[ Page 1901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill No. 138).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1901

Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 45). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1901

Oral Questions

Appointment of director of Human Rights Commission. Ms., Young — 1901

Extension of BCR from Terrace. Mr. Chabot — 1901

Incorporation of Colwood, Langford, View Royal. Mr. Curtis — 1901

Proposed community plans for Galiano and South Pender Islands. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1902

Copper smelter at Kitimat. Mr. Phillips — 1902

Union representation for ferry service officers. Mr. Wallace — 1902

Removal of sales tax from building materials. Mr. Brousson — 1902

Hiring of director of Human Rights Commission. Mrs. Jordan — 1902

Appointments to the Assessment Appeal Board. Mr. McGeer — 1903

Dismissal of administrator of Surrey Memorial Hospital. Mr. McClelland — 1903

Possible discrimination against female civil servants. Hon. Mr. Hall answers earlier question — 1904

Old age pension increase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1904

Sandringham Hospital labour dispute. Mr. Chabot — 1904

LRB decision re Cominco employees vote. Mr. Chabot — 1905

Committee of supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation Mr. Chabot — 1905

Mr. Lewis — 1907

Mr. Phillips — 1907

Mr. Nicolson — 1914

Mr. Gardom — 1914

Mr. Brousson — 1915

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1916

Mr. Curtis — 1918

Mr. Kelly — 1919

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1920

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1921

Mr. Phillips — 1923

Mr. Williams — 1923

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1924

Mr. Williams — 1924

Mr. Wallace — 1924

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1925

Mr. Gardom — 1925

Mr. McGeer — 1926

Mr. Lauk — 1928

Mr. Phillips — 1928

Mr. Nicolson — 1930

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1931

Mr. Chabot — 1931

Mrs. Jordan — 1932

Mr. Fraser — 1935

Mr. McClelland — 1937

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1938

Mrs. Jordan — 1938

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1939

Mr. Chabot — 1939

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1939

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act (Bill No. 16). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1940

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): One of the requirements of the Girl Guide organization is, in earning their citizens badge, to see parliament in action. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have as our guests in the House a group of Girl Guides and their leaders from the Upper Lonsdale area in North Vancouver. I hope the House will welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today and earlier in this morning's session we have a group of nearly 100 students from West Whalley School in Surrey.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 138 intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 138 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SEXUAL STERILIZATION
ACT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 45 intituled Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 45 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

APPOINTMENT OF
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Is the Minister of Labour prepared at this time to accept congratulations on his appointment of Ms. Kathleen Ruff as director of the Human Rights Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

EXTENSION OF
BCR FROM TERRACE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Premier and the president of the British Columbia Railway. Has the president of the railway issued instructions to the British Columbia Railway for an extension of the railway from Terrace through the Columbia Cellulose timber holdings north of Terrace in order to accommodate the takeover by the Government of Columbia Cellulose operation in British Columbia?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): If it is not out order, I'll take it as notice of question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

INCORPORATION OF
COLWOOD, LANGFORD, VIEW ROYAL

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ask if he has had any discussions recently, formally or informally, with representatives of Colwood, Langford and View Royal with respect to the possibility of incorporation of those areas as municipalities?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, I have had discussions over the past few months with representatives from View Royal, with representatives of the Drakehill district in the areas of Colwood, Langford, Sooke — throughout the areas. Some of the conversations drifted to the possible amalgamations, but there is certainly nothing firm or fixed about it. That is only part of the discussions that were being held but it was brought up at those times.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Sir. Mr. Speaker, is it likely that there will be further conversations, perhaps of a more meaningful nature, during the balance of this year? Does he expect that, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1902 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't say too clearly on that. I will not be initiating any discussions during the next few months regarding this question. I may get questions from people in the districts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLANS FOR
GALIANO AND SOUTH PENDER ISLANDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could inform us if he has had an opportunity to review the proposed official community plans for Galiano and South Pender Island and if he hasn't yet had that opportunity, when will he be doing so?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The plans of Galiano Island and the other Gulf Islands are matters which are before the standing committee on municipal matters. The committee will be making its reports in regard to all the islands in the Gulf of Georgia and in the Howe Sound area and farther up Vancouver Island.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the question is no longer then within the Minister's jurisdiction while it is in the hands of committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is just the point that I want to confirm, Mr. Speaker. I, unfortunately, was under the impression it still is in the hands of the Minister — and such plans should be approved by him. Perhaps he could indicate whether I am right or wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't know whether it is in my hands or not. If it is, there will be no report from me until after the committee has made a report to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

COPPER SMELTER
AT KITIMAT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Mines. Has he entered into any negotiation with respect to the establishment of a copper smelter at Kitimat?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

UNION REPRESENTATION
FOR FERRY SERVICE OFFICERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of Highways with regard to officers on the ferry service: is there to be a vote taken regarding their union representation as a choice between the Canadian Merchant Service Guild and the B.C. Government Employees Union? If so, when will the Vote be taken?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Representations have been made to the management of the ferry system under the rules of the existing agreement between the employees of the ferry system and the management of the system and they are determining the present situation at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

REMOVAL OF
SALES TAX FROM BUILDING MATERIALS

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the Government's expressed concern about the high cost of housing, I wonder if the Government is giving any consideration to removing the 5 per cent sales tax from residential building materials?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the budget speech to indicate that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MR. BROUSSON: Is the Government giving any consideration, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, your question is really going beyond the rule which says that you can't ask information of what a Minister proposes to advise the Crown. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

HIRING OF
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope this question is in order. It is to the Hon. Minister of Labour. Would the Minister please advise the House if Ms. Kathleen Ruff, the NDP candidate in the last provincial election, was hired as the director of the Human Rights Commission after advertising in normal competition through the Civil Service Commission?

[ Page 1903 ]

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the new chairman of the Human Rights Branch was advertised. The position was advertised. A competition was held through the Civil Service Commission and I presume that the panel found Mrs. Ruff the most qualified candidate for that position.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. Would it be in order for the Minister to advise the House who was on the panel?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a civil service panel.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't know who is on the panel though.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is a matter of public record; you shouldn't have to answer such questions.

HON. MR. KING: I'm not sure who was on the panel, to be quite honest.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I may be incorrect. I understood this was a panel of the Civil Service Commission.

MRS. JORDAN: I wasn't sure from the Minister's statement which panel it was. I understand the panels for the Civil Service Commission rotate or alternate from time to time.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Member that there were two representatives from the Department of Labour on that panel — the Deputy Minister of Labour and the director of the women's bureau. Other than that I couldn't tell you at this point who else was represented on the panel from the Civil Service Commission.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. And I appreciate the Minister's not being quite familiar with this — this is understandable. Would he take it as notice to bring to this House how many applicants there were before the panel, and who did sit on the panel?

HON. MR. KING: Well, familiarity hasn't got too much to do with that, I don't think, Mr. Speaker. But if the Member wishes to place that kind of question on the order paper, I would be happy to get those details for her.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

APPOINTMENTS TO
THE ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, whether there have been appointments to the Assessment Appeal Board terminated and whether new appointments have been made for the 1973 fiscal year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could he tell us whose appointments were terminated? Who will be replacing those individuals?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The information is available through order-in-council. It is public knowledge already.

MR. SPEAKER: Then there is no need to answer such questions.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

DISMISSAL OF ADMINISTRATOR OF
SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like to address my question to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the Minister of Health what action, if any, he has taken in regard to the situation at Surrey Memorial Hospital where the administrator was fired? I understand the staff is protesting the dismissal.

If there is action being taken, will the Minister report to the House on what that action is and what the results are?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I heard about the dismissal of Mr. Ian Manning at the Surrey Memorial Hospital, I was over on the mainland at Riverview and I immediately called BCHIS. I asked them to put two of our people onto the subject and asked them to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Manning. As he has been a long-term administrator in a major hospital in B.C., I felt that that's what should be done.

I have nothing further to say, other than the fact that it was a surprise to me, as it would be to any other Member in the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: will the Minister be making a further statement or will a further statement be available when you hear from your two people who are investigating this?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine I'll be answering questions at that time. I don't like to forecast anything with respect to this kind of thing. I

[ Page 1904 ]

believe that it's a rather sensitive matter and I would prefer that we first find out what's going on. At the present time there are employees meeting from time to time, I understand. Hotlines have been working on it. It's a bit unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question regarding possible discrimination against female employees in the civil service, in that they were being asked to provide birth certificates and marriage licenses to the various departmental managers by virtue of the Civil Service Act.

I've investigated that, Mr. Speaker, and want to reply to the question and tell the House that, first of all, all employees in the civil service have to produce their birth certificates to ascertain date of birth for superannuation purposes. Female members of the civil service change their names when they get married. If there's a difference in the name between the name on the birth certificate and the name of the person being employed, some connective proof must be produced. That's why they're asked to produce their marriage licenses.

I think it's fair to say that there is no discrimination. What is at fault is the wording on the form, the authoritarian and rather insensitive wording on a simple interdepartmental form that's used. I've issued instructions that that be changed and that the reasons for these requests be on the form itself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

OLD AGE PENSION INCREASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker: all senior citizens in Canada, except those in British Columbia who are receiving Mincome, will be receiving the $17.22 increase in federal pensions. I wonder if he could inform the House whether he plans steps before the end of the month so that the April federal cheques can be met by a corresponding action on behalf of the provincial government which would allow the full $17.22 increase to go to the senior citizens in British Columbia.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Mincome recipients, I've already made a public announcement about it. The pension will remain at $200 and they will not, in fact, get the increase if they're above that. We've made that quite clear. We've also said that we will review it in the fall.

Our commitment last fall, when we introduced the legislation, was $200. The programme has been operating for four months. I think we've certainly kept faith with the seniors on that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that last fall we were promised that any increases bearing a relationship to inflation would be permitted, I wonder whether the Minister would indicate at least an increase allowing for inflation since last fall or even before might be permitted these senior citizens at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is really not in order. It's asking what advice he proposes to give the Crown and it's still hypothetical in its nature. Any further questions? The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm just a little confused. Perhaps the Minister would clarify what he is Minister of.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Member is misnaming the Minister. As I understand it, reading from this paper, he is still the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. He's not the Minister of Human Resources as yet. The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

SANDRINGHAM HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I wonder if the Minister of Labour could tell me whether there has been any progress in the labour dispute at Sandringham hospital. What? I didn't hear the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the answer is "yes".

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: would the Minister be prepared to tell the House just what kind of progress has taken place in this labour dispute? Is there going to be a collective agreement between the employer and the employees' representatives? If so, when will this collective agreement be signed?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): No, I'm not prepared to give the House what is not a fact. That would be forecasting and I'm not in the crystal ball business. I can appreciate the former Minister of Labour's concern, since he sat on that dispute for over two years. Discussions are continuing, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1905 ]

LRB DECISION
 RE COMINCO EMPLOYEES VOTE

MR. CHABOT: Another question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: yesterday he indicated to the House that he was going to examine the decisions of the Labour Relations Board relative to the Canadian Workers Union application for representation of the workers at Cominco in the East and West Kootenays. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Labour is prepared to tell us whether he will allow a free vote of these workers at Cominco.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, again the Member would reveal that he wasn't very familiar with the legislation he administered as Minister of Labour when he occupied that seat.

The Minister of Labour, in fact, has no authority to grant or deny a vote in certification proceedings. That is a function of the Labour Relations Board which, under the legislation as written by that former administration, is independent from the Minister of Labour's office. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion is that we should have political interference with the decision of a quasi-judicial body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, the matter is not a subject of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saved by the bell. (Laughter).

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION
AND CONSERVATION

On vote 222: Minister's office, $19,294.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to vote 222, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's office, Mr. Chairman, I think that it's appropriate at this time to comment briefly on the question of game management policies in this province.

We evidence from time to time conflicting statements coming from different departments. I thought there was a certain degree of coordination between departments, and one department knew what the other department was doing. But apparently, when it comes to game management, no one appears to know what is taking place.

In the field, you hear the biologists maintain that there's a critical conflict in grazing between livestock and big game. From the Forest Service — those people who administer grazing rights in the province, Mr. Chairman — we hear that there is no conflict. I'm sure that most people in British Columbia who are interested in big game management — and I think most people are — are very confused by the conflicting statements being made by the grazing division and the Wildlife Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to us really whether there is a conflict between livestock and big game on grazing in the critical areas. When it comes to big game, we in British Columbia live in a unique area. We have probably the widest variety of species of big game to be found anywhere in the world. I think that we should reassess from time to time our policies relative to management of this resource — and it is a resource. I consider it a very important resource.

There has been a slight change of direction from the past. I would like to see an acceleration of the change in direction on this very important resource. But in the past, we tended to manage the harvest instead of managing the land.

We have certainly lost some critical habitat that's most important for the survival of certain species of our game. There have been steps taken by the former government — probably not as quickly as it should have taken place — but they have in certain areas such as the Bull River area in the East Kootenays bought out private land to ensure that the bighorn sheep would have an opportunity of surviving, that there would be no conflict. In that particular area there was a conflict between livestock grazing and the winter range of the big game. But they did move in that particular instance.

I am wondering whether the Minister is considering setting aside some of the critical habitat in the province to ensure that big game will have an opportunity to survive and to expand. I think it's commonly known by the biologists in the province as to where this critical range is. I think a major study should be undertaken as to where they are. If they're private property I think they should be purchased to ensure that there's an expansion and a continuation of our game resource in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Designation?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, there has been designation in the past on Crown land for winter grazing for big game. Really, we have to look at the resource. Wildlife is an industry, a big industry in British Columbia. I don't think that we should necessarily manage it for the sole right of the hunter, because

[ Page 1906 ]

there are a lot of people who like to see and take pictures of big game.

Even though I am a hunter — but have not hunted for some time — I still like the experience of watching big game in some of the national parks. For instance in the area I come from, the Kootenay National Park, it's quite a sight in the fall to see up to 500 elk congregated on the side of the road. It does attract a lot of tourists into the district — just the game. The resource is one worthy of conserving and worthy of increasing and improving.

There has been a fair amount of concern in the East Kootenays relative to statements made, I believe, by biologists on the possibility that we might go into quota hunting or permit hunting in the province and probably in the East Kootenays specifically — probably the first approach to permit hunting. I am wondering whether the Minister would care to expand on this possibility, whether there is a possibility and, if there is, just when this might take place and just how these permits would be allocated to those people that want to hunt a particular species in the province.

How would the Minister overcome the problems of people who derive their livelihood from guiding, for instance? Would there be an allocation of permits to non-residents for hunting purposes or would it be strictly for British Columbians?

British Columbians are concerned on this very question. They feel that they should be given first priority in the particular instance.

Now I want to raise two or three matters of local concern — the White Swan Lake area, which is a pretty popular lake, one for which I must admit the new fish hatchery at Bull River has done a tremendous job in restocking the lake. It's made it an extremely popular lake, one which is heavily utilized by the fishing population. I am wondering whether the Government is giving consideration to the establishment of a campsite on this lake.

I know that the Forest Service do control a little piece of land — I forget just what the acreage is — that I think would make an excellent spot for the establishment of a small campsite and probably a small boat launching ramp as well.

Would the Minister care to comment as well, through you, Mr. Chairman, on just what the status is on Premier Lake? Over the last few years Premier Lake Park was administered by a local park association. Just prior to the Minister's taking over the portfolio, the former government did establish the Premier Lake Park as a Class A park, because they felt it was in the best interests of the people to have further development than there was there in the past.

There was also a clear-cut indication that the development of the Premier Lake Park would be underway — that is the campsite and the boat launching facilities — this year. In other words, there was consideration of infusion of a substantial amount of money and work into the development of a campsite there. I am wondering whether the Minister will tell us whether this will take place and, if so, where the management of this campsite will come from. Will it be administered by the Wasa Parks branch?

One other point of concern in the are — I don't know what stage it's at — but I understand there's a company by the name of Black Forest Limited who, are in the process of or have accumulated large acreage in the Columbia Valley for the purpose of establishing a private game preserve. I don't know whether it has been accumulated, whether there is cooperation between your department and this particular company or whether your Government is discouraging the expansion of this experimental idea being proposed.

One other point I want to raise is that the provincial government in 1960 did purchase a ranch on the shores of Lake Windermere, a ranch called Sunshine Ranch, for the purpose of establishing a campsite when the need was apparent. I have to give great credit to that government of yesterday for having had the foresight to purchase this ranch in 1960, I believe, or it could be 1962. I'm not absolutely sure.

They got the ranch for I believe it was $30,000; the ranch could be sold today for probably $80,000 or $90,000. I'm not suggesting that you sell it, Mr. Minister, but I am suggesting that the time is close when there will be a need for the development of a campsite there.

I know that we do get a tremendous tourist trade into the Windermere Valley. The facilities from time to time are at a premium. I think that there should be some development there. I don't say that it's necessary that the expansion take place this year, but at least I'd like to see some kind of undertaking to study just what type of facilities are required and what type of facilities will be put in this particular area.

Now I have a series of other questions but I don't want to have the Minister writing all afternoon with my questions. I'd like him to answer a few and I'll pose them as time goes on.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Could I have the location of the last one again — the ranch?

MR. CHABOT: Sunshine Ranch is on Lake Windermere, 10 miles south of Invermere. It's about 160 acres. I think there's a need. We have lost — talking about campsites and so forth — there have been private campsites that have been abandoned. I think it was the policy of the former government that

[ Page 1907 ]

they felt if private enterprise was unwilling or unable to provide the type of facilities that the public felt were required, or in sufficient numbers, then the provincial government would become involved in the providing of facilities.

We have lost a fairly large private campsite to a large condominium by New West Developments from Calgary. They put in a complex of 80-some-odd units adjacent to Lake Windermere which took away probably 150 to 200 trailer spots. That has created a shortage in Windermere Valley. That's the reason I'm asking the Government to give consideration to the development of the Sunshine Ranch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to express my concern in regards to the wildlife and the lack of wildlife in many areas in the province. I think it's through lack of foresight on the part of the last government that we've ended up with a situation that's almost chaotic in the Fish and Wildlife Branch. I think the money that's been allotted this year will help to correct the number of game wardens that are available throughout the province. But I say it's still far less than what we should have.

I'd like to compliment the biologist in the Williams Lake area who came out and brought in front of the Province the state of the range for the wildlife in that area. I think that this man is to be commended. I think if he had done it a year ago he would have been fired, but under the present administration this type of thing will be welcome as long as it is constructive and factual.

I think there have to be some changes in the grazing laws. I'm not saying that I have the answers to it, but I believe that grazing laws coming under Forestry is not the right department. I think that there should be a study done by an independent group in regard to the impact of grazing upon alpine and sub-alpine areas.

I think only through an independent group will we get the right side of the story. If Forestry does it we're going to get their side of the story; if Fish and Wildlife does it, we'll have their side. I think an independent group at this time would bring in a true story of what is happening to the wildlife in the province.

I also say that hunters in the province are going to have to face up to a larger fee for their right to hunt. I think it is unrealistic at this time to charge $4 for a hunting license. I think that possibly a $20 fee would be more realistic. I think that the Americans must be prepared to pay a much higher fee for their trophies, possibly $500 for a head from a grizzly bear, sheep or moose. I think only through participating a little more financially will they realize how valuable these animals are in North America.

I'm hoping that the Minister will have a much bigger allotment next year than what he has at the present time for Fish and Wildlife. I think it's one thing that many, many people in this province use as a way to vent their frustrations.

I can see myself after the session next fall it will be much nicer to go out and shoot a moose or a deer instead of going out and committing suicide after listening to all the garbage that we go through here. (Laughter).

AN. HON. MEMBER: Why take it out on them?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll tell you after listening to you for seven hours, you need a head shrinker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I would also like the Minister to take a serious look at the use of all-terrain vehicles in the hunting. The use of snowmobiles and these types of vehicles are leaving the game totally at the mercy of the hunter. Not only do these snowmobiles make the area more accessible, but there has been evidence of some people even chasing wild game with these vehicles in the wintertime. I think that the Fish and Wildlife Branch, if there's more money available, should have the proper amount of staff to police this type of thing. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation about a problem — we'll call it "Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf" story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you playing Little Red Riding Hood on us, too?

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We know who grandma is.

MR. PHILLIPS: We'll take the responsibility for Little Red Riding Hood, but you take the responsibility for the wolf.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

[ Page 1908 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is no fairy tale. This is the true goods. All over this province the wolves are threatening the livestock of the ranchers and the wolves are even threatening human beings, and we have to ask our question…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all the wolves now?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask our question — is this land made for the wolves or is it made for the humans? To listen to some of the biologists and the conservationists, I'd almost think that the wolves are a lot safer than the humans. Certainly the wolves are a lot safer than many of the cattle herds in this country.

This is a very serious problem, and you can joke about wolves because of connotations to certain other connotations, but it's a very serious matter.

I want to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman — I will have to refer to some research that has been done here. I'll refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun dated February 24, 1973. Up in Omineca — and I wonder if the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is going to stand up and support his ranchers: "Wolves threatening cattle herds. Omineca ranchers appeal to government."

Has there been any action taken by the government? That's the question. What action has been taken?

"Burns Lake: Wolf packs in increasing numbers are wiping out game…"

game as well as cattle herds.

"…are wiping out game in the rugged Omineca ranching area and are threatening domestic cattle herds. 'They have eaten nearly all the deer around here over the last three years,' cattle rancher Miles Shelford said Friday in an interview.

"Shelford, brother of former Social Credit Agriculture Minister Cyril Shelford, said he and other ranchers have appealed to the Recreation and Conservation branch office in Prince George to do something about the wolf problem. 'Now that the wolves have just about wiped out the deer herds, they'll go after the moose,' said Shelford, 'And unless something is done, the moose will be gone in two years and that will make it worse than ever for our cattle.'

"Shelford said the only answer is a return to the poisoning method used about 20 years ago to control the wolf population. 'It's the only way you can get a wolf. He's a pretty smart animal. The poisoning methods reduced them to only a few back in the 1950's and we're going to have to do it again.'

"He said the Shelford Range, operated by a company called Shelford, Peebles and Lambert, lost 11 cattle in wolf attacks during the 1972 grazing season. 'The cattle, about 1,000 head, are presently in their winter quarters and relatively safe from the wolves, but it will be a different story when we put them out on the range in the spring."'

And this is going to be the story in many other areas. It's going to be a different story when we put them out on the range in the spring.

"Shelford said that about 200 wolves are known to be at Babine Lake 20 miles north of here. He said the government conservation officials from Prince George are cooperating with the ranchers in the war against the wolves. 'We've had good cooperation from the conservation people. They got rid of five wolves on this range last year.' He said the government predator hunter Milt Warren is coming into the Burns Lake-Francois Lake area next week to look things over.

"In Prince George, provincial regional wildlife supervisor Roger Goodland said the Wildlife Branch will check the reports of increasing wolf activity in northern B.C. 'We are getting reports from many areas of problems caused by the wolves. There have been animal killings by the wolves and we're going to investigate the severity of the problem."

But I wonder how much action, Mr. Minister, they will get when the biologists in your department do not agree with the method used 20 years ago.

We have another situation, Mr. Chairman, right here on Cortes Island. "Thirteen sheep lost to wolves — game action sought." Is any action being taken? This is the question. Here is a case where one rancher says — sheep rancher Ken Hansen says — "Either they go or I'll have to get rid of my sheep." Either the wolves go or he goes and the sheep go. Which is the most important? That is the question.

I wonder if some of the conservationists and some of the biologists have read this article on how these sheep were torn to bits, some of them half killed. I wonder if it would be better to get rid of the wolves or keep them in this situation? "Ranger Ken Hanson says he is raising sheep to feed the wolves here and he can't afford it any longer."'

There are many people raising cattle in the Peace River area with the same problem. They are raising cattle to feed the wolves and they can't afford it any longer.

"Since last August, 10 of his sheep have been killed by wolves which are in the midst of a population explosion in British Columbia. On nearby Reid Island wolves killed three sheep last month."

This article is dated February 8, 1973.

[ Page 1909 ]

" 'I've asked the game department to get rid of some of them and I can't even get an answer,' Hanson said Wednesday. 'I can't even get an answer. I'm holding the bag for a bunch of wolves and it's not fair. Either they go or I'll have to get rid of my sheep. Every island in the upper gulf is just loaded with wolves and they are wiping out the deer population and frightening the women who go salal picking.' "

Salal is a berry. It's a bush that they grow. They have a thick rubbery leaf and a large red berry the local chickens feed on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well that's got to do with recreation. I'm just explaining to the Minister what salal is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just asking the Hon. Member to address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I'm quoting from this article:

"Hansen, who runs a guest ranch for children and a farm on Cortes about 12 miles northeast of Campbell River said his trouble started last August when he had 45 sheep, 'I went down to feed them one morning and they were dead and wounded all over the field,' he said. The wolves had completely eaten three lambs and two more were gutted but not eaten."

Now this is a shameful situation. I can imagine how I would feel — or even the Minister would feel, if he were a sheep rancher out there on Cortes Island — to go down there one morning…

I want you to hear the rest of this story. I just about cried when I first read this:

"There were four wounded with their throats torn out and their jugulars hanging almost to the ground. You could hear them breathing through their windpipes right across the fields. Hansen said he managed to save one of the wounded sheep but the other three died. 'One died as we were sewing her up,' he said. 'I nursed my ram for three days and stayed up all night to feed him barley-water, but one of his legs was three times normal size and his throat was all chewed and finally he died.' "

I wish that some of the conservationists who were so determined to preserve the wolves could have been there that morning with this rancher and viewed this situation.

"Hansen paid $ 150 for the ram and only had it for one season. 'You don't buy a ram like that one every day,' he said, 'All my ewes had two lambs, except one that had three and another had four and I raised all those lambs.' Hansen said a Fish and Wildlife Branch officer visited Cortes after the killings and set some cyanide traps for the wolves but without success."

AN HON. MEMBER: It might be dogs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, possibly dogs. I guess that no one actually had a picture of the wolves. But the point is if it were dogs or wolves or coyotes, something has to be done.

Here's what happened. Just let me finish this article, because you sound like just the exact epitome of what I'm going to read here. You know, "It's got to be somebody else…it couldn't be the wolves," the Minister said, "absolutely not." That's the Minister of Mines who says, "No, it couldn't be the wolves. It's got to be something else."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I said it might have been dogs too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it might have been. It's always somebody else. Everybody knows better than the rancher. That's the amazing thing about this. Somebody knows better than the farmer. Somebody knows better than the sheep raiser. Somebody knows better than the cattle rancher. Somebody always knows better than somebody else. The guy with the college education has got all the answers. The guy out there that has to look at the situation, he doesn't know anything. Somebody else has always got the answers — in theory.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Most people know more than used car dealers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then some people complained that a dog and a cat had been killed by the cyanide and there was all kinds of bad publicity. You see. This is the situation. Somebody probably wanted to preserve the wolves.

I wish this man had taken colour slides of these poor little lambs that morning with their jugular veins hanging down in the grass, I wish he'd taken some colour slides. I would have brought them here and showed them this afternoon to some of you wolf preservers.

The vet did autopsies and found that the dog had been poisoned with something other than cyanide and the cat had been shot with a gun. But yet we've got to blame it on somebody else, eh? They try to get rid of the wolves and it does other damage. I suppose it poisoned some streams and all the fish are gone, too.

"In November the wolves went into action again and killed two more Hansen sheep, even though he had moved his flock to a field near the

[ Page 1910 ]

house. 'I'd already sold one of them for $100 but hadn't delivered it so I had to give the man his money back,' he said. Since then Hansen has done all he can to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Branch to shoot a few of the wolves but has had no reply."

He has had no reply.

He's even sent a bucket of wolf feces and a couple of old skulls to the branch to help them identify the species.

"There are baby deer feet in the feces and the deer population around here is really down. There are also apples in the feces and you can't tell me that apples are a normal diet for wolves. These animals are hungry. Better to kill them than to let them starve to death. Last year a collie dog owned by Mrs. Shelly Bello was mauled by a wolf as she and two other women were picking salal."

And it has a picture of the poor mauled dog here.

I'm not going to read all the article. It goes on to talk about other sheep ranchers on the island. Then somebody comes up and says that these are a special kind of wolf; they're a special breed on this island and we must preserve them.

That article was dated February 8; yet on February 23: "Cortes Wolf Found To Be Mainland Variety," so it sort of takes the credence out of the story. They weren't a special variety at all.

"Wildlife lovers are breathing a little easier. The hungry wolves of Cortes Island are not members of the endangered Vancouver Island wolf species. Dennis Wilders of Nanaimo, government predator hunter, said Thursday, 'The 3-year-old wolf shot here Wednesday night with a cyanide gun belonged to the British Columbia mainland species.'

"Wildlife officials expressed concern recently at the prospect of an all-out war on the marauding wolves on this small island after their attacks on farm animals. It was thought at the time that the wolves belonged to the Vancouver Island family. Wilders said an examination of the dead wolf showed its hair colour and characteristics to be those of the mainland species. 'The Vancouver Island wolf hasn't got the kind of black hair this one has,' Wilders said."

Now I'd like to read another article here for you. These are giving you some idea, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, of the severity of the problem everywhere in the province. We've got to have a clear-cut policy or some of these farmers are going to take the law into their own hands and then the wolves will be gone. If you want to set up some special areas in the province to preserve them, maybe this is the way to do it:

"Predators Create Problem in Peace, Cry 'wolf.' From the epics of history to modern day, the cry 'wolf' has meant terror on the loose and wolves have always been the animosity of man. But the wolf has survived and today, where he once lived with unreasoning hatred, he is thriving on almost equally unreasoning prejudice in his favour from a generally uninformed public. Romanticize as one will — wolves and the interests of man are not compatible; no more here than in the Peace River country where farmers are struggling to help sustain a profitable meat raising industry.

"Deep concern of stock producers about increasing number of timber wolves or black wolves in the area has been expressed repeatedly. The need for proper effective action is urgently required. This request was placed before the government last fall by the South Peace Stockmen's Association." — The Department of Agriculture.

And I mentioned this to the Minister of Agriculture when we were going through his estimates — that something must be done.

"Cortes wolf problem dumped in government's lap." Maybe the Minister will give me some answers. When the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) was speaking during the recent debate:

"Kelly also called on the government to give more tourist promotion to the north but asked for more stringent enforcement of hunting and game laws with more severe penalties.

"Game is being overkilled by hunters and if an increased conservation staff cannot control the abuse, the province should consider a system of rewards to aid enforcement."

I wonder how much the Member for Omineca knows about the situation and whether it is really the wolves that are killing off the game or whether it's the hunters that are killing off the game or whether it's the wolves in that area that are killing off the game.

Here's an interesting article from the Victoria Times dated March 7, 1973. The article is entitled "Rustlers Face Clampdown." So if a man goes out and shoots a steer the RCMP, with all of their paraphernalia to catch him and fingerprints and all of the modern techniques that they have…but the wolf, he can go out and rustle a sheep and face no clampdown whatsoever. That's a similarity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you suggesting a paw printing system? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, no. Maybe we should have the RCMP go after the wolves. I'm sure that they would do a better job than the wildlife branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation is doing at the present time. This is a serious problem.

It is amazing, you know. We really do go after the rustlers. It's against the law. In the old days they used to string them up if they caught them. It was a very, very serious offence. Now the wolves are under the protection of our government. One would almost

[ Page 1911 ]

think that the wolves of the province are really under the protection of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

The ranchers all over this province have been complaining about the wolf situation. What action has been taken? Here's an interesting article. It says, "Who speaks for the wolves?"

"Reports tell us that sheep farmers on Cortes Island are angry. The wolves which insist on living on the island, being barbarous creatures, have eaten some of the sheep. The Sun warns us that unless official steps are taken to end this feasting, it is feared that the farmers themselves will dispose of the criminals. After all, the more sheep those sneaky wolves eat, the fewer there will be for us to eat. This is an appalling prospect."

It's an appalling prospect when the Members on the opposite side stand up and say that we've got to protect farmland because there's a shortage of food, yet we let the wolves go ahead and eat up a lot of the sheep and the livestock throughout the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's eat some wolf.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a sad and sorry day, Mr. Chairman, when the wolves in this province are threatening humanity themselves. Here's an article from the Vancouver Province dated February 26, 1973: "Wolf threat kept fatally injured girl from hospital." I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the people who are so bent on protecting the wolves took the time to read this article.

"A two-year-old Lytton girl who suffered fatal head injuries in a fall was kept at home overnight without medical attention because her parents feared an attack by wolves if they ventured out in the darkness."

Now, I hadn't mentioned this area of the province before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The incident was revealed here Sunday following the death of Elizabeth Paul in Vancouver General Hospital. In an interview with police, the youngster's mother, Mrs. Eunice Paul, said the girl fell down a flight of stairs Tuesday at the family home, six miles from Lytton.

"She said the youngster uttered a few words and lapsed into unconsciousness. The injured child was placed on a bed, she said, and not moved until the following morning, as they had no means of transportation and it was dangerous to leave the house on foot as wolves were prevalent in the area."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did the police say?

MR. PHILLIPS: "What did we say?" That's the whole story. We've been listening to "we" for too long.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Police."

MR. PHILLIPS: We've been listening to "we" for too long. The wolves have been protected by "we" for too long.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We've been listening to you for too long. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The following morning, the police were told the parents cradled the still unconscious girl in their arms and walked the six miles to Lytton Hospital. From there she was brought to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver and shortly afterwards transferred to Vancouver General Hospital. She died there about noon on Saturday.

"An RCMP officer at Lytton told the Province on Sunday that he had never heard any reports of wolves in the area. He said there are some coyotes but they are not a menace to people. However, wolf packs have been reported in the north and central parts of the province where livestock and wildlife are being threatened."

But who knows? "We" and all the people who want to preserve the wolves have all the answers. "We" are always right. He's now on the animals' side. This is typical.

"B.C. Government hunter has no pride in his wolf record." Well, this may be very well and good, but I don't imagine that those ranchers and sheep raisers have any pride in the wolves on their island either, or in the wolves that are cleaning out their livelihood. I don't imagine that they have any pride.

As I say, we've got to decide, Mr. Chairman, who this earth is for. Who is British Columbia for? The wolves or the people? It's a very serious problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: They decided that August 30.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"Government hunter Bill Warren claims he holds a world record but he isn't proud of it. 'I've killed more wolves in my time than anyone else in the world,' he said in an interview with the Sun. But he pointed out that he built up the bulk of his record several years ago when the public attitude toward the wolf was still oriented to the bum rape it had received in folklore and nursery rhymes." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: "Rap," I think.

[ Page 1912 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Hmm?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Rap," I think.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Bum rap," yes. "Bum rap."

The Western Guides and Outfitters Association have been talking to the department for some time. There again, I don't want the Minister to stand up and say, "Well, you had it when we were in Opposition." This is the problem, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman. It is a case of the buck. I don't care who's government. The biologists seem to have sway. They seem…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about that in just a moment. They seem to set the policy because they're biologists; they've studied all about biology and they have all the answers, so they set the policy. I'm not saying that they're not intelligent people but I'm going to point out to you that they're not always right either.

The following article — I'm just going to read to you a little bit. I think it's very apropos. This article is out of the Western Guidelines, News of the Professional Guide, dated January, 1973:

"The following article on wolves was delivered to the Northern B.C. Guides Association conference by Don Peck, who hails from Fort St. John."

AN HON. MEMBER: A nice fellow.

MR. PHILLIPS: A very nice fellow, yes. He has a son playing hockey with my son. Yes, a very nice fellow. I know him well. He's got his head screwed on right too. He knows what it's all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Get back to the point.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's a down-to-earth man who's had lots of experience in guiding. He's been guiding for several years. He may not have a degree in biology, but he's down to earth. He calls an ace an ace and a spade a spade. He knows what it's all about. He's an earthy man, in other words. (Laughter).

"When I was asked the other day by our executive if I would talk on wolves, I felt like the guy must have felt that got invited to play Russian roulette as a reward for 30 years of service. I guess that's what's called callous justice. I kind of just asked for it.

"I've always been pretty vocal about wolves. I haven't changed my opinions any. As my old friend, Black Bill, always said, 'The Lord hates a coward and I ain't one of those, so here goes.' "

This is the kind of a guy he is. He's a man's man, right down to earth.

"On anything as continuous and contentious as the wolf problem, I doubt very much if I can say anything that hasn't been said before."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want Hansard to know that I'm reading from this paper.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Why don't you quit while you're behind. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: There aren't many wolves in your area, are there, out there in Oak Bay, Mr. Member? You don't have the problem. I suppose you're for the preservation of wolves so that they can chew up…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: We have so many Main Street specialists, conservationists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I will continue.

"On anything as continuous and contentious as the wolf problem, I doubt very much if I can say anything that hasn't been said before. But just because it's been said before, doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong. At the risk of being boring and repetitious…"

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I'm reading from the article. "I'm going to say…I'm going to say." (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: To be continued.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"….I'm going to say some of it again."

These long hours do make one…what shall I say? I won't say it,

"The first revelation that I'd like to make…"

This is a very interesting article.

"The first revelation that I'd like to make is that we of the Northern B.C. Guides Association have just conducted a survey of the mountainous portion of northern B.C. On this survey we employed approximately 300 men.

[ Page 1913 ]

"These men were among the most skilled wilderness observers in British Columbia, some of them having guided and trapped in the area in excess of 40 years — others with less experience. But the total task force could be termed competent bushmen who derive the bulk of their livelihood from guiding and trapping…

"We used aircraft, both wheels and floats, to transport the personnel into remote mountainous areas. From those points we traversed the areas on foot and on horseback and covered most of the game producing areas in what could be roughly called the northern third of the province. In all we utilized in excess of 30,000 man-days with a cost to the outfitters in excess of $750,000, with no allowance being made for his horses and other incidentals."

Now listen to this, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Minister — and the Press too:

"The consensus of this survey was that there has been a terrific buildup of wolves, and that they are present in devastating numbers over the total area. Now to me this is all the evidence we need to substantiate the presence of a lot of wolves.

"The next question is, are they an asset or a menace?"

I think this is where we get into the real nitty gritty contention.

"Our biologists have told me that we need these wolves to keep the animals healthy — that the wolves only kill the sick and aged. Although I must admit that to see Old Doc Wolf out there with his stethoscope checking Mr. Moose over to see if he'd let him go down the gully or down the gullet isn't exactly my own image of a wolf. Seriously, let us be benevolent for a moment — it's getting close to Christmas — and concede for once that the biologists are right in this instance. The wolves only kill the weak and the sick. I would then pose the question," — and this is very important — "what is the weakest thing in the animal kingdom? The answer is…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You wish I were weak!

"The answer is a newborn fawn or calf. It remains susceptible for two or three weeks or even longer. By contrast the rancher is in serious trouble if he doesn't have a success ration of 80 to 85 per cent when calving out. Here we are with the present wolf situation, losing 40 to 50 per cent of our calves before they can run with their mothers, which is their only protection.

"Don't get me wrong. I don't buy this malarkey about the wolf only eating the weak. This is the case when all the wolves we have are a few old stragglers and cripplers and cripples are all they can catch. But basically a wolf is a meat eater. Show me a meat eater, including myself, who wouldn't prefer a fat juicy animal to one that is just ready to die. But make no mistake about it — wolves right now are killing off the top and it will get worse as the winter gets longer."

I am just going to read one more excerpt from this article…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, great.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Your glasses are in your left hand (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, the man goes on to say that we don't really need a third party. This is what the biologists say. He says that the wolves will sort of look after themselves and nature will look after itself.

"Until man came along this arrangement was O.K. But now we can harvest this game. We don't need that third party in there. In effect, we are the predators, and we have to control the wolves if we are going to have anything to hunt."

That is an interesting theory, Mr. Chairman, because I want to say that our biologists today are being taught that we must protect the predators. But who was the greatest biologist of all time? Who really started preservation in North America? It was Jack Miner, renowned the world over as a great conservationist. I think anyone here in this Legislature will agree with me that Jack Miner probably was one of the greatest conservationists and biologists of his day.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Jack Miner what? Oh, I'm not talking about your kind of mines, I'm talking about Jack Miner. (Laughter). And this is Jack Miner, not Jack Underminer.

"This man's philosophy was that if a man shoots ducks or game birds for food, then man should shoot kill or control their natural enemies to the same extent man has harvested the increase in ducks, pheasant, grouse or quail. In other words such predators as crows that eat the birds' eggs, skunks that are in the nest, turtles that eat the young ducks. And the same thing applies to wolves."

However, he says:

"The university professors have taught their young biology students that nature will balance itself. Jack Miner contended that man has harvested the same crop for food and it was up to man to reduce their enemies in the same proportion. In simple language, Jack Miner said that wildlife would not stand the killing of both man and their

[ Page 1914 ]

natural enemies, especially in such cases as the timber wolf, which produces five or six pups in a litter, and the deer only produce one or two fawns at one birth.

"No one needs to have a university education to see how deer would be outbalanced by the birth of wolves five to one, "

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a biologist. The reason that I am pointing this out, Mr. Minister, is that this man is well respected. He understands what our present biologists are being taught, and this, Mr. Chairman, is where the Minister is going to have to make a decision. He is going to have to set the policy. I was quite disappointed last night when the Minister was saying that this man, this biologist, this conservation officer who spoke out about the Gang Ranch… He said that the civil servants' tongues had been tied previous to this. This remark bothered me…

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Who tied them?

MR. LEWIS: The Socreds tied them.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and I think that it is all very well and good that civil servants should certainly have their say. But if they are going to have their say they are going to have to answer the public as well. They are going to have to stand behind their statements. There has always been in our society the practice that the elected officials set the policy, and the elected officials stand behind it if the people don't agree with you, then the next time an election comes up they kick you out. Now it is all very well and good for civil servants, and we have got a case in these biologists where they are, so far as I am concerned, polarizing a lot of the people about this wolf problem. So this just makes it that much more difficult for the Minister to come out and set a policy.

Now I am not going to say anything more right at this particular moment, Mr. Chairman. There are all the Members who don't seem to be very concerned about the ranchers, the livestock producers. I was sent to this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, to represent the people and to represent the people of my area, and I am going to take as much time as is necessary to represent them.

I know that the Members would like to get back to their constituencies, but we were sent here to do a job, and we have to do that job. And if you haven't got any wolf problems up in Prince Rupert and in Vancouver Centre and Vancouver–Little Mountain, well, I've got one in my riding, and I'm going to sit in my place right now and let the Minister tell me what he is going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Earlier in this session I brought up the question of the non-residents' fishing license fees. I pointed out that the Pearce-Bowden report determined that the average cost per day to a non-resident fisherman was 97 cents.

This results from two different types of licensing, or one might say three. A non-resident fisherman has the choice of paying $3.50 for a three-day permit, or $10.00 for an annual permit, or $1 for a person under 18. This compares with an annual permit for residents of $3 but, as I pointed out, 97 cents a day is not very much, compared with what our tourists are prepared to pay in the ways of green fees for golfing or other forms of recreation and, indeed, what non-residents said they were prepared to pay for the use of the recreational resource.

I have here one of three petitions which were sent to me as a result of this speech I made earlier. This one happens to have 11 names on it. The other ones have some 180-odd names. These were taken up — I don't exactly know the origin of them but they were sent to me. I notice on this particular one that most of the addresses are from within my riding, but there are many from outside of the riding — some in Westbank, Ladysmith, Kimberley. What it says is this:

"We the undersigned request immediate action by our government on the following points: a substantial increase in license fees to non-residents; a reduction in limits to all non-residents; and a permit to remove fish from the province."

I would like to know what the immediate plans are this year, and perhaps in the future, in terms of collecting a little bit more from the different areas of the resource. The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) mentioned fees in hunting. I would like to know what directions we're heading in and what we might be able to expect in the short-term and long-term run, especially in terms of non-residents' fishing license fees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, followed by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GARDOM: I most enjoyed the talk from the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips), Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, it reminded me very much of the very interesting discussion we used to have from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) when he used to sit over here. Its length used to vary proportionately with the frostline in his area. I very much wonder today whether we're going to hear from the Minister of Mines. He always used to talk a great deal about the songbirds in the province. We haven't had even a chirp from him since his newly found

[ Page 1915 ]

affluence.

I would like to draw to the Hon. Minister's attention a couple of points which I indeed hope he is aware of. That is the very great and very cruel problem that is continuing in the Province of B.C. concerning these leghold steel traps. These were initiated in Europe, I suppose, in the days when the barons used to use them to catch socialists or poachers, as the case may be. I think it's a shocking thing to find that they're continuing on at the present time.

The most important and savage point, of course, is the fact that I do not think we have given adequate consideration or time as a society to preventing this very cruel and inhumane treatment. Dealing with the vicious cruelty that is inflicted upon these fur-bearing animals as a result of being trapped, we can find about five points which have been set forth very dramatically and correctly by an association known as the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals.

They mention that the first torture is caused by the jaws of the trap snapping on the legs of the animal — the abundance of power used frequently shatters the leg bones. Second is the ghastly fear and panic experienced by the animal once it realizes that it is trapped. Much of the trapping — indeed most of the trapping — occurs during the winter months. We find them suffering from cold as they bite very viciously at these steel traps in weather much below zero, with the hope that they can release themselves.

Usually an animal that comes to a trap is very hungry. So apart from the pain they suffer, the fear they experience and the problems of the elements, they're also starving to death and become very easy prey for predators. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping indicates that it may indeed be necessary to take wild animals. But they suggest that there is a far more humane way. They have suggested that for some species, the conibear or quick-kill type trap is more humane and economically much more viable. In practical terms it's extremely more efficient.

I gather that in the prior administration, the department in British Columbia had participated in some degree over the years in the distribution of these particular traps in the area of beaver trapping. I believe the department went ahead on the basis that they would trade one conibear trap for one leghold trap.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note that the Humane Trap Development Committee of the SPCA set tip projects at Guelph and McMaster universities which were designed to develop humane trap standards and also suitable humane traps. I believe that the department contributed $1,000 to this particular project.

But we've got to go ahead and give immediate attention to legal instruments for the establishment of humane trapping. If the Government does not do it, it's my intention to introduce some kind of legislation and recommend that it be introduced, before you rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to see that you are that alert. But I think that it would be most provident in the Province that we do have some restriction in the use of spring traps.

I think it should be an offence, punishable on summary conviction, to use any kind of a trap for fur-bearing animals save and except a trap that can be approved via the particular department of this Minister. I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether or not any effective steps — and let's underline the word "effective." There's been an awful lot of talk about this over the years and so very, very little done. Have there been any effective steps taken by this department towards the end that I'm mentioning?

Fine and dandy. A necessary job must be done but we must have a heart. We must have a heart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, during the debates on the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) I raised the matter of the potential for parks of the area of the Chilliwack Valley and the Skagit Valley. In the same general area, I'm aware that there are some requests proposed to the department from the Okanagan-Similkameen Park Society for extensions to Manning Park the Paradise Meadows area and many of the historic trails of that area — the Hudson Bay Trail, the Dewdney Trail and so on.

The question I would like to leave with the Minister is this: I'm aware that to date the Parks Branch has done no studies that I can learn of in those areas along the border and just to the west of Manning Park. What I would like to ask the Minister is: will he make a commitment to do some studies in those areas from the Parks' point of view? Not from the Forestry Service's point of view, but from the Parks' point of view.

Last year, immediately following the two-hour discussion we had from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) on the subject of fish and wildlife, I outlined at some length the problems on Brent Mountain. The Parks Branch had wanted very badly to obtain the top of Brent Mountain for parks purposes. There were problems developing of commercial development in that area and no action by the government and perhaps, at that point, some question of conflict of interest and so on.

[ Page 1916 ]

I have heard nothing that I'm aware of in the Press or any official announcements, though I believe some things have been done. I would like to learn what the present policy of the Government is with regard to the Brent Mountain area.

From my own constituency, Mr. Chairman, last summer the City of North Vancouver council raised with the former Minister and, more recently, with this Minister, the question of camping facilities on the North Shore. It's a real concern on the basis of tourist pressures and pressure from the travelling public for provision of overnight camping spots.

The Minister has suggested that these cannot be arranged, either in Cypress provincial park or in the Mount Seymour park. I don't really want to argue with him on that but I would like to ask him to outline the policy of his department with regard to that sort of thing. In many parts of Canada, in areas very close to major cities, it is possible to camp overnight. I wonder if we shouldn't be trying to find facilities of that kind.

I'm not sure that the North Shore of Burrard Inlet is the most suitable place, but I would like to hear the Minister's comments on this. If he doesn't feel that Mount Seymour park or the Cypress area, for instance, are suitable, are there other areas that might be developed?

Mr. Chairman, I recall the debates two years ago on the Act to establish ecological reserves. At that time I think I shared with this Minister and with a number of people now present in the cabinet a concern that the Minister who was going to be made responsible for the Ecological Reserves Act was also, at that time, the Minister of forestry. I think we were concerned that there was apparently a conflict of interest in that area. I think many Members of the present Government shared that concern. We outlined it at great length.

I'm having some of the same kinds of concerns at the present time, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to the Minister in his capacity last night as Minister of forestry talking about the problems of cottonwood logging in the Skagit Valley and other areas, his concern that the jobs that needed to be created at the Scott Paper plant, his concern for allowing the logging to proceed next to the Skagit provincial park.

I begin to wonder if we haven't got a conflict of interest within the department where the same Minister, Mr. Chairman, is responsible on the one hand for recreation and conservation — and I underline the word "conservation" in this regard — and the parks and those kinds of responsibilities as well as the responsibility for the well-being and the health of the forest industry in British Columbia. Now I'm not suggesting that those things are not compatible; but there is perhaps a conflict of interest. I think it's very difficult for one person to resolve that within himself.

It would seem to me that finally what we must achieve is the very thing that many Members on the Opposition side, including this party and including many Members now on the Government side, spoke about at great length in past years. We need a department — I don't know if you'd call it the Department of the Environment, but that was one name that many of us have given it — a department that is basically responsible for the preservation of the environment, for all the matters to do with the wildlife, the recreation and the conservation areas; quite a separate department from that which is responsible only for the well-being of the forest industry.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

I appeal, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister to comment on this. I have a good deal more confidence in this Minister with regard to his interest and his feeling for conservation matters than the previous Minister. But I think there is danger in combining them in the same Ministry.

One more point in this regard, Madam Chairman, is the fact that I am sure that two Ministries must be a tremendous workload. Regardless of the great capabilities of this Minister with his very, very broad shoulders, he's lost considerable hair, I think, in the last 6 1/2 months and has a little more snow on the roof as well. I would hope that he would find some way to divide these responsibilities fairly soon.

Finally, Madam Chairman, I want to make the same comment here that I made as far as the Minister of forestry is concerned. Having heard this same man on the Opposition side make many of these kinds of comments as to the policies that he thought should be instituted in government in terms of wildlife protection and parks and all of these matters, in 6 1/2 months in office and two months in this Legislature and so far a couple of hours into the debates of this department, we have not heard from him any firm policy statement as to the policies of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

I think, Madam Chairman, a Minister with this kind of responsibility should make those policies clear to the Legislature.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we can start at this end and work back to the wolves, Madam Chairman.

The question of environmental matters is something that's been under consideration by the Government since we came into office. We've reviewed the actions of other provincial administrations and some American states. We've considered the matter fairly thoroughly but we want to give it some more work, so the question of establishing another department of government or integration with a department of

[ Page 1917 ]

government is still under active consideration.

I accept the concern with respect to separation between the resource departments and environmental protection. Certainly it's not the intent of Government to see these two areas merged. There's no question about the policy of the Government; it's more a matter of timing and dealing with other priorities.

I would anticipate that something will be done this year in terms of separating the functions.

I might say that there's been some genuine advantages in terms of viewing the problems of both the resource department and the conservation department at the same time.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a short term.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: For a short term, I agree. I'd be quite happy to see the empire contract considerably, Mr. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We're not talking about the same empire.

With respect to ecological reserves, they're presently managed through the Department of Lands and the Deputy Minister of Lands is the main person responsible. There may well be a case for reconsidering ecological reserves in relation to changes in terms of an environmental ministry.

Urban camping. I am afraid I don't really have any suggestions at this stage. The department hasn't seen its role as that. The department has to re-think the whole recreational role that it has. It's been a rather limited role in the past. I limit it more to wilderness preservation more than anything else. There's obviously a broader recreational role to be played at the provincial level. That's something the Government has under consideration.

Brent Mountain. I guess it's only good news in the Okanagan. The special use permit that the Forest Service granted with respect to a ski development in the delicate alpine areas around Brent and Sheep Mountains was cancelled, I think, about two months ago. We're now giving consideration to the possibility of preserving the alpine area with some type of reserve or park status. It was non-performance on the part of the developers of the ski area that gave us an opportunity to cancel out the special use permit and preserve the alpine area from destruction.

The area west of Manning Park. Yes, we certainly are prepared to carry out studies in that area.

The question of the leghold trap. As the Member from Point Grey indicated, there is research going on at McMaster University to develop more humane traps. B.C. and Alberta have contributed funds for that purpose. We've had a group of our own backbenchers concerned about this problem as well and they've made some recommendations to us. As a result, we have earmarked $5,000 this year in the coming budget for further research at these universities with respect to this problem.

The training programme has commenced, as the Member indicated. It may well be that we can accelerate that. That deserves further consideration.

Regarding some of the points made by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), Premier Lake…

AN HON. MEMBER: Points?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Some of the matters raised by the Member for Columbia River.

Premier Lake is a priority area and funds are being provided this year for improvements at the Premier Lake site. The Sunshine Ranch on Lake Windermere I'm not familiar with. We'll have to pursue it further.

The Black Forest area. I presume it's the Darkwoods area to the west of Creston and south of Nelson. I've held meetings with the principals and consultants to Darkwoods and Black Forest and the discussions will be ongoing. We see the problem there as part of the general problem with respect to tree farms and the tree farm legislation. We have not approved any new tree farm tax concession areas in the province since we came into office.

Black Forest, as you may recall, was a huge area of some 150,000 acres more or less that was acquired originally at a tax sale in 1951 for $8,000. It has a present value probably of $5 million, which tells us something about the way we've squandered our land resource in the province.

In terms of game management in the area and the creation of a private preserve, there is no intention of allowing that. The company is aware of that and does not intend to. To give them credit, I understand they never did intend to do so.

With respect to White Swan Lake, there are no plans at this stage.

Wasa Lake, as I understand it, is fully developed.

The question of setting aside critical wildlife areas is one that's ongoing. As we indicated, we are in process in particular areas of trading and setting aside Crown lands for wildlife purposes. So that's an ongoing approach.

The question of fees and hunting licenses is under consideration and I might say that from most of the wild life groups and fish and game clubs, we've had correspondence urging an increase in hunting and fishing fees. It's my own feeling that any increase in fees should be tied to intensive management of the resource.

There's no doubt that, in terms of the economic rent of the resource, we're simply not charging what it's worth. Certainly, with respect to non-nationals or

[ Page 1918 ]

people from outside of the country hunting in British Columbia, I think we're certainly undercharging. We've got that under active consideration, changing the fees with respect to non-resident, non-national hunters.

The need though, as we see it, is to tie a programme of intensive management together along with the increases. That kind of programme has really only begun. There's certainly opportunities in the East Kootenay and in the lower mainland and elsewhere for an intensive management programme, so that we really use the land base in relation to the resource in a worthwhile way.

The permit hunting is something that has been discussed; I think the Member for Little Mountain (Ms. Young) has raised it in the past. It's something that I would want to give more thought to before there was any change in policy. But in terms of staffing of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, as indicated in the budget, there's a significant increase. There are 12 conservation officers being added and there are some 18 biologists being added.

I think it's a division that's been starved in the past. This is only a beginning as far as we're concerned. When an increase in fees comes about — because it will come about — it will too be tied with more staffing and more people out in the field working with the people and in the resource.

I might say, though, that it's our judgment there's a limited capacity to assimilate people as well, and we don't want them tripping over one another. So, we see the 18 biologists and 12 conservation officers as a worthwhile start in redirecting attitudes with respect to the management of this resource.

Regarding the wolves, I wondered for a minute if the "predator" was a new product devised by Colonel Sanders, but I guess the predator problem is a serious one, and there's a concern amongst the public on both sides. I would say that certainly the letters we get, say for example with respect to Cortes Island, were virtually five to one in favour of the wolves. Not that that necessarily means very much but it's an indication of a kind of public attitude that also exists.

With respect to ranchers and farmers though, their problems are genuine and we certainly will provide people when we receive complaints from legitimate interests such as ranching and agricultural people.

The Member is right; the wolf species on Cortes is not the Vancouver Island species at all. The means that are presently used to deal with predators or wolves is a cyanide gun. I don't think there's much doubt that a general poisoning approach, as was once the case, certainly wouldn't be acceptable today either by our specialists or by the public at large. It's a difficult problem and there's a need for some balance, but where farmers and ranchers are having a genuine problem, we are certainly prepared to intervene.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Madam Chairman, thank you. I would like to express, through you to the Minister, appreciation for his department's actions with respect to regional park development. Frankly the appreciation goes back prior to last August because I do feel that his predecessor, Mr. Kiernan, was particularly sympathetic to regional parkland acquisition.

I have been critical of other aspects of the former administration, but I cannot be critical of the manner in which proposals from this regional district, as a matter of fact, were submitted, were accepted and promptly acted upon. That appears to be the case. Through you Madam Chairman, I would ask the Minister to express appreciation to his senior departmental people. When the Capital Regional District has found a particular parcel which we felt was suitable for a parkland purchase, we have been given very prompt and usually positive support.

Now, having said something pleasant…

AN HON, MEMBER: "However…"

MR. CURTIS: However, I would like to show the Minister a document which I think he has seen before, and perhaps some other; Members, through you Madam Chairman, might be interested in it. It is slightly yellow on the edges now. This is the first anniversary, as a matter of fact, this weekend of the completion of what I feel and what a number of other people feel, including I believe the Minister, was a very comprehensive proposal under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act of one year ago.

We responded in the Municipality of Saanich, not just on a municipal basis, but on what we thought was an area-wide basis, outlining in considerable detail and with some very enthusiastic work by volunteers and by professionals as well, to put together a submission, which I'm sorry to say has not been acted upon.

It was not acted upon by the previous administration. They were very busy buying some land in the remaining months of their life in office. The Minister answered on a question on the order paper not too long ago — to a question I put which indicated that not too much money had been spent of the $25 million since.

But, Madam Chairman, as I go through this, and I can almost smell the dust as I turn the pages, it seems that it deals with so many of the things which have been spoken of by Members of this House, both sides, in various debates since the end of January…the importance and functions of a greenbelt…the flood plains in a greenbelt…existing institutional or private open space types…lands with an analysis

[ Page 1919 ]

of the type of land to be found in the area which we were prepared to suggest…farming within the greenbelt…recreation…wild life sanctuaries…historic preservation…the role of the provincial government…the regional significance of a greenbelt plan.

Madam Chairman, you may be interested in the map because it's pretty dramatic if you have a quick look at it. Firstly, under the overlays, the situation as it is today with greater Victoria; the inner harbour here, some parkland and open space which has been secured — phase one of the plan, if you will, which is shown with this overlay — and then, Madam Chairman, the ultimate plan.

I have to say, Madam Chairman to Mr. Minister, 1,865 acres would give, I suggest, the capital region a greenbelt in which this generation and many more could take considerable pride.

There's been no action on this, and I'm sorry. I would like the Minister to take just a couple of minutes to tell us if he can, if he will, when there may be some action. I would be happy to make this proposal available to you, Madam Chairman, or to any Member of the House who would wish to have a look at it. We were proud of it a year ago and we are still very proud of it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Of course, I'm excited about what has happened when I look at the budget for this coming year. When I see an excess of $1 million, which would bring it up to a total of $4,196,000 and some, that we can expect great things from our wildlife branch, our Recreation and Conservation Branch.

But I am slightly disappointed about what has happened for northern British Columbia. The Minister said a minute ago, Madam Chairman, that there are 12 conservation officers and 15 biologists for the province. Of course it looked like some of them could be tripping over one another but, Madam Chairman, we only had three for northern British Columbia; three people, and one of those is for the Queen Charlotte Islands. So that's actually only two for northern British Columbia — a land mass like that is hard to imagine. I really believe that with the problems we have, two conservation officers are not sufficient in northern British Columbia today.

While I can't refer to everybody's riding, in my own riding I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that this winter 400 to 500 moose were poached. This is for the lack of conservation officers — people who actually work at apprehending these poachers. For example, just recently two plainclothesmen were sent into the Fort St. James area and did apprehend poachers killing moose this winter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. KELLY: No, they haven't any time. The RCMP do not have the time to partake in this sort of carrying on. A miner told me on a visit to Fort St. James about three weeks ago that on the Pinchi Lake Road, leading to the Pinchi mine, you could see tracks in the last two months — at least 20 tracks — where moose had been dragged out of the bush.

I say this is going on on all the roads throughout the riding and there are many hundreds of miles of these back roads where people can get in and take moose. The price of meat today has just driven people to do this illegal action. I consider this very serious that we just don't have the people. It doesn't matter how many plainclothesmen they bring in, it has been regarded as the thing to do in this day and age.

Something else that bothers me, Madam Chairman, is the permit system. In the interior today they are issuing permits to welfare cases and to natives — our native people. I know the native people problem is one thing but I am strictly opposed to issuing permits to welfare cases. In the month of January, in Vanderhoof alone, 82 permits were issued to take moose. If they took only 82 that would be one thing, but it is a common fact that the holders of these permits — and in most cases they have 10 days to exercise them — go out and take two or three moose and there is no one there to check them up.

It is a known fact also that you can go to the beer parlour in Fort St. James or in Vanderhoof and buy yourself a roast of moose meat. This is going on all the time. If this is happening in my riding, what is it doing in other ridings? I have complained previously about the shortage of animals; the game is in short supply. The animals do go to the lower elevations which is usually along the main rivers and along these rivers, of course, are the highways where people are residing. It is nothing for a farmer to have a dozen moose crossing his property, maybe feeding on the fence lines or somewhere where there is bush. It is quite easy for anyone to get a moose at anytime in the winter.

When these animals are in short supply, this shows you what a serious situation this is. I am really anxious to see the department add staff to the northern part of our province.

The native problem is something else. I think even the native people recognize the fact. I have had many native people come to me and say: "Doug, there is a shortage of moose. What are you going to do about it?"

I think if we were to go to the native people and say, "Look, we are not able to issue permits any more," then they would accept that as being a fact of life. I would like to see this permit system cut out, at least until the stock of animals were brought back to where we can say there are sufficient animals to allow

[ Page 1920 ]

this to happen again. I don't want to infringe on any of the aboriginal rights of our native people but if there is such a short supply of animals, then I think, Madam Chairman, we have to do something about it.

Back to the predators. I don't like to be repetitive about this because the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was talking about it. I don't altogether say that the wolves are to blame. There are coyotes and both black and grizzly bears. We know that bears do take a lot of the young animals especially just after the moose have calved in the spring. I had a guide explain to me this fall that in his particular guiding area, several black bears are in that area and we know for a fact that they do take a large number of calves. I don't know what you could do about that particular subject except make black bear hunting more attractive.

A recent survey by the game department showed that in very large areas in my constituency, there was a real marked shortage of calves with the adult animals. This is very obvious to a biologist as he is going along making a count. I would suggest that these calves have been taken by predators. Mankind is one, but if you make an overall count I think the wolves do have to be taken into consideration.

Concerning the complaints that have come from my riding that the Member mentioned, I know the predator-control man was to see the farmers and apparently they are trying to satisfy them at least for the present time. I wouldn't blame all loss of cattle on wolves only; there are other predators. The only thing is, who is right and who is wrong? Are the grizzly and black bear plus wolves entitled to live there as well as the livestock?

I would like to see, Madam Chairman, the game department set aside land in these low areas for our game. I would like to see land that is going to be zoned agricultural that is bush land now in the low valleys set aside as preserves for these animals. In the wintertime, you see a good herd every once in a while. If this was to be set aside, at least they would have some cover for the winter — there are getting to be too many farmers in the low valleys — if we are to keep a decent population of moose and deer in existence.

There are practically no deer left in our area at the present time. We had a very serious winter kill a year ago. We had snow so deep the animals, including the moose, had to swim through the snow even down on the lowest valley floors. It wasn't hard for the predators to catch up to them. Everyone realizes this is probably what happened in those particular cases.

In the fish end of it, there are many hundreds of lakes in the northern part of the province and most of them have fish in them. One of the complaints is that before the game department will do anything about either restocking or closing those particular lakes or streams, they will wait until they are just about fished out.

I am anxious to see, number one, that we have a fish hatchery in northern British Columbia. There are no fish hatcheries in northern British Columbia. To my knowledge, only four lakes in the whole of northern British Columbia received any planted fish last year. That is pretty tough potatoes as far as I'm concerned. We should have a lot more lakes and streams stocked.

Once again I would urge that licenses be looked into and this might help control the amount of fish taken. We do have many non-residents coming in and we sell them licenses to fish for one day. They might only stay for one day if we increased this fee; it might prevent them from taking these fish.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Madam Chairman, a few quick questions. First of all, perhaps the Minister might comment on why, if he is so interested in raising the license fees, it has not been done already. For about the first time in my life I managed to get my fishing license for 1973-74 before my 1972-73 expired and I find the license fee is exactly the same — $3. Hunting licenses are much the same.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I sent in another two bucks for a steelhead license, Mr. Premier, a total of $5, which seems pretty absurd in light of the remarks that he made himself. I wonder why, if he's had six months as Minister, it's not been possible to make these changes.

A quick extra comment on that. In the middle of the Depression, in 1932, the hunting license in British Columbia was $3. It's gone up $1 since then. It seems like the price is completely out of line. So I wonder if the Minister could indicate why no action has been taken on this in the last six months, which presumably would have been the time required for printing up licenses with different fee schedules on them.

There are one or two other comments on which I would like the Minister to remark. I have in my hand the Creston flood plain evaluation of alternatives for development — this is the summary of the original study. It's a very good one indeed.

It points out that in the area of the Creston flood plain, recreational development has a very much greater value than agricultural development. The figures, from the point of view of provincial use, are 4.5 million to under 2.5 million.

Now I see in his estimates there are no slots for economists. I wonder how it's possible to get things

[ Page 1921 ]

like this study done on a continuing basis unless his department gets involved in having their own staff. The Pearce-Bowden report of course was excellent, but are we to rely always upon the University economists to do this sort of work? It's quite clear that proper assessment of wildlife value is very necessary in British Columbia.

In Oregon the figure put on the value of a single steelhead taken from a stream is, I think, well above $60. Probably in British Columbia for every salmon caught at sea the value, in terms of economic value, is well above $80.

I wonder whether the Minister would comment on whether or not we have the staff to do the right type of economic evaluations. Because we are hearing frequently in the committee of the House on forestry and fisheries of the fact that there is a need for this type of study. We're also hearing that the people with other resource interests, such as logging, have plenty of economists capable of doing the same evaluation studies for the value of lumber and timber. So I wonder if the Minister could indicate why in his estimates he does not have any slots there for economists.

Another point I'd like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the B.C. Hydro and its development plans. I have in my hand a clipping of November 20 from the Vancouver Province referring to the B.C. Fisheries Association — comments regarding hydro development, in particular, the Chilco Lake area, the Homathko River — the Homathko Park complex was one they were referring to specifically.

The association took that stand opposing any further power developments in that area because it would affect approximately one out of five Sockeye in the whole Fraser system if developments took place there. At that time, according to this news report, the Premier had asked B.C. Hydro to take another look at the project which had been turned down by the B.C. Energy Board. I wonder whether this second look has been taken and whether once more the proposals for development in that river system have been turned down. Because, of course, if it does take place we are in for a substantial loss in the fisheries resource.

Madam Chairman, there are quite a number of questions I have regarding an extremely valuable sports fish — steelhead. I mentioned it earlier with reference to Oregon. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate to us whether he has been able to arrange any cost-sharing arrangements with the federal Department of Fisheries regarding steelhead stocking on various streams in British Columbia.

It's one of these silly situations where the steelhead are a provincial fish and salmon which use the same river for spawning and act in much the same manner happen to be a federal fish and the hatchery programmes tend to be complicated by this. I wonder whether the Minister has come across any cost-sharing or joint hatchery programmes which could result in greater numbers of steelhead, in particular on streams which are short, and near major urban centres.

In the same general area, I wonder whether the Minister could indicate to us in the House what steps have been taken with regard to extending the closed areas of streams at certain times of the year to prevent steelhead smoults from being taken. It's a disastrous situation where a small steelhead smoult is taken as a trout and quite often killed when that fish, if allowed to proceed to sea and return, would return as a fish of up to 20 pounds perhaps. It seems ridiculous that we're allowing the catching of the steelhead, a very valuable sports fish, at probably its least valuable point in terms of food value, recreational value or anything else.

A more local problem, Mr. Minister, is the Thetis Lake watershed area in the greater Victoria area. There is a local group who wish to have this area purchased by the government under one of our various funds, greenbelt or otherwise, to protect this recreational area. They have attempted to have meetings with you and my information, which is three weeks out of date, is that they have not yet been able to have a meeting. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate first whether or not he's had it in recent weeks and, if not, when will it take place?

It goes without saying that the comments of my friend from Saanich have indicated the need for this type of greenbelt environmental protection in the capital region. This particular group I think has a good proposal which I endorse. I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether he's had the time to meet with them and to take it up with them?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, the Thetis Lake area: I haven't had the opportunity of meeting with the local society as yet but I certainly will do so within the next few weeks, I hope. I know there is a great concern locally whether it can be considered a priority area — though in terms of the province, this is something else again.

The question of economists: it's true, there is nothing in the budget for this department with respect to economists. We have in fact only one young economist in the forest service staff. When you consider the fact that is our major industry, it says something about attitudes of the past.

We will be increasing the economic group in the Forest Service. There is also an additional fund before the House in another bill, $5 million, the interest of which is to be used for various research and consulting purposes. The prime work that we see with respect to that revenue is in the economic field. So that both in resource and integrated areas there is in

[ Page 1922 ]

fact a considerable amount available in the coming fiscal year for economic advice to the provincial government.

The bulk of the work done to date, has been done of course by consultants to the department. Pearce Bowden has been the main consultant to the department and done some excellent work — as other members have indicated through the debates.

The question of the Homathko: there is a review of the alternatives with respect to power for Vancouver Island and that is one of them. There would be no decisions with respect to any of the sources without environmental impact studies being part of the process. That would be a requirement. I appreciate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, the environmental impact study has not been done. Only basic engineering work is being done now, but it is understood by the authority that the environmental study would be a requirement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously it is going to have to be in the next year.

The question of our relationship with the federal government: there is a meeting this weekend, as we indicated earlier, which will include the federal Minister of the Environment and it will be an opportunity for us to discuss areas of cooperation. The federal responsibility in some of these areas is primarily research, as we see it. It is a question of jurisdiction in which we are somewhat concerned about.

As to the raising of licenses — why hasn't this been done yet? Well, I think the important thing is that we have increased the budget of the department. We also can increase revenues. The important thing is we have increased the budget of the department; we do have these 12 conservation officers and 18 biologists coming on staff so that the department is not being frustrated because of a lack of increase in the fees. As I indicated earlier, what we want to tie that to is an intensive management programme so that those that do hunt and fish can see the result from the money they put in. They can see wild life land acquired in the East Kootenay, in other areas, and in the lower mainland for intensive management — wetland areas and so on. The intent is not to have just an increase in fees but rather an increase in fees for a purpose.

With respect to regional parks, which the Member for Saanich and the Islands raised, I think it is true that the record of the former Minister with respect to regional parks in the capital was very good. I think that ours hasn't been bad either in six months.

I suppose part of the reason is that we sort of are temporary residents here. How temporary, I'm not too sure. We develop an affinity for the region. I think that's natural enough, it's a very special region.

I think it's unfortunate that other parts of the province haven't seen fit to take advantage of the regional park legislation because it's clear that what's happening — there's something of an imbalance. I think there's a need in these urban regions — in the capital and in the lower mainland. That's where the great pressures are. But it's unfortunate that other regions haven't seen fit — amongst them, for example, Boundary-Similkameen. There were opportunities on Christina Lake, where we were prepared to make exceptions to the general rule in order to preserve land and still the region didn't see fit to preserve a site that was obviously important to them.

The greenbelts: the planner from Saanich is of course an old colleague of mine from university days. I have reviewed the Saanich report and it's certainly the most comprehensive and one of the best reports that has been prepared with respect to this problem or opportunity.

It does seem to me that it's too bad that the map stops where it does because you've got that stretch out toward Langford, Colwood and Metchosin which has been a kind of ignored part of the capital region, it seems to me. It's an area that has real urban sprawl problems and yet has some of the really delightful natural landscape of the region. While it hasn't been ignored in terms of regional parks, I think the concept of the greenbelt which was developed by Saanich really does have to be extended into that part of the capital region as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's true. The land commission legislation was drafted, I understand, to take greenbelts into consideration. The amendments might affect that to some extent. I am certainly sympathetic to the Saanich proposal and it's something that I hope that with the land commission, the Environment and Land Use Committee could give consideration to — now that the Environment and Land Use Committee is becoming more active and will have increased staff.

With regard to the north: the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is quite right in expressing his concern with respect to the lack of people in the north, particularly again the northwest. There will be an increase up there, there's obviously a need for a supervisor in the westerly region.

The idea that the wildlife of the Queen Charlottes should be managed out of Prince George, I guess it is, it just won't work. So obviously a new administrative centre in the northwest is necessary with respect to fish and wildlife management. That will make it

[ Page 1923 ]

possible for the people in Prince George to do a more effective job in the more immediate environs of Prince George. It would seem that a likely location would be in the Terrace area so that we could service the coastal area and the magnificent area to the north along the Stewart-Cassiar Highway.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Regarding the question of setting aside land for game, I think there's some agreement there. As I've indicated, any increase in fees would be tied to that kind of programme so that the fee increase would be used in a positive way.

The question of fish hatcheries: there is a proposal which is presently being worked on by Public Works — a fish hatchery at Abbotsford, however. Now that hatchery — both steelhead and trout — could well service all parts of British Columbia. That's the high priority one and it's presently in the hands of Public Works, and on the edge of Treasury Board. So it's our hope and expectation that there'll be some activity with respect to the hatchery quite soon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River followed by the Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the wolf problem but the Minister said that if there was a problem in an area that he would do something. Well, there's been a problem in our area in the community pasture. His department is aware of the problem and I would like to ask the Minister what action he is going to take because in these community pastures, in particular the Groundbirch pasture, the government has spent a lot of money creating them.

They're being used by ranchers in the area but this spring they're not going to be used. The ranchers are not going to be able to afford to put their cattle down there unless something is done about this problem. And his department has been well aware of this problem because I personally talked to some officials in his department last fall myself. I'm still waiting for a report, still waiting for some action.

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, it's getting to the point that I don't dare to go back home unless I have a positive answer. I might have to stay here all summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I'm going to stay here, I might as well stay in this Legislature because it's nice and warm — so I think you get the message.

I have to have an answer on this wolf problem and what is going to happen. What's going to be done? I'll wait for the Minister's reply about something positive, because as I say, his department knows of this problem. They say, "Give us some input and we'll give you the answer."

I want to talk about a little spot in northern British Columbia that is very dear to my heart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, is the Hon. Member raising a new subject?

MR. PHILLIPS: Am I raising a new subject? Well I'm not sure that I understand the Chairman. I'm talking about something under the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would allow the Member to make a supplementary question arising out of the answer that was just made, but I would prefer that he wait for a few minutes until we've gone around and canvassed the other Members and come back again to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've got all afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'll be prepared to wait if…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I'll recognize the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston on a supplementary question arising out of the answer that was given. Not a new subject at this time. Well, these appear to be new subjects. I'll recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we just want to be sure everyone gets a fair chance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I appreciate your fairness, Mr. Chairman, I just hope that the fairness is not going to interfere with the functioning of the committee.

Anyway, it's a new question. Every period brings its own debates and creates certain words which excite emotion among all people — so I'll throw a couple of words at the Hon. Minister. What about Cypress Bowl? That's one which…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I knew that you were waiting for somebody to ask that question and I've got many things I can say about it. We've had many, many hours of debate. I'm sorry that the Hon. Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is not here to raise this matter because I know that he had great interest in it before.

Mr. Minister, can you please tell us what's happening with Cypress Bowl? I know there has been

[ Page 1924 ]

some land exchange…When are we going to see the new plans for Cypress Bowl? I'll sit down now, if you can tell us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm glad the Hon. Member raised the question of Cypress Bowl because it's a matter that's taken a great deal of the time of this House over the years.

The budget proposed for the Cypress Bowl development in the coming year is something around $2 million. That's essentially finishing off the road which we're already committed to.

Activity with respect to trails throughout the area: some activity in relation to the small lakes in the area — essentially working on it in terms of summer use of the area at this stage, plus replanting, reforestation and a continuation of that kind of cleanup work as a result of the mess left by previous activities.

The question of the winter use of the area is still under study and the plans are being reconsidered. The parking lots as proposed were on the Hollyburn Ridge area and would have affected all of the climax forest that exists on Hollyburn Ridge. That was a matter of some concern — whether you trade off the values of the ridge for the parking facilities. That's still being reviewed, as are the ski areas themselves. We, in effect, decided that a one-year moratorium was worthwhile with respect to the parking lot pattern and the winter ski development and how we handled people in the area.

The previous budget that had been proposed and was underway by the former administration was considerably higher. It was our judgment that the work that had been done was not adequate and needed consideration. In view of the sad history of the Bowl we weren't anxious to see the recreational solutions not well thought out.

I think a one-year moratorium — it's not really a moratorium since we are spending at least the amount that I indicated. The one year will give us the time that is needed to come up with a worthwhile plan.

I think it is generally not recognized that areas like the mountains north of West Vancouver and north of the city are probably as important in terms of summertime activity as they are in terms of winter activity. The winter activity is very capital-intensive; the summer activity is not. Preparation for summer activity is labour-intensive. That is why we have taken the approach we have. There will be an intensive use of labour in there throughout this season.

As I think I indicated earlier, when one goes through the Hollyburn Ridge area one is impressed by the quality of the area because of the lack of intensive application of capital. And when one spends time in Cypress Bowl one is impressed at the destruction in the area with the application of capital, either for forestry purposes or other purposes. So that the year, I think, is most worthwhile.

In terms of the land area itself, we have come to an agreement in principle with the District of West Vancouver with respect to a land exchange, so that the Hollyburn Ridge area, which is presently owned by the district, will become part of the park, and the Crown lands that are presently a watershed area of West Vancouver to the west and a little to the south will become the property of West Vancouver. So there is agreement in those areas.

I think the servicing questions with respect to the bowl — the sewer system and items like that — are still under review as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplemental to that, Mr. Chairman: Two million dollars will be expended, you think, in this next fiscal year. Would the Minister please indicate when he thinks it might be available for public use?

Secondly, is the development of Cypress Bowl being approached with the thought in mind that it may be the gateway leading to certainly summer use of areas which lie north of Cypress Bowl, because I believe that once Cypress Bowl is made into an access that some exciting summer trail possibilities arise as you go through the Bowl and on north.

If that is the direction that is taken then I would wholeheartedly support the present concept. I think that far too much attention has been paid to the use of Cypress Bowl as a downhill ski area, which is, as the Minister points out, capital-intensive — it brings tremendous numbers of people for short periods of time, and ignores the long term problems and the long term potential of Cypress Bowl and what lies beyond.

So might it be next year — that is, twelve months hence — before there will be any public access to that area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we think, with luck, depending on the construction season, that there can at least be use in the autumn of this year. But it depends partly just on the seasonal problems of construction. That is the intent, certainly at this stage — to see summer use intensified an have it relate to the alpine areas to the north.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, briefly on somewhat the same subject, I wonder if the Minister has reached any final decision on this proposal to develop

[ Page 1925 ]

a ski resort in the Brandywine Mountain area. Some of the same features that were mentioned by the former Member for Howe Sound enter into it. Apparently this can be used for a longer period of time throughout the year, and the main issue seems to revolve around the request that has been made to the government to finance the access road from Highway 99.

I understand that somewhere in the general neighbourhood there was a plan to develop a ski resort and the individual concerned did not meet deadlines, and the lease was subsequently withdrawn. But on this occasion the project is being planned and developed by none less than Nancy Greene and her husband, I understand, who certainly are very responsible people with a tremendous amount of experience. It would seem to me, from the amount of comment I hear from the general public as to how popular skiing has become, and the value even to the economy in terms of the consumers' purchasing of skiing equipment, that it is a factor which should be encouraged, not to mention the recreational value of skiing. Is this particular project close to a decision, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think the main administrative decisions would be made through the Lands Branch with respect to that particular area since it is Crown land. But it is certainly part of the whole recreational asset of that region north of Vancouver.

There has been no policy established with respect to aid to ski areas. We appreciate the need for staffing with respect to this area, and that really might relate to some of my comments made earlier with respect to the broader recreational role that the department might play in the future.

The success of community ski areas, however, in the province, is something which I am personally impressed by, and it does seem to me that for the dollars expended, the benefits to the people of this province are greater for facilities such as Red and Granite Mountains, where Nancy Greene in fact grew up and became a world champion. It is an area where there hasn't been that intensive an application of capital. I would suspect that it is probably the finest ski area in North America for the price. Sure, it is a qualification, but it was also a place where we spawned a champion. So it is not all that bad.

I would hope that once we have the staffing capability that we need, we might look at community ski areas on a greater scale throughout the province, rather than the kind of upper income resort facilities that some others might want.

Now, Brandywine or Powder Mountain are certainly one of the great potential skiing areas in the province, and a significant one on even a wider basis. We agree with Mr. and Mrs. Raine that it is important.

That is why we'll be extremely careful in terms of the way we come to some decision with respect to the development of that alpine asset. It raises questions possibly of federal involvement, and we are prepared to discuss that with the federal authorities — that is, the development of major more or less international ski resorts, as this one might well become in the future.

I think there is obviously a role here, but the question of priorities with respect to provincial funding — that is, community ski facilities versus international ski resorts — is something that we all have to wrestle with, I think.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I beg your pardon? Oh, well I think the Premier has made our position clear with respect to that. But the Brandywine–Powder Mountain area is something that is going to take a considerable amount of time on the part of the Highways Department, the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the Lands Branch. We agree with the Raines that it is most significant and important that we are not going to come to any hasty conclusion. Hasty conclusions have been reached with respect to ski basins in the past, and Cypress Bowl is one of them. We have no intention of repeating those kind of errors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): On the same point, I would just really and truly try to advocate to the Minister that he just take a look at what Alberta has that B.C. doesn't have. It's got Banff; it's got Lake Louise; it's got Jasper, Moraine Lake, the Waterton Lakes, the Valley of the Ten Peaks and the Columbia Icefield. And what British Columbia has that Alberta does not have is the Garibaldi area. Make no mistake of that. What Banff is to Calgary, Garibaldi could readily become to Vancouver.

I think he should be giving every possible encouragement to making this — which is truly a fabulous mountain area — available to as many people as possible, and completely throughout the year. I think it could be opened up, and we should encourage as much interesting and compatible development as possible. I say without any question of a doubt that if an Olympics or an international competition will enhance to serve this type of thing, that should be encouraged and that should be promoted, because we need in this province a very refreshing and a very bold and a very exciting idea. This could indeed be one of those very things.

There is no reason why this area could not acquire

[ Page 1926 ]

a worldwide reputation and indeed it could become the Switzerland of B.C. There is no question of a doubt that the market is there, the area is there, and the job should be done. There would be terrific tourist benefits apart from the use that could be enjoyed by the people in the surrounding areas. It indeed makes it more accessible. I agree today that is is not as accessible as it should be. There should be more facilities and they should certainly be year-round facilities. Don't get too concerned about the congestion, because you will find in mountain areas in Austria and Switzerland and France and Germany, where humanity has been jam-packed for years, the very type of thing that I am talking about.

We could have here a tourist haven that would be absolutely unparalleled in Canada, and indeed go ahead on a year-round attitude.

Ski trails, fine and dandy, pack trips, hikes in the summer, climbing routes and canoe courses, fishing streams, clear lakes where you could go ahead and have a little bit of moonlight singing and so forth and so on, mountaineering outings and very, very unique hostelry…

AN HON. MEMBER: Any yodeling?

MR. GARDOM: Yodeling. Yo-de-lay-ee-dee! Same thing — that's right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More, more!

MR. GARDOM: More? Let's have some structures in there that would be totally complementary to the natural habitat and develop a real mountain atmosphere in the summer and in the winter.

The Hon. Minister said that the Premier laid down some sort of policy. Well he's a magical man. We've noticed that. So whateversome sort of a policy he's laid down, whichever this some sort of a policy is, perhaps you could get through to his good ear and find out whether or not he is indeed as flexible as he looks and see if we can come up with an Olympic situation.

The idea of Cypress is fine and dandy. I think that we should have an overland route from Cypress right up to Garibaldi. I think this is the direction we should be pointing to. It's not too far. Cypress is small potatoes compared to utilizing the Garibaldi area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You and your wife might be able to do it but not many others.

MR. GARDOM: The costs would be very, very small indeed. And they'd bring fantastic benefits to all of the people there. It could be done beautifully, it could be done interestingly and it certainly should be done.

But really and truly to just sort of say, "Well, we're going to take a little step here," is the Premier's policy. Now what is his policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and we'll tell you.

MR. GARDOM: Will you tell me if I sit down?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Step on the Tories.

MR. GARDOM: Step on the who?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tories.

MR. GARDOM: I thought you said gourd.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wanted on the phone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, followed by the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston, followed by the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we don't often have a turnout of Liberals like this in the House.

Mr. Chairman, we've canvassed the subject of wolves and I know we're going to be back to it again. But if we could dwell for a moment or two on the point raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I think it should be noted that some of us in the House think that the sponsorship of the Winter Olympic Games in British Columbia would be the greatest thing that could possibly happen in this province. It would give a fantastic boost to winter tourism. It would spur on more Nancy Greenes and Karen Magnussens. Because these people have made it big in winter Olympic competition. This is where we have the world champions, in the winter sports.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they came out of Brent Mountain.

MR. McGEER: We think these people and those who want to emulate them should be encouraged by hosting the world and showing just why it is that British Columbia can produce these champions.

AN HON. MEMBER: And paying the bills.

MR. McGEER: If we had the winter facilities…and that these winter facilities are there for all to take advantage of.

Mr. Chairman, apart from the value of athletics and competition, the other big reason why we hope that the Minister will be able to convince the Premier…

[ Page 1927 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. McGEER: …that a change in policy… I wasn't attempting to do it, Mr. Chairman. I was working through the Minister over there.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Who do you think recommended the policy to him?

MR. McGEER: The Premier's made statements and what we want him to do is to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A $65 million jet set.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier talks about a $65 million jet set.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Right!

MR. McGEER: Now I don't know who those people are, but I imagine if anybody's going to be wandering around in jets in British Columbia in the next few years, it'll be the Ministers of that bench over there. Because they're the only ones who have been looking at jet airplanes in the recent past.

But I don't want to get into an argument about who's going to fly in jet planes, Mr. Chairman. What we're trying to do is something for the little people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. McGEER: You don't want to do something for the little people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not $65 million.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you mean an international ski resort?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we need a way-out proposal for development of winter recreation because all over British Columbia these tourist facilities are built — motels in Penticton, in Cranbrook, in Revelstoke. And what happens during the winter months? The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) knows that most of these facilities lie vacant.

The people who operate them have to make it in the three-month summer season because there just isn't anybody to fill them up in the winter time. The one thing all these little communities are looking for is an opportunity to develop their own little winter resort. The mountains are there and no place probably in the world has a combination of mountains and tolerable winter weather with lots of snow than does British Columbia. Nowhere else in the world.

Therefore, if there should be one place that surpasses all others in the matter of winter recreational areas — skiing, skating, snowmobiling and so on — it should be this province. Here we have nestled in among these mountains the incomparably beautiful little villages complete with their…

AN HON. MEMBER: Which ones?

MR. McGEER: …motels. The accommodation is there, and they lie empty.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR. McGEER: Nine months of the year.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you mean in Europe?

MR. McGEER: Well, you only have to go to the towns of Penticton or Revelstoke or some of these other places. What these communities want to see happen is a really viable winter tourist promotion, because their communities are going to become wealthy as a result. They're going to become wealthy if people from all over North America and Europe decide to take winter vacations in British Columbia.

In order to do that we need to have these ski facilities. In order to get them past the present primitive stage that they're in now, a policy needs to be developed which will ensure that they can get over the most difficult financial part, which is the building of roads into the facilities and the maintenance of those roads.

Really what we need is a winter highway recreational programme, where the government will guarantee to build and maintain the roads into any viable recreational facility. Then having established that and given these little communities the opportunity to get ahead with their winter resort, then the one great promotion that will do more than any single thing to put this place on the map as the place for tourists to come would be this sponsorship of the Winter Olympic Games. It's this combination of salesmanship and facilities that will be the making of British Columbia as a winter tourist haven.

When we speak this afternoon and plead with the Minister to work on the Premier, it's because it's just such a natural. The Minister is one who has a good and open mind. If he would just think through these possibilities I am sure that he might even this afternoon be able to step up and give the people all over British Columbia this little bit of encouragement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 1928 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) for arranging this recognition.

You know I am amazed when I hear the good doctor from Point Grey talking about athletics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LAUK: …talking about sports…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. LAUK: Yes, the Hon. good doctor from West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Are you saying he's not a good doctor? Is that what you're saying? I'm sure you wouldn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order?

Interjection by an Hon. Member (Laughter).

MR. LAUK: As I was saying, I'm amazed by this good doctor's remarks on sports and activities in this province.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. LAUK: What did you say about your "quack" record? I wasn't sure about that.

This "polka dot tie" set over there talks about bourgeois sports…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: …throughout the entire province. It reminds me of a story when I was a small boy in Vancouver. I went to a small parochial school.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: That's fine. You'll get an opportunity in a moment. You can talk more about the wolves later on. Just keep quiet for now.

At this school we were provided by one of these men's clubs, the Order of Elephants or Tigers or something, came by and provided us with a baseball and bat. I'll never forget it. I was in grade 7 or something and they presented…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LAUK: There was a full presentation with speeches and honours and so on. The principal of the school accepted the baseball and the bat and there was a thank-you speech; except we didn't have a playground. We didn't know where to play with the baseball and bat.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I suppose it is. Yes.

Well, my request to the Minister is to completely ignore these suggestions of spending all kinds of taxpayers' money for Olympic Games and so on. I suppose that at some future time we can see our way clear to go into that kind of thing.

But at this stage I would like to see this government pay attention to that area which has been neglected for so many years — the kids in my riding and the kids in the city, and perhaps elsewhere in the province. I'm not familiar with it. In my riding we don't have the kind of facilities for just a limited amount of activity in terms of sports and athletics.

We're talking a lot about drugs and a lot about lifestyles within the city, Mr. Chairman. It's my opinion that if we had these alternative lifestyles for the kids, perhaps this would be part of the preventative measures that we talked about earlier. These alternative lifestyles can be provided in such summer camps sponsored by the provincial government as Outward Bound and so on. This is directly under the recreation department and I'm sure that the Minister should, at this stage, outline some policy to provide this kind of summer activity for these kids.

When we see this kind of thing happening in Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East, where kids are on the streets every day glue sniffing, when they have no activities, it's the responsibility of the Department of Recreation to directly provide summer camps where these kids could go for indefinite periods of time.

I take less than seriously the pleas for support for upper middle class ski resorts and so on when I think of those kids.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see that the Chairman got my speaking permit signed by the A.G.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member make his speech, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Minister once more. He didn't come back after my last plea for a clear-cut statement that I can take back to the ranchers who want to put their cattle back in the Groundbirch community pasture.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation who has been establishing throughout the province a great number of parks — and I agree with this — if he had a

[ Page 1929 ]

submission from the Peace River–Liard Regional District to establish two parks in the Monkman Pass area of British Columbia. There is a request in these for two; they are good proposals. I was amazed when I read about the number of parks that were being established throughout the province yet these two areas had not as yet been designated, Mr. Chairman.

One of these parks in particular, a park that is requested to surround Kinuseo Falls on the Murray River, is probably one of the most scenic beauty spots in all North America, including far better than Garibaldi and Whistler. This Kinuseo Falls on the Murray River is higher than Niagara Falls.

I have personally been into the area. I went in there last spring, Mr. Chairman, up the Murray River during a three-day trip on a river boat in order to get to the area and see the grandeur of the Murray River in the spring of the year. It's a completely beautiful trip, and the falls themselves are just awesome. There were some pictures in the Beautiful British Columbia magazine about two years ago; it really is a beautiful sight. I have flown over this area and taken some colour pictures both in the summertime and in the wintertime. I have driven into the area and walked down to the falls.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Minister would give this a priority because this spot should definitely be preserved and it should be made accessible. I would say it would be one of the finest, most scenic parks anywhere in British Columbia as soon as it is established. And I would suggest that be done.

As I say, with the number of parks which you have been establishing, I am surprised that this wasn't already done.

Now the other point that I'd like to speak to the Minister about, Mr. Chairman, is a major lake in the South Peace area — a lake that is called Moberly Lake. This is not the lake behind the dam that I am referring to. This is Moberly Lake.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to talk about that in a moment. It's the only major lake in the area. It's about 11 miles long and approximately 2 miles wide, it's a very deep lake and it could be made into a tremendous asset for that area. But there are a couple of drawbacks.

Number one is that the level of the lake has a variance of about 10 feet. In the spring when the run-offs come the lake goes up and washes away boat houses and docks and so forth; then in the summer, Mr. Chairman, at low water along the shelves of the lake it is very difficult to even use a motor boat because the water is so low.

What we require to maintain the level of that lake is the outlet dredged and widened. This should be done, Mr. Chairman, prior to the new bridge going across the Moberly River, which is the outlet. Once the new bridge is in there, it would be very difficult.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation that he get together with the lands department and put a weir in there — a wider outlet which would allow the spring run-off to go out much faster so that the water in the lake wouldn't rise, and then in the summer it would also keep the water to a specified level so that it could be used the year round as a great recreation lake.

The second thing the lake requires — and here I run into difficulty with the biologists again — is the fish in the lake. The lake used to have some fine lake trout and in recent years there are hardly any left. There have been Indians fishing on the lake, and I don't know whether this has taken the stock down. I have been after the Department of Recreation and Conservation for years now to do something to get some sport fish in that lake.

Now I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, we can't establish in that area a small fish hatchery so that we could produce fish somewhere around that lake that could be used to stock other northern lakes.

The biologists say that you can't stock the lake with trout because of the jackfish in the lake. I say that the jackfish have been there for many hundreds of years and so have the trout. But the fact is the reason that the trout are on the decline is because of the fishing and we need to restock the lake.

In the north, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when they get across the Rocky Mountains and into the Peace River country they run out of money. The Department of Recreation runs out of money.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): This has been canvassed before.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it is high time that the Department of Recreation and Conservation paid a little attention to the Peace River area. I don't care whether it's this government or the previous government or what government it is, the people of that area get a little sick and tired of resources being drained off and no input back into the area.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. Mainly from the Department of Recreation and Conservation

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. YOUNG: A point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be

[ Page 1930 ]

seated please.

MS. YOUNG: This subject has been canvassed before by the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The subject of recreational money going into the northern part of the province.

MS. YOUNG: Yes…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't consider that a point of order because I am talking about my own constituency, and when the day comes that I can't stand in this Legislature and talk about my own constituency, it's going to be a funny day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would inform the Member that he may make the comments providing he relates them to the needs of his own constituency, if the subject has already been canvassed in general.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the other side of the Rocky Mountains up in that area into the north, north of the Prince George-Prince Rupert line, there are many lakes and the lakes are well stocked and there are lots of rivers. But when you get over across the Rocky Mountains you're into the extension of the great plains and it's a different territory altogether. I would like to see the Department of Recreation and Conservation get up there and take a look at the situation.

We had a few trout put in one island lake a few years ago and it has provided a lot of recreation for the area for a lot of sport fishermen. But this Moberly Lake is one of the largest lakes in that area and it could be… The government just built a beautiful campsite in the area. On one side there are 65-odd camping spots, boat launching facilities; it's just a marvelous job.

What we need is some attention paid to that lake in an endeavour to get some sport fish put in that particular lake. Surely to goodness if biologists can create new species of trout and can run hatcheries and do fantastic things, they can come up with a breed of sport fish that can be stocked in that lake, Mr. Chairman.

Well, there's been talk of putting yellow pickerel in, which would be fine too. But the Minister's got a good budget, and I would suggest that we take a look at a small hatchery in that area to produce lake trout or yellow pickerel or something. Then Charley Lake could be stocked; Swan Lake could be cleaned up and stocked.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I'm talking about yellow pickerel, a breed of fish that — I'm no fish biologist — but they are very prevalent throughout the prairie lakes and, as I say, this area is an extension of the great plains. So I would like to ask the Minister if he would give some definite consideration to sending a man in there — you have a man in Prince George — and let's get some action going.

The people of that area are going to live and die before they have an opportunity to do any sport fishing on that lake, I'm afraid.

Now, in the area north of there — and as a matter of fact in many areas throughout the province, Mr. Chairman — I recommend that we set aside some wilderness parks and even take some of the guiding areas and have a…the hunting in that area should be done only with a camera. Too many of the areas are being hunted out. We could have in this area — it could even be supervised by the government — we could have lodges and complete wilderness parks where people could take their families, leave the guns at home; go in and do all their shooting with cameras.

Another point, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask the Minister for his comments on is Swan Lake. That has been reclassified last summer up to a Class A park, and I would like to know if anything is going to take place in there this summer.

The other point that I would like to ask the Minister to give his attention to is that I feel that old age pensioners should be given fishing and hunting licenses free of charge, and they also should have free use of our campsites in this province.

This would alleviate some of the high cost of living that these old age pensioners are experiencing. It would help alleviate some of the burdens that they have. They're free; they're retired; lots of them love to hunt; lots of them love to fish, and in the summertime they like to take their campers and use our campsites. I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that a policy be established whereby all old age pensioners have fishing licenses, hunting licenses and free use of our campsites.

Now I'm going to sit down again and I would like to hear from the Minister with regard to these areas that I have brought up for discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I go on to what I'd actually intended to talk upon, the point raised by the previous Member is one that has come to my attention — of making the use of campsites free for pensioners. One person has suggested that there be a seal called a "Cariboo Camper." A cariboo is a migrating animal and has, of course, a wildlife connotation. I think it is an idea very much worthy of merit.

What I have actually risen to question the Minister on is a request from the West Kootenay Naturalists

[ Page 1931 ]

Association concerning the plans for the construction of the Nature Interpretation Centre at Kokanee Creek Park. In 1971 members of the association were led to believe that the construction of the centre was to start in the fall of that year. It has been promised in successive years and I'm wondering whether or not construction will actually get under way this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Regarding the interpretation centre at Kootenay Lake, it is a matter of high priority but it isn't funded at the moment. But if supplementary funds are provided it will be among the first of the facilities that will be approved in supplementary funds. So, we regard it as a high priority and there is a fairly good likelihood of it being proceeded with.

With respect to the Monkman Pass area, the area is regarded as a significant park potential. There were field crews in there last year and they weren't able to complete their work. They intend to get in there this summer as well and complete their field survey work. The intent is to create a provincial park in that area. It is a matter of completing survey work.

Regarding Moberly Lake and stocking, I mentioned increased facilities at Abbotsford — they're on the drawing board right now in terms of providing stock. But the best procedure, as I understand it, is to improve the natural spawning grounds in the area, and that is what the department intends to do generally with respect to these major lakes. Improving the natural spawning grounds is probably more productive and the soundest kind of management decision.

I think those were the main questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for…

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say about the wolves…yes, the wolves…

The wolves will be controlled in the South Peace if the committee agrees with respect to a programme. The committee in the area consists of both the cattlemen representatives, the government agrologist and the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Branch. A plan of control is being developed by the committee and the cattle will be protected when they are turned out into the community pastures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Just a couple of brief questions, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to comment on something in view of the fact that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has drawn it to my attention at this particular time. I'd hoped to comment on it a little bit later on it as we came to this particular time, but it seems we're speaking on the general grant for the department now. It's obvious that the Member for Vancouver Centre has not gone through the entire votes of the Department of Recreation and Conservation…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: …otherwise he would have seen that there is a specific vote for a youth training programme, but apparently he didn't get down that far. But I do want to say…

AN HON. MEMBER: What are your suggestions? What are your suggestions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: What are your suggestions? That we get involved in the question of baseball bats and mitts and things of that nature, really, which is not the jurisdiction of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that the Member for Vancouver-Centre was responding to a request that money be spent on roads and ski development areas, which I believe does come under this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed with his…

MR. CHABOT: I was under the impression these roads into ski areas were administered by the Department of Highways. I know that we have a ski project in the community of Golden. The community project there is a relatively small one and we had some assistance with the access into the ski development area and we always approached the Department of Highways. That's where we get our assistance for road maintenance and road improvement.

I do want to say on the Youth Training Programme, I'm glad to see that there is an additional $100,000 added to it. I think it is an exceptionally good programme. I've seen some of the young people of the Wasa camp assist in the campsite administration there, plus the field trips that they make, the exercises that they go through.

I think it is a real opportunity for city youth, an opportunity to participate in the real outdoors — in the Rocky Mountains especially. They've gone into Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park and done some work in there. I think it's a programme that is certainly worthy and good. It's an exceptionally good programme and I'm happy to see that you've added $100,000 to it so that more young people will have

[ Page 1932 ]

an opportunity to participate in the programme.

Talking about stocking of lakes, I just want to make a general observation. I had the opportunity in 1971 to go fishing in an isolated lake just north and west of Fort Nelson — a lake called Denetiah. The fishing was exceptionally good. The reason why it was so good was because of an experiment carried out by the Department of Fish and Wildlife branch about 10 years ago, in which they stocked some rainbow trout in the lake. It is a lake that drains into the Arctic and it has Arctic grayling and char. They experimented to see whether the rainbow could survive and they have done an exceptionally good job in surviving.

I think this is what we need more of from that department — more experiment. I think we need a bold and broader outlook than we have had in the past. Rather than only control, there should be more experiments carried on. There has been a limited amount of experiment with other types of fish in British Columbia, such as bass, pickerel and northern pike, probably. There are lakes that certainly aren't compatible to the introduction of trout because of the degree of coarse fish in the lake. I know for a fact that there are fish that cannot survive with coarse fish such as the squawfish — bass, for instance, could survive.

I know the hatcheries don't have these types of fish but they can be brought in from the United States or from other countries through exchange of the product of our hatcheries with the product of their hatcheries.

I just want to touch on a couple of other items. One has to do with oysters. I'm going to talk about oysters and lobsters. First, oysters.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's near dinner.

MR. CHABOT: Unfortunately I don't have the general regulation order cutting back on the amount of harvest because there is a concern on the amount of oysters that are being removed from the foreshore. Here again, there is room for the department to be bold because there is a fair amount of vacant Crown foreshore.

I think there could be the introduction of oysters to these various areas, in some instances, to allow prospective oyster growers as well as for public use. I think this should be taken into consideration and there should be promotion of the expansion of the facilities for oysters in the province. There should be transplants from various places. There are islands in the Gulf Islands, for instance, that have an abundance of oysters but they are remote to the general public. You could take spat from there and reintroduce it somewhere else.

Now, lobsters. There was an experiment here about six years ago by the national government on transplanting of lobsters. I understand that the pilot programme that they carried out was a successful one, but there appears to be some hesitation on the part of the national government to transplant lobsters to introduce them into the Pacific coast. It has been proven as a success. Probably there are reasons and a concern in the federal government about the market and the livelihood that people gain from lobsters in the east.

For the sake of British Columbia I think it is an industry that is worthy of consideration. It is one that would produce jobs and probably make lobsters more readily accessible to the people of moderate means. I find it difficult to purchase lobsters myself because it is so costly. I am sure that if the Department of Recreation and Conservation was so bold as to attempt to introduce lobsters into British Columbia waters, maybe they would have them in abundance and then people like myself could afford to eat lobsters. I am wondering whether the Minister is considering such a programme of the introduction of lobsters in B.C. waters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister going to answer now?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A little later.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to refer back to the remarks of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on the need for playgrounds. I am certainly sympathetic to his remarks, but I will tell you there's a funny thing about kids. As soon as you build a park, they play in the street. We have this in our area where we're very fortunate. The community if…

MR. CHABOT: If you build a street they play in the park.

MRS. JORDAN: We have street hockey, we have street soccer, street marbles, street everything. There the park sits and you practically have to drive through the park rather than get around.

I would tell the Minister that I really don't want anything, in speaking on behalf of the people of North Okanagan Valley, that's too expensive. But I would like to talk to him for a few minutes about the Mabel Lake area, which is…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yeah. Mabel.

MRS. JORDAN: …not in my constituency, but it's really at the foot of the Monashee and in the back of the Shuswap River. I am sure he can locate it.

[ Page 1933 ]

This is rather unique in that it's an ideal summer recreational lake. It has reasonable fishing and delightful swimming. It has a lot of natural wildlife. It's relatively undeveloped and yet it's very close to a fairly highly populated area and a growing populated area.

The Crown is fortunate in that… Is the Minister listening?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes!

MRS. JORDAN: Because I'd like some specific answers. The Crown is fortunate in that they have large holdings in the Mabel Lake area. About three years ago we became concerned that there was a number of applications for leases of this Crown land. With the assistance of many local people and through my office and the good offices of your department, we asked to have a moratorium put on any development or any leases in that area with a view to getting local input and input from your department in trying to create a relatively large natural summer recreational area. It has potential for a winter area.

We did an inventory of all the land holdings in the whole basin and the forestry department has the forestry holdings with a view to having a consolidation and certain areas declared as wildlife areas. I believe there is some study going on now for the north end of the lake, to see whether it, in fact, would be a substantial contribution to the fly route of the geese. There is a number of geese and ducks there.

This in itself, by this type of a declaration, would keep that end of the lake very quiet and also very attractive. There are deer in there and I believe there's the odd moose that wanders in, so there's a fair amount of wildlife. Then have the whole Crown shoreline and backup lands reviewed and planned with an idea of not having a lot of public parks in there or a lot of leases, but develop rather a unique tenting environment where you would have small tent sites around the lake with perhaps just a little firebed and some wood and a biffy and a tent site that would only be accessible by water. This would keep an environment of wilderness and an experience for people close by and tourists without the distance that would have to be travelled to some of the other areas of the province.

There is also a very unique alpine area between the north end of the lake and what is called Three Valley Gap on the main highway to Revelstoke. There's been some talk about a highway being put through from Enderby almost adjacent to Mabel Lake, going through to Three Valley Gap. I would urge you not to permit the Department of Highways to proceed with this until a thorough study has been made. I think it would be a mistake in the long run to disturb this whole area which, as I say, is relatively unique because of its natural setting.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The logging roads go through.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. They want to put a major highway through. I think the Minister would agree that this wouldn't be desirable in the overall run. Economically it would probably do a lot for the Three Valley Gap area, but it wouldn't really do too much in the way of preservation of that alpine area as well as a unique opportunity to use a natural setting at very little cost for an outdoor experience close to a relatively highly populated area.

The people in the area have settled down and they are trying to put together a plan that they would understand and have this used in part as input into departmental planning. I think the whole programme is too big for the regional district at this time. They have a lot on their plates. It would require the advice of the Minister's department and perhaps some outside advice.

The questions in relation to this particular point are as follows. First, will the Minister honour the moratorium that's on there now so that there can't be any alienation without proper planning of the overall area? I would also just by way of interjection here ask the Minister if they have come up with the final definition of a "recreational area," because this might well be a suitable classification for this Mabel Lake region. There are timber holdings in there and they're very vital to our economy. Certainly, selective logging shouldn't be frowned upon!

The next question that I would like to ask the Minister in relation to this area is with regard to a Class C park. The local people in the Mabel Lake community very much want to have their own Class C park. There are problems — they selected a site but it was not suitable because of its topography.

In spite of the fact that there's a new government park going in, it seems to me that there should be the opportunity for the people to use a piece of suitable Crown land for their own community use, providing they adhere to proper regulations as to sanitation and upkeep of the park. It is vital to these people. They get lost if they get into a big park site. They like to have their own little barbecues and community activities. While we anticipate the provincial park will be outstanding in itself, there is a need for this community to have its own identification and its own activity area. I would ask the Minister if this is coming to the point where they could be assured of having a small Class C park for their own use.

I would ask the Minister about the development of the park on what has been called up until now the Shields-Siglet property. This is a large acreage, purchased in the last two years, of some of the most magnificent parkland that there is in the area. It was

[ Page 1934 ]

hoped that it would be started last year, the first stage, but this wasn't possible owing to legal technicalities of getting a buffer forestry zone. The Siglet-Shields property… I think the Minister can recall this. There is now a buffer zone from the forestry reserve that is declared parkland. I think it has been renamed the Mabel Lake Provincial Park. Are you familiar with it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just somewhat.

MRS. JORDAN: The understanding when it was purchased was that it would be developed in stages. This is, I think, very agreeable and quite realistic. What we would hope to have done this year is a boat launching ramp and a day picnic area; then moving into fairly segregated small camping units over the next three or four years. This does require a roadway in and I am sure the Minister would be considering this.

I would ask if we could have a commitment from the Minister that the boat launching and the day camping area would be started this year.

This whole area lends itself very well to winter recreation in the form of snowmobiling and this should form part of the overall recreational development plan.

I would like to say a little bit more about snowmobiles at this time. I think in British Columbia there has been a false block to snowmobiling, probably in part perpetrated by skiers who find them an interference, and this is quite a logical reaction. I don't believe we can close our eyes — in fact I think we must open our eyes to the fact that snowmobiling is in British Columbia. It is here to stay. Properly handled, it has a very legitimate place in recreation. It provides a marvelous opportunity for people who would not otherwise be out in the wintertime.

Some people don't like to ski. In fact, there is a large percentage of the population who don't like to ski. There are people who, for health reasons, cannot ski. Older people can have a delightful time on snowmobiles. Handicapped people can go on a snowmobile ride and enjoy winter activities that they wouldn't otherwise do.

The opportunity for winter photography, winter ornithology, is unlimited but like anything else it needs its proper place. There has been a tendency in British Columbia to rule them out without assisting to rule them in.

In this Mabel Lake area and in Silver Star area, there is about a 25 square mile area under forestry reserve which would be an ideal pilot project to be properly mapped and worked out with the forestry department. Roads that could be built to serve as fire roads in the summertime can be most suitable and safe snowmobiling paths in the winter time. The forestry department would find a lot of people who are interested in this recreation and willing to go out in the summertime and help build these roads at no cost. What the department would be expected to provide would be a proper siting and supervision as to what should be cut and not cut.

My understanding when snowmobiles were licensed in British Columbia was that we had printed approximately 7,000 decals. I believe there have been almost up to 25,000 licenses applied for. I would ask the Minister for these figures, if he would make them available, what number of identifying licensing numbers have been purchased on snowmobiles in British Columbia to date for purposes of registration, and for these to be made public in the future.

I would very much like to know the Minister's views about designating proper areas in cooperation with the forestry department for snowmobile recreation in British Columbia.

Also, when you examine the figures — I won't go into them; they are in the Minister's department. I had to return them when I left my former office. But, like anything else, problems arise when there are abuses or when proper safety precautions aren't taken.

I believe the figures will point out that there is ample justification for requiring helmets for snowmobilers as a means of, I suppose you could say, a helmet for happiness. You are not very happy if you hit the front of your machine or the windshield that is on the machine, and this can cause quite unnecessary accidents. Those who are conscientious snowmobilers recommend that helmets should be worn for safety in snowmobiling.

The problem of speed in snowmobiling, I think, is very small, because you can go at a relatively low speed and have a delightful time with a small machine and be perfectly safe. I am not a great believer in regulations, but safety does count and it should be mandatory for snowmobilers to use the buddy system so that you don't have lone snowmobilers wandering off in an oasis all by themselves, getting into trouble and not only endangering their lives but endangering the lives of volunteer search and rescue teams who have to go out and bail them out.

If people snowmobile at night, they snowmobile until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning and it is only logical and common sense that this should be done on the basis of a buddy system and not on their own. So I would ask the Minister's plans for co-operative development of snowmobile areas in British Columbia; his views on making it mandatory, for safety reasons, for helmets to be worn when there is snowmobiling off their private property and the thought of making it a major issue that people use the buddy system.

I wonder if the Minister could just clarify for the House the matter of declaring "quiet lakes." This is something that really has come to the fore. There are

[ Page 1935 ]

many lakes in British Columbia that are ideal fishing lakes. There are small mountain lakes where the majority of people row or use small motors but every once in a while you get a yahoo coming along with a 15 or 20 horsepower motor. This not only is noisy but it is disturbing to the fish and it is just utterly ridiculous. There must be legitimate reason and a legal avenue through which certain lakes — perhaps in co-operation with the regional districts — could be declared quiet lakes with a minimum size of motor. On most of these small mountain lakes, a two or three horsepower motor is sufficient for safety reasons and also sufficient to meet any time element that one would have.

I would like to speak to the Minister just for a moment about Silver Star Park. He will be receiving a brief, and his department is very conversant with the problems there. This is probably one of the finest family ski areas in the whole of western Canada. The people, the company that operates…

AN HON. MEMBER: The Big White?

MRS. JORDAN: Where's that? (Laughter). If you're nice I might even invite you to Silver Star.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm game for that.

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, if the Minister's been…then he'll know that this is a delightful area. The local people who formed the company to develop skiing in the North Okanagan have done an excellent job. But, like so many things, there is coming to be a point of conflict and I would like the Minister to understand how I feel, as representative of the area, that there should not be any further development or any development of overnight accommodation in that park. It's not a terribly large park. It's not a terribly large ski area — although it's the largest Class C park in British Columbia. But there is ample area outside the park for the development — mind you, all of the land is under the Land Commission Act at the moment. But, for the development high-quality accommodation, the park itself contributes greatly to the economy of the downtown area. If this was to be moved onto the mountain, it really would only be an enhancement of the commercial aspect rather than enhancement of the recreational aspect.

The secret to keeping it without accommodation is to have the road fixed up to a condition where we could, hopefully with the government's help, embark on a pilot programme of busing people into the park.

I know there are a lot of complications as to timing and equipment. But, we think it could be made feasible if we could have some government help. This would be an advantage in keeping it a family ski area — keeping it viable economically but also offering the support to the winter economy of this area that needs it so badly.

The quality of hotels and motels has developed or improved greatly on the basis of a reasonable year-round occupancy — whereas before we just had a summer occupancy and it was impossible.

I'd ask the Minister if he would consider having the road which is inside the Silver Star Park turned over to the Department of Highways if he doesn't have enough money in his own vote, with the purpose of improving it to a quality where we could run a bus service — a rapid transit service downtown, and if his department could lend some assistance in a pilot programme for experimenting with the feasibility of busing people up the mountain. We ask that what is allowed for one group in that park be allowed for the other group in that park.

The snowmobilers are in there now; they are in a designated area — in an old burn area. They have a little chalet, and are not encroaching on the skiers and they are not damaging the park. This has been carefully watched by naturalists and some of the Minister's own department. This is an avenue to the 25 square miles of beautiful wild winter country that is left untouched in the winter time, except for logging activities, and which could be a marvelous recreational area. They could have their lodge where they have it now, but again I would ask that there be no overnight accommodation other than the… I don't know, they have a few bunks in the lodge. But no major development; keep this outside the park boundaries and, if necessary, in the community itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't be that long, but I wanted to contribute a little to the discussion on recreation and conservation, in view of my large riding of Cariboo. The best fishing and the best hunting in British Columbia exist there.

I want to get down to a large story that was printed in the Vancouver Sun a week ago about the conflict of the game and the cattle on the Gang Ranch. At this point I would like to read a letter that gives both sides of the story, as I see it.

"The controversy over the Gang Ranch purported overgrazing of Crown lands and the supposed extinction of the California bighorn sheep, and that same area has threatened to replace Bill 42 as a popular newsworthy item. Unfortunately, as with many headline stories, the Gang Ranch episode has established one point of view without considering the opposite viewpoint. One cannot blame overzealous reporting, because newspapers can only print what material they receive.

"Perhaps this letter in some small way might

[ Page 1936 ]

serve to reduce the present imbalance of information which has the public believing that the American owners of the Gang Ranch are rip-off artists and that Gang Ranch range management threatens the survival of that most Canadian of game animals, the California bighorn sheep.

"For your consideration I would like to make the following points, if you can accept the opinions of one who has been for the best years of his life in the Gang Ranch–Empire Valley area — 12 of those years were spent as big-game guide and cattle ranch manager.

" 1. The element that most threatens to annihilate the bighorn sheep as well as mule deer and moose in the Gang Ranch–Empire Valley area is not the rancher's cattle competing for sheep, moose and deer range, but an overabundance of hunters competing for the cheapest meat that they can find to exterminate. These hordes of hunters pursue the noble game animals in their most vulnerable possessions, namely the winter ranges of Gang Ranch and Empire Valley. I can think of no place in the United States, a country whose practices our biologists unsuccessfully attempt to emulate, where the public is allowed to exterminate the breeding herds when they are densely concentrated on their winter range. I have only to hark back to November 11, 1966, when one unbiased observer at Churn Creek, which is the winter range of B.C.'s largest deer and sheep herds, counted 334 female deer leaving the area with their feet in the air. Have you ever noticed that doe hunters always display the feet of their prey, but never the antler less heads?

"2. Newspapers have reported that the Gang Ranch grazes their cattle over 827,000 acres of Crown range. One conveniently unmentioned fact is that the 827,000 acres is contained within a block of approximately 4.5 million acres of Crown land. It requires little mathematical ability to deduce that 3,679,000 acres of that block are the summer home of the bighorn sheep and mule deer.

"3. Game biologist Harold Mitchell reports that Gang Ranch cattle grazing at 8,000 feet have stolen the deer's natural alpine meadows. This is hardly worthy of biologist Mitchell, for neither forestry officials who police the Crown ranges nor cattlemen who graze their cattle over the gigantic Chilcotin plateau would ever accept that cattle graze above the 6,500 foot level. One has only to take wings in an airplane to realize that the total acres grazed by the cattle in the Chilcotin-Cariboo is but a tiny percentage of that incredibly huge area.

"4. Mr. Mitchell also makes the point that cowboys and cattle have a tremendous bad effect on the wildlife. Such overgeneralizations do not become a research-trained game conservationist. In all my years of cowboying I have never seen a deer run from a cow, but I have seen many small bunches of deer graze contentedly in the very midst of cattle being driven by cowboys. Deer have nothing to fear from cattle or cowboys.

"5. Gang Ranch is presently running 8,000 head of cattle, but it was not so many years ago that previous owners of the Gang Ranch ran 15,000 head of cattle on the same number of acres. Chilco Shote, a game guide in the Gang Ranch area, reports that it is common to ride out on an alpine plateau and observe at least 1,000 head of cattle grazing. He and I both know that this is a patent absurdity. There is no place in the entire Gang Ranch area, outside of the swamp-grass meadow where deer do not live, that anyone could possibly see more than 300 or 400 head of cattle at one time.

"As one who has often attempted to coerce cattle into groups of 300 or 400 at one time for purposes of driving in that country, I humbly suggest that Mr. Shote should try to get 1,000 head of cattle together for more than a few minutes. He would find, as I have, that hundreds of cattle quite quickly disappear in the vastness of that lonely landscape.

"The people of B.C. can rest assured that there are no huge profits from the Gang Ranch heading south. No ranch in B.C. has ever, in its most affluent times, paid income tax on any more than 5 per cent of its capital investment. According to the B.C. Department of Agriculture studies, most ranches return less than 3 per cent. Also, I know of no ranch in B.C. which doesn't pour the biggest part of return on investment back into ranch improvements or new breeding stock.

"It is high time the people of B.C. demanded performance from their bumbling game biologists. Let us not blame the ranchers for the game biologists' mistakes. Game biologists control the number of game animals cropped in B.C., and game biologists decide how many females are slaughtered — recall the account of the Churn Creek observer that I gave earlier. But have you ever heard a game biologist mention any other reason for lack of game than overgrazing of game range?

"It is human nature to blame others for one's misfortunes. I have heard no mention from the Williams Lake and Victoria biologists for other reasons for shortage of game. I suggest the game biologists present the true picture on the incidence of (1) the non-fertility of ewes, (2) killing digestive tract worms, (3) natural predators, and (4) the most dreaded scourge of all, the indiscriminate hunter.

"A few years ago similar accusations about cattle eating up bighorn sheep forage were made in

[ Page 1937 ]

a national area. Cattle have now been excluded from that range for four years. According to biologists in charge of this project, the herd of sheep not only did not increase in size during these four years, but is showing a further slight decrease. It is a pity that some biologists responsible for game managing continue to undermine the credibility of their profession by passing off unproven theories as facts."

And that letter is signed by Clarence Bryson, big game guide and rancher, retired — as well as his son, Mac Bryson.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman to the Minister, I mentioned this yesterday, that there certainly is a conflict here. But I think, as I said yesterday and I repeat, this letter was a good letter from a person who has lived practically all his life in that area and farmed in that area. It can be resolved to the satisfaction of the wildlife of our province as well as the cattle people. I certainly hope this is resolved soon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I have a question I wanted to ask about the Ocean Falls area, which I think needs to have a recreational facility developed in that area.

I quote, perhaps, from the Minister's comments in answer to a question from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), in which he said that we need to develop a richer living experience in that area if we want to keep people there. I think we all agree with that. We certainly want to have recreational amenities in there if we are going to develop that richer living experience.

I know too, having followed the Press over the years, that the Minister has also for many years been critical about that area with regard to pollution control in the mills at Ocean Falls and Port Alice and other places like that. It's difficult to understand how we can develop proper recreational facilities if we are plagued by pollution problems.

I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to refer again to the second part of that answer given to the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). The Minister says that no major capital expenditures are foreseen in Ocean Falls with the exception of providing a log-sorting operation where the cost would be fairly modest.

Also, Mr. Chairman, in answer to a question that I put some time ago, the Minister said that the whole of the pollution control standards in that area were under review.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could tell us if that answer to those questions means that we aren't going to spend any money in Ocean Falls…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order. We're on Recreation and Conservation…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that he relate his comments to…

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the House had been listening, it would have heard that I was relating my questions to recreation in particular. Without the proper pollution control in that area the recreation amenities will be affected…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Member that not all aspects of recreation are covered under these estimates. A number are covered under the Provincial Secretary. It can be related to commercial fisheries.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I've related it directly to a quote made in answer to a question in this House by the Minister in which he said that we must develop a richer living experience at the Ocean Falls area if we are to keep people there, which means recreation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The material that he is referring to was answered as a question under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. There's a separate vote on pollution. It's already passed this House. This is Recreation and Conservation, period — not Ocean Falls.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would assume then that we are not interested in providing recreation in Ocean Falls.

Interjections by some Hon, Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will just point out to the Hon. Member that he may discuss aspects of recreation providing they are those aspects of recreation included under these estimates. There are other aspects of recreation that come under the Ministry of Travel Industry and also the Forest Service. But I would ask you to keep to the estimates.

[ Page 1938 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: I couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Chairman. I think you are absolutely correct. I referred directly to a quote by the Minister which seemed to relate to recreation under his department and that's why I raised the question because that quote was made by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

I've advanced all I want in this subject. I would just ask for an answer to that question, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like the Minister, if he would, to comment on an article in this evening's Vancouver Sun by Alan Fotheringham citing some very serious allegations about the Minister's department in which he says that the Minister's department is a "bureaucratic shambles. The complaint is that the Minister can't or won't delegate authority…" The story goes on to say that, "Williams has far too much to do anyway, having to shoulder two tough portfolios — recreation and conservation, and resources, as well as lands and forests" and Water Resources.

Mr. Chairman, if there is any truth in that allegation, I'd say that it's a very serious one. I think that the Minister should answer that question and tell us if the job is too much for him to do in that area. If so, what does he propose to do about it to delegate some of the authority so that some of that load would get off his shoulders?

Perhaps that is one of the reasons that I cited yesterday when I said that the Minister wasn't answering his letters and that municipal leaders were unable to get answers to certain questions. Perhaps this is part of the reason, and I believe this House deserves an answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: I posed two basic questions to the Minister and I would hope that he would give me some answers on those questions first of all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the questions regarding oysters and lobsters which the Member for Columbia River raised, I would note that we've increased our professional staff in the Commercial Fisheries Branch with the intent being to increase activity with regard to the commercial fishery potential in the shoreline areas. The research with respect to oysters was federal and I'm not aware of the reasons they dropped their activities in Tofino.

MR. CHABOT: That's lobster.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. With respect to the Mabel Lake area raised by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), the park was established by order-in-council in the last couple of months down in the south-east area. The work is in the planning stage and development will depend on supplementary funds. If supplementary funds with respect to funds beyond this present budget are provided, it will be in the priority category. The moratorium I'm unfamiliar with and will check on further.

I appreciate the points regarding the highway from Three Valley.

With respect to snowmobiles, I think there is a case for development in forest areas. Our policy is not to allow these vehicles in the important parks of the province, but there is a potential within the forest areas.

With respect to quiet lakes, the department is a clearinghouse. The final decision is made by the federal Ministry of Transport. If there are any proposals, the department would be pleased to receive them, consider the request and then forward the recommendation to the federal Ministry of Transport.

With respect to Silver Star Mountain and a park there, the question of the highway is something that would have to be jointly reviewed with the Department of Highways. I think it might be well worthwhile considering that.

The question of accommodation is probably a reasonable point made by the Hon, Member. Since there is good accommodation available in the city I think there is a case for discouraging further activity in the park itself.

With respect to transit, that's under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs who is interested in improving transit facilities in smaller communities in the province as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Am I to understand from these comments that there is no money in your estimates that we are debating now for the development of Mabel Lake Park?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, that's correct.

MRS. JORDAN: I understood that this was a priority recommendation of the department last year and that there were funds at that time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the secondary list, if additional funds are made available.

MRS. JORDAN: How would we know, or how soon would we know whether there will be supplementary funds available?

[ Page 1939 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This depends on Treasury Board, and I assume they might make a decision within the next month or something like that.

MRS. JORDAN: But I want…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member not carry on a conversation please?

MRS. JORDAN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister — and I appreciate his comments on snowmobiling — didn't advise about the registration nor the thought of having helmets for happiness and safety in snowmobiling.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Regarding the numbers, that's under the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Branch, and the information would be available from the Motor Vehicle Branch. I'm afraid we don't have that information.

The question of helmets is certainly worth considering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Just a couple of brief questions, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: The point I want to raise is that certain conservation officers realize the pressure there is on the more remote lakes in the province due to snowmobiles and there is a quite serious lack of policing — it's almost impossible to police these lakes. It's rather noisy in here, Mr. Chairman…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …and I know that certain conservation officers have been issued snowmobiles to police the type of pressures that the more remote lakes are experiencing. But nevertheless I don't think that's sufficient.

I think that the department should give some consideration to a little bit of helicopter time in order to properly police the type of pressures that are being experienced in these more remote lakes by the ready access in wintertime through snowmobiles. It's all well to say that we have these hatcheries but if we don't know what is taking place in the wintertime then I think in many instances we're selling the licenses not only to residents but to non-residents under false pretences.

I've seen the results of pressures through winter fishing and I wonder if the Minister has given some consideration to the closing of certain of these lakes in the wintertime because there is no lake that is immune from the pressures now that the snowmobile is with us.

The Minister did, in general broad terms, make a passing reference to the question of oysters and lobsters and he suggested that the lobster study was a federal study, and I have to agree that it was a federal study.

Nevertheless I would think that if the people in his department are inclined to be bold or dare to be great that they'll take into consideration some kind of an experimental pilot project to see whether we can introduce lobsters into the B.C. waters.

I talked about the introduction of oysters to the vacant Crown areas…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that this subject has already been canvassed. I would ask him to press on to a new subject. You've already pressed the Minister in regard to oysters.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering whether the Minister would want to comment on the pressures, whether they're going to examine the matter of pressures that some of the more remote lakes are experiencing and whether they're going to have additional programmes for these lakes that are heavily fished in the wintertime.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The matter has been under review by the department. There's no evidence to date that there is a problem, but it's something they're watching because there is a potential there in terms of reducing the stock.

I think the question with respect to lobsters and oysters was answered. That section has been doubled in terms of their professional staff. We want to encourage the commercial fishery along the coast, particularly in the tidal areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 222 pass?

Vote 222 approved.

Vote 223: Department of Recreation and Conservation, general administration, $233,236 — approved.

Vote 224: environmental conservation, $377,892 — approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 1940 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 163 intituled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 163 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I was going to reply to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan but in view of the time I'll defer that matter until 8 o'clock with the consent of the House.

Filing reports.

Hon, Mr. Stupich files the 67th annual report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended December 31, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.