[ Page 449 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Rivers Protection Act (Bill 39). Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 449

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Radford — 449

Mr. Richter — 461

Mr. D'Arcy — 468

Mr. Barnes — 470

Statement

Symposium on Canadian-American relations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 476

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a delegation that's here from Richmond today and welcome them to this House: Mr. Neil Saunders, our Municipal Treasurer; Mr. Don Harwood, the Richmond recreation director; and Alderman Dave Williams, who is the first officially endorsed NDP alderman to be elected in British Columbia.

Introduction of bills.

RIVERS PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 39, Rivers Protection Act, introduced, 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.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, this is my second time to speak in this session. As you remember I was the second speaker from the last who spoke for the government before the opposition failed to come up with further speakers, and the House was then adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House the new Member, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). The first time I met this Member was two or three years ago when he was campaigning in the Vancouver South federal election. He came knocking on my door and I had him come into the house and talk to me for half an hour. That was the first occasion I met him. I know he's a hard-working Member and I think he'll be a good asset to this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, our traditional and time-honoured budget debate when we discuss the financial affairs of the Province of British Columbia. I recall, approximately a year ago, that many of the opposition Members thought we were going to have a situation of financial chaos within this House. I'd just like to read from Hansard some of the remarks that were made by some of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got lots of time.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Fine. Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, a statement made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). He went on to say:

I'm afraid that the thing we're going to be faced with in this province is that because of an unrelenting attitude by the present government, we will effectively stifle the industry in this province and the government will lose revenue because of that. We'll lose jobs because of that.

It seems to me that this budget reflects in no way that statement.

Let me go on to another one, Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he said: "...the present concern and economic dishabillement resulting from the staggering rate of unemployment that has been created by the new government." Well I don't think the unemployment rate has gone down, Mr. Speaker. I think it's increased, and we've increased it very substantially.

Another statement, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) who goes on to say that: "You will find the companies turning away from British Columbia and seeking to establish elsewhere."

AN HON. MEMBER: Alberta.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to mention one more by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He says:

"And I say that the rate of unemployment in British Columbia today is alarming, tragic and unnecessary. No investment capital is going to come to British Columbia. Investment capital is very hesitant indeed to come to British Columbia."

These were all statements that were made back in the spring session of 1973. Mr. Speaker, as I say again, those statements in no way reflect the economic conditions and climate of this province today.

This budget has been described in quite a number of ways. I regret that the opposition can find so little in this budget. I've come to the conclusion that the opposition is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. They are totally unable to read, or totally unable to comprehend what they do read, because I find, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that this is a budget for all British Columbians.

It's a budget to create employment, a budget to encourage initiative, a budget for our senior citizens and a budget that plans for the future; and most of all, Mr. Speaker, it is a balanced budget, which is a remarkable document in the world in which we live today.

When one looks across this country at the despicable record of unbalanced budgets down through the years, the deficit financing, this budget is a remarkable document. Not only are there tremendous provisions for benefits to all people, but

[ Page 450 ]

they will be all paid for from the revenues that come into the Treasury during the course of the year in which the expenditures are committed to be undertaken.

Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Department of Recreation and Conservation has increased and reflects the government's emphasis on providing the people of this province with adequate recreational opportunities, securing for the people of this province land which is recreational as one of its highest values and conserving for future generations of British Columbians our valuable fisheries and wildlife resources. The documentation and visual descriptions of the history of our province is also included.

I'd like to inform the Members of this House about some of our plans of the four branches under the Department of Recreation and Conservation: the Fish and Wildlife Branch, the Parks Branch, the Provincial Museum, the Commercial Fisheries, the Recreation Facilities Fund, the SAM project and the All-Terrain Vehicles Act and the Litter Act.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like now to discuss the provincial parks. The pressure on this branch to accommodate a growing variety of outdoor recreation is increasing at a fantastic rate. At year end, park attendance in B.C. was 9.7 million compared to 8.36 million in 1972. The increase is approximately 16 per cent.

Last year the Parks Branch operated 125 campsites or campgrounds in 113 parks and provided some 5,650 campsites. Over 700 new sites will be available for 1974 and at least 250 more are under construction.

In addition, 60 miles of trails have been added to our parks to bring us up to a total of 700 miles. Some of the accomplishments of this government through the Parks Branch in the last year were the creation of 18 new class A parks. This brings the parks up to a total of 238 class A parks. This is an increase of one-and-a-half parks per month.

We've also created five new recreational areas which I'll mention later on. Bill 77 provided $5 million of extra development funds, and order-in-council 1812, which was their summer works project, provided funds for employment programmes that resulted in major renovations for park facilities throughout the province.

With these programmes the Parks Branch was able to create employment opportunities that saw upwards of 2,200 people on staff in just parks alone. There was also a $2 million park acquisition fund aimed at regaining for public use and enjoyment many strategically located prime recreation land long held in private hands.

There are many other properties on which this Branch is currently negotiating — properties which should have been acquired years ago and which should have never passed from the public ownership in the first place. Some of these parks that have been purchased, to name a few, are: Lakelse in the northern part of B.C., south of Terrace; Cape Scott, which is on the northern end of Vancouver Island; and Frenchman's Beach, which is just outside of Victoria here. These are all valuable waterfront acquisitions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a 25,000-acre class A Okanagan mountain provincial park was established. The first major provincial park for the Okanagan Valley area was created after 20 years of Social Credit government in that area. And being in the area of the then Premier, this was the first time any sizable park was made in that area. Prior to that we had some small parks just south of there, and let me tell you what their acreage was: Okanagan Falls Park, class A, six acres; Deadman Lake park, four acres; Sun-Oka park, 37 acres — a little larger but in no comparison to 25,000 acres that the socialist government had to come in and put in as a park in the Okanagan area.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How about the Queen Charlottes? — $164,000.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's right, but it is a park.

MR. CHABOT: Rip-off, rip-off!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Two new park districts, Smithers and Nanaimo, and a number of new regions have been created to provide closer control of the park system thereby increasing sufficiency in service. These will be staffed in April this year, 1974.

Emphasis on establishment of provincial recreation areas is an important aspect of multi-resource planning. Provincial recreation areas are being set aside primarily for recreation but other resource utilization is permitted under a system of resource-use permits. These require special emphasis on maintenance of environmental quality and recreational opportunities. Two such areas are the easily accessible Skagit Valley recreation area of over 80,000 acres, and the Kitsumkalum Mountain recreational area of 3,800 acres.

The Branch is also carrying out studies and reconnaissance of the lands of the province — particularly in the northern areas — to determine the recreational values and to estimate the future needs of both the population and for the maintenance of the environmental qualities.

I should remark that a study which has been going on for a couple of years is about to be released — a study brought about by Dr. Dooling from UBC who is going to study the economic effects and the environmental effects on the whole of the north. On the route from Highway 16, the Stewart-Cassiar, over to the Alaska Highway, right down the Hart Highway there is going to be a big square there where people

[ Page 451 ]

can recreate, and this is an area which we hope to develop in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce a two-year moratorium on logging on the Stein River.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Where is that?

HON. MR. RADFORD: West of Lytton. It's up in your territory, Mr. Member; I'm surprised you have never heard of the Stein River. It's an area which truly deserves to be preserved. It bridges two climatic zones: the Stein River rises within 10 miles of the Harrison and the Lillooet Lake Valley; 30 miles downstream it enters into the interior drybelt to join the Fraser River at Lytton.

The Stein basin contains over a dozen 8,000-ft. peaks. Untouched by logging or mining, it has become a natural refuge for wildlife. This particular river offers both sport fishing and salmon spawning grounds. It's one of the most outstanding untouched watersheds left in B.C. I'm proud to announce that there will be a two-year- moratorium, and studies done on that area.

Areas of easy accessibility, Mr. Speaker, are becoming a problem in parks and fish and wildlife. But it is simply not enough to provide facilities on a come-and-get-it basis. The government has the responsibility to ensure that people are adequately prepared to safely enjoy our outdoor space and facilities. My department is currently sponsoring a two-month course in winter outdoor recreation safety. The course, which is being conducted in co-operation with Capilano College, is a pilot course in what I would hope to see as the beginning of a series of courses eventually for certification in the full field of outdoor recreation services.

In the next few years we must enter into a major programme of acquiring provincial parkland before the land is already committed or priced out of reach. Having acquired this land we will then be in a position to exercise various options for park use.

Mr. Speaker, the movement toward outdoor recreation is an exciting and healthy sign. We must not only meet the challenge for providing the land necessary for such activities but also the facilities and educational programmes to prepare people for the safe enjoyment of the outdoor activities. Last year some 250,000 park visitors had exposure to the interpretive services in 29 parks. For example, 7,000 students just in Victoria alone visited the Goldstream Park and watched the spawning fish in action.

Fifty seasonal naturalists provided a variety of programmes throughout this province. In the lower mainland an interpretive naturalist specializing in school activities was also recently added to our staff. He will contact schools and assist in providing students with outdoor recreational experiences. We've already had many congratulatory letters from high schools on this and we hope to expand this further than the lower mainland.

My colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has expressed keen interest in environmental education. It is my intention to work with her toward developing programmes which may eventually see all students having the opportunity to experience an outdoor setting — learning about conservation, outdoor recreation and outdoor safety. It just isn't enough, Mr. Speaker, to learn about these things in books and talk about them in schools. I think we have to get our children out into the actual experiences of outdoors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. RADFORD: And this is another project that we see as being very important within the department.

As I said before, it is simply not enough to provide facilities on a come-and-get-it basis. The government has a responsibility to ensure that people are adequately prepared to safely enjoy our outdoor space and facilities.

Throughout my department a grant has also been made toward a course with the B.C. Snowmobile Association to assist in holding a series of safety clinics.

We are also meeting with this group to find possible areas where they can recreate without any conflicts with some of the other outdoor activities.

Another announcement I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the provincial Parks Branch is embarking on a new look in 1974 in its youth crew programme. This year for the first time a crew of girls will be employed for the months of July and August in trail construction, maintenance and allied tasks at Kokanee Provincial Park.

Fifteen girls will be hired for the crew at Kokanee Park as a pilot project. The girls will be under the supervision of an experienced youth crew foreman, assisted by a female crew supervisor, who will be responsible for the direct supervision of the crew.

The girls employed in the pilot project will receive the same pay and the same allowances as the boys and will be working at the same jobs and will take part in the same type of recreation and training, which includes canoe trips, overnight camping, tours of the local area, water-safety training, driving training and first-aid training.

Salaries for the youth crews this year will be $13 a day, up from $6 a day last year. I should remind the Members across the bench that when we first came in, the pay for the youth crew people was only $3 a day. Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mediaeval, that's what it was.

[ Page 452 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Three-bucks-a-day Chabot.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, mediaeval Chabot.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most dynamic programmes I have had the satisfaction of overseeing is the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. There was $10 million put into a special fund in the spring session of the Legislature under the terms of Bill 76, where one-third of the capital development cost of a recreational facility and up to one-third of $1 million is paid by the provincial government. Because of the overwhelming response, an additional $5.5 million was added by a supplementary bill in the fall session.

In the budget introduced by the Hon. Minister of Finance on February 11, another $10 million was set aside for this fund. To date, 95 communities between them have received one or more grants of the facilities fund, and I believe this numbers about 162 grants. A total of $15.2 million in grants has either been approved or approved in principle. The total construction of facilities generated by these grants was in excess of $50 million — which, by the way, created many jobs throughout British Columbia and added to our increase in employment.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the director of recreation in the Vancouver College this year, and he tells me that every student that took the course on recreation in Vancouver College went to a job. He tells me that because of my programme they enrolled twice as many students in the coming year. So you can see where the recreational facilities fund is not only giving out grants, but it has a real multiplying effect when it comes to the economy of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The interest shown in the recreational facilities fund has demonstrated a real need for expanded recreation facilities and services throughout the province. It is apparent from the response that there is also a need for guidance and consultation from the province. With this in mind, provision is being made for a facilities specialist and three field officers to give guidance to communities in planning for recreation. I must say that it is in the outlying districts where this real help is needed — in the small areas, the smaller communities. We find that in the larger communities they have the know how and they have the technical expertise, but in the outlying areas they just do not have this.

These grants have helped make possible the development of facilities in many smaller rural areas, in particular where the cost of such facilities would be prohibitive without financial assistance from the provincial government. In addition, there are areas in the urban centres, such as the west end and the east end of Vancouver, which were, lacking in recreational facilities, but now have received a financial boost by this special fund.

For example, some of these funds — I'll name a few of them, Mr. Speaker. Ice hockey rinks: I think Fort St. John received two ice hockey rinks — and this is in the opposition territory, by the way. A community hall for Greenville Indian village, a cultural centre in Vancouver, horseshoe pitches in Alberni, indoor lawn bowling in West Vancouver — they did very well — I could go on and name these, Mr. Speaker, but most of the people here know what benefits were received in their own ridings.

I must say there are some MLAs, though, that didn't seem to go out and tell the communities what was available, and there are a few areas that haven't put in applications.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We all did.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Not all British Columbians have an equal opportunity to participate in recreational activities. Access and income status are two crucial limiting factors, but through this special fund we are effectively redistributing the recreational opportunities.

Through the combination of this fund and major thrusts towards providing opportunities to participate in outdoor recreational programmes, this government will soon set the standard in Canada in maximizing the people's recreation potential. There are no freezes on gymnasiums and recreation facilities under this government.

While I am talking about recreation facilities and opportunities, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a few minutes about my own riding of Vancouver South. The City of Vancouver recently announced that it has purchased the last 66 acres of Langara golf course from Marathon Realty for $4.5 million. The city earlier purchased the other 95 acres which make up this 161-acre property in Vancouver South at 49th and Cambie. The city has announced that it intends to lease 20 acres of this property for housing, in order to recover the purchase cost for the last 66 acres.

A number of my constituents have expressed concern at the loss of 20 acres of open space for housing. Concern has also been expressed at the lack of the recreation facilities throughout the area in Vancouver South. At present in the whole of Vancouver South we have one skating rink and two other small recreation centres.

I'm not satisfied that housing is the best use of this land. I believe the city should demonstrate to the citizens of this area that, in compensation for the loss of this 20 acres, it has to set aside other land or plans to acquire other land for open space, park development, and sites for recreation facilities.

There is a great need for housing, but to develop

[ Page 453 ]

this land for housing with no other land set aside or plans to acquire other land for recreation will simply increase the need for recreational land in an area already deprived, and simply increase the need for recreation facilities.

I suggest to the City of Vancouver that instead of following through on its current proposal to develop this 20 acres for housing, it first work out with the residents of this area an adequate plan for the provision of recreational land and facilities for this area. For my part, I'm willing to co-operate in whatever way I can, and I am more than willing to meet with the city officials to discuss this further.

Before leaving the parks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Dogwood Provincial Parkway proposal — the cycle track. A feasibility study was done by the Parks Branch some months ago. This is a real, unique situation, a really unique project, because the phenomenon of cycle tracks and hiking is not new. It has been carried on across Canada and in the United States, and since that time it is really starting to bloom right now.

In the City of Victoria we have 100,000 cyclists compared to 80,000 automobiles. We have nowhere for the cyclists to go. What has Victoria done for cyclists? As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what has Highways done for the cyclists? As a matter of fact, to cycle on Vancouver Island is very dangerous. And I would like to point out that in the last two years, '69 to '72, five people were killed and 367 injured in the Victoria area because of cycling accidents.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Shame!

HON. MR. RADFORD: We have a railway that is not being used, that goes from here to Deerholme and right up to Cowichan Lake. It passes through some of the most beautiful areas in B.C. It goes through lakes. As a matter of fact, it goes through provincial parks, park reserves and a national park. There is fishing in the lakes and streams, and it is our plan to put in park units with overnight camp facilities for cyclists. We've worked out costs on this — we could do this for less than $1 million.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): What about the water board?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, there is some concern from certain quarters about the water situation. We have stated in our brief that there is no way we want to spoil the drinking water of Victoria. We've put up a link fence. But it should be also remembered that there is a public road running between the watershed and the railway track now.

There is some concern over fire hazards. People still use that area, and last year there were seven fires in that area. There were problems in putting those fires out. Forestry has told us that if we put in an 8-ft. wide cycle track this would be a beneficial aspect to fighting fires in that area.

MR. CURTIS: Have you convinced Peter Pollen?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in negotiations with the CNR.

MR. CURTIS: Those are easy. What about Pollen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he any relation to Pretty Polly?

HON. MR. RADFORD: We've worked out plans for the maintenance of this track. We could involve students; we could involve volunteer programmes. I think the Premier is aware of the cost of the cycle track. I think it's a very minimal cost, really, and it could be put into immediate use. Some people think it can be used for rapid transit, but in our studies we've shown that in the area of Sooke and Metchosin in the year 2001 the population there will only be around 62,000.

We're really thinking about an effective re-cycling of land use when we're talking about using an abandoned rail line. It's the maintenance of open space. Also, with the gas situation, it's an alternative to the transportation system. We could have people coming from Sooke and Metchosin and riding right down into Victoria, parking their bicycles.

MR. CURTIS: Into Vancouver?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Less space would be needed for parking. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and a lot healthier. I may even try it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you and Frank going to get a tandem? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD. I want to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned yesterday that this budget has been increased significantly. This budget this year was increased by close to $2.9 million. I'd like to remind the Members that when we first came into power the entire budget of this branch was $2.9 million.

Before I get into the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, I want to answer some of the queries the other day from some of my colleagues. I realize that some of my colleagues have big territories to cover and are not always aware of what's going on in their total area. I refer to the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). In Hansard he states that he wants to speak out about game wardens, and he says:

[ Page 454 ]

"The nearest game warden, I think, is away over in Fort Nelson. I used to go to the department prior to taking office, Mr. Minister, and I used to ask for these game wardens. And he used to say, 'Yes, that's where the officers are placed who are supposed to be looking after details in my constituency.' This is an uncalled for situation."

I'd like to inform the Member for Atlin — I wish he was here — that we've had a conservation officer in Cassiar for a year-and-a-half. I might say that he's a good conservation officer. His nickname in that area is Sergeant Preston, and he does a tremendous job. He now has an office there, a four-wheel drive. He has a 22-ft. jet boat, and get this — and I wish the Member was here — has an auxiliary CO, he is an Indian. I'm surprised that he didn't know that in his own area he's had a CO there for about a year-and-a-half — since August 19, 1972.

MRS. JORDAN: He might never see the Minister.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Here is a list of the total of prosecutions in the Stewart-Cassiar area. In 12 months, there were 65 prosecutions in that area for a total in fines of $7,200; 15 of these prosecutions have been main, serious prosecutions. I don't want to mention names, but I think everyone will recall the situation of certain guides in that area selling hides. The case got mixed up in the court; some parts were dismissed, there were some convictions and some are being appealed.

Also there were helicopter trips and boat blitzes in the lower Stikine, where four conservation officers spent a week in there. I see the Member is back now.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Once a week.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I was just relating, Mr. Member, with regard to your claims that there was no conservation officers in the area, the closest one was Fort Nelson. I was informing the Members of the House that we've had a conservation officer by the name of Baldwin stationed in Cassiar for over a year-and-a-half, and that in the last 12 months, 65 prosecutions have taken place. He also has an Indian auxiliary CO in that area.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there was mention here about certain Ministers getting out of the office and going into the north. I think the Member remembers me phoning him and telling him that I was going into Atlin. I went into Atlin this year. I don't know how many of the other Ministers or other MLAs did, but I drove into Atlin this year and visited Atlin and it's a heck of a nice place. It's the Shangri-La of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your duty.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Sure it's my duty, but I was in there.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you go fishing?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No — wrong time of the year.

Okay, I'd like to make a few remarks, too, on the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly).

MR. CURTIS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Member for Omineca, I'm glad to see, was really concerned about the native Indian people in his riding and about them getting meat. He goes on to say: "But you know that I have several hundred of the Indians in my area that eat moose meat year-round because they live in such remote areas." He goes on to say that there's no meat market around the corner and they need this meat. You know, Mr. Speaker, we give out special permits to anyone for sustenance in those areas. Anyone can take out a permit when they're in need of meat. They can shoot moose or any wild animals.

I'm glad to see that the Member really sees the need for this, because in March 29, 1973, that Member then stated in Hansard:

"Something else that bothers me, Madam Chairman, is the permit system. In the Interior today, they're using 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. I think if we were to go to the native people and say, 'Look, we are not able to issue permits anymore,' then they would accept that as being a fact of life. I would like to see these permit systems cut out."

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): That's right — I would.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm glad you've changed your mind.

I'd also like to go on, Mr. Speaker, and mention some of the problems the Member has in that area. Last year we did have some petitions from a game club wanting us to close the antlerless season completely. I had consultation with my department in Prince George and was advised that that season there had been cut in half — not many people knew that we had already cut the season in half — from a month to two weeks. Even prior to that, they had a season there of two months on antlerless game.

Actually I rely on my people in the field: Decisions on managing game are not done in Victoria by somebody behind a desk; they are now done by the people who live in the areas, in the regions and in the field. These are the people making the decisions.

[ Page 455 ]

We will not make, arrange and have game management by petition. We will listen to petitions, but our people are professional people.

I want to state some facts here about a report from Prince George this year. They did a recent game count in areas 20 and 21: the count was 3,225 moose by flying. That's just touching an area because you can't count every moose in the area. The calf ratio was 40 per cent per cow; the ratio was 60 bulls per 100 cows. Reproduction was good in that area.

Many people who don't get their game are unhappy; those who get their game are happy. We've hurt the road hunters this year because we've closed the roads. We closed the Stewart-Cassiar from a discharge of firearms from a quarter of a mile on either side of the road. We closed Highway 16, where the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) goes. People have to get out of their cars now; you just don't shoot animals from the road any more under our new game regulations.

I don't think some of the people in the House are aware of the hunting and fishing regulations regarding our native Indians. The native Indians do not need a hunting or fishing licence in the Province of B.C. at any time. The Indian can hunt on his reserve at any time all year round. The Indian off of the reserve does not need a tag, or a licence, but he is expected to adhere to the hunting and fishing regulations. I said before, 99 per cent of the permits given out for sustenance are to the native people.

I thought that Member for Omineca would mention some of the problems in his riding, some of the problems of the River Ranch which he and I flew over, a ranch that was a consortium from the United States, a ranch that was put into class 1 moose area where trees were ripped down and grass was attempted to be planted, where cows and calves were dying on that farm, where the vet from Vanderhoof went down and saw the horrid situation, where we saw cattle the day we flew over that area trying to get grass off of dry, sandy hills.

To my mind, that whole situation was a tax dodge — that whole operation. They went in there and they either made money or, if they didn't, they wrote it off. They applied for grazing leases all the way down to Nazko and I am told they were turned down. As I say, they were trying to cut down trees and grow grass where grass wouldn't grow.

The cows were dumping their effluent in the Nechako River which is the water system of Prince George. Much concern was expressed in Prince George about this.

I am surprised the Member didn't talk about the new mining road going in north of Germansen Landing. I might say that I am familiar with that area up there; I lived in the north quite a bit. I know the Osalinka, the Mesalinka and the Aiken Lake. The road that is going up into that area into the heart of wildlife land. I'm surprised the Member didn't mention that.

I'm surprised the Member didn't mention Pinchi Lake in the heart of his area, where lodges and fishing have been done away with for quite a few years because of mercury contamination in that lake. Some people say it's because of the mine; some people say it's because of a natural situation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not fighting; I'm stating facts. But these are some of the things that should be mentioned.

Coming back to the native Indian situation, Mr. Speaker. On August 31, I wrote a letter to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, asking them to supply us with names, asking them to try to get their people to apply for jobs in the Fish and Wildlife Branch and in the Parks Branch, especially in the northern area. We want the native Indian people to be involved in our department because we feel they do a good job. We already have many steady people in our branch. I can read this letter out to you or anyone can come and see it; it is right to the executive director of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Our department has gone out of their way to work with the native people, especially up north.

I want to get back to the area again where the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) says there is a shortage of moose. I don't want to read through Hansard anymore because he's mentioned in Hansard that you can go down the road any time and see moose, and that there were 400 moose poached in certain areas. In the paper here we have a column that says: "146 moose were killed just out of Prince George." This is due to the bad winter in the area, I will admit. We are having a bad winter in Prince George and up north, and we may have to close the season altogether. We may have to close the season altogether if there's a real die-off.

We are not going to play politics within this branch. If the animals are in danger and there is not enough to go around, the season will be closed. We are managing by a logical means, not by political means in this branch any longer.

I could go on again. There is a fish and wildlife programme going on in Vanderhoof in co-operation with the Agriculture people. I think the Member over there is a member of the agricultural committee; I am surprised he doesn't know about this programme. I should read just a paragraph to refresh his memory: "A controlled grazing range for both domestic livestock and moose will be developed this spring by the B.C. Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Branch 15 miles east of here." That's about maybe a few miles from your place.

[ Page 456 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Who is it started under?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It started under the Fish and Wildlife Branch and Agriculture. It's a co-operative deal.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right, okay.

I just have one more item to mention, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member talks about the humane trap. He says, "The money that was donated for research work on humane traps, as far as I was concerned, was a farce: just a pittance of what should have been committed into research on trapping."

I can't agree with that statement, and most people don't. I have a letter here from the president of the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals. There's an article in the paper about it. "The president of the B.C. Humane Association has voiced strong support for a recent government announcement that it will search for humane traps for fur-bearing animals. 'It's tremendous. It's the first time in the country's history that the government has stepped into the grizzly business of trapping.' "

MR. GARDOM: That was my bill.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We're doing something in this province, and this province has lead the way. We contributed more than any other province on a federal-wide basis when we sat down with the feds on this thing. We've also given money to this association to hand out to a few of the trappers who are near completion of a humane trap.

I want to move on a little longer now. I want to talk about game management; I want to talk about the real guts of game management. There has been a real failure to recognize key wildlife issues. The habitat, I should say, is the main area that we should be concerned in. A failure to recognize key wildlife issues is one of the greatest threats to sound wildlife management in British Columbia today.

As long as most of the public continues to confuse the effects of hunting with those of wildlife habitat destruction, we are making little progress towards a good understanding of the problems facing wildlife in British Columbia.

An apparent reduction in wildlife population invariably results in a demand for reduced hunting. The suggestion that hunting is responsible for the situation is simply not true in most cases. But it is a dangerous one in that it draws the attention away from the real issues at stake.

In the past large-scale destruction of wildlife habitat in many of the areas of British Columbia valuable deer and moose winter ranges have been destroyed through land alienation, excessive clearing and cutting operations and forest fire protection. In many of these areas there is simply not enough quality habitat left to support wildlife in historic numbers. In these cases hunting is completely irrelevant as a factor affecting wildlife population. If the same energy devoted to reducing hunting in such areas was directed instead toward demanding improvement in wildlife habitat, we would be accomplishing something.

The real problems are environmental ones and we are working at these in a variety of ways which are not always particularly obvious to the public. Programmes for the protection of wildlife habitat need public support, and it's frustrating to see potential energies for these programmes wasted on hunting issues. People who are genuinely concerned about wildlife in British Columbia must take time to discover the real problems facing wildlife populations. That's where the real problem lies. You don't have to look too far — at our Libby Dam 6,000 white-tailed deep wiped out, 500 elk displaced; the Williston Dam, thousands of moose there.

MRS. JORDAN: What about Tilbury Island?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Tilbury Island is not that significant as far as wildlife is concerned, compared to the Libby Dam and the Williston Dam, and the Ootsa Lake situation.

Mr. Speaker, the basis for management for our wildlife resources is the maintenance and enhancement of suitable living environment. The responsibilities of the Fish and Wildlife Branch are extensive throughout the province. And the success of fish and wildlife management programmes depend upon successful negotiations with other resource users in situations where these users are in conflict. Under the previous government the existence of environmental conflict was given very little recognition. Many of the professionals within the department were discouraged from expressing their concern. Our government has taken the position that these are the people best qualified to defend our environmental resources and have tried to establish an atmosphere where conflicts may be exposed and resolved. The muzzles have been removed.

Through the Environmental and Land Use Committee, the Fish and Wildlife Branch has been given the opportunity to play a greater role in protecting its resource. But of much greater significance than the identification of individual environmental conflicts has been the creation of the resource development schemes designed to build wildlife and other environmental considerations into future resource planning. These schemes will be of great importance in avoiding many traditional areas of conflict. In addition they are forcing all resource managers to plan in the long term, and the results

[ Page 457 ]

have generally been an improvement not only in fish and wildlife benefits but also in the management of all other resources involved. It is estimated that approximately 40 per cent of the Fish and Wildlife staff time is spent on other resource problems.

An addition of 97 people will be hired by the Fish and Wildlife Branch because of our new budget, and it will mainly bolster the field forces and give capability for essential new programmes and improvements in established programmes. This year we're hiring 33 additional conservation officers. We are hiring five additional IE (Information and Education) programme people who will travel throughout the province and talk to school children, talk to different groups, on our whole wildlife management programme.

The fish and wildlife management increases are intended to direct more emphasis on urban needs in our field, including better fishing opportunities for children and those less mobile, including also better opportunities for some of our senior citizens.

Stepped up nuisance control — animal control: Six new people will be added to our staff to bring it up to 11 people to look after predator control. Much of our time is spent in this field. I think the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) knows this in the area where the bears are causing havoc in the vineyards and in the apple orchards. We have quite a time to look after the predator control situation, especially where it involves agriculture. This is the area that we are going to be working in.

I should remark that we've held meetings with the Agriculture people, and we are working with Agriculture on trying to overcome some of the predator problems between Fish and Wildlife and Agriculture. I think it is the first time the two departments have got together on this.

Fish and Wildlife: Animal habitat improvement will be brought about with special emphasis on newly acquired land. Inventories of fish and wildlife habitat capability and recreation potentials will be given top priority in our programmes.

I should mention when we talk about inventory: till we came into this government, out of the 20,000 good lakes in the Province of B.C. only 1,200 had any inventory done on them.

For the first time we are bringing in a permit system this year. I talked about a permit system when I was on the backbench. A permit system means limited access of people to the number of animals in a certain area. We are starting that programme this year. We are starting it in the Ashnola Valley where the bighorn sheep are. We are starting it in the Nass, where my colleague, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) is from, where we have a problem with the goats. We are also starting it in game management area No. 3, in the Toba Inlet area, to preserve the grizzlies. So we are moving on a whole new programme in this province of limited access and the permit system.

Furthermore, a concerted effort will be placed in the area of research, where the consequences of various land and water use practices may be evaluated in terms of their effect on the fish and wildlife population and on the continued security of our environment. This type of information will enable us to continue and develop our multi-use planning and assist in resolving possible conflicts with the resource users. The concept of multi-use has seen practical and workable application at the initiative of our Prince George regional Fish and Wildlife office. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) went into this the other day and explained it.

In co-operation with the Forest Service personnel, they have developed programmes designed to solve the conflicts between the demands of the forest industries and those of the fish and wildlife conservationists. Modified cutting practices and co-operatively developed logging plans have resulted in programmes where the optimum use of the land will ensure the people of the province of maximum returns on their resources with a minimum detrimental side effect.

In the east Kootenays an equally significant approach to wildlife management is getting off the ground. This area supports one of the richest and most varied big game resources in North America, and its capability for wildlife is unexcelled in British Columbia. This capability has, however, never been realized in recent years. And as the result of the effects of mining, logging, grazing and reservoir conflicts on important wildlife range areas, in the last 10 years there has been a decline of almost 50 per cent in the population of most big game species in that area.

Our regional Fish and Wildlife crews in the Kootenays have begun working out a major programme of identifying, acquiring and restoring important wildlife winter range areas. We have recently acquired three key range units which will be managed by local Fish and Wildlife officers to restore the capability of these important ranges for the support of traditional wildlife populations.

These units are particularly significant because they include critical winter habitat areas for deer, elk and bighorn sheep. But these units will not be managed to the exclusion of cattle. Rather, cattle will be accommodated on certain areas and hay and alfalfa available for harvest will be made available to neighbouring ranches. In this, as in all other programmes. true to the concept of multi-use, the benefits of the good planning will be shared by all resource users rather than by any single one.

We are now experimenting with winter feeding programmes in the area for the first time in B.C. We

[ Page 458 ]

have 14 feeding areas in this area. This has been displayed in many of the papers. There are usually headlines in the Cranbrook paper nearly every week about our programmes in the Kootenays.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What species are you trying to feed?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I just mentioned it; if you were listening, Mr. Member, we are feeding elk, mainly, to start with. We are doing experimental programmes in the area, and we hope they will work. This is the first time this has been done.

With the security of suitable habitat areas assured, extensive fish and wildlife management will follow. We are encouraging more intensive management of wildlife populations throughout the province, and more specific management of fish populations is being developed in our lakes and streams.

Regulations for the protection of fish and wildlife are only as good as our ability to enforce them, and the enforcement is thus an important part of our management programmes. The trend toward increased access to previously unexploited areas, coupled with increasing numbers of recreationists, have placed a marked enforcement demand on the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch.

To help meet the increased pressures on our enforcement officers — and the increased price of meat accentuated the problem even further — the government last fall passed a special warrant for $93,000 allowing the employment in the fall of 57 auxiliary conservation officers. This is on top of an already existing 57. The previous government did recognize the importance, but we doubled the number of people.

This doubled our auxiliary conservation officer force. The result — and this is pretty significant — the result of this was an increase of 41 per cent in angling and hunting prosecutions over the year.

MRS. JORDAN: What was the return to the Crown?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I don't have the figures on that right now, Mrs. Member. But I will tell you that this is a significant increase of 41 per cent because of our increase in enforcement.

Because of our I and E programmes (our information and educational programmes), because of our CORE programme, conservation, outdoor recreation — where we train potential hunters, like we do on Vancouver Island now — this year was the lowest year in the number of accidents and fatalities in fishing and hunting. It was the lowest year, and this was the highest year for the number of people taking part. So we would like to think that probably some of these things we have done have contributed to this area.

MRS. JORDAN: Who started the programme? Be fair.

HON. MR. RADFORD: That's right. It's a good programme.

I recently announced a new licence fee schedule that more accurately reflects the real value of the resources. Greatest increases were made on licences for non-residents and this, in addition to the replacement of the trophy fee system by species, is a licence system which will ensure good returns from the resource for the consumptive and non-consumptive users. The things that were done are really numerous, and we really restructured the whole licence system,

We have now created a senior citizens' licence of $1 for hunting.

MR. FRASER: You put the guides out of business too.

HON. MR. RADFORD: If you want to talk about the guides, I'll tell you about the guides. The guides are going to have to be more responsible, now that we have done away with the trophy system. We've brought in a species licence system.

I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Member, because I'll tell you a little story on what's happened to the guides. In the past the guides and the non-residents could come in and buy all the licence tags for, I think, a total of $67.50 — the same as the residents.

He could go out hunting for two weeks and if he didn't acquire his game he didn't have to pay a trophy fee, but if he was out hunting and he was out hunting for two specific animals — we'll say a grizzly and a sheep — and he happened to come across a moose or something else, the guide would say, "Well, sure, you can take that animal, but it will cost you a little more." So he took the animal; he didn't get what he originally went out for, but he went home happy.

Under the new system of species licence, because we've raised them so high — we've raised the grizzly to $300; we've raised the sheep to $250 — he cannot now buy a pocketful of tags. When he goes out it will be the responsibility of the guide to get those one or two species that he's after, and he will pay for that licence, pay for the experience of the environment before he goes out.

It's like going to a show, Mr. Member; you pay before you enter.

MR. FRASER: What are you going to do with the 150 guides who are out of work?

[ Page 459 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: Also I would like to reiterate a statement that was made across the floor on fishing licences. This year for residents of B.C. 16 years and under there will be no charge for fishing and angling licences. Non-residents under 16 years old, provided they are accompanied by an adult, will fish free. This year the catch of a person under 16 will go to the limit or the creel of the adult they are with.

We are doing away with the situation before where non-residents would go and catch their son's limit, their daughter's limit, and maybe another son's limit; we are doing away with that.

Also, Mr. Member, this year when one goes to get a licence they have to show proof, a B.C. Medical card. If they haven't got that they have to show some other means of proof of being a resident of B.C.

In detailing our present programmes we must not lose sight of the important contributions made over a period of years by what I like to think of as the people's army. They are those British Columbians who work as members of fish and wildlife groups, SPEC groups, naturalist clubs and other organizations in preparing cases and undertaking various projects, with and without direct government support.

The most progressive and effective conservation organizations in the world have been started, financed and led by sportsmen. B.C. clubs have made tremendous contributions to the province through programmes of public education, creating public recreation facilities, and through their representations on civic regional boards and their briefs to all levels of government on parks, wildlife and pollution requirements. Besides donating much time and hard physical labour, the members of the clubs have spent many tens of thousands of dollars of their own money to carry out projects that benefit everyone.

Some results of their fight for environmental protection include pollution-control legislation, strip mining reformation legislation, cessation of industrial activity within park boundaries, clearing of Hydro reservoirs, establishment of the Creston Valley wildlife management area, the All-terrain Vehicles Act, a ban on helicopter hunting, access into logging and industrial Crown areas, public access to lakeshores being ensured by the Land Act.

I'd like to read out, Mr. Member, just what some of these fish and game clubs have done about B.C. Let's look at the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club, eh? They built a free public campsite and boat launching at Fish Lake; built and set out public picnic tables at 100 lakes throughout Chilcotin and Cariboo — cost $2,200; they put up a coarse fish barrier at Dragon Lake.

Let's look at Enderby: they placed 150 goose-nesting tubes between Mabel Lake and Mara Lake maintained them and increased the number of birds from dozens to hundreds.

South Okanagan Sportsmen's Association at Oliver: they built roads to a local lake, provided a campsite with facilities, cultivated feed and cover crops on several miles of dikes for pheasants, aided Fish and Wildlife Branch in annual sheep count.

Osoyoos Fish and Game Club: constructed a windmill in the Fuller Lake to aerate water and prevent fish kill.

I can go on and on...and I think I will. Cowichan Fish and Game Club Association constructed a 23-mile public trail along the Cowichan River; they've built several bridges, including a suspension bridge at Skutz Falls.

Where's the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)? Oh, he's not here. Sparwood — oh, this is in your area, Mr. Member. Sparwood and District Rod and Gun Club shipped feed from Alberta for winter feed of moose and elk.

You know, these are some of the things that the members of fish and wildlife clubs throughout B.C. are doing. And many of these Members in the House here should realize that, because many of the Members in this House have three or four clubs in their riding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Filibustering! Filibustering!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Now in recognition of all the good things these people have done, in recognition of these important achievements through the involvement of citizens, a conservation fund is being established to provide grants to conservation clubs in order to assist them in a variety of projects.

MR. FRASER: Give us the details.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, the details. Since I've got your support I should add a few more dollars here.

Initially, the amount of the fund will be approximately $50,000, I will be appointing an advisory committee to recommend to me the disbursements from this fund and it will be administered through the B.C. Wildlife Federation, through the Fish and Wildlife Branch and through the B.C. Naturalist Society, which is not a member of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. But all clubs will be involved. I'm happy that the Members in the opposition applaud that move.

MR. CHABOT: Is Ray Haynes going to be the chairman? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Now, moving along to the Provincial Museum. Although the Provincial Museum's annual visitor count has risen dramatically since the mid-1960s, it's clear that the museum's ability to reach British Columbians varies greatly with

[ Page 460 ]

their distance from Victoria.

MR. GARDOM: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Visitations depend chiefly on the combinations of awareness, interest and the ability to travel. While the museum cannot hope to influence the latter, it can, through imaginative and energetic extension programmes, stimulate both awareness and interest in the Provincial Museum's collections, exhibits and programmes.

The Provincial Museum staff has taken the position, which I enthusiastically endorse, that it is not always convenient for British Columbians to make the trek to the museum in Victoria and that consequently we must take the museum to the people. More and more we are preparing travelling exhibits to visit various communities throughout the province.

Funds will be provided in the new budget for the coming year to enable the museum to acquire a rolling museum train, providing wider exposure of museum assets. We have acquired one train on Vancouver Island and another on the mainland. The rolling museum train will be capable of operating approximately four months of each year along all of the province's railway lines.

MR. FRASER: Is Bill King the engineer? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Envisioned here is a steam locomotive with a tender, drawing a train of five cars, including an historic car, exhibit coach divided into display and workshop, another exhibit coach totally for display, another exhibit coach for display, and an historic executive car for train crew and museum staff.

MR. SMITH: What happened to the caboose?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I think this will be a really unique situation in B.C. where we can take the historic artifacts, et cetera, all throughout B.C., even into Golden, even into Fernie.

MR. FRASER: What grants have you got for local museums?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Displays will be prepared at the Provincial Museum during the winter months and installed in the exhibit coaches prior to the departure.

The exhibit coaches will be filled with displays depicting elements of British Columbia's natural and human history, integrated in such a way that in-depth treatment could be given to specific themes of major significance. Moreover, it would be desirable to change the theme each year, thereby bringing a totally new set of ideas to British Columbia every 12 months. I think the new theme probably will be the growth of steam in B.C.

MR. SMITH: Hot air.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right off the press. Remote regions will be able to see and have explained the best examples of our truly remarkable collections on a regular basis. Local museums and historical societies will be both encouraged and strengthened by opportunities to co-operate with the Provincial Museum. Knowledge of British Columbia both intellectually and culturally will be increased, especially as it pertains to school children, supplementing their classroom work with exposure to travelling museum exhibits. A stronger sense of British Columbia identity may well emerge as more and more citizens come to view what is expected to be dynamic and quality exhibits based upon themes common to all persons living here. This, in turn, may help promote a stronger sense of provincial unity.

Another branch under my department is the Commercial Fisheries Branch. I'm told that in the past, all the past Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Mr. Kiernans) talked about, as far as I can look back in the records, is hydro and, once in a while, parks. He never did get into the....

MR. FRASER: There he is right there, so don't be critical.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, I'm talking about the past government. So today I'm giving you a full resume of all the departments I'm involved in.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, another branch under my department is the Commercial Fisheries Branch. This government recognizes a need, a great emphasis, on the Commercial Fisheries. This emphasis is marked by recent doubling of my staff in this small but increasingly effective branch of my department, and a substantial increase in the budget.

I'm optimistic you will see a little greater increase in action within the fiscal year in this department. This province must extend its role in the management of British Columbia's marine resources to ensure maximum benefits to all British Columbians, recognizing but not submitting to the fact that the federal government by statute has the primary responsibility in this field of commercial fisheries.

The branch now assesses all applications, to the province for water licences and pollution control permits, and closely scrutinizes all these applications which might adversely affect out fisheries. In short, we are developing provincial expertise in the fisheries field rather than having to rely entirely on the federal fisheries and environmental authorities as in the past.

[ Page 461 ]

B.C. has most of the essential salmon environments still intact and in comparison with the rest of the world, a well-managed fishery. The product is in very high demand with world prices increased, but traditionally the province has paid lip service to the salmon fishery and given it very low priority in allocating scarce resources to this industry. The key to salmon enhancement is to improve the fresh water environment for these fish. The federal government can provide money and expertise but the environment is almost totally under the provincial control. In other words, this province has to make commitments as far as its land use, as far as its water use, before any commercial fisheries endeavours can be successful. It's imperative that we work closely with the federal government on these things, and we are working closely with them.

I'm also insisting the Commercial Fisheries Branch initiate more cost-sharing fisheries projects with the federal government where costs are shared and the expertise of both levels of government can be focused on development of new techniques and potentially new industries.

Developing industry methods. These are some of the things we will be getting involved in: developing inventory methods for red and brown algae, a valuable source or gels and other foodstuffs not yet fully exploited, surveys of selected aquatic plant beds, studies on effects of harvesting aquatic plants, provision of managerial assistance to the B.C. Oyster Growers Co-operative in an attempt to expand and diversify the developing oyster industry. There will be research done on new methods of oyster culture, such as raft culture; examination of log storage and booming in the oyster fields; examinations done on shellfish disease.

I am convinced we are not realizing the full benefits out of marine resources. This pioneering work must be stepped up if we are to adequately and economically harvest this ocean bounty and contribute fully to the world's growing demand for protein.

On the horizon is the possibility of a whole new field of aquaculture and mariculture to which the Commercial Fisheries Branch along with the Fish and Wildlife Branch and other agencies of government are directing their attention. Aquaculture ventures depend primarily on the resources of land, water and fish. For this reason, we would like to see these developed as Canadian ventures with Canadian capital and with Canadian expertise. We can expect some interesting developments in this field in the near future.

I would like to again emphasize that your government is taking a special interest in the whole field of marine resources, accepting fully British Columbia's responsibility in this field. We intend to press the federal government for greater achievement within the statutory responsibilities and for greater action on the problems which are unique in the British Columbia fishing industry.

I believe there is a great future for British Columbians in relation to the potential benefits from the vast expanse of ocean facing our lengthy shoreline. But this potential can only be realized if the principles are followed. The fishermen, the industry, the provincial and federal governments must work co-operatively and effectively towards common objectives, ever alert to new opportunities and ever watchful of this country's rightful heritage.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the preceding comments have been enlightening; I know they have been kind of lengthy. But I've come to realize, during my short term in office, that Recreation and Conservation is a department that many people know little about. And, as a matter of fact, a department governments in the past have paid little heed to. This is unfortunate because it is a department that affects the lives of all British Columbians.

Recreation, not only because of the greater amount of leisure time but also because more and more people are rejecting materialism as a way of life and are looking for an opportunity to express themselves as creative individuals, is one of the most important services any government can provide.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Conservation, not only because our natural resources have greater and greater economic value but also because we now recognize our survival depends on the protection of our natural environment, must play a fundamental role in guarding resource management decisions.

Mr. Speaker, we have the resources; we have the technology; we now have the government that cares about people. And I am confident that British Columbia can be the recreation corner of this continent. Thank you.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure for me, on behalf of the constituents of Boundary-Similkameen, to take my place in this budget address. At the outset I want to congratulate the new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I hope that he enjoys his stay in this House as much as I have...

MR. CHABOT: There is only one Liberal here today.

MR. RICHTER: ...and that it is as rewarding as it has been to me.

I was particularly interested in the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford's) remarks, particularly those pertaining to

[ Page 462 ]

my area. I did notice that he picked out all the very small local campsites and small recreational areas to use as examples as to what has been set aside in the way of parks in the southern Okanagan — at least in the Boundary-Similkameen area he mentioned a number. Actually most of these are just bathing areas for the farmers when they get through work, because they happen to be close to the river or close to the lake, such as Deadman's Lake. Well, there are a few fish in it — the farmers get the odd fish out of it. But really, the larger park areas were completely by-passed — such as Clearwater Lake park, Apex park, the Cathedral Lakes park of some 18,000 acres that was set aside by the former government. These were all parks of some earlier vintage that were set up either as class A parks or they were a class C park administered by a board, and they were added to as time went on.

Now, as far as game areas are concerned, the former government set up a very large game area, Crater Mountain and Juniper Mountain known as the Ashnola game area. And I recommended this very highly to the former government.

It consists of hundreds of thousands of acres. It is a real pilot plan on knowing whether game has a detrimental effect on grazing lands. And I hope the experiences that have come from that will be taken into consideration in evaluating the grazing aspect by the commission that is now studying it and the submissions that are being given to them by the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers.

I was also quite surprised at the Minister when he mentioned that girls would be used on the trails and in improving the recreational areas this year. He said it was a first. Well, actually it's really not a first. The previous government utilized the girls from the Selkirk College in a programme of developing the Christina Lake picnic site, and they did an excellent job. They were good artisans; they were good workers; they did a good job. I think this is an excellent programme, particularly to provide funds for students who are attending colleges, or universities for that matter, in the other parts of the year. This will provide a source of funds to them. I think this is a good programme. But certainly the Minister doesn't want to be deluded by the fact that he thinks he created the programme. That was created long since.

He also failed to mention that under the previous government a game area between Grand Forks and Cascade was initiated. In fact, through my own efforts and the Greenbelt Protection Fund property was acquired for grazing of game for the winter months and at the same time providing a very substantial park area.

Now, I think it will be recalled if you look back in Votes and Proceedings of the spring session of 1973, question No. I on the order paper was in relation to this particular area and its acquisition. Again in the fall session of 1973 the question appeared as question No. 1. But at the conclusion of the fall session the question was still not answered. However, I did obtain the answer on December 4. Peculiarly enough, it was prepared September 17, and actually my question was sent in on September 13. So it was answered but I didn't get the answer in the proper way through Votes and Proceedings so that others would know too.

However, the deal was made as based on the agreement by the previous government. And that is another area on which the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) didn't elaborate. I don't expect him to elaborate on all these things, but certainly it is a very, very important first.

As far as the cyclist trails are concerned, I think these are very necessary. They may be a little difficult to get underway; you may run into quite a number of complications, particularly through watersheds. The Highways department — I can quite understand why they're not interested, because it would be such a volume of requests that they couldn't possibly keep up with them. I think it's only in specific areas. Certainly I would prefer to see any cycling trails kept away from highways because of the danger factor. Invariably people will decide to get out on the highway, and this is a dangerous method of having volume of cyclists on the highway.

But there is a very simple solution. There was a very good example of that the other day when we saw a picture of our Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) sitting on a cycle in the gymnasium. Now, you can get just as much exercise from that as you can by travelling from here to Cowichan Lake, or anywhere else, on a cycling trail. So maybe that's the solution; maybe we should all cycle on a stationary cycle. Maybe that's the answer.

Most of the Minister's address was a repetition of his earlier press releases. While his programmes were quite well outlined in the press releases, and we got a repetition of it today, I think probably some information was gleaned from it by way of explanation.

I would like to say just a few words in relation to my constituency, which is very important as far as I am concerned, in attempting to get some matters underway which have been waiting for a long period of time — particularly things like the Penticton truck bypass.

I know this is a difficult area for the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) at this time, although, it was quite a simple matter during the election of 1973, as far as the NDP was concerned. It was going to be just a matter of fact, or fait accompli, within just a short time after the election of the New Democratic Party.

However, the situation hasn't improved one bit as

[ Page 463 ]

of today. As a matter of fact it has deteriorated because the Minister has his hands full of problems in relation to the native Indians. The route is through their properties — the easements that are required for highways. And the Penticton band and the Osoyoos band are all clamouring with the government now as to their land status. I can understand this because this is exactly the same problem that existed previously — the fact to have access through an Indian reservation.

The Okanagan water basin study. I hope the recommendations will be underway and implemented. I think that the results of this study — the implementation of the recommendations — are going to be extremely useful, not only as far as the Okanagan water basin is concerned, but in many, many other areas in this province in which the same criteria can be used. Certainly any studies can be greatly reduced in length of time because you have the criteria set up by this original study.

Rural electrification programmes: we're getting many requests for extension of rural electrification into the areas — again, many of them that Indian reserves would be involved in. I would hope this programme can be extended, particularly in those remote areas. Now I know that there's a cost factor here. I know that some of these lines will not have the necessary number of connections, as they call them. But certainly I think a greater consideration should be given to these people and not deny them.... The situation shouldn't be that — if there are only three and there should be four — they should be cut off at that point and have to wait for an unlimited number of years before they can enjoy some of the benefits of life.

As far as agriculture is concerned we still have our problems, regardless of the fact that in the last session of '73 agriculture was paramount as far as the implementation of programmes by way of legislation that was going to resolve these problems. These problems have not been resolved. The programmes were not ready really to get into operation. Now we are saying that estimates are coming in on them. This could have been done by a supplemental budget last fall, and the programme could have been underway. Now this has not happened.

Many of the farmers from my area are writing me letters saying to me: "How do you apply for the various assistance programmes? What do you do?" When I make inquiries to the department I find that the forms are not ready. The committee that's going to operate the programme is not prepared to move forward because they haven't the funds. There are a million-and-one excuses and, consequently, there's nothing really happening.

I think if the legislation is that important, due to the emphasis that was put on agricultural legislation in the last session, I think the government has got to move a little faster in the area of making the necessary provisions so that that programme can be implemented at the earliest possible moment to the advantage of the agricultural industry. There seems to be something amiss here that it's not really happening.

To get more specifically to the budget address by the Minister of Finance it's a budget which I'm going to have to be quite frank about. There's very little difference from the budgets I've seen for the last 20 years, excepting for the fact that this year we're getting a greater degree of publicity to it. The very area in which we were criticized previously.... Now we have virtually two-thirds of a page of advertising on how to get hold of a copy of the budget.

Now I can recall when the Minister of Finance, as Leader of the Opposition, criticized the former government for ever printing it up in such a form and sending it out. Well, this has happened from day one as far as I am concerned. I have budgets that were printed by the government for years and years back. But this year, of course, we're going to have newspaper advertising too, which is all costly to the taxpayers.

They all know that the budget has come down. The newspapers have given this publicity. There is a method in which they can always acquire these. But this continuous inflating cost of government in itself is all reflected back on the costs to the taxpayer.

There are some areas in which programmes should be publicized. They should be publicized fully. In other areas I think a government should use discretion and try and save those dollars which apparently are not being saved in this particular case.

Now the budget: there's no question about it, it's truly the first socialist budget, and its magnitude is rather startling. However, no matter what the magnitude of a budget is, if you can truly justify the figures in it, then I think you can truly support a budget of that nature. But this Utopian, socialist budget is something again.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It starts off with the fact that there's going to be no increase in taxation to the individual. Now taxation can come about in a number of ways. If a cost rises that's a taxation in the form of either inflation or additional cost of production by way of a royalty. A royalty is described as a tax.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, my definition out of Webster's dictionary, or out of Funk & Wagnalls, is probably a little different than my hon. friend's definition over there. But I rely pretty much on Funk & Wagnalls, and I think they are pretty reliable.

It can be by way of an increase in the cost of a

[ Page 464 ]

necessity of life. So as I progress on through the budget, you'll really find that it's not as Utopian as our Minister of Finance would like to make us believe. In fact, I have attempted to come up with a descriptive name or some form of describing our Minister of Finance because of the antics that he does carry on in this house — his dramatics and so on.

He reminds me, I think, of Caliban creating his own tempest, because we find him going into temper tantrums, we find him going into great ecstasy when he meets with his own party Members. He's a man of many talents, I suppose you would say. However, his dramatics and his attitude to very, very serious problems can't be laughed away as it is attempted to be done.

The tax rate with no increases: of course, we know that we are going to have increases in our costs. I wonder if the Hon. Minister is equally impressed — as he mentions how Hon. Members will be impressed by the 25.6 per cent increase in revenues — by the increase of doing business and cost-of-living increases that we're witnessing today.

Certainly the escalation in the costs of government alone, as far as taxpayers are concerned, is very disturbing.

I agree with many of these programmes — Mincome and so on — although it's not as high as it should be. It should be $250 a month such as was in the bill that I had in the House last session.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): But you wouldn't accept it when you were in cabinet.

MR. RICHTER: Well, that's a matter of opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of fact. It's on record.

MR. RICHTER: I would certainly like to see some evidence of the representations made by the Minister of Finance to Ottawa to increase the statutory exemptions to those people who are receiving benefits from these programmes so that they wouldn't have to turn around and pay out the moneys they're receiving from the programmes of the province by way of federal income tax.

I think it's well recognized that because of the costs today to many of our elderly people, our more unfortunate people, by doing this we would be helping them a great deal in being able to sustain themselves and maintain their standard of living — which is not always the case.

In the cities and urban areas we probably have a tendency to see a considerable number of benefits that can accrue by way of Silver Threads and various other organizations. But when you get out into the boondocks, you have people who aren't able to enjoy these things.

They have to sustain their livelihood and everything on what they're able to receive and what they're able to retain from that. Certainly the income-tax factor is one in which I have for a long, long time taken into consideration as one that should certainly be revised upwards as far as the elderly citizen and those who are receiving benefits from provincial programmes.

We have quite a number of areas in which, certainly, there is a great deal of confrontation as far as property taxes are concerned with Bill 71. I have no end of complaints regarding the property tax under that particular bill. It's put many of my own constituents virtually out of business. I was very pleased that the government has taken the matter seriously enough to set up a committee, and I look forward to great things coming out of that committee.

The University of British Columbia. I think because of the enrolment rate anticipated, this in an area in which greater consideration should be given as far as grants are concerned. I have not always been in accord with the previous government's programme in this relationship, particularly in relation to geology. I would like to have seen the previous government make very substantial grants toward that geology building which was virtually put up by donations from industry. I do believe the university can see continuing expansion for some considerable time. I don't see any solution to their problem unless the provincial government is prepared to move in this direction.

As far as the budget speech is concerned in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio, the announcements by the Minister of Finance and the use of special warrants during my course of time within the cabinet and under the Administration Act, it was always my understanding that a special warrant could only be issued when the statutory authority was there and that it was an unforeseen expenditure to be made. It has been admitted in this budget that there is a foreseeable expenditure that is going to have to be made on behalf of schools to attempt to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.

I have one area alone in my constituency where it is roughly estimated to be about a $40,000 expenditure for providing the necessary accommodation, both teacher-wise and as far as space is concerned. When estimates like this can be projected at the time the budget is being prepared, then I would say they should be included. However, it is not included in this particular case.

What is going to result in the end is this: under the Minister of Finance's announcement, we are going to have another set-to between teachers and school boards. The teachers, asking for a reduction, and the school board, not being able to provide the necessary

[ Page 465 ]

accommodation either by way of teachers or space, will set against each other. This is not really their role; it is the role between the government and the school board, without being provoked by the teachers. This in itself is not what I would consider good policy. I would hope the Minister of Education will take a really good look at this and probably, if it is going to be initiated, she should initiate it from that level.

One particular part of the Foulkes report was of interest to me particularly in relation to the recommendation that we have mass medication by the addition of fluoridation in our water systems. I think this is an area which has been debated and much evidence has been indicated both ways as to the benefits and also the detriments. My own contention is that we obtain aspirins by going to the drug store if we need aspirins. We don't need them put in our water system. If we need fluoridation, we can go to our doctor, he can prescribe it and we can have it in the prescribed amount.

We're not all built the same, that's for sure, as far as our medical requirements are concerned, and mass medication is no answer for the prevention of decay in our teeth. Certainly more harm could be done than good. There is a method available and we know that this is available.

As far as the Department of Mines is concerned, we haven't had the Minister speak yet. We expect that he will be speaking quite extensively when he comes to a certain bill that's before the House and which I know, Mr. Speaker, I'm not at liberty to speak on at this time.

Bill 44 and Bill 101 have created uncertainty in the mining industry today. I notice the Minister shaking his head. Tell me, Mr. Minister, tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, how many new mines have you opened since 1972 when you took the portfolio? The last one I opened was Gibraltar. How many mines of any magnitude have you opened?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Over a billion dollars this year!

MR. RICHTER: Those are not new mines; those are mines that were in production when we were government. Those are not new mines.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: The mining industry did it because of the political climate that was in existence at the time.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Nothing to do with what is in the ground.

MR. RICHTER: No, but you have got to have some incentive to find it. If it's going to be impossible for you then what are you going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should not interrupt from out of their seats.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! I find this Hon. Member attacking the Speaker as not being fair, and that is unparliamentary. I'm trying to tell you, and you won't listen, that it is unfair for a Member to speak outside his seat. It doesn't mean the Speaker can order a Member to go back to his seat, and that is what I was explaining for the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I did draw to the attention of the House that a Member was not speaking from his seat and asked him to desist. Now, please do not attack the Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I'm not attacking the Speaker; I'm suggesting that the Speaker of this House should treat both sides of the House equally.

MR. SPEAKER: And I do.

MR. CHABOT: And you don't. My point of order is that I briefly interrupted at one time from someone else's seat. You ordered me to take my seat. I suggest you be fair; you say the same thing to that Member over there. Be fair for a change.

MR. SPEAKER: That again is another attack on the Speaker. I drew it to the attention of the Hon. Member that he was speaking out of his seat and he should not do so. That is what I'm required to do and I did it; I think that's being fair to both sides. This Hon. Member is interrupting, which he has no right to do in the debate of the Member behind him, but he doesn't take it into account that he himself breaks the rules of the House.

MR. CHABOT: Treat both sides equally.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly do.

MR. RICHTER: Now, if I may continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. RICHTER: I would hope that greater emphasis will be placed on placer mining by the department, particularly because of the price of gold today. I think there is still a lot of placer ground in the province that could be very productive; it could create a great deal of employment.

[ Page 466 ]

I actually think that probably a few courses in placer mining, such as were given many years ago at Yale, could be productive in this particular field. It's obvious that through mining legislation we have now we're not going to get the emphasis on prospecting for hardrock mining, as we had previously.

We did have an exceptional rise in the price of copper this year, with the result that the increase of return has been elevated by about one-third, so the future looks bright as far as metal markets are concerned.

If you look at the situation in British Columbia today, we are going to have less production so naturally the metal market is going to increase. Instead of $1.07 a pound, we will find that it is higher.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Fuzzy economics.

MR. RICHTER: It is not a fact of economics; it's a fact of primary grade arithmetic. You can see it.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, overnight. If we had had a politically conducive situation in the province this year, the income to the industry should have been $1.2 billion. The province benefits by way of taxation, by way of jobs — and jobs are important. The spin-off is right down the line, and you know how many times through the mining industry the dollars pass from hand to hand — about nine times.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Granted. More power to you in that you are able to do this, but it's not to the mining industry because if you check the mining figures you'll find that the jobs are equivalent to what they were in 1972, as far as the number of people employed, because there are no new mines to employ them. They are running at capacity because they want to get their product out of the ground. They don't know how soon they are going to be closed down.

I spoke on this matter in the budget debate of 1972. What I said at that time, your Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), as Leader of the Opposition, chided me on at that time. You could take my very same words spoken at that time, and they have come true — line and verse, right down the line. So it is not a case where we couldn't foresee what would happen under this particular circumstance.

I was particularly interested in the report from the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. In their report, on page 13, the mines that are mentioned in this particular document were mines that were operating or on line at that time — such as Gibraltar, Utah, Lornex — these all came on about that time. Granduc, Similkarneen (which is Ingerbelle), Newman or Bell copper (up on Babine Lake), Craigmont, Granisle and Brenda were all mines already existing. I see no new mines whatsoever in this particular list.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Maybe the Minister would like to name some of the new mines.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: So really I have to look forward to the future. As these old ore bodies are gradually depleted, what new ore bodies are you going to tap?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We've got them all ready to tap.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: Absolutely not. Don't give it away, but don't take it away from the people who are trying to produce and who are trying to find and discover and develop the ore bodies.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: No, I'm not, really, because we had a very good situation at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) — and I'm sorry that he's not in at the moment. I particularly wanted him in; that's why I tried to have him.... Oh, how fortunate. He's come across the way.

Well, now, Mr. Minister, if you'd like to sit up here you and I can have a nice little chat, a nice quiet one, in relation to highways. At the outset I've got to say that I have a great deal of compassion for you. I know that you are working under very, very difficult circumstances, and I know you have your hands tied behind your back by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and I feel very badly for you. If there's anything that I can do to help you along, I'd be most happy to donate my services, but your programme in Highways in the year of 1974-75, at budget time, is a complete standstill budget.

I don't blame the Minister for this one bit, because if Treasury Board opened up their little budgeting bag, pulled the strings back, and dumped a few of the Minister of Mines' profits and his incoming royalties onto the desk of the Minister of Highways, probably we could have got some of the programmes that were underway when the NDP government came into

[ Page 467 ]

force. Maybe we could have got some of those programmes on the way and maybe we could have had some more on the drawing board that we need. The traffic situation in this province today, and the momentum with which it is increasing certainly this year will be something to behold because of the energy situation in other parts of the United States. We are going to find that certainly the people who live along the border are going to get across into Canada as quickly as they can to get their tanks filled. They are going to utilize this, because if they go back they don't go anywhere anyway in the U.S. They are going to stay in Canada. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if tourists coming in from the State of Maine into the Maritime provinces would come all the way across to enjoy the amenities of British Columbia, and stay in Canada on their way back.

We have some important highways in British Columbia. We have the Southern Provincial No. 2; we have the Trans-Canada; progressively as you go up you have No. 5 going up by way of Jasper and No. 16 going through to Prince Rupert, and then even into the northern part of the province — without a vast amount of money going into further development to bolster the economy by way of tourists coming in to leave their dollars here, which we are very happy to accept because they take little or nothing away except a few pictures. The scenery remains. But certainly, Mr. Minister, you need some help as far as highways are concerned.

With regard to the maintenance programme, a lot of our highways today are full of pot holes — that is, the hard surfaced ones. The gravel roads are mostly washboard, and there has been a lack of impetus put into the maintenance programme and also the construction.

It is quite obvious to me why the Minister is not able to respond to some of the inquiries that are made to him, particularly in regard to a letter of December 3, 1973, in which the chamber of commerce from Kootenay Boundary inquired about highway programmes. If I had been the Minister I wouldn't have been able to answer it either, and I don't blame him one bit for not answering it. He could however, have acknowledged it with some platitudes, but he's a pretty substantial Minister in that he doesn't want to procrastinate. He wants to tell them the facts — that we're going to do this or we're going to do that. So I can understand quite readily why the Minister was not able to answer that particular mail.

However, the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, got a copy of the letter and so did the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) get a copy of the letter, but nothing apparently came from this. I suppose it was just excess mail as far as those other two Ministers were concerned. But I know theMinister of Highways is serious about these things, and certainly wants to do his part.

Now I mentioned earlier the situation that has been created by Bill 71. I know that my colleagues have certainly spoken to some great degree on this, and the committee is set up.

I would suggest, in the light of the increased costs that are going to be experienced by many, many people in this province, that the government certainly give consideration to abolishing the 5 per cent tax on utilities because this affects each and every one of us. It is essential in life to have electricity and to have the other utilities. Certainly a great deal of benefit could come to those people who find themselves in dire circumstances today by the fact that these reductions could take place in light of the fact that they are going to have their electrical and gas rates increased and it's not going to be really helpful to them.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not here because I understand that certain pressures are being brought to bear on certain independent repair people under ICBC. Under the icky-bicky programme, as it stands today, approaches are being made by the icky-bicky personnel trying to get them to sign up under a contract. Now, a contract may not mean anything to the NDP government, but it certainly means something to the independent repair people.

I had an occasion in which I was contacted on the matter: Was it true that if you sign a contract with the government and the actual job costs you more, then could you collect from the individual for which the job was done?

Now, my understanding of insurance is that if it covers the job as it is assessed, and if the assessment is too low and if it's expected that the repairman will have to go out and bill the individual, then the individual is not truly covered by insurance. I'm rather surprised at this.

Also to attempt to get them to sign, these individuals are being told that 70 per cent have already signed up. Now, when I checked into the facts of this, this is not true. Now, is this a proper approach to be taken by representatives of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia? — trying to get repair people to sign up on the basis that they can get their additional money from somewhere else.

We've had a lot of myths go on unanswered in this chamber from the government — that the previous government gave the land away. Well, we know this is not true. British Columbia has the highest percentage of publicly owned land in Canada — 95 per cent or above. Even the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) boasts of this fact.

The giveaway of resources — the previous government gave away resources. Actually the previous government abolished Crown grants so that the people of the province would at all times own the

[ Page 468 ]

resource.

The previous government sold out to the petroleum corporation. The previous government used the bonus-bid system. And I know that for a fact because I was that Minister responsible for the acquisition of rights. And through that it was the oil companies who had to risk their money and there was no guarantee by the province, except for the fact that if they proved the field then 50 per cent of it came back to the Crown. So all these myths that go abroad are nothing more than myths and attempts to degrade, or to leave within the minds of the people that the previous government did not look out and protect them as far as the resource industry is concerned.

Mr. Minister of Resources — who is not here — the propaganda that is going out in this fashion is not factual; and certainly I think should be something that is not continued.

Give the people the facts; they'll make up their own minds.

As bright as this budget might appear to the government, it doesn't appear that bright to the man-on-the-street. It's a difficult budget for him to understand. Certainly I for one will do my best to interpret it as it is, and I am not going to be in a position to support the budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I won't be too long since debate has lasted for a considerable length of time. But I feel it necessary that some constructive comments be made since there hasn't been, in my opinion, too much forthcoming from across the floor.

I would like to essentially deal with some major questions in my own region and constituency. On the matter of energy policies of the province and of B.C. Hydro with regard to the Columbia River and also to the Peace: The energy report brought down in 1972 was a furtherance of the two-river policy which has been in effect for some considerable length of time in B.C. The result of this, essentially, is that we will be supplying most of the immediate future needs for power in B.C. from run-of-the-river dams on the Columbia and on the Peace.

The effects of this in the Peace area I don't think are too serious, but perhaps some of my colleagues in that area may wish to comment on that. But there's a great deal of land in the Peace River country and even run-of-the-river dams, which take away from that land, do not really cut down too much on what is left for industrial, residential and agricultural purpose.

But in the Kootenays, Mr. Speaker, and especially in the West Kootenays we are in a somewhat different situation.

We are an area of essentially all mountains with a few narrow valleys, and any usable land is all essentially in the narrow valleys.

With the completion of Mica and the construction of dams on the Pend d'Oreille, Revelstoke Canyon, possibly at Downie Creek, we will have 70 per cent of our valley land flooded most of the year. Now, I would ask my colleagues in the House what it would mean to you if 70 per cent of the usable land in your riding or region was given over to hydro electric development, it wouldn't leave a great deal left.

Now, I am not suggesting that we change this two-river policy. I'm not suggesting that the cheap hydro electric resources of the Kootenays not be available to the rest of the province. I am suggesting, however, that the West Kootenay in particular should perhaps get some special consideration because of its unique resources and unique topographical situation.

In the Arrow reservoir in particular is a tremendous recreational potential — possibly the greatest in the province. It's from losing the agricultural land and recreational land, which we did as the result of the disastrous Columbia River Treaty, and I don't want to dwell on that. However, I do think.... And it's certainly not the present government's fault — since the CCF and NDP fought long and hard against this treaty and against that particular dam going in. But it's there now, and we have not realized any benefits in the West Kootenay of this particular development.

We've lost school land, school assessment land; we've lost jobs; we've lost agricultural, recreational, residential and industrial land. I think perhaps the province owes the people of the area a little bit of remuneration for it.

Last year because of the run-off situation and the attempted filling of the Mica and Libby reservoirs, water levels in the Arrow Reservoir didn't go above 1,408 feet, compared to the normal maximum of 1,446 feet. For those of you familiar with beaches around the lower mainland or Victoria, what do you think it would do to your recreational values if your tide was always 36 feet below highwater mark for an entire summer season?

I would suggest that the Arrow Reservoir should not be the private preserve of Bonneville Power. I was given to believe and was told by a number of people that we were locked into this situation because of treaty requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I've looked at that treaty and I've spoken with one of the negotiators of that treaty. I've also spoken with Mr. Kennedy who is in charge of the Canadian entity for B.C. Hydro, and I can't really see hat we are locked into controlled water levels on the Arrow reservoir as a result of the treaty.

I see that we are committed only to provide flood control. It would seem that the major consideration in keeping the level low in a poor run-off year — much lower than would be of any use in terms of aesthetics or recreation in the area — is that there is a

[ Page 469 ]

certain financial return to B.C. Hydro by, let's say, co-operating.

I think that the rather narrow financial consideration is simply not adequate in this day and age when most people in the area do deserve some recreational value from this entity. I suggest that it be perhaps looked at between July I and October 30 that the Arrow reservoir be kept at a reasonably high level — somewhere around the 1,440- to 1,446-foot mark. After October and up until July 1, I think that, in keeping with the power needs of our American friends and also with flood control needs on both sides of the border, the level can be adjusted as Bonneville and Hydro see fit strictly for these purposes. However, I think that during the four usable months other considerations should be taken into account.

With the probable, certainly strongly-mooted construction of the low Revelstoke dam, it seems that the recreational and sport fishing on the Arrow reservoir will be severely curtailed. I would hope that there would be some consideration given to developing the Inonoaklin River, which is a natural fish channel, and also a couple of other sites that I believe the Fish and Wildlife people have in mind. Now whether this financial help comes directly from the province or from B.C. Hydro I'm not prepared to argue. I think the people of the region deserve some help here.

I would like at this point to say how pleased I am with the open and above-board attitude of B.C. Hydro that I've found in the past year-and-a-half. I think no Crown entity, with the possible exception of the compensation board, has seen such a complete turnaround in terms of its public relations and its sympathy to the general public as B.C. Hydro has. However, the fact is that the basic policies of the early and middle '60s are still being followed — at least we're hearing about them in a sympathetic way, and where minor changes and adjustments can be made in the local area they're being made. In short, the kind of high-handed approach to local situations that came to be associated with B.C. Hydro has had a complete turnaround. I commend the directors of Hydro and their senior executives as well as the two Ministers with jurisdiction for that change.

There is considerable concern, to me, about corporate entities — public or private — which have jurisdiction over vast areas of resources. I'm wondering if this whole question of returning jurisdiction over these resources should not be looked at by the Crown.

Getting back to the Arrow, when one tries to deal with these agencies you find that you're really dealing with B.C. Hydro and possibly with Fish and Wildlife, possibly with the Parks Branch and possibly even with Travel Industry. There needs to be a resource-management plan and a resource-management entity which can have some jurisdiction over these things but that does work with these various government departments.

I think there is a need, especially in the Kootenay area, in keeping with land use, that Crown agencies do level with the general public in terms of industrial plans which they may or may not intend to be party to. The reason that I say this is that, for instance, the need for the large power lines between west Kootenay and east Kootenay has been questioned by myself and others.

Getting back to our narrow valleys, there isn't that much room in our valleys, and if you put two or three power lines through them and, in some cases, a railway, a highway and possibly a gas pipeline, there just isn't much land left. While there has been some question as to the need for power lines we are only given the word from the Crown agency that, "Look, we have some privileged information and to give it to you would be a breach of trust. It has been suggested to us by some possible industrial users that there is a need for this line and for this power in the future, but you realize we can't give out that information — it could affect land values and speculation."

These sorts of arguments are very valid arguments. However, the Crown agency, in acting on this private information, in effect becomes an accessory before the fact, because they are in a position of providing cheap power for an operation which may or may not receive the approval of the people that live in the area sometime in the future. I don't think that that's a valid consideration. I think there needs to be some word of intent out there in a particular area so that the people can know what, in effect, may be going to happen to their area.

In the resource use matter, regarding the Forest Service — and I'm going to talk about trees for just a moment — I know that there are changes in forest policy being considered and I'm very happy with the direction that the Forest Service appears to be going and with what the Minister is doing. However, I would hope that there is some possibility that the philosophy behind the quota system be reviewed.

I think that there should be perhaps some encouragement of those manufacturing entities, public or private, that are prepared to remanufacture forest products before they go out of the country and add a great deal more value to those materials before they leave the country.

Most of the manufacturing in the forest industry is essentially the production of a raw material to go somewhere else for finishing and remanufacturing, and the retail price of these things in London or Houston, Texas, or Atlanta — or wherever they are being sold — bears little or no relationship to the value that they have when they leave this province. I am suggesting that we keep some of those jobs, some of that retail spending, some of that added value, some

[ Page 470 ]

of that return to the Crown right in the Province of B.C. I suggest that manufacturing entities who can't satisfy the Forest Service that they're prepared to move in those directions should get some consideration when they make petition to the Forest Service.

It has been mentioned on several sides of the House in this debate that there is a need for intermediate care in the province of B.C. Now, I think the major reason that there has not been as much provision for this has been the reluctance of the federal people to agree on cost-sharing programmes. They share at the acute level and they share at the extended-care level, but there is a gray area in between and I would hope that some agreement can be reached with the federal people very soon. Certainly in the City of Trail the census showed an average population age in the high 40s, and I think that on a per capita basis there is perhaps no area where intermediate care is more needed than in the Trail area. I would hope to see some action on that very soon. I'm satisfied that the many agencies who are dealing with this provincially are looking at this right now. That, of course, Mr. Speaker, is a problem in itself in that there are perhaps too many different Ministries involved in this area.

A word on the provision of moneys for Recreation and Conservation, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased with the added provisions in the Fish and Wildlife branch. I'm also very pleased with the added moneys in the parks area, but I'm not quite so happy there because I think there is still a much greater need for moneys in the parks budget, particularly in what is called maintenance money and operating money.

We have been in a situation in the last few years both before and after 1972 of bringing a great many new expanded park facilities into operation in B.C., and the Parks Branch is in a situation of having plant facilities but not the money to run them properly in some cases. I would hope that some consideration may yet be made in this area.

Just to give you some idea of the increased use of parks in my particular area — of the four parks in my riding, Champion Lakes Park's use increased last year from 63,000 to 142,000 visits — that's obviously in excess of 100 per cent increase. Syringa Creek, despite the fact that there was no water in the Arrow reservoir, as I pointed out increased from 25,000 to 59,000. Beaver Creek, a park near Nancy Greene Lake, increased from 13,000 to 35,000, very nearly a three-fold increase. This is incredible.

Some people in the Parks Branch have suggested to me that people won't go there because it's too high, 4,300 elevation. Last year use went from 7,000 to 28,000 — a 400 per cent increase. With this kind of demand by the public, I would hope that there would be some greater recognition of this in the budget, although, I would point out, I'm very happy with the increases.

Last thing, Mr. Speaker, and in the area of recreation, I'd like to express to the House and to the Finance Minister and the Recreation and Conservation Minister how pleased I am with the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. It has been described by some as a pork barrel fund. I don't agree with that at all. The village of Montrose, a village of less than 2,000 people, last Saturday opened a 37-metre indoor pool. This is the first indoor pool in the West Kootenay. I repeat, this is within the boundaries of a village of less than 2,000 people. This is a tremendous facility to have and it would not have been possible without the Community Recreational Facilities Fund.

The Red Mountain Ski Club has completed a new chairlift. In my opinion, Red Mountain is the finest skiing facility in British Columbia. It's not a private preserve; it's a public club and one of the few places where an individual working person, person on low income, can still buy a season's pass at a very reasonable price and get very fine skiing. This new facility would not, I believe, have been possible without the Recreational Facilities Fund.

Finally, a very small project, and it's a cultural project in the city of Trail. When we speak of recreation, we think of younger people and people my age. I would suggest it's just as important for older people as well. A very small project for the Italian community in the City of Trail is a recreational facility which simply gives the older people in that community a place where they can meet each other, store their archives and play games which are peculiar to their culture which they brought from Europe years and years ago. I'm very happy that even on a very small scale this was made possible.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the budget.

If it's in order, Mr. Speaker, I may have been out of the House, but I wonder if I could get the House to join me in expressing wishes for a speedy recovery for the candidate, unsuccessful, but candidate in the North Vancouver-Capilano by-election who was unfortunate enough to lose one of his legs. I hope that he will have an otherwise speedy recovery.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate the successful candidate in that by-election, Mr. Gordon Gibson. I hope that he will have the same integrity as his predecessor, and if he does he will be an addition to the decorum of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BARNES: Yes, well, he's off to a good start. (Laughter.) That's part of his success; stay out of the House and out of the heat.

[ Page 471 ]

Well, you know, the sun is shining outside and this is affecting my attitude, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get out and get in the sun as soon as I can. So for the next minute or so I will cram into this small space some generalities. You know me, when I speak I don't like to pin anybody down because I think we have to have room to survive in this business.

MR. SMITH: You're learning.

MR. BARNES: I think that congratulations are in order for some of my colleagues. I think they've been taking a lot of abuse, some of it earned, some of it unearned. But the point is: our cabinet — the government's cabinet, there are others — but this one has taken the lead in exercising in an innovative way the kinds of policies that have been long neglected in this province.

For this they may be accused of being unpolitical because politicians don't take chances. Politicians never take chances when it comes to important matters; they find somebody else to do that. But I think this cabinet has taken a lot of chances. I think that time will show that we're all going to benefit for a long time to come.

I'm going to go a little further with my congratulations and acknowledgements because my fellow backbenchers are demonstrating what it's like to be in a democratic government. They have exercised this right and this is what I believe will prove to be the difference in the history of this province: that the backbench has suddenly come alive. So all Members are in the cabinet in that sense because we want to participate. When we have something to say it may appear from time to time that the opposition sees a chance to divide us because they think we're criticizing our cabinet, but that's because we trust and believe in each other.

Now, remember this, when the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) expressed himself quite straightforwardly and forcefully, he made it quite clear that he was with the NDP and wasn't about to move. He was happy to be with the NDP. This is the kind of thing that you've never seen before in this province. People speaking like that and having those views. But I think we'll be seeing a lot of that because we are here to do the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I had drawn up quite a long list of things that are of concern to my constituents of Vancouver Centre, and I'm going to try and speak in such a way as to put into perspective the real nature of some of the problems that concern me.

The housing situation as we have come to understand it perhaps is distorted somewhat because, true we do have a housing shortage — I would be the last to argue that point. But the thing is: we have a fundamental approach to the economy and the social structure and the order of business that we carry on that makes it almost a losing battle to overcome the problem. Let's face this.

I think the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is trying to say this and he's probably taken a lot of flak because of it. The housing situation in one way is almost a smoke screen for our inability to face the realities of human living in this society. We're not doing the kinds of things that we should be doing. We are against ourselves. The breakdown of the family, the kinds of disregard for social structures and social orders, the kinds of rampant disregard for people's moral responsibility and integrity and sensitivity is destroying the whole concept of our free, competitive society. Once we disregard what really makes us tick, then we can't solve these other problems. What we do is create problems to keep in business.

How can we possibly solve the housing problem if we start off with a family of 10 people living in 10 houses, and don't get any more people, but have those 10 families break up into separate groups and you have 10 times 10 which is 100, and you still have 10 houses? This is the kind of reality we're faced with. We have completely undermined our basic system, and we're doing it all the time, especially in Vancouver Centre, downtown. We have no protection. Once you break out and go into that family you become free, subject to the various enterprisers out there who can find some way to exploit you for some private end, with no regard or responsibility back to the community or society in which he has been given a licence to operate.

This is the kind of problem we're faced with, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind of thing I hope that this government will address itself to and not fall prey to political expedience.

If we go out and put up public housing just to put them up and to appear to be politically safe, we are just adding to a problem, an exponential problem, which will continue to grow and grow and grow. We will not be responsible. We are going to have to face the fundamental problems in this society and it's not going to always be popular, but these are the things we are going to have to do.

Now in Vancouver Centre we are continuing to put up highrises with no protection for the inhabitants.

Just recently I noticed in the Sun that the B.C. Telephone Company intended to initiate a programme called the Telephone Market. I guess this is a retail system whereby the inhabitants of these areas.... I think they have a pilot project going in the west end, and they can purchase their telephone. It sounds simple; it sounds like they're going to expedite the service and everybody's going to be happy.

But, Mr. Speaker, analyze the problem a little bit. The public telephone is as essential in this society as

[ Page 472 ]

drinking water. If we undermine it, if we're not careful and don't guard it, losing this which has become a public utility will be like cutting off the main line in a major artery in our society. So unless whatever is happening to any public utilities has a responsibility back to the public, we cannot let anyone under licence in this community take off and create any kind of new ideas without responsibility to the public.

I'm wondering about this telephone, because they say you can pull it out of the wall and walk off with it. If you want it in, you put it in. That's dangerous, in my view, because a lot of people trapped in those highrises are protected, even though they don't realize it, by the telephone. A silent telephone is not necessarily not working. The telephone plugged into the wall becomes part of a system and can be used to communicate to the outside.

I think that it's worth studying very carefully before this new trend, which has started already in the United States, and apparently in a few places in Canada, is allowed to develop in this province — not to mention the fact that B.C. Telephone is going to benefit from this innovative idea, because it will cut down perhaps on some of their operating costs and services costs.

It will be the beginning of a major change in lifestyle. I can just see it now. In the west end, people don't want to be bothered and they take their phone out of the wall and leave it. We assume that when peoples' phones aren't ringing, they don't want them because they are out of the wall. That's a privacy thing.

But at the same time, what happens if I decide to rob a little old lady and I pull it out of the wall and put it down myself. You see, now we've got a problem. There's a little difference whether the phone is taken out of the wall or pulled out of the wall. Now if someone rips my phone off, perhaps it's a little different — and this is a signal. But there would be no reason to be suspicious if you could pull it out of the wall. I think we should be careful about that. We should watch that.

The tenants deserve some other things as well. They're caught up in a trap, people who have to rent, and we know it. We're going to be recognizing this in a small way, perhaps, by the renters' grant which will cover all renters. That is an amount of $30 per renter, regardless of any other considerations. This is the first step in recognizing that there is a large group of people out there that perhaps deserve far more attention than they've been getting.

Perhaps we should go a step further and institute a bill of rights for tenants. We should recognize that in certain metropolitan areas, urban areas of various communities, people are trapped for all kinds of reasons into the rental pattern. Because they are trapped in, they become essential to whatever is happening there in terms of the balance of that economy, in terms of the activity that takes place.

If they're into this thing whether they want to be or not, then I think there should be some guidelines and some rules on both sides to keep the game even. At the present time renters have no real rights. They are subject to the whim and fancy of the free enterpriser who is given a licence with very little limitations, very little control.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): That's not true!

MR. BARNES: So I suggest that the renter....

That's right, that's true. It's true. It should be a lot more firmer. No one should be given a licence to operate in an essential industry or an essential service without public responsibility, a social responsibility — without having to be prepared to assume responsibility for the effect of that operation on that economy, on that society. In that way, we have a recognition of all forces.

So I'm suggesting that we either come up with a bill of rights to recognize the tenants as a viable component in the overall complex in.... I use the west end of Vancouver, because that is the most pronounced area, the most notable area. We recognize this group of people as being part of any bargaining, any activity, that's taking place, and maintain some stability in that area — or else we lose human composure. We begin to break down the value of being a human being. People in the west end, I feel, right now are questioning what the quality of life is all about.

I would like to just bring your attention to the kinds of things that are happening as a result of a lack of protection for renters. This one is well published, if I can ever find it. It has to do with the rental agencies. Now there have been many articles about the existence of rental agencies like A.P.T., United Tenants Association, Homefinders, Rentex, Timesavers, and so forth. This is not new.

Maybe there should be a movement to prosecute these companies for false advertising. I think it would be valid to charge them with having to produce any available accommodation at all, because occupancy is virtually zero in terms of availability.

There are no apartments for rent in many of those cases. So what are they talking about, charging $20 and $30 for a person to register and then they'll find you a place? It's like me telling somebody to give me a fee and the first time I find a gold mine, I'll call you. I think that's unjust; it's criminal. People are being led astray. We have a responsibility to exercise some protection legislation in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps emphasizing certain of the inequities that I feel exist in my riding without relating them to the budget, but I think that budgets

[ Page 473 ]

reflect responsibilities and problems in the community. Many times the budgets are indirect. They have an indirect effect on all kinds of things. The quality of life should be the end result of our budget.

Let me talk a little bit about housing — not rental accommodation specifically, but housing. I would like to quote something from The Province:

"Thousands of British Columbians face a real crisis at the moment to find housing. It's not really energy. After two weeks of investigation of housing in B.C. a team of Province reporters has only one word to describe the prospect of rental or buying a home: grim."

Now referring back to my comments earlier about not recognizing the human quality, and recognizing that putting up public housing as such doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I think the best way to put it was in some of the remarks made by the United Community Services exploratory team, that suggested that the housing problem should involve the individuals, the community. There's a reason for that. It's not necessarily to pass the buck and to do nothing; it's recognizing that putting up housing as such doesn't solve the problem.

People don't flourish that well under adverse environmental conditions. If we put up a lot of houses that are unrelated to human requirements or human needs, then we have the appropriate funds and the budget to take care of the adverse reactions to having lived under these conditions.

What we have to do is face it that the human organism, for better or for worse, is fairly predictable in its behaviour. Now, we haven't always wanted to recognize the characteristics of a human being. But we are emotional and we have a need for such aesthetic experiences; we have to feel some sense of accomplishment, some sense of identification, some sense of worth, a sense of importance.

Okay now, if we're putting up these houses plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, we're looking good. You know, headlines: "NDP Government Produces 1,000 Units Right Out In The Middle of Nowhere!" — on all of that available land that we have. And people at random, ad hoc or whatever, run out and sign up, they fill them in.

Okay, so what happens? A week or so later we get a group of people petitioning the government to give them a community worker in that complex because they're having problems — people won't co-operate, they're irresponsible, they are not taking part in this, that and the other thing. You've got problems because they are a collection of individuals. They have no sense of community, no sense of identification to anything that joins or is collective. They simply have a shelter. And that's the problem; it's a serious problem in our society.

Mr. Speaker, we are guilty because we go on and on doing Band-aid jobs in areas that require comprehensive analysis. With a sense of responsibility, we must recognize these things before it's too late. In fact we haven't recognized them to a point that I'm satisfied. And I realize that to do so, we as a government may not be here to finish the job. Because we say we're going to put up housing but it's going to be housing related to the people's needs. The people themselves, the ones who we're trying to work with, say: "No. Just put up the houses, we'll worry about the needs." Because this is something that hasn't been communicated to people. They don't always understand what you mean when you say, "We're going to relate to your needs, we're going to relate to community requirements." If we yield to this kind of pressure, we'll put up the houses and we will be guilty of some serious neglect as far as the public is concerned.

Example: In the Gastown area, in the skid road area, as it's popularly referred to, is an old community, long, long standing. And the merchants and the commercial-minded people recognized the potential for making a buck and they started to revive old Gastown — Gassy Jack and so forth. Fine, but on the periphery of that area exists a long-standing community. It has been for years. People had lived there and developed it — that was the centre of Vancouver at one time; there are homes there, have been always. And we've forgotten that. We consider it a slum. At times there have been movements to raze that place, put up a bunch of new shiny buildings.

But there still are remnants of a community, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, in the Gastown area. In the periphery of the Gastown area exists a community of people who have lived there over the years and who have a sense of identity. People whom we refer to as prostitutes, and hustlers, and pimps have heritage in that area.

I think that we better understand what this means. We should be revitalizing these areas; we should be rehabilitating these areas. We should be maintaining the core of these areas the same as we've done in the Strathcona area where we recognized the Chinese community and the periphery there and began to save it by the efforts of small groups like SPOTA (Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association) who fought in the city hall and who fought all kinds of other interests to save the community.

We haven't recognized communities and we still don't recognize communities. But until we recognize what is happening within the core and what people are all about, we could put up a thousand houses a day, and we aren't going to solve any problems. We are going to have so much social degradation and disintegration of families and lack of respect in regard for each other that it's going to be great for the

[ Page 474 ]

people who are in the services field because they're going to be selling us everything — all kinds of pills and all kinds of treatments and retreats to go and get some therapy or whatever you want to call it, and some group experiences and so forth. We'll be selling that because people will be looking for a way out. They feel boxed in and they are going to continue to be boxed in until we stop this disregard for people values and people things. This is what I feel our budget should reflect.

When we take a look at those estimates they should come down in a pyramid and go up to a point, and there's going to be talk about quality. If it doesn't relate to that, as far as I am concerned we are dealing with a bunch of random Band-aid kind of situations that is playing games. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's about time we went all the way on behalf of people in this province.

It's getting on, and I have a lot of things that I could say, but I am not that anxious to beat around the bush. I would like us to do something really positive — that is to invite the people to participate in solving this problem, and to enunciate the kind of things that they can do.

For instance: we talked before about conversions of existing structures making them more available to larger numbers of people — the sharing concept. But what's wrong with the sharing concept? What is it we are afraid of when it comes to residential communities having regions and areas that are supposedly zoned only for single families — one family units? What's wrong with these people bringing in people whom they can relate to and making a family situation, giving them some sense of responsibility? Why not let them participate? Why do they have to start off with 10 people in the family and have them slowly progress, or whatever you want to call it, into the community and end up with one person in the family? This happens quite often; we have many large homes with one person left — one single person, widow or whatever.

This is a problem I think we should take a look at from the sociological standpoint. Not always from the standpoint of exploiting the market or putting up new structures. Strangely enough it's a false kind of concept of: we've got to keep the economy moving so we've got to build houses so that we can keep everything going. But, you know, this is based on the idea that you've got to keep everybody working in order to keep them composed. And that's wrong too — this idea of the work ethic.

I think we misunderstand. People can work without breaking their backs or going out to a job, and we've got to face that. If we are intelligent and as sophisticated as we say we are and if we are living in a computer age, why is it that we haven't learned how to utilize our resources better, more efficiently? Why aren't we able to come up with ways of getting into the more advanced levels of human potential, as we say? Why can't we recognize this? Why are we so uptight because people are not working every day and are not doing their usual thing? I think we are afraid to find out what we could evolve to. We seem only satisfied if everybody's out breaking his back, working till he's 60 years of age so he can go and retire some place alone because we haven't got time to even give him the basic amenities of living. This is the kind of problem that I'm afraid we're not addressing ourselves to because these are not politically viable things to do in this society. And they should be. They should be.

There are some people in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, who didn't come in here because they wanted to be political. And mind you, the temptation is great. There are some of us who find because of the pressures outside and inside that we've got to make political decisions when we know what our responsibilities are to the people who put us here. And I'll tell you, it is critical on the outside. People are not prepared to wait and wait and wait for us to make promises and promises to put them on. I think we better get on with the business and have confidence in people's gut feelings and gut needs. If they don't want us re-elected, then let's live well when we go out. But let's don't stay in here to put off doing what we have to do.

I don't feel very good when I have people call me and say, "Look I'm making $200 a month. My rent is $150 and they told me it was going to go up to $175. What are you going to do?" And what can I do? What can I do?

I can say that maybe we can get a little emergency rent control and hold it for a while. But I mean what's the problem; what's the real problem? We've got to solve these problems. We've got to solve the problem, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of ways.

I'm going to sit down with just this one thing — just to give you something to think about.

The Workmen's Compensation Board has a fund, but it also has a group of interrogators who decide who gets what when, and it's based on all kinds of abstract formulas. Now, regardless of all that, we're here to help people. If we can guarantee income to people who are not injured, their only problem is that they are phased out at a certain age.... We have a person who has been working and who has a questionable injury based on whether he did or didn't at a time of day, was on the job or coming home from work.

We say, "Well, we can only give you a certain percentage of what you earn because of all this." The point is that the person has to survive. Why can't we recognize the fact that he's got to have the money and that he hasn't the time to wait for us to decide whether he's going to be able to live or not?

I know one specific case where a guy lost a leg on

[ Page 475 ]

a bulldozer. He is still battling the case, because they claim that he wasn't insured at the time it happened because that company was operating outside the law — it was an operation that wasn't covered for some reason. It's a legal matter, but the point is that the man has several children. He needs help right now, and I don't mean a minimal amount. We should take a look at the living index. Take a look at the realities of costs today and say: "Look, you've got to have this money one way or another. We'll adjudicate later." This is the kind of confidence we've got to have in doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I think I'll stop now, but I hope that I will be able to rise again during the details of the estimates and add a few more of my comments.

MR. GARDOM: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very slim chance of the government falling over the weekend, so I wish all the Members a happy Saturday and Sunday, and move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. D. M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I move, seconded by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On what point are you rising?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm rising to make a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you can't do it under the orders of the day until it is called, and then only on a day on which the House proceeds to motions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that the House proceed to the consideration of motion 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no way you can do it under our rules. At this moment the House has adjourned debate on the proceedings of the day, and we are proceeding to the question of terminating the day's sitting.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking leave of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. Monday.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House. I must take the motion.

Motion approved.

MR. PHILLIPS: The fact that the motion standing in my name on the order paper is not going to be....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please be seated? There is a motion before the House that the House do now adjourn. What is the motion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, there is no motion before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. It fixed the hour and there can be statements made.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have no other recourse but to ask leave of the House to file additional information related to my statements in the House that there have been leaks characteristic of the business initiative of this government.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents the annual report of the British Columbia Railway Company, along with the printed copy of the annual report.

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents the annual return of the calendar year 1973 submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions 26, 19, 79 and 30.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I wish to make a statement related to Governor Dan Evans' statement today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As a result of close co-operation between our government and the government of Washington state since we came into office, Governor Evans of Washington state has proposed that we should have a symposium on Canadian-American relations at Washington State College, Bellingham, from September 19 to 24 of this year.

We have agreed to the proposal and today Governor Evans has issued the following

[ Page 476 ]

proclamation:

"In his address to the joint session of the Washington state Legislature on January 16, 1974, Premier Barrett called for mutual co-operation in a search for answers to common problems.

"The Washington state Legislature has made an appropriation to hold a symposium on Canadian-American relations at Western Washington State College.

"It is highly desirable that legislators of the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington be involved in planning the topics for the discussion at the symposium.

"Now therefore be it resolved that I, Daniel J. Evans, Governor of the State of Washington, do hereby designate Dr. Charles J. Floor, President of Western Washington State College, and Dr. Gerald F. Ratten, coordinator of the symposium on Canadian-American relations, to issue in my name invitations to Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and such cabinet and governmental officials as are deemed appropriate, and to Members of the Washington state Legislature and other officials of the Washington state government, to attend on September 19, 1974, a symposium on Canadian-American relations.

"Be it further resolved that Western Washington State College seek the participation of institutions of higher learning in the Province of British Columbia to aid in the planning of the symposium on Canadian-American relations.

"Signed: Governor Daniel J. Evans, February 22, 1974."

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House will be receiving full details on the symposium, including the proposed agenda, shortly. I wish to point out that all Members of the House will be invited as individual Members of this assembly, and can accept or reject on that basis.

From the government's point of view, there is no party discipline on this agenda. It is a meeting of legislators from one jurisdiction with legislators from another jurisdiction. The invitations will be forthcoming, and I hope that as many Members as wish to attend, will attend.

MR. CURTIS: What are the dates?

HON. MR. BARRETT: September 19 to 24.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:23 p.m.