[ Page 8507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Complaints filed with employment standards branch. Ms. Sanford –– 8507

Youth employment program. Ms. Sanford –– 8507

Restrictions on hotel tenants. Mr. Lauk –– 8507

Relocation expenses of Douglas Heal. Mrs. Dailly –– 8508

Government expense vouchers. Mr. Macdonald –– 8508

Layoff of lottery workers. Mrs. Dailly –– 8509

Ministerial statement re Prince Rupert petrochemical terminal.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8509

Mr. Lea –– 8509

Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8510

Wildlife Act (Bill 55). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On section 2 –– 8510

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 2 8510

Mrs. Wallace

On section 2 –– 8512

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Kempf

On section 3 –– 8513

Mr. Skelly

On the first amendment to section 3 –– 8514

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 3 –– 85t4

Mr. Skelly

On the second amendment to section 3 –– 8514

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 4 –– 8515

Mr. Skelly

On section 7 –– 8515

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 7 –– 8515

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 7 as amended –– 8516

Mr. Skelly

Division

On section 8 –– 8516

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 8 –– 8516

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Division

On section 40 –– 8517

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 40 –– 8517

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Mr. King

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Division

On section 41 –– 8524

Mrs. Dailly

On section 44 –– 8525

Mr. Skelly

On section 47 –– 8525

Mr. Skelly

On section 54 –– 8525

Mr. Brummet

On the amendment to section 54 –– 8525

Mr. Brummet

Hon. Mr. Rogers

On section 61 –– 8526

Mr. Skelly

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 32: minister's office –– 8526

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Tabling Documents

B.C. Systems Corporation annual report, 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8530

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority report,

March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8530

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8530

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8530

Ministerial statement re northeast coal.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8530

Mr. Leggatt –– 8531

Appendix –– 8531

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce two visitors who have been to visit a committee of our Social Credit caucus in this past hour: Mr. Dave Jaffe, researcher for the British Columbia Coalition of Disabled Persons, and Mr. Alfred Youngs of the Handicapped Action Committee. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd sincerely like to welcome a constituent of the minister's, Jonas St. Cyr from Prince George. I'd ask all members of the House to welcome as well Jonas' sister, Mona St. Cyr, who is a member of the Swedish parliament.

Oral Questions

COMPLAINTS FILED WITH
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I'm in receipt of complaints filed with the employment standards branch against Western Lettuce Now, Inc., a company owned by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), regarding nonpayment of overtime to workers involved in the construction of farm buildings. By statute, these workers are entitled to overtime payment. Would the minister investigate why these employees were paid under the guise of farm workers, and therefore would not be entitled to overtime payment, when in fact they were hired for construction work?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in receipt of any such complaint. If the member would be prepared to provide me with the information, I will take her question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: I will send those across the floor to the minister.

The employees further complain that they have been replaced....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is taken as notice. We would entertain a new question.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question on a new topic. It relates to the youth employment program.

These workers complained that they have been replaced by others who have been hired under the youth employment program, and that they, have now been dismissed from their employ. Is it policy that regular employees be replaced by government-subsidized employees under the youth employment program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To my knowledge, I don't believe that to be the policy. I would ask if that information could be included with the information I requested concerning the first question, which was taken as notice. I will attempt to accommodate the member and get as much information as I can.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the youth employment program, is it possible that a policy exists which he minister is not aware of?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a period of debate.

RESTRICTIONS ON HOTEL TENANTS

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A Mrs. Evelyn Nelson has been virtually held captive in the Empress Hotel — that's in Vancouver, on the downtown east side — where she is a permanent resident; it's a residential hotel. Under the Hotel Keepers Act, her landlord is able to restrict people who wish to visit her. The owner of the hotel has given instructions that she is not to receive any visitors.

Mrs. Nelson is one of many persons who are suffering from a lack of protection as tenants in these residential hotels, because they do not fall under the Residential Tenancy Act. Can the minister inform the House why the government has decided not to proclaim amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, passed unanimously by this House in June 1981, that would protect these tenants?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please, before we proceed.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First of all, with respect to the specific complaint I would be happy to take it as notice and have the matter looked into. By way of opening my reply, perhaps I could note that this is the first specific case that I've had drawn to my attention of this alleged type of problem, and that may in itself be commentary about the actual frequency. However, dealing generally with the question posed, there are several very good reasons as to why the particular section of the act has not yet been proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, I think in common terms this section of the act is referred to as the section dealing with hotels, lodging and rooming houses. First of all, the staff of the office of the rentalsman is as a first priority dealing with the existing backlog under the existing policy and the existing files — the existing cases that have arisen under situations that are eligible for action and review. Our first priority is to cut through the backlog and reduce it on existing eligible cases.

Secondly, if this change is made, a new form of problem may arise with respect to people in these kinds of tenancies, and that would be the requirement for a security deposit. As we see it, a number of those people who are able to make the monthly rental payments and find this an appropriate kind of lodging would be hard-pressed to find a necessary security deposit.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, there is a significant and rising vacancy rate in greater Vancouver, and that rising vacancy rate is easing the pressure generally on what has been a tight rental market. That in turn produces the flexibility for many

[ Page 8508 ]

tenants to be able to consider a change of residence for the first time if they wish to.

But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think the member has to appreciate that if the section is proclaimed, it has province-wide effect. The particular kind of problem the member refers to — as advocated by DERA, for example — is isolated to perhaps 30 square blocks of Vancouver. Now the so-called hotel, lodging and rooming house provisions, if brought in province-wide, would, for example, affect many areas of the province with a sizable tourist trade, where in the off-season these so-called hotels, lodging and rooming houses, without being under the jurisdiction of the rentalsman, are rented out on a very practical, comfortable and workable basis, and the system works just fine. We have some response from those areas against bringing in such a change. If, for example, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities itself — on behalf of all areas — wanted such a change, that would be a more persuasive argument.

So in summary, Mr. Speaker, we have this request made on behalf of a relatively small geographic area in the city of Vancouver. As we see it so far, the arguments in favour of bringing in the proclamation are outweighed by the arguments in favour of the status quo. I'd be happy to take the first part of the question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's amazing that the minister with a wave of his hand can wipe out a whole community of 8,000 residents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question, please.

MR. LAUK: There are 8,000 people there, and their housing is not affected by the current market in housing because it's a fixed residential hotel-type of accommodation. The minister knows this, and all of the arguments he raised were raised in June 1981 when the amendments were passed.

My question to the minister is this. All of these arguments have been answered, but several organizations, including DERA, have requested a meeting with the minister to discuss the problems in the area — in particular, these specific problems. Has the minister now decided to set a date for a meeting with this organization and others?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot proceed until we have order.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: By way of reply, I think the member is in error. The amendment in question, unproclaimed, was in January 1980 as opposed to June 1981.

With respect to meetings, I met at length with the mayor and Alderman Eriksen about two months ago on this topic. I received, within the last week, a letter from DERA requesting a further meeting, to which I'll be replying.

With respect to the community of 8,000 people, the vacancy situation has changed. Recently, for example, one of the weekend papers in Vancouver showed 19 columns of about 2,500 units for rent in the lower mainland, at a variety of rents. So the vacancy factor has changed very greatly.

MR. LAUK: The minister doesn't seem to be focusing his attention on the problem. This is a significant....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It sounds like the member is debating.

MR-LAUK: No, not really. I don't want to set the minister up; I want to set the question up. This is a stable community of 8,000 residents. You're familiar with it. You said in a letter to DERA that you don't need another tour because you, as you say, "walk through quietly" the downtown east side every once in a while. I don't know what you meant by that.

You're familiar enough with the area, Mr. Minister. Surely you can explain specifically why you cannot proclaim the legislation that will protect these tenants. I've confirmed that that woman has been held a hostage. There are 10 or 12 other examples that should be brought to your attention. Why won't you proclaim them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the question.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I think the member has again answered his own question. He has told the House there are 8,000 people involved. This is the first particular case I have had drawn to my attention, and I know that a lawyer of that member's unparalleled ability should have no difficulty in helping a constituent if she's being held hostage contrary to the provisions of the Hotel Keepers Act.

RELOCATION EXPENSES OF DOUGLAS HEAL

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, can the Provincial Secretary advise the House why his deputy minister, Doug Heal, was paid $13,100, allegedly for moving expenses, to take up his duties in Victoria?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume that was the approved cost of his relocating when he came to his job in Victoria, since he moved from Toronto. I think I should take the question on notice to get a more detailed answer for the member.

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister, if I may say, is taking it for notice, would he also check, for the information of the House, why there apparently was no supporting documentation regarding the cost of that move? Perhaps when he comes back with the answer to those two questions he will also explain to the House why there does not appear to be any policy regarding the use of unvouchered sums of money paid to public relations deputies in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has taken the question as notice. I presume those are supplementaries to be taken on notice.

GOVERNMENT EXPENSE VOUCHERS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Attorney-General, the minister in charge of freedom of information legislation, this question: did his department give a legal opinion to the office of the comptroller-general that the audit records of government, which must be kept secure, cannot be photocopied by members of the public accounts committee, which would make them even more secure? Did you give that opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the acting comptroller-general requested an opinion from the

[ Page 8509 ]

ministry with respect to matters concerning vouchers. I would have to take the question as notice in order to be specific in a response to the details.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised the Attorney-General would not take an interest in a matter of that much importance. Did the Attorney-General give another opinion that members of the public accounts committee could not have the help of staff in examining the expense vouchers of his own colleagues?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether the hon. member is suggesting that that matter was also dealt with in the same opinion.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it wasn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If he is asking if it was a separate opinion, I'll take that as notice as well.

LAYOFF OF LOTTERY WORKERS

MRS. DAILLY: I direct a question to the Provincial Secretary to do with the layoff of lottery workers. In a time of recession, can the minister explain to the House why hundreds of lottery people, who formerly sold the lottery tickets, have now been put out of work because of some new policy of the minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, with all due respect, I think her information is inaccurate. There has been a change in policy in terms of the distribution of lottery tickets. The banks are no longer able to handle in their 87 branches the custody, control and distribution of lottery tickets, so it's been necessary to establish four new distribution depots in the province. The former employees of various non-profit wholesalers have not been laid off. I presume I will have information on that for the member during my estimates, which might be a more appropriate time to deal with this question, but there were, I think, some 50 employees formerly with various distributors throughout the province. They've placed a high priority on re-employing those very people in the new system. I understand some 20 to 25 have been re-employed by the Western Canada Lottery Foundation in the new distribution system.

PRINCE RUPERT
PETROCHEMICAL TERMINAL

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have some very good news to announce for the city of Prince Rupert, for the the province of British Columbia, for the oil and gas industry, and indeed, for all of western Canada. The final choice has been made of the consortium that will be the developer-operator of a new, giant petrochemical terminal to be built at Prince Rupert. Alberta's Economic Development minister, Hon. Hugh Planche, is at this moment announcing the selection of Transtech-Simon TR as the consortium responsible for the project. The choice was made from five proponents, including project plans that would have sited the terminal on federal government land.

One strong plus, Mr. Speaker, from British Columbia's viewpoint is that the selected proposal calls for construction on land owned by the British Columbia Development Corporation. BCDC will lease the land to the consortium, bringing in considerable revenue for that Crown corporation. Construction will start in late 1982, and the first shipments will move in late 1984. The total capital investment in the project, which is all from the private sector, will be $99 million, and 230 direct jobs will be created at the height of construction. There will be 60 permanent workers operating the terminal. The city of Prince Rupert, Mr. Speaker, will benefit in direct tax revenue to the tune of up to $3 million per year, the sum the consortium has allocated for local taxes. Initial provincial government revenues are estimated to be in the vicinity of $4 million a year.

The terminal, although constructed and financed to handle Alberta petrochemicals, will be ready to handle British Columbia produced products when needed. The benefit to this province will be from increased economic activity and from Prince Rupert's growing reputation as a rapidly expanding world-class port. The new petrochemical operation opens the door for further development on Kaien Island and is a possible location for a liquefied natural gas plant.

Mr. Speaker, to editorialize a small amount, I want to say that in Canada today, when there seems to be nothing but gloom and doom around, this little government in British Columbia is working with the private sector, is working with other governments — and we sometimes have arguments with the National Harbours Board — to ensure that economic development will go ahead in this great province not just for the short time and not job-creating projects that won't have long-term economic stability. This project is another in the long-term goals in the economic development plans for this province to bring long-term economic stability and to put British Columbia in the forefront of economic development — not only in Canada and in North America, Mr. Speaker, but in the world.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker. the official opposition welcomes news of economic development.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members. The statement was heard in relative quiet; let's hear the reply.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we cannot look at economic development today, though, without taking into consideration some of the factors that economic development can bring about. On the land that the minister is talking about in Prince Rupert, we are afraid that unless proper precautions are taken, a great deal of acid rain can be produced from such an operation. We welcome economic development, but at the same time we don't welcome economic development that will cause ill health in the long run to the citizens of the province. So as we welcome this announcement, we would like to have the assurance of government that all the necessary studies that should be done will be done to safeguard the citizens of Prince Rupert from pollution that could be detrimental to the citizens' health in Prince Rupert. We think that is just as important as the economic development that will take place.

We do welcome the economic development, but I'm sure the government will join us in being concerned about the cleanliness that we all desire for our community. So even though we welcome the announcement, we have a little bit of

[ Page 8510 ]

reservation about the start-up date. We would like to assure ourselves, the people of Prince Rupert and the people of the province that the proper things are done with regard to the environment, and we would like to make sure that those safeguards will be in place before construction takes place.

I don't quite understand how the minister is relating LNG and its operation to this plant, because it's my understanding that it takes two different pipelines — that one pipeline cannot carry the needed raw resource to the LNG as it would for the federal chemical plant. So I don't think there is any relationship between the LNG proposal and this petrochemical proposal — and I see the minister is nodding in agreement. So we welcome it, but we do hope and will insist that the proper precautions are taken so the citizens of Prince Rupert are not subjected to pollution that would cause ill health in the community.

Introduction of Bills

COURT ORDER INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the assembly one of our members who celebrated a birthday Sunday last and to express the warmest of congratulations and good thoughts and camaraderie to my colleague the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 55.

WILDLIFE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. SKELLY: As we pointed out during debate on second reading, the opposition supports the legislation in general. However, there are some concerns that we have about particular sections of the legislation, and this is a section about which we have one of those concerns — in particular, subsection (4) which reads: "Notwithstanding anything in this act, no right of action lies, and no right of compensation exists, against the Crown in right of the province for death, personal injury or property damage caused by (2) wildlife," etc. While we're in favour of one part of the section — that there should be no right of action, because, of course, the Crown could be held responsible for ducks flying into jet engines and what pigeons do to statues and what gophers do to front lawns; we feel there should be no absolute right to compensation or right of action against the Crown — we do feel that there should be an amendment to this section which gives the minister the right, at his discretion, to compensate those who do suffer losses as a result of wildlife depredations.

We're thinking, at this point, about farmers and ranchers who suffer losses as a result of the predation of wildlife and wild fowl, etc. It has been pointed out and drawn to our attention by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and by ranchers' groups in this province, as well as by members on the other side of the House, that there is no compensation provision in this statute. We feel that if there were a compensation provision, it would provide an incentive to the minister to manage wildlife a little more intensively and to prevent the kind of damage that is done to agricultural crops and to livestock around the province.

I would like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the order paper which adds subsection (5) to section 2, which would read: "Notwithstanding section 2 (4) the minister may, subject to the regulations (a) provide compensation to any person suffering property loss or damage caused by wildlife or hunters; (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." We do not want to bind the government to provide compensation, because then we would be opening it up to almost limitless claims against the government, but where there is serious damage to agriculture and to livestock, we would like to have that possibility there.

Some people might say that this would divert wildlife management money into compensation schemes, and that is not our intention in moving this motion. We would like to see, for example, under subsection (b) that the minister would enter into arrangements with insurers which could provide an insurance scheme for damage, where an insurance scheme is feasible. So it does allow the minister some flexibility and also some discretion in dealing with the problems of compensation for losses due to wildlife.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to speak in support of the amendment. I pointed out to the minister that similar legislation is in effect in other jurisdictions. In fact, I think my colleague's motion is largely based on existing legislation in the province of Saskatchewan.

The minister indicated that he has no right to pay any compensation, because of the wording in another portion of

[ Page 8511 ]

the section. I don't necessarily agree with that. He has indicated that that is the case. The problem is that without such an amendment, I'm afraid he will continue to take the same stance, inasmuch as the wording of this new section 2 is almost identical to the wording of section 80 in the old legislation.

When he was approached by members of the agricultural community, he indicated that he was sympathetic to such an amendment. In fact, they understood that he might even introduce such an amendment, but they haven't seen it. He has not done so. In spite of urgings by his colleagues from the Fraser Valley and Omineca, he has failed to introduced this amendment.

I suggest that this is really very much in line with what the members of the agricultural community are asking. I'm not for a minute suggesting that it be limited to the agricultural community, but it would provide the minister with the right of discretion, enshrined in legislation, to take the necessary steps when he felt such compensation was desirable. That's all this legislation asks, and that is really all that the members of the Federation of Agriculture have been asking for. Some time ago when they met with the minister and presented their brief, the minister said: "Send me some guidelines." They sent the minister a fairly extensive eight-point list of guidelines that they felt should be considered. They're not asking for total compensation. They're not asking for the moon. They estimated that the total maximum cost of agricultural losses would be about $800,000. That's a very minor portion of the minister's total funds. Certainly he could set up some insurance scheme that would adequately cover it.

If we're going to get into this conflict between food production and the protection of our wildlife, we have to ensure that there is some measure to protect not just wildlife but also the people involved in food production.

I am very much in support of this amendment. I hope the minister will reconsider and decide to accept this amendment. It's a very loosely worded amendment, which allows the minister complete discretionary power. It would remove any possibility of what I feel is misinterpretation of the right of appeal, which I certainly want to see retained. The minister and the taxpayer have to have protection from nuisance complaints. This would make it very clear that he may, at his discretion, make whatever payment he deems necessary to prevent major economic loss. In second reading I pointed out cases in the agricultural community where one farmer's crop was entirely destroyed in a couple of nights. It's not a big thing as far as repayment by the government or through some insurance scheme goes, but certainly it is a very big thing when one farmer faces that kind of thing.

I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would agree that it's a very heavy loss for one farmer to lose his entire crop. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture would see fit to support this amendment, because it really is a motion that has a great effect on the farm community. It's not aimed entirely at the farm community. It's a broad enough amendment to be used for any occasion that arises, and it's also discretionary enough to be not all-encompassing or overbearing. I think it's a very good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have had some debate on the section. Nonetheless, I feel it is the responsibility of the Chair to point out that because the the section gives an opportunity for the Crown to expend funds, under the rules of the committee it must fail, unless it comes forward with the endorsement of the Crown. I make that message before recognizing the minister.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to dispose with the section first and then speak to it, as the Chairman has indicated.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in regard to your ruling, I think that the member who moved it, and I too, have made the point that the entire thing is discretionary. There is not any mandatory expenditure of funds. It could be done through an insurance scheme. We are not really moving to involve the expenditure of government funds here. We're simply enshrining a principle, and there is no reference to funding. That funding could be at the minister's discretion, and if he wished to do it through an insurance scheme, he could do it that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Nonetheless. when a section gives authority to executive council or to a minister to expend moneys, then that motion, unless endorsed by the minister, fails to meet the necessary criteria to be in order to put to the floor for a vote.

MR. SKELLY: On the point of order, section 2(4) already implies that the minister has the right to make compensation, but says that there is no right for the public to take action against the minister. This section simply clarifies that authority on the minister's part and doesn't grant any additional authority, but clarifies for the benefit of the public that the minister already has that authority and may, right now and under this section of the act, make compensation even though the public does not have an absolute right to claim. We don't challenge that; we feel that that should remain. There should be no absolute right for compensation for wildlife damage. We recognize that the minister has that right, and we would like to clarify that in the legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Nonetheless, the entire section 2, as printed in the bill before us, without the amendment, fails to mention compensation. The amendment before us does mention compensation and states that the minister may enter into an agreement. That, of course, is what rules the section out of order. It's a permissive section. Nonetheless, hon. members, it is a situation that the Chair is bound to enforce, and we have ample historical documentation to back up that particular decision by the Chair. As I state, unless the motion is endorsed by the Crown the motion must therefore fail.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, objections to amendments to government bills have always been founded on the basis that they seek to impose an obligation on the Crown. And I respectfully submit that that is not the case here. No obligation is imposed upon the Crown rather, an existing amendment and an existing power of the minister is simply amended for clarification. Mr. Chairman. I worry about a ruling from the Chair which further restricts the traditional criteria that I've understood in this House, which prevent anyone but the executive council member imposing an obligation on the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'm sure if members peruse sections 66 and 67 of our standing orders, the situation

[ Page 8512 ]

will become a little more clear to them. Under the rules that bind us and guide us, the Chair has no alternative but to rule that the amendment to section 2 does not meet the necessary criteria. That concludes the item...

MR. SKELLY: We challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:...with the exception of a challenge to the Chair which has just been made.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: During committee, the ruling of the Chair was challenged basically on sections 66 and 67 of standing orders as they relate to an amendment presently before the House.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

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

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 2.

MRS. WALLACE: Section 2 apparently replaces section 80 of the old act. Subsection (3) of section 80 reads:

"Notwithstanding anything in this act, no right of action lies and no right of compensation exists against the Crown in right of the Province for death, personal injury or property damage caused by any wildlife declared by this act or the regulations to be the property of the Crown."

That wording is almost identical to section 2(4) of the new act. It's my understanding that in the past, the minister's interpretation of this section has been that it forbids him from making any compensation for loss as a result of damage by wildlife. Certainly if that was his stance then, will he continue to hold that position?

I note that he's presently consulting with the Attorney-General and I'm wondering if he hadn't done that previously. My interpretation of this particular subsection is that it does not preclude compensation; it does preclude the right of an individual to compensation, but it doesn't preclude the minister from granting compensation should he so wish. I would like an assurance from the minister that he is going to take that stand in future, that he is going to so interpret it, in that he does have the discretionary power to grant compensation, and that he will no longer hide behind this section as an excuse for not granting compensation in a case where there is legitimate damage, and strictly at his discretion. I think it's a matter of interpretation of this clause and I'd like to hear the minister's statement on it. I hope the Attorney-General has briefed him to the point where he will be giving us the kind of answer we're looking for.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Clearly, you're quite correct that this section is section 80 in the existing act, and it's merely a lift. So this section in this particular act is not changing anything from what we had in the previous Wildlife Act.

However, I would like to respond on the subject of compensation, because I have been approached by members of the agricultural community, who have a very well-organized lobby. They have approached a number of people on the subject of compensation for damage. We've also had a look at what happens in other jurisdictions. As I told you during second reading of this bill, where the Peace River country grains are concerned we are trying to get the Canadian government to extend their compensation program that they have in the three prairie provinces to include that part of British Columbia. However, the dollar amounts are so small that it would take a major change in that whole program to really have any significance for the farmers in the area; it's really designed to deal with damage from waterfowl.

The Minister of Agriculture and I have been working on a program looking at what kinds of costs are involved. Should the government decide to go in for a compensation program, it would be introduced as a separate piece of legislation. It would also have to go through Treasury Board to be approved, because the numbers I have are approximately $2 million a year. Different numbers have been bandied around. You used a different figure — I think it was $750,000 — but it's very much how high is up in terms of taking a guess as to what the amount would be.

All the different jurisdictions have different problems. When they speak to me privately, most of them say: "Spend the money on prevention. Don't spend the money on compensation." There's a great deal of difficulty in trying to solve the problem after the fact. In the state of Colorado their administrative guidelines for issuing compensation for damage from wildlife are so restrictive that over 50 percent of their budget actually goes into the bureaucratic machine to stop the abuse that would happen if it were wide open. Of their $3 million budget, $1.5 million goes into the paperwork chain that's required to get it there. I'm not against the government having a policy to assist, because there are isolated instances of certain farmers.... People on Westharn Island and in the Kispiox valley have a wolf problem. In the Creston valley you have a problem with deer. We have a bear problem provincewide in terms of sanitary landfills and their operation. We are working now on trying to prevent the damage in the first place. In terms of deer we're working on a

[ Page 8513 ]

new fencing system which is a deterrent. I think the marijuana growers have had the most success. They seem to be able to get their crop in on Crown land with the deer repellents they use, but we haven't been able to get a very good working dialogue with them, because they don't really want to come forward to the government agencies with their wildlife prevention programs. But they seem to have had great success in raising their crops in areas where they're subject to predation by ungulates.

MRS. WALLACE: The ungulates know better.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's right, they do.

But I think that if a program is to be developed, it should be developed jointly between Environment and Agriculture and Food. I think that they should have some pretty clear guidelines as to what the compensation program would be, and I think it should be run by Agriculture and Food and not by Environment. I think our expertise and our specialty should be in prevention in the first place, because it really isn't any encouragement to have someone in the agricultural community continue to try to grow crops, and say, when the brant come and take out the cauliflower or sugar beets or whatever it is they're taking out: "It's okay. I'll get a cheque from the government." They just lose interest, and the thing is wide open to abuse, as you know. To say "may" instead of "shall".... You can just imagine what question period or what my estimates would be like in this House if we decided to give some to these people, but that we didn't think these other people need it as much. I don't think the agricultural community ever has a really good year. They don't ever have a burnper year when they've got so much money in the bank that they're able to say: "No, we don't need the program." So I would like to say that in Environment we're going to spend our efforts and our time on prevention, rather than on a compensation program, although the government may develop a program of its own. It's something that's under consideration.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the other day I raised the question with the minister about the trumpeter swans and the damage they're doing in the Comox Valley. I know that one farmer has submitted a bill for over $9,000, indicating that the trumpeters have consumed 396,000 pounds of forage. The minister did not respond the other day with respect to what discussions are taking place with the federal people. In a letter to my constituent he indicates that there are negotiations underway now with respect to some effort that would establish — and I'm quoting from his letter — "a course of action that would prevent or reduce crop depredation by waterfowl, and these negotiations have not yet been concluded." But what kind of negotiations? What's involved here? Is there any discussion of compensation with the federal government as well?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, my estimates are going to follow this bill, and perhaps the question would be more appropriate in my estimates. But I think that since the committee is rather quiet now, I could read you my notes about the Comox trumpeter swan situation, and maybe that will assist you.

Formerly a threatened species, the trumpeter swans have increased naturally and changed their winter distribution in the past ten years: about 2,000 now winter on Vancouver Island. Problems are caused in pastures with new seedlings during winter months. Edgar Smith of Comox — I think that's the gentleman who has suffered considerable damage, between $7,000 and $9,000 in the past — now appears to have solved the problem by using a dog trained to chase the birds away. Other farmers not using dogs still suffer damage.

During the coming fall and summer the Canadian Wildlife Service is trying a new method of damage prevention. Five 20-acre plots in standing corn will be aerial-seeded with fall rye. By the time the corn is harvested, the fall rye should be tall enough to provide good forage for swans in the winter, thus the swans will have a place to feed where no damage will occur, and with a minimum of scaring swans from fields in which they are not wanted, the farmer will be able to prevent crop damage. So that's what the Canadian Wildlife Service is doing in conjunction with my ministry.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I think in general the opposition is willing to support this section of the act. We did want some kind of clear statement by the minister as to what his position was on compensation. Basically I agree with what he says — that it should be done through the Ministry of Agriculture, and that the emphasis of the Ministry of Environment should be on improving wildlife management, with some agreement on the agricultural side that they're going to improve management as well to try to eliminate these problems. But I am pleased to hear that he is working with the Minister of Agriculture on a compensation scheme. Basically that's the point we wanted to make by presenting this amendment.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, as what I'm going to say now I've said many times in this House, but I just want to get it firmly on the record once more. I'm not talking now about problems with wildlife in relation to fruit crops, ground crops or anything like that; it's the question of wolf predation of cattle that I wish to speak about. Again, I want to make it very clear to this House that I would be very strongly opposed to any compensation situation in this province related to predation by wolves of cattle, because as I said before — and I'll say it again here today — that's only band-aid, and I don't believe it's good enough. I don't believe that you cover up one problem by creating another, and in this case it's another one for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

What we need in regard to the predation of cattle by wolves is a proper predator-control program. To bring in some program to compensate ranchers for the loss of cattle to wolves, as I say again, is merely band-aid. It's merely spending good money after bad, and that's certainly not what we need in the province of British Columbia. Regardless of whether it's this minister or the Minister of Agriculture or whatever minister it happens to be, I would stand strongly opposed to, and I would vote against, such a compensation program in this House.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, in this section we'd like to add a little to the minister's powers and add a few responsibilities as well. We read through the material that was submitted to the minister and to us by the B.C. Federation of

[ Page 8514 ]

Wildlife and by other groups, as well as material in the McCarthy report and the Mair report. In particular, in the McCarthy report it was suggested that the minister should have an advisory committee, and it was spelled out in some detail what that advisory committee should consist of, how it should operate and what advice should be given on what matters. We felt that for the purposes of making an amendment in this House, the fact should simply be included in the act that the minister may appoint an advisory committee, which would meet on the request of the minister and act in an advisory capacity respecting the carrying out of the provisions of this act.

As we've pointed out in a number of other pieces of legislation presented by this minister and during his estimates in previous years, one of the things that seems to be happening in the Ministry of Environment and under the legislation that they administer is an attempt to eliminate valid public involvement in the decisions being made with respect to the matters under this minister's jurisdiction. In very general terms, we feel that this amendment would give the minister the right to appoint an advisory committee, and the fact that it would exist in the legislation would encourage the minister to appoint such an advisory committee as was recommended in the McCarthy report. I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, amendment 3A. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Under sections of the Environment Management Act passed last year, we have the power that I believe the member is seeking under 3A. I wouldn't be in favour of having a special advisory board just to deal with wildlife. I think we would want to call on greater disciplines such as those available in the Environment Management Act. For that reason I would reject section 3A.

MR. SKELLY: While we're on the process of discussing the amendment, the minister might advise me if an advisory committee has been appointed under the Environment Management Act. If so, who is on the committee and have they been assigned any specific terms of reference which would relate to wildlife management or the Wildlife Act in the province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Member, but we have the ability to do so, and we have the talent within the members on that particular board to do so. At such time as we do, I will advise you.

MR. SKELLY: If they have the ability and the talent, part of the proof of the ability and the talent is to do it. One of the problems we've seen with this ministry, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the minister hasn't demonstrated what he calls the ability and the talent to appoint these advisory committees. If he has the power under the Environment Management Act, then let's do it. It's definite that he needs some advice in administering his department.

Amendment negatived.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: Well, we'll try this one then, Mr. Chairman. I was asked by the Clerks to renumber this amendment to 3(2).

This again refers back to a suggestion that was made during the time that the White Paper was circulated on the Wildlife Act. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, in particular, said at that time that the minister should have the same obligation as the Minister of Forests to provide a report to cabinet and to the Legislature on the state of wildlife management in the province of British Columbia. I think one of the serious deficiencies in the administration of wildlife is that we don't have that type of reporting as we now do under the Forest Act. It should be written into the legislation so it is the rule of law in the province with respect to wildlife that the minister must report in some detail as to the state of wildlife management in the province.

I'll read section 3B, which I propose to add:

"Not later than one year after proclamation of this act and every fifth year thereafter the minister shall prepare and submit to the Legislature a wildlife resource analysis containing:

" (1) a description of the location, use and extent of areas of land in the province that have been set aside for the purpose of wildlife management or protection;

" (2) a description of the inventory of the wildlife resource and wildlife habitat in the province and a description for the potential for wildlife enhancement and development in the province;

" (3) a description of the programs of the ministry respecting public and private wildlife management, protection, conservation investment and research;

" (4) an analysis of the trends and forecasts of domestic and international demand for the uses of wildlife resources in the province;

" (5) a summary of the development in and the question of public policy that are expected to significantly influence and to affect the use and management of the wildlife resources."

We on this side of the House feel that wildlife resources of the province are sufficiently important to deserve the same kind of attention that the forest resource deserves in the way that information on that resource is presented to cabinet and to the Legislature. For that reason we are moving a section that reads in a similar way to the Section in the Forest Act governing the forest resource. We would hope that the minister would accept this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I suspect that if standing order 66 and 67 applied earlier, they would certainly apply in this section, but I would just like to speak to it briefly.

If the member would refer to section 2 of the Environment Management Act, the minister has all of these powers which you are suggesting also be incorporated in section 3B; however, they're permissive. The thing that I don't like about making it mandatory — and I don't even mind taking a shot at doing it once every five years — but we may get into a situation.... We have a limited number of personnel and there are a limited amount of people that are trained in the field of wildlife management. It's an expertise that isn't just off the shelf. We may get into a situation where we're not able to spring loose the number of people that you'd need to do this particular study on a five-year basis. It may very well be

[ Page 8515 ]

that we want to have one done more frequently. The chance of the same minister being in there every five years is, I would have to say, reasonably rare in today's changing government. So it's not from a point of view of whether or not the government would be able to gauge the up or down of the wildlife populations in the province and also habitat degradation or habitat improvement, as the case may be. For that reason, I would find your amendment unacceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister advising the Chair that section 3B, in his opinion, does not qualify under section 66 or 67 of standing orders?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I would say both of them, because it says "shall prepare and submit to the legislature a wildlife resource analysis, " which would be an additional cost over the existing situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the practice has been that when the minister responsible indicates that either section 66 or 67 is being contravened, then that section is deemed to be out of order by virtue of that acknowledgement. Therefore the Chair rules that section 3B fails to meet the necessary criteria.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman. I would be on my feet to challenge your ruling on section 3B, but of course this jackboot government, with their majority — whether by voting the section down or by ruling it out of order with us having to challenge the Chair — would crush any positive suggestion on the part of the opposition.

It's unfortunate that the minister chose to do that to this amendment, which is very specific and would provide valuable information to legislators, who have a very difficult time in dealing with matters relating to wildlife. The fact that such a document would be presented to the Legislature every five years would be a tremendous advantage in educating legislators and the public as to the problems faced by this province in matters relating to fish and wildlife, as we do now under the Forest Act. I think it's very unfortunate that the minister chose not to accept this and to select standing orders 66 and 67 to rule it out of order.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. SKELLY: This section sets up wildlife management areas in the province. I would like to ask the minister how many such areas there are and to what extent the province is covered by wildlife management areas. What is the area of wildlife management areas in the province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: None yet, of course, because the act is not passed. We're looking at approximately a million acres in the province, which is a relatively small area.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. SKELLY: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] This would delete the words in line 8, "in a wildlife management area." It would seem to me that it would be of advantage to have this section cover the whole of the province. The minister mentioned that wildlife management areas in the province would only cover something in the neighbourhood of a million acres, a very small percentage of the total provincial area. It would then appear that any damage done to wildlife habitat outside of a wildlife management area would be acceptable to the minister. If we delete the words "in a wildlife management area, " the minister would have the power to take action against anyone who alters, destroys or damages wildlife habitat, etc., except as authorized by the regulations or a permit. It would seem to me that to apply this to the whole of the province would make more sense and would improve the quality of wildlife management throughout British Columbia.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't often speak against an amendment that would make me king, because this amendment would certainly make me the king. It would give us the overriding veto on virtually everything in the province. Wildlife management, areas are areas set aside where we have prime jurisdiction and where we have special powers that don't exist in other parts of the province. We don't have the resources right now nor do we think it's necessary, to do it provincewide. It would just give us far too great a scope of power. When we asked for these particular powers from my other colleagues and other ministries, it was specifically set aside that these, would be in wildlife management areas only. It would certainly make the Minister of Environment an all powerful minister. I think it's a very nice gesture, but it's not acceptable.

MR. SKELLY: If this amendment had the power to make the minister king, I'd even vote against it. But it doesn't. There are a number of other subsections under section 7 which limit the power of the minister and the power of subsection (1) in other ways. So I don't think it gives him a veto over anything that happens anywhere in the province. For example, subsection (3) and subsection (2) limit the power of the minister under subsection (1). In fact, that change to subsection (1), would give the minister a little more power under subsections (2) and (3), which even take away the minister's power in wildlife management areas and critical wildlife areas. I think the section would be much better if we deleted those words.

The real impetus to change the Wildlife Act came from people concerned about habitat protection, both people in the ministry and people throughout the province who felt that there was inadequate legal backing for those who would protect wildlife and for those who felt that it made no legal sense and no practical sense in law to separate wildlife from their habitat. It was recognized in the federal Fisheries Act that in order to make the act a more powerful instrument for the management of fisheries, fish had to be connected legally to their habitat and some protection had to be granted under the Fisheries Act. You cannot manage fish when the habitat is being taken away from them and destroyed.

This section is inadequate as it stands. It would probably be inadequate as it would be changed by this amendment, but

[ Page 8516 ]

more adequate than what appears on the minister's document now. I would urge the House, or those in attendance, to accept this one small change in this section of the act which wouldn't make the minister king, but simply give him a little more power to exercise his mandate to protect wildlife in the province of B.C.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's amendment having passed and the member's having failed, the member for Alberni speaks on the section as amended.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. SKELLY: I'm concerned about subsection (2): "The regulations may provide that compliance with standards set about the Coal Act, Geothermal Resources Act, Mineral Act, Mining (Placer) Act or Petroleum and Natural Gas Act...shall constitute sufficient compliance...." For example, in the case of Carolin Mines and Equity Mines, where there were clearly deficiencies in the documents filed by those ministries, those do not constitute sufficient protection for wildlife habitat. I'm also wondering why we have a section in here that relates to mines and minerals, natural gas and oil, but we do not have a section which relates to the management of habitat in those tenures coming under the Forest Act and the Range Act. Why are those acts left out of this section?

MR. ROGERS: These particular acts are acts where we may have someone operating within a wildlife management area. So the Coal, Geothermal Resources, Mineral, Mining (Placer) and Petroleum and Natural Gas Acts are really to control the activities that may take place within a wildlife management area and requires the people who propose to do anything under any of those acts to deal with the minister.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair. ]

MR. SKELLY: It is unfortunate that one of the strongest moves to amend the Wildlife Act came from the recognition that habitat wasn't adequately protected in the province of B.C. It's unfortunate that in succeeding drafts of this legislation any habitat protection that was built into the act has been gradually eliminated as it moved up the levels of the ministry to cabinet level. I think this section is totally inadequate for the protection of habitat in the province of British Columbia. The need has been recognized virtually province-wide and in the ministry, and it's very unfortunate that this act, with this section, does nothing in the way required to protect habitat for wildlife in the province of British Columbia. It leaves us in the same position we were in before with respect to wildlife and its connection with habitat in that we have almost no legal grounds to protect wildlife, except in a very small area of the province. This party will vote against this section.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 7 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

An hon. member requested that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 8.

MR. SKELLY: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

My concern here is that if we can't get any habitat protection under section 7, we may get a little bit under section 8, if the minister agrees with the amendment, which would leave the section reading as follows:

"The Crown in right of the province has a right of action against a person who, without authority, destroys or damages wildlife habitat, and may recover damages from him for

" (a) any money that the Crown in right of the province expends to restore the habitat and its wildlife to the original state, or

" (b) the loss of the habitat and its wildlife where restoration of the wildlife habitat is impossible."

My object in deleting the words "in a wildlife management area or an area set apart for wildlife management" is to make the whole province subject to this section. I urge the minister to accept that amendment, and I move the amendment standing under my name.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This amendment is unacceptable. This amendment would essentially mean that anybody doing anything in the province — any kind of industrial activity, agricultural activity, road building or anything else like that — who inadvertently damaged wildlife habitat — the definition of "wildlife" is pretty broad — could be liable for expenditures. I find the amendment to be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I haven't even finished yet. I don't think I have the answers for everything, but you haven't even let me speak yet.

[ Page 8517 ]

MR. SKELLY: I thought you were finished.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

I don't think the minister read this section properly. Mr. Chairman, and that's the problem. It says he has a right of action; he doesn't have to take action. If the minister's record in enforcing the other acts under his jurisdiction is any indication at all, he probably won't. At least it gives him the right. I'm sure if somebody came to him with the suggestion that what they had done was inadvertent, then the minister wouldn't exercise his right. This simply gives him the right of action where action, in the minister's opinion, appears necessary.

Again, this section doesn't make him all-powerful nor does it stop development in the province of British Columbia. The minister must have misread the words which say "without authority." As a member of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet or as the minister responsible for his ministry, he can authorize people to interfere with wildlife habitat as forestry operations will do and as mining operations will do, as other development proposals will do. The minister can issue authority for those developments to go ahead.

But where they continue without legal authority and where habitat is damaged anywhere in the province, the minister will then have the right to recover. As it's written under this section, the minister only has the right of action in a very limited area of the province, and that consequently gives him no real jurisdiction and no right of action to protect habitat throughout the province at all. Really, it rests on the minister's discretion again. I think this amendment improves the section as it allows the minister to manage wildlife and wildlife habitat much better throughout the province than if those words were left in. I would urge the minister and the House to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 8 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section

HON. MR. ROGERS:Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 25 as tabled this afternoon. I would like to read it, if I could: "To amend section 25(10)(a) by deleting 21 and substituting 27." It's a correction of a typographical error. I supplied the gentleman across the way with a copy earlier this afternoon. I think that's in order.

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 27 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing, under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

Sections 35 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

MR. SKELLY: I move that section 40 of Bill 55 be amended by deleting subsection (2).

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: The amendment, rather than an intention to amend the act.,is an intention to get an explanation of this section. As you know, the official opposition is concerned about the change in the grazing lease policy of the province, which we see as restricting hunters from land that they previously had access to and that was managed on a multi-use basis. Section 40(1)(b) apparently permits a person, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupier, to hunt over Crown land that is subject to a grazing lease while the land is occupied by livestock. The Trespass Act apparently says that anybody who is within posted land, whether it's leased grazing land or privately owned land, is in trespass if he's there without the permission of the owner.

The two parts of this section appear contradictory, and I would ask the minister for an explanation of this section and the subsection. If the first part of section 40 allows a hunter to be on Crown-eased land without the occupier's permission if there are no livestock there, and if the Trespass Act says that

[ Page 8518 ]

if he's on posted land without permission of the lessee then he's in trespass, this section is contradictory and doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't eliminate the confusion that surrounds the grazing lease policy being put forward by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I would ask the minister to clarify that if he can.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Subsection (2) of section 40 is a signpost in this legislation to point out that it is not affected by the Trespass Act. In other words, the Trespass Act applies in this case. You proposed an amendment which would delete it. It has no effect in law to make that deletion; it merely is a signpost in this legislation.

Your questions of policy on Crown leasing should best be addressed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we still on the amendment?

MR. SKELLY: Yes, we're still talking about the amendment, but the minister's statement doesn't seem to make much sense. It says that this part of the section does not affect the Trespass Act, but the Trespass Act does affect this part of the section. It says that whatever you've said above doesn't apply, because anyone found within posted Crown grazing lease land is in trespass, according to the amendments to the Trespass Act that we passed in 1981. We thought at the time that those amendments applied to mushroom pickers, but apparently they've now expanded them to hunters. In this day and age, when we're charging hunters a lot more for hunting licences and restricting the area that they have access to, I think we have to be pretty careful about what the legislation says and how the policy is changed. If the Trespass Act says that a person who's on posted land without the permission of the lessee is in trespass, then it's not a signpost. It contradicts the section above and it should be deleted.

MR. KING: I too would like to hear more of an explanation from the minister on this point. I represent an interior constituency where there are thousands and thousands of sportsmen and women who fish and who like to hunt, yours truly being one. The spectacular increases in fees for hunting and fishing licences, and for game-tag costs, surely dictate that recreationists, people who are hunters and fishermen, have a right to expect very clear conditions under which they can enter on Crown land and engage in a recreation which provides a lot of revenue to the Crown in the province of British Columbia. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is an area where not only this government but past governments too have been criticized roundly for failing to plough enough investment back into the management of wildlife and fisheries.

To see the expansion of virtual preserves brought about by grazing leases, which would have the effect of excluding fisherman and hunters, is just a bit much. I can understand the need for protecting cattle against people who are irresponsible with firearms, but there are already laws to do that. There are laws that penalize recreationists, be they hunters or fishermen, for being less than responsible and perhaps for interfering with or in fact shooting domestic animals. But to frame a whole provision of provincial law on the assumption that the irresponsible are in the majority is unacceptable. The majority of hunters in this province are well experienced. We have a tradition and a history of a close association with the outdoors in the province of British Columbia.

As I understand it, this amendment, whether or not there actually are stock grazing on this reserve, sets up a provision where the hunter must first get permission from the person holding the lease, or he's in violation of the Trespass Act. What sense is there involved in that, if in fact there are no cattle grazing on that particular Crown land at that particular time of the year? And that could well be the case. If there are large herds of stock actually on the land, then it seems reasonable and prudent that the lessee should know who's on there.

I can see a situation here where very large agricultural graze leases are awarded, and in many parts of the interior they are only actually taken advantage of for short periods of the year, due to elevation and climatic conditions. In many of those cases that period is usually in the spring. Now we have a situation whereby in the fall, when hunting season is in full swing and the herds have moved off that graze area, the hunter is still subject to gaining the approval of the lessee or being in violation of the Trespass Act, as I understand it, and that doesn't make any sense. He could be harassed, and he could be challenged by the lessee even though there is no stock on the lease area. That's a denial of the right of the individual citizen of British Columbia to have a full opportunity for multiple use of Crown land. I think it's absolutely absurd, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Read the Trespass Act.

MR. KING: Well, as I understand it, the Trespass Act gives the lessee control over the perimeters of the lease area; it doesn't specify whether there actually must be stock on it or not. The minister's object, which I understand and can sympathize with, is that you obviously don't want hunters in where there are large herds of domestic animals grazing. But as I point out, in the East Kootenays, in the Shuswap, in the Kamloops area, and yes, indeed, in the Revelstoke area to a limited degree, due to snowfall.... Many of these areas are of high elevation, and the actual grazing only takes place in the spring. There's no hunting season in the spring except the odd bear situation, but usually that's not in that terrain anyway. The main hunting comes in the fall, in September and October, through November, and the herds have moved out by that time of year. The lessee therefore should not maintain a proprietary right to the extent that he has the right to exclude other recreationists from that Crown land — that's the point.

It appears from this particular provision that the minister is giving almost game preserve control to individual agricultural leases, and that was never the intention. That's nonsense. In practical terms, the minister is going to get a lot of unnecessary flak from people whose right to use and enjoy Crown land is being hampered and interfered with.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member opposite is getting the Trespass Act somewhat confused with this act. If you read the section — "A person who, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupier of land, (a) hunts over or traps in or on cultivated land...." If we deal with cultivated land, it's land that's under production. I think it's quite understandable.

MR. KING: That's nonsense.

[ Page 8519 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, to have someone go through a crop in somebody's field for hunting.... That's quite understandable.

Where the area "is subject to a grazing lease while the land is occupied by livestock...." It's possible, and in many cases happens, that there are areas which are subject to grazing lease which aren't subject to trespass. As I understand it, for the Trespass Act it has to be either an enclosed I area or a posted area. So you can get an area that's subject to a Crown lease but is not also subject to the Trespass Act. What we are saying is that the Trespass Act also applies.

MR. KING: What does "under cultivation" mean? There is very little land in the province of British Columbia that is not under cultivation, either as forest land.... In the case of multiple use where it's grazed land, most of it is seeded with grass. Balco Industries, which runs all the way from Chase, north of Kamloops, right down to Merritt and into the Coquihalla, graze 50,000 head of cattle on their forest land. The majority of that forest land is seeded with grasses. That makes great sense. I think it's a wonderful example of how multiple use should be conducted in the province of British Columbia.

I ask the minister: if a person were charged with trespass, what would a court of law say regarding his very thin definition of cultivation? Would they hold that it was under cultivation by the fact that that forest land had been seeded with grasses? Would they hold that because it's producing trees it's under cultivation, and hence falls within the ambit of the Trespass Act? I don't think the minister has thought this out very well. I think that there's a potential here for leaseholders setting up a proprietary kind of domination over that land which is going to exclude legitimate use by many hunters and fishermen. That's not necessary for their purposes at all. It should be clarified. Otherwise, the minister is going to, in my view, inherit so many problems with this provision that he'll regret he didn't listen to the opposition on it.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Maybe I can be of assistance. In the existing Wildlife Act, with which the member is intimately familiar, under section 13, "Agricultural and cleared land," it says: "...any cleared or cultivated land without the consent of the occupier of the land." That section already exists. It's a lift from the existing section that we're putting into this act.

The section on hunting on Crown land is separate and distinct from section 2, which says: "By the way, the Trespass Act applies." That's all it's saying. So in areas that are posted or enclosed you have to abide by the provisions of the Trespass Act. But there are other areas of the province that are neither posted nor fenced where a hunter may wish to enter. but has to get permission at the time that the grazing lease is occupied by stock. There's a total prohibition over cultivated land. I'm assuming that in the time this act has been in place — I know, because I've just spoken with the director — there have never been any problems with this particular Section in the existing act.

MR. KING: There will be.

HON. MR. ROGERS: All right, I can see that there will be. Maybe there will have to be amendments moved later on. That's the best way I can comment on it. I suggest to you that this section has always been in existence and has never been noticed. It's sitting right beside you in that bookcase. You can read it if you care to.

MR. KING: I appreciate that it's been in the act. I appreciate that the intention has been to protect, in the main, private farmland from trespass by hunters, fishermen or anyone else without permission. But what you're doing here is extending that principle to vast areas of the public domain which hunters and fishermen have had free, unrestricted, unencumbered access for years. You are setting up through agricultural leases, not multiple use, but proprietary domination and control by the person holding the lease. I don't think it's necessary.

I think if the minister were to amend it to the point where it's actually occupied by stock, that would make sense. But to do it in a carte blanche way when in fact many of these areas accommodate stock for grazing, as the minister well knows.... He must know. It's only common sense. There's not a lot of graze up on the mountains in September. It's in the spring that the ranchers in the interior move their stock into high country, and they come down long before the hunting season, in the majority of cases. There's no need to set up the potential for that proprietary control over an area where there's no stock grazing — that's the point.

MR. HANSON: Perhaps I could clarify something for the benefit of the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King). The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has a different notion than the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) of what the new ground grazing lease is. Let me read you a section of a letter he has written to many hundreds of people in this province in response to the same kinds of concerns that you're raising here today. The minister says: "A lease, in the legal sense, grants the right of exclusive possession to the leaseholder. Any condition or provision in the lease document permitting unrestricted public access would interfere with this right, thus nullifying the validity of the lease. For similar reasons, it is this ministry's position that the Wildlife Act provisions for access cannot apply to Crown lands alienated by lease."

The tradition in this province has been for multiple use of our public Crown lands. What we had happen in December 1981 was a decision to depart from that notion. Technically, legally, there was the right of the lessee to deny access; however. the way the Wildlife Act was administered in past practice, hunters and recreationists and fishermen and crosscountry skiers and photographers and so on could go on that land when there were no animals on the land. We had a long, convoluted, historical process whereby the Pearse commission looked at the administration of these lands and recommended that they go into licences rather that leases. That was of some concern to the ranchers because they want, understandably, to have a security of tenure, and we have no problem whatsoever with the 21-year tenure. We have no problem with giving the ranching community of this province a secure tenure, provided they exercise good stewardship over that land.

Where we part company with this government is that they do not accept the idea of multiple use of our public lands. All the way through the new Crown lease arrangement — which has an evergreen clause after 10 years to get another 21 years; in other words, it is extremely secure tenure — that document emphasizes the single-use agricultural or animal husbandry aspects for those lands. You can't say that every sportsperson

[ Page 8520 ]

and every fisherman and recreationist in this province is wrong. They understand. They know where they used to go for their recreational activities, and they know that they are being turned down and denied access now by many of the larger ranches in this province.

I know the Chairman understands some of the geographical signposts in the South Thompson area — the Jack Christian Ranch, the Seven-O Ranch, etc. — where public access was granted through past practice. It was just understood. The ranchers came to this government with a legitimate grievance, and that was that there is a small number of people in this province who are uneducated in responsible behaviour in terms of closing fences and littering, etc. That is a legitimate grievance, which we understand, but because someone shoots a cow or leaves a fence open or leaves broken glass on the ground is not reason to depart from public policy with respect to the administration of our public lands.

MR. KING: Prosecute the offenders.

MR. HANSON: The RCMP has a stock investigator detail that deals with the shooting of cattle. They have an administrative branch for that. We need more public information with respect to educating the public on proper behaviour as they cross through and utilize these Crown lands. There are people that litter in the urban settings. There are people who litter in suburban and rural settings. That clearly is a problem. It cuts across political lines. It's something that we have to deal with. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that these 650,000 acres or 250,000 hectares of the most prime, valley-bottom land — Crown land and the portals to the other Crown timbered areas of this province.... Anyone who has been through the interior knows, if they drive through the South Thompson, the Bulkley Valley or the Columbia Valley, that all those low rolling hills on either side are Crown grazing lands. They're public lands. Public money goes into protecting them. Paying conservation officers to administer the habitat and all the other aspects, such as fencing, is paid for out of the public purse.

The government took a very narrow, specialized, single use approach to these lands, and has given the ranchers virtual sovereignty, almost fee-simple ownership, of these lands. This is a powder keg. This is a slow-burning keg of dynamite in the interior plateau of this province. Everyone who lives in Kamloops, Merritt, Chase or Athalmer loves to fish; they love to hunt; they love to take photographs; they love the outdoors — that is the reason they live in those communities.

MR. KEMPF: You don't know what you're talking about. You're still wet behind the ears.

MR. HANSON: I do know what I'm talking about. The member for Omineca should pay attention, because there are many recreationists in his region who are extremely upset about this move. It is something that we really must stop now. It is such a major departure from the notion of our public lands that.... It really is a projection of the Lands, Parks and Housing minister, who in all of his decisions has always seen public lands as real estate. If you look through his old speeches, you will see that on many occasions he speaks disparagingly about all that Crown land that's locked up — it's not available to people. We want Crown lands for people to build homes on. Those vast tracts of Crown grazing lease are there for forage purposes, to allow ranchers access to forest. They don't need the land; they want grass. They want access for seven, eight or ten weeks of the year for cheap forage. That's what they need, and we have no objection whatsoever to that. But to deny the other 2.7 million British Columbians the right to go on those beautiful lands, to walk across them, to take pictures, to appreciate and understand proper multiple use and integrated resource management is such a travesty in terms of public policy in the administration of our lands.

I have an extremely large file on this. The Minister of Environment has written letters to constituents who have expressed concerns and opposition to this policy. Let me read into the record the weakness of these responses. He says:

"As a result of a review of the administration of historic grazing activities, the cabinet has instructed the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to reissue long-term grazing leases. This policy applies to the replacement of grazing leases. No additional Crown lands will be alienated for grazing purposes as a result of this policy."

He talks as though he's setting aside just a small amount of land, but 650,000 acres is a lot of land. And those are the doorways — I can't emphasize it strongly enough.... If you can't get across those Crown grazing lands, you can't get to the higher elevation Crown lands either. So the whole interior of this province is totally inaccessible to the public.

"Leases will have a number of new features, " he says. "Firstly, access such as roads and trails can be excluded from the lease prior to reissuance." Let me just pose in your mind 650,000 acres of land. That means that someone in Sooke or in Victoria who traditionally goes to the Chilcotin for two or three weeks in the fall, or goes to the Bulkley Valley, Athalmer or somewhere for some recreational purpose, has to know where to apply to the government to survey out of that lease access to go from A to B. Now isn't that ridiculous? It's not just those trails and roads the public is going to be denied access to but the Crown lands themselves.

The member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) knows all about the desire of recreationists to take photographs and to hunt the chukar partridge in the Kamloops area. Chukar partridge hunting is now over as this new lease applies, as he knows very well from recreationists in his area. So it's not just the trails and roads, but it's the lands. That's the critical winter habitat that these various species utilize.

The minister said to this constituent: "Secondly, the lease will include a management plan. Compliance with this plan, designed to maintain native range and good condition, is a condition of the continuance of the lease." Great! Of course we're for proper stewardship of the land. Listen to this final paragraph. This is the way he writes to his constituents about this. This comes from Nelson: "My ministry will make strong representation to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in areas where access should be excluded from leasehold. My staff will also advise the Ministry of Forests in the development of management plans to ensure that range management prescriptions are not detrimental to our water, fish or wildlife resources."

He is the advocate for the wildlife of this province. He is going to write a letter to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing asking permission for the public to go on certain portions of that land. For shame! Those areas should be forever and a day accessible to the public. The public should

[ Page 8521 ]

be educated in responsible behaviour on those lands: they should know when gates should be closed; they shouldn't litter; and if they see someone killing livestock, they should report it to the stock investigation branch of the RCMP. But should that criminal and irresponsible behaviour deny 2.7 million British Columbians and the rest of Canadians and visitors the right of access to those great tracts of land? Of course not. There isn't a recreationist or any person who belongs to a fish and wildlife club in this province who supports this minister on this question. He is absolutely, totally wrong.

It's not too late to change it. The B.C. Federation of Wildlife and the Outdoor Recreational Council are very responsible organizations, as all of these affiliated organizations are. They are asking you in good faith to change this practice and to make clear the protection that the ranchers have while cattle are on the ground. But at the same time they want provisions in the Wildlife Act to allow public access to these important lands when cattle are not on the ground. I don't know how many times or how many different ways I can say the same thing. This very simple change that you've made is going to destroy the recreational and habitat rearing options available to us in the future.

As my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said — and I concur with his assessment entirely — what you are doing is starting on the notion and concept of private game preserves in this province. There's no doubt about it. If I as a rancher can post my land, bulldoze the public roads and deny access, then who is going to have access to it other than a few of my friends for a private preserve? That is totally un-British Columbian and un-Canadian. That is Texas 1805, Mr. Minister, not British Columbia 1982.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I believe I have a responsibility to clarify some of the erroneous impressions that are being created here, primarily by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). He leaves the impression here that grazing leases are something new in British Columbia. He attempts to leave the impression that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is creating new grazing leases in British Columbia. I want you to know that grazing leases have existed in this province since the turn of the century.

MR. HANSON: For all people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He leaves the impression that these grazing leases occupy some of the prime lands and valley bottoms. He tries to convey the impression and image that most of the bottom lands in British Columbia are held by grazing leases. There's nothing further from the truth than what that member attempts to convey. He doesn't tell the truth, Mr. Chairman, because we have grazing leases, licences and permits in this province.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I ask the minister to withdraw. I'm sure the minister's comment didn't escape the ear of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the minister to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I withdraw without qualification.

Needless to say, I don't know what motivates that member over there to try to confuse, to try to convey an image or an impression that shouldn't be conveyed, because it's not accurate. Grazing leases are a very small portion — 2.5 percent — of grazing in this province; 97.5 percent of all grazing is either by a licence or a permit which the people of this province have absolute access to. There is unrestricted access to 97.5 percent of all the grazing. We're saying that in the grazing leases, under certain conditions access will be provided, and we are making concessions unheard of in years gone by. Since the turn of the century, we haven't made provisions for access through grazing leases. We're now making those kinds of concessions so that the recreationists of this province will have access to lands beyond.

Then he says: "Oh. It's terrible, those people from Athalmer." It appears that the little community of Athalmer is absolutely surrounded with grazing leases, that people can hardly move out of that community unless they're on an arterial highway, or else they're into a grazing lease; that there are serious restrictions on recreationists in or around the community of Athalmer. In the entire East Kootenay area of the Rocky Mountain Trench, which comprises thousands of square miles, most of it Crown land, there would be about — this is a rough figure, but very close — eight grazing leases totalling about 1,600 acres. If one considers how little land is in grazing leases in the East Kootenay, one has to conclude that the member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talks through his hat.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in the tradition of that minister, how he twists! He said 2.5 percent. That's only 650,000 acres, nothing to worry about at all.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's been there since the turn of the century.

MR. HANSON: We think it's important that the public have access across those 650,000 acres of Crown grazing leases in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're in the process of providing that.

MR. HANSON: I mentioned Athalmer, and the people in that community who are recreationists. I know very well that many of the minister's constituents are hunters and fishermen and they enjoy the recreational attributes of that region; that is what I'm referring to. Kamloops is locked in with Crown grazing leases all along the South Thompson — as you know, Mr. Chairman. The Columbia Valley has some, the Bulkley Valley has a great many, but the Kamloops area is a particularly choice area in terms of locked-in grazing leases.

If that minister continues to discount the representation made by the B.C. Wildlife Federation when they were here trying to get access to him.... He's almost as inaccessible as the Crown grazing leases themselves. They tried to get access to him last week, to try to persuade him, with force of argument, logic and good sense, that their claims are legitimate too. I gather that Outdoor Recreation Council people were here too, trying to lever some good judgment with that minister, but I think it's like talking to a stump. They're not going to get anywhere, because this government sees Crown and, in all of its aspects, as real estate. This is just the toe in he door for the private game preserves, which are going to come down the pike if this government is re-elected. I think

[ Page 8522 ]

that's the natural flow, the natural extension, of this kind of policy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to discount again the statements made by the member for Victoria, because I did meet last Thursday morning with the president and vice president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Mr. Graham Kenyon and Mr. Charlton. We had a brief discussion in which they expressed their concerns about the reissuance of grazing leases in the province. It wasn't my objective to destroy any conversations they might have later in the day with officials of my ministry, in a brief conversation we had here in the Parliament Buildings. They met with my assistant deputy minister, Bob Ahrens, along with representatives from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They did convey their concerns to me at that time, and I can understand the concerns they have. We also have to take into consideration some of the concerns that exist on the other side as well. Unfortunately, I haven't yet received a report from my assistant deputy minister. I'll be meeting him in my office as soon as I get back down there, and I'll be asking for a speedy report to see whether they're able to resolve some of the concerns that might have been expressed by officials of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

One other point that's made by the member for Victoria is that all of a sudden there's some great interest in the preservation of the Columbia Valley. All of a sudden they're concerned about the environment in that particular region. But I have a long political memory, because I've been in politics for a considerable time. When one talks about the preservation of the environment and of the region of the Columbia Valley.... The party in this province that wanted to destroy that valley was the NDP. They don't like being reminded that they were strong supporters of the McNaughton plan, which would have effectively put that whole Columbia Valley from Bull River up to Luxor underwater as a holding reservoir, of all things, for maximization of power generation. That area would have been a draw-down reservoir buried under water.

Now all those people get up here with their pious platitudes and suggest that they're concerned about the Windermere Valley. Oh, I remember very well their position in 1963, when they wanted to flood the Windermere Valley. They supported the McNaughton plan. They wanted to maximize power generation at the expense of the Windermere Valley and they get up here with their platitudes today and suggest that they're concerned about the region, but we know them for what they are.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is carrying the estimates for the Ministry of Environment. It's very interesting.

As for the McNaughton plan on the Columbia Valley development, I know something about that too, because I was one of the ones who had to assist all of those people who were flooded and disrupted by the Social Credit sellout of the Columbia River chain to the United States.

Yes, we supported to McNaughton plan, which had for its main objective the development of Mica Creek, the storage of water at a point far enough upstream from the U.S. border that the sovereignty of Canada over the use and flow of that river would not be surrendered for all time, as it was under the Social Credit sellout. Yes, that's why we supported it. The Windermere Valley was as selective in terms of the followup development as the Revelstoke dam is under the Social Credit plan. The member has a very selective memory. The Luxor dam was one of the possibilities explored. It was not a firm commitment of the McNaughton plan, and the member should know that.

However, we're getting off the track. I don't want to debate once again the Social Credit $1.5 billion sellout on the Columbia River Treaty. That's another story, which is well known to British Columbians. I want to talk about the amendment before the House, Mr. Chairman. I want to point this out to the Minister of Environment, and I don't do so in a political way; I do so from experience, and it's a matter of record.

Some years ago I had complaints from the Goldstream Valley north of Revelstoke where a logging operation was underway. The logging operator had suffered some damage to his equipment. There had been vandals in there and they had inflicted some damage on a bulldozer and perhaps a skidder; at least that's what he alleged. As a consequence, he blocked the logging roads to that area, the access for recreationists to vast fishing areas and very extensive habitat for moose, which was hunted heavily in the fall. The reality of that case was that there was no vandalism whatsoever and that that entrepreneur blocked public access and set up a private hunting reserve for himself and his friends simply because he had a licence to log the area.

The potential for that kind of abuse is precisely what we're talking about here. We're not opposed to grazing leases. No rational British Columbian is. Fair enough. But a grazing lease should not imply fee simple control over the area. Under the minister's provisions in this act it does.

I pointed out the season when grazing leases are normally put to use in the interior. The minister knows that Ranchers don't need exclusive control to the point where they can keep people out of Crown land year-round. I think the majority of ranchers would be responsible and fair, but why set up a system in law which carries a potential for abuse, for the potential exclusion of all British Columbians from equal opportunity of access? That is moving to a single-use mentality.

It's not good enough for the minister to sit there and allow his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to dominate control over land in the province of British Columbia. This minister should be fighting for the constituency he represents. I'm terribly disappointed that despite the most logical argument and despite the experience of thousands of British Columbians, he's sitting there and refusing to assert his authority and his responsibility as minister of environment and wildlife. It's not good enough to sit there passively and let your colleague from Columbia River — whose understanding is questionable, if anything — dictate policy for your ministry. Where is your sense of responsibility, Mr. Minister? Where is your grasp of what you are inflicting on the people of the province of British Columbia? Don't sit there mute. Get up and fight for the constituency that you're getting paid to represent.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't know that I can speak on the amendment and be in order. Everyone else seems to have been able to speak on all sorts of things around the amendment, including, I would gather, a dress rehearsal for the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and, I

[ Page 8523 ]

suppose, some of the things that are going to come up in my estimates.

This particular proposed amendment to the bill would delete the following subsection: "This section does not affect the Trespass Act." Deleting that section wouldn't change the act at all. It is just a signpost for people reading the act, to remind them that the Trespass Act applies.

I can talk about private game farms, the CORE program and public education, but none of that is applicable to this section. It's not our intention to have private game farms.

MR. KING: I don't think it is your intention, you're doing it by default.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Absolutely not.

I don't know what else I can say, other than repeat my earlier remarks that the section is abundantly clear. The proposed amendment would merely delete this section. The deletion of the section would make no difference in law; the section is only there as a signpost for people reading the legislation, to advise them that the Trespass Act does apply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment, as I read it, deals specifically with section 40(2), concerning the Trespass Act. Could we be relevant to that.

MR. KING: As far as I know, it has been established in debate that the Trespass Act gives absolute control over access to the leaseholder, not just for the period of time that his stock may be grazing in the area but for the entire duration of the lease.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the only way I can respond is to say: the minister, there he goes, God bless him; he's the only man in step. He won't listen to the opposition. He won't listen to the recreationists — the B.C. Wildlife Federation. He won't listen to the professional foresters of the province of British Columbia, all of whom express a similar concern. Is the minister telling us we're all wrong and he is right?

Let me read into the record what the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters had to say in a letter dated May 28, 1982 — a month ago — to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Mr. Ahrens, re the B.C. grazing lease policy. In case this minister doesn't have a copy, I want to read it into the record.

"Dear Sir,

"One of the objectives of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters is to promote those policies of integrated use of forest land which ultimately provide the greatest social and economic returns to society. As you are well aware, the increasing and varied demands of British Columbia's total land base make it necessary to practise integrated land use in order to satisfy as many private and public sectors as possible.

"It is with these two points in mind, and also at the request of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, that I write to you regarding the B.C. grazing lease policy. It is my understanding that this newly developed policy will result in single use or at the very least severely restricted public access on the public lands involved, whereas this was not the case in the past. From your talk at the April 1982 B.C. Wildlife Federation convention, I gather that there are compelling reasons for making the new grazing leases more restrictive in favour of the ranchers.

"However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Crown has responsibilities to the other traditional users of these lands. Therefore, the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters would like to go on record as supporting the integrated-use position taken by the B.C. Wildlife Federation in its letter to you of April 19. While non-forest areas such as grazing lands are not usually considered to be within the mandate of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, the principle of integrated use is all-encompassing and must be supported by every organization concerned with the wise use of our resources. Your proposal for a meeting with the involved parties indicates a willingness to review the policy in light of other users' concerns. You should be commended for taking this approach, which will undoubtedly lead to the type of compromise usually required to satisfy the increasing demands of B.C.'s Crown lands."

"Yours very truly,
W. A. Hopwood,
Registered Professional Forester,
President,
Association of British Columbia
Professional Foresters."

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has said that he had some meetings and some dialogue. He acknowledged the concerns of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters and the opposition. Mr. Chairman, we're not putting these arguments forward with some political conspiracy in mind, this is a logical, commonsense, non-partisan argument. It's one that members who are interested in an access to public land should understand and respect despite their political party. In short it's an argument based on logic. I don 't understand how the minister can out of hand dismiss the almost unanimous concern expressed by potential users of Crown land — that indeed the new provisions tighten up and render more restrictive the control of lessees on 650,000 acres of British Columbia Crown land.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is correct to one extent. I live in the interior, and I have hunted much of the interior and the northern part of British Columbia. I know all of the access is not going to be shut off, but it's not appropriate that one area of prime recreation land should be shut off to multiple use. It's not appropriate that one should be foreclosed to equal access by all British Columbians. That is the inevitable consequence of 650,000 acres being tied up by a single-use mentality. That's at issue here, so let's understand it clearly. Let's not try to twist and distort the impact here. We have a clear division of opinion. By this action, you're eroding the right of access to thousands of British Columbians who traditionally enjoy a lifestyle of access to the great outdoors in this province. To a large extent you are eroding their right to that access in some prime areas. It is going to create a tremendous reaction and a tremendous furor from people who are used to having the right to use their own Crown resources.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred us to the amendments to the Trespass Act that were passed in 1981. You'll recall that when we passed those sections of the Trespass Act the minister informed us that it was designed to

[ Page 8524 ]

prevent mushroom pickers from trespassing on private farmland on Vancouver Island. Given the understanding on the part of the opposition that that was the intention of the Attorney-General of the day, we agreed with that section of the act. The section now reads that if somebody posts a notice at any access to leased land, private land or otherwise, that land will be considered enclosed land for the purpose of the Trespass Act and that anyone found on that land, even though it's not enclosed by a fence, can be arrested without warrant and fined for trespassing. Now that act is being used to restrict access by recreationists, hunters and fishermen over Crown grazing leases. We hear stories every now and again, and we receive letters all the time, saying that new restrictions have now been imposed by the lessees of Crown grazing leases. For example, in the Douglas Lake area, where people traditionally had access to lakes on that ranch, trails have now been bulldozed out of existence and attempts have been made to deprive the public of traditional access to fishing lakes. The same is true of the Gang Ranch and in that area of the interior.

What we're concerned about here is that the provisions of the Wildlife Act which allow hunters and recreationists to have access over Crown land while hunting Crown-owned resources — the fish and wildlife of this province.... This section is now depriving them of that access. What we seek to do under this amendment is to eliminate any reference to the Trespass Act. We would prefer that this section say: "The Trespass Act does not apply." Perhaps that would have been a better amendment, but it would also have been a more general amendment and would not have done the job. What we want to do is to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the cost of hunting licences is going up and the areas to which hunters have access in the province are being limited. This minister should be acting as an advocate both for his resource and for those who use it — the recreationists of British Columbia — and the minister isn't a satisfactory advocate.

We would like to see this section of the act eliminated, and then we'll do our best to change the provisions of the Trespass Act so that the access to hunters will not be deprived. We would hope that the minister would accept this amendment to this section of the act, and then we'll deal with the Trespass Act later in the session.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

MRS. DAILLY: This section states for the edification of those who may not know and don't have the act in front of them: "Notwithstanding anything in this act, the minister may, by regulation, either prohibit or allow hunting or trapping or a method of hunting or trapping in any defined part of the province for a period he considers necessary for the proper management of wildlife in it." So in other words, this is the key clause which gives the right to any government, through their Minister of Environment, to handle the whole matter of the protection of fur-bearing animals.

Many of us recall the great speeches made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom); we don't want to bore the House by reading them back at this time. I think first of all I'd like to give the minister congratulations for making some steps in the direction of protection for fur-bearing animals. There are a number of questions I'd like to ask you about your latest move, because I think you are getting considerable approval and credit from people in the province because they believe that in 1982 leg-hold traps will be illegal for catching 98 percent of the land animals in B.C. I think the minister is aware that there have been some questions posed as to whether that is a fact. As you know, it does not include any of the water animals, which certainly would remove a considerable amount, and it does not include the squirrels. Of course, I realize that the main problem there is the snaring of the squirrels, which is exceptionally cruel.

All I'm saying to the minister is that we appreciate the fact that you have made this statement and that you are taking steps to eliminate the cruelty of the leg-hold trap. But there is concern about your statement that 98 percent of the animals will be protected, that it doesn't include the squirrels. As I said, as far as the public is concerned, I think they should be quite aware that the job is not over yet, that considerable cruelty will continue to reign in this province toward the furbearing animals until there is a complete ban. So I first of all want to ask the minister: just what is your objective? And could you explain why it stops short of the water animals at the present time.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if I could advise the member that I'm advised by the House Leader that my estimates will be up following the completion of this bill, which might be a better time to discuss the trapping issue. This particular section merely allows the minister....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: "Go for it, " he says. Listen to your coach!

All this particular section does is allow me to shut down a particular hunting season because of adverse weather conditions, or for any number of reasons. I think we really are being quite successful on the trapping side of things. I'll be prepared to discuss this during my estimates. If you want to discuss it here, I have to tell you that the power to prohibit trapping and hunting is on a short-term, emergency-measure basis only and it's where, by order-in-council, I can close a particular area for hunting and trapping.

[ Page 8525 ]

MRS. DAILLY: As long as we can have a good discussion on it, I'm willing to defer it till estimates.

Sections 41 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, why would the minister allow a trapline to be held, when it's not being used, for a period not exceeding two years? What's the reason for that Section in this act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Illness is the main reason. It gives us some flexibility. I guess it comes from experience, where we've had people away ill for a couple of years with some kind of a thing. We're looking at someone who is not making a permanent living and yet has a trapline he doesn't wish to surrender.

MR. SKELLY: I think the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which represents the Indian bands in the area that I represent, has suggested that Indian trapline-holders be allowed to leave their traplines for a period of two years or until the wildlife has been replenished in the area. I'm just concerned about the time. If for some reason the animals being trapped suffer some kind of population decline, is two years a sufficient period? Just how will the minister handle that? If the populations decline, would the minister allow a trapline to be held for a period until wildlife has come back to a normal population level?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes. It can be done by permit, or we could even do it by order-in-council if that was the situation. In my experience as the minister, we've had absolutely no difficulties with this. It's usually a matter of recommendations from the director based on some trapping experience. So this is really a lift from the previous act we're trying to clarify.

Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved.

On section 47.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, on November 22, 1979, as a result of inquiries I made on behalf of some trappers in the northern part of the province who were suffering damage to their traplines as a result of the gas and oil companies driving seismic lines through the areas that they used for trapping, it came to my attention that there's no provision for compensation of trappers in the province as a consequence of damage done by forest companies, oil and gas exploration companies and that type of thing. This section says that anyone who damages or interferes with a lawfully set trap commits an offence, but there appears to be no provision for compensation. I contacted the minister of the day, the Hon. Rafe Mair, and he indicated that compensation of licensed users of various resources.... With respect to trapline compensation, he said: "The matter will be considered by my staff, who are presently reviewing the Wildlife Act." I'm wondering why the compensation provisions haven't been included in the new Wildlife Act.

I am advised that the province of Saskatchewan, through the department of northern Saskatchewan, has set up a trapper compensation scheme that allows for a mediation process and a compensation program, and that establishes a fund and a formula by which trappers will be compensated when their traplines are destroyed by other resource users. Is there any provision at all within the ministry? There certainly isn't provision within the act to allow for the establishment of a compensation scheme. I know it's one of the things we were discussing in section 2 with respect to wildlife damaging people or property. Here's a case where we're looking at compensation for people involved in trapping, and I wonder why the minister hasn't included a trapper compensation scheme within the act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Largely it's a civil matter, but a person who knowingly damage or interferes with a lawfully set trap commits an offence. This section deals with someone who follows a trapper along his trapline and intentionally destroys his traps, for which compensation.... You're not going to catch the person anyway.

On the matter of traplines damaged by developments, we've had pretty good success working with Hydro, and with some of the oil companies and northern development companies. They are always willing — or so far have always been willing — to assist us in compensation for a trapper who's had his whole trapline destroyed by some other use. But this particular section is really to deal with people who....

We want to make it clearly an offence to go along and deliberately destroy a trapper's legitimate activities — that is trapping.

I'll speak during my estimates on our funding program for replacement of old-style traps with the newer traps. That will come up another time.

MR. SKELLY: I realize what this section is designed to deal with, but my experience indicates, and some of the letters I've received indicate, that certain trappers have had extreme difficulty in dealing with oil and gas companies and in obtaining compensation. It would certainly be of assistance if a compensation requirement was included in the act for someone who knowingly interferes with a lawfully set trap. It's unfortunate that this isn't included in the act, because it would certainly be helpful in dealing with oil and gas exploration companies and forest companies.

Sections 47 to 53 inclusive approved.

On section 54.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a minor amendment: that section 54 be amended by adding the words "or his designate" after "regional manager."

On the amendment.

MR. BRUMMET: I have sent a copy of that amendment to the Chair. Briefly, the reason for it is that I'd like it to be clear that in remote areas, when an assistant guide is required and the guide outfitter does take full responsibility by cosigning the form, the assistant guide licence can be issued closer to the scene rather than having to go to the regional manager, who may or may not be readily accessible. I don't think it's a major item. If it's acceptable to the minister, it clarifies that and makes it a little easier for the people to operate.

[ Page 8526 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I had a brief word with the member beforehand and he brought this matter to my attention as a concern that specifically affects his constituency. However, it undoubtedly affects all the northern constituencies. I've talked with staff and legal counsel, both of whom find the amendment to be acceptable and in order. Therefore we'll accept the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 54 as amended approved.

Sections 55 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

MR. SKELLY: I believe it was the McCarthy report that suggested a procedure for dealing with the issuing of guide licences. It says: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or the conditions of the certificates, all certificates shall expire not later than March 31, 1989." I forget whether it was the McCarthy or Mair report that recommended a new procedure for issuing guide licences that involved a tendering process and advertising. I wonder if the minister could explain his intentions with respect to the reissuance of guiding certificates after March 31, 1989.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's our intention to go away from certificates into a single licence. That's the time that they'll expire. You asked another question which really borders on relevancy. At such time as a guiding area expires — that is to say, someone abandons it and does not pass it on to their children or family, or sells it to someone else.... The first one in six years or longer recently came up and has now been advertised. There are all the usual qualifications to be a guide outfitter. We're putting them out to tender. I don't expect that we'll get too many of them because most of them have a residual ban on them.

Sections 61 to 72 inclusive approved.

On section 73.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 73 as amended approved.

On section 74.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 74 as amended approved.

Sections 75 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 79.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 79 as amended approved.

Sections 80 to 85 inclusive approved.

On section 86.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 86 as amended approved.

Sections 87 to 93 approved.

On section 94.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 94 as amended approved.

Sections 95 to 124 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 55, Wildlife Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 32: minister's office: $206,012.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, it's my third year of standing before this House as the Minister of Environment and, despite the occasional comments from the members across the floor regarding competency, I must say I still very much enjoy the job and the opportunity today to give you a brief overview and accounting of what we're doing. It's information on the stewardship of the habitat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a gold watch!

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's not quite gold-watch time, but there you go. I'm the longest surviving Minister of Environment in the province, and with the timely defeat of Ted

[ Page 8527 ]

Bowerman in Saskatchewan, I think I'm now the second longest surviving Minister of Environment in Canada.

MR. SKELLY: It's the environment that hasn't survived.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's interesting that you should say that, Mr. Member, because this year is the tenth anniversary of the United Nations world conference on the environment in Stockholm. The world in general had a lot of very nice things to say about the serious problems that we were going to face ten years ago, but not many of the countries have actually addressed the problems. Regretfully, because of our pairing situation, I wasn't able to attend the world wildlife an environment conference that took place this year. Nonetheless, some of the lessons that have been learned since the Stockholm conference are really worth reviewing, because the nations that have ignored the recommendations of that conference have suffered greatly as a result of it.

We've made a few mistakes; I don't doubt that we'll make some more. In this fast-changing world, with the changes that we have in pressures on the environment, there is no foolproof system for environmental protection. But it's something we're constantly learning and something which we think we will constantly be changing in terms of evaluation of guidelines and processes which we've asked people to attend to in making our environment a better place for all of us to live. Many of those countries that ignored the recommendations of Stockholm are learning to live with some of the disasters they brought upon themselves, which fortunately we do not have to live with.

Many of the factors that are essential to an informed stewardship of the environment have come forward under this government, and I'm proud to tell you that my colleagues in cabinet and in caucus are united in this government's commitment to the environment. The estimates before the House today are proof of that commitment. In a time of economic downturn in this country and a time of economic belt-tightening in this province, the Ministry of Environment has been accorded an increase in the amount of money to be invested in habitat: a 26 percent increase in fisheries enhancement; an 18 percent increase in wildlife services; and a 26 percent increase in pesticide control programs. I might add that we did all this with a 6 percent decrease in the cost of running the minister's office.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I'm afraid my office doesn't run without me, but it runs on a fairly thrifty budget.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the other examples of the success of this government in dealing with habitat conservation is the Habitat Conservation Fund, which has been making purchases of critical wildlife habitat, thus ensuring the ownership for all British Columbians of a heritage without price. To this extent, I think it would be important at this time to say a few words about Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and the other people involved in the Habitat Conservation Fund from an advisory board point of view, because they work very closely with officials of the fish and wildlife branch and other people in the ministry. Their response to the funds that they are given to expend, which do come from surcharges on hunting and fishing licences, have been very popularly received throughout the province. The small pieces of property that they're able to purchase — and in some cases major pieces — and also the work they are able to do has had a really significant effect on wildlife habitat. It continues to be very popularly received provincewide.

One of the things that has been proposed and was even discussed earlier today during discussion on the Wildlife Act was the subject of game farming. You learn from other jurisdictions, and I had the opportunity when I went to New Zealand to meet with the officials of the government. They were kind enough to make arrangements for me to meet with virtually all the lobby groups that surrounded them, including the Acclimatization Society, which would be the equivalent of the Wildlife Federation or a combination of it and the naturalists' society, and the Deerstalkers Society of New Zealand. We met with them and had talks for about four hours in Wellington and then went and toured one of their game farming operations to see how that worked. As a result of that, we came back with a much different attitude and a clearer idea of what we'd like to see happen in British Columbia.

We have a few other successes, one of which is our Oil Save program. It has become so successful now that we may end up with a glut of recycled oil in this province. The Variety Club, whose work needn't really be spoken about in this House, have become very much involved with this program. It's one of those environmental successes that was started in a very small way by the ministry and which is now being taken over by the private sector — I suppose you would call it the charity sector. I would suggest that it has been very positive and another one of the things that we're looking forward to.

I wanted to talk briefly on the humane trapping advisory board that I set up this year, with our intent to go to more humane trapping and our efforts in that direction. I had representations from the trappers' federation, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the native population in this province. We set up a trapping advisory board which has already met. It has a budget and a mandate to remove, as soon as possible, as many as possible of the inhumane traps that so many people on both sides of this House have worked so very long to try and solve, without doing away with the 6,000 people who make their living — and in some cases it’s the only living they make — from the fur-bearing animals in this province.

The ministry has also begun, with my encouragement, the very long, complex, and detailed problem of establishing our first hazardous-waste disposal facility in this province. It’s long overdue. I know my colleague opposite understands many of the ramifications involved in doing this. There is no point in sweeping it under the carpet: the problem exists. It's a difficult one, but one I know we have to address from an environmental and from an economic development point of view. I say from an environmental point of view, much more so than economic development, but it is part and parcel of the growth of the province.

We've had some successful negotiations on the intrinsic value of wildlife habitat, and our recent negotiations with B.C. Hydro on Revelstoke compensation have proven that.

I think. Mr. Chairman. our ministry is in harmony with a government that's committed to business and industrial growth, with the correct slant on the environment. I believe that informed use of air, land and water in a partnership with industry is a responsible goal, and to this end the guidelines

[ Page 8528 ]

and assessment procedures, which are constantly improving, will bring a full range of benefits to British Columbians as a result of the informed multiple use of habitat and resources. There are many good cases in point which I could bring out, but the most successful one is the Fraser River estuary study and report which are now being put together in cooperation with the Hon. John Roberts, federal Minister of the Environment, and the many public bodies involved in that particular report.

I also have the distinction of being the minister responsible for British Columbia Place, which in its own way is making a unique change in the habitat of the urban area of Vancouver, a habitat that deals with the quality of life for urbanites but is no less important. It is the largest urban redevelopment project underway in North America, and, in all likelihood, in the world. It's a long, involved and drawn out process. It began with this government's decision to assemble land that had been underutilized by the previous owner and to construct a stadium, to host a world's fair and then do a final development of the major city in this province that would be something we'd all be proud of.

The stadium is on time and on budget. A week ago last Friday I poured the last cubic yard of concrete on the top of the stadium; then we had a small celebration with the people who were there. I can tell you that the workmen, the architects, the designers and others involved with that project are so immensely proud of the way British Columbia engineers, designers, workmen, tradesmen and suppliers have been able to get that project to the point where the rest of the country is now paying attention and asking: "Why is it that they can do it so professionally in British Columbia?" It's a real tribute to all the people, from the top to the bottom, who have been involved. God willing, we could have the stadium ready by April of next year. It's a public facility which the whole province will benefit from in one way or another. I know that it's probably pretty controversial because of the somewhat depressed state our province is now in. The construction of the stadium itself has not been controversial, because of very professional management by the board of directors of British Columbia Place. I think we should all be proud of it.

We have proposed several developments at B.C. Place. We have had more than 250 public meetings on the project. British Columbia Place will continue to be a major generator of jobs and investment opportunities. It will be a major source of new housing. We are projecting some 10,000 units of various types of housing over the life of the project.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know they never really want me to talk about the ministry in my estimates. They always get annoyed if I kick the tires as I go around and discuss all the various issues — and ventilate immediately thereafter. So I'm going to wind up and see what questions we get today for as much time as there is left this afternoon.

I think it's important that we touch briefly on the Skagit Valley and the High Ross Dam issue, because during the past year the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and I have been to Washington, D.C., and we have been negotiating through the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission to try to ensure that the Skagit Valley is not flooded. We have at least obtained a decision to postpone flooding for one year, and later on next week I will be again going to Washington to meet with the IJC, as both federal governments are now becoming involved in this project as part of the committee that has been struck.

We have offered what we believe is an adequate agreement, which was brought forward by two independent consultants who were hired by the International Joint Commission. Obviously the subject is one that has been going on since before my birth and one which I would certainly like to see the end of, but one which I'm not prepared to let go of easily or without a very severe fight.

I think, quite frankly, that the formula for success, as far as British Columbia's position on the Skagit is concerned, is near. I think it's possible that we can negotiate a solution to the problem. I would hope that I have the support of the members of both sides of the House on the Skagit; I know I have the support of the members on this side of the House, and I think I have the support of the members on the other side, but you never know. I think that if we're successful, I'll have the opportunity to stand up and announce at some point that we have been successful, because for all those many years, many of my predecessors and my long-suffering deputy, who's joined me today, have been working on this project. With a little luck we'll be able to do that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that there will be hundreds of questions on all sorts of fascinating parts of the ministry, and rather than try to predict them ahead of time, I will take my place and listen to remarks from the members opposite.

MR. SKELLY: We appreciate the explanation that the minister has given for what has been happening in his ministry in the last year. He seems a little defensive when he talks about the issue of his competence; I'm not sure that's ever been mentioned in the Legislature.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It sure has!

MR. SKELLY: I wonder for the life of me why the minister should be so sensitive about the issue of his competence, but maybe that's something we will be bringing up later on during the estimates as they progress from day to day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: Certainly we'll be discussing the issue of his competence.

He also mentioned the B.C. Place project. The critics' roles on this side of the House, because of the numbers of NDP members, are a little more carefully divided up than they divide up the cabinet, obviously. So a different member is responsible for fisheries — this member is not responsible for fisheries — and a different member of our caucus is responsible for B.C. Place. But, yes, we are concerned about B.C. Place. We're not so much concerned about the project itself, because certainly when times are good and when the province is doing well, B.C. Place is a project that could be put in place and one that this province could be proud of. What we're concerned about more than anything else is the timing and the fact that there appears to be no integration with developments in other parts of the province.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I suppose the minister himself doesn't, but the government seems to emphasize certain megaprojects at the expense of other areas of the province where development has shut right down. The minister mentioned pouring the last cubic metre of concrete at B.C. Place. Well, I'm sure that there are

[ Page 8529 ]

cities that would want the pouring of even a single cubic yard of concrete in those cities; it hasn't taken place over the past few years because the emphasis of the government seems to be on these megaproject monuments in downtown Vancouver and in the northeast coal sector. It's pretty hard for a member of the Legislature representing a community in central Vancouver Island or on the west coast of Vancouver Island when you're looking at 4,000 to 5,000 workers laid off in the forest industry, and another few thousand laid off in the pulp and paper industry. It's difficult to get them to connect their situation with what's happening at B.C. Place. I can tell the member and the minister this, Mr. Chairman: those people aren't so proud of B.C. Place, because they feel that they have contributed substantially to the resource wealth of this province — the wealth that has created opportunities like B.C. Place — and yet they feel they're being deprived of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. SKELLY: I can name thousands, but I'm not sure that it would concern the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). They seem to feel deprived of what the minister calls pride in that achievement, because it's being taken away from them. When 1,200 people formerly employed in the B.C. forest industry, who contributed a great deal in the way of their taxes and their labour to the development of this province, are now going on welfare in Alberni, it's difficult for them to feel any pride at all — in fact, anything but resentment for the B.C. Place project, which is being pursued in an economic depression.

It's interesting to observe how the previous government dealt with that kind of issue when we were approached to support the Winter Olympics at Whistler. The suggestion was that it would be costing hundreds of millions of dollars. We said that that's not the proper way to deal with these types of projects in British Columbia. We said we would create projects all over the province, and we set up what the Socred government later called the Public Recreation Facilities Fund, which saw money invested in recreational facilities all over British Columbia — all over this area. In virtually every community in B.C. there were benefits from that program — jobs created, people taken off the streets and given adequate and organized recreation.

B.C. Place represents the reversal of that policy of taking the wealth of the province and distributing it to many people, creating jobs and benefits for many people, and actually treating those dollars as health dollars and improving the health and fitness and recreational possibilities for many people throughout the province. This government takes from the many and gives to the few, so that that project is not accessible to all British Columbians because it's virtually a single-use project, from the point of view of many. The dollars invested in B.C. Place can't really be considered health dollars, because only the best will be able to go there. They'll take the best from our communities, and only the best will be able to go there. They'll take from the United States, and they'll take from other areas around the world, and the benefit of our investment will go to those people rather than to people in communities throughout the province. So the people I represent don't look upon B.C. Place with the same pride with which the Social Credit minister looks on it, because they don't see it as their own.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The projects that were created in Port Alberni and Tofino and Ucluelet and all around the province as a result of our policy of distributing those benefits widely they do see as their own and they do see as some community benefit, and they do see as projects that improve their quality and style of life, their health and fitness.

Virtually everybody in the province is touched by the Ministry of Environment in a number of ways. As the minister mentioned, the Stockholm conference on the environment is now ten years past. People used to say that the environment wave had passed, but environmental concerns seem to be increasing all the time, particularly in this province. When you examine the polls and I'm sure when the minister examines his correspondence on issues, he's probably the minister who receives more letters than almost any other minister in the government. People are concerned about the environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chabot gets more.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, because you have divided authority between two ministries with respect to environmental resources. I said in the estimates last year that that was not a sensible division. Your ministry should be responsible for what I described as three life-sustaining resources: pure air, pure water and productive land. It doesn't make very much sense in legal, administrative or or biological terms — or whatever term you choose to describe it — to divide jurisdiction over those resources. It simply makes approaches to government by people who are concerned about those resources a lot more difficult. It makes those issues a lot more difficult to handle.

Concern about the environment is increasing. As chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee I know the minister receives a tremendous amount of correspondence on issues like the Valhalla wilderness proposal, for example. It must be one of the most important in his correspondence. The Cascade wilderness proposal is another one that's probably pretty high in the number of letters that the minister receives on wilderness issues, and again in his role as chairman of the Environment and Land use Committee.

It was drawn to my attention that a few Thursdays ago the Environment and Land Use Technical Committee sat to discuss a number of wilderness proposals that had been made throughout the province. They sat in order to select which of those proposals might go forward and ultimately be designated as wilderness park areas or wilderness areas under some other form of provincial protection or tenure.

As part of my first question to the minister., I'm wondering which wilderness areas have been recommended to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet as those which will be protected under some form of provincial tenure.

The minister also mentioned the Skagit Valley. This is one that we're concerned about from the point of view of what's going to happen in the rest of the province as a result of an agreement that the minister may strike with the city of Seattle as a result of the decision of the International Joint Commission. We are concerned that the legal arguments of the province appear to have been either rejected or not given sufficient emphasis by the IJC. In asking ourselves why that

[ Page 8530 ]

happened, we're not sure that the minister pressed those legal arguments as fully as he should have.

In the original document that the minister submitted to the IJC, we said that we initially agreed with the city of Seattle that, as a requirement of the war effort, we would allow them to flood into the Skagit Valley to provide power for the war effort, because in Seattle and the surrounding area there is a tremendous weapons development industry. So supporting the war effort was one reason this government entered into that agreement.

The second legal argument was that there wasn't a quorum on the IJC at the time and that therefore the decision was a nullity — I think those were the words in the presentation that the minister made to the International Joint Commission. If in our legal opinion the agreement was a nullity for those two reasons, why are we now faced with the prospect of compensating Seattle for what we believe was an illegal arrangement in the first place? As far as we can see, the minister and his staff simply did not press those legal arguments strongly enough, and when the IJC came down with their decision recently, it didn't appear that they dealt seriously with the legal arguments. I would like to know from the minister just how those legal arguments were put forward and why the IJC did not give sufficient weight to those legal arguments when they came down with their decision.

What's going to happen if we enter into a compensation agreement with the city of Seattle? We're going to have to provide them with alternative electric power generated here in British Columbia in all probability. And if we agree with Hydro's load-growth projection rates, it means we'll give the city of Seattle power that they would have generated through the head at Ross Dam. We'll have to give them power generated elsewhere in the province, and ultimately we'll have to flood some other area of the province to make up Hydro's requirements in the future. I'm concerned that we're helping somebody in our own backyard — in Vancouver's backyard — and we're sacrificing land elsewhere in the province for what I consider, and what the minister obviously considered, an illegal arrangement originally. I don't think it makes sense, and I don't think that the 1JC gave sufficient weight to our legal arguments. Would the minister explain why that is the case?

Another concern that we're going to be bringing up, partly as a result of the Auditor-General's investigation into the waste management branch, is the whole administration of waste management in British Columbia. It's partly because of the incidents that took place at Carolin Mines, Equity Mines and Granisle, and partly because of the concern of Indian people around the province for what is happening — for example, in the Queen Charlotte Islands at the Cinola Operating Co. mine and at the Scottie mine in the Nishga area — that we're concerned about what's happening with the administration of the waste management branch. It's not all related to changes in the legislation. There are serious problems with the administration of the act, serious problems with what appears to be lack of concern by the minister or the ministry in the enforcement of the act — the belief that you can achieve more with cooperation than with prosecution. That belief simply isn't held up by the performance of the ministry and the waste management branch, as those incidents with Carolin and Equity and Granisle indicate.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation for 1981-82; and the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority report, with a covering letter from the Auditor-General, for the year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1982.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

NORTHEAST COAL

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said earlier today, there's a lot of gloom and doom around western Canada, and Canada, but British Columbia is progressing and on stream. I would like to relate to the House the contents of a press release released in Vancouver this afternoon at 4:30 by Quintette Coal Ltd.

"More good news for the people of British Columbia. Financing of up to $1.3 billion has been arranged to bring the major Quintette coal project in northeastern British Columbia into full production, at the rate of 6.3 million tonnes a year, with the first production commencing at the end of 1993.

"Mr. C.H. Frame, president of Quintette Coal Ltd., said today that agreements had been reached with seven international banks on the terms of financing. The lead banks who will underwrite the financing are the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Montreal, the Fuji Bank, the Bank of Tokyo, Mitsui Bank, Mitsubishi Bank, and Credit Lyonnais. These banks provide up to $950 million Canadian in senior long-term financing. The balance of the funds will be provided by equity from the shareholders of Quintette.

"Mr. Frame said that the estimated total cost to bring the Quintette project into full production in 1984 is $850 million Canadian and that the financing provided by the banks and the shareholders is more than sufficient to cover any foreseeable contingency." Mr. Speaker, there's more good news.

"Mr. Frame also announced the completion of two new major coal sales to the Japanese from the Quintette mine. Sales contracts were signed this week for sales of 20 million tonnes of Quintette thermal coal to Nippon Kokan and the Mitsui Mining Co. Ltd. during the first 15 years of the project. The value of these contracts, at current prices, is estimated to exceed $1.4 billion.

"The Quintette thermal coal is a high-quality coal with an exceptionally high heating value. The new thermal coal sales contracts are in addition to the 75 million tonnes of metallurgical coal sold by Quintette

[ Page 8531 ]

to the Japanese steel industry last year. The completion of the thermal sales contract means that Quintette has now sold all of its annual production of 6.3 million tonnes of coal for the first 15 years of the mine operation.

"It was also announced at the same time that the Japanese steel industry agreed on Monday to purchase a 10 percent equity interest in Quintette Coal Ltd. In conjunction with this, Sumitomo Corp. will purchase a 5 percent interest in Quintette, and Denison Mines Ltd. Increases its own interest in the company to 50 percent. The shareholders of Quintette Coal Ltd. will therefore now be Denison Mines Ltd., 50 percent; the Japanese companies, 38 percent; and Charbonnages de France International, 12 percent. Denison Mines Ltd. is the exclusive manager of the business and operation of Quintette and will hold a dominant position on the board of directors."

Mr. Speaker, this is proof positive that the government of the province of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia and our independent sector are well respected in the international marketplace, and that is why we are able to get long-term sales contracts when everybody else is shrinking away and preaching doom and gloom. Just last week we completed additional international sales of steam coal to Hong Kong and Denmark. That's because the people rely on the workforce in British Columbia. In our coal mines we have one of the most highly qualified and most dependable workforces you will find anywhere in the world. That is why British Columbia will sell these contracts. Indeed, additional contracts will be forthcoming because British Columbia is looked upon in the world as a reliable source of supply for quality coal at a reasonable price.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this puts an end to the gloom and doom being preached by the socialist opposition. I know that they'll find something negative to say about it, although I don't see what they, could find. This assures the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada that British Columbia again leads the way in economic development in all of Canada.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, 'we welcome this kind of announcement. I want to point out that even with these additional sales that the minister has been so proud of, he's still about ten million tonnes short per year to break even on the massive public investment — the subsidy — in the Anzac line, and he knows it. We welcome anything that will save the taxpayers from what is happening in terms of the Anzac line. We'd welcome the fact that financing has been approved. We'd like to see all the details of that financing; that's why it's time the minister tabled the contracts and the cost-benefit analysis, and provided some information to the public about what's going on in northeast coal. Let's have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome any modest little sale that he wants to introduce. What was the additional sale? I just wanted to make sure it's correct — 20 million tonnes over 15 years, 1.4 million tonnes a year. Is that the additional, thermal coal sale we're talking about? That's a drop in the bucket in terms of the $1.5 billion that we're going to lose in ' that investment unless there are more sales than that — a lot more sales than that. This minister knows that the surcharges that have been placed on that project are hopelessly inadequate to protect the investment of the taxpayers of British Columbia, and I don't depart one inch from that position.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

14 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. What is the name of each member of the B.C. Assessment Authority?

2. Since April 1, 1981, has any member of the said Authority been paid any money as travelling expenses for travelling to and from meetings of the Authority and, if so, for each such member what was (a) the total amount so paid, (b) the point travelled from and the mode of travel for each such meeting, (c) the point travelled to and the mode of travel following each such meeting; and (d) if travelling was done by aircraft, for each such meeting, was such travelling done via (i) chartered aircraft, (ii) first class accommodation, or (iii) economy class accommodation?

The Hon. the Minister of Finance stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

18 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

1. What was the total amount of premiums paid to the Government by producers under the beef Farm Income Assurance Program during the fiscal year ended (a) March 31, 1981 and (b) March 31, 1982?

[ Page 8532 ]

2. What was the total amount paid out to beef producers under the Farm Income Assurance Program during the fiscal year ended (a) March 31, 1981 and (b) March 31, 1982?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. (a) During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981: Premiums deducted from beef claims, $1,227,898.19; advance premiums, $1,183,428.50; totalling, $2,411,326.69; and (b) during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982: premiums deducted from beef claims and advance premiums, in process.

"2. (a) During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, $1,228,380.05; and (b) during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982, in process."

37 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. What was the total of cash and temporary investments held by the General Fund at March 31, 1982?

2. What specific investments comprised the total in No. 1, and for each, what was the rate of interest payable to the General Fund?

The Hon. the Minister of Finance stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

38 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. For each of the special funds, what was the total of cash and temporary investments at March 31, 1982?

2. For each amount listed in reply to No. 1, what were the specific investments and what rate of interest was payable on the investment?

The Hon. the Minister of Finance stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

51 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the comprehensive audit by the Auditor General of the Income Assistance Program—

1. What are the results of the pilot project launched by the Ministry in cooperation with the Auditor General to measure the reliability of control system now used in providing income assistance?

2. Has the report identified two audits of controls in the Ministry's existing electronic data processing systems which had been carried out by other government central agencies and if so, what are the names of the other agencies?

3. Has the Auditor General identified problems with recovery of moneys under cost-sharing agreements and if so, when will the recovery of moneys be complete?

4. Is the headquarters accounting procedures manual, which I understand would be completed by April 1981, now complete and available?

5. Has the Auditor General identified moneys which had been paid in error because of mistakes by employees or claimants and if so, what are the details of these moneys?

6. Regarding underpayments, what was the amount of underpayments to clients in the fiscal years 1980/81, 1981/82 and to date in 1982?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. The pilot project was only designed to determine whether it was feasible to establish a quality control function that would measure the efficiency of the operation

[ Page 8533 ]

and thereby permit analysis of the cost effectiveness of the control systems. The conclusion was that it is feasible; however, no conclusion has been reached as to whether it would be cost effective.

"2. The internal audit groups of the Comptroller General's office and the B.C. Systems Corporation.

"3. Yes. Potential claims identified by the Auditor General resulting from older capital projects funded by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing have been claimed in accordance with cost-sharing agreements.

"4. The headquarters accounting procedures manual has been completed and is available.

"5. No.

"6. The Ministry does not identify nor record underpayments."

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

55 The Hon. C. S. Rogers to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 55) intituled Wildlife Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, in subsection (1) in the definition of "hunt" by deleting "worrying".

SECTION 7, by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) The director may make orders prohibiting a person from

(a) entering,

(b) cutting, picking, removing, altering, destroying or damaging vegetation in,

(C) disturbing or harassing wildlife in,

(d) releasing or abandoning an animal in, and

(e) allowing an animal to enter

a wildlife management area, a critical wildlife area or a wildlife sanctuary."

SECTION 27, in subsections (1) (d) and (e) by adding "or a bow" after "firearm".

SECTION 34, in subsection (4) (c) by deleting "of permit, " and substituting "or permit number,".

SECTION 73, by deleting paragraph (c) of subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(c) selling pelts taken by him as

"(i) the holder of a trapping licence, or

"(ii) a person exempted from holding a trapping licence, or".

SECTION 74, by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to

"(a) the holder of a trapping licence, or

"(b) a person exempted from holding a trapping licence

when selling pelts, lawfully taken by him, to the holder of a fur traders licence."

SECTION 79, by deleting subsection (1) (a) and substituting the following:

" (a) notwithstanding section 10 (3) of the Livestock Act, be liable to the Crown in right of the Province for loss or damage to wildlife or wildlife habitat caused by the animal, and for all costs incurred by the Crown in right of the Province in pursuing, recovering, holding or destroying it, and".

[ Page 8534 ]

SECTION 86, in subsection (1) (c) by deleting "25 (6), " and substituting "25 (7), (8) or (15), ".

SECTION 94, by deleting "game".

55 Mr. Skelly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 55) intituled Wildlife Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 2, to add subsection (5) which reads:

"(5) Notwithstanding section 2 (4) the minister may, subject to the regulations

"(a) provide compensation to any person suffering property loss or damage caused by wildlife or hunters;

"(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. "

SECTION 3A, to add a new section which reads:

"3A The minister may, in each year, appoint an advisory committee, who shall meet upon the request of the minister and shall act in an advisory capacity to the minister on matters of general interest respecting the carrying-out of provisions of this Act."

SECTION 3B, to add a new section which reads:

"3B Not later than one year after proclamation of this Act and every fifth year thereafter, the minister shall prepare and submit to the Legislature, a wildlife resource analysis containing

(1) a description of the location, use and extent of areas of land in the Province that have been set aside for the purpose of wildlife management or protection.

(2) a description of the inventory of the Wildlife Resource and Wildlife Habitat in the Province and a description of the potential for wildlife enhancement and development in the Province.

(3) a description of the programs of the ministry respecting public and private wildlife management, protection, conservation investment and research.

(4) an analysis of trends and forecasts of domestic and international demand for the uses of wildlife resources in the Province.

(5) a summary of the development in and the question of public policy that are expected to significantly influence and to affect the use and management of the wildlife resources."

SECTION 7 (1), line 8, to delete "in a wildlife management area" so that the line will read "except as authorized by the regulations or by a permit approved by the director, commits an offence".

SECTION 8, lines 2 and 3, to delete after the word "habitat" in line 2 the words in lines 2 and 3 "in a wildlife management area or an area set apart for wildlife management".

SECTION 40, to delete subsection (2).