Mr. Chairman, I would like to know where the labs are for the mammals. As for the fish, where would the federal Department of Fisheries labs be? Has the department ever thought of putting a capital facility to test the fish, themselves? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, the headquarters for the Arctic for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is in Winnipeg. That's where they would do most of their analysis. The federal government does have a water lab here, but they don't do extensive work on fish and so on in the north. Quite often we have found that the fish samples we have been sent have had to go to independent labs, because sometimes the research is very specific and even the federal government doesn't do that themselves. They contract it to independent operations. I

think Calgary, for example, is one where I have seen products come back from.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Has the department ever considered putting up a testing lab of that nature in the north? I ask that because we have more and more waterborne pollutants coming into our waters. We're going to be seeing more and more reason to test the fish because many of our people along the river eat the fish. With all the different pollution that is going into the rivers, we're going to see a decline in the fish. I would just like to know if the department has any plans to put some form of testing for fish in the north. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Deputy Minister.

We have not looked at the feasibility of setting up a lab where we could do water samples or fish samples and so on, yet. Primarily because water is still the responsibility of the federal government, we would be taking on a responsibility that the federal government should be carrying at this point.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Nahendeh.

I would like to ask if the Department of Renewable Resources has ever approached the federal department to establish a facility to test fish in the north. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Handley.

No, we haven't raised that specific question with them, to my knowledge.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Nahendeh.

In the area of pollution, we know there are definitely waterborne pollutants. I would like to know exactly what sort of pollution is going into the water, like everybody else. As I said earlier, in the Mackenzie in the Deh Cho a lot of the water comes out of Alberta. There are a number of rivers that go through central Alberta and there are a number of pulp mills along these rivers. As well, there are a lot of communities, farms and logging sites along these rivers. These probably add to the pollution in the river.

This is not a capital question, but since we are on general comments I would like to ask the department if they have ever identified how many pulp mills are along these rivers and how many communities are putting pollutants into the rivers? These are the two areas that I would like to identify. I'm talking about the two rivers that join in Simpson, one of them is the Mackenzie River and the other is the Liard River that flows out of British Columbia.

Thank you. Mr. Deputy Minister, can you identify the chemical components in the basin?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. We know how many pulp mills there are in the Mackenzie River basin area. We also know how many communities. But, in terms of the specific

quantity of effluent and exactly what is in it, we don't measure that right now. Through the Northern Rivers basin study, which is funded by the federal government and jointly done with ourselves, BC, Alberta and so on, we are doing tests along the river. They tell us the parts per billion and so on of various chemicals in the river. But, in terms of tracing them back to specific mills, we haven't done that yet. We can provide a list of the mills and communities and so on, if you want that.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Yes, if the department could provide me with that information, I would appreciate that. The final question is in the area of air pollutants. For a number of years we've been told that the north is slowly being polluted by airborne pollutants from other parts of the world. There is a term I've heard, it is "Arctic haze," which has been used to talk about the pollution that is coming into the Arctic.

As a result of airborne pollutants certain animals like the caribou are affected. We are told that we cannot eat the kidneys of the caribou any more because of the pollution. I'm told that polar bears have mercury in them, and so forth. I would like to ask the department if this is, in fact, true and if there are any other animal species that have been tested so we know what kind of pollution is coming into our lands and where the pollution is coming from. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Deputy Minister.

We can still eat all the animals in the north. We can still, in fact, eat caribou kidneys. There was a study done, though, by the federal government which showed high levels of cadmium in caribou kidneys. There have also been studies done on cesium and studies done on mercury in various animals. The evidence is that all the Arctic animals, and probably all animals around the world, are showing signs of accumulating some contaminants within their system, in particular, their organs.

It is of concern to us, and our department has participated in what is called the Finnish Initiative or the Arctic Environment Strategy, where we are working with other countries that are circumpolar around the north to come up with ways of dealing with airborne pollution, in particular. Most of the pollution we are finding in the Arctic, the airborne pollution, is either coming from the south, the industrialized parts of the United States and maybe even Canada, and over the pole from European countries, eastern Europe in particular.

It is an international problem and it is a difficult one to work with. We are cooperating with other countries through the Finnish Initiative to try to get control of it.

I have Mr. Allooloo and Mr. Lewis. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of your capital, your share compared to other departments is very small. You are viewed by the communities as one of the most important departments because you have been in the communities for a long time and you have been able to assist them in wildlife management, forestry and you help hunters. To my people, at least, you are the most important department. Yet, your capital budget is very small. Is it the view of the government that your equipment -- your skidoos, boats, et cetera -- necessary to do your work in the communities is sufficient today?