under the Department of Natural Resources.

The hour being 5:30 p.m., the committee is now recessed until 9 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday), as previously agreed.