[ Page 3295 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Recycling Corporation Act (Bill 143). Mr. Steves.

Introduction and first reading — 3295

Oral Questions

Policy changes on treatment of veterans. Mr. Bennett — 3295

Bonding of mobile-home dealers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3296

State of negotiations on Reid property as of May 14. Mr. Wallace — 3296

Hiring of John Beltz for transit terminal negotiations. Mr. Chabot — 3296

Role of Kemano 2 in Alcan agreement with NKK. Mr. Dent — 3297

Answers to questions on order paper and taken as notice. Mr. Smith — 3297

Free bus service. Mr. Gibson — 3297

Approval for Delta year-round school programme. Mr. Curtis — 3298

Application of 8-cent gas guideline. Ms. Brown — 3298

Chairmanship duties of Member for Atlin. Mr.- McClelland — 3298

Overruling of water controller's decision on Chemainus dam.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3298

Committee of Supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 225.

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3299 

Mrs. Jordan — 3301 

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3306

Mrs. Jordan — 3307

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3308

Mrs. Jordan — 3308

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3308

Mrs. Jordan — 3308

Ms. Sanford — 3308

Mr. Fraser — 3309

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3312

Mr. Gibson — 3314

Mr. Kelly — 3315
Mr. Curtis — 3320

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3321

Mr. Curtis — 3323

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3323

Mr. Kelly — 3323

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3323

Mr. Smith — 3324

Mrs. Jordan — 3327

Mr. McGeer — 3328

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia I would like to welcome to the House two very distinguished guests who have been spending the last two days with us in the province and will be spending the rest of today and tomorrow in British Columbia as well. They are His Excellency Chang Wen-chin, the ambassador from the People's Republic of China and his wife, Chang Ying.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to bid them welcome. I had an opportunity to speak in the hallway just a moment ago and I expressed the regret that British Columbia hadn't turned on their beautiful weather for our visitors. I hope that tomorrow will be much more enjoyable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to join, Mr. Speaker; Wo, he wo de chi ta de dz you dang tung jr men shi hwan ying jye change da shr, chang de tai tai, ye chi ta de jung gwo ren min gung he gwo laide peng you men. Wo men syi hwan nimen dzai Victoria dzai yi tse hwei lai, he dzai yitse dzai Victoria ju le ji ge libai. Jye yi tse ni jarli hen shau de shrhow.

(In welcoming Ambassador Chang, Mrs. Chang, and the other visitors of the embassy of the People's Republic of China who are in the gallery to Victoria, I and my comrades of the Liberal Party hope that you will return to Victoria and stay with us for longer next time — for a week or two rather than just a few days.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay in Scottish. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was just about to say, Mr. Speaker, that that's rather a hard act for a Scotsman to follow. (Laughter.)

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communication): It's no' that hard.

MR. WALLACE: It's no' that hard. We in the Conservative Party bid you welcome to British Columbia and I and my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) want to say how much we enjoyed the hospitality last night at the dinner. We all ate and drank too much, as was evidenced by my behaviour when I got back here. Nevertheless, we do indeed welcome you and hope you have a very safe return to Ottawa.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, we have in our galleries today a visitor from the United States, Representative A.A. Adams. Mr. Adams is the chairman of the House and Health Social Services Committee in the State of Washington. Mr. Adams is accompanied by the vice-chairman of the committee, Mr. Michael Parker. I'd ask all Members of the House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, a group of students and teachers from Sexsmith School in Vancouver will be in the galleries later this afternoon. I'm sorry I can't introduce them in Scottish or Chinese or even my own native language, Dutch, but I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome in advance.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House of the presence in the gallery of 35 students from Hansworth School in North Vancouver along with their instructors, Mr. Hunkur, Mr. Chala and Mr. Arnet. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have the House welcome Mr. George Home, who is the education director for the CLC and who is here from Ottawa with his wife, Hazel.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RECYCLING CORPORATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Steves, Bill 143, British Columbia Recycling Corporation 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.

Oral questions.

POLICY CHANGES ON
TREATMENT OF VETERANS

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: has the provincial government made any policy changes with respect to the preferential treatment to veterans under the provisions of the agreement signed by B.C. and Canada on July 1, 1946? If so, what is the present policy on veterans applying for land under this agreement?

[ Page 3296 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'm unaware of any changes, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice.

BONDING OF
MOBILE-HOME DEALERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Consumer Services, Mr. Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether she has had conversations with Mr. Don MacTavish, the secretary of the Western Mobile-Home Dealers Association, and whether these conversations included the question of bonding of dealers in the industry?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): My department and I met with Mr. MacTavish on January 24. He at that time suggested licensing provisions and he suggested that the Department of Municipal Affairs or the Department of Housing should set up a licensing system for mobile-home dealers and at that time he did not refer to any kind of bonding system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. May I ask the Minister whether the name of Robert Montgomery Hooker, a Nicaraguan citizen formerly a resident of Burnaby, or that of Budget Mobile Homes were mentioned during these discussions?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Budget Mobile Homes was mentioned in the discussion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. May I ask the Minister what steps she took to investigate and act upon Mr. MacTavish's recommendation regarding licensing in particular with respect to Budget Mobile Homes and Mr. Hooker?

HON. MS. YOUNG: We introduced the Trade Practices Act to prevent such measures in the future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. We're happy to hear the future, Mr. Speaker, but in the recent past I take it nothing was done to act upon the recommendations of Mr. Don MacTavish which could have prevented the Budget Mobile Homes problem.

HON. MS. YOUNG: There was nothing that could be done, Mr. Speaker, because there was no legislation. We had inherited no decent consumer protection legislation. As a result of such things as Budget Mobile Homes and a few others, we have found it necessary to introduce the necessary legislation to preclude these practices.

STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS
ON REID PROPERTY AS OF MAY 14

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard to the purchase of the Reid property, if he could tell the House at what point negotiations were as of Tuesday, May 14 — a week ago yesterday.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The transaction took place on Friday last, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I could advise the House at what stage negotiations were at that time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister recall being asked in the House on that day if the government was in the process of buying the Reid property?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works was asked.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The record — and I don't know if we are allowed to quote from the Blues — shows a whole page of questioning on my part as to negotiations of the Minister during his estimates, and he gave me "No." He said that this was not so. I'm merely trying to clarify the record, given the fact that two days after being asked a question in the House the government signed an agreement for purchase. I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would be pleased to follow the matter up further.

HIRING OF JOHN BELTZ
FOR TRANSIT TERMINAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Did the government hire one John Beltz to do any negotiations with Arpro Holdings relative to property acquisition for a transit terminal in North Vancouver?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The work done in North Vancouver was done through the Department of Public Works, but I believe Beltz was the person that was negotiating in that area. It was under Public Works.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Did John Beltz identify himself in discussing the property as a direct property negotiator for the government?

MR. SPEAKER: Shouldn't that question actually be directed to the proper department?

[ Page 3297 ]

MR. CHABOT: No. Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't answer that. I don't know. It wasn't done through the transit, as I mentioned; it was done through Public Works.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you're chasing the wrong department, are you not, Hon. Member?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has been closely involved with the transit scene.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is Ministerial responsibility and if it is in Public Works that is where the question goes, surely. Could you hold the question until the Minister is here?

ROLE OF KEMANO 2 IN
ALCAN AGREEMENT WITH NKK

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in his capacity as a director for B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plant, plant!

MR. DENT: In light of the press announcement today that Alcan has entered into a 25-year agreement with NKK of Japan that will involve increased capacity, could the Hon. Minister indicate whether he has received any information if this will involve the implementation of Kemano 2?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wasn't aware that the question was going to be asked, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Hon. Members know that if the House is equal anyone is entitled to ask questions. To have the aspersion cast across the floor that it is a plant really is not fair to the Hon. Members.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard it right over there. I don't know whether it will be on the tapes, because the microphone wasn't on, but I heard it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: However, I am pleased that the question was asked. (Laughter.) I will not take it as notice.

We were advised by the representatives of Alcan in British Columbia that they were entering into a long-term contract with the Japanese and that it would involve substantial improvement and improved pollution control in the existing plant at Kitimat but that it would not involve any new power production or Kemano 2.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and Minister of Finance. The federal government is now advertising bonus rates for Government of Canada bonds — they are being increased to 9 per cent. This is being done to stem a run on government bonds because banks are now offering 10.375 per cent on short-term paper and 9.5 per cent on five-year notes. In view of this and the fact that B.C. parity bonds are now up to 4.375 per cent less than market rates, is the Premier contemplating anything to stem the run on B.C. government parity bonds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I resent the inference that is, in effect, deliberately politically damaging to those bonds. When we were in opposition we never took an attack on the bonds that way. I want to say that the bonds, in my information, are holding up quite well. I don't know of any federal government spokesman; obviously the bureaucrats are making the decision in Ottawa while the election is on.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ON ORDER PAPER AND TAKEN AS NOTICE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Would the Minister indicate to the House when he is prepared to file answers to the 25 questions that are still on the order paper in his name as well as reply to the oral questions that he has taken as notice?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll give that matter high priority now that we have dealt with my estimates in such an expeditious manner.

FREE BUS SERVICES

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In view of the call over the weekend by the mayor of Vancouver for a free bus service in downtown Vancouver I would ask the Minister if he has any plans for an experiment in this regard, hopefully to the North Shore municipalities.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I thank the Member, Mr. Speaker, for sending me the paper from which he was to ask this question. I would be quite happy to see Vancouver carry on an experiment in this regard.

MR. GIBSON: Would the Minister finance it?

[ Page 3298 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure that was a supplementary.

APPROVAL FOR DELTA
YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL PROGRAMME

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Education: has the Department of Education given any approval — preliminary or otherwise — to plans to institute a year-round school programme in the Delta School District?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Actually our approval is not required. As you know, we do espouse and practise the theory of local autonomy. The boards have a right to experiment or to try new scheduling. The only thing is that we have always said to the school board: do contact the community and make the parents aware and be sure that the parents understand why you are doing this and you generally have their support.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. Could she state the government's or the department's position on year-round school systems, quite apart from the local autonomy factor, which has been explained?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We have no specific position on it. We are very pleased, though, to see the boards of the province experiment with various ways in which they can utilize the school facilities in a better manner.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. In the event that year-round or summer use of schools is a fact in some school districts, is there likely to be supplementary financial assistance from the provincial Treasury to cover those extra months of operation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I believe that one of the purposes of doing that is to create more economies. That is one of the reasons which I think has already been suggested. But if it is required for special assistance, the Department of Education is always ready to look at research programmes and to give assistance if we feel it is educationally desirable.

APPLICATION OF
8-CENT GAS GUIDELINE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and it has to do with gas prices. I wonder if he would clarify the situation for us again. Apparently Standard Oil agreed to go along with the 8-cent guideline, yet the service stations that get Standard Oil gas are still charging more than 8 cents a gallon. When I myself drove into one of these service stations and inquired from my own dealer why, he showed me a memo which was sent around by Standard Oil to all the dealers which said that the agreement was that the 8 cents would be to the dealer but there was not an agreement that they would then pass on this 8 cents to the general public. The recommended price to the public that was in this memo was 9.98 cents to the general public. Now was that 8-cent agreement to go to the general public or was it just from Standard Oil to the dealer? Would he clarify that for me, please?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy if the Member would let me have a copy of this directive that went. The Energy Commission are collating this information and they are looking forward to two hearings on the matter. I might say in specific response to the question raised that the guidelines are really the price to the dealer. We have not as such stepped into the field of dealer mark-ups, with respect to issuing guidelines to them.

CHAIRMANSHIP DUTIES
OF MEMBER FOR ATLIN

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could advise the House when the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) will assume some of the duties of chairmanship of various committees or perhaps Deputy Speaker following his extensive education at taxpayers' expense in London, England.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That's a facetious question and it is directed to the wrong person.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's not.

OVERRULING OF WATER CONTROLLER'S
DECISION ON CHEMAINUS DAM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier a question which he took on notice 10 days ago — namely, whether the decision of a cabinet committee, overruling the B.C. water controller's decision on a Chemainus dam, will be upheld. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministers with line responsibility in this area were not on the committee or consulted, and the studies on alternative water sources as requested by the controller were not carried out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was an appeal by the district of North Cowichan against an order of the Comptroller of Water Rights. It was taken under section 38 of the Water Act. Section 38 provides for

[ Page 3299 ]

an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which may delegate any member or members of the executive council to hear the appeal and pronounce a decision thereon on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The cabinet delegated Hon. Ms. Young (Minister of Consumer Services), Hon. Mr. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources), Hon. Mr. Cocke (Minister of Health) and Hon. Mr. Lea (Minister of Highways) to hear the appeal. The decision went in favour of North Cowichan district. They were allowed to proceed with their plans to obtain water from the river on the grounds that no alternate water supplies are available.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But no studies have been carried out on that? A supplementary. But no studies have been carried out.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

On vote 225: Minister's office, $77,072.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I spoke during the budget debate earlier this session in some detail about the role and the programmes of the Department of Recreation and Conservation. I would like today to make some additional comments at this time and to inform the House about some of the new programmes with which we have begun to work in the meantime.

This government has recognized the need to fill the gap for recreation and conservation. Because people have more time to recreate, this government has recognized and it is reflected that the budget has been increased from $13.8 million to $25.8 million. This is an increase of 86 per cent.

Important services provided by the provincial Parks Branch become evident when you consider that the attendance at British Columbia's parks in 1973 increased over the previous year by 16 per cent, from 8.3 million to 9.7 million in the number of visits.

This government has persisted in its efforts to create new parks. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974, 20 new class A parks were created for a gain of 1.6 million acres. Seven recreational areas comprising 186,000 acres were also established.

When this government came to office there were 7.1 million acres of park and recreation areas. As of April 1, 1973, the total acreage stood at 9.1 million, an increase of close to 2 million acres. With the additional funding, we will be able to maintain the park establishments and programme developments to date as well as embark on some new facilities and programmes.

I would now like to tell you about some of the new programmes and go into some of the details so you won't have to ask so many questions later on when I sit down.

Under the capital works programme we will be completing many of the projects initiated last year under Bill 77. We expect to complete 200 camping units and bring 300 units well along to completion. These are all in addition to the existing 6,183 units which are already in existence. Also, 40 miles of hiking trails will be added to the existing ones to bring that up to about 700 miles of hiking trails, mostly throughout our parks. Also, 100 new picnic units will be added.

In terms of structures, we are adding three regional garage shops, workshops, a new interpretation and education centre at Kokanee Creek, other buildings and barbecue facilities in Newcastle Island. Major water works will also be completed in the Libby Reservoir area. In the above programmes we will be including the high-density campground at Okanagan Lake Park. The Member isn't here to hear that information. A campground will be designed mainly for camper trucks at Muncho Lake in northern B.C.; boatmen's primitive campgrounds in Clearwater, Wells Gray Park; a walk-in campground for boaters at Pirates Cove and at Cinnaminson Narrows on Shuswap Lake.

A joint programme will be undertaken with the Fish and Wildlife Branch and B.C. Hydro to restore past damage to the environment in the Elk River Valley at Strathcona Park.

A research programme will include wear-and-tear studies on Mount Robson, Assiniboine and Manning Parks to relate use-levels and terrain damage.

In historic park sites, new works at restoration will be commenced at Fort McLeod and Fort Fraser. Work at Barkerville, Fort Steele and Harrison Mills will also continue.

The summer staff for park ranger patrols — this is peacekeeping and public assistance — has been increased from 23 patrolmen to 46 patrolmen, including four senior patrolmen to take the weight of the people supervision from the regional park supervisors. This year I think you will note that we did not have the usual complaints of rowdyism within our parks on the Easter weekend and on the Victoria Day weekend as we usually have. This was because we were able to put more people into the field with supervision and some new changes in techniques of entry into some of our parks system.

Also, park interpretation has been extended by increasing expenditures from $345,000 in the fiscal year of 1973-74 to $470,000 this year. The 1974-75, park naturalist summer staff has been increased from

[ Page 3300 ]

48 to 53 and we have two new additional programmes.

A back-country ranger programme will place 21 people at 10 remote locations to be of service to users of the more primitive park areas.

We have also extended and expanded our youth crew programme. This year we have added girls to our summer works programme. We have also increased the pay rate from $6.07 a day to $13 a day.

In relation to the foregoing, we anticipate in excess of 10 million visits to the provincial park system this season. This is actually on a par with Ontario.

In keeping with the continuing high level demand for outdoor recreation facilities, completely new developments of park facilities are being initiated at Shawnigan Lake, Sasquatch Park, Chilliwack Lake, Skagit River Valley, Clearwater Lake in Wells Gray Park, Swan Lake, Muncho Lake and Ten Mile Lake.

The deficit of yesterday is being overcome, reflecting the priority given by this government to provide the people of British Columbia with adequate outdoor recreational opportunities and to preserve a natural heritage equal to none in North America.

Of course, it simply isn't enough to substantially increase our system of provincial parks. We must also provide the Parks Branch with adequate funding to develop and provide facilities in new parks, to further develop and increase facilities in existing parks, to adequately manage and maintain the provincial parks system, and for innovative, new programmes.

The proposed park budget this fiscal year is $10.1 million, an increase of 5.7 from last year — nearly double. In addition, a $5 million bill for accelerated development of our park system is before the House and the Parks Branch has received an allotment of $2.1 million under the government's "Careers 74" programme for summer employment.

The development of community and private ski areas has lagged for some time in the Province of British Columbia. Planning for ski development is complex and invariably involves government in a variety of complex ways. To facilitate increased development of public and private ski areas, my department in the near future will be hiring a ski coordinator to provide a consulting service to assist in overall planning of such developments.

In the case of community-owned-and-operated ski hills, we want to provide all the guidance we reasonably can. In the case of privately-owned-and-operated ski areas, we want to assist but we also want to ensure that the public interest is secured. Such developments must also be compatible with proper land-use planning and we must also ensure that a fair return will come to the people of this province when the use of Crown land for access and/or ski sites is involved.

It is our hope that expanded and new ski areas will not only cater to downhill ski enthusiasts but also will provide a variety of other family-oriented recreational areas and activities.

The Fish and Wildlife Branch has the most important role in managing and securing our valuable fish and wildlife resources. When the present government took office, the budget of the Fish and Wildlife Branch was $2.9 million. It was then boosted to $4.1 million, and this year the budget is $7.1 million.

In addition, the branch has been provided with an additional $1.2 million for the "Careers 74" programme. All in all this budget has increased about threefold since we've taken office in 1972. The present budget contains an even larger increase than last year for staff. A total of 97 new people will be added to the staff of Fish and Wildlife this year.

This year 33, or a third of the new staff, will be conservation officers, five of which will be predator-control specialists. The balance of the new staff will consist mainly of technical support people and necessary clerical staff. Eleven will be professional staff; information and education will receive another seven.

For years we have lacked the necessary capability to enforce those regulations established for the protection of both fish and wildlife. Last year I stated in the budget speech that our enforcement in prosecutions and convictions has risen to 41 per cent.

This budget is much more in keeping with the value of fish and wildlife resources in this province; and isn't it about time that somebody gave this the priority that it deserves?

This expansion of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, Mr. Chairman, is also allowing us to begin catching up in a number of other important areas, such as inventory and habitat protection, to undertake a number of important new initiatives.

I'd like to tell the Members of the House about one such initiative: this is the CORE programme — Conservation and Outdoor Education Programme — which has been compulsory on Vancouver Island in latter years. For all new licensees and for all those who have been convicted of some offence in the fish and wildlife area, commencing September 1 this year, the CORE programme will be compulsory throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I could go on and discuss many programmes and many innovations that have been brought in within the last year. We've brought in the new licence structure. No great changes had been brought in in the licence structure of the Fish and Wildlife Branch since 1965. We've also brought in a permit system which will bring about new experimentation with intensive game management.

We also have announced a fish hatchery. I think it's about $7.1 million that will be spent over the next three years in a new fish hatchery in

[ Page 3301 ]

Abbotsford. We are also contemplating many other areas of seminars throughout our different regions of fish and wildlife, and will invite the public in once a year to discuss new changes and questions that they may bring to us.

Also, this year a new high was reached in artificial propagation of salmonoids — small fry. They reached the poundage this year of 60,000 pounds: approximately six million fish were released in 380 lakes throughout the Province of B.C.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that every Member of this House has been taking the opportunity to visit on at least one occasion our fine Provincial Museum. The museum, with its imaginative and original displays, has earned itself an international reputation. While work continues on major new display areas in the museum, the staff has also undertaken a programme to take the museum to the people of the province.

In the past fiscal year three museum displays have been taken to 300 schools and viewed by close to 20,000 students throughout this province.

Funds are also being provided this year in this year's budget to enable the museum to acquire a rolling train — a rolling museum train. This will provide a provincial dimension to the museum and stimulate interest in local museums throughout the province. The train will include a locomotive with a tender and will be drawing five cars. It should be ready to roll in about 1975 and will be in operation for approximately four months throughout the year.

The proposed Provincial Museum budget this fiscal year is $1.4 million, an increase of close to $400,000 from last year.

Regarding the marine resources: the full potential of our marine resources has not been realized, and new initiatives are necessary. The increase in budget from $125,000 during the last fiscal year to close to $200,000 this fiscal year, and increase in staff also, will allow us to move more quickly forward in developing and researching our marine resources. The branch capacity to provide management, as well as technical research and consulting services, also is being expanded.

Several important new research programmes in the aquacultural field are now under way. Several of these are in cooperation with the federal government: for example, research and new methods of oyster culture; examination of log storage and booming on the oysters; examination of shellfish disease; development of inventory methods for red and brown algae and other studies on the biota.

The budgeted increase for the general administration of the department is $281,000. That's for 31 new clerical, public informational and personnel staff positions and other general office expenses. Also, $10 million has been provided this year for the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, and the total allocated to date from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund is $23.4 million.

This capital assistance has encouraged a generation of construction to the value of approximately $84.7 million throughout the Province of British Columbia. This, of course, has generated substantial business for employment in construction and industry and related businesses. It has also had a considerable impact in creating new positions in the recreational field. It has been calculated that about 2,300 jobs have been created in the recreational field because of this fund.

The total department budget, not including special bills and funding from "Careers 74," as I mentioned earlier, is $25.7 million, an increase of $11.9 million…

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's enough in one year.

HON. MR. RADFORD: …from last year's budget of $13.8 million.

Mr. Chairman, this government has made major strides towards catching up with the lack of recreation facilities and opportunities in both the urban and rural areas of this province; and this government has recognized that recreation is one of the most important ingredients to a livable future.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, Mr. Chairman, I now know why the Minister was so busy clearing his throat during prayers. He said it was just for a few minutes' dissertation, but I'd hate to be around when he's planning to give a 20-minute one.

I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to say and I want to congratulate him on some of his programmes. I think that in certain areas he's carrying on extremely well in the predesigned programmes that were part of the former administration. I think that's sound acknowledgment on his part that he did in fact inherit perhaps one of the finest and most imaginative departments that there is in Canada and probably North America.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) says "the most under-financed," and this is one of the things that really interests me, both in the Minister's statement and always, of course, in the Liberals' debate. The accent is always on how much money you can put into it. How much money!

The federal government today is bragging about how much money they're spending and, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers in Canada and British Columbia don't want to know how much they're spending; they want to know what value they're getting for that money. The taxpayers all across Canada today are fed up with wastage and window-dressing on the part of governments with

[ Page 3302 ]

their hard-earned tax dollars. They want accountability, and they want quality spending and they want planned spending.

I'm not accusing this Minister of not planning his spending. I have already said that I feel in some areas he's doing an excellent job. I believe that it's a general consensus that this Minister is, within himself, a very likable person and working very hard in his department.

I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Minister on his expertise and the awards that he's won in marksmanship. I think this is a great credit to his perseverance as an individual, and it's nice to have a Minister of Recreation who has this talent. It's also nice for the taxpayers to know that he has this talent, because it's becoming increasingly obvious that he's going to need that type of talent if, in fact, he is to take his rightful place in this cabinet and in this government. Because, Mr. Chairman, it spite of the glowing reports presented to this House on several occasions by this Minister in his most charming manner, there is growing public concern throughout this province.

There is certainly strong concern within this opposition and there is increasing concern within his own department about the fact that this Minister is given a great deal of window dressing but, in fact, has been absolutely shelved by his colleagues when it comes to major decisions involving environmental management and major conservation decisions in this province. It's sad that this Minister has been shelved because I believe — and I believe much of the public believes — he has a great deal of capability in terms of administration and he has a great deal of sensitivity in terms of some of the best ways to utilize the resources at his hand, in terms of his staff, to better the conservation and recreational management in this province.

But why is the public concerned? They're concerned specifically because in no major development decision or announcement made by this government since taking office has this Minister's voice been heard. It has become increasingly obvious through the Minister's own statements and statements by the government, and on inquiring into these various circumstances not only was this Minister's voice not heard outside but his voice and his staff's voice were not heard on the inside where the decisions were made. I would speak specifically of a few that are very much public knowledge and some that I wish to bring up today.

The Tilbury Island situation. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) made a land grab at wholesale prices under Bill 42 and took agricultural land and some of the finest sturgeon breeding areas and some of the estuary of the Fraser River. He grabbed this for industrial development without consulting the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and without yielding to the requests by the municipalities and the regional district that before any final decisions on land use formalities be introduced, that there be a result from the federal study that is going on, that there be estuarial studies continued by this Minister's department and that various public bodies such as the Fish and Wildlife, SPEC, other groups and the public themselves have an opportunity to make an input.

This government, under the hand of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, and undoubtedly with the full support of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), proceeded without any of these commitments being met that this government made to the public in the last election. One of the reasons for their election was that they would involve public participation studies before the fact and not after the fact. But in Tilbury Island this Minister was nowhere to be seen or heard, and we've heard nothing from him now.

The same thing took place in the removal of the wild fowl reserve at Roberts Bank by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. At no time had the Minister of Recreation and Conservation been consulted. One member of his staff on the lower mainland had been asked. While I recognize that this area was third in its priority in relation to wild fowl management on the lower mainland, it surely was incumbent on this government to at least have consulted its Minister of Recreation and Conservation and his staff. The reserve was eventually replaced to a large degree because of the insistence of the opposition. The order-in-council should have had the signature of this Minister on it and certainly his approval or disapproval.

What about the grandiose plans of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for the northern development of this province and egotistical vision and commitment that the people of the north would be consulted? Where has the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's voice been in that discussion? Was this Minister on the northern tour when supposedly the cabinet was going around after many of the facts to hear what the people thought? No, this Minister was left to hold down the fort and face the sins of this government in this Legislature.

Why? Why, Mr. Chairman, was this Minister not on that northern tour? Why were his ears not tuned to what the people are concerned about there? What about the wildlife up there? What about the habitat? What about constructive, planned usage of land? How much is this Minister's department going to be involved? Surely we all recognize now that the conflict between man and his natural environment and our natural resources is such that at no time can we afford to overlook a portfolio as important as this, when it's also recognized that there's still a good deal

[ Page 3303 ]

of difference of opinion between biologists within the branch, biologists outside, the natural conservationists and people themselves. It's going to take the utmost of ability and strength for this Minister to help resolve some of those problems of conflict.

This Minister should not play second fiddle to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and his other colleagues. You've got to use your weight, Mr. Minister, because the people of British Columbia are behind you. While we all realize that there is growing conflict and not everyone can be happy, we're most unhappy about the fact that this Minister, who is capable and who has a good department and who is adding to the department to his credit, has the right voice. Surely, all his technical staff, all his assistant staff, all the trained biologists must have more of an impact than just to provide more picnic benches and a few outdoor educational programmes, as important as they are.

Mr. Minister, in the whole Squamish situation and the location of the boxcar manufacturing plant we hear from Howard Paish and Associates; we heard from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; we heard from the Minister of Industrial Development; and we certainly heard from the Premier. We also heard from the Japanese. But we didn't hear from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I would urge this Minister to stand up and be counted not outside but within his own cabinet where his weight will count.

The same thing, Mr. Minister, in the development of the Port of Prince Rupert. At no time have we heard of this Minister's involvement in these decisions. This is just one more example of where the government is under the thumb of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This Minister's authority and ability has been usurped.

The whole matter of land-use permits for recreational purposes in my view, Mr. Minister, should be under your jurisdiction. But, in fact, this is under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We're supposed to be getting away — and I believe we should — from the domination of industrial development. We're supposed to be developing a balance in keeping with the changes that are taking place today and the fact that all of our environment is changing so fast. That's where your word should be.

The second point that is concerning the public no end is the conflict of statements becoming evident between yourself and your department. I'd like to refer back to two specific examples regarding your voice and how you've been shelved. The first is the Chemainus dam.

Mr. Minister, this is not an uncommon problem. It's the problem of a community which is water short — people who need water in a water-short area in terms of what they've been able to develop with an antiquated water system of an open flume between the reservoir and the main supply centre which allows for a lot of evaporation and which must be changed because we can't afford that sort of luxury today. It was built 25 years ago, I believe. The conflict is between the needs of these people in practical terms and the fact that the site chosen was one of the few remaining areas where there was a hope of increasing the runs of various salmon such as the chum, chinook coho salmon.

This, as I mentioned, is not an uncommon situation. One could be very sympathetic to the question that the Minister would have to take part in as far as a decision is concerned as to who comes first, the fish or the people. Where the Minister must be faulted is in the handling of the whole situation.

If you examine the background, you find that the departments within themselves had carried out their work in a responsible manner. The council and the community had carried out their work in a responsible manner to the best of their ability and the Water Rights Branch, with considerable wisdom, turned down the water application on August 24, 1973. It was not a blanket turndown, Mr. Chairman, but a turndown on sufficient evidence of concern by the federal fisheries department and this Minister's own Fish and Wildlife Branch, plus others who had some input. This was a very tenuous situation.

The director of Water Rights recommended that studies be done for alternate water supplies, such as using the Cowichan River or possibly wells and ground water. He also asked that an economic study be done because, in his overview, it would appear that possibly there would be more than an adequate supply of water this way at less cost. Surely a very reasonable decision on the part of the director of the Water Rights Branch. I'm sure it was a decision, had it been carried out properly, that could have led to an amicable solution that now must come through force.

If the Minister had been advised or on his toes about this situation, then surely the recommendations of the Water Rights director could have been followed through with the cooperation and input from his own Fish and Wildlife Branch and his own experts that he's hiring, and with the cooperation of the federal fisheries people, then the economic input and the water resource input that was needed. But nothing happened.

There was a public hearing, which is quite clouded by public comments, to say the least. Then nothing was heard again for four months when the cabinet committee decided to have a hearing. That was on January 14, 1974.

I must ask you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, up until this point: 1. was the Minister informed by his department of their concern regarding this pending decision on the building of this dam?

[ Page 3304 ]

2. Was the Minister consulted by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding impending conflicts of a decision that might result in the building of this dam?

3. Did the Minister at any time have any word from his colleague, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is the MLA for that area and who sits just in front of this Minister, that in fact he had some concerns in his constituency that seriously involved this Minister's department and that there was going to be the need for a great deal of study and concern about this decision.

4. Did the Minister know that the cabinet committee was having a hearing, or was appointed to have a hearing, on January 14, 1974?

Mr. Chairman, it's sad to realize that at the cabinet hearing the department of water rights and others were represented by legal counsel, but the federal fisheries did not appear, to my knowledge, and the Minister's own department who were genuinely concerned about this and who had advised the director of Water Rights about their concern, was not adequately represented at this hearing.

Surely the Minister must be aware that when you have technical people or practical or concerned people pitted against legal people, it's the technicality of the law that is generally going to win. And one must presume that if a committee is sitting on the basis of the legal implications, they will decide in favour of the law. Was this cabinet committee then in fact loaded against the genuine concerns of recreation and conservation in this area?

Why, Mr. Minister, did you not see, did you not take advice, which I believe someone had, that your Branch should have been represented by legal counsel as well?

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note that after that hearing it was another three months, in fact from January 14 to April 9, before that cabinet committee made a decision, and that decision was then not made public.

I must ask you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, where were you, during those three months? What liaison did you have with your department? Did the Minister not hear from his department that, in fact, they felt that the hearing might well go against them? And if so, what steps did he take? Was there no time during January 14 and April 9 when this Minister had any word from his four colleagues who sat on that committee that they had made this decision? And if he did hear from them, what steps did he take?

At no time between January 14, 1974, and April 9, would the Minister advise us, did he not hear from the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications, the MLA for this area? If he did hear from him, what was the information he received and what action did he take?

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it's a tragedy when a Minister who is genuinely concerned, as we believe this Minister to be, and is as dedicated to his work as we believe he is, and I think the public believes he is too, should find himself in a predicament where at a convention of some of the most important people involved in his jurisdiction it ends up with a headline: "Radford Ignorant of Plan".

I really must question whether I lay the blame at the foot of this Minister or, as I mentioned before, with the fact that his cabinet colleagues have shelved him. If this is the case, this is an injustice to this man and it's an injustice to his position that he should be so labelled.

So I must sum up, Mr. Chairman, this particular instance by asking again why the Minister was not advised of the conflict, in the first instance by his department; why the Minister was not advised of the conflict from his cabinet colleagues, and when there was a hearing; and why was the Minister not advised of the decision of the cabinet committee.

It leaves an obvious conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Either the Minister must be very much out of touch with his department….

Is the Minister so surrounded by executive assistants that the department is working under a serious handicap of non-accessibility to their Minister? Or was the Minister deliberately shoved on the shelf again, and in this specific instance, by his colleagues and kept in the dark? Or is the Minister, in fact, covering up a gross political decision by his colleagues, and is he being made the whipping boy for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? I would certainly hope not.

I hope the Minister will be able to explain this situation to the satisfaction of all Members in this House because certainly, Mr. Chairman, with the amount of public concern with the seriousness of this decision, it is his responsibility to give a satisfactory explanation.

Then I would like to know — now that the matter has either been opened up and the sunshine has been let in and it's a matter of public concern, or the fact that somebody stuck a pin in him and he found out what was going on — what is the Minister doing?

Is the Minister prepared to make available to this community funds from his government to help them undertake a proper analysis of the most adequate and accessible water supply? Is he prepared to do an economic study and assist them with this? This is a province-wide resource conflict between people and resources, therefore I feel it's incumbent upon the government to not impose this type of cost on the community, but to assist them to come to an adequate and proper conclusion.

Is the Minister prepared to call in specialists to assist his department in any way that they need to see

[ Page 3305 ]

if the dam, perhaps if it is the best decision, is built, and what in fact may be done to increase the spawning of the salmon and insure not only their survival but their increase?

Another area where the Minister is under a serious cloud as to his role in government and as to his role in relation to his department is this whole matter of the Diamond Head chalet in Garibaldi Park. The only thing that seems clear in this instance is the confusion is surrounded by a circle of confusion between the Minister, the public and his own department.

My understanding is that there was an abrupt and uninformed decision made by the Minister in September of 1973 when he announced that the Diamond Head chalet would be closed. There was no warning and, really, there was no reasonable explanation. The back up feeling is that because there are only 30 units in the area of accommodation, fire marshal's regulations would make it uneconomic to develop, to make the necessary renovations.

But, Mr. Minister, we find out upon questioning and after you reversed your decision very hastily, that you hadn't, through you, Mr. Chairman, even been there and were not conversant with the situation. Then the Minister stated publicly that there would be no overnight accommodations, that there would be no transportation assistance, that it would be quite feasible to keep it open as a day centre. Yet one of his very competent directors advised that at the time there would be no accommodations, but very well in the future they might have to consider accommodation, overnight accommodation, and acknowledge, quite rightly, that there wasn't much point in having day services in the area if no one could get into the area.

One Member of the Minister's department advises that possibly transportation assistance could be given.

I believe that two miles of road were okayed for construction, and I would like to know if this was done. But the next time, the Minister says, there will be no policy for transportation assistance.

Now, Mr. Minister, again we have tremendous conflict surrounding you as to why this decision was made. Who made the decision? Was it the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams)? Is it that Minister's intention to freeze out everybody else, and in this case some private entrepreneurs, in order that Cypress Bowl — which, we are led to believe will be another government adventure into private enterprise — can have a captive audience and be successful? Is that who made the decision? Is this another case where the Minister was overruled by his colleagues, if consulted?

Where, Mr. Minister, is your policy, and what sort of treatment have you given the people who presently own the chalet? The former administration did change the policy to a lease situation and at that time, a number of years ago — I believe it was the early 1960s if not 1958 — they paid the individuals who owned the chalet $60,000, which was a very sizable sum of money in those days of deflation or less cost. What sort of remuneration or fair treatment have these people had in terms of their loss of investment?

When one recognizes the beauty of this area and the confusion surrounding it and the conflict of statements made by the Minister and his department as to whether it should be open or closed and what services should be offered, we must ask what the Minister's policy is. Is it the Minister's policy to allow this area to stay open as a day-use area? If so, in light of the fact that most people don't even know that it exists, that there is no publicity about it, and any further development would hinge on the public using it, would it be the policy of the government to assist with a pilot project of transportation to a reasonable access area below the chalet in order that the day use could properly be tested? Then, if there is public reaction, the services could be put on an economically sound basis and expanded.

If it's as this department says: "If the people use it, we'll consider putting in overnight accommodation and we'll consider expanding day services" — and, in fact, you can hardly even find Garibaldi Park when you drive up towards Squamish — how can you possibly…?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Not that far. How can you possibly expect people to use it?

I've been up there myself, Mr. Minister, and, really, the lack of signing and the road conditions are extremely difficult. You have to stop and ask people how to get there. If you want to use that as a test, then surely you must institute a policy of better signing, more publicity and some form of transportation assistance from the lower area.

I think the Minister should make clear, as an alternate, if he is not going to allow overnight accommodations in the area…. And this is fine; it's his choice. Is he prepared to help the people of Squamish develop an economic and recreational base in their community? This could be assisted by the department in terms of design.

This would be a great boon to the local economy. It would allow the local people to involve themselves in an expanded business in overnight accommodation in recreation facilities and it would add a nucleus and a breadth to that community's economic base that it doesn't now have.

If this was done, it would be an opportunity for the Minister again to involve himself in a transportation policy on a pilot project basis to assist ski areas and other recreational areas, and get people in so we don't have to blacktop our mountainsides

[ Page 3306 ]

and our ski resorts in order to get people into these areas.

That brings up my third point, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the change of administration a good deal of work and research had been done with the Department of Highways, the Department of Transport and the Recreation department regarding a policy of assistance to remote recreational ski areas in road construction. I would like to know if the Minister intends to bring forth a public policy that is open for everyone to examine that in fact will allow ski areas, which he mentioned are in short supply in British Columbia, to evolve on a sound economic basis.

One of the major problems is the cost of road construction into these areas. Most of them are on leased government land either from the forestry, if they're commercial, and if there's living accommodation — and from the previous Parks Branch if there's no commercial development in there. This is done in other parts of the world, Mr. Minister. It's not a giveaway programme. If the Minister were to adopt a policy perhaps of 50 per cent capital cost of road construction, then it would entitle him as Minister to have some say in the type of development that takes place.

He announced during his earlier speech that he was going to hire a consultant to work in this area, and I think this is an excellent idea. But, Mr. Minister, if you want to impose government views on the quality of development, then surely government has a responsibility to participate in some way to assist these people. I feel that there is ample room for control so that there can by no rip-off profits made at government expense. But there is a crying need for assistance in road development into these areas.

I would urge the Minister also and ask him what his policy would be on this whole business of access to ski areas in terms of private automobile and private vehicle as opposed to busing. I would ask the Minister to seriously undertake selective pilot projects, one at Diamond Head and one in two or three other parts of the province — I can certainly give him one in my constituency where they'd be willing to undertake it — where you have a cooperative programme to transport people from the accommodation area into the ski area.

It has proved successful in other parts of the world; there's no reason why it can't prove successful here in British Columbia. And this will preclude what is happening — that is, the developing of more and more parking lots in ski areas. They don't look too bad in the wintertime, but they're an absolute eyesore and scar that's unimaginable in the summertime.

I believe the Minister should be working towards a policy where we utilize some form of communal transportation into these areas with government assistance, as opposed to a continual expansion of blacktop in parking.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Chairman, some remarks were made earlier that this department and myself were being shelved.

I think the Member is aware that I'm on the ELUC committee, and it's no secret that we do have our arguments and disagreements on this committee. For the first time the resource departments are coming together, are solving their problems and, as I said, some of these problems are solved not in agreement at all times, but we do come out of the meetings with a single decision.

MRS. JORDAN: But you don't even know what's going on.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Our department has been involved in some new programmes as never before, such as acquisition of land. As you are well aware, Madam Member, the acquisition of three ranches in the Kootenay area was brought about some months ago at a cost of close to $1 million.

Stein River — a moratorium was put on logging on the Stein River. The Purcell wilderness area was also brought into being partly through our department's persuasion. Recreation area was also created in the Skagit area, which was recommended by our department. A recreation area was formed in that area.

MRS. JORDAN: That was the past government…

HON. MR. RADFORD: And our department has been involved as never before in impact studies concerning the environment. Also it was through our persuasion that we pointed out an error that was made on the reserve on Boundary Bay.

So all these things, you know, are not always out in the open. Some of us are not always after headlines as some of the opposition Members are.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Concerning the Chemainus dam, I was aware of the Chemainus dam proposal months and months ago.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I was aware of the proposal. Now our department did not recommend and was against the dam being built on the Chemainus River. That's no secret, Madame Member. We are looking into remedies to alleviate the situation on the Chemainus dam. I don't care to relate those to

[ Page 3307 ]

you now, but we are looking into different areas that we can bring about a situation to save some of the area for wildlife and for the spawning steelhead and coho.

In regard to Diamond Head, you're quite right. We had a second look at that after we had shut it down because at the time a considerable amount of money was needed to repair the Diamond Head Chalet because of fire regulations, et cetera, and because of the condition of the building we were not allowed to have accommodations for overnight use. We bought Diamond Head Chalet, I think, in the '50s.

MRS. JORDAN: The former administration did.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The former administration did. It was leased out. You should have known this.

MRS. JORDAN: I know it. You didn't know it.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I've just related it to you.

MRS. JORDAN: You didn't know it until it was brought to your attention.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We are spending $15,000 on that chalet this coming year to bolster up the surroundings there and we still intend having it open only to day use.

Concerning transportation into Diamond Head Lodge, many letters have been received by our department not to open it up to vehicles to the lodge. Many people like to park their cars and hike into that area. It is our intention to leave it that way until we hear from the public. Most of our correspondence and letters from the public have requested us to leave it open.

Concerning ski areas and road maintenance and other related problems, we are considering having a new look at this situation. This is one of the areas that a ski coordinator will be taking into consideration. The park-and-ride concept, which you mentioned, is applicable in some areas. It is our intention in the Cyprus Bowl area to bring into being a park-and-ride concept for that area because of parking problems and because, as you say, it is really degrading when the snow goes away to have to look at some of these areas that have been either black topped or just left there as dirt areas.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a supplementary. I appreciate your comments. I also would like to bring to your attention that most of the things that you've just referred to in glowing terms are all from the former administration and you know it.

Regarding your participation in the ELUC committee, it's nice to know you're there but you seem to have missed the gist of what I was saying in that in the major decisions you have been overruled, if you have been there.

I am interested to hear the Minister say that he did, Mr. Chairman, know about the Chemainus dam. I think that it's incumbent on the Minister to clear this situation up right now in the House because, Mr. Minister, you may be misquoted in the Sun when it says: "Dam Okayed by Cabinet. Radford Ignorant of Plan." I quote:

"The Minister indicated he was unaware of the dam situation and that communications between the government Members involved were poor.

"Asked about the dam later, he said: 'No comment right now. Contact me next week after I've had a chance to look into this. The government meets Monday. Do you get the message?' "

Now, Mr. Minister, I must requote you, through you, Mr. Chairman — do you get the message? You're standing in this House, Mr. Minister, on a complete conflict of statements and I would urge you to clear it up. I asked you some specific questions as to what happened during those sequence of events. There is another quote here in the article by Malcolm Turnbull and I just can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but if you were misquoted in this article I've just read, I would urge the Minister to clear this up. I would also urge the Minister to answer the specific questions I asked him regarding the sequence of events. With all due courtesy and in concern for the time for the House, I won't go through them again if the Minister is going to answer them. But you must accept, Mr. Minister, that for all the good work you're doing, you're involved in this situation which is very, very suspect at the moment.

The Diamond Head situation really hasn't been cleared up by your statement. There are other situations that I described before where this Minister's voice has not been heard. I just don't buy this rip-off of his: "I'm not looking for headlines." I'm sure he's not. I'm sure most Members are not most of the time, but every politician has to have a headline to survive. What we want to assure, Mr. Minister, and what we'd like to help you do is see that you have the right position within cabinet that this vital department must have.

When we talk of the northern development, when we see things happening such as happened in Victoria — a freeze take place after public hearings, after the community has done a lot of planning, when we see something like the Gulf Islands trust, a centralization of power which appears obviously to be in the hands of one Minister, we must stand up and support you and call for you to take your position to bring forth the voice in conservation and recreational interests of this province in these absolutely controlled areas

[ Page 3308 ]

where the public is not going to have an input and where they have not had an input in the past in terms of actions by your colleagues. I would ask the Minister to give some specific answers to the questions I asked.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Apparently it was the writer of that article's interpretation that I was surprised, which is completely wrong. As a matter of fact I had discussions with my department — with the Deputy and with the Associate Deputy and the Director of Fish and Wildlife — approximately half an hour before I spoke at the Wildlife Federation. Some of that discussion was concerning the Chemainus River. I stand by my first statement that I was aware of the proposal of the Chemainus dam months ago. I was aware of the decision to dam the Chemainus River. However, I said that there were communication problems between the cabinet committee and myself regarding the decision of the cabinet committee on the Chemainus River situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that he had a discussion with his department.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right.

MRS. JORDAN: Did I hear correctly when he said "half an hour before the meeting"?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I've had discussions before that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Then if we accept the Minister's statement, as we must do as Hon. Members, that he knew about this all along, then the Minister must answer to this House why, if he knew of the conflict, if he was concerned about the preservation of the natural resource — the fish — if he knew of the concern of the federal fisheries branch, if he knew of the concern of his own branch, he let his own branch go before a cabinet hearing inadequately equipped.

Mr. Minister, it just doesn't add up. Either you're derelict, through you, Mr. Chairman, in your duty and you're irresponsible as a Minister in terms of what you must do to support your branch, or the questions remain unanswered. Did the Minister know that his branch had been advised to seek legal assistance when they appeared before that cabinet committee?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll answer you again that I was aware of the proposal of the Chemainus dam. I was not aware of the final decision of the cabinet committee at that time, and that answers it.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you know your staff went before that committee inadequately represented?

HON. MR. RADFORD: That's your interpretation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, the story is fishy — real fishy. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is in a difficult predicament and he's weaving a worse web than he started out in. I'll yield the floor to other Members in courtesy to them, but I believe this Minister must answer these questions and clear up this situation.

If the Minister knew, if the Minister was concerned, why did he stand up today in this web of confusion and now say that "maybe the department will do something." Surely this is inconsistent with the Minister's statement.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I read in the paper just a few days ago an article which contained a figure — a statistic or a fact — which I have thought about again and again since reading it. The statement which I have thought about several times during the past few days is as follows: "The net increase in the world population every month is seven million."

That means that in just over three months the net increase in the world's population is equal to Canada's total population today. In a year and a bit the population in the world increases by four Canadas, in effect.

When I think of the stress and the demands that are placed on the environment and the natural resources by the people of this country, I wonder how many more Canadas we can fit onto this globe without creating insoluble problems. I'm appealing today to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to keep that statistic of population increase in mind when he's determining the priorities for his department.

He talked about a quality environment, or quality life. This government has done more in two years to show environmental awareness — and you mentioned that yourself, Mr. Minister — than we have seen in many, many years in this province.

We have seen impact studies carried out, as he mentioned. We have also set aside areas for study purposes to determine the best use of the specific area such as the Tsitika-Schoen area within Comox riding. We have seen the agricultural land preserved for future food needs. We have also seen a paper-recycling project undertaken right here within these buildings. These are very minor things, I realize.

I've also learned now that Canada is recycling about 16 per cent of all the paper that it uses, whereas Japan is already recycling 50 per cent of the paper it uses. It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that we could be doing so much more to ensure that we will

[ Page 3309 ]

have that livable environment that you referred to. I'm asking the Minister to start along these lines by directing his attention to one very small part of the problem that a burgeoning population creates. I'm referring to the very small things that can be undertaken by your department under the Litter Act alone. The Litter Act was passed in 1970, and I give credit here to the former Minister of Recreation and Conservation, Ken Kiernan. I think that the concept for refund for beverage containers was necessary in light of the fact that the Department of Recreation and Conservation came up with figures which indicated that containers comprised up to 70 per cent of the litter volume. The Act brought in by the former Minister recognized that statistic.

The present Minister has announced changes in the regulations to abolish the detachable top on the pop cans, together with the bigger refunds for pop bottles. This indicates that he is aware of the problem and is trying to do something about it.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

But figures which were produced by A.E. Neilson, a company which is a surveyor of food stores, done in 1972, showed a percentage decline in the use of non-refillable bottles of around 25 per cent down to about 4 per cent. Now returnable bottle sales, as a per cent of the total, rose from 48 per cent to 76 per cent.

Unfortunately, the sales of soft drink cans have declined only slightly. While people were not using the non-refillable bottles so much any more they still used a large percentage of cans, which of course create problems with the environment and with recycling. Canned beer sales are only 1 per cent of the total of the cans that are involved.

What we can do about the continued manufacture and waste of pop cans…. What can we do? It seems to me that the Minister here can make quite a difference in the problem which is created by this particular problem of litter — as far as cans and pop bottles are concerned.

He's attempting to up the refund charge. I understand that it is going to 5 cents per can and will go up to…. Am I right, Mr. Minister? I'm sorry. Okay, on Sept. 1.

But the problem here is that this may encourage more people to bring cans back; but that does not necessarily mean that these cans are going to be recycled. As far as I can determine most of the cans that are brought back to the stores and money paid out for them are just simply dumped. They're crushed and dumped.

We don't seem to have the technology yet, Mr. Chairman, that will enable us to recycle these cans. Certainly we don't want to go to the use of aluminum cans because of the cost to the environment of producing the aluminum. The manufacture of aluminum requires so much power.

I feel that in the near future we could consider outlawing soft drink cans in this province, at the very least until the industry can come up with some product that can be recycled.

I spoke to two people who operate corner grocery stores in the Courtenay area and they have voluntarily stopped handling cans because they are concerned with this problem. They are doubtless losing money to their competitors, but they are making a contribution to litter control.

The non-return of 90 per cent of the pop cans that are now sold represents a kind of windfall for retailers since they have charged the consumer two cents a can but they don't have to pay the two cents, of course, on the non-returned cans. This doesn't seem designed to encourage retailers to push for the return of these cans. If they can be involved in a windfall profit of that nature they are not going to encourage their customers to return cans.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Minister, is that right now the cans are not returned equitably. The small grocery stores claim that they are obliged to refund on a disproportionate percentage of the returns and that more cans and bottles are brought back to them than are brought back to the big chain stores. I suppose this is because it is handier for the kids to go to the corner stores packing back the bottles or cans than it is to take them to the supermarket once a week.

I think that I would like to see the Minister undertake at this time a complete depot system in the province — to set it up in every community in the province where bottles and cans can be returned, where people can be assured that they will get their refund and where the Minister and the people of the province then can begin to take care of a very small part of the problem associated with that population increase.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to say in opening that I feel this Minister has done a relatively good job, but he has a long way to go yet before it's a complete job.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're never satisfied.

MR. FRASER: Right on! In the Minister's opening remarks, if I got them correctly, he said that we now have 20 new class A parks for this year. That's excellent, and I only hope that it keeps up.

In the recreational areas I believe you said that the acreage now under recreation has gone from seven million to nine million acres for new recreation areas. You had an increase in the camping units and an increase in hiking trails and so on and so forth. Well, it couldn't happen in a better area than the Cariboo —

[ Page 3310 ]

I appreciate that. There's lots of room there for recreation and so on and so forth.

I would only say, Mr. Chairman, that we have to keep up. There are more people with leisure time and more people travelling — as long as the Minister of Highways hasn't brought it all to a halt with his statements about, "Go away, tourists," and so on and so forth. I'm glad the Premier has arranged to make sure that the Minister of Highways is not in the House when we are debating the Minister of Recreation's estimates, so he can't get any sand in the gears.

On the new recreation areas it's all fine and good to have these new areas set up as a reserve, as I understand it. But, again, I have some criticism there in two or three directions.

First of all, the public of the province don't know where they are. I brought it up under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Certainly throughout the Interior even the local people don't know that it is designated as recreational area. At least we're not that broke that we can't put a sign up that it is Crown land recreational area and hopefully, of course, make some camping improvements as well. I believe the forestry has, as I said, made a directive there but I think it applies to your department where they have forest park reserves.

The public, whether from out of the province or local, don't know where these are. I certainly think they should be better designated than the way they are. I particularly refer to the area from Williams Lake to Bella Coola — an area of 300 miles — where there isn't one sign up designating these areas. I understand there are 70 or 80 acres. What good are they if the general public — the tourists and so on — don't know where they are?

Preserving recreational areas stops activity of practically all sorts. It reminds me of going to an agricultural committee hearing held in the province last year when the cattlemen were complaining about the grizzly bear killing their cattle while the conservationist got up and said: "Well, get your cattle out of here."

Are we now getting too many reserves to the detriment of another industry such as cattle production? I realize that it's difficult to criticize reserves for recreation but we also have to eat now and in the future. If we gobble these areas up and put them all in reserves for recreation or park or what, we will probably end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine instead of beef. I would just like to remind the Minister of that. I'm not against it, but I just wonder how far we can go before we certainly get into conflict with very necessary production facilities such as the production of beef.

The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that we're going to have a travelling museum, I think, in a train and so on. This is all good and fine, but I think the provincial government for a number of years has been lacking in the support of local museums. For instance, all your funding is directed at the Provincial Museum which is here and now it's moving out on a travelling basis. I congratulate you on it. But in every older community in this province we have a local museum. They are all short of funds. They get them from a tin cup; that's where they get them from. Prior administrations and present have been approached, and I think we should be looking at a grant system on maybe a per capita basis to communities so they can be helped in the operation of the local museum. They don't want any huge amount of money, but it would be, I suppose, a few million dollars on a provincial level.

There's one I know operated in Clinton, in the Cariboo that has probably got the best history including the provincial government, of the gold rush days of Barkerville in the 1860s. That is run on voluntary labour. They have a tin cup there where the citizen goes in and puts his nickels and dimes in and that pays for the light bill. It goes right back to you, the government, through B.C. Hydro. I think those people are deserving. That is run by a museum society; most of these in the communities throughout the province are run by a local volunteer museum society. They have no source of funds other than waving the tin cup around.

I don't think it is good enough in the preservation of our history that we should spend all our money on downtown Victoria. Let's spread that around a bit; there's some history in places other than Victoria. I think it should be done through a system of per capita grants. I'm not prepared to say how much, but definitely they're not getting a thing now and I don't think it's fair. You would be amazed at how many museums are operating on a strictly volunteer basis throughout the province. They have exhibits in these museums that are now 120 or 130 years old. I think it's about time the province shared the wealth with these well-intentioned citizens and helped them with the operation of these museums.

As a matter of fact, to add insult to injury, I think the Public Works department charges the one in Clinton $400 a year rent for the building they're in. They have to go on the street with a tin cup to get even the rent money which, in turn, is revenue coming back into the province and nothing coming back out of the province.

I'd like to say a few things about SAM, the car-crushing programme, that I'm not a bit happy about, and I've said so before. This Minister said he thought he had it corrected but I don't think he has it corrected at all. This plan was started I believe in 1971 or 1972 and the intent was to crush abandoned cars, recycle this metal and take them to a recycling plant. Quite frankly, a lot of that has happened but there has been some falling down on the way and it's

[ Page 3311 ]

still happening. I'm afraid this programme is going to disappear unless some of the people in charge pull up their socks a bit.

As far as I can see, in the interior of the province, cars that were crushed in 1971 are still stockpiled. I understand that was because of a lack of money about a year or so ago. Well, they're still there. The other day I drove down Highway 97, and they've not only moved off private property but they are now on the highway allowance on Highway 97. I think this is ridiculous.

The other thing that's wrong with operation SAM, other than not picking up these crushed vehicles soon enough is that there is no place to assembly them. The Minister's department could deal with the 28 regional districts in this province and have his people go with them and designate Crown lands where citizens can take these abandoned vehicles. The regional districts will gladly cooperate.

The problem is the physical land to put them on. In prior times, they've been crushed on private property. Because the government hasn't picked them up inside of a year or 18 months, you can't get back on the private property. So the point is the cars are still being abandoned. I think they should all be put in this one general area. There's lots of Crown land. We're all talking about a shortage of Crown land but there's millions of acres of it. They can designate these areas; let the public know; take these cars there; and then, when the crusher comes along, crush them and finally get them out.

I'm afraid that the programme SAM is going to go and not be acknowledged by the public as it was for a year or so. They appreciated it very much but there's not enough push there. I suggest to the Minister that he should wake somebody up; I know he has people in charge of it. Get better facilities for storage of these abandoned vehicles so that we don't have them littering the countryside. We've made a good start but I think we're slipping backwards. I ask the Minister to look into what really is wrong and get on with this very excellent programme.

I would like to say a few words about the Fish and Wildlife Branch, particularly in view of changed regulations that are now enforced in the province for the first time. I would like to say that I'm quite proud to speak here today in support of the guide outfitting industry of this province. They are all individual citizens; they are all B.C. citizens; they all work hard. They want their own business and they choose this type of endeavour. I consider them very responsible. They have a business that probably generates around $10 million in total as far as the province is concerned. While it's not large, it's certainly a worthy one.

We have some 400-odd guide outfitters in this province. These 400-odd guide outfitters are spread throughout the different ridings of the province. I have to admit that I'm a little biased because, of the 420 guide outfitters in the province of British Columbia, 120 of them are located in my riding of Cariboo. So I have intimate knowledge of all their problems and so on and so forth.

I would just like to point out a few of the things on their side before we get dealing with the regulations. Of the 416 guide outfitters, 37 are natives. I would certainly appreciate that fact. On top of that, of the 416 guide outfitters, they employ each year 700 native guides. We're always concerned about our first citizens, the natives, and here we have an industry doing something about it. Believe me, from personal experience, the native is one of the best guides anybody can have. They're gainfully employed so they contribute there.

There are also 2,000 other people employed by the guide outfitting industry in the province, such as cooks, wranglers and so on and so forth. Seventy per cent of these guide outfitters earn under $20,000 per year. Yet, in turn, they have investments varying in their equipment from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $250,000, depending on the nature of their operation. Lots of Crown revenue comes back from the type of business they have. They certainly are asset citizens as far as the province is concerned.

What has actually happened? This Minister has brought this in and I know he believes truly that, of the trophy fees to be paid in advance…. I'm now talking about the non-resident hunter that the guide outfitter is in business for. They'll guide local citizens too, but the majority of their business comes from outside the province — whether it be the United States, Alberta, Saskatchewan or even other parts of the world.

In the past when somebody wanted a moose or a caribou or whatever it was they had to buy a tag and then when they finally got the animal — and I emphasize after they got the animal — they had to pay a further charge and that was fine. We have now moved into a new system of trophy fees in advance and the fees are up quite considerably. So are hunting fees. I would like to go on record here as saying that I'm not opposed at all to that. It was obvious that those had to increase and the citizens of British Columbia, I think, aren't concerned about that.

What is the concern to the guide outfitters is that they are going to lose business because people are not going to come in and pay in advance and then probably end up not getting any trophy or animal, as they call it.

As a matter of fact, only Monday I was in an airplane in the Cariboo and two chaps from Mississippi had been in the Cariboo three weeks hunting grizzly. I asked them how they made out and they said not very well — all they got was grizzly track soup. They had each paid $300 — the advance trophy fee. I asked them what they thought about it.

[ Page 3312 ]

They said: "That's fine — that's the laws of your land. But now we know them we won't be back."

Really this brings a lot of revenue into the province but also to the guides and other citizens that cater to the guiding industry. This is exactly what the guide outfitters have told the department and the Minister. As I say, just by an accident I ran into it first hand on Monday of this week in an airplane over the Cariboo where they had gone in and had had tough luck in not finding the grizzly but had paid $300 trophy fee in any event. They had no value for it other than a trip around in the mud and the snow that exists.

This is the concern — where guide outfitters had repeat business such as this and now they find this situation. Of course, the end result will be that down will go the hunters. The guide outfitters estimate — and they might be too pessimistic, I agree, Mr. Chairman — that due to the trophies paid in advance the population of guides in the province will reduce by about 100 in the immediate future — that is from 400-odd down to 300-odd licensed guide outfitters.

I would like to hear the Minister's comments and what he has to say about this because I really don't think that was his intent. I believe that the intent was to raise the revenue of the province. No argument there except that it is my opinion that it won't raise the revenue of the province — it will turn around and backfire and decrease the revenue if we are not going to have these people coming in and they won't come in because they have to pay these trophy fees in advance.

So when the Minister mentions that he has told the different organizations that the intent of the advance trophy fee is to increase the revenue — fine. But I would like to remind him that this could backfire on him and we will end up getting less revenue than we normally should. It puts local people out of work. That is certainly the concern of all of us. We don't want to see any people put out of work and, as far as I'm concerned, not people who are independent business people. They have a tough enough way of life to earn their living as it is without all the more sand thrown in the gears.

In one article that I read here it says: "The people of B.C. will lose an estimated $5.3 million because the branch insists on a prepaid trophy fee system." The question is — does that make sense? I would say that the $5.3 million was, I think, an estimate of all the revenue that comes. I'm not referring to that as all lost revenue to the guide outfitters. It's lost revenue to storekeepers and service stations and motels and so on — all the people who share in this industry's spending.

The other question is: why would the branch not retain the present tag trophy fee system and thereby prevent a loss to the economy of the province in excess of $5.3 million? The story that they are saying, and I'm inclined to agree, is that we chase away the people who have been coming for years because they have to pay an advance trophy fee, and rather than increase the revenue of the province it will decrease it.

I would like to hear a few answers, Mr. Chairman. I would just say, as I said at the start, that I feel the Minister is doing a fair job and I congratulate him on it but I hope I've pointed out a few places where I think there is room for improvement.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Chairman, regarding the guides, the Member is quite right when he said that the guides have a very viable economic situation with regard to an industry in the province. During my first speech in this House I related to the Legislature some of the problems that the guides do have and tried to point out to the Members at that time that they do have problems and tried to do a little educational job, I suppose, on informing some of the Members of the Legislature of that fact.

However, your concern, Mr. Member, was about the prepaid trophy system. I should say that before we brought this system in we had many meetings with the guides. We had many meetings with the B.C. Wildlife Federation to discuss with them our plans.

Also, the prepaid trophy system is in existence in every province in Canada. As a matter of fact, B.C. and the Yukon were the only two areas not to have a prepaid trophy system.

MR. FRASER: We shouldn't be the same as all provinces. All provinces haven't got NDP governments either!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Previously, Mr. Member, a non-resident would come into B.C. and was able to buy up all the species tags for $39.50 and then go out on a hunt with a guide who he had already probably contracted with to the amount of almost probably $3,000 per animal when we are talking about a grizzly or a sheep. If he was out for a while with a guide and hadn't garnered an animal and came across probably a moose or some other animal that he hadn't contracted for, he would ask the guide if he could take it. Then the hunter would feel satisfied and the guide would be a little bit off the hook and the guide would have a little more money in his pocket because that would cost him a few bucks extra over and above what he had contracted for and everybody would go away a little happier.

Now we've raised the price of the species licence. We've raised this so that now if a non-resident comes in and he wants to buy a pocketful of tags it would cost him about $1,200. So now what happens is that he probably only buys about two or three species and the guide will have to produce for those two or three species and will not be able to get off the hook for

[ Page 3313 ]

getting some other animal which he had not contracted for.

Another area that I would like to discuss is that by raising the fees we are really reflecting on the value of our fish and wildlife resources. We believe that a non-resident should be paying for the experience of hunting and for the use of the environment, whether he gets an animal or not. As I say, this is done in most of the other provinces and throughout the U.S.A.

I am amazed, Mr. Member, that you don't have better contact with some of your constituents. I have letters and telegrams here from people in your area. I have a telegram from the Williams Lake Rod and Gun Club congratulating the department on the new system of licence fees and permits. The Chilco-Dredgers Wildlife Club in Quesnel say:

"Dear Sir:

"Please be advised you have our club's full support regarding the new licence and permit system."

To go on to another one, the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club sent a telegram.

We also have letters on file from big game guides. Here's one that says:

"Dear Mr. Radford:

"I've just returned from two big game hunters sportsmanship shows in Minneapolis and Cleveland and thought you would be interested in knowing the reaction that I received to the licence fee increases for non-resident hunters in British Columbia in 1974.

"I attend these conventions each year to promote my big-game guiding business in the east Kootenays and maintain a booth at the shows. This year I placed a list of the new tag licence fees for non-resident hunters in my booth and handed the lists out without our material. Many of the hunters expressed surprise at the large amount of the increase over last year, but from every indication I was able to receive after talking to hundreds of sportsmen, they indicated that the increased fees would not deter them from their decision to come to British Columbia to hunt big game. The hunters that I spoke to were pleased, rather than annoyed, at the increase in certain species."

I've another letter from a Mr. Thompson from Edgewater.

"I appreciate the long overdue change in the non-resident licence and game tags. I have been in the guiding and outfitting business in this area for 36 years, catering to mostly non-resident hunters and fishermen. It is time they started to pay for the big game trophies they take home.

"I am booked for the 1974 big game season by U.S. hunters and have had no comments on the price for 1974 licence and tags, and a number of them are repeat hunters. I am a member of the Columbia Valley Guides Association and I am sure the majority of outfitters here feel the same. I have made 95 per cent of my living from guiding and outfitting throughout the year and still think the east Kootenays is the best for all-around big game hunting in North America."

Those are just a sample of some of the letters right from your own riding Mr. Member. If some of the other Members wish to get up, I have other telegrams right from their constituents in the north.

Really, when we're talking about the increase in the prepaid trophy fees, we're talking only of a very minimal amount of money when you consider that non-residents come into this province and pay up to over $3,000 per animal per hunt. We're talking maybe $200 or $300 that is added to this system. It's like going to a show; you pay before you go in. The guides require a down payment before they even take on a hunt. It's my opinion that for too long we've been giving away this resource.

I have some other comments, Mr. Member, on your previous statements on recreation areas. You say that signs should be erected and I agree with you. We will look into that.

You do have some concern though about so much of the land in B.C. being put into parks. I should remind you that only 4 per cent of the land in B.C. is designated for parks, which is a small amount really.

The local museums, you say, are short of funds. Through our Community Recreational Facilities Fund we have given some money to some of the local museums to build new facilities and add on to their structures. Also, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has a fund that is administered for local museums. We also have an adviser in Victoria here in the museum who does give advice and assistance to the local museums.

I think that covered most of your statements.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, on SAM. We have two crews. This year crew No. 1 was working in 51 depots in 13 communities within four regional districts: the Capital Regional District here in Victoria, the Alberni-Clayoquot, and Comox-Strathcona. They compacted 9,981 cars. Crew No. 2 was working in 52 depots in 19 communities within seven regional districts: the East Kootenay, Okanagan-Similkameen, Columbia-Shuswap, the North Okanagan, Central Okanagan, Fraser-Fort George, and Peace River-Liard. They compacted 9,325 cars.

Mr. Member, you always mention these cars around 100 Mile House. I understand those cars had

[ Page 3314 ]

been compacted and hauled away earlier this year? Am I not right?

MR. FRASER: That's what I thought….

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, I don't know. I'm informed that those cars have been hauled away some months ago, Mr. Member.

There were a total of 19,306 derelicts compacted and 16,370 derelicts were transported to the shredder by our trucks and by private truckers. This year we bought two new trucks which allowed us to haul more derelicts in a fast time and we are working on it. I agree that it is a good programme.

I should say we are contemplating on transferring SAM and the Litter Act into Pollution Control Branch which will probably be setting up a new department to look after hard garbage.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I'm a strong critic of this government in most areas but I like to give credit where it's due. I'd very much like to give credit to the Minister and his department in the work they've done in respect to parks over the last couple of years.

I want to read into the record a couple of paragraphs from the October, 1973, issue of the Journal of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, referring to an announcement by the then Minister of Recreation and Conservation the previous spring. It said this:

"The moment may stand as one of the most important in the history of provincial parks in Canada. In one statement the provincial park acreage in B.C., already the largest in the nation, was increased by 25 per cent and by 1.6 million acres. The 11 areas involved range in size from 21 to 900 square miles.

"After 20 years of decreasing park acreages, a new government was taking many ignored park proposals off dusty office shelves and giving the people of British Columbia real live acres of high quality parklands. It was a magnificent change, this contrast between old and new administrations."

Later on:

"It is highly significant that most of the new park areas are not order-in-council parks created by signature and so eraseable in the same way. They are created by the Legislature, to be tampered with only after public debate in the Legislature."

I wish much of the legislation and many of the order-in-council Acts of this government were like that.

"If any common weakness characterizes provincial parks across most of Canada, it is the overwhelming predominance of the order-in-council status. These new areas are the first adequately protected parks that British Columbia has had in many years. There is no doubt, as the Minister pointed out, many of the new parks have national scale and importance."

That is a statement from a universally respected journal on parklands in this country. It's a great credit to the government that it took that action, and action has been taken since. I see this list the Minister circulated, dated March 31, with respect to new park acquisitions in the province. I would suggest to him that park acquisitions live through the years and the generations. They are the kind of things that will be remembered long after most of the actions that most of us do have gone. I hope he will continue to add to the parklands of British Columbia, doing it in a way that's compatible with the use of most of the province which still has to be for our basic industries of mining and forestry. But as the Minister points out, there's only 4 per cent in parks now and new additions can be carefully made in consultation with the Ministers of mining and forestry in the government to make sure that none of those interests are harmed and yet the preservation goes on.

The Minister mentioned that something like 200 new campsites are going to be completed in this fiscal year and perhaps another 300 started, I think he said. Even if all the starts were completed, it would still be something less than 10 per cent of the park campsites when demand in park use is growing something like between 15 and 20 per cent a year. So I would suggest that the Minister will have to get on with campground buildings in a much quicker way and more funds will have to be allotted to that in the next fiscal year. I think that's very important. This is the way that the ordinary people of British Columbia can get around and see our province. That's just tremendously important, Many people don't have the funds to stay in motels but they can stay in provincial campgrounds. They're lovely campgrounds, most of them. I've stayed in a great many.

I'd suggest to the Minister a particular need to acquire more campground land near Vancouver and more recreational area land near Vancouver. This is important for people who don't have the time to travel for long distances or don't have the means. I'm going to talk a little bit later about bicycle paths. Cyclists, many of whom are based in Vancouver, simply are not able to cover the great amount of territory that a person with a car can. They need parks that are relatively more closely spaced.

Parks near the greater Vancouver area provide a greater service to a greater number of people than anywhere else in the province. I appreciate at the same time that they are more expensive than any other parkland in the province but that is all the more reason to acquire that kind of land now. Expensive as it seems now, it will seem far more expensive in 10

[ Page 3315 ]

years and 20 years and so on down the line. Every square mile or hundred acres, or whatever it is, of parkland that can be acquired now, this generation will be blessed by future generations for so doing, or, in the alternate, cursed if we do not. That is one of our real responsibilities to our children.

The Minister mentioned a museum train, which I believe to be a very good thing. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) had some helpful statements to make about getting our provincial history around the province. I'd like the Minister to elaborate on that museum train if he would, a little bit more about the cost of it, where it will be based, where the headquarters will be of this train, what routes might we expect it to go on about the province, and why it should be travelling for only four months out of the year.

There were some school children from my riding up in the gallery when the Minister was making that statement, and that was a question they asked right after they left. I'm sure that many British Columbians will be wondering. This train will not only be of great benefit; it will be very expensive. Isn't there some way it could be utilized more than four months out of the year?

As a final point at this stage — I'll have more to say later — I want to make a representation to the Minister about bicycle paths and bicycle routes, because I understand that he is the Minister in the government that is in charge of these things.

You know, last year for the first time there were more bicycles sold in North America than cars. That is a trend that has perhaps levelled off, but it's staying at that very high level, and I think we're going to see it continue for some time.

Yet at the same time our civilization over the past couple of generations has been so dominated by cars, it simply hasn't built up the facilities for bicycles. Bicycles have just been something that kids use — not a recreational matter, but purely a means of transportation for school children.

Now we've come to the stage where not only young people but adults are using bicycles for trips of some distance, both to see our province and as a matter of recreation and physical fitness. So it's tremendously important that we upgrade our bicycle paths. I was pleased to see an article written by Mr. Tarasoff of the Parks Branch with respect to the proposed route on the old E&N right-of-way, just north and east of Victoria, a route which would run for many miles. The total here shows a first stage of 34 miles, a second stage of 24 miles and a final proposed leg of 31 miles ending up at Cowichan Bay.

This is the kind of thing, Mr. Minister, that your department should be engaged in and doing more of all over the province. I wonder if you could give us a status report on that one. Perhaps you'd give some consideration, in connection with the appropriate Minister, of putting bike routes at appropriate points along, for example, the British Columbia Railway right-of-way — say all along the North Shore and out as far as Horseshoe Bay; also at appropriate parts of highways around the province where many of the shoulders are not paved.

I know there is a paving programme, but I wonder if the Minister could reach into his own funds and work with the Department of Highways to supplement that shoulder-paving programme.

I wonder if he would, in addition, undertake to make available to cyclists a list of bicycle trails that are in existence, that are contemplated, and a list of suitable highways for bicycle riding, because some highways have their shoulders paved for some distance and then for the rest of the distance they do not have paved shoulders and they become unsafe and unsuitable to ride on. When you're setting out on a trip it's difficult to get that information in advance.

We almost need a bicycle atlas of, say, the lower part of Vancouver Island and the lower mainland of British Columbia where the amateur cyclist could write into your department and get back information as to where he can safely and easily travel.

Those are the main representations I have to make at this point, Mr. Chairman, and I would particularly urge the Minister to come out with a positive statement in favour of all of the effort he's going to put into bicycle routes over the next year or two.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I too, of course, would like to congratulate the Minister on some of the programmes that have been instituted since he has been Minister, especially buying up the parks or getting land for parks in the province. I was amazed that it was only 4 per cent. I certainly would urge him to try and make more land available.

As another speaker had said, people in the future will appreciate the efforts of this Minister and any of the Members of government trying to get land into park preserves — all forms of preserves, whether they be sanctuary types of preserves or whether they be for recreational purposes.

Sometimes, of course, I take a little exception to some of the attitudes the recreation branch has when it comes to installing these campsites. I happen to be

[ Page 3316 ]

in the campsite business and, you know, the government is in direct competition with me. I object to the Parks Branch coming along…. You know there are 30 or 40 little campsites along a lakeshore or along a river and, all of a sudden, they throw in a 150-unit campsite. You know, it's a beautiful place for people to go because, you know, they can go there for $2 a day.

MR. PHILLIPS: How would you feel if you were a free miner?

MR. KELLY: Well, I'm in the business, you know, and I just went through a holiday weekend. Do you know how many I had in my camp? I didn't have one.

Interjection.

MR. KELLY: No, it was lovely this last weekend up in Omineca. I do think that the park should really consider the private sector when they're going into business, in this particular issue.

Beaumont Park is the closest park, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a beautiful park. I don't blame people for going there; it is a lovely spot. But there's only one thing, and that is: here I am down the road, and I was there for years before that park was expanded. You know, I can't make a living to pay my taxes and whatever incidentals that I have to pay during the course of the year.

MRS. JORDAN: The left shoe certainly pinches when it's on your foot, doesn't it?

MR. KELLY: But as time goes on there is no doubt that this park will be a lovely park, and it's even being improved. I know that there are funds being spent on that park this year. But I do wish that the Parks Branch, in cooperation with the travel department, would urge people to go into areas of the province that, for example, are lightly travelled, where at certain times of the year we know that the major parks and the national parks are overcrowded. I think that the Parks Branch could do a service to the private sector in helping them get some of that business, some of this overcrowding situation.

I talked to people a year or two ago who said they were down at Banff or Jasper. Naturally, of course, they're advertised around the world. They said that there wasn't even elbow room. You go down into the Francois Lake area, the Burns Lake area — and we had very few guests. That has been an issue that I have been working on for the last two years now, trying to urge the government and the travel branch to direct people into that area, because we do have a lovely area, untouched. It's untouched.

Mr. Chairman, I have to go back into the Hansard of February 22 to ask the Minister some questions, or to more or less set the record straight in regard to statements that I made at a previous sitting of this House. As you know, this spring I had urged the government or his branch to have some consideration for the natives in the remote areas of this province when it came to issuing either permits or even, in the first place, allowing them to take game.

Last year I had said that they're using permits in welfare cases and that I am opposed to issuing permits in welfare cases. Mr. Chairman, I am indeed opposed to issuing permits to anybody — although 99 per cent of them went to natives — to support the welfare system. That we should be using our wildlife to support the welfare system — I oppose this altogether. I am certainly dissatisfied with this situation.

There are Indians and other people living in very remote areas of this province that do need wildlife. There is no other meat available, and they are doing that today and taking that game today. What I was suggesting was that the Minister make it legal for these people to take that meat. Because, for example, at Ingenika or Fort Ware or Babine or up in the Stuart-Trembleur area, those people are actually committing a crime every time they take one of those animals, because they're not taking them on the reserves. Those reserves aren't large enough to take these animals that they need for food.

So they're actually breaking the law, and I don't think they should have to break the law to survive in northern British Columbia.

I do strongly oppose the wildlife branch supporting the Human Resources department, as it is now called, by issuing permits so that people can go out and kill a moose to have food. We know that in recent years there has been a definite shortage of game and we cannot afford to lose any more than we're losing now through natural causes by having the game branch issuing permits.

I don't know how many permits were issued this year in Vanderhoof, but last year I believe it was 291 or 292 one month alone. That is just too many animals out of a very close proximity of a town such as Vanderhoof. If people can go to the conservation officer to get their permits, they can certainly go to the supermarket to get a roast or a lot of supplies that they might need.

All I'm suggesting is that if they need extra meat, and if the welfare branch is required to supply the funds to get this meat, then that's what they should be doing. I don't think we should be sacrificing our game just to support a system, and that is giving cheap meat to the natives. And it is not cheap meat, because these moose are worth a lot of money to our province.

I went to Fort Ware a couple of months ago. We flew all over the reserve, which is only 900 acres.

[ Page 3317 ]

There are 200 people living on this reserve. There isn't a moose within five or six miles of Fort Ware. That means they had to go on Crown land — in other words they had to break the law to actually get themselves an animal. As far as I'm concerned, certainly none of them would be prosecuted because they are far beyond the ranges of conservation officers or any other kind of law enforcement. But that isn't the purpose of the statements that I made between the one year and the next year, when I said in one case certainly meat should be made available or game available to Indians living in remote areas. Some of those Indians are being prosecuted. But if the Indian lives within five or 10 miles of the town, or if he's on a main highway, I see no reason in the world why he should be issued a permit at all to eat meat — moose meat or any other kind of meat.

That's why I refer to that, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman. Indeed, there was a complete difference. I have been misquoted by several people, including the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, that this was the way I had referred it — that the Indians should be allowed to have the meat. In one case I said they shouldn't have it, whereas I do agree with that. I think that most of the citizens in the area disagree with issuing permits in that area. There have been cases where white men have gone and contracted with the Indian to kill the moose and get half or three-quarters of it just to take the moose out and then give the Indian the balance of the meat.

I had urged the Minister maybe to consider that there should be buffer zones around these reserves, because at least if they did that, they might be within the law. They might in fact reserve the smaller reserves like the Stuart Trembleur band. Where the Stuart Trembleur band resides they might be able to go back into a preserve set up behind the reserve so that they might be able to hunt legally.

I know that every time a man clears an acre of land or a new road is built, more logging takes place and that habitat is removed. This is just one of the things that's happening in our society. We can't help this because of the number of people that we have. Every time a man wants to build a home he clears a little bit more land and he removes a little bit more of what would be a habitat for wildlife.

I still say that there is still sufficient room for all the moose that we need for food in this province and for the people that are going to live in this province, whether they be farmers, or whether they just be residents working in a local sawmill or in a local mine. I think that moose and mankind can get along with each other.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I flew up Williston Lake and up the Finlay River here not too long ago and we went for 100 miles and never saw one moose track. There wasn't one road or one house or anything to scare the moose away, But it just happens to be that that isn't a desirable part of the country for those animals to reside in in the wintertime. Yet there were other areas where we saw several moose within one mile, so it shows you that it doesn't really always matter where the area is. Admittedly, where humanity is it's usually in the lower levels, which is the more desirable area for moose to winter in.

Last year I had a petition served to me by the Nechako Valley conservation group. This petition has approximately 1,500 names on it. It was directed to the local regional director of fish and game, and it has the name of all adult people on it, which would include practically every grown person in the southern parts of Omineca — some of them as far as away as Prince Rupert or Terrace and some of them into the lower mainland. I think they were nearly all hunters. They asked that there be a closure on the antlerless animals for a five-year period in GMA22.

I know that you just can't run around every time somebody comes along with a petition and say; "This can't be done, because it's a petition," or maybe that for some other reason you can't go along why they are petitioning. But in this particular instance the Minister had said that he could not have game management by petition.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that because these people were asking that antlerless animals not be shot, they were only doing something that really relates to conservation. They were attempting to do a good job for their area. A lot of them, especially the residents that have lived there for a long time, felt that they knew the answer to the overall problem. After all, biology wasn't invented last year or the year before. There had been a wildlife branch in this province for many years. I think that even though they were very understaffed and had a lot of hard times through the lack of equipment and money to work with, they were still trying to do a decent job. In many instances, though, they found that they had carried on and were trying to introduce a policy that just wasn't working at that time. It might take four or five years before they found out that something was wrong and that they weren't doing the right thing, so they would change that particular policy.

I think that this is what's been happening just recently. They've been going along for years advocating a certain policy. For years now — and I'm referring to the last eight or 10 years — there has been a general decreasing in the number of animals in GMA22.

Certainly the Indians think there are less animals. Certainly even some of the guides — because I have checked their figures — and in some areas the guides have been getting less animals in GMA22. From personal experience myself I have noticed that there

[ Page 3318 ]

have not been near as many animals visible as there were just a few short years ago.

In many cases the local residents became quite alarmed and thought they were doing everybody in the province a favour by producing this petition and saying that they at least wanted the antlerless animals closed down for a five-year period.

I really think that the Minister did these people a disservice by not at least recognizing this problem for even a two-year period.

Although we have a shortening of the season, if conditions are right, the game will migrate in the late fall. In some instances, they just march down right across the farms, down across the roads and they're shot left and right. This is what happened last year. As far as I am concerned, we must really be on our toes and be very careful that we don't reduce the numbers of those animals to such a degree that we'll be years trying to get them back.

I think these people up there are pretty smart people because they include a wide variety of men and women: loggers and guides, people who have lived there all their lives, and Indians. I can't understand why the game department couldn't recognize some of the things they're trying to tell them. The game department hasn't always been perfect; in fact, in many instances, far from it.

The province is a very large area. In some instances, what is good for one particular area doesn't always relate to the next area. I think that is what is happening in Omineca today. I've heard stories; I talked to the director just a few days ago from up north. He tells me that in some areas the numbers of animals are good but that in other areas the numbers of animals are low. We've heard more stories this winter.

When I went up there to visit the Wildlife Branch this last fall, Dr. Sadler from Simon Fraser University was there. He had been lecturing in the area, and he tells us that plant succession is the main reason for the demise of these animals. In fact, Mr. Warren was out recently speaking at the Burns Lake club and he also says that natural succession of plant life is one of the largest contributive factors for the decline of these animals. Other things are included of course such as land clearing and mining.

If we're looking at this as being one of the main reasons why the animals are declining, why didn't they say that before? Plant succession throughout the north is definitely changing over the last quarter or half century. No matter how well you try to conserve your animals, if the plant succession isn't correct then the animals can't live there in the first place. That is all the more reason why we should try and conserve the animals that we do have now.

Certainly, if you kill one cow, you are going to kill a cow and a calf because practically every one of those animals is bred when they are being shot in the hunting season.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're supposed to harvest the dry cows.

MR. KELLY: I had quite a talk with Dr. Sadler and I think his overall impression of the situation is correct. What he is saying is a fact and we might have been shooting at the wrong thing over the last few years.

We had quite a bad winter here just gone by for deep snow. There was a threat of closing the season down this coming season because of the amount of die-off that might take place this spring. I hear now, though, that it's not nearly as bad as they had considered: only in some areas did the animals suffer.

I think in my own mind that overhunting is much more severe in most cases than deep snow. The deep snow usually only is in patterns of certain areas of the province, even in the north, whereas up at Fort Ware the snow was only 2.5 to 3 feet deep. Down on Francois Lake it was 5 to 5.5 feet deep. So in that particular area it would be hard on moose whereas up north in the Fort Ware area moose would do quite well there if they had the feed, We did see a lot of moose just about 40 miles south of Fort Ware.

You referred to the Pinchi Mine, Mr. Minister, during your speech. I don't really know what you meant by what happened at the Pinchi Mine. I have a letter here from the Pollution Control Board and it says:

"We have no evidence in the Pollution Control Branch files to suggest that water in Pinchi Lake is contaminated with mercury. Site inspections on the quality and quantity of discharge indicate that it isn't likely that the mine is causing pollution."

Well, I don't know what that has to do with moose. In any case, if the water is contaminated, it probably has been contaminated throughout history. The Indians have been eating the fish out of that lake, all through history.

I know there are roads leading all through that country up north and it's bound to become more and more filled with roads. The road going through to the Sustut is certainly detrimental if you are trying to keep the north as a large game preserve. I would recommend that maybe good portions of it should be put into game preserve to keep the people out of there. But at least it is a very remote area and it's not everybody who can get in there. You've been in there and you know that you have to have a lot of equipment to go there and back safely.

You're going into comparatively good moose country. I don't think you really hurt it nearly as much as you do the areas near the built-up areas where there are comparatively good numbers of

[ Page 3319 ]

animals. If we know, for example, that there are good moose in Cabin Lake, we'll say, that weekend there'll be 40 or 50 cars in there. Sure enough, three-quarters of them will come out with a moose. That's how well they clean a country out. Although a lot of the fellows are road hunters, if they're hungry enough for a moose and they see a moose a mile away off the main road across a valley, they'll go over and kill it and pack it out in quarters. That's all there is to it.

When the pressure is on, it's really on. Because of the price of meat last year just everybody went hunting for a moose. This is all adding to the overall situation as far as what is happening.

You said you had five predator men coming along for this year. I don't know what you need them for, Mr. Chairman, I really don't. I don't think they killed four wolves all winter in the Predator Control Branch. Mr. Warren, who is still their predator man, used to go out killing a lot of wolves years ago. Although he did it by a method which was really mass production and has taken credit for the killing of about 10,000 wolves, he did it by aerial drop of a bait that had a very toxic poison. The reason it was stopped, apparently, was because, of course, it was a chain reaction where, after that animal died, then another animal would devour him and it would die too. So they stopped it.

Now, I don't approve of that kind of killing of animals. I admit that something better than that could take place but I still say that in recent years they haven't been killing very many wolves or other predators.

We've had quite a few complaints when we travelled last year with the agricultural committee, especially into the Peace River, referring to predators. One man alone had lost 30 animals. I had a letter just the other day from the Vanderhoof area complaining of a wolf trying to carry off a calf. In two or three instances they had wolves in that particular area just south of Vanderhoof just a month or two ago.

I thought the recommendations of the committee were excellent. Once again we were misquoted, or I was misquoted. I asked that the predator control in the agricultural zones — zones that could have been defined — be put into the agricultural branch which could have their own predator men. It's apparent that the Wildlife Branch isn't really too concerned about what is happening. They don't go out to take the predator until, of course, the farmer has lost the animals.

In this particular case last year, where we made the recommendations to this Legislature asking for this to take place, I thought there would have been some reaction, Apparently, the Fish and Game Branch are pretty jealous of the control of predators; they want to look after it themselves. In fact, the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation said it would be tragic if the Fish and Game Branch lost this amount of control. I don't think they realize the seriousness of the situation. When they're in Vancouver, it's hard to imagine what is happening in the Peace River or anywhere else in the Interior of the province.

There were a lot of animals killed on the railroad tracks this winter. A lot of it was the result of the deep snow and a lot of it was on account of railroads trying to keep up railroad schedules. Railroad engineers won't stop a train because there is a moose on the tracks. He might slow it down, but it's full speed ahead and he's got to keep that train rolling. In fact, there are areas in which he can't stop the train because he would never get it started again.

But I think that there are many instances where railroads could take a lot more precautions than they do. In fact, on the BCR they've asked that trains be reduced to about 15 miles per hour in certain areas, especially these areas that have been prone to a lot of kill.

I have a picture here from the newspaper of a train that's really smashed to pieces. It caused several thousands of dollars of damage. There is a picture there of a man who is walking along who said he's glad to be alive. He was in one of the cars when the train was derailed. Here's a picture of the dollies and a moose's head jammed under the wheel. It took several days to open the lines up.

Now I think that the Game Branch should be able to encourage the railroads to put game fences in areas that are prone to a lot of animals coming down onto the track. That one accident right there alone would have probably put in two or three miles of good moose fence to stop animals from coming down onto the tracks.

Now you're not going to prevent it from happening everywhere but if you could take one area that is extremely bad for animals crossing the tracks and crossing the valleys, you might be able to divert them. The same on the highways.

Just west of where I live the moose cross the highway there all the time. Last year there were at least half-a-dozen calves killed because they were standing on the icy road, and cars do drive along at top speed even in mid-winter. The next thing they know it might be dark and they are slamming on the brakes but they can't help it; they plow into that moose. They only have to hit it at 15 mph and the animal has got two broken legs, and usually has to be destroyed.

I notice that although there are deer signs all along the road that have a picture of a deer and say 10 miles I haven't seen a deer there for years. I can't see why in the middle of winter, if there are these bad areas, the game department couldn't put signs up — mobile signs — saying "Bad Area for Moose Crossing" or "Moose on Road." They're salting the roads all the time — the Highways department — and it's nothing to see two or three moose on their knees licking the

[ Page 3320 ]

salt off the road. Once again they make a real target on the highways.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Chairman, there are a few other things that I would like to refer to but I think I have had the floor for long enough. There is one other thing that I would like the Minister to consider. That is that the fisheries department on this west coast are in a pretty bad plight as far as I'm concerned. I have friends who are trollers on the west coast and they are anxious that this government create a department of fisheries.

We are the only province bordering on the ocean in Canada that doesn't have a department of fisheries. I would urge this Minister to work toward that means to form a department of fisheries for the Province of British Columbia. They are in dire need of somebody to take over fisheries on the west coast, to manage it, to work it properly and to have some liaison between our government and the federal government with these fishermen. I think that this Minister could do a lot toward getting a department of fisheries started in this province.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I'll be brief. There are just a few points I would like to raise in discussing the Minister's estimates. A number of points have been touched on by previous speakers this afternoon on both sides of the House.

The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) spoke briefly about bicycle paths or cycling trails. I'm sure that many people in this area would be interested to have an update statement by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation on the subject of his proposal to develop a cycle trail from Victoria to Lake Cowichan. I would as kindly as possible just correct the reference by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano; it is not the E&N right-of-way, but clearly the old CN right-of-way, parts of which have been abandoned.

Mr. Chairman, there was a great deal of excitement about this last year. The Minister made several enthusiastic statements in October and November. The Victoria Daily Colonist, October 24, carried a story that "Support is Growing for Bicycle Trails".

"For the students it was a lesson in how democracy works and how to participate in government decision-making. For Recreation Minister Jack Radford it was more fuel for the fire of community support he has received for his proposal to build a bicycle trail on southern Vancouver Island." That was October 24.

In both the Times and Colonist of November 15 there were stories. One headline: "Cycling Trails Bill Could Hit $2 Million." This is from the Colonist.

"Development of a proposed cycling trail from Victoria to Lake Cowichan could cost as much as $2 million, a Park Branch study into the proposal has found. Recreation Minister Jack Radford, making the statement public, said he would set up an inter-agency task force to try to eliminate any conflict there might be if the parkway is established.

"Conflict with the Highways department might come because some of the corridor would be useful for widening highways, and the transit bureau is looking at the right-of-way as a line for future rapid transit."

So there was that conflict between possible uses by other departments of government — Highways and Transport, to name two.

Then also there was the fairly bitter comment by the mayor of Victoria, Mr. Pollen, who pretty well belittled the fact that the Minister indicated that he had received some several thousand letters of support. In the Times of November 15 last it was indicated that Mayor Pollen said that if the provincial government really has received 7,000 separate letters supporting the proposal for a hiking and cycling trail from Victoria to Lake Cowichan, the mayor says he's prepared to walk the 82-mile route in a sack cloth.

The file is fairly bulky. I have some of it here. But in fairness to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, we haven't heard anything about that recently. I think it would be most helpful if you could indicate to the committee today whether the plan has been abandoned, whether it is to be implemented in part, or whether in fact you are still hopeful that it will be implemented in full.

There are, obviously, complications with respect to the Canadian National and a portion of the line. But I know of many thousands of greater Victoria and Vancouver Island residents who were genuinely excited about the proposal and obviously must be disappointed inasmuch as up to this point they've heard nothing concrete and definite with respect to the idea.

There is also the problem associated with the greater Victoria Water Board; the rail line runs along several miles of Sooke Lake, which is one of the major lakes in the greater Victoria water system. But I think the Minister indicated at one point that that could be solved by means of a fence prohibiting people from straying down to the lakeshore.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask your indulgence on another matter. I could jump up and down on every vote in the departmental estimates and ask the same question; but in the interests of time I would like to have the Minister comment on office equipment and furniture. When one looks through the entire departmental listing, my total for office furniture and equipment is….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would point

[ Page 3321 ]

out to the Hon. Member that the Chair will not be upset if you jump up and down; but I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks strictly to the vote. If you have questions about a particular vote, could you wait until that vote is called?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm very nearly through, Mr. Chairman. There is $117,940 for office equipment and furniture in all the branches within the Minister's jurisdiction. Now if he can justify that very sizeable amount of money, fair enough, but there are items of $5,000, $25,000, $11,600, and so on, scattered through the entire department. Mr. Chairman, the Minister must be buying a great quantity of furniture and office equipment for his department. Surely, that comes within his Ministerial responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Clearly, this is for use in a number of centres in British Columbia. But when you add the total together it's quite a staggering sum.

I certainly support the remarks made earlier by the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) with respect to predator control. I recognize the interest and the good work done by wildlife and conservation groups, but I suggest that in some instances their lobby is perhaps much stronger than it should be.

The agriculture committee of this Legislature last year very clearly saw that in areas where livestock is an important industry, in agricultural zones, it makes nothing but good sense to transfer predator control from the present Minister's jurisdiction to that of the Minister of Agriculture. The Member for Omineca covered the point very, very well. I won't repeat what he said but simply hope to underline it and to subscribe fully to it. I think the sooner that is done the better. Perhaps the Member for Peace River will also want to comment on that.

I'm not going to tread back into the Gulf Islands trust Act. I'm telegraphing to you, Mr. Chairman, various points that I wish to make today. Quite apart from that bill which is still before the House, I hope the Minister is aware of and will report to the committee on the increasing difficulties experienced by Gulf Islands residents and visitors alike when simply too many people turn up on the scene to enjoy a weekend or a holiday weekend on one of the Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. We saw, again on one of the travelling committees last year, case after case of the park, the campsite — whatever it might be — overcrowded, full to capacity, with limited supervision, with not enough people to handle the crowd. Galiano Island is just one case in point. Mouat Park on Saltspring is yet another. There is obviously a need for more supervision, more government-appointed individuals to handle the crowds and to ensure that there is a minimal amount of vandalism, damage and general disturbance on the Gulf Islands.

It's relatively easy in other parts of British Columbia to move police from one point to another if there is a crowd or an outbreak of vandalism or a disturbance, but it's not too easy to move them onto the Gulf Islands, the RCMP helicopter fleet notwithstanding. I do commend to the Minister that problem which is a very real one. I certainly would hope that somewhere in his vote there is provision for greater control and increased staffs on the Gulf Islands in particular.

I also undertook to pass along to the Minister a suggestion that his department might look at some form of reduced admittance fee to provincial parks for senior citizens. I know this has been done with respect to fishing licences. There was a news release from the Minister's office, dated April 17 of this year: "Reduced angling and hunting licence fees for senior citizens." It was a brief statement but it certainly made it clear that senior citizens were going to get a break. I think it quite reasonable to ask. While $2 is not a large sum for many of us, a reduction or perhaps the elimination of the fee with still some limitation as to the number of days or nights which senior citizens may stay in a particular park, has a great deal of merit.

A lot of them have recreational vehicles; they are not able to travel to Europe or to other parts of North America or to take major vacations. Many of them are moving at other than the peak travel season. I pass that along for the Minister's consideration. If it's good enough for fishing licences perhaps it's good enough for park sites.

I may have some comments on other matters later.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Regarding the cycle track, the Member is quite right. Never has such a project generated so much excitement and return from the public as to concern as the cycle track has. We really were inundated with requests. The fact is we did receive 7,000 letters in support of it.

We did create the inter-agency task force and we are now in negotiation with the CNR. That's why you haven't heard too much about it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Transit (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is now in negotiation with the CNR. Announcements probably will be made within the next few months on acquisition or non-acquisition of the railway track.

It is true that in Canada there are only 34 miles of roadway applicable to cycle tracks. In B.C., I think we have 2 1/2 miles when they closed down Stanley Park. True, on Vancouver Island there is no safe room for cyclists on the highway; there are no provisions on the highway.

Statistics the Parks Branch has brought forth show there are 100,000 cyclists in the greater Victoria area as compared to 86,000 cars. I believe our proposal of a

[ Page 3322 ]

cycle track from here to eventually probably Youbou would be a great and unique situation. Cycle tracks are not a new phenomenon. They are coming into their own in the United States. In Oregon, for example, they have set aside a certain amount of their highway budget to bring in cycle tracks.

There had been some concern from the Capital Regional District about the water situation at Sooke. We have assured them that we are prepared to patrol that and put in a chain-link fence. There was some concern about it being an added fire hazard. We have been assured from the forestry department that, in fact, this would be a good fire insurance to have an 8-foot-wide road which would lead to quick access to put out fires. Actually, I think, there were nine fires in that area last year where people had hiked into and some of them were caused by hikers. They did create a problem. Access was a problem in that area. I'm all in favour of the cycle track situation. I just hope we can bring this about in Victoria and look into other areas and probably do some further studies on just what is available for cyclists and cyclist areas throughout the Province of B.C.

In regard to predators, our department has been meeting with the agricultural department and have come up with some guidelines that we will be taking to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and to the B.C. Wildlife Federation to create zones, as the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) mentioned. We will create some zones and deal with some of the predator problems on that basis. I do believe that the Fish and Wildlife Branch has the expertise like no other department to deal with predators. We do deal with predators on the request of any ranchers that have problems with the predators.

This year earlier I wrote a letter to Mr. Blazowski who is secretary-manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. I earlier wrote a letter to him asking him for the names of people from his organization so we could send out for some information to be sent back to our department on anyone who had been affected by predators. He refused to give us these names. I wrote him a letter on January 31, and I'll read this letter in the House:

"The concern of your organization over predator problems is shared by myself and the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. I understand you are unwilling at this time to assist us in directly contacting your individual members in order that we may gather more specific information about this problem.

"Consequently, would you at this time inform all your members of your association to advise local conservation officers or a Fish and Wildlife regional office not only when they encounter predator losses but also the nature of the problems they anticipate in the future."

I have a report here. It's too bad the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) isn't here. I do have some information back from each of our regions concerning predator control reports. Lo and behold, in the Prince George region — that takes in all of northern B.C., Vanderhoof, all the areas probably right out to Smithers — we have only had eight reports of predators bothering farmers or sighted as actual reports of losses.

Two complaints were of wolves harassing cattle and the investigation revealed the incidents involved dogs, not wolves. The complainant destroyed the dogs and there were no further complaints.

Another complaint was of wolves harassing sheep and horses. Cyanide pills were used and the wolf was done away with.

Another one was a horse possibly killed by a wolf. It was investigated late due to inclement flying weather. No further action or problems.

Coyotes. There were three reports of coyotes harassing sheep and calves, where the coyotes killed the calves. Baits were placed and the coyotes were eradicated.

In Smithers there were only five reports in that area. Fort St. John had nine reports.

The real problem is really not the wolves in many cases. A lot of the losses are caused by poison herbs, poison plants in the area, and a lot of them are caused by weather conditions. It's true that the wolves and coyotes do cause some damage, but usually the farmers and the ranchers who really are concerned are those that are in a minor position as far as economics go, because today when a farmer loses one cow, it's a heck of a lot of money.

A lot of losses are due to poor management of the farmer in the area. A lot of times the cattle are grazing right in wildlife zones where wolves are predominant and are grazing far away from the farmer's location and are left out there to fend for themselves in many cases.

We are looking into this problem, as I mentioned, with the agricultural department. We have added five predator people to our staff, which will bring that up to 11 people now dealing with predator problems in predator control.

The Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) mentioned about surveillance and I mentioned earlier that we have doubled our surveillance on parks. To date we have had very few complaints of rowdyism in our parks, as witness the last two holiday weekends, which in the past have been prevalent for rowdyism problems.

MR. CURTIS: Even in the Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. RADFORD: We have no reports from the Gulf Islands of any problems in the last two holiday weekends.

As far as senior citizens reduction in campgrounds,

[ Page 3323 ]

I think you will agree that there are a lot of senior citizens now using campgrounds. Really we have to decide whether we want an overinflux of senior citizens as compared to young people for camping during their summer holidays in the campgrounds. We really have to subsidize our parks now. We haven't raised the price for years and we feel that $2 is a very minimal fee to pay. However, we will consider the senior citizens' situation and maybe something can be worked out on a part-time basis.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to pick up one point from the Minister's comments with respect to the bicycle path on the CN. He indicated that the bureau of transit is negotiating with Canadian National. Is that correct?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right.

MR. CURTIS: Does that suggest there might be a dual use of the right-of-way?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No.

MR. CURTIS: For transit as well as for cyclists?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I don't think that suggests a dual use. I think it suggests that it comes under the right portfolio for that Minister to be doing the negotiations. The transit are interested in using that as a recreational train, which probably would be a single-use situation and part-time use. I understand that the existing tourist recreational train that uses the CN partially has now transferred its use to the CPR and it's now putting a recreational run on from the Johnson Street bridge to Shawnigan. So maybe the department of transit will be foregoing their previous thinking and follow through with using the CPR, which is more or less a more scenic route than the wilderness area of the CN.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Omineca on a supplementary question. If it's a new matter, I'd ask him to yield to the Member for North Peace. Is it a new matter?

MR. KELLY: No. The Minister didn't answer too many of my questions and I'd like to hear some answers. He answered my predator problems but I think I asked a couple of other questions and I would like him to give me a little bit of an answer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Now he knows what we go through.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I haven't had too much chance — the Chairman has missed me.

Regarding campsites and conflicts with private concerns, the Parks Branch has always and does even today consider where they are going to put in parks and campsites so that they won't bring and have conflicts with private citizens or private campsites.

Concerning sustenance permits, the regulations and authorities provide for permits to a resident to hunt, trap or kill designated wildlife during the open or closed seasons when in actual need for sustenance. These are people who are in actual need of food.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) mentioned there are many people who probably can't get out of the wilderness to even get a sustenance permit and sometimes harvest their moose for their need. This is kind of a moral question. I suppose there are many people, and 95 per cent of them are native people, who apply for sustenance permits. There is a need there, I believe, and we do not turn down many requests for sustenance permits.

However, in this last year I have asked my department to check out and keep close surveillance on the permits they give out because there have been reports that sustenance permits have been given out to people when they actually are not in need. We're taking a close look at that. The number of sustenance permits given out in 1972 was 1,009 and last year that jumped to 1,142. That's throughout the whole province, for all species. In the Prince George area, 351 permits were given out in '72 and 431 were given out this year.

As the Member mentioned, in game management area 22 we had a lot of requests to cut down the antlerless season and we did. We cut it down to two weeks where it previously was left open to four weeks. We cut it down to a period of time where game is less accessible in that area.

I have to listen to my professional people in the area. We've for the first time let the regions call the shots as far as seasons and length of seasons. These are the people who are working in the area and I think it only fair that those people are the ones who make the decisions and not somebody sitting down here in Victoria.

We will be looking at that situation in game management area 22 and it may be that we will close it down. I suspect if we close the antlerless season down there we'd get just as many complaints. It's hard to be right — you can never be right in all the angles of the fish and game management.

I answered the questions about predators to the previous Member which you also asked about. You made statements about the habitat. That really is, in my opinion, the real cause for the decline of our wildlife — encroachment of man in places where we've never been before. Sure, it's true we don't see as many animals as we used to, because we're building more along roads, and highways are more super, and the animals soon learn to stay off the highways. They're getting a little smarter. Our counts last year

[ Page 3324 ]

in the game management 22 showed that there was a good survival rate, a good calving rate in that area. By your own admission you said there were hundreds of moose killed on the railway tracks. You mentioned that there were moose killed on the roads also in your area.

A lot of things can happen in the winter because of snow conditions and weather conditions. We will be keeping a close surveillance on all of the areas of B.C. and we've never hesitated to close down the elk season in the Kootenays or in any other areas. We're managing the game biologically and not politically in this department.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've listened with interest to the remarks of the many Members who have taken part in this debate this afternoon, and some of the very complimentary things that they've said about the Minister. I hate to be the first one to rise in the debate and suggest a few things that I'm not quite as enamoured with as some of the other Members might have been, but I believe that someone during the course of this debate, Mr. Minister, is going to have to educate you a little bit on a few of the things that we don't quite agree with.

One of the things that I think is a mistake in the terms of management of our game resource is this introduction of the permit system in the three areas of British Columbia where you intend to introduce it this year. In my opinion, you're not going to solve anything with that particular introduction of that system. While I recognize that you say it's on an experimental basis, I hope that you mean that, that it is only an experiment and that this is not the forerunner…

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course it is.

MR. SMITH: …of a permit system for every game management area in the Province of British Columbia, including the sub-areas which you are presently setting up. This in no way will help preserve the game population if you continue with the type of permit system that we have seen introduced right now.

For instance, let's take a look at what you're going to do. You said that you'll introduce a permit system in game area 3 for the harvesting of grizzly in the Bute Inlet and Toba Inlet areas. Okay? You're going to issue 15 permits. Obviously, if there are more than 15 hunters wishing to go after grizzly bear, who want to harvest a grizzly, there'll have to be a lottery or a draw; so 15 hunters out of who knows how many will end up with permits.

Now it happens to be that a grizzly is a very desirable trophy so you'll probably get several times 15 people applying for the permit, some of whom have no intention of hunting grizzly. But if they are fortunate enough to get a permit in the draw they're going to take it and that permit immediately will become worth several times its value to the person who holds it.

Now you say: "Well, we're going to control that." I suggest to you there's no way that you can control that, because how do you determine who pulls the trigger on the gun that kills the grizzly that is permitted under that particular permit? You can't do it, so you're going to set up a black market situation for the sale of the permits that have been issued by your department.

So you've got 15 permits; you can be sure that there's going to be a large number of people…. The 15 permit holders who have those permits, by one means or another, are going to try to make sure that they harvest 15 grizzlies.

Your department estimates that probably the success ratio will be between 6 and 10. But the facts of the matter are that in that particular area the legal kill of grizzly has only averaged three or four bear per season the last number of years. It's not much more than that. I say the legal kill, Mr. Minister. But you know as well as I do that there's a large illegal kill going on in that area, and the only way you can control that is with strict conservation measures by conservation officers.

There happens to be a great demand and a very high price attached to one grizzly bear hide, regardless of who shot it. Those hides are being marketed outside of Canada to Japan at extremely high prices. I would suggest that 90 per cent of perhaps all of the hides that go out that way as a trophy come about as a result of the illegal harvest of grizzly bear — people who have no permit and are taking them illegally. Now if you want to preserve that particular species of animal — and it should be preserved — then you're not going to do it by a permit system.

Let's take a look at the problem with respect to the harvesting of mountain goat in the Nass area. There again it's illegal hunters that are probably taking the larger majority of mountain goat out of that area — not the ones who went to the trouble of getting a permit and a licence and paying all the fees that they are entitled to pay to the Province of British Columbia, but people poaching from outside of the Province of British Columbia across the border into Alaska that come into our area.

So you can do the best job in terms of conservation that your department can do, and if you had all the personnel that you want, you could still do the best job. But unless you can prevent this from happening, you're not going to be able to protect the game species in these particular areas.

Then again, in the Ashnola, a study done by one of the men in your department indicates the lamb crop. Out of approximately 350 adult animals in the

[ Page 3325 ]

last two years: in 1972 there were six lambs that they were able to count on the lambing grounds; in 1973 there were 10 lambs. Yet they know that in that area there are approximately 350 adult animals.

Now something's wrong, Mr. Minister. Obviously, for some reason, the sheep in that area are not breeding properly and as a result the lamb crop is not coming off the way it is. Yet you're prepared through your department through a lottery system to allow 50 permits, or hunters, into that area this year.

Say their success ratio was 50 per cent. They harvest 25 heads, or 25 rams. Unless the lamb crop improves, you're working on a decreasing herd of bighorns or mountain sheep all the time; so that is a problem. It may have something to do with the habitat there. It may have something to do with civilization pressing in too closely on these animals so that they're disturbed during the mating season, or whatever. But it's up to the biologists in your department to solve that problem first.

You're not going to solve the problem by issuing permits and permitting hunters. I say again that once those permits go into the hands of individuals who have applied from all over the country, they're going to have a resale value of several times the amount they have to pay for that permit. I suggest that you're not going to solve over harvesting at all by the issuing of permits.

I'd like to deal with another problem that was mentioned briefly by yourself, and that is some of the problems of the big game guides in the Province of British Columbia. Instead of helping to solve the problems of that particular industry, I think you've compounded them, really. You haven't solved them. Just because there happen to be several thousand — probably 100,000 — resident sportsmen hunters as compared to 480 registered big game guides, is no excuse to deny people who have spent their lifetime building up an industry the right to make a living.

This is what is going to happen if you continue along the course and path that you're taking at the present time. A lot of people look at the big game guides…. You yourself said this afternoon that they harvest a sheep or a goat or whatever and they get $1,000 or  $1,500.

HON. MR. RADFORD: $3,000.

MR. SMITH: It sounds like…. Okay, say $3,000 for a total hunt. But that's only one small part of the story, Mr. Minister, and you know it. Those people invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in base camps, in wilderness camps, in cutting trails, in providing the facilities that they must provide in order to attract hunters.

They keep a herd of horses 12 months a year in order to be able to pack out into the wilderness and guide for a period of about three months or less.

They hire people to go in and start working early in the year right through to late fall in order to maintain a professional setup.

While they harvest a head, and somebody is prepared to pay a substantial price for it, they certainly don't get that without working hard for it and investing a lot of money.

Now what are you going to do? Well, obviously the permits that you have suggested in three areas will only be available to residents of British Columbia. So that excludes the big game guide if he's catering to non-resident hunters. And I'd like to explore that term of non-resident hunters for just a moment.

Who is a non-resident hunter? Well, I'll tell you who a non-resident hunter is to a rancher in the Peace River country who has had his fields decimated by four-wheel drive outfits, Ski-doos and Hondas and everything else in a wet period during the fall. A non-resident hunter is somebody from some other part of the Province of British Columbia who comes in there because he's heard that there's a good possibility of harvesting moose in that particular area, raises Cain with the man's property and in many cases decimates the herds of whatever game is there.

To a man living in the Ashnola or in the Cariboo or in the Peace, a non-resident hunter doesn't necessarily mean someone that comes from south of the border, or from Great Britain or whatever. A non-resident hunter is someone who ordinarily doesn't live in that area and is there on a competitive basis to harvest game.

Now that's fine, but why discriminate then against the big game guide in not allowing him. If you're going to go to a permit system, why discriminate against him by saying that only resident hunters will qualify for a permit and most of those people will not use the services of the big game guide?

It's a matter of record that throughout the lower mainland and Vancouver Island last year and the year before a map was available, and I saw reproductions of this map many times over with respect to a certain area in the North Peace. I'm not going to name the area because it would only encourage more people to go up there. But this was supposed to be a hot spot for moose, and it was for a few years.

You can go into that area right now, Mr. Minister, and you'll be lucky if you find one moose left, because the hunting pressure as a result of people going in there and coming back and spreading these maps all over the country is so great that they completely eliminated the moose in that particular area.

Let's get back to the situation of the big game guides — 480 registered guides employing 2,000 people. About 50 per cent of those employed are native Indians because they adapt well to this sort of life. Not only that, but out of the 480 registered guides, 37 are native guides themselves — outfitters.

[ Page 3326 ]

What are you doing to them when you introduce a prepaid trophy system? Well, to many of your native guides and many others in the Province of British Columbia who only have moose, deer, bear and caribou to draw upon as a resource, you're going to eliminate them from the guiding business almost entirely, because the type of hunter they cater to is the blue-collar worker and the middle-class person, both in British Columbia and outside of it. If they have to pay for trophies in advance, they're not going to go hunting. As a result, these people are going to be hurt first and hardest.

The ones who will be able to survive for a while will be the ones who have the larger area and what you might call the "exotic" trophy animals, where they can command a high price and hunters, basically from outside of Canada, will be prepared to pay that trophy in advance.

If you are concerned about management of game and retention of that resource, then limit the number of trophies that any big game hunter can take on any hunt — one, two, three animals — so that the people when they come in to hunt under the auspices of a big game guide will know that they are limited in the number of big game animals that they can harvest. Surely that is more desirable than the system of making them pay high trophy fees in advance.

Sure, it sounds good for the taxpayer of the Province of British Columbia. They're going to generate more revenue, but I suggest to you that you won't generate more revenue because the number of permits issued and the number of people paying the trophy fees will decrease. As a result you'll end up with about the same net dollars in the Treasury that you have right now.

If you're concerned about game preservation, then you must do a better job of habitat management in this province. That's where it's at, Mr. Minister. Really, that's where it's at. It wasn't too long ago, if you talked to a forest ranger or someone in the Department of Recreation and Conservation and suggested that a good burn in selected areas was helpful to the habitat of the game, that they looked at you in horror, but that's exactly right. That is good for the habitat for many of the ungulates. If we are as successful in the future as we have been in the past few years in spotting and controlling bush fires, we'll have a rapid deterioration of most of the moose pasture, the caribou range, the mountain sheep and the elk range in this province. That is where it's at — this is what you have to look after. It's not really the pressure of hunters in many areas — although that is a problem, and you can control that — as much as it is the loss of habitat for animals.

The other thing that you have to take into consideration, and I'm glad to see that you're aware of the problem, is predator control. It's bad enough if the big game in this province have to face the severe winter conditions that they do and have to face the predators that we have, namely in the form of wolf packs, but there's another predator that's worse than all, and that's the man on two legs with a rifle. You combine these forces and literally game has not got a chance of survival in many areas of the province.

So control the wolves. It can be done, and I'm sure the Minister knows how to do it. I'm glad to see that he's appointing some predator control officers, because they are a problem in certain areas. I had a phone call this morning from a rancher who lives on the fringe area north of Fort St. John. He lost four yearling colts this spring to wolves. These are horses that he's raising for saddle stock and which command a high price. He lost four colts and he has a mare and four other colts chewed up so that you wouldn't hardly recognize them.

These people that love the wolves so much should go out and take a look at those horses if they think that the wolf is a nice gentle little creature that you see in Walt Disney comics. They are a creature of the wild and they survive by killing, and they don't survive that way in a pretty manner. They've got to eat the same as everybody else and they'll pull down anything that they can get at. Particularly in the spring when horses are not in the best of shape and the colts are coming on, they're tough on them.

I've raised a few issues, Mr. Minister. I think you are probably well intentioned. You have good intentions in some of these directions, but I suggest to you that if you continue along the direction that you are presently going, you're going to destroy the big game guide industry in British Columbia.

Iincidentally, there are some of the best conservationists that we have in the province in the big game guiding fraternity. There's no one that knows better and appreciates more the conservation of game animals than they do, so if you are going to go along the path that you presently are progressing on, you're going to destroy their industry, or the greatest part of it, and make it unviable for anybody. It won't be viable for anyone to continue in that industry in the province.

Is that what you want? You can certainly do it, but I don't think you want to destroy that industry any more than you want to destroy the game herds that we presently have.

Let the big game guides give you a few ideas and listen to them instead of the uninformed people, who unfortunately have a much bigger lobby sometimes.

Improve the habitat for wild game animals and tighten up a little bit on the control of people who will go out and harvest game animals and shoot and destroy and pillage every time they have the opportunity. They're not sportsmen, but unfortunately they sometimes go around and portray to people that they are sportsmen. I've been in the situation where I've been out in the hills too often to

[ Page 3327 ]

ever suggest that everyone who travels the hills and packs a rifle is a sportsman. Some of them are far, far from being sports-minded, and it would be better if they never had a rifle in their hands.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one or two points that I'd like to bring up. First, I would again like to draw your attention to the speech by the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), and I enjoyed it to no end. I'm sorry he was crying, and all I could think of was how that left shoe hurts when it's on your own feet.

Mr. Member, while I agree with what you said in terms of government competing with private enterprise and putting them out of business, I was astonished to hear it come from you. This is one of the points that this side of the House has been trying to make very clear since this government took over, that there are a lot of people in this province who are hurting because this government is pushing its way more and more into competition with the private sector, with unfair advantages.

I would ask that Member how he would feel if he was a big game guide in British Columbia, a matter of great concern under this very vote, how that Member would feel if he was a small insurance agent for automobile insurance in this province when he voted for a monopoly situation, how he would feel if he was a small timber operator or a logger in this province who is being squeezed to death by the policies of this government…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'd ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's a very good point, Mr. Chairman. It does relate to recreation and what he said is very true. The policy of the recreation branch in the past has been to stimulate public interest and to stimulate development by the placement of parks, for example, in strategic areas of the province, but not to go into the business of tourism, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, through you, Mr. Chairman, and not go into the business of private campsites, but to set a standard which is not equalled anywhere else in the world for public campsites.

I agree with the Hon. Member that that should be, and I hope will remain the policy of this department, that we won't see these Ministers squeeze some more people such as this poor Member for Omineca who slaved so hard to build up his own little investment and just wants the right to compete fairly and that with the Parks Branch and the recreation branch or no other branch of this government will be used by those ambitious souls behind the scenes who want to be businessmen, but aren't willing to risk their own energies and their own money, but want to use government assistance to do it.

It was a very good point, Mr. Member, but as I say, oh how that left shoe hurts when it's on the individual's foot and it gets into his pocket.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add one or two more points regarding the guiding situation. My colleague brought up a lot of points, as did others.

But on this whole matter of how the Minister handled this situation, he said in his remarks that he had consulted with the guides. I challenge this statement because my understanding is that he did not consult to any degree at all; nor did he listen to what a number of guides said when they came down, nor did he appear at their convention when they wanted to discuss this matter with him. Again, we have another web of confusion around this Minister.

I would ask also, Mr. Minister — how do you answer some of the other questions? You're predicting your whole prepaid trophy system on money when, in fact, surely some of this must be conservation.

One of the serious questions that arises in this prepay system is: is this not in itself going to stimulate the killing of animals when they are much younger than they should be harvested? Right now someone goes on a trophy hunt with a miraculous vision of the four quarter eight-foot trophy that they are going to do whatever they want to do with it — the four foot ram. But he pays for it when he gets it. But when you pay a fee of $100 you're not going to sit around waiting for the big one to come along. Is this not going to stimulate action on the part of trophy hunters to shoot younger animals — animals that are not in good condition?

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that your answer to these guides and your lack of concern about this sudden switch that has jeopardized their income…. As my colleague stated, they harbour anywhere from $20,000 to $200,000 in investments in leases and in terms of horses and base camps and other equipment. This Minister has given no concern to the fact that their lease fees were raised this year. How does he equate their problems with his interest in money and the fact that their livelihood is going to be cut down?

What is the future of this association or these associations? Does the Minister intend to truly consult with them and seek assistance, perhaps challenge them? My understanding is that since the Western Guides and Outfitters Association came into being there has been an increase in standards in the conduct and the carrying out of guiding. This should be an objective. Many guides who are in the business may be out in the remote areas and unable to keep up with things because of lack of contact. Through an association they have this opportunity.

There is just one other point that I want to bring up, Mr. Minister, in the interest of time. That is the problem of harassment and cruelty to animals. I would urge this Minister to meet with the judiciary

[ Page 3328 ]

and also to bring in a bill increasing the penalties for harassment of animals to a very severe degree. You should sock it to them, Mr. Minister. There are cases all over the province but there is one here in Fort St. James where two teenagers harassed an animal — a coyote — on a snowmobile. They ran over it, they dragged it behind it, and eventually killed it. They were fined $10 and $5 respectfully. While you can't hold children responsible in terms of money, I do suggest that there should be a penalty severe enough that those young people should never indulge in this again.

Poachers who take $400 worth of deer meat illegally should be penalized severely so that there is no longer this problem.

I would just extend it to one more point. It's not only the harassment of wild animals by a few — it's not the majority, it's a few — but also ranchers are having problems where people on all-terrain vehicles are running young calves into the ground and acting in a most inhumane way.

I would urge the Minister to sock it to these people, to bring in the legislation so that this kind of harassment and cruelty will be something that one has to deal with in terms of a severe penalty to themselves if they behave in this manner.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We are near the adjournment hour and I would just like to speak very briefly about one park area. I'm so pleased to see the vote go up to $5 million for park development. I would like to see $500,000 of that spent on an extremely important part right next to the Minister's back door.

Of course, I speak of the University Endowment Lands, where within five minutes of the busiest area of Vancouver one can be in virgin forest that would rival what would be in any coast area up in northern Vancouver Island. I would like it if the Minister would spend several hundred thousand dollars this summer perhaps giving jobs to students improving the trails through this magnificent parkland area, perhaps putting in a few picnic benches at choice locations. He could certainly perhaps stock the area with a few more deer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps we could improve some of the streams, and I would like to see some of the fish fry put in there for trout fishing. Mr. Chairman, this could be the most magnificent wilderness park; it's within the Minister's budget…. What's wrong, Mr. Chairman? It's right next to the Minister's….

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): If you'll adjourn, I'll hold him down. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member that this particular area is not under the jurisdiction of this Minister and therefore he cannot properly discuss it under this vote. Therefore I would rule any further discussion on the endowment lands out of order under this vote.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I won't talk about this particular park then, but I'll ask the Minister what he considers the most important area in British Columbia to develop as a future park. He told us, Mr. Chairman, about how they had gone from five to seven million acres. I would like to see the park area increased by an additional 1,700 acres in an area that the Minister thinks is most important for the people of British Columbia.

I'm not going to talk about the University Endowment Lands, but the Minister should certainly feel free, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest areas that would be prize areas for future park development. Certainly I think that any area that has virgin forests near the most densely crowded section of our province, which would be….

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I would like to have a contest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member cannot do indirectly what the Chair has refused him to do directly. I would ask the Hon. Member either to discontinue his speech or to raise a subject apart from or without reference to the endowment lands.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to refer to the endowment lands at all. But I would like to ask the Minister another question. What is the smallest size stream, Mr. Chairman, that could be satisfactorily stocked? In other words…. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, with all these trout. There are 60,000 pounds of trout there and I would like to be able to fish for some of those. I would even pay for a fresh water fishing licence. If there were some area the Minister could suggest that has been stocked. For example, are they stocking…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would recommend the Kispiox River.

MR. McGEER: Oh, Mr. Chairman — fantastic! I want to speak later in the debate about the

[ Page 3329 ]

importance of developing parks of the north because I think that we have to have a balance. You want to take the wide open spaces and preserve them for the future and then you want to be certain that the areas where people are crowding around don't get spoiled. I think that a balance is terribly essential.

While we can look to the north for great developments in the future the importance in the southern area is preservation. That's where the Minister, who understands these things well because he comes from this densely crowded area, can play a terribly important role. I know the feeling in the cabinet isn't unanimous about the priorities here, but some of us on the opposition side feel very keenly that park development in the crowded lower mainland area is critical as well as along the Kispiox River.

The House resumed — Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

DEPUTY CLERK:

"Report, office of the Clerk, May 22, 1974 to the matter of the petition presented to the House on the 21st day of May, 1974, by the Member for South Okanagan.

"Standing order 73 (4) provides that 'every Member presenting a petition shall endorse his name thereon.' Since this petition is not so endorsed, it accordingly does not comply with the standing orders.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, I.M. Horne, Q.C., Clerk of the House."

HON. MR. HALL: I would like to present the 24th annual report of the British Columbia Indian Advisory Committee and the director of the Indian Advisory Act for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.