[ Page 909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Credibility of McKenzie commission on BCR. Mr. Barrett –– 909

Coal exploration licence applications. Mr.Gibson –– 910

Alleged break-ins by police. Mr. Macdonald –– 911

Royal Insurance estimating charges. Mr. Cocke –– 911

Wildlife protection areas. Mr. Stephens –– 912

Housing Corporation purchase of B.T. Rogers heritage site. Mr. Barnes –– 912

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Recreation and Conservation estimates.

On vote 230.

Mr. Nicolson –– 912

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 916

Mr. Barber –– 917

Mr. Lea –– 918

Mr. Nicolson –– 918

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 920

Mr. Nicolson –– 921

Mr. Skelly –– 924

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 928

Mr. King –– 929

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 930

Mr. Barrett –– 932

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 932

Mr. King –– 932

Mr. Lauk –– 933

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 934

Mr. Lea –– 935

Mrs. Wallace –– 936

Mr. Levi –– 937

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 938

Mrs. Wallace –– 938

Mrs. Dailly –– 939

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 939

On vote 233.

Mrs. Wallace –– 940

On vote 235.

Mr. Nicolson –– 940

On vote 236.

Mr. Nicolson –– 940

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 940

On vote 237.

Mr. Nicolson –– 941

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 941

On vote 238.

Mrs. Wallace –– 942

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 942

Ms. Sanford –– 942

Mr. Nicolson –– 942

On vote 241.

Mr. Nicolson –– 943

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 943

Mr. Lea –– 943

On vote 242.

Mr. Barber –– 944

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 944

On vote 244.

Ms. Sanford –– 945

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 945

on vote 247.

Mr. Nicolson –– 945

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to recognize a constituent and good friend of mine from Richmond who is seated in the gallery, Mr. Stu McGraw.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are students from the school which I, my two sisters and my father graduated from, Victoria High School. As a family acquaintance and graduate of the same school, I am doubly pleased to welcome Mr. Nesmith and his students to the galleries today.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a large number of enthusiastic grade 11 students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to add my warm welcome to that of my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , to Mr. Nesmith and his class from Victoria High School.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Roger Dougherty and Mr. Jim LaHoda. They are constituents of mine from Sicamous, and I'd ask the House to make then welcome.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome here today Patricia Parker, my newly appointed constituency secretary.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed in the gallery one of Canada's national resources, Mr. Charles Lynch, from the Ottawa press gallery.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about some of our natural resources too, some more children who are visiting here from Clearbrook, British Columbia, with their teacher Mr. Sudderman - 88 young people from the Mennonite Educational Institute in Clearbrook.

Oral questions.

CREDIBILITY OF McKENZIE

COMMISSION ON BCR

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Economic Development. On April 17 the Premier said - as reported by the Vancouver Province on April 18 - that he thought the McKenzie commission on the BCR had not done a thorough job on the Fort Nelson report. This weekend the Minister of Economic Development was also extremely critical about the McKenzie commission report. I'd like to ask the minister: does he feel that the royal commission can continue with credibility after his and the Premier's criticisms?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's out of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think the suppositions made by the Leader of the Opposition make the question out of order.

MR. BARRETT: I've never been accused of my suppositions being out of order, Mr. Speaker, and that is not a matter of the House in any event. I simply ask: does the minister feel that the royal commission can continue with credibility after his and the Premier's criticisms? Or were the newspaper reports incorrect?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

HON. MR. MAIR: Surely, Mr. Speaker, that question is out of order on any number of grounds. It calls for an opinion and it calls f or a conclusion. It must be totally out of order.

MR. LEA: Thank you, counsellor. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: You're welcome.,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier on the same- point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification. I have never criticized the McKenzie commission, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish that made perfectly clear.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Once a point of order is raised we can accept further opinions on the point of order raised, but we cannot introduce a new subject. The Leader of the Opposition an a question.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker - on the point of order. Since I have not heard your ruling on the question, I would appreciate

[ Page 910 ]

your ruling as to whether or not this question is in order: does the minister feel that the royal commission can continue with credibility after his and the Premier's criticism?

MR. SPEAKER: The question appears to fall into a questionable order by virtue of the fact that it does have a supposition involved in it, hon. Leader of the Opposition. Therefore I would have to rule the question inadmissible.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if it's of questionable order, then let me rephrase it by asking the minister directly: does he still have full confidence in the BCR royal commission and their recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Supplementary?

MR. BARRETT:, Mr. Speaker, was there no answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we know that we can ask questions, but we cannot press for answers.

MR. BARRETT: They have scuttled the royal commission and they know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

COAL EXPLORATION LICENCE APPLICATIONS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the genial and job-oriented Minister of Mines. The minister's policy announcement of February 10 put coal exploration licence applications on a no-cost priority basis, rather than the previous government-proposed bidding basis. One of the arguments for a free licensing system, as the minister knows, is that it helps the little man who cannot afford the large bidding charges and the minister, in his announcement, referred to individuals wanting to do this exploration. Is the minister aware that, of the over 700 square miles of new coal licences applied for since February 10 - which will go 75 per cent of the way toward doubling the coal land under permit - the great majority, 85 per cent of this land, has been acquired by the very large energy companies or their nominees, and is that in line with his expectations in making the announcement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I haven't scrutinized the acreage that has been applied for since 1972, since the moratorium was established. I know that many of the applications which have been made for the issuance of coal licences in British Columbia have been by individuals, and I would suggest that individuals and the small exploration companies have probably made as many applications as large corporations. Maybe the difference is that they haven't applied for the amount of acreage which has been applied for by some large companies. But is the member for North Vancouver-Capilano suggesting that the small companies shouldn't have this opportunity of applying?

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I can help the minister with some of his figures. Of 32 applications gazetted to date, only seven come from individuals, and only about 103 square miles out of 705 square miles are covered by those individuals' applications.

I ask the minister what guarantees he has that these large companies, which are already major holders of coal lands in British Columbia, will not simply put these properties into deep freeze and hold then for years, in view of the very low work requirements which presently exist on these lands of only $2,000 to $3,200 a year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is anticipating legislation that will be put before the House, and which will deal with work requirements on coal licences.

MR. GIBSON: I hope that these will be effective numbers. The coal lands have economic value. For example, the 60 square miles sold to BP recently went for about $30 million. Now there has been some work done on that land too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Quite a bit of work.

MR. GIBSON: I'd ask the minister: does he have an economic assessment of the value of the lands covered by the licences to be awarded, and through what mechanism, in the absence of a bidding system, does he expect these values to be obtained for the taxpayers?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, an economic value of coal lands cannot possibly be established until such time as ample exploration has been done on these lands. Until that's done, I can't second guess whether a coal seam

[ Page 911 ]

runs for half a mile and 60 feet deep or two feet thick. It's just impossible at this time to determine the economic value of coal lands that are being applied for.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, is the minister telling the House that leases are given without a proper economic valuation done by the government before the lease is granted?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, nobody knows what you're giving away; neither do you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is giving the right to explore.

ALLEGED BREAK-INS BY POLICE

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the Attorney-General: in view of the question of an investigation into alleged break-ins by law enforcement officers being in the hands of his deputy minister, and in view of the statements made by the deputy minister in the last three or four days, does the Attorney-General intend to change the nature and form of the investigation and will he report that to the House? Does he intend to do anything about it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, I think it would be useful for me to quote from one newspaper, dealing with the statements of the deputy. Mr. Vogel said he had not been misquoted in the original story, but possibly his remarks were being misunderstood. What I'm saying is that up until 1976 there were a number of illegal break-ins by the police. We cannot tolerate that and we have not tolerated that. But maybe the law which is so restrictive to the police is bad. If it is bad law, then the politicians and the community at large should change the law. That is a policy which Must be made.

I'm not too sure if this statement was made in the House or not, but in any event I made a press statement, if not in the House, to the effect that once this evidence was before the Macdonald commission, I requested transcripts of the evidence before the commission, which came to B.C. last Thursday. They are being considered, and I requested a full report because I was alarmed, as is, I think, everybody in this House, about the number of these break-ins which were solely related to British Columbia - some 400-plus out of 400-and-not too-many. So the province in the country that had the largest number was certainly B.C. Not having before me any f acts, I make this as a suggestion - and this may be the case, hon. member, or it may not be; I can't answer that question until our report is concluded. We do know that a number of them are related to organized crime, a number of them are related to narcotic offences and a number of them are related to some of the more serious offences.

The material is being considered by officials at the present time, and once they have concluded their responsibilities, if there is a requirement to proceed further, we shall proceed further.

I would like the House also to know that when the report is finished and available, I'll present that to the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I still ask the Attorney-General; in view of the statement by the deputy that if there were break-ins they should be made legal, should he have anything to do with the investigation? Having expressed those strong opinions, should you not take him out of the investigating process?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think that's a fair assumption for the hon. member to make insofar as the deputy in concerned. The statement of the deputy that I took issue with, and continue to take issue with, is when he said words to the general effect that people in British Columbia did not mind illegal activity by the RCMP. I don't agree with that statement. That was an expression of his. It might have been taken out of context; it might not have - I don't know.

I certainly think everybody in the province feels that there has to be proper and due respect for law and order. Quite frankly, I liked your statement in the House when you said this: "Yet if we condone illegal activities and law-breaking by one group, we condone it for all. So we undermine the total rule of law." That is a correct statement and I subscribe to that.

ROYAL INSURANCE ESTIMATING CHARGES

MR. COCKE: Can the Minister of Education confirm that ICBC has entered into a sweetheart deal with Royal Insurance, providing that company with the privilege of having ICBC drive-in claim centres at charges considerably below the prevailing market rates for such estimating services?

HON. MR. McGEER: I certainly can't confirm that there's any sweetheart deal.

MR. COCKE: At the present time ICBC charges Royal between $20 and $35, depending on the

[ Page 912 ]

condition of the vehicle, for every car brought in by Royal to be examined at ICBC, but when ICBC employees themselves have an accident and as a result of corporation policy their cars are sent to private industry adjusters, the prevailing fee for them that ICBC pays is a fee of $65 or more. Mr. Speaker, can the minister now deny a sweetheart deal with Royal Insurance?

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

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister tell us whether or not the sweetheart deal is more than half production or if it's just a friendly relationship?

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AREAS

MR. STEPHENS: My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Can he tell us whether his department or any branch of that department has identified any areas of British Columbia as critical to wildlife and, in conjunction with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , has precluded any exploration in those areas?

MR. LEA: The ferry dining room.

HON. MR. BAWLF: As to the first question, the answer is yes. As to the second part I'll take that as notice.

MR. STEPHENS: Can you tell us at this time which areas have been identified as critical? Have you defined them?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a matter of public knowledge?

HOUSING CORPORATION PURCHASE OF B.T. ROGERS HERITAGE SITE

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Can the minister inform the House what amount the Housing Corporation of British Columbia paid for the northern half of the B.T. Rogers heritage site located in the West End of Vancouver?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I'll take the question as notice and have it back as soon as possible.

MR. BARNES: While he's taking the question as notice, I'd like to make a new question to him.

MR. SPEAKER: We don't accept further questions on questions taken as notice, normally.

MR. BARNES: It's a new question. Can the minister tell the House when the site was purchased and from whom?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated that I would try to assist the member, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a very short introduction, because I didn't notice until now...

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... that we have three generations of Williams in the House. This should perhaps be known as Williams Day. Seated in the gallery up until a few moments ago were Mrs. Marjorie Williams and her grandson, Master John Alexander. And right now in the gallery are Mr. Williams' two daughters, Mrs. Leslie Alexander and Mrs. Jane Brooks. I know that all members would like to give them a terrific welcome.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I call the committee to order, Mr. House Leader, I would urge that all members take the opportunity, when it is presented to them, to see Mr. Charles Lynch play his harmonica, as he did on Saturday night in Vancouver for the Vancouver Symphony Benefit. I was there and I enjoyed it immensely, and so were several aspiring Liberal politicians for the upcoming federal election. Please proceed.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

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

MR. NICOLSON: Some time back, on April 12, 1 asked a question of the minister concerning sheep-hunting quotas. I asked the minister if he had had discussions with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) prior to the members address to the B.C. Guides and Outfitters convention that concluded the previous weekend at Burns Lake. The minister responded that he talks to the member almost every day that they are in the precincts together.

[ Page 913 ]

Mr. Chairman, I further asked the minister whether, in the precincts or by telephone, he had had such discussion and whether he had authorized the member to make a statement on his behalf to that convention. The minister responded that the member was speaking for himself at the convention; however, he did have the opportunity to relate some views which the minister had expressed in the past and which are a matter of public record.

Then I gave a quote which I had been supplied through a reporter's notes - it was not from a press release but rather from notes that were given to me as being verbatim - and I asked: "Is that view encompassed within the following quotation from the member's speech: 'Bawlf asked me to say a few words to you concerning sheep quotas. He asked me to point out to you that if guides have to have quotas, residents must have quotas as well. He told me to tell you that a new Wildlife Act, to be introduced this session, will include provisions for tenure.' " I asked if those statements were a true representation of the minister's feelings, and if the member was relaying those types of statements with which the minister said he had already associated himself publicly. Unfortunately....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, no, the member did ask. There was a suggestion that it might be out of order as I might have been quoting the media. I was not actually quoting a press release, so we got by that.

Mr. Chairman, the minister then responded:

"I would like to be clear that it would be out of order to respond to a question of policy. Since the member has asked as regards my view, I have expressed in the past the view that, where stocks of sheep have been depleted and controls are required for hunters, we have commenced those controls with quotas on guide outfitters, and through them the nonresident hunter. But where there is also substantial pressure placed on sheep by virtue of resident hunting pressure, then we will proceed as a second stage to limited-entry hunting."

I then went on, Mr. Chairman, and quoted: "He told me to tell you a new Wildlife Act to be introduced this session will include provisions for tenure." I asked: "Will there be a new Wildlife Act? Will it include provisions for tenure?" That was ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, but the minister has since confirmed his intention to bring in a Wildlife Act, not this session but next session. I thank him for clearing that matter up.

However, following the proceedings, the member got up at the correct time, on a point of order, in order to correct a statement made by myself during the question period. The member f or Omineca rose at that time and he said, quoting me:

"The member told the House that I, in an address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Burns Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell the House that the member is wrong; he has misquoted me. In order that the member get his facts straight, I'd be willing to make a copy of that address to those people available to him so he can read the whole of that great speech."

Mr. Chairman, I took the member at his word and I requested a copy of that great speech, which he did supply to me, stamped "Compliments of Jack Kempf, Member for Omineca" at the top. It says: "Address to the Guide Outfitters' Convention, Burns Lake, April 7,1978." 1 read this. I found no reference in this prepared speech to the matter of such tenures for guides and outfitters. I also found no reference in this speech to a new Wildlife Act. So I was somewhat perplexed to read a very detailed account of the member's speech in the Lakes District News, the Burns Lake weekly paper, published Wednesday, April 12 - published, indeed, the very day on which I was asking these questions.

HON. MR. BAWLF: On a point of order, it seems to me that the matters which the member opposite is raising would best be addressed under the estimates of the member for Omineca.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. I must caution the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that a personal attack is not in order in this House.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not attacking anyone.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I also raised questions arising from this newspaper report which seem more to confirm the first information which I received than does the prepared text of the speech which the member for Omineca alleges to have delivered and led me to believe he delivered verbatim to the guides and outfitters' meeting. In this speech and according to this newspaper report there were serious allegations concerning the department.

The minister told me earlier in his esti

[ Page 914 ]

mates that he is satisfied the member was misquoted and that he has discussed it with him. Further, Mr. Chairman, the minister has caused some inquiries to be made within his department and he finds the fact substantiated that the member was misquoted and they found no evidence of wrongdoing concerning the deliberate falsification of game inventory figures or the purposeful misspending of government funds on predator control.

That is the understanding which has existed between the minister and me. I f or one was perhaps willing to drop this. But I was perplexed, I must say, because of the discrepancy which I detected between the report of the speech which an hon. member told me he delivered. He supplied me with a copy, and made that offer here in the House, so the House certainly has knowledge of that offer. Here is the speech which he gave to me. I was perplexed because I thought a report in a responsible journal would have been carefully prepared.

To refresh the House, here is a quotation from Burns Lake, datelined April 12,1978:

"The fish and wildlife branch deliberately misspent money and falsified game count records in northern B.C., Omineca Social Credit NLA Jack Kempf told a meeting of more than 70 guide outfitters here Friday.

"He urged the guides to make the government retain some sanity in the fish and wildlife branch, and said that money designated for predator control was in some cases purposely spent in vain last year. He added that certain individuals report 'false game inventory' figures which result in unrealistic game quotas being imposed.

"Kempf also said a movement of conservationists and politically oriented wildlife biologists has got to be stopped. He urged the guides to provide the general public with the real facts concerning the wildlife management in B.C."

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: A member applauds that statement, alleging that there has been a deliberate misleading of the people of British Columbia concerning the true state of the inventory of game in British Columbia and in particular in his northern area. So I would assume the reporter wanted to make these charges against the ministry very clear and to get further information. He certainly had the opportunity to give the member a chance to clarify some of these remarks.

"Kempf said money was misspent on aircraft time in the Spatsizi Plateau area where no wildlife were present." And earlier in his speech he said - according to this report -that it was deliberately misspent up there, that they went up to Spatsizi where no wildlife was present. I have seen several articles in recent days, Mr. Speaker, concerning the threat to the largest remaining caribou herd of about 2,500, 1 would assume, Osborn caribou. I am informed that that herd is in the Spatsizi area.

Interviewed, he said the false game counts were collected in northern B.C., but then declined to say where or when. Dave Spalding, director of the fish and wildlife branch's northern region based in Smithers, described Kempf's remarks as "a very serious charge." So there was one branch member apparently present at this meeting, I would assume - maybe that person was phoned. The person in charge might not have heard this f first hand but, at any rate, he said that it was a very serious charge.

I asked the minister in question period and in this debate whether or not anyone in his branch has reported up the chain of command, which this minister has insisted upon in his ministry. He has insisted that people not leapfrog in sending information, but that it follow a proper military chain of command. I'm sure that Mr. Spalding, having made such a statement, would have sent a memo to his next-in-charge and that it should by now have reached the minister, if the minister does have an efficient administration and if his plan has been implemented as he has said.

In his speech to a dinner session of the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention, Kempf said, "There are many good wildlife biologists and conservation officers, including former branch director, Jim Hatter", and I would concur. "In a movement in B.C. to eliminate guide outfitters, there are those in the employ of the taxpayers who would see their industry go down the tube so more of the province could be put in mothballs." This is referring to conservationists and to wildlife biologists within the department. "Unless safeguards for wildlife are provided, big game will decrease and huge areas of the province will be closed to hunting of any kind." Well, I wouldn't dispute that with the member.

Speaking of the economy in general, he apparently made some comments of the same ilk out of the budget speech, and then he said: "A proposed new Wildlife Act planned for the next session of the Legislature will include provisions for the tenure of guide outfitters. Recreation minister Sam Bawlf has promised

[ Page 915 ]

that if sheep quotas are placed on nonresident hunters, they will be applied to resident hunters as well."

Mr. Speaker, this is what he said, according to a report in a paper which came out on April 12,1978, and yet, following question period on that same day, he got up in this House and said: - They're referring to me - "told the House that I, in an address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Burns Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this House that the member is wrong. He has misquoted me and, in order that the member get his facts straight, I'd be willing to make a copy of that address to those people available to him so that he could read the whole of that great speech."

Mr. Speaker, I went out and got that speech. Some reporters were interested in it and we looked through it. Indeed, we looked through it in vain to find the remark which I quoted him as having made and which is attributed to him by the reporter who not only listened to his speech, Mr. Chairman, but who also interviewed him after his speech in order to make sure that he had his facts straight.

I believe that that member did make those remarks. I believe that the member did say in his speech that there was a new Wildlife Act to be introduced. I believe that he also gave assurances to the Western Guides and Outfitters concerning tenure. I also believe that he made very strong allegations against the department while the McCarthy hearings were still being held and yet, to my knowledge, he did not appear before the McCarthy hearings -which were looking into all matters of licensing guides and outfitters - and did not make that information, which he was privy to, known to the committee. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a serious lack of information, which is a failure by a member of this House to pass on to the minister responsible for this ministry information which he claims to have.

Mr. Chairman, we must remember that this is the minister who says that he talks with that member almost every day when they are together here in the precincts. He also said, Mr. Chairman, that that member was relaying some information with which the minister has already publicly identified himself. I want to be perfectly clear in my mind as to whether that member really made those statements, and I must say that in terms of the number of reports that I have had from that meeting I believe that the member did make those statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must interrupt you at this point to remind you that we are discussing the administrative duties of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Remarks made by other members of this House, albeit even pertaining to an area of this ministry, are not appropriate. If you would like to relate this to the minister's estimates or a function of the administrative responsibilities, that would be in order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to report to the minister that there is alleged information pertaining to misconduct of people in his department. I don't have that information directly, but I understand that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) does have that information. I want to know if that member has made it available to the minister. I want to know how thoroughly this matter has been looked into by the minister, because there are reports not only here but also in the Williams Lake Tribune. There is an undermining of confidence and there are attacks taking place while the minister is trying to reorganize his department - a reorganization which he's had over a year to get underway and yet really hasn't done a darn thing about, other than a few renaming of things.

Mr. Chairman, here is a report f rom the Williams Lake Tribune:

"It seems almost unbelievable that the Western Guides and Outfitters Association would have the gall to ask f or absolute and exclusive rights to all recreational use of guiding territory in this province. They say that this means that if they could get the resolution passed into law, all residents of B.C. who hike, canoe, camp, fish or hunt in this province would be required either to hire a licensed guide or to pay royalties for the privilege of invading his territory in pursuit of their own sport. Almost all the good territory, which amounts to at least 75 per cent of the province's recreational land, is held under permit or licence and is Crown land owned, in effect, by the people of the province. Even more incredible is the support of this motion given by the Omineca MLA, Jack Kempf, at a recent guides convention held in Burns Lake. Apparently Kempf overshot his mark when he assured his audience that he had Recreation and Conservation minister Sam Bawlf's personal guarantees that such new legislation should come to pass."

Well, the member has claimed that he was mis

[ Page 916 ]

quoted on this.

Now this story is very serious, I think, Mr. Chairman, emanating from this misunderstanding. I want to know how deeply the minister has looked into this matter. Has there been deliberate misspending of funds? What was spent in terms of the predator-control programme alleged to be up in Spatsizi, and what was the success or failure of it? If it was a failure, was it deliberately set out to be a failure? Was there some sort of a conspiracy or was there not? What is the matter with the type of reporting which we are getting concerning game counts? Are they being deliberately falsified?

The minister has said that he has looked into this. Will the minister table the report which has been given to him concerning this matter, so that we can, once and for all, know whether the remarks made in this sheet of paper, or the remarks which the member for Omineca has given me - these very mild little remarks, and he did make one or two attacks on people on the staff but certainly not as strong as are in this report - are true? How can the department go on under a barrage of ... ? I've certainly been getting copies of all kinds of telegrams from rod and gun clubs all over the province. People are outraged by this situation and by this unmitigated, unwarranted attack on members of the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I say that it is the duty of that minister to protect his ministry, to stand up for his ministry, or, if there is wrongdoing, to find just cause and to dismiss officials for cause. But there should not be this kind of thing emanating, and remarks which were attributed to the minister by the member for Omineca. I hope the minister will stand up and speak out very strongly in this regard.

Well, these members have nothing to say. I would have hoped that there could have been some clearing up of this.

HON. MR. BAWLF: There will be. Just sit down and let somebody ask some questions.

MR. NICOLSON: Will you get up and clear this up? Well, thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BAWLF: If you've got some more questions, I'll answer them all.

MR. NICOLSON: Get some more questions?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Sure, I'll answer them all at once.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) .

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the minister, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask the minister if he associates himself with the remarks that were made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) during his speech at the guides and outfitters' convention.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Whose version of the speech?

MR. NICOLSON: The member's version of the speech. The speech that the member gave. Would the minister answer that? If he associates himself with the words that were uttered by the member for Omineca in that speech, would the minister do that? Would he associate himself with those words which were uttered by the member for Omineca at the Western Guides and Outfitters Association meeting held recently in Burns Lake? Would the minister get up and give us a yes or a no, or elaborate on those remarks?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand here - and would be happy to table, since it seems that the member opposite is not aware of its existence - a press release entitled "Conservation Department Reorganized, " which was made some time ago, on April 5 to be precise. In the last part of that press release I quote: "And the work will begin shortly on preparation of a new Wildlife Act for introduction at the next session of the Legislature. Areas of concern in this review include humane trapping methods, regulations and tenure for guides and outfitters, and hunting rights of native Indians" - tenure being a concern, not a proposal, not anything more or less at this time than what exists, which is certificates for guide outfitters whereby they have the exclusive right to conduct a guiding and outfitting business in an area exclusive of other guides and outfitters, and they have no rights inherent over the land, public or otherwise, in those areas.

That press release was made available to the member for Omineca, along with further comment which I have made to a number of concerned bodies such as RAMS and others, concerning sheep quotas, concerning protection of sheep, in which I've said to all concerned that, yes, we will move to, and have since moved to, a system of quotas on guide outfitters and, through them, the non-resident hunter in the interests of protecting those sheep populations, to make sure that they are not seriously depleted. In due course, if it proves that the resident hunter is mounting an additional pressure, at that point uncontrolled then

[ Page 917 ]

they too will be placed under controls by way of limited-entry hunting.

Those remarks and information were made available to the member for Omineca, and I quite happily associate myself with those remarks to the extent that he then conveyed them to whomever of his choosing. I regard them as public information and the stated direction of this ministry and myself.

Now apart from that, I would just like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the member seem to have a disagreement with another member in this House as to what was not or was said in the remarks that the member for Omineca made or allegedly made. I'd just say that that's a dispute between those two parties. For my part, love been advised by the member for Omineca that he was substantially misquoted in the press, and, as love said, no information has come to my attention which would suggest factual support for any allegation made or not made by that member, which was nevertheless published in the newspapers.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to deliver parts of the real speech that was delivered by the member for Omineca, of which I have a transcript of all of the remarks he made pertaining to conservation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to keep your remarks relevant to the minister's responsibilities.

MR. NICOLSON: I will, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now remarks made by the member for Omineca are something that you and the member for Omineca may wish to discuss, but the minister has made his position quite clear. I think that if you have something that relates to his administrative responsibility, that's quite in order. But remark made by another member of the House are not really relevant under this minister's estimates at this time.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, what concerns me is that in answer in question period, the minister said that he did have the opportunity to relate some views which he had expressed in the past to the member.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Which I just outlined.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, thank you. I also received a copy of that, Mr. Minister, as I think every member of this House did, but the minister, Mr. Chairman, was quoted; remarks were attributed in public to the minister by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I will certainly bring that out if allowed to proceed, Mr. Chairman. I shouldn't say that to you in such an argumentative manner, Mr. Chairman. I just say I am leading to something which I consider very serious concerning the office of this ministry.

This is an actual quote pertaining to this ministry and really reflecting upon the leadership in this ministry if nothing is done to rectify it. He said: "There are those ladies and gentlemen in our province and even in the employ of the taxpayer of this province who would see your industry" - referring to the guiding industry - "go down the tube in order that more of this province could be put into mothballs as area in which the so-called conservationists...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I Tm, t ask you once again to relate this to the minister's responsibilities. You haven't indicated what you're quoting from, but I assume you're quoting f ram the remarks made by the member for Omineca. Is that correct?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case it's not relevant at this time.

MR. NICOLSON: A member that supports the government of this province has called for the firing and the harassment of members of the fish and wildlife branch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the advice that you're giving my colleague for Nelson-Creston, my colleague is drawing to the attention of the minister that he ' , the minister, may well be operating under a very serious misapprehension and may be in possession, unwittingly, of misinformation that has caused him to draw certain conclusions about the charges that have been made regarding expenditure of funds and misrepresentation of records and documents in the fish and wildlife branch. It is the duty, with respect, Mr. Chairman, of every member of this House to draw to the attention of any minister such information as he may have and can verify in the form of transcripts about which the minister may not know anything. Therefore, with respect, Mr. Chairman, my colleague is drawing to the attention of the minister the possibility that he is unwittingly operating in the dark, because he has not been correctly and accurately informed as to

[ Page 918 ]

serious charges made about deliberate falsification of records and misappropriation of funds within the fish and wildlife branch. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, my colleague for Nelson-Creston is doing his job most appropriately

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind all hon. members that to use the vehicle of a point of order in order to gain the floor of this House to make a speech is, in itself, out of order.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, you advised the member for Nelson-Creston and the House that in your opinion to bring up points made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was not necessarily the proper thing to do in this forum during the minister's estimates. What my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is pointing out is that there are allegations by the member for Omineca that there are areas within the minister's jurisdiction where there is [illegible] of records, where they are deliberately misspending money and are falsifying records within the minister's department. The member for Omineca has made that charge publicly. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nelson-Creston is quite within the rules of this House to point out to the minister that there are charges by another member of this House that there is falsification of records and that there are moneys being deliberately misspent in the minister's department. Surely this is the proper forum to bring those points up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On your point of order, hon. member, I would point out that the charge has already been made in this House and that's not what, in fact, was being done. We were witnessing, in my interpretation of the remarks made by the member for Nelson-Creston, more an attack on the member f or Omineca than on the charge. Will the member for Nelson-Creston please continue?

MR. NICOLSON: I think this will bring it into a better context, Mr. Chairman. This quotation really is the transmission of the minister's wish as relayed by the member at that address:

"On February 4,1978, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, pledged himself to the preservation of this industry and to proper wildlife management in British Columbia. People like Cyril and myself had already done so a long time before that and we, as your representatives in Victoria, and as government, will do our part, but, ladies and gentlemen, it is imperative that you also do your part. We know that the money allocated by Victoria, for instance for the predator-control programme recently announced by the minister in some cases was purposely spent in vain."

He's just been talking about the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and he says:

"We know that the money allocated by Victoria for the predator control programme recently announced by the minister, in some cases, was purposely spent in vain. We know that. We know also, ladies and gentlemen, that certain individuals in the field are reporting false game inventory figures, which is a result of a further deterioration of valuable herds and the implementation of a very unfair quota, and this must be turned around."

In that very same paragraph he led off with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, also referring to expenditures by that minister.

Mr. Chairman, the general public must know the truth, they must know what's going on. We must know what the real facts are in regard to wildlife management and the wildlife inventory in this province. The minister knows what's going on, but he isn't telling the public.

He quotes from the very same document that the minister has just given us. In another part of his speech, attributing statements to the minister, he says:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to close with a couple of things that were given me after I put the words together for my address, and I don't know what Iove done with it. I have with me the news release which came out on April 5, and I think it exemplifies the fact that Victoria realizes the problem and is willing to do something about it. This news release is headed "Conservation Department Reorganized.' I know all are interested in this, and it goes on to say:

" 'The hon. Sam Bawlf, Minister of Recreation and Conservation, today announced plans for a major reorganization of the conservation department which consists of new fisheries and a separate wildlife branch. Bawlf said the new fisheries will combine responsibility for fresh water and salt water fishery sport and commercial fishermen and processors for the first time in British Columbia. At present time responsibilities are split be

[ Page 919 ]

tween the fish and wildlife branch and marine resources branch. This organization reflects the government's recognition of a vital role which our fisheries resource plays. A new, fully integrated provincial fisheries branch is required to meet the needs and potential of this resource. The wildlife branch will be responsible for the management of all the province's wildlife other than fish.' "

A further feature of the organization, attributing all kinds of statements to this, and then he says:

" 'Bawlf said that there would be two highlights to the work of the wildlife branch in the coming year. The branch will be refining B.C.'s conservation plan for each of more than 20 species of wildlife in consultation with concerned groups, and work will be done shortly in preparation of a new Wildlife Act for introduction at the next session of the Legislature.' "

Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to the denial which was issued by that member. Re rose on a point of order when I had raised my questions, and he said to this House: "The member has told the House that 1, in the address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Bums Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this House that the member is wrong. He has misquoted me." But, Mr. Chairman, not only do I have the report f rom the newspaper, I have a verbatim transcript of that member's remarks now. It is not this with which he misled us when he promised to deliver this into our hands after the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Once again you're straying off the subject. We're here to discuss the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and whether you have been misled by another member of the House is totally immaterial at this time.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is simply this: the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, who is addressing this House, has accused the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) of deliberately misleading the House. That is an incorrect statement and must be withdrawn. At no time were the remarks made by the hon. member for Omineca concerning game management made in this House. They were made to a convention that took place in northern British Columbia, not on the floor of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken.

Would you please withdraw those remarks?

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I can't withdraw that. I have a report here. I have a verbatim transcript of those remark and I have a verbatim transcript of what the member said in Hansard. I refer you to page 337 of this year's Hansard. The member said: "The member has told the House that I, in an address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association in Burns Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this House that the member is wrong. He has misquoted me."

He accused me of misquoting him, Mr. Chairman, here, in a verbatim transcript. I'll produce the words of that member. I'll produce them on tape, if he won't recall what was actually delivered. Throughout this speech there was slandering....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: That minister has not got up, he has not protected his department, he has not done his job, because he has deliberately set out to destabilize his department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you rose on a point of order and I asked you to withdraw. I will now ask you to withdraw a second time.

MR. NICOLSON: I have not said that he deliberately misled the House. I have said that he misled the House and it was misleading, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked you to withdraw the words "deliberately misled the House."

MR. NICOLSON: I did not say that he deliberately misled the House and I will withdraw having said that he deliberately misled the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Please continue.

MR. LOEWEN: Go for a walk.

MR. NICOLSON: I am not misleading. I can document this. You'll have your turn, Mr. Minister.

Further quotations of the minister.

"I spoke to the minister as late as yesterday afternoon" - as the minister has assured this House is normal and not unusual - "and he also asked me just to say a few words in regard to sheep quotas. Many of you are concerned about

[ Page 920 ]

this situation. He asked merely to point out to you that if in some areas quotas must be placed on the guide outfitter as far as the number of sheep that can be taken, that in those same areas resident hunters will have quotas as well."

That's the end of quotes, applause, applause, which can be heard on the tape. That's what he said.

The minister has got up in this House and said that that was not what he intended to say. But through this member and through the minister, we have a running with the hares and the hounds in this province. Total confusion. The only thing that can settle this total confusion is for the minister to get up and not just say that the member was misquoted, but to totally renounce him and separate himself from those remarks which were made irresponsibly by the member for Omineca to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association and to assure us that anything that is uttered by the member in the minister's name was uttered in the name of the minister, Mr. Chairman.

"I spoke to the minister as late as yesterday afternoon and he asked me to just say a few words In regard to sheep quotas. Many of you are concerned about this situation. He asked" - meaning the minister - "merely to point out to you that if in some areas quotas must be placed on the guide outfitter as far as the number of sheep that can be taken, that in those same areas resident hunters will have quotas as well."

Mr. Chairman, for many of these endangered species, 85 per cent of the harvest is taken by non-resident hunters, and that's why resident hunters are upset and that's also why this ties in with the claim that there has been a deliberate falsification of game inventory figures and harvesting figures.

Mr. Chairman, it is a very serious question. There are serious allegations which have taken place. I asked the minister earlier in this debate and I gave him the chance to get up early in this debate to clear the record before having to make this information available to the public. This will be of great interest to the members of rod and gun clubs throughout this province, to people who are concerned about environment, whether they be consumptive users of the resource of wildlife or whether they be persons who find enjoyment in the mere fact of knowing that it's there.

This department has a reorganization which is in name only. There has been one year since the report of Winston Mair was given. I say that this report is being misused, that instead there is a policy in the department of destabilization, that the words of this bon. member could very well be the words of the minister. Whom are we to believe? He says: "I was told by the bon. minister." We also have the minister saying that he has many occasions to speak to that member and that he was relaying some statements with which he was publicly associated. What is that minister publicly associated with?

I say that these two statements cannot both be true. This cannot be the speech that was given and this other one, which was handed to me by the minister in fulfilment of his promise given in Hansard here. These two statements are completely different. They are at cross purposes in many areas. They have been denied in Hansard - the statements contained in the tape recorded verbatim transcript of this member's speech.

Mr. Chairman, it would be a giant step forward if that minister will get up and say that he renounces the statements made at that speech, that the member for Omineca will henceforth speak for himself and not use the minister's name in vain.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I read into the record a while ago the information which, as I say, I am prepared to table, which was conveyed in written form to the member for Omineca. I added to it those remarks which I made to him which I considered already to be public information regarding sheep and sheep quotas. In so doing, Mr. Chairman, I indicated the sum total of my remarks to the member for Omineca in preparation for his speech. Perhaps the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has some difficulty co-ordinating three things at once. But, Mr. Chairman, those remarks which are contained in this press release, according to the written speech by the member for Omineca which that member made available to him, not me - as the member for Nelson-Creston said a minute ago - are verbatim out of this press release. The only person who seems, to be out of tune is the reporter who misconstrued the words "the next session" to mean this session, this year.

Now if that member over there can't coordinate those three facts and come up with the fact that the member for Omineca related verbatim what was in this press release, that's his problem, not mine, and not the member for Omineca's.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one further thing. That member for Nelson-Creston talks about taking a year to reorganize the conservation side of my ministry. I'd like to point out, for the record, that, when his party were in government, in three years they

[ Page 921 ]

did nothing about reorganizing the conservation side of the ministry. The reorganization which we have effected is the result, firstly, of a study by a widely recognized expert on the subject; then a call for public response to that study in fact, input from the public at two stages and finally, in a disciplined way, an announcement of our intentions to proceed with certain of those recommendations. And they are now proceeding.

Now, as for his comments at some earlier time about chain of command, I'd like to tell that member that this ministry does not insist on lip-service to communication. It is essential that we have communication at all times and, for his information - since he mentioned Mr. Spalding and the field organization of the ministry - I've had a communication system put in place, Mr. Chairman, whereby those people may communicate directly with me. They do so directly, and there is no reason to expect they would not do so about any matter of concern to them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess it is very clear that, if the remarks of the member given at that speech were verbatim from the press release, then it was a different press release than was sent out to members of the opposition. I guess that when the member for Omineca got up and said: "I spoke to the minister as late as yesterday afternoon and he asked me to just say a few words in regard to sheep quotas - as many of you are concerned about this situation - to point out to you that if in some areas quotas must be placed on guide outfitters as far as the number of sheep that can be taken, then in some of those same areas resident hunters as well will have quotas-, "

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I've already cited precisely the re marks and the written information which were provided to the member for Omineca. Now this member opposite is attempting by innuendo to establish that I said something else, and if he is, Mr. Chairman, I ask that he withdraw that innuendo right now.

MR. COCKE: Answer your questions. What are you trying to pull off in here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member for Nelson-Creston insinuating an innuendo against the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and, if so, would he withdraw?

MR. NICOLSON: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not even inferring one.

Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to fail to appreciate the serious and the very, perhaps naive, way in which members of the public take the statements of any person elected in this House. They regard even some members of the opposition as being government...

HON. MR. BAWLF: Heaven forbid!

MR. NICOLSON: ... and when they speak, they speak with some kind of authority. Certainly back-bench members of the government, when they say throughout their speech "I spoke to the minister yesterday, " and "the minister did this, the minister did that, " and use "we" in the same breath as referring to "the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, Sam Bawlf...."

Mr. Chairman, there are news reports throughout this province which might not be coming to the attention of the minister because they might not be in the Colonist or in the Times or the Vancouver dailies which the minister perhaps reads - this newspaper is in the provincial library; it's called the Lakes District News and it's brought in every week, as are others, such as the Williams Lake paper. There is a great deal of consternation about this.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't sought to bring any more attention to the member for Omineca than is necessary, but certainly our credibility is stretched with the gap between these two statements. I have heard a recording of that member's voice and seen a transcript of those statements, and very serious charges were laid. The minister has been reassured by that member - and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Minister - that he was misquoted. He has also said in certain press releases that he was misquoted. And I would send the minister, if he requests, a copy of this transcript, which is as accurate as can be made over the telephone - but it was done very carefully because this is a serious matter - and if the minister is concerned, I would expect him to ask me, to challenge me, to send this information over to him.

He was reassured by the member that he was misquoted, and willing to let it go at that. We're all honourable members in this House, and so when an assurance is given by one to another we are bound to take their word. But, Mr. Chairman, in the Lakes District News and the Williams Lake Tribune, and the transcript.... "Transcript, " Mr. Chairman, for those who might not understand the term, means as close to a verbatim transcription. a writing down of words which were uttered orally into something which could be read visually. That's what "transcript" means, so

[ Page 922 ]

that if you're familiar with the member's voice you can almost hear him up there in Burns Lake saying these things, giving these references and these reassurances and these messages....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the matter seems to have been extremely well canvassed. Secondly, he minister has given us his assurance as to how it relates to him, and if you have a direct criticism of the member for Omineca then that should not be done at this time, under the minister's estimates, but rather by substantive motion.

MR. NICOLSON: Under the Provincial Secretary's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm not so sure that that's the correct way to do it.

MR. NICOLSON: Under MLAs' salaries, perhaps.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In any event, not at this time and not under these estimates. The Chair is not going to counsel members. I did suggest that perhaps a substantive motion would be the correct way to do it. If you wish to continue on the minister's office, please do.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister has assured us that there's a very good chain of command in his office. Going back to the problem of one-quarter of the big-horn sheep in this province located in the Ewin Creek, Chauncey Creek and Todhunter Greek area', the minister said that he was going to ask for a report on this situation. I asked the re;minister the other day if, when he got the rt, he would make it available to us. I don t recall him answering that. I want to ask the minister if he has the report here today and if he would make it available to us.

HON. MR. BAWLF: No and yes.

MR. NICOLSON: In that case I would like to deliver a report on the Todhunter, Ewin Creek situation. I'd like to inform the House that we have a situation in general, just to give an overview, where 25 per cent of the bighorn sheep population in the province are threatened by the imminent exploration for coal, eventually for strip mining. The strip mining would take place sometime in the future, but I'm given to understand that even the process of exploration is very delicate, as we'll see from this report. Certain licences are involved: the Crows Nest Industries licences 6731,6733,6735,6732,6736-38,6741,6742,6748-58,6760-62,6783, part of 6765 and 6766; Kaiser Resources licences 6743-47; Fording Coal Ltd. 6728 and 6729. So we have three of the very well-known coal exploration firms involved. Since time seems to be [illegible], Mr. Chairman I have prepared a report for the minister and I hope he will take very rapid action on this.

Here's a little bit of history on the development licences. Prior to 1974 exploration involving minor trail construction, Crows Nest Industry licences 6753 and 6758 on the south end of Ewin Ridge, and on Kaiser licences 6746 and 6747 in Ewin Valley.... In 1975 Crows Nest Industries applied to do a conventional drilling programme in the Todhunter Creek area, licences 6735 and 6742. This ums refused in 1975 through the advisory committee on reclamation by the fish and wildlife branch. A reduced programme in the same area was also refused. A hand-trenching proposal was approved by the Department of Mines.

Kaiser Resources in 1976 submitted a proposal for reactivating old exploration on Ewin Creek, and this ums refused by the fish and wildlife branch and lands branch through the advisory committee on reclamation. Kaiser Resources submitted a programme similar to that of 1976. This programme ums again objected to by the fish and wildlife branch and the lands branch. Wildlife values in this area, Mr. Chairman, are described. The high elevation grassland once extended along the entire east side of the Fording River. Ungulates from many areas of the Fording Valley and parts of Alberta depend upon this complex for their survival. Late winter and early spring is a particularly critical period, as at that time most forage is in many years buried by snow. Southwest-facing grasslands, however, are kept clear of snow by prevailing westerly winds and exposure to sun. Chauncey, Todhunter and Ewin Creek drainages comprise the only habitat complex of this type in the Elk and Fording River valleys not seriously affected by coal exploration and mining.

This area is bounded on the north by the Fording Coal development, on the south by the Crows Nest Industries exploration, and on the west by Kaiser explorations in the Burnt Hills and Green Hills. To the east lies the British Columbia-Alberta border.

The species involved are the bighorn sheep, which are predominantly grazers and cannot dig through very much snow to reach their forage. In the high snowfall areas like the coal block, suitable winter ranges are quite discrete and small in area. I have them outlined on an attached map showing that they are enclosed within these permit areas. Sumer

[ Page 923 ]

range is also shown, as cross-hatched. The Imperial ranges comprise the major bighorn sheep winter ranges in the southeast coal block. These winter ranges support the only major bighorn sheep herds in the province wintering in high alpine range, not subject to competition with domestic stock. These sheep have not suffered die-off associated with domestic sheep parasites and starvation due to the winter range damage by domestic animals. At present 300 to 400 bighorn sheep utilize the Ewin Creek area as both summer and winter range. The number is slowly increasing. Canada Land Inventory figures indicate a capability for the area between Chauncey Creek and North Fork Pass of approximately 1,000 bighorn sheep.

Elk are capable of browsing as well as grazing and can move through much deeper snow than bighorn sheep. Therefore elk winter ranges are much larger than the sheep ranges and riparian habitat is suitable as well as mountain grasslands. Areas used by wintering elk vary somewhat from year to year with seasonal differences in snow depth. During years of severe snowfall, wintering elk depend on sites labelled "prime elk winter range." Approximately 1,000 elk now utilize the Chauncey-Todhunter-Ewin Creek winter ranges, plus other wildlife as well as sheep and elk. The coal licences in question support significant populations of mule deer, moose and grizzly bear.

The fish and wildlife branch has had a concern in this. The need to protect the area from coal development was first documented in 1968. In 1974 the fish and wildlife branch, in co-operation with the Mines ministry, designated key ungulate ranges in the coal block. These included these Chauncey-Todhunter-Ewin Creek winter ranges.

The wildlife production areas in North America are insufficient to meet the demand of both consumptive and non-consumptive users -that means hunters and pure outdoor enthusiasts - and this has resulted in an escalated value of the remaining resource, as based on the users' willingness to pay for it. This increased value of the wildlife resource is typified by the non-resident bighorn sheep hunters, who now spend an average of $5,000 per animal taken in this province.

It is the fish and wildlife branch position that if wildlife resources are to be maintained in the Kootenays, the integrity of the major wildlife winter ranges and associated corridors and habitat must be secured.

Mr. Chairman, I have brought this up and referred to the fact that correspondence has exchanged hands between the deputy ministers of Mines, and Recreation and Conservation. The snow is fast retreating in my riding, and I'm sure that plans for this exploration are proceeding at a very rapid pace. Time is of the essence. We have seen the bighorn sheep population of our province attacked by lungworm parasites. We have seen alienation of many of their traditional areas due to strip mining.

In the exchange from the Deputy Minister of Mines to the Deputy Minister of Recreation and Conservation there is mention of getting together with the reclamation officer. I would like you to know that the reclamation officer for strip mining in the mines branch covers an area from the Nicola Valley to the Alberta border; including the Similkameen mine, mines up in the Nicola, strip mines over in the East Kootenays and points in between.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, discussion of liaison between Recreation and Conservation and the reclamation officer is in order, but the duties of the reclamation officer and other areas would hardly be appropriate at this time.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just say, en passant, that if that particular officer is so overextended, it would certainly justify an emergency increase to look into this particular problem.

I think that person's regular duties far overextend him. To leave a wildlife conservation measure in the hands of the Ministry of Mines is certainly going to give no reassurance to the people of this province because that member is overextended. The person who is doing that job of reclamation is doing a marvellous job under the circumstances. It's a new job; he was once in the Ministry of Highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is just no way I can see any relevance between a man working for the Ministry of Mines and the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that bighorn sheep feed on grasslands and that mines...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would be hard pressed to believe that reclaimed mine tailing ponds which would have grass in them would be feed for bighorn sheep. If you can relate that to me, then I will allow you to continue.

MR. NICOLSON: You concede my point then, Mr.

[ Page 924 ]

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I will not concede your point, hon. member. I would ask you to come to order, which might be very pleasant for the House.

MR. NICOLSON: It would be pleasant for the minister, I'm sure.

Mr. Chairman, in the letter between the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, there was a suggestion from the Deputy Minister of Mines to the Deputy Minister of Recreation and Conservation almost saying, "Not to worry, We have a reclamation officer."That sounds very reassuring. I'm sure that maybe the deputy minister and his minister and the ministry might have been reassured, except that I happen to know about the other duties of that particular person. I'm just suggesting that there should be more liaison. Now you've had your input from the Ministry of Mines; it's your move in the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation to tell them that we are going to need something a little bit more thorough than that. That particular suggestion would seriously put a strain on the activities of the present reclamation officer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention. I have done perhaps as much as can be done by a member of the Legislature to ensure that action is taken, that a moratorium which was instituted in 1976 on coal exploration in one specific little area, because it is very sensitive to the winter range habitat - and that is almost always the most sensitive area - for the survival of ungulates, is threatened by these activities. Mining exploration is going on at a record pace in the province, according to the Minister of Mines, so that a further moratorium in one small sector of this activity where there is a very, very high and conflicting wildlife resource would not be out of order. It has been in place in the past and it could certainly continue in the future.

I hope that with this information the minister will take immediate action, approach the Environment and Land Use Committee or whatever course of action is taken under his government, and co-operate with the Minister of Mines, who I'm sure is very concerned. This is also in his area. We both consider ourselves Kootenay boys, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have the assurance that exploration is not going to go ahead this year. I'm sure the good corporate citizens, Crows Nest Industries, Kaiser Resources and Fording Coal, would be most anxious to cooperate in that as well. So, Mr. Chairman, with an attitude of co-operation in this matter, I'm sure a moratorium could be continued and these wildlife resources could be well looked after.

MR. SKELLY: I have a number of issues I'd like to raise. It should only take a few days here. But some of the things were addressed to the minister before and I'd just like to remind you of these to jog your memory a little bit. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked you a few days ago about the Public Recreation Facilities Fund. How many applications have been made and are before the ministry now? How much money has been applied for as opposed to how much is available? I believe you mentioned in the budget that you have $7 million in estimates and $5.5 million in special programmes. How much has been requested through applications presently before you?

Also, I believe I drew to your attention, at the request of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , something about the lithium chloride programme that's being used against coyotes in Saskatchewan. You mentioned you were going to look into that. I wonder if you found out in the interim whether that programme has been examined by your ministry. I believe Dr. Tompa and Don Robinson received the information from Dr. Jowsey in Saskatchewan and they have the information before them now. I wonder if they found whether it's applicable to the wolf problem. I'm not talking about managing wolf populations now but about predator control. As you know, the lithium chloride creates an aversion reaction rather than killing the animal. It simply creates an aversion reaction and it's by far a better way to control predators than killing the animal outright. So could you respond to that?

The minister also attacked the NDP for not reorganizing the Department of Recreation and Conservation as it existed at that time, and I'd like to point out to the minister, who wasn't in the House at that time, Mr. Chairman, that we had difficulty building the morale of the department after it was left by the Social Credit government almost absolutely without funds and without staff. It was a very difficult department to bring back together again and present to a new government with the morale necessary to carry on its duties and with the staff that was required. Now definitely the programme- of the NDP wasn't finished in that regard. But looking for the estimates for the year ended 1973, the total allocation to that department was something like $10 million. And just a few days ago, Mr. Minister, you were complaining that the NIP

[ Page 925 ]

had increased its spending something like 135 per cent in the space of three years. But in the case of this department, if you look at your own expenditures this year - something like $61 million, not counting special funds -are you complaining that the expenditure for your ministry in the space of probably five or six years has gone up to the tune of something like 600 per cent?

There are departments and there are areas of expenditure where increases are necessary. This is an area that we as a government identified as an area where expenditure increases were required. We provided those increases to the tune of something like 250 or 300 per cent in the case of this ministry.

When I first came to office as MIA for Alberni in 1972, one conservation officer served the whole area from Nitinat Bar to Muchalat Inlet and beyond to Cape Cook. There was no conservation officer covering that whole area, just one person. It was beefed up to the point where there was a conservation officer in Gold River, two conservation officers in Port Alberni, a habitat protection technician and a conservation officer in Tofino, which you have recently taken out of Tofino and placed in another area of the region. So we beefed up the enforcement capability that didn't exist in that area previously.

I would like to say what the conservation officer who served the area alone did. He enforced the hunting and fishing regulations, examined cutting plants for the major forest companies in something like three or four tree-farm licences, and attempted to do all those things as a single person enforcing the regulations and the laws of this ministry over the space of almost a quarter of Vancouver Island. lie did a darned good job, but had very little support from the ministry under the previous Social Credit government. So we have no apologies whatsoever for increasing the funding of this ministry 200 to 300 per cent while we were in office.

Another thing I'd like to bring to the ministers attention during this debate on his estimates is the question of the salmonid enhancement programme. I'm pleased to see that something like $2 million is being committed to this programme, even though most of the money comes from the federal government. As the minister pointed out before, it doesn't really matter where the money comes from in this case as long as it's coming and being used to develop the salmonid resource in the province of British Columbia.

A number of people have expressed some concern to me about the ultimate impact of the salmonid enhancement programme on the fishing industry in British Columbia as it's presently structured. I note the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport for the federal government, in a speech last week to the House'of Commons, was talking about committing something like $300 million to $500 million over the period 10 to 15 years from now to the salmonid enhancement programme with the object of doubling the production of salmonid species in B.C. Having discussed this matter with a number of people in the industry and a number of people who are concerned about the industry, a concern was identified that I wasn't aware of before. That is what the effect is going to be on the market for salmonid species, the major commercial species that we in British Columbia sell offshore.

It would seem, and some people have noted, that the law of supply and demand would apply in the case where you're doubling the production of salmon, that possibly the price is going to go down, with a potentially disastrous effect on the industry. In addition, many fishermen in the British Columbia salmon industry, especially owner-operators, are operating on a pretty marginal basis with the increase in cost inputs over the past few years - the cost of fuel, boats, gear and repairs, this type of thing - and any decline in the price of salmon based on a doubling of supply could have a disastrous effect on the industry. It would be a classic, similar to what's happening in agriculture as the cost of inputs increase and the pressure is to keep the cost of food low. They're concerned about the increase in supply. A number of farmers and farm organizations have approached our caucus at least and are concerned about what might happen, say, if all of the land within the agricultural land reserve was brought into production, or a large percentage of it. There would be an increase in the availability of food, a decline in the price of food, and farming - which is already a marginal operation - could suffer some drastic cutbacks. People would lose their investments and lose their jobs as a result. So this is one of the things that we are concerned about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe agriculture will be later on and we're on Recreation and Conservation.

MR. SKELLY: I was stating a comparison.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your comparison, but these analogies get carried from department to department. It does say in the standing orders "strictly relevant, " so brief reference may be appropriate. But we got right

[ Page 926 ]

down into marketing of product there, and once again....

MR. SKELLY: I was finished the analogy when you interrupted, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps the warning would now be appropriate for all the members that are in the chamber.

MR. SKELLY: But in any case, salmonid species are a food species and there is concern in the industry, as there is in the agriculture industry, that increasing the supply based on the law of supply and demand will cause a drop in the price, and people that are operating marginally within the industry could suffer.

Now the minister indicates to the negative, that this is not going to happen, but I'd like a little better assurance than that. Has the ministry been involved in any studies, or are any studies available to the ministry that they are prepared to table with the House and to make public which would indicate that this is not so? Because it appears to be a concern of the farmers in British Columbia; it appears to be a concern of the fishermen as well.

Another concern on the part of the fishermen is the direction in which the salmonid enhancement programme is going. The federal government has folded in the hatchery programmes. All of this $300 million to $500 million is not new money. Some of the funds being folded into this programme are funds that were already available in, for example, lake fertilization programmes and in the hatchery programmes. I'm indicating three: the Robertson Creek Hatchery at Port Alberni, the Quinsam Hatchery near Campbell River and the Capilano Hatchery in North Vancouver. These, I believe, are now coming under the umbrella of the salmonid enhancement programme and the money that previously went to support these hatcheries is part of this $300 million to $500 million programme.

What is happening to these hatcheries, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is that the federal government is now expressing an intention to contract these hatcheries out to private industry. These hatcheries are based on a technology that was developed by Canadians in Canada for Canadians. Research and development moneys that were spent by the federal government out of our tax money aver the years, once they have been found successful, are now being contracted out to private operators. And a major concern has been expressed. The Robertson Creek Hatchery in Port Alberni was supposed to have been contracted out on April 1,1978. Now because of some opposition on the part of the staff in the hatchery programme throughout British Columbia, because of some opposition on the part of fishermen and because of an impending federal election, that April 1 date has now been rolled back and we don't know when the Robertson' Creek Hatchery will be contracted out. But we do know that there are something like three bidders involved, one of which is associated with Union Carbide.

Now previously Union Carbide, back in, I believe, 1971, applied to the federal minister, Jack Davis, who was federal Minister of Fisheries at the time, for a hatchery licence or an aquaculture licence, and was turned down by the ministry because of extreme public pressure. However, a subsidiary of Union Carbide, Dom-Sea Resources, has developed a programme down in the United States. They have hatcheries and fish farms in Puget Sound where they produce millions of tons of salmon each year - three-quarter pound, pan-ready salmon.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Millions of pounds, you mean.

MR. SKELLY: Sorry, millions of pounds of salmon each year. Weldwood is even involved in producing millions of pounds of salmon each year - three-quarter pound, pan-ready salmon that are sent into the restaurant market. Union Carbide, or one of its front organizations here in British Columbia, is now bidding on the operation of all or part of some of these hatcheries in British Columbia, and the fishermen are concerned. It appears that the direction of federal Fisheries over the years has been to eliminate what they consider a wasteful, capital-intensive aspect of the fishing industry - that is, the small boats and the way of life that we've had on the west coast of Canada for years. It appears that the federal government is attempting to eliminate that and go towards a capital-intensive programme managed by multinational corporations such as Union Carbide, which would simply produce hatchery fish and either brail them out at the mouth of a river or else produce them in pens, and we would eliminate that aspect of the fishing industry that involves the boats and the gear that we've known as a way of life on this coast. There is some concern on the part of fishermen in the fishing industry about this fact.

It was known that the federal government, over the years, has favoured the large industrial type of farming concept, and only as a result of public pressure were they pushed back to accept the family-farm idea as the

[ Page 927 ]

best production unit in Canada. We are concerned there is a policy developed by the federal government that would like to see as its objective the elimination of the present style of the fishing industry on the west coast and substitution of a capital-intensive programme where the fish would simply be brailed out at the mouth of a river or grown in pens to satisfy the needs of an expanded market. They are very concerned about those two aspects: (1) the increase in product and decline in price, and (2) the direction that the industry is moving in towards hatchery-produced fish which will not go to sea at all. In f act, those fish will take over a part of the market that's being served by the troll industry. The minister appears to be indicating to me that this is not true, that this is not the direction of the policy. But we would like to see some of the studies that are available on market impact, on the impact on the price of fish, and on the impact on the fishing industry, which is a way of life, especially in ridings such as my own.

I'll give the minister an opportunity to answer that, or I could go on, if he wishes, on another subject.

The other subject involves the status of certain wilderness proposals that have been presented to the minister over the term of office of his government. There are a number of proposals, and the first one that I brought up in the House last year was the Valhalla wilderness proposal. Apparently a park study has been done on the Valhalla wilderness area. It involves something like 122,000 acres along the west shore of Slocan Lake. I notice that whenever I mention "wilderness" the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) appears to go into what appears to be a catatonic state.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wild land.

MR. SKELLY: Or "wild land" this kind of thing. But I'm wondering what the status of the Valhalla wilderness area is.

The Slocan Valley Resource Management Society put together a proposal which has been presented to the minister. They've updated the minister on a number of occasions about this proposal. I understand that his parks people in Nelson have presented a parks proposal covering 122,000 acres of the area. I would like to know what the status of that proposal is now.

Another one was represented again to the minister last year when people from the Palliser Wilderness Society came down. It's interesting that these people aren't asking for the establishment of a wilderness area; they're asking for more public involvement in the management of this area so that recreation values are respected when these areas are being managed for resource purposes. The Slocan Valley Resource Management Society is now asking just for more involvement, Mr. Chairman, in the management of the area on the west side of Slocan Lake, in order to protect the recreation interests in that area. The same is true of the people who are involved in the Palliser wilderness area.

So what they want is possibly more public involvement in the allocation of cut blocks, more public monitoring of logging operations to make sure they are carried out and to make sure that the guidelines imposed by the Forest Service and by the fish and wildlife branch are carried out.

Another project that has been brought up by people in the east Kootenay area is the Akamina-Kishinena valley. Some days ago I asked the minister if a parks proposal had been prepared on the Akamina-Kishinena valley. If so, when will it be presented to the ELUC, or has it been presented to the ELUC? Has a decision been made on the Akamina-Kishinena valley? But the first question I asked him was: has a park proposal been prepared?

Now the minister said there were a number of pieces of paper that were circulating around the ministry and had been presented for the consideration of the ELUC. But I understand that a proposal was prepared, if not by the branch, at least in the region, and one of the maps that was made available to us by the Forest Service indicates a boundary and states: B.C. parks branch proposal, October, 1977, for a Class A provincial park. So obviously there has been a proposal presented to the ELUC in some form, and we would like to know just a little more about that and what's going to happen in the Akamina--Kishinena valley.

One of the problem with the studies that are done, and especially in the Stein River valley, is that when the studies are done, indications are contained in the studies that opening an area such as the Stein Valley to logging will increase the opportunity for hunting and for fishing. In fact, the minister's own representatives, when I attended a workshop on the Stein valley in Lytton on January 5, stated that if the Stein was open to logging, if and when it was economical to open it to logging, then the opportunity for fishing and hunting would be cut back because they simply do not have the staff to enforce the regulations in that area. That has consistently been a problem with this minister's

[ Page 928 ]

jurisdiction. He does not have the enforcement staff available to protect gap- and fish in areas that are opened up to resource exploitation.

One of the recommendations of the Stein River report was that the annual allowable cut attributable to the Stein be taken out of the Botanie PSYU so that it would be possible to make more informed and better decisions on these areas if and when the Stein valley became economic to log in the future. Another reason, I infer, is so that the balance of the Botanie PSYU would not be overcut on the assumption that Stein River timber would be available at some time in the future.

I think that one of the things the branch did when the NDP was in office was to cut down their management areas on a watershed by watershed basis. While I understand that you don't have jurisdiction for this under the Ministry of Forests' jurisdiction, I think that's something that should happen in the Ministry of Forests as well. In order to make appropriate management decisions for areas like the Stein Valley, inventories should be cut down in the Forest Service into smaller units so that when we're trying to make a decision on an area such as the Stein River valley, we're not considering timber that's being cut in other areas of the Botanie PSYU and committing the Stein to resource extraction somewhere down the line, even though it may not be economical at the time.

Those are a number of the proposals that have been brought before the minister and I would like to hear his comments on them.

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, dealing with facilities, we do have, as I said before, several hundred applications in the works at various stages. As such, they must proceed through several stages including some discussion with local government and the establishment of their priorities as to the relevance of the application - of course, as I've said before, to eliminate redundancy in the expending of public moneys on facilities to ensure that facilities which are built, whether they be by the municipality or by some service club or other organization, ethnic group, whatever, do not duplicate one another in providing for the needs.

The total dollar value at this point would be difficult to ascertain, because while we have a number of first-stage applications in hand indicating a general intent - we'll give you a for instance - to build a general all-purpose meeting hall, it is as yet not possible to place a price tag on many of these since further discussion is required to outline the kind of building, the area involved and the plans involved.

So it is simply not possible to characterize the applications, which are in various stages at this time, in terms of a total dollar figure. I would say that we expect, though, to see several hundreds by reason of local government input, perhaps pared down somewhat through the priorization process, and then further pared down in terms of the sharper realities of cost. Bear in mind, of course, that the province, through this programme, only meets a third of the capital cost, and that, before a commitment can be sustained, the other two-thirds of the capital has to be found, and this has to be secured against some precise plan and cost figure. So that's the status there.

The lithium chloride question. You mentioned Mr. Don Robinson. I know the members would be interested to know that Mr. Robinson is in , hospital recovering from surgery, and I'm sure we would all wish him well. Insofar as lithium chloride is concerned, this is the subject of some testing now by the branch; but it's not possible to give you a conclusion on that.

Salmonid enhancement. The situation with salmonid enhancement is that we, as I've said, expect to undertake a formal agreement with the government of Canada this year. The salmonid enhancement agreement is, in its present form, a general set of principles.

We're concerned, of course, at being able to represent the provincial interest, economic and otherwise, in this important matter. We have embarked upon a number of studies considering the economic and other consequences of salmonid enhancement, and the policy options which exist within the general principles of salmonid enhancement. We have retained an economist within the ministry for this purpose, and we will be doubtless drawing on other expertise outside of the ministry in the coming year. These studies will be quite extensive, and arise out of our concern about the structure of the industry - the fact that the considerable benefits of salmonid enhancement could, indeed, be dissipated if policies are not carefully formulated, and recognizing that we have situations such as an overcapitalization in the processing aspect of the industry. If we had, perhaps, the wrong progression of events in future, we could end up by just further aver-capitalizing the industry rather than intensifying the benefit - just, dissipating it. So there is a question of unused capacity in processing, and a question of policy in regard to the fishermen themselves, and the licensing of fishermen in particular. There are questions of cost recovery,

[ Page 929 ]

recognizing that the government of Canada proposes that the major part of the expense be recovered from the industry...

MR. BARBER: Not from the sports fishery

HON. MR. BAWLF: ...with some consideration to sportsmen being identified in the cost and recovery.

The notion of the doubling of salmon stocks posing a problem in the economics of the industry - just purely in terms of supply and demand - does not, however, appear to be warranted. This is something we'll be looking at as the programme progresses. But bear in mind that it's a 15-year programme. It means an average increase in stock of, perhaps, 6 per cent, and it's the view of the people in my ministry that that is not likely to result in a problem of unused supply - or a f all in demand, if you like. That should be well within the expansion of demand f or this product abroad; and the economics of the industry is really more closely bound up with those other matters I just touched upon than with the pure increase of supply.

You mentioned Robertson Creek, through you to the member. Robertson Greek is an example where a fish hatchery might be placed under contract for operational purposes. I understand that it is, and this is, of course, a federal facility of the government of Canada. We do not have direct say in that. Naturally, we are concerned with the actions of the federal government in all of these matters but their simple problem is that they have no new staff provided and it's their intention to move the thrust in this new workload that's being created to a number of small projects under contract, essentially and for the most part small contracts involving small contractors, native Indians and other groups who are capable of carrying out these projects. It is not their intention to change the basic thrust of the hatchery programme, for example. All of this about multinational corporations and so forth has no foundation in any fact of which we have any knowledge.

Wilderness proposals. The Valhalla continues under a form of moratorium, the purpose being to withhold that area from logging and mining activity pending a good deal more examination about just how the recreational values of the area can be safeguarded. The Palliser area is in the hands of the regional resource management committee and we are aware of the concerns; of the organization concerned with that area. This is a matter of information which, of course, is before the regional resource management committee as well.

The Akamina-Kishinena is the subject of deliberation by the Environment and Land Use Committee upon information assembled by the secretariat, and that includes information provided by my ministry on several occasions. That includes a proposal for a kind of special management status. That's of recent date.

The Stein River. The member will know, Mr. Chairman, that a committee has been established outside of government in large part by the Forest Service to assist in the development of a management plan for that area, and that includes the participation from groups such as the Sierra Club and others.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, all afternoon we've been subjected to a noise in the ventilating system. I would hope that somehow or another it can be rectified in the immediate future. It's driving us nuts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I thought it was the minister. I thank my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my concern to the words voiced by my colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) with respect to, particularly, the Valhallas, which I have discussed with the minister before. And I appreciate that the whole matter is under concern and there is some conflict in terms of competing interests in that particular area.

What I would like to appeal to the minister for is to utilize the Slocan Valley Resources Committee, which is a broadly based committee representing virtually all interests of that community. And certainly it's my view that they should have a voice in the development of that particular area and the proper use of the Valhalla wilderness area. So I hope that while the minister is studying it through the various branches of his own department, he will utilize the very great knowledge in a variety of ways that local residents have in the particular ecology of that area and what might be the optimum use for it.

I can tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I have a file of letters on this particular issue, probably of a heavier nature than on any other particular issue that's before me at the moment. There is very, very broad interest in the Valhalla wildlife proposal, so I think it would be prudent f or the minister to consult as widely as possible with the people in the area before any decision is made.

Mr. Chairman, just one other brief question for the minister: could he advise me what the policy of his ministry is with respect to confidentiality that may be imposed upon the

[ Page 930 ]

staff of his department? Does the minister have a policy? Has the minister issued any directives to staff with respect to the question of confidentiality?

I think the minister is receiving some advice in this regard, and I know the Chair is just a patient as I am. In the meantime, while I conduct this very slow monologue, the Premier is being briefed and I know he'll want to respond. Or the minister, I should say. Well, he has aspirations, Mr. Member. I don't want to destroy his aspirations. Considering the state of the Premier today, those aspirations may be very real.

Is the minister ready to answer?

HON. MR. BAWLF: First of all, I take note of the concern of the member for Revelstoke Slocan about Valhalla once again, as he has expressed it before. I would say to him that perhaps I was remiss in not mentioning that, of course, when it comes down to dealing with resource conflicts between recreational values, forests and others, it's essentially through the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , through the ELUC secretariat and his chairmanship of the committee of that group, that these matters are resolved. I'm sure he will take note of your concern for local participation.

On the question of policy on confidentiality, Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that, as of very recent date, memoranda have gone out from the deputy minister concerning the handling of sensitive materials of the ministry, However I have not of my own sent out any memoranda or initiated any on this subject.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read a document into the record and see if the minister recognizes it or has approved it. It's a document of great concern to me because I think it goes beyond the pale of any legitimate concern with confidentiality of public servants. The document is entitled "Re Confidentiality." It says:

"One element which has surfaced several times during the McCarthy hearings" - I'm not sure which McCarthy hearings that refers to, whether it's Senator Joseph McCarthy's hearings or whether it refers to the Provincial Secretary of the province of B.C. - "is that of confidentiality of branch memos, reports, et cetera.

"It has become evident that on several occasions staff of the fish and wildlife branch have revealed information which should not have been revealed, and they have consciously or otherwise broken their oath of allegiance, which we are all required to take at the time we enter the service. It would seem that a few individuals have not taken their oath seriously or have placed themselves in positions where they had some difficulty refusing requests for information which they knew or should know was not to be made common knowledge."

At least a part of the problem is that a number of staff belong to organizations which make it their business to criticize government policy they believe to be inadequate or to challenge government decisions, or otherwise attempt to influence the government and its agencies. In other words, such organizations are taking an advocacy role in the affairs of government.

"The question therefore arises: can a public servant belong to such organizations without conflict of interest? Even if he keeps behind the scenes in a nonexecutive role, does the public servant not inevitably find himself under pressure to provide backup information to such organizations - information not available to the general public or even outright confidential information?

"Many of us, of course, belong to professional organizations and find it necessary to so belong. On occasion, these professional organizations lobby the government for one reason or another. This, however, is a somewhat different situation than belonging to an organization which has the major objective of judging and influencing the government decision-making process. In the former case, the public servant can dissociate himself from a specific action by his professional association, since his primary reason for belonging is professional association and development. All this must inevitably lead to each of us doing an honest assessment of our membership in various organizations. Is it right that I should belong, or am I really in a conflict of interest situation or placing myself in an otherwise untenable situation, considering my job responsibilities?

"I am reluctant to attempt to lay down guidelines or rules as to what organizations you should or should not belong to, but I would ask that each director debate the matter with his staff and be prepared to advance to me a consensus of views. This should be discussed in the reality that we will be taking a much sterner

[ Page 931 ]

view on the matter if there are leaks of confidential or potentially harmful information - as of now.

"This is not an idle threat, but a simple statement of fact that disciplinary action will follow the leaking of restricted information in the future, and dismissal from the service is a virtual certainty for serious or repeat cases. Hence the need at this time to review our situation individually with respect to membership in organizations relating to our work.

"I might add that I intend to bring this matter up at one of our periodic deputy minister-level meetings with a view to receiving a service-wide directive on the subject.

(Signed)

Lloyd Brooks,

Deputy Minister."

MR. BARRETT: Who leaked that document?

MR. KING: Perhaps the deputy minister thought I was a public servant. You never know, I could be. Perhaps the minister did.

But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this goes beyond the pale of discretion. I think that this is a highly coercive document; it's threatening.

HON. MR. MAIR: Come on now!

MR. KING: Well, in its own language....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if any of the executive council have reservations about that, I repeat the wording of the document: "This is not an idle threat ... disciplinary action and virtual certainty of dismissal will follow."

Mr. Chairman, I want to relate this directive to the law of this province, contained in the Constitution Act since it was amended under the tenure of the New Democratic Party government. Public servants were freed from the yoke of this kind of jackboot policy, this cloak of secrecy imposed on them in heavy-handed fashion, and public servants were, in fact, allowed to belong to political parties and run for office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. KING: My colleague has pointed out: what about Mr. Chips, the Minister of Forests? He would not be a public servant today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I withdraw the "Mr. Chips."

I suggest to the minister that this kind of a directive is in conflict with the law of this land. The Minister of Forests indeed would not have been able to seek public office as a Social Crediter at the same time he was serving a New Democratic Party government, if the spirit of this directive were followed. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and it's coercive and it's heavy-handed and it smacks of a cloak of secrecy that I think is dangerous and completely counter to what this government said it stood for.

You know, the first line is the most telling of all, when it refers to the McCarthy hearings. What could be more appropriate? The next thing wee know, that government will be finding the public servants un-Canadian, for God's sake. What kind of an outfit are you? The minister admits he knew of this document and countenanced it. Shame on you.

HON. MR. BAWLF: What are you talking about?

MR. KING: You admitted in my first question that the deputy minister had sent out a directive. Now are you going to plead innocence again? You are the administrative head of that department and responsible for the epistles that go out under the deputy's signature and your own, and to try and run away.... I guess it's natural, because the Premier gives that lead. But you are responsible administratively and this is the kind of odious thing that I think has no place in British Columbia.

What have you got to hide anyway? What are you so afraid of? Where's the need for the secrecy? What are you doing in that department that you have to threaten public servants that if they belong to an organization that is not okayed by the Social Credit big brother, they jeopardize their employment security?

I think this is a scandalous thing, and I want the minister to stand up and say that he'll repudiate it and withdraw this particular threatening document that has gone out, and that he'll censure the deputy minister for issuing this kind of coercive, heavy-handed document.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I have a note from the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms to inform the members of the House that the heating system is being looked into and as soon as possible we will have this racket contained.

[ Page 932 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What racket? Another government cover-up!

HON. MR. BAWLF: I can see that the member opposite needs the benefit of some air conditioning, Mr. Chairman. I will advise him and the House that the memorandum of February 7 which he quotes went out approximately on that date, I presume. I'm informed it went to 12 people. It was written, I might say, and circulated without instruction from me. It was at the initiative of the deputy minister. He advised me by memo of April 24, at which time it reached my desk. Having received a complaint from a member of the public, I called up a copy of this memo and viewed it for the f first time. I was unaware of its existence to that time. I will not and am not prepared to comment further as to the appropriateness of the memo going out, as I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with my deputy who initiated it.

HON. MR. MAIR: Good letter.

MR. BARRETT: You've read the memo. Do you agree with that kind of memo? Yes or no? It's not a question of discussing it with your deputy. You run the show. You're the minister. Do you approve of that kind of memo? Yes or no? There's no need to discuss it with your deputy. Are you saying, by not answering, that you have to discuss it with him? Are you saying that in your mind there are organizations that civil servants can't belong to? All you have to do is stand up and say that free civil servants in a free society can belong to any organization, church or club that they want to. Can't you say that? or don't you know that that's okay? What is your policy about belonging to organizations? Mr. Minister, what is your policy? Let us hear in this House your own policy as to whether or not civil servants can belong to organizations other than ones approved by your ministry. Could you tell us that?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the memorandum does not instruct any civil servant that he cannot belong to an organization. It does not suggest that there are any organizations which they should not belong to. It does not threaten any action against a member of the civil service for belonging to any organization. It merely deals with the responsibility to keep separate their involvement with an organization of their choosing, in the community at large. Those materials and documents which may be, by instruction from their superiors, considered to be of a sensitive nature and in line with their oath of office must be treated as such. It makes no reference to requiring any member of the public service to withdraw from a public organization or any organization of their choosing in their role as a private citizen. I would just like to make that clear, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister's response is absolutely unacceptable to me. This letter is clearly coercive, threatening and intimidating. It raises the question specifically as to whether public servants can belong to organizations without possible conflicts. The only thing it does is fail to spell out precisely what those organizations would be. That becomes then a matter for the discretion of either the deputy minister and/or the minister. I would ask him what he would say if one belonged to the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. Would you consider that an inherent conflict of interest and would your big stick come into play, as is threatened and implied in this letter? What about environmental groups? There are conflicts between professional people in the environmental area and government policies from time to time. You were saying, in effect: "Beware if any of you remain true to your professional knowledge and expertise and background and have the audacity or temerity to question government policy -you will be jeopardizing your own employment."

I know that the analogy is excessive, but the Nuremberg trials were based on this kind of situation. I say the comparison is excessive, but the question is: at what point do professional people prostitute their teaching and their knowledge to support a government policy which they know is wrong? That's what's at stake in this particular directive. I think it's most unhealthy, and I'm ashamed that the minister won't get up and say, unequivocably: "I reject and repudiate this directive and I'm going to have it withdrawn." That's all that's required, Mr. Minister. By your defence we have to assume that you're a party to it and this is simply a reflection of the political heebee-jeebies that that government seems to have over there. They're so afraid of running away from everything, and they want to keep a mantle of secrecy over their public administration. I suppose the poor deputy minister was only reflecting your political policy. Shane on you, I say!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this document is perhaps the worst that has been seen in this jurisdiction. No such document has ever been

[ Page 933 ]

produced, even with that scandalous situation in Ottawa over the RCMP inquiry. It's a shocking document, and the minister has shocked this committee even more by not standing up immediately to repudiate it.

I should say, Mr. Chairman, just to remind the committee, that the RCMP would continue to be making illegal break-ins, eavesdropping, wiretapping....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the conduct of the RCMP is in no way related to the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm using it only in an analogous situation, to show why this document is so insidious.

The Canadian public would not know today of the illegal activities of the RCMP, the leading law-enforcement branch of the government of Canada, were it not for civil servants who would defy the government of the day. This document can only be used to cover up wrongdoing and slipshod government that had best be brought before this committee, this House and the public of British Columbia. It is motivated and designed to suppress the truth that only civil servants can come across when they serve a government. Serving a government, Mr. Chairman, doesn't mean the personalities who temporarily occupy executive council positions; it means serving the public of British Columbia. That's what it means.

I'm even more shocked that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) can say in this House from his chair.... He hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to stand up in committee and say, "I think it's a good letter, " but he shouted across: "It's a good letter." That's the most shameful statement I've ever heard in my life. A man who has been called to the bar to practise law in this province, a man who was elected to municipal government and now is on the executive council of this province, says it is a good letter.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're damn right it's a good letter.

The only time you're in order is when you rise uncovered.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I fail to see in any way what the remark made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and your reply to them, have to do with the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. Would you please relate that to the Chair?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.)

MR. LAUK: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. The question is a good one, and I will relate it, because I contend that this memorandum, together with the comment across the floor from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, clearly indicates a design and scheme by the entire government - not just a deputy minister - to suppress the civil service in this province, to disenable them from taking their proper place in public life, which is also what they take an oath to do.

HON. MR. MAIR: Bilge!

MR. LAUK: The minister again says "bilge!" He's an expert on that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: I should be. I've been listening to you for three years!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is an insidious document and, taken together with other actions of this government, should cause great concern with the public of this province -great concern about the freedoms of information emanating from government and civil service and the freedoms in the entire community. All we get is laughter and joking from the Premier and his cabinet on this very serious matter. I say, Mr. Chairman, it must be nervous laughter. Surely there is some vestige of responsibility, some conscience left in that government towards the people of this province. The Hydro scandals are supposed to be exposed in the newspapers. What are you afraid of? Why did the Minister of Finance refer it to a committee under strict reference ... ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again you're irrelevant insofar as it pertains to the vote we're under at this time now. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I again draw to this committee the importance of this document as a negative feature of this government in repressing freedom of information. Surely there is a time now, with the scandals that are rocking Ottawa and the scandals that rocked Victoria, that this government should take upon itself its responsibility to provide this access to information to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: They should be keen to provide this kind of information to the public of

[ Page 934 ]

British Columbia, not try to hide it, not try to cover it up. Whenever any major issue happens, this government either covers up or runs away, and the people of British Columbia are not being informed. And there is no sense throwing your hands up to the press gallery and saying: "Well, the fourth estate will take care of public information."

A tremendous opportunity to provide public information. They spent $90,000 to produce a propaganda rag for the province and they call that public information. When they've got a real opportunity to provide information through the civil service and through the ministries and the information services, a document like this travels around to suppress them. I suppose anybody getting the budget propaganda sheet from this government will have to read it within the context of this insidious memorandum, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. This afternoon on two or three occasions the Chairman has found it within his ken to call members to order when they're using analogies and/or when they were what the Chairman felt was getting off the particular mark. And, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Chairman is suppressing debate. I think it's an important debate and I think that leadership is what's needed in this House and to see to it that we get some....

HON. MR. MAIR: Shame! Attacking the Chair.

MR. COCKE: What do you mean! The same people who talked about "Not a dime without debate."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: If you don't like his ruling, challenge it.

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, challenge? I want to give the Chair an opportunity to hear this side of it, that's all. He listens to you all day over there with all your goofy remark from your seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On your point, hon. member, if you have an objection to a ruling from the Chair, the time to make that objection is at the time of the ruling.

MR. COCKE: You're not ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or for that matter, on my statement.

Just by way of clarification, analogies are appropriate until such time as the analogy is used to enter into a totally unrelated field or a field that can only be related by way of an analogy. It's at that bad level that the Chairman's discretion has to become involved because we get involved in great lengths of conversation and debate in this House that are totally irrelevant, but everything can be related to everything by way of analogy.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, standing orders say that Mr. Speaker must keep order during debate and rule. It also requires in the standing orders that he give citations. What we have heard is an opinion, with respect. I would ask that the Chair - and I'm not saying now; I'm just saying in the future -consider very carefully where we go when such things are more or less expressed as opinion when standing orders are very clear in requiring the citation of authorities when giving rulings. I'm a little bit alarmed because we are new, you know. Neither you nor I, Mr. Chairman, have been members of this House for 10 or 20 years. I would hope that rule be adhered to. It's very close to the front of standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And standing orders do specifically use the words "strictly relevant." I would imagine that if we were to hold to the words "strictly relevant, " we would be in order.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the member for New Westminster stood up a while ago on a point of order and suggested some corrections to the air conditioning system here, realizing that the member full of hot air from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was on his way. He arrived apparently too late to hear my remark to the House that this memorandum did not originate with any instructions from myself or any other elected or appointed official from the political level.

Mr. Chairman, upon hearing a complaint about this memorandum some two months later, I asked for and received a copy of it. I'm satisfied that this memorandum does not instruct that a member of the civil service shall not belong to a particular organization or, indeed, any organization of their choosing.

It calls upon them simply to consider in their good judgment the relationship that that bears to the handling of sensitive materials. That is precisely true, Mr. Chairman. It deals with the handling of sensitive information per se as being a subject which can be a subject for a dismissal.

MR. LAUK: That's right.

[ Page 935 ]

HON. MR. BAWLF: That is a memorandum and a statement initiated by a responsible, respected civil servant at his own judgment. It is one which is cause for reflection - I think legitimate reflection - among the public service. It is not an imposition from myself.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this is getting pretty complicated because now, I think, through the minister, we have to find out whether the government is going to in the future not require civil servants to take an oath of office. Is that what we're getting down to? Because they do take an oath and there is no need for this memorandum.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a reminder.

MR. LEA: Oh, a reminder - that they took an oath. What do you do, remind people that they haven't broken the law?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a memorandum aimed at the people in the civil service who may feel that they want to join an environmental group.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you get your documents from?

MR. LEA: The minister has publicly come out a couple of times and said he didn't like it that civil servants would say something against the government.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) has nothing better to do than yell about people's clothing. He would be better to stand in his place and talk about a memorandum, that is going out to the people who work for the civil service in this province - which is clearly a letter of threat - to make sure that they do not do a darned thing that might criticize this government. Is the minister afraid?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, would you call that minister to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor. If all other members would give him the courtesy of listening to his debate, we could proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is he going to start it?

HON. MR. MAIR: We'll give him the courtesy he gives us.

MR. LEA: Obviously this memorandum is a memorandum that is supposed to frighten people in the civil service into not joining clubs as they so desire. It's obviously that. Why? Is that minister afraid that the civil servants are going to leak to the media good programmes that the government has going? Is the minister and his government afraid that civil servants are going to tell what a nice guy he is and what a good government it is? Is the minister and his government afraid that the civil servant is going to go out into the community and talk about what a nice policy the government has? Obviously not. What this minister and this government are afraid of is that the civil service is going to go out and te-U the truth about what they see as errors in government. That's what it's all about.

The deputy minister wrote the memorandum. The minister said he didn't initiate it and didn't know that it went out. Fair enough. We'll take the minister's word for that; we should. But for the minister to then read the memorandum and say that he can't see anything wrong with it, that is doesn't put a scare into every civil servant out there, not to join environmental groups....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: What else? The United Church of Canada has taken some strong stands against government in the past. Is this memorandum aimed at people who want to have a church membership? Is that what it's about? Or is it just about any group that may criticize the government from time to time? It sure isn't a memorandum telling the civil service not to say nice things about the government. Common sense tells you that.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's telling them not to steal documents, that's what it's telling them to do.

MR. LEA: It's a memorandum aimed the civil service, telling them not to join any group which from time to time may have honest criticism about government and government policy; that's what it's all about.

The minister should stand up in his place and say: "I did not" - as he has said -"authorize the memorandum. I wasn't aware that the memorandum had gone out. I have just read

[ Page 936 ]

the memorandum and I'm going to revoke it. I'm going to speak with the deputy minister about the advisability of writing such a ran dum." But to stand in his place and say that it's a memorandum that isn't designed as a threat to the civil service is absolute folly.

The minister knows it; everyone in this House knows it - that that minister has now authorized a memorandum to go out to the civil service which is a threatening memorandum, telling them not to join church groups if they take exception to government, not to join environmental groups if they take exception to government, in fact, to join no group except Social Credit. It's getting so that that's the only group in this province which doesn't take exception to this government.

HON. MR. HAIR: Don't steal memos - that's what it says.

MR. LEA: You should hire staff that don't hand them out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to turn to a different subject, and, I must say, I turn with some degree of concern, because this afternoon we have evidenced the difficulty in getting any straight answers from this minister.

The question I specifically want to ask is in relation to the shellfish industry. The minister has made some statements on the floor of the House regarding what could be called an error in the budget speech, which indicated that $2 million would be allocated to the shellfish industry. I understand from the minister in discussion that that is incorrect, that there is not $2 million being allocated to the shellfish industry. For my edification and for the edification of the people in the shellfish industry, who are very much concerned, can the minister tell me tonight how much money is allocated to the shellfish industry? I would like an answer to that before I proceed with my remarks.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'm going to be a few minutes here.

MRS. WALLACE: You do not have the figures.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I've got them here, but I have to look them up.

MRS. WALLACE: Okay. While the minister is looking for the figures, I want to carry on a bit about my concerns over the shellfish industry. As the minister is aware I'm very sure, there are very limited amounts of foreshore area that are suitable for oyster culture, and those are being alienated acre by acre, lot by lot. It's a type of culture that can only take place in very specific areas. You have the figures now?

HON. MR. BAWLF: You went through all this before.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I haven't talked about shellfish on the floor of this House.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Sure you have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are mistaken, I believe it is the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who canvassed this subject before. But the subject has been canvassed.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh, I see - same research, different speakers.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I want to talk specifically about the Ladysmith harbour, and I do not think that the member for Comox talked about the Ladysmith harbour. The Ladysmith harbour is the one area in British Columbia that is a seed producer. It's the area that can produce seed for the oysters throughout the Gulf Islands. There's a very specific quality to the water there. The temperature, the whole makeup of that harbour is specifically related to seed culture. And we have going on in that harbour at the present time a study on top of a study on top of another study, trying to decide how the harbour waters are to be allocated.

I sat in very recently - last week, in fact - on a meeting that was designed to review a plan that had been presented by the forest industry. Now if you will recall, Mr. Minister, some two and a half years ago a report was brought in by John Secter which made certain recommendations for that harbour. Those recommendations seem to have fallen very sadly by the wayside. What we have instead is a committee - an advisory management committee for Ladysmith harbour. This committee has been appointed and it has been instructed that it must operate by consensus. Now that means unanimity, Mr. Chairman. What has happened there is that, in a committee of six, two members of that committee have stopped any recommendations from going forward. We have found that the logging interests have not only disagreed with keeping the present amount of log storage, but they want to increase the leases for log storage that are presently

[ Page 937 ]

available in Ladysmith harbour. We're having a move to increase the log storage, which will be detrimental to that seed-producing area in Ladysmith harbour.

There are other problems there - pollution from sewers, from the marinas. Those groups are prepared to go along, to move to correct, but there seem-q to be no compromise from the logging industry there.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is relative to this minister's responsibility for the shellfish industry because there is a very serious problem there. It seems to be a chipping process, where one by one the lot leases f or oyster culture are eradicated. The committee that's been set up to recommend on this - not the advisory committee but a committee of civil servants that are making recommendations to the advisory committee - recommends that the oyster lots, one by one, be removed for various reasons. They are in the middle of an area where they want log storage or they are in an area where they haven't been able to produce for some time because of other forms of pollution.

I suggest to this minister, Mr. Chairman, that it is his responsibility as the minister responsible for shellfish production in this province to take a firm stand to ensure that Ladysmith harbour with its seed-producing facilities there is maintained, at least in its current status, with the number of acres that are presently allocated to oyster production. Hopefully it should be enlarged because if we are going to have a thriving oyster. industry in British Columbia, we must have that Ladysmith harbour as a seed area. Without it we're going to be in the kind of costs that are prohibitive to try and get the seed oysters that are required here in British Columbia. It's a vital industry.

I wish the minister had come up with the figures because I understand that it's something like $65,000 rather than $2 million that is allocated to oyster production - oysters and clams and the standard type of shellfish that we consider as industrial products at the present time. Now that's a very minimal amount for an industry that is in such dire straits as the oyster industry here is, particularly in the Ladysmith harbour with the long-lasting confrontation that has been going on there. I'm not relating this simply to the logging industry and neither does anyone else. There are other problems there. There is the city fallout and there are the marinas. Those things can be resolved because those groups are prepared to move and to co-operate. The problem is that the forest industry is adamant in saying that we must have all the storage we have in the harbour and we must have some more, rather than trying to reduce and curtail.

There's one company there, in fact, that has done that and I give them credit. They're getting out of the harbour fairly well with their log sort. They've put in dry land sorts. They're removing themselves from the harbour.

A great many of the logs that come into that harbour are transient logs; they're just passing through. I know there are problems of grading and so on but we must find those logs and only use that harbour for the logs that are used within that harbour for commercial and industrial purposes, rather than bringing great booms of logs in there, sorting them, with the bark fallout and all the resultant things. That harbour is so clogged that if you were to sail in there with your yacht, Mr. Chairman, you would have difficulty finding access to the marina through the log booms. There are so many booms of logs in there that it is very difficult to get through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I wouldn't like you to leave Hansard or anyone in the gallery the impression the Chairman has a yacht.

MRS. WALLACE: That, Mr. Chairman, is an analogy too.

But that's the problem that's in the Ladysmith harbour and I suggest that this minister has been a bit remiss in his duties. It's been handled much more by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . This minister has a very great interest in that harbour in the industry of the shellfish because that is the heart of the shellfish industry in British Columbia.

I would like the minister to get up and tell this House that he is prepared to stand up and take the necessary moves to ensure that the shellfish industry is protected in Ladysmith harbour because of the specific desire and need for a seed industry which is so special to that harbour area.

MR. LEVI: I don't have any sheep, ungulates or estuaries in my riding, but what we do have is a lot of bookstores. I want to talk to the minister for a minute and get in some questions about the book publishing business, because his manager of his Cultural Fund was recently at the book publishers' convention in February of this year.

While he was there, he made some remarks in answer to some of the problems that have been asked about the book publishing industry. I might also say that your department does give $16,000 in a grant through the cultural grant.

[ Page 938 ]

The minister looks a little bemused. I know you've got all your ferry people here. I guess you don't have anybody there who can deal with books, though.

Part of the impact of the conference was dealing with the state of the industry, and one of the questions that was raised was the difficulty the industry itself was having in respect to getting some loans from the BCDC. Now what I want to ask the minister is this: has he had a report f rom Mr. Fielding, who is the director of the Cultural Fund, regarding the concerns that were expressed at that convention and the difficulty that the industry has been having? It's a $4 million Industry in this province, the book publishing industry, and one of the problems they expressed was that they need access to be able to borrow something like a million dollars. They've had discussions with BCDC, but those things haven't come to fruition at all, partly because of their terms of reference.

During the course of his remarks, Mr. Fielding indicated that there is a report that the government did in respect to a recommendation in the report that the government get out of the publishing business. Now he made mention of the report. It's actually quoted in the Sun of February 3:

"Mr. Field said the government was studying the report which recommended that it get out of the publishing field. This was in answer to a question by Mr. David Kerfoot, who was saying that while the government is not prepared to get involved in supporting the book publishing industry, it made great moves, and one of the statements made by Fielding was that the government had indicated that it should pull back from being involved in the private sector." Perhaps the minister would inform us about this report. If he's aware of the report, who did it? Perhaps he could comment on the recommendation. I see the minister is a little bit puzzled by that. I guess he's not aware of it.

Now fortunately, because of the way the government views the book publishing industry, I can have two more goes at this, one under the British Columbia Development Corporation, and I can even get into the Ministry of Travel Industry apparently, because all three departments were represented at the publishing industry.

Let me just perhaps bring this to a close by asking the minister if he is aware of such a report which recommends that the government get out of the publishing industry. Perhaps he might indicate that.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the report which the member describes. I can say that we have examined the problems, of the industry as they relate to British Columbia authors and poets and so forth, and particularly those concerned with British Columbia content in their work, but I'm not familiar with the particular report he mentions.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was concerned about shellfish management and development. The amount devoted to that is expected to be in the order. of $300,000 over and above the regular sums in the estimates for this aspect of marine resources.

In addition, she commented on the problems of oyster seed, vis-à-vis Ladysmith harbour. I would like to say that far and away the most productive area for oyster seed collection in British Columbia is Pendrell Sound. Pendrell Sound has been the principal concern of the oyster processors and oyster producers association. They have not indicated their concern with Ladysmith harbour in my meetings with them, representing the whole industry, but we have assisted and are assisting this year, by way of both grants and loans, the seed harvest in Pendrell Sound. There are significant advantages to it being concentrated in one location in terms of the economies of setting up to do the job. That's not to say that Ladysmith harbour has no value in general in this question of shellfish management, but I think Mr. Chairman will recognize that the question of resolving resource conflicts, once again, rests with the Ministry of the Environment. We have had the opportunity of considerable input on this subject over the years and, further to that, are co-operating with the Ministry of the Environment in the development of a concept for coastal zone management on which further work will proceed this year, with a view to the need to safeguard these coastal areas as important rearing grounds for various marine resources.

MRS. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, in relation to the $300,000 that he speaks of: is that strictly for industrial types of shellfish production that is now in production, . or does that include a research study on geoducks? If so, how much of that is for the research on geoducks?

While he's looking for that, I would just like to ask him whether or not he is convinced that the oyster seeding in Pendrell Sound will do the whole coast. Will it come down to the

[ Page 939 ]

south end? Will it cover the whole coast?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the breakdown which would deal with geoducks, except to say that it would be a minor portion. It is an all-inclusive figure - a minor portion of that for geoduck work. Pendrell Sound is ample to stock the oyster industry for the whole province several years running, if we could bank that seed in any one year.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to ask the minister to comment on his ministry's approval of the policy with reference to the spawning steelhead salmon, where you have apparently approved the catch-and-release of these spawning salmon. I know this is done with other fish, but I think any approval of this is very questionable with the steelhead spawning salmon.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not salmon.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, what are they?

HON. MR. MAIR: They're rainbow trout.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, whatever. They're trout. (Laughter.) Yes, I may be a city girl again and don't have too much to do with fishing, but I do know that this catch and release of any fish, as far as I'm concerned, is a pretty cruel method, particularly if they're going to allow it to happen with spawning fish. Trout, Mr. Minister of Consumer Affairs.

I wonder if the minister happened to have seen a recent article in the Sun where a member of one of the game clubs who's a fisherman himself said this to these fishermen who were allowed to do this by your ministry:

"If you guys saw a bunch of kids stoning those steelhead, you'd stop them and you'd report them right away. But you're really worse than these kids because you're intentionally harassing those spawning fish by catching them with flies. You're getting your kicks out of torturing them, and yet you boast then about catching and releasing them."

Now, Mr. Chairman I know that across the floor they consider this very humorous because they caught me in not knowing my species of fish, but I hope I'm getting across the message that the minister's own department approves the catch-and-release policy on spawning fish.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Would you read the whole article?

MRS. DAILLY: The whole article is right here.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, would you read it?

MRS. DAILLY: I know you've read it - I hope, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, I know you haven't because you've skipped the end part.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you want me to read the part where he condemns your whole ministry, suggesting that perhaps it's under the influence of one major sports fishing organization which apparently chooses to go the catch-and-release method instead of using some of the new, up-to-date American methods, Mr. Minister, which have been proven, like the net ponding policy of hatching trout? Why aren't we doing this? Why do we have to resort to this primitive catch-and-release system?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Would you like to let me see that article?

MRS. DAILLY: I'm quoting Mike Cram and.

HON. MR. BAWLF: May I see the article?

MRS. DAILLY: I'd be glad to send it over to you. It was in The Province. I didn't get the date an it. It was, I think, over the weekend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. members, we could come back to normal procedure in committee.

MRS. DAILLY: Basically, what I'm asking the minister is: why are you allowing this on the spawning fish of B.C. when even men who fish admit that this must really create a great strain, even on the hardy steelhead? I wonder if you'd give me some reaction to this.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, I'd like to tell the member for Burnaby North, Mr. Chairman, that it causes an even greater strain on the fish when they're caught and killed. Indeed, in some instances it creates a strain on the resource, particularly where steelhead are concerned where there's a depletion in their numbers in some instances. Quite simply, what we have done is maintained a recreational opportunity to fish but required that the fish not be taken, but rather put back in the water. That's what a catch-and-release programme represents, to remove the ultimate

[ Page 940 ]

strain of killing the fish on both the fish and the resource generally.

MRS. DAILLY: I know you want to get on with these estimates, but may I say that answer isn't at all satisfactory? The point is you want to save - we all want to save - our steelhead. We want to ensure that they can spawn. Yet you simply stand up and refer to the ultimate thing as death. We want to save our spawning fish, and I'm suggesting to you that if you allow this practice to go on, you're not going to save them.

Vote 230 approved.

Vote 231: general administration, $1,294, 013 - approved.

Vote 232: information and education, $495,024 - approved.

On vote 233: marine resources branch, $551,430.

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to ask the minister's assurance that the amount noted in here for shellfish of $193,251 is over and above the amounts that we were referring to earlier in the discussions.

HON. MR. BAWLF: If she's referring to our regular estimates, that is correct.

Vote 233 approved.*

Vote 234: salmonid enhancement programme, $2,064, 800 - approved.

On vote 235: fish and wildlife branch, $10,323, 445.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister last week if he would give a breakdown of the revenue of the fish and wildlife branch. He did give me a total figure, but I asked the minister at that time for a breakdown on revenues from resident hunting licences, resident species revenues - that is from tags, non-resident, both tags and licences. I wanted to know the number of issues of both licences and tags and I also wanted the same information for the fisheries division - that is the freshwater - where there are also resident and non-resident licences and there are also some trophy licences issued as respect steelhead and Kootenay Lake rainbow trout.

I believe that the branch has in the past had this material prepared for the minister for his estimates and it should be readily available. I'm quite aware of this preparation for the years 1974-75. So I'd like then, Mr. Chairman, to know the number of each issued -I think there are really six basic classifications - and I would like to know the revenue from those for last year, and I'd like to know the estimated revenues for this year. To my knowledge, that has been reasonably common practice to have that information readily at hand during estimates.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to provide a copy of everything that I have here in regard to revenues, but I cannot give him that breakdown. I do not have that information. My officials advise me they don't have it with them.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'd certainly accept an undertaking of the minister to supply that at some later date, not too distant.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes.

Vote 235 approved.

On vote 236: federal and other agency programs, $1,559, 956.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the federal government co-operates with the provincial government on a great number of things, particularly waterfowl programmes. The next vote is one of those, but in a more general way there have been other programmes take place for enhancement of such areas as Bummer flats and such in the East Kootenay. Also there is a huge wetland area which is under the threat of the effect of the proposed Kootenay diversion. I'd like to know what work is being done in the Columbia wetlands which, I understand, are over 5,000 acres in their extent and are certainly more than three times as large as the Creston Valley wildlife management area. What work has been done recently? And is there any work being done this year and is there any study taking place under the department in order to provide B.C. Hydro with information on some of the environmental impacts of the proposed Kootenay River diversion?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro have not come forward with a specific proposal in regard to a wish to proceed with the Kootenay diversion. Quite simply, the position of the branch is well established that there is a serious concern about that area. We're maintaining a kind of [illegible] brief, if you like, in the meantime. There are no changes taking place of significance. That essentially

[ Page 941 ]

is in the hands of the fish and wildlife branch in a monitoring way.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the first discussion paper for proposals for the Kootenay diversion by Hydro was made available several months ago, and we've already passed the date at which a second report, which was to be more detailed and aim toward environmental implications, was to be released. But even in that first report there are, I believe, about eight different alternatives spelled out, different ways of doing these things. Mention is made in that report of some of these areas. As both the federal and provincial governments have great interest in this, I am surprised that since B.C. Hydro is supposed to be preparing an environmental report to follow up on their first one, the ministry has not been asked to provide some of this information. Where is B.C. Hydro getting this information if not from the federal and provincial agencies that specialize in this area of waterfowl?

Well, the minister is still being briefed. Mr. Chairman, this area is the largest waterfowl rearing area - at least for one species of waterfowl - south of the 60th parallel. While larger and more important areas exist in the Northwest Territories, this one area surpasses anything one might expect to find, perhaps, even in northern Saskatchewan. So it's rather surprising to me.

I would like to know if the federal and provincial governments are doing anything in this area in terms of research or development or improvement.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was being done by our habitat protection section and we are indeed studying the proposals.

Vote 236 approved.

On vote 237: Creston Valley Wildlife Management, $129,750.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to express the gratitude of a lot of people that the minister has appointed Mr. Frank Shannon in the past year to f ill the third position and %hat was, up until this time, the vacant post for a private citizen on the three-man governing board of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority.

I note that once again the expenditure for this vote remains at a constant figure. Back in 1975 the figure was about $143,000. 1 have raised this with the minister and he has responded that quite rightly, as a lot of private agencies make donations to this, there is a great deal being spent in the area, and indeed maybe more is being spent.

However, agencies such as Ducks Unlimited earmark their donations for capital expenditure. It would appear as if salaries have been frozen during this period. I for one have been quite critical of some of the lack of direction that management had and directions in which they went, and I have made these things known to the minister. I think a great deal of that has been rectified, especially by the appointment of Mr. Shannon, but I certainly am not that critical that I feel things should be frozen in such a manner.

There has been a tremendous increase in costs of many kinds, even travel expenses, office expenses, materials and supplies. These are not for capital, these are for operating. Operating has been first of all somewhat reduced - or let's say just frozen - for about the last three budgets. I just can't see why our donation.... Is the federal government picking up the other portion of this 50-50, or are they paying more?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, as I remarked earlier in my estimates, Ducks Unlimited is putting a substantial effort into this area, which is helping to pick up the burden of increased attention to it. The salaries which are mentioned are of a temporary and seasonal nature and are being supplemented more than adequately by the works that Ducks Unlimited is undertaking as new initiative.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm not debating the contribution being made by Ducks Unlimited, but that is to capital. These things in the vote are certainly staying static and these relate to operating expenses or continuing and ongoing expenses. It should be noted that they have not been increased now for about three years and I think that this is an area that should be looked into. It, of course, is an area which is maybe easily forgotten. It's a little bit of an anomaly in the vote in that this applies to one particular geographic area in the Creston Valley. It was the subject of a separate piece of legislation back in the '60s. I would ask that the minister look into this and see if some increase would not be justified, because I wouldn't want to see this come before the House in another year at this same level. It might be quite possible that there is some increase due in this vote.

Vote 237 approved.

On vote 238: parks management, $16,346, 619.

[ Page 942 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I notice that this vote covers the historic parks at Barkerville and Fort Steele. I wonder if the minister could tell the House how much is allocated to each of those two areas, and also whether or not there are any offsetting returns from the operation of those parks. If not, if it's simply acting as a subsidy to the concerns that are operating ventures in those two areas, on what basis does he allocate the concessions in those parks? Is it put out to bid? How does he go about deciding who shall be allowed in that park? It's a three-part question.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the cost of operating those parks is partly recovered through revenues, the sum being approximately $173,000 this year.

MS. SANFORD: I have one very brief question under this vote, Mr. Chairman, and that relates to park development in the northern part of the constituency, particularly as it relates to camping areas and camping facilities. The minister may be aware that by the end of this year the road to the north end of the Island will be complete to gravel stage and will be paved, hopefully, next year. The people in the north end of the Island do expect a great influx of people as a result of the completion of that highway. At the moment there are no parks up there that have camping facilities, and I'm wondering if, under this vote, the minister anticipates that something will be done through the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation to rectify that. The only camping facilities up there now are those provided by private companies or, in one case, by the Regional District of Mount Waddington.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the question of facilities for this area has been examined , but there are no specific works planned for this summer.

MR. NICOLSON: Back in 1974, a couple of students did a park study throughout the province. They went around the boundaries of parks like Tweedsmuir Park, Kokanee Glacier Park and others, and looked into the recreational value of properties lying outside of park boundaries. I'm sure that the minister is not aware of the study, but I would ask if the minister would consider tabling that study as it's been in the ministry for some time. I think that it would be very useful, particularly to environmental groups, in terms of coming up with some constructive alternatives where resource conflicts are creating a very difficult, and sometimes emotionally charged situation. It might indeed point toward areas that have been identified as having a very high recreational value, and look toward the expansion of some park boundaries in directions where there may not be such conflicting interests as established mining claims and other pre-emptions of the property which put people into a very difficult situation, and where we're faced with issues like mining in parks, claims in parks, and extinguishing of claims in parks. I think that groups such as the Sierra Club, West Kootenay Outdoorsmen, mountaineering clubs and so on might be able to dig into this information and come up with some very helpful and viable alternatives that are well thought out, rather than just getting into what appears to be a no-growth kind of an appeal, because they don't have the information.

I'd just like to say to the minister that with student summer employment coming up too, I speak up for parks, and maybe continuance of this type of work, and maybe it can be carried on in f further years. I was aware of it, Mr. Chairman, because I was camping in a high alpine area. It happened to be a day when we were getting hail and snow in the middle of July. There was a quarter of an inch of ice in our billy can in the morning when we woke up, and these two students came in. They were graduate students, and they did one heck of a job in very adverse conditions. They did this all summer long. I think that their report must certainly have been very much of interest. I would welcome a commitment from the minister to perhaps make that study available and I would be curious about it if for no other reason than that. I understand it covers many of the parks in the province. Perhaps the minister would indicate if he would make that available.

HON* MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of Q specific studies mentioned. I am aware that there have been a number of studies of boundary adjustments and that the parks branch has reviewed possible proposals for adjustments both inside and outside existing boundaries. I'll look into the question the member raised.

MR. NICOLSON: One other thing, and I think that this probably did have the attention of the minister, because it certainly falls into an area in which he'd be very interested. It's my understanding that last year the presentation which is put on at Fort Steele was not successful and that the Fort Steele show depends upon the attendance of people from Cranbrook and the local area coming out. It's a

[ Page 943 ]

very valuable thing for tourists, but in order that attendance figures can offset the costs, it has to offer the kind of variety that will also bring an audience out from Cranbrook, and maybe Kimberley. I'm not laying any blame as to what happened last year, but as a result of this I understand that the ministry advertised f or a new show this year, and that several drama groups, or several performers in the Vancouver area and maybe in other parts of the province, made proposals.

I understand that some very professional groups such as people who have had experience in Barkerville and up in the Yukon in similar types of shows and who have done Klondike Days in Edmonton did apply. These are groups which are professional and whose agents have registered offices. They have been in business for some time and have a proven track record.

It's my information that the show was awarded to a firm based in Alberta, and that there was no such person listed in the telephone directory under the name of their agent or their production company. I would ask the minister why, when we have B.C. people out of work and Alberta has one of the lower unemployment records, an Alberta firm - which I believe to be the case - was hired over the B.C. people with a proven record.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, such a recommendation has come forward to me from the parks branch and I have held it up, pending answers to the same questions.

MR. NICOLSON: One other area of concern in parks is the Manning Park complex. I would ask the minister if there have been any studies commissioned by either the department or by outside consultants pertaining to the opera tion of Manning Park Lodge, the lifts, the restaurant and everything else in the whole complex. Have any studies been commissioned concerning ongoing problem ? I believe that on the books we continue to subsidize. Perhaps the minister could answer that. Will there be a subsidy to the Manning Park complex this year or will it be paying its own way? Have any special studies been done in the last year or two concerning that?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, a study was commissioned and received from management consultants looking into the questions of operation of both the lodge and the food services at Manning Park. Recommendations contained in that study were substantially proceeded with, resulting in a recent period of operation of a significant reduction in the net cost of operating that facility.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for that response. Would the minister tell us who did the study and would he be willing now to table it with the House?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, it's Ross and Associates and I'd be willing to make the study available to the member, if he's that interested.

Vote 238 approved.

Vote 239: parks capital, $4,500, 000 -approved.

Vote 240: land acquisition - national and provincial parks, $1,858, 000 - approved.

On vote 241: youth crew, $1,000, 000.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I had a specific request from the Nelson Rod and Gun Club last year that they be allowed to develop a youth programme in order to give to young people, largely junior members of the club, some meaningful work which is commensurate with the aims and objectives of conservation.

I'd like the minister to respond as to whether or not such outside guidance and initiative - indeed the sponsor of the club is a public civil servant, but in the Ministry of Forestry, not in the minister's ministry.... Would they entertain a proposal from a rod and gun club to put on such a programme, so that they could give these people who come - you know, one of their major activities through the normal year is maybe to go to the indoor rifle range and shoot 22s or something like that - a more holistic approach to the concept of conservation than what they can find in the building of a local rod and gun club? So would it be possible, under this vote, to see some local initiative and some local volunteer energies tapped in the designing of specific programmes to encompass these objectives?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The expenditures under the youth-crew programme have already been scheduled in detail for the coming fiscal period; there is no room there.

I would suggest that if it's a project that the member is speaking of which can be classified as a one-time capital work involving youth in some physical effort to improve, to conserve in the area of conservation, then that would possibly qualify under the Public Conservation Assistance Fund of my ministry.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response. I did write to one of the people in

[ Page 944 ]

the branch concerning this request and it was suggested to me that it would be coming up next year. I got into a bit of a Catch-22 situation on this. So based on the minister's encouragement I will see to it that the rod and gun club is informed and encouraged to take this initiative.

MR. LEA: It's along the same line but I think it meets the criteria that the minister has said there should be in order to have it qualify. First of all, let me give you some background, Mr. Chairman.

The road between Terrace and Prince Rupert, in some specific areas by design and in others by happenstance, has had ramps down to the Skeena River that people have used over the years to put their boats in the river to go fishing. Most of the boat ramps in the area between Terrace and Prince Rupert over the last seven to eight years there has been relocation of the highway have been done away with because of the relocation of the highway. The way the highway has been constructed, there hasn't been allowance to have these boat ramps at specific areas left so that people from both Terrace and Prince Rupert can get their boats into the river. I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) would join me in asking that the minister look at his department in conjunction with the Ministry of Highways. I'm sure that it wouldn't take very much money but there could be some volunteer help or some help through this programme to put boat ramps and have access to the Skeena River between Terrace and Prince Rupert.

I wonder if the minister would take this up with the Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes.

Vote 241 approved.

On vote 242: heritage conservation branch, $1,477, 331.

MR. BARBER: First of all, I would like to go on record as congratulating the minister for the really first-rate job that he's doing in the restoration of the Crystal Gardens. I had the opportunity to look recently at some of the work that is continuing. I have had an opportunity, as well, to review the plans.

As the minister may be aware, I am a member of the board of the Crystal Heritage Preservation Society, the group that put out the book. Having swum there and learned to swim there like a lot of other native Victorians, I particularly appreciate the saving and restoration of that building.

So I want to make it very clear that I think the minister in this regard has done an excellent job and I look forward to the opening of the building. He deserves a lot of credit for it and I hope he gets it. The architects are very talented and they were well chosen as well. It's a good combination. I think the Crystal will be a splendid asset to the people of Victoria. You've done a good job.

Is it the case continuingly that it is the British Columbia Buildings Corporation that is providing the bulk of the funds for the Crystal? Is that the case still?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The project is being undertaken under the Provincial Capital Commission in co-operation with the Buildings Corporation. That is correct.

MR. BARBER: I understand that the Buildings Corporation is providing the bulk of the funds for the actual restoration of the building.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Do you have a figure on that? Could you tell us roughly how much the commission has invested and roughly how much the Buildings Corporation has?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The total budget is $2 million, Mr. Chairman, that will be accounted for ultimately, we expect, through the Buildings Corporation.

MR. BARBER: As the minister is well aware, the Hallmark Society in Victoria is concerned at the moment regarding two buildings just around the corner here on Belleville, at 321 and 327 Belleville. The concern of the city, as I understand it from recent conversations, is that were they to designate these buildings as heritage, the owners of them could have recourse in the courts to a suit for the value allegedly lost by having those buildings declared heritage and preserved. The fact of that site not being made available for apartment or other more profitable development would mean that they would have access through the courts to some kind of successful suit against the city.

In particular, the city is concerned about section 11 (4) and (5) of the minister's Heritage Conservation Act. The questions that I should like to put to the minister now largely centre around (a) an interpretation of that Act and (b) the willingness of the government, if any, to indemnify this city or any other that may choose to designate parti

[ Page 945 ]

cularly valuable heritage buildings only to discover later on that they are liable in court for proceedings against them because of the alleged devaluation of the buildings themselves. So referring particularly then to section 11 (4) and (5) , which permits municipal councils to make payments to the owners of these buildings in some compensatory way, could the minister indicate whether or not he himself, through the trust, is interested at all in designating these two buildings on Belleville? If not, which is a f air enough reply, will the city, in the minister's opinion, be protected from suit if they should choose to designate these two buildings?

Thirdly, and most importantly, from the view of the city, if under the minister's Act the city declares these buildings heritage and is then sued by the owners of the buildings because of allegedly faulty wording in the Act, would the minister or the trust fund agree to indemnify the city for such losses as may be incurred in court were the suit to succeed? These are, for the city, of course, extremely important questions. I may suggest amendments to the Act, but 1 won't do that here because that's out of order.

I would appreciate, however, the minister's comments about designation and about whether or not the city would be protected f rom suit in your judgment. If sued, would the minister, through the fund, be prepared to indemnify the city for the losses they would incur?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not the province would choose to designate is upon the advice of the provincial heritage advisory board, which does not show that inclination at this time.

It was the express consideration, given in the writing of that legislation and in the debate in this House last year, that a municipal council should not be essentially able to designate, possibly with negative economic impact upon a private owner, and then, with impunity, judge for itself what compensation might be in order and be harmless from any action in the courts. That would be counter to a reasonable system of justice, natural and otherwise. I would j-just say that the provision of the Act which can be utilized here is the purchase of a covenant or an easement which allows them to negotiate before the fact, rather than suffer the consequences of designation and then negotiation through the courts, if you like.

The last point is: no, we will not indemnify through the trust any and all designations by municipalities across the province.

MR. BARBER: Only two members in this House at the moment are under the very same pressure, each of us from our own sides, to let the vote go through. I understand. One more question.

Is there any provision at all in the f funds that we are shortly to award for indemnification of any sort for any cause? Or is indemnification, as a principle, something that the minister is not prepared to support in regard to those decisions that would be made by local government to declare as heritage a site or building in the province?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to undertake any blanket indemnification.

Vote 242 approved.

Vote 243: recreation and fitness branch, $2,333, 953 - approved.

On vote 244: recreation facilities grants, $7,000, 000.

MS. SANFORD: I've asked this question a number of times, and if the minister answered when I was out of the House, I apologize. But I wanted to know how much money is now applied for under this particular public facilities. Were you able to find that information? I know that there are a large number of applications on file. How much money does that represent?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I've answered that at great length. If the member will consult the Blues she will find a satisfactory explanation there.

Vote 244 approved.

Vote 245: grants-in-aid of regional park development, $1,080, 000 - approved.

Vote 246: cultural services branch, $421,299 - approved.

On vote 247: library services branch, $4,436, 193.

MR. NICOLSON: Just a very quick comment, Mr. Chairman. There is an item in this vote for a bookmobile operator. Bookmobile service has been withdrawn from most parts of the rural province. There is no longer an open-shelf library available to private individuals in rural area of the province. The minister has promised to get on with it in this area, and I urge him to do it very quickly because we have

[ Page 946 ]

less service than we had two years ago.

Vote 247 approved.

Vote 248: Provincial Capital Commission, $579,796 - approved.

Vote 249: building occupancy charges, $3,390, 270 - approved.

Vote 250: computer and consulting charges, $342,000 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.