[ Page 815 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR extension to Fort Nelson. Mr. Barrett –– 818

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Mr. Barber –– 819

Changes in bidding system for coal exploration licences. Mr. Gibson –– 820

Funding of rape relief centres. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies –– 821

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 230

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 821

Mr. Nicolson –– 824

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 827

Mrs. Wallace –– 829

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 833

Mr. Shelford –– 835

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 838

Mr. King –– 839

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 841

Mrs. Jordan –– 844

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 844

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 846

Mr. Strongman –– 847

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the assembly to National Secretaries' Day. I had the honour of attending their luncheon today along with members of my of f ice who work in the administrative function of government. I wish to introduce to this assembly the fact that in these buildings are many who work in administration, not only in ministerial offices but in the service of the government, and I would like to just give them our best wishes on this National Secretaries' Day.

Continuing on, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the press gallery today a member of the press from my home town of Kelowna, who is here to observe not only the proceedings, but to look at the press gallery and how they function here in Victoria. I'd like to have the House welcome Jacquie Czernin of CJOV to this assembly.

MRS. WALLACE: I have two groups visiting me in Victoria today. The f first is a group of grade 6 and 7 students from the Alex Aitkin school in Duncan. They are here with their teacher, Mr. Hoag, having their first look at the assembly. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming that group.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We don't very often have supplementary introductions, but we're going to have one today.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did warn you I had two groups to introduce.

The second group I'm very pleased to have with me here today; they represent one of the things that is happening in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, in the school district of Cowichan. We have there a programme that has just been initiated at the junior high level for new Canadians - an English training course, which encompasses children from the ages of 12 to 19.

In the group visiting me' today are several new Canadians who have been in the country ranging from three weeks to three and a half years. They are here with their teacher, Mrs. Marie Honeyman, from Mount Prevost Junior Secondary School; and I'm sure my guests will bear with me in the pronunciations of their names: Girsoham Mann, Jagjit Rai, Wayne Chow, Tony Chow, Satnam Mann, Baljinder Judge, Paul Kooner, Balbinder Dhillon and Mukhan Bathal. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon are two individuals from my constituency of Omineca, Mr. and Mrs. Don McFetridge from Vanderhoof. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. KERSTER: I have two introductions similar to the member for Cowichan-Malahat. First, -a constituent of mine, a very good friend, the president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, is in the members' gallery - Mr. Les Kee. I'd ask all members to make him welcome.

Mr. Speaker, presently touring the building, but joining us in the gallery at 3 o'clock this afternoon, is a group of students from my constituency - from the Port Moody Senior Secondary School, along with members of their staff. They'll be joining us in the gallery at three o'clock, and I would ask the members to make them welcome in advance.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today, at Woodlands School, they are celebrating the centenary of Woodlands School. And anyone who is familiar with the history of Woodlands will know that it has undergone some very, very trying times; but I think this is a good opportunity for us to pay tribute to all of the people who have been involved over these 100 years in providing the services to the people at Woodlands, who so badly needed them.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Dr. Bandy, an assistant director of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, in the House this afternoon. It's nice to see him here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you were wondering at noon today where those very beautiful musical sounds that were wafting through the building were coming from. They were coming from a choir which is visiting us from Pointe Claire in Quebec, and they're called the John Rennie High School Music Company; they're on an exchange visit with the Kitsi-lano Senior Secondary School, and they've been in the Vancouver area for a week. This group is very widely traveled, and I'm sure that you understand this when you heard how beautiful their sounds were. They've been to Florida, they've been to London, England, and

[ Page 816 ]

they've been to various parts of the United States as well as Canada.

They're sponsored by a group of parents called the Music Aid, and there are 75 of them accompanied by their president, Mrs. Margaret Pye, their band director, Mr. Wally Atwood, and their choir director, Mrs. Margaret Farquharson. Twenty-five of the students, Mr. Speaker, are in the House today and the other 50 students are roaming through the streets of Victoria trying to become better acquainted with our beautiful province. May we bid them welcome?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations from our caucus on the beautiful singing of this group. Indeed, the traditional music of our era is sometimes forgotten by us. When we see young people sing as they do, I think we have tremendous appreciation, and I for one would like to add my words to those of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) .

I have a group of students here today from the garden spot of the Fraser Valley, Pitt Meadows, and the 50 students are from Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary, under the direction of Mr. Collins, their able instructor. I wish you to give them a welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I undertook yesterday to review certain situations drawn to my attention by members of the House. I have done that review and would like to report at the moment.

In the course of yesterday's proceedings, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) raised a point of order, namely that the matter of certain questions directed initially to B.C. Hydro, and thereafter to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in his capacity as director of B.C. Hydro, has not been referred to the committee by the House and therefore there should be no prohibition against questions relating thereto being put to the minister in question period.

With reference to the questions to ministers, it is stated in the 16th edition of May, page 359, that questions are inadmissible dealing with matters - first of all - before a parliamentary committee, and secondly, that no question can be asked regarding proceedings in committee which have not been placed before the House by a report from the committee. The authority cited by Sir Erskine May as the foundation of the rule is to be found in Parliamentary Debates of the United Kingdom, No. 237, April 8,1930, page 1926.

On that occasion, a point of order was taken that as a matter in question was under consideration by a select committee, it was highly improper that the House should be allowed to discuss it. The Speaker ruled that if the matter is under discussion by a select committee, obviously it would be undesirable to raise it by questions in the House. It is quite true, as the second member for Vancouver-Burrard stated, that the matter in question was not referred to the committee by the House, as is the usual method of bringing a matter before a select standing committee. However, it is clear from the authority quoted that the essence of the rule is whether or not the matter is under examination or discussion by a committee of the House, regardless of how the matter was placed in the hands of the committee, so long, of course, as the matter is within its competence to consider.

Irrespective of the statement of the Minister of Finance made on April 19,1978, that he had referred the matter, the committee has of its own initiative now undertaken consideration of the matter. Accordingly the matter in question now falls within the rule as stated in Sir Erskine May.

Further, on another matter...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order on ruling number one. Please proceed, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I realize that your ruling deals with the specific matter at hand. However, there is a question of conflict about the practice that the House has no knowledge about matters in front of committee. In that sense, unless the House itself passed a resolution, the House would not be aware of what the committee was dealing with. So there appears to be some conflict in that particular area, and I would ask for some interpretation from the Chair on that traditional ruling as well.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. GIBSON: Further to the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the Committee on Crown Corporations has as a matter of continuing mandate under its review at all times during the life of a parliament all of the operations of the five major Grown corporations assigned to it. I'm sure the intent of the House in establishing this committee was not to stop discussion in this House, on a continuing basis, of the affairs of those Crown corporations. I would ask the

[ Page 817 ]

Speaker to review the question in that light as well.

Perhaps this is a question for the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act and the Speaker's initiative thereunder.

MR. SPEAKER: It might be wise for the members to remember that the reason for the wisdom of the House appointing the committee in the first place is to appoint to it certain matters to be discussed in committee. If those matters were not to be discussed in committee but were rather to be discussed in the House, then it would obviate, in my opinion, the reason for constructing the committee and hence we could discuss the matters here in the House.

However, that perhaps could be given more consideration.

MR. BARRETT: On that point, it's clear by tradition that matters referred by the House to committee are handled in committee, and the House has no knowledge after that of the committee details. However, that's out of order to discuss once the referral has been made. There's a question of time gap. No House referral was made, and I would ask that you rule on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the decision, as you will find in the Blues, draws attention to the fact that it is not only a question of a matter being referred to a committee by the House. Obviously that did not take place. However, there is also the matter of a committee on its own initiative taking things under consideration.

MR. BARRETT: We have no knowledge of that.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, in the sense that the committee of its own initiative has taken on these various matters, I would like to say, [illegible] of the committee, that it hasn't met. I feel rather a supernumerary. Now I understand a subcommittee has met.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is beyond the....

MR. MACDONALD: So the committee seized with something even though I, as a member of the committee, have not been called to a meeting. Now that's great. It sounds a bit like a caper.

MR. SMITH: May I submit for the consideration of the Speaker that the position of the

Committee on Crown Corporations is somewhat different from any other committee of the House, in that the other committees of the House and the rules and regulations which govern them are covered in our standing orders, whereas the Committee on Crown Corporations was set up by a special Act of this House and assigned to that committee are special and certain responsibilities with respect to Crown corporations.

For that reason, they had specific duties assigned to them by this House when that Act was passed. I'd suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that be taken into consideration along with the other matters and the other points of order that have been raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Well received.

Further to another matter: at the closing of yesterday's sitting, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) rose on a point of order and requested the Chair to consider the tabling of a document entitled "Committee on Crown Corporations, Report No. 1 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, " with other documents appended thereto, including the minutes of a subcommittee meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, held on April 24,1978, and a letter dated April 25,1978, addressed to the Clerk of the House; whereas in fact the document was a report of a subcommittee of the Committee on Crown Corporations.

Standing order 72 (a) (7) provides as follows:

"Notwithstanding any other order or rule of practice of the House, the chairman of the committee shall file reports of the committee with the Clerk of the House as they are completed, but not less often than annually, and the reports shall include a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the committee held in respect of the report."

"Section 4 (5) of the Crown Corporation Reporting Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1977, chapter 49, provides "The committee may make rules governing its own procedures and respecting its inquiries and examinations."

It would seem therefore that in accordance with the statutory authority given to it and the practice of the House, the procedures themselves of the committee, as well as questions of procedure, should be settled in the committee and not brought before the House. It is the view of the Chair, therefore, that the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster should be taken up in committee.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table logs of the government's air services

[ Page 818 ]

from January, 1977, through to March, 1978, and, in asking leave to table, I would point out that as of July, 1977, the reporting for the air flights has been made easier to follow by breaking them down by ministry rather than having them in a general way. I ask leave to table.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

BCR EXTENSION TO FORT NELSON

MR. BARRETT: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. There are four federal cabinet ministers from British Columbia: the Hon. Ms. Campagnolo, the Hon. Mr. Marchand, the Hon. Mr. Basford and Senator Ray Perrault. I would like to ask the Premier if he or any cabinet minister has contacted any of the British Columbia cabinet ministers at the federal level to discuss the question of federal assistance to keep the Fort Nelson line of the BGR open.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, if B.C. cabinet ministers and/or MPs from British Columbia have not yet been contacted, then of course they will be in supporting the negotiations of the province of British Columbia to do with northern transportation systems, and particularly in support of negotiations surrounding the Alcan pipeline. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be timely, in light of the impending federal election, that potential members also be canvassed to support the British Columbia position.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. I asked the Premier if any of the tour federal cabinet ministers had been contacted, and I understand from your answer that none of them have been contacted by your office or by the cabinet ministers. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond for every cabinet minister. I say that if they have not yet been contacted, they will be contacted. Ministers responsible for negotiations certainly will carry out their responsibilities on their own timetable. As the Premier, I will be following up on my timetable in trying to persuade those responsible for representing British Columbia at the federal level to remember British Columbia when they get to Ottawa. Even though it's 3,000 miles away, it sometimes seems like it's 30,000 miles away.

MR. BARRETT: We're not dealing with the federal cabinet ministers forgetting Ottawa; we're dealing with the provincial cabinet forgetting the federal cabinet ministers. Now I would ask the Premier specifically: has he contacted to this date any of those four cabinet ministers? Yes or no?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would remember, his question also mentioned whether any of my colleagues had contacted them. In my answer I tried to tell him that he could ask my colleagues directly. Certain ministers have responsibility for negotiating.

No, I have not as yet talked to those specific ministers because the negotiation has been carried out by specific ministers of this government who are responsible for negotiating with their counterparts in the government of Canada. But I'm sure that they will welcome the support of the Leader of the Opposition, who was strangely silent when he was Premier of British Columbia and fighting for the B.C. Railway in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Bennett) whether lie has contacted any one of those four ministers on British Columbia's behalf.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Transport would like to tell the member for Prince Rupert that because he has been busy traveling to the north to talk to the people, he has not yet had the opportunity to support requests already made and negotiations already undertaken. But I assure that member that this government will not be neglectful in pressing the claims of the British Columbia transportation systems to the government at Ottawa, which has neglected to treat British Columbia with equity, compared with grants made to other rail lines in the country and other transportation systems. And although he was part of a government that didn't press its case to Ottawa, we will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps before we continue, I have undertaken a task which seems to be monumental: to try to instruct members of the House on how to form questions so that they would be in order. I hope that the members have appreciated this. But it seems timely that I should also make a remark on ministers' replies. They should not be argumentative, retaliatory or taxing, nor should

[ Page 819 ]

they be propaganda vehicles.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker: did he or any member of the government contact federal cabinet ministers with respect to assistance to the Fort Nelson extension prior to April 10,1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: With regard to the dates, I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was taken as notice; there is no supplementary.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying it was around that time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Chicken!

B.C. RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Premier. As this House has now learned, order-in-council 3328, passed in November, 1977, names the Premier as charged with the administration of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act. Additionally, in reply to questions from myself to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , as found in the Blues yesterday at page 922-2. the Minister of Finance said: "I might say that...."

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's the question?

MS. BROWN: It's coming.

MR. BARBER: Will you listen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: "I might say that as has been brought about and answered in a question in this House, the person by order-in council who administers this Act" -referring to the BCRIC Act - "is the Premier. I think that, really, having to do with further questions on this matter, these questions should be brought forward during his estimates. As the member brought to our attention in previous questions, the Premier is the person assigned by order-in-council to administer the Act."

So it is perfectly clear. The Premier is, in fact, and has been all along, responsible for the corporation. Therefore, as the order-in council and the Minister of Finance have both made clear, I wish to ask the Premier, it being in order: what is the annual salary being paid to Mr. David Helliwell, president and chief executive officer of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, and what additional benefits or bonuses, if any, will be paid to Mr. Helliwell?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, because the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is a public company operating in the private sector, and not a Crown corporation for which that type of accountability would be made to the Legislature, in reality the province then has an investment in it, such as the province's former investments in Westcoast Transmission or B.C. Telephone. As such the government was not accountable for information that would only be available to the directors of those corporations. As such I advise the member that in company rule in British Columbia, the directors of those corporations in fact direct that company, are responsible to members at the annual meeting, and make all contracts with personnel, of which I have no knowledge and am not privy to.

MR. BARBER: The Premier has provided a remarkable answer.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. BARBER: Let me try it from another tack. The order-in-council and the Minister of Finance say he is responsible; the Premier says he is not. Let me try this one. Maybe you know this answer: Would the Premier tell this House what fees or per them payments are now being made to the interim members of the interim board of Directors of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation? Do you know that, and will you tell us that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know - because he was, I think, in the Legislature when this bill %was debated, so he has knowledge of the bill - this bill sets up what is a public company operating in the private sector. As such the government as a shareholder has the same rights as any other shareholder to attend at annual meetings and to receive such information. He would also know that in the Act, after the interim board of directors has provided the prospectus to take the company public, the government, by formula, has directors appointed to the corporation reflecting an interest. The government, it is intended, as the member will also

[ Page 820 ]

remember - I know he knows this full well; he hasn't forgotten - will not have a majority of the shares of the corporation. It will not.

The bill clearly states the intent of the legislation - and the bill is very clear in this regard - to set up a public company in the private sector. As such, the government today has the same opportunities as the former government had to deal with investments they had in West-coast transmission, and B.C. Telephone, where they didn't even attend the annual meetings.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: On a supplementary: could the Premier inform the House, as of today, who are the other shareholders in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation he referred to?

MR. SPEAKER: Would this not be public knowledge, hon. members? Is this not public knowledge?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the board is under the direction of an interim board of directors, which will be responsible for forming the new company and taking it public, which will be responsible at annual meetings to its shareholders, under the Companies Act.

MR. BARBER: On a supplementary: the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) told this House yesterday that the Premier would answer questions regarding the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the member come to the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just don't understand.

MR. BARBER: We understand perfectly well what you're doing with this number.

My question to the Premier is: does he intend in question period, or his estimates, to answer any questions about the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, for which he is responsible?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That question is not in order. The question is anticipating the future action of the minister.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, then will you permit me to frame it in another fashion? Is the Premier telling the House that the Minister of Finance is incorrect in his statement that the Premier will, in fact, be answering questions regarding the Resources Investment Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, as I understood it, was not saying what the member said he said. He said that I was responsible for the Art, and I'm quite prepared - for those members who did not understand the Act last year - to answer questions during my estimates, to help them understand a debate that took place in this Legislature last year.

CHANGES IN BIDDING SYSTEM FOR

COAL EXPLORATION LICENCES

MR. GIBSON: I've a question for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , Mr. Speaker. In the coal policy announced last June, the minister made reference to a new system incorporating a bidding mechanism for giving out exploration licences for coal. In his announcement on February 10, he changed that to refer to a so-called system to give out licences with no public bidding. Will the minister explain what made that change?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in review of the bidding system it was concluded that some difficulties would be encountered in its implementation, and it was considered appropriate by the cabinet committee on coal to go on a priority basis for the issuance of coal licences in the province.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, several days before that announcement on February 10 a meeting was held between the ministers on the coal committee and industry representatives and public servants. I am advised that at a critical point in that meeting to discuss this point the public servants were asked to leave, and the decisions were privately made between the ministers and the industry representatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: My question is: Why were the public servants who were present excluded from that particular part of the meeting?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that statement is absolutely incorrect.

MR. GIBSON: Will the minister stake his seat

[ Page 821 ]

on that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a lie.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: , Order, please, hon. members. Question period is terminated.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I'm maybe not the best person to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I distinctly heard the Minister of Mines say: "That's a lie."

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. the minister to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the statement was incorrect. I didn't call the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) a liar; I just said the statement was incorrect. The facts that he was relating to this House were erroneous and incorrect.

MR. NICOLSON: You said, "That's a lie, " Jim - come on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I didn't call him a liar.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the matter of exchange as we have experienced it in the House, the Chair cannot possibly hear some of the interjections across the floor. However, if a member was offended by a remark, I ask the hon. Minister of Mines, in the interests of order in the House, to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if the member from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is offended on my statement, I withdraw it

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, I'd like to respond to a question yesterday and, also with leave, have a two-second introduction, if I could.

Leave granted.

FUNDING OF RAPE RELIEF CENTRES

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. lady member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) directed a question concerning the funding of the Rape Relief organization. I was able to tell her yesterday that arrangements had been made last week for cheques to go out, and I requested that the bank be telephoned. I thought all of the hon. members would like to know that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, welcome to the gallery Mrs. John Taylor, the wife of Mr. John Taylor, former member of Parliament, and her friend.

MS. BROWN:- Mr. Speaker, by leave, I'd like to respond to the hon. gentleman member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The practice is that answers to questions taken on notice are usually given by leave. If there are future supplementary questions, they should be asked....

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. It's not a question. It's just a response.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a response? Is this a statement?

MS. BROWN: Yes, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Very unusual.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to thank the hon. gentleman member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION.

On vote 230: minister's office, $116,724.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the excellent work that's been done in my ministry and in the Crown corporation for which I am responsible. As the members will know, the tradition in this House is that, as a rule, my particular ministry tends to come at the end of the review of estimates, and sometimes, tinder pressure of time, is not afforded every opportunity for such a discussion. So I'm delighted to have this opportunity in this

[ Page 822 ]

current session.

Just before I relinquish the floor, Mr. Chairman, a few comments are perhaps in order concerning the organization of those affairs which are under my ministerial responsibility, and some comments on the thrust of those affairs.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, my ministry was organized into three distinct departments. The first is the conservation department, which encompasses the fish and wildlife branch of old, and the marine resources branch of old. The members will recall, from my remark in recent days, that we are now proceeding with a complete reorganization of our conservation department, establishing a new and separate fisheries branch, balanced by a wildlife branch, which will be responsible for all wildlife other than fisheries. Those will be the two branches under the conservation department.

I've also commented at length on the challenges which lie before those respective branches. In the case of the fisheries branch, we will be embarking on a very wide-ranging programme to enhance and develop our fisheries, both in the sport and commercial sectors - with particular emphasis in the coming year on the expected conclusion of a formal agreement with the government of Canada setting out the salmonoid enhancement programme, which will see quite a few million dollars spent in tile coming years towards the doubling of our salmonoid fisheries stock.

The second department which has distinct status within the ministry is the recreation department, consisting of the parks branch -which itself underwent a major reorganization in the past year - and the recreation and fitness branch - which is an entirely new branch of government - established in the past year to bring together all of the elements concerned with recreation: outdoor recreation, sport, fitness, community recreation and research related to those matters - including the Public Recreational- Facilities Assistance Act. The highlights of our activities under this new branch, apart from the establishment of it, include the establishment of a new centre for the administration of sport and fitness, concentrating all of those sport governing bodies which exist in the lower mainland in one set of quarters, and providing then with much better support facilities.

A second highlight is the undertaking to stage the first provincial games - establish and stage both summer and winter British Columbia games annually, the first of those games to be staged in Penticton this summer.

Another area where we have undertaken programmes with some emphasis is to highlight fitness as an important part of the lifestyle of British Columbians, both in terms of preventive health and, generally, greater enjoyment of life by every citizen. In the parks branch, on the other hand, this past year, of course, our highlight was the establishment of Schoen Lake Provincial Park, which is a major new park on Vancouver Island in the constituency of Comox. In the coming year we will be embarking on a programme which will endeavour to expand public access to water recreation. This recognizes that while we have something on the order of 11 million acres of provincial parks in the province of British Columbia - approximately five acres for every man, woman and child who resides in the province - we have, in fact, a deficiency of waterfront access parkland which is reasonably close to settled areas. So our priority in the coming year will be to expand in this area and this involves, in fact, repatriating land from private ownership in many instances.

The other area where we are giving particular emphasis this year is the further planning toward the day when we can designate and develop or, if you like, enhance the Alexander Mackenzie grease trail of 1793. Now that trail crosses an immense expanse of British Columbia...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It's becoming difficult to hear the minister during his address. Perhaps we could afford him some silence. Please continue.

HON. MR. BAWLF: That trail is an historic trail, needless to say, but also a tremendous recreational opportunity for British Columbians. It encompasses overland trail, river recreation and, in some instances, it is closely paralleled by highway, giving a variety of recreational opportunities and, I think, a very worthy undertaking.

The third department which has been established within my ministry in the past year is the department of culture and heritage, and this encompasses those functions which were attached to this ministry at the time that I was appointed minister, including cultural services and the administration of the British Columbia Cultural Fund, and the library development services of this government, a newly organized heritage conservation branch, which brings together a number of elements which were hitherto spread about the government in the area of archaeological and historic sites and heritage matters generally.

And finally, this department includes the

[ Page 823 ]

Provincial Capital Commission, the Act governing which was a subject of some minor amendments in the session last year. The highlights of those programmes, those areas of the department of culture and heritage, are as follows: The British Columbia Cultural Fund, through supplementary disbursements from the Lotteries Fund, is now approaching an annual disbursement of approximately $3 million. This is roughly double the commitment that government had at the time that this government took office. I think it indicates the government's commitment to assisting worthy cultural and arts organizations across the province.

In the area of library services, as the members will recall, an indication had been given in the budget speech that we will be embarking on an expanded and more equitable funding formula for library development in the province, and this will be a major thrust of the ministry in this year.

In the area of heritage conservation, two important steps have been taken. First, the old provincial historic sites board has been combined with the old archaeological sites board into a common entity known now as the Provincial Heritage Advisory Board, wherein we can better co-ordinate the advice which is provided to me, as minister, by these people who give generously of their time toward preservation of the province's heritage.

Also, to carry out the objectives which that board identifies, we have now in place the Heritage Trust of British Columbia, which was provided for by legislation last year. That trust will be embarking on two significant areas in an effort to particularly assist communities across the province with the preservation of their local heritage.

One area will be to assist municipalities and local government generally in the development of strategic plans for the preservation of their heritage. I am referring particularly to those communities which have a disproportionately large number of old buildings and which face some difficulties in mustering the resources to preserve them, notwithstanding that they may be of great benefit economically to the local community through tourism.

The second programme which the Heritage Trust will be embarking upon shortly, reflecting our understanding that planning of the nature I have just mentioned will take some time, is a programme of assistance to municipalities again aimed - and these will be selected municipalities in the trial period -at paint-up and clean-up schemes for a large number of heritage buildings across the province with a view to getting started on the road to preservation of those valuable assets.

Finally, in regard to the Provincial Capital Commission, the commission has undertaken something on the order of $2 million worth of works or, shall I say, planned and initiated works of that value in the Inner Harbour of Victoria in keeping with its legislated responsibility to beautify and plan for provincial land use in the capital city. Most of those funds, I might say, are recoverable either from the private sector or from the government of Canada. Also in the past year and in a similar vein, the Provincial Capital Commission has undertaken the restoration of a very unique building which is inseparably bound up with the history and character of this city, arid that is the Crystal Gardens building.

Outside of the three departments which are directly encompassed by the ministry, of course, the members will know that in recent months I have been made the minister responsible for and the chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The Ferry Corporation has recently announced its plans for expanded service to the central and north coast of the province. The plans to inaugurate service from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, greatly shortening the water distance between the north coast and Vancouver Island, are to commence in 1979 with the completion of the major new north Island Highway which will provide a continuous transportation link right from the southern to the northern tip of this Island and thence to Prince Rupert.

It is also intended that the corporation will inaugurate a vessel in a new service between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands which will be a regular ferry service for vehicles and passengers. It is hoped that that will be tied in to the main route not too long after the opening up of the Port Hardy terminal.

The other area in which we will be expanding service to the north and central coast will be in the establishment of connecting services to the main run, which will serve a number of communities including Kincolith, Port Simpson, Namu, Klemtu, Ocean Falls and Bella Bella.

That is the programme which the B.C. Ferry Corporation has for the central and north coast. At the present time, we are embarked on a very comprehensive analysis of our investment options insofar as the south coast routes, which are the heavily traveled routes of the ferry system, are concerned. We recognize that having just carried our 100 millionth passenger, having taken about 15 years to do so, it's quite possible we will be carrying the next 100 million in about eight years, and this will demand considerable

[ Page 824 ]

expansion of transportation services in these areas. We feel at this time it is essential to examine all possible solutions to this and therefore we are doing just that, considering not only existing ferry technology but possible innovations, considering not only vessels but terminals, highway connections and scheduling.

It is my expectation, Mr. Chairman, that in regard to the Ferry Corporation we will be of necessity making the first steps towards bringing that service which was essentially conceived in the 1960s, the expansion of which in the 1970s reflected that initial concept, into the 1980s.

With those remarks, I would just briefly introduce several officials who are responsible for these areas so as to give recognition to the fact this is a very diversified ministry. I'm sure the members would wish to have these people available to assist me. I refer firstly to the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Mr. Lloyd Brooks; the ministry comptroller, Mr. Gordon Levy; and the associate deputy minister for the ministry, Mr. Bob Ahrens.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd also like to say hello to the branch officials who have come to assist the minister today.

Mr. Chairman, in listening to the budget speech, in listening to the minister's speech during the budget and also in listening to the current remarks, one could only rejoice and sit down and say that all is well in hand, but for the facts, Mr. Chairman.

During his earlier speech and in a little bit of a recap today, we've heard about an increase in funding under the administration of the conservation department of the ministry of almost 50 per cent aver last year. It includes approximately $5.7 million in new money, Mr. Chairman, we hear that the minister would like to make the point that the branch will have expended almost all of its funds to the best of their reckoning. We'll certainly see, when the final books are in. He says that particular emphasis is to be placed on fisheries and that there's to be establishment of a chief conservation officer for the province, something which I would laud myself. I would say that is a very good move. He says that there will be training programmes for conservation officers, referring back to his speech in the budget debate, which also I would say is a good move.

There will be a complete redraft of the Wildlife Act of this province and that depends, Mr. Chairman. The opposition would reserve judgment until we get a chance to see that Act in the next session. It will include more humane trapping methods, which is a way of postponing any type of action toward implementing the commitment that was made that humane trapping would become the order of the day in 1978.

They have also said that they'll be working this year on a series of species management plans, and that, Mr. Chairman, is long overdue. I think that will be welcomed by anyone who's interested in conservation. With a stated set of objective management plans for each of quite a large number of species which are important to the wildlife realities of this province, we will be at a position where such states as Idaho have been for several years in having such stated specific objectives.

Also, the minister said that in the coming year, not reflected. directly in the budget, we'll be seeing approximately $20 million in a joint federal-provincial spending on salmonoid enhancement, which I think everyone agrees is a good thing. I don't know that there would be too many who would disagree with that. That's what he said in his opening remark in one half of his speech and then largely reinforced those points the next day.

Mr. Chairman, I wish that I could share all of the enthusiasm, but first of all, looking at what has happened with the minister's budget, if we look at certain areas such as the fish and wildlife branch, and we look at the budget for this year and we see that it is targeted at $10.3 million and it is up from last year's $9.35 million in budget, it looks as if that is almost a 10 per cent increase. But, Mr. Chairman, if one goes back to a base year of 1975-76, we see that in that year, the estimates were already $9.03 million. In subsequent years the budget was reduced and we are only gradually getting back and, indeed, have not caught up with inflation for that particular budget year. In other words, the proposal in this budget is to spend less on the types of programmes that have not gone away. We have not licked certain problems, problems in terms of enforcement and having adequate coverage of conservation officers.

Mr. Chairman, I think we'll note that the Creston Valley wildlife management area in 1975-76 had a budget of almost $144,000. This year the provincial contribution to that joint federal-provincial project is $129,750, the same as it was the year before.

Parks management - well, it looks as if some items have been rolled together and can't actually be quite so directly compared, but we find that just in terms of making comparisons

[ Page 825 ]

with where the branch was three years ago, they have not kept up with inflation.

When we look at the other special funds enclosed within this budget, we find that the salmonid enhancement programme has gone up from $300,000 to $2,064, 800. That looks like a fantastic leap, but where did that money come from?

HON. MR. BAWLF: From the taxpayers.

MR. NICOLSON: It came from the federal government contribution in an area where the federal government has a responsibility. There was no acknowledgment of that federal government contribution to the salmonid enhancement programme - to this particular budget item in here. It said there was going to be a joint federal-provincial expenditure in this province of $20 million, leading one to think that the provincial government was going to chip in $10 million and the federal government $10 million, when in fact the federal government is chipping in all of that $20 million, except for $300,000.

Mr. Chairman, there are other items of contribution included in federal and other agency donations. I would ask the minister if he could inform us whether the other contributions from the federal government were towards Pacific Rim park, or whether they are towards some other joint federal-provincial programme.

I note that there is an item of federal and other agency programmes which this year has risen from $640,000 up to $1,559, 956. It looks as if the federal government has contributed to that. Since I know that there was another federal government contribution of $659,000, 1 would ask the minister if that accounts for a major portion of the increase in vote 236, "federal and other agency programmes." I ask the minister if that is for Pacific Rim park or if it is for some other factor.

Mr. Chairman, there are many areas for concern in this department. It was announced recently by the minister that there is a reorganization going on in the fish and wildlife branch, that there will be a separation into the wildlife and fisheries branches. But at the same time as that is happening, it's also evident that there is massive indecision going on. There is no director of this new fisheries branch; there is no director of this new wildlife branch. There is an acting director still over the entire thing, and there has been an acting director. It has been a lame-duck department, leaderless from the political level for well over a year.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you invented it, Mr. Minister, and he's learned very well from you.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I note the intention to work upon individual species management plans with stated goals and objectives, and I hope that they're stated in very concise, numerical terms. I don't think we can afford to do nothing, though, while those plans are being formulated, important as they are.

In one area of this province we have a very special herd of bighorn sheep which, I understand, are the only bighorn sheep to winter in high alpine country....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It's Ovis canadensis, Mr. Minister of Latin.

This is one of the great natural resources which we have in this province. The Travel minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is making a great promotion of British Columbia and calling it "British Columbia Super-Natural." Well, if there's anything natural about British Columbia, it's such values as the wildlife ungulates which have existed here, some of which are unique to British Columbia -the stone sheep. Certainly the most important bighorn sheep populations can be found here in British Columbia.

There is a herd which comprises 25 per cent of the British Columbia bighorns. Its area is the Chauncey-Todhunter and Ewin Creek area of the East Kootenay. This is a herd which has somehow miraculously escaped the lungworm disease which has weakened many of the other herds.

While we are formulating individual-species management plans, coal exploration is slated to take place this year creating access into the area and also causing some despoilation of the area. It is indicated to have some very serious ramifications, so serious, indeed, that correspondence has taken place between the Deputy Minister of Recreation and Conservation and the Deputy Minister of Mines.

It appears that the position of the wildlife branch is in opposition, and would call for a continuation of the moratorium which was imposed during the NDP tenure of government; but the Ministry of Mines says that they have no authority to cancel coal licences, provided the licencees conform. They appear to be out to create a hurry-up in coal exploration when, in fact, the very people that are the licence holders in that area - people such as Kaiser Coal and others - have indicated that there is

[ Page 826 ]

a very limited future in the short term in British Columbia, and a very limited demand for metallurgical coal.

The branch and the minister have been forced into silence on this issue; and I wonder how shocked we would be if we were hearing about the annihilation of some exotic African species - maybe being shot for some exotic purpose. We can get very worked up about the extinction of the cheetah, because that doesn't exist here in British Columbia, but when we do have something that is super and natural right under our very noses, we have a very mindless battle going on between the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and a very weak defence from the branch. We have a solution here which can only be found at the ministerial level, at the political level. People are concerned, people throughout British Columbia who value this resource are very concerned, and they would ask at least for a continuation of the moratorium until thorough studies can take place.

The memorandum which I have glimpsed was dated February 9,1978. There was an exchange of memorandums between deputy ministers on this issue, and yet it appears that we're going blindly ahead, and that it is going to become a fact, and roads will be built into there. Exploration will go on in there, and, when you're exploring for a strip mine, it could be quite different from just going in and drilling a few test-holes. Even, Mr. Chairman, if they're going to take in equipment, if they have to build a road into there, what are going to be the ramifications?

Should there not be a full public hearing into this matter, at least in the local areas, so that some members of the public and people of organizations such as WIS, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and others could go and be heard? British Columbia will cease to be British Columbia if we lose these very exotic wildlife resources. And if we can allow 25 per cent of them to be endangered, then I think that, for the sake of one or two years of careful planning and examination, we would be very remiss in our duty, and certainly the series of individual-species management plans will be drastically altered. If we do have an environment that is absolutely essential to the survival of a species, you cannot just merely transplant them to some other area - and this particular herd is a unique group of big-horned sheep. I'm not a biologist, but one would almost think they might even be considered some sort of a subspecies of big-horned sheep, since they winter in alpine areas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what is happening in this, and I'm sure that the minister with all of his backup might be able to give all kinds of assurances to us. But I feel that the only way in which people can be properly satisfied that their best interests are being served would be to have some full public hearings. And unmuzzle your branch people, as they were unmuzzled on other issues when we were government, such as the Fly Creek access to the Purcell wilderness area. And unmuzzle the people in forestry, and the people in mines, and let's let the people make up their minds on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue, and that is that, according to some very recent news releases, it's estimated that the caribou population of British Columbia over the past very few years has dwindled to about 13,000, and they're scattered all over the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: From what?

MR. NICOLSON: From about 40,000-odd only a few years back - maybe 10 years ago. I'll bring in some details on that. There is an access road, as one headline, I think, put it, bring "driven at the heart" of probably the most major herd of caribou. I assume that these are Osborn caribou. It didn't say in the press release, but again here is an access road being built while we're looking at specific species management plans and considering them this year. I say that there is need for holding off certain developments until the full impact of these developments can be understood.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is the very serious question about the reorganization which is taking place on paper when, I guess, in some ways it must have started quite some time ago. I've been perplexed during the the calling of the McCarthy inquiry and I wondered what the purpose of it was. Then I read and saw a great deal of testimony. In going back over a few press clippings, I was made aware that the inquiry was called ostensibly because of some complaints attributed to the Sierra Club, but which more specifically should have been attributed to one member at the Sierra Club who was certainly not speaking with the authority and the voice of the entire Sierra Club organization and membership in British Columbia. I believe that person who was speaking out is - I could be wrong on this -not even a Canadian citizen and had levelled some very serious charges.

A great number of the branch were implicated and called before the inquiry in what I think was a very unusual move. They were denied

[ Page 827 ]

legal counsel from the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) office. They were left at the mercy of almost being treated .... I guess they went in there - and of course they are very knowledgeable people and very intelligent people - without legal counsel, and I don't think that there is one of them whose reputation has not suffered somewhat as a result of that inquiry. It turns out that the person who made the original allegations was speaking on the basis of rumour which was completely refuted.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think that we have established, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, that such inquiries are not court cases and that the sub judice rule does not apply in this House. I don't intend to go on with it any further though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a departmental inquiry and it does deal with the administrative responsibilities of the minister, so it's in order. Please continue.

MR. NICOLSON: That's right. Although I don't intend to pursue that much more, what I do say is that the minister has talked about a reorganization in the branch, but it seems to have all of the attributes of a complete hatchet job. Mr. Chairman, do you realize how many of the positions...? It was started, I know, before the minister became minister, but how can this reorganization take place? It's a very interesting fact, but I believe that all the branch personnel were together with the minister a few days before he made the announcement. He didn't discuss it with them, and then - while a great number of branch personnel were up at the Western Guides and Outfitters meeting, I believe - or were assembled with some public group - the announcement was made. Naturally, people were quizzed about this and it was the f first they had heard of it.

Right now in the branch, because of what I think is a deliberate act of destabilization, we see that there are currently 22 unfilled positions in that one branch. The chief of enforcement, I believe, has been vacant for one year. There is an acting director, and he is now, I suppose, in charge of both the wildlife branch and the fisheries branch. There are vacancies for conservation officers in Alberni, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Grand Forks, Fort Nelson, Chilliwack and Quesnel.

Last year through the hunting season there was a vacancy for a conservation officer in Sparwood. Temporary personnel were never hired. One person was left to cover that entire area which is very important in terms of bighorn sheep and other resource values.

I am informed that the position of co-ordinator of information and education has been vacant for three years.

Urban recreation co-ordinator and habitat protection - two vacancies.

Fish inventory technician - vacancy.

Information and education position at William Lake - vacant.

Fisheries biologist - vacant.

Two administrative positions in Victoria -vacant.

The regional director in Nelson is an acting position, not permanently filled. So we are either without a regional director or we are without a fisheries biologist, as the fisheries biologist is acting in that position.

Two administrative officers in Victoria -vacant.

Mr. Chairman, if someone had been sent in to clean up MacMillan Bloedel, to get rid of dead wood or maybe political wood or whatever, I would submit that they would embark upon such a program of deliberate destabilization. Inquiries would be called. People would not be afforded legal counsel, which I believe is very unusual. I believe it has been done in the case of former heads of B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries.

Added to that, we have charges emanating from a back-bench member who the minister says he speaks with every day, saying that the fish and wildlife branch has deliberately mis-spent money...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: ...and that they falsified game count records in northern British Columbia. That same person, who speaks to the minister almost every day, said that there is a movement of conservationists and politically oriented wildlife biologists which has got to be stopped. That sounds like a witch-hunt within that branch. I would certainly submit that the minister would do a great deal to restore confidence in his branch by disavowing himself from the remarks of that member and resolving heretofore to keep better company.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I have made a long list of notes here on the member's remarks.

First of all, the increase of f funds at the disposal of the conservation side of my ministry, which has occurred since they were

[ Page 828 ]

voted out of office is approximately 60 per cent.

The Creston Valley management authority, it is true, has had a reduction in budgeted funding here. I'd like to stress that in this and many other programmes of our ministry, we are increasingly utilizing the very excellent co-operation and financial involvement of a number of trusts and foundations who are concerned in this area. Creston Valley in this case is obtaining a good deal of support from Ducks Unlimited.

It makes good sense that government examine the ongoing programmes - which it has - and find ways in which other sectors and other kinds of organizations can assist and get involved in order that those funds that are utilized from the taxpayer form the kind of leading edge where the needs are currently. Other organizations which are competent to continue efforts can play a useful role. This is exactly what has happened in the Creston Valley instance.

The member was critical of my comments that we're embarking on joint expenditure of some $20 million this year in co-operation with the federal government under the salmonid enhancement programme. It was a rather meagre comment on what amounts to a tremendous step towards the enhancement of our salmonid resources this year. I'd like to say that we certainly do regard it as a joint expenditure. It is true the funds come from the federal government, as in many other programmes of this government.

It's essentially the same taxpayer and the same taxpayer is entitled to some co-operation between governments to make sure that his funds are well spent. I might say that in this instance, given that it's essentially a federal jurisdiction, we have gone a long way, through salmonid enhancement negotiations and otherwise, to represent the provincial interests fully in this vital part of our economy. I think that the fact that it is a jointly planned expenditure in large part reflects that.

The park acquisition funds - the member was unclear as to what our intentions were there. The acquisition of lands in phases one and two of the Pacific Rim National Park, for all intents and purposes, is complete now. The third stage.... The primary land acquisition problem, as the member will possibly be aware, is the forest lands which exist in the Nitinat triangle area. These are the subject of a very comprehensive and complex appraisal process to establish values and to enable an exchange of timberlands to take place. Therefore the actual dollars which are required for this continued commitment to establish Pacific Rim National Park are down this year as they were last year, pending this one major step which will take place. The funds which are established are therefore earmarked for not only parkland acquisition for the Pacific Rim National Park, but for the other purposes which I touched upon earlier in my remarks.

The member spoke of what he called "massive indecision, " and I assume he was referring to fish and wildlife. I would like to stress that we have had a very detailed review underway of the needs of that area of the ministry. We have had a major consulting study done by W.W. Mair. That study was exposed for public comment, and we felt it was very much in the interests of the ministry and that area of the ministry that we go about this in a deliberate way. But we are moving upon a complete reorganization which, I think that member will recognize, all aspects of the concerned public have endorsed.

As regards the comment that we can't just sit around and do nothing until the species plans are in place, we are not sitting around doing nothing, although I might say the species plans will be in place in large number this year. In the meantime, for example, in the area of sheep, of which the member spoke at length, we have embarked on a specific quota system for guides in regard to quite a large number of areas where we feel those populations may be threatened by overhunting. The non-resident hunters have therefore been placed in a form of quota system. Furthermore, it is my view that we will have to go to limited entry for resident hunters if their involvement in the resource conflicts or threatens those sheep.

Now the quota system has also been applied, as the member will be aware, in connection with grizzly and some other species according to local conditions. So we are mindful of instances where there may be a threat to a species in a particular locality. Regarding that population of bighorn sheep that he mentioned and his remarks on that, I must say first of all that I don't have the detail of that matter at hand, but I have asked for a report. I believe this is the same subject which the member touched upon in the budget debate. I will be happy to make the results of that available to him, although I doubt that they will be available in the next day or so.

Coal exploration - my deputy minister doesn't recall the particular memo that the member has cited. Certainly, to say that the ministry has been forced into silence is frankly ridiculous, because I do not have any detailed knowledge of this subject and the

[ Page 829 ]

deputy minister himself, although he is aware of a number of negotiations and involved in a number of discussions of this sort, hasn't any particular apprehension about this one.

We have a number of discussions going on at all times with the resource agencies that exist inside and outside of government to ensure that our fish and wildlife are adequately protected.

On the question of unmuzzling the people of Fish and Wildlife, I haven't been under the impression that they've been muzzled. I regularly read the comments of a number of them in the press, as I think it is my responsibility to do as well as observing the ministry and their in-house needs.

The reorganization, he says, should have begun a long time ago, that it's just on paper. Well, okay, we have taken the first step, which is to announce our intentions, and those intentions will be implemented this year. But I can certainly agree that reorganization should have taken place a long time ago. And I might ask that member, what happened when Mr. Radford ums minister when they were in government? Why did not they embark on such a reorganization, which he quite readily admits everyone has looked for for a good long time? We embarked, in fact, on the reorganizational studies before I was minister. The Hon. Grace McCarthy, the hon. minister of the day, put in motion this study which Iove already mentioned, and we're following through on that.

The notion that this is some sort of hatchet job is again absurd, because we're essentially following the lines which Mr. Mair set out in his report. We have not attached people to positions at this juncture in the reorganization that will follow from a deliberate review of how this is going to be implemented.

I have a comment on the McCarthy inquiry. The McCarthy inquiry was necessitated because, as that member has said, serious charges were made - allegations in fact published by a Sierra Club periodical and talked about generally by other concerned citizens. I was taken aback by this, but felt that the air should be cleared, that it left a cloud over the people in the ministry and would certainly impair their ability to function, and to administer with the confidence of the public. I think it should be pointed out that a departmental inquiry is not a proceeding which would lead of itself to any kind of conviction of an individual. Legal counsel for a departmental inquiry for officials of a ministry involved in such an inquiry has no precedent. The Attorney-General is clear in making that decision.

Regional directors were indeed with me a few days before the announcement of our basic intent to adopt reorganization as outlined. In fact, we had an opportunity, contrary to what the member says, to discuss what the implications of such a thrust would be. We didn't get into all the detail of it. That's to follow. In any event, I might say that the regional directors will continue to be responsible for an integrated operation of the conservation personnel in the field and there will not be directly any major.... Well, there may be some significant changes in communication lines, but not reorganizationally within their own offices or field staffs.

That member, Mr. Chairman, spoke at length about 22 positions which have been unfilled. I might say this is out of some more than 300 established positions in the ministry.

MR. NICOLSON: In one branch.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'm sorry, in the one branch. I'll say it again, 22 positions unfilled out of more than 300 established positions constitutes slightly over 5 per cent. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am not -with the possible exception of the director's job which has not been filled on a permanent basis pending the reorganization and the need to restructure - interfering with the filling of positions. The deputy minister advises me that a number of these have been subject to reclassification. For example, the chief of enforcement position has been vacant pending reclassification on our wish to see it as a more senior position, reflecting the vital role that enforcement has in the province. When I announced the establishment of a chief conservation officer position, that was an extension of that same concern.

With the comments the member made about statements allegedly made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) at a public meeting, I am advised by that member that he was, in a number of respects, misquoted by the press in reporting his remark . I might say, too, that I have, however, asked officials of my ministry to determine whether it is possible that any such misappropriation of funds or falsification of game counts has occurred. However, we have no evidence to that effect.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal with several items in this minister's estimates, but I think I would prefer to take them one at a time so that he has an opportunity to respond to each specific item. I think we get further that way, Mr. Chairman.

The f first items that I want to deal with is

[ Page 830 ]

in a slightly different area, and that is the recreational area specifically, and most specifically skiing. Members will note that I have arranged to have placed on their desks a little brochure regarding the proposed, or hoped for, or long awaited, White Crown ski development in the central Island region. This is a development that was well underway during the former administration. I have letters here, Mr. Chairman, dating back to October 21,1975, from the then minister indicating that they were pursuing the development; another letter from the then Premier (Mr. Barrett) , October 20, saying that he has been advised by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation that land assembly was well underway; and finally a letter of January 2,1975, indicating that land assembly was underway and the property would be available at the beginning of the new year, one year from that time. Unfortunately for the White Crown ski development there was a change of government at that time, and unfortunately for some other things too. However, since that time there seem to have been a complete stalemate on the development of the White Crown ski area.

(Mr. King in the chair.]

The little blue brochure outlines some of the advantages of having a year-round playground in the central Island area. It's within one day's driving distance of Victoria, for one thing, and it could have a great many different facilities. It wouldn't be just a skiing area, it would be a family recreation area.

The Ladysmith Recreation Commission has been working long and hard to have this established as a ski resort. During the course of their research and review, they had a representative come to speak to them who is extremely knowledgeable about ski areas and ski facilities. He was a Mr. Beddoes, who is connected with the ski clubs in Sidney and Victoria. An ardent skier, Mr. Beddoes explained to the commission that he skied throughout B.C., and in his opinion the White Grown area is superior to any established resort on the Island and compares favourably with the best in the province. He also said that it would have the advantage of wind and weather factors, having southwest exposure and getting protection from prevailing winds. In his research and study of the area, Mr. Beddoes said he had obtained some figures regarding costs; mind you, these are a year and a half old now. He said that the cost of a ski lift would be in the region of $75,000 to $90,000. He spoke of a T-bar taking about 30 days to install at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000.

Mr. Beddoes agreed the scenery is magnificent, and offers wide-ranging views of the Island. He went on to state: "Access to the White Grown area is one of the major factors in favour of the development, because the road, although in need of maintenance and upgrading, is one which could be used by any vehicle and would not limit the use to a fourwheel drive type vehicle." It would give access to a greater number of people. He felt it could prove to be one of the me) st popular resorts in the province.

Well, you would think, Mr. Chairman, with that kind of a piece of property available for development on the Island, and with the plans sort of already laid, that this government would have proceeded to develop.

I asked the minister about this last year, he will recall, and he told me at that time that the f first step had to be taken by the Ministry of the Environment, that they did the land assembly and that there was a person who was responsible for that. I took it upon myself to call this person just recently, Mr. Chairman, because nothing seemed to be happening.

He tells me that he thinks he went once to that area. He went alone. He suspects he found the right area; he wasn't even sure of that. He claims it would be an extensive road programme. He's estimating road maintenance costs at a fabulous amount. He says a T-bar would not be satisfactory. You know, I'm really suspicious that he was in the right place, though I hate to intimate that. But certainly the stories do not match.

But nothing has happened. I was really upset to have to transmit this message to the Ladysmith Recreation Commission, and I know they're going to be mightily upset when they get my letter telling them about where this thing is at, and that the next step that they should take, if they're going to pursue this thing, would be to have this particular person in and take him to look at the White Crown area again. They're back to step one, Mr. Chairman.

I think I should call the Chairman to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MRS. WALLACE: Where is this thing at? Is it going ahead? Are you prepared to move on it? Are we going to have a community development there that will serve the people on Vancouver Island - an area that's central, that's ideal, according to the qualified people that have looked at it. I think just before you respond

[ Page 831 ]

I should just outline the things that Ladysmith Recreation Commission have said, and this is dated February of this year. They say that:

"Further to the information gathered by Ladysmith Recreation Commission over the past four years and in answer to some of the points that have been brought out before them, they say a non-profit group from this area has recognized the futility of their plan and have pledged full support to the Ladysmith Recreation Commission's proposals."

So that's the private sector out. Crown Zellerbach does not expect extensive forested lands as a trade-off but rather a fair trade, and that seemed to be one of the hang-ups that we've heard before. A fair trade is all they're asking for. They'd be willing to sit down and discuss this. People are saying that people can get in there now. A few people do use it, but really, it does require some work on the road, it does require some upgrading and it does require the efforts, the interests and a little bit of monetary backing from this ministry and from this government. If the minister would care to respond to that particular item I would be....

HON. MR. BAWLF: If you've got a couple more questions, then I'll ....

MRS. WALLACE: No, I would really rather have you respond to this one before we go on. However, if you're not prepared to respond to this, we can wait until later.

One of the other items that I wanted to deal with has been touched on briefly by my colleague, and that is the question of the spring trap. I think, Mr. Chairman it's a sad day that this has gone on so ;long, and I notice the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is applauding, and so he should. I hope he will get up and join in this debate, because I have before me here his bill, introduced in 1973, asking for some action on this. I hope that we'll have the Attorney-General on his feet speaking in this debate in support of this move. The Attorney-General, along with the other members of that cabinet, made a commitment to the people of British Columbia when they were elected in 1975 that they would ban leg-hold traps in 1978. That was the commitment they made.

MR. KEMPF: How many trappers have you got in your constituency?

MS. SANFORD: What's that got to do with it?

MRS. WALLACE: I have some trappers in my constituency, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly I have a great deal of interest in seeing that the trappers of this province are not put to any disadvantage. But, Mr. Chairman, that was the purpose of this committee which was set up to come up with a humane and usable trap, and the committee has failed to do that. They have concentrated instead on expensive literature. They simply have not had sufficient funding. They have put out leaflet after leaflet, bulletin after bulletin, all talking about studies and reviews. I have such a sheaf of literature here. I'm sure we could have come up with a trap if the amount of money had been expended on actual, feasible, practical kinds of ways of getting a humane trap instead of just writing letters about it and sending out fancy brochures. I think my point is illustrated in the most recent letter that I have from the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping, where they talk about their various projects. And some of the quotes are really interesting from this.

You know, it's all studies and carry-on and tests, but no actual results. You know, they're talking about terminal dive studies. The project is held up waiting the arrival of specially designed radio transmitters. This is pioneer work. No study has ever been conducted which has categorically determined how semi-aquatic fur-bearing animals react physiologically during terminal dives. That's doing a lot to get us a humane trap. Really, I think that we're just doing one study after the other without getting on with the practical job of producing a trap. I think a lot of these studies are for the sake of the study, rather than for the end result.

They go on to say that they're studying lateral impact on animals as opposed to blows delivered on the vertical plane. This is critical. Well, maybe it's critical, but they're proposing to complete that particular study by August, 1978, and this has been going on for four years. But this is the state of advancement of this committee. There is one study; they're doing it now. They hope to have it completed by August, 1978. They're just simply not getting on with the job.

Field test procedures - do you know where they're at with field tests? One of the summer's tasks has been a complete revision of the national field test format. It's four and a half years down the road, and that's where we're at. We're as far from a humane trap

[ Page 832 ]

today as we were when that committee was set up, I suggest, Mr. Chairman. That member, who is the minister responsible, and that cabinet have made a very firm commitment to the people of this province. I would like to know whether or not the minister is going to take some steps that will ensure at least that deadline coming a bit closer instead of going on with the same procedures that have been going on for the last four years - with no real, concrete results. Now is the minister prepared to respond at this point?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Give me another one.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, we'll move onto something else then.

I'm glad the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is in the House at this moment because I want to talk about this minister's responsibility in the areas of the salmon programme and the salmon protection programme. I'm talking to you, Mr. Minister, because you have the responsibility for the protection of the salmon and the fisheries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please address the Chair?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, we have been faced in my constituency with some very severe problems in both the Cowichan estuary and in Ladysmith harbour. This is a continuing and on-going thing, and it is causing more confrontation, more hard feelings, more difficulties within the constituency than any other one situation. It seems that this government is committed to taking whatever action they feel necessary or feel inclined to take, to move and help in some way to get the economy on its feet, and they're certainly not making any very good moves in that direction. They're not having any successes.

But they are not prepared to look at the long term, the long haul. They are looking at short-term ends, and I am surprised that the minister who is responsible for the salmon protection in this province is not being a bit more vocal about protection of that particular industry and that particular resource. We seem to hear only f rom the people who want to develop in estuaries, who want to store logs in estuaries, who want to store logs in harbours, who are not really looking at the long-term, overall, balanced sort of economy that could result if we developed all our industries at the same level and jointly, so one would complement the other.

I would urge the minister to use his influence to ensure that the kind of measures that are proceeding in the Cowichan estuary and in the Ladysmith harbour are reviewed by his officials, and I would urge him to tell this House that he is prepared to speak up in support of our concerns regarding the salmon industry, the salmon species in those areas -not just the salmon, but the recreational facilities that go along with those harbours and with that river estuary, a terrific potential for many of the kinds of developments that I would expect he would be promoting.

Still, he is very silent. We're hearing only from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . We're hearing nothing from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I would hope that he would take a stand that would lead us in a direction where we can make the fullest use of the resources that we have in those areas.

I wanted to speak also about a couple of other smaller item within the constituency. They're smaller inasmuch as they haven't received perhaps as much notoriety. There is a piece of property known as the Gallagher property in my constituency, which has been passed like a football back and forth between regional and provincial governments. It's a beautiful piece of property. It's one of those rare spots that we don't find too often, even on Vancouver Island. I hope the minister has taken time to go and have a look at it personally, because it is a beautiful spot. It's available. It has been available for a long time, at a very reasonable price, by the owner, who does not want to see it chopped up as a subdivision, who would like to make it available at a reasonable price to the people of British Columbia, but there don't seem to be any takers. I would ask the minister if he would stand in the House today and tell us that he is going to take some action on that piece of property, and that it won't be going under the hammer of the developers, because it would be a shame to see that piece of property chopped up for expensive residential development which would exclude access by the local residents and by the general public and by the tourist industry on Vancouver Island.

Another park that I am concerned about is the Bright Angel park. Now you've told me that's a regional park, but it does need some support. It needs increased area. You do have funding for regional parks, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. That's a park that is used, and not just by local residents. It's

[ Page 833 ]

a very popular park for Victorians on a Saturday or a Sunday, and it's crowded. There is property available adjacent to that, and we've gone through this before, Mr. Minister, but nothing has happened. I hope that this year maybe you will have a little freer hand with your funds because I know there were problems last year. I have seen some very interesting letters coming out of your ministry which have indicated that your funds have been rather limited.

In fact, when one of the local fish and game clubs asked for a speaker to come from your ministry to speak to them, they were told that that particular person would very much like to attend but that the funds for the fish and wildlife department are limited to such an extent that travel is for emergencies only. This, we understand, extends to all field personnel. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister would care to explain to the House why he found it necessary to limit travel in his ministry to emergencies only. It certainly couldn't have been from over staffing. As my colleague was pointing out, you are short a number of people on your staff. I would be very interested if the minister could tell us why he found it necessary to limit travel of his staff to emergencies only, and I would also like his definition of an emergency.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

One other item - and I hope the minister is making notes of all these things - is the petition which both he and I received from some residents around Priest Lake. That's in the Yellow Point area. I think there has been some loss of correspondence. I don't know haw correspondence can get lost between my office and the minister's but he doesn't seem to have all my letters, and he indicates he replied. I don't seem to have a reply; I have tried to get this reply. Maybe that point can be straightened up here, as to whether or not the requests of these petitioners are going to be granted. Their concern was that Priest Lake had been stocked with fish. It's a very small lake. There's a lot of wildlife around that lake and the concern was that if there were motorboats allowed in there, if the access were allowed for vehicles to go in and launch boats, there would be a real problem with the ecological balance in the lake. What they're asking for is vehicle parking on the side of the road, an area with some facilities for garbage disposal and maintenance and pickup in those disposal areas. They are very pleased to have the lake become a stocked lake, and be available for the use of people traveling in the Yellow Point area and for the residents there. But they don't want to have that facility at the cost of destroying the lake, or making it impossible to use because of the number of motorboats and so on that could well wind up there if there was a launching. It's very close to many of the summer resorts there, and it's also used as an auxiliary water supply-tor some of the lodges. So there is some concern about the purity of the water there and so on, and I would hope that the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The White Crown ski area proposal, the member said, was well along under the former government. I'm advised that there had been a couple of studies made, but that's as far along as it had got. I should point out that the policy of this government is that, wherever possible, ski development should occur by way of enabling the private sector to respond and that, in any event, ski development is a subject which is under the administration of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , for the very good reason that the resources which impinge upon that development - primarily land and in some instances forests - are co-ordinated through his responsibilities both for lands and for the Environment and Land Use Committee and secretariat, as chairman of that committee. So the co-ordinator of ski development is a position which exists in the Ministry of the Environment.

Further to that, we are not proceeding as the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation toward any development of White Crown. You will have to ask the Minister of the Environment, when his estimates are up, what is happening there. But, as I understand it, the principal problem is that the lands are former E & N lands which are owned by Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel - private lands, about 1,200 acres of them, and no one who's examined this has been able to secure any kind of use agreement with them. In addition, there are about nine miles of access road which will be very costly to develop to a standard for the public. Going on, I might just say here that, if you feel that that representative of the Ministry of the Environment has had difficulty finding this site, I suggest you take him and show him; I'm sure that's one of your jobs as MLA.

Dealing with humane trapping, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that there really are two avenues to more humane trapping. One is better trapping methods, which can have a great effect, in fact, upon the humane qualities of

[ Page 834 ]

trapping, and these are pursued through our trapper education programme...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: ... which we did not cut back. The member says we cut it back - that's nonsense. We had information that the federal contribution to the programme would not be coming forward; we were forced to suspend the programme for a total of about 10 days, pending confirmation that some form of funding would be available for their share. But we did not cut back the programme, and the programme, proceeded. And it is not as a result of any shortage of funding on our part.

Now I'd further say, Mr. Chairman, that, on the question of humane trapping devices, at the present time - and this has a very recent date, the update on the federal-provincial committee which is examining new trapping devices - they have about 22 devices in the mechanical development and evaluation stage, having examined more than 200. As I said last year in regard to this subject, the simple fact is that there is no one device which will suffice for all of the species which are presently trapped by the leg-hold trap. There must be devices which are designed, to a large extent, reflecting the behaviour of each individual species. It's a very complex subject. I'm advised that there are no improved traps, other than those which have been on the market for some time. There are no new ones on the market at this time; there is some prospect of them being on the market next year.

Yes, certainly we could bring in a bill such as the Attorney-General introduced in the House some years ago, when he was a member of the opposition, but that bill would frankly be window dressing because it would not be....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's attacking the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Well, it's not a matter of attacking the Attorney-General. I would remind the minister that we can only deal with your administrative responsibilities and not areas needing legislation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may quote from page 739 of the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May:

"The administrative action of the department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

HON. MR. BAWLF: I would remind the Chairman that the member opposite was not called to order on the same point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well taken.

HON. MR. BAWLF: It is my expectation, and my advice, that there will possibly be devices available next year for actual use by trappers, but I'd also remind the members opposite that we have in excess of 5,000 trappers in British Columbia, the majority of them, in fact, native Indians. Certainly, as a rule, they are people who live in relatively remote areas of the province with very little alternative income. There is no simple answer. Outlawing the use of the leg-hold trap will simply put 5,000 people into a very difficult situation.

No one wishes to see inhumanity inflicted on any creature, least of all me, but I would just say that we are hopeful that in the time that the wildlife branch is addressing the revision of the Wildlife Act, there will be the introduction into that Act of more humane trapping provisions, including those reflecting on devices, for the next session of the Legislature.

Cowichan estuary - the task force there includes participation of my ministry. There is no value to generating a lot of hot air for my part on the subject. The results are what count. I would say that there probably has not been a more intensive examination of any environmental issue in the history of this province than the Cowichan estuary, and that evaluation is taking place in a responsible and productive way on the part of all ministries of government concerned and certainly with the participation of my ministry.

Gallagher property - I have met with Mr. Gallagher personally and conveyed to him, as I have to other concerned parties, that the Gallagher property is not a priority as provincial parkland. I have said at the same time that we would be prepared to assist, under the Regional Parks Act, with the provision of one-third of the cost of acquiring the land as regional park, if the region deems it a priority. The same would go for any expansion of Bright Angel regional park. I would suggest, in both respects again, that the member do her job and relate the priority of this matter to the regional district. She will, I think, have been copied correspondence from me, that we are prepared to support their regional parks programme with our one-third funding.

As for the remark of limited travel to emergencies only, Mr. Chairman, I have no

[ Page 835 ]

knowledge of limitations on local travel in the province. The only travel matters which I examine are those where a member of my ministry is traveling beyond provincial boundaries. I certainly have not imposed any directive which would limit travel. This may be an internal matter to the ministry, but not one that's come to my attention. As for the petition on Priest Lake - we'll look at what the problems are with the correspondence there and, certainly, I will be happy to report to that member in the next week or so what's happened there.

MR. SHELFORD: I first of all want to say I was pleased to hear what the minister had to say about trapping - that it's not an easy answer. I would hope before there's any move to ban the leg-hold trap that there will also be a solution found for jobs for those 5,000 or so mainly Indian trappers who will be put out of business. There's no easy answer and I don't think there will be any one trap that will do the job. Quite a number of people, of course, claim that the Conibear trap is the answer, which it is for certain species, but certainly not for all.

An expert came up last summer and he was saying that the reason you can't trap a wolf, for instance, in a leg-hold trap is the s;;simple reason that you can catch him in a Conibear trap. A friend of mine quickly pointed out to him that if it was that easy, he should be able to give up his salary until such time as lie had caught a wolf. And I would suggest that would be about a thousand years down the road, because it just won't happen.

I must say I was a little bit surprised at the minister's estimates coming up so soon this afternoon, but I was very pleased to see the minister's interest in game management. The people in my area were very encouraged by your speech in Smithers, where you outlined a limited control programme. I hope before too long you'll be able to report back and tell us how it worked out. I think everyone was pleased to have you visit the area, because a minister can learn a great deal by meeting with the local people - in fact an awful lot more than sitting here for several months.

It's interesting when we talk about meeting with local people. Sometimes a lot of experts forget about about this. But a fellow that builds major bridges in the U.S. is a Mr. Charles A. Andrews, who designed the Oakland Bridge and the Seattle Floating Bridge. Now when he came up to build a floating bridge at Kelowna, his top priority, he claimed, in planning a bridge in the first place was to get all the information possible from a long time resident who is the expert on things such as flood conditions, climate, soil stability, et cetera. And so he spent the first month doing nothing else but meeting with the local people who knew what the local conditions were.

I would say this is the very area that our game managers, with a few exceptions, fall down. And certainly one exception, and I'm pleased to see him here this afternoon, is Dr. Jim Hatter, %to spent some time up at our ranch studying moose and game activities. But most times, the average young game manager that comes into the district usually thinks he knows more about the area than those who have spent their whole life in the bush, such as guides and trappers. I don't think we should point any particular blame- to those people that start out. The whole problem is that when they leave university, they're only really half-educated because they haven't had the practical experience out in the bush.

I would say, if nothing else, our modern educational system which has educated a whole generation under the Farley Mowat myth has done a great deal to damage the possibilities of proper game management. There is no question that the education system over the last 25 years in this field has been of minus value, not of a plus value. The whole educational system will have to be changed to reverse this teaching of the myth started by Mowat and quite a number of others. It will take many, many years and a great deal of money on research on a problem that the experts in the field - that is, those who live there - knew of the problem and the answers 35 years ago. But I do think it will be necessary to carry out a great deal of research in order to prove to the generation that has been educated on a myth that they were going in the wrong direction.

I think it's a terrible mistake we have made of mismanagement, but I will say that the mistakes are certainly honest mistakes. Any of those that I know in the management field are certainly doing their darndest to try and do the best. For that reason it's certainly essential that money is available at all times that they can get out and observe, to see what's going on in the wilderness. It's not good enough to see then grounded in their office where they'll be inclined to read some book that's not true in the f first place, and it won't expand their education of what things are really like out in the woods.

I was very interested to have the opportunity twice to listen to Dr. Bergerud, who, I'm convinced, should be funded for further studies as he is certainly one of the most

[ Page 836 ]

knowledgeable biologists that I've listened to. I would say one of the interesting facts is that after his study in various areas in Newfoundland, northern Canada and British Columbia, he's found exactly what the guides and trappers knew during the late 1930s. He points out that the caribou population has gone down from 27,000 in 1970 to 11,000 before this winter, and I would predict that the caribou population has gone down a further 2,000 animals during this present season.

We all know where they went - or all those, I should say, who live in the area and know a little bit about it know where they went. It's a simple fact that the wolves killed them. There seems to be some question in Bergerud's mind that the grizzly bear and the wolverine may also contribute to the decline in the caribou population. Personally, I would doubt this, because after the kill-off of the caribou and the deer in the 1930s, the predator control programme was brought in which didn't kill off the wolves, but it kept them at a fairly steady level.

The grizzly bear and the wolverine were present in Tweedsmuir Park all during that period. But once the control programme on the wolves came in, the caribou population went straight up at around 25 per cent to 27 per cent a year. Also, the deer population throughout the whole area, even with hunters increasing by the thousands, kept going up. The simple reason is because the hunter isn't smart enough to catch up with too many deer in the heavy bush country of the central interior.

Now after a study on caribou for six years in Newfoundland and these other areas, it's interesting to note what he had to say at one of the meetings I went to. Bergerud said:

"No herd has ever increased Where wolves are common. When wolves were reduced to the 1950s level of about one for every 1,700 square miles, the caribou calf population recruited at a rate of 28 per cent. But where wolves were allowed to increase again in some areas where there was one every 50 square miles, the survival rate of the caribou calves was 4 per cent." That's what it is at the present time in most parts of British Columbia.

Now without predator control, as I mentioned, they went up by 25 per cent to 27 per cent. Where there are heavy predators like there are in the north country today, the calves have a survival rate of about 4 per cent. Now it takes 12 per cent to keep the animal population stable. This takes care of those that die of f by natural causes and, of course, the few that are shot off by hunters.

At the rate of only 4 per cent that we have at the present time, in fact we're losing caribou at the rate of 8 per cent a year. As Bergerud points out, if you're taking a logical look at the whole game management picture in British Columbia today, there shouldn't be any hunting at all and there should be a predator control programme so that the caribou have a chance to come back.

I would point out that right at the moment -and this may not be so - it appears the ministry is focusing its main attention and the research is being focused on the caribou population, when of course we should observe that the deer population has been wiped out throughout that whole central area. We should also observe that the sheep population is going down just as rapidly as the caribou. The moose are going down quite rapidly in some of these areas also. I would again like to point out that we shouldn't ever consider the elimination of the wolf only to keep a happy balance.

One thing that is interesting to note is that grizzly bears, for instance, increase at about a half a per cent a year. Caribou can do quite a lot better, but a wolf can have six and eight a year and so can quickly overcome the game animals. That's where nature goes in these waves and balances.

But we have to accept that without predator control, we're not going to have any game for the next 20 years because the game population will be wiped out and then the wolves too will be wiped out. But there's also one little hooker that comes in here that's a little different from what nature had intended. We have the livestock population now where the wolves come out of the mountains and pick off the odd cow or sheep that will keep it alive, where it normally would have died out. Then the game population would again start to come back.

I personally am not optimistic for the survival of our game population in this province because I think our educational system over the years has had such an impact -and as I say, it put minus values into the population - that I don't think we can change it quick enough. I would say the guiding industry, which is quite an important industry in the northern areas, will largely disappear within five years. Also, hunting will be greatly restricted because of the need for quotas in practically all areas and all species of game.

I would say we haven't really managed our game at all over the last 10 years. We've only administered regulation of harvest. I'm pleased to see the research that is going on

[ Page 837 ]

and much more will have to be done to reeducate a generation from the Mowat myth. Dr. Bergerud said: "Mowat was right. The wolf does kill the old. The wolf does kill the weak. It also kills the mature and healthy animal and the young." That is absolutely correct.

Money has to be made available to get our managers out into the wilderness to learn the facts of life, especially in I-larch and April. This is one of the mistakes we make, Mr. Minister. We hire young students in the summer to go into the wilderness to study game populations when really not too much is happening, because the predators don't have that much impact during the summer months. However, during March and April, when the big kills normally take place, we have our young people on UIC when they should be out in the woods taking a look to see what's going on.

Last year the best chance in 40 years was missed in Tweedsmuir Park where 250 caribou were cornered by a pack of 30 or 40 wolves. Now my brother, who still traps in the area, begged the wildlife biologists to go and see for themselves, to see something that we saw in 1938-39. Now he begged them to go out, because this is a chance you won't see for another 40 years because there won't be enough game around to see it. They didn't go out, and I think it's a great shame. I don't know whether it was lack of money - they couldn't fly - or what it was. But they didn't go. I think it's a great shame because certainly none of the present game managers will ever see that during their active lifetime again.

As I say, we saw it happen the same way in 1938-39, but we should....

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened? Did they wipe out the herd?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes. We saw as many as 54 caribou killed over one weekend by wolves up in the Tweedsmuir Park. I was a trapper in those days, only 18 years old. But that's the sort of thing we saw. The only way we're going to resolve this problem is by getting our game managers out for the same length of time that the trappers are out. I don't think any of these people should qualify to be game managers until they've spent at least two winters in the woods to see what's going on. Then they would have the same type of practical knowledge that the guide and the trapper have who watch all the time and see the game animals going down and down.

In 1938 there were around 1,800 head of caribou in Tweedsmuir Park, which, as I mentioned earlier, were wiped out in the winter of 1938-39. It took 20 years for them to come back with a closed season for 12 years, and a predator control programme that didn't eliminate the predators, but kept them under reasonable control. They came back to nearly the same number by 1970-71 in that area. But this year there have only been two caribou tracks spotted in Tweedsmuir Park by trappers that cover the area practically every day. It shows clearly exactly what happened. We don't have to do a lot of these studies because we know, or should know, what's happened in other areas and in other situations.

Governor Hammond of Alaska, a biologist himself, had this to say. he thought he was quite an expert, as he points out in this article:

"Some think that because I've seen more wolves than most, perhaps I'm an expert. Sorry, I lost my expertise somewhere along the trail. For example, before I spent time among the wolves, I knew wolves took only the lame, the sick and the halt, until studies of scores of wolf kills indicated that if wolves did select caribou, they selected the fat and healthy. Their selectivity of moose does favour killing off the young."

This, of course is exactly contrary to the Farley Mowat myth taught to all our young people in our schools. He goes on to say:

"I knew wolves killed only what they needed until one day I found 27 wolf killed reindeer where the wolves had eaten only the tongues. I knew that aerial hunting was no good and I knew predators did not significantly affect prey populations until I noticed that almost everywhere wolves had been controlled in Alaska, big-game populations increased remarkably.

"Although today I know less about wolves than I once did, and an no longer an expert, I'm pleased that there are no shortage of experts to take my place."

And he points out what I've been trying to point out:

"We have educated a whole, generation on a myth, and until that is turned around, the chance of a proper game management programme, I would say, are 100 per cent nil."

I must say I feel sorry for a lot of the game managers, especially those who have been out and observed and know what's going on. There are still quite a lot that are happily going down the road of game extinction and so far aren't aware of what's going on, but quite a number are. I think these people are in a hopeless position and I think the ministry is

[ Page 838 ]

in a hopeless position because the population will not permit them to manage game. They'll permit them to manage wolves, but not game animals. They are willing to see the game animals of this province disappear. They will disappear in a very short time.

I must say I'm pleased with the interest that has been shown by quite a number of our game managers over the last year. There is concern starting to sprout up in the field and it's very heartening, but I'm afraid it's too late. As I mentioned before, the deer in this whole region I speak for are pretty well gone. The sheep and the caribou are going very rapidly and the moose will be last. Time is short and the unfortunate part is that society knows the answers. Those people who get out in the woods - people in Sweden, people in Finland, people in other countries, people in the Soviet Union - know what the problem is. They know what the answer is, but the masses that were educated under a myth won't let our game managers manage the game in this province.

I'm certainly not very optimistic that you'll be able to move. I know you want to move along this line. You want to see the deer along the highway, you want to see the caribou on the hillside, you want to see the moose in the valleys, but you're not going to see the moose in the valleys because of our own stupidity of educating a generation that doesn't want to see them.

The trouble is that studies, I think, are extremely necessary. And I just hope you can get on with them real quickly. Because if you can do it real fast - of course, you have to have a PhD behind your name before you know anything in this world, so you have to get these people out so that they're convinced, like Dr. Bergerud - you can get others convinced who can go to the schools and tell the real stories. We need a balance, we want all types of game, we don't want to eliminate any species.

I think we should go back to where I started: the bridge builder who went and talked to the local people and found out what they thought. Then apply knowledge received in the university. Certainly you'd have a great team working for the betterment of game management in this province. I certainly urge you, Mr. Minister, to do whatever you can. But I think all of us as members have a duty to go around the province to the schools. Don't advocate elimination of anything, or you'll get shot down. Just tell the people that we're trying to get our game managers to manage our game.

We want to co-operate with the hon. Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) when she said you can come to British Columbia and see game. I'd like to see someone come to my area and show a deer if they traveled for six months today. You won't see it. And it's up to all of us to get behind the minister and try to convince people that we are trying to manage our 'game, that we've made a helluva mess of it over the last 20 years. Let's get on with the job.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena, as he is so capable of doing, has put his finger right on probably the biggest problem w have in the management of our wildlife in the province today.

There is a general misconception afoot that somehow if our wildlife were left to their own devices, there would be some kind of natural, stable equilibrium which would exist among the populations of wildlife. That hasn't existed since the white man entered this country, and probably for a long time before. Alexander Mackenzie, when he traveled across this land - the first man to walk to the Pacific Ocean -found that in his travels the only animal that he could find to eat was an old black bear he had to shoot, and they ate that. That was the only thing they could see. There were long periods when the native Indian population faced severe problems with starvation but for the fact that they had access to the fisheries.

The simple fact is that we've seen in this century some very wide sweeps or cycles, if you like, in the levels of a whole variety of species that make up this province. They have been largely due to the relative existence of predators. The moose as a phenomenon south of Prince George is something which is directly related to the perhaps overzealous eradication or attempt to eradicate the predator in the new ranchlands of the interior, and certainly the effect of some types of resource development and land development which opened up the country.

What we have discovered in the past year -Dr. Bergerud working under contract with this ministry - is that indeed the wolf population is reaching the top if its cycle and that from here, if we allow that cycle to go unchecked, it's all downhill, firstly, for the game animals that the member for Skeena speaks of. It's evident right now that we have a decline in the caribou population of very serious proportions.

We don't have - and it's true - adequate data on the moose or deer. We are endeavouring to examine those relationships as well. But eventually what we'll end up with is a low

[ Page 839 ]

point in the cycle where we have very few of the ungulates, very few of the wolves themselves. Once their prey is gone, as is happening now, they begin to attack the livestock, they begin to harass communities. There are instances where I spoke to people firsthand in northern interior where people had domestic animals taken right off their back porches by wolves in the past winter.

We've got a problem that is not a happy one for those who feel that the wolf - as I do, and I think any enlightened person will - is a beautiful creature. But we have an imbalance. There's no such thing as a natural, stable equilibrium. If we allow the cycle to take its course, certainly it's my belief that if the member for Skeena is correct, the result that can be predicted. Therefore we are having to embark upon control of predation.

We have done so for some time in terms of livestock predation with the establishment of regional predator control committees which have included not only local ranchers and fish and wildlife people, but also concerned naturalists. We have been concerned with con trolling individual animals or groups of animals who are harassing livestock. But now we have to face the music, and we are going to have to do something of a direct nature to deal with predation on our natural game species, and in particular with relation to the caribou. Some test programmes are being conducted of that nature. They began on an emergent basis, at my orders, this past winter. We will have the results through the spring and summer, and we will f rom that be able to evaluate the way in which we can proceed to bring about a balance which will see a restoration of the caribou population and others, and allow us to maintain as high as possible a population of wolves as well, and certainly, in every instance, higher population levels than we're headed for in regard to all of those species.

MR. KING: I was very interested in listening to the member for Skeena's (Mr. Shelford's) appraisal of the wildlife situation in British Columbia and certainly I support some of his observations. I'm not sure that I go all the way in terms of the planning capability of departmental biologists and other assorted professionals who really are responsible for game management in the province.

Like the member for Skeena, I have had some experience with wildlife, in terms of a lot of the different regions of this province, as a railroad worker, where you travel through terrain and see a tremendous amount of wildlife and learn something about the concentrations of that wildlife. There is no question whatsoever that in many important parts of this province there has been a virtual elimination of, particularly, deer. I can remember in 1948 and 1949, working on the trains between Cranbrook and Nelson, chasing literally 100 deer ahead of the train, having to slow down and literally herd them into the village of Yahk in that particular area of the East Kootenays. You just don't see deer along the rights-of-way of the railroads or the highways any longer. Now surely that tells us something, quite aside from the intrusion of population into the traditional areas of wildlife.

One of the things that I think is wrong, in addition to the encroachment of new developments and new roads and so on, is the inordinately long open season that has been allowed on the female species of deer and elk, particularly. I quite hunting in the East Kootenays about seven or eight years ago because there are more hunters in the field now than there are game animals. Literally on the top of every mountain in the East Kootenays - and I've hunted wide regions of it - you will encounter hunters in just about every location, with every type of vehicle. The access to areas that used to be fairly isolated, such at the Flathead region, is now at all with the types of vehicles that are available for gaining access to these wild regions.

We changed our hunting area - I've discussed this with the minister before - and now hunt up in the Buckinghorse River area, up the Alaska Highway, and we have hunted there for six or seven years. I can vouch for some of the comments that the member for Skeena makes. There was sighted, in the particular area I hunted in last fall, a pack of 22 timber wolves, which is a very, very large concentration. I can tell you, after staying at one particular place with a small rancher whom we had become friends with over the years, that they are marauding domestic animals. There is no question about that, and they are a real threat.

The problem with things like wolves and cougars is that they are the most difficult to hunt. They are the most difficult to sight, and that is why, when you are in the woods, some people assume that there are not very many around. That's not really the case. You don't see them like you do deer and moose and so on.

I do question the capability of the department to come up with any sane, or any intelligent, or any reasonable appraisal of the number of game animals in this province. For

[ Page 840 ]

instance, there is a tremendous concern about grizzly bears. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that last fall I had a beautiful encounter with some grizzly bears in very close quarters. In a five-square-mile radius we hunted last fall, there were nine grizzly bears, and that has been the case in virtually every area I've hunted in this province. They are one animal there is no scarcity of, in my experience. In the area east of Revelstoke, where I worked on the railway, the grizzly bears are very, very thick in that area, and certainly it is true in the East Kootenays. It's true up in the northern region of the province - as I say, nine grizzly bears in about a five-square mile radius where we hunt. Now that doesn't indicate to me any threat to this species.

I suspect that the member for Skeena is correct when he makes the appraisal that he does of wolves. The big problem, I think, in terms of controlling predators is the method that has to be used to accomplish that control. I also agree that there is no natural balance that nature provides in terms of protecting various species; that just doesn't happen. I find poison programmes repugnant, but by the same token I find it pretty harsh to see coyotes and wolves attacking and actually eating deer and moose alive. That would unquestionably offend the tender sensibilities of many members of this House and many well-meaning people in the community who have a legitimate interest and are very concerned.

But therein lies the dilemma. You know, there's an extreme of nature which sets its own bounds and its own ground rules. I would like to think that we could devise something with the technological skills that are available to us as a society to find methods of control which are not equally as harsh as nature's own. The poison thing is harsh. The poison thing is dangerous, in my view, because it cannot be controlled in such a way that it guarantees safety for domestic animals, and in some cases, for protection of human life. Therein lies the dilemma. It's like the leghold trap debate in that sense. I think everyone recognizes that there is a need, but really hopes that some equally effective programmes - but much more humane technology -can be developed to take care of this balance.

Being one who spends a lot of time in the woods, and who has that as a hobby and has had since I was old enough to travel around the bush, I can't let this debate go by without offering my comments on it. In many ways they complement the member for Skeena's views. I would like to see the minister consider the allocation of greater funds and resources to finding alternate methods of reaching a balance for control of predators. There is a need - there's no question about it. You can't turn your back on the threat of wolves tearing to pieces ranchers' cows or dogs or whatever. There's a lot of money involved, and after all, that's a way of life for those people which we in the cities and we in the towns must recognize and respect. But surely, if it is a problem, then it should be reflected in the priorities for fiscal appropriations through the minister's office, and I don't really see that kind of thing happening. I would welcome the minister's comments in response to what I have said.

But I have another area that I would like to elicit some information from the minister on, and that is the provincial recreation programmes and provincial fitness programmes. I am quite frankly confused, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister can help to banish my confusion and bring great edification to the House as to just how these varying programmes fit into any overall scheme for the development of good recreation, fitness and athletic programmes in the province. I see three different areas in the minister's department, and I just wonder how they coincide. They have, I believe, what you call provincial sports development co-ordinators, and as far as I can determine there are about seven of them. I believe they're paid in the area of $22,500 per year - that's my understanding, subject to correction by the minister.

I wonder how their function and their purpose coincides and relates to the fitness coordinator, whom I understand is paid about $28,000 a year, and I wonder how those two programmes relate to Action British Columbia, which I understand receives an appropriation from the ministry of $160,000 per year.

Then I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how those three programmes and those three different designated branches or components of the minister's department relate to the position of Ron Butlin, I believe his name is. He is, I believe, the director of provincial games, and I understand that he has come in to being at a salary of $37,500 per year on a five-year no-cut contract. I understand that he has announced very recently that he expects to build up 11 personnel in his particular branch of the department.

There are four things I wonder about, Mr. Chairman. There is a fifth. I believe it was yesterday the minister announced that Dr. Martin Collis has been retained from the University of Victoria to appraise the fitness programme. I presume that is the fitness

[ Page 841 ]

programme under the jurisdiction of the fitness co-ordinator. That is fairly new, it's less than a year old. I'd like to know what Dr. Collis is being paid, and why the minister feels it is necessary to evaluate and appraise that individual and his function when it is a brand new programme. If the minister had those kinds of reservations about it, I wonder why he commissioned this particular position in the first place.

I'll let it go at that for the moment, hoping that the minister's notes are accurate, and that he has an active, sharp memory, and can respond to the specific questions that I have put to him.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, that member over there got off on such a nice footing. I didn't realize he was going to turn the corner, as he has.

MR. KING: Just information, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, I do appreciate the fact that this whole question of predator control could easily become a political football in this House. I do appreciate the fact that a responsible view has been expressed by the opposition in this area.

We certainly would like and intend to examine every possible way of managing predators so as to keep their populations at a maximum level, along with all other species. In the meantime, there is no simple solution to actually controlling predators at this time. We are stuck with poison. However, as that member pointed out, the kind of death that occurs in nature is rarely an attractive thing, whether it be by poison or by virtue of being eaten alive, as is the case with wolves and their prey.

The point here is that we certainly are concerned. I'm happy to see that the opposition are supportive of this effort. We will be exercising every reasonable constraint in approaching the problem. For example, in placing baits out in the field - whether it be in connection with wildlife predation or predation of livestock - this is done by people employed by the ministry. It is done by people who are regular employees of the ministry. These baits are carefully monitored to avoid precisely the possible problems that the member has cited.

Moving on to the recreation and fitness branch, the member touched on several programmes. The sport development co-ordinators are positions which were established in respect to seven specific sports. Some years ago, these people were retained under contract, and directed and managed by the civil service within the sport and fitness area of the government. They were paid out of the sport and fitness fund. Frankly, it has been my view from the outset that this is a questionable use of the sport and fitness fund. If these people were to be directed by government from day to day in this particular pursuit, they should have been paid by other means than the sport and fitness fund, because that fund is really directed at assisting organizations outside of government. This arrangement has apparently existed for some years. That is only part of the picture.

There has certainly been evidence that some measure of assistance for sport development should be available to other sport groups in the province, through their sport-governing bodies. We have been working towards a programme which would enable that to occur. In other words, why should seven sports be singled out from a much longer list? Therefore it is our intention to phase out the present relationship and not renew those contracts for the seven sport and development co-ordinators beyond the coming 12 months. But we certainly encourage the sport-governing bodies that they have been assisting to take them on under a new programme which will see a great many more sports assisted towards development, by assisting their hiring of a key individual in each instance - but doing so in a way that we feel the sport and fitness fund was intended to function.

The position of fitness co-ordinator was a position which was established in the reorganized branch. At the present time it is filled on an order-in-council basis by one Wendy Robertson, who is regarded, I might say, by all who are familiar with her work as an outstanding individual. She, with virtually her own resources f or a number of years, has pioneered some very innovative programmes in fitness at the community and school levels.

We felt that she would be extremely helpful in getting a greater emphasis on the fitness side of the sport and fitness picture established in line with our new branch. She has towards this end a number of programmes underway. She has arranged for Dr. Collis to be retained. This is within the guidelines of hiring by government from universities - it's all been worked out precisely, as is required under the policies of this government and articulated in other instances in this House. He's been retained to prepare a course material and literature package which will be available to groups throughout British Columbia who are seeking to develop fitness programmes. This will be, for example, by way

[ Page 842 ]

of utilization of the tremendous plant, which we have now in B.C. and which is ever-growing, of recreational facilities at the community level. We have the facilities, but we sometimes lack the programmes to utilize those facilities in regard to fitness.

Action B.C. is an organization which has existed again for some years. The portion of its budget which is obtained from the provincial government is $275,000, $160,000 of which comes from my ministry, the balance from the Ministry of Health. Their job is to travel the province establishing themselves, setting up a portable unit in schools and in shopping centres and testing people for their level of fitness, doing an examination of their condition as regards cardiovascular performance under some stress tests, examining their weight and a number of other benchmarks of fitness, and giving them some counselling as to what adjustments they can make in their lifestyle to attain a greater level of fitness. This has dovetailed very nicely into the work of our fitness co-ordinator and those two are working well together. Action B.C. has been raising funds from other sources as well to augment the government funding.

Finally, with regard to the B.C. Games, Mr. Ron Butlin is not on a salary; he is on a contract, the amount being $37,500. Also that contract provides for a limited number of staff, which limit is presently three. I don't have any intention of any change in that at the present time. Quite simply, his job is to deliver approximately 100,000 British Columbians a year through the competitions leading up to summer and winter games. The cost of that programme will work out at about $1 per participant in terms of administration, including his cost.

MR. KING: I wish to thank the minister for his comments. I hope the minister doesn't assume by my questions that I am knocking the various programmes or the objectives of those programmes. What I am simply trying to do is understand the rather unusual and fragmented approach which the minister appears to be taking through his departmental organization to achieving what certainly every member of this House would support, and that is a healthier population.

These things are all great, but I'm confused. I can see why the minister would not want to utilize funds allocated for sports programmes for salaries. I can see where there could be a difference in function between the provincial sports co-ordinators and the director of the fitness programme. I have some difficulty understanding the different levels of salary. The minister made the point that the individual who heads up the provincial fitness fund is well qualified. That may be and I wouldn't argue about that. I wonder, though, if the minister would like to tell the House what her qualifications are for this particular programme, as opposed to the provincial sports co-ordinators, who I would assume are equally well qualified. I wonder why there is the great disparity between the salary for the brand new office of physical fitness co-ordinator at $37,500 a year....

HON. MR. BAWLF: Sit down and I'll give you the answer.

MR. KING: I think that's what the minister said - $37,500 a year. No, that's Butlin. The fitness co-ordinator is $28,000. 1 beg your pardon. As I understand it, the provincial sports co-ordinators are at $22,500. Now is the minister telling the House that the provincial co-ordinators, who have worked for the government and been paid by the government for quite a number of years, are not as well qualified as the provincial fitness co-ordinator? I would assume that those people in those positions are not only well qualified in terms of academic qualities, but also in terms of the experience that they have built up for, I'd say, between six and ten years, working to develop programmes. It's true, they're rather one-dimensional - there's a director for hockey, there's another one for baseball and so on - but it seems to me a bit of a case of short shrift, Mr. Chairman, for people who have had some tenure with the government and worked hard and offered their best to find that new people are brought in on a fitness programme, which is equally as important - I'm not denying that - but at a far more luxurious salary, and that these provincial co-ordinators are having, certainly, the continuity of their employment eroded by the reorganization of the department, as the minister tells it.

The minister tells us now that they are going to be responsible to the sports foundations with which they have been working. That is, whoever the co-ordinator for hockey is will now in effect be obligated to find his salary not from the government, but from a volunteer provincial organization. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: what kind of tenure and what kind of security is that? I understand that the government will still be making an allocation, but these individuals who have some tenure with the government have now lost a great degree of their employment security, as I understand it.

[ Page 843 ]

Perhaps he would like to comment on why it is that the provincial fitness co-ordinator is so much more highly qualified than the provincial sports co-ordinators that she commends a salary of about $5,000 a year more than they do.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The member opposite is labouring under a number of misconceptions here.

MR. KING: That's what I'm trying to clear up, Sam.

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, several of the sport development co-ordinators have been under contract for two years, some of them five years or a bit more. Those contracts are just that: they are contracts. They are not civil servants; they're contractual employees who came out of the teaching profession with some special interest garnered from their teaching background in each of the respective sports that they're individually responsible to.

They presently work closely with the sport governing bodies. You mentioned the hockey example. That gentleman is located in the offices of the hockey association. Essentially, what we are saying is that we don't feel that they have an appropriate status, however, when they are being directed by the provincial government and being paid out of the sport and fitness fund. That is not an appropriate relationship for the use of funds out of the sport and fitness fund. Therefore we are proposing that this type of contractual agreement, in future, exist with the sport governing body.

Now just to say more about this, the sport governing bodies, in total, considering all aspects, receive well in excess of $2 million out of the sport and fitness fund annually. They're responsible for the development of their sport and enhancement of their sport in the province. Now there should be no reason why their interests should be divergent from that of the sport development co-ordinators. It could be said that in this country, and in the past in this province, there has been a good deal of fragmentation of purpose. What we are trying to do is bring people who should have a common purpose together, and bring about a rational approach to sport development. Now that's the sport development co-ordinators.

The fitness co-ordinator is also a teacher who has come in under a limited duration appointment which has carried forward her salary from her teaching profession. She has, however, for some time now, several years, been regarded as one of the leading authorities in the province on motivation and fitness in a number of component subjects of fitness and is very widely known and recognized for that ability and knowledge. I must stress that her arrangement may be slightly misconstrued here. She is merely being carried forward at her teaching salary.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, it could be. The next point is Mr. Butlin was brought in under contract from Alberta. He's certainly the most knowledgeable man in the field of provincial games that we were able to find and we're certainly very happy to have him here launching a most ambitious programme. There's no other province which stages both summer and winter games annually. His salary is essentially equivalent to what Alberta was prepared to pay to retain him. But he felt there was a new challenge here. He's an outstanding Canadian in sport administration and organization. We're delighted to have him.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm eliciting information from the minister, and I appreciate the fact that he's explaining to the House how these rather unusual programmes come together in his department. I'm simply looking for information.

I think the minister makes a valid point when he says that the wages of the provincial co-ordinator should not come out of the sports fund. I wonder then if the minister could explain where the funds ca in for the establishment of Mr. Butlin's office, and precisely where the allocation came from for the furnishing of his office. I wonder if he could explain the conflict between Mr. Butlin's reported comments that he expected very shortly to have a staff of 11 and the minister's assurance to the House today that the staff will be held to two or three. I don't know who has the authority.

I understand Mr. Butlin is on contract also, and I wonder who has the jurisdiction and the authority to make statements for that particular office that's held by Mr. Butlin - the minister or Mr. Butlin. He has a contract. Is he restricted in that contract with respect to staff?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes.

MR. KING: If he is, perhaps the minister should have a talk with him with regard to public statements that he makes. But I would

[ Page 844 ]

be very interested in knowing where the funds came f rom for the establishment of Mr. Butlin's office. Perhaps the minister could respond to that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I trust we can conclude on this matter, Mr. Chairman. Vote 245 last year and vote 243 this year. The situation with Mr. Butlin is that he is under a contract, which is limited as to personnel which he may retain. At the present time he has authority for, I believe, three, including his secretary.

As to comments about 11 people at work, there may be some confusion in that member's information arising out of the fact that that games programme provides for each host community for particular games a grant from the sport and fitness fund of $180,000 for the actual staging of the games and a $70,000 legacy in terms of equipping for the games. Those funds are used in part to retain personnel to actually organize the games. Most of the work is volunteer. There are several thousand volunteers in Penticton, for example, for the summer games, but there are some personnel who are retained for that purpose. There may be some confusion here. I am not familiar with the statements the member mentions. Certainly I will be looking into it.

MRS. JORDAN: The matter that I would like to bring to the minister's attention is a relatively small one, but I think somewhat significant. I'm not sure I have the answer completely, but without wanting to stress competitive sports, or overstress them, having been one who I s been very keen on the recreational aspect of sport activities rather than too much emphasis on the competitive aspect, I do want to draw to the minister's attention a problem that seems to be developing in the interior parts of the province.

We've got a number of young people in various areas of the province who are displaying considerable talent in specific areas. It might be swimming, it might be lacrosse or it might be high-jumping. The problem that they're having is to achieve some consistency in coaching.

I'd like to use swimming as an example in the North Okanagan constituency where we've had two young people on the national team who placed very well, and we have a number of young people coming along showing considerable promise. The community provides jobs, as much as they can, for coaches. They also raise funds to meet the financial needs of these coaches. But if one attracts an outstanding coach, then the competition for more advanced jobs is very keen and the salary attraction of more advanced positions is very great.

What we've been discussing is an avenue whereby there could be some financial assistance from the ministry, perhaps up to a $5,000 grant per year for a three-year period, to assist in adding a financial attraction to keep qualified coaches in the region for more than one year. I would suggest that such a grant system must have a great deal of flexibility built into it so that we don't entrench a system where a community hires a coach and keeps him there indefinitely when the community talent is no longer there or the community interest isn't there any longer. Such a grant could be contingent on regional district participation or municipal participation, and would also allow not only this tie-in of consistency but would allow the young people to benefit from specialized clinics.

The problem they have now is that they save their money or they are assisted to go to highly specialized clinics. They come back to their community and there isn't the follow-through in terms of critical analysis of what they are doing because the coaching there isn't sufficient in its capability to do this or there have been funds for those coaches to go with the students from time to time to these specialized clinics. Also, if a specialized coach is brought in for a three-day or a five-day or a two-week clinic, one again runs into the same problem of some avenue of consistency so that the child can continue with what they have learned, but also have the criticism on a constructive basis that they need.

My question to the minister is: could you consider such a system, recognizing the need for consistency and the need to help lock these coaches in for a reasonable period of time, and yet not entrench the system so that it can't be flexible when other people in other sports come to the fore and need that type of consistent training in their endeavours? There might be, perhaps, three such available grants to each region for a period of three years, and let the region work with the ministry to decide which sport has the potential to develop certainly national standards if not Olympic standards, then leave it so that those interests could change over the years.

HON. MR. MAIR: I rise, really, in my capacity as member for Kamloops. I'm sorry that the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) is not here, because I also rise as a vanishing breed - a Great Root Bear.

[ Page 845 ]

I would like, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister to deal with one or two questions that are indeed very important to my constituency. Like one or two of the speakers before, I am concerned that people who never get out of the west end of Vancouver become experts on matters of the outdoors and the interior and things that are totally outside their field of expertise.

I speak for an area which has some of the finest lake fishing in the world and which would have very little lake fishing were it not for the fish and wildlife branch. It's very little known that the native fish in the southern interior were very few in number and very poor in quality until government started to take a hand in the ensuring of the quality and the quantity of the fish. The problem that we face in the interior, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is how we're going to preserve that quality in the lakes that we have. We seem to display a great ignorance as to how the fish population is maintained. We succumb so often to the theory that it's always overfishing that decimates the population of our sports fish. I suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that a great many other causes are to blame, not the least of which is the use of gasoline engines on small lakes. I've even seen a lake the size of Six Mile Lake, which is about 40 or 45 acres at maximum, where you have a person trying to water-ski on it. People do not understand that the film given off by gasoline engines kills the aquatic insects within those lakes, and when there are no aquatic insects within the lakes, the fish population has nothing upon which to feed.

I happen to be, regardless of my other proclivities, an active fly fisherman and I think I know something of which I speak. Fly fishing is, as I say, one of my hobbies and I have a great interest in preserving for all of the people of British Columbia and the people who visit British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, the quality of the lakes that we do have.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the policy, which he is now undertaking, and which has been part and parcel of his policy for some time, as I understand it, be continued. We recognize that there are many lakes in British Columbia where many uses will be sustained. Lakes such as Shuswap Lake, Mabel Lake, Marron Lake and so on can indeed handle lakeshore development, can handle such things as water skiing - multiple uses of the water -without any great damage to the lake itself. It is those kinds of lakes to which we must attract tourists who enjoy that sort of thing.

On the other hand, there are a great many lakes that simply cannot - in an ecological sense - tolerate that sort of use which, in a sense, amounts to abuse. It is those lakes where we must continue the policy of the creation of trophy-fishing lakes and, indeed, fly-fishing-only lakes. Lest there be anyone in this chamber, Mr. Chairman, who thinks that fly-fishing is something for the rich, or is an elitist type of sport, I can only refer you to a very good friend of mine, who is definitely of a different political persuasion and writes long letters to the Victoria Times, Mr. M.P.B. Wrixon. He and I are both devout and dedicated fly-fishermen. I think if you examine the people who have a fly-rod in their hands on the lakes of British Columbia, you will find that they are ordinary, everyday guys and gals, and are by no means the rich and elite.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Member, you probably have never tried the delicate art of fly-fishing. But it is something that you perhaps ought to try. It is really getting close to nature, and it is really what it is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's good for your soul.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suggest, Mr. Chairman -through you to the minister - that he continue to support groups, such as the fish-camp operators in the southern interior, who wish to maintain the high quality of lakes in the area; wish to restrict, in an ecological sense, the use and development of the foreshore on many of the more delicate lakes; and wish to maintain for all of us and for our children the quality of fishing which has been provided us, as I said earlier, by the fish and wildlife branch in the first place.

I support the minister's efforts in terms of enforcement. Speaking as an KA, and not as a member of the government, I hope that he is able to get more money in the course of the years to come for enforcement, because there are a great many abuses on the lakes. There are a great many people who do not understand that you cannot clean fish and throw the entrails into the lakes as you can do in the ocean, because there are not the scavengers in lakes that there are in the oceans. There are people coming from across the borders who are welcome as our guests but who simply do not understand what they do when they abuse our lakes. I think that enforcement in this area ought to be a high priority of this and future governments.

[ Page 846 ]

I support the efforts of the minister to continue to support the local groups - the fish and wildlife groups, fish and game groups, fly-fishing clubs - in their efforts to make more lakes available to more people.

I say to the minister, in closing, that I support every effort he makes to encourage people, not only in the province of British Columbia but from without, to use our lakes and our outdoors, and not to abuse them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, I might remind hon. members - I guess it's deja-vu - that this subject was probably well canvassed in last year's estimates.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Perhaps I can wind up by responding to the last few comments here, so we can start with a clean slate when we resume.

One point is a bit of a hangover from the exchange with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He mentioned something about a five-year no-cut contract. There is no contract of that nature. It is a renewable, year-to-year contract.

In regard to sport development and opportunities for the interior and the areas of the province which don't have the benefit of a large sport community, I would just like to say that it is the recognized fact here -it is my view and the ministry's policy - that the volunteer is the backbone of sport in this province. It is our express wish to avoid bureaucratizing sport development into becoming a massive effort in-house, because we'll eliminate the volunteer and sport is finished without the volunteer.

The effort of moving the sport development co-ordinators and that type of programme into the hands of the sport governing bodies, most of whom are headquartered in the lower mainland, goes hand-in-hand. It is our objective to see that those bodies are accountable for making their programmes available province-wide. We don't want sport to get a disproportionate number of benefits by virtue of its location in the lower mainland only. We feel that, in fact, the opportunities must be delivered to all areas of the province if a sport-governing body is going to have the financial assistance of government. It is our intention to continue to improve ways of assisting that effort, monitoring it, and ensuring that the results are delivered.

On the question of fishing lakes in the interior, it's a subject which certainly I'm closely familiar with, having met on a number of occasions with the fish camp operators association, and actually visited a number of their operations. At the present time, the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) will know that we have a lakeshore development study which has come forward in the form of a plan from the fish and wildlife branch. That is a first draft of a plan which would see a kind of zoning of lakes take place which will provide protection for those lakes which cannot accommodate any lakeshore development and will identify levels of use or development which are tolerable for the fishery resource on a large number of lakes throughout the central interior. That study is now public. It's authored principally by Mr. Cartwright, who is involved as fisheries biologist in Kamloops. The extent of the study is very considerable geographically, and it is, I think, an outstanding first step toward preventing the loss of our sport fishing resource. This extends through subsequent stages to the evaluation and rationalization of lakes in terms of exposure to motors, and classification as to trophy, fly only, et cetera. These can all be pulled together and are being pulled together into a comprehensive plan. I had the pleasure of releasing that document just a week ago with our meeting with the fish camp operators.

More money in enforcement - I think the first problem is to better evaluate and better monitor our enforcement programmes such as they are and determine that we're getting the best use of the money that is there now. Appointing a chief conservation officer who will report directly to the senior person responsible for the conservation department will be to ensure that we are effecting, in every case, the most efficient methods of enforcement such as updating training, carrying out training programmes, and liaising with other enforcement agencies, which is vital, and with concerned groups in the public fish and game clubs and others, for example, through the observe and report programme of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

In all of these efforts we will be, through that new office, better able to evaluate our enforcement performance and we'll be able to determine the best ways of improving upon it.

On the last point that the member for Kamloops mentioned - the ways in which we can support local groups who are concerned for conservation in one way or another, whether it be lake rehabilitation, stream clearance, construction of trails, a whole long list of things - there has existed for some time a conservation assistance fund, which annually has made available about $50,000 in total to

[ Page 847 ]

local organizations for these kinds of projects on a one-time basis. They are little capital projects, and it's my intention to see that that conservation assistance fund is greatly expanded in this year to enable a great many more organizations to be accessible to this kind of assistance.

MR. STRONGMAN: I would like to be very brief today and direct a few questions at the minister regarding programmes for athletes in British Columbia. It seems to me that most of the programmes that we have been discussing this afternoon seem to be directed towards the elite in our athletic society - those athletes who compete at the very highest of levels, the ones who are very visible in society. It seems that those programmes are the ones that most of us are aware of.

We also seem to hear about funding for athletes going on trips, equipment being purchased for athletes, team operating expenses being covered, coaching clinics -that topic was raised by the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . They're all very worthwhile endeavours, but the list goes on and on.

You indicated, Mr. Minister, the cost of the Summer Games and the Winter Games in British Columbia, and the fact that it continues each year. I don't argue that we shouldn't support that type of activity, but rather I think we should take on a new dimension in the Recreation ministry - in concert with present programmes, recreation for those persons whose ability is less than average, those people who make up the mass of our society.

I believe now we should give our youth the opportunity to set habits and standards that will carry on throughout their lifetimes. I would ask the minister to direct his ministry to implement programmes directed at those children who make up the largest portion of our society - the young girl who, because of her size, is afraid to get into activities in her school because of being shy and not willing to participate; the overweight boy who just won't go out and play soccer.

MR. KING: Rafeos doing all right.

MR. STRONGMAN: If we don't get on with it now, we'll lose those people. If we don't get them at the age where they're starting to create habits that will be part of their lifestyle as long as they are capable of being active - if we do not get to them now - they are going to be sedentary all of their lives. I'd argue that the most important challenge of your ministry is the development of programmes for these average and below-average persons in athletic ability. It's not as exciting as the support of athletes who are competing at the provincial, the national or even the world level, but it is likely the most important challenge that faces your ministry.

I'd like to have the minister enlighten the House on programmes that may or may not be available, and what plans you might have in this particular area, plans for the athlete who just isn't capable of competing in the day-to-day games that are available in the day-to-day sports that are being funded by our government.

HON. MR. BAWLF: That certainly raises some things I would like to address tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we move on to perhaps some anticipated motions, I have had the opportunity to review a matter referred to me earlier last week, and would be prepared with a statement now.

On Wednesday, April 19, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) made a statement in the House prior to the question period by leave, and was granted leave to file a document referred to in the statement.

The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) asked leave to reply to the statement of the minister, and leave was not granted. The Liberal leader cited a decision from page 83 of the Journals of 1976, indicating that leaders of recognized parties have traditionally been allowed to make a reply to ministerial statements.

The rules relating to ministerial statements over the years have become somewhat confused, largely, it appears, as a result of leave being required for the interruption of other business rather than leave itself being required to make the statement. In addition, there is no provision in the daily order of business for ministerial statements.

An examination of our Journals indicates that the practice in our House with respect to ministerial statements has been similar to the practice of the House of Commons in Ottawa. In the Journals of 1976, at page 83, it is stated that leave was not required for ministerial statements and affirmed that a reply is allowed to the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of recognized parties.

The practice is summarized in the following passage at page 165 of Dawson's Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons.

[ Page 848 ]

" For many years the government has been allowed by custom to make statements of new or altered policy at the opening of daily proceedings. These announcements usually relate to matters of general interest and urgency, and the practice is accepted today as a useful vehicle by which government policy may be made known to the House when no other proceeding offers a suitable opportunity.

"These announcements are not made by the consent of the House nor are they recognized by any rule. But at least one Speaker has ruled that the practice is one of such long standing that a minister may make such a statement by right. This right may not be exercised without restraint, for although there is no set limit on the length or the content of the statements, a minister who persisted in long and argumentative recitals would soon find himself in trouble with the opposition.

"The rights of the opposition in this matter have also gradually developed and become more clear. Early, ministerial statements were followed by a few questions asked largely for the purpose of clearing up doubtful points of fact. These questions occasionally got out of hand, and as early as 1891 a Speaker appealed to the House to support him in an effort to suppress the practice of conducting long discussions at such a time. Later, Speakers appear to have had little difficulty, and although from time to time they referred briefly to the custom which allowed only questions, they made no formal ruling.

"Mr. Speaker Macdonald extended the practice during his occupancy of the chair, and by 1951 the House had accepted a new practice by which each one of the leaders of the opposition parties was allowed to comment briefly on the statement made. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin extended the custom still further in 1954 and ruled that each party would henceforward be allowed one comment on any ministerial statement. The change was made to allow the party spokesman on a specific subject to represent his party, should he so wish. The House has followed this practice since."

Further, at page 82 of Beauchesne:

"In case of ministerial changes, explanations are generally allowed to be made when the orders of the day are called. It is usual to permit the Leader of the Opposition to make some remarks thereon. Considerable latitude is allowed on those occasions.

"In the British House, no debate is allowed after the ministerial statement has been made unless the adjournment of the House is made. But such practice could not take place in Canada as our adjournment motions are not debatable."

Also, at page 84 of Beauchesne:

"When a minister makes a statement on government policy or ministerial administration, either under routine proceedings, between two orders of the day, or shortly before the adjournment of the House, it is now firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled to ask explanation and make a few remarks. But no debate is then allowed under any standing order."

In our Journals, 1975, page [9: "A decision indicates that leave is a prerequisite for both statements and replies." But that decision does not really apply to the situation at hand, as it is directed at answers to oral questions taken on notice.

In summary, ministerial statements may be made without leave at the appropriate time -namely, before proceeding to orders of the day. Leave is required, however, if the statement is to be made by interruption of another proceeding. When a statement has been made, whether by leave or by right, replies as previously described are allowed and do not require leave. However, as stated by Beauchesne, such replies are limited to asking explanation and to making a few remarks, but no debate is allowed.

During a further point of order which took place during the discussion at the point of order, it was suggested that the minister's statement was that of a private member, and not that of a minister, so no reply was allowed. The minister's statement concerned his duties in office, and therefore it can only be viewed as a ministerial statement.

Thus endeth the lesson.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on a remarkable first.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: So be it. Always congratulate the Speaker. He's a fine Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.