Thank you,

Mr. Miltenberger. I’ll remind people that we’re in general comments here, and I’m wondering if some of these things can come out in the specific discussions. Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to be as general as you can get, because I know for a fact, along with everybody else here, that there are positions in place, that there are suggestions that are being made. I think our suggestions are just as valid as the Minister’s recommendations. I think we do have the right to ask questions under general comments. We don’t have to get into detail, and I think the whole idea of general comments is to try to get a general idea of the issue and to hear a

response from the Minister on exactly where they’re going with this stuff.

I know for a fact that as long as I’ve been here, going on 12 years, the issue of the forest fire centre has been raised time and time again in this House. Why do we have an office that operates 12 months of the year? It does its real work during the fire season, which is not in the winter time. That’s nothing new to this House; it’s been raised before. I think it’s important that we do look at every aspect of this thing.

The biggest cost in regard to the area of forest management is the water bomber contract. There again, there was nothing done to look at savings in that area. I think it’s important that we look at all aspects, especially where the biggest capital investment is in this government. Yet we’re picking on individuals’ jobs and livelihoods. I think it’s important that we ensure we have an opportunity to put forward our issues in regard to general comments and see exactly where the government is going on a general basis. So I’d like to ask the Minister. These are issues that have been around. It’s nothing new to me or the Minister. This issue has been raised in this House many times.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The points you raise will clearly come up under Forest Management. I think maybe we’ll get into the details then. Minister Miltenberger, would you like any general response there?

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Just two things. Recently, in the life of the last Assembly, I believe, we signed a ten-year contract that went through an extensive process for water bomber services that are going to last ten years, probably with the potential for an extension. I recognize the issue the Member has raised. I, of course, recognize as well that every facet of every program we have is up for scrutiny, and I accept and will fully engage in that process.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding the sport hunting of polar bears and what the U.S. government has done to the sport hunting issue in my riding, I have probably 30 to almost 40 sport hunting guides. For those guides you have two helpers per hunt. That’s a lot of helpers in regard to the hunts and money that it brings into the community on a yearly basis. I see that the U.S. government imposed or force-fed us in regard to saying that the U.S. stop polar bear hunting.

What is this department trying to do to reopen that discussion with the U.S. regarding the polar bear and big-game hunting tags?

Thank you,

Mr. Jacobson. Again, fairly specific to wildlife, which we will get into eventually here. A response from the Minister?

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. This is an issue of concern, as the Member has indicated. We are working with other jurisdictions to sort out what the implications are. There were some arrangements that had been made between our federal government and the United States government in terms of committees and processes, which we’re sorting out. There are cross-Canada working groups. I know that ITI is going to be working on lobbying efforts to work with the Americans to make our case and see if we can change their point of view.

Our scientists have indicated to us through this COSEWIC process that the species should remain as one of special interest. The Americans decided, through their own process, to move them up, as the Member knows, and it’s going to affect business, which is very difficult for us to control. But we are going to be making efforts through ITI, and I know the Members are going to be involved in this in terms of lobbying the federal American government.

Thank you,

Mr. Miltenberger. Any further general comments? Does the committee agree that we move on to detail?

We’ll look at page 11-7, Department Summary, Operations Expenditure Summary: $56.942 million. We will defer that until the end of our detailed coverage.

Moving on to page 11-8, Information Item, Active Positions — By Region. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to sound like a broken record, but I’m going to ask roughly the same questions I asked on this page for the other departments.

I’m just trying to reconcile some of the position changes in my brain. I see that when we look at the bottom line numbers, the department is going down by four positions, yet we do see some increases — six positions up in Yellowknife headquarters — and then pretty much all of the regions are going down. I’m a little confused by some of the numbers. I was under the impression that the department was identifying 22.5 positions for elimination.

Similar to yesterday and all the previous days, can the Minister please give me a bit of an outline or concept of how they went through the department and identified which positions to eliminate and what

the criteria used for those eliminations was? At the same time, how many of these 22.5 or so positions, or whatever the correct number might be, were in fact vacant, how many were filled, and what is the status of those positions now?

Thank you,

Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Magrum.

So that gives me the second half of my question: can the department just give me some understanding of the criteria they used when they were actually going into the department to identify which positions should be eliminated and which ones should be kept?

Thank you,

Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Bohnet.

Yesterday when we were talking to ITI, it became obvious that they had notified staff in ’09–10 positions that are being eliminated. As I indicated before, we were under the impression that 22.5 positions are being eliminated; now we hear 17.5. Is the difference between the 22.5 and the 17.5 next year, ’09–10? And if so, how many are

filled and how many are vacant? How many actual positions are going in ’09–10?

I’ll just make a couple of comments and then I’ll get Ms.

Magrum to

provide the details. There was a number, but clearly this process…. These are estimates, and we recognize fully and acknowledge here that the ’09–10 business plan has to go through a process. We’re going to be coming forward with some plans that we have, recognizing they’re susceptible to being modified or amended as we negotiate our way through this process. I’ll ask Ms. Magrum if she could give the detail on the other positions, in terms of vacancies for ’09–10.

Thank you,

Mr. McLeod. Ms. Magrum

I can’t help myself. I’ve got to ask a question we asked yesterday. Have the staff for the ’09–10 reductions been notified yet? Have they been told their positions are being eliminated?

Thanks for answering the questions. You’re answering them very clearly, very concisely, which is nice. It’s nice to actually get clear and concise answers.

The last question I have for you is the increase of six in Yellowknife. A few of the Members have mentioned that in their opening comments, and I’m curious. I don’t know what the six positions are that are being created in Yellowknife, and I’m curious if there’s any opportunity for any of those positions to actually go outside of headquarters. Are they super-specific and they must be here? Or is there any opportunity for any of these types of positions to go elsewhere, maybe some of the other regional centres?