[ Page 849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

B.C. Rail extension to Fort Nelson. Mr. Barrett –– 849

2, 4-D treatment of milfoil in Okanagan lakes. Mr. Stephens –– 849

Proclamation of An Act to Provide for Initiation and Approval of Legislation by Electors

Mr. Gibson –– 850

Safety of Hydro employees in Afghanistan. Mr. Rogers –– 850

Documents pertaining to Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. King –– 850

B.C. budget issue of Government News. Mrs. Dailly –– 851

Perquisites of B.C. Hydro chairman. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 852

Log storage in Ladysmith Harbour. Mrs. Wallace –– 852

Salary and duties of Louis Lindholm. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies –– 852

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 230.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 853

Mr. Strongman –– 854

Mr. King –– 854

Mr. Smith –– 856

Mrs. Dailly –– 858

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 859

Mr. King –– 859

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 860

Mr. Stephens –– 861

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 864

Mr. Skelly –– 865

Ms. Sanford –– 865

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 867

Mr. Bawtree –– 868

Mr. Lockstead –– 869

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 871

Mr. Lea –– 874

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 874

Mr. Lockstead –– 876

Mr. Loewen –– 877

Mr. Nicolson –– 878

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 881

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are guests who are related to Mr. Charles La Vertu, one of the more illustrious members of our press gallery: Mr. La Vertu's father, Mr. Jules La Vertu, and his aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Emilius La Vertu of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Mrs. Margaret Milne, a teacher from Belmont Secondary School. Mrs. Milne is visiting a number of students who are presently working in the parliament buildings on a work-experience programme in connection with their studies - and I might say that one of those students is Tracy Tschritter, who is presently working in my office. I would ask the House to make Mrs. Milne welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, joining us in the House this afternoon will be a group of students from the Kumsheen Secondary School in Lytton, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Paul Richardson. I'd ask the House to welcome them, please.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I see that we have as a guest a former member from Yale-Lillooet, and I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Irvine Corbett.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce Mr. Corbett, because there are a lot of members here who would not remember his young face, but, since he has been introduced, I'd like to add my welcome to him being here. And I want to say, as an example to all of us, he looks younger and healthier and brighter and happier since he left here. I wonder what that means.

MR. STEPHENS: I take great pleasure in asking the House to welcome my wife, Joan, who is in the gallery today.

MR. SHELFORD: I too would like to welcome former member Irvine Corbett to this House, but my purpose in getting up is to welcome his wife, because too often we MLAs forget the wives of members of this Legislature.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a constituent of mine from the Aldergrove area, Mr. Bill Tombrink, who is sitting in the gallery. He has a guest with him - a lawyer f rom Germany who is here looking at British Columbia. Hopefully he will find some attractions in British Columbia which he will take back to Germany with him and which might result in some business in the future. He is Mr. Sozietaet Reithmueller.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAIL EXTENSION TO FORT NELSON

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour, is it correct that you have been part of the negotiations with Ottawa concerning B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that discussions concerning B.C. Rail have been conducted with the federal government in the process of the Alaska Highway pipeline project, the answer is yes.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary. In any of these negotiations, has the minister contacted any of the British Columbia cabinet ministers at the federal level regarding the question of the negotiations you are involved in?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister care to inform the members of this Legislature, during the course of those conversations with the British Columbia federal cabinet ministers ... ? Who were they, and was the Fort Nelson extension discussed with them as well?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with the Hon. Ron Basford, the Minister of Justice, with respect to the matter I was in Ottawa to deal with - namely, the Alaska Highway pipeline project. During the course of that visit, he was made aware of our concerns with respect to B.C. Rail and the Fort Nelson extension.

2, 4-D TREATMENT OF MILFOIL

IN OKANAGAN LAKES

MR. STEPHENS: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is your ministry presently entertaining any applications for milfoil treatment with 2, 4-D in any lakes other than Okanagan Lake and Vaseux Lake?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The permits are being requested from the pesticide control branch

[ Page 850 ]

for lakes which make up the chain of Okanagan lakes. Osoyoos Lake would be included in that. I do not have a list of the locations on the lakes. Kalamalka Lake, I believe, may also be included on that list. But certainly those lakes which make up the chain in the Okanagan will be the general area where the permits are being sought. I'm not aware of any lakes other than those in the Okanagan chain where permits have been applied for.

PROCLAMATION OF AN ACT

TO PROVIDE FOR INITIATION AND APPROVAL

OF LEGISLATION BY ELECTORS

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the hon. Attorney-General of which I have sent him notice. In 1919 this Legislature passed an Act intituled: An Act to Provide for the Initiation and Approval of Legislation by the Electors. His Majesty's representative assented to the legislation March 29,1919; 59 years later we are still waiting for the cabinet to proclaim the Art. I would like to ask the Attorney-General: when is that likely to happen, so that British Columbians can have an improved addition to their democratic system?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, it's not in order, but it certainly is an interesting premise, Mr. Speaker; and I just wonder if the hon. member could address that question to a succession of governments from 1919 to the present time.

MR. MACDONALD: We shouldn't be hasty.

SAFETY OF HYDRO EMPLOYEES

IN AFGHANISTAN

MR. ROGERS: To the Minister of Finance: in his capacity as a director for B.C. Hydro, and in view of the coup d'etat and revolution taking place in Kabul, Afghanistan today, what steps are being taken to evacuate those B.C. Hydro employees who are currently working in Afghanistan for the Afghanistan Power Authority?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The hon. member just a moment ago advised me of this information. I'm going to make inquiries on the matter to determine whether, in fact, there are some employees representing Hydro in that area.

MR. KING: I'd appreciate that, Mr. Minister; my niece is there.

DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests: on April 11, 1 asked the minister if documents existed pertaining to a timber licence and alleged promise to build a pulp mill by Doman Industries Limited - has the minister confirmed whether or not these documents exist as yet?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, documents do exist.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, would the minister table those documents with the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period, hon. members.

MR. KING: After.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the form of document which the member refers to is the bid proposal type of tendering for Crown timber rights. This type of a tendering system has been in effect in British Columbia since 1973. The tendering process involves the company putting forth a proposal as to what they will do if they are successful in acquiring a timber allocation.

This type of proposal includes a great deal of very confidential information about that company and as the member knows, the timber and forestry business in British Columbia is very competitive. It has been the policy of each government since 1973 when this system was initiated that this information will not become public.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Minister. In light of the fact, though, that the minister has made public statements with respect to the development of pulp mills as a result of that agreement, surely he could consider tabling that portion of their undertaking which is of public interest and on which the minister based his public announcement, leaving out the aspects that would in any way compromise confidentiality in the bidding system. Would the minister undertake to table that part of it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't think that should be done. I don't think you can take any part of a very complicated proposal such as that out of context of the whole proposal and table it. It's all entwined within the entire proposal. I don't think that can be done, no.

[ Page 851 ]

MR. KING: Would the House and the people of British Columbia be correct in assuming, as a result of the minister's refusal to table these documents, that there is in fact no firm commitment to construct any pulp mills in this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, the House would not be correct in making such an assumption.

B.C. BUDGET ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT NEWS

MRS. DAILLY: Did the Premier authorize the printing and distribution of the budget issue of B.C. Government News?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, B.C. Government News is distributed regularly but the information services felt that the budget, being a once-a-year occurrence and of interest to every British Columbian as a shareholder, should have widest possible distribution to the people of B.C.

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier defines the citizens of British Columbia as shareholders in their business, would he also give the shareholders the information as to the salaries of the people running the business of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would also be pleased to give equal time, if the opposition would like, to distribute, next budget, the results of their last budget when they were the government of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I'm wondering whether the purpose of question period is really being carried out.

MR. BARRETT: The shareholders of British Columbia are entitled to this information. My supplementary question was: would the Premier tell this house why the shareholders, as the British Columbia taxpayers, are not entitled to specific information as to salaries paid to the people who are running the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation? You didn't answer our question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, such information isn't being withheld, but will be made available in due course by the responsible party.

MR. BARRETT: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, since the Premier intends to distribute his information to every household in British Columbia at the expense of the tax-

payers, if, under a special column known as "help wanted, " we could list the jobs that have been given by the government to political friends, and their salaries, and any job that may be open?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is rhetorical, hon. Premier, but if you wish to answer....

HON. MR. BENNETT: We could start that list with Bob Williams, yes?

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the Premier on the budget edition of the B.C. Government News. As we've had questions on the order paper which have never been answered related to the cost of these productions, which basically are just Social Credit propaganda sheets, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would give us an idea of how much it is costing the taxpayers in B.C. for this Socred sheet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I must take, through you, issue with the member on conclusions she has placed. We've only carried on that fine old tradition of government information that was carried on by the government preceding us, and initiated by the government before us. Just recently in this House we've had questions about the government not providing enough information to the people, and now you're saying, Mr. Speaker, that we're providing too much information. But I see nothing wrong with the people understanding our direct - not editorial - excerpts out of the budget to every British Columbian. I think British Columbians deserve this information.

MRS. DAILLY: The Premier did not answer the direct question: how much is it costing the taxpayers of B.C. for this Socred propaganda sheet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know what sheet the minister waved, but I have here the people's report of their finances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: how much?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) will just be patient, I will try to answer, if she can still her voice for just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this comes under the estimates under information, and I'm sure

[ Page 852 ]

the Members would not want to, in advance of having an opportunity to discuss the estimates, eliminate that possibility.

Secondly, in an historical sense, costs related to government expenditures are available to the public accounts committee. Both avenues are open to the opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the Premier then telling us that when we come to the Provincial Secretary's estimates, which is the only place we can see where this cost would be, we will get a detailed answer on the cost of these productions? Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that when your members of the public accounts committee meet, they can certainly go through the public accounts that deal with expenditures on public information - an opportunity the Legislature always has extended.

MR. LEA: But a Social Crediter will be chairman of public accounts by then.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary. Mr. Speaker, as the Premier is aware, the money for this publication is voted by the Legislature, not by the government. As he's also aware, the opposition parties in this House combined received over 50 per cent of the vote at the last election. In order to avoid the charges of propaganda with respect to this kind of publication, will the Premier give opposition parties equal time in it on their own initiative?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we are going to adopt, and have adopted, the same fine principle of public information that is historical in this province and has been carried on by the federal Liberal government in Ottawa for many years.

MR. GIBSON: They wouldn't dare pull that one, I'll tell you.

PERQUISITES OF B.C. HYDRO CHAIRMAN

HON. MR. WOLFE: The other day I was asked a question by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) . He was referring to the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner. The question was: Is Mr. Bonner being paid any bonuses or other amounts in addition to his salary of $48,000 as chairman of B.C. Hydro? The answer is no.

The second question was: does Mr. Bonner have the use of a B.C. Hydro car, and does B.C. Hydro pay for gas and insurance? The answer is yes to both questions. Incidentally,

Mr. Speaker, the use of the car is a taxable benefit under the Income Tax Act on which Mr. Bonner pays income tax. In any case, the same policy applied to previous incumbents of this job, Mr. Cass-Beggs and Mr. Rhodes. They had the same- type of arrangement.

Thirdly: does B.C. Hydro pay Mr. Bonner's expenses when he attends meetings of the Trilateral Commission? The answer is no.

LOG STORAGE IN LADYSMITH HARBOUR

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It deals with the Ladysmith harbour and the harbour management advisory board which the minister has set up. My question is: has the minister instructed or advised any of his staff regarding the proposal of the forest industry to increase the log storage in Ladysmith harbour?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I heard the question correctly, did the member ask if I had advised my staff of the logging industry's desire to increase?

MRS. WALLACE: I asked if you have advised them in the direction that they should proceed in regarding this request.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I haven't offered them that direction.

SALARY AND DUTIES

OF LOUIS LINDHOLM

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) directed a question to me a few days ago concerning the retainer and remuneration paid to Mr. Louis Lindholm, solicitor. As stated in the press release that was issued on December 22 of last year;

"Mr. Lindholm's professional services have been retained by the ministry for four-fifths of his working time over a period of 12 months, starting January I of this year. His prime responsibility will be to act as counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada and the B.C. Court of Appeal on behalf of the province in constitutional cases, as well as to appear as counsel before national boards and commissions when the significant interests of British Columbia are an issue. Mr. Lindholm's fee for service is $50,000, one-twelfth of which will be paid at the end of each month upon his submitting an account."

[ Page 853 ]

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BAWLF: At adjournment last night the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) was dealing with priorities in the areas of sport and fitness, and was expressing a concern that the discussions as he had understood them - or, as the case may be, had misunderstood them - seemed to emphasize the athletic elite in our programmes, that we were emphasizing the athlete and particularly the one who competes at the highest levels. He expressed concern that there may not be enough emphasis on the average citizen, and indeed on those who may have special difficulties in participating in recreation and developing a healthy lifestyle.

He also touched on the Winter and Summer Games which we established. First of all, with respect to the Winter and Summer Games, those games will specifically be directed to those who have never competed in interprovincial or broader competitions. Others will be excluded from the games. They must not have competed in any interprovincial forum in this sport. Secondly, those games will be open to people from ages 13 to 80, and, in fact, the sports will encompass just about the fullest possible range of ages and types of activities, not in the sense of pure athletic activities alone, such as track and field, but everything from lawn bowling to you name it. It is an emphasis on participation by the average British Columbian and an experience of exchange through friendly competition across our province and between regions of the province.

The question which the member particularly dwelt on was concerned with developing an orientation towards lifetime fitness as an important priority, and I quite agree with him. I'd like to stress that Wendy Robertson, who was appointed as our fitness co-ordinator for the province on an interim basis as we gear up in this direction, has in fact pioneered a programme called 'lifetime Sports" in the schools. The emphasis in this is to move away from a situation we historically have had in the province where the emphasis of the recreational activities has been on the development of the elite - the development of the basketball team or whatever team is going to bring the championship home to the school.

Mrs. Robertson was able to do was to bring about a programme where every student was able to choose an area of interest which would be of lasting benefit, which would be a sport they could carry through into adulthood: golf, bowling, skiing, whatever the case may be. The emphasis then was to develop that interest in the student so that all students could have an opportunity to develop that kind of lifetime orientation to a sport which would lead to a long and healthy association with fitness.

Action B.C. at the same time is directed to the average citizen in the province, through their appearances at the PNE, shopping centres and schools across the province. Their direction is to test the typical individual out there whom they will come into contact with and identify for them where they have the benchmarks of fitness or a lack of fitness, and what those benchmarks suggest in terms of ways they can improve their lifestyle. It's a testing and counselling service aimed at the average person.

On the question of the provincial government supporting athletes who are involved in interprovincial or even international competition, it is true that some emphasis has been given in the past out of the sport and fitness fund of the province to assisting these people. I can tell you that it's a minor portion of the fund, but nevertheless it was felt necessary to do so in lieu of any consistent program at the national level.

Just in recent days there has been a federal-provincial ministers' conference on sport and fitness in the country and it has been agreed that there should be a clearer definition and division of responsibilities in this area. Essentially the federal government, the government of Canada, should be responsible for the development and the equipping and the travel of athletes beyond provincial borders. So there is a clear distinction here. It certainly is our intention not to emphasize any more, and hopefully to emphasize less, the elite in this respect. But we have had to await this kind of an agreement which is still being worked out.

Lest anyone think, when I mentioned sport governing bodies yesterday in my remarks, that this is a collection of bodies who are dealing with the major competitive sports and with the elite athlete within those sports, let me emphasize that there is a very long list of sport governing bodies who attempt to bring s rational administration and organization of the volunteers across this province to their particular sport. Included in these are

[ Page 854 ]

sports such as cross-country and downhill skiing, snowshoeing, camping, orienteering, golfing, tennis, squash, swimming and a number of others which are obviously aimed at not every British Columbian but a great many in one or another of those ways.

[Mr. Levi in the chair.]

At the same time we have the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. supported from the fund who try to bring about, in a general way, recreational opportunities in the way of trail development and a whole range of things oriented to the average citizen in the province.

Similarly, the B.C. Recreation Association is involved with those who are concerned in community recreation across the province and the use and proper application of community recreation facilities. They are directed to programmes for reaching the maximum number of people, the average citizen, not to the elite. Even choosing a sport such as soccer, which is a typical competitive sport, we have tens of thousands of youngsters in this province competing in soccer. It's a foregone conclusion that for most of them it will never lead to any kind of an elite role in sport. But it is our belief that this is a very worthy effort. We're not motivated by elitism; we're motivated by giving every opportunity to our youngsters for a character-built ding exercise in competitive sport of that nature.

The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, on the remarks of the second member for Vancouver South is that I have met recently with the group of people from the private sector who are working to endow and establish the programmes of the Special Olympics here in British Columbia. The Special Olympics is an outstanding programme which really originated with the John F. Kennedy Foundation in the United States. It is directed to giving greater opportunity and encouragement to those who are handicapped or mentally retarded who might otherwise not have an opportunity to meet a challenge of recreation. It's more than a sport event, a single event; it's a programme that reaches out into the homes of these families who are so affected. It brings to them a whole series of helpful suggestions and directions and ways in which they can, as parents, lead their children into the challenge of recreation and, through that, help them develop confidence in themselves, help them develop a sense of self-worth.

In this area, recreation goes beyond a pursuit of health in the context that the average citizen sees it and into a very, very important motivating factor which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , I'm sure, would be very interested in. This programme, the Special Olympics programme , is presently raising money to establish themselves in British Columbia as one of the last places in North America where they're not already established. They will have the support of the sport and fitness fund in some matching way. I have given that commitment which I'm sure all members in the house will support.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

MR. STRONGMAN: To begin with I'd like to make it very clear that yesterday, although I outlined concern about the way money was being spent on the elite athlete, I did not say that it should be discontinued. I think we should continue to support outstanding athletes when-ever possible and whenever it's within our budgetary means. However, I am concerned about the average child in school who just does not have the opportunity, or seems to drop out of the sports society or the activity society that is existing there. I was very pleased to hear the minister enlarge today on his philosophy and also the philosophies of his ministry. I hope that you would continue to weight your concern towards that type of child rather than weighting it towards the elitist athlete in schools and in the community. As a member of this Legislature I would commend you on that and would hope that it would continue.

MR. KING: Yesterday afternoon I was having a very good exchange with the minister in attempting to understand the varied and fragmented programmes that deal with a variety of sports and athletic functions in his ministry. Iove been reading over the Blues, Mr. Chairman, and I find that I received some worthwhile information from the minister, but I also received some very conflicting information from the minister. My purpose now is to try to eliminate that conflict and come to great understanding with the minister, particularly in terms of the efficiency of his department, because we are dealing in some areas with rather large grants of public money, and I'm sure the minister is as concerned as I am with respect to the efficient control of those funds.

I appreciate that Mr. Butlin is on a year-to-year contract at a very handsome salary. The minister, though, expressed concern with respect to the provincial sports co-ordinators receiving any part of their wages out of the sports fund on the basis, which I identify

[ Page 855 ]

with, of not wanting to divert to salary purposes funds that should go toward the creation and development of athletic programmes. How is it then, if that concern is valid with respect to the provincial sports co-ordinators, that Mr. Butlin, by my information, furnished his office at a cost of $9,000 which came directly out of the sports fund which he administers? And how is it that if he is in fact an arms-length employee with the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and on a contract basis rather than a civil service position, he has a government telephone prefix of 387? Presumably, there must be some control from the minister's office. These are little things that I wish the minister would expand upon.

The minister also responded with respect to the position held by the provincial fitness co-ordinator - a Mrs. Robertson, I believe it .is - and indicated that it was perfectly normal that she receive a salary of $28,800 a year when in fact, the provincial sports coordinators who have laboured long and hard with the provincial government, up to six years by the minister's own admission, receive the rather paltry sum by contrast of $22,500 a year. The minister explained that away by saying: "Well, this is a highly qualified individual, a teacher." I believe she came from Kelowna, and that's fair enough. I don't doubt her qualifications, but I have not heard from the minister that her qualifications are in f act any greater, or as great, as the provincial co-ordinators of sports, whose reputations and qualifications are international, not local or provincial. They have international reputations in recreation programme development.

Then the minister informed me, Mr. Chairman, that the reason for this salary discrepancy was the fact that this Mrs. Robertson had simply carried her teaching salary with her to her new position as provincial fitness coordinator or director. The minister shouldn't have done that because I have got in touch with educational people and learned that the maximum salary for a Bachelor of Education in the Okanagan was, in 1977, the sum of $19,987. For the current year, 1978, the maximum salary for that qualification held by Mrs. Robertson is $21,185 per year and it would appear that the minister was grievously mistaken in passing on to the House information contained at page 12/2/jl of the Blues of yesterday:

"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, and 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."

Well, I'm not a mathematician, Mr. Chairman, but it seemed to me that there's quite a significant differential between $19,987 and the rather cushy salary of $28,800 per year, which the minister has allocated to this person with the qualifications he seems to feel are so much superior to those of the provincial sport co-ordinators. I don't understand, Mr. Minister. It's rather unusual. Perhaps he would refresh his memory, or perhaps he would do some digging and some consultation with the officials of his ministry and explain why he gave that type of information to the House, which is obviously erroneous. I would like to jog the minister's memory and find out what the problem is in identifying the proper salary level of this individual.

There's another little matter I'd like to explore with the minister, Mr. Chairman: Sport B.C. It's one we didn't discuss yesterday at any great length. Perhaps I'll leave that, and let the minister respond to the first part of my questions, because I've raised a number. I'd like to carry on with some other matters after the minister comes out with his illuminating comments, and explains away the confusion he's created in the House. I'll give him a chance to respond. He wants me to continue.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, Sam.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister was extremely talkative yesterday. How can we account for his reticence today? I guess maybe the minister assumed that no one would check out the veracity of the answers he gave in the exchange yesterday, and now he's struck speechless.

MR. BARRETT: Is it a little fib or a big fib?

MR. KING: Well, I'll give him something else to think about, Mr. Chairman - on a different subject. The minister is responsible for a

[ Page 856 ]

number of other funds in his ministry. I raised some of them yesterday: there's Ron Butlin, there's Action B.C. and Sport B.C., there's the position held by Mrs. Robertson, fitness co-ordinator; and I just wonder about the minister's ability to pull all of these fragmented recreational components into any comprehensive recreation programme for the province.

Now what about Sport B.C.? I understand that the ministry provides an annual grant to Sport B.C., and my understanding - again I'm not an expert in this area, and I'm looking for information - is that Sport B.C. is an umbrella organization for a variety of athletic pursuits in the province. I believe they receive an annual grant from the ministry in the neighbourhood of $136,000, which is a pretty good slice of the taxpayers' cash. I want to know whether or not the minister could advise me whether their grant application for the current year has been approved at the present time. Would the minister give me that information?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I would like to make concerning this ministry, while we are discussing the salary of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. First of all I would like to say to the minister - through you, Mr. Chairman - that I welcome his remarks with respect to the reorganization of certain sectors of his ministry, particularly with respect to creating a new fisheries branch separate from the wildlife branch, and also an indication from the minister that he will be reorganizing his wildlife branch and bringing in a new Wildlife Act. I think these are welcome announcements and decisions on his part about matters that should have been acted upon Some years ago.

There is a feeling, though, among the organizations which represent sport groups, game guides, hunters and trappers that the reorganization and the new Wildlife Art will be introduced to the House prior to the time of the organizations having any opportunity to make their desires known. I would hope that the minister will assure the public and the recreational and sports organizations in the province that this is not his intent, that the Act will come in probably at the next session of the Legislature and that there will be an opportunity for input from these particular groups that can and would be most affected by any new regulations with respect to wildlife.

I want to deal very briefly and quickly with a matter which is topical at this time, and it's my concern with respect to the area that will be accessed when the Alcan pipeline is built through northeastern British Columbia.

I know that the minister is aware of a number of routes, or at least I am sure that his department must be aware of a number of projected routes which have been suggested by the pipeline company who hopes to build the Alcan pipeline. There is concern, Mr. Minister, in northeastern British Columbia, and valid concern, with respect to the location. There is a feeling that the location of the pipeline will pose some very specific problems to big game habitat, to winter ranges and to some of our more exotic species of big game.

We're particularly concerned with the stone sheep population in the Muncho Lake area and that area of northeastern British Columbia which is the native habitat of the stone sheep. There are large herds of caribou yet, although they're diminishing with the wolf predation - and I'm not going to get into that subject today because I think we're all aware of how disastrous it can be on big game herds. There are only a few areas of northeastern British Columbia where we have any appreciable elk herds. The pipeline may or may not access those areas. Of course, the moose population is more widely spread but also they have to have winter habitat where they're unmolested.

So basically there are two problem , Mr. Minister. One is the location of the pipeline with respect to critical areas that would provide or cause problem for our wildlife populations. There is a concern that as the pipeline is being constructed, as it goes ahead, the workers in the area, who will number in the thousands, will have access because of the location of the pipeline to game populations that in the past have been very, very inaccessible and create great pressure on those populations, particularly in the fall of the year, if the pipeline happens to be built through that particular area at that particular time, with respect to hunting. For that reason, I would hope that there would be a closure with respect to hunting by those people employed on the pipeline at the time it is being built, particularly in the areas that are critical to our game populations.

I was not in the north at the time the Alaska Highway was built but I've heard many, many stories about the building of the Alcan Highway and the fact that the people responsible for building it, those people employed there, had very little to do in their spare time, with what spare time they did have. They mainly lived in camps and they inundated the area and just about annihilated certain game populations within a given radius or a given area of the Alcan Highway construction.

[ Page 857 ]

We're concerned in the north that the same sort of situation might happen when the Alcan pipeline is built. I think that consideration must be given now with respect to the problems that I have outlined by your wildlife branch, and consideration should also be given by your parks branch to setting aside certain areas that the pipeline will access with respect to future park development.

As I understand it, access will have to be provided from the Alaska Highway to pipeline depots or dumps where the pipe will be located for the right-of-way for the Alcan pipeline. Roads will have to be built into areas which are now accessible only by packhorse or by floatplanes. In some of these areas, we have critical situations with respect to game populations. I would hope that these things will be looked at well in advance. I'm not advocating that the pipeline should be stalled or that it should not be built; that's the last thing that I have in my mind. But 1 do think that we could perhaps look very closely at the location to see if in fact it will create specific problem that we haven't had to live with in the past.

I know from experience, having lived in the north for many years, that the pipelining companies wish to travel in as straight a line as possible, taking into consideration the terrain between point A and point B. If to get from point A to point B in a straight line it happens to invade the most critical area with respect to stone sheep population or a caribou population or an elk herd, they would not be averse to going through that area if someone did not exert some assuagement with respect to the damage that could be created, particularly if alternatives are available.

I think that it is something that we have to look at now, well in advance of the building of the pipeline. I don't suggest that we become so upset about this or so uptight that we move a pipeline to accommodate three beaver, as was done in Alaska. I don't think that is a significant game population, to divert a pipeline to accommodate a beaver colony which consisted of three beaver. I'm sure the minister knows as well as I do that beaver can be live-trapped and moved, rather than move the pipeline. But we want to make sure that, where we do have at the present time some significant game herds in northeastern B.C., we avoid any conflict, if that's at all possible.

I'd like to speak just briefly about the recreational facilities on Williston Lake, and the lake that will be created by Site I on the Peace River when it comes into operation. After almost 10 years of struggle, Mr. Minister, we're finally in the process of getting a proper boat-launching ramp on Williston Lake. It's been a long struggle and I would hope that now that we're almost there - that the access is in - the ramp itself will be in place in time for this summer's operation, so that the people who love to fish on Williston Lake will be able to get their boats in and out of, the water in a proper manner. It provides a large amount of recreational potential, and certainly there are many, many people today ho take advantage of the excellent fishing provided in Williston Lake.

With respect to the lake which will be created by Site 1, it's a much smaller lake, as the minister will know, because it's a much smaller pondage area, but it will provide, in my opinion, an excellent opportunity for recreational development. The lake is smaller, therefore it's not nearly as dangerous and susceptible to high waves as the Williston Lake arm is at the present time. I'm sure that it will be an easy pondage to stock with fish or at least improve the habitat for the local fish that are presently there, and provide excellent opportunity for recreational facilities.

I'm of the opinion that B.C. Hydro, as well as your department, has some responsibility in this respect, to provide the funds that are necessary to develop proper campsites, picnic sites and accommodation for the public. I would think that the usage in terms of numbers will be far higher in the lake created by Site I than in Williston Lake, simply because you do not have to have large, expensive boats and equipment to make use of the smaller lake at Site 1. So the average tourists with a cartop boat will be in a position to enjoy a few hours' fishing on their way from the north, or to Alaska, or from Alaska - whatever - where they would be reluctant to use the same type of boat and equipment on Williston Lake, which is one of the largest bodies of inland water in British Columbia and susceptible to wave action when the winds get up. So there is a great potential at Site 1.

It is a few years down the line, but what I'm suggesting to the minister is that if we do not plan now, perhaps another 10 years will go by before we get any development there. I hope that's not going to be the case, because I'm sure that the pondage created will be of a type that we could immediately move in and start some development for the benefit of the people traveling in and out of the northeastern section of British Columbia.

Those, Mr. Minister, are a few of the concerns that I have with respect to my part of the country. I'd just like to say one or two words with respect to humane trapping and the

[ Page 858 ]

development Of new types of traps. I think it's commendable that the ministry is looking at all alternatives to the leghold trap. But I must suggest to the minister, and I'm sure he's aware of this, that with the larger fur bearing animals, the leghold trap may, for many years to come, be the only practical way of trapping those animals. The Conibear trap is a proven success with smaller animals in certain locations and in certain weather conditions. But certainly, when you consider the winter conditions in many parts of British Columbia where our largest populations of fur bearing animals reside or where we find their habitats, the problem of designing not only a humane trap, but an effective trap, is one that will not be easily remedied.

In my mind, it's just not possible to come up quickly with a new type of trapping device that will, first of all, trap fur-bearing animals efficiently, and secondly, be acceptable to the majority of the 5,000 trappers who presently make all or part of their living by trapping-Sometimes the technique is more important in trapping than is the device itself. The proper set of a trap means a great deal with respect to your success ratio. What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that some trappers could trap all winter in an area abundant in fur-bearing animals and their success ratio would be nil. Another trapper, because of his years of experience, will go into the same area and have a very good success ratio. You don't just throw the traps down on the ground and hope that a fur-bearing animal is going to be stupid enough to step into it, because they develop a cunning, as many animals do. There is a problem in developing a humane trap. I hope we find one and develop new ones that will be multipurpose in respect to all types of fur-bearing animals, and the sooner the better. But I'm sure the minister is aware, as I am, that it's not going to be an easy problem to resolve.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to speak briefly on two subjects here. One is the one which the member who just sat down was speaking on at the end of his speech - the matter of the leghold trap, and also the control of the wolf population in British Columbia.

When I listened to the minister yesterday, I was rather taken aback at his suggestion that some of us might use this matter of wolf control and concern over animals as a political football. I'm sure that everyone in this House who is against cruelty to animals is not going to use this on a partisan basis.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I was congratulating you on not doing so.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, fine. It could be misinterpreted. I just wanted to get that point over.

First of all, on the matter of wolf control, I appreciate the fact that I'm just a city girl. One of the members yesterday said that he was a little tired of people from the city getting themselves involved in this matter of the wolves when they know so little about them. I have had a number of conversations with the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , and I respect his viewpoint on this and his background. As a city girl, I'm ready to concede that there is a problem with wolf control, and there is a need for some control.

The only thing I take issue with is a point you made yesterday concerning the manner in which you are planning to continue to control the wolf population. I believe you said the programme is going to be expanded. From what I could gather, it will again be a continuation of killing the wolf by poisoning. I think everyone on the floor of this House knows this is a very unpleasant death for the wolf.

My basic question to you is: accepting the fact there has to be some control - and I concede to the people with more wisdom than I have on that - is there no other method? Some people have said that perhaps going back to the shooting of the wolves might be less cruel. I'd like to hear the ministers comment on that.

I know the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is going to mention today a new method of stunning the wolf. He's going to give us some information on this; I'm just the opener on this discussion. He knows a lot more about this new system in Saskatchewan. Really, what I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that I hope you won't just continue with this wholesale poisoning, without your department giving some consideration to a more humane way of handling the wolf. I see the Premier is very interested in this, so I seriously hope you and your minister might look into this.

The other point concerns the leghold trap. I want to take issue with the remarks of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , who seemed to imply that there is no new, proper, humane trap, and also that we need time. I know the minister is quite aware of a federal-provincial committee whose function, for five years now, has been to look for a more humane trap. I think the minister must also be aware that, outside of the Conibear trap.... The remarks by the member for North Peace River in reference to that were probably correct.

But what about the bionic trap? I can't

[ Page 859 ]

recall if you mentioned that here today. The bionic trap, invented by Mr. Gabry....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The $6 million trap.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that minister does take an interest in this whole problem, and seems to be quite aware of the problem. I just wonder, though, if this matter of having to wait now until next spring is not going to perhaps appear - and I'm not saying you're intending to make it so - to be another stalling thing on this whole matter of the leg-hold trap. But you also, I believe, have a problem here, Mr. Minister, because the federal-provincial committee, I understand, isn't even coming in with their recommendations until next spring, which I consider disappointing for most people who are concerned about this. Now if they're not coming in with a recommendation until next spring - and they should have this fall - I'm just wondering how you can bring in legislation perhaps prior to their recommendations. This doesn't mean that I want you to continue this on for another year, but I'm wondering what background you're going to have for this. And may I just say that as far as I'm personally concerned, I appreciate the problems of the trappers. Maybe I don't from the north - except from North Burnaby - but I personally, and I've said this every year - would like to see the wholesale banning of the leg-hold trap. Thank you.

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, dealing with the questions the hon. member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) has raised, he appears to be under two significant misunderstandings here, and I'm happy to clear them up for him. The comptroller for the ministry advises me that the office of the general manager of the British Columbia Games was in fact outfitted, if you like, by appropriation from the ministry's vote, not from the sport and fitness fund; that's point No. 1.

Secondly, in regard to the salary for Wendy Robertson, the situation is this. The salary which she was receiving in Kelowna from the school system there was approximately $23,000 and change annually.

MS. BROWN: That's $5,000 in change.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Approximately, okay - I can't give it to the nearest dollar, but it was $23,000 and some amount per annum. The agreement which we entered into with Mrs. Robertson was that she would not, as of last September, commence another school year, that she would take a year's leave of absence from her school work there, as a teacher, and she would come to work with this ministry on the same basis - that is to say, she would work 10 months and receive her salary and conclude in time to resume her normal working year next September. The appointment, the order-in-Council - through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member - reads: "That she is therefore appointed from November 1,1977, to August 31,1978" - a total of 10 months, just as she would have been employed alternatively with the school system from roughly September 1 to the end of June. So there is no significant difference in the employment arrangements. She is therefore earning $2,400 per month for a total of $24,000 'as compared to $23,000 and some hundreds of dollars. There has been improper arithmetic attached to your proposition in suggesting she's earning $28,000.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. KING: There are a number of points, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, teachers are paid on an annual basis, you know, and certainly the information I have is that she receives $28,800 per year; and I'll check that out further. But, in any event, that she's on a salary of, the minister says, $2,400 monthly for 10 months is a pretty attractive arrangement when compared with the provincial sport co-ordinators. My whole point is: why the disparity? This individual is probably well qualified and competent for her post, but that implies that the provincial sport coordinators are not. I just do not accept that, and see no reason way they should be at $22,500. They've been around for a number of years and I know that many of them have done an excellent job for their athletic groups in the province of British Columbia. I see nothing in the minister's response that would justify that kind of special attention for Mrs. Robertson, as opposed to these other people. I'll certainly check my information on the salary a bit further.

The minister's initial response, that she simply carried her educational salary with her, is in great conflict with the information I have. The salary level I've received from the Ministry of Education is maximum salary for 1977, $19,987. 1 don't know how the minister finds that the lady was earning $23,000 a year when the maximum salary in that region for her qualifications is indicated quite clearly by the Ministry of Education.

I would hope that the minister would check that further, because there is certainly conflict between the information he has obtained and that which I have obtained from sources

[ Page 860 ]

that should be in a position to know.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, we obviously have conflicting information as to the lady's salary. I would just like to stress again, though, that my understanding is that the payment of her salary in the school system was on the basis of an annual salary divided into cheques reflecting a 10-month employment period, or 10 payments. The present arrangement is that she actually deferred any employment two months into her normal school teaching year to meet a commitment to spend instead the 10 months working in this capacity. She will not be paid $28,000 for that task; she will be paid $24,000.

I might just say one other thing. The member referred to Sport B.C., and he asked me whether their grant for this year has been approved. I can only tell you that the second six-month portion of their annual grant, approved some time ago, has been approved, yes. I assume that's what you are seeking. We haven't got into the next year's appropriations.

MR. KING: The application was made in January last.

HON. MR. BAWLF: For their second six months, yes.

MR. KING: It has been approved?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, that's right.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on the questions raised by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , I think he understands and is aware that the question of location or routing of the Alcan pipeline is the subject of a good deal more review and discussion. Certainly it has not been detailed in any way, and those details will be subject to very strict environmental controls. Certainly part of that consideration will be critical areas of wildlife habitat, and I can assure him that that is the government's intention: to ensure that every reasonable consideration is given to wildlife habitat, along with other environmental considerations in the routing of the pipeline.

The second point about hunting pressure arising from large numbers of employees with an extraordinary amount of access in that area is very well taken. I can assure the member that it is something that we will look into. It's a very useful suggestion, and I think one which will receive serious consideration.

Williston Lake and the boat-launching ramp there: I can tell the member that we do have an amount of approximately $75,000 in our capital estimates for this year for the ramp and associated parking and other facilities. Certainly I'll be looking into the timetable for completion of that.

On the question of humane trapping methods, something again which the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raises, the member for Burnaby North is at some issue with the member for North Peace River. First of all, it is certainly worthy of note that there are two avenues to humane trapping. one is the actual device which is used, but that's only part of the story. The leg-hold trap, in some instances, can be used a good deal more humanely than may have been the case in the past, and in some cases about as well as we could expect any device to work in the unfortunate circumstance of having to kill some creature. The humane trapper education courses are a vital part of the whole effort. No device can just be handed to a novice and result in humane trapping. The application is as important as the device in its own right.

The question about the bionic trap. The bionic trap is being tested now, and you will know that we tried to assist that gentleman in his efforts to develop a humane trap.

As far as the federal -provincial committee is concerned, yes, we do expect them to bring in a report which will indicate some alternate devices by next year. I simply said quite frankly yesterday that we could bring in an amendment to the legislation. It would be great window-dressing, but I prefer to be straightforward about this and say that until we've got the device which can substitute for the leg-hold trap, there is no point in putting in a piece of window-dressing legislation.

That federal-provincial committee, I might say, is not working in a vacuum somewhere. They're utilizing a whole range of research groups and facilities across this country; they're taking advantage of some of the very best that are available anywhere, and making every effort. As I mentioned yesterday, aver 200 devices have been examined; they've got 22 different types of traps in the testing and evaluation stage now. The key is that we not only have to have a trap which works, and in all likelihood a number of traps, as I've said before, because we have different behaviour, different habitat, different size and characteristics for each species, but we may well end up having to have a series of traps to be able to cope with each of the number of species involved.

In any event, they've got to then be put into production. They have to be manufactured in

[ Page 861 ]

sufficient quantities to really begin to be effective in the field. So those steps have to be followed through. It's our earnest hope that when we do bring in legislation next year it won't be, in effect, window dressing. It will, in fact, be timely with the availability of some alternate traps.

Lastly, on the question of wolf control, I agree with the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly): poison is not a happy solution to a problem which I think all sides of the House agreed yesterday exists. In the application of poison there are a number of risks. I've stressed that the ministry itself is taking direct responsibility for any baits that are placed and are monitoring them closely. We have concentrated strictly on individual groups of wolves who have been harassing livestock. Now we find, as we discussed at length yesterday, a serious depletion of some species in the wild habitat, and now we're going to have to look at the wolf control problem there. We've only done it on a pilot basis so far, and we have not made a definitive decision as to how to deal with that in a larger way yet. So expansion is anticipated, something which hasn't happened.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a few remarks to the minister concerning the 2, 4-D milfoil treatment in the Okanagan Lakes. Some of them are just general observations. I appreciate, of course, that this overlaps into the other ministry, but the remarks that I have are my concerns about the long-range effect of this chemical on the fish and wildlife in that area. I know that it does overlap, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think that would be better dealt with with the Minister of the Environment, as it comes under his purview and not under the purview of this particular minister.

MR. STEPHENS: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but at the same time, this chemical affects fish and it affects wildlife, and that's directly in this minister's jurisdiction. If I don't get this chance to ask him, I'll never have a chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you can relate it directly to this ministers responsibility, the Chair will accept it, of course. But if not, if it relates to the pouring of the chemical into the lake, we would have to do it under the other minister's estimates, hon. member.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I think you will appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you can't ignore the fact that you're putting it into the lake because that's where the fish are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair would have to rule that that would come under the Ministry of the Environment.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I can see what's going to happen, Mr. Chairman. When I address this question to the Minister of the Environment, you're going to say: "Well, I'm sorry, you can't talk about fish; he doesn't know anything about fish and wildlife."

Mr. Chairman, I'll try and restrict....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Try and relate it.

MR. STEPHENS: Many of these departments overlap, but I don't think you can shut down the debate simply because there's an overlap.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not trying to restrict the debate, hon. member. I'm only trying to make it relative to....

MR. STEPHENS: I respect what you're saying, and I'll try to direct it in that area.

Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, as you well know, the long-term effects of 2, 4-D are still unknown. Even some of the short-term effects are still unknown. The main principle in the use of 2, 4-D over the years has been to avoid the watercourses of this province, simply because we're not too certain just what effect the chemical will have on the fish and waterfowl.

Now since we're putting it directly into the watercourses, I'd like to, just for the record, make reference to a report prepared by your department with which, no doubt, you're quite familiar. It's headed: "2, 4-D. A Summary of Information Relative to its, Possible Effects on Fish and Wildlife When Used in Aquatic Weed-control Programmes." This was prepared by Mr. Morely and Mr. Reid, and dated July, 1977. I'd just like to read into the record some of the portions of that report. Looking first at page 4, it says:

"When interpreting the effects of herbicide on fish, wildlife or other biota, a distinction must be made between the direct effects of herbicide, which may be minimal, and the indirect effects, which may affect whole animal populations. The potential extensive use of 2, 4-D for aquatic weed control in B.C. has led to some concern by both federal and provincial fisheries and wildlife biologists that low concentrations,

[ Page 862 ]

maintained over time, could be deleterious to animal life and cause sub lethal damage that is not readily apparent."

Then, further on down the same page:

"Low concentrations of 2, 4-D maintained over a period of time could cause sublethal damage that is not readily recognizable. Such effects can lead to gradual decreases in fish populations through increased predation, reduced reproduction, increased susceptibility to parasites, disease and starvation."

Then, turning to page 5:

"The welfare of waterfowl populations is of considerable concern when herbicides are used for aquatic wed control. Many of the food sources of these birds, i.e. aquatic macrophytes and invertebrates, are likely to be lost. The importance of water milfoil as aquatic and invertebrate habitat has been found to be much higher than other submergent weed species. High densities of a variety of epithetic invertebrates are found on water milfoil, these densities being generally greater than those on other weed species. It is likely that waterfowl populations would be drastically affected by declines in epithetic invertebrates. The young of some waterfowl species depend almost exclusively on these invertebrates as food source, and elimination of this food source could be expected to be followed by decline in brood survival."

Again, at the bottom of page 5:

"The control of the spread of water milfoil may result in a decrease of potential food and resting areas for resident migrating waterfowl if other plant species are not substituted for certain of the removed populations of water milfoil."

At the top of page 6:

"An immediate result of an application of herbicide to control submergent plants is a reduction in community photosynthesis. Also, as the plants decay, a rapid decrease in oxygen levels in surrounding water can occur. Several workers have reported low oxygen concentrations in reservoirs and lakes following weed control with herbicides, and fish kills were recorded in some areas. Coincidental with decreased oxygen level, decrease in PH has been recorded because of the net reduction of carbon dioxide utilization in water as the plants die.

"Wojtalik, et al, reported decreases in PH as high as 2. 1 units 14 days after treatment of a reservoir with 2, 4-D to control water milfoil. Special precautions must be taken in order to reduce the. hazard to fish of other aquatic organisms of the oxygen depletion and decreased water PH. One such precaution is the establishment of untreated buffer zones in treatment areas."

And then the paragraph on conclusions says: "The use of 2, 4-D for aquatic weed control is potentially detrimental to fish and waterfowl. It is anticipated that fish and wildlife population decreases will be the result of large-scale aquatic weed control with 2, 4-D, these decreases being caused by the toxic effects of the herbicide and/or the adverse effects of habitat destruction and manipulation. Should 2, 4-D be used for aquatic weed control, it should only be used as part of a larger management programme and should be used in small, carefully selected treatment sites."

The last sentence, I think, is very important when we're talking about the Okanagan lakes. It says:

"Repeat herbicide treatment should not be considered, due to the possibility of long-term persistence of this chemical in the aquatic ecosystem leading to the chronic exposure of various aquatic organisms."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like first to ask the minister just what his ministry has done to co-ordinate with the Environment ministry on the use of this chemical in the Okanagan Lake and in Vaseux Lake.

The second thing that I would like him to direct his mind to is dealing with the Okanagan Lake. I understand - and the minister may correct me on this - that the north end of Okanagan Lake is being treated with 2, 4-D. That particular area, as I understand it, where the treatment is being made, is composed of mainly marshes and swamps which are used primarily by waterfowl for long periods of the year and have a very low recreational use.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not that area is, in fact, being treated. If so, does he feel that it is perhaps unnecessary, having co-ordinated with the other minister?

The idea that milfoil can be completely eradicated with the use of 2, 4-D, I suggest, is not accepted by anybody in authority. One should ask, then, of the minister why, if that is the case, it is necessary to attempt to control the weed in non-recreational areas. I know, of course, that the weed does spread

[ Page 863 ]

through the watercourses and down the rivers, but accepting the fact that we cannot completely eradicate the milfoil, is it wise at this stage, with our limited knowledge, to be treating areas where there is non-recreational use?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned also that the people who have studied this subject know that milfoil weed, like most weeds, will grow and propagate best in high-nutrient areas, such as areas where human sewage is discharged into lakes and in area that are silted in by logging operations. I'm just suggesting to the minister that some long-term planning should be laid out. If in fact this has been done, I'd like to know what it is. When we simply treat the milfoil and nothing else without any long-range terms for treating these particular areas, these high-nutrient areas, with methods for treating sewage disposal and silting through logging, are we not simply fighting a losing battle? We continue to put 2, 4-D into the watercourses and into our lakes really to no avail other than for an immediate year-by-year control. Without the long-term planning that will eliminate the high nutrients that cause the weed to grow so rapidly, aren't we simply running the risk that a yearly use of 2, 4-D will have dramatic reductions in fish and waterfowl supplies?

I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he deems it necessary that Vaseux Lake, which is primarily a bird sanctuary, and again fairly remote and without too much recreational value, be treated.

Just moving a little bit away from that but to a related matter, I'd like to ....

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) continues to yap across the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll get used to it.

MR. STEPHENS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if she was here when the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was talking about better methods of closing traps. Perhaps she should have a chat with him and do some investigating.

I think, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, you should realize that my questions are primarily not only to enlighten myself, but hopefully some of the members here. I do not pretend to know everything. Contrary to the practice that the member for North Okanagan is used to in this House, I really have an interest in learning a little bit more from you. That's why I'm asking these questions.

My concern also, in looking at your estimates, is that there's very little funding apparently set aside for management programmes. We have, of course, the $35,000 for the wolf control, and I think that's certainly a good step. I'm wondering why there is not any consideration given to such things as controlled burning and such things as a certain amount of control over road construction in areas of coal exploration. We know the difficulty that some animals, particularly sheep, can encounter when road constructions go through a sheep area, and I'd like to know whether there is any kind of an overall plan. I would suggest that now would be a very good time to do it. The coal markets of the world are soft, and we have the time to make these plans so that when the markets come back we'll be able to put them into effect without any loss of time and with limited damage to the sheep.

We have no funds set aside for any apparent inventory taking of our game resource. It se to me that before we can lay down any long-range plan for management of game resource, we should at least know what our resource is and the count. It's akin to the forestry department which has $6 million set aside to examine and study and count the trees and measure the amount- of timber in a particular area before it's cut. We have that knowledge of our resource before we use it. I would submit that a certain amount of expenditure in learning a little more about the numbers and the count of our animals before we start harvesting or continue to harvest the resource would be quite helpful. The same in the mining area. I notice there's $155,000 set aside for collection of mineral data for the same apparent reason.

I'd like to refer briefly to the Mair report which indicated that the minister's department is top heavy and that we require more people in the field. Yet, when we look at the estimates, we find that making a comparison between the number of people employed by the ministry this year and last year, in the administration alone - which is the largest area of increase in staff - there has been an increase from 82 to 101; there has been an increase of two in the enforcement area; minus one in habitat protection; plus two in fisheries; minus one in wildlife; and minus one in information and education. And I notice that there have been 25 clerk-typists 2 added to the payroll for this year. I'd like the minister to direct his attention to that and, hopefully, give me some satisfaction that the Mair report recommendations, insofar as more assistance in the field might be forth

[ Page 864 ]

coming....

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, just to set the member for Revelstoke-Slocan's (Mr. King's) mind at rest, finally, on the question of Mrs. Robertson, her salary in 1977 was $22,889 -confirmed by telephone a moment ago with the secretary-treasurer of the school district.

MR. KING: What was that salary again?

HON. MR. BAWLF: $22,889 plus fringe benefits - including medical, group life, 1-1/2 days sick leave per month, et cetera - which go with being a teacher. That was her last year's salary; adding 6 per cent, we'll say, as an AIB increase for this year, it would be $24,262. 1 trust that puts that matter to rest.

I was, and I am, looking forward to a comment from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who is, I understand, going to tell us about a new system of wolf control in Saskatchewan. Apart from poisoning, which seems to be the only way - it's next to impossible to hunt and shoot or trap a wolf - I can only assume the system they're using in Saskatchewan is choking them with NDP philosophy.

In regard to the remarks of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , Mr. Chairman, we, as a ministry, have $80,000 in our budget for this year - to be programmed through this ministry by way of a transfer from the Ministry of the Environment - to study the effects on our fish and wildlife populations of the use of 2, 4-D on milfoil. The report from which he quoted is a report which is largely a compendium of research which has been done elsewhere, citations of quite a wide-ranging sort, not necessarily applicable in the Okanagan instance and certainly not under circumstances of supervision that have existed here. It is concerned with large-scale use of 2, 4-D, and not with the level of control which has been exercised here. And I stress that our fish and wildlife branch has a representative on the pesticide control committee. They also have a whole range of people, as I understand it, involved in one way or another, from the federal Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment. And the programme is being monitored very closely, and doesn't constitute a massive use of the pesticide.

Beyond that, I think it would be fair to say that this is a matter which is primarily under the administration of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , particularly with reference to sewage treatment measures and silting through logging and other concerns that he has mentioned. Naturally, this ministry continues to have very extensive input into the decision process, but I think the subject will be very substantially canvassed by the Minister of the Environment.

Moving on, I'd just say that I'd have to report further on the precise locations for the programme at the north end of the lake at the present time. But it's not possible to isolate the phenomenon by simply saying: "Well, that's a low recreational use, so why deal with it there?" It is very, very prolific, and if you don't deal with it there, it will soon be somewhere else where you would very much wish it hadn't got.

Moving on to other questions, controlled burning and control in road construction are all a part of our programme. We do have funds for controlled burning in the current budget; we have, through our regional-resource technical planning committees, a review of resource road construction which could impact wildlife habitat.

In particular reference to the matter which the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was raising, we do have a close liaison with the coal reclamation group and are working to ensure a minimum impact again.

There's very extensive funding of inventories. It's part of the routine function of the branch to conduct inventories in different areas of the province.

On the question of the Mair report, the member was citing a number of new positions in headquarters which he took to be additions to staff in headquarters. I'd like to stress that there were 22 positions transferred from the temporary assistance category to the permanent establishment - is that clear? - so these are people already working under a different classification and we've simply given them permanent establishment classification.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I might say that it surprises me that this minister has no knowledge whatever as to whether this herbicide is being used in the north marsh area of north Okanagan Lake, which is clearly one of the best....

HON. MR. BAWLF: I did not say that.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, you indicated that you did not know where it war. being used. Can you find that out? Or can you say it is not being used in that marsh area?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I was just

[ Page 865 ]

saying that in regard to the member's inquiries I'd be happy to obtain a detailed report, with precise acreage and precise location, rather than sort of wave a wand over the northern half of Okanagan Lake. I presumed he was seeking information there, and I was giving an undertaking to provide what details I can for him.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's offer and certainly will look forward to getting that information, but I wonder if he could tell the House now whether, in fact, the 2, 4-D herbicide is being used in the swampy area at the north end of the lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question might be better put to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) .

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, to the best of my knowledge, no, Mr. Chairman. That's why I undertook to explore the matter further for him. I have no knowledge of any such instance.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware that I would be called upon today to advise the minister on the wolf control....

HON. MR. BAWLF: Remember your colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) .

MR. SKELLY: Right. But at one time, about a year ago, I drew to the attention of your ministry a coyote management programme that is being used in Saskatchewan. It involves the use of lithium chloride baits that, while not lethal to coyotes, can create an aversion reaction.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You paint all the caribou with this, do you?

MR. SKELLY: You paint caribou meat with lithium chloride and it is eaten by wolves, or whatever. They'll get sick, and it creates an aversion reaction. There are two different questions involved. One is the management of wolf populations, and I don't know how you can do that without getting rid of wolves, but the other is predator control, if there is a way of controlling predation by wolves without actually killing the wolves. If that problem can be solved with lithium chloride baits, then I think that's probably the best way to go.

I understand Dr. Jowsry from the animal control section of the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture, at the request of Dr. Tompa and Don Robinson in your ministry, has sent material out. I'm wondering if they have looked over the material and if they're prepared to use the lithium chloride control system on wolves, as it applies to predator control.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'll be happy to make inquiries about that, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: I have a number of issues that I would like to raise this afternoon with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I would like to start this afternoon by expressing my disappointment at the minister's change of heart with respect to the naming of the Schoen Lake park. Now I have no doubt that the minister is going to deny that he ever considered at any time naming Schoen Lake park "Roderick Haig-Brown park"....

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, I did.

MS. SANFORD: You did consider it? Well, I'm pleased to hear that the minister did consider that, and I certainly do not accept the reasons that the minister gave at the time as to why he had chosen "Schoen Lake park" aver the name "Roderick Haig-Brown park."

Now it seems to me that this was an ideal opportunity for the province to pay tribute to the late Roderick Haig-Brown, who was an internationally known conservationist, author and environmentalist, and that opportunity was passed by. I think it would have been most appropriate to name that particular park Roderick Haig-Brown park. After all, it was the area in which he lived. He knew the area extremely well. He was one of the people who was active in having the Tsitika-Shoen area set aside in the f first place under a moratorium for study purposes. He appeared before the public hearings that were held in the area with respect to the future of the Tsitika-Schoen area.

But here in the city of Victoria, we've just had a posthumous tribute paid to Roderick Haig-Brown by the federal government. He was posthumously awarded the medal by the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada. He is only the second person in Canada to receive this particular award.

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister probably did seriously consider Roderick Haig-Brown's name f or that park. But I think there were a lot of old scores to settle, as far as the old guard of the Social Credit Party was concerned. Roderick Haig-Brown was an environmentalist and a conservationist. Over the years the Socred Party and the Socred government have not been noted as environmentally concerned or

[ Page 866 ]

conservationist-minded.

MR. VEITCH: That's nonsense.

MS. SANFORD: They have not.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a figment of your imagination.

MS. SANFORD: That is why Roderick Haig-Brown was a thorn in the side of the previous Social Credit government. There is no doubt about that. Roderick Haig-Brown was one of those who led the fight against the damming of the Campbell Lake system and the Buttle Lake system. He fought long and hard in order to prevent that from happening under the previous Social Credit government. The posthumous tribute that was paid to him by the national parks people when the award was given made reference to the fact that this was one of the major fights that he undertook. Roderick Haig-Brown was also the one who led the crusade against the dumping of tailings into Buttle Lake. That kind of thing was not appreciated by the previous Social Credit government. I have no doubt that some of those old guard people were influential in having the minister choose some name other than Roderick Haig-Brown for that park.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is now attempting to have some other tribute paid to Roderick Haig-Brown. This relates to the Adams River area where they would like a park named in his honour, up in the Shuswap area. The request has been made to the government, and the B.C. Wildlife Federation hopes that by September of this year the government will be able to make up its mind with respect to paying that tribute to our internationally known author and conservationist. They have publicly indicated that if in fact the govern ment does not accept this * proposal at this time, the B.C. Wildlife Federation will on its own pay that tribute to Roderick Haig-Brown.

There was an interesting editorial on this very subject in the Daily Colonist some time ago. I think the editorial comments at that time were very appropriate with respect to the naming of the Schoen Lake Park. It was not named Roderick haig-Brown Park. And, as the editorial pointed out, 30, 40, 50 years from now people will know who Roderick Haig-Brown is, but they will be saying, 'Sam Who?".

The other item I would like to raise this afternoon relates to a speech which the minister made last Friday in this Legislature. I would like to point out that the minister got a little carried away at the time. He was responding to banter across the floor of the

House and was in fact responding to a comment made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . At that time the Minister of Recreation and Conservation said: "Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member for Nanaimo consult his colleague, the member for Comox, about the incredible impact the B.C. Ferries' new off season package tours are having on her constituency. They have booked their hotels solid."

I found that an interesting comment, because I have not heard that the hotels within my constituency were booked solid. They certainly had not informed me of the solid bookings that were taking place in the hotels within Comox constituency. As a result, I thought I would check with these hotels, and this is what I found. I found that in the Comox Valley alone there were 19 motels and 11 hotels. None of them were affected by the "impact in her constituency on the hotels." That is: "The hotels have been booked solid." That's what he said.

Then I checked with the hotels from Campbell River north within the constituency and found that there were 17 hotels and 22 motels. But there is one, Mr. Chairman, that is being affected through this packaged tour that the minister was referring to. There was a Delta hotel in Campbell River which doesn't do too much to assist the small hotel operators and motel operators who have suffered so much during the last two years as a result of doubling those ferry rates two years ago.

There was one. This packaged tour that the minister was bragging about has been in effect since March. It ends in April and resumes again next fall in the off season. So what he is talking about is a period of about six weeks of incredible impact on the hotels - I'm quoting your words - that this has had on my riding. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but these bookings for the special package tours that he was talking about occur only once a week. One hotel, a Delta hotel, once a week and that is an incredible impact on the riding of Comox as a result of these new package tours. Really, that's a bit much, Mr. Chairman, to accept from the minister. They have booked their hotels solid, he tells us in the House. That's very interesting.

I would like to ask the minister about the public recreation facilities fund. I would like to know at this time how much money has gone out of that fund and how many organizations have benefited from the fund since the government changed hands. You will recall that they assimilated the community recreation facilities fund that existed before, brought in their new bill, and took months and months

[ Page 867 ]

in order to draw up the forms that people could use to apply for assistance under the public recreation facilities fund. I would like to know how much money has now gone out of that fund to assist groups throughout the province in building recreation facilities or in improving them.

I would also like to know whether or not the minister has been receiving some stones from the north end of the Island, because they apparently have been planning to package up stones to send to the minister - pet rocks, in effect - because these people are hoping that they will get some assistance through the provincial government for building a curling rink. They're making their point to the minister by sending him rocks or stones in the mail.

There is one last item that I would like to raise with the minister and that relates to the oyster industry. Within Comox constituency there are a number of oyster growers, and I must say that the changes that the minister has made with respect to financing for seeding is welcome by the people who are up there. Also, the changes with respect to taxation -those two things will improve the situation as far as the oyster growers are concerned.

But there are a number of other issues that I would like to draw to the minister's attention relating to the oyster industry.

He is probably aware that the industry itself is about a million-dollar industry and that there are about 180 to 280 people employed a year on a permanent basis within that industry. But I'm wondering if the minister knows that of the 17,000 miles of coastline, only 3,000 acres are capable of producing oysters. The people who produce oysters and also have approved shucking houses will not benefit from the increased money that you are making available for seeding. They need to have several other things. They need to have money made available to them to improve and expand their shucking plants. There aren't very many of them; very few of them have approved shucking houses as well as oyster leases. They need assistance in terms of having more security as far as their lease is concerned.

The lease may run for three to five years, but when they go to the banks for financing or to any other area for financing, they find that the financiers look askance at them because their lease may run out within the next two or three or four years. As a result, it is difficult for them to improve the programme that they are operating in terms of a lease as well as a shucking operation and a processing operation.

There's one other thing that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention as far as the oyster industry is concerned. Now that you have recognized the industry in terms of taxation in a way which is very similar to farmland taxation, I'm wondering if the minister would consider very seriously at this time 3,000 acres - and that's all there are on the entire coast - setting them aside in a way which is very similar to the agricultural land reserve, so that these are oyster reserves and are going to remain in perpetuity and will not be used for any other purpose such as industrial log storage, booming and whatever else has been used over the years.

Those 3,000 acres could be set aside and guaranteed for future oyster production. Then it seems to me that we in British Columbia will be able to contribute greatly towards the production of protein food, one of the types of food which is going to be in such short supply in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the minister's comments on the points that I've raised.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Firstly, in regard to the Haig-Brown matter, yes indeed, I did consider seriously the prospect of naming the Schoen Lake Park alternatively after Haig-Brown. I must say that I have no bias against the gentleman, nor am I aware of any that my colleagues might have. I would say that basically the recommendation of the parks branch was not to name parks after personages but to name them after their natural heritage which is represented in the park or in some way prominent in the area - the natural phenomena which the park principally endeavours to preserve. So, in fact, the opinion that any park should be named after an individual is one that is not held by the parks branch. So that's my response to that.

However, I would remind the member that the other consideration that went into this was that Mr. Haig-Brown is already commemorated in the fact that his property and home have been preserved in his name as a kind of retreat in the public domain as such, and I think that's certainly a fitting tribute to the man. That was considered as well.

The member hasn't heard that the hotels have been booked solid in her constituency. I must say I was referring primarily to Campbell River, but I would stress that that member should discuss that with the chairman of the Vancouver Island Visitors Bureau who happens to reside in her constituency, who reports a major heavy increase in business.

She mentions one hotel. I think you were

[ Page 868 ]

mentioning the Delta hotel. I don't know whether the Delta hotel should be regarded as good or bad by that member. I certainly regard any hotel as an important hotel or an important business. I understand they've added 11 people to handle the traffic at peak times of those sailings; they've taken on 11 additional jobs. I thought 11 jobs would be pretty important in your constituency.

The spirit of this thing is that here we have extra capacity in our ferries on the off season. We've designed a programme specifically to deliver people who would otherwise not come to Vancouver Island in that season. The ferry has sold out that capability, and in turn that has produced a major economic benefit for your area, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. 1 think that's what we should be doing, and we're trying to do. Now if you're critical of that, I'd be happy to see it go on the record. If you're critical of that, I'm sure your constituents would be very interested to know that.

As regards the public recreational facilities fund, two comments could be made here. The new Act which replaced the one which was brought in by the former government is a much improved Act, and we've had very, very favourable comment from across the province. We're getting far better co-ordination, far better planning on an integrated basis for the provision of recreational facilities in communities. There is far better consultation with local government. The result of this, essentially, is an improved control on the expenditure of the taxpayers money, essentially all the same taxpayers.

However, counting the $8 million which was spent last year to clean up the hangover of commitments made by the former government -for which they had no funds allocated - together with the $12.5 million which we spent this year under the programme, a total of $20.5 million will generate $60 million in new public recreational facilities, and I think that that is a very significant amount of recreational facilities across this province.

I've received the stones from Port McNeill, along with several hundred applications which are before us. We're proceeding as quickly as possible, and I expect I will have a report on that one shortly.

The member mentions 3,000 acres for the oyster industry, a limited resource - they limit the capability for oyster production. She mentioned her concern that these be set aside exclusively for this purpose, and I must say that we are looking at a form of coastal zone management, which may have something in common with that concern. At the same time,

I'd like to stress that we have a variety of culture techniques which, as I've said in my earlier remarks, have a capability of about a tenfold increase in oyster production in this province - through different culture techniques, raft, string, tray and others. We are making every effort to expand that capability.

Lease tenure? I've met with the oyster growers on this point. We are examining ways in which the lease tenure can be improved in order to assist the oyster growers to raise financing. Okay?

MS. SANFORD: I'm just wondering if the minister could advise us how many millions of dollars worth of applications are on file currently. You said you had a very large number. I would assume that the applications that are before you are far in excess of what is contained in the budget at the moment for public recreation facilities.

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that my reference to the hotels in the Comox constituency stems directly from the misleading remarks that the minister made in the House last Friday. All I was trying to do was correct the record and point out the facts of the case surrounding those particular special package tours.

MR. BAWTREE: There are one or two items that have not come up under this minister's estimates that are of considerable interest in my riding. There are also one or two things that have been mentioned by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) that I think are also of concern to the people in my riding.

One of the things which hasn't come up as yet is the problem of noise pollution on our lakes. We have probably only a small handful of people who are creating this nuisance, and yet there seems to be no definite jurisdiction for control. The federal government do have some control. The regional district can take some action if they so wish, but, in general, they do not. Of course' the provincial government have some control in that they control the RCMP, or the enforcing people, out there on those lakes. So I would ask that you look at this problem to see if there is a reasonable solution. I suspect that it would only take one or two convictions to solve most of the problem on our lakes. It's a great nuisance, when people are out there trying to visit with their neighbours, or sitting around in the sun to get a nice suntan, to have these very noisy boats come by - so noisy that you can't hear anything for a number of minutes.

Another problem we have on our lakes is the small, one-man craft of different names: some

[ Page 869 ]

times they're called Sea-doos. They can cause a great deal of harm to our shoreline, to the waterfowl who are nesting along the shoreline, and they can rip a lot of weeds along the shore and cause a great deal of damage. I think that these also should have some control, should have some restrictions so that they are only used in certain areas of our lakes.

I'm very happy to see, Mr. Minister, that you're going to have a vastly increased and improved salmonid enhancement programme for this year and for the coming years, but I would suggest that we're never really going to get anywhere with the improvement or increasing the numbers of salmon until we have a better mans of making sure that the proper amount of salmon escape from the salt water to get to the salmon grounds. The salmon grounds in my area are probably only stocked to about one-tenth what they were when I was a boy in the area. It's not because the small fry are not going downstream to the sea; it's because the mature salmon are not allowed to come back. We have many spawning grounds that are only just partially stocked, and I would hope that we can find a better method of managing the escapement from the salt water.

But this question of 2, 4-D and using it to control water milfoil is of great interest to my area. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that unless we can find a solution to this water milfoil, a lot of your efforts in that particular part of the country toward improving this salmon resource is not going to come about because water milfoil can destroy those spawning grounds.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) mentioned that there is no knowledge of what the long-term effects of 2, 4-D are on wildlife such as ducks and geese. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that 2, 4-D and other herbicides are being used on around 25 million acres in the Prairies and have been for probably the last 20 years. The people from B.C. are going over there and shooting those ducks and geese that are living off the grain that is grown with herbicides. I haven't seen too many club-feet or whatever other deformities are supposed to come about when you start eating this 2, 4-D. So I would suggest that these are greatly exaggerated concerns.

I think the concern that I have, and my constituents have, is that this water milfoil not be allowed to escape to other waterways. Certainly, if it gets into the Shuswap system, it will have very grave effects on the tourist industry in the Shuswap Lake. It's going to have a very detrimental effect on all of us who are using the Shuswap River or the lakes for irrigation purposes. If anybody is trying to pump out of these waterways when they're full of weeds, you know that you have a great many problem with plugged-up pumps and sprinklers and everything else. It's going to create a great deal of trouble for agriculture in my area.

The member for Oak Bay also mentioned that possibly nutrients were increasing the growth of this mid[oil and if we could get rid of the nutrients, the milfoil would die. Well, all the indications are so far that milfoil does not need a lot of nutrients to grow. Nature itself is putting in quite sufficient nutrients in those waterways to grow milfoil solid from one side to the other. The Shuswap River from Enderby to the Mara Lake area, a great deal of Mara Lake, and the shallower arms, the one shallow arm particularly of Shuswap Lake, is very, very vulnerable to milfoil growth. I suggest that that whole river from Enderby to Sicamous could become solid milfoil in a few years if we don't find a solution to preventing it from spreading and we don't find a solution to eradicating it to the best of our ability. I also think that it's going to gradually creep up the Shuswap River if it ever gets into that system and wipe out our salmon spawning beds. There are certainly enough nutrients in that river, and always have been, to grow weds. And so I think it's very, very necessary that we take every action we possibly can in order to retain these resources.

Wildlife, ducks and geese do not go into those areas where the milfoil is very thick. Young geese can get tangled in the weeds and drown, that's how thick the water milfoil gets. They will feed around the outside edge, but they will not go into the area. I suspect there are very few fish also in these heavily infested areas where the water milfoil is very thick.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that we must make every effort that we possibly can, 2, 4-D and all, to eliminate this terrible tragedy that might occur in the area if that water milfoil spreads to other areas.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity, finally, to discuss with the minister a few concerns that I have regarding a couple of matters in my riding, and perhaps one or two concerns of the minister's other responsibility regarding the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

First of all, I would like to go on record, Mr. Chairman - and I have written the minister on this, but I would like this in Hansard -

[ Page 870 ]

that I have requested of the minister a mid-coast recreational resource study prior to the extraction of the resources in that area. Now the minister may not have received that correspondence, as it was just last week when I wrote, but the fact is that I feel very strongly that such a recreational resource study should be carried out prior to the tendering and the giveaway of huge TFLs, which is likely to happen within the next year or two in that area, and before resource extraction takes place.

I also wish to discuss for a moment the salmonid enhancement programme, By the way, in spite of the fact that it is mostly federal money and federal planning that is going into that programme, there has been good cooperation from the provincial government on that programme and it is a very popular programme in my riding. I want that to be in the record as well.

One other area of your ministry, Mr. Minister - through you, Mr. Chairman - is the marine resources branch, which has produced, in my view, some excellent studies. I'm giving you the bouquets now; we'll get to the other stuff later. These studies have been a great deal of assistance to small businesses and Indian bands who are attempting to establish that type of resource industry in the constituency.

I'd like to go on record as well as supporting some of the other members who have spoken on all sides of this House requesting that more officers are needed in the field, particularly in these large rural areas like the one I represent. Many of these areas only have one or two officers to look after literally hundreds and hundreds of square miles of area, and there is just no way that they can effectively manage areas of that size. So, as I said, I would like to go on record as supporting the request, as many other ers of this House have made, for more people in the field.

Now since last year, under the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, there have been a number of changes. We find that the transportation portfolios have been sort of diffused and they're all over the ball field now. But in any event, Mr. Minister, you are now the minister responsible, basically, to this Legislature for the operation of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and other transportation endeavours in terms of coastal transportation policies. So I have a few items here that I would like to discuss with you at this time on that matter and that issue.

Before I get into my questions and comments on this matter, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the residents of Bella-Bella, to say that during a horrendous situation which occurred last December 6 with a power outage, where after.... I did not become aware of that situation until about two days after it occurred, Mr. Chairman. But what I want to say is that after I had contacted the emergency programme people and B, C, Hydro, very quickly, when it became apparent that they were unable to move personnel and cables into that area, because of the blizzard conditions prevailing at the time - below freezing temperatures - by any other means than by B.C. Ferries, I contacted Mr. Gallagher personally. Within 40 minutes he phoned me back, and in spite of the horrendous dislocation that that caused the B.C. Ferry Service - reservations that had to be cancelled and a whole lot of things - the decision was made in 40 minutes and that ferry was diverted. So I'll take this opportunity, on behalf of the residents of Bella-Bella, to thank B.C. Ferry Corporation for that service.

However, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that since this government came to power, the lack of transportation policies on this coast have dislocated the economy of this whole coastal area of Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, the Powell River area, the mid-coast area and the north-coast Queen Charlotte areas of this province.

It's only now on Vancouver Island that we're beginning to come back a little bit in terms of economic development. But I'm very much concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the rational economic development policies of this coast, the middle and central coast particularly, and how they've been retarded by the policies of this present government - the transportation policies particularly.

Whole shipping firms have been put out of business, to be replaced by nothing. I know that the minister announced earlier this year that there would be some improvement in 1979. We have yet to see what those improvements are going to be, except for the one specific announcement of the construction of a ferry to serve between Masset and Prince Rupert. However, that is serving one community on the Queen Charlottes and not all of the communities that were formerly being served by Northland Navigation and other companies serving the coast.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman I am recommending to the minister now that he seriously consider the construction or purchase of a self-propelled type of vessel similar to the type of vessel that Northland operated so successfully in the past for many, many years,

[ Page 871 ]

with freight and passenger capabilities, with lift-on, lift-off capabilities, so that in these small communities where there is no way the corporation could afford or will build....

I'm seriously suggesting to. the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we consider constructing such a vessel. We could use the jobs here in British Columbia. Many of our shipyard workers are idle at the moment, shipyards are working at half capacity or less in some areas, and I think it would certainly help solve the transportation difficulties of many of these small communities on the coast.

Before I get into a number of constituency items, I do want to discuss this federal-provincial agreement that was signed by the government of British Columbia last year. This agreement provides for and states that the sole responsibility for transportation services now in British Columbia lies with the provincial government and that they will receive in return for this from the federal government approximately $8 million a year. I presume, Mr. Minister, we received this year's portion of the subsidy. I think the subsidy is to be paid quarterly and I presume that that subsidy has been received . for this year's operation.

But what bothers me.... I'll quote from paragraph 4, section 2 where this agreement states:"The province agrees that, in accepting the subsidy from Canada as provided therein for ferry and coastal freight and passenger service in British Columbia's coastal waters, it will assure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof."

It's my view, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial government has not lived up to the terms of this agreement, particularly in terms of freight. Now we're familiar with some of the horrendous stories that we've heard in the past about haw freight has not been delivered in some cases, delivered rotten or eventually late. But more than that, under the tug and barge type of operation which has been in operation to some communities on this coast, freight rates have more than tripled, have gone up by over 300 per cent for many items and in many cases.

So what I'm suggesting here, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: if this was an agreement between two individuals or two corporations - no question about it - there would be a lawsuit. No question about it - this agreement would be in the courts today. But the fact is this is an agreement between two governments and, of course, there will be no legal action. But I would suggest to that minister that negotiations be opened and a better agreement, a more full agreement, be signed with the federal government. 1 think that the minister should right now be negotiating with the federal government, particularly since they are going into an election - they are more susceptible at least to making promises, not necessarily carrying them out after the election shortly, as we all, , know - and it would maybe be a good time to bargain with these people and perhaps get a decent agreement for the people of this province.

I want to discuss the B.C. ferry service for a moment, Mr. Chairman, and a few constituency items. First of all, I'd like to refer to Ocean Falls. On April 1 this year, for the first time in the history of Ocean Falls, a regular weekly ferry service was initiated into that community. But would you believe that at the end of this month that service is being terminated? So they've had one month of ferry service. The Crown corporation of Ocean Falls - not the B.C. Ferry Corporation - spent $400,000 to install a ramp, and now we have a situation where they provided ferry service once a week for one month and they are terminating the service for five months over the summer schedule. Now I've been assured by the minister that the service will resume next fall, but in the meantime that community will be five months without service this summer. I believe that the Queen of Prince Rupert, which presently calls in at Ocean Falls, could call into that community. I'm sure that the B.C. Ferry Corporation management, if they wish to, could work out a schedule to make it possible for that vessel to call in at Ocean Falls. But if that is impossible, then the least they could do is provide a feeder service over the five-month period. What are they supposed to do - leave people stuck up there?

During the course of last year, the government commissioned a study which is commonly referred to as the Ruppenthal report. We all waited for the report, and a minister in this House during the estimates last year assured us everything was okay, they'd get the results of that report, they'd implement those results and the recommendations, and everything would be cleared up. So we finally got the report November 1,1977, and what did we find? Well, first of all ....

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'd like to point out to the member that by order-in-council I'm the minister responsible for and the chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That corporation's accountability is as established in specific routes and destinations set out pursuant to the Art. The corporation as such is not accountable for the policies of a larger

[ Page 872 ]

nature dealing with transport, and the Ruppenthal study would best be addressed under the estimates of Transport, Energy and Communications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before I recognize your point of order, may I just remind all hon. members that May does say that reading of newspapers and periodicals in the House by members is forbidden. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has the floor.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. I understand that the minister was not the minister in charge when that report was commissioned, but he's the minister now, and the report deals with coastal transportation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation is the instrument of government dealing with coastal transportation, and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only insofar as it affects the ferries on the coastal transportation. I believe the report covers greater distance than that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, that report was not commissioned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and that is the extent of my responsibilities as minister in the transport field. I would also like to point out that the main thrust of the report does not deal with the mandate of the Ferry Corporation as such; it deals with alternate modes of transportation and alternate methods of assisting by way of subsidy in a far wider ranging area than B.C. Ferries and its routes, as specified pursuant to the Act which incorporated the corporation.

MR. LEA: Still on the same point of order, are we to understand then, Mr. Chairman, that the minister responsible for carrying out the agreement between Canada and the province of British Columbia comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Under the Premier. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The points are well taken. The member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All right, I'll not refer to this report and I'll certainly raise the whole issue under the appropriate minister, as you say, but as a result of that report, service was terminated to a number of communities in

British Columbia, and I'll name them all off, if you wish, Mr. Chairman. As a direct result of this very terrible report which everybody was disappointed in, service was cut off by the Bella Bella, which was formerly called the Lumba Lumba and had a lot of other names attached to it.

I have in front of me an article from the Ocean Falls Informer which headlines: "Bella Bella Service to End January 31. Residents Prefer Air Service Says Bawlf" - as a direct result of that report, Mr. Chairman. Besides which, I do take exception to that minister in this House attempting to evade his responsibility for coastal transportation by hiding behind the Premier. I don't think that's too great.

In any event, Bella Coola - no water transportation at all, no plans for any ferry transportation into that community.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure, they have a road. They have a highway, but I want to tell you, it's a very rugged highway. It's 300 miles from Bella Cools. to Williams Lake, and once you get to Williams Lake, then where the heck are you? You still have a long way to go to get to anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some might put it the other way around.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sorry about that. In any event, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that water transportation is a very necessary link of communication for that community, and I would urge the minister to get on the ball and start looking at a proper water transportation service, passenger and freight, into that community.

I'm recommending as well that we have a direct ferry link from Horseshoe Bay to Saltery Bay, which serves Powell River. We now have a situation where, in the summertime, we have overloads out of Powell River and into the Powell River regional area; and they have a little, antique ferry which is a cute little vessel - wooden hull - called the Pender Queen. It serves the purpose and it's better than nothing. I hope when that vessel's retired, by the way, it's put in the museum, I really do; we should never dispense with that vessel. But in any event, I'm suggesting that there is a vessel available, the Queen of the Islands, to supplement that run.

But if we had a direct ferry link, Mr. Chairman, from Powell River to Vancouver, we could do away entirely with the need for a second vessel on that route. It makes sense. The Queen of Tsawwassen, or a vessel of the

[ Page 873 ]

class of the Queen of Tsawwassen, could make that run in about seven hours return, two runs to Vancouver a day from Powell River. Leave the Queen of Powell River on its present route, route seven, and we would have a direct ferry link which would greatly assist the small-business community and the traveling public in that area. I'm sure it would be a great tourist attraction if they had decent food on that vessel, which is not likely under this government.

Mr. Chairman - through you to the minister -some time ago there was established, on the Sunshine Coast, a committee called the Ferry Advisory Committee to meet occasionally with management people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation to discuss problem and matters of concern. The complaint I have, that 1 hopefully want the minister to reply to when he does reply, is that the committee has not been meeting very regularly, and even recommendations that were unanimously agreed to at committee meetings were being ignored and not carried out. So I wonder if the minister - and I see the general manager discussing this with the minister at the moment - could reply to that, and give us some reason why this committee is not being taken more seriously.

You know, Mr. Chairman, some months ago, a former minister in this House announced that the Queen of Surrey would be utilized on certain coastal routes. Now the present minister told us about two months ago or so - whenever it was he made his most recent announcement, an announcement I appreciated; any improvement is better than nothing at all - that the Queen of Surrey would not be utilized. Now this very fine vessel was purchased by the former government of this province, because of the gaping holes -left in the transportation system by the former Social Credit government. We had to have a vessel immediately, and the Queen of Surrey served the purpose. It was put into service between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, and it helped the economy of Vancouver Island. It was a temporary measure until we were able to construct new vessels, which were eventually constructed and put into service and are operating today.

However, I'm really very deeply concerned that this very valuable vessel is going to be left to rot and rust here in British Columbia, when it should be put into service, Mr. Chairman. 1 would like to see the minister do the following: that vessel, the Queen of Surrey, should be modified for day runs between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert, and the Queen of Prince Rupert should be placed on the mid-coast route from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert on a year-around basis. I hope you're listening, Mr. Minister. I think that it's absolutely disgraceful that this government is going to let that very valuable vessel rust and rot in the terminal.

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two little items. I was very concerned about some correspondence that was brought to my attention on February 27 of this year. I'm going to quote very briefly from it, Mr. Minister. It involves the employment and hiring practices within the department. This quote is one of the things that disturbed me. By the way, I think this letter was sent to you; this is just a copy to me.

"Six regular clerk 3s - all women - in the corporation wrote the exam, as well as Mr. X". I won't name the gentleman here unless you ask me to, but I don't think that would be fair. "The exam was not administered independently, as we had expected, but was set and marked within the corporation. The marks received defy the laws of probability. The six women all received scores of between 37 and 39 per cent, while Mr. X scored 60 per cent. One of these six women trained Mr. X for this position. Even though Mr. X did not receive the required 70 per cent to qualify for an interview, he was awarded the position."

And it goes on and on to explain. But the point they are making in this correspondence is that there seem to be a form of discrimination. Perhaps the minister would like to answer that remark. If he wants me to go into details.... These people have signed a lengthy petition pertaining to this correspondence. I would like to hear this minister's answer on that.

There is another small local problem, but it is important to people in the riding. I understand this year that local people are not going to be hired for the relief vessels in Powell River and will, in fact, be bringing people in from outside at an approximate cost to the community in terms of wages and whatnot of $82,000. In an economically depressed area, this means that there is $82,000 lost to the community and there are 12 people who will not be working this summer - that's what it means. If the minister has anything to say on that, I would appreciate it.

Another practice being carried on at the moment by the corporation - I believe this is before the Labour Relations Board, so I won't discuss it in detail - is the matter of management exclusion. What we have here is a corporation taking about half the people who work for it and putting them under management exclusion. This includes secretaries, assis

[ Page 874 ]

tants to secretaries and everybody else in the corporation. Surely everybody in the corporation can't be a manager. I know it is a matter of some concern to many of the employees in the corporation.

Just before I take my seat, I'd like to say that in my view - and there's no question about it - morale in the fleet is very low. It's the people on the line who must take the brunt of the attack for increased fares -people at the toll boats, people working at the vessels who meet the public on a day-today basis - and not the minister. The food service is bad and getting worse. It's getting worse, by the way, since we have had a new minister responsible.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What's happening? I'd like the minister to tell us what's happening. It's getting terrible. It's getting worse.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To sum up, Mr. Chairman, every aspect of coastal transportation policies, I think, has been an absolute disaster. It has not improved a great deal lately. I think the only improvement that this government has suggested has been little band-aid solutions to vast problems which they created in the first place. I would like to hear if the minister, as the member responsible to this Legislature for that corporation, can defend his short term. I doubt very much that he can, but I would very much like to hear from him.

MR. LEA: I would like a ruling from the Chair on whether it is the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Bennett) or the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) who is responsible for the terms set out in the agreement between Canada and the province of British Columbia. To help you in your decision, I would like to point out that clause (a) says:

"Pursuant to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has ordered that a ferry subsidy be authorized in accordance with order-in-council 3614, dated 16th of December, 1976."

So the money from the federal government is really ending up in the hands of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Without that money, the Ferry Corporation couldn't carry out the terms of this agreement.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation has said that the Ministry of Transport and Communications, therefore the Premier, is responsible for this agreement being carried out. Before we go on and pass this minister's estimates, I would like to have a ruling from the Chair. I don't want to not have my opportunity to comment on this agreement, and then find out later, by a ruling of the Chair, that it is the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the agreement which exists between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada provides that such services may be established as the province may undertake in its unfettered discretion and those services or, if you like, routes are set out according to regulation under the ferries corporation and the subsidies attached thereto. It's at that point that the corporation becomes responsible, and only at that point, and the corporation is the responsibility of myself as minister, but up to that point this is not a matter for the corporation to resolve; it is a matter for the government. And that is the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Bennett) rationalizing those services in relation to other concerns of transportation in the province. And I just make this point, Mr. Chairman, in light of the earlier reference to the Ruppenthal study; the Ruppenthal study covers a whole wide range of modes of transport and discussions of subsidy, et cetera, so certainly that is not a matter which is directly of concern to the ferry corporation.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order. I just want to get this clear, Mr. Chairman, that if I'm talking about the terms in this agreement either having been met or not being met, then it's to the Minister of Transport and Communications that I must direct my questions, that he has the responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has no knowledge of this particular point in any case, so it's incumbent on me to hear all points of order on this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, where there is some confusion on responsibilities for the Act relating to coastal transportation or ferries and the ferry corporation, that responsibility was at one time under one ministry and, as such, was dealt with in estimates by that minister, and I would feel

[ Page 875 ]

that it would probably be best to allow for fullness of debate that the two still be kept with the minister responsible for the ferries because there is a relationship. And it would afford the members of this House then to be able to deal with their debate on a regular basis rather than split the debate. But I welcome your ruling; I just give you this bit of history.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation doesn't want to have anything to do with it, and the Minister of Transport and Communications does not want to have anything to do with it, so they're at cross purposes. One minister gets up and says: "As far as the administration of the money goes, I'll carry the can for that; but for the person who created the mess and sold out on the ferry deal, somebody else has got to carry the can for that." Now the Premier got up and said: "So that we don't confuse things, all of it should stay under one minister." I would suggest you two fellows get along behind the curtain there and settle this thing as to who's going to carry the can for this mess. You sold away the ferry rights and the responsibilities of the f federal government for a lousy $4 million and you got hoodwinked by Ottawa and now you're trying to tell us you cannot make up your mind who is responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're straying a long way of f the point of order and we're now entering into a debate on the matter.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that you've got to give us a ruling on the conflict between the Premier and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Who's carrying the can for that lousy deal signed with Ottawa? That's what we want to know. The Premier is running from it; so is the minister running from it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have made your point of order.

MR. LEA: Speaking further to this point of order, the Premier signed the agreement.' He's now the Minister of Transport and Communications, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be only proper that the Premier, seeing that he signed the agreement ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Will the Premier not take this responsibility?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd be quite willing to, under my vote, take on the Ferry Corporation and the responsibility for this Act, and I would be quite willing, if they want to leave it for my vote, to discuss ferries and the agreements with Ottawa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. Hon. members, those areas that come specifically under the B.C. Ferry Corporation in this debate will be debated under the minister; those areas that come under Transportation, where it's a matter of relevancy, will come under the Minister of Transport. You cannot ask the Chair to give gratuitous legal opinion as to the fine points of the agreement.

MR. LEA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but the Premier has already cleared this up. He will be responsible and answer questions on whether this agreement is being met.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The Premier has indicated that it will be appropriate to discuss this agreement under his estimates.

MR. BARRETT: Is that his ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the statement made by the Premier and that should suffice.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I've got a lot of notes here which pertain to this particular subject. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was discussing improvements which have been announced for 1979 for the central and north coast. He makes reference to a ferry to Masset, I just want to clarify that Masset is not necessarily the destination of that service. We have indicated that there will be service to the Queen Charlottes, but the precise destination remains to be resolved in terms of what facilities are available which are suitable.

He goes on to say that we should go into the Northland style of business, right on the heels of having said that several companies have gone out of business. I presume he wants us to go into a Northland style of business to put the rest of the companies out of business.

Quite simply again, Mr. Chairman, the corporation responds by providing service on those routes which are prescribed by regulation pursuant to the Act. The Act does not encompass a route to Bella Coola, as the member for Mackenzie was concerned. It certainly doesn't encompass a route into all of the communities in the Queen Charlottes, and so it

[ Page 876 ]

is simply not a matter which is before the Ferry Corporation.

Ocean Falls. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we would have had the ferry, the Queen of Prince Rupert, call in at ocean Falls last October if they'd had the dock ready, and that service would have been in place. He says we just put it in for a month and then we're going to take it away. It would have been in place all that time. We have a hiatus this summer when it is not possible logistically to take the ferry into Ocean Falls, but it is intended that once we're operating out of Port Hardy, beginning next year with the completion of the north Island Highway, we will provide regular service and in fact, therefore, will be providing regular service, uninterrupted, from the time the present arrangement resumes in October through for the foreseeable future.

By the way, the Lumba-Lumba service was terminated not with reference to the Ruppenthal. study, but simply on the basis that it had carried some 1,700 passengers at a cost of about $600,000. It just wasn't a practical service.

Horseshoe Bay to Saltery Bay direct. Well, that's rather like putting a ferry service between downtown Vancouver and New Westminster because you've got a road connection which has been upgraded. I might point out that the most constrained connection in that total route provides for passage of about 600 cars a day at present. In fact I believe it is more than that. The solution of using the Queen of Tsawwassen on a bypass route would, by comparison, only accommodate about 260 cars per day. So it would hardly be an improvement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You do not understand. You have not been around long enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The member mentions the ferry advisory committee. Certainly we're always interested in recommendations from any concerned group. In fact, we reworked the schedule, if we're speaking about the same advisory committee, on their recommendation. I think it has worked out quite well. We would welcome any further submissions they would wish to make.

The Queen of Surrey was purchased at a price of $13.6 million, add to that $3.8 million for duty, add to that $450,000 for delivery, add to that about $1 million for immediate refit, and add to that about $5 million to put it on the north coast service. Those are fairly precise estimates from the Ferry Corporation; they are not something I've dreamed up. Compare that with the resale value today, reliably established by independent opinion, of $10 million. That's not because the vessel hasn't been maintained; it's been maintained in top operating condition.

Practically speaking, the problem with putting that vessel on the north coast - the Queen of Prince Rupert run - is that there is not a demand for the two vessels at this time. There is not a demand established to warrant two vessels there. Secondly, the Queen of Surrey will be a good deal more costly to operate than the Queen of Prince Rupert. It requires a $5 million refit for that run. In large part, the cost would be associated with additional staterooms.

It is a very large vessel in terms of licensed capacity for people - up to 1,000 people. It has the capability in ideal conditions of carrying 180 cars. A long haul wouldn't be bad, whereas a short haul .... They tried it across the Strait of Georgia, and it was an inefficient vessel because it can't load fast enough. But 180 cars is an ideal condition. In fact, with the percentage of overheights on the north-coast run, we'd be lucky to get much more than 100 cars on the vessel. On the other hand, you've got a 1,000 passenger capacity, licensing and crewed accordingly, a more expensive ship to run and not nearly enough staterooms. The combination of all those things of itself would raise serious questions as to whether it would be the vessel that would appropriately be operating on that run, if we had a demand for a second vessel.

I feel confident that we will have a demand for a second vessel in due course, don't get me wrong. But this just points out the folly of buying a vessel overseas which was designed for entirely different purposes. It could only be sold at a significant loss to the taxpayers. And I must say that if the day comes, and I'm sure it will when the day comes, perhaps I should say when we need that additional service on that run, I feel confident the best solution would be to build that appropriate vessel in our own shipyards.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the Queen of Surrey, I really once again will have to question the minister's figure of $5 million. The reason for its purchase was that we had to have a vessel in 1973, and we had to have it "now." The previous Social Credit government had bungled. They had not had any planning to improve the transportation services to Vancouver Island, and that vessel filled a need and I say it can fill a need right now by providing.... We don't have to add more state

[ Page 877 ]

rooms. I know that vessel very well. It has about 150 staterooms and carries about 1,000 people, but the fact is it would serve on a day run between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. I don't think the minister should regard that matter so lightly.

The other issue I was talking about is the self-propelled type of vessel capable of transporting freight and passengers with liftoff capabilities, to service the small communities that are really too small to put in ferry ramps. It's terribly expensive to construct loading ramps in all these small communities. I wouldn't expect that, and the people up there are not asking for that. But what is happening as a result of this government's policies is those small communities, right from Jervis Inlet up to Stewart, are being economically stifled by the lack of policies of this government because they refuse to recognize the fact. Here they talk about decentralization, moving people out of the lower mainland and around the province, when in fact they are choking these small communities to death by their transportation and other economic policies.

MR. LOEWEN: First I'd like to compliment the Minister of Recreation and Conservation for the great job that he's been doing in his department. Somehow I can't help but feel that I must be traveling on different ferries than the member for Mackenzie. After all, the member for Mackenzie suggested that the morale was in very sad shape on the ferry system. He suggested the service was very poor on the ferry system and the food was bad. Well, on the ferries that I've been traveling on the service has been great.

MR. NICOLSON: Did you come over from Anacortes?

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, in fact, the food has improved tremendously. Also the morale this past year, particularly since the members of the opposition have stopped interfering psychologically and publicly with the ferry system, has improved tremendously. For that I would like to compliment the hon. minister in charge of the ferry system. I'd like to make several recommendations at the same- time which I believe would improve his services even more. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that these recommendations have not originated out of my wealth of ideas. They have come from other people who have written to me, particularly constituents of mine from Burnaby Edmonds.

The first recommendation is this. I realize we have special rates for senior citizens on our ferry system. However, frequently the senior citizens of Burnaby-Edmonds are visited by senior citizens from other areas of Canada, and it's somewhat of an embarrassment when these senior citizens from other areas of our country have to pay the going rate to travel to Victoria or to the mainland, whereas our senior citizens have a preferred rate. I would suggest that all senior citizens have the same rate in traveling on our ferry system.

The second recommendation is this: that many of our students in Burnaby-Edmonds.... I'm really impressed with the teachers in Burnaby Edmonds. Many of the teachers like to take our students on day trips to Victoria to see how we operate here in Victoria. We have introduced many of our students here to this House, and many of these students like to come and learn how we operate, how their member operates in the House. In fact, I think it's important that all the students in our educational system have the opportunity to visit Victoria and visit this House and see this House in session at least once in their lifetime. We realize that many of their parents did not have that opportunity. However, today I believe this is a very important part of their educational process.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I would like to make this recommendation: that all students in the educational system, at least one time, have a free ferry pass and that this ferry pass be given to the students through their schools. My suggestion would be that all, either grade 10 or grade 11 .... I would suggest that all grade 10s in our educational system be given at least one free pass to come to Victoria to see Victoria and that that pass be in effect during the time of this session so that they can learn something about our political system, learn something about how their own member operates in this House - because it is important. Our democracy is only as strong as the involvement and the understanding by our population of our democratic process.

Now going on to another point, we realize that the minister is in charge of the recreation facilities grants. I would like to make a plea for the lower mainland. We recognize that sometimes the members from the interior and the north tend to overwhelm the members for the south. Particularly we think of the concern of the newcomers of the lower mainland. The recreational facilities grants particularly stipulate that two-thirds of the building costs have to as much as be in the bank before a loan can be approved. Then the minister, if all the requirements are met, would consider

[ Page 878 ]

approving one-third of the grant.

Now the place where there is discrimination in favour of the interior and in favour of the north is this. The land costs are not included, and invariably the land costs can be as much as half of the total cost of the project. In the interior, the land cost might be one twentieth of the capital cost of a project, whereas on the lower mainland it might be as much as one-half.

Let me give you a case in point. For a public senior citizens' facility the total cost including appraised value of the land would be $900,000, the land being $300,000. Now the service clubs would have to raise not only the building cost, being $600,000; the service clubs would have to raise $400,000 in cash plus $200,000 of the land cost. I suggest that the lower mainland constituencies are unfairly.... I don't want to use the word "discriminated" but they are placed at an unfair disadvantage in respect to the recreational facilities grant. Now I recognize it's difficult to work out a consistent formula. Therefore I would suggest that at least half of the appraised value of the land should be taken into consideration when the rules are applied in respect to the recreational facilities grants.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to again commend and congratulate the minister for the tremendous job he's doing. I trust, as a result of me being so gracious this afternoon, that he will look favourably on my applications to the recreational facilities grants.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I followed the minister and I've listened throughout most of the debate. I listened to the remarks made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) - the former member for Omineca -and there was a debate going on at that time and it concerned the management of our wildlife resource. That member pointed out the role of and the concern aver predation.

The minister responded to some of my questions in terms of regulation and quotas and limits and really controlling another factor, and that was just the harvest and the activity of the hunter. But one of the points which I was trying to make was that another very important factor that has to be taken into account - and I think that all three are equally important, and if you neglect any one, you can lose the resource completely - is the habitat.

I've counted up the number of coal exploration notices that have been in the Gazette this year, and they go as follows:

"Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 15 that application has been made to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources by Lloyd Getling for licences, following coal land situated in the Omineca mining division, approximately six miles southwest of Telkwa, and designated district lot so and so, Coast district." Mr. Chairman, I count some 34 of these.

HON. MR. CHABOT: More to come.

MR. NICOLSON: And the minister says: "More to come." Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to comment one way or another about the coal activity, except that the coal activity last year, I believe, represented investments of about $7 million.

HON. MR. CHABOT: More than that.

MR. NICOLSON: And the minister says.: "More." At the same time, I believe that, in habitat protection, there was approximately $38,000 spent in those particular areas. This year, I understand that there's allowance for even less. I note, Mr. Chairman, that in the estimates the sum for habitat protection has shrunk from $1,034, 000 down to $997,000. It's going down in dollar terms, and certainly going down in terms of constant dollars. I'm very concerned about the fact that, at a time when the government is realizing substantial amounts from this coal exploration, coal exploration is going on to a very large measure in areas which are also important habitats - as I outlined in the case of the Todhunter-Chauncey Creek area in the Kootenays and as I could also point out, of the many areas that are being explored, some of which are certainly in the northeast coal sector. Many of these are very important wildlife habitats. There is a decrease in habitat protection when, indeed, the revenues and the activity which is going on in the way of exploration would indicate that a great deal more should be spent. So I would like the minister to inform this House what special measures are being taken and how many dollars are going to be spent on habitat protection, particularly in areas in which coal exploration is taking place.

I believe the minister is taking some of the comments that I had about the Todhunter-Chauncey Greek and Ewin Creek areas in the Kootenays under advisement. I would also like the minister to consider.... I'm informed that there was a proposal - the people up in the Fort St. John area, the representatives of RAMS, have informed me - for a programme

[ Page 879 ]

getting underway this spring for some controlled burning. I think that the general idea, Mr. Chairman, is to have controlled burning in about 25 different sites in the Muskwa area in the Muskwa ranges. I forget the two particular areas. I think it's called the Sentinel project.

It is my information that there was good work, good co-operation going on between forestry and the department, and that this has somehow run off the rails. I would like the minister to be aware of it - he se to be nodding knowingly about this - and I'd like to have his assurances that this project can go ahead. It is my understanding, talking about stone sheep this time, that we could double the population. It also has ramifications for other species such as moose and deer, I believe, in that area.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Yesterday, when I pointed out my concern about the number of vacant positions for conservation officers, I was rebutted by the minister who pointed out to me that 22 positions were out of 340 in the branch. But I would like to point out to the minister that I think 87 of those positions in that branch are secretaries and stenographers and not field positions. I didn't enumerate the service or the backup personnel positions that might not be filled, that might be vacant at the present time. I was concentrating on real field-line staff, people like conservation officers -seven positions which I understand to be unfilled.

When this happens, Mr. Chairman, in a particular district, as happened last year in Sparwood, there is a manning of as little as one-third of what is supposed to be in place during the hunting season. The chief conservation officer was not replaced; there was just one C.O. and there was no auxiliary during the hunting season, and there should have been three. So in a place like Quesnel or Chilliwack or Fort Nelson, Grand Forks, Nanaimo, Kelowna or Alberni, which I mentioned, this can have a very serious effect in cutting down the manpower.

Also, when we look at the estimates, we see that there is a drop in conservation officers from 193 down to 185, so there is also a loss of eight positions as well as the seven vacant positions which I outlined in the area of conservation officers. Another way of looking at the same thing is to look at enforcement and see that that is down.

I feel that we really must be doing better. There is a fantastic move toward exploitation of resources and I don't believe that there is adequate personnel in place to look after the job. I could point out to you, and I will, perhaps at a later time, some of the information that came out. Well, I'll do it right now, as a matter of fact.

During the McCarthy enquiry, one of the pieces of cross-examination was of a former conservation officer, and he pointed out the size of the area that he had to look after as the conservation officer up in the Fort Nelson area. He was cross-examined by Mr. Otway and the question was: "I would like to, if possible, clarify in context. The commissioner has indicated your job was, and I believe you concurred, to check these matters out. During your period in Fort Nelson, your tour of duty, I believe you indicated previously the scope of the area you covered, but I didn't think it was specific enough. Could you indicate the size of the area that you had to cover, giving up and down in miles, the Alaska Highway?"

He said, "Well, it took better than the north quarter of the entire province from -Alberta to Alaska, from the Yukon-Northwest Territories border south - a considerable distance."

"Any idea in square miles, roughly?"

"Over 100,000."

"Is that square miles?"

"Yes."

"You said you had 180 assistant guides and guides in that territory?"

"About 30 or 31 guide outfitters and approximately 150 assistant guides."

"How many staff were in your office covering that territory?"

"Myself."

"How many clerks, assistants for the paper work that you have?"

"Nobody. Just myself."

"How many trappers' licences did you have to issue?"

"Had about 600 trappers, but not all licensed, because many of them were Indians."

"During the period 1969-73, the resident hunter influx - if you want to call it that -came about. Am I not correct that there was a large yearly increment in the number of hunters resident that appeared in that area?"

"Yes, there was." This I think reflects upon the point which was made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , and that is that more and more people are going up into the Peace River country and, indeed, going all the way up to the Fort Nelson area hunting.

He says: "And this has demand upon the time of the conservation officer?"

"Well, yes, because they all write and they want to know a little about the area and where

[ Page 880 ]

they're going and what species there are and the best way to get there, et cetera."

So it comes out that there was one person in that area. It's my understanding that that area is now still covered by one person with the assistance, I think, of one half-time secretary, not by the same person but by another conservation officer.

Mr. Chairman, if there is going to be any serious effort to protect the wildlife resource, we cannot see a falling back in the total number of conservation officers from 193 down to 185. It indeed should be going the other way.

If there was any area of increase in the budget that I don't think anybody would assail, it would be in that particular area. There is an increased level of exploitation of habitat; there is also an increase in the access. That brings out another point which was, again, mentioned by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , the speech of the biologist, Dr. Bergerud. But another thing that he said in that speech apparently is that a new mining road threatens the largest remaining herd in the province: 2,500 caribou at Lawyers Pass near Spatsizi Provincial Park. If there is one place in B.C. we could call the home of the caribou, it's Lawyers Pass. The Omineca north road is pointed like an arrow at those caribou. I say that road spells the end of the caribou. If hunters don't get them, the poachers will. That's what the biologist was saying.

Poaching is becoming a very serious problem here in this province. It's also becoming a problem and very hard to police, not only because we have a shortage of enforcement people but also because there is better access. They can get in at night and get out, and there is nothing easier than knocking off some animal that's dazed by headlights.

Mr. Chairman, I had an experience one time just on the way out to do some hunting. Our headlights flashed on some animals that were up on a cliff side and, believe it or not, a mature buck was knocked off the cliff side in a scramble and fell down onto the road and broke its legs. Under these conditions the animals are very, very vulnerable. We've got to face up to the fact that there is a fantastic amount of poaching going on. That's lawbreaking, Mr. Chairman. We have CLEU; we have big moves going on in terms of law enforcement of organized crime. This type of crime is not a petty crime. The value of one mountain sheep is $5,000. If somebody poaches a sheep, he's stealing $5,000 from the people of British Columbia. That's the value of that resource if you want to put a dollar sign on it.

I'm very interested to hear the comment about what will be done in terms of the controlled burning in the Sentinel area. I think that we owe it to ourselves and all of us as members in this House who are interested in conservation to really put on a fight in this House - I hope on both sides of the House - to get more enforcement people, because that is sadly needed. If there are overruns and warrants that result from creating new positions during this next fiscal year that were not covered in this, I will certainly remain silent, except to praise the minister for taking such an action. I'd sure love to see some overruns in that area.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the early afternoon when we were discussing the physical fitness co-ordinator. The minister did come in with some additional information with respect to her salary. I want to point out to the minister that when we discussed the qualifications of this individual, he pointed out that she had pioneered some very innovative programmes in fitness at the community and school levels. Those were his precise words as referred to in Hansard. Presumably, then, her expertise is in that field of developing programmes. He then went on to explain that she had arranged for Dr. Collis to be retained. This is within the government guidelines of hiring from universities, and it's all been worked out precisely, as is required under the policies of this government, and as articulated in other instances in this House, the minister said. He has been retained to prepare course material and literature packages, which will be available to groups throughout British Columbia.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I wonder if Mrs. Robertson is so well qualified that she does, in fact, command a salary of $28,800 a year. If she is retained on an annual basis, that would be the annual salary. It's true that it is interim. I don't know whether or not the individual will be retained after the 10 months for which she has been initially employed. I find it unusual to see a strictly 10-month physical fitness programme. I would have presumed that if the programme is successful, her contract with the government may be extended and the programme may be extended. What do you do if it is highly successful? Do you just drop it? If she is so competent, how come Dr. Collis had to be retained to develop the programmes that Mrs. Robertson was supposed to be so qualified in developing? I do not quite understand this.

[ Page 881 ]

I think the minister is indulging in semantics when he says her salary is $24,000-something per year. I forget what the precise figure was that he gave me, but he had phoned the Ministry of Education and established the precise level. That is semantics. The annual salary of $2,400 a month is $28,800. There is a tremendous disparity between that and the rate that the provincial sports co-ordinators have enjoyed over the past number of years. I find the circumstances somewhat curious. I think it does indicate a somewhat preferential treatment for the physical fitness coordinator. I find there is really no difference between her qualifications and those of the provincial sports co-ordinators. If the programme is terminated after 10 months, fair enough. Then she is only getting the $24,000 a year, which is still higher than she made as a teacher. I think that's unfair to the sports co-ordinators.

Let me go back to the other point that I have raised with the minister, and that was Sport B.C. The minister indicated that the grant for the current year had been approved to this organization. Can the minister tell me what the precise criteria are for approving these grants? Can he tell me exactly when the latest grant was approved? I understand the application came in January. What is required with respect to the approval of these grants? Is there an audit of the provincial sport fund obligatory on the organization? What was the precise amount of the latest grant for the current year?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, just in reply first to the member for Nelson-Creston, I did indicate earlier that I've asked for a report on the Chauncey-Todhunter-Ewin Creek area and I expect we'll have a full detailed report on that for him although, as I said, that will likely be a few days in preparation.

We do have moneys in our budget for controlled burning and I am aware of the proposal that he mentioned, and I'm expecting also to learn more about that from the ministry as it develops.

The unfilled positions that he mentions -again I stress the fact that those positions are unfilled is not the result of any initiative or interference on my part. They are simply in process as a routine ministry matter. The fact that some of them have been subject to some reclassification may have slowed it down. I'd also like to say that no positions have been lost. The member made reference to that. There has been some renaming of positions where people ostensibly in the enforcement field were not really performing an enforcement role as such. It's just a questions of semantics. The same- people doing the same jobs are still there.

The question of conservation officers, the need for funding of the enforcement programme, the areas they cover, the support they get from other enforcement agencies. A whole range of questions which concern the enforcement programme, as I've said, will be the mandate of the chief conservation officer for the province, whom we hope I'll be able to appoint shortly, based on the fact that the reclassification of that position to an appropriate level has occurred, to a level which reflects that major responsibility. I, too, an looking forward to the results of that in terms of evaluating all of these needs that that member discussed at length.

Mr. Chairman, now dealing with the questions raised by the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) . Once again, quite simply, Mr. Chairman, between September of last year and September of next year, the person in question here, if she had remained in her teaching position, would have worked 10 months and received a sum in excess of $24,000 in that position. The arrangement which we have made by way of a limited-duration appointment by order-in-council here is precisely the same. She is getting - which is reasonable and fair - the same result. She is working 10 months and receiving $24,000.

MR. KING: What are you going to do with the program after she finishes?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Essentially her job is to come in and get something going. On the ground we have a whole series of communications efforts underway now, and she is involved in workshop situations across the province in evaluating, firstly, the existing capability to deliver fitness programme in communities across the province. She's also establishing a number of pilot projects which include fitness festivals in each of a number of communities across the province, commencing in a week or two. These will be aimed at mass participation in fitness. She has been given the job of not studying something to death but getting something started right now and, at the same- time, evaluating and making recommendations for an ongoing programme.

She came in on just a one-year basis to do this work. So then there is a position established as a permanent position in the recreation and fitness branch which will be filled with some momentum in this direction in the development of fitness programmes. Dr. Collis was requested by Mrs. Robertson to pre

[ Page 882 ]

pare the supporting material, the supporting evaluation and supporting course work to carry these programmes into effect. It's a bigger job than one person can do, Mr. Chairman. It's that simple. This man brings certain professional skills to the job and Mrs. Robertson brings certain other professional skills, and together they represent a team.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, that member was asking about Sport B.C. They are obliged to satisfy the sport and fitness advisory committee, which advises the minister, as to the merit of their request for a grant. Their particular organization provides a foundation system of support for virtually all the sport governing bodies in the province. The sport governing bodies are the constituent members of Sport B.C. There was some confusion over their audit this past year as a result of some questions arising out of the lotteries, as a separate matter from their operation under our grant. That matter was sorted out and the second half of their annual grant was processed.

MR. KING: What was the amount of the grant?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'll just get that amount in a second.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for answering some of the specific questions I asked. I apologize if I was inattentive for one moment. Did the minister answer the question about the burning programme, the Sentinel? You did answer that? I'll read it in Hansard then. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few other concerns and one is over the trapper education programme. Last year I was called and informed by more than one source, by about three different sources, that the trapper education program had had to be cancelled. When it came up, it happened just at such a time as there was to be one of the courses held up in Fort St. John, I believe.

I'd just like to say that 1, frankly, don't like the way that the thing was handled because I think that members of the branch were put in rather difficult positions, and what came out in the way it was sort of covering up a bit of an administrative error, or bungling, I think really served no one any good. I put out a press release based on information which I had at that time. I said at that time that the government had reneged on a commitment to give a $15,000 subsidy for trapping courses. I said that the B.C. Trappers' Association runs the programme counting on continuation of the grant, but had been refused it that year by the minister. I understood from the association president, Mr. Joe Cardy of Prince George, that the course placed a very heavy emphasis on humane trapping, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that when we quizzed the minister last year on the leg-hold trap, he spent a great deal of time talking about the trapper education courses, and included the money being expended on that particular programme as part of the government's efforts in humane trapping.

It was my understanding that the trappers had agreed to a rather substantial increase in royalties as a result of the promise that there would be some moneys coming back, about $7,000 from the provincial government and $7,000 from the federal government through one of the ARDA programmes. I contacted the ARDA person, who said it was the first time that he had heard that the programme had been cancelled. I contacted the person in the department responsible for administering the programme, and he confirmed that it had been cancelled. Mr. Cardy told me it had been cancelled, and I also have letters which show that people who had traveled all the way from Atlin to Fort St. John for that portion of the meeting, which was part of a larger meeting including guides and outfitters, had arrived to find that the course was cancelled.

I knew also that a course planned for Creston had been cancelled. I'm raising this because of something I hope will never happen again under this minister, and that is, if a politician makes an attack and criticizes the ministry, I would hope that the response will come from the politician, and that two branch people will not be forced to make conflicting statements in denial, in an effort to try to protect the minister. One of the persons said, in an article entitled "Government Denies Trapping Cutbacks": " Spokesmen from the provincial Recreation and Conservation ministry and the federal ARDA programme have denied that $15,000 for trapping courses is being withheld." Mr. Chairman, that really wasn't consistent with the facts. The spokesmen said that B.C. had already provided its half of the promised funds and that ARDA will approve the balance later this month. That is in contradiction with what another provincial government official said. He said: "The provincial government has reinstated the trapper-education courses that were being cancelled last month by the fish and wildlife branch because of a shortage of funds. The decision to reschedule the courses announced Friday cane a few days after the B.C. Registered Trappers' Association appealed the cancellation to Premier Bill Bennett."

[ Page 883 ]

So, Mr. Chairman, 1 say that that is something which I hope never to see again, and I don't think that that is the way to respond to a politician. I hope that in future, in that ministry, the responses will come from politicians. I'll have more to say tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The house adjourned at 5:59 p.m.