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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3295 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Recycling Corporation Act (Bill 143). Mr.

Steves.

Introduction and first reading — 3295

Oral Questions

Policy changes on treatment of veterans. Mr. Bennett — 3295

Bonding of mobile-home dealers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3296

State of negotiations on Reid property as of May 14. Mr. Wallace — 3296

Hiring of John Beltz for transit terminal negotiations. Mr. Chabot — 3296

Role of Kemano 2 in Alcan agreement with NKK. Mr. Dent — 3297

Answers to questions on order paper and taken as notice. Mr. Smith — 3297

Free bus service. Mr. Gibson — 3297

Approval for Delta year-round school programme. Mr. Curtis — 3298

Application of 8-cent gas guideline. Ms. Brown — 3298

Chairmanship duties of Member for Atlin. Mr.- McClelland — 3298

Overruling of water controller's decision on Chemainus

dam.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3298

Committee of Supply: Department of Recreation and

Conservation estimates.

On vote 225.

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3299

Mrs. Jordan — 3301

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3306

Mrs. Jordan — 3307

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3308

Mrs. Jordan — 3308

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3308

Mrs. Jordan — 3308

Ms. Sanford — 3308

Mr. Fraser — 3309

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3312

Mr. Gibson — 3314

Mr. Kelly — 3315

Mr. Curtis — 3320

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3321

Mr. Curtis — 3323

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3323

Mr. Kelly — 3323

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3323

Mr. Smith — 3324

Mrs. Jordan — 3327

Mr. McGeer — 3328

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

government and the people of British Columbia I would like to

welcome to the House two very distinguished guests who have

been spending the last two days with us in the province and

will be spending the rest of today and tomorrow in British

Columbia as well. They are His Excellency Chang Wen-chin, the

ambassador from the People's Republic of China and his wife,

Chang Ying.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to bid

them welcome. I had an opportunity to speak in the hallway just

a moment ago and I expressed the regret that British Columbia

hadn't turned on their beautiful weather for our visitors. I

hope that tomorrow will be much more enjoyable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to join, Mr.

Speaker; Wo, he wo de chi ta de dz you dang tung jr men shi

hwan ying jye change da shr, chang de tai tai, ye chi ta de jung

gwo ren min gung he gwo laide peng you men. Wo men syi hwan

nimen dzai Victoria dzai yi tse hwei lai, he dzai yitse dzai

Victoria ju le ji ge libai. Jye yi tse ni jarli hen shau de

shrhow.

(In welcoming Ambassador Chang, Mrs. Chang, and the other

visitors of the embassy of the People's Republic of China who

are in the gallery to Victoria, I and my comrades of the

Liberal Party hope that you will return to Victoria and stay

with us for longer next time — for a week or two rather than

just a few days.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay in Scottish.

(Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was just about to say, Mr.

Speaker, that that's rather a hard act for a Scotsman to

follow. (Laughter.)

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communication): It's no'

that hard.

MR. WALLACE: It's no' that hard. We in the Conservative Party bid you

welcome to British Columbia and I and my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis)

want to say how much we enjoyed the hospitality last night at the dinner. We

all ate and drank too much, as was evidenced by my behaviour when I got back

here. Nevertheless, we do indeed welcome you and hope you have a very safe return

to Ottawa.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, we have in our galleries today a visitor from the United States,

Representative A.A. Adams. Mr. Adams is the chairman of the House and Health

Social Services Committee in the State of Washington. Mr. Adams is accompanied

by the vice-chairman of the committee, Mr. Michael Parker. I'd ask all Members

of the House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, a group of

students and teachers from Sexsmith School in Vancouver will be

in the galleries later this afternoon. I'm sorry I can't

introduce them in Scottish or Chinese or even my own native

language, Dutch, but I would ask the House to give them a very

warm welcome in advance.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to advise the House of the presence in the gallery of 35

students from Hansworth School in North Vancouver along with

their instructors, Mr. Hunkur, Mr. Chala and Mr. Arnet. I'd ask

the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have the

House welcome Mr. George Home, who is the education director

for the CLC and who is here from Ottawa with his wife,

Hazel.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RECYCLING CORPORATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Steves, Bill 143, British Columbia

Recycling Corporation 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.

Oral questions.

POLICY CHANGES ON

TREATMENT OF VETERANS

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources: has the provincial government made any

policy changes with respect to the preferential treatment to

veterans under the provisions of the agreement signed by B.C.

and Canada on July 1, 1946? If so, what is the present policy

on veterans applying for land under this agreement?

[ Page 3296 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'm unaware of any changes, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice.

BONDING OF

MOBILE-HOME DEALERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Consumer Services, Mr.

Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether she has had

conversations with Mr. Don MacTavish, the secretary of the

Western Mobile-Home Dealers Association, and whether these

conversations included the question of bonding of dealers in

the industry?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): My

department and I met with Mr. MacTavish on January 24. He at

that time suggested licensing provisions and he suggested that

the Department of Municipal Affairs or the Department of

Housing should set up a licensing system for mobile-home

dealers and at that time he did not refer to any kind of

bonding system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. May I ask the Minister

whether the name of Robert Montgomery Hooker, a Nicaraguan

citizen formerly a resident of Burnaby, or that of Budget

Mobile Homes were mentioned during these discussions?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Budget Mobile Homes was mentioned in the

discussion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. May I ask the

Minister what steps she took to investigate and act upon Mr.

MacTavish's recommendation regarding licensing in particular

with respect to Budget Mobile Homes and Mr. Hooker?

HON. MS. YOUNG: We introduced the Trade Practices Act

to prevent such measures in the future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. We're happy to

hear the future, Mr. Speaker, but in the recent past I take it

nothing was done to act upon the recommendations of Mr. Don

MacTavish which could have prevented the Budget Mobile Homes

problem.

HON. MS. YOUNG: There was nothing that could be done, Mr.

Speaker, because there was no legislation. We had inherited no

decent consumer protection legislation. As a result of such

things as Budget Mobile Homes and a few others, we have found

it necessary to introduce the necessary legislation to preclude

these practices.

STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS

ON REID PROPERTY AS OF MAY 14

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard to the

purchase of the Reid property, if he could tell the House at

what point negotiations were as of Tuesday, May 14 — a week ago

yesterday.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The transaction took place on Friday

last, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I could advise the House at

what stage negotiations were at that time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister

recall being asked in the House on that day if the government

was in the process of buying the Reid property?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Public Works was asked.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The record — and I don't know if we are allowed to quote from the Blues — shows a whole page of questioning on my part as to negotiations

of the Minister during his estimates, and he gave me "No." He

said that this was not so. I'm merely trying to clarify the

record, given the fact that two days after being asked a

question in the House the government signed an agreement for

purchase. I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would be pleased to follow the matter

up further.

HIRING OF JOHN BELTZ

FOR TRANSIT TERMINAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have a question for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Did the government hire one John

Beltz to do any negotiations with Arpro Holdings relative to

property acquisition for a transit terminal in North

Vancouver?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The work

done in North Vancouver was done through the Department of

Public Works, but I believe Beltz was the person that was

negotiating in that area. It was under Public Works.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Did John Beltz identify

himself in discussing the property as a direct property

negotiator for the government?

MR. SPEAKER: Shouldn't that question actually be directed to

the proper department?

[ Page 3297 ]

MR. CHABOT: No. Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't answer that. I don't know. It

wasn't done through the transit, as I mentioned; it was done

through Public Works.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you're chasing the wrong department,

are you not, Hon. Member?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has been closely involved with the

transit scene.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is Ministerial responsibility and

if it is in Public Works that is where the question goes,

surely. Could you hold the question until the Minister is

here?

ROLE OF KEMANO 2 IN

ALCAN AGREEMENT WITH NKK

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I have a question for the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in his capacity as a

director for B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plant, plant!

MR. DENT: In light of the press announcement today that

Alcan has entered into a 25-year agreement with NKK of Japan

that will involve increased capacity, could the Hon. Minister

indicate whether he has received any information if this will

involve the implementation of Kemano 2?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wasn't aware that the question was

going to be asked, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Hon. Members know that

if the House is equal anyone is entitled to ask questions. To

have the aspersion cast across the floor that it is a plant

really is not fair to the Hon. Members.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard it right over there. I don't know

whether it will be on the tapes, because the microphone wasn't

on, but I heard it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: However, I am pleased that the question

was asked. (Laughter.) I will not take it as notice.

We were advised by the representatives of Alcan in British Columbia that they

were entering into a long-term contract with the Japanese and that it would

involve substantial improvement and improved pollution control in the existing

plant at Kitimat but that it would not involve any new power production or Kemano

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier and Minister of Finance. The federal

government is now advertising bonus rates for Government of

Canada bonds — they are being increased to 9 per cent. This is

being done to stem a run on government bonds because banks are

now offering 10.375 per cent on short-term paper and 9.5 per

cent on five-year notes. In view of this and the fact that B.C.

parity bonds are now up to 4.375 per cent less than market

rates, is the Premier contemplating anything to stem the run on

B.C. government parity bonds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I resent the inference that

is, in effect, deliberately politically damaging to those

bonds. When we were in opposition we never took an attack on

the bonds that way. I want to say that the bonds, in my

information, are holding up quite well. I don't know of any

federal government spokesman; obviously the bureaucrats are

making the decision in Ottawa while the election is on.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ON ORDER PAPER AND TAKEN AS NOTICE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Would the

Minister indicate to the House when he is prepared to file

answers to the 25 questions that are still on the order paper

in his name as well as reply to the oral questions that he has

taken as notice?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll give that matter high priority now

that we have dealt with my estimates in such an expeditious

manner.

FREE BUS SERVICES

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In view of the call over the weekend by

the mayor of Vancouver for a free bus service in downtown

Vancouver I would ask the Minister if he has any plans for an

experiment in this regard, hopefully to the North Shore

municipalities.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I thank the Member, Mr. Speaker, for

sending me the paper from which he was to ask this question. I

would be quite happy to see Vancouver carry on an experiment in

this regard.

MR. GIBSON: Would the Minister finance it?

[ Page 3298 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure that was a supplementary.

APPROVAL FOR DELTA

YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL PROGRAMME

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Education: has the Department of Education given any

approval — preliminary or otherwise — to plans to institute a

year-round school programme in the Delta School District?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Actually our

approval is not required. As you know, we do espouse and

practise the theory of local autonomy. The boards have a right

to experiment or to try new scheduling. The only thing is that

we have always said to the school board: do contact the

community and make the parents aware and be sure that the

parents understand why you are doing this and you generally

have their support.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister.

Could she state the government's or the department's position

on year-round school systems, quite apart from the local

autonomy factor, which has been explained?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We have no specific position on it. We are

very pleased, though, to see the boards of the province

experiment with various ways in which they can utilize the

school facilities in a better manner.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. In the

event that year-round or summer use of schools is a fact in

some school districts, is there likely to be supplementary

financial assistance from the provincial Treasury to cover

those extra months of operation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I believe that one of the purposes of

doing that is to create more economies. That is one of the

reasons which I think has already been suggested. But if it is

required for special assistance, the Department of Education is

always ready to look at research programmes and to give

assistance if we feel it is educationally desirable.

APPLICATION OF

8-CENT GAS GUIDELINE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is addressed to the Attorney-General

and it has to do with gas prices. I wonder if he would clarify the situation

for us again. Apparently Standard Oil agreed to go along with the 8-cent guideline,

yet the service stations that get Standard Oil gas are still charging more than

8 cents a gallon. When I myself drove into one of these service stations and

inquired from my own dealer why, he showed me a memo which was sent around by

Standard Oil to all the dealers which said that the agreement was that the 8

cents would be to the dealer but there was not an agreement that they would

then pass on this 8 cents to the general public. The recommended price to the

public that was in this memo was 9.98 cents to the general public. Now was that

8-cent agreement to go to the general public or was it just from Standard Oil

to the dealer? Would he clarify that for me, please?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would

be very happy if the Member would let me have a copy of this

directive that went. The Energy Commission are collating this

information and they are looking forward to two hearings on the

matter. I might say in specific response to the question raised

that the guidelines are really the price to the dealer. We have

not as such stepped into the field of dealer mark-ups, with

respect to issuing guidelines to them.

CHAIRMANSHIP DUTIES

OF MEMBER FOR ATLIN

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the

Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary

could advise the House when the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

will assume some of the duties of chairmanship of various

committees or perhaps Deputy Speaker following his extensive

education at taxpayers' expense in London, England.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That's a facetious

question and it is directed to the wrong person.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's not.

OVERRULING OF WATER CONTROLLER'S

DECISION ON CHEMAINUS DAM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier a question which he

took on notice 10 days ago — namely, whether the decision of a

cabinet committee, overruling the B.C. water controller's

decision on a Chemainus dam, will be upheld. You will recall,

Mr. Speaker, that the Ministers with line responsibility in

this area were not on the committee or consulted, and the

studies on alternative water sources as requested by the

controller were not carried out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was an appeal by the district of

North Cowichan against an order of the Comptroller of Water

Rights. It was taken under

section 38 of the Water Act .

Section

38 provides for

[ Page 3299 ]

an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which may

delegate any member or members of the executive council to hear

the appeal and pronounce a decision thereon on behalf of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The cabinet delegated Hon. Ms. Young (Minister of Consumer

Services), Hon. Mr. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources), Hon. Mr. Cocke (Minister of Health) and Hon. Mr.

Lea (Minister of Highways) to hear the appeal. The decision

went in favour of North Cowichan district. They were allowed to

proceed with their plans to obtain water from the river on the

grounds that no alternate water supplies are available.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But no studies have been carried out on

that? A supplementary. But no studies have been carried

out.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

On vote 225: Minister's office, $77,072.

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

spoke during the budget debate earlier this session in some

detail about the role and the programmes of the Department of

Recreation and Conservation. I would like today to make some

additional comments at this time and to inform the House about

some of the new programmes with which we have begun to work in

the meantime.

This government has recognized the need to fill the gap for

recreation and conservation. Because people have more time to

recreate, this government has recognized and it is reflected

that the budget has been increased from $13.8 million to $25.8

million. This is an increase of 86 per cent.

Important services provided by the provincial Parks Branch

become evident when you consider that the attendance at British

Columbia's parks in 1973 increased over the previous year by 16

per cent, from 8.3 million to 9.7 million in the number of

visits.

This government has persisted in its efforts to create new

parks. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974, 20 new class A

parks were created for a gain of 1.6 million acres. Seven

recreational areas comprising 186,000 acres were also

established.

When this government came to office there were 7.1 million acres of park and

recreation areas. As of April 1, 1973, the total acreage stood at 9.1 million,

an increase of close to 2 million acres. With the additional funding, we will

be able to maintain the park establishments and programme developments to date

as well as embark on some new facilities and programmes.

I would now like to tell you about some of the new

programmes and go into some of the details so you won't have to

ask so many questions later on when I sit down.

Under the capital works programme we will be completing many

of the projects initiated last year under Bill 77. We expect to

complete 200 camping units and bring 300 units well along to

completion. These are all in addition to the existing 6,183

units which are already in existence. Also, 40 miles of hiking

trails will be added to the existing ones to bring that up to

about 700 miles of hiking trails, mostly throughout our parks.

Also, 100 new picnic units will be added.

In terms of structures, we are adding three regional garage

shops, workshops, a new

interpretation and education centre at

Kokanee Creek, other buildings and barbecue facilities in

Newcastle Island. Major water works will also be completed in

the Libby Reservoir area. In the above programmes we will be

including the high-density campground at Okanagan Lake Park.

The Member isn't here to hear that information. A campground

will be designed mainly for camper trucks at Muncho Lake in

northern B.C.; boatmen's primitive campgrounds in Clearwater,

Wells Gray Park; a walk-in campground for boaters at Pirates

Cove and at Cinnaminson Narrows on Shuswap Lake.

A joint programme will be undertaken with the Fish and

Wildlife Branch and B.C. Hydro to restore past damage to the

environment in the Elk River Valley at Strathcona Park.

A research programme will include wear-and-tear studies on

Mount Robson, Assiniboine and Manning Parks to relate

use-levels and terrain damage.

In historic park sites, new works at restoration will be

commenced at Fort McLeod and Fort Fraser. Work at Barkerville,

Fort Steele and Harrison Mills will also continue.

The summer staff for park ranger patrols — this is

peacekeeping and public assistance — has been increased from 23

patrolmen to 46 patrolmen, including four senior patrolmen to

take the weight of the people supervision from the regional

park supervisors. This year I think you will note that we did

not have the usual complaints of rowdyism within our parks on

the Easter weekend and on the Victoria Day weekend as we

usually have. This was because we were able to put more people

into the field with supervision and some new changes in

techniques of entry into some of our parks system.

Also, park

interpretation has been extended by increasing

expenditures from $345,000 in the fiscal year of 1973-74 to

$470,000 this year. The 1974-75, park naturalist summer staff

has been increased from

[ Page 3300 ]

48 to 53 and we have two new additional programmes.

A back-country ranger programme will place 21 people at 10

remote locations to be of service to users of the more

primitive park areas.

We have also extended and expanded our youth crew programme.

This year we have added girls to our summer works programme. We

have also increased the pay rate from $6.07 a day to $13 a

day.

In relation to the foregoing, we anticipate in excess of 10

million visits to the provincial park system this season. This

is actually on a par with Ontario.

In keeping with the continuing high level demand for outdoor

recreation facilities, completely new developments of park

facilities are being initiated at Shawnigan Lake, Sasquatch

Park, Chilliwack Lake, Skagit River Valley, Clearwater Lake in

Wells Gray Park, Swan Lake, Muncho Lake and Ten Mile Lake.

The deficit of yesterday is being overcome, reflecting the

priority given by this government to provide the people of

British Columbia with adequate outdoor recreational

opportunities and to preserve a natural heritage equal to none

in North America.

Of course, it simply isn't enough to substantially increase

our system of provincial parks. We must also provide the Parks

Branch with adequate funding to develop and provide facilities

in new parks, to further develop and increase facilities in

existing parks, to adequately manage and maintain the

provincial parks system, and for innovative, new

programmes.

The proposed park budget this fiscal year is $10.1 million,

an increase of 5.7 from last year — nearly double. In addition,

a $5 million bill for accelerated development of our park

system is before the House and the Parks Branch has received an

allotment of $2.1 million under the government's "Careers 74"

programme for summer employment.

The development of community and private ski areas has

lagged for some time in the Province of British Columbia.

Planning for ski development is complex and invariably involves

government in a variety of complex ways. To facilitate

increased development of public and private ski areas, my

department in the near future will be hiring a ski coordinator

to provide a consulting service to assist in overall planning

of such developments.

In the case of community-owned-and-operated ski hills, we

want to provide all the guidance we reasonably can. In the case of privately-owned-and-operated ski areas, we want to

assist but we also want to ensure that the public interest is

secured. Such developments must also be compatible with proper

land-use planning and we must also ensure that a fair return

will come to the people of this province when the use of Crown

land for access and/or ski sites is involved.

It is our hope that expanded and new ski areas will not only cater to downhill

ski enthusiasts but also will provide a variety of other family-oriented recreational

areas and activities.

The Fish and Wildlife Branch has the most important role in

managing and securing our valuable fish and wildlife resources.

When the present government took office, the budget of the Fish

and Wildlife Branch was $2.9 million. It was then boosted to

$4.1 million, and this year the budget is $7.1 million.

In addition, the branch has been provided with an additional

$1.2 million for the "Careers 74" programme. All in all this

budget has increased about threefold since we've taken office

in 1972. The present budget contains an even larger increase

than last year for staff. A total of 97 new people will be

added to the staff of Fish and Wildlife this year.

This year 33, or a third of the new staff, will be

conservation officers, five of which will be predator-control

specialists. The balance of the new staff will consist mainly

of technical support people and necessary clerical staff.

Eleven will be professional staff; information and education

will receive another seven.

For years we have lacked the necessary capability to enforce

those regulations established for the protection of both fish

and wildlife. Last year I stated in the budget speech that our

enforcement in prosecutions and convictions has risen to 41 per

cent.

This budget is much more in keeping with the value of fish and wildlife resources

in this province; and isn't it about time that somebody gave this the priority

that it deserves?

This expansion of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, Mr.

Chairman, is also allowing us to begin catching up in a number

of other important areas, such as inventory and habitat

protection, to undertake a number of important new

initiatives.

I'd like to tell the Members of the House about one such

initiative: this is the CORE programme — Conservation and

Outdoor Education Programme — which has been compulsory on

Vancouver Island in latter years. For all new licensees and for

all those who have been convicted of some offence in the fish

and wildlife area, commencing September 1 this year, the CORE

programme will be compulsory throughout the Province of British

Columbia.

I could go on and discuss many programmes and many

innovations that have been brought in within the last year.

We've brought in the new licence structure. No great changes

had been brought in in the licence structure of the Fish and

Wildlife Branch since 1965. We've also brought in a permit

system which will bring about new experimentation with

intensive game management.

We also have announced a fish hatchery. I think it's about

$7.1 million that will be spent over the next three years in a

new fish hatchery in

[ Page 3301 ]

Abbotsford. We are also contemplating many other areas of

seminars throughout our different regions of fish and wildlife,

and will invite the public in once a year to discuss new

changes and questions that they may bring to us.

Also, this year a new high was reached in artificial

propagation of salmonoids — small fry. They reached the

poundage this year of 60,000 pounds: approximately six million

fish were released in 380 lakes throughout the Province of

B.C.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that every Member of this House has

been taking the opportunity to visit on at least one occasion

our fine Provincial Museum. The museum, with its imaginative

and original displays, has earned itself an international

reputation. While work continues on major new display areas in

the museum, the staff has also undertaken a programme to take

the museum to the people of the province.

In the past fiscal year three museum displays have been

taken to 300 schools and viewed by close to 20,000 students

throughout this province.

Funds are also being provided this year in this year's

budget to enable the museum to acquire a rolling train — a

rolling museum train. This will provide a provincial dimension

to the museum and stimulate interest in local museums

throughout the province. The train will include a locomotive

with a tender and will be drawing five cars. It should be ready

to roll in about 1975 and will be in operation for

approximately four months throughout the year.

The proposed Provincial Museum budget this fiscal year is

$1.4 million, an increase of close to $400,000 from last

year.

Regarding the marine resources: the full potential of our

marine resources has not been realized, and new initiatives are

necessary. The increase in budget from $125,000 during the last

fiscal year to close to $200,000 this fiscal year, and increase

in staff also, will allow us to move more quickly forward in

developing and researching our marine resources. The branch

capacity to provide management, as well as technical research

and consulting services, also is being expanded.

Several important new research programmes in the aquacultural field are now under way. Several of these are in

cooperation with the federal government: for example, research

and new methods of oyster culture; examination of log storage

and booming on the oysters; examination of shellfish disease;

development of inventory methods for red and brown algae and

other studies on the biota.

The budgeted increase for the general administration of the

department is $281,000. That's for 31 new clerical, public

informational and personnel staff positions and other general

office expenses. Also, $10 million has been provided this year

for the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, and the total

allocated to date from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund is $23.4 million.

This capital assistance has encouraged a generation of

construction to the value of approximately $84.7 million

throughout the Province of British Columbia. This, of course,

has generated substantial business for employment in

construction and industry and related businesses. It has also

had a considerable impact in creating new positions in the

recreational field. It has been calculated that about 2,300

jobs have been created in the recreational field because of

this fund.

The total department budget, not including special bills and

funding from "Careers 74," as I mentioned earlier, is

$25.7 million, an increase of $11.9 million…

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's enough in one year.

HON. MR. RADFORD: …from last year's budget of $13.8

million.

Mr. Chairman, this government has made major strides towards

catching up with the lack of recreation facilities and

opportunities in both the urban and rural areas of this

province; and this government has recognized that recreation is

one of the most important ingredients to a livable future.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, Mr. Chairman, I now

know why the Minister was so busy clearing his throat

during prayers. He said it was just for a few minutes'

dissertation, but I'd hate to be around when he's planning to

give a 20-minute one.

I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to

say and I want to congratulate him on some of his programmes. I

think that in certain areas he's carrying on extremely well in

the predesigned programmes that were part of the former

administration. I think that's sound acknowledgment on his part

that he did in fact inherit perhaps one of the finest and most

imaginative departments that there is in Canada and probably

North America.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

says "the most under-financed," and this is one of the

things that really interests me, both in the Minister's

statement and always, of course, in the Liberals' debate. The

accent is always on how much money you can put into it. How

much money!

The federal government today is bragging about how much

money they're spending and, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers in

Canada and British Columbia don't want to know how much they're

spending; they want to know what value they're getting for that

money. The taxpayers all across Canada today are fed up with

wastage and window-dressing on the part of governments with

[ Page 3302 ]

their hard-earned tax dollars. They want accountability, and

they want quality spending and they want planned spending.

I'm not accusing this Minister of not planning his spending.

I have already said that I feel in some areas he's doing an

excellent job. I believe that it's a general consensus that

this Minister is, within himself, a very likable person and

working very hard in his department.

I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Minister on his

expertise and the awards that he's won in marksmanship. I think

this is a great credit to his perseverance as an individual,

and it's nice to have a Minister of Recreation who has this

talent. It's also nice for the taxpayers to know that he has

this talent, because it's becoming increasingly obvious that

he's going to need that type of talent if, in fact, he is to

take his rightful place in this cabinet and in this government.

Because, Mr. Chairman, it spite of the glowing reports

presented to this House on several occasions by this Minister

in his most charming manner, there is growing public concern

throughout this province.

There is certainly strong concern within this opposition and

there is increasing concern within his own department about the

fact that this Minister is given a great deal of window

dressing but, in fact, has been absolutely shelved by his

colleagues when it comes to major decisions involving

environmental management and major conservation decisions in

this province. It's sad that this Minister has been shelved

because I believe — and I believe much of the public believes — he has a great deal of capability in terms of administration

and he has a great deal of sensitivity in terms of some of the

best ways to utilize the resources at his hand, in terms of his

staff, to better the conservation and recreational management

in this province.

But why is the public concerned? They're concerned

specifically because in no major development decision or

announcement made by this government since taking office has

this Minister's voice been heard. It has become increasingly

obvious through the Minister's own statements and statements by

the government, and on inquiring into these various

circumstances not only was this Minister's voice not heard

outside but his voice and his staff's voice were not heard on

the inside where the decisions were made. I would speak

specifically of a few that are very much public knowledge and

some that I wish to bring up today.

The Tilbury Island situation. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) made a land grab at wholesale prices under Bill

42 and took agricultural land and some of the finest sturgeon breeding areas

and some of the estuary of the Fraser River. He grabbed this for industrial

development without consulting the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and

without yielding to the requests by the municipalities and the regional district

that before any final decisions on land use formalities be introduced, that

there be a result from the federal study that is going on, that there be estuarial

studies continued by this Minister's department and that various public bodies

such as the Fish and Wildlife, SPEC, other groups and the public themselves

have an opportunity to make an input.

This government, under the hand of the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, and undoubtedly

with the full support of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), proceeded without any of

these commitments being met that this government made to the

public in the last election. One of the reasons for their

election was that they would involve public participation

studies before the fact and not after the fact. But in Tilbury

Island this Minister was nowhere to be seen or heard, and we've

heard nothing from him now.

The same thing took place in the removal of the wild fowl

reserve at Roberts Bank by the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. At no time had the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation been consulted. One member of his staff on the

lower mainland had been asked. While I recognize that this area

was third in its priority in relation to wild fowl management

on the lower mainland, it surely was incumbent on this

government to at least have consulted its Minister of

Recreation and Conservation and his staff. The reserve was

eventually replaced to a large degree because of the insistence

of the opposition. The order-in-council should have had the

signature of this Minister on it and certainly his approval or

disapproval.

What about the grandiose plans of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources for the northern development of

this province and egotistical vision and commitment that the

people of the north would be consulted? Where has the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation's voice been in that discussion?

Was this Minister on the northern tour when supposedly the

cabinet was going around after many of the facts to hear what

the people thought? No, this Minister was left to hold down the

fort and face the sins of this government in this

Legislature.

Why? Why, Mr. Chairman, was this Minister not on that

northern tour? Why were his ears not tuned to what the people

are concerned about there? What about the wildlife up there?

What about the habitat? What about constructive, planned usage

of land? How much is this Minister's department going to be

involved? Surely we all recognize now that the conflict between

man and his natural environment and our natural resources is

such that at no time can we afford to overlook a portfolio as

important as this, when it's also recognized that there's still

a good deal

[ Page 3303 ]

of difference of opinion between biologists within the

branch, biologists outside, the natural conservationists and

people themselves. It's going to take the utmost of ability and

strength for this Minister to help resolve some of those

problems of conflict.

This Minister should not play second fiddle to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and his other colleagues.

You've got to use your weight, Mr. Minister, because the people

of British Columbia are behind you. While we all realize that

there is growing conflict and not everyone can be happy, we're

most unhappy about the fact that this Minister, who is capable

and who has a good department and who is adding to the

department to his credit, has the right voice. Surely, all his

technical staff, all his assistant staff, all the trained

biologists must have more of an impact than just to provide

more picnic benches and a few outdoor educational programmes,

as important as they are.

Mr. Minister, in the whole Squamish situation and the

location of the boxcar manufacturing plant we hear from Howard

Paish and Associates; we heard from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources; we heard from the Minister of

Industrial Development; and we certainly heard from the

Premier. We also heard from the Japanese. But we didn't hear

from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I would urge

this Minister to stand up and be counted not outside but within

his own cabinet where his weight will count.

The same thing, Mr. Minister, in the development of the Port

of Prince Rupert. At no time have we heard of this Minister's

involvement in these decisions. This is just one more example

of where the government is under the thumb of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This Minister's authority

and ability has been usurped.

The whole matter of land-use permits for recreational

purposes in my view, Mr. Minister, should be under your

jurisdiction. But, in fact, this is under the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We're supposed to be

getting away — and I believe we should — from the domination of

industrial development. We're supposed to be developing a

balance in keeping with the changes that are taking place today

and the fact that all of our environment is changing so fast.

That's where your word should be.

The second point that is concerning the public no end is the

conflict of statements becoming evident between yourself and

your department. I'd like to refer back to two specific

examples regarding your voice and how you've been shelved. The

first is the Chemainus dam.

Mr. Minister, this is not an uncommon problem. It's the problem of a community

which is water short — people who need water in a water-short area in terms

of what they've been able to develop with an antiquated water system of an open

flume between the reservoir and the main supply centre which allows for a lot

of evaporation and which must be changed because we can't afford that sort of

luxury today. It was built 25 years ago, I believe. The conflict is between

the needs of these people in practical terms and the fact that the site chosen

was one of the few remaining areas where there was a hope of increasing the

runs of various salmon such as the chum, chinook coho salmon.

This, as I mentioned, is not an uncommon situation. One

could be very sympathetic to the question that the Minister

would have to take

part in as far as a decision is concerned as

to who comes first, the fish or the people. Where the Minister

must be faulted is in the handling of the whole situation.

If you examine the background, you find that the departments

within themselves had carried out their work in a responsible

manner. The council and the community had carried out their

work in a responsible manner to the best of their ability and

the Water Rights Branch, with considerable wisdom, turned down

the water application on August 24, 1973. It was not a blanket

turndown, Mr. Chairman, but a turndown on sufficient evidence

of concern by the federal fisheries department and this

Minister's own Fish and Wildlife Branch, plus others who had

some input. This was a very tenuous situation.

The director of Water Rights recommended that studies be

done for alternate water supplies, such as using the Cowichan

River or possibly wells and ground water. He also asked that an

economic study be done because, in his overview, it would

appear that possibly there would be more than an adequate

supply of water this way at less cost. Surely a very reasonable

decision on the part of the director of the Water Rights

Branch. I'm sure it was a decision, had it been carried out

properly, that could have led to an amicable solution that now

must come through force.

If the Minister had been advised or on his toes about this

situation, then surely the recommendations of the Water Rights

director could have been followed through with the cooperation

and input from his own Fish and Wildlife Branch and his own

experts that he's hiring, and with the cooperation of the

federal fisheries people, then the economic input and the water

resource input that was needed. But nothing happened.

There was a public hearing, which is quite clouded by public

comments, to say the least. Then nothing was heard again for

four months when the cabinet committee decided to have a

hearing. That was on January 14, 1974.

I must ask you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, up

until this point: 1. was the Minister informed by his

department of their concern regarding this pending decision on

the building of this dam?

[ Page 3304 ]

2. Was the Minister consulted by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding

impending conflicts of a decision that might result in the

building of this dam?

3. Did the Minister at any time have any word from his

colleague, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is the MLA for that area and who sits

just in front of this Minister, that in fact he had some

concerns in his constituency that seriously involved this

Minister's department and that there was going to be the need

for a great deal of study and concern about this decision.

4. Did the Minister know that the cabinet committee was

having a hearing, or was appointed to have a hearing, on

January 14, 1974?

Mr. Chairman, it's sad to realize that at the cabinet

hearing the department of water rights and others were

represented by legal counsel, but the federal fisheries did not

appear, to my knowledge, and the Minister's own department who

were genuinely concerned about this and who had advised the

director of Water Rights about their concern, was not

adequately represented at this hearing.

Surely the Minister must be aware that when you have

technical people or practical or concerned people pitted

against legal people, it's the technicality of the law that is

generally going to win. And one must presume that if a

committee is sitting on the basis of the legal implications,

they will decide in favour of the law. Was this cabinet

committee then in fact loaded against the genuine concerns of

recreation and conservation in this area?

Why, Mr. Minister, did you not see, did you not take advice,

which I believe someone had, that your Branch should have been

represented by legal counsel as well?

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note that after that

hearing it was another three months, in fact from January 14 to

April 9, before that cabinet committee made a decision, and

that decision was then not made public.

I must ask you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

where were you, during those three months? What liaison did you

have with your department? Did the Minister not hear from his

department that, in fact, they felt that the hearing might well

go against them? And if so, what steps did he take? Was there

no time during January 14 and April 9 when this Minister had

any word from his four colleagues who sat on that committee

that they had made this decision? And if he did hear from them,

what steps did he take?

At no time between January 14, 1974, and April 9, would the Minister advise

us, did he not hear from the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications,

the MLA for this area? If he did hear from him, what was the information he

received and what action did he take?

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it's a tragedy when

a Minister who is genuinely concerned, as we believe this

Minister to be, and is as dedicated to his work as we believe

he is, and I think the public believes he is too, should find

himself in a predicament where at a convention of some of the

most important people involved in his jurisdiction it ends up

with a headline: "Radford Ignorant of Plan".

I really must question whether I lay the blame at the foot

of this Minister or, as I mentioned before, with the fact that

his cabinet colleagues have shelved him. If this is the case,

this is an injustice to this man and it's an injustice to his

position that he should be so labelled.

So I must sum up, Mr. Chairman, this particular instance by

asking again why the Minister was not advised of the conflict,

in the first instance by his department; why the Minister was

not advised of the conflict from his cabinet colleagues, and

when there was a hearing; and why was the Minister not advised

of the decision of the cabinet committee.

It leaves an obvious conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Either the

Minister must be very much out of touch with his department….

Is the Minister so surrounded by executive assistants that

the department is working under a serious handicap of

deliberately shoved on the shelf again, and in this specific

instance, by his colleagues and kept in the dark? Or is the

Minister, in fact, covering up a gross political decision by

his colleagues, and is he being made the whipping boy for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? I would

certainly hope not.

I hope the Minister will be able to explain this situation

to the satisfaction of all Members in this House because

certainly, Mr. Chairman, with the amount of public concern with

the seriousness of this decision, it is his responsibility to

give a satisfactory explanation.

Then I would like to know — now that the matter has either

been opened up and the sunshine has been let in and it's a

matter of public concern, or the fact that somebody stuck a pin

in him and he found out what was going on — what is the

Minister doing?

Is the Minister prepared to make available to this community

funds from his government to help them undertake a proper

analysis of the most adequate and accessible water supply? Is

he prepared to do an economic study and assist them with this?

This is a province-wide resource conflict between people and

resources, therefore I feel it's incumbent upon the government

to not impose this type of cost on the community, but to assist

them to come to an adequate and proper conclusion.

Is the Minister prepared to call in specialists to assist

his department in any way that they need to see

[ Page 3305 ]

if the dam, perhaps if it is the best decision, is built,

and what in fact may be done to increase the spawning of the

salmon and insure not only their survival but their

increase?

Another area where the Minister is under a serious cloud as

to his role in government and as to his role in relation to his

department is this whole matter of the Diamond Head chalet in

Garibaldi Park. The only thing that seems clear in this

instance is the confusion is surrounded by a circle of

confusion between the Minister, the public and his own

department.

My understanding is that there was an abrupt and uninformed

decision made by the Minister in September of 1973 when he

announced that the Diamond Head chalet would be closed. There

was no warning and, really, there was no reasonable

explanation. The back up feeling is that because there are only

30 units in the area of accommodation, fire marshal's

regulations would make it uneconomic to develop, to make the

necessary renovations.

But, Mr. Minister, we find out upon questioning and after

you reversed your decision very hastily, that you hadn't,

through you, Mr. Chairman, even been there and were not

conversant with the situation. Then the Minister stated

publicly that there would be no overnight accommodations, that

there would be no transportation assistance, that it would be

quite feasible to keep it open as a day centre. Yet one of his

very competent directors advised that at the time there would

be no accommodations, but very well in the future they might

have to consider accommodation, overnight accommodation, and

acknowledge, quite rightly, that there wasn't much point in

having day services in the area if no one could get into the

area.

One Member of the Minister's department advises that

possibly transportation assistance could be given.

I believe that two miles of road were okayed for

construction, and I would like to know if this was done. But

the next time, the Minister says, there will be no policy for

transportation assistance.

Now, Mr. Minister, again we have tremendous conflict surrounding you as to why this decision was made. Who made the

decision? Was it the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams)? Is it that Minister's intention

to freeze out everybody else, and in this case some private

entrepreneurs, in order that Cypress Bowl — which, we are led

to believe will be another government adventure into private

enterprise — can have a captive audience and be successful? Is

that who made the decision? Is this another case where the

Minister was overruled by his colleagues, if consulted?

Where, Mr. Minister, is your policy, and what sort of treatment have you given

the people who presently own the chalet? The former administration did change

the policy to a lease situation and at that time, a number of years ago — I

believe it was the early 1960s if not 1958 — they paid the individuals who owned

the chalet $60,000, which was a very sizable sum of money in those days of deflation

or less cost. What sort of remuneration or fair treatment have these people

had in terms of their loss of investment?

When one recognizes the beauty of this area and the

confusion surrounding it and the conflict of statements made by

the Minister and his department as to whether it should be open

or closed and what services should be offered, we must ask what

the Minister's policy is. Is it the Minister's policy to allow

this area to stay open as a day-use area? If so, in light of

the fact that most people don't even know that it exists, that

there is no publicity about it, and any further development

would hinge on the public using it, would it be the policy of

the government to assist with a pilot project of transportation

to a reasonable access area below the chalet in order that the

day use could properly be tested? Then, if there is public

reaction, the services could be put on an economically sound

basis and expanded.

If it's as this department says: "If the people use it,

we'll consider putting in overnight accommodation and we'll

consider expanding day services" — and, in fact, you can

hardly even find Garibaldi Park when you drive up towards

Squamish — how can you possibly…?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Not that far. How can you possibly expect

people to use it?

I've been up there myself, Mr. Minister, and, really, the

lack of signing and the road conditions are extremely

difficult. You have to stop and ask people how to get there. If

you want to use that as a test, then surely you must institute

a policy of better signing, more publicity and some form of

transportation assistance from the lower area.

I think the Minister should make clear, as an alternate, if

he is not going to allow overnight accommodations in the area…. And this is fine; it's his choice. Is he prepared to help

the people of Squamish develop an economic and recreational

base in their community? This could be assisted by the

department in terms of design.

This would be a great boon to the local economy. It would

allow the local people to involve themselves in an expanded

business in overnight accommodation in recreation facilities

and it would add a nucleus and a breadth to that community's

economic base that it doesn't now have.

If this was done, it would be an opportunity for the

Minister again to involve himself in a transportation policy on

a pilot project basis to assist ski areas and other

recreational areas, and get people in so we don't have to

blacktop our mountainsides

[ Page 3306 ]

and our ski resorts in order to get people into these

areas.

That brings up my third point, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman. Prior to the change of administration a good deal

of work and research had been done with the Department of

Highways, the Department of Transport and the Recreation

department regarding a policy of assistance to remote

recreational ski areas in road construction. I would like to

know if the Minister intends to bring forth a public policy

that is open for everyone to examine that in fact will allow

ski areas, which he mentioned are in short supply in British

Columbia, to evolve on a sound economic basis.

One of the major problems is the cost of road construction

into these areas. Most of them are on leased government land

either from the forestry, if they're commercial, and if there's

living accommodation — and from the previous Parks Branch if

there's no commercial development in there. This is done in

other parts of the world, Mr. Minister. It's not a giveaway

programme. If the Minister were to adopt a policy perhaps of 50

per cent capital cost of road construction, then it would

entitle him as Minister to have some say in the type of

development that takes place.

He announced during his earlier speech that he was going to

hire a consultant to work in this area, and I think this is an

excellent idea. But, Mr. Minister, if you want to impose

government views on the quality of development, then surely

government has a responsibility to participate in some way to

assist these people. I feel that there is ample room for

control so that there can by no rip-off profits made at

government expense. But there is a crying need for assistance

in road development into these areas.

I would urge the Minister also and ask him what his policy

would be on this whole business of access to ski areas in terms

of private automobile and private vehicle as opposed to busing.

I would ask the Minister to seriously undertake selective pilot

projects, one at Diamond Head and one in two or three other

parts of the province — I can certainly give him one in my

constituency where they'd be willing to undertake it — where

you have a cooperative programme to transport people from the

accommodation area into the ski area.

It has proved successful in other parts of the world;

there's no reason why it can't prove successful here in British

Columbia. And this will preclude what is happening — that is,

the developing of more and more parking lots in ski areas. They

don't look too bad in the wintertime, but they're an absolute

eyesore and scar that's unimaginable in the summertime.

I believe the Minister should be working towards a policy where we utilize

some form of communal transportation into these areas with government assistance,

as opposed to a continual expansion of blacktop in parking.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Chairman, some remarks were made

earlier that this department and myself were being shelved.

I think the Member is aware that I'm on the ELUC committee,

and it's no secret that we do have our arguments and

disagreements on this committee. For the first time the

resource departments are coming together, are solving their

problems and, as I said, some of these problems are solved not

in agreement at all times, but we do come out of the meetings

with a single decision.

MRS. JORDAN: But you don't even know what's going on.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Our department has been involved in some

new programmes as never before, such as acquisition of land. As

you are well aware, Madam Member, the acquisition of three

ranches in the Kootenay area was brought about some months ago

at a cost of close to $1 million.

Stein River — a moratorium was put on logging on the Stein

River. The Purcell wilderness area was also brought into being

partly through our department's persuasion. Recreation area was

also created in the Skagit area, which was recommended by our

department. A recreation area was formed in that area.

MRS. JORDAN: That was the past government…

HON. MR. RADFORD: And our department has been involved as

never before in impact studies concerning the environment. Also

it was through our persuasion that we pointed out an error that

was made on the reserve on Boundary Bay.

So all these things, you know, are not always out in the

open. Some of us are not always after headlines as some of the

opposition Members are.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Concerning the Chemainus dam, I was aware

of the Chemainus dam proposal months and months ago.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I was aware of the proposal. Now our

department did not recommend and was against the dam being

built on the Chemainus River. That's no secret, Madame Member.

We are looking into remedies to alleviate the situation on the

Chemainus dam. I don't care to relate those to

[ Page 3307 ]

you now, but we are looking into different areas that we can

bring about a situation to save some of the area for wildlife

and for the spawning steelhead and coho.

In regard to Diamond Head, you're quite right. We had a

second look at that after we had shut it down because at the

time a considerable amount of money was needed to repair the

Diamond Head Chalet because of fire regulations, et cetera, and

because of the condition of the building we were not allowed to

have accommodations for overnight use. We bought Diamond Head

Chalet, I think, in the '50s.

MRS. JORDAN: The former administration did.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The former administration did. It was

leased out. You should have known this.

MRS. JORDAN: I know it. You didn't know it.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I've just related it to you.

MRS. JORDAN: You didn't know it until it was brought to your

attention.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We are spending $15,000 on that chalet

this coming year to bolster up the surroundings there and we

still intend having it open only to day use.

Concerning transportation into Diamond Head Lodge, many

letters have been received by our department not to open it up

to vehicles to the lodge. Many people like to park their cars

and hike into that area. It is our intention to leave it that

way until we hear from the public. Most of our correspondence

and letters from the public have requested us to leave it

open.

Concerning ski areas and road maintenance and other related

problems, we are considering having a new look at this

situation. This is one of the areas that a ski coordinator will

be taking into consideration. The park-and-ride concept, which

you mentioned, is applicable in some areas. It is our intention

in the Cyprus Bowl area to bring into being a park-and-ride

concept for that area because of parking problems and because,

as you say, it is really degrading when the snow goes away to

have to look at some of these areas that have been either

black topped or just left there as dirt areas.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a supplementary. I appreciate your

comments. I also would like to bring to your attention that

most of the things that you've just referred to in glowing

terms are all from the former administration and you know

it.

Regarding your participation in the ELUC committee, it's nice to know you're

there but you seem to have missed the gist of what I was saying in that in the

major decisions you have been overruled, if you have been there.

I am interested to hear the Minister say that he did, Mr.

Chairman, know about the Chemainus dam. I think that it's

incumbent on the Minister to clear this situation up right now

in the House because, Mr. Minister, you may be misquoted in the

Sun when it says: "Dam Okayed by Cabinet. Radford Ignorant of

Plan." I quote:

"The Minister indicated he was unaware of the dam situation and that communications between the

government Members involved were poor.

"Asked about the dam later, he said: 'No comment right

now. Contact me next week after I've had a chance to look into this.

The government meets Monday. Do you get the message?' "

Now, Mr. Minister, I must requote you, through you, Mr.

Chairman — do you get the message? You're standing in this

House, Mr. Minister, on a complete conflict of statements and I

would urge you to clear it up. I asked you some specific

questions as to what happened during those sequence of events.

There is another quote here in the

article by Malcolm Turnbull

and I just can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but if you

were misquoted in this

article I've just read, I would urge the

Minister to clear this up. I would also urge the Minister to

answer the specific questions I asked him regarding the

sequence of events. With all due courtesy and in concern for

the time for the House, I won't go through them again if the

Minister is going to answer them. But you must accept, Mr.

Minister, that for all the good work you're doing, you're

involved in this situation which is very, very suspect at the

moment.

The Diamond Head situation really hasn't been cleared up by

your statement. There are other situations that I described

before where this Minister's voice has not been heard. I just

don't buy this rip-off of his: "I'm not looking for headlines."

I'm sure he's not. I'm sure most Members are not most of the

time, but every politician has to have a headline to survive.

What we want to assure, Mr. Minister, and what we'd like to

help you do is see that you have the right position within

cabinet that this vital department must have.

When we talk of the northern development, when we see things

happening such as happened in Victoria — a freeze take place

after public hearings, after the community has done a lot of

planning, when we see something like the Gulf Islands trust, a

centralization of power which appears obviously to be in the

hands of one Minister, we must stand up and support you and

call for you to take your position to bring forth the voice in

conservation and recreational interests of this province in

these absolutely controlled areas

[ Page 3308 ]

where the public is not going to have an input and where

they have not had an input in the past in terms of actions by

your colleagues. I would ask the Minister to give some specific

answers to the questions I asked.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Apparently it was the writer of that

article's

interpretation that I was surprised, which is

completely wrong. As a matter of fact I had discussions with my

department — with the Deputy and with the Associate Deputy and

the Director of Fish and Wildlife — approximately half an hour

before I spoke at the Wildlife Federation. Some of that

discussion was concerning the Chemainus River. I stand by my

first statement that I was aware of the proposal of the

Chemainus dam months ago. I was aware of the decision to dam

the Chemainus River. However, I said that there were

communication problems between the cabinet committee and myself

regarding the decision of the cabinet committee on the

Chemainus River situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that he

had a discussion with his department.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Right.

MRS. JORDAN: Did I hear correctly when he said "half an hour

before the meeting"?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I've had discussions before that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Then if we accept the Minister's statement, as

we must do as Hon. Members, that he knew about this all along,

then the Minister must answer to this House why, if he knew of

the conflict, if he was concerned about the preservation of the

natural resource — the fish — if he knew of the concern of the

federal fisheries branch, if he knew of the concern of his own

branch, he let his own branch go before a cabinet hearing

inadequately equipped.

Mr. Minister, it just doesn't add up. Either you're

derelict, through you, Mr. Chairman, in your duty and you're

irresponsible as a Minister in terms of what you must do to

support your branch, or the questions remain unanswered. Did

the Minister know that his branch had been advised to seek

legal assistance when they appeared before that cabinet

committee?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll answer you again that I was aware of

the proposal of the Chemainus dam. I was not aware of the final

decision of the cabinet committee at that time, and that

answers it.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you know your staff went before that

committee inadequately represented?

HON. MR. RADFORD: That's your

interpretation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, the story is fishy — real fishy. I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is in a difficult

predicament and he's weaving a worse web than he started out

in. I'll yield the floor to other Members in courtesy to them,

but I believe this Minister must answer these questions and

clear up this situation.

If the Minister knew, if the Minister was concerned, why did

he stand up today in this web of confusion and now say that

"maybe the department will do something." Surely this is

inconsistent with the Minister's statement.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I read in the paper just a few days

ago an

article which contained a figure — a statistic or a fact

— which I have thought about again and again since reading it.

The statement which I have thought about several times during

the past few days is as follows: "The net increase in the world

population every month is seven million."

That means that in just over three months the net increase

in the world's population is equal to Canada's total population

today. In a year and a bit the population in the world

increases by four Canadas, in effect.

When I think of the stress and the demands that are placed

on the environment and the natural resources by the people of

this country, I wonder how many more Canadas we can fit onto

this globe without creating insoluble problems. I'm appealing

today to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) to keep that statistic of population increase in mind

when he's determining the priorities for his department.

He talked about a quality environment, or quality life. This

government has done more in two years to show environmental

awareness — and you mentioned that yourself, Mr. Minister —

than we have seen in many, many years in this province.

We have seen impact studies carried out, as he mentioned. We

have also set aside areas for study purposes to determine the

best use of the specific area such as the Tsitika-Schoen area

within Comox riding. We have seen the agricultural land

preserved for future food needs. We have also seen a

paper-recycling project undertaken right here within these

buildings. These are very minor things, I realize.

I've also learned now that Canada is recycling about 16 per

cent of all the paper that it uses,

whereas Japan is already

recycling 50 per cent of the paper it uses. It seems to me, Mr.

Minister, that we could be doing so much more to ensure that we

will

[ Page 3309 ]

have that livable environment that you referred to. I'm

asking the Minister to start along these lines by directing his

attention to one very small part of the problem that a

burgeoning population creates. I'm referring to the very small

things that can be undertaken by your department under the

Litter Act alone. The Litter Act was passed in

1970, and I give credit here to the former Minister of

Recreation and Conservation, Ken Kiernan. I think that the

concept for refund for beverage containers was necessary in

light of the fact that the Department of Recreation and

Conservation came up with figures which indicated that

containers comprised up to 70 per cent of the litter volume.

The Act brought in by the former Minister recognized that

statistic.

The present Minister has announced changes in the

regulations to abolish the detachable top on the pop cans,

together with the bigger refunds for pop bottles. This

indicates that he is aware of the problem and is trying to do

something about it.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

But figures which were produced by A.E. Neilson, a company

which is a surveyor of food stores, done in 1972, showed a

percentage decline in the use of non-refillable bottles of

around 25 per cent down to about 4 per cent. Now returnable

bottle sales, as a per cent of the total, rose from 48 per cent

to 76 per cent.

Unfortunately, the sales of soft drink cans have declined

only slightly. While people were not using the non-refillable

bottles so much any more they still used a large percentage of

cans, which of course create problems with the environment and

with recycling. Canned beer sales are only 1 per cent of the

total of the cans that are involved.

What we can do about the continued manufacture and waste of

pop cans…. What can we do? It seems to me that the Minister

here can make quite a difference in the problem which is

created by this particular problem of litter — as far as cans

and pop bottles are concerned.

He's attempting to up the refund charge. I understand that

it is going to 5 cents per can and will go up to…. Am I

right, Mr. Minister? I'm sorry. Okay, on Sept. 1.

But the problem here is that this may encourage more people

to bring cans back; but that does not necessarily mean that

these cans are going to be recycled. As far as I can determine

most of the cans that are brought back to the stores and money

paid out for them are just simply dumped. They're crushed and

dumped.

We don't seem to have the technology yet, Mr. Chairman, that will enable us

to recycle these cans. Certainly we don't want to go to the use of aluminum

cans because of the cost to the environment of producing the aluminum. The

manufacture of aluminum requires so much power.

I feel that in the near future we could consider outlawing

soft drink cans in this province, at the very least until the

industry can come up with some product that can be

recycled.

I spoke to two people who operate corner grocery stores in

the Courtenay area and they have voluntarily stopped handling

cans because they are concerned with this problem. They are

doubtless losing money to their competitors, but they are

making a contribution to litter control.

The non-return of 90 per cent of the pop cans that are now

sold represents a kind of windfall for retailers since they

have charged the consumer two cents a can but they don't have

to pay the two cents, of course, on the non-returned cans. This

doesn't seem designed to encourage retailers to push for the

return of these cans. If they can be involved in a windfall

profit of that nature they are not going to encourage their

customers to return cans.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Minister, is that

right now the cans are not returned equitably. The small

grocery stores claim that they are obliged to refund on a

disproportionate percentage of the returns and that more cans

and bottles are brought back to them than are brought back to

the big chain stores. I suppose this is because it is handier

for the kids to go to the corner stores packing back the

bottles or cans than it is to take them to the supermarket once

a week.

I think that I would like to see the Minister undertake at

this time a complete depot system in the province — to set it

up in every community in the province where bottles and cans

can be returned, where people can be assured that they will get

their refund and where the Minister and the people of the

province then can begin to take care of a very small part of

the problem associated with that population increase.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to say in

opening that I feel this Minister has done a relatively good

job, but he has a long way to go yet before it's a complete

job.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're never satisfied.

MR. FRASER: Right on! In the Minister's opening remarks, if

I got them correctly, he said that we now have 20 new class A

parks for this year. That's excellent, and I only hope that it

keeps up.

In the recreational areas I believe you said that the

acreage now under recreation has gone from seven million to

nine million acres for new recreation areas. You had an

increase in the camping units and an increase in hiking trails

and so on and so forth. Well, it couldn't happen in a better

area than the Cariboo —

[ Page 3310 ]

I appreciate that. There's lots of room there for recreation

and so on and so forth.

I would only say, Mr. Chairman, that we have to keep up.

There are more people with leisure time and more people

travelling — as long as the Minister of Highways hasn't brought

it all to a halt with his statements about, "Go away, tourists," and so on and so forth. I'm glad the Premier has

arranged to make sure that the Minister of Highways is not in

the House when we are debating the Minister of Recreation's

estimates, so he can't get any sand in the gears.

On the new recreation areas it's all fine and good to have

these new areas set up as a reserve, as I understand it. But,

again, I have some criticism there in two or three

directions.

First of all, the public of the province don't know where

they are. I brought it up under the estimates of the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

Certainly throughout the Interior even the local people don't

know that it is designated as recreational area. At least we're

not that broke that we can't put a sign up that it is Crown

land recreational area and hopefully, of course, make some

camping improvements as well. I believe the forestry has, as I

said, made a directive there but I think it applies to your

department where they have forest park reserves.

The public, whether from out of the province or local, don't

know where these are. I certainly think they should be better

designated than the way they are. I particularly refer to the

area from Williams Lake to Bella Coola — an area of 300 miles — where there isn't one sign up designating these areas. I

understand there are 70 or 80 acres. What good are they if the

general public — the tourists and so on — don't know where they

are?

Preserving recreational areas stops activity of practically

all sorts. It reminds me of going to an agricultural committee

hearing held in the province last year when the cattlemen were

complaining about the grizzly bear killing their cattle while

the conservationist got up and said: "Well, get your cattle out

of here."

Are we now getting too many reserves to the detriment of

another industry such as cattle production? I realize that it's

difficult to criticize reserves for recreation but we also have

to eat now and in the future. If we gobble these areas up and

put them all in reserves for recreation or park or what, we

will probably end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine instead

of beef. I would just like to remind the Minister of that. I'm

not against it, but I just wonder how far we can go before we

certainly get into conflict with very necessary production

facilities such as the production of beef.

The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that we're going to have a travelling

museum, I think, in a train and so on. This is all good and fine, but I think

the provincial government for a number of years has been lacking in the support

of local museums. For instance, all your funding is directed at the Provincial

Museum which is here and now it's moving out on a travelling basis. I congratulate

you on it. But in every older community in this province we have a local museum.

They are all short of funds. They get them from a tin cup; that's where they

get them from. Prior administrations and present have been approached, and I

think we should be looking at a grant system on maybe a per capita basis to

communities so they can be helped in the operation of the local museum. They

don't want any huge amount of money, but it would be, I suppose, a few million

dollars on a provincial level.

There's one I know operated in Clinton, in the Cariboo that

has probably got the best history including the provincial

government, of the gold rush days of Barkerville in the 1860s.

That is run on voluntary labour. They have a tin cup there

where the citizen goes in and puts his nickels and dimes in and

that pays for the light bill. It goes right back to you, the

government, through B.C. Hydro. I think those people are

deserving. That is run by a museum society; most of these in

the communities throughout the province are run by a local

volunteer museum society. They have no source of funds other

than waving the tin cup around.

I don't think it is good enough in the preservation of our

history that we should spend all our money on downtown

Victoria. Let's spread that around a bit; there's some history

in places other than Victoria. I think it should be done

through a system of per capita grants. I'm not prepared to say

how much, but definitely they're not getting a thing now and I

don't think it's fair. You would be amazed at how many museums

are operating on a strictly volunteer basis throughout the

province. They have exhibits in these museums that are now 120

or 130 years old. I think it's about time the province shared

the wealth with these well-intentioned citizens and helped them

with the operation of these museums.

As a matter of fact, to add insult to injury, I think the

Public Works department charges the one in Clinton $400 a year

rent for the building they're in. They have to go on the street

with a tin cup to get even the rent money which, in turn, is

revenue coming back into the province and nothing coming back

out of the province.

I'd like to say a few things about SAM, the car-crushing

programme, that I'm not a bit happy about, and I've said so

before. This Minister said he thought he had it corrected but I

don't think he has it corrected at all. This plan was started I

believe in 1971 or 1972 and the intent was to crush abandoned

cars, recycle this metal and take them to a recycling plant.

Quite frankly, a lot of that has happened but there has been

some falling down on the way and it's

[ Page 3311 ]

still happening. I'm afraid this programme is going to

disappear unless some of the people in charge pull up their

socks a bit.

As far as I can see, in the interior of the province, cars

that were crushed in 1971 are still stockpiled. I understand

that was because of a lack of money about a year or so ago.

Well, they're still there. The other day I drove down Highway

97, and they've not only moved off private property but they

are now on the highway allowance on Highway 97. I think this is

ridiculous.

The other thing that's wrong with operation SAM, other than

not picking up these crushed vehicles soon enough is that there

is no place to assembly them. The Minister's department could

deal with the 28 regional districts in this province and have

his people go with them and designate Crown lands where

citizens can take these abandoned vehicles. The regional

districts will gladly cooperate.

The problem is the physical land to put them on. In prior

times, they've been crushed on private property. Because the

government hasn't picked them up inside of a year or 18 months,

you can't get back on the private property. So the point is the

cars are still being abandoned. I think they should all be put

in this one general area. There's lots of Crown land. We're all

talking about a shortage of Crown land but there's millions of

acres of it. They can designate these areas; let the public

know; take these cars there; and then, when the crusher comes

along, crush them and finally get them out.

I'm afraid that the programme SAM is going to go and not be

acknowledged by the public as it was for a year or so. They

appreciated it very much but there's not enough push there. I

suggest to the Minister that he should wake somebody up; I know

he has people in charge of it. Get better facilities for

storage of these abandoned vehicles so that we don't have them

littering the countryside. We've made a good start but I think

we're slipping backwards. I ask the Minister to look into what

really is wrong and get on with this very excellent

programme.

I would like to say a few words about the Fish and Wildlife

Branch, particularly in view of changed regulations that are

now enforced in the province for the first time. I would like

to say that I'm quite proud to speak here today in support of

the guide outfitting industry of this province. They are all

individual citizens; they are all B.C. citizens; they all work

hard. They want their own business and they choose this type of

endeavour. I consider them very responsible. They have a

business that probably generates around $10 million in total as

far as the province is concerned. While it's not large, it's

certainly a worthy one.

We have some 400-odd guide outfitters in this province. These 400-odd guide

outfitters are spread throughout the different ridings of the province. I have

to admit that I'm a little biased because, of the 420 guide outfitters in the

province of British Columbia, 120 of them are located in my riding of Cariboo.

So I have intimate knowledge of all their problems and so on and so forth.

I would just like to point out a few of the things on their

side before we get dealing with the regulations. Of the 416

guide outfitters, 37 are natives. I would certainly appreciate

that fact. On top of that, of the 416 guide outfitters, they

employ each year 700 native guides. We're always concerned

about our first citizens, the natives, and here we have an

industry doing something about it. Believe me, from personal

experience, the native is one of the best guides anybody can

have. They're gainfully employed so they contribute there.

There are also 2,000 other people employed by the guide

outfitting industry in the province, such as cooks, wranglers

and so on and so forth. Seventy per cent of these guide

outfitters earn under $20,000 per year. Yet, in turn, they have

investments varying in their equipment from a minimum of

$10,000 to a maximum of $250,000, depending on the nature of

their operation. Lots of Crown revenue comes back from the type

of business they have. They certainly are asset citizens as far

as the province is concerned.

What has actually happened? This Minister has brought this

in and I know he believes truly that, of the trophy fees to be

paid in advance…. I'm now talking about the non-resident

hunter that the guide outfitter is in business for. They'll

guide local citizens too, but the majority of their business

comes from outside the province — whether it be the United

States, Alberta, Saskatchewan or even other parts of the

world.

In the past when somebody wanted a moose or a caribou or

whatever it was they had to buy a tag and then when they

finally got the animal — and I emphasize after they got the

animal — they had to pay a further charge and that was fine. We

have now moved into a new system of trophy fees in advance and

the fees are up quite considerably. So are hunting fees. I

would like to go on record here as saying that I'm not opposed

at all to that. It was obvious that those had to increase and

the citizens of British Columbia, I think, aren't concerned

about that.

What is the concern to the guide outfitters is that they are

going to lose business because people are not going to come in

and pay in advance and then probably end up not getting any

trophy or animal, as they call it.

As a matter of fact, only Monday I was in an airplane in the

Cariboo and two chaps from Mississippi had been in the Cariboo

three weeks hunting grizzly. I asked them how they made out and

they said not very well — all they got was grizzly track soup.

They had each paid $300 — the advance trophy fee. I asked them

what they thought about it.

[ Page 3312 ]

They said: "That's fine — that's the laws of your land. But

now we know them we won't be back."

Really this brings a lot of revenue into the province but

also to the guides and other citizens that cater to the guiding

industry. This is exactly what the guide outfitters have told

the department and the Minister. As I say, just by an accident

I ran into it first hand on Monday of this week in an airplane

over the Cariboo where they had gone in and had had tough luck

in not finding the grizzly but had paid $300 trophy fee in any

event. They had no value for it other than a trip around in the

mud and the snow that exists.

This is the concern — where guide outfitters had repeat

business such as this and now they find this situation. Of

course, the end result will be that down will go the hunters.

The guide outfitters estimate — and they might be too

pessimistic, I agree, Mr. Chairman — that due to the trophies

paid in advance the population of guides in the province will

reduce by about 100 in the immediate future — that is from

400-odd down to 300-odd licensed guide outfitters.

I would like to hear the Minister's comments and what he has

to say about this because I really don't think that was his

intent. I believe that the intent was to raise the revenue of

the province. No argument there except that it is my opinion

that it won't raise the revenue of the province — it will turn

around and backfire and decrease the revenue if we are not

going to have these people coming in and they won't come in

because they have to pay these trophy fees in advance.

So when the Minister mentions that he has told the different

organizations that the intent of the advance trophy fee is to

increase the revenue — fine. But I would like to remind him

that this could backfire on him and we will end up getting less

revenue than we normally should. It puts local people out of

work. That is certainly the concern of all of us. We don't want

to see any people put out of work and, as far as I'm concerned,

not people who are independent business people. They have a

tough enough way of life to earn their living as it is without

all the more sand thrown in the gears.

In one

article that I read here it says: "The people of B.C.

will lose an estimated $5.3 million because the branch insists

on a prepaid trophy fee system." The question is — does that

make sense? I would say that the $5.3 million was, I think, an

estimate of all the revenue that comes. I'm not referring to

that as all lost revenue to the guide outfitters. It's lost

revenue to storekeepers and service stations and motels and so

on — all the people who share in this industry's spending.

The other question is: why would the branch not retain the present tag trophy

fee system and thereby prevent a loss to the economy of the province in excess

of $5.3 million? The story that they are saying, and I'm inclined to agree,

is that we chase away the people who have been coming for years because they

have to pay an advance trophy fee, and rather than increase the revenue of the

province it will decrease it.

I would like to hear a few answers, Mr. Chairman. I would

just say, as I said at the start, that I feel the Minister is

doing a fair job and I congratulate him on it but I hope I've

pointed out a few places where I think there is room for

improvement.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Chairman, regarding the guides, the

Member is quite right when he said that the guides have a very

viable economic situation with regard to an industry in the

province. During my first speech in this House I related to the

Legislature some of the problems that the guides do have and

tried to point out to the Members at that time that they do

have problems and tried to do a little educational job, I

suppose, on informing some of the Members of the Legislature of

that fact.

However, your concern, Mr. Member, was about the prepaid

trophy system. I should say that before we brought this system

in we had many meetings with the guides. We had many meetings

with the B.C. Wildlife Federation to discuss with them our

plans.

Also, the prepaid trophy system is in existence in every

province in Canada. As a matter of fact, B.C. and the Yukon

were the only two areas not to have a prepaid trophy

system.

MR. FRASER: We shouldn't be the same as all provinces. All

provinces haven't got NDP governments either!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Previously, Mr. Member, a non-resident

would come into B.C. and was able to buy up all the species

tags for $39.50 and then go out on a hunt with a guide who he

had already probably contracted with to the amount of almost

probably $3,000 per animal when we are talking about a grizzly

or a sheep. If he was out for a while with a guide and hadn't

garnered an animal and came across probably a moose or some

other animal that he hadn't contracted for, he would ask the

guide if he could take it. Then the hunter would feel satisfied

and the guide would be a little bit off the hook and the guide

would have a little more money in his pocket because that would

cost him a few bucks extra over and above what he had

contracted for and everybody would go away a little

happier.

Now we've raised the price of the species licence. We've

raised this so that now if a non-resident comes in and he wants

to buy a pocketful of tags it would cost him about $1,200. So

now what happens is that he probably only buys about two or

three species and the guide will have to produce for those two

or three species and will not be able to get off the hook

for

[ Page 3313 ]

getting some other animal which he had not contracted

for.

Another area that I would like to discuss is that by raising

the fees we are really reflecting on the value of our fish and

wildlife resources. We believe that a non-resident should be

paying for the experience of hunting and for the use of the

environment, whether he gets an animal or not. As I say, this

is done in most of the other provinces and throughout the

U.S.A.

I am amazed, Mr. Member, that you don't have better contact

with some of your constituents. I have letters and telegrams

here from people in your area. I have a telegram from the

Williams Lake Rod and Gun Club congratulating the department on

the new system of licence fees and permits. The Chilco-Dredgers

Wildlife Club in Quesnel say:

"Dear Sir:

"Please be advised you have our club's full support

regarding the new licence and permit system."

To go on to another one, the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club sent a

telegram.

We also have letters on file from big game guides. Here's

one that says:

"Dear Mr. Radford:

"I've just returned from two big game hunters sportsmanship

shows in Minneapolis and Cleveland and thought you would be

interested in knowing the reaction that I received to the

licence fee increases for non-resident hunters in British

Columbia in 1974.

"I attend these conventions each year to promote my big-game

guiding business in the east Kootenays and maintain a booth at

the shows. This year I placed a list of the new tag licence

fees for non-resident hunters in my booth and handed the lists

out without our material. Many of the hunters expressed

surprise at the large amount of the increase over last year,

but from every indication I was able to receive after talking

to hundreds of sportsmen, they indicated that the increased

fees would not deter them from their decision to come to

British Columbia to hunt big game. The hunters that I spoke to

were pleased, rather than annoyed, at the increase in certain

species."

I've another letter from a Mr. Thompson from Edgewater.

"I appreciate the long overdue change in the non-resident

licence and game tags. I have been in the guiding and

outfitting business in this area for 36 years, catering to

mostly non-resident hunters and fishermen. It is time they

started to pay for the big game trophies they take home.

"I am booked for the 1974 big game season by U.S. hunters

and have had no comments on the price for 1974 licence and tags, and a number

of them are repeat hunters. I am a member of the Columbia Valley Guides Association

and I am sure the majority of outfitters here feel the same. I have made 95

per cent of my living from guiding and outfitting throughout the year and still

think the east Kootenays is the best for all-around big game hunting in North

America."

Those are just a sample of some of the letters right from

your own riding Mr. Member. If some of the other Members wish

to get up, I have other telegrams right from their constituents

in the north.

Really, when we're talking about the increase in the prepaid

trophy fees, we're talking only of a very minimal amount of

money when you consider that non-residents come into this

province and pay up to over $3,000 per animal per hunt. We're

talking maybe $200 or $300 that is added to this system. It's

like going to a show; you pay before you go in. The guides

require a down payment before they even take on a hunt. It's my

opinion that for too long we've been giving away this

resource.

I have some other comments, Mr. Member, on your previous

statements on recreation areas. You say that signs should be

erected and I agree with you. We will look into that.

You do have some concern though about so much of the land in

B.C. being put into parks. I should remind you that only 4 per

cent of the land in B.C. is designated for parks, which is a

small amount really.

The local museums, you say, are short of funds. Through our

Community Recreational Facilities Fund we have given some money

to some of the local museums to build new facilities and add on

to their structures. Also, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) has a fund that is administered for local museums. We

also have an adviser in Victoria here in the museum who does

give advice and assistance to the local museums.

I think that covered most of your statements.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, on SAM. We have two crews. This year

crew No. 1 was working in 51 depots in 13 communities within

four regional districts: the Capital Regional District here in

Victoria, the Alberni-Clayoquot, and Comox-Strathcona. They

compacted 9,981 cars. Crew No. 2 was working in 52 depots in 19

communities within seven regional districts: the East Kootenay,

Okanagan-Similkameen, Columbia-Shuswap, the North Okanagan,

Central Okanagan, Fraser-Fort George, and Peace River-Liard.

They compacted 9,325 cars.

Mr. Member, you always mention these cars around 100 Mile

House. I understand those cars had

[ Page 3314 ]

been compacted and hauled away earlier this year? Am I not

right?

MR. FRASER: That's what I thought….

HON. MR. RADFORD : Well, I don't know. I'm informed that those

cars have been hauled away some months ago, Mr. Member.

There were a total of 19,306 derelicts compacted and 16,370

derelicts were transported to the shredder by our trucks and by

private truckers. This year we bought two new trucks which

allowed us to haul more derelicts in a fast time and we are

working on it. I agree that it is a good programme.

I should say we are contemplating on transferring SAM and

the Litter Act into Pollution Control Branch which will

probably be setting up a new department to look after hard

garbage.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I'm a strong

critic of this government in most areas but I like to give

credit where it's due. I'd very much like to give credit to the

Minister and his department in the work they've done in respect

to parks over the last couple of years.

I want to read into the record a couple of paragraphs from

the October, 1973, issue of the J ournal of the National and

Provincial Parks Association of Canada , referring to an

announcement by the then Minister of Recreation and

Conservation the previous spring. It said this:

"The moment may stand as one of the most important in the history of provincial parks in Canada. In

one statement the provincial park acreage in B.C., already the

largest in the nation, was increased by 25 per cent and by 1.6

million acres. The 11 areas involved range in size from 21 to

900 square miles.

"After 20 years of decreasing park acreages, a new

government was taking many ignored park proposals off dusty

office shelves and giving the people of British Columbia real

live acres of high quality parklands. It was a magnificent

change, this contrast between old and new administrations."

Later on:

"It is highly significant that most of the new park areas

are not order-in-council parks created by signature and so

eraseable in the same way. They are created by the Legislature,

to be tampered with only after public debate in the

Legislature."

I wish much of the legislation and many of the

order-in-council Acts of this government were like that.

"If any common weakness characterizes provincial parks across

most of Canada, it is the overwhelming predominance of the order-in-council

status. These new areas are the first adequately protected parks that British

Columbia has had in many years. There is no doubt, as the Minister pointed out,

many of the new parks have national scale and importance."

That is a statement from a universally respected journal on

parklands in this country. It's a great credit to the

government that it took that action, and action has been taken

since. I see this list the Minister circulated, dated March 31,

with respect to new park acquisitions in the province. I would

suggest to him that park acquisitions live through the years

and the generations. They are the kind of things that will be

remembered long after most of the actions that most of us do

have gone. I hope he will continue to add to the parklands of

British Columbia, doing it in a way that's compatible with the

use of most of the province which still has to be for our basic

industries of mining and forestry. But as the Minister points

out, there's only 4 per cent in parks now and new additions can

be carefully made in consultation with the Ministers of mining

and forestry in the government to make sure that none of those

interests are harmed and yet the preservation goes on.

The Minister mentioned that something like 200 new campsites

are going to be completed in this fiscal year and perhaps

another 300 started, I think he said. Even if all the starts

were completed, it would still be something less than 10 per

cent of the park campsites when demand in park use is growing

something like between 15 and 20 per cent a year. So I would

suggest that the Minister will have to get on with campground

buildings in a much quicker way and more funds will have to be

allotted to that in the next fiscal year. I think that's very

important. This is the way that the ordinary people of British

Columbia can get around and see our province. That's just

tremendously important, Many people don't have the funds to

stay in motels but they can stay in provincial campgrounds.

They're lovely campgrounds, most of them. I've stayed in a

great many.

I'd suggest to the Minister a particular need to acquire

more campground land near Vancouver and more recreational area

land near Vancouver. This is important for people who don't

have the time to travel for long distances or don't have the

means. I'm going to talk a little bit later about bicycle

paths. Cyclists, many of whom are based in Vancouver, simply

are not able to cover the great amount of territory that a

person with a car can. They need parks that are relatively more

closely spaced.

Parks near the greater Vancouver area provide a greater service to a greater

number of people than anywhere else in the province. I appreciate at the same

time that they are more expensive than any other parkland in the province but

that is all the more reason to acquire that kind of land now. Expensive as it

seems now, it will seem far more expensive in 10

[ Page

3315 ]

years and 20 years and so on down the line. Every square

mile or hundred acres, or whatever it is, of parkland that can

be acquired now, this generation will be blessed by future

generations for so doing, or, in the alternate, cursed if we do

not. That is one of our real responsibilities to our

children.

The Minister mentioned a museum train, which I believe to be

a very good thing. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) had

some helpful statements to make about getting our provincial

history around the province. I'd like the Minister to elaborate

on that museum train if he would, a little bit more about the

cost of it, where it will be based, where the headquarters will

be of this train, what routes might we expect it to go on about

the province, and why it should be travelling for only four

months out of the year.

There were some school children from my riding up in the

gallery when the Minister was making that statement, and that

was a question they asked right after they left. I'm sure that

many British Columbians will be wondering. This train will not

only be of great benefit; it will be very expensive. Isn't

there some way it could be utilized more than four months out

of the year?

As a final point at this stage — I'll have more to say later — I want to make a representation to the Minister about bicycle

paths and bicycle routes, because I understand that he is the

Minister in the government that is in charge of these

things.

You know, last year for the first time there were more

bicycles sold in North America than cars. That is a trend that

has perhaps levelled off, but it's staying at that very high

level, and I think we're going to see it continue for some

time.

Yet at the same time our civilization over the past couple

of generations has been so dominated by cars, it simply hasn't

built up the facilities for bicycles. Bicycles have just been

something that kids use — not a recreational matter, but purely

a means of transportation for school children.

Now we've come to the stage where not only young people but adults are using

bicycles for trips of some distance, both to see our province and as a matter

of recreation and physical fitness. So it's tremendously important that we upgrade

our bicycle paths. I was pleased to see an

article written by Mr. Tarasoff of

the Parks Branch with respect to the proposed route on the old E&N right-of-way,

just north and east of Victoria, a route which would run for many miles. The

total here shows a first stage of 34 miles, a second stage of 24 miles and a

final proposed leg of 31 miles ending up at Cowichan Bay.

This is the kind of thing, Mr. Minister, that your

department should be engaged in and doing more of all over the

province. I wonder if you could give us a status report on that

one. Perhaps you'd give some consideration, in connection with

the appropriate Minister, of putting bike routes at appropriate

points along, for example, the British Columbia Railway

right-of-way — say all along the North Shore and out as far as

Horseshoe Bay; also at appropriate parts of highways around the

province where many of the shoulders are not paved.

I know there is a paving programme, but I wonder if the

Minister could reach into his own funds and work with the

Department of Highways to supplement that shoulder-paving

programme.

I wonder if he would, in addition, undertake to make

available to cyclists a list of bicycle trails that are in

existence, that are contemplated, and a list of suitable

highways for bicycle riding, because some highways have their

shoulders paved for some distance and then for the rest of the

distance they do not have paved shoulders and they become

unsafe and unsuitable to ride on. When you're setting out on a

trip it's difficult to get that information in advance.

We almost need a bicycle atlas of, say, the lower part of

Vancouver Island and the lower mainland of British Columbia

where the amateur cyclist could write into your department and

get back information as to where he can safely and easily

travel.

Those are the main representations I have to make at this

point, Mr. Chairman, and I would particularly urge the Minister

to come out with a positive statement in favour of all of the

effort he's going to put into bicycle routes over the next year

or two.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I too, of course, would like to

congratulate the Minister on some of the programmes that have

been instituted since he has been Minister, especially buying

up the parks or getting land for parks in the province. I was

amazed that it was only 4 per cent. I certainly would urge him

to try and make more land available.

As another speaker had said, people in the future will

appreciate the efforts of this Minister and any of the Members

of government trying to get land into park preserves — all

forms of preserves, whether they be sanctuary types of

preserves or whether they be for recreational purposes.

Sometimes, of course, I take a little exception to some of

the attitudes the recreation branch has when it comes to

installing these campsites. I happen to be

[ Page 3316 ]

in the campsite business and, you know, the government is in

direct competition with me. I object to the Parks Branch coming

along…. You know there are 30 or 40 little campsites along a

lakeshore or along a river and, all of a sudden, they throw in

a 150-unit campsite. You know, it's a beautiful place for

people to go because, you know, they can go there for $2 a

day.

MR. PHILLIPS: How would you feel if you were a free

miner?

MR. KELLY: Well, I'm in the business, you know, and I just

went through a holiday weekend. Do you know how many I had in

my camp? I didn't have one.

Interjection.

MR. KELLY: No, it was lovely this last weekend up in

Omineca. I do think that the park should really consider the

private sector when they're going into business, in this

particular issue.

Beaumont Park is the closest park, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a beautiful park. I don't blame

people for going there; it is a lovely spot. But there's only

one thing, and that is: here I am down the road, and I was

there for years before that park was expanded. You know, I

can't make a living to pay my taxes and whatever incidentals

that I have to pay during the course of the year.

MRS. JORDAN: The left shoe certainly pinches when it's on

your foot, doesn't it?

MR. KELLY: But as time goes on there is no doubt that this

park will be a lovely park, and it's even being improved. I

know that there are funds being spent on that park this year.

But I do wish that the Parks Branch, in cooperation with the

travel department, would urge people to go into areas of the

province that, for example, are lightly travelled, where at

certain times of the year we know that the major parks and the

national parks are overcrowded. I think that the Parks Branch

could do a service to the private sector in helping them get

some of that business, some of this overcrowding situation.

I talked to people a year or two ago who said they were down

at Banff or Jasper. Naturally, of course, they're advertised

around the world. They said that there wasn't even elbow room.

You go down into the Francois Lake area, the Burns Lake area — and we had very few guests. That has been an issue that I have

been working on for the last two years now, trying to urge the

government and the travel branch to direct people into that

area, because we do have a lovely area, untouched. It's

untouched.

Mr. Chairman, I have to go back into the Hansard of February 22 to ask the

Minister some questions, or to more or less set the record straight in regard

to statements that I made at a previous sitting of this House. As you know,

this spring I had urged the government or his branch to have some consideration

for the natives in the remote areas of this province when it came to issuing

either permits or even, in the first place, allowing them to take game.

Last year I had said that they're using permits in welfare

cases and that I am opposed to issuing permits in welfare

cases. Mr. Chairman, I am indeed opposed to issuing permits to

anybody — although 99 per cent of them went to natives — to

support the welfare system. That we should be using our

wildlife to support the welfare system — I oppose this

altogether. I am certainly dissatisfied with this

situation.

There are Indians and other people living in very remote

areas of this province that do need wildlife. There is no other

meat available, and they are doing that today and taking that

game today. What I was suggesting was that the Minister make it

legal for these people to take that meat. Because, for example,

at Ingenika or Fort Ware or Babine or up in the

Stuart-Trembleur area, those people are actually committing a

crime every time they take one of those animals, because

they're not taking them on the reserves. Those reserves aren't

large enough to take these animals that they need for food.

So they're actually breaking the law, and I don't think they

should have to break the law to survive in northern British

Columbia.

I do strongly oppose the wildlife branch supporting the

Human Resources department, as it is now called, by issuing

permits so that people can go out and kill a moose to have

food. We know that in recent years there has been a definite

shortage of game and we cannot afford to lose any more than

we're losing now through natural causes by having the game

branch issuing permits.

I don't know how many permits were issued this year in

Vanderhoof, but last year I believe it was 291 or 292 one month

alone. That is just too many animals out of a very close

proximity of a town such as Vanderhoof. If people can go to the

conservation officer to get their permits, they can certainly

go to the supermarket to get a roast or a lot of supplies that

they might need.

All I'm suggesting is that if they need extra meat, and if

the welfare branch is required to supply the funds to get this

meat, then that's what they should be doing. I don't think we

should be sacrificing our game just to support a system, and

that is giving cheap meat to the natives. And it is not cheap

meat, because these moose are worth a lot of money to our

province.

I went to Fort Ware a couple of months ago. We flew all over

the reserve, which is only 900 acres.

[ Page 3317 ]

There are 200 people living on this reserve. There isn't a

moose within five or six miles of Fort Ware. That means they

had to go on Crown land — in other words they had to break the

law to actually get themselves an animal. As far as I'm

concerned, certainly none of them would be prosecuted because

they are far beyond the ranges of conservation officers or any

other kind of law enforcement. But that isn't the purpose of

the statements that I made between the one year and the next

year, when I said in one case certainly meat should be made

available or game available to Indians living in remote areas.

Some of those Indians are being prosecuted. But if the Indian

lives within five or 10 miles of the town, or if he's on a main

highway, I see no reason in the world why he should be issued a

permit at all to eat meat — moose meat or any other kind of

meat.

That's why I refer to that, Mr. Minister, through you Mr.

Chairman. Indeed, there was a complete difference. I have been

misquoted by several people, including the president of the

B.C. Wildlife Federation, that this was the way I had referred

it — that the Indians should be allowed to have the meat. In one

case I said they shouldn't have it,

whereas I do agree with

that. I think that most of the citizens in the area disagree

with issuing permits in that area. There have been cases where

white men have gone and contracted with the Indian to kill the

moose and get half or three-quarters of it just to take the

moose out and then give the Indian the balance of the meat.

I had urged the Minister maybe to consider that there should

be buffer zones around these reserves, because at least if they

did that, they might be within the law. They might in fact

reserve the smaller reserves like the Stuart Trembleur band.

Where the Stuart Trembleur band resides they might be able to

go back into a preserve set up behind the reserve so that they

might be able to hunt legally.

I know that every time a man clears an acre of land or a new

road is built, more logging takes place and that habitat is

removed. This is just one of the things that's happening in our

society. We can't help this because of the number of people

that we have. Every time a man wants to build a home he clears

a little bit more land and he removes a little bit more of what

would be a habitat for wildlife.

I still say that there is still sufficient room for all the

moose that we need for food in this province and for the people

that are going to live in this province, whether they be

farmers, or whether they just be residents working in a local

sawmill or in a local mine. I think that moose and mankind can

get along with each other.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I flew up Williston Lake and up the Finlay River here not too long ago and

we went for 100 miles and never saw one moose track. There wasn't one road or

one house or anything to scare the moose away, But it just happens to be that

that isn't a desirable part of the country for those animals to reside in in

the wintertime. Yet there were other areas where we saw several moose within

one mile, so it shows you that it doesn't really always matter where the area

is. Admittedly, where humanity is it's usually in the lower levels, which is

the more desirable area for moose to winter in.

Last year I had a petition served to me by the Nechako

Valley conservation group. This petition has approximately

1,500 names on it. It was directed to the local regional

director of fish and game, and it has the name of all adult

people on it, which would include practically every grown

per