Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at the map of the Mackenzie Valley and the total land mass and the actual areas where fires had started, that we respond to, Members would see that, we, in fact, respond to a very small area. That is, we do not fight fires 200 miles out of communities, generally speaking. We only do it 100 miles out of communities. There are certain priority areas we have. Just so the Member is aware, some of the lands selected are not necessarily areas where we have responded to fires previously, in any case. I agree with the Member, with the conclusion of claims, it is the government's responsibility to make sure we do not carry on incurring costs for responsibilities that are not ours. The question of government liability in terms of claims negotiations as Members are aware, we would be aware of the changes that happens as a result of claims as they are negotiated. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I bring this up in relation to the number of articles over the past month or two in regard to different groups claiming forestry rights, either through treaty or claims. At this point in time, they are not referring so much to claims, because the claims are not in place, but there is, if I recall correctly in the correspondence I have seen, some reference to priority harvesting rights through treaty rights. Obviously, this whole issue, and it is controversial, would be more easily addressed if people and groups were aware that as they claim the forest rights, they also claim the responsibility to reforest and protect their forest, at their cost.

If this government is not gaining any revenue from the product, from the forest, then obviously, whoever is gaining the revenue from the resource should to some degree, have the responsibility of protecting and reforesting. This would seem to address who owns what timber in the southern part of the Mackenzie. My main concern with the aboriginal groups claiming forestry and the preferential right to harvest that forest, is along with that comes the responsibility to protect it and replant if they do cut down the timber. They should be responsible to replant. That is my point to this whole question, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There have been recent court cases that support some of the aboriginal positions that have been advanced, over the years, in regard to the scope of aboriginal or treaty rights and what it encompasses.

It is not for me to give them a sermon on what the downside or liabilities are if aboriginal groups should decide to negotiate certain provisions within their claims or treaty negotiations. I am sure they are acutely aware of those things and as the Member knows, when you negotiate an agreement, you have to know absolutely what it is you are agreeing to. There are things you will gain and things you will have to put aside or give up as a result of those negotiations. In many cases it is forever. You cannot come back to it and make changes. I am sure all the groups are aware of it. The Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit and the Sahtu have been quite willing to negotiate and conclude agreements. Further south they have not, for whatever reason, reached any type of agreement. The ambiguity is all there. I am sure they appreciate the advice. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I was suggesting the Minister go down and give anybody any sermons on the pros and cons of their claims, but what I am suggesting here is that I would like to see those lands which are identified as private lands and the forest resource that go with that particular group, and I would like that identified in relation to where we are reforesting. I do not believe we should be paying for reforesting on private lands. That is one point.

The other point is going to be a little harder to address, where do we fight forest fires. I am not sure how you would address it, whether it is on private lands or whether private land owners are required to pay a portion of the cost or what? Perhaps, the Minister would consider looking at other jurisdictions, other provinces as to how they handle this type of issue? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We agree we should not be involved in reforestation on private lands. Secondly, we will look at the concern the Member has brought up to make sure our policies on fighting forest fires does not have us incurring costs, fighting fires on private lands that should rightfully be the responsibility of private owners. If we did, we should provide clear reasons or substantiation for doing that. Thank you.

Total activity, $400,000. Agreed?

Thank you. Financial contribution, detail of grants and contributions, grants on page 11-19, total grants, $1.436 million. Agreed?