Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Would the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. We are on Resolution 2.(g) Fire Program (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we just got started on the topic of fire prevention, and we received some answers from the minister in terms of forest fire readiness this year. The question that is concerning all Manitobans, especially given the last couple of springs that we have had where we have had some problems occur in the North country especially--many evacuations, many dangerous situations, loss of property and a great deal of cost to government's compensating and that sort of thing. Before we go any further, what I want to do is defer to my colleague for Flin Flon who has some questions, and then I can go back to asking some questions on the Fire Program once he is complete.

Mr. Chairperson: Before I recognize the honourable member for Flin Flon, he will have to be in his seat. The rules only give clearance for the critic of the official opposition to ask questions from the front row.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Chairperson, am I expected to stand? It may be hard to tell whether I am standing or not.

A few questions to the Minister of Natural Resources now that the firefighting season is looming on the horizon, although not that quickly. I am glad to report though that there is a lot of snowfall in the North. I am sure that maybe there is too much, and some of your own snowfall I guess maybe should drift up there to prevent the woods from getting too dry. The question I have is the number of water bombers that will be available for forest firefighting this summer.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): The same as usual--five, plus, of course, there are working arrangements with other jurisdictions if that should come to pass.

Mr. Jennissen: Will these water bombers be stationed where they normally are--Lynn Lake, Flin Flon and so on?

Mr. Cummings: That is correct.

Mr. Jennissen: Is there anything to the rumour that I have been hearing up North--and usually rumours are wrong--that there is an attempt to privatize the water bomber fleet?

Mr. Cummings: No.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, in 1995, the summer of 1995, we had some horrible forest fires up there. I had occasion to fly over that region and just see the devastation. One of the concerns we had, of course, and all of us have, is the safety of the population up there.

When the people of Leaf Rapids were asked to leave their town, when they were evacuated and were given orders, I presume, by people from Natural Resources, the one move to Thompson was a very dangerous one. Apparently a file of cars had to go through a stretch of road where the fire was licking at both sides of the road. We have video tapes of that, and people have taken pictures of that. Apparently, plastic melted on the cars. It was just sheer luck, I guess, that somebody did not break down, or one of the gas tanks did not explode.

Now, that situation, I guess with the wisdom of hindsight, should have never occurred. Can the minister assure us that we will not find ourselves in that kind of situation again where people are told to be evacuated when it obviously is very dangerous?

Mr. Cummings: No. I think maybe we should have a bit of discussion on that particular point. Yes, it is always true that you can, with the strength of hindsight, recognize when you could make better decisions. But the EMO organization, which includes the local authorities, is the one that is the lead in terms of local response and evacuation. I am certainly not dodging the responsibility that our government may have had in preparation for the evacuation, the timing, and everything else. I think it would be less than wise on my part to say that we may never face a similar situation. What I can tell you is that we will do everything, and, generally speaking, that government employees and the EMO organization will always make every conscious effort to make sure they do not add to the risk by evacuating people.

Let me put on the record, Mr. Chairman, however, the fact that any kind of an evacuation is always controversial. There are people who would tell you that they would be much happier staying at their residence, to do everything they can to stop it from being consumed by fire. I mean, we have all seen the pictures and/or the videos of houses with sprinklers set up on the roof to make sure that they--we have seen pictures of houses in Leaf Rapids sprayed with foam. Interestingly enough, I think the unique and horrifying accident that occurred there last year when one house was picked out of a row of houses, for some reason the foam did not hit, or whatever appropriately, and one house was knocked out in a street, and all the other houses were saved. This demonstrates the vulnerability, first of all, of some of our communities, and also, in the end, the fact that, despite the best efforts and best technology available, mankind's efforts might not be equal to the forces of nature.

Evacuation, albeit one that may be unpopular with the community, is sometimes judged to be an appropriate measure in order to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. It is bad enough that the firefighters, their back-up people and equipment are at risk, but to involuntarily expose those who are not able to look after themselves as well--the elderly, children, and, in some cases, the women in the community--to involuntarily expose them to a risk that they could be saved from is not the right thing to do.

I am not sure where the member was heading with his question. Some communities, as a result of what they have seen over the last decade, are taking efforts to make sure that they are not as vulnerable to fire as they were. Again, let us use Leaf Rapids, I believe it is, as the example where they had a beautiful community, where the forest comes up to the back door. That made them the most vulnerable in the forest fire situation two years ago, and I believe they were, as a community, working with Natural Resources and anyone else who has a decision-making responsibility, clearing areas away from the community so that they are not exposed in that manner again.

I think this puts a human element on what happens when we are fighting forest fires. Too often, the public is probably feeling that all you are doing is fighting a fire in the bush somewhere, and it really does not matter except for the timber-cutting industry. That is not at all true. There are lots of remote settlements. There are lots of individuals who live in somewhat remote locations. If you bring it right down to the southern part of the province, into the cottaging area--well, there is cottaging in the North as well--but when you get into the more densely used cottaging areas, people have probably their life savings and their total recreational commitment in what may be a very vulnerable location when it comes to fighting forest fires.

I can tie that right back to the use of our forests because, as we have always had arguments about the multiple uses of our parks and the harvesting in various parts of the province, sometimes those harvested areas, in fact, act as buffers to protect some of the built-up areas from the very elements of fire that we are trying to avoid.

* (1450)

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. I was not trying to put him on the spot. I am just trying to react to some of the concerns that the people of Leaf Rapids had. I know that this was a very dangerous and probably rapidly changing circumstance in which they were evacuated, but perhaps the window of safety was a little too narrow. We do not want a repeat of that situation again if we can possibly avoid it.

I guess my concern was that there was another route. We could have headed those people instead of south to Thompson; we could have headed them to Lynn Lake. I am not sure why they were not shunted that way. I do not want to second guess it. It is all over, but I just hope that this kind of narrow streak does not happen again. I think that was too tight. The wind shifted or something. We have to create the window of opportunity a little larger than that because it was just by sheer luck that fatalities were not involved.

Mr. Cummings: I would concur with the concern that the member raises. I would only remind him that the local authorities are also, through the EMO organization, very closely involved. In fact, that is the very reason that they are involved, so that that type of local knowledge, and, in some cases, sensitivity can be applied to the decision about evacuation or any of the other emergency response jobs that are undertaken.

So, yes, Natural Resources is part of that decision-making process, and, yes, we accept responsibility for that. But we try in all cases--and it has been very successful in the Red River Valley and other places--to make sure that the local authority is involved, and they are, in fact, the lead authority when it comes to the reaction on behalf of the communities.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. The next question I have for the minister is this. Since there were some tragedies in 1995, specifically the helicopter accident that claimed the lives of at least two people from South Indian Lake and, I think, one other person--I believe he was from the Flin Flon area, at least that is where the funeral was--we all mourn that loss.

Coming out of that particular accident--and I am sure that the department has reviewed exactly what happened--is there a different strategy perhaps that we can use for fighting forest fires? Did we learn something from that accident, or was it just a freak accident?

Mr. Cummings: The helicopter crash was one of the most unfortunate, tragic aspects of firefighting in the last number of decades I guess. There was a review done, I am told, by the department of its procedures and what may have led to that. It may have been unavoidable in the sense that certainly no one intended the helicopter to end up in the location that it was. They flew into a bank of smoke, I believe, or fog. They were unable to keep their bearings. But certainly every aspect of that has been reviewed. A couple of changes have been made in terms of requiring the passengers of helicopters to keep their seat belts and their helmets on while they are in the air. There may well be some benefit that would have derived in that crash if that had occurred.

In a general sense, I can also indicate, and it is not directly a result of this accident, but it is a result of economics and safety, that the department has upgraded the helicopters that we are leasing for this coming year. It is more money, but we believe we will be able to transport more people with less flights obviously, and there is a larger margin of safety. Obviously, the equipment that we were renting was competent and the pilots were competent. It was unfortunately a very sad accident.

Transport Canada recommendations, I am told, were implemented. The one thing that I did not mention was that they said there could also be increased co-ordination of flights. I am sure the member is more familiar than I am with the procedure that goes on at a fire and the co-ordination of the equipment fighting the fire, the bird dog planes and the helicopters being in the initial attack along with being followed up by the bombers for co-ordination with the ground crews. It is all highly co-ordinated and highly successful. It was indeed a tragedy that these men lost their lives.

Mr. Jennissen: My last concern to the minister, perhaps, does not directly relate to his department, but I will ask it anyway because a number of people in Leaf Rapids lost their homes--this was the aftermath of the fire--specifically a number of trailers. Some people told me they could not get insurance for their trailers when they had bought these trailers a little bit earlier, so they lost their homes. Whichever emergency system we have in place to give these people some recompense, some of these people never received any compensation whatsoever.

Now I do not know all the rules and regulations, but all I can tell the minister is that there was a great degree of unhappiness about that, the feeling that what are emergencies for. Money for emergencies, what is it for? And if this is not an emergency, what is an emergency? Now I know that insurance companies had all kinds of rationale about not insuring those homes, or people told me they could have insured them the year before and then they would have been covered. The reality was that some people lost their homes and were never compensated.

I am just, I guess, asking the minister if he would lean a little bit on the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) or whoever is responsible for compensation, because certainly there are a number of northerners who are very unhappy about the level of compensation they received, or none.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I might need a little bit more details of the question the member is asking, but as I understand some of the problems, we do not normally pay for assistance where insurance is available, but there seems to have been some problems with coverage in this area and whether the insurance companies were prepared to pay.

I think, and I am guessing here and that is not a good thing to do on the record, so maybe I should ask him to supply a little bit more detail, but I am assuming that one of the problems is that this might be considered an act of God, or, in fact, people did not have insurance.

Mr. Jennissen: This is my last statement before I turn it over to my honourable colleague for Rupertsland. As far as I understand it, several of the people that owned trailers could not get insurance. They tried to get fire insurance but the insurance company would not cover them in that dangerous season, so it was not like they were not wanting insurance. They just could not get it. That is the serious concern I have.

Other people claim that they have lost a lot of equipment they normally would not lose. It was not insured but their livelihood depended on it, including skidoos and trailers and, in one case, material belonging to a fellow that kept a lot of dogs and so on, a lot of other stuff. Their argument was basically this is an emergency. If there is money there for emergency situations, why is it not given to us? The logic they use, and I will simply repeat it--not to make anybody feel bad--if a southern farmer got flooded, there would certainly be compensation. How come when a northern trapper gets burned out there is not any compensation?

Mr. Cummings: Well, the member can tell them they are wrong.

* (1500)

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I do have a couple of questions for the minister. I want to take this opportunity to, of course, congratulate him on his new appointment, his new ministry.

I would like to ask the minister if he could provide a list of firefighting contracts in the southeast of the province, particularly in the communities of Bissett, Manigotagan, Hollow Water and Sagkeeng, and out of this list if you could tell us who got each contract and how much they were for and what procedure was used in choosing these contracts, as well as who has received those contracts in the last four years. Perhaps I will use that for another question, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, we can provide that information. I intended to bring with me a letter that the member had forwarded to me earlier, and if my staff is listening they may be able to bring it down to me, where he was writing to me and the department concerned about a contract in the area of the Sagkeeng First Nation, I believe. I do not have that answer with me, but we certainly will provide it.

The initial information that the member, in fact, provided was the local community was short on the tender, that they were not high by a lot but they were high by a little bit, and he wondered if we would use, or implied that perhaps we should use, a local preference in terms of awarding the tender. I have to tell you that that becomes very tricky. You can have, then, a situation where two or three local people might all be involved in the tender, and then you are still choosing between local people.

I know that there is an attempt to hire people as locally to some of these situations as possible. When your tendering in advance, your object is obviously to have qualified people that you can work with who are either trained or who can be trained. We do not have any further information with us at the moment, but I will get that information for you.

Mr. Robinson: Mr Chairperson, perhaps I could request through this committee or through you to this committee that perhaps tabling a list of all the firefighting contracts for those communities that I indicated, Bissett, Manigotagan, Hollow Water and Sagkeeng, be provided by letter, and I would be able to report to the constituents that are, no doubt, concerned about that. So if I could pose that question to the minister, I could carry one with a couple of other questions that I do have here.

Mr. Cummings: That is agreeable. We will provide that information.

Mr. Robinson: With reference to the minister's earlier comments on the contract in Sagkeeng. The company is called Courtander. It recently lost a bid by $722.80 on an overall contract of, I believe, $63,000 for tree planting. Now, this contract was lost to an Ontario-based company. What essentially is happening here is that 30 summer jobs are being lost in this community which is no different than any other First Nations community in this province where unemployment is in a neighbourhood of 80 percent.

Now taking into special consideration, consideration for the special needs of First Nations people and the high unemployment that they must face on a regular basis, our query to the minister with respect to this issue was that if special consideration could be given to this company that is providing local employment. The question, I guess, to the minister is simply what is his position with respect to this contract.

We certainly understand and appreciate the position of the government, but there are no guarantees that this Ontario-based company will provide employment for the First Nations people of Sagkeeng that desperately need employment for that period of time.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the member asks me my position. I have some significant sympathy for the concern he puts forward, but I know every time we try to provide special circumstances where people are tendering for contracts, it causes a situation where, it does not matter who gets it in the end, you are going to have some hard feelings.

This is an area close to Pine Falls. Sometimes private industry has a little bit more freedom to provide local preference for these types of operations. Government does have an obligation, as well, towards local job creation and opportunity, but the fact that this is an Ontario company may be a negative. I would ask the member to consider the fact that this is an industry where the companies who are tendering do travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they do hire seasonal people to assist them with the jobs on a seasonal basis, obviously, but if we were seen to be providing a local preference against, in this case, out-of-province tendering, it gets increasingly difficult because it could easily be that some people living at Sagkeeng may be contracting with a company that is bidding in Ontario, and the retaliatory action could also be devastating for those who do not get the contract. I will check the circumstances around this tender. I recall the letter. I read the letter that was written, and there were some comments made about the location of the work.

We really have been trying as a government, in the broadest sense, to make sure that there are open boundaries because we, for example, have the capability of producing seedlings in this province that contract and tender against other producers in other provinces. I can assure him that it would be rather violently opposed if we were seen to be violating the principle which we have been espousing nationally, that we should easily be able to transgress provincial boundaries. I personally do have sympathy for those who are looking for work close to home, but I would be doubtful if there is much I can do about this particular situation. But I will review it.

Mr. Robinson: I do indeed look forward to the response that the minister will be putting forth by way of letter, as I understand it, with respect to a concern that was raised by this First Nations-run company in Sagkeeng. Certainly, we support First Nations entrepreneurship and, of course, employment in a very desperate situation. Sagkeeng is no different than any other First Nations community where 90 percent unemployment is not out of the question.

I also would like to refer back to my earlier question and that was if the minister, by way of letter, could provide me with information on contracts that have been awarded to those other communities that I indicated; Bissett, Manigotagan, Hollow Water and Sagkeeng, If he could provide those contracts that have occurred over the last four years, Mr. Chairperson, through you, I would like to make that request of the minister.

* (1510)

Mr. Cummings: I am not denying the request, but did I just hear the member say four years? I thought he was talking about the contracts we were letting this year.

Mr. Robinson: Just to make myself clear, yes, I did request the last four years.

Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions?

Mr. Struthers: Just a couple more on the Fire Program before we move on to the resource programs. Yesterday, the minister indicated that there was an upgrade of helicopters and that suppliers were tendered out already and that seasonal staff was contemplated at least to be hired and the training is going to be in place. Those are some of the things we were talking about in terms of readiness for the fire season. [interjection] That is right. My colleague from Flin Flon talked briefly about the incident that took place with the helicopter and the deaths last year, and the minister talked about that a little bit, as well.

Can the minister indicate, in terms of the helicopters that are being upgraded, are they upgraded in terms of safety, are they upgraded in terms of capabilities to fight the fires, or both?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, they are upgraded in terms of their power and obviously their carrying capacity and their size. That amounts to--well, you would have to ask an aeronautics expert, but I believe that would, under heavy load, probably gives them more lift, particularly if they are not fully loaded, I suppose. It is like a lot of other things, there is an optimum size and then there is a maximum size, and then there is a minimum size.

No flight rules have ever been violated, or certainly none that I was aware of in this case, but the problem is that, as with any aircraft, if you have surplus power you probably have a wider range of opportunities to react under certain situations if you are not fully loaded. Remember that these helicopters and the water bombers operate under some pretty nasty situations--updrafts, visibility and all of that. I am sure the families of Mr. Skwark and Mr. Moose and Mr. Spence must be concerned about those things, but this is also the first time that there has been an accident of this nature in a long time, actually a decade ago.

Mr. Struthers: I understand that making upgrades to the helicopters, including the power and the carrying capacity and the size, has a safety element to it, but is there any other specific safety upgrades that have been contemplated for the helicopter?

Mr. Cummings: I will provide the details of the numbers and the lift capacity, for that matter, of the helicopters. I do not know if it would mean any more to the member than it does to me. I am not aware of any specific safety upgrades in respect to firefighting that are included. The people who contract these machines are doing so on the basis of so much per hour, and I believe there is a base minimum, obviously, that they would contract for, but we compete with other jurisdictions for this equipment. There may well be Manitoba-owned planes in B.C. for all I know, but there are also B.C.-owned helicopters in Manitoba. It is a tendering process. I do not think there has ever been a shortage of companies competing for the tender.

The reason I mentioned the upgrade of the helicopters is I wanted to assure the public, on the record, that we deliberately asked for a larger machine this year, and we believe we will get those savings back partly out of hours flown because they will carry more men to remote sites more quickly and with fewer trips, obviously, and carry a bigger payload.

The member mentioned that we were getting ready earlier. I want to remind him, we also said that we were purchasing and locating the supplies in areas that we might anticipate that we would need them.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass?--pass.

Resolution 12.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,848,200 for Natural Resources Regional Operations for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

I am just going to make sure. I am going to go back. It was 2.(g) Fire Program (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,760,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $7,254,000--pass; Resolution--pass. Just to make sure.

Item 3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources (1) Administration (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $273,900.

Mr. Struthers: Before I start with the questions that I have I am just going to defer to my colleague from Selkirk who has some questions having to do with this line.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague the member for Dauphin for allowing me this chance to raise a few questions. Of great concern, of course, to constituents of mine and those individuals who live north of Selkirk--of course, not only those but I guess any of us who live in the Red River Valley--and that is the concern regarding the potential for severe flooding in this area.

I would just like to ask the minister if he could in a broad way just enlighten us as to the effects the most recent snowfall over this past weekend will have on the current flood forecast.

Mr. Cummings: We will not know until later today when I get the most current information from the department. They will be releasing the information tomorrow morning I believe. They are compiling that information right now. I think it is safe to assume however that it is not going to be good news. The melting conditions that we had up until the storm on the weekend were favourable, and we might well have seen some of the risk reduced. It would be a fair guess to say that the condition now will still be a status quo which is that we are likely to see as much water as we did last year.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the minister for his answer. Clearly it is of grave concern to all of us. We know we are dealing with a force that is much stronger than any of us can handle or can deal with; that we can control. We had a meeting in Selkirk on the 26th of March and representatives from the Water Resources department were there. I want to just thank the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and the Minister responsible for the Emergency Measures Organization for sending representatives out there.

It was very much appreciated by the individuals who attended that meeting. There were several hundred individuals who attended that meeting. They had a number of concerns, clearly sandbags--from sandbags to the state of emergency and so on. There was one issue that was I think of graver concern than others and that was the floodway and the operations of the floodway and what the effects of the opening of the floodway have upon those of us who live north of the spillway when the floodway empties into the Red River just north of Lockport.

* (1520)

I have an information sheet that was issued by Manitoba Natural Resources, the facts behind the floodway. One of the questions that is on the sheet--does operating the floodway aggravate flooding south of Winnipeg? I am concerned about how the opening of the floodway and what effects that would have upon those individuals who live north of Winnipeg and north of the spillway. There was concern at the meeting, and I have heard it from many individuals, that, in fact, when the floodway opens up there is extra water north of Lockport and in the Selkirk, St. Clements, St. Andrews area.

Can the minister just make a general comment on that, please?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the floodway takes water by the downtown area of the city of Winnipeg. It does not increase, I do not believe, the amount of water going out into Lake Manitoba to the extent that it would cause flooding in the area that the member is concerned about. I think his biggest concern should rest with the fact that ice jams could cause rapid and severe flooding such as occurred last year. If the member will give me a moment, I might even be able to quote the--I should leave my comments at that.

I am confident that information that I have been given is that the greatest danger to the Selkirk area is the flooding. I can get him the cfs numbers that are appropriate if he wishes. I take it his point was that he believes there is additional cfs going past Selkirk because of the floodway than if the floodway was not there. I would think the same amount of water is going to go down the Red River or just go down a few streets on its way through the city if the floodway was not there.

Mr. Dewar: Well, I certainly do not want to dispute the many beneficial effects that the floodway has had upon the city of Winnipeg, but the concern is there that as the Red River between Winnipeg and Selkirk meanders along and, in fact, slows down the flow, 100 percent of the water enters at the floodway gates, 50 percent goes down the Red and 50 percent goes down the floodway and then joins up and there is 100 percent again--but the concern is that, in fact, while the Red meanders along, it slows down the flow, and the floodway for the most part is a straight ditch and when it is opened, the water just rushes down, and it gets to that area quicker. That is a concern, that there is more velocity in terms of the flow as opposed to quantity, and there is just a concern when it opens up.

So to the minister, can you guarantee that that is not the case?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I had not anticipated a question on the precise cubic feet per second that can go down through the Red at flood stage with and/or without the floodway. The member says he does not want to dispute the value of the floodway, the by-pass associated with it. He should also remember that part of the flood protection program that Duff Roblin, with the foresight that he had, put into place included the cutoff on the Assiniboine at the west side of Portage. So I could, with tongue in cheek, argue with the member, well, how would he like the Assiniboine running full bore down the Red with or without the floodway? You would have a lot more water coming any way. So it is a bit of a specious argument, and I am sure he is not asking it mischievously. I am sure he is asking it on behalf of his constituents.

But let us be fair. I do not think there is a quantitative issue here. There may well be a perception of velocity. I am sure the water does come more quickly down the ditch, but remember that it is not nearly as big as the river either. It is taking a portion of the water, and it is artificially constructed and therefore quite a straight run. But we need to be vigilant about ice jams in the Selkirk area. The member, in the meeting he co-ordinated and another gentleman out there co-ordinated, there was a lot of talk about how you get the water and the ice to flow more easily remains to be seen--the efficacy of drilling holes in the ice or whether there is potential for dynamiting.

The department, to its credit, has done a fair bit of research and talked to people who have had experience in dealing with these matters including talking to people from further north and other jurisdictions about the efficacy of dynamite in getting the ice to move. I would only remind the member that while we can prepare for as many eventualities as we can envisage, I believe from what I know of the facts that we just saw the perils of dynamiting in the flood situation in Moose Jaw this spring where they had a flood situation and they dynamited the ice jam that was causing it. The ice moved all right, then jammed again and flooded another area further down and I think caused an enormous amount of damage to a bridge in the process, maybe took it out.

I do not recall all the details, but I remember thinking this is not idiot-proof. There can be a lot of serious ramifications as to how you handle these situations, and each one will have to be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with the best knowledge available.

That is the guarantee that I give to the member and to the people of the low-lying areas around Selkirk, that the department has contemplated the problems and is certainly receptive to the information, the requests and the advice that they have been receiving, but my caution is nothing is foolproof. We may have to make some decisions based on the circumstances of the hour, but we need to be prepared for as many eventualities as we can envisage.

My hope is that we will find the ice levels not to be as difficult to break up as they were last year, but that is still quite unpredictable. I really do not know until I have had further discussions with the department what their judgment of the present ice conditions are, but we know that the surface ice has firmed up again, that is for sure.

* (1530)

Mr. Dewar: There was a suggestion from an individual at this meeting that the floodway be opened in stages as opposed to all at once. Now, I do not know how feasible that is, but is that a possibility?

Mr. Cummings: I will rely on the best advice of the engineers for that. I do not know what the ramifications would be. I suspect there are some significant pressures that will come into play when you start to move those gates, and you might not want to just half do the job.

Mr. Dewar: Another issue that was raised was the notice given to residents who live in the St. Andrews and the St. Clements area regarding the opening of the floodway and the effects that they feel it had upon the level of the water both in the river and eventually, unfortunately, in their backyards and in their homes.

Is there any way--can you explain to us or enlighten us as to measures that you are taking to inform those residents and enhance that notification in some way. I believe members that were there, individuals who were there, were saying they received notice 2 a.m., and some people did not get any notice because of the time. There is just a concern that when the floodway opens up all this water comes rushing down and it may be jammed. Of course, it is there because it cannot go any further north, but people would like to, if it is possible, get advance notice of when it does open so they can take some type of action to prepare for that.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I was part of a briefing where the department was reviewing what it could do to make sure there was appropriate advance notice, and we will do everything to make sure that occurs. Ultimately, that will depend on a number of factors to when the gates will be raised. Yes, we can attempt to put out the information perhaps, that if they listen to a particular radio station or to their radio and have the information put on as many radio stations.

The alternative is simply that we have to have somebody there 24 hours a day because it is not just the opening of the floodgates, it is if and when an ice jam is created.

An Honourable Member: I think the deputy minister ought to volunteer.

Mr. Cummings: Well, we could volunteer the deputy minister. I know I have some staff in my office who would be glad to participate.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the member for Selkirk also encourages his constituents to continue in the same vein as they did when they were providing advice and providing thoughts about what could be done to alleviate the problem. Frankly, we will need assistance in being aware of some of the problems as they arise. I mean, every department, every resource in the city, as well, is going to be strained when the peak water levels hit or when we are starting to open the floodway.

The fact is I think hourly is not too often to be checking whether or not there is potentially an ice jam when the river is at that stage when ice jams could form, because flooding will occur that quick in some of those areas. So I suppose I should put on the record right now that people who anticipate they could be flooded as a result of something like that should be taking appropriate action now, because they will not have an awful lot of time to get out the hip waders.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, of course, the area residents, they are in a lot of cases--and I just want to congratulate the municipalities in the area who have been working very diligently to prepare their constituents for any flooding potential. I recognize that the minister has opened up a flood liaison office in Selkirk, and I think that is useful, and I know that will be very useful.

He mentioned some innovative ways of breaking up the ice, and, of course, you mention the so-called Swiss cheese concept. I had a chance to observe the holes that are being drilled in the ice to weaken the ice. Is that still underway? Along with that--I know they have been doing it now for a number of weeks. Since then, unfortunately, the weather has deteriorated and gotten quite cold, and I am concerned about the holes that were drilled in the early stage. Are they still open or have they frozen over? I know there is not a lot of snow cover over the ice, and as an old ice fisherman I know it does not take long for your ice-fishing hole to freeze up. Has he had a chance to monitor that situation?

Mr. Cummings: My comments ought to be somewhat general on that, Mr. Chairman. I have not had an update. They were scheduled to be drilling holes up to and including today, I believe. I am not sure how much the storm slowed them down. I anticipate they probably lost two or three days as a result of that. So I cannot answer that question where they are proceeding.

I think I should put on the record, however, that we are not sure what effect the drilling of the holes will have. I mean, we will certainly be monitoring that, and I am sure the people who are along the river will be watching, as well. Anything that can be done to keep the ice moving, obviously, we should try.

The same thing holds true of the question about whether or not a hovercraft could have come in to do some good. I wanted to reiterate what was reported in the paper and on the radio quite accurately, actually, but it should also be repeated here that the advice was given that, yes, a hovercraft could do the job, but there are only two in Canada that are big enough to do it. One of them is under contract to the Coast Guard working in Quebec and the other one has been sold.

There are other hovercraft. I do not think we were knowledgeable enough to know the capabilities of the various machines, but we have been told that the only ones that would work under these circumstances, after having had it looked at, and the person, in fact, I believe was the captain of this one hovercraft, that it would have to be the large type that would do it, but nevertheless a useful suggestion. I would be interested to know if the federal government would like to provide the same type of protection in our situation as they do for some 10 rivers in Quebec where they are using the hovercraft.

One of the issues, I suppose, is that it has to work on the edge of open water. I am not sure what the reason is. It probably has something to do with the forces that it can apply. That may not even be correct. That is what I have been told. I should not perhaps be putting that on the record, but I know the weight of the machine and the force that it can exert is limited to the two that I mentioned, otherwise we would not be able to do it.

* (1540)

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the minister raised the issue of using a hovercraft. I was going to get into that now, and I was quite interested and intrigued by the idea. Somebody brought the idea forward to me in January. As the minister knows, I sent him a letter asking him to look into it, and I am glad they did.

It is my understanding they require--or the Quebec consultant recommended that you required a hovercraft of 50 tonnes. Is that correct?

Mr. Cummings: I forget the exact tonnage. I believe it might be 40, but at least it is a very large machine of which we know there is only one in Canada right now.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, clearly 40 tonnes is a huge vessel, and I understand that requires a special skirting, as well, in order to do the job.

Individuals in the area, and again who were at this meeting and other meetings that I have attended, talked about ice jams and how that compounds the problem. There is a feeling that if the ice was to be broken up all the way to what is locally called the cut, which is where the Red River opens up into Netley Lake and Devils Creek, and I am familiar with that area, that, in fact, they claim that is how far the ice, the river, would have to be broken up because of the low nature of that area, and the fact that it is basically a lake, very low land, and they claim that is how far you have to break up. You do not have to break up any further north, and the water would simply spread out into the area.

I witnessed that last year. I had the opportunity to fly over the area, and yes, that whole area was one lake. So it is just a comment that perhaps--I know that you are drilling in that area and encourage you to continue with that. Residents see that as a hopeful sign. As you say, nobody really knows as yet as to what effects it would have upon the river and unfortunately the hovercraft idea is unworkable currently. I do encourage the minister to approach the federal government to see if we could use this in another year, as we know this is something that could happen again.

I understand that you are also using the concept of drilling holes at the Assiniboine diversion this year.

Mr. Cummings: I do not think I can confirm that, but I know the issue at the diversion was related to, again, where the diversion goes into the lake and the ice could not discharge and eventually jammed up. I cannot confirm that it has occurred, but I know that it has been discussed.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I want to repeat the offer that was made by the Leader of the Opposition not too long ago; an offer of co-operation when it comes to dealing with the amount of water that we are going to have come flowing across our border from the United States. I want also to know if there has been any correspondence with the state governments at Minnesota or North Dakota having to do with any of the projects that the Americans may be contemplating that will show an increase of water north through the Red River Valley; if there is any correspondence that the minister is aware of that indicates any movement at all on the part of the Americans.

Mr. Cummings: I am not sure if the member is referring to Devils Lake or if he is referring to generically any projects south of the line. There are a lot of projects that have occurred over the years on the tributaries to the Red that, in fact, reduce the flow of water retention to the point where not that long ago we were concerned about the low levels of the Red in the summertime because of what was deemed to be a problem with the amount of retention that was going on south of the border.

If he is referring to Devils Lake and/or Garrison, which are not flood issues particularly in terms of spring runoff, I do not believe--there is the potential, I suppose for additional discharge, but the real issue is that they have a flood with a lake that has no outlet realistically and, yes, there is correspondence with External Affairs through Minister Axworthy, Governor Sinner. We have had direct contact on a number of other areas, but those would be the ones that the member I am sure would be interested in.

The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been directly in touch with Mr. Axworthy and with the American officials, as well, by expressing our concern, but I notice in news today, and I suppose I should wait until I have seen it confirmed, that Minister Axworthy says he has wrung a commitment out of the Americans, and I use the word advisedly, that they will allow us to be part of the process in determining what should happen around Devils Lake. I am going to choose my words carefully because I am sure eventually our American neighbours will read them, and we are concerned that if they are thinking about any potential discharge, the answer, as far as we are concerned, is no.

There are number of things that revolve around that, and generically you can say biota. You can also say non--I am using the word "natural." That is not what I mean to say. They have imported varieties of fish in Devils Lake that certainly are foreign to our streams. They were asked a long time ago if they would do an inventory and tell us what was there. We wanted to know, and if they were going to continue to talk about any kind of a discharge, it was our assumption that they would want us to know. I am told that has not occurred. If it has and I am unaware of it, then that is fine, but I think that is really not even the issue.

The issue is that we have no level of satisfaction, and we are not interested in receiving water from a lake that does not normally have a discharge, and we have got enough problems with our fisheries without importing any. I think I put on the record with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that, as I recall, there are a couple of outlets that they could use. One is to Stump Lake which still does not allow for a discharge into our watercourses, but historically you can also show that this lake has been higher. It just did not have cottages around it when it was higher.

So I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who have property that they are losing there, but they cannot just ignore the problems that it might cause for us, and we are asking them not to discharge, telling them that we are unwilling to accept.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for the answer. I brought it up sort of in the short term, thinking having to do with floods and the fact that we are going to be up to our eyeballs in water as it is in this part of the province, and we did not need any more water coming through this year or into the future. But the minister quite rightly flags the bigger issue, as well, with the biota and the foreign aquatic life that will be heading our way if the project goes ahead as we have heard that the plans call for.

Mr. Chairman, that should wrap it up for that line.

* (1550)

Mr. Chairperson: Should the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

3.(a)(1)(b) Other Expenditures $393,300--pass; (c) Grant Assistance $25,000--pass.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, where are you?

Mr. Chairperson: 3.(a)(1)(c) Grant Assistance, on page 104, the very bottom, under Water Resources. We will now go to page 105.

Mr. Struthers: I just did not want you to get past Water Licensing.

Mr. Chairperson: (2) Water Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $633,200. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Struthers: We are under Water Licensing now.

Mr. Chairperson: Yes.

Mr. Struthers: Okay, good.

Mr. Chairperson: I am just going to correct something for Hansard in case I did not have my mike on.

(c) Grant Assistance $25,000--pass.

Now we are on to (2) Water Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I have had a lot of people approach me about the possibility of changes being made to The Water Rights Act, a lot of concerns that have been expressed to me. I would like the minister to outline to me some of the changes that he has in mind for The Water Rights Act.

Mr. Cummings: That is certainly a big issue that is going to receive, before any changes are made, a considerable amount of public input and discussion. I would be interested to know the position of the honourable member, representing a rural area, on some of the regulatory aspects of The Water Rights Act, because this is a very controversial piece of legislation in all jurisdictions and one that lends itself to significant disagreement, pitting neighbour against neighbour in many cases.

I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there will not be any piecemeal revisions of water rights and general water control regulation. We need to have a process. I would anticipate something like the process that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) used for The Municipal Act, because there is going to be somebody mad no matter what happens in this act.

Mr. Struthers: I would like to maybe go a little further in trying to get a little more detail from the minister in terms of the changes from The Water Rights Act. For example, he wanted to know my position. I am all for public input, and that is exactly where the minister asked me what my position was, so I just exactly told him.

I would like for the minister to maybe start from the public input angle. I can understand that before any changes are made to this act he would want to get a great deal of public input, so I would like to know his plan for actually collecting that input from the public.

Mr. Cummings: I told the member he was not going to get much discussion or debate from me in this area, and I have pretty much told him my thinking as far as I have taken it in terms of identifying the act and other relevant acts that can be put together as a package for examination, but that is as far as my thinking has gone.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe the minister can tell me right now how many people are at his disposal to enforce, let us say, the violations that take place underneath The Water Rights Act. How many people does he have in place to monitor that and enforce this act?

Mr. Cummings: Lots. I mean, let us be reasonable. If we were to say we want an active sweep tomorrow to go out and start looking in every culvert and behind every bluff in rural Manitoba, we could probably muster a couple of hundred people, but that is not what we are doing and the member knows that. The fact is that there are more than just people who are employed in the Water Licensing side who could well be involved if there were seen to be infractions or complaints relating to the act.

Mr. Struthers: I do not think anybody expects the minister to have somebody lurking behind every rock and every bluff in rural Manitoba, but I think there are people who expect the minister to have enough Water Resources people in place throughout every region of the province to ensure that at least some adequate level of monitoring takes place. For example, I know that in my home town of Dauphin, there is a position that was vacated and to my knowledge has not been filled. I believe a position in Minnedosa, as well, has not been filled.

The people that work for Water Resources, do they not investigate the violations that take place under The Water Rights Act, and are they ever going to be replaced in those two areas in specific? I just give the minister those two as examples. Maybe he can fill me in on the other vacancies that have taken place over the years in Water Resources.

Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, in a department that has as many employees as Natural Resources does, there are bound to be some times when there are areas that are not filled. We just hired 18 new Natural Resources officers to bring them back up to full complement. It is not unusual that there might be some vacant positions.

Just so the member does not think I am bluffing, however, I looked at the last Natural Resources officers publication, and it had a picture of a Euc--[interjection] Euclid, a hydraulic-driven motor grader--coming down through a drainage ditch. The caption under it was, profile of a water rights violator. I mean, there are people such as NRO officers out there who can enforce, as well, if that is deemed to be necessary.

* (1600)

I do not want to pretend or give the member the impression that we are not concerned about The Water Rights Act, and my colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I am sure, will point out to you the concerns that we have with some of the things that are happening in Saskatchewan, for example, under their water commission. I would suggest that it is not a problem unique to this administration or this jurisdiction and, in fact, Manitoba is downstream from just about everybody, and most of our problems do rise generally outside of our borders, but we can make them worse if we are not reasonable in the approaches that we take to our management of our own resources.

That leads to all sorts of discussions, and the reason that the water rights legislation and associated acts will not be likely changed is even related to the fact that we are reviewing conservation easements and what that should mean, because those may well be retention areas that could be included in conservation easements. So all of that becomes a linkage and a linked action in order to provide a sustainable development of implementation for the management of the water in this province, and it is not something we are going to take lightly. It is not something we are going to be rushed into either.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, the last thing I would expect that the minister would do is try to bluff me. I have come to know the minister as somebody who is a pretty straight answerer of questions and somebody who would not even dare try to bluff a fellow honourable member in this House. If I thought he was going to bluff me, I would not ask the questions in the first place.

Having said that, though, I remember my very first experience at Estimates in asking questions about Water Resources officers in the region in which I live and was given the name Bob Lawrence, who had passed away some time before that. That is in excess of two years ago.

While I realize that it is a big department and the minister is not going to hire and fill a position a day after it comes vacant, we are talking in excess of two years in that particular case, and we are talking about a position that I believe gives a lot of valuable information to the minister and his staff when it comes time to predict potential flood conditions or advice on water rights and licences and all the rest. Maybe the minister could take another crack at explaining the lag in the hiring of Water Resources positions.

Mr. Cummings: I did not quite catch the last sentence.

Mr. Struthers: I had asked the minister to explain why it takes so long to fill the positions that become vacant, that could actually help in making decisions when it comes to water rights and flood forecasting and all the water resource issues.

Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are always ongoing reviews of the required staffing levels in different areas, and the member should take some heart, I suppose, that no one has ever said that this is a position that should not be filled. It just has not been filled. We are continually juggling our hiring capabilities.

I do not want them, however, to confuse the fact that whether or not we have a Water Resources official there with whether or not we have monitoring capabilities, we may well still be getting the information we need for monitoring. I am sure there is work that a member of the branch could fulfill if we were in a position to fill that position, but I cannot advise him today whether we are or are not.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I guess I just want to follow up and share with the minister a little bit of background on the need for these positions to be filled. The minister is well aware that the Dauphin-Swan River area is an area that we have lots of runoff off the hills and lots of work that has been done on drainages that should not have been done perhaps and oftentimes requires people from the department of Water Resources to come out and deal with them.

One of those areas is Pine River, where there has been lots of drainage done without permission and which results in people downstream suffering because of it. I tried to have a meeting set up with the Water Resource people. It was supposed to be coming out of Dauphin. As it is, as my colleague has indicated, that one position is not filled in Dauphin and now the meeting was arranged with the next level. I am not sure if it is Neepawa or Minnedosa where the Water Resources office is, but somebody was supposed to be coming. I believe a Berg Wopnford was the gentlemen, and he is retired now. As a result of that there just are not the people in the area to deal with these water problems.

So we bring this to the minister's attention, because there is a real need for resource water management in the area. We find that we now have one engineer who works in Minitonas and covers off the job in Dauphin, as well, so you have a person driving some 100 miles to try to cover off two jobs. I bring this to the minister's attention, because there is a real need to have proper water management in the area. I hope that he will take to heart our concerns and try to have these positions filled, so that we could have some better management.

There are moves to start a new conservation district in the area. We would hope that we would have the resources in place to follow up, but the question I have is--and particularly in the Pine River area where there was an awful lot of drainage done that was without permit as I understand and no follow-up. Could the minister tell us what his department does when this happens? Is there any follow-up work or is there any action taken to try to correct the problems that result downstream when there is work done that is on private land and results in water problems for people downstream? Has there been any act of follow-up on this, or is it just basically let go?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, people in the employ of Water Resources and Natural Resources as a whole are involved in attempting to deal with these types of situations quite often; in fact, a lot oftener than they would like to be because they end up in the middle of the problem.

I think both the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and Swan River should remember or perhaps they know and do not care that a lot of the situations that we are likely talking about are situations where Natural Resources will only find out after the fact. One of the biggest issues that goes through the minister's office in Natural Resources is drainage. Every municipality in the country has a better idea about how to drain water onto the next guy, and they want the provincial government to pay for it. So it is not just--and I say that a little bit tongue in cheek. Some are very responsible, but some days it seems like what I just said earlier, and the fact is that there are a lot of opportunities when good water management, better drainage on some fairly productive soils, even the opportunities to irrigate are very important to the economic success of the communities, but what happens too often is, and I am repeating this, that we find out after the fact.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that we do need some long-term planning, but it is not likely going to be successful if it is legislated from on high, and very often their time comes when the local communities have to say, well, it is about time we started having a say in how drainage is managed in our area. Maybe we are part of the solution and not just part of the problem, and I am not talking about councils. I am talking about the population in general in those communities where there can be--if you are on the high land you do not care, if you are on the low land you are at risk or maybe you get a crop when everybody else is dried out, but that is a difficulty. The fact is we need to have the long-term thinkers in our communities to be looking at watershed districts as much as possible.

* (1610)

Regulation is unfortunately often considered to be the simple solution, but it is very difficult to get ahead of. Once you have a situation where a farmer or a landowner, let us use the generic term, has spent several thousand dollars putting some drainage in on a half section, short of a court order and threatening him with jail, the only way you are going to get him to fill in those ditches is unspend the $5,000 or $10,000 he spent putting them in in the first place. I mean, that is the type of situation that you can face. I hope not too often, but that is what our people will run into out there. I know they run into it today.

Our government has taken a very progressive, I believe, and through the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), an aggressive stance in encouraging communities to look at applying some local level management and responsibility in decision making. Those who want to be critical of that say, well, you are just passing the buck, you do not want to spend the provincial dollar. But the province has and, I believe we can continue to put money into local conservation districts in a way that allows them to develop drainage plans, if that is what the need is in their areas. Conservation plans would be a better model, but it is generally impacted by drainage, and drainage, of course, relates back directly to municipalities and what they may be doing with some of the roadways they are putting in. There is a real reason for municipalities to want to be part of conservation districts. There is an opportunity to access some dollars, but there is an opportunity also to make some decisions.

I bet you every rural member in this House has heard the criticism, well, if I had been doing that I would not have spent $150,000 putting in that set of culverts on that road. We probably could have done it for $80,000. You know, that is the thinking that is out there in some cases, and that relates back to some of the negotiations that the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) has had to go through, where municipalities have said, well, if you left us to manage the road, we can do it for half of what you are doing. When they put a pencil to their expenses, that is not always the case. Some of them have put their money where their mouth is, and there have been some really good progressive arrangements that have been made. I see conservation districts and some of the associated drainage problems out there as being part of that solution.

It might also relate directly to the crossings, because, in fact, in rural Manitoba--I have said this at enough public meetings that I am not at all afraid to put it on the record here--there are situations where we simply may not in the future be able to replace the crossings in a manner in which we have been putting them in historically. To begin with, when we put them in, you probably had trucks that were carrying three-tonne loads of grains crossing over the crossing, and I am talking about 100 bushels or so. Now you are talking about trucks that are not loaded until they get over 500, and they are probably pushing a lot of them at 600. Lots of trucks hauling from the combine today, at least in my area, are up in the neighbourhood of 600 and up, the number of bushels that they are taking away from the field. They have highway tractors on the front of them with big horsepower. When they hit a bridge that was built shortly after we quit using horses and wagons, you know what is going to happen.

So we end up in some parts where there are a high number of crossings, where we have to look at things like ford crossings which are eleven and a-half months of the year entirely acceptable. You have got to slow down a bit. There will be the odd time when the water will go over the ford crossing, but you will put it in for a third or a quarter of the high-cost road. You will not be putting it in on a PR, and you will not be putting it in on a heavily used road. You will be putting it in areas where alternative crossings, for the uses that they are being put to, have to be put in place. I am not talking about a downloading of expenditures. I am more concerned about the devolution of decision making, so that those who live close to those types of decisions can have some say about it and feel more comfortable ultimately.

I had a personal experience where a bridge was knocked down crossing a drainage ditch. The farmers who had that land wanted it replaced desperately, and I could not understand why until I asked him if that field went over to the next road. He said, yes. I said, well, is there not an approach over the next bridge and around the corner? In other words, there was another bridge a half a mile down from where the one was that was knocked out, and I was asking him if he could go another half mile down. He said, well, yes, I could, I guess, and you would not have to replace the bridge then, would you? The fact was it was a half a mile further for his equipment, but nobody had thought of the big picture because, ultimately, the next bridge half a mile down is going to have to be repaired or replaced, as well, because it was built to the older standards, as well.

So I tie all that to whether or not we have resource capabilities to enforce The Water Rights Act. It also ties into the big picture of local decision making about drainage and highways and roads crossings. That is on the drainage side.

There is the other aspects of management that are going to have to be implemented to benefit our communities in the long run. It need not be seen as anything other than making sure that the local authorities have direct input and the local affected people have some confidence in the decisions that are being made. The member should be prepared--if they want to aggressively encourage the enforcement of The Water Rights Act, they should be prepared to take careful stock of the situation before they jump too far one way or the other on the enforcement of regulations, because this is not an area that rural Manitoba takes kindly to regulation on.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I was not asking about whether you were enforcing on all the violations. I was asking about what help there was for people or whether we were prepared to help people when they were suffering as a result of it.

The minister talked about conservation districts, and I want to say to him that I am very much in support of conservation districts. We are just in the infant stages of starting one up in my area, one that I have supported for a long time and have been pleased to see it happening. As far as ford crossings, I really believe that is something we have to look at, as well. We are not going to get bridges on every road; in fact, I live in the LGD of Mountain and I was the councillor when the first ford crossing was built within my ward. The first ford crossing was built much to the displeasure of many people. They thought that we should be having a bridge there, but we convinced them that a ford crossing was the way to go and it has been very successful.

But with respect to conservation districts, what I want to know is, when the conservation district is formed, is it the conservation district that makes the decision on drainages and licensing of drainages, or does the government and the department of Water Resources still have a role to play in how drainage work is being done?

* (1620)

Mr. Cummings: The ultimate regulatory authority still rests with the provincial government. In fact, the conservation districts still must acquire environmental and water rights approval with their process. In fact, that improves the compliance, if you will, because as a public entity they know they have a responsibility to make sure that the long-term plan meets with at least some level of approval by another authority.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I would like clarification on, on licensing of work. We had a serious flood several years ago. We are looking at high water again, and hopefully, it will not flood, it will all drain off, but when you have floods, you also have lots of damage on rivers and on drainages that have to be repaired very quickly. Can the minister tell me, when this happens, is it necessary that the municipality or the Highways department that is doing the repair work apply for a licence to do repair work in a river, or is it just understood that they can go ahead? I am not trying to ask a trick question here. I am just trying to ask the minister how this works when you have a situation where repair work has to be done as a result of a flood.

Mr. Cummings: I believe that in most cases where you are repairing damage to an existing water course, that relicensing may not be required. I would have to do--basically, it comes down to applying some common sense. I mean, if your idea of fixing flooding on the West Favel River is to straighten it out, then that might require a licence, but if it went across land and cut a new grade and you had to refill it, of course, that would not. The application of common sense is probably the best thing to consider, but starting from the criteria of an in-course repair, then it likely would proceed without too many regulatory problems.

But just on that issue, there are lots of situations out there that are developing, or not lots--there are situations out there that are developing where government is not going to be so anxious--I am not trying to speak for other departments; I am trying to speak in the larger sense of water damage and flood control--to pay for repairs if it is something that has potential to be damaged every fifth year or something.

My own feeling is that there are a lot of situations where perhaps those types of fragile situations might be better returned to public ownership but still have some kind of a reasonable approach to allowing the original landowner and/or his successors to have access to it. The public purse cannot, in the long term, continue to provide repairs year after year in an area that we know is likely to be damaged. Eventually, someone has to ask, why is it being damaged, why is it always requiring repairs? That enters into a lot of things that are, frankly, peripheral to The Water Rights Act, as well, because sometimes our drainage actions can contribute to that or they can solve it.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I agree with the minister that in many cases there are areas that, if the owner of the land does not take also some responsibility to keeping his land grass down or in such a condition that it is going to be continually eroded, there comes a point where you have to say that you have a responsibility, as well, to ensure that that land is not eroded. I guess I would be pleased to hear whether there is the possibility and whether the public would consider the option, as you say--as the minister has indicated--of taking back some of this land to become public land rather than to spend continuous amounts of money on it.

A technical question, as well, again, I wanted to ask the minister--and it might not be in his department, but I think it is. When there is repair work being done to river damage, is there any regulation by the department as to the type of equipment that can be used to do repair work? For example, are there any guidelines that say a certain type of piece of equipment cannot be used in the river but that another type of equipment can be used when working in water?

Mr. Cummings: I do not think so. I think you might be looking at workplace safety situations, but the member is thinking about equipment that has potential to leak transmission or something like that. I suppose that is only a practical responsibility if someone were to be seen to be polluting, they would be in more trouble than they might want.

Before we go too much further, though, I want to make sure that the record shows that when I talk about taking back fragile lands for public ownership, that becomes an option on what I hope would normally be rare occasions when there is--I am certainly not advocating that large tracts of private land be returned to public ownership. In fact, under a lot of circumstances, private land is better protected than public lands. I wanted to tie that directly to conservation districts and why I am a supporter of conservation districts. The long-term educational value and the appreciation that operators begin to have for their land, when they are part of a conservation district and working with the people that are locally hired in local boards, situations begin to improve very noticeably over a period of time.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want the minister to know that I was not advocating for the government to go and buy large tracts of land. I was advocating that we work together with farmers to ensure that when we have sensitive areas--and conservation districts is one of those ways that it can be done where we would see land that is vulnerable--left under cover, I think in many cases, it can be encouraged to do tree planting, things like that, to stabilize. It would be very helpful.

Again, when I was asking about equipment working in rivers, I was not thinking about workplace health and safety issues. That is another department. What I was thinking about was, I have been advised, or told, that there are only certain types of equipment that can work in rivers. I do not know where this regulation comes from within the department that says there is a restriction on equipment that can do river repair. I do not know if there is a restriction that says that you can only use dragline equipment. I have called some places, and I cannot find it. It was a concern that was raised by a constituent who says only particular equipment can be used. So if the minister does not have the answer, if he could have it checked for me to let me know if there is some restriction.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I could think off the top of my head is that there undoubtedly would be, whether in our area or in a municipal area, when contracts are being written, certain types of equipment may be required in the contract. That is more likely associated with getting value for dollar.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, again to do with water. We might have passed the part that I want to ask about. I have raised the issue of the waste and bark that is being put in areas along--the minister raised the West Favel River and the concern that has been raised by people downstream, particularly the people who live at Indian Birch and Shoal River, the two reserves, which are at the end of the stream where we could have material getting into the river.

Can the minister indicate whether his staff has done any work on this, or looked into the possibilities, or has been involved with the Department of Environment in looking at whether this material is too close to rivers and whether it will, in fact, end up in rivers this spring with runoff?

* (1630)

Mr. Cummings: Yes, there is no doubt that the two departments have been working together. This goes back to, I suppose, the test of reasonableness. The member has raised the issue with my colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) about the potential for pollution with vast amounts of chips being put in inappropriate places. The only toxicity that I am aware of that occurs around this is that, if there are huge amounts that are piled in a particular area and left to decompose, a certain chemical weeps out of the chips. But remember that same thing happens when a tree falls in the forest. We are talking about returning a natural product back to where it came from. [interjection]

The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) is indicating small amounts of waste. I do not suppose he wants to spend the rest of the time talking about this in Natural Resources Estimates. I would caution both members not to overstate what I know is intended to be a reasonable solution to a situation where L-P, because of the nature of the cut that they are getting right now, has had more bark than was originally forecast. That is not that bad a thing. There are feedlots out there that would just love to have some of this material to create the feedlot bed for the drainage that their stock might not otherwise have available to them. This is first-class stuff.

Now, there are only so many feedlots that you can supply, and that raises a whole other question, of course. We do not need to get into that. The Department of Environment and Department of Natural Resources have always worked very closely together. If the Natural Resources officers find something that they find objectionable that would be regulated under The Environment Act, then that is what happens.

Mr. Struthers: I think we can pass that section and go on to the next one.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 3. Resource Programs (2) Water Licensing (a) Salaries.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairperson, there has been a lot of discussion on drainage, and there is just one question here. I would like see an update, if anything has happened with the Wagon Creek drainage in Stony Lake in the R.M. of St. Laurent. I met with the previous Minister of Natural Resources and the member for Lakeside. I would like an update to see what has happened since last November in the discussions.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I could report that there has been survey work and discussions that have occurred, but no conclusion has been reached. The smiles on our faces are not that we take it lightly. It is that I was just checking the veracity of my deputy's memory, but he assures me that that is the stage that it is at.

Mr. Gaudry: There was discussion about the funding in regard to--at one point there was a discussion of $1 million, but then there was an option of a lesser funding. They are diverting it into Shoal Lake rather than into Lake Manitoba.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, I am informed that there were options discussed regarding phased approach to it or even optionalities for construction. Is that what we are referring to? We are quite prepared to continue discussions, but it has not yet been met with approval on either side. Cost-sharing enters into it, anything that can be done. As we were discussing earlier on drainage, it is, in fact, an issue where we need to make sure that we have a local buy-in, not only in the dollars, but also in the benefits that occur.

Mr. Gaudry: I would just like to say that I appreciate the comments from the minister. I know he is new in this as a Minister of Natural Resources, and I would like to congratulate him on the new appointment of Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure from previous associations with the minister when he was Minister of Environment--it has always been a pleasure to work with him. I would like to reiterate this again.

I will pass on the message to the farmers who were affected in this area last summer with the drainage problem, and I am sure it will be addressed properly for the R.M. and for the farmers of R.M. of St. Laurent. Thank you.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 3. Resource Programs (2) Water Licensing (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $633,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $32,400--pass.

3.(3) Water Planning and Development (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,036,800.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, as I was going through the Estimates book in front of me, I noticed that one of the sentences that appeared on page 60 under this section is an expected result in the "reduction in the number of unlicenced drainage work and reduction in the number of drainage disputes."

Now, there are some figures from both disputes and from unlicensed drainage works. Are there are some figures that the minister can provide me to indicate whether that result has been met this year, whether he is happy with the number of unlicensed drainage works, the reduction of them or the reduction in the number of drainage disputes?

Mr. Cummings: The member was asking--I am not sure if he was asking whether this meant something in dollars. I would point out that the lines he is referring to are Expected Results as a result of the identification of the activities that the branch would be undertaking, and that is definitely one of their objectives with expected results.

If he is asking can we give him a demonstration of whether or not that has occurred, we would have to research the number of times or, I suppose, virtually the number of charges. I would think the number of charges are pretty small because mainly the people in this branch who are involved attempt to mitigate and negotiate and reach amicable solutions to the problems, but knowing that they have the force of the act behind them when they are doing that.

So I would ask the member for guidance if he wants a report before the year is over or whether he wants some description from other years. The fact is that this would probably rise and fall according to the amount of water that is coming down the ditch. We did not have many draining problems when it was dry even though the ditches were still there or even maybe being made at that time.

Mr. Struthers: I realize the difficulties that the minister may have in providing these figures, but when I read the statement in the Estimates book I assumed that there must be some figures that ran back several years that might show a trend. Taking into consideration the amount of rain and the amount of runoff that we have in the year, I know that there are those kinds of factors that go along with it. I know the other thing is--I was trying to imagine how you would tabulate unlicensed drainage works. I mean, if you know that their unlicensed drainage works, then I would presume that the Department of Natural Resources would be doing something about unlicensed drainage works.

So I would like to see if there is any kind of a history with some numbers, not just with the drainage works part, but also whether he is happy over the last several years on the number of drainage disputes that I am hoping will have reduced in actual numbers over the last several years. I would hope that that kind of information is available.

*(1640)

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Cummings: We will provide the best information we can for that question.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for that. Under this line, as well, I would like to discuss a little bit about aquifers, in particular the Assiniboine Delta aquifer.

Again, this is a situation where, as the critic for Natural Resources, I do get the odd call on as far back as when McCain announced the expansion of their plant and how this was going to be good for the farm community in that area because they would then be able to grow more potatoes, and to do that they needed to draw from the aquifer water to irrigate the land to produce the volume of potatoes necessary. That sort of indicates the time and the circumstances surrounding the concerns that I received about the draw down on that particular aquifer.

The other thing that disturbed me somewhat was the study that was done and completed, I believe, in 1995 that raised some questions about the amount of water we are drawing out of the aquifer as compared to the amount of water that is being replenished back into the aquifer. We are just talking strictly volume of water here. Has the department done any studies of its own or any monitoring that is ongoing that the minister can tell me about indicating that indeed that aquifer is safe in pure volume into the foreseeable future?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no question that we have adequate supplies. The allocations are not exceeding the predicted available supplies. There is a question, part of that question is whether or not we are monitoring. An outside consultant referred to this as the most monitored and the one aquifer about which there was the most information available in North America I believe and that goes back to some painful memories of mine when the PFRA was looking to run a pipeline to the east towards Gladstone and Plumas.

When that discussion occurred and there was a lot of monitoring occurring and the monitoring continues on an ongoing basis. We know the levels of the aquifer and the predicted recharge. I do not have those figures in front of me, but I am confident that they are capable of demonstrating that this aquifer is not being impeded.

The Assiniboine Delta Aquifer is being studied again or information is being sought again by the Assiniboine Advisory Board. They have completed quite a bit of work on the upper Assiniboine and they have now begun a public process to get some input regarding the aquifer and that process is ongoing right now. They have had one preliminary meeting. They are seeking public input to provide advice on long-term management based on the fact the aquifer has a significant impact on the Assiniboine River. I forget the numbers but there is a known high discharge to the Assiniboine from the aquifer. That gives them certainly adequate reason to be in there, but beyond that the water use in the Assiniboine River basin in its totality and the best advantageous way to develop the Assiniboine Valley is all part of their mandate as it relates to water.

So I am looking forward to that work progressing, although I must admit a couple of years ago I would not have predicted that they would be seeking additional input regarding the aquifer, but the fact is it makes some sense now that they have gone through the various linkages that occur in that area. It goes back, of course, to the Pembina Valley wanting water for domestic and industrial use, so this is a gathering of information and frankly it is a two-way street. It is also educational for the board, but it is also educational for those who participate in the process, so there is greater public knowledge about what may or may not be available in the aquifer, what may or may not be available in the whole Assiniboine River Valley so we can all do better planning. It is not unlike land-use planning only probably more difficult.

Mr. Struthers: The water keeps moving and the land does not. I guess that maybe sums up the differences and the difficulties.

An Honourable Member: What? I did not hear you. You just kind of put your head down.

Mr. Struthers: If the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) would listen a little better, I was just explaining to the member for Turtle Mountain the difference between land-use policies and water-use policies, that one is fluid and one is not.

The minister may have mentioned this and I might have missed it as he was giving his answer. He talked about a consultant that looked at the aquifer and said that it was no problem with the amount of water that is in the aquifer and being discharged. What was the name of the consultant that he was referencing?

Mr. Cummings: I do not have the name at my fingertips but this was to confirm the work that had been done by Frank Render and others within the Water Resources branch of the day, and I am pretty sure that it was an out-of-province hydrologist who did that review and made some quite complimentary remarks. To some extent that is out of date. I mean, we have seen quite an expansion of irrigation in that area but the fact is, the reason I quoted it was that there was a third party that expressed some confidence in the knowledge base, and that will not have changed about the aquifer.

They can tell you how fast the water is moving through the aquifer. They can tell you what the aquifer capacity is also, measuring the outfalls, that that being a delta as opposed to a basin, there are outfalls under pressure not just into the Assiniboine but into other areas, up to Neepawa, for that matter, and through quantification of all that and other monitoring capabilities that they have--and I do not know and I cannot tell you at the moment how many wells are involved, but I know I see lots of them as I travel through that area. Combined with what is a working knowledge of how much is being withdrawn for commercial and other uses, they come up with a pretty accurate acre feet of recharge and use.

Mr. Struthers: The concern is that there was a draw down on the aquifer before an expansion at Carberry took place. Studies had been done before that occurred and at that time there was no, did not seem to be, at least, any worry that we would lessen the lifetime of this aquifer, that there was enough water there for the uses that were on it, say, three years ago. My understanding is that the town of Carberry draws upon it and Shilo, the army base at Shilo and I believe even Neepawa through Lake Irwin. I understand Lake Irwin is fed by the aquifer and Neepawa draws its water from there, plus every R.M. throughout the area and other smaller operations that source that water.

What has happened in the meantime is that we have had an expansion of the McCain operation and a lot more pressure because of that is put on drawing down the water from the aquifer. The concern is that more water is coming out of the aquifer than what is being replenished into the aquifer.

* (1650)

I understand that Frank Render's report is somewhat dated and the minister has flagged that already, but what I wanted to know is, given the monitoring that the Department of Natural Resources is doing, can the minister indicate--I am trying to do this without having the minister having to answer in terms of this many cfs's and that many cfs's.

I do not need it that detailed, but I think we need to have some kind of assurance that this concern that people have is not a valid one, that the lifetime of the aquifer is there for the foreseeable future and that the people who are using this aquifer right now for their own operations will not be left in a position where they do not have the aquifer to draw upon at some point in the future.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, No. 1, the long-term sustainable yield of the aquifer is not going to be exceeded. Now, the member references a number of errors that would cause pressure to be brought to bear for irrigation purposes, but not all of the irrigation is going to be on the aquifer. That is an important thing to remember. The McCain expansion and even the Carnation expansion--Carnation would more likely be looking for land closer to home, but the McCain expansion is not targeted at the aquifer so much as it is at a number of areas. In fact, from an agronomic point of view, I believe that the potato growers will want to spread their production out a bit, as well, and not risk disease involvement.

They had a taste of that last year, and it was very expensive. The year, however, lent itself to the spread of disease, I believe, but all that means that the aquifer is not the only area from which water will be drawn. The long-term sustainable yield is established, and the member said, well, the Render report--and I think I led him to believe the Render report and the evaluations that were done by the third party a few years ago--is dated. I can assure him that the information that the Render report provided, or the work that Frank Render did at that time, is updated annually. So we have that current information; that base is constantly updated.

We can always argue that you never have enough information about an aquifer, but I am still confident that that aquifer is, as well, monitored and carefully gauged as any. As we learn more about it, the established level of sustainable yield can be adjusted, as well. I mean, there is also the issue of sections of the aquifer. Some of them may not be entirely able to flow one to the other, for example. Reduced amounts might be in other quadrants. I am not sure where that is at today, but I know that there is an attempt made on evaluation of the sustainable yield of the aquifer also considering the impacts on some of the quadrants.

It is a valid question, and the main assurance that the department can provide and our government will provide is that we continually upgrade the information on recharge and usage and any other influencing factors and that we stay within the sustainable yield.

Mr. Struthers: The minister's couple of points are well taken. Certainly there is more drawdown on just the aquifer in that area. There are people who draw from the Assiniboine River from other rivers in the area. His point about the Frank Render report, I am glad to hear. I am encouraged that the report is updated constantly. It has been, I am assuming then, updated since the expansion in Carberry. I am going to make that assumption. If I am not right, then the minister I am sure will enlighten me on that.

The other part of the questions that I would like to ask about the aquifer does not deal with amount now but deals with the quality of the water that is in the aquifer and contaminants that could be flushed into the system. I realize that this may be a question that might be more logically posed to the Department of Environment. I think there is probably a role here for the Department of Natural Resources, probably in co-operation with the Department of Environment, to monitor the contaminants, the quality of the water that is both going into the aquifer, sitting in the aquifer and then being used by people from the aquifer. Maybe the minister could comment on that.

Mr. Cummings: Well, No. 1, the issue around the Carberry expansion, remember that there is a stated amount of water, a known amount of water available from which a sustainable yield figure is extrapolated, and then the licences must occur within that cap. So, with or without the Carberry expansion, the sustainable yield is intended not to be exceeded. That total number of acre-feet that can be withdrawn is established, and then licences can be allowed within that.

In terms of water quality, yes, Carberry and other areas, there are water quality concerns that are being raised; interestingly enough, not so much from irrigation as might be from intensive livestock. The town of Carberry itself has had some lagoon problems. The town has had some problems given the history of the town. Shallow wells and fields in a porous sand are not a good combination. You can increase the nitrate content in your wells. Heavy application of manure on feedlot situations and/or intensive livestock operations has to be monitored. That is done, as well, in conjunction with Agriculture.

This government has not chosen to regulate the amount of fertilizer that is applied from large livestock operations so much as guidelines have been set, but it goes without saying in the industry--the livestock industry and agriculture know that in the long run they have to be able to quantify and demonstrate their management capabilities, that they are not, in fact, depleting the quality of the aquifer. That does become an area that is primarily managed by Environment, but, again, it is an Environment-Natural Resources co-operative approach.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.