[ Page 1719 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act (Bill 24) Hon. Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading –– 1719

Oral questions

Classification of ferry routes. Mr. Lockstead –– 1719

Congestion on Oak Street Bridge. Mr. Gibson –– 1719

Ferry lease-back agreements. Mr. Stupich –– 1720

Alleged improprieties by RCMP in collections of evidence. Mr. Wallace –– 1720

Eurocan-Weldwood sawmill development. Mr. Levi –– 1720

ICBC rates. Mr. Macdonald –– 1721

Jericho Hill School facilities. Mr. Wallace –– 1721

Status of Women council funding. Ms. Brown –– 1721

Eurocan-Weld wood sawmill development. Mr. Levi –– 1721

Effect of ferry rates on Island tourism. Mr. Gibson –– 1722

South Peace Dehy alfalfa contracts. Mr. Stupich –– 1722

Use of courtrooms in provincial court system. Mr. Macdonald –– 1722

Eurocan-Weldwood sawmill development. Mr. Levi –– 1722

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 2 3 1. On vote 242.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1722 Mr. King –– 1747

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1723 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1747

Mr. Barber –– 1723 On vote 243.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1724 Mr. Barber –– 1747

Mr. Skelly –– 1724 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1747

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1725 On vote 244.

Mr. Gibson –– 1728 Mr. Barber –– 1748

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1729 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1748

Mrs. Wallace –– 1729 On vote 245.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1731 Mr. Cocke –– 1748

Mr. Shelford –– 1734 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1748

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1738 Mr. Lloyd –– 1749

Mr. Wallace –– 1739 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1749

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1742 On vote 247.

Mr. King –– 1743 Mr. Wallace –– 1749

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1744 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1749

Mr. Bawtree –– 1745 On vote 250.

On vote 235. Mr. Barber –– 1749

Mr. Lockstead –– 1745 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1749

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1745 Mr. Mussallem –– 1750

On vote 236. On vote 25 1.

Mr. Lloyd –– 1746 Mr. Wallace –– 1750

On vote 237. Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1750

Mr. Lockstead –– 1746 On vote 252.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1746 Mr. Barber –– 1750

On vote 239. Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1750

Mr. Lockstead –– 1746 On vote 253.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1746 Mr. King –– 1751

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1751

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, today in the galleries we have some friends from the Cariboo, Mayor Fraser -no relation - from the town of Williams Lake, Alderman Barr, and Cordell Sandquist, the town administrator. In the members' gallery we have Dr. and Mrs. Tompkins from Quesnel. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): It is very seldom I have the opportunity of introducing guests in this chamber, but today is that proud day. With us are 43 students from Chilliwack Junior Secondary School, and I wish the House would give them the honour of a fine welcome.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there is a delegation of women in the gallery today from the Vancouver Status of Women council and some women from Victoria. They are Karen Richardson, Susan Moore, Carol Pfeiffer, Mercy Stickney, Gala Reid, Arlene Groper, Dorothy Holmes, Susan Hepner and Miriam Groper. From Victoria there's Gail Woodward, Brenda Laurie, Lynne Carter and Nancy Goldsberry.

I would appreciate it if the House would join me in welcoming them.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you three people that are situated in the members' gallery this afternoon: Mr. Cyril Cusack from Victoria, his wife Susan and my good friend Don Cusack from London, England.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I would like the House to join me today in welcoming two very good friends from the sunny province of Alberta, Mr. and Mrs. William Kilbourn.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a very good friend from Burnaby-Edmonds and a very hard-working Social Crediter in the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Claude Mills.

Introduction of bills.

SHELTER AID FOR

ELDERLY RENTERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

CLASSIFICATION OF FERRY ROUTES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. On February 28, during question period, the minister informed the House that the federal government was looking into the possibility of reclassifying the B.C. Ferries routes as protected or inland waters. Safety is a major problem created by the lack of staff. Was the federal government requested to look into this reclassification of inland or so-called protected waters by the B.C. Ferry Corporation or the provincial government?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): There have been some discussions held by my staff, not directly by B.C. Ferries, with the responsible federal authorities in respect to classification of vessels, waters and so on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Could the minister answer my question: was the federal government requested by the provincial government or the B.C. Ferry Corporation or by anyone in the minister's office to look at the question of regulations and reclassification of these waters? There is a very deep concern for safety on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Discussions have been held but no specific request has been made.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Would the minister consider the fact that already, in many people's estimation, the ferries are unsafe with respect to lifeboat manning and the like? Would the minister therefore indicate to the House that he isn't going to request nor would he acknowledge the federal government reducing the requirement for staffing of those ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I would like to make right now is that our ferries are very safe.

CONGESTION ON

OAK STREET BRIDGE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano):

[ Page 1720 ]

A question to the Minister of Highways: in view of the anticipated large additional traffic jams on the Oak Street Bridge due to repair work that is to start next week, I wonder if the minister could ask the department to hold up the work until there is at least a temporary easing of restrictions on the use of the Laing Bridge by Richmond residents, after that can be negotiated with Ottawa and Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: We've had discussions this week with the mayor of Richmond and we're looking into alternatives about the repair work on Oak Street Bridge right now.

MR. GIBSON: Could he ask that the work be held up for a little bit, at least, to see how those discussions go?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think we can resolve the tie-ups if we can make an arrangement with Richmond and not block off as many accesses and exits as was originally planned.

MR. GIBSON: Since the fact that there was no provincial contribution at the time the bridge was built was one of the reasons why there's not a better ramp schedule there, would the provincial government now be willing to contribute to the kind of ramp cost that would make the Laing Bridge more truly useful to Richmond if an Ottawa agreement could be obtained?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that's correct. The member's premise is not correct, but we're looking into it to get more availability out of the Art Laing Bridge at the present time.

FERRY LEASE-BACK AGREEMENTS

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I wonder if the minister would file with the House either the lease-back agreements, or copies of the lease-back agreements, involving the Queen of Alberni, the Queen of Cowichan and the Queen of Coquitlam.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I really see no reason why not, so I'll make inquiries with that intent in mind.

ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES BY RCMP

IN COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. On February 15, and again on February 22 and 23, 1 asked the Attorney-General about an allegation that a witness in the murder trial of David Ross had been offered $50,000 and immunity from prosecution by the RCMP. On February 15, the Attorney-General stated in question period: "A complete report will be on my desk by February 21 and I'll respond to your question at that time." It is now March 9, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know the outcome of that report.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I was making the same inquiry earlier today, and it's not yet available. I gather it will be in my hands within the next couple of days. As soon as it is I'll report to you.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney-General that since the transcript of the particular trial is readily available and since the evidence to anyone who reads it is fairly clear-cut, is the Attorney-General taking any steps to expedite the report, which seems a long time coming in light of the fairly straightforward nature of the evidence?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, to the hon. member, I've re-requested it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I wonder if the Attorney-General would answer the same question with regard to the Newton-Carlick trial and irregularities in that trial as well.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't got that material, Mr. Member. As I told you, when I have it I'll let you know. It went out of my office before you made your request in the House, and I've not yet received it.

EUROCAN-WELDWOOD

SAWMILL DEVELOPMENT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Economic Development: did the minister speak to any of the officials of Northwood Pulp about releasing some of their 2,000 acres of land for the development of the Eurocan-Weldwood sawmill development in the Houston area?

HON, D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): In answer to the member's question, the answer is no.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, may I get your guidance? I'd like to ask this of another minister as well - the same question.

[ Page 1721 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It would be a matter then, hon. member, that it would be a separate question to another member, but....

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a redirection.

MR. LEVI: It's a redirection. Could I ask the Minister of Forests whether he spoke to any officials in Northwood Pulp regarding their making available some of the 2,000 acres of land for the Eurocan-Weldwood sawmill development in the Houston area?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's question, I have met with members of Northwood and Weldwood-Eurocan on many occasions. When it came to light that a sawmill was planned in the Houston area, it is quite possible that I may have brought the subject up in one of my discussions in a casual way with one of these companies. I cannot recall anything in detail.

MR. LEVI: On a supplementary, could I ask the minister if he could be more specific? Did he request from those officials when he met with them that they make available some of the land to the development?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, no.

ICBC RATES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is directed to the Attorney-General. The other day I asked the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) whether somebody who was denied a discount for safe driving because he or she was adjudged to be blameworthy and therefore did not get the 17.5 per cent discount could go to court. Does the Attorney-General agree with that? Can you challenge that decision of ICBC in court?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think it's up to me to give that kind of legal advice to you, hon. member. (Laughter.)

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): He's finally showing some restraint.

MR. MACDONALD: There won't be a bill with that advice. It was worth what I had to pay for it. (Laughter.)

To the Minister of Education: the minister promised to report back on that question which affects 10,000 or 15,000 people, and I say there's no possibility of appealing it to court.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, a complete and detailed press release on this matter was made last week and I'd be happy to give a copy to the member.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer to the House.

JERICHO HILL SCHOOL FACILITIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education with regard to the future use of Jericho Hill School, where renovations are presently taking place: can the minister tell the House whether art students or any other category of students will be using the facilities once renovations are completed?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to move the school of art to the Jericho Hill campus to use the surplus facilities that are there.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the minister what discussions and consultations took place with the parents of the deaf students prior to this decision to use the school for other purposes?

HON. MR. McGEER: There were extensive discussions, Mr. Speaker. I could give dates and times.

MR. WALLACE: In light of the minister's second answer, can he assure the House that in these meetings with the parents of the deaf students, the concept of other uses of Jericho Hill School was part and parcel of these discussions?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL FUNDING

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to hon. Provincial Secretary. As you know, hon. minister, the funding for the Vancouver Status of Women council runs out on March 31. I'm wondering whether you will have made a decision regarding their request for continuing funding before that time.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that would be available. I'm waiting for a reply from my department.

EUROCAN-WELDWOOD

SAWMILL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of

[ Page 1722 ]

Mines, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister speak to any of the officials in Northwood Pulp about releasing any of their 2,000 acres of land for the Eurocan sawmill development in the Houston area?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No.

EFFECT OF FERRY RATES

ON ISLAND TOURISM

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary, speaking to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce a couple of weeks ago, suggested that her department had research that led her to the opinion that tourism on Vancouver Island had not been affected and would not be affected by high ferry rates. I wonder if she could describe to the House what that research is and would she be good enough to table it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to table the research statistics that come from the department of research in the Travel Industry department.

SOUTH PEACE DEHY ALFALFA CONTRACTS

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if anyone has authority to sign contracts with the alfalfa growers for South Peace Dehy this year, and whether any contracts have yet been signed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that question be directed to the proper minister, the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to redirect the question to the Minister of Agriculture?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the Minister of Economic Development was responsible for that industry, but I'll direct it to the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm it to check it out, but I would assume that the receiver who's been appointed would have the authority to sign any contracts with the growers.

USE OF COURTROOMS IN

PROVINCIAL COURT SYSTEM

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General undertook in answer to a question in oral question period to table with the House the information from the records of the court system in regard to the time spent on the average by judges in court - the time of use of courtrooms in the provincial court system. When will that information be tabled in the House, as indicated by the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't recall the specifics of the undertaking as you have articulated them, hon. member, but I'll take the question as notice and see if the material is available.

MR. MACDONALD: It was February 12, 1 think, but I'll check that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was a good day.

EUROCAN-WELDWOOD

SAWMILL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEVI: A question to the Premier. Are you ready, Bill?

Did the Premier, or to his knowledge did any of the ministers, other than those whom I've discussed already this afternoon, speak to any of the officials in Northwood Pulp about the releasing of some of the 2,000 acres of land for the Eurocan development in the Houston area?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

On vote 231: minister's office, $102,752 -

continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): My question to the hon. minister is with reference to the area in his ministry that deals with wildlife. I understand there is a farm in North Saanich that apparently has a "shoot-in" on pheasant. Now I understand also that before the pheasants are presented to be shot by hunters in what is considered a "sport" - and I put that in quotes because I'm frankly a strong advocate against any form of hunting.... However, this particular hunt is taking place in Saanich. I know all my cabinet colleagues don't agree with me on this but I feel very strongly about it, Mr. Minister. I understand that first of all these pheasants that are being bred for this hunt are being de-beaked. I understand the de-beaking process

[ Page 1723 ]

is necessary because they're cannibalistic. However, they are then let loose on certain days and then hunters are allowed to come in and just go ahead and shoot them.

Any pheasant that happens to escape the shooting is then left to wander around after having been brought up in a pen, I suppose debeaked, and it obviously has great difficulty in surviving. I consider this very cruel and very inhumane. I would like to ask the hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, quite seriously: does he condone this? Is he aware of it? Will he take some action to stop what I consider to be a very inhumane hunt?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): First of all, on the reference, to the pheasant shooting situation there, such an establishment does not presently exist in Saanich on the Saanich Peninsula. There has been an application to the municipal council there for permission to conduct such a commercial enterprise and that matter is in the hands of that council at this time,

. The licensing of such establishments is, however, the responsibility of my fish and wildlife branch. I might say that a programme was established to promote this type of establishment, from my understanding, during the term of the former government, by the former minister, Mr. Radford. Under this programme a number of such establishments have been set in motion in the lower mainland area - the Fraser Valley.

The concept is that there are a number of advantages: the opportunity for the public to hunt on private agricultural land; income to the farmers and landowners as a supplemental source of income; incentives to preserve pheasant habitat on the farm, thereby benefiting many species of birds, as well as pheasant and small animals; providing stimulus as well to naturalists, bird watchers and so forth; adjoining areas become repopulated with pheasant, which enhances the landscape as well-, providing an opportunity for hunters and landowners to develop a programme so that the value of wildlife is emphasized.

This is a programme, as I emphasized, that was commenced under the former government. The operation of this type of thing is actually very old -some 300 years and it certainly has a long tradition.

I personally have some. questions about it and I have suspended the activities of the branch in promoting this programme for the time being while that matter is examined. I think that's some of the information that you requested. If there is more that you would like, please indicate.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the hon. minister for a detailed answer. Then you are saying that at present it is not in North Saanich but there are other areas. They're just asking for a licence, so that should go in the record to be corrected then.

There are other areas where this is taking place now. Do you personally condone it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BAWLF: As to my personal habits and so forth with regard to hunting, I've never been a hunter or shooter or whatever. But you'll find that in the Province of British Columbia some 1.8 million man-days are spent in hunting, and the pheasant situation is part of that. It is an opportunity to expand, as I say, the habitat for pheasant. It's an opportunity to assist agriculture and so forth in providing a supplementary income. There are many favourable arguments on it. I have taken the view, nevertheless, that 1 would like to review the programme.

I feel that where the matter comes into question is whether the fish and wildlife branch should be promoting this kind of activity or whether this should be a matter of people involved in a community through their local government deciding whether they would like that kind of activity. It's our responsibility to respond in terms of a licensing authority, but whether we should be out promoting it is a different question and one that I'm very concerned with.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): As the minister is aware, I first raised during question period the question of the application by Mr. Aylard to North Saanich council. As the minister is also aware, that application was approved by a very narrow vote at North Saanich council and is presently therefore simply approved an d awaiting the approval, if it should be granted, of the minister's department.

I'm not competent to talk about pheasants And de-breaking and so on, but I am concerned about the terms of reference of the review which the minister proposes, I think quite properly, to conduct into pheasant shooting in British Columbia. I am in particular concerned about the question of safety, most especially in North Saanich, where the proposed hunt in this instance is to take place. I've had numerous calls from people out there and from people who have followed the press on this matter, concerned about safety in a quasi-rural, increasingly suburban area on the Saanich Peninsula in the municipality of North Saanich.

My questions about the terms of reference are these, Mr. Chairman: is safety one of the primary concerns? The question has been raised in the minds of some of the people out there about young kids on trail bikes or on bicycles, zipping around in the woods. I understand the property is not entirely fenced and it's relatively accessible. Even so, kids can hop over fences unaware that these kinds of shoots may be going on, uninformed by signs or paying no

[ Page 1724 ]

attention to them.

Again, my primary concern is that of safety in this particular issue. It has been raised by the neighbours, many of whom are quite bitterly opposed to this proposal, that the safety, especially of young children tramping about in the woods, is in some jeopardy when people may be without any warning at all firing shotguns off in the air and perhaps missing by a wide mark.

Therefore I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, about the terms of reference of the study - whether or not those terms of reference include the question of safety in particular regard to this application in North Saanich, whether or not the RCMP have been or will be consulted by the ministry regarding that question of safety, and if any other agents in the control of firearms and the control of public safety will be consulted as well. The people of North Saanich and people generally, I think, on the peninsula are most concerned about this question. I'd be pleased to hear from the minister that safety will be part of those terms of reference.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, the matter of control of firearms and discharge of firearms is a municipal decision and a municipal jurisdiction. However, assuming that such a proposal receives local approval, the branch is nevertheless concerned with safety and addresses this matter in great detail.

I might say that on the other hand one of the arguments put forward for this kind of controlled situation from the standpoint of a commercial operation is that it gives the opportunity for young people who have chosen and have decided to take up hunting through their family to get a training in the use of firearms in a controlled situation. Also, it reduces some of the congestion of hunters at large in providing an alternate opportunity. That congestion is certainly a factor which can contribute to problems of safety and in hunting generally.

MR. BARBER: I expect the minister overlooked it. Specifically, will the RCMP, which is responsible for, among others, North Saanich, be consulted in regard to this particular application with a view to getting their opinion about the safety implicit in the application as Mr. Aylard has proposed it?

HON. MR. BAWLF: As they are involved with the municipality and the municipality must first pass this matter, I would expect that would be dealt with at that level.

MR. BARBER: I don't think it has been.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, that's their problem.

MR. BARBER: Can you not check that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: I'm concerned about the general administration of the minister's office. I realize that he is a new minister, but it appears that every time a new minister takes over the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, a memo goes out to the staff. Last year I brought this up during the former minister's estimates. The memo at that time said: "Re release of information to the press and public. This confirms my request to exercise sound judgment in releasing information to the public or press, and particularly information of an internal, confidential or possibly controversial nature." The memo at that time said that leaks would be severely dealt with. It's a kind of pressure that the ministers in this department seem to impose on the staff of their department. They impose the problem of exercising judgment in the release of information.

Well, when the new minister took over he had his deputy send out a memo this time, and this is under the name of Lloyd Brooks. I don't know why it was sent to me because I don't release this type of information to the public or any MLAs, but I'm grateful that the deputy minister sent it to me. It said: "Re: Information supplied to all MLAs." This is dated January 24,1977, and is marked "personal."

"I've marked this 'personal' to ensure that you see it. As you know, backbenchers from all parties approach the various branches directly for information, and members usually make their requests through our minister. However, Mr. Bawlf has asked me to emphasize to each of you that responses in the form of written material be routed through his office to whomever has requested the information.

"Similarly, if any substantive information is given over the phone or in direct personal communication, the minister would like a resume. The only way this procedure departs from past practice is that the minister wishes to be in the picture at all times. Please make your staff aware of this request."

Well, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this is the type of memo that imposes pressure on the staff of the fish and wildlife branch. It's very difficult for staff members in this branch to determine what is of a controversial or a political or a difficult, internal, confidential nature.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): He's debeaking his staff.

MR. SKELLY: Also we've been told by this government, time after time, that one of the main problems of the provincial government in Victoria is

[ Page 1725 ]

the amount of paper shuffling that goes on. I'm sure you've read the Bawlf report, Mr. Chairman, which talks about this very problem - that every time you have to shuffle a piece of paper around through the bureaucracy it creates more and more of a burden on the people who are approaching government and expect that the red tape be cut and that judgments be made quickly and appropriately.

I'm wondering what the rationale, what the reason is for this. Would the minister care to explain the memo? It appears that it amounts to simply a reduplication of effort on the part of his staff, that every time a back-bench MLA from his own government or an MLA from one of the opposition parties approaches a member of his staff on the street and requests information, or talks to a member of his staff over the phone, a resume has to be sent to the minister. I can understand the minister's desire to be kept in the picture. That's the reason why he has his senior staff; that's the reason why he has executive assistants - to maintain contact with the department and to find out what's going on time after time. But why impose additional pressure on the staff? Why impose additional paperwork on the government in order to keep the minister in the picture? Surely you have executive assistants and senior staff for that reason. This amounts really to a form of intimidation against your own staff. It's very difficult for them to make judgments about what is of a confidential or possibly controversial nature.

I'm wondering why this minister and previous Social Credit ministers have distributed these types of squelch memos to the staffs of the fish and wildlife branch, the parks branch, and other branches of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, the member cites two memos. Frankly, I'm not aware of the one that was sent out by my predecessor. The memo that he refers to of recent date I would like to have tabled, if I could, just so that I could be aware of the detailed wording. I don't recall the reference to "confidential information" or "controversial information." What it simply says -you've presented it to the House, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman - is that information which is going out from the ministry be brought to my attention. The fundamental principle here is very simple: it is helpful and informative to me, and to my deputies, to know what the concerns of the public are, through their MLAs, and just how well those concerns have been answered, and to know something of the quality of information they're receiving. Generally it helps me to understand what kinds of pressures - since you raised that word - are being placed on the people who are working in the ministry. I think this is a very good communicative device because I think it's essential that if a minister is going to serve his ministry well, as certainly I hope to, he be aware of precisely this.

MR. SKELLY: I'll table this memo, although it says here that a copy was sent to the Hon. Sam Bawlf, but the difference between the memo that was sent out by the former minister and the memo sent out by the present minister is that hers said: "Re: Release of information to the press and the public." So everybody was covered by that memo and the staff were acquainted with the problem that she was concerned about - information being released of a confidential or possibly controversial nature. But this one has a specific concern and it says: "Re: Information supplied to all MLAs."

HON. MR. BAWLF: To all of them?

MR. SKELLY: "To all MLAs." There's a political connotation to this memo that anything that is supplied to MLAs - it doesn't have any proscription on information to the public - is.... Why do you want information supplied to MLAs? It seems to put some pressure on the staff of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: "Be careful how you talk to MLAs."

MR. SKELLY: "Be careful how you talk to MLAs. Anything that comes through the department to MLAs comes through me. Don't say anything to MLAs. If you do, remember that Big Brother is getting a copy of it. If I hear that you've been speaking to MLAs and I don't have a resume', then there could possibly be trouble." I can understand the vast amount of paperwork that could build up because MLAs are in touch with members of the various branches of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation on a daily basis - maybe two or three calls a day for personnel to each member of that department, Mr. Chairman, and in the various regions as well. For that amount of material to be travelling back and forth between staff in the minister's office and out to MLAs - this includes telephone calls and personal conversations with MLAs....

It seems to me that the minister is imposing quite a burden of judgment on his staff and quite a burden of paperwork on his staff. After all, the responsibilities of this minister are to ensure that parks are acquired and operated in this province, that fish and wildlife resources and other common property resources are managed well in this province. This continual paper shuffling that the minister has imposed on his staff seems to be a detriment to the work that the department should be doing. They shouldn't be sending resume's of personal conversations to the minister; they shouldn't be sending resumes of telephone calls to the minister.

[ Page 1726 ]

They should be out there managing their departments and managing the resources, which is what we are paying them to do. I think it's an undue burden that the minister has imposed on the staff of his department, and I don't think it's appropriate, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. KING: Big Sam, the bureaucrat -- he beats his staff.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to talk about some of the things that are of particular concern to my riding.

I know, because I've been in touch with the minister's staff, that he is aware of these things. I have also been in contact with the minister by letter.

The first thing is the question of the establishment of a reserve between Grice Bay near Tofino and Matilda Inlet on Flores Island, including the areas around Tofino Inlet - a wildfowl refuge. This is to be established under order-in-council under the Wildlife Act, I imagine. It's to give the minister's department some jurisdiction and some control over wildfowl and wildlife in that area. This is a good thing. I believe most of the people in the Tofino area feel it is a good thing, but they are concerned with the type of communication that takes place between the department and the public on the issue.

I think that some credit should go to the minister's staff - the regional staff of the fish and wildlife branch - who went out to Tofino last December facing a pretty hostile crowd, because that crowd didn't really know what was happening. They knew that as a result of various map reserves and designations which had been placed on the area over the years, upland developments were restricted and Indian riparian rights in front of Indian reserves were being called into question when these are part of the aboriginal claim in the province. There are restrictions on upland developments that are imposed on developers through the technical planning committee of the regional district, and a lot of difficulties are being experienced in that area.

Now one of the suggestions that was brought up at that meeting was that an advisory committee be established and further public meetings take place before any moves are made to establish an order-in-council over the area between Grice Bay and Flores Island to set this wildfowl and wildlife reserve up. Yet quite a bit of time has taken place between the meeting that was held in December and the present time. People in that area are concerned about what is happening with the Tofino wildlife reserve.

Has the minister been in contact with the people in the area, the Clayoquot Sound water works district, the village of Tofino, the various Indian bands, the landowners in that area, the regional district and Parks Canada to appoint an advisory commission in anticipation of the order-in-council so that they can have some input into how the area is to be managed nice the order-in-council is passed and the reserve is established? What is the minister planning to do in his area and when is he going to do it?

As I said before, the staff performed really well in he face of a hostile public meeting. They made certain promises, one of which was that communication would take place, that letters would

e forthcoming immediately giving the people out here an idea of what the plans of the department were. Can the minister explain today what plans the apartment has for that area and over what time frame they will be?

HON. MR. BAWLF: With regard to information to MLAs, I have just checked and my deputies assure me hat there has been no delay and no unnecessary burden on t ' hem in providing me with resumes of contacts with MLAs. I again stress, as that member aid himself, that our responsibility is to administer he objectives of these various branches under my ministry and to achieve better service in the way of arks and other services to the people of British Columbia. One of the ways in which I can assess the adequacy of our policies is in fact through the informed contact that takes place with other members of the House on both sides. I emphasize hat that memorandum was with reference to all members of the House. If I simply wanted to shadow what members of the opposition were concerned bout, I would have simply said so. But if you'll accept that observation with the good grace with which it's offered, I'll go on with the Tofino matter.

The history of that is, of course, that in 1973 the fish and wildlife branch proposed to the former government through the lands branch that eight separate land designations, including the order-in-council reserves, map reserves and greenbelt property be amalgamated under a single order-in- council. This request of 1973 was acted upon y this government in 1976 in referring this proposal o local government agencies.

The problem is that apparently while the information was passed as it became available to the regional district - they were kept informed of the activities and interests of the ministry in the Tofino area - they failed to pass this along to the village of

Tofino and to local residents and groups. So there was a breakdown in communications beyond our purview.

However, I have approved and the branch is working on establishment of an advisory committee that would be formed out of consultations between he branch, the regional district and the lands management branch. It will consist of a public group r the purpose of advising. As to timing, I would say that we would move only so quickly as 'that public group would see as advisable. That's the whole point.

[ Page 1727 ]

We don't want to prejudge our actions there and render the advisory role impotent.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems was that at the meeting in December the regional wildlife biologist said: "Yes, I will attempt to get a letter from the department which will make this clear to you. We will establish an advisory committee in advance of the order-in-council being passed so that the local people can have some input as to how the wildlife refuge will be managed and who will be involved and what areas should be managed."

It was interesting that we expected a lot of opposition to the refuge itself, but some of the complaints were that areas weren't included under the order-in-council that should be. So there is a lot of local information. People are aware of local preferred habitat for migrating wildfowl, for example, that the fish and wildlife branch wasn't really clued into because of shortage of staff and the inability to get out there because they serve a large region. That advisory committee would be extremely valuable in setting up the reserve in the first place.

But I don't believe they've got the letter which the regional wildlife biologist, in good faith, promised that the department would send to the people out there. I'll take steps to make sure that the minister's assurance is published in the local papers out there so they are going to be aware right after this session of the minister's assurance. I'm pleased to hear that he's made that assurance. If he could get some kind of official letter out to the people in the Tofino area....

Again I'd like to emphasize the question of riparian rights to Indian reserves. This is a question that's going to be discussed in relation to the aboriginal claim to the province. Do not neglect the Indian bands and the Indian people in the Tofino area because they feel that the rights to that area for exploitation of some of the shellfish, clams, and wild fowl are theirs as part of their aboriginal claim. I think that they should be consulted as well as local governments and local environmental enthusiasts.

Another thing with relation to the west coast is the Captain Cook Bicentennial. The mayor of Tahsis was down to see me, and I believe he talked to the minister at the bun throw at Government House the day that the House opened.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he get in?

MR. SKELLY: How did he get in? He waited in line for hours after people who canvassed for Social Credit in Vancouver East. But he did get in there and he did have an opportunity to talk to the minister.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, there weren't that many.

He did have an opportunity to talk to the minister. And I note that the minister has purchased, through the parks branch, Santa Gertrudis Cove, just north of Friendly Cove on Nootka Island. I think that this is a worthwhile purchase. It's known locally as Dolly's Cove from people who have been in the Nootka Sound area, Mr. Chairman. The word that goes around there is that this cove was used by Captain Cook as an anchorage during the time that he visited the north coast of British Columbia back in 1778. So I think it's particularly worthwhile at this time that Santa Gertrudis Cove should be purchased, possibly as a part of the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebration. It is historically significant.

I'm wondering what plans the minister is working on for the bicentennial celebrations in the Nootka Sound-Muchalat Inlet area, because that is the area that Captain Cook did visit when he was visiting the north coast of North America back in 1778. That was the first contact with the Indian people of the area. I'm wondering if the minister is going to make grants and assistance available to the three communities -Tahsis, Zeballos, Gold River - and other communities in that area, in order to develop bicentennial celebrations to attract tourists to that area.

I also wonder if the minister has been in touch with the Moutcha people who own the land at Friendly Cove, where Captain Cook visited and where the Nootka Convention was signed with the Spanish. After all, in the deal that was made back there in 1778 - whenever it was - the convention was signed with the Spanish. But the people who were left out of the deal were the people who owned the land in the first place. That was Chief Maquirma, who first greeted Captain Cook when he arrived on this coast, and the Moutcha people. I wonder if the minister has made any contact with the Moutcha people as to what their contribution is going to be to the Captain Cook Bicentennial. As the minister's probably aware, the Indian people on this coast are not entirely satisfied with the chain of events that transpired since Captain Cook first visited and signed the deal with the Spanish. I think it would be appropriate, as a part of the Captain Cook Bicentennial, to recognize the interest that still exists in those lands and in the traditions of the Moutcha people and the successors and descendants of Chief Maquirma. They would like to see the title that they hold to that land legally extinguished or legally recognized. This is possibly something the minister could take into consideration as a part of the bicentennial celebrations. They also own Friendly Cove where the deal was signed in the first place and I think that they should be consulted before we anticipate visitors to that area in 1978.

1 also understand - and this was brought to my attention by the mayor of Tahsis - that an

[ Page 1728 ]

international group is planning on tracing the voyages t of Captain Cook back in 1778, and yet they're going c to terminate their voyage in Victoria, whereas j Captain Cook visited the Nootka Sound-Muchalat Inlet area. Has the minister been in touch with this group to see if, instead of terminating here in t Victoria, they would visit the most important area t which Captain Cook visited in his attempt to discover the Northwest Passage, and that is the area of Nootka Sound and Muchalat Inlet.

MR. BARBER: Nootka Sound isn't in his riding.

MR. SKELLY: But it's in my riding, Mr. Member, and that's one of the reasons why I'm asking these questions. Have you been in touch with those people and what plans do you have in mind for that bicentennial celebration?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, just a word of explanation about the organization of the planning process. There is a committee of three members of cabinet, including myself, the Minister of Education j (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , and the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Provincial Secretary being chairman. My particular involvement in that committee is with reference to those things which my ministry are responsible for.

I must say that I'm not aware of the group that you mentioned who are tracing the voyages of Cook, et cetera, although I am aware that there are a great many such historical associations and so forth that are responding favorably to the notion of observing this occasion.

It happens that my ministry will probably be the most involved with Nootka Sound. Our plans, such as they are, are just very broad at the moment. But the fundamental principle is that, as I stated at an earlier date in the House here, I believe, the Indian people really have a major significance in all of this. We would hope that they would invite us to participate in a number of things in Nootka Sound, rather than the reverse. I understand that contacts are being made through the Provincial Secretary to that end.

As regards the mayor of Tahsis, if you've spoken to him you'll be aware that I've suggested that he and/or the community submit a proposal. I do believe some form of assistance, albeit modest, would possibly be available for such communities, be they native peoples or Tahsis.

It's my particular philosophy of the Cook bicentenary that we're not simply observing the arrival of European civilization; we're observing and celebrating on the same occasion the very unique Indian culture. I would hope these things would be juxtaposed side by side. We will be in discussion with the federal government, who have looked at the area from the standpoint of interpretation of that culture through the national historic programme. I think it's conceivable that some such effort could be made jointly between the federal and provincial governments. We, in that connection, might look to a form of archaeological expedition as well during 1978 o examine some of the as yet untouched areas up here. But to any extent that they involve Indian interests, it has always been the policy of our archaeological sites people to have their permission before taking any such action.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief. I just want, first of all, to wish the minister well on his first estimates and extend, as in other years, my regards to his genial and competent deputy minister, who I think is doing a good job of administering the department. I want to make only a couple of representations today.

First, I would ask the minister if he could give us a progress report on any involvement the department may have with respect to developing, in terms of planning or actual assistance, hiking trails near urban areas. The minister might say: "Well, that's really the job of the regional districts." The regional districts are doing their best in this regard, but their financial resources - as you'll know, Mr. Chairman - are limited by their tax base. To me it's proper that the Department of Recreation should spend a bit of money in the areas where the people are as well as in the wilderness areas.

It's a marvelous thing to be able to find, two or three miles away from your home, a system of hiking trails that's available and accessible to you and that's marked out and reasonably well maintained. Not everybody has the hiking skill and endurance of the Outward Bound types who can scramble up the nearest mountain. A lot of us find it nice to have a well-marked trail to proceed along. Certainly in my own constituency of North Vancouver-Capilano we're very fortunate in this regard in the trails on Grouse Mountain and on Hollyburn Mountain and down through Lynn Valley. It seems to me that aggressive involvement by the department in this kind of area wouldn't cost very much in the way of money. It's more a matter of just assistance to the local areas to help them out with their very limited budgets.

Now the other representation I want to make is in regard to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I may be wrong on this, but I am informed that at present the SPCA only gets about $14,000 in funding from the provincial government, and that's mostly for specific research projects. You know, thinking about it, Mr. Chairman, if the SPCA were to go out of business tomorrow there'd be quite a burden on the provincial government and other governments. I'm told, for example, that there are only five conservation officers in the area from Garibaldi to Hope. These individuals are largely concerned with control of cougars and other large

[ Page 1729 ]

wildlife. The SPCA in this area handles something like 2,500 calls a year with respect to the control of raccoons and other small predators which the fish and wildlife branch won't have anything to do with. So in that area the SPCA is doing a good job.

I'll tell you another area, Mr. Chairman, where they're doing a very good job, and that's what they call the low-cost spay and neutering clinics. There was a brief, as a matter of fact, submitted to the provincial government in this regard in 1974. Not much action was taken. Finally, on August 9 of last year, such a clinic was opened in the lower mainland. The idea, of course, behind this is to prevent the destruction of animals which would otherwise be destroyed by their owners as a result of the reproductive habits of the animals. The low-cost spay and neutering clinics in areas where they've been tried have resulted in much less destruction of the animal population.

One area where we have some historic data is in the city of Los Angeles. In 1970-1971, there were 111,000 animals destroyed. In 1971-1972, with the opening of a low-cost spay clinic, there were 4,600 spaying and neutering performed that year and a drop in the number of animals destroyed to 104,000. A further significant drop the next year was to 98,000, while the spays and neuters went up to 8,200. Then it went down to 91,000 destroyed in 1973-1974, while the spays and neuters went up to 12,400. At the same time, the percentage of the licensed dog population climbed markedly from 16 per cent to 63 per cent. The whole situation was brought under better and more humane control, I would say.

I'm advised that the lower mainland clinic was opened on August 9 last, and a total of 4,111 animals as of mid-February had been neutered from the participating municipalities. The only ones not participating, I should say, in the greater Vancouver area are Richmond, Surrey and New Westminster.

The average throughout of the clinic is 65 animals per day right now, which would average 15,000 a year. That's a great service to animal owners in the area when you consider the very, very high cost of spaying and neutering at private veterinary clinics. This is just another one of the services that the SPCA looks after in this province.

I would ask the minister to take under advisement and dig out of the files of the department some of the requests and ideas that have been brought forward by the SPCA in requests for funds in the recent years. Would he go over them again with a sympathetic eye and perhaps meet with the officials of that organization and say: "You're doing a good job for the province. How can the province be a little bit of help to you?"

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, with reference to hiking trails, the member for North Vancouver Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is likely aware that this ministry provided a $50,000 grant to the Outdoor Recreation Council to conduct a province-wide inventory of such opportunities, and to make some broad recommendations as to ways and means, we'll say. That study has been received just very recently; I've had an opportunity of reading it once through lightly. I must say they've done a very thorough job of their inventory from all appearances. It's now our task anticipated for this year, and we're funded accordingly, to put this into the form of a programme within the ministry, identifying what form policies and actions the ministry might have rising out of this report, and what we might look to for participation and assistance and so forth with other interested parties. That is the substance of what is progressing at the moment.

As you have pointed out, we certainly have an ongoing commitment in assisting regional districts in recreational opportunities near to settled areas by reimbursing them to the extent of one-third of their costs for such development of regional parks. But I won't recite that and other programmes which I'm sure are familiar to that member.

I will say further, though, that we are looking in a thorough way at the question of grants and assistance for recreational opportunities and facilities. We may indeed find a device there as well.

The SPCA. Although I'm very much aware of the good work, I must confess my ignorance. I'm told by my deputy and associate deputy ministers that they have no knowledge of any representations from the SPCA or any funding coming from this ministry. I'll be happy to take it under advisement as suggested, however.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to take the minister back to where we were last night when we reached the hour for adjournment. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was discussing the problems involved in the joint provincial-federal committee for humane trapping and the studies that have been going on.

As a first thing, I would like to go a little further into the question that member was raising relative to cash advances for a specific trap. I think he was referring particularly to Mr. Gabry and the Challenger trap. To the best of my knowledge, although I haven't had time to read the Blues, I don't believe you actually replied to that specific question on Mr. Gabry.

It seems to me that we're going to have to look at some different and alternative ways of getting some action out of this committee, because the results to date have been pretty insignificant. I would like the minister to enlighten the House just where he does stand in relation to grants to people such as Mr.

[ Page 1730 ]

Gabry for that sort of thing.

I think what concerns me more completely in this particular thing is the method by which this committee is approaching the problem. This little pamphlet that they put out, Searching for a Better Way, is a very nice, sophisticated little pamphlet. It deals with the committee and its mandate, who is on the committee, a flow chart, the test procedure. Not until you get away over at the back are questions and answers. It says: "Who may submit a trap? Anybody."

If the device scores, what will happen? Well, it's still the person's trap. It doesn't say whether or not the person submitting it should have a patent on the trap. I know that that's not necessary. I've discussed that with Mr. Saunders. who is the representative here. But it seems to me that the emphasis is being put on the perpetuation of the committee and the importance of the committee far more than on the importance of getting down to the job of getting a humane trap.

One of the interesting things that came to my notice when I was discussing this thing with Mr. Sanders some months ago prior to this minister taking office was that he told me that over the past 138 years there have been 3,800 trap patent submissions registered in Canada and the United States. Out of that 3,800 only two have made it - the leg-hold trap and the Conibear. I think that suggests, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps this committee is taking a wrong approach because if only two traps can make it out of 3,800, how can we hope then in approaching just on an anybody-can-submit basis to come up with a trap that's going to do the job within any reasonable time limit?

I'm sure if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) found he needed a new piece of equipment for his road work, he wouldn't approach it in this kind of a manner - set up a committee and on the back page say: "Anybody can submit an idea." Certainly if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) needed a new computer or a calculator or something in his department, he wouldn't approach it in this manner. He would go out and go to the specific people who could perhaps come up with the kind of piece of equipment that he needed. I'm suggesting that in a day and age when we can shoot men to the moon, surely we can invent a trap that is humane and that is also practical.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether or not this new minister is in accord with the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , who has spoken out along the same line in this House. Back in the spring of 1975, the hon. now Attorney-General, in discussing this very matter - he was then, of course, in the opposition - said:

Hon. member, neither you nor I, fortunately, have the capacity to design a humane trap, but I can tell you this: the technology is here, the expertise is here. What I am asking you to do is provide the steam to make that work. It means one thing - it means money.

It doesn't mean $13,000 over six years, or $5,000. When the trapping industry paid $1.9 million in B.C. over the last fiscal period, why not go ahead and take 10 per cent of that money and do a proper job? That's the first point.

You know, Mr. Chairman, back in January, 1976, j just after this government was elected, the Association for Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals sent out.... This was the front page of their leaflet. It said:

"The leg-hold trap is to be banned in B.C. within three years. The official statement of the new B.C. Social Credit government is: 'It is our commitment that cruel methods of trapping be banned within three years and indeed sooner, if humane traps are developed before then.'

That's what they were saying a year ago.

This is the same pamphlet in January, 1977. What are they saying? "How is your $0.5 million being spent?" We're right back, even further behind, Mr. Chairman, than we were a year ago. Seventy per cent goes to administration of funds, and there is a breakdown here: rent, printing supplies and equipment - $12,329; co-ordinator's salary -$25,000; secretary's salary - $10,000; co-ordinator's travelling expense - $4,000; testing and trap development - $7,000. 1 suggest we're really taking hold of the wrong end of the stick on this thing, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister indicated that we were testing four traps, and we're in various stages of testing of those. Hopefully we have four; I think I'm correct in that we have four in actual physical on-the-site tests this year. But really, when you think that two traps out of 3,800 have made it over the past 138 years and we're now only testing four, it doesn't look very hopeful, Mr. Chairman. If we go on this basis, particularly when we are living in a day of technological advancement, as the now Attorney-General has pointed out, where we do have the know how.... It's just a matter of changing our priorities and getting at the root of the problem instead of creating a committee that goes on and on ad infinite spending 70 per cent of its funding on its administration. I would urge the minister to take some strong actions to change the whole direction of this question of humane trapping. He indicated last night that there was no easy solution. Maybe it's not easy, Mr. Chairman, but there is a solution, if that minister has a mind to move in the right direction.

Now I've asked him one question about Mr. Gabry, and I've made some comments on my feelings about the humane trapping. I don't know if he wants to comment now. I have some local matters relative more to parks. Would you like to comment?

[ Page 1731 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I accept the comments offered as being most sincere. I have said before that we're confident that we will find a solution. We have a very excellent group of people involved in this, and we can, I think, say confidently that it is the best group of people that could be assembled for the purpose. But I would just remind the member and all members that the problem of humane trapping is not anything so simplistic as inventing a single substitute trap. We are dealing with a great range of species as to size and type and habit and so forth. It involves aquatic species and terrestrial species, animals that live in the ground and others in trees. The leg-hold trap has been the most simplistic device to deal with all of these varied conditions, but it's quite likely that the solution is going to be one that is going to have to involve a number of devices.

I mentioned last night some 132 which have been received and considered. For example, there are devices which are being considered which work off of the olfactory glands, and so forth - that work off sensory conditions in far more subtle situations than a simple mechanical device. The research is well advanced, and essentially, although it's easy to say that the technology is there, it isn't there. Technology has to be developed. It isn't a case of ordering a new computer from so and so who makes them, or a new piece of highway equipment, as you used the analogy. We have to invent this, literally, and the best people that can be found are being applied to the job. If there's any sort of limitation of money -if there's any frustration of effort due to money -it's not known to me. I would certainly be interested to know.

You mentioned Mr. Gabry, and I'll answer that one specifically. Mr. Gabry has received $5,900 in the form of grants which were administered for the purpose by the Association for Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. He also received steel for his current trap in January, which steel he had requested from the federal-provincial committee on humane trapping. If that committee feels or indicates that Mr. Gabry's current trap has merit - that's the one they're in possession of now - and warrants further testing, they've also promised to assist Mr. Gabry with moneys for patenting and for further studies of further trap devices.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly recognize the fact that it has to be more than one trap. Of course, the Challenger, which Mr. Gabry has already worked up, is for small animals; the one he's working on now is for larger animals. Granted, there have to be many, many different types of traps, but I suggest that perhaps we're not really going to get the full benefit of the technology that is available. You've indicated that we have all this technology - you know, that we are using it. For example, you indicated that you had

138 traps submitted, and that's right. But of those, as I understand it, only seven really made it to the testing areas because they were impractical, they were repetitious, they were old things that had already been considered, they were much too cumbersome for a trapper - just so many reasons that ruled them out before they ever got to the testing. So really, if you could put into the computer some of the requisites, you could narrow that down and get into a point where you had certain specifics and then put our best scientific brains to work on something that would come out of that, and then talk to your trapper with the first-hand knowledge after that. That's what I'm saying, that we're maybe going at it in the wrong direction by saying we should let the trappers come in with these things as a first step, or John Q. Public out there. Because I think there are certain things that might look just fine to somebody, but once it gets into the mill, it's obviously unacceptable because of size or weight or some other factor.

I want to turn now to some of the local things I was mentioning that I wanted to discuss with you. One of them, of course, is the greenbelt encouragement Act. We discussed this at some degree privately. But you know, the thing that concerns me about this is that it seems to be a withdrawal of a service that was there for recreational groups before there is anything put in its place. Creating a vacuum like this does create a hardship on small recreational groups that are trying to carry on some sort of a facility within the community.

The one that I have in mind in this particular instance is, of course, the Cowichan Bowmen, who have an archery club. They have a grant to train some 28 kids to compete in the Olympics and yet they are not able to get a grant under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act for paying all or part of their tax on the property where they conduct these archery practices. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that really before such a withdrawal of a service takes place, there should be a programme in place to take up and not leave a vacuum.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I want to deal too, just briefly, with the Cowichan Valley recreation complex. We seem to be placed in a very unfortunate situation with this complex where this letter - of which you were kind enough to send me a copy - makes it a foregone conclusion that that complex cannot go ahead. You are saying, in effect, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the only way the government money will be forthcoming is if everything is included in that complex that was originally estimated two years ago, and that the total amount of expenditure does not exceed the amount estimated two years ago.

[ Page 1732 ]

You and I know that's an impossibility, Mr. Chairman, because of inflation. There is no way that that's going to come in under that with all the things that were originally included in there. This, to me, suggests just a way out for this government - a way out of a commitment that was made by the former government; a way out not to contribute to a complex that has gone before the voters of Cowichan on a referendum to approve a 6-mill, I think it was, tax levy to cover the balance. It just means that that dies on the vine, Mr. Chairman, even though there has been a fair amount of work undertaken there already.

I want to talk also about Tent Island. This was a former marine park. It's much used not only by local residents but also by tourists from within the country and out of the country. A year ago the government refused to pick up the lease on Tent Island for a marine park. It's native land owned by the Kuper Island tribe and, for some reason best known by the government, this has been dropped. I understand the

Kuper Island Indians were quite willing to complete the lease. They were asking a little more than they had the year before but, as far as my information goes, it was not an excessive rent that they were asking. At the present time it's still under use just as much as it was previously, but there is a danger of conflict of interest, some sort of hassle occurring there because the native Indians find their property being used once again by the non-Indians and by the American tourists without one red cent coming in to the Indian coffers. I would ask you to comment on your plans relative to Tent Island.

I'm wondering, too, whether or not you have any progress report on the study you were going to do about Somenos Creek. Somenos Creek, you will recall, Mr. Minister, was a part of the Timbercrest Estates, and your people were doing a review on the flooding involved there. I'm sure you are familiar with that matter, Mr. Minister, and I would appreciate your comments on that.

1 seem to have an endless line of complaints about parks in my constituency, and I think probably it's a natural thing because we are living just on the outskirts, as it were, of Victoria, a city that is growing rapidly, and there is a real pressure on the parks in that area just over the Malahat. It's a continuing pressure, Mr. Chairman, and I think that as a provincial government we are going to have to accept some responsibility for assistance and creation of more parks to accommodate this ever-increasing flow of people north over the Malahat into that area.

One that I have in mind is the Bright Angel Park where I have had some correspondence to the minister - but, unfortunately, no replies as yet - wanting some extra acreage there because of the congestion in that park. I would hope the minister can give me some answers on that matter today because I've had nothing from him relative to that.

There is also a minor problem really, but of very grave importance to the old timers in the area....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's just been pointed out to me that we do not have a quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been mentioned that we do not have a quorum.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, at the time that he member drew this to the attention of the House, here was a quorum in this House. There were I I people in the House; I understand a quorum is 10. That member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) deliberately walked out so that there would not be a quorum in his House. Even at that, Mr. Chairman, there were till 10 people in here, so there has been a quorum in he House at all times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, there is a quorum in the House. We have made a count.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Health to withdraw the statement that the member for Alberni deliberately walked out. He has no authority or no right to impute any intent or motive o any member of this House. I submit that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was quite correct - that there were indeed seven government members and one opposition member in he House when the attention of the Chairman was drawn to lack of quorum. I ask the Minister of Health o withdraw his imputation against the member for Alberni, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, as the Minister of Health pointed out, there was a quorum even after I left to summon our members back into the House or to summon government members back into the House. There given was a quorum. So I think that the Minister of Health is being a little silly and I would hope that he would withdraw....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We have a fuorurn now. Would the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat wish to continue?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I made a request that the Chair ask the Minister of Health to withdraw his remarks against the member for Alberni. Will the Chair do so or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister of Health, will you kindly withdraw the suggestion, if you imputed

[ Page 1733 ]

any?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not kindly, Mr. Chairman, when those kinds of stupid games are going on, but I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister withdraws.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask you if there was or was not, in fact, a quorum in the House when the challenge was made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't have time to count, hon. member. There's a quorum in the House now.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the rules of order are that when a quorum is called there is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is quite aware of what to do when a quorum is called. You may continue on the vote, please.

MRS. WALLACE: It doesn't really agree with my understanding of the rules. However, let me proceed.

I was discussing the matter of the cairn on the site of the old homestead of Robert Service. I'm sure that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation would be sympathetic to this sort of request because, in fact, it is a matter of history and heritage and I know that his interests run in that direction. I understand that the preservation and maintenance of that cairn are the responsibility of his department. It has had very little attention in the last while. This has been called to my attention by some of the people who helped to have this cairn established and I'm hoping that I can have the assurance from the minister that he will be moving to take some action in that respect, or to let me know if I'm incorrect in my assumption that it is his responsibility.

There is a request for a new park which I've had on the record since I first reached this House, and that is in the area of Stoltz Pool on the Cowichan River. The property is presently owned by MacMillan Bloedel, I believe, but there is Crown land very close at hand and I would suggest that a swap could readily be arranged. This is a beautiful site. It is a lot of grassy area around Stoltz Pool. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the area is presently being used as a park, whether or not it is a park. A great many people come in and use this park and because of the grassy area, long grass growing up and dying and as the summer heat progresses, there is a very serious fire hazard there. Now there are houses and homes around this area and the people who live there are very concerned about the fact that this is unsupervised and unkempt area with many, many people going in there with campfires and gas stoves.

Motorcyclists are using it, with the sparks from those machines as well. They are very concerned about the fire hazard. They felt that last year the fact that it was un unusually wet summer was the only thing that prevented it, because the grass was exceptionally long, of course, and any dry season in there would have been a real disaster.

I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to this block 30. I'm sure if he doesn't have the correspondence at hand, I can send him copies of this material which I have sent previously to the former minister, asking that a park be established in this area around Stoltz Pool.

The other question that I would like him to answer relative to the Lake Cowichan area is the park at Cottonwood Delta in Lake Cowichan. The local residents there, including the chamber of commerce, have been asking that that be established as a class A park. I would like the minister to give me some assurance that that will be undertaken.

The other thing that I wish to discuss is the situation relative to the White Crown ski ridge. I know this has been a long-standing problem. A long-standing discussion has gone on about this with Crown Zellerbach and with local groups. There has been some consideration that Crown Zellerbach wanted to make a swap of land for the land they have there that would make this ski run. But really, it has been logged off. Certainly Crown Zellerbach has set the pace, I understand, by donating as a ski run an area that they had in the Courtenay area; they've turned that over for a ski run in the Courtenay area. I'm wondering why it is that we have to donate virgin timber or wooded land to Crown Zellerbach in return for this White Crown land. Why does that have to be done? Can they not be persuaded to make some other less demanding settlement so the people of Ladysmith and Chemainus areas will have a ski run on the White Crown Ridge?

I've covered a lot of points on a varying number of items, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned before, I feel there is an urgent demand to extend the park area and the park facilities in that area between Victoria and Nanaimo where there seems to be such an influx of tourists and a very fast-growing local population. In the Shawnigan Lake area they're tripling every 10 years, which is far above the average increase throughout the province.

I have just one more item that I wish to bring to the minister's attention. That relates to the Nitinat River and the salmon enhancement programme. We've had some correspondence on this. I'm wondering what the progress is there and whether or not there will be some action taken to improve the salmon run on the Nitinat. The fish and game people are very interested in that. I understand that a very small amount of blasting of rock would allow the salmon to get up into a much more acceptable

[ Page 1734 ]

spawning area where they could perhaps double the salmon output from the Nitinat. Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SHELFORD: I've listened with interest to the various discussions on trapping. I would say one of the greatest problems in finding an alternate trap is the fact that people aren't as smart as the animals. There's really only one trap of all the numbers that have been mentioned that has really been a little bit successful. Most others freeze up, and that's the end of the ball game. They're discarded immediately.

I was pleased to hear what the minister had to say on trapping. I'm glad to see that he's treading easy because rapid changes could mean hundreds more on the unemployment list. We have enough people in this House recommending ways to put people on the unemployment list but we don't have enough suggestions on how to get them off the unemployment list.

Let's face it, there is no alternative at this time for the leg-hold trap, as much as we'd like to see one. I certainly want to see one as much as anyone else, but I think we have to face the facts of life. At this particular time, there is no alternative.

Of course, there's an awful lot of fiction going around in regard to trapping. A lot of books you pick up and read say that animals live for days and weeks. Of course, this is nothing but fiction too. There is the odd animal, like a lynx, that I must admit will live quite some time, but the average animal that is trapped, like a squirrel, weasel, mink, marten, fisher and others certainly live less than three or four hours in cold weather. In warm weather they'll live longer -quite true. Of course, the beaver and muskrat are drowned instantly if they are trapped properly.

The 72-hour inspection was mentioned, which is desirable but certainly not practical. Because of blizzards, heavy snows and cold, it's quite often impossible. There's no question that the trapper would like to inspect every 72 hours or less if he's able to do it. But sometimes, with long trap lines and four feet of fresh snow, they find it absolutely impossible to get around. So you either finish trapping or you relax some of these regulations.

Another thing the ministry should look at is the royalty system on fUTS. At the present time it's a set rate for each animal. Now the proper royalty should be on a percentage of what the pelt is sold for. Because you can have one of the same species that would sell for $5 if it happens to be a poor quality and another one that sells for $150, which would mean that on the one fur you were paying less than I per cent and on the other skin you're paying as high as 60 per cent. Some trappers do throw away fur rather than put it on the market because of the royalty system.

I would like to ask the minister what's developing on the Lava Lake park up the Nass River. There are a lot of people in the Terrace-Kitimat area who are very anxious to see this park declared as soon as possible. I understand that there's no holdup now in regard to Can-Cel. They're satisfied with the proposal as it doesn't upset their logging system, et cetera.

Another park of interest to the area is the Kallum Lake park, which takes in all Red Sand Lake and the shores of the lower Kallum and upper Kallurn River. This, too, is a nice little park which I think the people of the area would be very happy to see declared a park area. In fact, I'm in favour of lots of small parks which lots of people can get in to and use. But I must say that I'm certainly opposed to the practice of setting up large wilderness parks where there aren't as many people as are sitting right here in this chamber who will go in the park all year round. It will eliminate mining activities and any hunting or other activities. I think we go overboard sometimes in these very large parks. I don't say we should reduce the number at all, I'm just saying that we should concentrate our effort on the smaller-type parks of a few hundred or so acres that people use. I know, for instance, there's one in the north country up at Fraser Lake. It's only one section or less, and there are more people who use that park than all the parks in the whole north country.

Granted, wilderness parks are needed and we have lots of them. In fact, the whole of British Columbia, really, is a wilderness park if you want to boil it down. Between where my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) lives and where I live I don't think there has ever been anyone walk yet and there never will. The only person who had a solution on how to get through there was the former member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) , who was going to build a tunnel underneath.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: They would all be working.

I would like to ask the minister to consider the purchase of the Lakelse Hotsprings up at Terrace, through the B.C. Development Corporation. There are 305 acres and over half of this acreage is beautiful lakeshore property and a lovely park area. The asking price of the property is about $1.5 million, and certainly half of that for park purposes is worth it. Then I would say it should be developed and leased back to people wishing to run various concessions. There are 100,000 people in this area and there is a shortage of smaller parks and campsites in that area. These 100,000 people, in my opinion, have a right to this recourse.

The B.C. Development Corporation says the problem is mainly a parks problem. I don't really accept this. They say they would consider assistance when a buyer buys the resort area. I must say I'm

[ Page 1735 ]

opposed to this because according to my information there's a German group that would like to buy it for the private exclusive use of people whom they could fly over from Germany - club members only. I would point out that if we do assist a purchaser to develop this property, as suggested by the B.C. Development Corporation, they could merely take the money for the development and then promptly close it down to the general public, whom I claim have a right to this resource.

This is not a normal resource, and in my opinion should be held by the Crown, but not run by the Crown. This would be a great boost to the tourist industry, and certainly the economy of the whole northwest needs a boost. When this resort was run properly you had to reserve four months ahead - and this is nearly 20 years ago - to get into the hotspring resort when it was run by Ray Skogland. There is no question that there are all kinds of people who would come through from Alaska if they were given the opportunity.

I am very concerned with game management, because unless there is a change made very quickly there won't be anything for the tourists to see. I would say that we could possibly better name it "game management." I recommend that you and one of your branch heads take a trip to Sweden and look at what they are doing in game management. I took an interest in this back during the 1950s and I wrote to the Swedish game department at that time. I must say they sent me a very interesting report. Before that, they were harvesting around 3,500 moose. By 1965 the harvest of moose in Sweden had gone up to over 26,000. By 1975, 1 understand, it was up to over 40,000, which is certainly three or four times as many as we harvest in British Columbia. Yet you could drop Sweden into British Columbia four and five times.

Now the question is, how do they do it? I think my friend from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) had better go up into one of these parks and stay all winter. He would learn a little about game management. How do they do it? The secret is very careful control of predators and, of course, seasons also.

They mentioned at the end of their report that there is no solution unless there is control of predators. My main concern is that the practical people in the department know that this is right. They know that the game population is going down and why it's going down and there are certainly a lot of good people in this department.

One of the problems we seem to have in our system, of, course, is that those who are extremely well educated normally have very limited practical knowledge. The reason for that is because they spent their time going to school and university while the practical fellow was out trapping, hunting or something else. It's very unfortunate that it isn't possible to bring the two together, so you would have the education plus the practical experience of actually living with the game. That's the most important thing of all - living with the game. Most guides and trappers do - and even prospectors do to some extent. Now the old-time practical conservation officers were the type of person such as Bill Richmond in Burns Lake or Les Cox in Smithers. They knew twice as much about how the game acted in the wilderness as most modern biologists for the simple reason that they spent winters right in the wilderness with the game. I believe that this type of person should be used for training us, because right today, I am quite convinced that if the department did decide to put on a control programme - not elimination - of predators, there aren't enough people in that department who would know how to carry it out. They would have to call on outside people with that kind of knowledge. The best of all are some of the retired conservation officers who went through this many years ago. I would say that 90 per cent of the guides and trappers are better equipped on the real knowledge than at least half of those in the department for the simple reason, again, that they spent their time out in the woods.

Another problem is that the practical game managers get their knowledge from watching game habits in the wilderness, not from books such as those written by Farley Mowat or others. People get a little knowledge, then write a book, adding certain conclusions. The only problem is that five years later it's used as fact and everyone who goes to school after that time.... I know I went to several schools in the Skeena riding and Farley Mowat's book was compulsory reading. It's a good yarn but not true. It's that simple. Then, of course, we get the thousands of people who have no knowledge of the wilderness at all. The only park they have seen is a park right close to a city, and they are putting extreme pressure on the conservation officers and the game managers. I must say I feel sorry for those people who are trying to manage our game, because they are under extreme pressure to do things that they know are not correct.

The various save-the-wolf groups want to raise all wolves and they don't want to see any wolves killed, even if they get so thick that 95 per cent of them will die off for lack of food. This same group, for some strange reason, couldn't care two hoots about the deer, the caribou, the moose, the goats or the sheep. That's my problem. I like all animals and I don't want to see any of them eliminated. But with their lack of knowledge, they are willing to see all of these animals wiped out,

People say we learn by history. We don't. This is not true. We don't learn because we've learned to ignore history and blunder along in our own stupid fashion.

In 1937-38, with a limited wolf control

[ Page 1736 ]

programme on at that time - and it was only limited - thousands of deer and caribou were wiped out with very few left across that whole central part of British Columbia. In 1938 - and I was trapping up in Tweedsmuir at that time - there were 1,200 caribou in Tweedsmuir Park and it was the most beautiful sight to go up on top and be able to count 400 or 500 from any one place. It was worth anyone's time, I must say. I've been up there all my life and I've yet to shoot my first caribou, and I don't intend to. But this herd of over 1,200 head was destroyed by less than 12 wolves that came across Ootsa Lake in the winter of 1938. By the end of 1939 - in the winter of 1939-40 - there were only two caribou tracks seen in the whole of Tweedsmuir Park, and there were very few more seen over the next number of years.

Now while we were up there in the winter of '38 we found 54 dead in one ravine that had been killed over one night. Following this, as I say - all we have to do is look back on history, and you can look back in the records of the department - the season was closed for 12 years and a very stiff predator-control programme was brought into being. Now at the same time the deer were wiped out with less than a handful seen around that whole central B.C. area, and there were thousands slaughtered in all areas. Every lake in the area with which I was familiar was strewn with dead deer in March and April. We found 79 on one trapping trip that had been killed by wolves and very little was eaten.

One day when I was still quite small my brothers and I put on our snowshoes and followed 14 deer and five wolves. After about five miles we found 13 of the 14 dead in a swamp and they never ate one pound -they went on to find others. Now we thought we were going to be real smart fellows and trap the wolves, but they never did come back. That's why I say the animals are often smarter than people.

The caribou did come back in the park after 20 years following the control programme. The deer came back across that whole central part of British Columbia. Once again it was nice to see the deer on my farm and all the rest of the farms through that area. In that sparse country there is no way hunters can kill off the deer - again, they aren't smart enough, and it's a good thing they are not. During that period the tourists could see game on practically every road they travelled, whether it was between Terrace and Hazelton or anywhere through to Prince George.

Then, of course, the so-called experts with little practical experience took control, pressured by thousands of people who had no knowledge of wildlife at all. Groups of Wolves Unlimited that flocked out of our schools and universities with the cry of "save the wolf!" never bothered even to read the real history of what happened during the 20 years after the heavy wolf population during the late '30s.

No one asked the guides or the trappers or even the conservation officers. Why did the caribou disappear from Tweedsmuir Park? Why were there no deer in the central B.C. area for a period of over 50 years? Why were the reindeer herds in Alaska dropping by several million head in a period of less than 10 years? Why was there no game, for instance, when Governor Simpson came into Fort St. James over 160 years ago? Now the answer, my friends the Indians tell me, was that it was the end of a wolf cycle where all the game animals - or practically all - were wiped out.

Simpson travelled - and this is in the records of history - by canoe with his group from Fort St. James to Williams Lake through some of the best game country in North America. And do you know what they saw? They saw one black bear, which they shot and barbecued on the beach. This is in the records of Simpson; it's no secret. Why don't we take notice of what happened in those days?

Now the wolf buildup recently started about 10 years ago. So many people still sincerely believe that the wolf is going to be an extinct animal, even though there are more in British Columbia today than there have been in my memory. I was born here, and travelled in all of that time either as a guide or trapper or farmer. On our cattle range we used to get around a great deal too. Guides and trappers warned the game department as far back as eight years ago. They said: "Close the cow season. Close the doe season because the species are getting less. Bring in a wolf-control programme, not elimination. No one wants to see them eliminated."

But no one listened. In fact, one year the department extended the season so that the harvest of animals would appear to be equal to the year before so they could prove that there was still plenty of animals. It was so obvious to everyone, whether you lived in Prince George or Smithers. Even if you didn't go out of town, you knew what was happening. But the game continued to go down.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I took the former Attorney-General down to Chilasley Arm and we saw over 350 deer in one day. One year later, following a pack of just under 15 wolves, five experienced hunters only saw one buck track during the six-day hunt.

Two people who work for the Aluminium Company of Canada found 84 deer dead on the ice of Chilasley Arm over one weekend. Doesn't anyone cry for these poor little deer? Why does everyone all of a sudden think that the only thing there should be in our forests are the wolves?

There was another herd not too far from where I have my cabin, and I used to like going up in the springtime and see at least 50 or 60 deer any night I

[ Page 1737 ]

wanted to drive up and down the road. To any people who came in to visit, I used to say: "Let's spend the evening and go up and watch the deer."

The deer on Colleymount are completely wiped out, except for less than maybe 12 to 15 which stay right in the farmers' yards. And if wolves dare come into the farmers' yards, some of the farmers might not be quite as charitable as some of the other groups would like them to be. But the amount of wolves that are shot by farmers up in that area I could count on my two hands without a problem at all.

There's no question the moose population is down 80 per cent. The season has been shortened, but there's still no more for control programmes. If there isn't a control programme, the game population will continue to go down, and hunting will be finished in less than three years. Wolf packs of 30 and 40 are sighted at this time. I talked to helicopter pilots and various others, and I know my friends from Atlin and Omineca get the same sort of information. With the sheep population up in my friend's area, one of his guides was telling me the other day that he found 47 sheep that had been cornered in one draw in the mountain area and completely wiped out. Not one of them got away.

This is the type of thing that's going on. Of course a lot of us get carried away with the balance in nature. The balance in nature isn't quite like everyone would like to think it is. The game population starts to go up, followed by the wolf population. Finally the wolf population gets so thick that they wipe out the game population, and they in turn get mange and die of starvation. Then later on the game population starts to come up. But you have a 20-year cycle. I don't want a 20-year cycle; I want proper and good game management in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: This year I was talking to various guides. There are very few cow moose, and in fact there are very few yearling moose and very, very few calf caribou. I would hope that the department will see fit to take along some of the guides who know the areas, know where they're located, and count and make sure that this is correct information, because I wouldn't want it to be untrue. Just do a count and see what there is.

Another story is that the wolves only take the weak and the dying. This is strictly a storybook story; that's all it is. There's no truth to it at all. The weak of the species happen to be the calves in the wintertime after a hard winter. The first to go are the young, which is, of course, the next generation. The second that go are the yearlings; the third are the old ones; and of course then the rest. But if the conditions are just right, then all can go together. If they chase them into an area of heavy snow where the crust is on the snow and the animals break through, the wolves run on top and then the slaughter takes place.

One of the greatest weaknesses is the fact that the average study of game takes place either during the summer, fall or early winter. Really, the story-book stories on that are not too far wrong. If the going is tough, the wolves normally kill just for what they want to eat. But in March or April, when the crust is on the snow, they quickly slaughter the whole works off.

When we were growing up in the Ootsa Lake country, we used to watch the frozen lakes and rivers to see if we could spot the wolves, and try to get one if we could outsmart them. We used to watch them chase the deer and moose out on the lake. Now the wolves don't hide behind logs and rocks and spring out and catch the unwary deer by the jugular, as the storybook would like you to believe. They simply run up behind and grab a chunk out of the hindquarters and sit down on the ice and eat it and then they'll run along and grab another chunk. This goes on until the deer is dragging along on its front feet. Two years ago my brothers who ranch up in the north country found five deer that were dragging by just their front legs. Their hindquarters were eaten away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes, hon. member.

MR. SHELFORD: They couldn't shoot them because it's against the law to put them out of their misery. So they had to call Bill Richmond, the conservation officer from Burns Lake, to come out and put them out of their misery.

Now Ernie Harrison of Fort St. James saw a moose standing on the lake and he wondered why it stood there to watch the wolves eat its calf. Two days later it was still there so he went down in his plane to take a look. He found that the mother moose had her sides out and her insides were turned around her feet so she couldn't move. This is the type of thing you don't normally read in books, because it doesn't make such a nice story.

I would say the guides in the north all report that the damage to sheep, as I mentioned before, and the slaughter by wolves are going on and on. Once again, I appeal to the minister and to the department to go to Sweden and take a look at what they are doing. Don't try and wipe out the wolf. I want to see wolves just as much as you do, but I also want to see the brown-eyed deer and the caribou.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: I would say use the knowledge of those who have spent their life in the wilderness instead of ignoring them. They may not be educated in a university, but they're certainly educated in game

[ Page 1738 ]

observation. Again, I must say that if we don't change our policy, there will be no hunting in three years.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, there are a fair number of questions accumulating here. Briefly, by way of reply, first to the member for Skeena ( . Mr. Shelford) , on the Lava Lake park, the ministry is treading somewhat lightly there out of respect for the concerns of the Indian people there who apparently have some questions of unresolved claims.

Lakelse Hot Springs is something we discussed on a number of occasions, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member. Certainly we would like to encourage that operation for the greatest possible public benefit. However it is not the view of this ministry that it is in the business of operating such a facility in an intensive way. I might add, though, that as the member knows, we have added a substantial amount of acreage to the Lakelse Lake park there, speaking of recreational opportunities in the area and the potential recreational value of the Lakelse Hot Springs property.

In game management, the question of wildlife and depletion of same has been a concern expressed on a number of occasions by members from the north country, moose populations in Prince George-Burns Lake area in particular being of concern. I want to say that we are concerned in this ministry, and that we're concerned particularly because of the growing accessibility of the moose with the development of roads and the opening up of this country for, among other things, the ease of access of hunters. That is with reference to management units I through 6, and 9. Since 1970 the bulls-only season has been reduced by two months and the antler less season component has been decreased from 35 to 8 days. These are of course significant reductions.

Also, a substantial number of management units along Highway 16 have been closed for antler less moose and will remain closed until field surveys indicate moose populations can stand increased hunting. When this occurs, tight control will, of course, be maintained through the number of antler less moose licences to be issued. Further restrictions are being considered, however, for this fall in region 6, which is the Skeena area, depending upon the analysis of the current field counts and harvest figures now underway.

In the adjoining management unit region 7, which is the Omineca-Peace district, similar hunting restrictions have taken place over the past five or six years. For 1977 I'm able to say at this time that the antler less moose closure will be extended to units 7 through 14, which will b~ added to the five adjacent units closed last year. With those restrictions and closure of the antler less season, people in the fish and wildlife branch feel that there is little possibility of over hunting.

There still remains, however, the problem of the wolf. I just want to say, with reference to the interest and concern of the people in the north, that we do indeed draw on that knowledge and, in fact, hire such people as auxiliary conservation officers and hire back a number of our former conservation officers in an auxiliary capacity. There's no doubt that the wolf population has increased over the last 15 years, since the end of the extensive poisoning programme. It was for this reason that they were made furbearers last season, allowing trappers using humane methods to catch them.

We believe that trappers, wolfe hunters and the predator-control programme, aimed at controlling wolves and other predators in livestock areas, will keep the wolfe population at acceptable levels. However, to further check on their impact upon loose stocks, I have requested the fish and wildlife branch to increase their monitoring of both moose and wolves in northern B.C. This year's field counts, while not completely analyzed, show good moose calf percentages in the Peace River, Prince George and Burns Lake areas. While this is reassuring, our surveillance will continue.

I might say also that moose are not the only northern species of concern to my ministry. The fish and wildlife branch will undertake this fall, weather permitting, a comprehensive inventory of caribou, Mr. Chairman. This will be carried out in the manner of last year's successful census of caribou in the Spatsizi area.

Just going back for another minute or so, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had raised a number of questions. The Cowichan Valley recreation complex, first of all - I might say it has been approved by a referendum for an expenditure of $6.3 million. The purpose of my letter, Mr. Chairman, was to reassure the authorities concerned there that, indeed, our commitment for a major portion of those funds, through several sources, was continuing and that my ministry's commitment -$1.3 million - remains in place. I might say that the precise nature of the facilities provided was not intended to be written in stone. There is flexibility there. If it's your understanding to the contrary, I want to reassure you that that matter is flexible. We would like to see that facility proceed, but we have had to point out that it is not our intention to increase our level of support. For example, the amount of money of $1.3 million from the facilities fund is, frankly, substantially more than - except for very few other instances - has been received in any area of the province.

Tent Island marine park. It was a question of the recreational land being leased from the Indian band there and the parks branch facing escalating charges for various aspects of the use. It was a decision of the ministry to abandon that lease. We do have some 20

[ Page 1739 ]

marine parks in place. I might say that in co-operation with the Nature Conservancy of Canada we are examining further programmes for expanding this inventory of marine parks. They are very helpful in providing financial assistance for such purposes.

Somenos Creek. My ministry, the fish and wildlife branch, has concluded that if the land is to be removed from the ALR - and I'm not certain whether that matter has been resolved by the Land Commission - we would be concerned to see that the area south of Somenos Creek and a strip of 50 feet back from the high-water mark on the north side of the creek be returned to the Crown, and therefore excluded from development. It would thereby provide adequate protection for waterfowl which utilize the area as wintering and nesting habitat.

The Bright Angel Park is unknown to me. I'd be happy to receive further information from the member, in writing if she would, and we'll look into that one.

A cairn for the homesite of Robert Service. Again, I've seen no proposal on that, but yes, it is a matter of interest to this ministry.

New parks at Cowichan River and Cottonwood delta. This, again, is something where we would be happy to receive some further information.

White Crown potential ski area. I might comment that the provincial co-ordination of ski development rests with the Ministry of the Environment because of the high dependence on land for this purpose. It's thought to be logical to centre that in close proximity to the lands branch.

Finally, the Nitinat River and the salmon enhancement programme. Your reference to salmon there is a federal matter. While we're more than happy to co-operate with the federal government, it is a matter for them to initiate a programme respecting the salmon there. We, of course, carry on ongoing discussions with them and we've taken note of your concern.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister about the confusing situation in his role over the conservation of the B.C. art collection. My staff has been trying to find out just where the jurisdiction lies for the various functions in relation to the B.C. art collection. There is an amazing amount of secrecy being attempted to hide the prices that were paid, for a start. Some of the practices in acquiring the art collection, if they were unethical, were even close to being corrupt.

I think we should have some debate on this issue and find out where the minister's responsibility lies in relation to the B.C. art collection. As far as I can determine, the paintings that have been purchased were purchased by the Ministry of Public Works through a committee. The members of that committee have certainly looked ~after themselves since they bought a lot of their own paintings, which I think leaves an element of question around that kind of function. With some difficulty I've ascertained that the total collection cost around $900,000, and I believe that it's now this minister's responsibility to manage and conserve what has been purchased.

So let me make it plain: I'm not in any way criticizing this minister for what I believe to be sins of the past, which will have to be debated under the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . But I would like to ask specifically what the minister's feeling is about the jurisdiction. Would it not seem reasonable to have the whole function or all the functions related to the art collection under one minister? To have one minister off in one department spending $900,000 and another minister left with the responsibility of maintaining or managing or whatever the word is - conserving, I suppose - seems to me to not be very realistic. I would like to know if the minister has made any proposals or is intending to make proposals to bring this whole business of the B.C. art collection into a more rational and more appropriate jurisdiction, either his or perhaps he should give Public Works the total responsibility.

I gather that the co-ordinator position became vacant in October, 1975, and that there was an acting co-ordinator until January, 1976, and there has been nobody since. There seems to be a complete hiatus, Mr. Chairman, in this whole area. While I recognize that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation has not been in his role a long time, and I've no wish to be unfairly critical, I think this is a substantial amount of money on paintings which apparently all political parties in this House have since described as being "garbage." Last May we had the art critic for the Social Credit Party, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , whom I'm sure is very knowledgeable about art, calling it garbage. I believe the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and a few others are quoted here in clippings....

MR. BARBER: Don't forget Lyle Kahl.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the member for Esquimalt should not be left out; he's not in the House but he shouldn't be overlooked.

All I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that close to $1 million was spent on art. I know very well the relative interpretations we could all have about what is art and what is not art, or what is good art or bad art. But apparently all the MLAs who voiced an opinion thought that money had been poorly spent. It's now this minister's responsibility as to what to do with it. Maybe we should sell the whole lot and start again.

[ Page 1740 ]

Whose jurisdiction is it to decide whether maybe the money was badly spent and that there was corruption involved in choosing these paintings? And where do we go from here? Is there any policy? If there is a policy, what is it? To what degree does this minister integrate his ministry's policy with the other ministry concerned?

I've got documentation here from an individual who at one time served on the committee. He makes some very serious charges, some of which I've referred to. I understand the co-ordinator even selected some of his own paintings to be purchased before the committee was set up. These are serious matters which I think might have to be dealt with more appropriately under Public Works. But this minister is landed with the responsibility of deciding what to do with the $900,000 worth of paintings which were purchased.

I wonder, since my inquiries seem to suggest that the B.C. Buildings Corporation will have a great deal to do with the art collection, what relationship this minister sees his ministry having with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is there going to be some joint committee or, to come back to my original question, would it not be a good idea to have one minister responsible?

One other big area that I would like to try and touch on very briefly which I think is extremely important. We had the Premier yesterday repeat very strongly his belief in the rights of the individual, and that the Social Credit government had that as a priority commitment in all their policies. I want to talk about the very serious potential for heritage legislation to very much erode the rights of the individual.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

Now let me make it plain that I very much believe in the preservation of valuable historical buildings in the same way that I believe in preserving farmland. But where society as a whole thinks that it's a good idea to preserve farmland, or preserve paintings, or preserve buildings, I think we always have to be very much on guard against interfering with the rights of the minority group who happen to either own the farmland or own the heritage buildings. I'm frankly quite distressed about some of the practices which have already crept in in this whole area of heritage designation.

First of all, I want to make it very plain that I'm not talking in critical terms about Oak Bay. I've made inquiries in my own municipality and the council in Oak Bay makes two fundamental decisions. First of all, there shall be no decision until the idea is discussed with the owner of the property. Secondly, there will be no action taken unless they have the consent of the owner. While that might just seem to be no more than should be done, I can't say the same for the city of Victoria. The minister knows very well from his experience on that council that the intentions are well motivated. Municipal aldermen and alderwomen wish to preserve certain buildings in that municipality.

But I can tell you, Madam Chairman, that I've had some very disturbing information and documentation presented to me as to the goings-on in Victoria city council regarding heritage designation, such as a so-called secret list of 240 or more pieces of property. The owners of many of these properties are quite unaware that their building is being viewed as a potential heritage building. I've had evidence presented to me in some cases. One such building -which has many identical buildings like it elsewhere in the municipality - appeared to be designated as a vehicle by council to prevent the development in that area. It is obvious that, if that house in that particular location is designated, there is no way the surrounding parcels can be put together into one development site, whether it be apartments or whatever.

So it seems that however well intended we all are about preserving heritage buildings, and if society as a whole wants these buildings designated, it should not be done at the sacrifice of the individual who happens to own the building. I know that I'm speaking to a sympathetic ear in the case of this minister, but I don't think it's been realized that not by any stretch of the imagination are all the people who happen to own heritage buildings happy to have them designated. There are a lot of glib assumptions that somehow or other it would be automatically pleasing to a person to discover that their home had been designated a heritage building. I've got - and I won't read them all out - several comments that I've received from different individuals who are, or who might be, involved in having their property designated. They list the kind of penalties which they feel are involved.

(1) Putting an encumbrance on a private citizen's home, making the property in question harder to sell.

(2) Depreciating the property, in some cases.

(3) Making it difficult to get insurance on heritage homes. This is another comment that I've already raised in this House and I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was very interested in the suggestion - that it amounts to expropriation of an indefeasible title without compensation.

(4) Invading the privacy and rights of the individual. As far as that latter fear is concerned, Madam Chairman, I know it very well, from the example of Todd House in Oak Bay, where the owners agreed to have the house designated. I think it was the very first house that was built in Oak Bay. They agreed to that and then found that at all times of the day and night and on weekends they had

[ Page 1741 ]

tourists coming up and knocking on their front door and peering through their windows. It represented a very serious invasion of privacy.

There are other comments that have been made, particularly in relation to the proposal that possibly one way to minimize the effect on the owner is to give assistance to the payment of municipal taxes. All t that brought a response from one of my correspondents who was the widow of a war veteran. She said that she and her husband went through the Dirty Thirties without any help from the city and she does not want to see, perhaps, something of the order of a 15 per cent tax rebate programme to heritage home owners.

All I'm trying to get across is that this heritage business is very well motivated, and I think we should try and do it, but I want to make one point abundantly plain: I think that if society feels at all strongly, then there should be some authority to buy the property. Why penalize the owner? Why not at least make that some kind of policy - for starters, to~ try and buy the property? If the owner doesn't seem too worried about some of these associated consequences that I've mentioned and wants to retain the property as a heritage property once they have been told what the ramifications are, well, that might be okay. On the other hand, I have a list here relating to a situation in Victoria where 77 homeowners were notified of the intention of Victoria city council to designate, and 43 of them are adamant that they don't want them designated because of some of the consequences I've mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just repeat these figures: of 77 homeowners whose private properties were to be designated, 43 are adamant in opposing what they consider a high-handed action. I have the signatures here, Mr. Chairman.

Now the other element in all this is the question that even where it is a good idea to designate, the rather loose way in which the Municipal Act allows council to arbitrarily select individuals to serve on an advisory committee is, I think, something that could be done in a better fashion. As far as the inventory of potential buildings is concerned, I understand the federal government has already done a fairly extensive national inventory of historical buildings which they consider to be worthy of consideration in that regard.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think the point should be made that obviously every historical building cannot be made into a museum, but as far as a sensible and considered approach to designation of heritage buildings is concerned, we should encourage the private entrepreneur. If a homeowner is told that his or her home should be designated, I just want to repeat that I think there should be some attempt made by some body, whether it's municipal, or municipal-provincial, or the heritage foundation which has been proposed, buy the building. The next step could even be to resell the building to a private entrepreneur if he or she wants to turn it into some kind of money-making enterprise, or whatever.

The minister is quoted in one clipping I have that perhaps some of these buildings could be turned into some suitable use - a restaurant or some similar facility - but not all buildings suitable for heritage designation come in that category either. Therefore this legislation, whatever it turns out to be, must be very flexible. It must recognize the tremendous potential for individual property owners to suffer in the process of this designation in the way I've mentioned unless the legislation provides some of the options I'm suggesting.

I mentioned in the House yesterday that apparently it's all right to reveal some legislation, but not all right to reveal other legislation. I wonder why the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) revealed some pretty detailed tax relief propositions in a comment recorded in the local Victorian newspaper on January 19. Again, I know that this minister has no responsibility for what some other minister says, but there were some very detailed revelations about the possibility of heritage homeowners obtaining up to three times the value of annual taxes which could be spent on repair and maintenance of a heritage home. I think it's unfortunate that that kind of publicity is given to this sensitive area which is in its early stages of evolution. It's a great idea. Its value is just becoming better recognized. We have the Pierre Bertons of this world making their typical patronizing comments but, at any rate, the whole concept of heritage is good and sound. But let's not get carried away with an idea that just because it's good, whoever happens to be in the minority - the group owning these properties -is going to suffer some of these consequences,

The minister has made it plain that there will be legislation setting up a heritage fund and I would hope, whatever else happens, that the primary purpose of the legislation is to ensure that no harm is done. I think the designation of buildings in itself is a worthy goal and we'll have good results provided there is not some group of individuals appointed by this government who are so preoccupied with the worthiness of heritage that the poor homeowner gets penalized very considerably in the process.

I would also hope that the minister would make some comment, although it's difficult again for him to anticipate other ministries in the government and their actions. But this question of using heritage

[ Page 1742 ]

legislation as a method of blocking development is something else that I think could be avoided if, in drawing up the outline for the heritage legislation, it is kept in mind that if you have ignored a building in the same municipality identical to the one which has been designated, there should be some way in which an appeal mechanism or some inquiry or hearing can be held. Because I understand that has happened in the city of Victoria already.

The last point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is somewhat similar to my comment regarding the art collection - that is the question of apparently having functions which obviously should be under one minister in a variety of different ministries. I just don't understand why the museum area is in the Ministry of Travel Industry. I think there is a real possibility of a danger of distortion of goals. The museum has a very valid historical and professional element to it, whereas tourism is very much a promotional function. I would have thought that it would make a great deal of sense under Recreation and Conservation to have the museums of British Columbia very much a responsibility of this minister.

In a similar vein, this minister is responsible for provincial parks, and yet we have ecological reserves under the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he has such a vast range of responsibilities that it's unlikely that he would in any way be perturbed at having the responsibility for ecological reserves related to Conservation. Really, the whole concept, as I understand it, of ecological reserves is, in fact, to conserve and preserve wilderness areas. To do that, we really need people sensitive and dedicated in that specific way, which I would have thought was the underlying thrust of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. So I feel we have three ministries looking after certain functions which, as I interpret them, would most conveniently and intelligently be brought under this minister - in other words, ecological reserves, the museum functions of the B.C. government and, of course, parks that are already there.

I just want to finish with the comment that I am all in favour of promoting tourism, and the minister and I are already working together on some ideas. But it is very much a promotional sales function and I am not sure that we can be completely confident that a development of our museums and the kind of philosophy underlying them will, perhaps, be as purely directed as it would be when it is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Travel Industry. So I wonder if the minister would care to comment on his response or his feelings about the value that would attach to having co-ordinated functions that do seem to be related one to the other within his ministry.

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, with respect to the art collections, the member for Oak Bay has raised some rather grave charges. I certainly take them seriously. The unfortunate thing is that in raising them the member has cast a shadow over all the people who, have been associated with that collection. I think it's incumbent on him to bring forward the information which is the basis for these charges and to clarify the matter as quickly as possible in that regard. I have spoken already to this last evening - the question of the art collection - but to reiterate a couple of points, the art policy, which was a combined programme of a provincial collection and I per cent for public buildings, was announced on April 1,1974. It ran out of money July 1,1975. To the best of our information a total of $260,867 was spent in that connection. Now that's with regard to 636 works of art. As far as I am aware those figures encompass the whole of the programme, such as it was.

That programme has been made the responsibility of this ministry, and specifically will be a part of the new cultural services branch which we are organizing. It is presently under the direction of Mr. Tom Fielding, who is responsible for cultural matters as the senior individual in that regard.

The problem with the collection, as I mentioned last night, was that no specific system of loans to government offices was ever established, nor was the collection ever properly catalogued. No guidelines for the use, movement or rotation were ever established, which is creating considerable difficulties at present with any exchanges or rotation. As well, no future plans for continuance of the purchase or selection of additional works were ever developed; nor was any contingency planned for the donation of works from the public ever considered.

At the present we're reviewing the entire matter, but it is our basic objective that the collection continue to be circulated and rotated throughout government offices on an annual basis. To assist that, a catalogue will be prepared listing the works. This will be made available to the various ministries.

MR. WALLACE: Have you decided about further purchases?

HON. MR. BAWLF: In regard to further purchases, it is presently our thinking - and this is just in the formative stages - that an annual province-wide competition could be instituted to involve all artists in British Columbia. This would result through a process of distillation into a provincial exhibition from which selected works might be purchased by the government.

There are a number of questions otherwise which could be answered but, going on to heritage designation versus individual rights, I'm sure the member is aware that most of what he was speaking to was a problem relating to the municipal process.

[ Page 1743 ]

He was speaking by and large of municipal designation which proceeds under section 7 (14) (a) of the Municipal Act. As such, it really should be raised with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) .

I could comment that, together with the present mayor of Victoria, I authored that section for consideration by the previous government. It contained reference to the taking of property. It was in our draft that: "Designation may be deemed to be the taking of property, and therefore subject to compensation." That was removed by the previous government when they actually brought the legislation before the House.

It is certainly my view that, yes, in some instances designation amounts to confiscation of certain rights in the interest of preserving for the benefit or enjoyment of the whole of the community something which is essentially privately owned. Overall, philosophically, it is my hope that we can get beyond this question of designation as the answer, because it's a panacea. Designation doesn't ensure that a building will be preserved-, all it does is provide a degree of protection against wanton destruction. But a building can fall down through neglect, and indeed many of the owners concerned might wish to preserve a building but lack the means to do so. Others would not have any knowledge of what is worth preserving.

The whole question of assistance to owners really ought to be the thrust here. That assistance needn't necessarily take the form of largesse from government so much as just some basic information and assistance in working out a strategy whereby the building can be preserved and, at the same time, property rights respected and so forth. This would be the thrust, in my view, of programmes which we would hope to develop.

Tax rebates. The member referred, Mr. Chairman, to a matter in the newspaper. But I must say that the tax rebates are a proposal from the city of Victoria and to my knowledge have no reference from this government other than informally some suggestion that maybe this is one solution to the problem.

MR. KING: I just have three or four very quick questions for the minister regarding issues which are of tremendous and spectacular importance in my own particular riding. I want to ask the minister if he is familiar with the Valhalla wilderness proposal that has been put forward by a group in the Slocan Valley and supported generally by groups throughout that constituency - indeed all over the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. There is the problem involved in designating the area - I guess it would be on the south or west side of the Slocan Lake - as a wilderness area, because it involves an overlapping area that is held as a TFL by Triangle Pacific Logging. However, I think that perhaps some system of selective logging might be worked out between the minister's concern and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that would allow the exploitation of part of the forest area in the proposed wilderness parameters.

I think that could be done without damage to the general proposal. In fact, in some ways, if it's done selectively and carefully, I think it's an asset rather than a detriment at low levels. But I think one of the real problems is to prevent any current-style logging, certainly at high elevations. It's a very, very popular place in terms of mountain climbing and in terms of just general beauty. It's one of the last areas in the southern region of the province that could be preserved for general recreational use. I would like the minister to give me some indication of what his position is with regard to this proposal. I have provided a letter to the Provincial Secretary, I think, indicating my support of the proposal.

One other thing, Mr. Chairman, which some constituents have asked me to raise with the minister is with respect to the Canadian Ski Patrol system. For the minister's edification, if he's not aware, this is a group that generally looks after accident victims on ski hills, not only in my own constituency, but generally throughout most parts of the province, and indeed the nation. They bring down the casualties off the ski hills with broken legs and arms so that they can be attended to in hospital and so on. These people are trained in first aid. They are trained in moving victims off ski hills, of which there are very, very significantly growing numbers. It's becoming an increasingly more popular sport in which more and more people participate. I understand that the number of people brought off ski hills by the ski patrol is in the hundreds of thousands over the province.

What they're concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is some degree of uniformity and standardization of both the training of the personnel involved and, I think, some funding. Now I know that there is a question in terms of the funding as to actually who should bear the responsibility for it - whether it should be the private ski hill operators, whether it should be the government or a combination of both or whatever. But I think the main concern revolves around the standardization of training for the people involved in this pursuit. It's a voluntary organization. I've been asked to raise it with the minister to obtain his views because I understand one dimension of it lies within the jurisdiction of the minister.

Another matter of grave concern in my area I've raised under other ministers' estimates too. There are a number of departments involved. It relates to the Lardeau River that flows out of Trout Lake - the Gerard Bridge situation. Unique spawning grounds exist there, just a very, very short distance away at the bottom end of the lake, where a unique strain of

[ Page 1744 ]

rainbow trout - the largest in the world - spawn.

I'm concerned that Mr. Williston, who is now chairman of Can-Cel and B.C. Forest Products, has moved in very strongly to obtain access to timber resources on the east side of Trout Lake, which would necessitate a new bridge across the Lardeau River. I'm very concerned that he is advocating a replacement bridge right in the location which is most sensitive to the spawning of these fish. Mr. Williston packs a lot of weight in this province. He's been with the Social Credit Party a good deal longer than the current minister. I'm concerned that he may have more muscle, and he appears to be attempting to use that muscle by criticizing public servants in the Highways ministry and the fish and wildlife branch, regarding their judgment and their evaluation of the dangers that would flow from construction of yet another bridge across the river just below Trout Lake.

So what I want from the minister is a strong statement that he is not going to let Mr. Williston trammel over the jurisdiction and the concerns of which he is the custodian and protector. I want the minister to stand up and say that he is the defender of the environment, of the fisheries and of the sensitive spawning areas of this province. I say, Mr. Chairman: do it, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, let's deal with that one first, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Williston's concern was brought to my attention and subsequently a meeting was held involving myself, the minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to discuss the matter with Mr. Williston. At the time I advised that I was not prepared to accept any measure which would harm the very valuable resource area. On the other hand, as the member will be aware, Mr. Chairman, the forest resource in the area - the harvesting of it - has been frustrated by this problem, and that in turn has been of concern, for example, to the local unions and so forth.

Now as a result of various discussions, though -and I would compliment Mr. Williston for bringing the matter to a head - we have come up with a solution. The Highways ministry and Kootenay Forest Products have recently arranged a log transport system involving a barge across Trout Lake to avoid the necessity of using Gerard Bridge for heavy logging trucks. So the fish and wildlife branch, parks, Highways and the Kootenay Forest Products people have been working together and resolved this problem of 10 years' duration as to how to log the area without threatening this vital area. I might say that I think we have Mr. Williston to thank for bringing the matter to a head and finding a solution or helping us find one.

MR. KING: Don't let him intimidate you, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh, I'm never intimidated, Mr. Member.

On the matter of Valhalla Park proposal, Mr. Chairman, the member has a somewhat contradictory position, I may say, with respect, because he says that he favours a selective harvest of the timber on the west side of Slocan Lake in one breath and in the next breath says he supports the proposal. Well, let me say first that I've met with the people who have advanced this scheme, and I must say they have a very excellent proposal or presentation. It's very persuasive. I personally have spent some weeks in the Slocan Lake area and very much appreciate what they're concerned with there.

I would say, however, that when you examine their proposal, much of the area that they would have as park - in fact, including virtually all of the west side slopes of Slocan Lake, which have timber potential - the majority of the park area is alpine area. They touched on three considerations: one was the need for lakeshore recreation, which is a perimeter problem along the lake that can be readily resolved; the second one is the alpine opportunity; the third one is the need for a connection. I think that the member's preference for selective harvest, if that's indeed the side of the issue he falls on, is one that will permit this. We can have the lakeshore recreation, we can have the alpine recreation, we can have the recreational corridor connecting the two and we can have the selective logging, which is absolutely vital to employment in the area. That's the way I would propose that we proceed.

Lastly, I'll just say that I will take his question on the Canadian Ski Patrol system as notice. I just don't have really any knowledge of the details of that.

MR. KING: I have just one quick response, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister for indicating where he stands on these issues; I appreciate that.

My position regarding the Valhalla wildlife conservancy I don't think is one of conflict, with all respect, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the crucial things is that logging not be allowed at the high elevation where there is simply no opportunity for the selective style of logging which would protect the natural beauty of the area. There is, though, I think, the potential for very selective logging to remove at least decadent timber and supply pulp and sawmill material, as the minister indicates, to satisfy the need for potential material and generate employment in the area, which is a real need too. I think that can be done without compromising the basic objectives, which are, indeed, preservation of the high alpine area and preservation of the natural beauty of the lakeshore. I think all of those considerations can be merged, and that's precisely what I had in mind. I'm very pleased that the minister indicates his support.

With respect to the ski hill thing, I would

[ Page 1745 ]

appreciate it if the minister would have a look at this. I'd be quite prepared to discuss it with him privately on another occasion if he could consider it with his departmental people a little further.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I would just like to bring to your attention one or two things that are of concern to the constituents in the Shuswap. I know there are other people who wish to enter into the debate so I will only be a moment or two.

The first thing is the Adams River recreational reserve. As you know, it was under a moratorium for a period of time, and it now has the classification changed. I believe that we need to be very strict in our controls over people in the area. The campers and the motorbikes and all-terrain vehicles and this sort of thing can tear down the riverbank and the environment there very rapidly, which would be very detrimental to the salmon run.

I think it is next year that the big salmon run is on, and so I think there is need to make sure that we have all these controls in place. When the big run is on, we have thousands of visitors in that area. In years past it was really the private owners along that river who protected the environment and stopped people from doing a lot of damage. This protection has now been removed by this recreation reserve.

Interjection.

MR. BAWTREE: This is the Adams River spawning grounds, probably the most important spawning grounds for their size in the province of British Columbia.

One other point I would like to bring to your attention is the Harold property on the Shuswap Lake. We have spent a considerable amount of money purchasing that two or three years ago, and up to date there have been no improvements or provision made for the general public. I know that the people in my area are rather concerned about this and would like to see at least some primitive facilities provided this year so that the place does not get destroyed. There was a lot of litter going on last year, and if we have a dry year there is need to take some action and some steps to make sure that the camping public doesn't set fire to the whole forest there.

The last thing is the Collings property at the north end of Seymour Arm which includes not only beach frontage but a very valuable heritage home. The people in my constituency would like to see it added to the present Silver Beach Park. I think it would be a very great asset to that park; it would provide a great many opportunities for the travel industry in the area.

I believe there is a great need for greater co-operation between the parks branch and Travel Industry so that we can provide for the tourists who are coming into the Shuswap much better. At the moment, most of our facilities in our parks are manned by people in the government employment. I believe a lot of this could be better handled by the private sector, who would save the taxpayers of this province a great deal of money and probably do a better job at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is all I have to say on this subject.

Vote 231 approved.

Vote 232: general administration, $1,009, 729 -approved.

Vote 233: information and education, $438,598 -approved.

Vote 234: marine resources, $558,778 -approved.

On vote 235: fisheries enhancement programme, $300,000.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, just a very brief and quick question to the hon. minister regarding this particular programme which is of some considerable interest to certain areas of my riding. I know that it is primarily a federal government programme with a certain amount of provincial government involvement. Could the minister tell us how the programme is proceeding, if the programme is on schedule and, if not, how far behind schedule is the programme? In what areas are the federal and provincial governments introducing this programme first? Hopefully, one of the areas will be Bella Coola.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the programme, as the member knows, is centred on federal initiatives, as they are responsible for the primary resource there. They have, I understand, set aside in their estimates for the coming year an expenditure of $9 million under this programme. This would indicate something approaching the commitment that we would expect at this time. We are, of course, in constant discussion with them as to ways in which the province can assist and co-operate under this programme.

I might just say that as we now see the programme moving into the implementation stage from the research and programming stage, we are expecting to review our own commitment to this in the coming year as to what role the province will play in detail and what financial involvements that will require.

Vote 235 approved.

On vote 236: fish and wildlife, $9,348, 676.

[ Page 1746 ]

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): There are two points I'd like to cover under this. The first is the requirement up in the northern part of the country for a fish hatchery. I know we're just going into a new one in the lower mainland, but I think this is something we should bear in mind for the north in the future. Certainly we should go into more of a stocking programme. There is one particular site that I think is quite important for the ministry to keep in mind. That's the Tooga Lake site, which is presently owned by B.C. Hydro. It's up in the Williston Lake floodplain. It's above the floodwater. The parks department was negotiating on it before and there was a pretty big tag on it, but I don't think we should let this go back to private ownership. I'd like to have them keep that in mind.

The other problem that is causing a lot of confusion up in my riding is the proliferation of game zones. I think a few years ago they were too general. It wasn't specific enough. I'd like to see this looked at again.

Vote 236 approved.

On vote 237: federal and other agency programme, $640,000.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a very brief question. I notice in this year's estimates that there is exactly $360,000 less under this particular vote. I wonder if perhaps the minister could explain why the amount of money has been reduced in this particular vote from last year.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Just a brief reply, Mr. Chairman. I understand there's simply less money available. The officials of my department, of course, are experts at ferreting out what money is available on sharing programmes and recoverable programmes. It just happens that the federals are moving out of a number of opportunities which previously existed.

Vote 237 approved.

Vote 238: Creston Valley wildlife management, $129,750 - approved.

On vote 239: parks operations, $15,501, 080.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm not quite sure whether I should be bringing up this topic under this vote or the vote following, but in any event, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the minister wasn't in the House last week when I described a problem within a provincial park - Desolation Sound Park. Under the Strata Titles Act private property within that park was subdivided utilizing a loophole in the Strata Titles Act. I'm aware that the parks branch was apparently negotiating with the private owners at that time to purchase that property. It was my understanding that the parks branch was negotiating with the then private owners of that property within the park boundaries to add that property to the park. I'm wondering now if the minister would be good enough to tell this House how those negotiations are proceeding, what may be happening in that regard, and if he will be making representation to his fellow members in cabinet to rectify this very, very peculiar - let me put it that way - situation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, I took note, Mr. Chairman, of the extensive comments made by that member the other day under the estimates of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and I've made some inquiries of the ministry. At this time it would appear that the matter is very complex indeed because of the use of strata title by one or more owners to circumvent restrictions on subdivision there. The whole question is somewhat up in the air, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has come into the picture. I can't give the member a simple answer today, but I'll be happy to carry on discussions with him at a future date.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have a similar situation, Mr. Chairman, on Savary Island where people utilizing the Strata Titles Act accomplished the same thing, but the Savary Island situation is a bit different in that Savary Island has no Crown land on it whatsoever, and no parks. It was brought to my attention again just recently that the parks branch were considering purchasing a piece of property on the north end of Savary Island, near Indian Point, to convert this property into a possible park for that area for the benefit of the people. I wonder if the minister would have any information on that particular situation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, we're not actively considering such an acquisition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not too long ago - as a matter of fact, on February 23 - I received a copy of correspondence from the Gibsons Fish and Wildlife Club suggesting an area for possible park -development in the Gibsons area - the Panther Peak and Tetrahedron. I'm just wondering if the minister.... This is a copy of correspondence to the minister and I wondered if the minister is familiar with this proposal put forward by these various groups in the Gibsons area. It's roughly in the Chapman Creek area, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the minister will give his most serious consideration to placing a park reserve on this property. There is some logging taking place in this area now, but I

[ Page 1747 ]

understand that this logging is soon to come to an end. It would be an ideal location for a park, and I'm now making a personal recommendation that the minister and the department seriously consider at least a park reserve for this particular area.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The information is noted. Thank you.

Vote 239 approved.

Vote 240: parks - capital programme, $4,500, 000 - approved.

Vote 241: British Columbia National Parks (Pacific Rim) , $2,158, 000 - approved.

On vote 242: youth crew, $1,000, 000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm tremendously interested in this vote. There is $1 million to create 378 jobs for two months, and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) tells me that he has a budget of $15 million to create 13,000 jobs. I wonder what's happening to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation? What are you spending all the money on - administration, buying equipment, equipping your department with moneys that should be in your regular budget rather than utilizing the appropriated money under this vote to pay wages and salaries to young people so that they might have an opportunity to work this summer? That seems like an extremely small number of jobs to create for that amount of money. I wonder how he reconciles the meagre few jobs created through that kind of expenditure when the Minister of Labour, his colleague, is able to create what he tells me is 13,000 jobs out of the appropriation of $15 million. Why the discrepancy? Can the minister explain that?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have raised some questions in connection With the youth crew, and the matter is under review. I must say, too, that the vote doesn't simply concern the salaries. It concerns the. operation of some 19 camps encompassing 27 crews, the questions of supply for those people, which extend beyond the wage itself, as well as equipment and so forth. But the matter is under review and I think the point is well taken.

MR. KING: I have just one point, Mr. Chairman. You know, I submit to the minister that special funds like this should be used for salary purposes, not to provide equipment for departments of government. Certainly the camps that are planned to be utilized must already be in existence. Surely additional capital costs are not being put out to create new camps. I wonder if vehicles and that type of equipment are being provided through this fund, hence depriving young people of an opportunity to gain employment by minimizing the amount of money available for their salaries.

It is something that I think should be looked at very closely by all branches of government. It can be abused. I think all members are very enthusiastic and willing to see funds appropriated to pay salaries, and that is what it should be used for. So I hope the minister will look very closely at it.

Vote 242 approved.

On vote 243: heritage conservation branch, $1,468, 805.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister have plans for the alteration in programme or appearance of the Emily Carr and Point Ellice Houses? If so, what are those plans?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, it's our intention to maintain the status quo there. I have just in the last day or so approved the draft of an agreement which will enable that programme to remain in place there for another year.

MR. BARBER: Is it for Emily Carr House or Point Ellice House or both?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Emily Carr, yes.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has replied.

MR. BARBER: I have a series of very quick questions, Mr. Chairman. Do you anticipate any changes in the programme or accessibility to the public at Point Ellice House?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: The budget for the historic sites programme has been cut by almost $0.5 million from $1,483, 750 to $961,479. 1 wonder if the minister could explain the necessity and the rationale of such cut?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, in fact, when you account for the removal of the operation of Barkerville, Fort Steel and Kilby museum to the parks branch, this compensates for the reduction under the heritage conservation branch. In fact, the heritage conservation branch has had a substantial increase in budget if that were added back in. It’s just

[ Page 1748 ]

an internal transfer of the management of the operations, day to day, of those major visitor areas to parks, with whom that expertise rests.

Vote 243 approved.

On vote 244: heritage conservation capital programme, $100,000.

MR. BARBER: In this vote the money available for temporary salaries is $40,000 and the money available for acquisition of land and buildings is $45,000. The figure of $45,000 is hardly adequate for anything. I wonder if the minister might indicate to us to what extent he expects to introduce through this Legislature or make subsequent announcements outside of it, a somewhat more serious and more generous programme for the acquisition of land and buildings. As the minister has frequently told me in private conversations over the years, a sum like this would go nowhere at all. I wonder if he might indicate what more serious initiatives will be taken by his department in order to help acquire the land and the buildings necessary to develop a comprehensive programme for heritage preservation in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I think that would best be discussed in relation to legislation which was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, and that's a matter of where the intentions would be best discussed. But I would say that this is a kind of cleanup vote to meet certain commitments in Fort Steele, Barkerville and Kilby museum and the Point Ellice House, which was mentioned a minute ago -for example, $38,000 is proposed to be expended -and a small repair at Yale regarding a church there. This is just sort of a cleanup vote. It isn't by any means an indication of the magnitude of concern in this area.

Vote 244 approved.

On vote 245: recreation and fitness branch, $1,546, 778.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I'm sorry to frustrate the House Leader, Mr. Chairman. However, under this vote I am wondering if Action B.C., who have on page 288 a no-vote situation, indicating that they must be found somewhere.... I wonder if this is where Action B.C. is found.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is our intention to provide for the needs of Action B.C. at previously established levels by two means: two-thirds of that amount will come from the sport and fitness fund; one-third will be forthcoming from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) respecting their past interest in the programme.

MR. COCKE: I am sorry that Action B.C. has been transferred to this branch. I believe that it's a health function to provide for preventive health care. However, they're the government, Mr. Chairman, and that's their perfect right to transfer it wherever they like.

I certainly will hope that they'll put as much priority on that programme as was placed there before, increasing it as the programme grows or as the potential for the programme grows. I believe that was providing motivation. Certainly it doesn't require a large amount of money, but it requires some dedicated staff who move around the province and get people going in this respect. Mr. Chairman, we don't for one second want to rely upon some of the federal programmes of this area; we should rely upon ourselves.

I'm sorry that it's buried, too, because you can see between votes 252 and 253 that there's a non-vote vote, if you can believe that. That's where we find Action B.C. That would indicate to me that it's going to be buried from now on in the fitness branch. I do hope that a great deal of attention is paid to this area because it's extremely important.

MR. LLOYD: As Prince George is hosting both the B.C. winter games next year and the northern B.C. winter games, I was wondering if the minister might enlarge on what travel assistance could be forthcoming. The billeting, particularly for the northern B.C. winter games, is all by volunteers. We had a discussion on this on February 20 during the northern B.C. winter games that was held at Dawson Creek. I just wondered if the minister has anything further to clarify on this for the benefit of the host community.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Firstly, in reply to the member for Fort George, the northern winter games is an excellent and very successful event this year, with some 2,500 young athletes from all over the north involved, and all conducted with the benefit of a $22,000 grant from the sport and physical fitness fund. I think that very much demonstrates the keen participation and volunteerism that exists in the north in this field. It is very much appreciated.

I've announced the holding of the British Columbia games, which will have a winter games component. Some people have been under the impression that this might replace the northern winter games. This is by no means the case. Our concept of games involves both the regional aspect and ultimately a province-wide games. The northern games are admirably suited to be meshed in with that.

In future the funding for games, including the

[ Page 1749 ]

northern winter games, will not be forthcoming from the sport and fitness fund but from a separate vote. We will be doing some hard thinking in the very near future about how the funds that are available are allocated to these different stages of the games. We can anticipate that something in excess of 100,000 British Columbians will participate in the games at its various stages. I think this is an excellent prospect~

Just turning for one brief moment to the member for New Westminster's comments. By no means is Action B.C. being buried. It's been our concern that programmes concerned with fitness, along with recreation, have been disbursed through government. Action B.C. is not simply concerned, as we see it, with the health of people in the abstract sense but the fitness of people in a daily sense. The need for this kind of concern to be expressed front and centre in the recreational field as opposed simply to elite sports is prominent in our thinking. In bringing it into this field, we hope that it would help to lead the emphasis on fitness.

Vote 245 approved.

Vote 246: recreation facilities programme, $446,588 - approved.

On vote 247: recreation facilities grants, $8,000, 000.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I was inquiring about this grant at the end of last year. I have a letter back from Mr. Matheson, the acting director, who said:

"We wish to advise that the fund is under review and no applications are presently being accepted. It is the intent of this ministry to introduce a new comprehensive development funding programme in 1977."

Could the minister just quickly tell us how the programme is going to function and to what degree differently from the previous concept of one-third, up to a value of $1 million, for new facilities?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have indicated that the matter is under thorough review and that we will not have new criteria developed and announced publicly until probably the end of the summer. I think it would be premature to offer a great deal of comment about this except to say we are concerned for improving the dialogue between the communities and the administrators of the fund to ensure that the quality of information on which decisions are made is improved.

We'd like to provide more in the way of assistance in the information area. The average community may only build a major facility of this type once in a decade or longer, and it hasn't necessarily the resources and the expertise to know all that could be known about meeting that need. We have felt the need to provide that kind of back-up information, planning and expertise, and to incorporate criteria with that. That's the direction we're going.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, I recognize that there's a lot involved in this, but how on earth can you pluck out a figure of $8 million when you haven't even got the criteria worked out? It's just very puzzling to me that if it's still in this relatively early stage of working out this new comprehensive programme and you've got a figure of $8 million in here, presumably this is one of these cushions in the budget where you'll probably only spend a half, or a quarter, or whatever. How did you pluck out the figure of $8 million?

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's an estimate, Mr. Chairman, of our requirements for the coming year.

Vote 247 approved.

Vote 248: grants in aid of regional park development, $1,180, 000 - approved.

Vote 249: cultural services branch, $427,274 -approved.

On vote 250: library services programme, $3,846, 362.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I don't see any other heading in these estimates under which I can discuss the matter, so I'd like to raise the question of a proposal which I understand the minister has made, somewhat to the surprise of the mayor of Victoria, for a new central library in the city of Victoria. I wonder if he might care to declare tonight, perhaps to the surprise of the whole city, what progress, if any, he's made in regard to that; what negotiations he's entered into in connection with the Department of Public Works; what changes he anticipates in regard to the decision of the building that was expected to go on that site; what arrangements, if any, the Library Development Commission will make on behalf of this ministry to move that programme along; and whether or not he h~s a figure and a possible opening date for construction on the said site of a new central library in the downtown Victoria area.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's certainly no surprise to the mayor of Victoria because, in the first instance, it was his request that we consider the location of the required new central library in the building concerned, which is the government building presently under construction

[ Page 1750 ]

between Blanshard and Courtenay Streets. In raising it with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) I was able to ascertain that the ground-floor space there - which had, by agreement with the city, been earmarked for public use as opposed to the sort of faceless office space - was not committed. It was on that basis that we've been able to progress. I can say that I feel confident we will be able to progress to bringing the library to that new location and I anticipate a meeting with the library board next week on that point.

MR. BARBER: In regard to that space, the comment by the mayor as quoted in the paper was related to his surprise at your statement. He was surprised, in his words, Mr. Chairman, by the earliness or, if you will, the prematurely of it. I wonder if the minister might tell us - if he has it at hand, or perhaps he'll agree to give it to us shortly - the floor space available at the new site as compared with the floor space presently available at the old site at Yates and Blanshard. I understand that it is not equal to the present floor space, according to one report I heard. If not, I'd be happy to be corrected on that, but that's what I was told by a library employee. Could you get that information for us - the total floor space?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The total floor space available, Mr. Chairman, is 80,000 square feet, which may be phased in.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if you might help us, though, to compare it with the present floor space on the five floors in the main library building and the two floors in the old one.

HON. MR. BAWLF: There are 35,000 square feet presently.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, libraries in the metropolitan areas are well served but I believe he must consider the plight of the rural areas, where libraries take a secondary position to almost all of the services. You'll find them in pretty nearly any hole in the wall; in any place there is a space you find a library.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: To the minister, Mr. Chairman, we should take careful attention to see that with all this money around that's available for a library, it should be spent now in the rural areas. The urban areas have been well treated. It's time that we reconsider our priorities because the people in the rural areas need libraries more than the ones in the cities and they are not getting the proper attention.

I'd like to draw this to his attention at this time.

Vote 250 approved.

On vote 25 1: British Columbia arts programme, $74,076.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like clarification of a discussion which the minister and I had in the debate on the art collection. Did I hear him correctly when he said that the art collection would be under his jurisdiction within the cultural services branch? If that is the case, why do we have these two separate votes 249 and 251? Or is this for just one year?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's just the way that the estimates were organized at this time due to the transition we are in in reorganizing the ministry. But yes, the programme will be administered under the cultural services branch.

Vote 251 approved.

On vote 252: capital improvement district, $470,000.

MR. BARBER: My questions are to the minister in his capacity as czar of provincial government planning in the capital city. The minister has in here a vote for a new organization called a "capital precinct planning agency." I wonder if the minister might describe to the House the terms of reference of this agency and tell us what its present work is.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the basic terms of reference of this agency are to provide some support for the first time in the way of an in-house technical group to assist the Capital Improvement District Commission. Formerly proposals brought to the commission were brought by municipalities making up the area. But given the large amount of government land which ought to be integrated with the commission's plans, it was felt that the province had some responsibility to provide some technical assistance as well.

MR. BARBER: It has a classification: " (04) salaries - temporary - $35,800." Is anyone presently on salary, or do you expect the only salaries that we will see will be coming under this particular vote for the work of the capital precinct planning agency or the Capital Improvement District Commission?

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, there is no one under salary as such within the ministry at this time. We are, if you like, borrowing some services from the Ministry of Public Works at the present time.

[ Page 1751 ]

MR. BARBER: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you have borrowed, in fact, six members of the staff of the Ministry of Public Works and are presently working on a proposal to consider the relocation of the Coho dock from the north to the south side of the harbour. I wonder if the minister might tell us whether these staff have been given any other assignments or if at the moment the exclusive work of these six people is to concentrate on the relocation of the docks at the inner harbour.

MR. BAWLF: At the present time, that's all that is involved, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: It is our city. The Ministry of Public Works, within its own organization, published in the latter part of 1975 a report called Precinct '75. This was a report prepared by the department and its civil servants. To my knowledge, no outside contractors were used in any important way in this report. The Precinct '75 report contained a number of interesting suggestions and observations, and I wonder if the minister might care to tell us whether or not any or all - and, if any, which - of those recommendations that he studied he expects the Capital Improvement District Commission or his own authority to undertake. If so, what would be the likely start-up date of any of those undertakings?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to this report. This report sets out a very broad programme, including some one million square feet of new buildings, which is a matter of some considerable alarm to the city of Victoria. However, since it was under the aegis of the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) until recently, and that ministry has pledged not to burden the city with any additional buildings to what were begun by the NDP, the matter has rested silent, if you like, until recently.

We are going to review the recommendations in this report, particularly, for example, the potential for the use of some government lands which are surplus for housing, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and so forth. However, that review process has not begun. It will begin in the coming year.

MR. BARBER: My final question, Mr. Chairman, is in regard to the admitted profusion of parking lots in the legislative precinct. Will the minister be paying special attention - I recall again from private conversations that he's interested in the matter - to this particular profusion, and might that perhaps be given relatively top priority? They're a nuisance. I happen to live in James Bay; the minister used to. They're ugly. They serve no great purpose and could be served perhaps much more efficiently in some other form. Certainly those spaces presently available for parking might be much better used for housing and other accommodation. If the minister happens to agree with that kind of opinion, would he perhaps agree as well that the study of how to use those lands a great deal more efficiently, referring to the parking lots, might be given somewhere near top priority in the examination of the problem?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, that appears to be the one recommendation of the report with which the city agreed and it will receive priority. But recommendations such as building buildings on the lawn of the parliament buildings, relocating streets and putting a million square feet of office space in here will not likely be well received by the city, judging from their early presentations. So those matters will be subject to very serious review.

Vote 252 approved.

On vote 253: building occupancy charges, $2,588, 501.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell me what amount of office space is rented by his department from Crown agencies or the government, what amount is obtained from the private sector and what the cost per square foot is from both those sources.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I had that information in front of me as recently as yesterday, and I must say I haven't got it at my fingertips right now. I'll be happy to provide that for the member, though.

MR. KING: Well, I think the minister could indicate to me right now whether this estimate was developed by his own department or provided to him by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) .

HON. MR. BAWLF: That was a matter which I understand was developed through discussion, and the details of which I can also check out.

Vote 253 approved.

Vote 254: computer and consulting charges, $3 5 1,000 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

[ Page 1752 ]

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.