Consideration of Concurrence Motion
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. The Committee of Supply has before it for its consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions on a few issues that have been raised with me, and one of them is people from the Grandview area, who, by the name of Fiarchuk, last year found two elk. The mothers had been killed, so they bottle fed these elk. They raised them up. They were not keeping them in captivity. They would come and go from the farm. The other day Natural Resources came, and they took one of the elk, Now, I have talked to Natural Resources and they tell me it is for the safety of the elk that they have taken one, but Mrs. Fiarchuk feels that they were prepared to continue looking after the elk. They did not want these animals to go into captivity.
The other incident that happened at the same time is that very close to Fiarchuk three elk were killed by a vehicle. When Natural Resources was called about this incident they were told that they did not have the funds to clean up these dead animals, that was not their responsibility, so they were not going to clean them up. So the Fiarchuks are wondering how it is that on one hand there is money in Natural Resources to capture the elk that they are looking after, there is money within Natural Resources to be flying over their place to check up on what is going on, but on the other hand when there have been elk that have been destroyed they are told that Natural Resources does not have the money to dispose of these animals when they are Natural Resources animals. I am sure the minister does not have this information at hand.
I have talked to one of the Natural Resources officers, and I have relayed that information to Mrs. Fiarchuk. She does not feel that they have been treated fairly or that Natural Resources is dealing with this fairly, so I would ask the minister if he is aware of the situation, and if he is not, whether he would investigate the matter.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): I am not directly aware of the situation of the Fiarchuks, if that was the name that the member was referring to, but there is a matter of principle that is involved. I think the member for Swan River would probably concur--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member, but I think the member for Swan River is having trouble hearing the minister. Could I ask members wanting to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge? It is a little bit disruptive. Thank you and I appreciate it. The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Cummings: The problem that we have been faced with on not a lot of occasions but on a couple of previous occasions is that there are some very well-meaning people who will want to raise a moose calf or an elk calf that they believe has been orphaned and very often they have obviously been orphaned.
One thing that does arise where an elk calf has been orphaned is that, of course, it is legal in this province now to be able to market elk, but you must be marketing them from licensed operations.
I am not sure if there is any relevance to this case, but I would have to point out that it is certainly relevant to concerns that we have, and that is that we believe there has been in the past illegal activity where female elk were killed so that the calves could be taken. That was obviously illegal and certainly every attempt was made to stop that. But the question that was raised was: if somebody has an obviously orphaned calf that they raised, do they then have the ability to keep the calf, sell the calf into a licensed operation, or return it to the wild? All of those circumstances create some difficulty for the Department of Natural Resources.
* (1110)
One thing that I am acutely aware of is that, despite all of the well-meaning people out there, and I suspect the Fiarchuks fall into that category, there are people who might deliberately choose to make sure there was an orphaned calf so that they could then receive some reimbursement or find a backdoor way of getting into the elk ranching business. Either way would be very troublesome and cause us some obvious difficulties for enforcement.
Having said that, I will take the name--I understand it was the Grandview area the member indicated--and review what our actions may have been with this family. The implication was that they are under surveillance, but yet we do not have money to go and clean up the dead elk that have been left--and if you are referring to them in a field or on a roadside.
An Honourable Member: On a roadside.
Mr. Cummings: They were killed in an accident along the roadside. I suppose, and this is not passing the buck, but in the end, generally speaking, Highways runs a patrol and they do clean up. So it is not a matter of the province not doing it. The Department of Highways is equipped to do it and will likely do it as soon as they realize that there is a mess there that has to be cleaned up.
If, in fact, the Fiarchuks have acquired these elk calves in good faith, then they have nothing to fear from surveillance or anything else. But they are faced with a question, they are facing our officers with a question, oh, well, what are they going to do now. If you habituate a calf to humans, then you obviously create a problem trying to return it to the wild, No. 1. Number 2, if you raise the calf and habituate it to humans, probably it should go into an elk-ranching setting, although that might not be the most desirable in the minds of the person who has raised the calf.
So it has to be handled with some delicacy, but the concern is that we do not in any way make it possible for people to, through the back door or through any possible illegal activity, profit from raising orphan calves.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that answer, and I will pass those comments on to Mrs. Fiarchuk. I want to ask the minister: last spring when elk ranching was starting there was an amnesty that was extended to those people that had elk, whether they were taken illegally or elk that were not registered. Can the minister indicate whether there is any further amnesty being extended, whether there is anybody being allowed to keep elk that are not presently registered? The reason I ask that question is I have been told that--and the minister raised the issue of people shooting the cow and then being able to capture the elk. I have been told, and I cannot substantiate this because I have not seen it happen, that that is exactly what is happening south of the Riding Mountain National Park, and that people within Natural Resources are aware of what is going on but very little action is being taken. In fact, no action is being taken to curtail this activity from happening.
I do not condone it, and I do not condone anybody taking calf elk. I can understand where people get them if they take them when they find them, but I think also that has to be reported to Natural Resources, and the department has to be aware of these animals being--I would not want people to be going out and picking up baby deer or whatever from their mothers. I do not support that at all.
I am concerned about, first of all, the question about the amnesty, whether it is being extended to anybody. Then the next question is is the minister aware of what is allegedly happening south of Riding Mountain, and what steps is he taking to ensure that if this activity is going on, that it is stopped as soon as possible? Is this a case where the special investigations unit that we have within the Department of Natural Resource can play a role? Are they doing any work to ensure that these kinds of activities are curtailed as soon as possible?
Mr. Cummings: Well, first of all, if the special investigations unit was being sent into the area, this is the last place I would talk about it. Secondly, if the member thinks that the minister or the department is negligent or if there is information out there that would be useful in an investigation, I am assuming that she is duty-bound, the same as the rest of us, to share that information in the most useful way with the enforcement officers.
I am not accusing her of not doing that, and it is legitimate that she raised the question here, but the most useful thing that can occur now that we have raised it here is that every bit of information that she has or rumours that she has heard is either shared by letter or by word of mouth with the most direct route that she may choose to get that into the hands of our enforcement officers, because there is no amnesty. We will use the full force of our legislation and the law to stop anybody from moving elk illegally or capturing them illegally in this province.
The capture did not go as well as last year, as we would have liked, but, nevertheless, we are not providing any opportunity for anyone to take elk from the wild. The Department of Agriculture has laid charges that have been pending for a long time. I do not have the detail of the charges in front of me, but the one operator when our last amnesty came into place--and I am not sure that amnesty is the right word. What we did was invite everyone who had elk on their property and in their possession to register them, but we did not condone any illegal activity. They had to be able to demonstrate how they acquired those elk and, in so doing, make a statement about where the elk came from.
The member knows, probably better than I do, but, certainly, I want to repeat it for the record, that the only case that I can think of when elk ranching began in this province where we allowed that elk that may have been taken from the wild illegally were allowed to move into the industry was in the case of a native reserve where there is a constitutional issue about whether or not they could have held the elk for personal consumption. Beyond that, no one was allowed in the industry, that I can call to memory, who would have acquired elk by that means.
In fact, the very question of the legality of how elk were being held in this province and whether or not--the question was, frankly, was the public cheated of some value, and that became an important issue in determining the legality of the elk that were held.
As I have said on the record before, there were people who had elk. Frankly, they got them from the Winnipeg Zoo. I mean, there was no secret about how they got them but nothing intentionally illegal about what they were doing. So, this one soft underbelly, if you would, of the elk industry, where there are people out there who would willingly take a cow down so they could capture a day-old calf, as far as I am concerned they are the scum of the wildlife area. Our officers have my encouragement to do everything they can to stop it. They certainly cannot get those elk into the industry in Manitoba. If they are taking elk in that manner, they are moving them illegally out of the province into some other jurisdiction, because we have the means through the DNA testing to make sure that those elk never get into the herd in Manitoba. Therefore, there should be no value to them.
So if somebody is doing that, and if they are getting value for those elk, they are not getting it in Manitoba, or they should not be, and they certainly will never be able to register them as legally held elk in this province. Therefore, there cannot be any value to them because that is where the opportunity for marketing is as far as I can see it. So there may be some other jurisdiction that is culpable in causing this to still happen, but we are quite prepared to enforce the law and stop it.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that the capture did not go well last winter because of the warm weather. Can the minister indicate whether there is any intention by his department to do a summer capture? Are there any plans to move the responsibility of running the capture over to the Department of Agriculture rather than maintaining it in the Department of Natural Resources?
* (1120)
Mr. Cummings: As the member for Swan River knows, I challenged the advisory committee at Swan River to discuss whether or not the summer capture was viable, and I believe they recommended against it. I am not pushing the issue. I am asking for the best advice of everyone, from our Wildlife people through Agriculture through, in this case, a committee of concerned citizens in the Swan River Valley, what their best advice is. I am not receiving any advice if the summer capture would be viable or appropriate.
I know, however, that we still have a problem in the Swan River Valley, and I am still not happy with the way the capture went last year. Might as well put it on the record that there was a lot of talk about whether we were capturing valley elk or whether we were capturing mountain elk or whether they were taking the elk out of the right area. In fact, we said we were not going to take elk out of a certain area because we had taken them there before, Pretty Valley being the example. But I think it rings a little hollow when people set up an elk trap within a mile or two of Pretty Valley and then tell me they are not taking Pretty Valley elk.
These are not domesticated animals that stay within the fences, so I am going to be challenging the people in the valley to deal with me forthrightly in this respect. If it is a personality clash, that is one thing, and I am disappointed that that does occur. I am not a pugilist by nature, but I get quite annoyed when people use other means to, in some cases, inflict their personal vendetta into a situation which I find myself in in terms of trying to organize a capture within the valley.
That is a statement that I am not going to elaborate on either here or anywhere else, but to simply say that I do intend to take another broader look at what we are doing in terms of the capture in the valley. I think it is appropriate that the capture still rest with Natural Resources. The Department of Agriculture, at the minister's level at least, has never expressed a desire to change the way in which we manage the capture. Natural Resources is responsible for the regulatory side of the wild animals and their habitat. It is only after they are placed in a ranching situation that the Department of Agriculture takes over, which, again, is appropriate because we are into appropriate legislation under their acts, and, of course, we are dealing with veterinary and domestic issues that Natural Resources is ill equipped to deal with.
But in relationship to the capture, I must emphasize that we did learn a little bit more this winter. The one problem we had, not in the Swan River Valley but on the south side of Riding Mountain, I can assure you that I will be the first one who will be looking for improvements as a result of the one death that we had--well, the death of two animals that we had. That should not have occurred. It need not have occurred, and I will make darn sure that chances of it happening again are very small.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, last year the minister got into an agreement with First Nations that they would be responsible for the capture or a portion of the capture in order to help them get established in the industry. I want to ask the minister whether he has had discussions with Metis people, and I understand the matter has been raised with the minister. It has been raised with us where Metis people are wondering how they fit into this picture and whether there is any opportunity for them to get involved in capture or get into ranching.
The avenue that I see right now for them, the only opportunity that I can see for them right now, as things are going, is that they would have to purchase elk from the pool or have some arrangements. But I would like to ask the minister, have there been discussions? Does he see a role for Metis people who have expressed an interest in getting into the industry of elk ranching or who have expressed an interest in the capture? Has the minister had his staff look at how this issue could be addressed?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, there have been a couple of delegations representing Metis people who have been in my office or in my colleagues' offices when I was present lobbying for the opportunity for a Metis capture, same as the native capture that we agreed to last year.
We told them that we would prefer that the Metis community look at their opportunities somewhat differently than the way the native community, the aboriginal community was represented, as represented through the Assembly of Chiefs chose to move. There is a difference obviously.
I do not know if the member for Swan River is advocating for a Metis capture. To this point, we have indicated that we would prefer that they attempt to work with the system, attempt to enter it through legitimate agricultural operations. We are prepared to look at it through our lending institutions, providing opportunities, all of those things, but anything short of providing for a Metis capture. But, obviously, I would be interested if the member for Swan River has a different view.
Ms. Wowchuk: On another issue, one issue that we have talked about many times is the allocation of wood and the availability of hardwoods for independent sawmill operators. The minister will well remember the discussions when Louisiana-Pacific was coming into the area, people wanting assurances that independent sawmill operators would have the ability to continue to operate.
I recently wrote to the minister about people in the Ethelbert area, one of them being Dennis Burdeniuk who is looking for an allocation of wood. Can the minister indicate--again, he may not have the answers here. First of all, is there any review being done of the amount of wood that is available, whether the annual allowable cuts that have been used up till now are accurate? Can the minister indicate whether there are any surpluses in the hardwood right now that would allow for people who are interested in operating sawmills for pallet lumber or different kinds of hardwood lumber that are needed?
The other question is we have always talked about the Swan River area and the Duck Mountain, Porcupine Mountain, and I think that there is quite a high usage in there. Can the minister indicate whether there is any hardwood available in the Interlake area that has not been allocated that other people would be able to access in order to start up different operations?
* (1130)
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I did not pick up on the specific name that the member indicated, but I will answer the question in the bigger picture. I do want to observe, and I would not be a good politician if I did not observe that the member for Swan River, along with her party, has not acknowledged what their position is on whether or not there should be a Metis capture of elk. [interjection] I think it is only fair that they put their position on the record. I recognize that I am supposed to answer the questions, but I also recognize that everything I say will go out for public consumption. I find it interesting that the official opposition has no position, so it leaves them free to say whatever they want when they leave this House, but my position is clearly on the record from what I just said in answering the previous question, you know, and there is nothing better than a good policy debate to separate the two positions and how we believe we could manage our resources.
Going back to the wood lot, or not wood lot, managing the wood forest licensing opportunities, the cutting opportunities, Manitoba is becoming increasingly committed. Manitoba woods are increasingly committed closer and closer to maximum. I am not aware of what you would call surplus wood. There is a trade. There are trading opportunities. Leaving the Interlake alone for a minute and dealing with the west side of the province, there were a lot of privately held cutting rights that have been sold and traded over the last 10 years, as I understand it. There is also some pretty large and significant players, one of which has been growing a fair bit which is a mainstay of her hometown, or not her hometown, but the centre of her riding in the Swan Valley. The Spruce Products has acquired a lot of cutting rights recently, spent a lot of their own money doing so, have spent a lot of their own money expanding and have got a first-rate operation going in the valley.
Going further afield, however, into the Interlake, there might be some availability there. I recall an inquiry from Peguis, however, looking for cutting opportunities and realized at that time that there are very few cutting opportunities that the department can offer right in that area. There are opportunities, however, where contracts can be had with Tolko, Pine Falls, and those are opportunities that people should not overlook if they wish to contract or be involved. If they wish to actually acquire the wood, then I would have to seek further advice from my Forestry department as to what specifically might be available. I just cannot answer that off the top of my head.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) for participating in concurrence, and I have a couple of questions concerning Mr. Mike Pavlic [phonetic], a person who is probably well known to all of us because he has certainly greeted us from time to time at the Legislative doors and raised his concerns about Workers Compensation and his injury with us. I promised him I would ask the questions to the Minister of Labour, and I will do that. He is certainly a feisty individual and a determined individual. I can attest to that and I am sure the minister can as well.
Apparently Mr. Pavlek, according to our information, worked at Inco and sustained an injury in Thompson in 1966. He performed janitorial duties for Inco, and then seemed to have had a situation where WCB was dealing with his condition by sending him to rehab and scheduling him for surgery in the early '80s. Apparently Mr. Pavlek had a dispute with the Workers Compensation Board employee, and was informed in his opinion that this condition was pre-existing and not work related.
Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
He has a couple of questions he would like the minister to deal with. One, why was Mr. Pavlek sent to rehab and assessed for surgery by the WCB if his injuries were pre-existing, as later claimed by WCB? Why did the WCB change their opinion? And, No. 2, Mr. Pavlek claims the medical information has gone missing; what can and has been done to ensure Mr. Pavlek receives his complete Workers Compensation Board file?
I recognize that, through this period of time, the minister has not always been the Minister of Labour, and the members opposite have not always been the government of the day, so I just ask this question on behalf of Mr. Pavlek recognizing that this obviously is a long-term issue of dispute between himself and the Workers Compensation Board. I do not have any answers for him, quite frankly, because I do not know the facts. I am just putting those questions to the minister today.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the question. I do recall that the member did make a commitment on open-line radio in Brandon, I believe, to look into this, and I believe he is fulfilling that promise.
As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I do not get involved in day-to-day cases that come before the Workers Compensation Board, and I have had this discussion with his critic on a number of occasions. I believe the board has processes in place to review cases, to have people go to an appeal system if they feel that they have not been given fair treatment, and ultimately they can go to the Ombudsman to have their case reviewed as well.
So I am not sure with this individual whether these options have been exercised or not. I have not had the pleasure of meeting the individual, nor delving into the case myself. That is done by people at the Workers Compensation Board. So I guess I would advise the Leader of the Opposition--and I know he well knows this--that there are a number of very complex cases that are dealt with that go back to previous decades and some of them have some history with the board in terms of being dealt with in the '70s and '80s, and they do not feel that they have been given satisfaction.
My one piece of advice was to use the processes in place by having the case reviewed, perhaps going to the appeal panel, and if that still has not resulted in satisfaction in having a thorough examination of the case--and I believe it will because I know the board has in my meetings with the chair of the board and board members on a number of occasions, they have always reiterated that they have processes in place and that it is very difficult to start making individual decisions without going back to the legislation and the processes that are there. I would urge the member for Concordia to give that advice to anyone that brings an individual case to him, that I believe that the legislation and the procedures and processes that are in place do ultimately give individuals fair treatment. It gives them an opportunity to have their cases reviewed from time to time, and this can certainly be done with any individual.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Chair, is the minister aware of whether this individual has ever received the assistance of a workers advocate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I cannot answer that, but the member does bring up another source of information, and assistance and workers advocates are available.
Mr. Doer: I would like to then ask the minister in his other portfolio, his other responsibility, that if Mr. Pavlek has not had the contact already with the workers advocate office of his department, would it be possible to have this individual meet with the workers advocate and see? I mean, I would rather have the individual sitting with the workers advocate to see if there is any remedy for his situation, or appeals or any other processes or not, rather than having to engage in his democratic right to protest on the Legislative steps. I cannot imagine it is that healthy to be out there sleeping in front of the Legislative Building, and perhaps, somebody that feels this strongly about this situation, perhaps a workers advocate could be helpful, if they have not already been formally engaged.
* (1140)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will raise that with my senior staff and have them review that.
Mr. Doer: I would urge the minister, if he has not already seen a workers advocate, let us get him working through the systems that the minister has outlined through a workers advocate. There may be ways of answering the questions. There may be ways of posing the appeal, and I thank the minister for his attention on this matter on behalf of Mr. Pavlek.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) for being here today in the House to answer some questions in concurrence. The questions that I have, I have several of them having to do with the forest management licence agreement with Pine Falls Paper Company.
We have been over this area a while ago in Question Period, and I would like to go in a little more detail in it today. Will the minister agree that no forest management licence agreement should be signed between the government of Manitoba and Pine Falls Paper Company until there is participation of First Nations communities along the east side of Lake Winnipeg?
Mr. Cummings: Well, the member and I have discussed this before, as with other concerned citizens, and I think what he demonstrates is that--and it is unfortunate that this is the case, but there are probably people who just flat out do not trust the system, and they will say so, so I am not saying that I acknowledge that they should. I am saying that there are people out there who, I believe, do not, for whatever reason, want to trust the system that is in place.
I happen to trust the system that is in place, and in working with a potential harvester--in this case Pine Falls, but it would not matter whether it was Tolko or whether it was Louisiana-Pacific or any of those major companies--it is a work in progress, because in a forest management agreement, there are cordages that are of harvestable wood that are known to be in an area and that is done with, I believe, very large margins of error. So if there are sites that are environmentally sensitive, which we might have missed in the original survey of the area, or if there is local interest that may not have been totally acknowledged, all of those things, so that as any company in response to licensing procedure has to have additional conditions imposed on them, there is plenty of room for that to occur. Let me illustrate what I am getting at in case I sound like I am speaking gobbledegook.
Staying away from Pine Falls, let us look at the larger issue in the North right now. Tolco, for example, has established a very good record since coming here of wanting to involve the local native communities in their plants. I leap from there back to Pine Falls and say, yes, they have an obligation to be out consulting and seeking information with the affected communities, and that includes the native communities, the aboriginal communities. The member is asking should I be an advocate that a condition of even sitting down with them is that they reach an agreement beforehand with those communities. I think that may be a position that he holds.
What I am saying is not that, but I am saying that Pine Falls has to step up to the plate, and they certainly have agreed that they will, and they are undertaking consultations, as I understand it. But where the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and I both get caught in this situation is that different people have different concepts of what is appropriate consultation. On the one hand, consultation can be what do you think and then I ignore your comments, or consultation can be how can we work together on this and coming to some kind of a mutual understanding on how in this case the forest industry will evolve within their local community.
Some of the concerns that have been raised in the Pine Falls area--and let us hit the question straight on here--some of the areas that have already been part of the traditional and the older areas where Pine Falls has been harvesting are the areas where the concerns are coming from, not so much the new areas where potentially they could be moving in to harvest. So that raises the question about whether consultation in this case means what are your plans and how can we work with you, or is it the other question which is what are your plans and how can we continue to frustrate the process? In the minds of one or two people that I have talked to, frankly, they do not have a particularly open mind in terms of what I think should be consultations.
Remember just a moment ago I criticized Pine Falls by saying they have got to step up the pace a little bit more, but there are people on the other side of the issue, as well, who have to I think approach this with a little bit more of a pragmatic view as to what is the best way of getting some development in the area using the forest management licence and the harvesting that is going to occur as one of the best vehicles to improve opportunity in their area, at the same time recognizing traditional interests, recognizing hunting opportunity and all those other things.
So I am not going to accept the preamble of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), but I am going to say that I agree there has to be a meaningful consultation occur. Perhaps that is really where the common ground is, not only between him and me but between the people in that part of the province. Meaningful consultation is the key to successful implementation of any future agreement with Pine Falls and an FML, a management plan and an environment plan that we the province and the public will put into place.
But the concern that I am unwilling to directly address unless I hear a little bit more detail from the member for Dauphin is I think he implied that no deal should be made, no progress can be made in terms of management of the forest or even striking a contractual arrangement between Pine Falls and the Province of Manitoba, that none of that should occur until everybody is satisfied that they have had appropriate consultations. I got that impression from his question, and if that is where he is leading perhaps he would like to expand on that.
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, the minister pointed out that there will be people who do not trust the process, and I concede that. There are also people who do not trust the people in charge of the process. There are people who disagree with the process, maybe the minister himself. Who knows? However, the concern is that deals will be made unofficially having to do with economic activity and economic development in this part of the province on the east side of Lake Winnipeg without major stakeholders being consulted, without major stakeholders being part of that process and without major stakeholders having a say in how they want this part of the province to develop.
My concern is with the process. If there is going to be trust built in the decision-making process, if people are going to have credibility, if they are going to think highly of decision makers, then what is really important here is the process.
* (1150)
Speaking on behalf of this side of the House, if the process in place is followed and if everybody is treated equally and fairly in this process, then there is not going to be a hue and cry from this side of the House. If, on the other hand, we find evidence that things are not above board, if we find evidence that deals are being made without aboriginal people, for example, having a real say in this process, then we will raise this as an issue of concern and I think legitimately so. So what it really comes down to here is outcomes. It is actions rather than words, and if aboriginal people are excluded from the process, then, yes, the minister will hear from me. The minister will hear from a lot of people probably, and I think he knows that. So that is what is important here. That is the angle that I am coming at this from.
I also understand that in the late '70s, 1979, I believe, there was a document entitled Provincial Overview Plan: East Side of Lake Winnipeg, a plan that was put together having to do with looking towards the future with the economic development on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. On page 14 of that report it stated that Abitibi-Price and Natural Resources are also involved in the construction of roads in the area. It is anticipated that this road will be extended northerly along the shores of Lake Winnipeg.
The report was never adopted by the government as a land use management plan. What it did do, though, was it identified several major concerns related to increased development along the east side of Lake Winnipeg that need to be mitigated prior to an all-weather road being constructed on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. Some of the other concerns that this report identified were the need for the government to identify and adequately record and investigate the area for archeological and historical sites; the need to protect historical, architectural and archeological sites and structures from use or activities that would endanger them; the need to implement environmental protection measures in the area prior to major development or alteration of existing land use policies; the need to resolve resource and land use conflicts; maintenance of the esthetic appeal of the area; maintenance of fish and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend; protection of a significant portion of the plan area for wilderness recreation.
So what I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that there has been work in the past in order to determine what the economic development along the east side of Lake Winnipeg should be. It seems to me there has been some good work done in establishing priorities, establishing some objectives, and that it did, from what I gather, include all the stakeholders on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. Now, what I do not want to see happen is to have this kind of work, all that has been done, all this consideration, time spent consulting with people to see what should happen on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, and then have this provincial government come and sign a deal with Pine Falls Paper Company that would run in contravention to that kind of work that has already been done.
On that, I think the minister would agree that there are a lot more uses on the east side of Lake Winnipeg than just cutting down trees and converting them to products that we use. That is one strain in this economic development scheme, but it should not be done to the detriment of the other streams of economic development that could take place in this part of the province. It does not mean that we should go ahead and make these arrangements, make these deals with companies without having in front of us all the stakeholders who are involved and all the people who should have a say in what happens in that part of the province.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) indicate what the Department of Natural Resources has done to resolve the concerns that this report has put forward? Could he tell me if there has ever been a comprehensive review of the social, economic and environmental impacts associated with the company's proposed plans?
Mr. Cummings: First of all, I do not think I am going to let all of the preamble go by without responding to some of that. Essentially all of the concerns and the issues that the member raises I have no disagreement with. I think we have a disagreement probably over process, because I see a lot of safeguards in the system to protect the environmental, the aboriginal, the traditional uses. He is right. You do not just identify an area and go in and mow everything down and say the only thing it is good for is cutting, whether it is pulp logs or saw logs or whatever. We do practise multiple use on our Crown lands. I think we have got a disagreement probably with some people in the area about the degree of the sphere of influence, what are Crown lands, where the province has a responsibility, what are the normal traditional uses in the area, how far those would expand.
I mean, the province does have an obligation and a responsibility to manage for the benefit of all our Crown assets. That includes looking after the social and economic opportunities in the area. Sustainable development speaks very much to making sure that we have a sustainable lifestyle in all of the communities in our province. But sustainability also means that there is activity, opportunity for jobs, and I think it also recognizes that we cannot stay stuck in any particular time in our history. We have to continually look at how we can manage better, how we can improve the position and the opportunity for various communities. It should also be where economic activity can be used to enhance areas where in fact the resources are being drawn from.
I know the member for Dauphin might be a little surprised at this statement, but I made it well known in the Thompson area that when the forestry licences are being granted in the Thompson area, we intended that the wood should be cut there, not that that should be held in reserve forever, because the very activity of going in and doing some of the cutting there had good economic spinoffs for the area and job opportunity for the people in the community.
That was one of the things that we impressed on Repap originally, to not just high-grade the logs out of certain areas and leave other areas. There had to be a balanced approach. That does include putting roads into areas where there are not roads today. I guess the reason I get a little bit arrested in making sure that my rebuttal is clear and concise is that there was very little doubt that the official opposition was not particularly supportive of Conawapa and putting another line down the east side of the province. Of course, they were prepared to dig in and support the environmental concerns that were being raised at that time, and there were legitimate concerns that were being raised. But the fact is that there is significant future opportunity.
I suspect there is a disagreement between some of the communities that are, in fact, remote and that do not have a road today, as opposed to some of the communities that already have a road but are looking for some additional economic opportunity as a result of cutting in their area. When you look at the opportunity to use the coincidence of a need for a road and use and market and harvest some of the timber that is in the area, that also opens up the question of wilderness, the protection of the environment, the opportunity for tourism. You can have fly-in tourism, fly-in camps or remote canoeing, but the numbers can be limited, the opportunity can be limited.
But let me tie that very directly to the opportunity for a hydro line when Conawapa is developed in the future and a road at the same time, and I think it is pretty obvious that the two can, I think, be successfully married together with some careful planning. In recognition of the local interests, I will bet you a significant amount that Red Sucker Lake would be awful happy to see some additional ground access into that area. That tells me that if we do it right, there is a lot of local support on that side of the province to look in a holistic way at the opportunities that are there, and that is very much related to the question that he raises about whether or not we license opportunities for Pine Falls in a correct way. I guarantee him that the local people will have an opportunity for input, they will be heard, and that the licensing process will reflect their concern.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 12 noon, pursuant to the rules, I am interrupting the proceedings of the Committee of Supply with the understanding that the Speaker will resume the Chair at 1:30 p.m.