1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th 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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

449 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Rivers Protection Act (Bill 39). Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 449

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Radford — 449

Mr. Richter — 461

Mr. D'Arcy — 468

Mr. Barnes — 470

Statement

Symposium on Canadian-American relations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 476

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I would like to take this

opportunity to introduce a delegation that's here from Richmond today

and welcome them to this House: Mr. Neil Saunders, our Municipal

Treasurer; Mr. Don Harwood, the Richmond recreation director; and

Alderman Dave Williams, who is the first officially endorsed NDP

alderman to be elected in British Columbia.

Introduction of bills.

RIVERS PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 39, Rivers Protection Act,

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.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, this is my second time to speak in this session. As you

remember I was the second speaker from the last who spoke for the

government before the opposition failed to come up with further

speakers, and the House was then adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House the new Member,

the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). The first time I

met this Member was two or three years ago when he was campaigning in

the Vancouver South federal election. He came knocking on my door and I

had him come into the house and talk to me for half an hour. That was

the first occasion I met him. I know he's a hard-working Member and I

think he'll be a good asset to this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, our traditional and time-honoured

budget debate when we discuss the financial affairs of the Province of

British Columbia. I recall, approximately a year ago, that many of the

opposition Members thought we were going to have a situation of

financial chaos within this House. I'd just like to read from Hansard some of the remarks that were made by some of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got lots of time.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Fine. Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, a statement made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). He went on to say:

I'm afraid that the thing we're going to be faced with

in this province is that because of an unrelenting attitude by the

present government, we will effectively stifle the industry in this

province and the government will lose revenue because of that. We'll

lose jobs because of that.

It seems to me that this budget reflects in no way that statement.

Let me go on to another one, Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he said: "...the present concern

and economic dishabillement resulting from the staggering rate of

unemployment that has been created by the new government." Well I don't

think the unemployment rate has gone down, Mr. Speaker. I think it's

increased, and we've increased it very substantially.

Another statement, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) who goes on to say that: "You

will find the companies turning away from British Columbia and seeking

to establish elsewhere."

AN HON. MEMBER: Alberta.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to mention one more by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He says:

"And I say that the rate of unemployment in British

Columbia today is alarming, tragic and unnecessary. No investment

capital is going to come to British Columbia. Investment capital is

very hesitant indeed to come to British Columbia."

These were all statements that were made back in the spring session

of 1973. Mr. Speaker, as I say again, those statements in no way

reflect the economic conditions and climate of this province today.

This budget has been described in quite a number of ways. I regret

that the opposition can find so little in this budget. I've come to the

conclusion that the opposition is blind in one eye and can't see out of

the other. They are totally unable to read, or totally unable to

comprehend what they do read, because I find, first of all, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a budget for all British Columbians.

It's a budget to create employment, a budget to encourage

initiative, a budget for our senior citizens and a budget that plans

for the future; and most of all, Mr. Speaker, it is a balanced budget,

which is a remarkable document in the world in which we live today.

When one looks across this country at the despicable record of

unbalanced budgets down through the years, the deficit financing, this

budget is a remarkable document. Not only are there tremendous

provisions for benefits to all people, but

[ Page 450 ]

they will be all paid for from the revenues that

come into the Treasury during the course of the year in which the

expenditures are committed to be undertaken.

Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Department of Recreation and

Conservation has increased and reflects the government's emphasis on

providing the people of this province with adequate recreational

opportunities, securing for the people of this province land which is

recreational as one of its highest values and conserving for future

generations of British Columbians our valuable fisheries and wildlife

resources. The documentation and visual descriptions of the history of

our province is also included.

I'd like to inform the Members of this House about some of our plans

of the four branches under the Department of Recreation and

Conservation: the Fish and Wildlife Branch, the Parks Branch, the

Provincial Museum, the Commercial Fisheries, the Recreation Facilities

Fund, the SAM project and the All-Terrain Vehicles Act and the Litter

Act.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like now to discuss the provincial parks. The

pressure on this branch to accommodate a growing variety of outdoor

recreation is increasing at a fantastic rate. At year end, park

attendance in B.C. was 9.7 million compared to 8.36 million in 1972.

The increase is approximately 16 per cent.

Last year the Parks Branch operated 125 campsites or campgrounds in

113 parks and provided some 5,650 campsites. Over 700 new sites will be

available for 1974 and at least 250 more are under construction.

In addition, 60 miles of trails have been added to our parks to

bring us up to a total of 700 miles. Some of the accomplishments of

this government through the Parks Branch in the last year were the

creation of 18 new class A parks. This brings the parks up to a total

of 238 class A parks. This is an increase of one-and-a-half parks per

month.

We've also created five new recreational areas which I'll mention

later on. Bill 77 provided $5 million of extra development funds, and

order-in-council 1812, which was their summer works project, provided

funds for employment programmes that resulted in major renovations for

park facilities throughout the province.

With these programmes the Parks Branch was able to create employment

opportunities that saw upwards of 2,200 people on staff in just parks

alone. There was also a $2 million park acquisition fund aimed at

regaining for public use and enjoyment many strategically located prime

recreation land long held in private hands.

There are many other properties on which this Branch is currently

negotiating — properties which should have been acquired years ago and

which should have never passed from the public ownership in the first

place. Some of these parks that have been purchased, to name a few,

are: Lakelse in the northern part of B.C., south of Terrace; Cape

Scott, which is on the northern end of Vancouver Island; and

Frenchman's Beach, which is just outside of Victoria here. These are

all valuable waterfront acquisitions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a 25,000-acre class A Okanagan mountain

provincial park was established. The first major provincial park for

the Okanagan Valley area was created after 20 years of Social Credit

government in that area. And being in the area of the then Premier,

this was the first time any sizable park was made in that area. Prior

to that we had some small parks just south of there, and let me tell

you what their acreage was: Okanagan Falls Park, class A, six acres;

Deadman Lake park, four acres; Sun-Oka park, 37 acres — a little larger

but in no comparison to 25,000 acres that the socialist government had

to come in and put in as a park in the Okanagan area.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How about the Queen Charlottes? — $164,000.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's right, but it is a park.

MR. CHABOT: Rip-off, rip-off!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Two new park districts, Smithers and

Nanaimo, and a number of new regions have been created to provide

closer control of the park system thereby increasing sufficiency in

service. These will be staffed in April this year, 1974.

Emphasis on establishment of provincial recreation areas is an

important aspect of multi-resource planning. Provincial recreation

areas are being set aside primarily for recreation but other resource

utilization is permitted under a system of resource-use permits. These

require special emphasis on maintenance of environmental quality and

recreational opportunities. Two such areas are the easily accessible

Skagit Valley recreation area of over 80,000 acres, and the Kitsumkalum

Mountain recreational area of 3,800 acres.

The Branch is also carrying out studies and reconnaissance of the

lands of the province — particularly in the northern areas — to

determine the recreational values and to estimate the future needs of

both the population and for the maintenance of the environmental

qualities.

I should remark that a study which has been going on for a couple of

years is about to be released — a study brought about by Dr. Dooling

from UBC who is going to study the economic effects and the

environmental effects on the whole of the north. On the route from

Highway 16, the Stewart-Cassiar, over to the Alaska Highway, right down

the Hart Highway there is going to be a big square there where people

[ Page 451 ]

can recreate, and this is an area which we hope to develop in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce a two-year moratorium on logging on the Stein River.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Where is that?

HON. MR. RADFORD: West of Lytton. It's up in your territory,

Mr. Member; I'm surprised you have never heard of the Stein River. It's

an area which truly deserves to be preserved. It bridges two climatic

zones: the Stein River rises within 10 miles of the Harrison and the

Lillooet Lake Valley; 30 miles downstream it enters into the interior

drybelt to join the Fraser River at Lytton.

The Stein basin contains over a dozen 8,000-ft. peaks. Untouched by

logging or mining, it has become a natural refuge for wildlife. This

particular river offers both sport fishing and salmon spawning grounds.

It's one of the most outstanding untouched watersheds left in B.C. I'm

proud to announce that there will be a two-year- moratorium, and

studies done on that area.

parks and fish and wildlife. But it is simply not enough to provide

facilities on a come-and-get-it basis. The government has the

responsibility to ensure that people are adequately prepared to safely

enjoy our outdoor space and facilities. My department is currently

sponsoring a two-month course in winter outdoor recreation safety. The

course, which is being conducted in co-operation with Capilano College,

is a pilot course in what I would hope to see as the beginning of a

series of courses eventually for certification in the full field of

outdoor recreation services.

In the next few years we must enter into a major programme of

acquiring provincial parkland before the land is already committed or

priced out of reach. Having acquired this land we will then be in a

position to exercise various options for park use.

Mr. Speaker, the movement toward outdoor recreation is an exciting

and healthy sign. We must not only meet the challenge for providing the

land necessary for such activities but also the facilities and

educational programmes to prepare people for the safe enjoyment of the

outdoor activities. Last year some 250,000 park visitors had exposure

to the interpretive services in 29 parks. For example, 7,000 students

just in Victoria alone visited the Goldstream Park and watched the

spawning fish in action.

Fifty seasonal naturalists provided a variety of programmes

throughout this province. In the lower mainland an interpretive

naturalist specializing in school activities was also recently added to

our staff. He will contact schools and assist in providing students

with outdoor recreational experiences. We've already had many

congratulatory letters from high schools on this and we hope to expand

this further than the lower mainland.

My colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has

expressed keen interest in environmental education. It is my intention

to work with her toward developing programmes which may eventually see

all students having the opportunity to experience an outdoor setting —

learning about conservation, outdoor recreation and outdoor safety. It

just isn't enough, Mr. Speaker, to learn about these things in books

and talk about them in schools. I think we have to get our children out

into the actual experiences of outdoors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. RADFORD: And this is another project that we see as being very important within the department.

As I said before, it is simply not enough to provide facilities on a

come-and-get-it basis. The government has a responsibility to ensure

that people are adequately prepared to safely enjoy our outdoor space

and facilities.

Throughout my department a grant has also been made toward a course

with the B.C. Snowmobile Association to assist in holding a series of

safety clinics.

We are also meeting with this group to find possible areas where

they can recreate without any conflicts with some of the other outdoor

activities.

Another announcement I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the

provincial Parks Branch is embarking on a new look in 1974 in its youth

crew programme. This year for the first time a crew of girls will be

employed for the months of July and August in trail construction,

maintenance and allied tasks at Kokanee Provincial Park.

Fifteen girls will be hired for the crew at Kokanee Park as a pilot

project. The girls will be under the supervision of an experienced

youth crew foreman, assisted by a female crew supervisor, who will be

responsible for the direct supervision of the crew.

The girls employed in the pilot project will receive the same pay

and the same allowances as the boys and will be working at the same

jobs and will take

part in the same type of recreation and training,

which includes canoe trips, overnight camping, tours of the local area,

water-safety training, driving training and first-aid training.

Salaries for the youth crews this year will be $13 a day, up from $6

a day last year. I should remind the Members across the bench that when

we first came in, the pay for the youth crew people was only $3 a day.

Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mediaeval, that's what it was.

[ Page 452 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Three-bucks-a-day Chabot.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, mediaeval Chabot.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most dynamic programmes I have had the

satisfaction of overseeing is the Community Recreational Facilities

Fund. There was $10 million put into a special fund in the spring

session of the Legislature under the terms of Bill 76, where one-third

of the capital development cost of a recreational facility and up to

one-third of $1 million is paid by the provincial government. Because

of the overwhelming response, an additional $5.5 million was added by a

supplementary bill in the fall session.

In the budget introduced by the Hon. Minister of Finance on February

11, another $10 million was set aside for this fund. To date, 95

communities between them have received one or more grants of the

facilities fund, and I believe this numbers about 162 grants. A total

of $15.2 million in grants has either been approved or approved in

principle. The total construction of facilities generated by these

grants was in excess of $50 million — which, by the way, created many

jobs throughout British Columbia and added to our increase in

employment.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the director of

recreation in the Vancouver College this year, and he tells me that

every student that took the course on recreation in Vancouver College

went to a job. He tells me that because of my programme they enrolled

twice as many students in the coming year. So you can see where the

recreational facilities fund is not only giving out grants, but it has

a real multiplying effect when it comes to the economy of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The interest shown in the recreational

facilities fund has demonstrated a real need for expanded recreation

facilities and services throughout the province. It is apparent from

the response that there is also a need for guidance and consultation

from the province. With this in mind, provision is being made for a

facilities specialist and three field officers to give guidance to

communities in planning for recreation. I must say that it is in the

outlying districts where this real help is needed — in the small areas,

the smaller communities. We find that in the larger communities they

have the know how and they have the technical expertise, but in the

outlying areas they just do not have this.

These grants have helped make possible the development of facilities

in many smaller rural areas, in particular where the cost of such

facilities would be prohibitive without financial assistance from the

provincial government. In addition, there are areas in the urban

centres, such as the west end and the east end of Vancouver, which

were, lacking in recreational facilities, but now have received a

financial boost by this special fund.

For example, some of these funds — I'll name a few of them, Mr.

Speaker. Ice hockey rinks: I think Fort St. John received two ice

hockey rinks — and this is in the opposition territory, by the way. A

community hall for Greenville Indian village, a cultural centre in

Vancouver, horseshoe pitches in Alberni, indoor lawn bowling in West

Vancouver — they did very well — I could go on and name these, Mr.

Speaker, but most of the people here know what benefits were received

in their own ridings.

I must say there are some MLAs, though, that didn't seem to go out

and tell the communities what was available, and there are a few areas

that haven't put in applications.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We all did.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Not all British Columbians have an equal

opportunity to participate in recreational activities. Access and

income status are two crucial limiting factors, but through this

special fund we are effectively redistributing the recreational

opportunities.

Through the combination of this fund and major thrusts towards

providing opportunities to participate in outdoor recreational

programmes, this government will soon set the standard in Canada in

maximizing the people's recreation potential. There are no freezes on

gymnasiums and recreation facilities under this government.

While I am talking about recreation facilities and opportunities,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a few minutes about my own riding

of Vancouver South. The City of Vancouver recently announced that it

has purchased the last 66 acres of Langara golf course from Marathon

Realty for $4.5 million. The city earlier purchased the other 95 acres

which make up this 161-acre property in Vancouver South at 49th and

Cambie. The city has announced that it intends to lease 20 acres of

this property for housing, in order to recover the purchase cost for

the last 66 acres.

A number of my constituents have expressed concern at the loss of 20

acres of open space for housing. Concern has also been expressed at the

lack of the recreation facilities throughout the area in Vancouver

South. At present in the whole of Vancouver South we have one skating

rink and two other small recreation centres.

I'm not satisfied that housing is the best use of this land. I

believe the city should demonstrate to the citizens of this area that,

in compensation for the loss of this 20 acres, it has to set aside

other land or plans to acquire other land for open space, park

development, and sites for recreation facilities.

There is a great need for housing, but to develop

[ Page 453 ]

this land for housing with no other land set aside

or plans to acquire other land for recreation will simply increase the

need for recreational land in an area already deprived, and simply

increase the need for recreation facilities.

I suggest to the City of Vancouver that instead of following through

on its current proposal to develop this 20 acres for housing, it first

work out with the residents of this area an adequate plan for the

provision of recreational land and facilities for this area. For my

part, I'm willing to co-operate in whatever way I can, and I am more

than willing to meet with the city officials to discuss this further.

Before leaving the parks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about

the Dogwood Provincial Parkway proposal — the cycle track. A

feasibility study was done by the Parks Branch some months ago. This is

a real, unique situation, a really unique project, because the

phenomenon of cycle tracks and hiking is not new. It has been carried

on across Canada and in the United States, and since that time it is

really starting to bloom right now.

In the City of Victoria we have 100,000 cyclists compared to 80,000

automobiles. We have nowhere for the cyclists to go. What has Victoria

done for cyclists? As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what has Highways

done for the cyclists? As a matter of fact, to cycle on Vancouver

Island is very dangerous. And I would like to point out that in the

last two years, '69 to '72, five people were killed and 367 injured in

the Victoria area because of cycling accidents.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Shame!

HON. MR. RADFORD: We have a railway that is not being used,

that goes from here to Deerholme and right up to Cowichan Lake. It

passes through some of the most beautiful areas in B.C. It goes through

lakes. As a matter of fact, it goes through provincial parks, park

reserves and a national park. There is fishing in the lakes and

streams, and it is our plan to put in park units with overnight camp

facilities for cyclists. We've worked out costs on this — we could do

this for less than $1 million.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): What about the water board?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, there is some concern from certain

quarters about the water situation. We have stated in our brief that

there is no way we want to spoil the drinking water of Victoria. We've

put up a link fence. But it should be also remembered that there is a

public road running between the watershed and the railway track now.

There is some concern over fire hazards. People still use that area,

and last year there were seven fires in that area. There were problems

in putting those fires out. Forestry has told us that if we put in an

8-ft. wide cycle track this would be a beneficial aspect to fighting

fires in that area.

MR. CURTIS: Have you convinced Peter Pollen?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in negotiations with the CNR.

MR. CURTIS: Those are easy. What about Pollen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he any relation to Pretty Polly?

HON. MR. RADFORD: We've worked out plans for the maintenance

of this track. We could involve students; we could involve volunteer

programmes. I think the Premier is aware of the cost of the cycle

track. I think it's a very minimal cost, really, and it could be put

into immediate use. Some people think it can be used for rapid transit,

but in our studies we've shown that in the area of Sooke and Metchosin

in the year 2001 the population there will only be around 62,000.

We're really thinking about an effective re-cycling of land use when

we're talking about using an abandoned rail line. It's the maintenance

of open space. Also, with the gas situation, it's an alternative to the

transportation system. We could have people coming from Sooke and

Metchosin and riding right down into Victoria, parking their bicycles.

MR. CURTIS: Into Vancouver?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Less space would be needed for parking. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and a lot healthier. I may even try it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you and Frank going to get a tandem? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD . I want to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the Fish and Wildlife

Branch. Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned yesterday that this budget has been increased

significantly. This budget this year was increased by close to $2.9 million.

I'd like to remind the Members that when we first came into power the entire

budget of this branch was $2.9 million.

Before I get into the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, I want

to answer some of the queries the other day from some of my colleagues.

I realize that some of my colleagues have big territories to cover and

are not always aware of what's going on in their total area. I refer to

the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). In Hansard he states that he wants to speak out about game wardens, and he says:

[ Page 454 ]

"The nearest game warden, I think, is away over in

Fort Nelson. I used to go to the department prior to taking office, Mr.

Minister, and I used to ask for these game wardens. And he used to say,

'Yes, that's where the officers are placed who are supposed to be

looking after details in my constituency.' This is an uncalled for

situation."

I'd like to inform the Member for Atlin — I wish he was here — that

we've had a conservation officer in Cassiar for a year-and-a-half. I

might say that he's a good conservation officer. His nickname in that

area is Sergeant Preston, and he does a tremendous job. He now has an

office there, a four-wheel drive. He has a 22-ft. jet boat, and get

this — and I wish the Member was here — has an auxiliary CO, he is an

Indian. I'm surprised that he didn't know that in his own area he's had

a CO there for about a year-and-a-half — since August 19, 1972.

MRS. JORDAN: He might never see the Minister.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Here is a list of the total of prosecutions

in the Stewart-Cassiar area. In 12 months, there were 65 prosecutions

in that area for a total in fines of $7,200; 15 of these prosecutions

have been main, serious prosecutions. I don't want to mention names,

but I think everyone will recall the situation of certain guides in

that area selling hides. The case got mixed up in the court; some parts

were dismissed, there were some convictions and some are being appealed.

Also there were helicopter trips and boat blitzes in the lower

Stikine, where four conservation officers spent a week in there. I see

the Member is back now.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Once a week.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I was just relating, Mr. Member, with

regard to your claims that there was no conservation officers in the

area, the closest one was Fort Nelson. I was informing the Members of

the House that we've had a conservation officer by the name of Baldwin

stationed in Cassiar for over a year-and-a-half, and that in the last

12 months, 65 prosecutions have taken place. He also has an Indian

auxiliary CO in that area.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there was mention here about certain Ministers

getting out of the office and going into the north. I think the Member

remembers me phoning him and telling him that I was going into Atlin. I

went into Atlin this year. I don't know how many of the other Ministers

or other MLAs did, but I drove into Atlin this year and visited Atlin

and it's a heck of a nice place. It's the Shangri-La of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your duty.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Sure it's my duty, but I was in there.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you go fishing?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No — wrong time of the year.

Okay, I'd like to make a few remarks, too, on the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly).

MR. CURTIS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Member for Omineca, I'm glad to see,

was really concerned about the native Indian people in his riding and

about them getting meat. He goes on to say: "But you know that I have

several hundred of the Indians in my area that eat moose meat

year-round because they live in such remote areas." He goes on to say

that there's no meat market around the corner and they need this meat.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we give out special permits to anyone for

sustenance in those areas. Anyone can take out a permit when they're in

need of meat. They can shoot moose or any wild animals.

I'm glad to see that the Member really sees the need for this, because in March 29, 1973, that Member then stated in Hansard :

"Something else that bothers me, Madam Chairman, is

the permit system. In the Interior today, they're using permits to

welfare cases and to natives — our native people. I know the native

people problem is one thing, but I am strictly opposed to issuing

permits to welfare cases. I think if we were to go to the native people

and say, 'Look, we are not able to issue permits anymore,' then they

would accept that as being a fact of life. I would like to see these

permit systems cut out."

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): That's right — I would.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm glad you've changed your mind.

I'd also like to go on, Mr. Speaker, and mention some of the

problems the Member has in that area. Last year we did have some

petitions from a game club wanting us to close the antlerless season

completely. I had consultation with my department in Prince George and

was advised that that season there had been cut in half — not many

people knew that we had already cut the season in half — from a month

to two weeks. Even prior to that, they had a season there of two months

on antlerless game.

Actually I rely on my people in the field: Decisions on managing

game are not done in Victoria by somebody behind a desk; they are now

done by the people who live in the areas, in the regions and in the

field. These are the people making the decisions.

[ Page 455 ]

We will not make, arrange and have game management by petition. We

will listen to petitions, but our people are professional people.

I want to state some facts here about a report from Prince George

this year. They did a recent game count in areas 20 and 21: the count

was 3,225 moose by flying. That's just touching an area because you

can't count every moose in the area. The calf ratio was 40 per cent per

cow; the ratio was 60 bulls per 100 cows. Reproduction was good in that

area.

Many people who don't get their game are unhappy; those who get

their game are happy. We've hurt the road hunters this year because

we've closed the roads. We closed the Stewart-Cassiar from a discharge

of firearms from a quarter of a mile on either side of the road. We

closed Highway 16, where the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) goes.

People have to get out of their cars now; you just don't shoot animals

from the road any more under our new game regulations.

I don't think some of the people in the House are aware of the

hunting and fishing regulations regarding our native Indians. The

native Indians do not need a hunting or fishing licence in the Province

of B.C. at any time. The Indian can hunt on his reserve at any time all

year round. The Indian off of the reserve does not need a tag, or a

licence, but he is expected to adhere to the hunting and fishing

regulations. I said before, 99 per cent of the permits given out for

sustenance are to the native people.

I thought that Member for Omineca would mention some of the problems

in his riding, some of the problems of the River Ranch which he and I

flew over, a ranch that was a consortium from the United States, a

ranch that was put into class 1 moose area where trees were ripped down

and grass was attempted to be planted, where cows and calves were dying

on that farm, where the vet from Vanderhoof went down and saw the

horrid situation, where we saw cattle the day we flew over that area

trying to get grass off of dry, sandy hills.

To my mind, that whole situation was a tax dodge — that whole

operation. They went in there and they either made money or, if they

didn't, they wrote it off. They applied for grazing leases all the way

down to Nazko and I am told they were turned down. As I say, they were

trying to cut down trees and grow grass where grass wouldn't grow.

The cows were dumping their effluent in the Nechako River which is

the water system of Prince George. Much concern was expressed in Prince

George about this.

I am surprised the Member didn't talk about the new mining road

going in north of Germansen Landing. I might say that I am familiar

with that area up there; I lived in the north quite a bit. I know the

Osalinka, the Mesalinka and the Aiken Lake. The road that is going up

into that area into the heart of wildlife land. I'm surprised the

Member didn't mention that.

I'm surprised the Member didn't mention Pinchi Lake in the heart of

his area, where lodges and fishing have been done away with for quite a

few years because of mercury contamination in that lake. Some people

say it's because of the mine; some people say it's because of a natural

situation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not fighting; I'm stating facts. But these are some of the things that should be mentioned.

Coming back to the native Indian situation, Mr. Speaker. On August

31, I wrote a letter to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, asking them to

supply us with names, asking them to try to get their people to apply

for jobs in the Fish and Wildlife Branch and in the Parks Branch,

especially in the northern area. We want the native Indian people to be

involved in our department because we feel they do a good job. We

already have many steady people in our branch. I can read this letter

out to you or anyone can come and see it; it is right to the executive

director of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Our department has gone

out of their way to work with the native people, especially up north.

I want to get back to the area again where the Member for Omineca

(Mr. Kelly) says there is a shortage of moose. I don't want to read

through Hansard anymore because he's mentioned in Hansard that you can

go down the road any time and see moose, and that there were 400 moose

poached in certain areas. In the paper here we have a column that says:

"146 moose were killed just out of Prince George." This is due to the

bad winter in the area, I will admit. We are having a bad winter in

Prince George and up north, and we may have to close the season

altogether. We may have to close the season altogether if there's a

real die-off.

We are not going to play politics within this branch. If the animals

are in danger and there is not enough to go around, the season will be

closed. We are managing by a logical means, not by political means in

this branch any longer.

I could go on again. There is a fish and wildlife programme going on

in Vanderhoof in co-operation with the Agriculture people. I think the

Member over there is a member of the agricultural committee; I am

surprised he doesn't know about this programme. I should read just a

paragraph to refresh his memory: "A controlled grazing range for both

domestic livestock and moose will be developed this spring by the B.C.

Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Branch 15 miles

east of here." That's about maybe a few miles from your place.

[ Page 456 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Who is it started under?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It started under the Fish and Wildlife Branch and Agriculture. It's a co-operative deal.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right, okay.

I just have one more item to mention, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member

talks about the humane trap. He says, "The money that was donated for

research work on humane traps, as far as I was concerned, was a farce:

just a pittance of what should have been committed into research on

trapping."

I can't agree with that statement, and most people don't. I have a

letter here from the president of the Association for the Protection of

Fur-bearing Animals. There's an

article in the paper about it. "The

president of the B.C. Humane Association has voiced strong support for

a recent government announcement that it will search for humane traps

for fur-bearing animals. 'It's tremendous. It's the first time in the

country's history that the government has stepped into the grizzly

business of trapping.' "

MR. GARDOM: That was my bill.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We're doing something in this province, and

this province has lead the way. We contributed more than any other

province on a federal-wide basis when we sat down with the feds on this

thing. We've also given money to this association to hand out to a few

of the trappers who are near completion of a humane trap.

I want to move on a little longer now. I want to talk about game

management; I want to talk about the real guts of game management.

There has been a real failure to recognize key wildlife issues. The

habitat, I should say, is the main area that we should be concerned in.

A failure to recognize key wildlife issues is one of the greatest

threats to sound wildlife management in British Columbia today.

As long as most of the public continues to confuse the effects of

hunting with those of wildlife habitat destruction, we are making

little progress towards a good understanding of the problems facing

wildlife in British Columbia.

An apparent reduction in wildlife population invariably results in a

demand for reduced hunting. The suggestion that hunting is responsible

for the situation is simply not true in most cases. But it is a

dangerous one in that it draws the attention away from the real issues

at stake.

In the past large-scale destruction of wildlife habitat in many of

the areas of British Columbia valuable deer and moose winter ranges

have been destroyed through land alienation, excessive clearing and

cutting operations and forest fire protection. In many of these areas

there is simply not enough quality habitat left to support wildlife in

historic numbers. In these cases hunting is completely irrelevant as a

factor affecting wildlife population. If the same energy devoted to

reducing hunting in such areas was directed instead toward demanding

improvement in wildlife habitat, we would be accomplishing something.

The real problems are environmental ones and we are working at these

in a variety of ways which are not always particularly obvious to the

public. Programmes for the protection of wildlife habitat need public

support, and it's frustrating to see potential energies for these

programmes wasted on hunting issues. People who are genuinely concerned

about wildlife in British Columbia must take time to discover the real

problems facing wildlife populations. That's where the real problem

lies. You don't have to look too far — at our Libby Dam 6,000

white-tailed deep wiped out, 500 elk displaced; the Williston Dam,

thousands of moose there.

MRS. JORDAN: What about Tilbury Island?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Tilbury Island is not that significant as

far as wildlife is concerned, compared to the Libby Dam and the

Williston Dam, and the Ootsa Lake situation.

Mr. Speaker, the basis for management for our wildlife resources is

the maintenance and enhancement of suitable living environment. The

responsibilities of the Fish and Wildlife Branch are extensive

throughout the province. And the success of fish and wildlife

management programmes depend upon successful negotiations with other

resource users in situations where these users are in conflict. Under

the previous government the existence of environmental conflict was

given very little recognition. Many of the professionals within the

department were discouraged from expressing their concern. Our

government has taken the position that these are the people best

qualified to defend our environmental resources and have tried to

establish an atmosphere where conflicts may be exposed and resolved.

The muzzles have been removed.

Through the Environmental and Land Use Committee, the Fish and

Wildlife Branch has been given the opportunity to play a greater role

in protecting its resource. But of much greater significance than the

identification of individual environmental conflicts has been the

creation of the resource development schemes designed to build wildlife

and other environmental considerations into future resource planning.

These schemes will be of great importance in avoiding many traditional

areas of conflict. In addition they are forcing all resource managers

to plan in the long term, and the results

[ Page 457 ]

have generally been an improvement not only in fish

and wildlife benefits but also in the management of all other resources

involved. It is estimated that approximately 40 per cent of the Fish

and Wildlife staff time is spent on other resource problems.

An addition of 97 people will be hired by the Fish and Wildlife

Branch because of our new budget, and it will mainly bolster the field

forces and give capability for essential new programmes and

improvements in established programmes. This year we're hiring 33

additional conservation officers. We are hiring five additional IE

(Information and Education) programme people who will travel throughout

the province and talk to school children, talk to different groups, on

our whole wildlife management programme.

The fish and wildlife management increases are intended to direct

more emphasis on urban needs in our field, including better fishing

opportunities for children and those less mobile, including also better

opportunities for some of our senior citizens.

Stepped up nuisance control — animal control: Six new people will be

added to our staff to bring it up to 11 people to look after predator

control. Much of our time is spent in this field. I think the Member

for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) knows this in the area where the bears

are causing havoc in the vineyards and in the apple orchards. We have

quite a time to look after the predator control situation, especially

where it involves agriculture. This is the area that we are going to be

working in.

I should remark that we've held meetings with the Agriculture

people, and we are working with Agriculture on trying to overcome some

of the predator problems between Fish and Wildlife and Agriculture. I

think it is the first time the two departments have got together on

this.

Fish and Wildlife: Animal habitat improvement will be brought about

with special emphasis on newly acquired land. Inventories of fish and

wildlife habitat capability and recreation potentials will be given top

priority in our programmes.

I should mention when we talk about inventory: till we came into

this government, out of the 20,000 good lakes in the Province of B.C.

only 1,200 had any inventory done on them.

For the first time we are bringing in a permit system this year. I

talked about a permit system when I was on the backbench. A permit

system means limited access of people to the number of animals in a

certain area. We are starting that programme this year. We are starting

it in the Ashnola Valley where the bighorn sheep are. We are starting

it in the Nass, where my colleague, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

is from, where we have a problem with the goats. We are also starting

it in game management area No. 3, in the Toba Inlet area, to preserve

the grizzlies. So we are moving on a whole new programme in this

province of limited access and the permit system.

Furthermore, a concerted effort will be placed in the area of

research, where the consequences of various land and water use

practices may be evaluated in terms of their effect on the fish and

wildlife population and on the continued security of our environment.

This type of information will enable us to continue and develop our

multi-use planning and assist in resolving possible conflicts with the

resource users. The concept of multi-use has seen practical and

workable application at the initiative of our Prince George regional

Fish and Wildlife office. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) went into this the other day and

explained it.

In co-operation with the Forest Service personnel, they have

developed programmes designed to solve the conflicts between the

demands of the forest industries and those of the fish and wildlife

conservationists. Modified cutting practices and co-operatively

developed logging plans have resulted in programmes where the optimum

use of the land will ensure the people of the province of maximum

returns on their resources with a minimum detrimental side effect.

In the east Kootenays an equally significant approach to wildlife

management is getting off the ground. This area supports one of the

richest and most varied big game resources in North America, and its

capability for wildlife is unexcelled in British Columbia. This

capability has, however, never been realized in recent years. And as

the result of the effects of mining, logging, grazing and reservoir

conflicts on important wildlife range areas, in the last 10 years there

has been a decline of almost 50 per cent in the population of most big

game species in that area.

Our regional Fish and Wildlife crews in the Kootenays have begun

working out a major programme of identifying, acquiring and restoring

important wildlife winter range areas. We have recently acquired three

key range units which will be managed by local Fish and Wildlife

officers to restore the capability of these important ranges for the

support of traditional wildlife populations.

These units are particularly significant because they include

critical winter habitat areas for deer, elk and bighorn sheep. But

these units will not be managed to the exclusion of cattle. Rather,

cattle will be accommodated on certain areas and hay and alfalfa

available for harvest will be made available to neighbouring ranches.

In this, as in all other programmes. true to the concept of multi-use,

the benefits of the good planning will be shared by all resource users

rather than by any single one.

We are now experimenting with winter feeding programmes in the area for the first time in B.C. We

[ Page 458 ]

have 14 feeding areas in this area. This has been

displayed in many of the papers. There are usually headlines in the

Cranbrook paper nearly every week about our programmes in the Kootenays.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What species are you trying to feed?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I just mentioned it; if you were listening,

Mr. Member, we are feeding elk, mainly, to start with. We are doing

experimental programmes in the area, and we hope they will work. This

is the first time this has been done.

With the security of suitable habitat areas assured, extensive fish

and wildlife management will follow. We are encouraging more intensive

management of wildlife populations throughout the province, and more

specific management of fish populations is being developed in our lakes

and streams.

Regulations for the protection of fish and wildlife are only as good

as our ability to enforce them, and the enforcement is thus an

important part of our management programmes. The trend toward increased

access to previously unexploited areas, coupled with increasing numbers

of recreationists, have placed a marked enforcement demand on the

British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch.

To help meet the increased pressures on our enforcement officers —

and the increased price of meat accentuated the problem even further —

the government last fall passed a special warrant for $93,000 allowing

the employment in the fall of 57 auxiliary conservation officers. This

is on top of an already existing 57. The previous government did

recognize the importance, but we doubled the number of people.

This doubled our auxiliary conservation officer force. The result —

and this is pretty significant — the result of this was an increase of

41 per cent in angling and hunting prosecutions over the year.

MRS. JORDAN: What was the return to the Crown?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I don't have the figures on that right now,

Mrs. Member. But I will tell you that this is a significant increase of

41 per cent because of our increase in enforcement.

Because of our I and E programmes (our information and educational

programmes), because of our CORE programme, conservation, outdoor

recreation — where we train potential hunters, like we do on Vancouver

Island now — this year was the lowest year in the number of accidents

and fatalities in fishing and hunting. It was the lowest year, and this

was the highest year for the number of people taking part. So we would

like to think that probably some of these things we have done have

contributed to this area.

MRS. JORDAN: Who started the programme? Be fair.

HON. MR. RADFORD: That's right. It's a good programme.

I recently announced a new licence fee

schedule that more accurately

reflects the real value of the resources. Greatest increases were made

on licences for non-residents and this, in addition to the replacement

of the trophy fee system by species, is a licence system which will

ensure good returns from the resource for the consumptive and

non-consumptive users. The things that were done are really numerous,

and we really restructured the whole licence system,

We have now created a senior citizens' licence of $1 for hunting.

MR. FRASER: You put the guides out of business too.

HON. MR. RADFORD: If you want to talk about the guides, I'll

tell you about the guides. The guides are going to have to be more

responsible, now that we have done away with the trophy system. We've

brought in a species licence system.

I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Member, because I'll tell you a

little story on what's happened to the guides. In the past the guides

and the non-residents could come in and buy all the licence tags for, I

think, a total of $67.50 — the same as the residents.

He could go out hunting for two weeks and if he didn't acquire his

game he didn't have to pay a trophy fee, but if he was out hunting and

he was out hunting for two specific animals — we'll say a grizzly and a

sheep — and he happened to come across a moose or something else, the

guide would say, "Well, sure, you can take that animal, but it will

cost you a little more." So he took the animal; he didn't get what he

originally went out for, but he went home happy.

Under the new system of species licence, because we've raised them

so high — we've raised the grizzly to $300; we've raised the sheep to

$250 — he cannot now buy a pocketful of tags. When he goes out it will

be the responsibility of the guide to get those one or two species that

he's after, and he will pay for that licence, pay for the experience of

the environment before he goes out.

It's like going to a show, Mr. Member; you pay before you enter.

MR. FRASER: What are you going to do with the 150 guides who are out of work?

[ Page 459 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: Also I would like to reiterate a statement

that was made across the floor on fishing licences. This year for

residents of B.C. 16 years and under there will be no charge for

fishing and angling licences. Non-residents under 16 years old,

provided they are accompanied by an adult, will fish free. This year

the catch of a person under 16 will go to the limit or the creel of the

adult they are with.

We are doing away with the situation before where non-residents

would go and catch their son's limit, their daughter's limit, and maybe

another son's limit; we are doing away with that.

Also, Mr. Member, this year when one goes to get a licence they have

to show proof, a B.C. Medical card. If they haven't got that they have

to show some other means of proof of being a resident of B.C.

In detailing our present programmes we must not lose sight of the

important contributions made over a period of years by what I like to

think of as the people's army. They are those British Columbians who

work as members of fish and wildlife groups, SPEC groups, naturalist

clubs and other organizations in preparing cases and undertaking

various projects, with and without direct government support.

The most progressive and effective conservation organizations in the

world have been started, financed and led by sportsmen. B.C. clubs have

made tremendous contributions to the province through programmes of

public education, creating public recreation facilities, and through

their representations on civic regional boards and their briefs to all

levels of government on parks, wildlife and pollution requirements.

Besides donating much time and hard physical labour, the members of the

clubs have spent many tens of thousands of dollars of their own money

to carry out projects that benefit everyone.

Some results of their fight for environmental protection include

pollution-control legislation, strip mining reformation legislation,

cessation of industrial activity within park boundaries, clearing of

Hydro reservoirs, establishment of the Creston Valley wildlife

management area, the All-terrain Vehicles Act, a ban on helicopter

hunting, access into logging and industrial Crown areas, public access

to lakeshores being ensured by the Land Act.

I'd like to read out, Mr. Member, just what some of these fish and

game clubs have done about B.C. Let's look at the Quesnel Rod and Gun

Club, eh? They built a free public campsite and boat launching at Fish

Lake; built and set out public picnic tables at 100 lakes throughout

Chilcotin and Cariboo — cost $2,200; they put up a coarse fish barrier

at Dragon Lake.

Let's look at Enderby: they placed 150 goose-nesting tubes between

Mabel Lake and Mara Lake maintained them and increased the number of

birds from dozens to hundreds.

South Okanagan Sportsmen's Association at Oliver: they built roads

to a local lake, provided a campsite with facilities, cultivated feed

and cover crops on several miles of dikes for pheasants, aided Fish and

Wildlife Branch in annual sheep count.

Osoyoos Fish and Game Club: constructed a windmill in the Fuller Lake to aerate water and prevent fish kill.

I can go on and on...and I think I will. Cowichan Fish and Game Club

Association constructed a 23-mile public trail along the Cowichan

River; they've built several bridges, including a suspension bridge at

Skutz Falls.

Where's the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)? Oh, he's not

here. Sparwood — oh, this is in your area, Mr. Member. Sparwood and

District Rod and Gun Club shipped feed from Alberta for winter feed of

moose and elk.

You know, these are some of the things that the members of fish and

wildlife clubs throughout B.C. are doing. And many of these Members in

the House here should realize that, because many of the Members in this

House have three or four clubs in their riding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Filibustering! Filibustering!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Now in recognition of all the good things

these people have done, in recognition of these important achievements

through the involvement of citizens, a conservation fund is being

established to provide grants to conservation clubs in order to assist

them in a variety of projects.

MR. FRASER: Give us the details.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, the details. Since I've got your support I should add a few more dollars here.

Initially, the amount of the fund will be approximately $50,000, I

will be appointing an advisory committee to recommend to me the

disbursements from this fund and it will be administered through the

B.C. Wildlife Federation, through the Fish and Wildlife Branch and

through the B.C. Naturalist Society, which is not a member of the B.C.

Wildlife Federation. But all clubs will be involved. I'm happy that the

Members in the opposition applaud that move.

MR. CHABOT: Is Ray Haynes going to be the chairman? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Now, moving along to the Provincial Museum.

Although the Provincial Museum's annual visitor count has risen

dramatically since the mid-1960s, it's clear that the museum's ability

to reach British Columbians varies greatly with

[ Page 460 ]

their distance from Victoria.

MR. GARDOM: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Visitations depend chiefly on the

combinations of awareness, interest and the ability to travel. While

the museum cannot hope to influence the latter, it can, through

imaginative and energetic extension programmes, stimulate both

awareness and interest in the Provincial Museum's collections, exhibits

and programmes.

The Provincial Museum staff has taken the position, which I

enthusiastically endorse, that it is not always convenient for British

Columbians to make the trek to the museum in Victoria and that

consequently we must take the museum to the people. More and more we

are preparing travelling exhibits to visit various communities

throughout the province.

Funds will be provided in the new budget for the coming year to

enable the museum to acquire a rolling museum train, providing wider

exposure of museum assets. We have acquired one train on Vancouver

Island and another on the mainland. The rolling museum train will be

capable of operating approximately four months of each year along all

of the province's railway lines.

MR. FRASER: Is Bill King the engineer? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Envisioned here is a steam locomotive with

a tender, drawing a train of five cars, including an historic car,

exhibit coach divided into display and workshop, another exhibit coach

totally for display, another exhibit coach for display, and an historic

executive car for train crew and museum staff.

MR. SMITH: What happened to the caboose?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I think this will be a really unique

situation in B.C. where we can take the historic artifacts, et cetera,

all throughout B.C., even into Golden, even into Fernie.

MR. FRASER: What grants have you got for local museums?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Displays will be prepared at the Provincial

Museum during the winter months and installed in the exhibit coaches

prior to the departure.

The exhibit coaches will be filled with displays depicting elements

of British Columbia's natural and human history, integrated in such a

way that in-depth treatment could be given to specific themes of major

significance. Moreover, it would be desirable to change the theme each

year, thereby bringing a totally new set of ideas to British Columbia

every 12 months. I think the new theme probably will be the growth of

steam in B.C.

MR. SMITH: Hot air.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right off the press. Remote regions will be

able to see and have explained the best examples of our truly

remarkable collections on a regular basis. Local museums and historical

societies will be both encouraged and strengthened by opportunities to

co-operate with the Provincial Museum. Knowledge of British Columbia

both intellectually and culturally will be increased, especially as it

pertains to school children, supplementing their classroom work with

exposure to travelling museum exhibits. A stronger sense of British

Columbia identity may well emerge as more and more citizens come to

view what is expected to be dynamic and quality exhibits based upon

themes common to all persons living here. This, in turn, may help

promote a stronger sense of provincial unity.

Another branch under my department is the Commercial Fisheries

Branch. I'm told that in the past, all the past Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Mr. Kiernans) talked about, as far as I can look back

in the records, is hydro and, once in a while, parks. He never did get

into the....

MR. FRASER: There he is right there, so don't be critical.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, I'm talking about the past government. So today I'm giving you a full resume of all the departments I'm involved in.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, another branch under my department is the

Commercial Fisheries Branch. This government recognizes a need, a great

emphasis, on the Commercial Fisheries. This emphasis is marked by

recent doubling of my staff in this small but increasingly effective

branch of my department, and a substantial increase in the budget.

I'm optimistic you will see a little greater increase in action

within the fiscal year in this department. This province must extend

its role in the management of British Columbia's marine resources to

ensure maximum benefits to all British Columbians, recognizing but not

submitting to the fact that the federal government by statute has the

primary responsibility in this field of commercial fisheries.

The branch now assesses all applications, to the province for water

licences and pollution control permits, and closely scrutinizes all

these applications which might adversely affect out fisheries. In

short, we are developing provincial expertise in the fisheries field

rather than having to rely entirely on the federal fisheries and

environmental authorities as in the past.

[ Page 461 ]

B.C. has most of the essential salmon environments still intact and

in comparison with the rest of the world, a well-managed fishery. The

product is in very high demand with world prices increased, but

traditionally the province has paid lip service to the salmon fishery

and given it very low priority in allocating scarce resources to this

industry. The key to salmon enhancement is to improve the fresh water

environment for these fish. The federal government can provide money

and expertise but the environment is almost totally under the

provincial control. In other words, this province has to make

commitments as far as its land use, as far as its water use, before any

commercial fisheries endeavours can be successful. It's imperative that

we work closely with the federal government on these things, and we are

working closely with them.

I'm also insisting the Commercial Fisheries Branch initiate more

cost-sharing fisheries projects with the federal government where costs

are shared and the expertise of both levels of government can be

focused on development of new techniques and potentially new industries.

Developing industry methods. These are some of the things we will be

getting involved in: developing inventory methods for red and brown

algae, a valuable source or gels and other foodstuffs not yet fully

exploited, surveys of selected aquatic plant beds, studies on effects

of harvesting aquatic plants, provision of managerial assistance to the

B.C. Oyster Growers Co-operative in an attempt to expand and diversify

the developing oyster industry. There will be research done on new

methods of oyster culture, such as raft culture; examination of log

storage and booming in the oyster fields; examinations done on

shellfish disease.

I am convinced we are not realizing the full benefits out of marine

resources. This pioneering work must be stepped up if we are to

adequately and economically harvest this ocean bounty and contribute

fully to the world's growing demand for protein.

On the horizon is the possibility of a whole new field of

aquaculture and mariculture to which the Commercial Fisheries Branch

along with the Fish and Wildlife Branch and other agencies of

government are directing their attention. Aquaculture ventures depend

primarily on the resources of land, water and fish. For this reason, we

would like to see these developed as Canadian ventures with Canadian

capital and with Canadian expertise. We can expect some interesting

developments in this field in the near future.

I would like to again emphasize that your government is taking a

special interest in the whole field of marine resources, accepting

fully British Columbia's responsibility in this field. We intend to

press the federal government for greater achievement within the

statutory responsibilities and for greater action on the problems which

are unique in the British Columbia fishing industry.

I believe there is a great future for British Columbians in relation

to the potential benefits from the vast expanse of ocean facing our

lengthy shoreline. But this potential can only be realized if the

principles are followed. The fishermen, the industry, the provincial

and federal governments must work co-operatively and effectively

towards common objectives, ever alert to new opportunities and ever

watchful of this country's rightful heritage.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the preceding comments have been

enlightening; I know they have been kind of lengthy. But I've come to

realize, during my short term in office, that Recreation and

Conservation is a department that many people know little about. And,

as a matter of fact, a department governments in the past have paid

little heed to. This is unfortunate because it is a department that

affects the lives of all British Columbians.

Recreation, not only because of the greater amount of leisure time

but also because more and more people are rejecting materialism as a

way of life and are looking for an opportunity to express themselves as

creative individuals, is one of the most important services any

government can provide.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Conservation, not only because our natural resources have greater

and greater economic value but also because we now recognize our

survival depends on the protection of our natural environment, must

play a fundamental role in guarding resource management decisions.

Mr. Speaker, we have the resources; we have the technology; we now

have the government that cares about people. And I am confident that

British Columbia can be the recreation corner of this continent. Thank

you.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, it is

again a pleasure for me, on behalf of the constituents of

Boundary-Similkameen, to take my place in this budget address. At the

outset I want to congratulate the new Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I hope that he enjoys his stay in this

House as much as I have...

MR. CHABOT: There is only one Liberal here today.

MR. RICHTER: ...and that it is as rewarding as it has been to me.

I was particularly interested in the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford'

s) remarks, particularly those

pertaining to

[ Page 462 ]

my area. I did notice that he picked out all the

very small local campsites and small recreational areas to use as

examples as to what has been set aside in the way of parks in the

southern Okanagan — at least in the Boundary-Similkameen area he

mentioned a number. Actually most of these are just bathing areas for

the farmers when they get through work, because they happen to be close

to the river or close to the lake, such as Deadman's Lake. Well, there

are a few fish in it — the farmers get the odd fish out of it. But

really, the larger park areas were completely by-passed — such as

Clearwater Lake park, Apex park, the Cathedral Lakes park of some

18,000 acres that was set aside by the former government. These were

all parks of some earlier vintage that were set up either as class A

parks or they were a class C park administered by a board, and they

were added to as time went on.

Now, as far as game areas are concerned, the former government set

up a very large game area, Crater Mountain and Juniper Mountain known

as the Ashnola game area. And I recommended this very highly to the

former government.

It consists of hundreds of thousands of acres. It is a real pilot

plan on knowing whether game has a detrimental effect on grazing lands.

And I hope the experiences that have come from that will be taken into

consideration in evaluating the grazing aspect by the commission that

is now studying it and the submissions that are being given to them by

the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers.

I was also quite surprised at the Minister when he mentioned that

girls would be used on the trails and in improving the recreational

areas this year. He said it was a first. Well, actually it's really not

a first. The previous government utilized the girls from the Selkirk

College in a programme of developing the Christina Lake picnic site,

and they did an excellent job. They were good artisans; they were good

workers; they did a good job. I think this is an excellent programme,

particularly to provide funds for students who are attending colleges,

or universities for that matter, in the other parts of the year. This

will provide a source of funds to them. I think this is a good

programme. But certainly the Minister doesn't want to be deluded by the

fact that he thinks he created the programme. That was created long

since.

He also failed to mention that under the previous government a game

area between Grand Forks and Cascade was initiated. In fact, through my

own efforts and the Greenbelt Protection Fund property was acquired for

grazing of game for the winter months and at the same time providing a

very substantial park area.

Now, I think it will be recalled if you look back in Votes and Proceedings

of the spring session of 1973, question No. I on the order paper was in

relation to this particular area and its acquisition. Again in the fall

session of 1973 the question appeared as question No. 1. But at the

conclusion of the fall session the question was still not answered.

However, I did obtain the answer on December 4. Peculiarly enough, it

was prepared September 17, and actually my question was sent in on

September 13. So it was answered but I didn't get the answer in the

proper way through Votes and Proceedings so that others would know too.

However, the deal was made as based on the agreement by the previous

government. And that is another area on which the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) didn't elaborate. I

don't expect him to elaborate on all these things, but certainly it is

a very, very important first.

As far as the cyclist trails are concerned, I think these are very

necessary. They may be a little difficult to get underway; you may run

into quite a number of complications, particularly through watersheds.

The Highways department — I can quite understand why they're not

interested, because it would be such a volume of requests that they

couldn't possibly keep up with them. I think it's only in specific

areas. Certainly I would prefer to see any cycling trails kept away

from highways because of the danger factor. Invariably people will

decide to get out on the highway, and this is a dangerous method of

having volume of cyclists on the highway.

But there is a very simple solution. There was a very good example

of that the other day when we saw a picture of our Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) sitting on a cycle in the gymnasium. Now, you can get just as

much exercise from that as you can by travelling from here to Cowichan

Lake, or anywhere else, on a cycling trail. So maybe that's the

solution; maybe we should all cycle on a stationary cycle. Maybe that's

the answer.

Most of the Minister's address was a repetition of his earlier press

releases. While his programmes were quite well outlined in the press

releases, and we got a repetition of it today, I think probably some

information was gleaned from it by way of explanation.

I would like to say just a few words in relation to my constituency,

which is very important as far as I am concerned, in attempting to get

some matters underway which have been waiting for a long period of time

— particularly things like the Penticton truck bypass.

I know this is a difficult area for the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) at this time, although, it was quite a simple matter during

the election of 1973, as far as the NDP was concerned. It was going to

be just a matter of fact, or fait accompli, within just a short time

after the election of the New Democratic Party.

However, the situation hasn't improved one bit as

[ Page 463 ]

of today. As a matter of fact it has deteriorated

because the Minister has his hands full of problems in relation to the

native Indians. The route is through their properties — the easements

that are required for highways. And the Penticton band and the Osoyoos

band are all clamouring with the government now as to their land

status. I can understand this because this is exactly the same problem

that existed previously — the fact to have access through an Indian

reservation.

The Okanagan water basin study. I hope the recommendations will be

underway and implemented. I think that the results of this study — the

implementation of the recommendations — are going to be extremely

useful, not only as far as the Okanagan water basin is concerned, but

in many, many other areas in this province in which the same criteria

can be used. Certainly any studies can be greatly reduced in length of

time because you have the criteria set up by this original study.

Rural electrification programmes: we're getting many requests for

extension of rural electrification into the areas — again, many of them

that Indian reserves would be involved in. I would hope this programme

can be extended, particularly in those remote areas. Now I know that

there's a cost factor here. I know that some of these lines will not

have the necessary number of connections, as they call them. But

certainly I think a greater consideration should be given to these

people and not deny them.... The situation shouldn't be that — if there

are only three and there should be four — they should be cut off at

that point and have to wait for an unlimited number of years before

they can enjoy some of the benefits of life.

As far as agriculture is concerned we still have our problems,

regardless of the fact that in the last session of '73 agriculture was

paramount as far as the implementation of programmes by way of

legislation that was going to resolve these problems. These problems

have not been resolved. The programmes were not ready really to get

into operation. Now we are saying that estimates are coming in on them.

This could have been done by a supplemental budget last fall, and the

programme could have been underway. Now this has not happened.

Many of the farmers from my area are writing me letters saying to

me: "How do you apply for the various assistance programmes? What do

you do?" When I make inquiries to the department I find that the forms

are not ready. The committee that's going to operate the programme is

not prepared to move forward because they haven't the funds. There are

a million-and-one excuses and, consequently, there's nothing really

happening.

I think if the legislation is that important, due to the emphasis

that was put on agricultural legislation in the last session, I think

the government has got to move a little faster in the area of making

the necessary provisions so that that programme can be implemented at

the earliest possible moment to the advantage of the agricultural

industry. There seems to be something amiss here that it's not really

happening.

To get more specifically to the budget address by the Minister of

Finance it's a budget which I'm going to have to be quite frank about.

There's very little difference from the budgets I've seen for the last

20 years, excepting for the fact that this year we're getting a greater

degree of publicity to it. The very area in which we were criticized

previously.... Now we have virtually two-thirds of a page of

advertising on how to get hold of a copy of the budget.

Now I can recall when the Minister of Finance, as Leader of the

Opposition, criticized the former government for ever printing it up in

such a form and sending it out. Well, this has happened from day one as

far as I am concerned. I have budgets that were printed by the

government for years and years back. But this year, of course, we're

going to have newspaper advertising too, which is all costly to the

taxpayers.

They all know that the budget has come down. The newspapers have

given this publicity. There is a method in which they can always

acquire these. But this continuous inflating cost of government in

itself is all reflected back on the costs to the taxpayer.

There are some areas in which programmes should be publicized. They

should be publicized fully. In other areas I think a government should

use discretion and try and save those dollars which apparently are not

being saved in this particular case.

Now the budget: there's no question about it, it's truly the first

socialist budget, and its magnitude is rather startling. However, no

matter what the magnitude of a budget is, if you can truly justify the

figures in it, then I think you can truly support a budget of that

nature. But this Utopian, socialist budget is something again.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It starts off with the fact that there's going to be no increase in

taxation to the individual. Now taxation can come about in a number of

ways. If a cost rises that's a taxation in the form of either inflation

or additional cost of production by way of a royalty. A royalty is

described as a tax.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, my definition out of Webster's dictionary,

or out of Funk & Wagnalls, is probably a little different than my

hon. friend's definition over there. But I rely pretty much on Funk

& Wagnalls, and I think they are pretty reliable.

It can be by way of an increase in the cost of a

[ Page 464 ]

necessity of life. So as I progress on through the

budget, you'll really find that it's not as Utopian as our Minister of

Finance would like to make us believe. In fact, I have attempted to

come up with a descriptive name or some form of describing our Minister

of Finance because of the antics that he does carry on in this house —

his dramatics and so on.

He reminds me, I think, of Caliban creating his own tempest, because

we find him going into temper tantrums, we find him going into great

ecstasy when he meets with his own party Members. He's a man of many

talents, I suppose you would say. However, his dramatics and his

attitude to very, very serious problems can't be laughed away as it is

attempted to be done.

The tax rate with no increases: of course, we know that we are going

to have increases in our costs. I wonder if the Hon. Minister is

equally impressed — as he mentions how Hon. Members will be impressed

by the 25.6 per cent increase in revenues — by the increase of doing

business and cost-of-living increases that we're witnessing today.

Certainly the escalation in the costs of government alone, as far as taxpayers are concerned, is very disturbing.

I agree with many of these programmes — Mincome and so on — although

it's not as high as it should be. It should be $250 a month such as was

in the bill that I had in the House last session.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

But you wouldn't accept it when you were in cabinet.

MR. RICHTER: Well, that's a matter of opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of fact. It's on record.

MR. RICHTER: I would certainly like to see some evidence of

the representations made by the Minister of Finance to Ottawa to

increase the statutory exemptions to those people who are receiving

benefits from these programmes so that they wouldn't have to turn

around and pay out the moneys they're receiving from the programmes of

the province by way of federal income tax.

I think it's well recognized that because of the costs today to many

of our elderly people, our more unfortunate people, by doing this we

would be helping them a great deal in being able to sustain themselves

and maintain their standard of living — which is not always the case.

In the cities and urban areas we probably have a tendency to see a

considerable number of benefits that can accrue by way of Silver

Threads and various other organizations. But when you get out into the

boondocks, you have people who aren't able to enjoy these things.

They have to sustain their livelihood and everything on what they're

able to receive and what they're able to retain from that. Certainly

the income-tax factor is one in which I have for a long, long time

taken into consideration as one that should certainly be revised

upwards as far as the elderly citizen and those who are receiving

benefits from provincial programmes.

We have quite a number of areas in which, certainly, there is a

great deal of confrontation as far as property taxes are concerned with

Bill 71. I have no end of complaints regarding the property tax under

that particular bill. It's put many of my own constituents virtually

out of business. I was very pleased that the government has taken the

matter seriously enough to set up a committee, and I look forward to

great things coming out of that committee.

The University of British Columbia. I think because of the enrolment

rate anticipated, this in an area in which greater consideration should

be given as far as grants are concerned. I have not always been in

accord with the previous government's programme in this relationship,

particularly in relation to geology. I would like to have seen the

previous government make very substantial grants toward that geology

building which was virtually put up by donations from industry. I do

believe the university can see continuing expansion for some

considerable time. I don't see any solution to their problem unless the

provincial government is prepared to move in this direction.

As far as the budget speech is concerned in relation to the

pupil-teacher ratio, the announcements by the Minister of Finance and

the use of special warrants during my course of time within the cabinet

and under the Administration Act, it was always my understanding that a

special warrant could only be issued when the statutory authority was

there and that it was an unforeseen expenditure to be made. It has been

admitted in this budget that there is a foreseeable expenditure that is

going to have to be made on behalf of schools to attempt to reduce the

pupil-teacher ratio.

I have one area alone in my constituency where it is roughly

estimated to be about a $40,000 expenditure for providing the necessary

accommodation, both teacher-wise and as far as space is concerned. When

estimates like this can be projected at the time the budget is being

prepared, then I would say they should be included. However, it is not

included in this particular case.

What is going to result in the end is this: under the Minister of

Finance's announcement, we are going to have another set-to between

teachers and school boards. The teachers, asking for a reduction, and

the school board, not being able to provide the necessary

[ Page 465 ]

accommodation either by way of teachers or space,

will set against each other. This is not really their role; it is the

role between the government and the school board, without being

provoked by the teachers. This in itself is not what I would consider

good policy. I would hope the Minister of Education will take a really

good look at this and probably, if it is going to be initiated, she

should initiate it from that level.

One particular part of the Foulkes report was of interest to me

particularly in relation to the recommendation that we have mass

medication by the addition of fluoridation in our water systems. I

think this is an area which has been debated and much evidence has been

indicated both ways as to the benefits and also the detriments. My own

contention is that we obtain aspirins by going to the drug store if we

need aspirins. We don't need them put in our water system. If we need

fluoridation, we can go to our doctor, he can prescribe it and we can

have it in the prescribed amount.

We're not all built the same, that's for sure, as far as our medical

requirements are concerned, and mass medication is no answer for the

prevention of decay in our teeth. Certainly more harm could be done

than good. There is a method available and we know that this is

available.

As far as the Department of Mines is concerned, we haven't had the

Minister speak yet. We expect that he will be speaking quite

extensively when he comes to a certain bill that's before the House and

which I know, Mr. Speaker, I'm not at liberty to speak on at this time.

Bill 44 and Bill 101 have created uncertainty in the mining industry

today. I notice the Minister shaking his head. Tell me, Mr. Minister,

tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, how many new mines have you opened

since 1972 when you took the portfolio? The last one I opened was

Gibraltar. How many mines of any magnitude have you opened?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Over a billion dollars this year!

MR. RICHTER: Those are not new mines; those are mines that were in production when we were government. Those are not new mines.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: The mining industry did it because of the political climate that was in existence at the time.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Nothing to do with what is in the ground.

MR. RICHTER: No, but you have got to have some incentive to find it. If it's going to be impossible for you then what are you going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should not interrupt from out of their seats.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! I find this Hon. Member

attacking the Speaker as not being fair, and that is unparliamentary.

I'm trying to tell you, and you won't listen, that it is unfair for a

Member to speak outside his seat. It doesn't mean the Speaker can order

a Member to go back to his seat, and that is what I was explaining for

the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I did draw to the

attention of the House that a Member was not speaking from his seat and

asked him to desist. Now, please do not attack the Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I'm not attacking the

Speaker; I'm suggesting that the Speaker of this House should treat

both sides of the House equally.

MR. SPEAKER: And I do.

MR. CHABOT: And you don't. My point of order is that I

briefly interrupted at one time from someone else's seat. You ordered

me to take my seat. I suggest you be fair; you say the same thing to

that Member over there. Be fair for a change.

MR. SPEAKER: That again is another attack on the Speaker. I

drew it to the attention of the Hon. Member that he was speaking out of

his seat and he should not do so. That is what I'm required to do and I

did it; I think that's being fair to both sides. This Hon. Member is

interrupting, which he has no right to do in the debate of the Member

behind him, but he doesn't take it into account that he himself breaks

the rules of the House.

MR. CHABOT: Treat both sides equally.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly do.

MR. RICHTER: Now, if I may continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. RICHTER: I would hope that greater emphasis will be

placed on placer mining by the department, particularly because of the

price of gold today. I think there is still a lot of placer ground in

the province that could be very productive; it could create a great

deal of employment.

[ Page 466 ]

I actually think that probably a few courses in placer mining, such

as were given many years ago at Yale, could be productive in this

particular field. It's obvious that through mining legislation we have

now we're not going to get the emphasis on prospecting for hardrock

mining, as we had previously.

We did have an exceptional rise in the price of copper this year,

with the result that the increase of return has been elevated by about

one-third, so the future looks bright as far as metal markets are

concerned.

If you look at the situation in British Columbia today, we are going

to have less production so naturally the metal market is going to

increase. Instead of $1.07 a pound, we will find that it is higher.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Fuzzy economics.

MR. RICHTER: It is not a fact of economics; it's a fact of primary grade arithmetic. You can see it.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, overnight. If we had had a politically

conducive situation in the province this year, the income to the

industry should have been $1.2 billion. The province benefits by way of

taxation, by way of jobs — and jobs are important. The spin-off is

right down the line, and you know how many times through the mining

industry the dollars pass from hand to hand — about nine times.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Granted. More power to you in that you are able

to do this, but it's not to the mining industry because if you check

the mining figures you'll find that the jobs are equivalent to what

they were in 1972, as far as the number of people employed, because

there are no new mines to employ them. They are running at capacity

because they want to get their product out of the ground. They don't

know how soon they are going to be closed down.

I spoke on this matter in the budget debate of 1972. What I said at

that time, your Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), as

Leader of the Opposition, chided me on at that time. You could take my

very same words spoken at that time, and they have come true — line and

verse, right down the line. So it is not a case where we couldn't

foresee what would happen under this particular circumstance.

I was particularly interested in the report from the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. In their report, on page

13, the mines that are mentioned in this particular document were mines

that were operating or on line at that time — such as Gibraltar, Utah,

Lornex — these all came on about that time. Granduc, Similkarneen

(which is Ingerbelle), Newman or Bell copper (up on Babine Lake),

Craigmont, Granisle and Brenda were all mines already existing. I see

no new mines whatsoever in this particular list.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Maybe the Minister would like to name some of the new mines.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: So really I have to look forward to the future.

As these old ore bodies are gradually depleted, what new ore bodies are

you going to tap?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We've got them all ready to tap.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: Absolutely not. Don't give it away, but don't

take it away from the people who are trying to produce and who are

trying to find and discover and develop the ore bodies.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: No, I'm not, really, because we had a very good situation at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) —

and I'm sorry that he's not in at the moment. I particularly wanted him

in; that's why I tried to have him.... Oh, how fortunate. He's come

across the way.

Well, now, Mr. Minister, if you'd like to sit up here you and I can

have a nice little chat, a nice quiet one, in relation to highways. At

the outset I've got to say that I have a great deal of compassion for

you. I know that you are working under very, very difficult

circumstances, and I know you have your hands tied behind your back by

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and I feel very badly for

you. If there's anything that I can do to help you along, I'd be most

happy to donate my services, but your programme in Highways in the year

of 1974-75, at budget time, is a complete standstill budget.

I don't blame the Minister for this one bit, because if Treasury

Board opened up their little budgeting bag, pulled the strings back,

and dumped a few of the Minister of Mines' profits and his incoming

royalties onto the desk of the Minister of Highways, probably we could

have got some of the programmes that were underway when the NDP

government came into

[ Page 467 ]

force. Maybe we could have got some of those

programmes on the way and maybe we could have had some more on the

drawing board that we need. The traffic situation in this province

today, and the momentum with which it is increasing certainly this year

will be something to behold because of the energy situation in other

parts of the United States. We are going to find that certainly the

people who live along the border are going to get across into Canada as

quickly as they can to get their tanks filled. They are going to

utilize this, because if they go back they don't go anywhere anyway in

the U.S. They are going to stay in Canada. I wouldn't be a bit

surprised if tourists coming in from the State of Maine into the

Maritime provinces would come all the way across to enjoy the amenities

of British Columbia, and stay in Canada on their way back.

We have some important highways in British Columbia. We have the

Southern Provincial No. 2; we have the Trans-Canada; progressively as

you go up you have No. 5 going up by way of Jasper and No. 16 going

through to Prince Rupert, and then even into the northern part of the

province — without a vast amount of money going into further

development to bolster the economy by way of tourists coming in to

leave their dollars here, which we are very happy to accept because

they take little or nothing away except a few pictures. The scenery

remains. But certainly, Mr. Minister, you need some help as far as

highways are concerned.

With regard to the maintenance programme, a lot of our highways

today are full of pot holes — that is, the hard surfaced ones. The

gravel roads are mostly washboard, and there has been a lack of impetus

put into the maintenance programme and also the construction.

It is quite obvious to me why the Minister is not able to respond to

some of the inquiries that are made to him, particularly in regard to a

letter of December 3, 1973, in which the chamber of commerce from

Kootenay Boundary inquired about highway programmes. If I had been the

Minister I wouldn't have been able to answer it either, and I don't

blame him one bit for not answering it. He could however, have

acknowledged it with some platitudes, but he's a pretty substantial

Minister in that he doesn't want to procrastinate. He wants to tell

them the facts — that we're going to do this or we're going to do that.

So I can understand quite readily why the Minister was not able to

answer that particular mail.

However, the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources, got a copy of the letter and so did the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) get a copy of the letter, but

nothing apparently came from this. I suppose it was just excess mail as

far as those other two Ministers were concerned. But I know theMinister of Highways is serious about these things, and certainly wants to do his part.

Now I mentioned earlier the situation that has been created by Bill

71. I know that my colleagues have certainly spoken to some great

degree on this, and the committee is set up.

I would suggest, in the light of the increased costs that are going

to be experienced by many, many people in this province, that the

government certainly give consideration to abolishing the 5 per cent

tax on utilities because this affects each and every one of us. It is

essential in life to have electricity and to have the other utilities.

Certainly a great deal of benefit could come to those people who find

themselves in dire circumstances today by the fact that these

reductions could take place in light of the fact that they are going to

have their electrical and gas rates increased and it's not going to be

really helpful to them.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) is not here because I understand that certain pressures

are being brought to bear on certain independent repair people under

ICBC. Under the icky-bicky programme, as it stands today, approaches

are being made by the icky-bicky personnel trying to get them to sign

up under a contract. Now, a contract may not mean anything to the NDP

government, but it certainly means something to the independent repair

people.

I had an occasion in which I was contacted on the matter: Was it

true that if you sign a contract with the government and the actual job

costs you more, then could you collect from the individual for which

the job was done?

Now, my understanding of insurance is that if it covers the job as

it is assessed, and if the assessment is too low and if it's expected

that the repairman will have to go out and bill the individual, then

the individual is not truly covered by insurance. I'm rather surprised

at this.

Also to attempt to get them to sign, these individuals are being

told that 70 per cent have already signed up. Now, when I checked into

the facts of this, this is not true. Now, is this a proper approach to

be taken by representatives of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia? — trying to get repair people to sign up on the basis that

they can get their additional money from somewhere else.

We've had a lot of myths go on unanswered in this chamber from the

government — that the previous government gave the land away. Well, we

know this is not true. British Columbia has the highest percentage of

publicly owned land in Canada — 95 per cent or above. Even the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) boasts of

this fact.

The giveaway of resources — the previous government gave away

resources. Actually the previous government abolished Crown grants so

that the people of the province would at all times own the

[ Page 468 ]

resource.

The previous government sold out to the petroleum corporation. The

previous government used the bonus-bid system. And I know that for a

fact because I was that Minister responsible for the acquisition of

rights. And through that it was the oil companies who had to risk their

money and there was no guarantee by the province, except for the fact

that if they proved the field then 50 per cent of it came back to the

Crown. So all these myths that go abroad are nothing more than myths

and attempts to degrade, or to leave within the minds of the people

that the previous government did not look out and protect them as far

as the resource industry is concerned.

Mr. Minister of Resources — who is not here — the propaganda that is

going out in this fashion is not factual; and certainly I think should

be something that is not continued.

Give the people the facts; they'll make up their own minds.

As bright as this budget might appear to the government, it doesn't

appear that bright to the man-on-the-street. It's a difficult budget

for him to understand. Certainly I for one will do my best to interpret

it as it is, and I am not going to be in a position to support the

budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I won't be too

long since debate has lasted for a considerable length of time. But I feel it

necessary that some constructive comments be made since there hasn't been,

in my opinion, too much forthcoming from across the floor.

I would like to essentially deal with some major questions in my own

region and constituency. On the matter of energy policies of the

province and of B.C. Hydro with regard to the Columbia River and also

to the Peace: The energy report brought down in 1972 was a furtherance

of the two-river policy which has been in effect for some considerable

length of time in B.C. The result of this, essentially, is that we will

be supplying most of the immediate future needs for power in B.C. from

run-of-the-river dams on the Columbia and on the Peace.

The effects of this in the Peace area I don't think are too serious,

but perhaps some of my colleagues in that area may wish to comment on

that. But there's a great deal of land in the Peace River country and

even run-of-the-river dams, which take away from that land, do not

really cut down too much on what is left for industrial, residential

and agricultural purpose.

But in the Kootenays, Mr. Speaker, and especially in the West Kootenays we are in a somewhat different situation.

We are an area of essentially all mountains with a few narrow

valleys, and any usable land is all essentially in the narrow valleys.

With the completion of Mica and the construction of dams on the Pend

d'Oreille, Revelstoke Canyon, possibly at Downie Creek, we will have 70

per cent of our valley land flooded most of the year. Now, I would ask

my colleagues in the House what it would mean to you if 70 per cent of

the usable land in your riding or region was given over to hydro

electric development, it wouldn't leave a great deal left.

Now, I am not suggesting that we change this two-river policy. I'm

not suggesting that the cheap hydro electric resources of the Kootenays

not be available to the rest of the province. I am suggesting, however,

that the West Kootenay in particular should perhaps get some special

consideration because of its unique resources and unique topographical

situation.

In the Arrow reservoir in particular is a tremendous recreational

potential — possibly the greatest in the province. It's from losing the

agricultural land and recreational land, which we did as the result of

the disastrous Columbia River Treaty, and I don't want to dwell on

that. However, I do think.... And it's certainly not the present

government's fault — since the CCF and NDP fought long and hard against

this treaty and against that particular dam going in. But it's there

now, and we have not realized any benefits in the West Kootenay of this

particular development.

We've lost school land, school assessment land; we've lost jobs;

we've lost agricultural, recreational, residential and industrial land.

I think perhaps the province owes the people of the area a little bit

of remuneration for it.

Last year because of the run-off situation and the attempted filling

of the Mica and Libby reservoirs, water levels in the Arrow Reservoir

didn't go above 1,408 feet, compared to the normal maximum of 1,446

feet. For those of you familiar with beaches around the lower mainland

or Victoria, what do you think it would do to your recreational values

if your tide was always 36 feet below highwater mark for an entire

summer season?

I would suggest that the Arrow Reservoir should not be the private

preserve of Bonneville Power. I was given to believe and was told by a

number of people that we were locked into this situation because of

treaty requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I've looked at that treaty and I've spoken with one of

the negotiators of that treaty. I've also spoken with Mr. Kennedy who

is in charge of the Canadian entity for B.C. Hydro, and I can't really

see hat we are locked into controlled water levels on the Arrow

reservoir as a result of the treaty.

I see that we are committed only to provide flood control. It would

seem that the major consideration in keeping the level low in a poor

run-off year — much lower than would be of any use in terms of

aesthetics or recreation in the area — is that there is a

[ Page 469 ]

certain financial return to B.C. Hydro by, let's say, co-operating.

I think that the rather narrow financial consideration is simply not

adequate in this day and age when most people in the area do deserve

some recreational value from this entity. I suggest that it be perhaps

looked at between July I and October 30 that the Arrow reservoir be

kept at a reasonably high level — somewhere around the 1,440- to

1,446-foot mark. After October and up until July 1, I think that, in

keeping with the power needs of our American friends and also with

flood control needs on both sides of the border, the level can be

adjusted as Bonneville and Hydro see fit strictly for these purposes.

However, I think that during the four usable months other

considerations should be taken into account.

With the probable, certainly strongly-mooted construction of the low

Revelstoke dam, it seems that the recreational and sport fishing on the

Arrow reservoir will be severely curtailed. I would hope that there

would be some consideration given to developing the Inonoaklin River,

which is a natural fish channel, and also a couple of other sites that

I believe the Fish and Wildlife people have in mind. Now whether this

financial help comes directly from the province or from B.C. Hydro I'm

not prepared to argue. I think the people of the region deserve some

help here.

I would like at this point to say how pleased I am with the open and

above-board attitude of B.C. Hydro that I've found in the past

year-and-a-half. I think no Crown entity, with the possible exception

of the compensation board, has seen such a complete turnaround in terms

of its public relations and its sympathy to the general public as B.C.

Hydro has. However, the fact is that the basic policies of the early

and middle '60s are still being followed — at least we're hearing about

them in a sympathetic way, and where minor changes and adjustments can

be made in the local area they're being made. In short, the kind of

high-handed approach to local situations that came to be associated

with B.C. Hydro has had a complete turnaround. I commend the directors

of Hydro and their senior executives as well as the two Ministers with

jurisdiction for that change.

There is considerable concern, to me, about corporate entities —

public or private — which have jurisdiction over vast areas of

resources. I'm wondering if this whole question of returning

jurisdiction over these resources should not be looked at by the Crown.

Getting back to the Arrow, when one tries to deal with these

agencies you find that you're really dealing with B.C. Hydro and

possibly with Fish and Wildlife, possibly with the Parks Branch and

possibly even with Travel Industry. There needs to be a

resource-management plan and a resource-management entity which can

have some jurisdiction over these things but that does work with these

various government departments.

I think there is a need, especially in the Kootenay area, in keeping

with land use, that Crown agencies do level with the general public in

terms of industrial plans which they may or may not intend to be party

to. The reason that I say this is that, for instance, the need for the

large power lines between west Kootenay and east Kootenay has been

questioned by myself and others.

Getting back to our narrow valleys, there isn't that much room in

our valleys, and if you put two or three power lines through them and,

in some cases, a railway, a highway and possibly a gas pipeline, there

just isn't much land left. While there has been some question as to the

need for power lines we are only given the word from the Crown agency

that, "Look, we have some privileged information and to give it to you

would be a breach of trust. It has been suggested to us by some

possible industrial users that there is a need for this line and for

this power in the future, but you realize we can't give out that

information — it could affect land values and speculation."

These sorts of arguments are very valid arguments. However, the

Crown agency, in acting on this private information, in effect becomes

an accessory before the fact, because they are in a position of

providing cheap power for an operation which may or may not receive the

approval of the people that live in the area sometime in the future. I

don't think that that's a valid consideration. I think there needs to

be some word of intent out there in a particular area so that the

people can know what, in effect, may be going to happen to their area.

In the resource use matter, regarding the Forest Service — and I'm

going to talk about trees for just a moment — I know that there are

changes in forest policy being considered and I'm very happy with the

direction that the Forest Service appears to be going and with what the

Minister is doing. However, I would hope that there is some possibility

that the philosophy behind the quota system be reviewed.

I think that there should be perhaps some encouragement of those

manufacturing entities, public or private, that are prepared to

remanufacture forest products before they go out of the country and add

a great deal more value to those materials before they leave the

country.

Most of the manufacturing in the forest industry is essentially the

production of a raw material to go somewhere else for finishing and

remanufacturing, and the retail price of these things in London or

Houston, Texas, or Atlanta — or wherever they are being sold — bears

little or no relationship to the value that they have when they leave

this province. I am suggesting that we keep some of those jobs, some of

that retail spending, some of that added value, some

[ Page 470 ]

of that return to the Crown right in the Province

of B.C. I suggest that manufacturing entities who can't satisfy the

Forest Service that they're prepared to move in those directions should

get some consideration when they make petition to the Forest Service.

It has been mentioned on several sides of the House in this debate

that there is a need for intermediate care in the province of B.C. Now,

I think the major reason that there has not been as much provision for

this has been the reluctance of the federal people to agree on

cost-sharing programmes. They share at the acute level and they share

at the extended-care level, but there is a gray area in between and I

would hope that some agreement can be reached with the federal people

very soon. Certainly in the City of Trail the census showed an average

population age in the high 40s, and I think that on a per capita basis

there is perhaps no area where intermediate care is more needed than in

the Trail area. I would hope to see some action on that very soon. I'm

satisfied that the many agencies who are dealing with this provincially

are looking at this right now. That, of course, Mr. Speaker, is a

problem in itself in that there are perhaps too many different

Ministries involved in this area.

A word on the provision of moneys for Recreation and Conservation,

Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased with the added provisions in the Fish

and Wildlife branch. I'm also very pleased with the added moneys in the

parks area, but I'm not quite so happy there because I think there is

still a much greater need for moneys in the parks budget, particularly

in what is called maintenance money and operating money.

We have been in a situation in the last few years both before and

after 1972 of bringing a great many new expanded park facilities into

operation in B.C., and the Parks Branch is in a situation of having

plant facilities but not the money to run them properly in some cases.

I would hope that some consideration may yet be made in this area.

Just to give you some idea of the increased use of parks in my

particular area — of the four parks in my riding, Champion Lakes Park's

use increased last year from 63,000 to 142,000 visits — that's

obviously in excess of 100 per cent increase. Syringa Creek, despite

the fact that there was no water in the Arrow reservoir, as I pointed

out increased from 25,000 to 59,000. Beaver Creek, a park near Nancy

Greene Lake, increased from 13,000 to 35,000, very nearly a three-fold

increase. This is incredible.

Some people in the Parks Branch have suggested to me that people

won't go there because it's too high, 4,300 elevation. Last year use

went from 7,000 to 28,000 — a 400 per cent increase. With this kind of

demand by the public, I would hope that there would be some greater

recognition of this in the budget, although, I would point out, I'm

very happy with the increases.

Last thing, Mr. Speaker, and in the area of recreation, I'd like to

express to the House and to the Finance Minister and the Recreation and

Conservation Minister how pleased I am with the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund. It has been described by some as a pork barrel fund. I

don't agree with that at all. The village of Montrose, a village of

less than 2,000 people, last Saturday opened a 37-metre indoor pool.

This is the first indoor pool in the West Kootenay. I repeat, this is

within the boundaries of a village of less than 2,000 people. This is a

tremendous facility to have and it would not have been possible without

the Community Recreational Facilities Fund.

The Red Mountain Ski Club has completed a new chairlift. In my

opinion, Red Mountain is the finest skiing facility in British

Columbia. It's not a private preserve; it's a public club and one of

the few places where an individual working person, person on low

income, can still buy a season's pass at a very reasonable price and

get very fine skiing. This new facility would not, I believe, have been

possible without the Recreational Facilities Fund.

Finally, a very small project, and it's a cultural project in the

city of Trail. When we speak of recreation, we think of younger people

and people my age. I would suggest it's just as important for older

people as well. A very small project for the Italian community in the

City of Trail is a recreational facility which simply gives the older

people in that community a place where they can meet each other, store

their archives and play games which are peculiar to their culture which

they brought from Europe years and years ago. I'm very happy that even

on a very small scale this was made possible.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the budget.

If it's in order, Mr. Speaker, I may have been out of the House, but

I wonder if I could get the House to join me in expressing wishes for a

speedy recovery for the candidate, unsuccessful, but candidate in the

North Vancouver-Capilano by-election who was unfortunate enough to lose

one of his legs. I hope that he will have an otherwise speedy recovery.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate the successful

candidate in that by-election, Mr. Gordon Gibson. I hope that he will

have the same integrity as his predecessor, and if he does he will be

an addition to the decorum of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BARNES: Yes, well, he's off to a good start. (Laughter.) That's part of his success; stay out of the House and out of the heat.

[ Page 471 ]

Well, you know, the sun is shining outside and this is affecting my

attitude, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get out and get in the sun as

soon as I can. So for the next minute or so I will cram into this small

space some generalities. You know me, when I speak I don't like to pin

anybody down because I think we have to have room to survive in this

business.

MR. SMITH: You're learning.

MR. BARNES: I think that congratulations are in order for

some of my colleagues. I think they've been taking a lot of abuse, some

of it earned, some of it unearned. But the point is: our cabinet — the

government's cabinet, there are others — but this one has taken the

lead in exercising in an innovative way the kinds of policies that have

been long neglected in this province.

For this they may be accused of being unpolitical because

politicians don't take chances. Politicians never take chances when it

comes to important matters; they find somebody else to do that. But I

think this cabinet has taken a lot of chances. I think that time will

show that we're all going to benefit for a long time to come.

I'm going to go a little further with my congratulations and

acknowledgements because my fellow backbenchers are demonstrating what

it's like to be in a democratic government. They have exercised this

right and this is what I believe will prove to be the difference in the

history of this province: that the backbench has suddenly come alive.

So all Members are in the cabinet in that sense because we want to

participate. When we have something to say it may appear from time to

time that the opposition sees a chance to divide us because they think

we're criticizing our cabinet, but that's because we trust and believe

in each other.

Now, remember this, when the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

expressed himself quite straightforwardly and forcefully, he made it

quite clear that he was with the NDP and wasn't about to move. He was

happy to be with the NDP. This is the kind of thing that you've never

seen before in this province. People speaking like that and having

those views. But I think we'll be seeing a lot of that because we are

here to do the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I had drawn up quite a long list of things that are of

concern to my constituents of Vancouver Centre, and I'm going to try

and speak in such a way as to put into perspective the real nature of

some of the problems that concern me.

The housing situation as we have come to understand it perhaps is

distorted somewhat because, true we do have a housing shortage — I

would be the last to argue that point. But the thing is: we have a

fundamental approach to the economy and the social structure and the

order of business that we carry on that makes it almost a losing battle

to overcome the problem. Let's face this.

I think the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is trying

to say this and he's probably taken a lot of flak because of it. The

housing situation in one way is almost a smoke screen for our inability

to face the realities of human living in this society. We're not doing

the kinds of things that we should be doing. We are against ourselves.

The breakdown of the family, the kinds of disregard for social

structures and social orders, the kinds of rampant disregard for

people's moral responsibility and integrity and sensitivity is

destroying the whole concept of our free, competitive society. Once we

disregard what really makes us tick, then we can't solve these other

problems. What we do is create problems to keep in business.

How can we possibly solve the housing problem if we start off with a

family of 10 people living in 10 houses, and don't get any more people,

but have those 10 families break up into separate groups and you have

10 times 10 which is 100, and you still have 10 houses? This is the

kind of reality we're faced with. We have completely undermined our

basic sys