Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few general comments on the Department of Renewable Resources. What my colleague Mr. Gargan is talking about with regard to using fire towers rather than covering the cost of helicopters was a subject raised a number of years ago during a study that the department was doing when they were looking at how to better fight fires. We were questioning the department about it for the last two years. Then all of a sudden, we didn't hear about it any more. Maybe the study was used to bring up the costs of fire operations last summer, I don't know. One of the recommendations we made at that time was to cut the cost of fire operations by putting in more fire towers.

The thinking behind it was if you do some capital projects and hire local people to man these towers, perhaps we don't need to pay $500 an hour for a helicopter to fly around looking for fires. That was the thinking behind it. That is just one example of the type of suggestions communities were making, in an earnest effort to have input into a better way of dealing with fighting fires in the north.

As we all know, the cost of fighting fires this past summer was over $20 million and that is quite a big amount of money that, along with that and others, is causing this government to go into a deficit. This is a very serious matter. Whatever happened to that study? Who did the study and what happened to it? Have any of the recommendations ever been incorporated into the way the fires are fought or are they still studying? The Minister is now saying they are going to do another study. You really have to step back and look at the whole operation of firefighting because we have been studying it every year and it is a never ending study. Communities have input into it and that is the last you hear about it. The next thing you know, we have another fire season and every year the cost has escalated.

Looking at this capital budget, I agree that there isn't much in there, but there is something. The majority of the projects we have for this year are the building of bases for firefighting where the crews could have camps and so forth. There is very little for the other parts of the department; environmental protection and trappers. I think the majority of this capital budget is for fighting fires.

There is another area I want to cover and that is with regard to trees. It may be an O and M project. This past weekend I drove to Fort Simpson and along the way I ran into some men who were cutting some firewood. They have a small business. This man had a two-ton flatbed truck and he had three men working with him. He told me that they make money and put food on the table for their family. It isn't much. It is a small operation, but this is what they have to do. Community corporations and other companies don't have work for them and it is too early to trap, so they have to do something else. This is how they make income. They were cutting wood in a burnt area. These are trees that are going to fall down anyway. They were telling me that because they were going to sell wood, they have to pay this fee for cutting down the trees. I think it was quite a bit of money for a small operation. They had to pay the fee before they could cut the trees.

Why do people have to pay for cutting down trees that are burnt and are going to fall down and rot anyway? They are more or less cleaning the country for other growth that has already begun. There is really no need for reforestation in that area. It is naturally taking care of itself. You can't tell me the cost of cutting the trees is reforestation. Why do people have to pay these fees? Is there another way of dealing with it where small operations like that pay the fees after they cut and sell the trees? They don't have money before they start cutting, unless they are a big operator. But the type of people I am talking about are not big operators. I may have other questions to ask after that.