Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, I thought there was a timeframe placed on the transfer of that particular program. I still have not received an answer from the Minister indicating why were they short in pre-suppression for $320,000 and they exceeded fire suppression by $450,000, requesting the increase in the appropriation for $770,000. In fire suppression, was this excess of $450,000 due to wages? If its negotiated wages increased, why was that not in the budget forecast? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the pre-suppression budget, there is a Mutual Aid Resource Sharing (M.A.R.S.) Agreement with other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions this year required little assistance from us because they had low fire risk and so it was forecast that we would receive $700,000 from that M.A.R.S. Agreement and we did not receive that amount. The department recovered only $380,000 through that agreement and they were left with a shortfall of $320,000. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if they are taking any measures to try to come in with the forecast budget with regard to fire and pre-fire suppression on their expenditures, particularly when it is a fairly quiet fire season. What measures is the department going to take to ensure that they can come in within their forecasted budget?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, was that on the pre-suppression the Member was asking the question?

Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Both on pre-suppression and suppression, on overall fire management.

Thank you. Mr. Pollard. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we have to have a certain number of people and a certain amount of assets; aircraft, etc., deployed at various locations and that includes their pumps and other equipment they use to fight fires. So, the pre-suppression budget is fairly well fixed, based on the level of assets that they place around the Northwest Territories.

It is based on years and years of experience of what has happened before. Once the fire season starts though, I think that is where it gets even worse to try to forecast because whether it is going to be a high year, or a low year, is hard for the department to say. Once you do get into it, they know that they have some $7 million there and it is just a question of what the weather does and whether or not there are a lot of fires.

I can give you some examples, Mr. Chairman. The fire season for 1989-90 was a record high. In the actual expenditures, in suppression, were $16.793 million. The main estimates were only $8.312 million, so in a very high year, it was double. In an above average year, such as 1990-91, they actually expended $10.523 million and the main estimates, again, had a holding figure of $8.313 million. In a below average year, which is what 1992-93 was, they came very close at $450,000.

So, in the pre-suppression, you deploy assets and you can get a good handle on that amount of money. I would point out that they get it net. In other words, if they say they are going to earn $700,000 through the M.A.R.S. Agreement, then they get the pre-suppression budget at less the $700,000. That is why we are topping it up by $320,000 this year, Mr. Chairman.

As I say, that depends on the contracts and the number of people and equipment you want to deploy. After that, for the suppression, it depends on the weather and the kind of fire season that it was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister as to what type of measures they could look at developing in order to come in within that projected amount that they have received as a result of the transfer and I do not seem to be hearing what I was hoping to hear. They go on the amount of fires that are happening in the N.W.T., or the type of fire season that we are having. I recognize that many of the contracts with pre-suppression are fixed; I fully recognize that. However, in order to look at fire suppression which have been in excess, measures should be taken and I strongly believe that consideration for contracts privatizing fire suppression would be a way of saving many dollars for the Government of the N.W.T. and the Department of Renewable Resources.

I know that there are many contracts, particularly with different bands in the South Slave area that are into fighting fires on behalf of the Department of Renewable Resources for fire suppression. However, there has been no concerted effort on

the part of the Department of Renewable Resources to try to increase that or to try to address that particular area.

I am sure if the government looked at that without the increased wage amount it would have to look at that on a continual basis for fire seasons, then probably it will save dollars and allow maximum use of resources within the communities. Without looking at having to forecast projected surpluses and overruns every year, I think this government should look at developing measures to address this.

You cannot say it is because of the weather. There are other ways to cut cost, and I do not think this department is hearing that. When you take a fire crew out with the Government of the N.W.T.'s fire crew, there are many times that they sit out in a camp for weeks waiting for a fire to happen. You have all these tanker bases that you have built but I do not think you place the operation and maintenance costs in your budget to address these infrastructure costs that you placed in the different communities.

If you privatize it, these camps will not be sitting in those areas for a couple of weeks waiting for a fire to happen. That is exactly what you do now and it does cost a lot of money. I hear concerns expressed by many people across the territories that there is something like a gathering where people are playing pool all the time waiting for fires to happen and yet these people are getting paid. I recognize the Minister is doing a fire management review, but I do not think it will be a component of the review whether they are utilizing their dollars effectively. I believe that other measures have to be looked at to try to avoid a continual overrun. One of these years we are not going to have the money to address a bad fire season. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Renewable Resources has submitted to the Financial Management Board terms of reference for a review of its Fire Management Policy and program. The terms of reference were approved by F.M.B. in November, Mr. Chairman, and focus specifically on what changes are needed to increase the proportion of local labour versus equipment, where aircraft are required, to increase the use of local air carriers, and to become less reliant on the larger water fire retardant aircraft. The review is underway and it is due to be reported back to us by May 31 of next year, so the department is looking at this aspect of fire fighting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any other general questions? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

I just have one comment, Mr. Chairman, and I know it is not with regard to this particular supp. Since the Minister indicated the fire management review will be completed by May 31, I certainly hope the department makes every effort to try to complete this review prior to May 31, recognizing some of the problems that keeping with their forecasted budget causes them. I am sure with the information they have they could probably try to complete that review prior to the end of May. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

I am advised by the Minister of Renewable Resources that they will indeed make every effort to report early, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General questions? Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the $450,000 fire suppression disbursement. I have a problem with the pre-suppression $320,000. I know there is no way one can predict that one is going to have fires in the coming season. The pre-suppression of $320,000 is preparing for the season. If the $450,000 and $320,000 were under the fire suppression program, I would have no problem. The second point I would like to make is that, in the accounting school of thought, they emphasize that if you want to prepare a budget, you have to look at two things: relatively low and relatively high fire seasons. Given that scenario, you have to look at the lower season for fires and you have to look at the worst case scenario in case you have a high fire season. My suggestion to the Minister of Finance would be to average your low years and your high years for fires. Has that scenario ever been looked at when making projections and preparing a budget? I know we cannot tell how the summer is going to be in terms of fires. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct that the $8 million is the average that was negotiated with the federal government. Although it is not being used in our budgeting process right now, I will take the Member's comments and see if that will fit into the process. With regard to the $320,000, it was a shortfall. The department anticipated providing services to other areas of Canada or the United States in the amount of some $700,000 for the use of fire fighting equipment. This year, there was a low fire risk in those other areas, so they did not use our equipment as much as they usually do. It was a shortfall in the $700,000 of the amount of $320,000. It was revenue that the department did not earn that it would normally have earned, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.