[ Page 8427 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. King –– 8427

Use of government aircraft. Hon. Mr. Fraser replies –– 8428

Wildlife Act (Bill 55). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8429

Mr. Nicolson –– 8430

Mr. Ritchie –– 8431

Mrs. Wallace –– 8432

Mr. Kempf –– 8433

Mr. Howard –– 8435

Mr. Hanson –– 8437

Ms. Sanford –– 8438

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8438

Division –– 8439

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 8439

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Passarell

Appendix –– 8448

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are representatives of the Elk Valley Coal Producers Association. They are: Jerry Joynt, director of public affairs for Fording Coal; Mr. Gary Duke, vice-president of government relations for B.C. Coal; Mr. Kent O'Connor, public affairs director for Esso Resources, Byron Creek Collieries; and Mr. Charlie Vermeeren, manager of public affairs for Crows Nest Resources. I'd like you to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

Also in the gallery today is Mr. Tyrone Colgur, Mayor of the key city of the east Kootenays. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome this afternoon as well.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. Merril Turpin and Gordon Veitch, who are representatives from the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association. They are in Victoria today to meet with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich.) I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today: Jim and Sonya Buchanan from Lusaka in Zambia. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Premier was recorded in Hansard on April 3, 1978, as follows:

I was advised last weekend of an investigation touching upon the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Accordingly, at the first opportunity, I met with the member. Under these circumstances I requested the resignation of the member from the executive council. This action is not a prejudgment of the matter by me, nor is it to be taken as an admission of any matter by the member.

In light of that statement and the resignation of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I'd like to point out that the Premier has been asked on three separate occasions what the difference is between the circumstances surrounding the member for North Vancouver–Seymour in 1978 and those matters surrounding the investigation by the police of the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken this question as notice. There is a difference. I would say that at that time, in the case of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I was advised by the Attorney-General of the province that an investigation had been taking place for some time — without my knowledge, I might add. He provided certain information to me that made it necessary for me to interview the member for North Vancouver–Seymour in my office. The result of that conversation was that the member tendered his resignation.

In the case of the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I have not had such a conversation with the present Attorney-General concerning that minister. However, when I became aware of rumours in the building, I had a conversation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the result of which was different than the conversation I had previously. Eventually, because of statements made concerning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it was my advice that the appropriate way to deal with those matters was to refer them to the auditor-general without prejudicing the position of the legislative committee on public accounts to undertake its traditional responsibility. Those are the differences.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, I take it from the Premier's response that the reference was made to the auditor-general on the Premier's advice then.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't presume anything.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 1978, the Premier made another statement relating to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, wherein he said that he in no way presumed to prejudge the case with respect to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Is it not a fact that the Premier is now prejudging the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is under police investigation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. If there's any prejudging, it is happening in other quarters. What I have suggested is that the result of discussions held was that the matter was put before the auditor-general. I, along with all members of this House, I expect, look for the auditor-general's report.

MR. KING: As far as I know, the auditor-general's report in no way affects, supersedes or impinges upon a police investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is now debating. Please proceed to the question.

MR. KING: No, I'm prefacing a further question, if I might, Mr. Speaker. Why, when the Premier outlined clearly the acceptable terms for membership in the executive council as being free from any police investigation, has he changed those terms with respect to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've tried to explain to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that in two major areas the matters are different. I also advised the member that an appropriate investigation to clear up the matter on behalf of the member, as well as the public and this chamber, is being undertaken by the person responsible to this Legislature, not to the government, and that is the auditor-general. As in any other case, I have not prejudged it. I think, on the basis of the information that I've given the member, he can clearly see the distinction if he wishes to.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has commissioned a reference through his criminal investigation branch, and subsequently to the police, and I don't think the Attorney-General's action could be construed as prejudging the case. I would like to ask the Premier if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discussed with him at any

[ Page 8428 ]

time the decision to refund to the government certain moneys that related to his expenses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, I want to clear up the first part of that statement by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, because it has a disturbing inference. Number one: the Attorney-General, as a result of any investigation concerning any member of this Legislature — which could be one or all — has not sought my counsel; neither has he come to me with information and advice that would lead me to take any action or discussion that was taken in the same context by information being brought to me by the former Attorney-General.

MR. KING: I'll leave the conflict between the Premier's statements of '78 and the current ones to him.

Can the Premier tell the House why, after the announcement of the police investigation by his Attorney-General, he announced publicly that no police investigation was necessary, if he did not seek to prejudge?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I didn't make an announcement; I made a response to a question. As a member of this House, I have confidence in the mechanisms of this House to deal with matters which, from the newspaper accounts, deal with procedures — and from the statements of the opposition of what they term extravagance. Not only do I have confidence in this House to deal with its own matters, but I also have confidence in the area in which it was placed for a thorough third-party investigation — that is, the auditor-general. It was my view — as a member of this House and having confidence both in the auditor-general and in the public accounts committee — that such a matter could be reviewed there. If you want to speculate — without using this particular case as an example — on any case in which such a discussion and such an investigation took place, if there were further actions to be taken, I presume it would go beyond a matter of practice. I presume it would take place after such a report was made available.

MR. KING: Is the Premier seriously suggesting that a procedure of the Legislature should override the independent course of justice in this province, and the opinion of the Attorney-General that a matter was of such serious import that it should be returned to the criminal investigation branch?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is absolutely not, nor would I suggest — as is the suggestion made in that member's question — that such an investigation would not be held without the auditor-general, who I have great confidence in, completing her investigation and report to members of this assembly.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question asked by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and taken on notice on Wednesday of last week.

The member for Atlin asked for information relating to when cabinet ministers' spouses started using government aircraft. I don't know what that member is insinuating, but I'm sure it will be muckraking of some sort. However, I can tell you that when going over the logs, I find that as far back as December 1972 Mrs. Levi flew on a government aircraft. It couldn't have been an isolated case, as I also notice the names of Mrs. Barrett, Mrs. Macdonald, Mrs. Nicolson and others mentioned in those logs that I quickly looked over.

I'm not critical of those spouses of ministers travelling on government aircraft, but it appears that the member opposite is. I can't tell you why. This government felt that a policy statement was necessary. In July 1979, I announced that ministers' wives would be allowed on government aircraft under certain conditions. What that did was formalize what appears to have been going on while that member's party was government. I think he may have been hoping that the people of British Columbia had short memories. I can assure that member that I give the public more credit than that, and he would be most wise to do the same.

The same member asked me to assure this House that the spouse of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was not using the privilege of travelling on government aircraft to conduct his personal business in the interior communities where he has interests. Mr. Speaker, I leave it to you and the observers and members of this House to analyze the member for Atlin's remarks and decide just what it is that he is insinuating. I must tell you that the member had his figures all wrong again, even after I gave him the logs so he could do some research. However, I won't bore the House with statistical information. I just suggest that the member go back to the drawing board. It's all laid out in a form that I have no problem understanding.

What the member did not tell the House was that of all the flights the individual in question was on, only three went to the interior of the province. You will recall that the member stated that Mr. McCarthy was on flights all over this province, and wanted to know if he was using the aircraft to do his own business in interior towns where he owns property. Again, of all the flights the individual was on, only three were to points other than Victoria and Vancouver; also, he accompanied the minister on each of these flights to the interior.

I don't want it left in anyone's mind that there was anything out of the ordinary involved here, and I would hope that in the future the member will be a little more thorough in his research.

I would also like to say that I'm very happy Mr. McCarthy was able to accompany his hard-working wife, dedicated to the business of the people of British Columbia. She is not only the Minister of Human Resources; she is also the Deputy Premier — and highly regarded.

The member also requested information on whether or not there'd been any flights out of the country during the last six months. I informed him that there had been three.

I just wanted to mention that while looking at the logs for 1972 to 1975, I also noted government flights involving Seattle, Bellingham, Juneau, Spokane and, of all places, Reno. It appears that members should be aware of the fact that necessary government flights do take place to points outside the country. The logs are available for perusal, as a courtesy; there is no requirement to table them. The only logs that we're having some trouble locating are for January, February and March 1974.

If the member has any further questions I would be pleased to provide the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind ministers that in giving answers to questions, if the answer is

[ Page 8429 ]

exceedingly long, perhaps a better practice would be to ask leave of the House to give that answer after question period, because we have only 15 minutes for question period.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm not through.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please be seated.

The Chair has erred in permitting the question in the first place if the answer to it, of necessity, had to be that long. I apologize to the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, the point you just made is very valid indeed, and the opposition agrees with you. I'm therefore asking leave of this House that the question period now be extended by the time taken up by that minister with that long, written, unnecessary — and not necessarily true....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. This opposition has never, in the history of this question period in this House, refused the government…. We've always given leave to every cabinet minister over there to answer questions with long written statements after the termination of question period. I think that was a flagrant abuse of question period.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's point is not only well made, but it is well received. Hon. members, there is no way that the Chair can determine, when the question is asked, what the length of that question might be. We must have confidence in the integrity of every member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On that same point of order — I won't argue whether or not the member's point was well made — there was a practice in this House for a long time — the first five or six years that I was in the House, and certainly during question period when the members opposite were in government — that questions taken as notice did not have supplemental questions attached to them. The practice for years was that supplemental questions were asked at the time the question taken as notice was answered.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, in the last two or three years — at least in this session — supplemental questions have been allowed to questions taken as notice. Because a question may, come with five, six, seven, eight or a dozen supplemental questions, it means that the answer must necessarily be much more lengthy than it would have been had no supplemental questions been allowed. I think it's perfectly legitimate to answer all of those supplemental questions in the place where they were asked, and that's in question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the Chair undertook to review the matters concerning question period. There were questions on both sides of the House. It is a clear indication to the Chair that the rules concerning question period not only need to be reviewed but perhaps need to have some of the leniency extracted from them. I will include the request of today in that review and bring some recommendations to the House.

I think we've heard sufficient on that point of order. On a new point of order, the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the points you just made, so I now ask that you consider my request that we ask leave of the House to extend question period for the undue length of time that minister took up with his long written answer. I'm asking leave.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

WILDLIFE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: We will not proceed until we have order in the House. Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) come to order? Those members who are exchanging their places for places of other responsibilities, please do so quietly, and then we can proceed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the Wildlife Act is one that has been a long time in coming to this House. It is an act which had a great deal of work put into it by an awful lot of people. It was the subject of a White Paper which I released at Kamloops last year in the spring. We know it's a substantial improvement over the existing Wildlife Act and hope it will meet with the approval of the members of this Legislature as it goes through the various readings.

Mr. Speaker, a whole host of groups of people have a personal interest in this act. The first group you would probably think of would be the sportsmen's groups, mainly reflected through the B.C. Wildlife Federation and its affiliated and member clubs throughout the province, but this act also affects the native people, trappers, guides and outfitters, naturalists, ranchers and farmers, outdoor recreationalists, snowmobilers, members of four-wheel drive clubs, tourist facility operators, mining and forestry companies, railways and many more.

This act cannot be all things to all people and to all of those special interest groups, but it's our hope and it was our design, in drafting this legislation, that this act is best for the wildlife of the province.This 124-section bill is different from the old act in many ways and updates and improves the act. One of the more specific sections is the definition of ownership of wildlife, which has been a legal problem in the past, and now rests with the Crown until wildlife is legally acquired by the person hunting it.

In the previous act, wildlife habitat was not as threatened or as close to man as it is now with the development of this province and the expansion of roads, railways, powerlines

[ Page 8430 ]

and pipelines. Access into areas of wildlife habitat has become more readily available, so it was necessary for us in this act to bring in a broader and more specific definition of wildlife habitat and also to bring in a section dealing with harassment. In the last two years there has been a much greater recognition of our threatened and endangered species. In this act we bring them into a clearer definition.

There are several new initiatives in this act. One deals with the acquisition, administration and improvements of land for wildlife habitat and management purposes, and it provides for our ministry to enter into agreements with other agencies that have charge of the land in dealing with wildlife. It gives us a definition and designation of wildlife management areas, critical wildlife areas and wildlife sanctuaries, and provides in the penalty section for recovery of costs and awarding of damages for any damage done to any of those three sections.

Last year, when I introduced the Habitat Conservation Fund, it was widely received. Under the chairmanship of Dr. McTaggart-Cowan it has been a great success and is now embodied in this act. The success that this Habitat Conservation Fund has enjoyed to date — and it's been well received throughout the province — is a tribute to the people involved in that particular committee. Again, it's confirmed in this act.

In this act, we have for the first time addressed licensing. We have two grades of hunting licences: a junior licence, which for the first time sets 10 years of age as the minimum, is issued for those from 10 to 14; and from 14 up we issue a senior licence. The preservation of our highly successful CORE program, making that mandatory for all new hunters in the province, continues under this legislation.

As in any wildlife area, there are those who abuse the resource, so we do have quite a few penalty sections in this act for things such as pit-lamping and misuse of firearms. Regretfully, these things do happen, and the misdeeds of a few must be covered in legislation. So that's one of the new portions. Of course, much of this act brings the penalties and fines up to date — into the eighties from the sixties where they had been before.

The role of the guide and outfitter industry, which is one of the commercial ends of wildlife use, is simplified substantially over what it was in the past as we enter into a single licensing system. Sections in this act deal with the power to close highways where necessary because of access that is causing a problem for wildlife. In conjunction with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the minister has the power to do that. We also have a new section on interference with hunters; that is, if a hunter is legally entitled to hunt and is engaged in a lawful hunt, he is entitled to do so without harassment. It will be an offence to harass them. That new section will, I think, be welcomed by all who participate in this recreational opportunity.

We have borrowed from the Motor Vehicle Act a very successful section. The 24-hour roadside suspension is being transferred to the wildlife area, where hunters have perhaps had one or two too many and are confronted by a conservation officer. Rather than going through the substantial business that would be required to charge them with being impaired, we have a lift from the Motor Vehicle Act to allow a 24-hour treeside suspension, as we're calling it.

There is an appeal section, and in light of the Environment Management Act introduced last year, in which all appeals from decisions in the Ministry of Environment are to go, the appeals in this section will go from the regions to the director and from the director to the environmental management board.

There are several improvements for the cattle industry and the ranching industry. Livestock owners can take action to protect livestock that is subject to attack by predators. There's also a prohibition on trespass on cultivated land and Crown land or grazing leases occupied by cattle.

The Wildlife Act is appropriate for its time. It offers better protection and management for fish and wildlife and a more efficient means of encompassing the overall framework of this act. I'd like to thank all those people who have contributed: the many hundreds who responded to the White Paper that we released last year, and the virtually hundreds of people who wrote letters and also had personal visits with me and the staff. I'd like to thank my staff and my colleagues for the time and effort they've put into this act. It's a very detailed act, and I think there'll be a lot of questions asked in committee; there may be some further debate at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to move second reading of the Wildlife Act.

MR. NICOLSON: The New Democratic Party will support this bill in second reading, but naturally we do have several concerns and some suggestions on how we think the bill could be improved. As the minister said, it's been the subject of not only a White Paper, but I think even the McCarthy report — which goes back to a previous Legislature; also Sam Bawlf. I think we should look at some of the recommendations that were made.

One omission that we see is the lack of a public advisory committee. Such a committee exists in Saskatchewan and was recommended in the McCarthy report. McCarthy said the act should create a wildlife advisory board to aid and assist the fish and wildlife branch in formulating policy and administering the guiding industry. The Mair report also recommended that an advisory committee to the department be established, the members to be appointed by the government and to be drawn from the community at large on a basis of proven interest, area of knowledge, or concern in areas of the province; and that advisory committees of a more specialized nature be established at regional levels. I think such an advisory committee might have been of great assistance over the past couple of years in terms of the harassment problem mentioned by the minister. It could have led to quicker action, and an opportunity for all sides to be heard. Certainly in the province of Saskatchewan, under section 9 of the act.... The act is permissive; it allows the minister to appoint an advisory committee each year consisting of not more than eight members who would meet upon the request of the minister and act in an advisory capacity to the minister and the director on matters of general interest respecting the carrying out of the provisions of the act. The members of the committee would receive remuneration that the minister would determine. I think that such an inclusion as has been suggested in the first couple of preparatory reports before this legislation was introduced.... It is a very serious omission from the act.

I notice the act also still allows the licensing of non-resident guides. The minister explained, when he amended the old act to allow this, that it was to facilitate some people who actually lived in the Yukon but very close to the B.C. border and did their guiding in British Columbia. I don't see why the act could not have been amended to be more specific

[ Page 8431 ]

on that. If our intent is to allow Yukon guides to guide, let's put down "or the Yukon Territory, or the Northwest Territories." I don't see why under this legislation Alberta guides should be enabled to get licences, or indeed somebody who might retain his Canadian citizenship but reside in Palo Alto, California, or wherever. All kinds of people can retain citizenship and live outside the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just go there to golf.

MR. NICOLSON: I've never been there in my life, but I'd love to go there.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister says, a great deal of this encompasses things that could be handled in committee.

One of my colleagues will be talking about crop damage and damage to livestock. We feel there is a serious omission from the act in that respect. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) will take that up. I also wonder if.... Actually, it's under one of the very detailed subsections; I think it's Section 110(2)(cc). That section appears to allow the legitimization of the Gang Ranch's intention to bring hunting on private game-farms in British Columbia. As the minister well knows, there's been a lot of concern, particularly by the resident guide of that area, Chilco Choate, about the fact that indigenous elk which have existed in many parts of this province.... It's being claimed that elk and game species have been introduced by the Gang Ranch into that area, that they are not indigenous, and that the Gang Ranch in fact owns them. I guess they want people to hunt buffalo and other things there. This seems to be opening the door to that type of legislation. It's permissive, of course, and it's something to which I take exception. I'll tell the minister that my father-in-law, who was one of the most-recognized guide-outfitters during his day, told me that when he first arrived in the Peace River country in 1912, he found evidence of elk in that area — antlers and such — although they were never thought to have existed there. Everything has its cycle. In many places where elk didn't exist in the West Kootenays — of course they've been in the East Kootenays for years — there are now sightings. These are animals that run their cycles. Predators take them, and they come back. I don't think we should ever turn the outdoor experience in British Columbia into the very different type of experience which is afforded in the private game preserves of Europe and other places. I see this very little section, but for me it has great ramifications. Perhaps in summing up the minister could comment on that.

Another trend which we see in the regulation section is that it's left up to the minister — there's no real firm guideline — as to the apportionment of licence fees between resident and non-resident hunters. If we look to 1974 as a base year and compare the licence fees to March of this year, we see that the ordinary firearms and hunting licence has gone from $7 to $14, an increase of 100 percent, whereas the same type of licence for a non-resident has gone up from $25 to $40 in one case, an increase of only 60 percent. In another case, to hunt wildlife and carry firearms there's been an increase of $75 to $90, an increase of only 20 percent. We see that the tags for black bear, caribou, cougar, deer, elk, grizzly bear, moose, mountain goat and mountain sheep for B.C. residents are up 100 percent. For non-residents to hunt, the increase is up only 25 percent for black bear, 20 percent for caribou, 20 percent for cougar, 20 percent for deer, 20 percent for elk, 23 percent for grizzly bear, 20 percent for moose, 30 percent for mountain goat, 20 percent for sheep, and there was no increase for wolves — it still costs $75.

I think that there should be a provision in the act which guides and compels the minister to maintain a very marked difference between the privileges of resident hunters and anglers and non-resident hunters and anglers. You can't explain in this House the kind of resentment that is sometimes created. For instance, angling in the Balfour Narrows before it was all fished out by non-residents coming with their canning equipment and various other things, and the very heated feelings of the residents who are, after all, the taxpayers and have the rights and privileges of residency in this province, as opposed to what we are virtually giving away....

In 1974 we introduced special licence fees. We introduced trophy fees on steelhead. We introduced a special trophy lake classification for Kootenay Lake. We actually closed parts of the west arm of Kootenay Lake, which is a fantastic area for fishing the resident Kokanee salmon and other fish. We are slipping back. It seems to me that this act should mandate an increase in licence fees that would maintain a very stiff differential between those who hunt or fish as part of the rights they enjoy as citizens of British Columbia and those who come here as guests and help people to exploit commercially. It really is a commercial exploitation of the limited wildlife resources we have.

Certainly a bill that has so many sections will bear close scrutiny, but that is an overview of this act, as I see it.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I congratulate the minister on this bill. Certainly it's going to accomplish a great many things in our province that are going to be generally beneficial. There is one area here that I have a little discomfort with, as it would affect the agricultural industry, and that is section 2(4), which states that there is no right of action and no right of compensation in the event that an animal that escapes or is released from captivity or is abandoned should do any damage.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that there be a compensation program in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, because I don't believe that it would solve the problem. I believe that it may just create more problems, in that it would be like having one department subsidized to start fires in the province while you subsidize another department to put those fires out. But I believe that there is need for some incentive to cause those people who are responsible for the management of wildlife to manage very closely and tightly to make sure that the wildlife are not bringing havoc or creating problems for the farmers of our province.

Mr. Speaker, being from the farming community and living in close relationship to one of the wildlife reserves, I can tell this House that I have seen farmers losing substantially overnight only because of certain wildlife that has been protected and enhanced and allowed to grow under the protection of the wildlife department. It moves in on a crop in the evening and leaves in the morning, having demolished or consumed most of it. This is of concern to me.

We are setting up all of the protection necessary to allow the growth and the multiplying of wildlife, without due consideration to those in agriculture who are attempting to make a living. I know that it would be totally out of order if, as I mentioned earlier, we set up a compensation system or scheme in another ministry, as has been suggested, because

[ Page 8432 ]

that would be very difficult to administer and too costly for the province. But I believe that something is necessary in the Ministry of Environment to bring pressure on those people responsible for the management of the wildlife to make sure that they are managing them in such a way that those hardships will not be brought on the farmer of the province; or we should then put into the hands of the farmer the tools or the opportunity to take into his own hands whatever would be necessary to protect his crops or livestock.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have had the opportunity of making these comments, and I hope that our minister will have some suggestions to make to us as we proceed with this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's much better when debate goes back and forth between the two sides, and that's something that doesn't happen too often in this House, unfortunately. It seems that the back bench over on that side are very loath to say anything.

I want to deal with the same item in this particular bill that my friend from Central Fraser Valley has just dealt with. In section 2(4) of the bill — and I know I can't deal too specifically with any one section — there is a principle involved which gives the Crown a tremendous authority for wildlife management, and then absolves it of all responsibility if that management happens to get out of hand. I would not suggest that we should wipe out subsection (4), because I think we have to protect the Crown from falling prey to anyone who happens to fall down in the woods and breaks his leg when out hunting, or anybody who has two or three pet chickens that happen to be destroyed. It has to be something much different than that. I am sure that the minister could devise ways in which he could add a subsection to this bill that would provide the kind of compensation to serve the purpose that my friend from the valley was talking about.

It has certainly been done in other provinces. I note that two years ago in Alberta — our neighbouring province — they established a fund for compensation. That fund was set up, and the minister makes payments out of that wildlife damage fund with respect to any claims arising for wildlife damage, the expense of operating the fund, the operation of wildlife depredation-control programs and any other purposes. But there is a provision in the Alberta legislation to provide compensation — out of a fund which is set up — for bona fide losses.

In Saskatchewan, the next province, their legislation came in a year earlier, in 1979, in which it read:

"The minister may, subject to the regulations, (a) provide compensation to any person suffering property loss or damage caused by wildlife or hunters; and (b) enter into an agreement with any person for the purpose of insuring or indemnifying against loss resulting from damage caused by wildlife or hunters."

Then it goes on to other things. But the provision is there, Mr. Speaker.

The Manitoba bill came in in 1980 and it provides that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make such regulations and orders..." which prescribe various things. In that act (d) mentions "regulations respecting the claims...for the manner of payment of compensation for damage to livestock," and (e) is "respecting the establishment, development and administration of such programs as may be deemed necessary to prevent, moderate or provide compensation for damage to crops caused by wildlife." So, Mr. Speaker, it's already been done in the three prairie provinces to the east of us.

I'm sorry I was not able to hear what the minister had to say. I had an urgent call to meet with a constituent just as he was speaking and I had to leave the chamber; but I did hear him say on the speaker in my office that this act makes provision for compensation to farmers.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I thought I heard you say that it was better for farmers. Apart from the regulations about trespass on agricultural land, I see nothing in this bill.... And that's good.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Okay. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here to hear that.

The thing is that while the minister still could — even though there is no right to sue the Crown — make the kind of compensation that I'm talking about and that the agricultural community is asking for, unfortunately that hasn't happened in the past, and the wording in the old act was very similar to this. The minister has, I'm afraid, hidden behind that wording to say that he can't make compensation because of what the act says. I'm very concerned that if the wording of the act stands as it is now with no additions, that same thing will happen and the minister will again hide behind the fact that no one has the right to sue the Crown, and will not use his discretionary powers to make compensation.

I would suggest that a very simple addition of a subsection (5) to that section might be very appropriate. For example, it might read that the minister may pay compensation to a farmer or rancher engaged in commercial production of crops or livestock, if in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food — who hasn't even seen fit to sit in for this debate — it is determined that damage was caused to crops or livestock by wildlife and that such damage could not have been prevented by reasonable action on the part of the farmer or rancher. I think a very tight wording would protect the minister from anyone taking advantage of anything relative to compensation and allow him to have discretionary powers to make payments in case of damage.

I've sat in on many agricultural meetings and I've heard the total loss estimated at $2 million. That's the total loss estimate in any one year, and a great amount of that would be not be compensable under the terms of any of the amendments that I have read or under the change that I have suggested to the minister. In fact, it would relate basically to managed species, not those that are not under management of the minister. It would relate only to bona fide farm operations and only to very provable cases.

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that there are not that many cases that are major, but when there is a major case, it's very, very serious. The case that comes to my mind is that of one farmer's field of cauliflower. There were a lot of cauliflower fields there, but the birds chose not to just take a few plants from each of the several farms, which would have been a minor loss and wouldn't have amounted to enough to worry about, but they took a whole 30-acre crop from one of the farmers. It was gone overnight. It was a loss of $30,000, which is very, very difficult for one farmer to absorb, and yet it certainly could be compensated by this ministry. It's not a

[ Page 8433 ]

lot of money in terms of the ministry, but it is a lot of money when you relate it to one individual farmer.

The estimate that I have heard in these sorts of compensable types of loss would not be $2 million; it would fall more in the bracket of approximately $800,000 a year. It's peanuts in terms of government spending. It's certainly peanuts in terms of this government's spending. For example, up to this point in time, the opposition has moved amendments to reduce spending in the area of office furniture for ministers in an amount in excess of $800,000.

MR. SPEAKER: This must be happening in committee, hon. member. Is it? Because the House is not aware.

MRS. WALLACE: That is correct; these motions have been moved in committee. For your information, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has moved these motions in committee, and in all instances the government benches have lined up solidly to oppose those spending cuts. Certainly the motions that have been moved relative to office furniture have already amounted, with the few ministries we've gone through, to an excess of $800,000, which would have been enough to provide funds for compensation. If you go on to the travel expense cuts, you will find another $500,000; the advertising and publications is in excess of $400,000; and office expenses are another $500,000. It's a total of $2 million. In fact, if you made compensation for all the losses, which certainly wouldn't fall within the categories that would be compensable under any terms of any sort of reasonable and responsible legislation.... Certainly this is what the agricultural community is asking for, and it only seems fair to me that there should be some provision in the act that would cover losses that are impossible for the farmer to do anything about.

I think the minister has a bill from a farmer in the northern reaches of the island, around the Comox area somewhere, for something like $7,000 for damage to one farmer's crops there. I'm quite sure that unless an amendment is forthcoming in this legislation, and probably unless it's retroactive, that farmer is just going to be out of luck.

I have some hope, because I know the cattlemen have been working very hard on this. The minister will be aware of that, because it shows in the letter of June 21, of which I too received a copy. It urged that changes be made to the act to provide the kind of thing we're talking about. They were asking for the deletion of subsection (4) in that area. I'm not sure that's the way to go. I think the addition of another section is better. But I don't think it matters how we do it, as long as we do it reasonably and correctly. I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is sitting in the House, would be more than willing to help the Minister of Environment come up with a properly worded amendment to this bill that would provide the kind of protection for all those farmers out in the Pemberton area who would really appreciate anything you could do for them.

I also understand that when the representatives of the cattlemen's association met with the minister yesterday — they also met with members of our caucus — they were reasonably assured that the minister would introduce the kind of amendments they have been asking for and the kind of amendments the member for Fraser Valley and I are talking about. I have great hope that we will see an amendment that will bring this into place on the order paper tomorrow. I have hope, particularly when some of the suggestions are coming from that side of the House as well as this side. It would be nice if we could be united on something in this House for once. I think this would be a good place to start.

MR. KEMPF: It's a shame to ruin the tranquillity of this afternoon with a howl against, not of, the wolf in this chamber, but it must be done. Before getting into that, I would like to make a couple of remarks on what it was the member for Cowichan-Malahat just said when she was on her feet. Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to ruin the atmosphere of this afternoon on this particular bill by saying that she was wrong, because she wasn't.

The minister has a bill for $105,000 from a rancher who happens to be in the constituency of Skeena. He has had great losses through wolf predation, and is looking to the government to make up some of those losses. But that isn't the answer. You don't throw good money after bad. You don't try to rectify the problem after it's happened. The solution in the case of predation by wolves on our ranches in this province is to attack the problem where it exists at the outset. That's with the wolves. You've got to alleviate the problem, not spend good taxpayers' money to try to cover up that problem after the damage is done. That is what restitution to our ranchers because of wolf predation would be.

I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing in Bill 55. I think a revamping of the Wildlife Act in this province was long overdue. I'd like to particularly congratulate the minister on the recognition in this bill of what I consider to be a very important industry in this province — the guide-outfitter industry. It certainly is a step in the right direction. There are still some problems. I guess there will always be problems. There are even a couple of problems in this bill. I'll be talking about those in the specific sections of the bill in committee.

I commend the minister, as well, for the anti-harassment clause in this new act, again something that was absolutely necessary in this province to stop the kind of harassment that has taken place on several occasions in the Spatsizi in the last three or four years. Certainly this will be a deterrent to that. I only hope that somehow we can carry out that which is in the act in regard to anti-harassment.

But I'm dismayed that I didn't find more emphasis in this act in the area of predator control and particularly in the area of wolf predation. I hear other members speaking of problems with birds and other wildlife — deer, elk, etc. I have no experience with that at all, but I have much experience — as do many other people in this province and many of my constituents — in the area of wolf predation. Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about the horrendous problem that's faced by our agriculturists because of wolf predation, and that's true. I said it earlier when I spoke of the $105,000 bill that was presented to this government for wolf predation in Skeena constituency.

The predator-control problem in the corrals and on the ranches of the agriculturists in this province is not the place to start. The problem emanates from a position further a field than that. The problem emanates from the hills and the valleys, where at one time we had great herds of caribou, deer, moose and many other ungulates. But we don't see those great herds anymore because in the last couple of decades we as politicians have been afraid to do what is necessary in the province of British Columbia to rectify the

[ Page 8434 ]

problem, and that is bring in a proper predator-control program. There is no other way but to lay that responsibility at the feet of the minister who brings this bill in, and at the feet of the fish and wildlife branch, which comes under that ministry, because I believe that it's unquestionably because of the academics — the institution-educated biologists that work within that branch — that we have the problem.

Over the years they have not wanted to listen to the people who really know what the problem is and have said many times how it is that is could be rectified. They pay no attention to those people; they go about their merry old way and really think that they know everything that there is to know about wolf predation. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. They are absolutely incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to read into the record this afternoon.... I wish I could read into the record a couple of true-colour pictures that I've got in my possession, and I will leave these pictures with the House so that anyone wishing to see them can. We talk of Farley Mowat, and I see a former member of this House, Mr. Cyril Shelford, in the gallery this afternoon. I want to tell you I don't have to give this speech for him, because he knows. It's people like Cyril Shelford that we as politicians should start to listen to if we are ever to rectify the problem that exists in regard to wolf predation in this province. I know the reason that we won't listen. I know where the majority of the votes are in this province. They're in the lower 10 percent of the province, in the urban areas, and that's why we can't rectify the problem.

Before I get into some of these letters, maybe there is help on the way. I quote from an item in the Times-Colonist dated April 1, 1982, which says: "Want an Island wolf? Just howl one up." Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe that's the answer, and I said it during the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. Maybe when we start to see real wolves on the steps of the parliament buildings here in Victoria, then we'll start to do something about the problem.

Mr. Speaker, we've got to start listening to the people who know. Farley Mowat's books are a myth; make no mistake about that. I've got a picture here that will show it. In his books he says over and over again that wolves only kill the sick and the old, and then only for food when they're hungry. I've got a picture here that shows five deer carcasses that all fit into this very small picture, none of which have been completely eaten. In fact they have been hardly touched. There must have been an awful lot of old, weak and sick deer in that particular herd.

Mr. Speaker, many letters have been written to newspapers, particularly in the north-central part of the province, by people who really know. I'd like to read into the record parts of a letter written by Mr. Al Fletcher, who for many years worked in the employ of this province as a predator control officer until government saw fit to do away with that very necessary program. I quote from this letter which appeared in the Smithers Interior News on February 17 this year:

" From the years 1951 to 1966 I was in charge of predator control from Tweedsmuir Park to Telegraph Creek and from Endako to Prince Rupert. Here is a little illustration of predator control versus game management: in 1953 we did an aerial survey of the caribou herd in the Telkwa Mountains, in March, when most of the caribou were above timberline. We counted 170 caribou. There were a lot of wolves around Mooseskin Johnny Lake and the Telkwa River. We got rid of the wolf pack with 1080 bait and kept the wolf population under control in the area from then until 1966. In 1966, on my last count, we saw 272 caribou — an increase of over 100 head, in spite of the fact that all that time there was a legal caribou season. From 1966 on there was no more wolf control in this area and a closed season on caribou. As a result, we only have a very few caribou left."

A little further in Mr. Fletcher's letter he says:

"In the fifties and sixties there were only two of us in the Smithers office — Les Cox and myself."

I read this into the record to point out what the problem we have really is. You know, we had very few people in the field in those days. Today we have many people in the Fish and Wildlife offices of this province, but we don't have the people in the field. We don't have the people out there doing the job that is necessary to alleviate the problems we have. Mr. Speaker, I quote again from Mr. Fletcher's letter:

"All we ever had was a two-wheel-drive truck and a pair of snowshoes. Now there are about a dozen men in the Smithers office, plus two or three stenos to do all the work, plus their four-wheel-drive vehicles with a winch on the front and a snowmobile on the back, and you nearly need a crowbar to get them out of the office. We used to have road checks nearly every weekend. I don't hear of any anymore. I guess it's too cold standing out on the road all day. I know a lot of conservation officers who work very hard at their jobs, and I don't want them to take this personally or feel affronted in any way. But because of the 'system' they, along with the general public, become victims.

" Oh, by the way, I wasn't fired. I quit for the same reason as Brian Baldwin…"

Brian Baldwin was another predator control officer working out of the Smithers office who recently left the employ of this province.

"... quit last year, as well as a few others from this Smithers office. We couldn't stand the bureaucratic incompetence."

We have two problems in regard to predator control. We've got a bureaucratic problem, and we've got a problem out in the field because we, as politicians, don't have guts enough to do what is necessary: that is, bring in a proper predator control program in this province.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

I could go on all day. I've got letters, pictures, other material. I've got books written by people who really know about the problem of wolves in our ungulate population. I'll do more in the minister's estimates, and also in committee on this bill, Mr. Member for New Westminster. I'll stand and talk in this House until we get a proper predator control program in this province if it takes the rest of my life. It probably won't need to take that long. Do you know why? Because unless we do something now, immediately, about the wolf predation problem in the northern two-thirds of this province, we won't have to institute such a program. We will have no need because there won't be any wildlife left to protect. Maybe that will be the factor that gets this particular problem off the backs of the politicians and the bureaucrats in this province. I say again, unless we institute a proper predator control program within five years in British Columbia, we will not have to do it because there won't be anything to

[ Page 8435 ]

protect. Compensation for wolf predation? Absolutely band-aid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against the bill?

MR. KEMPF: No, I'm not going to vote against the bill. It's a good bill. I'll talk about certain sections that aren't what they should be, but I'll speak for the bill and we'll vote for the bill — absolutely. I said at the outset — you might have been here, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — that it's long overdue. I wonder what the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is going to do. I've never heard him stand in this House and speak for a predator control program, while his ranchers lose $105,000 worth of cattle. What are you going to do, Mr. Member? You write letters to the Smithers Interior News. We talked about band-aid, and that's band-aid on your behalf. Stand in this House where it counts and speak for a predator control program, a program that will alleviate the problem faced by not only your agriculturalists out there, but by everybody who loves wildlife.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: You're a wolfist.

MR. KEMPF: The second member for Victoria doesn't know what I'm talking about. You've never been off the rock. You wouldn't know a wolf if it came out from under your step and bit you in the leg.

I get pretty worked up about this particular issue, and rightly so. It's another case of a north-south problem more than anything. We see this happen in many cases, and this is a glaring example. I say again that within five years not even I will have to stand in this House and talk about a predator control program, because we just won't have anything to protect.

I'd just like to end.... As I said, I could go on and on, and I will at other times in this chamber. We profess to have a predator control program, and I know what the minister is going to get up and say. He's going to say that we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on helicopters, we've done more studies, we have high-priced biologists to tell us that we should have this and we shouldn't have that. I ve heard all of those stories over the years not only from this minister but from many other ministers. We had an administration from 1972 to 1975 in this province that did absolutely nothing about the problem either.

I'd just like to read another letter into the record, and incidentally it's another pair of constituents of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). He doesn't speak about predator control in this province. He only gets excited when I say in a news article in the Smithers Interior News that he might be talking about.... And they call me two-story Jack. Well, we've got another two-story fellow in this House, Mr. Speaker, and he is two-story Frank. He gets a little excited when someone has said in one of his weekly newspapers that he's not doing his job properly. I've never heard him to this time, but maybe today.... I hope that by this little exercise that we've gone through — and the member hasn't seen my latest letter in the Smithers Interior News — maybe he'll get up in this House and speak for his constituents as he should be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to end for now — only for today, I'll be speaking about this more in the future — with a couple of paragraphs from a letter from two constituents of the member for Skeena. They talk about the 1080 program that we presently have. We profess to have a predator control program and we waste taxpayers' money trying to hunt them from helicopters. We have 15 baits — or some ridiculous figure — for all of the province of British Columbia when we talk about a 1080 program. I don't want to just give my views in this House; I want to read from this letter. It was published in the Interior News on March 24 of this year and was in regard to the predator control problem. I quote:

"I feel that the present poison program is totally inadequate. Much of the information sought in the costly studies undertaken could have been gleaned from local residents — ranchers, prospectors, trappers, guides and some of the other wildlife officers. Too many times it is assumed that these people 'don't know anything about it,' because they don't have a piece of paper to show that they do. That piece of paper is fine, but without the practical experience in the field, that piece of paper is 'not good enough.' The results we see today in comparison with the results obtained in the period 1951 to 1966 bear that out."

Again I say that we don't have to reinvent the wheel in regard to predator control, particularly of wolves. We need only, firstly, to listen as politicians to the people who know. Secondly, if we don't believe our own citizens in the province, we don't have to go very far afield to see what's done in other jurisdictions. We don't have to reinvent that wheel; we just have to adopt some logical wildlife management in the province of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: I have urged many of the ranchers, individuals and people concerned about wolves and the devastating effect they have on cattle and on other wildlife that I've spoken with to do two things. One, obviously, was to write to the minister, and that includes this minister and his predecessor. The other thing that I urged them to do was to write to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because I know the position of the member for Omineca, and it coincides with mine. We come from an area that has a contiguous border and the same type of terrain, generally speaking. I say to people: "Yes, indeed, write to Jack Kempf." That's what I say to them, I don't use his name here. To put it in parliamentary terms. I urge them to write to the member for Omineca and to the minister. Some of them do: I know that.

He showed us some pictures a while ago. I'm not sure if those are the pictures he received from some folks who live in the Kispiox or not. but if it is, that was partly at my urging as well, because I approach this problem from the point of view of trying not to involve politics but just concerned people in trying to cooperate together to get a point of view across to government. It hasn't paid off so far; we've still got the problem; we've still got an inactive or disinterested minister. It is a little bit — and I must say this — galling, when I take that approach on a non-partisan basis and with the purpose of best serving the interest of the people that both the member for Omineca and I represent in that general area and I find him writing open letters to the newspaper in Smithers — and he referred to it. Let me tell you what he said, just as an example. This is politics, and this is the way the member for Omineca plays politics. This is in an open letter to Dave and

[ Page 8436 ]

Bernice Aspeslet, the people who sent him on the pictures. It said: "What I do need is the support of other northern MLAs, and it's unfortunate that your member won't come out and support the issue." That paragraph is patently false, as the member knew when he wrote the letter. It was inaccurate. He was trying to make some slight political gain. He was trying to make political exploitation out of the misery visited upon ranchers in that area, because his government won't do a damned thing about wolf control.

But that's the way the member for Omineca plays it. Fine. That's the way he's going to get it. I'd like to read another letter. I wonder why the member for Omineca didn't read this one into the record. It's a letter dated February 1, 1982. It says:

"When the mini-cabinet meeting was held in Terrace late in the fall of 1981, I enquired of Jim Hewitt what the department of agriculture was going to do about predator control. He told me that the man I wanted to talk to was Stephen Rogers, and he introduced me to him. Mr. Rogers, when asked what he was prepared to do about the predator problem at Hazleton, stated quite bluntly that he had no intention of doing anything about it. When asked how we were to protect our livestock from wolves, his reply was that we should go to Alberta and buy poison and do the job ourselves."

That's what this letter said the Minister of Environment told a rancher who came to him with a concern. The letter goes on to say:

" I take exception to the fact that we have a Minister of Agriculture who ceases" — and I can't read it, because it's stapled under here — "and an Environment minister who blatantly encourages me to break the law. Quite frankly, I can understand why the Federation of Agriculture gives our hon. minister a vote of no confidence. As for Mr. Rogers, he is a discredit to his ministry and the party."

That's from a rancher that the member for Omineca pointed out had put in a bill for $105,000 to this government for compensation for loss of livestock because the government took no interest whatsoever in predator control. Yes, we do need, and have needed for some time, a proper and effective wolf-control program of poisoning. We need a program of predator control such as was engaged in by Allan Fletcher, a Smithers resident, who wrote a letter quoted by the member for Omineca. Allan Fletcher knew what the situation was when he was predator control officer in that area. They functioned well at that time.

The minister's response in correspondence to me and others was: "We have a control program that's based upon ranchers reporting wolf sightings. Report to us where the wolves are and we'll have our officers come out and shoot the wolves or do something with them." Ranchers in that area have given up reporting because — the member for Omineca will know this — over the years they have reported, time and time again, wolves on their property, attacks on their cattle and attacks on deer and other ungulates. The response has ranged from nil to minimal. It's ineffective. Nothing occurs in response to the reports. So the ranchers gave up. They say: "What's the point in our continuing to report to the ministry about wolf sightings when nothing happens in response?" In spite of that, we still urge those ranchers to report. The minister, in a letter to me written dated March 9, 1982, said: "Close cooperation of ranchers.... Your influence will help." I told him that ranchers had given up reporting, but we still go back and tell them to report again, tell the ministry what's going on, and maybe you'll get some kind of effective response. So far it hasn't happened.

These are not exclusively my own words. Let me read from a letter from the Bulkley Valley cattlemen's association to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), dated March 10, 1982, to substantiate what I've said. I won't read the whole thing, because he talks about the use of 1080, helicopters, shooting and so on. The relevant part I want to read into the record says: "Due to past experience, our members tend to believe that there is little value in reporting predator attacks. The officers of our association are trying hard to convince our membership that they must report predator attacks, but our efforts will be in vain if there isn't effective control." That's just one group of cattlemen in the area represented partly by me and partly by the member, for Omineca. Ranchers ask, what's the use of reporting, but the cattlemen's association is saying to continue reporting. I'm telling people to continue reporting. That's what the ministry says we should do. You may have become frustrated, we tell the ranchers, by getting no response and action, and a lack of care and attention to this matter, but continue to report. I hope they do.

Control and the poisoning and killing of predators is necessary. When the wolf populations get to the magnitude they have in the past few years, it becomes even more necessary to engage in that type of killing program. A companion activity has got to be the question of compensation to ranchers who lose their stock as a result of wolf predation. The member for Omineca says: "Don't worry about the compensation. Deal with the control program. Then you won't have a compensation problem because there will be an insufficient number of wolves, and therefore an insufficient number of kills of cattle." That may be so in a theoretical sense, but the practical reality of life is that cattlemen have lost cattle. The one company with a bill of $105,000 that the member for Omineca referred to, which I have here as well, sets out in detail how they arrived at that $105,000 figure.

We maintain that in addition to an adequate and proper predator-control program there should be the companion compensation program; and that will be an added incentive to people in the ministry to more effectively engage in predator control.

Let me go back to the letter from the Bulkley Valley cattlemen's association on that point; they make this point very well. "As we have indicated in previous correspondence, we believe the primary problem is that the responsibility for protecting cattle from predators is in the hands of people who take little interest in protecting cattle and do so with reluctance." They are talking about ministry officials, people working in the Ministry of Environment: little interest, little direct concern, little motivation, little experience in the predator-control program. They maintain, and I maintain, that if the government and the ministry had to fork out money by way of compensation to cattlemen, they'd darned soon find a way to cut down on the forking out of the money. They would then find the incentive to more effectively prosecute whatever wolf- or predator-control program they have.

When we get to that section in the bill — section 2, I believe — as indicated by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), we intend to propose some changes which we hope will be accepted by the minister. Perhaps when he closes the debate this afternoon he may indicate that section 2 is not

[ Page 8437 ]

worded fully enough to be able to deal with this fundamental question of the right of a rancher who loses cattle to claim for and receive compensation from the Crown. All wildlife in the province is property vested in the Crown. The Crown is the owner, and when the property of the owner visits some injury upon another party, namely a rancher, then I maintain the owner has a responsibility. While the minister may not be able at this juncture to outline and embark upon an enlarged and more effective predator-control program than has existed up until now, at least while we're dealing with a particular bill that has in it reference to compensation, even though it denies that, I hope on second reading he will give some indication that he is prepared to amend that section when we get to it and take another step in the direction of doing something helpful to ranchers, and something helpful for the protection of wildlife itself.

MR. HANSON: For some time now I've been extremely concerned about the lack of strength of this minister in dealing with a couple of his colleagues: the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). This minister has recently been left out in the dark in the implementation of a Crown grazing lease program in this province — which is extremely disturbing and has far-reaching effects.

I would like to read to you a letter that went from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — with respect to the Wildlife Act, in case Mr. Speaker was wondering whether my debate was relevant to this issue — to individuals concerned about the 250,000 hectares of valley bottom land of critical winter habitat in the interior of this province: in the Okanagan, in the Columbia River, in the Bulkley Valley and so on. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing makes this observation with respect to the Wildlife Act and whether it will apply to land under lease. He states: "It is this ministry's position that the Wildlife Act provisions of access cannot apply to Crown lands alienated by lease."

The significance is extremely far-reaching. For example, the 650,000 acres of Crown grazing land of the province, if they were to be occupied by cattle. In the Bulkley Valley alone it is estimated that the moose population would be reduced by 60 percent. The fish and wildlife branch estimates there are something in the order of 3,200 moose in the Bulkley Valley region. If the Crown grazing leases administered by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) were to be utilized on a regular basis by cattle, it is estimated that the moose population would be reduced by approximately 60 percent.

The reason for raising this, Mr. Speaker, is that an arrangement was entered into by the Ministers of Lands, Parks and Housing and Agriculture and Food and excluding this minister. They entered into a long-term lease arrangement with the ranching industry for a different practice — not policy — for these Crown grazing leases. My concern is why the Minister of Environment was left out during the duration of this discussion. Even the people within his own ministry do not understand the weakness and the ineptitude. For example, a rather senior person in the ministry states in a letter I received from him: "It is difficult to justify this grazing-lease policy when it has the potential to limit recreational access to a large area of Crown land." Yet here we have the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing saying in a letter to constituents in the Okanagan region that Lands, Parks and Housing's position is that the Wildlife Act provisions of access cannot apply to Crown lands alienated by lease.

This province is departing from the integrated use, the multiple use of lands and is being oriented toward a more single-use approach to lands. The fantastic capacity of these low-bottom lands through the Kamloops area, through the Okanagan and so on provides critical winter habitat for elk, for mule deer, for sheep and for various game animals, and recreational potential for hunters, fishermen, canoeists, hikers, photographers and naturalists. I understand that the unstated practice in the past was that permission had to be sought from the lessee of those Crown grazing leases; however, the ranchers and cattlemen always were of the understanding that provisions of the Wildlife Act would allow them access — the provisions of the Wildlife Act granted access to recreationists. But now it's clearly stated that the Wildlife Act is superseded by the Land Act and the Trespass Act, and that the public are now denied access to these vast tracts of the interior of the province, which are the portals to the higher-elevation Crown lands of this great province.

The Minister of Environment, as the advocate for wildlife in this province and the advocate for the hunters and fishermen and all recreationists, has been silent. When we have representatives within his own ministry critical of the long-range implications for game management and habitat management in this province.... He has sat quietly back and written letters to various citizens of the province indicating that he will try to argue strenuously with his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, to attempt to come to some negotiated settlement to allow the public of this province onto their own land. Shame, Mr. Speaker!

In the bill that has been introduced, section 40, "Agricultural and cleared land," indicates that it is an offence to hunt over Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease if the land is occupied by livestock. Some of these grazing leases are very large. The grazing lands often are only occupied for short periods of the year — seven to eight weeks in some instances. The public is going to be denied through posting these lands; if they happen to enter onto that land thinking it is not occupied by livestock, or thinking that they had permission from the lessee, they're subject to an offence under the act. If somewhere in that large geographical tract there happen to be animals grazing, then individuals and the public are subject to charges under this section.

The point I'm raising, Mr. Speaker, is that there's a great injustice occurring, and that is that the Ministry of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is being subordinated to such an extent by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that the minister cannot carry out his mandate to protect the wildlife of this province. In that context, this bill, with all its clauses on licensing, on the protection of beaver dams, and on proposed management plans, is rather hollow, because when it comes to fighting for the protection of access to those resources and for the integrated resource management of this province, that minister fails in his responsibility. How can he sit idly by and have the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing writing literally thousands of letters around this province — form letters, I might add — that indicate the provisions of the Wildlife Act will not apply to Crown leased lands, which are the majority of lands in this province?

Later on in committee stage I would like to ask the minister what his role was in that particular negotiation. Why

[ Page 8438 ]

wasn't he invited in when the Ministers of Forests, Lands Parks and Housing, and Agriculture met with the ranching community and listened to some of their legitimate problems, but in response to those concerns managed to sell the entire farm? His own staff throughout this province feel he's let them down. He has not acted on behalf of the resource that he is mandated to protect. What I see happening down the pike is that some of these large ranches, with their large Crown grazing leases, will be moving into private game preserves. On the higher elevations of these Crown grazing leases is the spring and summer habitat, and in the fall and winter, when those animals come through the timberline into those Crown grazing leases, those are excellent possibilities for private game preserves. If that's the direction this government is taking us, it is a major departure from the traditions of land management and resource management in this province. It's not multiple use; it's not integrated, rational resource planning; it is single use. When you have cattle oftentimes overgrazing on Crown grazing land, you're making it extremely difficult for other wildlife to coexist on those lands.

I have reiterated the point a number of times for emphasis: I believe the minister has been derelict in his duties in not speaking out strongly and publicly on behalf of wildlife, the wildlife habitat, and multiple, integrated resource use in this province.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have an issue that I have raised a number of times in this Legislature, both under Agriculture and under this ministry. It relates to what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was raising earlier. That is the matter of compensation for those farmers who find, particularly with these species that are protected, that they have no access to compensation. They have no access to any alternative except to accept what is happening to them. They are suffering severe losses. As the member for Cowichan-Malahat pointed out, the total cost in compensation, at least according to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who have done some work on this, is not all that great. Yet for individual farmers the impact can be very severe.

I have a copy of the bill submitted by Edgar Smith, one of the farmers in my constituency. The member for Cowichan-Malahat made reference to this. That bill is for over $9,000 for the damage done to his fields by trumpeter swans. Some 350 trumpeter swans arrive on the farmer's field every fall. They choose that place every year, yet there is absolutely no way that any compensation can be made available to that particular farmer, so he submitted a bill. The minister responded by suggesting trumpeter swans are really under federal jurisdiction. While the province administers the federal act, discussions are taking place between the federal and provincial governments with respect to some solution to that problem. I would like the minister to advise what kind of discussions are taking place with the federal people under the Migratory Birds Act and what sort of solution he sees in terms of the damage done to farmers such as Edgar Smith from my constituency.

Another one relates not to a federal jurisdiction but to the Roosevelt elk, which are also protected. They have been moved down from the northern part of Vancouver Island into the constituency of Comox and are troublesome to some farmers as well. The farmers in the area have tried to get compensation for the damage the elk are doing. Unfortunately, when there is no form of compensation available and when these species are protected and there is no avenue open to the farmer to take any action, then the farmers are tempted to destroy those animals, even though it is against the law to do so. The government is really tempting the farmers to take illegal action in order to protect their own crops and means of livelihood. That's very tragic. I hope the minister will, before we pass this act through committee stage, bring an amendment which will ensure that farmers can be compensated, either through the federal government program, if it's under the Migratory Birds Act, or through the Wildlife Act, if the animals in question are under provincial jurisdiction.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thought for a moment there that we were in my estimates.

The one minor point I did not mention during second reading, which is a point I think I should have made, is that we have made provision in this act for paraplegics and other people who are confined to wheelchairs to be able to shoot from a vehicle. That's something that hasn't happened before, and something that came up last year during the Year of the Disabled. It was one of the things that was sent to us as part of our submission for the White Paper.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked a question about the fact that guides don't have to be citizens of the province. It would be contrary to the new federal Charter of Rights to prohibit another Canadian from practising his trade in this province. However, we do require that they have 24 months of active guiding experience in the province before they are allowed to guide in this province. With Mr. Trudeau's new Charter of Rights, a more restrictive covenant than that cannot be put on them.

He asked about the management of controlled shoots in terms of running game farms. We did a paper of consideration on the business of running commercial game farms for the purpose of providing meat only, and not for hunting. The public response from the interest groups was very definitely against it. We had a public opinion survey done by, I believe, the Harris Co., tagged onto another survey, and the public are only slightly more interested than disinterested. Very few of them would actually purchase wild meat, so we've decided to continue our present policy of not allowing commercial hunting operations, with the one exception of the upland game bird operations in the Fraser Valley which exist at the present time.

There were several questions asked about hunting regulations in terms of the percentages charged for hunting regulations. It's our intention to maintain an approximate ratio between the two, which means a dollar increase in some cases and a percentage increase in others.

The subject of section 2(4) is one that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) brought up. The experience in other jurisdictions is that prevention seems to be much more effective that compensation. At the present time we're spending over $2 million a year on a prevention system, and that will continue. We are, however, examining the possibility of a compensation system. This act does not include that and this act is merely a reflection of the existing act and maintains a status quo and has recently been confirmed in a recent case law. However, hunters are liable to the damage that does take place where they have been involved in shooting cattle, for example.

You asked for the sections that affect farmers. Section 27(2) certainly affects farmers. They do have the chance to

[ Page 8439 ]

sell the right to hunt on their own property for the birds that come to prey on their crops. There is a federal agreement with the three prairie provinces to do with cereal grains. We are negotiating with the federal government to see if that compensation agreement can be extended into British Columbia, but, again, it would only come on cereal grains.

I was interested in the questions raised by the member for Omineca and the member for Skeena on the use of monosodium fluoroacetate in terms of predator control. I'm not sure if it's the policy of the entire NDP caucus or if it would just the policy for the member for Skeena, but predator control is a policy problem. It's not covered in this act. There's nothing in here about predator control, so I think maybe my estimates should have come before the bill. However, I have asked the staff to bring forward a program that might be brought into place in terms of predator control because of the problems that we do have, and it certainly is a problem in several areas. I would certainly like to know, if we brought in a poison program using monosodium fluoroacetate, whether it would receive assistance from both sides of the House. I don't think it would. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) shakes his head. Sure, your colleague the member for Skeena is all for it, but if the House divided he'd probably miss the vote and I'd look like the villain. My mandate is the critters, not the pressure groups.

MR. KING: Accept the responsibility.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, if you were to accept the responsibility, you'd take your position. I take the position that my responsibility is to look after the animals and not the pressure groups, and that's precisely what I'm intending to do.

He made the big point about ranchers not reporting the fact that they're losing cattle. Well, can you imagine what the people would say if we entered into a massive poisoning program throughout the whole north of this province? There's no need for it. You don't even have any documented cases of people losing cattle. Every time that I go into the Skeena area, ranchers come to me and say: "We keep losing cattle, but we never report it; we've given up reporting because your staff wouldn't come anyway." I say: "How are we going to come unless you call?" You have a problem wildlife committee. They say that that wouldn't work so they don't even pick up the phone to do it. I just don't accept that argument. If you think you've got a problem, then you contact your local problem wildlife agency, and you send a carbon copy to the minister. The five or six letters that I have had aren't sufficient to justify a massive poisoning campaign.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) must wait for my estimates, because I don't believe any of the questions that he asked were in question.

The member for Comox did ask one question that I think bears pointing out. The farmers that have problems with elk on their property…the elk are not protected. We would issue permits for that. In the case of the Black Creek area, we have open hunting on those elk. If the elk are predating on the crops of a farmer, the farmer need only apply for a permit and we will give him a permit to shoot those animals.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate, very little of which was in order. I therefore move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 55, Wildlife Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks first to explain the responsibilities of this ministry — to explain to the committee what the ministry provides to the province and its people. I feel that we provide for them very well.

I'd like to run through the essential part first: road maintenance. We maintain 42,000 kilometres of provincial public roads in this province — 26,000 miles, for those of you who are not yet metric. This is by the efforts of 270 road crews spread throughout the province. Some 100,000 kilometres of these roads are trunk or main highways. We have 18,000 kilometres of paved roads in B.C., or 11,000 miles. In 1975 we had 9,500 miles of roads paved. We maintain a total of 2,538 bridges on our public highways, 798 or 31 percent of which are not to the full modern truck loading; 215 of these bridges are 30 years old or more. We replace between 40 and 50 bridges each year.

Ferries. I'm talking now about the ferries under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, not the B.C. Ferries. In the ministry fleet we have 42 vessels running on 36 routes; we handle about four million vehicles and nine million passengers per year.

Some random statistics. We have between 40 and 50 major road-grading contracts per year, amounting usually to 400 or 500 kilometres. Our paving projects run 700 to 800 kilometres per year; the ideal that our engineers would like to see would be about 1,200 kilometres per year. We install an average of 30 intersections with traffic signals per year. We install an average of 30 kilometres of concrete guardrail per year: this is a big safety feature, fairly new in the last five or six years. We produce about a million tonnes of crushed gravel every year for road maintenance alone. We centre-line or edge-line a total line distance of approximately 16,000 kilometres per year.

In an entirely different role we process about 2,500 subdivisions each year in unorganized territory in our province and issue about 8,000 permits for accesses to our highway system.

I'd like to discuss for a minute what our major challenges are. Most important among them is trying to keep our highway pavements intact — or as intact as possible for as long as possible — in the face of rising costs and increasing traffic and loading; trying always to make our highways safer in the face of deteriorating driving habits and driver behaviour; trying to assist the expansion of our province by the provision and improvement of access to the developing areas; and trying to make life more attractive in the remoter areas of this province, where often the most jobs lie, by the provision of better roads or better marine or air services in the face of great

[ Page 8440 ]

distances, rugged terrain and extreme weather at times. It's a large job, and it's not done easily when funds are short. It is a job that must be done, or we'll pay dearly for the lack of it.

Then we have the more mundane but much more personal services of the ministry, the testing and licensing of drivers. We tested 107,000 drivers last year, and there were two million licensed drivers in B.C. We issue lots of vehicle licences: 1.1 million passenger and 427,000 commercial in 1981. We inspected 100,900 commercial vehicles last year out of a total of 591,000 of all types inspected by our personnel. This year we plan to increase the vehicles inspected to 635,000. All these inspecting activities add to the enforcement thrust put forward by the amended Motor Vehicle Act, following the task force report on our traffic-law enforcement, which this House has just given assent to.

I'd like now to turn for a minute to an entirely different area of the activities of this ministry, our transportation policy department. This department handles the representation of this province's needs with our federal government, with our fellow provinces and with our neighbours in the United States. This involves the establishment and implementation of provincial policies on all national and provincial issues. Believe me, the federal government hears about those we do not agree with; for example, the federal ports policy.

The handling of our major ports by the National Harbours Board is nothing short of a fiefdom. They have a castle in Ottawa and they rule from there. We press for real and effective provincial and regional representation, and they won't give it to us. Their latest ports bill, now before the House of Commons, is a continuation of the same thing. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's a disgrace. Vancouver is the only really profitable port in Canada. Ottawa mishandles it and profits by it. All the help that the province could give is very largely frozen out.

Other national issues carefully and thoroughly monitored by our policy staff include the national railways. We fight about abandonments and service reductions. We have taken a leading role in forcing the federal government to do something about the Crowsnest freight rate. The solution of that could bring immeasurable good to our lumber freight rates, could ease our railway capacity problems and could help our trucking industry. This ministry also initiated a study of BCR passenger services and has taken a lead role in the rehabilitation of the Fort Nelson line. The line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson has now been pretty well completely rehabilitated at a cost of about $45 million.

Our engineering inspection branch of the transportation policy department looks after such things are aerial tramways — there are now 255 of these in the province — as well as our interprovincial pipelines and provincial railways, of which there are 52; but only two, the British Columbia Railway and the B.C. Hydro Railway, are fully operative railways in the true sense.

One of the most onerous tasks is safety — safety of operation and safety of dangerous goods. The branch is most active in both these areas, with inspectors of high calibre being added to staff as a large and comprehensive study of all aspects of rail safety comes to completion.

I hope you will bear with me when I outline briefly to you what I personally believe are some of our most vital and most valuable programs. I have always liked the air transport assistance program. This is a program where people do not just accept handouts; here they work with us to build their airstrips and to operate them. We work with municipalities, societies, associations or chambers of commerce. Here the result serves the people immediately and continues to serve the people. What use are the finest of air ambulances — and we have them — if there is no airstrip on which to land the planes, especially in locations where they are most needed, where the advanced medical facilities are not in existence? Since this program started in 1977 we have helped 59 communities with airport assistance. We have made 105 separate grants in this period. Yes, I like the air transport assistance program and, despite the reductions necessary this year, I will continue to fight to keep it going, be it in Atlin, Merritt, Salmon Arm or Chetwynd. We will be helping more communities to build and operate their airports this year. We have spent $15 million on this program since 1977.

Other activities. I've always been interested in trucks and in truckers. I used to be one more years ago than I'd like to think, and I'll always support services to make our trucking industry safer and better. We'll expand our roadside safety inspection services for trucks and for school buses. We'll put on more of those surprise roadblocks for on-the-spot inspections, especially of vehicles coming into B.C., and we'll expand our campaign against bad drivers by implementing the amended Motor Vehicle Act.

One major program of vital importance to those using our highways is the maintenance of our paved surfaces and shoulders, and the levelling and recapping or repaving or patching of those surfaces when they become worn out. We have recently called a number of tenders for paving, mostly repaving or recapping on main highways, and the Trans-Canada Highway is prominent among the sections which will be worked on this summer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am proud and happy that our ministry is part of the great northeast coal project. We recently called for new highway contracts, and with one called late in the last fiscal year, I believe we now have a program of up to $50 million starting on that roadwork this year. In fact, they are all at work. This is not the only highway work being done due to megaprojects underway in British Columbia this summer. We continue to work on the highway relocation between Revelstoke and Mica, such as to permit the filling of the reservoir of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam in 1983. These jobs, along with the other highway-grading work, have given much-needed support to our fine B.C. road-building contractors in 1981, and will do in 1982 as well.

Talking about our road construction and paving programs for this year, I should first of all say that 16 existing road contracts will continue into this fiscal year, which will let road contracts expend $64 million this summer. Thirty-four bridge and ferry-landing contracts will carry on in 1982, which will lead to an expenditure of $34 million this season. Four paving contracts from last summer will expend $5 million. The total this year in continuing contracts of all types is $103 million. Among the other various projects underway, or which will get underway, are many on the Hart Highway north of Prince George, on Highway 16, Highway 3, Highway 97 and on Vancouver Island.

We are creating the Annacis crossing system on the lower mainland between Delta and New Westminster. We are preparing the first structural contract on the new swing bridge over Annacis Channel for both road and rail. This movable structure will replace the causeway and leave the channel

[ Page 8441 ]

open up to the proposed low-level, four-lane span on the Annacis route. The work this year on the main channel will be interesting. Dredging will proceed to create two new islands in the Fraser River to enable pile-driving on the first substructure. Contracts on the main span will go ahead in 1983. Fill is also continuing to be stockpiled for the approach roadways, and negotiations with the municipalities are moving ahead. Right-of-way purchases are well ahead towards completion. We will have the Annacis system in place late in 1985 or in 1986. We will have spent a total of over $65 million on Annacis by the end of this year. The figure on our capital bridge replacement program this year is also $65 million — the largest in several years. Thirty major structures will be worked on. Included in this figure will be two bridges on Highway 99 between Vancouver and Whistler, five structures on the Sparwood-to-Elkford highway and four bridges on Highway 37 in the north.

I might comment here that for the first time ever we're just about to award a contract for a large bridge across the Nass River to hook up the community of Greenville. One of the contracts is just in at a rough price of $3 million, but that is only for foundations and piers; there will have to be another contract for the superstructure. There will be five bridges on the northeast coal route between Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge, and those contracts are all awarded.

Before I sit down, I want to say I also have responsibility for the fine B.C. Ferries fleet, which services the lower mainland and up the Pacific coast. In that fleet we have 24 ships and 25 terminals. It's the largest ferry fleet in the world and the Pacific Northwest's biggest shipping company, with more ships than the Canadian navy. It began in 1960 with two ships and a capacity of 210 vehicles. Now we have 24 ships and a capacity of 3,466 vehicles. This year they're forecasted to carry 3,725,000 vehicles and 12,186,000 passengers. In 1981, capacity was added with Queen of Oak Bay, 362 vehicles; Queen of Surrey, 362; Queen of Vancouver, 94; Queen of Victoria, 94. In 1982, additional capacity was provided by the Queen of Saanich, 202 vehicles, and the Queen of Esquimalt, 202 vehicles. That was done by lifting those fine vessels. Since the corporation came into being in 1977, we have invested in excess of $230 million on capital expansion to provide the best ferry service in the world.

That's a rough outline of the activities and responsibilities of this ministry. Before I sit down, I'd like to introduce the people who actually do the work. Mr. Stuart Hodgson is chairman of the B.C. Ferries board of directors. Mr. Hodgson is an outstanding Canadian, and I'm sure the House welcomes him here. With Mr. Hodgson is George Baldwin, general manager of the B.C. Ferries fleet; we're glad to have him along as well. Some of the people here with a few years of service in for the province of British Columbia include my deputy minister, Bob Harvey, and Al Rhodes, assistant deputy minister. Al hasn't been around too long; I think this is his forty-second consecutive year of service. Al tells me that he's really a rookie, but he's just about had it. After serving with me as minister, he has no intention of serving with any other minister. Last, but not least, Tom Johnson. assistant deputy minister in charge of highway operations.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much for listening.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We always have fun with highways estimates and I thank the minister for his opening statement. He kept it mercifully short this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's hope you'll do the same.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, we're going to be quite brief. I expect we should be through these estimates a week next Friday, if things go well. We all have highways, or boats, or something in our ridings, so every MLA is pretty well obliged to get up, at least briefly. We don't expect to give the minister too bad a time.

First of all, I want as well to welcome to the House the minister's staff and the people from the Ferry Corporation, and to say that I appreciate the way they have cooperated with me and other members of the opposition on problems in the ridings. Before I tackle the minister, I'd like to say that from time to time even the minister cooperates quite well with members on this side of the House on constituency matters. On politics he could be a little more cooperative. In terms of his portfolio, however, he does pretty well.

For the benefit of the minister, I might say that one of my colleagues, who is responsible for our caucus on the air transport side of things, has to be away tomorrow. So I'm going to keep my opening remarks fairly brief in order that he can put his questions to the minister this afternoon. Having said that, I usually start off by discussing the general administration of that particular ministry, but today I'm going to be just a little bit different.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention what I deem to be a very a serious matter. relating to funds from that ministry being promised to a group of people up in Bella Bella under the airport assistance program and the various conflicts that have taken place there. I don't want to dwell on this too long, because I'm sure the minister was listening yesterday when I raised this matter under the spending estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is responsible for native Indian people in this province. In fact, I asked for a public inquiry into this whole matter. I might say at this point, Mr. Minister, that I'm a bit disappointed that you did proceed to promise — in fact, you signed a contract, of which you were good enough to forward me a copy on June 7 of this year — $350,000 to the Denny Island Airport Society. I would imagine that this has been brought to public attention. In fact, I have been told that the band council at Bella Bella on the Campbell Island site are extremely concerned and upset over this arbitrary government decision, particularly in view of the fact that the First Citizens Fund Advisory Committee of this province voted $100,000 towards the construction of an airport on Campbell Island and the federal government had promised, contingent on this $100,000 forthcoming from the provincial government, a further $250,000 for the Campbell Island project. The minister is aware that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — I'm pleased to see the Provincial Secretary in the House at the present time — arbitrarily blocked that $100,000 to the 1,200 people living on Campbell Island.

I tried to make it abundantly clear yesterday that I don't knock private initiative. The small group of people over on Denny Island proceeded on their own, and I'm not sure where they got all the funding from, and it really doesn't matter. The fact is, I'm told, the funding they received — the approximately $800,000 to construct their 4,000 metres of airport — was private money, and that's fair enough. All over this province, every year, people construct all kinds of facilities for various purposes on their own initiative without the aid of government funds, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[ Page 8442 ]

Just to back up a bit, in 1968 the federal government, at the request of the Bella Bella band council on Campbell Island, did in fact do a study on the two sites — the one out in the bush over on Denny Island, with no access and no people, and the proposed site over on Campbell Island, where the hospital exists, the people live and the police and all of the other facilities of any community are located.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, this is what we're trying to find out here. The reason I'm a bit disappointed, Mr. Minister — just to back up a bit further — is that you did promise me a year or so ago that you wouldn't send funds to either one of those applications until the matter was totally resolved. The fact is, the matter is not resolved.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Listen carefully, Mr. Member, because this is a very serious matter and I'm making some very serious allegations in this House this afternoon on this matter.

The federal government study was shown to me. They didn't release it to me, but I went to the MoT office in Vancouver in about 1971 or 1972 and did discuss it with the technical people there. The fact is, there was not much to choose between the two sites; but in view of the fact that the majority of the inhabitants live on Campbell Island, and there were some minor navigational problems involved in the Denny Island site as well, their preference was the Campbell Island site.

It's all water under the bridge, and we won't go through that 12-year history. But you can imagine my astonishment when I learned just two weeks ago or so that this government had arbitrarily decided to award $350,000 for road access from the air transport assistance program to these private developers, which will undoubtedly eventually make some of them quite wealthy. There was no consideration given to the needs of the native Indian people. I call this sheer discrimination against the native Indian people of this province. It's no less than that.

This is an editorial in the Times-Colonist of June 2 of this year, which points out: "Local People Involved in Denny Island Airport Society. Two of the six directors list Bella Bella post office as their addresses; the other four are from Campbell River, Richmond, North Vancouver and Tsawwassen — hardly Bella-Bella locals." It's a sheer business venture, I suspect. Would any rational group of people spend $800,000 of their own money if they hadn't had prior assurance from someone in your ministry, perhaps yourself? I don't know that, but would any rational group of people spend $800,000 of their own money to build an airstrip up over a rock bluff in the bush with no access? I've viewed the site, and the cost to complete that airport is going to be horrendous.

I agree with those people and the studies that indicated that there should have been an airport there, but you chose the wrong site. You're backing the wrong people at the expense of the native Indian people of this province. So I have to ask myself if there was collusion. I don't know, but it looks mighty suspicious to me. There is nothing wrong with those investors — a good private enterprise effort. Maybe they're taking a chance as you do on the stock market. I'm inclined to doubt that very much. I'm guessing that these people had prior approval — probably verbal — that this money would be coming from the provincial government to the exclusion of the native Indian people of that area for that airport. I'm understandably disappointed that this decision was made in that manner without consultation. I have written to the Premier, the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Highways and Transportation and the Attorney-General; I have not as yet had the courtesy of a reply, although the letters went out on June 10. Nonetheless, it's a bad decision, a wrong decision and, in my view, an inappropriate expenditure of public funds.

I do agree that there should be an airport there for a lot of reasons. It's a long distance between northern Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert for those people who fly in and out of there commercially or privately for the local residents. The Coast Guard heartily endorses an airport in that locality, as do most of the major airlines who fly in that part of the coast. But you made a wrong decision. You made a political decision based on political considerations, in my view. That's exactly what you did there.

I know your answer. I won't give you the answer now, because I prefer to hear it from you again. We've discussed this before. You've been good enough to discuss this with me on a number of occasions. The one thing that you forgot, Mr. Minister, is that you did say to me when we discussed this matter a year ago right out here in the hall — and it was a fair enough statement — that before you afforded any money to any group, you'd ensure that there was equality on the two sides and you would consult with me before the matter of the airport location would be resolved.

I know what your answer is going to be; I've heard it many times. You'll say: "How can we now support two airports within a few miles of each other?" The fact is that you made a mistake in the first place. You deprived the Indian band of that $250,000 promised from the federal government, which was contingent upon the $100,000 from the First Citizens Fund. It was voted by the First Citizens Fund committee and was overruled by your Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I'm extremely disappointed. You were wrong, wrong, wrong.

I move on to more cheery items. Every year at this time I enjoy going through this with the minister. One of the things I do as the opposition critic responsible to our caucus for this particular portfolio is to go over the annual report as best I can to see who got the money and who didn't get any, in every riding and electoral area. I have to tell the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it was no surprise to me at all to see once again that Cariboo, with the exception of Shuswap-Revelstoke, which is quite a different situation because the dam is being constructed and they have to move the highway and all of those things.... Revelstoke leads the list, but once again, in actual fact, Cariboo leads the list. I know the minister will say they've got more roads in Cariboo than anywhere else in the world and all of those things, but the fact is that after four years of Cariboo — the minister's riding, by the way — leading the list in Highways spending, you would think by now that every cow trail in the Cariboo must have a four-lane highway. It's just incredible. Everything is paved. It is blacktop end to end — money, employees, you name it. So, Mr. Minister, I always enjoy reminding you, since you do have control of the pork barrel…or of the purse-strings, that your riding does seem to come out ahead every single year.

[ Page 8443 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a certain phrase that the Chair found offensive.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh. I have to think back. Purse strings? No? A little further back, eh?

Mr. Minister, I just thought I'd point that out to you, knowing your answer, just to have it on the record. Actually, as we go through the ridings we find that your reduction of highways expenditures for this year, when you consider the inflationary factor, appears to have been reduced by about 6½ percent. I may be wrong, but it's somewhere in that area. So quite obviously you're not going to be able to do some of the work that you anticipated doing around the province, and I know that there are areas of the province that need work. My riding is one of them, and I'll get to that in due course.

I'd like the minister to explain to me — and I do believe that the $65 million spent this year on the Annacis Island crossing.... I can't find any funds in this year's budget for the Annacis Island crossing. There are other problems, and some of my colleagues will be discussing some of the other problems associated with that particular crossing, so I won't get into those problems at the present time anyway. But I would like to know where the minister intends to find the $65 million. What part of the budget are you going to take it out of? I've gone through this budget as carefully as I can, and I cannot, for the life of me, find any funds allocated for the Annacis Island crossing. If it's in there, fair enough, but I've gone through this.... You've changed the books so that you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure this thing out this year, and you've got these computer printout cards, which are even more horrendous. Perhaps the minister could explain where that $65 million is coming from.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to tell me as well if he has any estimated costs on highways that are directly involved in the northeast coal infrastructure. I know that last year I had this particular question on the order paper, and I did receive a reply; the minister did answer the question. So perhaps the minister could update us on the projected cost of the roads for the infrastructure on the northeast coal project. There must be quite a cost attached to that whole thing.

Mr. Minister, I want to change the topic here for a moment, before we get off highways. I wanted to bring to your attention — and now that you have your people working with you here.... We're going to discuss water transportation at some length here later on. We'll probably get around to that tomorrow morning. It's a very serious problem throughout the province.

You mentioned in your opening statement the number of access and subdivision approvals that Highways handles. Part of the reason for that, I would assume, is that at the present time there is no other means of handling those subdivision approvals. If your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has his way then I would imagine he will have full control of that at some future date, but I doubt that that bill will ever come forward in this House or be approved. Nonetheless, the problem is simply this: most of us rural MLAs anyway — because you're dealing with rural areas, where you have no municipalities.... I know the process. I know that you check with Fish and Wildlife and regional districts and all of these things. But some of us have cases on our desks.... I've got one right now. For three long years this person has been waiting for an answer. Incredible! Do you know that in the state of Washington — they're a bit looser there in some respects, I would guess, about the regulations — you can usually get a yes or no on whether you can subdivide your property to build a home, or two homes, or whatever, within three months?

At some of the offices I've been into I'm told that they don't have enough personnel to handle the cases. I've written to you about this, and you replied to me about budgetary constraints and qualified people. The situation is the same today as it was a year ago. I would ask you now — and I don't expect an answer, because I don't see how you can answer it — to somehow within your ministry come up with some type of procedure where the.... For instance, my riding…. It has to go from Powell River to Gibsons to Burnaby and back to Gibsons and back to Burnaby, over here, and often it gets lost somewhere here in Victoria, when they find it, back to Burnaby. It's a horrendous, crazy process, and it makes no sense, and some of the bureaucratic things that happen in the process are totally unbelievable.

I've got a proposed subdivision this person approached me about two years ago now on Texada Island. The subdivision is right along a gazetted highway, a couple of five-acre plots, and yet they took an acre and a half off this one five-acre chunk for possible future access leading to nowhere — straight into a rock bluff. There was adequate access right off the gazetted highway fronting the property. It's absolutely crazy. That decision wasn't made in Burnaby. Somehow somebody at an office in Victoria looked at a map. This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. It's crazy. It makes no sense.

I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, if we ever get the chance on this side of the House to restructure some of these items within these ministries, it will be done.

Drainage assistance. It's no big deal, unless you're getting flooded out; then it's a big deal. Highways will not take responsibility at the present time. I can understand it. If they started now they would probably have 50,000 of these. On the lower side of the highway, they'll put the culvert in to the edge of the highway and the water's on its own from there. Unfortunately, people were given approval — before they even required approval years ago — to build homes in areas where probably homes shouldn't have been built, in low gully areas. Every year. on the Sunshine Coast particularly, we've got these flooding problems. Highways takes no responsibility whatsoever once that water leaves the road. People are flooded out, basements are.... Sometimes your colleague there, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), under the emergency fund.... The fund has to be tapped to assist some of these people in paying off these bills.

There are times where a simple ditch, a backhoe.... They're working there anyway, and they could do something; they could assist the local populace. I know Highways isn't obligated to do so; they take absolutely no responsibility whatsoever on those matters. We have so many of these incidents. Last year wasn't as bad as the year before. I must have had 50 the year before in my riding. Just for good public relations — the machines are there, the people are there, the equipment is there.

We had two homes flooded last year in Powell River on the side of Highway 101. For example, if Highways had put a backhoe in there for four hours and dug a ditch between the two lots to get rid of that water.... But Highways said no, they weren't responsible. As a consequence, one basement and one house were flooded out, with a great deal of damage

[ Page 8444 ]

to the property of the two families involved. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

The Coquihalla. Mr. Minister, perhaps you could bring us up to date on that. I believe you previously announced that you are abandoning that project for the present because of budgetary restraints; I can understand that. Nonetheless, perhaps you could discuss that with us for a few minutes.

I've not nearly completed my remarks on Highways, but in order to give my colleague an opportunity to ask some questions of the minister on another matter, I'll sit down now, if the minister wouldn't mind letting him speak now. Perhaps you could answer later the questions I raised today. Thank you very much, Alex.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to just pay a few compliments to the minister's able staff. I see a good friend of mine sitting back there, who will be able to offer....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's his name?

MR. PASSARELL: They're not legally in the House, but he's there.

I have a number of constituency questions as well as some on the issues that were discussed today. First is government aircraft. As we are all aware, we each get 36 flights to and from our homes and our place of business here in Victoria. In the logs tabled we noticed that some ministers have five, six, seven times as many flights as the 36 flights — not between their homes and their constituency work. I would like to see the government put on some further restraint concerning the use of government aircraft, which have at times been abused.

Second is the air ambulance service. It's an excellent program. I think you'd very rarely find anyone in this province who would say that this government and the ministry are doing a poor job on that. I receive countless letters — and I'm sure my colleagues receive countless letters — in support of the government's air ambulance program. Particularly for anyone living in rural or isolated northern constituencies.... Regardless of who is in power, our constituents have never viewed the air ambulance service as a political thing. I certainly support the minister in the great work that his staff have done on the air ambulance program.

Concerning cabinet travel, just as a suggestion, I would like to see some kind of definite policy worked out regarding the tabling of logs. Perhaps it could be done on a yearly basis. I would appreciate receiving the logs for March 1981 to March 1982, if possible, instead of waiting for another year. If we could somehow work out some kind of arrangement whereby the logs would come on a regular basis.... If it were going to be done during the budget debate covering the previous year.... I think the taxpayers deserve to see them. I know that a number of us in this House would certainly like to see them.

The camera plane. There were a number of issues a few weeks ago in the newspapers for May 27 which concerned the camera plane being pulled out of service, particularly the Beechcraft King Air, which was shifted from photography to transportation of ministers and staff — almost a rapid commuter service. I would like to state that this is a contradiction. The Beechcraft camera plane performs an excellent service in forestry in this province. I would not like any aspect of forestry to suffer because the camera plane was pulled out of service to transport ministers.

Regarding the STOL airport, in some recent newspaper articles.... It's a $50 million airport for Victoria, isn't it, Mr. Minister? That's the figure we're looking at, if it was reported correctly in the newspaper. In some of the statements made by the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on this subject, particularly on the need for it.... In an age of restraint, I think we have to start thinking twice about the money allocated for commercial airports to be built around the big cities in this province. I would certainly hope that the minister would have an in-depth study done before any further money is allocated for the STOL airports.

Some constituency issues. Highway 37, which is the major highway in my constituency, has been upgraded over the years. Probably the most successful tarring program the ministry has ever carried out was done last year on Highway 37. I would like to know what further plans are being done this year, particularly with mines closing down this summer in Cassiar. That road between Highway 37 and Cassiar — 14 kilometres — is a very poor stretch of highway in this province. Since the road will be closed down, I was wondering if the minister has any plans on what's going to be done between Highway 37 and Cassiar — the 9 miles in that junction. Since there will be very few people in Cassiar, it will be a an excellent time to do some work on that stretch of road.

Are there any paving contracts this year for Highway 37? Another excellent program the ministry has carried out was the paving outside of Stewart down to Cranberry Junction. Many residents are completely pleased with the paving, because it has cut down on much of the travel time between Stewart and Terrace instead of driving on the gravel.

The third thing on Highway 37 are the bridges. There are very poor Bailey bridges on that road. There is a definite need to pull those single-lane Bailey bridges off. I was wondering if the minister could state if there is a five-year or ten-year program to pull those Bailey bridges off Highway 37. It's becoming a very busy highway in northern British Columbia.

Another regard is the ferry service into Stewart. I know this was raised with the minister time and time again when he was in Stewart. There is much support from the local residents with regard to the economic benefits of bringing the ferry into Stewart. Could the minister elaborate at all? Are there any plans in the near future — five years or ten years down the road — regarding the ferry coming into the most northern ice-free port in this province?

Kitsault was brought to the minister's attention. I received copies of letters sent to the minister regarding bringing the Canadian III from its scheduled run between Prince Rupert and Kincolith and carrying it on into Kitsault. Are there any plans to bring the Canadian III into Kitsault?

The third question regarding ferries concerns the Canathan III into Kincolith. I've received a number of letters from individuals who have stated that in winter, late fall and summer when the rainy season is on they have to stand out on a wharf to wait for the Canadian III. Is there any type of shelter planned for residents who carry groceries onto the Canada III to get into Kincolith so they could go inside to wait instead of staying outside?

The Greenville bridge. Maybe the minister could ask one of his advisers why the particular site was chosen where the footings have been drilled this last year and this summer. It appears to be in a floodplain. Talking to local residents and being there myself I could see where the approaches for this $3 million to $5 million bridge are in a floodplain. I'm

[ Page 8445 ]

wondering why this particular site was chosen. The local residents have stated that the approaches in that floodplain wash out yearly. Before further money is spent on this much needed bridge into Greenville. I wonder if there are any other alternative sites that aren't in a floodplain. I'd hate to see $3 million to $5 million spent on this much-needed bridge if it is in a floodplain and the approaches wash out yearly.

The Telegraph Creek road. I think the minister spoke about it last year, if I'm not mistaken. If it wasn’t last year, he's been on it before. There has been much better service in the last few years on the Telegraph Creek road. I think last year a grader was put up there. For years on end the grader was kept in Dease Lake and brought out to Telegraph Creek Road. Now they're keeping a grader in Telegraph Creek.

I have another question to the minister regarding this. What position is the Glenora Road in? Just to give you some background, Glenora is 20 or 25 miles west of Telegraph Creek. Is there a priority for the grader to work between Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek, or is it between Telegraph Creek and Dease Lake? What plans are there to upgrade that road in the future? We earlier discussed the need to do some work on the 14 kilometres between Highway 37 and Cassiar. Most likely the worst section of the whole road is the 14 kilometres. There will be the opportunity for the ministry to do some work this summer with the mine being closed down, and I wondered what plans the ministry has for the Cassiar road.

On Good Hope Lake there has been a rumour floating around for a number of years regarding the moving of Good Hope Lake from Good Hope Lake to a few miles outside of Cassiar. I was wondering if there are any plans that the minister can elaborate on for moving the camp from Good Hope Lake closer to Cassiar. It appears to make sense, particularly on that 14 kilometres — the road between Highway 37 and Cassiar — and I'd like the minister's suggestions or what he can propose regarding that.

The Nass road. I know the minister invited me down to a meeting in his office when he met with the Nishga regarding this private road. I know he has met with the Nishga a number of times regarding the Nass road, and I wonder what plans there are for any alternative routes. The residents who live in the area are running in competition with the logging trucks, and there have been a number of accidents on that road. The minister has travelled the road himself and he knows the dangers, particularly around Lava Lake, where the road runs for four or five miles. Could the minister elaborate regarding any plans to upgrade the Nass road between New Aiyansh and Terrace, if there are any plans?

Local equipment. I know the minister received a number of letters from constituents urging the Ministry of Highways to hire more local equipment. A case in point was that I contacted the minister regarding the hiring of local equipment from residents in Telegraph Creek, and on another occasion regarding residents in Dease Lake who had equipment that wasn't used last summer, and about the need to hire locally instead of bringing equipment up from Prince George or even further south. Is there a priority in the ministry to hire equipment locally? I'd like to know what kind of payments are made on that — instead of hiring equipment, moving it all the way up north, let's say, from Smithers or Prince George.

Television in highway camps. I know three years ago there was a night meeting that we held in this chamber, and I brought the suggestion to the minister in his estimates of bringing in television to isolated highway camps. He took the suggestion, and the television reception dishes were placed in the highway camps. It's an excellent program. I know a number of residents who approached me sincerely thank the minister for starting the program. The question I have is that now that most of the systems are going on the CanCom system, are the local highway camps that are presently picking up CBC and BCTV going to lose their signal when the satellite goes over to the CanCom system? What contingency plans is the minister going to bring forth for those isolated highway camps to pick up television? I'd like to hear the minister's feelings regarding that.

Onto the budget. We've seen cutbacks of 18 percent in the transportation allocation. I'm wondering why road construction and improvement is down by $18 million in the budget. Paving construction and improvement is down from $54 million to $33 million, a cutback of $20.1 million or approximately 30 percent. Why is there such a cutback in paving, which is an important aspect in our transportation system in this province? The jobs associated with the paving contracts that go out across this province are very beneficial to local regions.

In the transportation policy, there appears to be a 35 percent cutback. This carries the responsibility for the air transport assistance program, which is extremely beneficial to northern British Columbia. In regard to this program that has been cut back, I wonder what public records the minister could give regarding the Atlin airport. I know it's a very contentious issue. The minister knows that. You almost have to have the wisdom of Solomon to find out exactly what's going on there. I'd like to know if the minister has any records or statements that he can make regarding the Atlin airstrip and the millions of dollars allocated for that project.

Crown corporation assistance, particularly in the Ferry Corporation, has been cut back from $63.7 million to $47.8 million. I'm wondering if this cutback of close to $20 million will effect the service into Kincolith. That's the only area in my constituency that has a B.C. ferry. I'm wondering if there are going to be any kinds of contingency plans to cut back on the ferry into the community of Kincolith.

The cutbacks on the BCR — it has been cut in half, from $13.2 million to $7 million, With the costs of the line facing into the northeast coal development.... I know my colleague the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) brought this out in his opening debate. Why the cutback of 50 percent to the BCR?

Another local constituency issue is: has the minister any plans for revitalizing the Dease Lake extension? Are there any contingency plans to connect that through to the Yukon and into Alaska? With these cutbacks it looks unlikely that the government will be doing this, but I'd like the minister's statements regarding this. It's been six years since that line's been cut down, and there have been no positive statements made by the federal government or the provincial government regarding the reopening of the Dease Lake extension.

Those were 13 or 14 questions I raised to the minister, and I'd like his answers, if possible.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll try to reply to the member for Atlin. He was going fairly rapidly there, but I'll go from back to front.

First of all, the BCR Dease Lake extension that was shut down by our government in 1977, I think, because we found out through a royal commission that there was nothing to haul, but there was a lot of money spent on grading and so on.

[ Page 8446 ]

I believe the railroad now operates to a place call Chipmunk, which is north of Leo Creek. From there the grade is put in pretty well into Dease Lake, although not all the rail is installed. I just say on behalf of our government that there are no plans to do anything about the Dease Lake extension at all. At some time in the future, if something shows up to haul, they'll have to look at it, but that hasn't showed up that I'm aware of.

Regarding the BCR cutbacks that you mentioned, that money does go through this ministry, but I haven't got the memo on that. I believe that most of the work was achieved. Particularly with the Fort St. John-Fort Nelson extension, we had done pretty well all the work. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we had spent $42 million on that extension. The others are operating subsidies that we give. I don't think that there's a big cutback there, but I'll double-check that. The subsidies are for operation of the line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, and we have instituted a new subsidy on the passenger service on the main line from North Vancouver to Prince George.

Regarding the ferry system, we have a contract there, if I recall going into Kincolith, and I'm not aware of any intention to cut back.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Talking about cutbacks of all types, yes, there are some, but the ministry's total was cut back only slightly. I thought treasury was very kind to us in view of the tough financial times. The priorities of the government were education, health and human resources, but even with doing that, where they got fairly substantial increases.... Highways got just about the same as in 1981-82 and 1982-83, but it doesn't work out that way if you consider inflation, which is running this year at 11 percent. That makes things rather difficult. We have to cut back at least the amount of inflation, and I believe another percent or something like that. I'm talking globally now.

Regarding cutbacks in individual areas of the ministry, the airport assistance program, although not eliminated, was cut back to some degree. As for how it pertains to the riding of Atlin, to answer your question, you're aware of the big project there. The work on the Atlin strip is going to continue this year. There's $300,000 for further work, but I don't think that's going to complete it. I hope we'll complete it next year.

On television and the highway camps, yes, I was involved in that about three or four years ago. Crews at remote highway camps like Meziadin Junction, Good Hope Lake, Bob Quinn, haven't very much in the way of entertainment and it's a long way in the interior, so we put in television. You've got me on where we're going with that. A note just given to me says there is some indication that CBC northern service and CanCom will eventually be broadcast on the same satellite, but there are no definite plans yet. That's the answer I have on that. So I hope the highway camps will continue to have this entertainment, if you want to call it that.

Regarding local equipment, the policy of the ministry is to hire local equipment. If we're working at Dease Lake, we should be hiring Dease Lake equipment — and the same at Cassiar, Good Hope Lake and so on. We have a very definite policy and system. Wherever we have a district highway manager, he has to take a list of the local equipment that is available — whether it be in bulldozers, trucks, graders, backhoes or whatever is needed. He takes a list from the private sector and then he prioritizes it. The area of the Atlin riding is run out of Dease Lake. We have a district manager there, and he is responsible down to Stewart and up to Atlin. He should have that list, and I might say that it causes problems all the time. We have local lists all over the province. Everybody says they're number one on the list, but they might be number 25 according to his records. It's a question of argument at all times, and we never have enough work to call them all out. But there is a definite system and rates are established by the ministry for what we pay for a truck, bulldozer or whatever.

You mentioned the road to the Nass River. We have lots of problems with the road to the Nass River. I'm referring to the road from Terrace — and I think you were — north through the lava beds and so on. It's tough country. The situation is that we have an improved existing public section of road called the Kalum Road, out of Terrace. The first 7 kilometres are paved and a further 13 kilometres are ready for paving. It will be done when the ministry calls a paving contract in the Terrace area. Improvements are being made to kilometre 48, which is the end of the existing public road, to extend the public road to Tseax Junction. From that point to the end of the public road we have the forest road, and unquestionably there is conflict. I would like to say that we're going to have more conflict until we can get it sorted out, because, as you know, there has been a road built from Kitsault back into....

MR. PASSARELL: North of Nass Camp.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right. That's going to bring more traffic down into this road system, and we're quite concerned about it. I think that's happening in 1982, and we just can't keep up. That's really what it's all about. Maybe the downturn in the economy will assist, in a way, unfortunately. If there's not a lot of logging going on — and I don't know what the situation is — there won't be the conflict of traffic for this year, but certainly there's all kinds of work to do there to get a satisfactory road north from Terrace into that part of the country: Canyon City, Greenville and so on.

Regarding the bridge at Greenville, I appreciate the comments you made there. I wanted to catch it when we were in that general area of the riding. I'm aware that Allen Garr is the chief engineer on the Greenville Bridge site.

AN HON. MEMBER: Allen Garr?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, Allen Garr has taken on engineering, and he has made the observation that our engineers have put the bridge at the wrong site in Greenville. I appreciate his observations, but I haven't seen his engineering degree. Until I do, I won't pay too much attention to them. As far as our competent engineers are concerned, the reason the site was picked — and it is picked, and the bridge is going to be built there — is that the Nass River, which is a good-sized river, as you know, has a defined channel at that area. In other words, there is no movement of the banks on either side. There hasn't been, and that's why they chose that site.

That's some good news. We have called the first contract on the bridge, and the bids were just in the other day. That is for the piers, not the substructure, but a contract will be awarded any day now. If I recall, the lowest bid was about $3 million; I can't recall the name of the contractor. So we're

[ Page 8447 ]

finally going to start on the badly needed connection for that side of the river. They've never had one and a lot of people live over there.

As for moving our maintenance-establishment camp, although there's been all kinds of talk about moving it from Good Hope Lake to Cassiar, there's nothing going on at the moment. They have looked all over for a site and haven't been able to agree on whether it should be Crown land or Cassiar mine land. Another problem is availability of power if we move, and that's a real problem. But there's nothing at all going on at the present time about moving from Good Hope Lake.

You talked about the road from Dease Lake to Telegraph Creek, which is an important branch off Highway 37. I'm pleased to hear you say that the maintenance has improved. I didn't catch everything you said, but you asked about work. I don't think any major work is contemplated on that road in 1982. The big cost there was because we had to reroute the Telegraph Creek road, if I recall, to build the airport. We spent a lot of money on the airport — I believe $1 million — to get a gravel strip at Dease Lake. I think we achieved something fairly good there. The ultimate, of course, is to pave that strip. We intend to do that, but not until we have a highway-paving contractor in the area. I don't know when that will be in that particular area, but I certainly don't think it will be this year or next year.

The Bailey bridges. I've never seen so many Bailey bridges in my life as I saw from Terrace through to the northern B.C. boundary on Highway 37. There have got to be 60 of them anyway, and we are progressively trying to get rid of them, but that's a long, long project. As you know, we've got major structures finished over some of the rivers. We intend to do four or five again this year, replace the Baileys with permanent structures. The larger vehicles travelling that road are banging our Bailey bridges apart constantly, and our people are doing a good job repairing them, but they got two or three Baileys approved and then one of the freight trucks comes along at the usual 80 miles an hour and wipes it right out, misses the Bailey, ends up in the creek and damages the Bailey with it. So we have a constant problem there. We know that it's a problem. It's really a case of money; that's what it amounts to. The Baileys should all be eliminated as fast as possible and as funds permit.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that there are no plans for the ferry to Stewart, as nice as it would be. B.C. Ferries has no plans to run into Stewart. We've got our hands full looking after what we have at the present time.

I think you mentioned — and I missed that — the subsidy cut on B.C. Ferries. Yes, that's correct. The subsidy was cut, and we have got a little tighter scheduling for our people. It's not working out too badly. Today we go back to hourly service on the main runs for the summer months.

I'd just like to tell the committee that for all the economic woes we hear, B.C. Ferries are hauling almost as many passengers and commercial and passenger vehicles as they did this time last year; it's off by very little. It's quite a surprise to us. We anticipated that traffic would be down substantially, but it is not.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Hanson said we were killing the ferries.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right. Today we're back to hourly service. I'd also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, in view of the tight economics, that we haven't had a fare increase on B.C. Ferries. which was predicted. I'm not saying we won't have, but the last one was November.

Regarding aircraft, they're always a popular subject. The member for Atlin has brought them up, and rightly so. He mentioned that the MLAs are entitled to 36 flights. I was an MLA not very long ago, and I had to thumb a ride to go home. There was no such thing as airline passes. We had quite a tough time getting the Greyhound pass, and then when we got the pass, we couldn't get on the bus anyway because they knew we were politicians. Things have changed a lot, and the passes don't come under me. As you know, they come under the Speaker's office, I think it is.

But I wanted to deal with a few things regarding the government air services and the ministers' flights. This seems to be a real touchy subject with the opposition, and I think I've now finally decided why they are so concerned about a lot of matters, including ministers on government air services: they want our government to sit in Victoria so they can say that they just sit down there and nobody sees them.

Well, I'm going to tell you that this government has done more travelling in British Columbia than all the other governments before it put together. We've taken government out to the people of our province, and what's wrong with that? This is causing some problems, you know, even getting down to the spouse as well. As a minister, I'll say that when I go out to represent the government, whether it be at Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek or Anahim Lake, and I go to a function, all the citizens there have their spouses. Why can't I have mine with me? In any case, we are going to continue that.

Yes, I guess your observation that we should economize.... We certainly will. We have a dispatch that tries to link these flights together so, say, an aircraft going Vancouver and Prince George, when somebody is going to Kamloops.... We're trying to dispatch that. Air ambulances are just jumping terrifically on us, and the busiest time for air ambulances is, unfortunately, on Friday and Saturday nights. Our pilots know that they're going to work all Friday night, all day Saturday and Saturday night, mostly picking up the carnage from the highways. Further, our fine pilots know where all the good medical services are in British Columbia, and where the not so good ones exist. We actually have a scheduled run-on to two or three communities in this province under air ambulance that I, quite frankly, don't think should be done. But maybe that's how in some cases the system gets abused.

I’ll try to speed up the logs, but as you know, Mr. Member, we get in lots of trouble in the bureaucracy. We can't even find the logs for three months in 1974, let alone table them. We're working on the logs you're looking for, and hope to get them in shortly

The other matter I want to comment on is aerial photography. It got all kinds of publicity. I'd like to tell you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, that I have a letter of apology from the fine public servant who, I believe, leaked it over there. He's in a branch of government, and he apologizes in the letter for causing the commotion over the suspension of aerial photography. The facts of life are that aerial photo was being abuse last year. It was not achieving what we wanted. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) agreed with that; it comes under him. Aerial photo has nothing to do with forestry, as you mentioned. We put the Beechcraft aircraft on the scheduled run from Vancouver to Victoria to cut down again. We had jets on there, and they're much more

[ Page 8448 ]

expensive to operate. The aerial mapping division of the Ministry of Environment can still go out and get the private sector to do their aerial photography. The fact was that there was a certain amount of abuse going on. I don't want to dwell on that subject, but it was agreed by both ministers that it wouldn't continue. That's what actually happened there.

Regarding the STOL aircraft, I think you're referring to the recent publicity given to my colleague the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I won't comment. I think I'll leave that for him to comment on. That's his project. Our ministry did that study two or three years ago. The Minister of Universities took some of that information, needed more, and announced that it's going ahead, but that's under his ministry.

I think I've covered most of Atlin, and I believe the member for Mackenzie said to leave him.... There's another day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Mackenzie.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not again!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We've barely begun. We are approaching the hour of 6 and….

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: No roads for you!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not since you guys were elected. You've just about wiped me out up there. We'll get into boats tomorrow, but very briefly and quickly I'm going to pose a few more overall questions to the minister before I move the committee rise.

The things I want to have the minister consider, and I know he's keeping notes, include the Yellowhead Highway. We meet every year with this committee, and they're pushing their highway for various reasons. Perhaps the minister can discuss briefly and bring us up to date on that particular situation. We all get mail from that particular committee.

The Motor Carrier Commission. I believe that one of my colleagues here is going to discuss that particular commission in some depth, but there are problems there, and perhaps the process of granting licences and the conflict within that commission, the minister could respond as how we....

Well, to put it in a nutshell, I think it's usually appeals to cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Order! I want the minister to hear this.

On the Motor Carrier Commission, we all have problems, there always seems to be conflict. The truckers who want to go into business or extend their routes and whatever often find it necessary to hire very expensive lawyers, go through a lengthy process, often appeal to cabinet. I have complaints about that process as well. Perhaps the minister could discuss that item.

One more item. The main highway into my riding is Highway 101 from Gibsons up to Powell River. There has been very little reconstruction on that highway. Perhaps the minister could discuss what work they're planning to do on that highway and at what cost. I know it's a lengthy area, and the population is not that great. There was some patching-up work done on that highway last year.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The one area where we're having continuing problems, aside from the continued reconstruction of 101 which is not taking place, is right in the Powell River area itself, where the highway is still falling into the ocean. It was patched again this year, but it is only a patch. So I would like to know if you're meeting with the regional district and the municipality to resolve this problem of Highway 101 up through Powell River and Lund. Last year you told me that you'd be putting in a rest stop. I have a lot of people asking why there isn't a rest stop all the way between Gibsons and Earls Cove on that particular highway, with suitable tables and restroom facilities. You said you'd look into it, so perhaps I'll remind you, if you would be good enough to think about that matter overnight.

Mr. Chairman, I have a whole lot of questions that people have presented to me from other parts of the province, so obviously we're not going to get through that tonight. I therefore move that the committee rise and report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The-House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

5 Mr. King asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to the reconstruction of Highway 23 from Revelstoke to Mica Creek —

1. At the time of commencement of construction what was the estimated total cost?

[ Page 8449 ]

2. What is the total amount spent or encumbered to the latest date available?

3. To the latest date available, what is the current revised estimate of total cost of construction to completion in current, as spent, dollars?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. $114 million in 1978.

"2. $110.7 million at April 26, 1982.

"3. $125 million."

6 Mr. King asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to the Downey slide stabilization program —

1. Has a stabilization program been approved by the water controller?

2. If the answer to No. 1 above is "yes," what are the elements of the program?

3. To the latest date available, how much drilling and/or drainage tunnelling has been completed on the program?

4. How much drilling and/or drainage tunnelling remains to be completed under the program?

5. What is the estimated cost of drilling and/or drainage tunnelling (a) to the latest date available and (b) to completion of the program?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"I would advise the Honourable Member that the Downey slide area is not within a highway right-of-way nor does it pose a threat to an adjacent highway. Consequently, it has not been investigated by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the information requested is not available from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways."

15 Mr. Ritchie asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to Gulf Islands ferry routes —

1. How many motor vehicles were carried between Swartz Bay and Fulford Harbour in the calendar year 1981?

2. How many motor vehicles were carried between Vesuvius and Crofton in the same year?

3. How many motor vehicles were carried between Tsawwassen and Long Harbour (disregarding traffic between intermediate points on the last-mentioned route) in the same year?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"Vehicle Traffic –– 1981 ––

"1. Swartz Bay–Fulford, 225,340.

"2. Vesuvius-Crofton, 121,050.

"3. Tsawwassen–Long Harbour, 50,731."

56 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. How many copies of B.C. Hydro's Annual Reports for 1980-81 and 1981-82 were printed?

2. To whom were they distributed?

3. What was the cost for each year of (a) production, including staff time, (b) printing and (c) distribution?

[ Page 8450 ]

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"1. 1980-81 — 30,000 and 1981-82 — 30,000.

"2. Regular employees; pensioners; investors; bond holders; investment dealers; banks; other financial institutions; other utilities; MLAs; MPs (in B.C.); news media throughout B.C.; trade journals; mayors and aldermen; federal ministries, commissions, boards, etc.; Provincial ministries, commissions, boards, etc.; senior civic staff; business leaders (including chambers of commerce, etc.) ; libraries (public and corporate) ; elementary schools; secondary schools; universities and colleges; education officials; trade associations; public actions, environment and other special interest groups; and various individuals who have requested they be placed on the list. In addition, copies of the publication are available at all Hydro offices throughout the Province. They are publicized through Service Digest as part of Hydro's ongoing information service to the public.

"3. 1980-81, (a) $47,300.63, (b) $60,496 plus taxes for a total of $66,799.94 and (c) $12,800. Staff time is estimated as follows: Publications Section, 140 hours; Editorial, 320 hours; Audio-visual, 82 hours; and Financial, 90 hours. 1981-82, (a) $19,500 (estimated), (b) $45,842 (estimated) and (c) $14,750 (estimated). Staff time is estimated as follows: Publications Section, 280 hours; Typesetting,100 hours; Editorial, 285 hours; and Financial, 90 hours. Note: Staff time is indicated in hours rather than dollars since the many individuals involved are all paid at different rates."

59 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. What was the deficit or subsidy required to support the Gabriola Island Ferry during the fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82?

2. What is the estimate of the magnitude of this cost or subsidy during the fiscal year 1982-83?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Deficit in 1980-81 of $1,388,073.66 and deficit in 1981-82 of $1,446,085.83.

"2. Estimated deficit in 1982-83 of $2,200,000."

60 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following question:

With respect to the Gabriola Island Ferry —

For each of the years 1980, 1981 and to date 1982, how many cars and how many passengers were carried and what was the annual net loss on this route?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"Financial statistics maintained on fiscal year basis. Deficits by fiscal years are: 1980-81, $1,388,073.66; 1981-82, $1,446,085.83; and 1982-83, $2,200,000 (estimated)."