1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ 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)

section 2 –– 8510

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to

section 2 8510

Mrs. Wallace

section 2 –– 8512

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Kempf

section 3 –– 8513

Mr. Skelly

On the first amendment to

section 3 –– 8514

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

section 3 –– 85t4

Mr. Skelly

On the second amendment to

section 3 –– 8514

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

section 4 –– 8515

Mr. Skelly

section 7 –– 8515

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to

section 7 –– 8515

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

section 7 as amended –– 8516

Mr. Skelly

Division

section 8 –– 8516

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to

section 8 –– 8516

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Division

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

section 41 –– 8524

Mrs. Dailly

section 44 –– 8525

Mr. Skelly

section 47 –– 8525

Mr. Skelly

section 54 –– 8525

Mr. Brummet

On the amendment to

section 54 –– 8525

Mr. Brummet

Hon. Mr. Rogers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Davidson

Brummet

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Ritchie

Mussallem

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

section 8.

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

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."

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.]

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

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

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.

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.

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded

in the Journals of the House.

Section 40 approved.

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.

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.

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.

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,