[ Page 3331 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Consultations with Ottawa on federal tax law changes, Mr. Wallace — 3331

Differences in provincial and federal NDP policies. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 3331

Variations in ICBC body work charges. Mr. Bennett — 3332

Facilities at Mica Creek construction site. Mrs. Jordan — 3333

Citizenship requirements for access to Crown lands. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 3333

Proposed meeting between United Fruit Growers and the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Curtis — 3333

Use of out-of-province contractors on government projects. Mr. Phillips — 3334

ICBC use of land in North Vancouver for wreck storage.

Mr. Gibson — 3334

Committee of Supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 225. Mr. Wallace — 3350

Mr. Chabot — 3335 Ms. Brown — 3355

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3337 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3356

Mr. Rolston — 3338 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3360

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3340 Mr. Dent — 3361

Mr. Phillips — 3340 Mr. Curtis — 3361

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3341 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3362

Mr. Phillips — 3342 Mr. Richter — 3362

Mr. Smith — 3342 Mr. Kelly — 3362

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3343 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3364

Mr. Smith — 3346 Mr. Chabot — 3364

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3346 Mrs. Jordan — 3365

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3348 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3365

Mr. Bennett — 3349 Mr. Phillips — 3366

Mrs. Webster — 3350 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3366

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3350

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I am advised of the attendance in the gallery today of a second group of students from Handsworth School in North Vancouver, accompanied by their instructors, Miss Hunter, Mr. Adams and Mr. Macdonald. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of the presence in the gallery of Sister Henrika of Seattle, and point out that she and the Premier both share the same experience of having had the same teachers in Seattle. It proves that even with a standardized education not all can turn out well. (Laughter.)

I would like the House to welcome her today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome the Sister as well, and to assure her that I think the Leader of the Opposition is not attacking her. (Laughter.)

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's my great privilege to advise the House that we have in the gallery today 49 grade seven students from Crescent Park Elementary School in the great city of Dawson Creek in the great Peace River area. Accompanying these students are their teachers, Mr. Lawrence, and chaperones Mrs. Webb, Mrs. Flack, Mr. MacLean and Mr. Flynn. These students arrived yesterday and they are going to be spending the remainder of the week here in the great capital area of Victoria.

Many of these students from the great Peace River area have never had the opportunity of seeing the ocean before. But more importantly, 90 per cent of them have never had the opportunity of seeing the Legislature in action. So I'm sure that all the Members will be on their greatest behaviour this afternoon.

Now I'd like you to join with me in giving them a real hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't know that bill was before the House. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

CONSULTATIONS WITH OTTAWA
ON FEDERAL TAX LAW CHANGES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Industrial Trade and Commerce, with reference to his speech of yesterday expressing deep concern at proposed federal changes in the taxation laws governing corporations, whether the Minister has taken any specific measures to consult with the federal government?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a new federal government on July 8, to which I will make representations.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister have any similar concern regarding proposed taxation measures in the provincial field?

HON. MR. LAUK: That area of fiscal responsibility has traditionally lain with the province, and that was the point I was making yesterday. This is a direct attack on provincial autonomy.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the proposals that the Minister attacked federally are very similar to those before the House, is the Minister considering resigning his position with this government?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would not resign. The proposals before this House in the nature of Bill 31 have absolutely no similarity to the budgetary proposals of John Turner. We are proposing royalties in the right of the Crown. They are proposing a taxable income situation, which is totally different.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary. Does the Minister not agree that this is a form of taxation against corporations which is indeed similar to the federal proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the question is argumentative in this case.

DIFFERENCES IN PROVINCIAL
AND FEDERAL NDP POLICIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the Premier whether this savage attack upon the federal NDP policy by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce was authorized by the Premier in response to the statement by David Lewis that he hopes people will still vote federal NDP despite the mistakes of the provincial government.

[ Page 3332 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is for any Liberal to admit it publicly these days; but I want to respond to the Member by saying that I agree. You can read in Hansard the excerpts from the speech from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when we had a rather lengthy exchange around provincial rights — and the Minister's statements concerning provincial rights under the BNA.

I point out to the Member that I've made it very clear that we are as a government Canadians first, but the BNA Act must not be altered by the basis of a federal budget without cooperation from all the provinces. I share the Minister's concerns as expressed so ably by your colleague, sitting next to you, earlier in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further supplementary? I think the Premier is certainly on safe ground to agree with my hon. friend from West Vancouver. But as he totally ignored the policy of David Lewis and the federal NDP, may I ask him whether or not this speech, which took the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce out of this House for a full day to take part in a federal campaign, was in response to the statement by Lewis that he hopes that some people would still vote federal NDP despite the mistakes of your party and government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, although I have tried to avoid bringing politics to this Legislature, (Laughter) I want to point out that what the Member seems not to understand is the reasons why his party is no longer in power. The federal NDP voted against that budget that the Minister was criticizing; and that Member doesn't understand that that's why the federal Liberal government fell. That's why we voted against them. I congratulate the Member and all British Columbians who essentially agree with this sentiment, along with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I know your position is in danger. That's why I don't like to bring up politics in the House.

VARIATIONS IN ICBC
BODY WORK CHARGES

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Commercial Transport, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister explain to the Legislature why the ICBC has chosen to pay $16 in Campbell River and certain other north Island points for body work, while only allowing $14 in Port Alberni?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): To the best of my knowledge we are not paying $16 anywhere. We changed the system in Campbell River and one or two other places from the hourly assessment by the adjuster back to the old system where we ask the garages to put in a total cash bid. So we have no knowledge of what their hourly rate is. It's the total cash bid, three bids, and it goes to the lowest bidder.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary. I was quoting a news release of early May where it states that the hourly differential is $2 between the two areas. I'd like to know if the Minister can advise the House as to whether the towing charges from Port Alberni to Victoria more than eat up any difference in charges between the two areas.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was that press release quoting me? Was it quoting an ICBC official?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If it's one of Dan Campbell's quotes, we'll ignore that. We'll ignore that. What was the other question?

MR. BENNETT: The quotes from ICBC and the dispute with the repair shops in Port Alberni. The supplemental question I asked is: could the Minister advise the House whether or not the towing charges — because he advised the House that they've been towing vehicles from Port Alberni to Victoria — eat up any differential in cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, there's a section in the standing orders that allows me to ask you a question. Would you please tell me which paper you're quoting from and the date of that paper?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, it's a Canadian Press article. It deals with May 1 in the Vancouver Province, dateline Port Alberni and it quotes Lyle Kidd, president of a collision repair firm there, in relationship negotiations between the….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No speeches. Just answer my question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon. Member….

MR. BENNETT: The Hon. Minister of Commercial Transport asked me a question and I'm answering it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the whole matter is really going beyond the rule in question period. You cannot use a newspaper article as the basis for a question.

MR. BENNETT: The supplementary, my question,

[ Page 3333 ]

which he still hasn't answered is: Is the differential from hauling a vehicle from Port Alberni to Victoria for repairs eating up any of the differential in cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I don't admit there's any differential in cost. And it's good policy.

MR. BENNETT: Well then, supplemental: could the Minister advise the House what it costs to tow the vehicles from Port Alberni to Victoria to get them repaired?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I recollect the towing rates were published and made public some months ago when we reached agreement with the towing firms. I'll get the exact towing charges for you.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Would the Minister also when he's giving us the rates then tell us the number of units that have been brought from Port Alberni to Victoria for repair and how often they're being brought and how recent? I'd like to have not only the numbers but….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to take that question as notice.

FATALITIES AT
MICA CREEK CONSTRUCTION SITE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Labour. It regards the accident at Mica Creek yesterday where four men were tragically killed by the collapse of scaffolding in an elevator shaft in the area where the underground power station is going.

Has the Minister set up more than a routine inquiry? In other words, has he set up a special inquiry into this accident in light of the fact that there are minimum standards and those standards should be of a supreme importance where there was such a distance involved? And if negligence is proved on the basis of it being a Crown corporation, is the Minister willing to propose special compensation to these families on this basis?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the accident occurred in the area of a contractor's jurisdiction rather than that of Hydro, in the first instance. In the second instance, I would not wish to presume guilt on anyone's behalf in this kind of an — accident. I understand that an investigation is underway by Workmen's Compensation Board people, and until I have some first-hand knowledge and some first-hand report of what occurred at the site, I would not be prepared to announce any further action at this time.

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS
FOR ACCESS TO CROWN LANDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: May I ask whether it's a requirement of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that persons seeking land-use permits or other access to Crown lands be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It is not clear — access to Crown Lands? What is meant by access, Mr. Speaker?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could explain slightly more. In view of the fact that the B.C. Forest Service has informed a native Canadian Indian that he must sign an affidavit swearing that he is a Canadian before he could be granted the right of access across Crown lands to a timber sale, which he currently holds, I wonder if the Minister would inform the House whether applicants responding to government advertisements abroad for timber sales will not be granted access across Crown lands to that timber unless they become landed immigrants.

HON, R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure if the Crown entertains applications from abroad, and supports them, some suitable supplementary arrangements will be made which could allow such access.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I then ask a further supplementary? Will it be a requirement that B.C. Indians, Canadian Indians, will be required. to sign affidavits of citizenship before they also can get access to timber rights that they hold?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well I think that's a….

Interjection.

PROPOSED MEETING BETWEEN
UNITED FRUIT GROWERS AND
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. May I ask if he met today with representatives of the tree fruits industry known as United Fruit Growers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I had a load of them in my office. I always welcome all residents of British Columbia, whenever I have the opportunity.

MR. CURTIS: I'm pleased to hear that. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As a result of that meeting did the Premier arrange another meeting with

[ Page 3334 ]

the representatives of United Fruit Growers with the Minister of Agriculture?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They asked if I would see if the Minister was free, because the Minister's schedule for the day was normally filled up. They came down on spec. I said yes, I would check with the Minister. I did and the Minister has made special time available for them, and I think that's very good of the Minister to do that.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it correct that the representatives of United Fruit Growers have attempted unsuccessfully over the past two to three weeks to have such a meeting?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is correct, I haven't heard about it.

MR. CURTIS: Has the Minister not been informed by his secretary that representatives of United Fruit Growers were anxious to see him at some time, in the recent past?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Which is a little different from two weeks, Mr. Speaker. The day before yesterday representatives of that group did phone and ask if they could see me yesterday or today. They were informed by my secretary, without even consulting me, that my appointments were booked up yesterday and today and they are. I have an appointment with the Land Commission at 2:30 and I'm not sure just how long that one will run. I have another appointment at 4 o'clock and I have agreed, if the first appointment is finished before 4 o'clock, that I will meet the representatives of the United Fruit Growers.

USE OF OUT OF PROVINCE
CONTRACTORS ON
GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that British Columbia taxpayers' money is backing a loan for South Peace Dehy Products construction of their plant, is the Minister aware that 90 per cent of the contractors on that project are from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and is this going to be his policy in the future?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not the source of the contractors, my concern is with the labourers working on the job, and as to whether or not they are unionized. I have had some information to the fact that they are not union labour and I've expressed that concern to South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. I'm awaiting a reply from that company.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The services that are being rendered by these contractors from outside the province were available in Dawson Creek, and the tenders were by invitation only, not a firm bid to tender. If the taxpayers' money is going to be backing this project, does the Minister not feel that where possible, British Columbia products and services should be supplied?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the qualification was in there where possible. The information supplied to me by the directors of that corporation was that the contractors who were asked to bid on it were experienced in building this type of plant. You will appreciate that there was some delay in getting started in construction. You'll appreciate that there was some concern to get the plant constructed as quickly as possible.

The directors of the corporation, who are not controlled by the government — we have one vote on that board — the directors of the corporation felt that in the interest of getting a plant constructed as quickly as possible, they should go to the experienced contractors and use local labour. As I said earlier, my concern is that the local labour be union shop.

ICBC USE OF LAND IN
NORTH VANCOUVER FOR WRECK STORAGE

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister of Transport and Communications: Is the Minister aware that ICBC land on the Dollarton Highway in the District of North Vancouver, contrary to the original understanding, is not being used for the storage of wrecks? And pursuant to a resolution of the district council earlier this week, is he prepared to get the wrecks off that land and to undertake it won't be so used in the future.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check the documents relating to any original agreement before I could answer that question.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

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

[ Page 3335 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, today we will continue discussing the Department of Recreation and Conservation. We will start off by continuing the debate on the Minister's office, which allows the Members a great deal of leeway and I hope they enjoy the continuing debate in freedom and in good spirit.

MR, J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see that the Premier is in good spirits today and suggests that there is freedom of debate in the Legislature. I want to tell the people in the galleries the Premier was telling the people in the gallery that there is freedom of debate in estimates today, but there might not be next year, because a committee….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote, please?

MR. CHABOT: A little bit of democracy disappeared today, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak about the responsibilities of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I noticed an article in The Victoria Express regarding the Minister's ability in trap shooting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shooting off his trap? (Laughter.)

MR, CHABOT: I understand he has distributed a great series of glossy pictures; 8 x 10 pictures of the Minister have been circulated not only throughout British Columbia but all parts of Canada as well — glossy pictures at taxpayers' expense of the Minister with a gun pointed at what we don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clay pigeons.

MR. CHABOT: Well, where is the clay pigeon in the picture? Another one with a trophy. Another one.

The Minister says he doesn't even know that it was being circulated. I've been on the mailing list of the Department of Recreation and Conservation for some considerable time and I receive a lot of these brochures. But no one sent me two 8 x 10 glossy pictures of the Minister's shooting skill. I'm wondering if any other Members of this assembly have seen these glossy, expensive pictures that are being circulated not only throughout British Columbia but in other parts of this nation as well. At what cost? Hundreds of dollars of taxpayers' money, at government expense. These are taxpayers' dollars we're talking about to promote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

AN HON, MEMBER: Nice guy.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Expensive guy.

MR. CHABOT: The next thing he'll do, like Icky-bicky (ICBC), is have a series of TV programmes and radio spots to tell them what a great Minister he is. Someone says that picture went as far as South America. I want to say this: there's no one in South America who is going to be voting for you. Why didn't you only distribute it in British Columbia? I realize the majority of those 850 brochures along with the 1,700 pictures did go to British Columbia but why circulate them out of the province? Maybe you'll make a national magazine or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: International Sportsman.

MR. CHABOT: The next thing we know it's liable to be published in Beautiful British Columbia. That's going a little far, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I want first of all to speak very briefly about the summer employment programme and the youth training programme of the department. I want to say at the outset, before maybe some of my words may be misconstrued, that I strongly support the youth training programme that has been in place for some considerable time. It was instituted by that former progressive government that we had in the Province of British Columbia and carried on and expanded by the present government from an expenditure of $400,000 to $750,000. It's an excellent programme. I've had the opportunity in years gone by to witness some of the experiences the young people from the city have had at the provincial park in Wasa and I have nothing but praise for the programme.

I'm wondering what kind of coordination there will be between that programme and the summer employment programme where the Parks Branch is being allocated $2.1 million and hiring 360 students for the purpose of maintenance and construction work within the park system of our province. It was my understanding that was partially the responsibility of the young people who are employed in the youth training programme.

I'm wondering as well whether the Minister has looked at the kind of wages he is paying to the young people. He has increased the fee to $13 a day and I'm certainly not going to fight that; I consider they're

[ Page 3336 ]

getting a tremendous experience. Maybe $13 might be a little high when one considers that the young people, 15 years of age, are getting free board, free meals and free lodging and gaining a tremendous experience of understanding the outdoors. It's an excellent opportunity.

But then we find within your employment programme that you're hiring other students in the senior grades of our educational system and paying them $400 a month without free meals and lodging. There appears to be a discrepancy. The I 5-year-olds, in most instances, will be receiving, with the two combined, substantially more than those in grades 10, 11, and 12 who will be employed in the employment programme of the parks. I'm wondering what the Minister has to say about this situation.

I come from a region of parks, an area that has more parks per capita than anywhere in the world. We have three massive national parks, Yoho, Glacier and Kootenay. Revelstoke, Mr. Minister of Labour, happens to be in your riding, in case you don't know it, and I don't claim that park. We also have a lot of provincial parks as well. We have Mount Assiniboine, we have Hamber, class A parks, and we have the Bugaboo Glacier class A park as well. Last but not least, we now have that massive Purcell Wilderness Conservancy; 325,000 acres of land within my constituency has been made into a park. It really gives an excellent opportunity for big game to forage without the harassment of the hunting population. It's not unusual, really, in some of the parks — for instance, in Kootenay — to take a drive through that park and see hundreds of elk in one afternoon. I would suggest there's probably a higher concentration of elk in that region than anywhere else in Canada. These parks do afford a substantial amount of protection for this big game, which is to be commended as well.

But I'm concerned about some of these expansions that we see take place and the effect it has on big game guiding in my territory. For instance, the expansion of the Assiniboine provincial park taking in the Simpson River area has removed a substantial amount of area from hunting. We now see the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy with its 325,000 acres. They haven't banned hunting but it's going to be regulated in the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy.

I was wondering if the Minister could tell me what is meant by, "hunting will however be permitted subject to Fish and Wildlife Branch regulations." Does that mean that big game guides who make their livelihood in that wilderness conservancy will be allowed to continue to hunt in that area? Does it mean, as well, that the British Columbia or the resident hunters will have an opportunity to hunt in that Purcell wilderness area?

The Minister issued a press release on October 29, 1973, and talked about some land acquisitions as being the last chance for wildlife. He says, "We're speaking about areas where wildlife populations have decreased by 50 per cent in the last 10 years." I don't doubt for a moment that there has been a decrease in wildlife population in my area; not at all. Primarily because of hunting pressure, the decrease has occurred — hunting pressures caused by not only the increase in hunting population but because of additional accesses put into the area. The Trans-Canada Highway and the Creston-Salmo Highway have made it possible for people from the more populated part of the province to get into these Kootenays for hunting purposes. As well as mining and logging roads, new accesses to the more wilderness areas of the region have had a tremendous effect on wildlife population. There's no doubt about that.

I'd like to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that wildlife is not in a last-chance situation as you've suggested in your press release. It has an opportunity to continue to flourish. It will never be the same again because of the fact that the only hunting taking place 15 years ago in that region was by local resident hunters. You didn't have the influx from the other areas and that's why there has been this decrease in population. It's not as serious as you might project in the press release that you issued.

Had it been serious, I'm sure those very capable, imaginative biologists would have set certain restrictions on hunting years ago because you don't decimate game populations over night. It's only until recently that you could harvest two goats or two deer, antlerless as well, in the region. If the game population is as critical as you attempt to portray it — which I don't really believe it is — then you have no one else to blame but the biologists in your department who haven't brought in the kind of regulations necessary to allow game to flourish in the east Kootenays.

Now your department has purchased some farms or some ranches, primarily in the Fort Steele and the Bull River area. I'm not going to criticize the department for these purchases because I understand that part of these ranches occupied some of the finer and more critical habitat in the region.

But I don't think that it's necessary, really, now that you've bought these in the Bull River and the Fort Steele area — these ranches to protect certain critical habitat — it's not necessary to expand on that programme and buy up all the ranches in the area. I don't think it's necessary.

I look at the programme you have at Bummer's Flats in the Fort Steele area where you're establishing grazing for domestic cattle and also nesting grounds for ducks. Basically you're establishing single-use purpose there. It's not an integrated use because certainly the big game won't be nesting or the livestock won't be in the area where the ducks are

[ Page 3337 ]

nesting.

I notice the big fences that are being erected down there on Bummer's Flats, primarily for the purpose of domestic livestock grazing. I think it's the intention of the department to keep the cattle down there on Bummer's Flats and keep the game up on top.

Well, that's the kind of a project that no farmer or no rancher could possibly ever undertake, because he wouldn't have enough money. You've found it necessary to dike eight miles of the Kootenay River to make this feasible, and only government could carry out this kind of a programme.

But I don't think that it's necessary, as I said before, to continue to purchase farms and ranches in the east Kootenays. I think what you really need in your department is an integrated land-management programme, something I have suggested from time to time over the years. I firmly believe that domestic cattle and big game can live together with proper range management, with proper improvement to the habitat.

I wonder what kind of programmes the Minister has undertaken since he's been in that portfolio to promote range improvement for big game. He has the professional people within his department and the Department of Agriculture as well. If they're talking to each other, I'm sure they'll both agree that livestock and big game can live together. I would suggest to the Minister that if there hasn't been a programme started to upgrade and improve the habitat and range, it should be undertaken as quickly as possible.

I've seen many years ago where wild horses by the hundreds flourished — not only flourished, but made it possible for big game to survive as well; because in the winter months, when it's difficult for deer and elk to get grass, the horses would plough the crust off the snow and make it possible for the big game to feed behind them.

That is ample evidence to me that both can survive together. However, the wild horses are gone now. Dr. Ballard bought them all — $5 a head. I want the Minister to tell me what kind of programmes he has in that respect.

A couple of other short questions, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering if the Minister could outline to me either verbally or by written summary, the kind of wish-stocking programme that's been undertaken in the east Kootenays, or is proposed for 1974 in the east Kootenays. I want to tell the Minister that he shouldn't be hesitant to make this information available for not only 1974, but for 1973 as well, and make it a matter of policy.

If you're going to distribute, Mr. Minister, 8 x 10 glossy pictures of yourself throughout British Columbia and other parts of the world, certainly you shouldn't be hesitant to tell the elected representatives in this assembly what kind of stocking programme you've undertaken from the hatcheries throughout British Columbia.

There is a policy that was carried out by the former government, and I don't know why it hasn't been followed through by your department in outlining what kind of programmes you've undertaken. I was wondering if the Minister could also tell me what kind of programme he has for park development within that great constituency of Columbia River.

One other project I want the Minister to give some consideration to is one which was started by the former government; it was the development of a beach at Athalmer — a public beach. There is a desperate need for more public facilities on that beach.

There is limited access now, and all we're asking for…. The former government started establishing this beach. But what we really need, Mr. Minister, is some change houses and some picnic tables and a few things like this at a little bit of water so that people can enjoy that great recreational part of the province that I come from.

The Minister is suggesting maybe that I should sit down. Maybe he wants to announce what kind of dollars he's going to allocate for the further development of the Athalmer beach. I hope, Mr. Minister — I'm not asking for much — I hope that you'll tell me. I hope, Mr. Minister, that you'll tell me that you've allocated something in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to $25,000.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Yes, Mr. Member. In regard to the article which appeared in The Express, they mention that the estimated number of envelopes that went out was 850. I can assure you that they're quite wrong. As a matter of fact…

MR. CHABOT: 830?

HON. MR. RADFORD:. …my information is that six envelopes went out: one to the newspaper in Victoria, one to Nanaimo and four to Vancouver. So exactly six envelopes went out with six glossy pictures which were produced by the Travel Industry department. And a few other releases went out enclosed with other releases that were already sent. So the report is quite unfounded and erroneous. It has no validity whatsoever.

Concerning the youth programme, Mr. Member, I think you were around in the days when the former government instituted…. It wasn't called the Youth Training Programme then; it was called the Boys Training Programme. I believe that in 1953 the amount was $150,000. In the following year it was still $150,000. Then lo and behold, in the following year — I think it was 1958 — they reduced it to

[ Page 3338 ]

$75,000.

When we came into government, I think the allotment was $250,000, and this year I believe it's around $700,000. One of the reasons for that is that we have expanded our programme. We have made it available to more of the youth, and we've also raised the salary from $6.07 to $13 a day this coming year.

With regard to the "Careers 74" programme in the parks, these people will be paid the going rate as to what the job is being paid already. Any students coming on and applying for a job and taking on that job will be paid the going rate.

With regard to the Purcell wilderness area, it is open to hunting. It will have no effect on the existing guides who are in the area.

Also, with regard to some of your statements on the east Kootenays, it's true that during the past 10 years the ungulates in that area have been reduced by 50 per cent, due largely to a loss of habitat and in some areas due to increase in hunting, but more due to the loss of habitat.

We did acquire the three lands that you mentioned, and I think Bummer's Flats is an area where we have gone ahead and done some things in that area along with agriculture. You asked earlier about what is being done with integration of the resources between Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Branch. I can assure you that that's just what is happening in the Bummer's Flats area.

There's one area where Ducks Unlimited have put in $100,000 to increase the nesting and bring back the waterfall in that area. But also they have put in five miles of dikes, which will rehabilitate that area, whereas before the area flooded every winter. Now we hope, especially this spring, that the dike will be completed and will hold out the water.

This area I will now enable us to graze probably more cattle than were grazed at the upper levels before. Previously there was no grazing, I don't think, in that area due to flooding and the alkali content of the soil.

So we are working together with agriculture. I do agree with you that domestic animals and ungulates can five together. As a matter of fact, wild ungulates in many cases depend on domestic animals to eat up and leave the important fescues that the wildlife live on.

The real problems in the past have been in the overgrazing and we find that domestic cattle have been eating up their own food plus the food that the wildlife rely on in the wintertime. Thus in winter the ungulates have nothing left and are forced to starve and fend for themselves in a terrible way sometimes.

In regard to stocking of lakes in your area, if you were in the House yesterday you would have heard the statement I made about 380 lakes being stocked in B.C. The new policy of this department is that each MLA will be informed of the lakes that are being stocked in their area and the lakes that are being poisoned in their area. They will be informed periodically by this department from now on.

I think that's answered all of your questions, Mr. Member.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, how's the Minister's personal ski programme? I understand he went skiing on the weekend — a little bit of glacier skiing. Is it working out okay? Are you working off a bit of that excess?

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: That's right. It's a much better form of recreation than shooting. I must say I have my difficulties with shooting. I had dinner with one of the guides and the Minister at lunch today and I'm sure there's a great deal we can all learn in that field.

Just mentioning skiing, I appreciate your thoughts there. I really feel we're missing out in this particular form of recreation. It might interest the House that there is more snow down at Mount Baker right now than I have ever seen in 25 years. There's a great deal of skiing and it's a potential that has to be promoted. There are 1.6 million skiers in this country. Some of the best and longest runs, such as the one you saw on the weekend, need to be promoted. It should be a seven-month operation. Now, unfortunately, it is peaking around early March, but I think with the travel industry a great deal more could be done to prolong that kind of peaking and that plateau so that we get the benefit of seven months of an operation.

We have an alpine ski business that no other part of the country really can boast of. We know incidentally of the success of the package ski tours especially into Banff, and I think with some less success into Jasper. Now there is a pretty aggressive programme into Whistler, Of course, in my riding there are projects in their infancy like Hemlock Valley that I think have a tremendous potential. But it does require sustained advertising….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he's trespassing on the Department of Travel Industry.

MR. ROLSTON: Okay, programme across the country. I'm glad that at least you are bringing in a consultant to look into the ski business. As you know, it's something where you have to be very careful where you put the lifts; you have to make very sure of the snow pack and the reliability to sustain a business for several months.

I am appreciative too that you are now as a department working much more closely with Highways. One of the really great things about this NDP government is that now departments are coordinating their various programmes so that you're

[ Page 3339 ]

not fouling up other departments. Highways, for instance, are not fouling up your programmes. I also would like to think that the Transport and Communications people…and that the whole movement of people into recreational areas is being carefully worked out by your department so that we don't end up with massive parking lots, which surely is not as important as the actual focal point. We could be talking about Cyprus Bowl, we could talk about any ski development.

We could certainly be talking about Weaver Lake or Alouette Park. There was a lot of static about the whole parking problem in Alouette Park. Your man there now is not allowing parking along the road and I think quite rightly so, because a motor car must not dominate the scene in large provincial parks. I'm thinking of the day parks in the Dewdney riding where people go out on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon just for three or four hours away from suburbia.

It's very very important that there be careful coordination. So therefore, as a government which is committed towards transport and a sensible movement of people, your parks need to be tied in with the transit authority. You have at least started that in Mount Seymour Park with a winter ski bus programme, and I certainly commend you.

Could you tell me about SAM? Would the MLAs and the regional districts at least get the itinerary of SAM?

MR. CHAIRMAN; Order, please. I would point out that there is a vote for SAM.

MR. ROLSTON: Okay, well we'll bring it up when it comes.

I would like to ask you about the wayside stations and boat ramps that are not in parks. I gather that you're doing a study now. Could you report to the Legislature on how far you have developed your policy regarding who is responsible for boat ramps, wayside stations and highway picnic places which aren't in a provincial park? There is some confusion as to the jurisdiction. Again, I think most MLAs have had problems in this regard. I would like to think that you can be a little more flexible and work out a deal with Highways so that at least somebody is coordinating, and seeing that the garbage is picked up, seeing that the stations are kept clean, that they are really very presentable and that the boat launchings have the snags pulled off them.

I really commend you when I think of the Harrison River, for instance. You've heard speeches before from me about the tremendous potential of the Harrison River as a recreational facility and, of course, the whole Harrison Lake. As we work with the regional districts we see that there could be a tremendous historic park at the Kilby Provincial Park that could be developed even more with paddle wheels and ships going up and down the Harrison River down to Minto Landing on the south side of the Fraser which was a historic route. This could also be a tremendous historical value as well as a recreational value.

Incidentally, on the weekend I spent four hours on the Fraser River, an unbelievable recreational potential which right now just isn't used. What are you doing as you work, with the GVRD, who are picking up strategic parkland. I'm thinking of Kanaka Creek, I'm thinking of around Langley, right down to tidal water. It is very, very important that if we pick up this property we maintain it and that we have some kind of policy with the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Incidentally, in talking to some of these people you get the impression that they would like in a sense to have one massive regional district. As the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) once said, maybe we'll get back to the lower mainland regional district concept.

Personally, I think you could charge more for your provincial parks. I think you should go for $3. You're now opening them longer. I gather you are starting to charge now on April 1. You're starting to charge a longer season now. It's heavily subsidized — why not $3? You're providing excellent facilities. If we need to have a special rate for senior citizens, fine, although I think you'll find that those people are probably the least to complain. I think you could have a longer season with greater use. We're having longer vacations and staggered vacations. Again, this money could go back into better management of these facilities.

I would really appeal to you to go for 5 cents for beer bottles. I'm a little confused, but I think one of the most destructive things is to see broken beer bottles along the highways. Now, maybe 5 cents is not really that much of a disincentive. Could you report to the Legislature on the studies on charging 5 cents for beer bottles, and of course getting similar exchange?

I think one of the real tragedies that we might be facing in Canada is that some of the most excellent material artifacts and other material are leaving this country. Maybe the Minister could inform the House as to the progress in the federal jurisdiction of some kind of legislation to stop artifacts from leaving our country — Indian artifacts and other aboriginal artifacts which are just too valuable.

As you know, I spent a lot of time with a museum director trying to negotiate or at least helping in the consultation with people who own very, very valuable Indian collections. I have one collection here, the Thomas Crosby collection, which is one of the most outstanding private Indian collections left. It's essential that this material and any other material not

[ Page 3340 ]

leave Canada. Is there any assurance that the Americans have legislation? We hear rumours — it's only rumours — that there could be legislation that the Americans, I suppose in somewhat of an altruistic way, will impose upon their people that would bring stuff into their country. I think it's crucial that this material stay in the country.

I commend you for at least using money to pick up some excellent collections such as the Collinson Indian collection. I gather that you're working on a special display of Indian material which will be displayed in the museum, possibly this year.

My final comments are about the student programme. Quite frankly, I wish we could hire more students in the work crews. I gather we are still limited to 250 students. That's certainly not many students; that's a small summer camp programme to a church or a scout or another group. Surely we can do better than that.

And how many girls? Six girls!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's hear from you. That statistic has been the same for quite a few years. Can't we do a little better than that? Those are the work crews. I would like to have thought that maybe we left it. I had a lot of constituents who said, "leave it at $6.25 but quadruple the size." You've got some very large real estate and very large geography to deal with and only 250 people on the work crew? I'm thankful that we have work crews at Alouette Park and yet I think we could do better. I think we could multiply that very excellent effect, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) said. We could increase a statistic this year, I'm sure.

So those are some questions. Thank you.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The responsibility of boat launching right now only lies with us within our parks but we have been working with Hydro and with Highways and cooperating in certain other areas. We have developed facilities on the Arrow Lakes and on the Libby Reservoir in cooperation with Hydro. We are currently exploring a more coordinated approach with the other agencies and will be working out a programme on boat launching and other situations.

With regard to the Fraser River recreation area, we have been having some meetings with some of the regional districts on this and we see this as a potential in the future. We realize that it's of necessity, especially from Hope down to Vancouver.

As far as the museum artifacts, we did create a special fund of $250,000 last year for the first time to stop the flow of artifacts going outside of B.C. and Canada. To date, we have expended about half of that fund.

In regard to the youth crew, this year we had over 4,000 applications for jobs to the youth crew. Last year I think we only had somewhere around 700 or 800, so that reflects the real concern of those looking for a job of $13 a day versus $6 a day. I think it would be rather hard to acquire enough students at the $6 a day rate. After all, the government has reduced the working limit down to 15, and it would be rather hard to get some of our students to come out and work for only $6 a day. They do work pretty hard, Mr. Member. They get some training and some education in the outdoors but they do a fair share of work and I think $13 is a fair wage.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I will be brief. I want to say that I don't have to talk about the wolves this year. The socialist government is so bad they've even sent the wolves to better hunting grounds. But I want to tell you, if the situation changes, if the Minister should relax, I'll be back next year to talk about the wolves again. I just want to throw that out as a statement to the Minister.

I want to commend the Minister for the commitment he has made to me to upgrade a couple of parks in our area, particularly Swan Lake. That park can be used by children and residents in the area who haven't got the vehicles or the money to travel over the rough road to One Island Lake or the longer distance to Lake St. Charles in the North Peace riding or Moberly Lake, because the price of gasoline is going up. If that lake is not upgraded so that it can be used by the local residents, a lot of children and residents of the area will be deprived of a Sunday afternoon or a Saturday afternoon or a weeknight outing to a place where they can have a picnic and maybe do a little boating.

Also, I remind the Minister of his commitment to upgrade the boat-launching facilities at Spencer Tuck Park at Moberly Lake.

I would also like to ask the Minister if he would have his department take into consideration at the present time the fact that a new access to the Kiskatinaw Park will be needed once the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) puts the new bridge over the Kiskatinaw River and reroutes that road. I hope this will be done within a couple of years so a new access to that park will be necessary. Otherwise, you might as well close the park up because the bridge and the road will be relocated so a link to the new highway will be necessary and should be taken under consideration by the Department of Highways when they are rerouting that particular area of the Alaska Highway.

This is a large budget that the Minister has; it has been greatly increased over previous years. I've discussed many times with the Minister the stocking of Moberly Lake. There have been lake trout in that lake for years but they are so few and far between in there now that it would take you a week to catch

[ Page 3341 ]

one. What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that lake trout did live in that lake with the jackfish that are in there. They lived for years. I can't see why, if it is going to be too costly to poison the lake and get the northern pike out of there, we can't put additional stock of lake trout in there.

Are there any hatcheries in the province producing lake trout? I've heard from one of the biologists that yellow pickerel would live in that lake. Couldn't we get some game fish in that lake? It's a large body of water, it's the largest recreational lake in the area. I hope that the residents of that area, before they go to their great reward, the pioneers of that area, will have the opportunity to go to that great lake and do some sport fishing.

The Minister said that 380 lakes are being stocked in the province this year. I want to tell the Minister that the northeastern part of British Columbia is probably the only area in British Columbia that does not have a large number of lakes that are presently good for sport fishing. But in the northeastern part of British Columbia, due to the fact that we are an extension of the great plain, the lakes in that area need stocking because about the only fish that we have are jackfish in the area.

If 380 lakes in this province are being stocked, surely to goodness some of that budget can go toward putting either more lake trout in Moberly Lake or putting a new species of fish, something like yellow pickerel, that will live with the jackfish. I would like the Minister to give me some words of encouragement this afternoon for those great people in the Peace River area that something will be done in that regard.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I think you had quite a bit of correspondence on the Moberly Lake problem. As you know, studies and samples of the lake trout go back as far as 1951. I'm reading right now from a letter that was sent to Mr. Jackman, and probably a copy to you. It was explained even back in those days that it's really not economically feasible to stock Moberly Lake because of its large size. The only lakes we are stocking are small lakes that can be stocked economically.

You are right when you say that we have stocked 380 lakes. Quite frankly, there are many lakes in the north that need rehabilitating and their inlets and outlets. But, quite frankly, quite a few lakes in the northeastern part of the province are not really fishy-type lakes and do not lend themselves really to fishing.

I think you were out of the House yesterday when I announced that tenders have been let for a new hatchery in Abbotsford as of May 1. We will be looking into hatching and bringing forth different species of fish.

But the Moberly Lake question of stocking that lake is just not feasible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just one further brief comment. I don't know what the Minister refers to as a "fishy-type lake." But I do know that in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, many farmers are stocking dugouts. Would you consider a dugout a "fishy-type lake"? But they are stocking these dugouts and rainbow trout are proliferating in there. They are able to live there due to the winds on the prairies putting oxygen in the water.

Surely to goodness a natural lake should be considered a "fishy-type lake."

As I say, lake trout have lived in Moberly Lake, they're a good sport fish, and they have lived in there for years. All I'm saying is that if you start putting them in, gradually you could build up the stock, or with something like yellow pickerel.

Now, economics…everything is relative and I don't want to go into some of the economics of this government, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to go into some of the moneys they are spending on various projects because it would take me all afternoon to explain some of them that are uneconomical.

I think if the Minister would just give consideration…. I asked him: are there any hatcheries in the province that produce lake trout or yellow pickerel? Or is he going to start one so we can start getting some fish. If you start now, the sooner the better.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, there are hatcheries that produce lake trout and yellow pickerel. No, not the yellow pickerel, just the lake trout.

However, as an example, even if stocking Moberly Lake were a desirable management alternative — which it is not, due to the size and species complex, et cetera — it would take approximately 540,000 yearlings annually to have the lake produce at a reasonable level. As I was saying to you, this requirement is greater than the total annual output of our three existing hatcheries, so you can see what the cost would be.

The benefit analysis of a proposal such as this just do not stand up to close scrutiny. It just doesn't make economic sense. You're right when you say that in Alberta they're growing trout in dugouts, et cetera, that's true. But Moberly Lake is certainly no dugout, you know, when you compare the size.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further last comment on this. The Minister tells me, and I don't know where he got his figures, that we're going to require 540,000 fingerlings for five years to stock Moberly Lake. I don't know whether they came out of a computer or whether they come out of a biologist, but what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman….

AN HON. MEMBER: The fish? (Laughter.)

[ Page 3342 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the figure.

What I'm saying is that there have been lake trout in that lake; it used to be good fishing in the lake. The lake has been fished out, but they are still living in there. What I'm saying is that if you put two fish in there per year, that's two more than we'll have now.

Now, I don't buy this 540,000 fish. If you put 20,000 in this year, that's 20,000 more than we've got. And if you start now with some, you know, maybe it'll grow, because they are living there and they must be reproducing or they wouldn't be there. There are still some. All I'm asking you is to put some more back in; I don't say that you have to put 540,000. Where did you get that figure?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It came out of the air.

MR. PHILLIPS: Out of the air, I think so. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's interesting to see the Minister being so honest today and saying that he pulled that figure right out of the air, because I think that's probably what happened.

The Member for South Peace River has got a good point. I'd just like to recall for a few minutes, for the benefit of the Minister, a lake not too far from Moberly, Charlie Lake. For years and years and years the local rod and gun club in the Fort St. John area tried to get the department to do something about stocking that lake. They played around with it and they had no success at all with their hatching programmes — putting eyed eggs in it, and all the rest of it — until the local people who knew there was nothing in that lake but very coarse fish, suckers at that particular time, got so fed up that a number of the members of the rod and gun club made a trip to Swan Lake. By one means or another they acquired about 250 adult jackfish, brought them back in a tank truck — this would be almost 15 years ago now — and dumped them into Charlie Lake. You know what happened? Lo and behold, within five years that lake was loaded with jackfish.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Is that legal? Is that legal?

MR. SMITH: It wasn't the best fish in the world, but I tell you, there's a tremendous amount of people having an awful lot of fun, and their children are having an awful lot of fun every year catching few pike out of that lake. It wasn't an ideal solution.

We've talked about Moberly Lake, and I'd just like to throw out one suggestion to the Minister. In Williston Lake at the present time, I'm told by your department officials that most of the rainbow that congregate around the power inlets, the turbines, are very good sized fish, but they're not spawning.

Your men tell me that the fish they've taken and sampled this year, for some reason — maybe it's because of water temperature or some other problem — the fish are full of spawn, but they're also full of spawn from last year that was re-absorbed. They can tell, by opening the fish, the spawn that was generated this year as compared to last year.

Now, why doesn't your department investigate to find out if rainbow trout will spawn either in Moberly Lake itself or in the Moberly River which runs out of the lake? If there is a chance of those rainbow spawning in that area, why don't you just move a few hundred,500 or 1,000 adult fish, from Lake Williston by tank truck to Moberly Lake and dump them in? Those fish are adult fish and they'll spawn if conditions are right. You might even have to improve a few gravel beds somewhere, but I tell you it would be an awful lot cheaper than running around all over the province conducting surveys about what could be done. I have a notion that it just might work.

Lake trout have been in that lake for years, at one time in abundance. But because of local fishing regulations and the fact that the native people were allowed to net fish for a long, long time, the population of the lake is greatly decimated.

I don't know whether there's a possibility of adequate spawning in that area or not. But if there is, the removal of few hundred or 1,000 adult rainbow trout from Williston Lake and relocating them in Moberly Lake would improve the fishing of Moberly and not do one speck of harm to Williston because of the size of that lake.

That's a suggestion I throw out to you — no charge, Mr. Minister, no charge. You didn't have to hire a firm of experts to give you that advice, or conduct a survey or appoint a commission. No charge at all. Just an idea from someone who lives in the area, and it just might work. Probably it would work better if you didn't listen to some of the experts you have in your department. You might try it first and then let them prove that you were wrong, rather than the other way around.

It's interesting to participate in this debate and I have one or two other suggestions I'd like to make to the Minister.

I know the Minister's getting a great deal of pressure about the use of leg-hold traps in British Columbia. Now, one of the alternatives to the leg-hold traps is the Connibear, but it's not entirely successful. In certain areas with heavy snow conditions, particularly if they have snow, sleet and ice conditions, the Connibear doesn't work at all. It works well underwater for beaver and things of this nature. But with most of the small fur-bearing animals it could work well, I believe, or perhaps a modification of the Connibear.

I know your department and you are concerned about this and you've provided some money for

[ Page 3343 ]

investigation. But for goodness sakes, when you're investigating the possibilities of improvement or building a new trap which would be far more humane than the leg-hold trap, why don't you go to the association which represents those people in the trapping business and ask them to have some input. They have an association recognized in the Province of British Columbia — the B.C. Registered Trappers Association. If there's anywhere in British Columbia where we have a collection of expertise and knowledge gained over a period of many years, it's right within that association.

So here again, instead of depending upon the ivory tower experts, get to the grass roots level, Mr. Minister, and at least ask for input from these people. You might even go so far as to making it possible for some of these people who trap as a profession to spend some time and effort in designing a new type of trap. You might even subsidize that programme.

You might just come up with some very practical answers for the people who are deadly opposed to the use of leg-hold traps in the Province of British Columbia. You just might come up with an answer, provided that they could see something in the way of a return for the investment of time and energy and expertise they put into that.

It you're not going to at least get them involved in a financial way, at least ask for their opinions and advice, because these people spent a lifetime in the bush and there's nobody that knows the problems better than they do.

I'd like to compliment the Minister. I was a little rough on him last night — with good cause — but I'd like to compliment the Minister on the administration of the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. It is a good fund, Mr. Minister, and it has provided large sums of money to capital construction projects to all communities in the Province of British Columbia, both large and small.

I'm sure that I speak for the people and the groups that have worked hard on recreational facilities when I say that they're very pleased with the fact that jointly with the government they've been able to accomplish something that would have taken them a lot longer if they had to raise all the dollars on a local basis.

I think it's a good fund. I hope that it will be continued for the benefit of new communities and communities who still do not have the recreational facilities that they would like for the people that are there. To me it is one of the better funds and has certainly provided dollars — and not always in large amounts — sometimes only in the matter of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and sometimes to the tune of hundreds of thousands, I know. But quite often that small amount of money to a small community made the difference between providing a recreational facility for their members and not being able to provide it.

I've talked about the problems of the big game guides and the matter of permit hunting in the Province of British Columbia last night. Unfortunately, I didn't get any answers, so I'll just recap the question, Mr. Minister.

Will the system of permits now in effect in three game management areas of the province be extended to cover the whole Province of British Columbia, or is it just an experiment? I want an answer to that.

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

I would like the Minister to comment on what he is prepared to do with respect to the problem of prepaid trophy fees and the way that it is detrimentally affecting the people in the guiding business. Is it not possible, if you're concerned about the number of animals taken, to limit the number or the species to a certain extent and allow the hunters who seek the services of a professional big game guide to pay the trophy fees after the hunt is over, on the understanding and the basis that they're going to be limited anyway as to the number of game animals they take out?

In my opinion, Mr. Minister, you're going to generate as much revenue one way as the other, because you're going to lose a great deal of revenue if you continue the present system. You're also going to create very trying circumstances and possibly impossible conditions for those people who are in that industry of guiding hunters on a professional basis in this province. I'd like some comments from the Minister on those points.

HON. MR. RADFORD: In regard to the permit system, the Member didn't bring in any alternatives as to how we are to control the harvest, or control the population problem. All he said was: "Don't bring in the permit system."

MR. SMITH: Limited access.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I should remind the Member, as I stated last night, that this more or less was brought in out of the blue. I should remind the Member that we had several meetings with the guides concerning the permit system and the prepaid trophy system before we brought these into being. Also, the permit system should not be a surprise to yourself or to the guides because, as a matter of fact, an indication of this system has been printed on page 6 of the licences for the past four years.

I know that the Member himself is a hunter, and he probably doesn't read the regulations too well. As I said, that was printed on page 6 of the regulations in the past four years — that we were going to bring in a quota system or a permit system.

[ Page 3344 ]

Now the reason for bringing in the permit system is to control the number of hunters going into an area to the amount of game in that area. That's really what intensive game management is about — especially if there is an area with a limited number of species in that area. There must be some way to protect those species in that area.

Also, there is another concern about new access, or new roads, opened up into an area that has a real abundance of game. There should be some way of controlling an influx of hunters going in there. We are looking into all of these areas.

The permit system is not a new system; the Member knows that. The Province of British Columbia and, I think, the Yukon Territory are the only two areas that do not have a permit system in Canada. The permit system has been working for years throughout the States. It has to come about because of population problems in many cases.

Certainly we have brought this in in three areas that the Member mentioned yesterday. We brought it into the Ashnola to control the harvest of California bighorn sheep in there. We are limiting those permits to 50 in that area. In the Nass, where the goats have been closed for the last five years, we are allowing 100 permits in that area to harvest the goats. The reasons they were closed down in that area were because of the new road access and because of easy accessibility to harvesting of these animals. In the other area — management area 3, I think it is — the Bute-Toba Inlet, there is a sharp decline in the number of grizzlies in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the illegal kill?

HON. MR. RADFORD: That is why we propose to put the permit system in there. We've only allowed 15 permits to be issued in that area.

The permit system is a draw system. It's been working in other provinces throughout the States. Permits will be closed on June 28. I think announcements will be made on July 2. The cost of applying for a permit is $5. Those that are successful will be notified, and those that are unsuccessful will have their $5 returned to them.

This is an experimental situation on the permit system for the first time in British Columbia. We do not intend to have the permit system throughout the Province of B.C., but if we find an area where a species is endangered, I'm sure we will bring in the permit system.

I know that the guides who are concerned with this are good game management people. Most of the guides are good game managers. They have to be to protect their own area. I'm sure they would go along with this kind of a situation of protecting a species that was endangered.

As far as the prepaid trophy system is concerned, I related the government's position on this that B.C. and the Yukon Territory are the only provinces not to have the prepaid trophy system. I believe that the non-residents coming into B.C. should pay for the experience, for the use of the environment.

After all, it's not that much of an increase. If they garnered their animal previously they paid the approximate fee of about $40 on top of their licences. It's only costing in some cases $60 to $100 more for them to pay it ahead of time. When it comes to grizzly and sheep, which are the more exotic animals, certainly they are going to pay more from now on.

I read out letters yesterday — letters and telegrams from your area, from constituents of yours — supporting our permit system, supporting the trophy system. The B.C. Wildlife Federation supports the system and has been advocating that system for years.

I think I know why the guides are opposing this system of the prepaid system. It kind of lets them off the hook a bit because previously, as I mentioned yesterday, non-residents could come into the province and buy every species tagged for $39.50; and he would go out with his guide that he contracted probably to shoot a grizzly or a sheep — at $3,000 per animal, by the way….

MR. SMITH: Per hunt.

HON. MR. RADFORD: In his hunt he probably would have a problem of obtaining those animals and would probably come across a moose or deer, or whatever, and he would ask the guide: "Can I take that animal?" The guide would say: "Yes, but it'll cost you X numbers of dollars more than what's already been contracted for."

MR. SMITH: Those contracts are based upon a hunt.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The hunter would feel better; he had an animal. The guide was let off the hook a little bit; he had a little more money to add to it. Actually that system maximizes the harvest, because now when a non-resident comes into the province, to buy all those tags he has to pay $1,200. You will find that the non-resident will probably only buy for two species or three, and you will find that he will search out a successful guide.

He will search out to find what the success ratio is of the guide; thus the onus is put on the guides to be more responsible and to be more productive, Thus it really will bring about a better hunting situation, better conditions of hunting. It will uplift and upgrade the whole hunting situation.

I believe that the prepaid trophy system is necessary. After all, the guides require a down payment before they contract with anybody. The

[ Page 3345 ]

resident hunter has to pay ahead of time before he goes out. I think it's only fair that the non-resident do the same thing.

You're worried about the revenue. Well, the policy of the game department now is not to maximize the revenue for the sake of just harvesting animals. The policy now is to bring in intensive game management and good game management, not just to produce revenue.

MR. CHABOT: You're changing your position.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not changing my position. Like any other resource, especially this renewable resource, the first benefit should go to the residents of the province.

Now as far as the Community Recreational Facilities Fund goes, I would agree. The Member is pretty happy. He should be, because he received more grants than probably any other MLA going. I guess it's true that with his past experience in the past government he has that ability to be able to seek out and harvest the grants, you know. As a matter of fact, the number of grants in the Peace River-Liard…. There were 15 grants given in that area — 15 grants! How many other MLAs in this House received 15?

I receive a lot of flak from my own Members, Mr. Member. Not one of my Members received 15 grants. Do you know how much of a population is in your area? — 43,255, and you got 15 grants. It was a total amount of $598,542. Do you know what it was per capita? It was $13.84 per capita in your area.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I hope we don't take that riding next time.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Member for West Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the other day got up in the House and condemned the Special Funds Appropriation Act, and he talked about the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. He said that it was controlled by some mysterious committee apparently under the control of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He went on to talk about the Sechelt situation — where he had some misinformation, I must say.

He said:

Last week in a board room on this floor representatives from the community of Sechelt came down to find out why, when they had been assured that they were getting funds under this particular piece of legislation, they were suddenly being denied.

That's true. They were being investigated, as we investigate all of the grants that are put to us. Information was given to us that public access was not being given in that situation. We had the Attorney-General check it out; it was unfounded, and they now have received their grant. Right? But to say that it's being administered by some mysterious committee is not altogether true.

I'd like to inform the Member about the technical committee. Many of the Members don't even know what goes on. They like getting the money for the grants, but they really are not that much aware of what goes on behind the scenes in giving out these grants.

We have a technical committee which is made up of the Human Resources department director, the administration officer from Municipal Affairs, the director of the Community Recreation Branch, an adviser from the museum department — also the administration officer from the Department of Education. These people form a liaison committee consisting of various Members. They examine all applications and provide the technical input concerning the disposition of proposed projects in relation to their department. They look after the technical-financial part of the application.

Now the other committee, which is an advisory committee, which is made up of various people, citizens throughout the community…. I could go on and relate their names. They are from all different parts of B.C., and they have expertise in education and in recreation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): How many are there?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, there's Roger Adolf, who is regional director of the B.C. Native Amateur Sports and Recreation. Mr. Adolf is an expert on the native recreational needs and has travelled through B.C. Dr. Eric Broom, who wrote the Broom report, is on that committee — and Ed Carlin; I think he was a past candidate for the Liberals. He's superintendent of schools in Grand Forks. Mr. Carlin is the former vice-president of the B.C. Sports Federation and past president of the B.C. Federation of School Athletic Associations.

There are Eileen Dawson, assistant recreation director at Richmond; Caesar Guyana, a recreation director at Terrace; Anthony Holland, chairman of applied arts and coordinator of the theatre programme of Vancouver City College; Norm Olnyk, chairman of the physical education and recreation department of Vancouver City College; Dunc Russell, superintendent of parks and recreation for Oak Bay.

This is the mysterious committee, Mr. Member. These are the people that make recommendations to me about the grants. I will say that in all the recommendations, in all the spending of the $23 million that we've been involved in, I've never changed one of those recommendations — not one. Mr. Member, another thing: in my own riding there's only been one grant given of $19,000 — in my own riding. But I can't keep a promise that….

[ Page 3346 ]

MR. SMITH: Just a supplemental. I think the Minister was really being a little unfair when he spoke in rather broad terms about the $3,000 that a big game guide gets for allowing a non-resident hunter to shoot a grizzly bear.

The Minister knows full well that those people contract, be they resident or non-resident, for a hunt of a minimum of 14 days and quite often they're 28 or 30 days. If, by the luck and circumstance of the day, they harvest the game animals that the guide has said he would try to get them in the first one or two or three days of the hunt, they still have the privilege and the opportunity of spending the whole 14 or 28 days in the bush at the big game guide's expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: True.

MR. SMITH: Okay, why don't you say so? They sell a complete hunt for a specified number of days, and the person who buys that hunt is entitled to stay for his total length of time. Now if he harvests his game in the first two or three days and he wants to sit by the campfire or dangle a line in one of the streams and do a little fishing, or just ride the mountains with the guide, that's his privilege; he's paid for it.

He's entitled to that along with the fact that he's been given a wilderness experience for the number of days they contracted. Now hopefully they'll be able to harvest for him, or at least show him where the game animals are at.

But, believe me, no professional big game guide in the business wishes to take a hunter out and harvest every conceivable animal that that man can buy tags for. No one wants to do that. They know as well as you know and I know that that is a decimation of the game population on a needless basis.

Most of the people will be quite happy to go in with two possible prime thoughts in mind, prime animals that they want to get if possible. Quite often they're not successful because circumstances, weather conditions prohibit them from harvesting those animals.

All I am saying is if, because of those circumstances, instead of getting a prize bighorn, there is an opportunity for that man to harvest a nice moose — and be quite happy because he paid for the hunt and he got a game animal that's a trophy — he should be permitted to do it and pay the department the fees that are required for that particular experience.

Now if he goes in and has to buy all the tags in advance, there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the big game guides to produce or else. All the animals he buys tags for they'll want, when you get into the area of prepaid species licences. I think that would be tougher on the game populations than the system we had before.

It's a matter of argument and debate, I know. I don't agree with the Minister's concept any more than I agree with the fact that he really listened to the big game guides before he brought in the permit system or the species licence on a prepaid basis.

He had conversations with them, but I think that they were mostly one way, Mr. Minister. They came into the office and you told them what was going to happen. That's not the matter of seeking the advice, recommendations and ideas of an organization or a group that are vitally concerned. So we have our differences of opinion on that particular basis, Mr. Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I want to congratulate the Minister for clearing up the mystery with regard to the grants available for community recreation facilities in the province. I don't know why it takes speeches in this House, and long delays after those speeches are given, to finally obtain this information. I think if the people in Vancouver South, for example, are not getting fair treatment from this government, they should write to their MLA and really complain. Maybe he could get to the bottom of this mystery of why it is so difficult to get approval from the government for moneys they are entitled to have. I know perfectly well that both of the MLAs for Vancouver South will bring all kinds of questions to bear on the government right away. They won't wait until an election year before they get the money given to the area of Vancouver South.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it was a mystery. Quite seriously, Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why, when committees or organizations are set up to approve grants or funds of this kind, Members of this Legislature are not fully informed as to the procedure that is applied to those applications step-by-step as they move through the government system.

Of course applications have to be dealt with by technical committee to see that there isn't some fundamental mistake being made which is going to result in catastrophes for that community once it starts to develop. Of course there have to be advisory people to recommend to the Minister whether or not a particular project is really in the best interests of the community, because there are a lot of well-meaning people who become enthused about particular projects and they have a way of generating further enthusiasm in the community. Perhaps it is sometimes better to take a step back and reassess. I'm glad to find that the Minister is doing just that.

But what I can't understand, Mr. Chairman, is why, after going through all of this exercise, applications for grants are delayed and delayed and delayed.

There is an application pending for West

[ Page 3347 ]

Vancouver which has already been delayed three times. The reason for the delay is certainly beyond my comprehension, based again upon the information that has been made available to me. If the Minister would like to clear up that mystery it would help me and would also help the community.

The strange thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the last question that was posed to the municipality was where it was going to get the money to fulfil its share of the cost of the project. It is already clearly outlined in its previous submissions precisely where the funds would originate.

The real problem that develops from these kinds of delays is, in this particular instance, that the project may not go ahead because since last November or December when the applications were first submitted costs have escalated so that the funds that the municipality has available to carry out this project are likely to fall short. If the Minister had moved more expeditiously in dealing with this application, and I would suspect it applies to others, then the facility would be under construction now and would probably be completed in its appropriated time.

I want to deal with another matter, Mr. Chairman, which I know is a major responsibility of the department.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is just making his application for a community resources grant, I think. (Laughter.)

I'm speaking to the Minister about Cypress Bowl. I wonder if he would be good enough to advise the committee precisely what the plans are for his department with regard to the facilities to be provided in Cypress Bowl, and when those facilities will be available to the public. We have been engaged in debates about Cypress Bowl for quite a number of years and a lot of expectations have been built up in the community, that it will be an exciting winter recreation area. Unfortunately, I am concerned that some of the announced plans of the department might be over much concerned with downhill skiing. I trust that is not going to take place.

It is also well known to anyone who has been in the Bowl and who knows the area that it is a year-round recreational facility. Indeed it probably provides access to some of the most exciting mountain trail areas available to the population in the lower mainland. I trust that in the development of the Cypress Bowl facility the government will not overlook that possibility.

It is really an access to an area where thousands of people in the lower mainland can easily find themselves in a real wilderness situation. It is probably one of the most convenient areas to take some of the pressure off of a small part of Garibaldi Park — that is the mountainous sections of Garibaldi Park that is available for hiking, climbing and other recreational activities flowing out of the opportunity that mountain wilderness provide.

We all recognize that Garibaldi is a very sensitive area, and increased traffic of recent years has given rise for concern as to whether or not some destruction has taken place. Cypress Bowl is the access to an area which could provide a relief from some of that pressure.

I would be pleased if the Minister could indicate quite clearly what his intentions are in the schedule of time he has established for the opening of Cypress Bowl to various activities because there is a great deal of consternation building up in the metropolitan community as to just what is being done in Cypress Bowl, and when it is going to be available for use.

Attendant upon the use of Cypress Bowl is, of course, its access. Anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the North Shore mountains will recognize the giant mark of Zorro that is now across the mountainside, which nature will hopefully correct to some extent. That's the road to Cypress Bowl. It was constructed under the responsibility of the Department of Highways. The Minister had advised me that the Department of Lands still retains some interest in that roadway, but that it is really a road to recreation and will fall under the responsibility of this Minister and his department.

I would like to know to what extent the Minister envisages that road being available for private passenger motor vehicle use which necessitates the construction of large parking areas up the mountain, which I happen to think will be a waste of the government's funds and of the available land.

I would like to know whether the government is seriously planning with B.C. Hydro, or any of the other public transportation systems, the provision of bus routes into Cypress Bowl, because in that way a large number of people can be taken into the Bowl without having to utilize land for private passenger vehicle use.

I would also like to know the extent to which that road will be available as an access to other areas on the mountainside. I've discussed this matter privately with the Minister, and I'm not talking about the matter which we discussed privately.

The concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not that access road will be made available for the development of the private land on that mountainside. Not only will such development have a serious effect on the recreational use of the North Shore mountains, but it will have a tremendous effect and perhaps a disastrous impact on the orderly development of the municipality — particularly those areas lying above the Upper Levels Highway. I trust that the Minister is giving very careful concern to this problem.

It would be of major assistance to know whether or not that is to be a limited-access highway; if so,

[ Page 3348 ]

what the limits will be. Is it to be a non-access highway in the sense that it will merely be used to transport people from the Upper Levels Highway to Cypress Bowl and back? Or is it to be a free-access road whereby the owners of land along that road will be afforded access wherever it happens to cross their private property?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, in regard to your comments on the recreational facilities fund, and you referred to grants being held up in our department, that is not so. Usually the grants are held up because of financing, because some of the requirements of our guidelines are not met — public access, et cetera.

I think you were referring to the District of West Vancouver, and an indoor pool that was deferred. Right? On April 1, 1974, it was deferred until June, and this was for lack of secure financing. That's why it was held up.

The whole application was deferred, as a referendum to assist in the financing of construction was twice defeated — once three years ago and again two years ago. It appeared that there was no percentage in allotting funds to a project that apparently was not supported by the community, and could not raise the necessary other two-thirds financing.

The District of West Vancouver indicated in their application that $350,000 was to be financed through the Winter Capital Projects Fund. However, the Department of Municipal Affairs did not feel that these funds could be made available because of the failure of the two referenda.

Our letter of April 1 requested a formal letter of approval from the WCP fund and further information on a possible third referendum. To this date we have received no reply answering our questions, although West Vancouver has indicated in a letter of May 1 that a new application would be forwarded between June 1 and deadline. We expect that the new application will clear up all the unanswered questions and that they will then become eligible for a grant.

This has been forwarded to West Vancouver….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What was the date on that letter?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I haven't got the letter. I've just got notes on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But what was the date?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I think it was…indicating a letter of May 1, right.

You know, you have some other grants that have been turned down too, Mr. Member. Bowen Island Recreation Commission: initial inquiry February 19, 1973. Application was sent out June 21, 1973. Second inquiry March 5, 1974. Applications were sent out again April 19. To date, no reply and no indication of what the project is to be even, from Bowen Island.

The British Columbia Squash Racquets Association: initial inquiry October 9, 1973, and we go on with different replies — and to date, no reply and no indication as to what the project is to be.

Another one from the Britannia Beach Historical Society: initial inquiry September 20 and to date, no further reply.

Eagle Harbour Community School: initial inquiry February 21, no indication of what the project is to be.

And we go on: Pemberton Ice Area, Mount Currie, and I think there was another one called Squamish Indian Band: initial inquiry March 5, 1974. Application sent April 20, 1974 — to date, no reply and no indication.

So these are some of the reasons for the hold-up. You have been receiving letters from our department saying that the grant has been approved tentatively, and, really, tentative approval is subject to the receipt of clarification of financing approved by the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Another reason — a copy of the lease agreement between the village, Sunshine Coast — oh, this is another one. But these are different reasons — clarification as to public access…. This is why we have to sometimes tentatively approve them. This is what we mean by tentative; it means that we are waiting for additional information.

Quite frankly, a lot of the smaller communities need help in filling out the application forms, et cetera. We intend hiring technical consultants and a few people who will go around, especially in some of the outlying communities that do not have the expertise in dealing with these situations, and give them a hand and help them out. So these are the reasons some of the grants are held up.

Regarding Cypress Bowl, I made a recent announcement that because of additional funding this year, skiing would come into being in Cypress Bowl in 1975-76. It could be earlier, but we're having a target date of 1975-76. At that time we hope to have two chairlifts ready for skiing in 1975-76. For 1977-78 we will have additional chairlifts. Altogether we could go as high as five or six chairlifts in that area.

Trails will be put in. I think we are already working on a trail system from Cypress Bowl to Garibaldi. We, can link up a lot of trail systems through that whole area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: It will be utilized the year round. We do have concerns about some of the higher

[ Page 3349 ]

elevations. Probably they will receive more use than they should and we'll have to watch that very carefully.

We will be instituting a park-and-ride concept, especially for weekends, for that area. Probably through the week we will be able to utilize a 600-car parking lot situation, but on weekends we intend getting people to park in designated areas and be transported up there by bus.

We will also be having picnic areas along the road leading to Cypress Bowl. If the Member has ever been up in that area he will note that you really receive a tremendous panoramic view of the Vancouver area. Picnic sites will be instituted there.

As for access off this road, plans at this time are for non-access off the road to Cypress. However, we will be examining that further. The reason for this is safety and some of the problems which could be brought about by access into some of the lands in that area.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Just three questions dealing with a few of the areas in the Okanagan, to the Minister.

The first one concerns Permask Lake and its capacity as a source of trout eggs for the province-wide stocking programme in British Columbia. There has been a problem. From year to year there has been a road-ploughing programme so they could get in from Summerland to clear the screens and get the trout eggs. This has to be done in early May, but I understand, in consultation with my constituents last Saturday, that there had been some difficulty this year in getting the machines to plough the road. As of last Saturday this had not taken place. Apparently this should take place the first week in May or as the weather changes, so the officials can get in from Summerland. I wonder if the Minister is going to make any continuing arrangements for this road?

I understand that it is now a class A park. Now this is a class A park, I wonder whether the Parks Branch will be taking over the road maintenance, and whether this road will actually be a designated road, because I understand the road itself was pushed through by the fish and game clubs in the area, and is partly maintained by logging interests.

They cleared boat launching facilities and the campground area in there, and the person who has been administering that all these years, although without a permit, has been looking after the garbage and the maintenance of the area, acting as a caretaker. I wonder if the Minister has made provision to put someone in the area this year, and what facilities the government intends to put in this class A park at Permask Lake, and whether this person, or ranger, or warden will be in this area as of this June when the caretaker who has been there will have been given notice to vacate.

Secondly, I'd like to question the Minister as to whether he's made any provision in his budget, or has any plans to provide access to Okanagan Mountain Park. This new park area, but something that has been worked on for years, has no official access, no regular access for the public, and is not available to them. Now that we have this area, is the Minister going to provide access to this park?

Is the Minister holding any discussions to purchase Ogopogo Island as an adjunct to this park? This island has been very controversial the last few years, through both the former government and this, in trying to stop private development and waste-disposal facilities on the island. Now that it's been stalled and because of its adjacency to the park, and because the island would be a natural part of the park, is the government holding any discussions to purchase it? Will this be forthcoming?

I heard the Minister yesterday make some allusion to expansion of two facilities at Okanagan Lake Park, but he didn't spell out what the expansion was. It was in connection with the announcement for facilities in three other parks. I just wondered if the Minister could elaborate on the facilities and whether there will be increased density in the campground at Okanagan Lake Park, whether it will be extended, whether it's a water system, or what the facilities are.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, Mr. Member, I believe the Pennask Lake Park is a fairly new park, and I will send you the information you ask for on that.

Regarding Okanagan Mountain Park, I'm not too sure but I think there are plans for some access into that park, But I will check on that and let you know also.

Now Okanagan Lake Park: we are bringing about a conversion there for day use to a campground, and we will be spending $75,000 in that park this year. Also, other innovations will be made to the existing buildings there that house the caretaker, I guess, at a cost of $5,000. Altogether $80,000 is being spent this year on Okanagan Lake Park.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. On the Pennask Lake Park, the concern is there because the road is passable. It's been worked on for years. Because the caretaker of that area — which was a park reserve; it wasn't a park until now — has been given notice to vacate as of June, have you made any temporary provision to put a supervisor or someone into that area as of June? If you're not ready to announce the development of the park, is there someone that will be put into the park to protect the area? Pretty soon the tourists will be coming and that area can be spoiled very, very quickly.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll take that into

[ Page 3350 ]

consideration and let you know within the next few days.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand it's in the rules that we don't read newspapers in the House. I'm surprised that a senior Member of the government should be setting an example to the younger Members of this Legislative Assembly by having a paper delivered to him in the Legislature.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would just like to ask the Minister a very short supplementary question as to what the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was asking him about. I was very interested in the questions concerning Cypress Park.

I have had submissions made to me by various people, not necessarily in my own constituency, who are interested in the hiking trails and in the skiing in and around the Pacific southwest part of the province. There are some excellent hiking trails. One of the places that they are very concerned about has been Cypress Park because of the snowmobiling and Ski-dooing. I would like to ask the Minister if snowmobiling and Ski-dooing have now been banned in Cypress Park.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The area is still not a park, Madam Member, and that jurisdiction still falls under the Lands department. We'll be making that exchange soon. We have tried to cut down on the amount of snowmobiling that's been going on in there, but we really don't have that jurisdiction as yet.

MRS. WEBSTER: Supplementary question to that, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask if there is any definite time limit as to when Cypress Bowl is going to be taken over as a park.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's very obvious this debate's a real cliff-hanger. I can just sense the electric atmosphere in the chamber. (Laughter). The galleries are crowded. The House is three-quarters empty.

I really feel that this is a more important department than appears to be the case from the attention it's receiving in debate. I say that not in a cynical or critical way, really; it's just an observation. I'm surprised that when we're living in an era which used to be 40 hours a week and now is 37.5 hours a week — and there are negotiations at all levels to try and get it down to 35 hours a week — it's very obvious that recreation becomes one of the most important challenges to our modern community, As a physician I often come to the conclusion that a lot of the problems I used to see in the office were related to boredom and lack of involvement by people in constructive and satisfying pursuits when they're not at work.

I suppose some people do feel that sitting in a chair with a glass of beer and sitting in the sun is recreation. But, frankly, I think that on the North American continent there's too much of that kind of recreation and not enough of the more active participation.

I strongly support the government's very substantial increase in the budget for this department from something of the order of $14.1 million to $25.6 million. I haven't worked out the percentage; that's not quite double, but certainly almost double.

I just would like to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a little unfortunate that so many of the debates are taking place in this House without the Members having access to the annual report. I know each Minister has a great deal of statistics to gather, and so on, but I sometimes wonder — and I just make this as another observation not just to this Minister or this government…. Very often, it seems to me, annual reports emphasize statistics and figures and the number of carcasses at Cache Creek, et cetera. I must say in passing that I'm no hunter by any stretch of the imagination. I never have fired a gun in anger, so I shouldn't comment on that.

But it seems to me that so much of the basic philosophy of the department can be encompassed in an annual report. Perhaps later in the season, or later in the year, Ministers could perhaps present some kind of supplementary report with the emphasis on the statistical side. Whenever my office makes inquiries as to why annual reports are not available, so often we get the answer: "Well, there's a whole lot of statistical detail not available." This is not an enormously important issue, but I think we can do a better job of debate if we had some basic information from the previous years.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The first point I'd like to make in regard to this whole question of recreation and the use of leisure time is that there's a tremendous fragmentation throughout the government of several departments — all with a finger in the recreational pie, if I could use that phrase.

For example, this report on leisure which was commissioned by the Minister of Travel Industry — the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) — is an absolutely first-rate delineation of some of the kinds of goals we should have in trying to solve this problem, or at least to make more people aware of the constructive ways in which they can use leisure time.

First of all, might I just say that I wonder why this

[ Page 3351 ]

kind of document was particularly commissioned by that particular Minister. I'm not criticizing the fact that it was done. It's an excellent report. But this question of fragmentation of recreational interests among several departments of government does lead to problems. Briefly, I want to mention one in a moment.

On page 28 Mr. Broom writes:

"There is considerable confusion emanating from the division of responsibility for recreation services within the overall provincial government structure. The Department of Recreation and Conservation provides opportunities for recreation in areas of hunting, fishing and parks-related activities through its conservation and management roles and through the Provincial Museum Branch."

I don't want to quote the whole thing, but it goes on to point out that indeed the Provincial Secretary is responsible for other areas which are as intimately involved in the general matter of recreation and leisure pursuits.

I just want to quote the final paragraph on page 29. Mr. Broom says:

"Such a fragmented structure produces both duplication and neglect of services resulting in poor value for money spent and an inadequate provision of recreational opportunities for the people of the province.

"These deficiencies stem from a general parochialism not only in government, but throughout the province, and a lack of research and planning — but most of all from a lack of central government leadership and policies."

Now I know the government has just received this report and it needs study, but I think that's a pretty basic premise which Mr. Broom outlines, based on a great deal of study and travel throughout the province. I hope the Minister might comment on that. I just want to leave the Broom report in a moment, but the very interesting recommendations right at the end of the report seem to sum up this point I'm trying to make. Despite the fact that we do have many facilities and many programmes, the fragmentation of administration is something that must be tackled. Recommendation No. 79 states that the provincial government:

"create a new department of leisure services with a mandate for cultural heritage and recreation development in British Columbia;

"establish within the department of leisure services three branches with responsibility in the above-named areas."

And it goes on to enlarge on that general recommendation.

The last recommendation in the report is that the provincial government:

"establish an interdepartmental leisure services coordinating committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of leisure services to coordinate provincial government policies and programmes relating to leisure services."

I would be interested, and I'm sure the House would, to hear what the Minister's general feeling is about this fairly basic recommendation which really, I think, will govern the success with which recreational facilities are not only augmented in the province and enhanced but the degree to which they provide good value for money for all the citizens.

I'm very happy to see you in the chair, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), because I've got a very interesting story to tell to demonstrate this very fragmented approach to the provision of recreational services. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it's no news to you to hear about the Kitsumkalum ski project. After all, it has been on the go since November, 1971. The Chairman smiles. I understand the Hon. Member for Skeena was somewhat rash at one of the meetings in his local association when he said that he promised skiing in 1973 or he would resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Is skiing there, yet?

MR. WALLACE: Skiing, my friend? They haven't even got the lift in yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's skating around that now.

MR. WALLACE: But anyway, that's the kind of statement all MLAs make now and again and wish they had never opened their mouth. I don't want to be harsh on the Member.

Briefly, this Kitsumkalum ski project is a prime example of the messing around that goes on between different departments. Ministers send memos to each other. I don't know whether the files get lost or the Minister is too busy and so on but I'm sure there are many pretty difficult times when the Minister can't deal with the matter promptly.

Following on the quotation from this Broom report, I just don't want to leave the subject without making it very plain that some pretty drawn out plans and negotiations go on. This Kitsumkalum ski development first started to be explored and developed in November, 1971. I've got a whole sheaf of pages of chronology here. There have been meetings and conversations and discussions and so on.

To criticize I think one should be specific. Let me just give the House an example of what I'm talking about. As recently as early January of this year, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was in Terrace

[ Page 3352 ]

and he was asked on a newscast to comment on the Kitsumkalum ski development. The Minister of Highways said he was not familiar with the project. He had been out of his office for two or three weeks, and that's excusable. He was not averse to the idea but he really wasn't familiar with the details. The following day, after he had talked with some of the media, I understand, he was further questioned about the Kitsumkalum ski development and he said he was not aware of the details. He was asked specifically about the highway access and he said that he didn't know about that. He was asked if he would not be responsible as Minister of Highways and he answered, well, yes, up to a point.

That was early in January. I've got a copy of a letter here which this Minister sent to the Minister of Highways on November 21, 1973. I'll read just the small portions that are relevant: "My dear colleague." I think that's a delightful way to address a fellow Minister: "My dear colleague." It reminds me of the very erudite approach that's used in the United Kingdom between Prime Minister and Ministers. It sounds somewhat dignified and I think that's rather nice. At any rate he's writing to the Minister of Highways on November 21 and he says:

" A recreation area has recently been established which encompasses Kitsumkalum Mountain, located six miles northwest of Terrace." No, I won't go into all the details.

"The Parks Branch is presently trying to assist the society in getting the development started. One of the main problems which must be resolved is the question of road access to the base of the hill."

And the Minister goes on to describe alternatives.

"After fully reviewing the alternatives, it has been concluded that the most favourable solution is to construct approximately three miles of road which would leave the Can-Cel industrial road at the north boundary of the Indian reserve and angle up the northeast side of Kitsumkalum Mountain to the parking area at the base of the ski lift. This route is quite feasible and would minimize the conflict between private vehicles and industrial traffic."

It's very obvious that this Minister has done a great deal of research. He knows exactly what the problem is. The trouble is that the other Minister apparently wasn't listening or for some reason was not in the ball game. I quote again from the Minister's letter to the Minister of Highways:

"As this road is intended to be a public road, I am writing to request the assistance of your department in undertaking the construction of this access and securing the necessary right-of-way through the Indian reserve. The matter of the right-of-way through the reserve lands is doubly important inasmuch as it is intended to bring power into the ski hill from Terrace and the right-of-way must be established before B.C. Hydro will install the line."

So here's another arm of government quite inevitably and correctly involved in this deal too.

There is this very diligent Minister of Recreation, on November 21, sending a memo to the Minister of Highways on a very key aspect of a recreational development. Yet, when that Minister of Highways is asked in Terrace early in January — I haven't got the exact date; I think it's about January 8 or 9 — he says he doesn't know anything about it.

I just feel that this is a good example of the need for better coordination and integration of the different arms of government involved in the whole recreational field. I think that gives excellent evidence as to why that recommendation by the Broom report for a Minister of leisure services is absolutely vital.

To quickly finish up on this Kitsumkalum thing, I made some inquiries today. I'm sure the Member for Skeena, who is looking very serious in the chair, would be very interested to know the latest hang-up, because there is another hang-up.

The provincial government has agreed to provide money from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. I'm delighted about that; I want to mention that a little later too. For obvious reason, even if we can't meet the Member's promise for skiing in 1973, surely, since the government has agreed to provide money from the fund, we could have skiing by 1974. But oh, no. The problem now is that the ski society needs a $60,000 line of credit, I understand, to be able to make a down payment on the lift which is available and ready to be brought to the mountain and so on. But there are hang-ups with the regional district also: a referendum has to be held, I understand, in June. To put all this together will be later than June, and that will be too late to get the lift installed. There won't be skiing in 1974 either. You hear that, Mr. Chairman? There will not be skiing in Kitsumkalum; not even in 1974. Yet, with a little bit of…

MR. CHABOT: Yet he's still here.

MR. WALLACE: …vigour and a little conference among the Ministers concerned, I make a plea for the skiers in that area.

The Minister can probably speak when I sit down and tell us that he supports a greater degree of integration of departments in this respect. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if there is hope that this can be put together in some way so that they can start skiing at least a year later than they planned.

Because the Minister of Transportation and Communication (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has been

[ Page 3353 ]

chirping away in his seat a little bit. I just thought that again to….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): When? I never said a word.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, about five minutes ago you had some little quips. I enjoy your quips; they're not always valid but they're interesting.

But again, seriously, this question of interrelation of departments…. This time I'm thinking more in terms of conservation. I'd like the Minister to tell us if he is involved at this point in the deliberations over the possibility of a new ferry route involving Gabriola Island.

We have somewhat of an irony here. We've just debated a piece of legislation — and I have no wish to reflect on legislation before the House. But I think it's fair to say in passing that we have here a transit proposal. Granted, it hasn't been finalized and I don't know what status the proposal is presently at. Such details which have been revealed make it very plain that this, in effect, is an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Gulf Islands with a bridge to Vancouver Island.

I have to harp back to the point I made in the earlier debate that the only group under the new legislation which doesn't have to get permission from the trust is Crown corporations. They only have to give notice that they're going to build a highway for traffic through the lower end of Gabriola Island and have a bridge to Vancouver Island.

I don't want to make a big song and dance about it at this time because I notice that a clipping in March 30 of this year from The Vancouver Sun mentions, "Highways Minister Graham Lea told the Legislature Friday that the government has yet to decide whether to locate a ferry terminal on Gabriola Island connected by a bridge to Vancouver Island." It obviously isn't decided. But it's very obvious that this is another kind of area where you should be very intimately involved in the planning. The very uneasy look you have in your eye right now suggests to me that you're not being consulted at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other factor I would suggest in this whole question of conservation is somewhat similar to the criticism I made of the Minister of Lands and Forests. To what degree is the public really being asked to participate? Let us just again refer briefly to the proposed ferry terminal on Gabriola Island. Can the Minister tell us to what extent he is involved in cabinet discussion and to what extent is the cabinet, in turn, consulting with the people on the island and the people intimately involved? Has the plan been dropped as far as that goes? Maybe that could end the whole debate right there if you tell us that you've dropped plans to have a ferry terminal on Gabriola Island.

It just brings me back to the point that there are many Ministers of cabinet who have tremendous involvement in the recreation and conservation field. The efficiency and capacity of the Minister to do his job seems to me to be very seriously impeded by one or two of the examples I've quoted.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd just mention another case in point where a Mr. Carr and his son wrote to me from Mount Robson. I have to apologize that I can't be right up-to-date on my facts. I tried to reach Mr. Carr the other day and I failed to establish contact. I would just like to read a very brief note from the letter he sent to me.

He said his son purchased a private property 20 years ago and installed a hand-operated gas pump and built a small store. A year or two later he built four tourist cabins and coffee shop-restaurant, employing three or four people from Valemount. He goes on to state that his son and his wife have expanded this business and worked very hard at it.

Then out of the blue comes a lot of communication and interference. Maybe that's too strong a word — but inquiry and direction of one kind or another from the regional district. I'm not going to quote the person quoted in the letter because I don't know how valid this criticism is. But somebody from the regional district started, in the words of Mr. Carr, to harass his son in various ways as an official in the regional district. Here we have the regional district in the picture.

Then, just to the point that his son suffered some degree of emotional illness, the next thing that happened was that, last fall, Mr. Aaron, supervisor of B.C. parks, contacted Mr. Carr and told him that the parks wanted his property. They were willing to give him another site three miles west of the present location.

I don't want to make a long debate out of this; I just want to say that it does appear there are various arms of government not only getting involved with projects like the Kitsumkalum but getting involved with individuals. Here is an individual, a small businessman, who has worked hard over the years. I wonder to what degree this kind of criticism that I've received is valid. Is he, in fact, being harassed by the regional district and, if so, what are the demands of the regional district? Is the man not meeting certain requirements?

Finally, could the Minister tell me what is the present status of the Parks Branch in its approach to this gentleman? Apparently the man quite naturally feels insecure that what he has built up over many years in the form of a small business presumably is going to be expropriated or the Parks Branch is planning some action. He apparently has not been

[ Page 3354 ]

well informed as to what the department intends.

I, in passing, took the trouble to review these new fees and old fees. If hunting is a legitimate pursuit — and I personally am not sure it is — and if this is how you get your kicks, I suppose it must have some meaning for some people. If this is the Minister's approach, as he has outlined in his speech, then I think it was time to increase the fees. It's a subject I've listened to carefully in debate over five years in this House by Members, particularly northern Members. I'm certainly not speaking for the party when I say this but speaking personally. I've great difficulty in understanding the particular enthusiasm and joy with which, apparently, lots of people in North America like to kill animals. I'm not condemning it; I'm just saying that I'm a little puzzled to understand how it can give that much enjoyment to people — but obviously it does.

I would like to just mention the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. The Minister has been very fair to Oak Bay. That's right, but I can't say the same for your leader, Mr. Minister. He made some remarks in the House the other day. I know they were off-the-cuff remarks but they were completely unfair. I think we should set the record straight.

It is true that Oak Bay has received money from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. The Premier's comment was that Oak Bay had been right at the head of the line after they had been sponging for years on everybody else, with more millionaires to the square mile than any other part of Canada. The Premier said that and it's in Hansard. There's no getting away from that fact.

I would, just as a matter of interest, like to read a letter which was written by a resident of Oak Bay over a year ago before we knew about the recreation fund. This gentleman signs himself "an octogenarian" that's a fair age.

"The Oak Bay recreation complex which we've been debating in Oak Bay for the years I've been here has had a varied history and undergone review by the elected councillors from time to time. The $1.5 million project, when first put to the ratepayers some years ago, was turned down by the efforts of the elderly voters who were perturbed by the escalating taxes necessary to pay for civic union demands.

"It now appears necessary that Oak Bay should not sponge on the adjoining municipalities for youth recreation. But as the retired portion has greatly increased in condominiums, apartments and home ownerships since the project was first voted on, and since the taxes since that time have just about doubled, a referendum faces an adverse vote.

"The elderly are naturally fearful of further demands on their resources, depleted yearly by inflation, and it is natural that they feel the users of the complex and the people who benefit by it should pay for it. Unfortunately, there being no bill of rights for the elderly ratepayers and renters, it has all the appearance of being railroaded through." This was prior to the setting up of the fund.

Let's get one thing plain. There may be a substantial number of rich people in Oak Bay, and I don't dispute that for a moment. But let's get the record straight in this House — and I hope the Premier and the Minister of Finance gets it straight.

There are many elderly people living in Oak Bay in very difficult circumstances, facing the same kind of tax problems as everywhere else in this province. I took the trouble to get statistics today, and 1,753 homeowners in 1973 applied for the extra $50 available to homeowners over 65 — 1,753. So don't give us this malarky that there's just a lot of rich people sitting in Oak Bay not giving a damn about a recreation complex. The fact is that many of these elderly people prior to this fund were very concerned that the taxation to pay for the recreation complex would simply escalate and make their problems all that more severe, somewhat in the terms of this letter. So I just feel that in this debate, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it's perhaps just fair that we should get the record straight as far as Oak Bay is concerned.

Lastly — I'm sure you'll be happy to know I've reached almost the end — I just want to say again, referring to leisure in a broad sense, that I wonder why there has not been more consideration given to the pursuit of golf as recreation. I'm not about to get into the whole question of assessments, Mr. Chairman, but again, when you make some inquiries into statistics, there are somewhere close to 100,000 people playing golf in British Columbia. It — not only is a recreational pursuit, but there is a conservation aspect to golf as well. You have greenbelts which, apart from their very healthy value, filter out pollution gases and provide a very pleasant and relaxing atmosphere in which people can get away from the blacktop.

I suppose many people would think: "Well, of course, he's a Scotsman who was just about brought up on a golf course so naturally he'd favour golf." I don't try to hide my bias for a moment. But looking beyond that, the facts speak for themselves. Golf is becoming a pursuit and a form of very healthy recreation on an ever-increasing scale, not just in Canada or British Columbia. I understand that in Japan people get up at 4 o'clock in the morning so that they can be in the line-up to get on golf courses as soon as it's dawn. The degree to which golf even in the old country has blossomed and expanded enormously is something that I think is healthy and good for the people who indulge in it.

[ Page 3355 ]

It's one of the few measures of physical recreation which even the elderly can enjoy. We're very proud in the riding of Oak Bay to have a man who plays on the Uplands golf course at the age of 104. He plays golf regularly once or twice a week.

It's a tremendous pursuit for juniors also. Young boys and girls can get started at a very early age and at a time when we're always talking about the dangers of children getting into the drug habit because they're bored or they're lacking incentives or lacking interests in their spare time.

So here's another area of recreation which I would like this Minister to comment upon. Incidentally, it provides quite a lot of jobs in this province; never mind the recreational and conservation aspect.

Without going into all the reasons, which the Minister and I I'm sure both know very well, there is a real danger that golf courses will gradually be replaced by buildings and blacktop. It is certainly by no stretch of the imagination a rich man's game in this province right now. The matter has been raised in this House earlier this session. Again, without referring to legislation, it's quite obvious that the Premier and Minister of Finance has decided against any favourable consideration of golf courses. While I'm not trying to get into a debate on the financing, the fact is that for the many reasons I've pointed out — its recreational value, its conservation value, and the hard facts of economic life in British Columbia right now — there is a real possibility that as more and more people want to play golf, the facilities that will be available to them will in fact be decreasing while the demand is increasing.

There is no simple answer and I'm not necessarily suggesting that this government actively acquire golf courses. But I think it's a healthy recreational pursuit that is much overlooked in many regards. Yet the facts and figures, as I've tried to outline them fairly briefly, speak for themselves. I would like to hear whether the Minister has any plans whereby by one mechanism or another the demand can be met and the green space that — we now have as golf courses will at least be maintained at its present level let alone run the risk of diminishing.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to speak very briefly to the Minister about my favourite topic, which is hunting.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No. I too saw the glossies which the Member was circulating of himself looking down the barrel of a gun. Quite frankly I was appalled by them and a little bit saddened. But that's not what I want to talk about.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Well, it doesn't matter, they were horrible pictures.

One of the things that we found when the municipal affairs committee was travelling through the Gulf Islands last summer was the complaint about hunting on the islands. What actually happened in one instance was that one of the islands asked for permission to put up "No Hunting" signs on their island. This was granted, but what this meant was that islanders could no longer hunt but that other people could still come and wreak the kind of devastation that they used to do before.

This is a particularly distasteful kind of carnage, in that what happens is that people hunt from their boats. There doesn't seem to be any kind of way in which the Minister has been able to deal with this. We actually saw pictures taken of dead sheep lying on the mountain sides of one of these islands where hunters had come in by a boat, or a number of boats, and had killed these animals and just gone on their way. They had made no effort to retrieve them or to use them in any way.

I wonder whether there is any way that the Minister can change the rules so that when an island has "No Hunting" signs on it, that would apply to everyone — not just the people who live on those islands, but to visitors and to people who come by boats as well. Perhaps he could also do something about policing to ensure that these rules are being carried through.

Very briefly I'd like to compliment him on the improved supervision of some of the parks. The complaints which we met before about the parks not being well cared for the most part seem to be disappearing. But I would like to ask him to increase the number of people who are working in these parks, and also to take the suggestion that keeps coming up, namely that once the park is full there should be some way of notifying people coming by ferry or by private boat — however it is — that the public park facilities are full and cannot accommodate anyone else. Some of the islands tried to deal with this in their own way by not building any public bathroom facilities, hoping that this would discourage people from coming and camping. Of course, this didn't happen.

So I think the only thing we can do, without being very bureaucratic about it, is to establish some way of disseminating information. No one wants to travel by ferry to an island to get there and find that there is no camping space and that they're stuck because the ferry's gone. They have to wait for a later ferry or maybe even wait for the following day before they can get off. So I would appreciate it if he would take that recommendation very seriously.

If he cannot ban hunting throughout the province completely, at least he should see to it that the people who want it banned in their particular area

[ Page 3356 ]

have it carried through.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I leap to my feet to defend this poor maligned Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Here he is, working away, being attacked from his own party, attacked from the opposition. All he's trying to do is do a good job.

I was appalled to hear the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), whose accent would indicate that he not so long ago lived in Scotland, denounce hunting as a bad thing. If you think of Scotland, and we go back to the seriousness of this argument, which the Minister understands, and you think how long on an overcrowded set of islands like the British Isles you would have preserved populations of Scottish deer (which are essentially similar to elk as we know them), how you'd have preserved enormous populations of grouse, how you would have preserved very substantial populations of Atlantic salmon, the only reason that Scotland — that little bit of the overcrowded British Isles — succeeded in protecting large areas of natural beauty is because there has been the interest in conservation of these species for a sport.

I can see the argument. People say, as the hon. lady Member mentioned earlier, that the actual sport of hunting they object to, but to suggest that somehow it damages animal populations I think just isn't borne out by the facts.

Germany, with 80 million people in an area only about a quarter of that of British Columbia, has approximately six times the deer population that we have in B.C. Why? Because they have an extraordinarily highly regulated hunting interest which has led to a very substantial increase, not decrease, but increase in the number of game animals.

What would have happened in Scotland had the Scottish deer not been a game animal? What would have happened was they would have been killed for meat, because if you wipe out the sport aspect, they simply would become an animal which is there to be eaten, like a cow or sheep or any other animal, and you would not have a population of deer in Scotland any more, anymore than you would have the population of wolves in Scotland which was wiped out some centuries ago.

The same is true with Ireland. It just doesn't make sense to say that hunting is damaging to game populations.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister mentioned a good point. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), as usual, is wide awake and listening to the debate — he mentioned the buffalo in North America. Once again, you see, he puts his finger right on it. The buffalo in North America was virtually destroyed because it wasn't a sport animal, it was just a source of meat. That's what would have happened in Scotland with the Scottish deer; it's what would have happened with the grouse. As far as the salmon, the Atlantic salmon, if we didn't have….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Hides — it was the tongues as well, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'm glad he's contributing because I know he's going to get up soon and defend his colleague, that poor, abused Minister of Rec and Con, from all these savage attacks.

What I'd like to suggest is this: the Atlantic salmon would have long since disappeared had it simply been fished commercially, as was happening during the 1960s, had it not been a sport fish. You know, Mr. Chairman, from your experience, the tremendous efforts the Canadian government went to, along with the Norwegian government and the British government, to have the Atlantic salmon protected, as it now is — much better protection than previously — tremendous efforts to cut out the high-seas commercial fishing because this was a sport fish.

That brings me right to British Columbia and the steelhead in British Columbia. I'm not particularly proud of my memories of this, but I can remember working in a freezer plant of B.C. Packers, and I used to work in the J.H. Todd packing plant before that.

I was working in the freezer, and we had steelhead stacked like cordwood, that high. We used to move them in and out on pallets — great stacks of hundreds of pounds, tons, of steelhead, that tremendous sport fish which in my mind would in all likelihood have been totally destroyed by commercial over-harvesting had it not been for the fact that it's an enormously valuable sport fish.

I personally think that the steelhead is just something great. It would have disappeared, I feel, or will disappear in this province if we allow it to be commercially harvested and treated only as a source of food. It's a fragile fish in terms of….

MS. BROWN: Like cows and pigs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It would be treated just like cows and pigs — slaughtered. That's right, Madam Member, and I ….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would like you to pay some attention to this. We would not have wildlife populations in many parts of the world had there not been conservation-minded people. I

[ Page 3357 ]

mentioned Scotland: I can give you thousands of other examples if you want.

We would not have steelhead in British Columbia, I can promise you that, because of the fragile nature of the reproduction of steelhead in rivers, were it not for the fact that we have dedicated sportsmen, dedicated fishermen mostly banded together in the Steelhead Society of British Columbia, giving the Minister constant hell if he lets the other Ministers damage the environment, damage the water supply. Indeed they're suggesting bag limitation on trophy fish, rivers in which you release fish, badgering the Minister to get higher fees so that you can cut down on the number of people who just go out and fish for meat rather than the people who are there for the experience of fishing and are quite willing, let me tell you, they're quite willing to release the fish they catch because they value the resource so highly from a recreational point of view.

I can see people objecting to the killing aspects of hunting, and the killing aspects of fishing. But to suggest, as has been suggested, that somehow this is going to destroy wildlife and game populations, is just completely to misunderstand the history and experience of this country and many others.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) I think really gave a great speech, a very fine speech in this House when he pointed out that it's indiscriminate killing for meat which is really the problem.

You can wipe out your moose population if you simply regard it as a source of slightly different-flavoured beef. You can wipe it out if you do that and if you don't treat your game populations in a special way and give them special protection.

I can sympathize with those who don't like the concept of killing. I know, of course, that the Member for Omineca is not one of them. But he and 1, and perhaps the Minister, understand the fact that without the work of dedicated conservationists who have been banded together in the fish and game clubs of this province, we would have far less in the way of game.

The lady Member seems to be very concerned about this. Let me give you an example from our own committee of forestry and fisheries, where the Member for Omineca and I were both members, in terms of deer on Vancouver Island.

We went and we spent a week last summer touring this Island and other parts of the province as well, later on. We weren't the only members, there were others on the committee. When we heard of the tremendous efforts being made by the fish and game biologists — and I will give credit to the people who work with Dr. Hatter and with the Minister — the tremendous efforts they are making to make sure the Forest Service cuts in a way which permits the maximum amount of winter range, and cuts in a way which allows the wildlife trails to be protected. If we didn't have the concern about the deer, which extends very far to many tens of thousands of people, you would simply have the population wiped out, as the elk population on Vancouver Island was in danger of being wiped out, by hunting…rather, by forestry practices….

MS. BROWN: By hunting — you were right!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No. You better understand, Madam Member, this is not a laughing matter; it's a serious matter.

The fact is that habitat destruction by logging is a very serious problem for game on Vancouver Island, as well as on the mainland. If you're going to go ahead and simply assume you can ignore that problem — you're going to leave them alone, you're going to let the woods be cut in a manner, that is detrimental to wildlife — you're going to quickly wind up with no game at all.

The problem is complex, and I can totally sympathize with your point of view with respect to your objection to killing, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. But to suggest, as you've done, that the solution to wildlife population problems is simply to stop hunting, is just not to begin to understand some of the things in British Columbia which we've worked on for many years and which have been worked on elsewhere in the world.

I see that the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) had a number of comments earlier about wildlife kills, and the fact that game is not properly protected. And he's right too, just as is the Member for Omineca, who has a riding adjacent to him.

For us to regard our wildlife simply as a source of meat, which would happen if we did not have the sport aspect, is to simply ignore history.

If you want another example of an area where they are using deer simply for meat purposes, take New Zealand. In New Zealand the deer were introduced; they had an enormous population explosion and they decided the deer were vermin. There is an Act on the New Zealand statutes dealing with deer as vermin.

Now, because deer have no natural predators in New Zealand, they've decided they want to eradicate them so they can put sheep and cattle in place of the deer. What they've done is get approximately 50 helicopters equipped very much like the gun ships used in South Viet Nam: they have a pilot, they have a marksman beside him, and they use military weapons. These helicopters go along the ridges moving the deer out. As soon as they get out in the open they shoot them, because they are selling the meat to Germany, where it gets about $1.50 per pound as venison.

The wildlife population of New Zealand is just being destroyed by deliberate design because they

[ Page 3358 ]

want to replace it with a meat animal, in other words, with sheep. The wildlife population is being destroyed as well because they're treating it as a source of meat instead of for sport.

The destruction is enormous. I have not seen it, but I've read reports on this and I have some knowledge of it. For instance, one gun ship, one helicopter with pilot and gunner kills approximately a dozen deer per morning, and a dozen deer per afternoon, depending on how often they go out. It's just total destruction of a wildlife species. That's what happens when you regard wildlife strictly as a source of meat.

Then, of course, the argument comes — well, sheep, cattle, put on weight quicker. They're better gainers of weight; they can use the range more effectively for production of beef. Then you find that a population such as deer, such as elk, or grouse in Scotland, are replaced by a strictly domestic animal, and that's the end of your game, that's the end of your wildlife and that's the end of your wild country.

Don't pretend that it's not that way because you just have so many examples around the world of this particular problem. Having defended the Minister as best I can, I'd like to say that I don't think he's doing enough to protect steelhead. We need to have far more rivers which are trophy rivers only of one fish; you now have a two-fish limit. I trust it goes to one very quickly. I think there should be more rivers which are limited, with no kill at all — releasing fish.

I think you should increase your permits for certain rivers, and, instead of your increase on British Columbia residents, which has now gone up from $5, I believe, to $8, you should increase it further by having river permits for British Columbians as well as, of course, for people from outside the country.

I know this is not wildly popular but I think the quality of the sport is so great and the fragile nature of so many of the rivers which I know best, which are on the east coast of Vancouver Island, is such that you are just going to have to do a lot more in this area.

I don't believe, Mr. Minister, I've heard you say very much about the commercial fishing of steelhead. I think you should come out strongly against any commercial fishing and any commercial sale of a game fish. Just as we now have a total prohibition on the sale of game meat, venison, you should have the same for steelhead. I most strongly urge you to look into that.

There will be cries of outrage, of course, that steelhead are caught at sea when they are fishing for other species, and it is true that that is the case. But if it ceased to be a commercial species, perhaps you would have less fishing in steelhead areas at sea when the trollers go through a run of steelhead. I hope you are going to say a word or two about that.

I also hope you are going to say a word or two about four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles. Snowmobiles in some provinces have become a perfect menace to wildlife because they' can, of course, harass game in winter range areas. The Province of Ontario has taken the lead, I think, with the Province of Quebec in banning snowmobiles in certain areas. They are dangerous to the humans that ride them but that is not quite as important, perhaps, as the danger they pose to the game species in the critical times of the year.

I haven't heard the Minister say very much about experiments with winter feeding. My personal view is here that we have a great opportunity. I know it is artificial, but we have a great opportunity to go into protection of populations, particularly of the larger animals, by way of winter feeding. We can't do it just for the critical two or three weeks in the year. I fully understand the need to make sure the diet is balanced and you have to feed early in the winter, slowly and continuously. But I hope you will be saying a word or two about experiments on that. I think here is an area where, once again, we can do a great deal to protect and improve the populations of our animals by entertaining some experiments of this nature.

I mentioned Germany earlier. Their population is six times that of British Columbia; the area of the country is much smaller than the area of the province. They manage it mostly by winter-feeding programmes. The Minister, I hope, will mention something on that.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the compulsory hunter training programme. I would like him to bear in mind, however, that he may be increasing the number of hunters by doing this. I'm not saying it is desirable or otherwise to increase the number of hunters, but I trust his branch is looking at it from that point of view as well as from the safety aspect. The fact is that a hunter is safer when hunting on an hourly basis than he is in his car for the hours he drives up to where he hunts. He is much safer in the woods than he is getting to and from the spot where he leaves his car. Nevertheless, there are far too many accidents, and far too many of these accidents are caused by his total stupidity and carelessness. I would trust the Minister will be saying a word on that as well.

The compulsory hunter training programme I agree with. I would like, however, to get more information perhaps in future years on the results it is having upon the population of hunters.

Some time ago there was a committee formed to deal with birds damaged by oil slicks. I had, of course, some considerable interest in that. I believe Mr. Halliday of the Fish and Wildlife Branch was the chairman of that committee; it was set up approximately three years ago. I wonder whether the Minister might have anything to report. If he doesn't, if this question catches him without material and

[ Page 3359 ]

information, perhaps he might reply to me by letter at a later date.

I know it's a tricky area but I trust that he will be able to indicate that we are taking steps and we are making progress in contingency planning for the disaster which is going to strike our wildlife, in particular our sea birds, when oil spills become more numerous and larger than they are at the present time in our area.

I would like to criticize the Minister for not having the park naturalist programme worked into his regular departmental budget. I looked for it; I can't find it. I think it probably comes in that special allocation for summer work. I personally feel it is something that should be a permanent part of the work of the department, not something which is tacked on basically as a make-work programme. I trust the Minister will inform me that he will take my suggestions to heart and put it as a regular feature in his budget. There are few things more popular than the park naturalist programme which provides guidance for kids who go to the park. I trust it is not simply a temporary programme to make work but is something much more important and deeper than that.

I feel the regulations the Minister has — and I'm thinking now of the so-called antlerless season; in other words the unisex regulations that the department has — are probably wrong. This is my personal belief; it is not backed up by the biologist's knowledge. But there are so many people who work in the woods who are involved in seeing the animals and birds in their natural habitat — and once again the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) had some important things to say on this — that there is a need for the biologists to start re-examining their sexless programmes or unisex programmes very carefully and start being a little more male chauvinist and insisting upon, perhaps, bucks only and things of that nature.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) mentioned dry cows. Obviously that's an animal which could well be harvested. I don't know quite what he had in mind when he was….

MR. CHABOT: They are hard to pick out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, probably in cases where age is a factor you can determine it. I'm not sure what the situation would be.

In any event, I feel the regulations which are ignoring the female species and treating it just like the male — and we have antlerless seasons as well as antler seasons — are probably wrong.

On this point, here are some of the notes that I made concerning the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). She made much of the fact that, in visiting the Island, she was told that there were sheep that were killed and lying there. Well, this, of course, is true. But to blame hunters for what is theft and poaching is totally wrong. It is just like saying that every driver is responsible for every accident on the roads.

Poaching and theft take place outside of hunting season and do not take place by hunters any more than anyone else. The illegal hunter and the poacher and the actual thief should be prosecuted, but to try and blame a group of people for that who are totally law-abiding and, indeed, have been pushing the Minister for stiffer regulations is dead wrong.

Mr. Minister, I would like to encourage you to start using more of the volunteer organizations in your enforcement programmes. I feel that if you can get volunteer help from fish and game clubs to supplement the officers of your department, you are involving the community and you will probably have much better enforcement as a result. There are many who would be willing to help. I don't think your department has done enough to work them into an auxiliary game-warden-type body which could help you and help the men under your department to properly police game regulations and to properly protect the wildlife of our province. This point again, I believe, was mentioned by the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly).

One point I would like to be very critical of is the whole cabinet's approach to the question of environmental management. We've had a very interesting and unfortunate case of the Chemainus dam. Yesterday, in reply to my question, the Premier got up and said that the cabinet committee, which is not composed of this Minister and is not composed of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) but composed of four others not knowledgeable in the area, made a decision and their decision was based on the fact that alternative sources could not be found.

Well, the fact is the Comptroller of Water Resources turned down the application because he said that studies had not been done to find those alternative sources. There has been not one whit of evidence that the cabinet committee knew of any other studies that had been done. That was not given to me by the Premier when he spoke yesterday. One can only assume that there were no other studies done for alternatives and, indeed, the decision of the Comptroller of Water Rights should be upheld, not overturned by that cabinet committee.

This is something which obviously should go to your full cabinet or the Premier should put together another cabinet committee with this Minister on it so that the responsibility for the fish and wildlife which is vested in this Minister and the information and

[ Page 3360 ]

knowledge that he has can be used by the committee making a decision on the Chemainus River.

The replies to questions given so far by the government have been thoroughly inadequate; they indicate that the environment is really not much further regarded than it was by the previous government. Lord knows, they didn't give it much concern then. This government is….

MR. CHABOT: You were in Ottawa, you wouldn't know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Member said I don't know. I was working in many of these areas. I can certainly remember conversations I had with this Minister's predecessor — which I won't repeat in this House — which indicated that he had a very different approach.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. It's an environmental issue and so are many others: the West Coast Trail; phase I, II and III of the west coast park. There were lots of issues, lots of conversations.

I would like, in winding up, to congratulate the Minister on his fine performance on the trap field. It was a brilliant performance in winning a large sum of money (which I hope you confess to when you're making out next year's income tax), and winning in addition five trophies….

AN HON. MEMBER: A windfall gain.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, a windfall gain of some $800 or so. We're all very proud of you. However, some of us are somewhat jealous. I hereby challenge the Minister that if he can find four others, I'll find four others and we'll have a team match at trap at 16 yards — Liberals versus NDP with shotguns at 16 yards.

MR. LEWIS: Did you say trap or crap? (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister can choose whether he wishes to do this on the lower mainland or whether he wishes to do this in Victoria. The Deputy, Dr. Hatter, who's such a deadly shot himself, is barred from competition on the grounds that he's a civil servant — he can't take part in political activities.

I trust that the Minister will take me seriously on this. We'll put in restrictions. We can have a neutral judge who will determine what categories the shooters will be in and whether we will have one token female, or two, or three. I challenge him to a team trap shoot and I'm sure that….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you dealing with the estimates of this department?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly am. I think that perhaps within the next two weeks the Minister and I can arrange this, but I want no weaseling out. I think that he should accept this challenge and we'll have a shoot-out sometime in the near future.

The final point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, which deals with his estimates, or partly with his estimates, is that the man doesn't really have the right image for the Department of Recreation and Conservation. He's too fat. It's true that a wide-angle lens was used when he was photographed for the Legislative Assembly. I trust that he will take steps so that next year when he is lecturing, in particular to school children of British Columbia on the need for recreation, he is more of a svelte-like figure and a better example of what he's talking about.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, going back on some of these questions and inquiries you made on steelhead, this year we have brought in a special rivers licence to about a dozen streams in B.C., and also put on an extra charge to non-residents. We did this to better enable us to move people around and get them away from some of the better known streams and distribute the fishermen better.

As for snowmobiles, we do intend looking into banning snowmobiles and probably the carrying of firearms on snowmobiles, with the exception of trappers and some other areas.

The winter feeding programme that you inquired about — we already instituted a winter feeding programme for elk in the East Kootenays this winter. Approximately 1,200 elk are being fed in that area this winter. We do intend to look into that further.

As to the CORE programme and the amount of facilities and injuries this year, this was a record low of any year I can remember. There were only two fatalities concerning firearms in hunting in B.C. One was target practice and one was a young person going across a log over a stream who slipped and fell. So there were only two and yet we had a record number of hunters participating this year.

In regard to naturalist programmes in our parks, we have increased that greatly under code 020, maintenance and operations. We've just about doubled our naturalist programme this year.

With regard to the auxiliary system for COs, you recall that last year we hired about 53 extra auxiliary COs. This year the budget has been increased from $100,000 to $183,000 for auxiliary conservation officers.

As to your challenge, Mr……

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you have any volunteers?

[ Page 3361 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: I don't know. I haven't spoken to any of my colleagues yet, but as to your challenge that you threw across the floor, we will accept. I don't know if I can get any of my colleagues interested but I imagine there are four that I could scrounge up somewhere for a competition.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I wasn't going to speak on these estimates. However, since the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) referred to a matter in my constituency, I was moved to get up and speak. First of all, he made the statement that I had said at one point in the long history of the Kitsumkalum ski development thing that if the thing wasn't built by 1973 I would resign. I don't recall having said that. I might have, but I do recall having said, after there was a great deal of publicity in several large meetings attended by a great number of people and so on, if we don't get the thing built by 1973 I might have to resign. I remember saying that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Resign anyway.

MR. DENT, However, if I did say it, I withdraw. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: It's a little late.

MR. DENT: In regard to the efforts of the Minister, first of all I think it's important to realize that what we inherited was a real jungle when it came to establishing anything in the way of a sports development or a ski development, or whatever. I was amazed at how little machinery there was and how few people there were in Victoria, or anywhere, that could somehow put this kind of thing together.

I want to commend the Minister for the fact that he's going to appoint a ski coordinator who will sort of take in hand the whole matter of helping local societies and groups and so on to get ski developments established. I think that's a big step in the right direction and will prevent further groups having to go through this long thing that we've had to go through.

However, his department has acted. The latest action was to approve a grant of $165,000 tentatively from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. They're now waiting for the society to indicate their ability to put up additional money. Hopefully this will be worked out.

MR. WALLACE: What about the highways?

MR. DENT: The road thing is a matter, as the Member pointed out, of coordination between the departments.

One final point is that we do have in existence right now in Skeena one of the finest ski developments, I think, in B.C. — on Hudson Bay Mountain. Again, this was made possible by the assistance of the recreational facilities fund — $50,000 was given. They now have a T-bar lift. It's an excellent mountain and I invite everybody here, if they like to ski, to come and ski on Hudson Bay Mountain. When Kitsumkalum is finished they can come there and ski.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, very briefly, getting back to the hunting question, I recognize that this is an extremely emotional issue with very strong feelings on both sides of the question. I'm really surprised at the manner in which the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) managed to misunderstand the points made by the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). I understood what she was speaking about and I suppose that's one of the encouraging things about politics — two Members can disagree strongly on one point on Tuesday and then find themselves in agreement on another matter on a Thursday afternoon.

I feel that in some respects the Department of Recreation and Conservation in this province should be known rather as the Department of Recreation and Hunting. I am distressed at the emphasis that is placed on hunting, not only by the Minister but by those individuals who have moved into senior positions in this department. If that is an attack on senior civil servants, then I'm afraid it will have to be taken as such.

I also worry over the fact that I rarely hear Fish and Wildlife people — the learned biologists and others who are associated with this work — refer to "killing" of an animal. They speak about "harvesting," "managing, " "culling," "obtaining," "collecting," "taking," "securing" but never killing. Yet in fact that is what they do.

MR. LEWIS: Do you eat meat?

MR. CURTIS: I think that it would be important this afternoon to just refer very briefly to a very thoughtful article which appeared, interestingly enough, under the name of Bob Hunter in the Vancouver Sun on October 1 last year.

It referred to an article which contained a pretty serious attack on the head of the B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. It makes the point that this gentleman is himself an avid hunter and it quotes references which have been made in the past to that "special thrill which comes from hunting" — from killing an animal. The columnist, Hunter, says:

"I would like to know why the B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch uses its facilities to mail out reprints, as it did in July of this year" —

that is 1973 — "of pro-hunting articles.

[ Page 3362 ]

"These reprints appearing in the Fish and Wildlife monthly newsletter, printed and distributed at the taxpayers' expense, extol the alleged virtues of hunting, but they say nothing about the suffering inflicted on the animals.

"How does the government of B.C. justify the behaviour of the Fish and Wildlife Branch? In the article in Insight magazine, a senior staff member of the Department of Recreation and Conservation is quoted as providing the answer. 'Of course we are in favour of hunting. After all, the revenue from hunting and fishing covers most of our budget.'"

And Hunter goes on to say — that is, Bob Hunter:

"Forthwith the Fish and Wildlife Branch should be called upon to stop pumping out pro-hunting propaganda using tax money."

Now there is a considerable body of public opinion which asks the same questions and which agrees with the observations made by these and other thoughtful British Columbians — those who are in print and those who do not have such access to the public Department of Recreation and Hunting: perhaps that's the answer.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, I just have one quick comment on the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. I think he should read some of our publications. I don't think there is a publication that has come out that has been pro-hunting or anti-hunting. I think most of our material is educational material only, and he should really read it.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Finally! With a great deal of exertion I finally made it. I wouldn't want to go hunting now because I wouldn't get very far. However, I want to bring two or three points to the attention of the Minister. He has been approached previously on some of these. Because of my interest and my constituents' concern for the three-day fishing licence which has been abolished, it is hoped that this would be reinstated, particularly over in the Kootenay area. I have many constituents in the Grand Forks and Midway area who go over into the Kootenays fishing. I think it's been a very popular licence, the three-day licence, particularly for people from Alberta and that who come in and fish for three days and then go back out. Another point is… and while the subject matter is related to Marathon, I certainly don't intend to go into a marathon speech. It is in relation to the acquisition of a piece of property held by Marathon Realty of the CPR at Okanagan Falls. The population of Okanagan Falls would very much like to see this small piece of property acquired and added to the Christie Memorial Park that is there. Your department has done a terrific job not only in maintenance and building it up, but in control of that same park, where many parks have had vandalism and a great deal of destruction. I commend you for the job you have done.

I have a petition which you have a copy of in relation to this matter.

Now the other one is a matter which has been before not only this government but the previous government. It concerns those dedicated people who have given a great deal of their time to the marking and relocating of historical trails such as the Brigade Trail, the Dewdney Trail and many other trails through the Hope-Princeton mountain, who have asked the governments to include it within the Manning Park before these trails are completely obliterated through logging operations or forgotten altogether.

I want to add my support to the request that the government give consideration to preserving these by bringing them into a park area. I think it would be a great day when you can say on behalf of the government that these areas that are known are now within park reserves. Certainly you would be highly commended for this.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Regarding trails, the Member made some good points that we are concerned with. You must understand that most of these trails that are not included within the park do not fall within our jurisdiction. However, we will be looking at legislation probably to bring trail systems such as you mentioned under our purview.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I just have two or three short questions. I think that the Minister might take these questions with maybe one other Member's questions and put them all out at one time.

I heard him mention yesterday about considerable funding that was going to be used in a hatchery for somewhere in the southern part of the province within the next two or three or five years, I believe it is. I think that this is what happens to everything in this province: it gets crammed into southern British Columbia. I think we should start looking at expanding into north-central British Columbia, at least, or somewhere else in the Interior of the province.

I think that when you're spending $7 million, it's creating work and it's creating a supply of small fish that are going to be planted — fingerlings or whatever they might be — in the different lakes of the province. I had a list of lakes supplied to me that were going to be planted this year in and near my area. When I say near, I'm talking about within 150 miles of where I reside. And it looks like about 10 lakes in north-central British Columbia.

I heard you mention somewhere in the vicinity of over 300 lakes that are going to be planted in the province. So once again, what you're doing is

[ Page 3363 ]

applying a thing here that helps encourage more people into the southern part of this province. I think that if you were to plant some of those lakes in the northern-central Interior or even in northern British Columbia, you would also encourage tourists who might go there to catch those fish. That would relieve the load that is on the southern portion of this province on all the facilities that are required to accommodate those people.

There might be other lakes that are going to be stocked in northern British Columbia, north-central or to the west of my riding; but I know that in my immediate area — and I'm talking about within 25 miles of where I live — there are probably 100 lakes and there hasn't been a lake planted or stocked within the last 10 years.

Some of them, of course, are much too large, but I think that a good percentage of those lakes, though, are being fished out and should be, at least if not restocked, closed for a period of time so at least the numbers of fish could return to near normal.

While travelling on the agriculture committee we were given the pleasure of speaking to a gentleman that has a fish farm. He was anxious to have his farm come in under the Department of Agriculture. He didn't feel that he was getting any service from the Fish and Game Branch. Now I know that protein raised in this manner… I guess there's about the highest concentration of food value produced this way per square foot or per square acre than in any other method of rearing food or growing food.

I know that a gentleman in my riding has applied for the rights to create a fish farm — to start one up. He's had much experience in Germany. I think that the people in your department advised you that this gentleman shouldn't go into that kind of business because there wasn't a market for fish, for trout.

There is a tremendous market for trout because, of course, we're importing them every day from Japan and other countries. I think that if they were home grown — the variety especially from the waters in north-central British Columbia — they would be the finest that you could grow.

Mr. Minister, what I am encouraging is that your department should do some research. Maybe within the next few years we could see not only one but maybe half a dozen of these farms start in northern British Columbia, because we do have ideal facilities. Maybe they might not be so fast growing, but we do have large rainbow from that part of the country.

I think that when you're talking about the kind of food they use to raise these fish, within a two-year period you could be looking at 14-inch trout or something like that.

One other thing that I would like to bring up, Mr. Minister, is something that happened while I was on my recent trip to Fort Ware. I saw nine horses abandoned. Well, when I say that they were abandoned, I don't know whether they were abandoned or not, but these horses were in a very remote area, miles from any camp and way out in the woods.

They either belonged to a guide or to some Indians. Now, they hadn't had any food in the form of oats or hay given to them all winter. There was just no way it could have been taken in there because it's hundreds of miles into a remote area. These horses were in there all winter. I couldn't tell you what the shape of them was. They might have been in reasonably good shape, for all I know, but having been in Fort Ware, I was told that 16 horses perished this winter from starvation and from freezing to death.

I know that the Guides Association are very good at policing their members when it comes to anything related to horses being abandoned or anything that might imperil their industry when it comes to bad publicity. I think, Mr. Minister, that you have to lean on some of these guides when they take these horses out like that and then leave them out to find a way for themselves all winter long.

It's just terrible. These horses could be left out, and if they could survive, fine. They apparently did in this particular case, but there might have been 20 horses when winter first started in this particular lot that I saw 10 miles north of Ingenica. So it's strictly up, I think, to the wildlife branch to put the pressure on to the guides.

I can't swear that it was the guides that owned these horses. These could have been Indian horses. But no matter who owns them, if the horse has to suffer for the lack of food in the middle of winter — they're standing around in four or five feet of snow — certainly it shouldn't be allowed to happen and I think your department could put the pressure on to make sure these horses are at, least fed.

The last thing I would like to bring up, Mr. Minister, is that recently in a discussion that you had with me we talked about the use of roe as bait. I think that you agreed with me that, for example, in the river near where I live probably the use of roe could be eliminated. It's a fact that in the spring that river is full of fish, but by fall there isn't one left. I've been through that river. The river is only a very shallow river. In most cases, by fall it's not more than 18 inches deep in most places. There are pools of course and fast running water, but you can go down that river and not see more than three or four trout left. I blame this on the use of roe.

I think roe is being used throughout this province too often. It's about time the game department considered removing roe from baits allowed to be used by the game department. It's just like issuing a man a hand grenade when he gets a bottle of roe or fish eggs to use for fishing. I think it's about time that the game department stopped that use.

[ Page 3364 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: Regarding fish hatcheries in the north, Mr. Member, the hatchery in the north just doesn't lend itself to the economics. The climatic conditions are not right. We've discussed this before. It's much cheaper for us to hatch the fish in the lower mainland or in the Interior and transport them to the north. However, we are doing some studies in the Quesnel area to look for a suitable area for a hatchery in future years. But right now the climatic conditions, as I mentioned, just don't lend themselves to a hatchery in the north.

You mentioned stocking of lakes in the north. Most of the lake environments in the north are suitable for fish. The biggest problems that we have are in the inlets and the outlets of the lakes. For instance, in your area of Tatchuk Lake and Newpie Lake we are doing some rehabilitation work in those lakes this year.

Concerning abandoned horses, this really has nothing to do with our department. For a lot of the horses that are grazing, people have not obtained grazing permits. This comes under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This also comes under the Criminal Code. When anyone abandons a horse it is in conflict with the Criminal Code and can be dealt with through the RCMP.

The guides are concerned about this. Most of the guides are pretty good managers of their horses and look after them and are concerned about it themselves.

MR. CHABOT: Just a couple of brief questions, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak very briefly about game management. I want the Minister to be consistent with what he says and with what he does.

While the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was speaking of antlerless seasons and so forth, I recall very well many years ago when the rod and gun club of the East Kootenays was suggesting to the Fish and Wildlife Branch biologists that they should close the season for antlerless animals to conserve the big game of the East Kootenays and the biologists always fought the proposition. They always fought it because they suggested that you have to harvest the dry cows. I really don't know how a hunter — and I hope you'll tell me — would be able to identify what is called a dry cow. It's a bit of a problem. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You get a good pair of binoculars.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder why the biologists have today changed their minds regarding the harvesting of dry cows. All of a sudden in GMA I I we see that it's going to be in the regulations for the forthcoming season that only antlerless animals will be harvested. I think, Mr. Minister, that those biologists who were so concerned many years ago about dry cows are either not telling you of their concern they had in the past or they weren't telling the truth in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Ex-civil servants.

MR. CHABOT: If there was concern about the percentage of dry cows, that concern should still be here today, but apparently it isn't.

I still have before me that little press release of yours of October 29, 1973, in which you indicated that there is a crisis situation, a last chance, last-ditch effort to conserve big game in the East Kootenays. Well, you've identified the problem - I won't deny you that. I hope you understand the root cause. And the root cause, of course, is the lack of habitat protection and the lack of range improvement.

There's been this argument over the years; it's not a new-found concern of mine. But apparently the various departments are talking a little more today than they did in the past, because the Forest Service had no hesitation in saying there was no conflict between livestock and big game — no conflict in the use of range. Yet Rec and Con biologists used to say there was a terrible conflict. My question is: now that we've identified the problem and you agree with me that there is a need for habitat protection, that there is a need for range improvement, what sort of programme — and I'm speaking specifically of the East Kootenays, the area I'm most familiar with — do you have for the forthcoming year for all animals?

One last question. I asked the question before and unfortunately the Minister kind of glossed over it — you know, that glossy portrait. That had to do with the Athalmer beach. It's been long in coming.

Those people in Athalmer have been waiting a long time. They waited for the former government. The former government was doing it in bits and pieces. I'm not going to suggest you should do it the same way, but there hasn't been any action in 1973. I hope that 1974 will bring a new day, will bring a day of action for the Athalmer beach because we need some help there.

If you want me to show you the plans that are necessary to establish it as a good public beach, I'll gladly have a discussion after, providing you give me a commitment of a few dollars.

You must realize that when I talk about the Athalmer beach, I'm talking about a beach that is on what is known as Lake Windermere, Mr. Minister — I'll identify the lake.

On the west side the majority of the lake frontage is occupied by Canadian Pacific Railway trackage. So you've really eliminated to a great degree, except for  the peninsulas that jut out into the lake, of utilization of that side of the lake. Then on the other side we

[ Page 3365 ]

have a great number of summer homes. We have about 350 Albertans who have summer homes on the east side of the lake, with one access, one public access to the 13-mile long lake at Windermere, and we have an additional access at Athalmer. It's one that's required, despite what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) says about foreign tourists.

The economy of the area which I represent is very dependent upon these foreigners coming to the area and spending their money. They're from Alberta, but I'm sure the Minister of Highways would identify them as foreigners.

All I want is for the Minister to tell me that there will be some kind of development at Athalmer, on this lake that has so much restricted public access.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We'll look at that, Mr. Minister. I think I told you, you've probably forgotten, but we're looking into that and we'll consider it in the very near future.

MR. CHABOT: Just a short one. I'm glad you identify me as a Minister. I'm no longer a Minister, but it won't be long. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: I used to meet with you as a Minister, that's why I ….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just one short point under the Minister's vote, the others I'll bring up under estimates. But I would not want the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) to leave the wrong impression with the House, the public and the Minister regarding the fish farmers in British Columbia — fish producers. They, in fact, have only one reason for asking to be under the Department of Agriculture, and that's very simple: they want access to low-interest loans and capital.

They in themselves recognize the need and the value for them to remain under your department, and to work in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Branch. They recognize the need for controls in terms of quality, controls in terms of stocking, and their role in stocking in British Columbia.

I would like to know from the Minister what he intends to do in terms of meeting their needs. They are producing food. There is a good market, as the Member said, for this product in British Columbia. In fact, we do need more commercial fish farmers. But in light of the fact that they are in food production, although by all essence at this small number they must remain under the Department of Recreation and Conservation, what is the Minister doing to negotiate an arrangement either with the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance to assist them in this manner?

The other concern that they have, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that it was the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) who trundled off on his fish boat to Japan, and that it was not this Minister himself, if anyone was to go, although it's very questionable that Japan can teach us very much in terms of the type of fish production we could use in British Columbia.

What they fear, Mr. Minister, is not that you should have a trip, but that the government…that once again you'll be overshadowed by major cabinet decisions, and stronger, bigger Ministers than you are, and that the government is going to go ….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Where is he? Oh, there he is. I met his wife the other day; she's almost as big as I am.

Mr. Minister, they're concerned that your government is going to overshadow you and that they themselves are going to go into the fish production business on the basis of food production, but initially started on an experimental basis. So I would like, Mr. Chairman, through you, before we leave this vote, a commitment from the Minister as to what his policy will be in order to help them maintain good fish cultivation practices, maintain the services from his department, but have access to capital and low-interest loans as other agriculturalists will, and a guarantee from this Minister that he'll make his weight felt, that he'll make his voice heard, and that this government will not go in business in competition to these…. I think there are only five producers in British Columbia, and the last thing I would say is…to have your guarantee that they don't want to have anything to do with marketing boards. They want to be independent. They're doing a good job and making a good living, and they have a good future and there's more room for more of them if the Minister could assure some form of capital.

HON. MR. RADFORD: As far as fish farms go, Madam Member, this mistake was made in Alberta and Saskatchewan where Agriculture took over fish farms. It has been a chaotic situation since that has happened because they really lack the expertise to deal with some of the problems that the fish farms have. As far as our department goes we have been assisting fish farms in relation to any of the bacterial problems, or any of the problems they have in the raising of fish. And we will continue giving that assistance. However, I am looking forward to discussing with the Minister on my right the financing for fish farms, and looking into the area into increasing the production of fish farms and fish in the province.

[ Page 3366 ]

MRS. JORDAN: (Mike not on)… commitment that the government will not go into business in competition with these people because you could squash them in a moment — quicker than you squashed the guides and the other people in this province.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Is there no commitment? I would like you to try. Is there no commitment that the government won't be going into fish farming?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of quick snappy questions for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. There is going to be a large, 14-mile lake formed behind site No. 1 in the Peace River area when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) build that great site 1 power dam through Hydro. This reservoir is going to be relatively clear because there is not much in it to be cleared, period. Is the Minister now planning to stock this? Since you won't stock Moberly Lake, will you see that this lake, which will have a great recreational potential…. Will this lake be stocked with a good sporting fish?

My second question is: what dealing does the Minister have with Environment Canada when it comes to transporting fish around the province? My colleague from North Peace (Mr. Smith) suggested that we transport some fish out of Williston Lake, which are there being caught by the hundreds every day. Does the Minister and his department have any dealings with Environment Canada?

I was quite surprised last summer to note trucks from Environment Canada working around the clock hauling salmon out of the St. John River below the Mactaquac Dam at Fredericton, hauling them up river to a point just below Hartland, New Brunswick, site of the longest covered bridge in the world, and dumping those salmon. These fish trucks from Environment Canada were working around the clock! You could go over there and watch these great big, lovely salmon being dumped out of the truck. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, with cooperation through the Minister's department with Environment Canada we might be able to carry out the suggestion of my colleague from North Peace River. I would like to know: do you work with Environment Canada?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, we work closely with Environment Canada. And it is against the law to transport fish within the Province of B.C. without our approval.

In regard to the new dam site which will remedy some of the past problems caused by Williston Dam, we have no plans to stock fish in that dam.

As you know, the statement made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources the other night said that there would be impact studies done on that lake and it would be turned into a recreational area, unlike the Williston Dam.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.