Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will note the Member's concern and appreciate the concern. It is the same in every region within the boreal forest area. I just want to reassure the Member, when you look at the main estimates, the funding has not been cut back. It can, periodically on a yearly basis, be supplemented by a supplementary appropriation, depending on the fire season.

The other point that we have to keep in mind is that fires are considered a normal part of life and habitat management occurs naturally. We can't fight every fire. We do appreciate the issue of the range of the animals and such, but we have also tracked on maps fires that go back 40, 50 and 60 years so we can have a sense of what the landscape looks like so that there is new and old growth and middle-aged growth. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I share some of the concerns of my other colleagues with respect to lands and the action zones that appears to the communities that fires aren't being fought, especially when they are kind of close. That continues to be a concern so nobody is quite certain about what criteria is being used. Sometimes they fight and sometimes they don't. The community leaders get quite concerned. How do they fight it up north? They get to fight what is close to their communities. Over here, they don't. They are not. People continue to be concerned about the fire suppression as well as the fire suppression contract itself. I am not too sure how it worked out last year, if there was almost an extra $3 million spent last year. Is it the case sometimes where fires aren't fought because it seems like it is going to be too expensive? Is that how they are making decisions, rather than having observation zones and action zones? Just with that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I will get the deputy to provide some detail, but cost is a factor. The values we look at are human life, property, resource values and, of course, cultural values are the four main values that we work off of. Of course, cost is a factor. I will ask, Mr. Chair, if the deputy could speak in more detail to that issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bailey.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that protection of life and then property are very high priorities. I concur with that. I guess I was just trying to get at, if anything, is to apply the ruling as consistently as they can. Quite often, the communities are calling and saying one year you fought, and this year you are not. It is quite confusing. I don't know if there is some kind of communication method the ministry can use. Maybe get into the communities early before the fire season, meet with the chief and council because they are the ones that get nervous because everybody else is calling them, so they understand some of the guidelines and the rules. Some of it is spur of the moment conditions. The deputy minister was talking about wind conditions and that kind of stuff. All those can be appreciated, but if we can communicate it the best we can to the hamlets and to the councils that are out there.

Another thing of interest is reforestation and silva culture. I believe that we do have a base of people, but it has to be continually used. One of the good programs that I am a champion of back in Fort Simpson is the ability to have reforestation projects for our schools and the students. They don't have to be big projects. It is about helping them understand and of the silva culture business. It makes our students understand about reforestation, building our forestries back up. In fact, it may inspire some youth to pursue a career in natural resources; just understanding it from the roots up, as it were. I kind of know that our program expenditures in reforestation have been declining. Perhaps the ministry can tell me what it has been like on average for the last three years, because the forestry hasn't really been active so there are no opportunities to go planting trees and that. But I do believe if we can allocate some money to the schools on a yearly basis and keep our workforce kind of sharp, so to speak, Mr. Chair. If the Minister can detail again for me the kind of average reforestation in the last three years and some of the justification needed to get that tree planting back in the schools. It is a huge bonus for the children learning about our forestry, our resources, the need to protect the land, as well as they get to make some money, too. That is a big bonus. They get to get out there and get active. It typically happens on a long weekend. It is a good thing. I would like to see that continue. I don't know if it is an actual line item, like reforestation for schools, but, if anything else, I would champion something like that, Mr. Chair. With that, I would just get the ministry to respond to that.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regards to the communication about the values at risk and how fires are fought and clarifying the rules of engagement, I will just commit to the Member that as we mobilize the fire crews across the North with the coming fire season, we will take the step to redouble our efforts to make sure that we communicate clearly with the communities and leadership as to the upcoming campaign season.

In regards to reforestation, I will ask the deputy to speak to the detail. It isn't a separate line item per se, but the deputy can provide some further detail. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bailey.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Next I have Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I will just be brief because it has been brought up here before, just with the issue of the values at risk list. I brought this issue up a couple of years ago with the Department of RWED, when RWED was still in existence, about maybe reprioritizing the values at risk list or adding some additions to it, which I feel my friend from Monfwi here was talking about. Wildlife now is a valuable resource. I think we are starting to realize that now with the declining herds of caribou. I had asked the department to look at maybe having the caribou migration routes, feeding areas in the boreal forest area that they do migrate through, being put on this priority or values at risk list and to have fires that are threatening these main feeding grounds and areas with an abundance of lichen, to go out and fight those fires as if they were fighting for property and cultural values and everything else that they have on that list. I'd like the department to revisit that and really put some more emphasis on fighting fires, if there is an opportunity to do that and in the protection and in the best interest of wildlife.

Wildlife feeding grounds, migratory routes, I know we've got lots of studies about where they're migrating to and from and everything like that, so I don't think it's a real high problem with knowing what areas those are comprised of. Also, traditional knowledge; people, elders have always been telling me in the last couple years that they should be fighting the fire over here or this fire or that fire because it's a main breeding ground, it's got lots of lichen that caribou really depend on. It's the only thing they depend on and, therefore, RWED should priorize it and go and fight that fire and put it out. I really think that's something that should go on this list.

This list is much too short. I think there's a lot of other items that should be put on that list that are a priority to northerners, especially within forest, with the new forest management regime coming around and there's going to be increased activity in the forest industry, I hope. I think that this management, this forest fire management policy is just too simple and it's not a policy that's...It's probably a policy that's too old and has to be revisited and re-prioritized. I would like to see the department really take it into some serious consideration in the next year, in the next budget process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, under the values that I listed off, there's one called the resource values, which is a broad term but it encompasses a lot of the areas and issues that the Member from Tu Nedhe references. I would be more than happy and willing to work with the committee. I would suggest, for example, if the committee ever came down to Fort Smith, we could do a full briefing with the fire centre. We could lay out all the work that we do, how it's done. We can look at the values at risk. We could have that kind of discussion. Once everybody's fully briefed, then we can look at what kind of suggestions may come out of that briefing. So I appreciate the Member's comments and I'd just like to make that offer that we'd be very happy and willing to sit down with the Members and give them that kind of full briefing, and then they can see the extent of the work that's done, the historical data, and the fact, the complexity of the issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to visit Smith. How does June 9th sound?

---Applause

But thanks for the offer. Mr. Chairman, I'm fully aware of the complexities of the forest fire management department and all the things that they're up against. All I'm saying is the forest fire management policy is too old; it's an old policy. What's wrong with updating it and making it more concise and more clear, so that people understand exactly where human life, property, equipment, resources, cultural and wildlife sit on that list? I don't see what the big problem is with making some amendments to a policy that's outdated and people don't know anything about. So I'm not saying change the intent of the policy, I'm just saying it's time for an update. There's some additions to that policy. I know resource values, when people think about going to fight a fire based on resource values, they're probably thinking there's a mine out there or an exploration activity happening out there or stuff like that. They don't look at wildlife as a resource in many, at the heat of the moment, type thing, and you have to go out. If you're flying out in a helicopter going to fight a fire based on a resource value and they say why and it's because of caribou lichen, they'll be shaking their heads and wondering what is that all about and they won't understand the value of that. I'm just saying the department should revisit that and maybe put that into the policy as a definite priority for this government to retain some of those important feeding and migratory areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The current policies and values at risk were developed in the early '90s. So they're going on to 15 years old, or slightly over 10 anyway, and it was done through a fairly extensive consultation process. But the Member is correct. I mean, no policy is necessarily forever. I would suggest, though, that if the committee, if there is a clear interest, then we should take the time to look at the history and the background and how we got to where we are. If we're going to change it, how do we want to change it and what process of consultation would we want to take to do that? So I'm willing to engage in that exercise with the Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we'll definitely be looking forward to that because it's not, to me it's not really a complex issue. It's something that could be easily brought forward for the public input and I'm sure the public will buy into it. You'll just have to give them the policy right now and say we're going to add this, and add this, and add that, and everybody says great; that's great. We got more things of value added to this values at risk list and I don't see how people would say, gee, we're not going to fight fires because of feeding grounds or migratory routes. I don't think people would be opposed to that to add everything out there, wildlife, it doesn't have to just specifically be caribou. It could be bison or marten, lynx, white fox, anything. I think people would be more inclined to give their consent and blessing to any policy that gets updated, especially in this government. Like I said, you know, some policies are written in stone, it seems, and changing them is like work for the government. I don't see what's wrong with that and people would be happy to embrace it. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Miltenberger.