Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Minister of Renewable Resources, when I was in Trout Lake on November 27, I was told by people there that they saw about three or four buffalo northeast of Trout Lake. They were surprised, so they came back and informed the renewable resources officer out of Fort Simpson. The renewable resources officer flew into Trout Lake and went out there, but the buffalo had moved on. That is a lot of money to spend on that. What I instructed the people to do is, next time they see them, just drop them. Is that a correct way to deal with this situation and save money at the same time?

---Laughter

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is what we said in our announcement, but let the department know after the animal has been eliminated.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

So the next time I am talking to Joe Punch or someone from Trout Lake, I will tell him the Minister's words here. He can go ahead and do it, then. Thank you.

Thank you. Wildlife management, not previously authorized $63,000. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Forest fire management, not previously authorized $770,000. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on observation; this summer, I thought we had the worst fire season. It was pretty quiet and not the worst but people were staying home because there was a lot of water. I thought that we did not have a bad fire season, in the area of economics, but we still managed to have an overrun. I am just wondering, how did we manage to do that?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the department expended $7,478,000 in their suppression task expenditure this year. Their current budget in that particular area is $7,028,000, so they were short $450,000. It was a below average fire season. The number of fires recorded was 285, Mr. Chairman, in comparison to 331 fires in 1991-92. Of course, it depends on where those fires are, Mr. Chairman. The number of fires per year is only a variable influence in the amount of suppression activity. The actual expenditure in particular years goes up and down like crazy, Mr. Chairman, and I have to tell you that I was really pleased that they came in at requiring an extra $450,000 because it is usually a lot more than that. If you

want further information, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Minister of Renewable Resources provide it.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Minister what actually did cause the overrun of $770,000, recognizing that fires were down from 331 the previous year?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would not want to mislead the House. We do not know from year to year how much is going to be required for fire suppression. All the $7,028,000 is, is a holding figure, not an actual hard and fast number. I will let the Minister respond with the details. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In short, the pre-suppression spent an excess of $450,000, I am sorry, the fire-suppression spent an excess of $450,000 and the pre-suppression had a $320,000 deficit, totalling $770,000. Like the Minister of Finance said, the department has not been allowed to account for increased cost and increased wages because the government does not know how much money the fire operation will need at any particular time. Since the negotiated agreement between the federal government and the territorial government, the holding figure has not changed. In the meantime, supply costs, manpower costs, helicopter time and aircraft time have gone up but the base holding figure has not changed. That is probably the reason why we had an over expenditure. If we had been allowed to take those things into account then we would probably have had some money left over. Thank you.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, if the holding figure has not changed why is it that the government did not negotiate that this increase to many of the different demands placed on pre-suppression and fire suppression be included in the expenditures? I am just thinking that last year, I believe, there was a three million dollar request to the supp and now it is practically three-quarters of a million dollars. It just does not seem that the department can forecast a figure and stay within that budget amount. If it is through bad negotiations why does the territorial government not go back to the federal government to reflect the needed costs that have increased over the years since it took over the responsibility of fire management? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister, Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The negotiated increase was built in. It worked in with the formula financing that the Department of Finance negotiates. It is built in there but the department itself has not been allowed to increase it that much. Overall, the government gets the

increase because of the forest fire contract agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

So is the Minister indicating to this House that we can get the $770,000 overrun back from the federal government?

Thank you. Mr. Minister, Mr. Pollard.