1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1739 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege Request for withdrawal of allegation. Hon. Mr. Hartley —

Statement Gas revenue distribution formula. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1740

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation

estimates On vote 239. Hon. Mr. Radford — 1741

Appendix — 1764

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker,

later today in the gallery we will be visited by a group of

students from Spectrum Community School in Saanich accompanied

by their teacher, Mr. Zmuda. I would ask the House to note this

visit today.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Yesterday

evening at about the time of adjournment the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) rose in his place and made a false

statement with regard to myself having been evicted from some

premises in my riding. This statement — and I have checked the

Blues, pages 698-3, 699-4 and 700 — that I wasn't ordered out

but was thrown out is a contemptible and dastardly statement.

If the gentleman is the honourable Member I believe he is, he

will stand in his place and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that this is a matter of privilege.

The Hon. Minister, just prior to coming in here, indicated that

he was going to raise this matter of privilege. It is a matter

of privilege and a contempt of the House to libel another

Member. Usually when this happens the appropriate and

gentlemanly thing to do is to apologize and accept the

statement of the other Hon. Member that such an event did not

take place. Otherwise, it is a scandalous libel. It's the sort

of thing that the House itself has the jurisdiction to punish

or to correct.

Libels against a Member outside the House, of course, can be

taken care of outside the House by the normal processes of

court. Here inside in matters of this kind the gentlemanly and

the proper thing to do is to withdraw such a statement where it

affects another Member personally and deals with a matter that

has nothing to do with his duties in the House. Would the Hon.

Member do so?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I'll certainly accept the

Minister's version. I was probably in error to suggest that he

was bodily thrown out of this restaurant. He was merely ordered

out of the restaurant.

MR. SPEAKER: Was the Hon. Member there and a witness to all

this?

MR. CHABOT: No, it's been verified by the owner.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I point out to the Hon. Member that he is again falling into an error; that is, he

is not speaking of his own knowledge. Therefore it is improper

for him not to accept the statement of another Member in this

fashion and to qualify his withdrawal. I would ask him to make

an unconditional withdrawal in terms of what the Minister has

stated.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Minister's

version.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wonder if you could

clarify for me whether there is a new policy developing in the

government. We have had male and female Pages in the House. I

understand that it is the law of the House and your precincts

that the male Pages, and all Pages, wear caps. I understand now

that only the male Pages have to wear caps; the females don't.

I wondered if this was the beginning of a new Barrett

government policy of discrimination against men....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that what you are saying

is a contempt of the House.

You are suggesting that the government runs the House, that

the government runs the Speaker, that the government runs the

Sergeant-at-Arms. I find this so absolutely abhorrent that I

would object to any such suggestion by any Member.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the

Member that I have difficulty in attempting to run my own

house.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Yes, I'll bet you do.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to assure the House that the government

has nothing to do with the Pages' hats and it had better not

have anything to do with them either. My policy is to let them

do what they want.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And if Shirley's in the gallery, I

apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there anything else this morning?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I beg

leave to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: On what subject, please?

HON. MR. LORIMER: On the sharing of the gas funds with

municipalities.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1740 ]

GAS REVENUE DISTRIBUTION FORMULA

HON. MR. LORIMER: I wish to announce the formula for

distribution of natural gas revenues to the municipalities of

British Columbia. This is the first time that any municipal

government in Canada has had the opportunity to share directly

in the revenue flowing from exports of natural resources.

Under the formula, the provincial government will guarantee

an additional $20 million to British Columbia's municipalities,

regardless of the new level of our increased export prices of

natural gas. The $20 million will be above and beyond the

approximately $80 million in per capita grants already detailed

in the budget speech. Details of the formula have been worked

out following consultation with the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities. The details are as follows:

Every municipality, regardless of size, will receive

$25,000. This comes to a total of $3,450,000. The $25,000

across-the-board grant exceeds the amount suggested by the UBCM

in a brief to the government, as they called for $20,000. So we

followed basically to quite a large degree the suggestions made

by the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

This $25,000 payment will be of great assistance to smaller

municipalities, particularly villages. In most cases this

amount will greatly exceed what they would have received on a

per capita basis. Any portion of the $25,000 which exceeds 50

per cent of what a municipality collected in 1974 from real

property taxes for general and municipal purposes must be

placed in a statutory reserve fund established under provisions

section 301 of the Municipal Act. This is being done to

maintain a realistic property tax distribution within and

between municipalities.

A further $3.2 million will be paid to municipalities on the

basis of $100 for each housing unit start in 1974. The housing

component of the formula allows municipalities to benefit from

high-growth activity in the housing field during the previous

year. This reflects recognition of the demand that growth

places on municipal services. I might say that this also was a

recommendation for recognition of housing starts by the Union

of B.C. Municipalities.

Municipalities will be asked to provide the Department of

Municipal Affairs with the 1974 details of housing starts to

complement material already available from the provincial

Housing department and the Central Mortgage and Housing.

By far the largest portion of the $20 million, about $8.24

million, will be distributed on a formula based on the

relationship between operating costs in every municipality as

compared to the total operating expenditures of all

municipalities in the province. For example, municipalities

whose operating expenses are 2 per cent of the municipal total

will share in 2 per cent of the $8.24 million.

Figures from the 1973 municipal statistics are the basis for

the calculation of these grants. The percentage method of

calculating distribution of this money more accurately reflects

the demands municipalities face in providing services based on

geographical, climatic and servicing factors.

The remainder of the $20 million will be distributed in the

following way. Approximately $1.31 million will be allocated to

assist in the construction of water systems. This is seen as a

companion programme to the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act

passed last year. Until this time provincial funds have not

been available to assist municipalities with their water

systems.

An additional $1 million will be made available to regional

districts to assist in capital costs of waste-disposal sites,

including land acquisition, building of fences and buying of

equipment.

Also, there will be $3 million retained in a community

disparity fund. It is the government's intention to use this

money to assist those municipalities with low assessment bases,

which have special problems as a result. The Union of B.C.

Municipalities will assist me in determining which municipalities are deserving of grants under this fund. I

might also say that not only will it necessarily go to low

assessment areas — that is the major area of disparity — but

also under any formula there are some areas which, due to

certain reasons, have not done as well as others under any

formula. So that will also be looked into, as well as the low

assessment areas.

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

responding to the Ministerial statement: it only brings to

light the very real question we had when the budget came — that

the $20 million or any amount of money didn't have to wait for

the gas price. In fact the government could have, as they have

said now, allocated the money in the budget in the normal way

as part of the growth revenues of this province.

The fact that our revenues have gone to $3 billion and

doubled in just three years and that the government hasn't kept

pace in the distribution of that money indicates very strongly

that the very real questions that were raised and the

opposition that was raised to this type of iffy promise was,

indeed, correct. The municipalities were correct in their

opposition. The $20 million will not be adequate to meet the

rise in the cost of municipal services this year. The $20

million is not adequate; it's not enough.

While we've welcomed a statement, finally after all this

time, when we still don't know the price of the gas, we feel as

we felt before in this party, along with the municipal

governments, that sharing of revenues should be on a specific

basis. The information should

[ Page 1741 ]

be shared and be made available during the budget, and not

wait until the municipal governments are well on into their

fiscal year. Nevertheless, late as it is, $20 million will go

some way to helping the municipalities save themselves from the

excessive increases on property tax that the homeowners of this

province are facing this year and will continue to face, even

with this small drop in the bucket.

MR. SPEAKER: To the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, may I

point out that full-scale debate on the issue should not be the

purpose of the statements.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not criticizing the Hon. Member, but I'm

pointing out that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I should hope not; I haven't said a word.

(Laughter.) Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't remarked any on you in this....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you recognized me and then you

started to comment. Why don't you wait or else comment upon the

Minister's very political statement earlier on?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome the Minister's statement,

at least to this degree: it does end the uncertainty. I'd like

to welcome it also because, while I'm quoting him roughly, I

think I'm quoting him correctly where he said that this $20

million guarantee will come regardless of any new level of

export price — clear proof that the linking of the export price

for natural gas and this $20 million is one of the fictions in

the Premier's mind. There is no such linking, proved again by

this Minister in his statement.

We think that this particular new programme of $20 million,

while very necessary, brings up the problem of a variety of

systems of financing the municipalities. You are now drafting

another scheme upon the existing schemes, and there is no real

rationale between them. We think, as the official opposition

does, that this would have been much better handled by a

straightforward accounting procedure in the budget and in your

estimates before this House.

I would like to comment on one particular point and congratulate the Minister

on the growth-grant aspect to this. I think, in that respect at least, he is

showing a little bit of ingenuity and a little bit of thought. I think that

that is a good point. But generally speaking, we would like to go back to a

more simple system; develop a system which does not rely on secondary grants

coming in and secondary programmes coming in after the bulk of the municipal

budgets have been established.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents the second annual report of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia for the fiscal year March

1, 1974, to February 28, 1975.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

On vote 239: Minister's office, $121,032

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

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to introduce two new

appointments to the department made last year as Associate

Deputy. One was to Mr. Ed Vernon, who has been in the public

service of the provincial government for 15 years. The next is

Mr. Bob Ahrens, who has been in the public service of the

province for 26 years. Mr. Ahrens is the former director of the

park and is to a great extent responsible for the park system

we have in the province today.

I don't want to use the opposition's time. They've been

accusing the government of taking up too much time. I know they

will want to debate and discuss the increases of this

department, the great increases of this department over the

last two years. I know they will want to discuss the increase

of this year's budget. I know that they are aware that the

increase isn't as what is put on paper, that the contingency

fund which makes up $6.1 million is included, and that there is

a salary increase. I know they will bring this up. I just want

to bring it to their attention and help them out a little bit

because they may have trouble in debating this department this

year.

This year's budget has been increased from $25.1 million to

$47.4 million. This is a far cry from the budget of 1972 of the

past government, when the whole department had a budget of

$10.4 million. This year the Fish and Wildlife budget alone is

over $10.4 million — just one department. When you compare this

year's budget, especially over Fish and Wildlife — and actually

of our whole department alone — it is rather ironic when you

look to other jurisdictions throughout Canada and the United

States and find that the Departments of Recreation and

Conservation, Parks, Fish and Wildlife, have declined

significantly. They are in dire straits in other areas.

For example, in an

article just recently printed in

[ Page 1742 ]

True magazine, it states here that of the 50 states

interviewed by True , 37 reported themselves in

situations ranging from bad to critical. The costs of running

these wildlife agencies have doubled and are presently doubling

again.

In the State of Washington the entire fish-hatchery

programme has been put back by 20 per cent. In other states,

the State of Oregon,.... I'll just quote you an article:

"Louis Samaroff, director, Oregon State Wildlife Commission,

says we have had to put a 2,500-acre game-management tract up

for sale. We are closing down one fish hatchery, and we have

put a 25 per cent reduction in amount of miles we will allow

our people to run." It sounds like the old government. "We have

cut back in every phase except law enforcement. We leave some

positions vacant."

In Washington it is the same story. "We have had to cut our

hatchery programme from 2.2 million pounds of fish to 1.7

million."

So really it is rather ironic that our government has not

come anywhere near following the other jurisdictions. Our

government has put a real importance on our environment and on

the whole Department of Recreation and Conservation because we

are aware that people are taking to the outdoors and that

leisure time is of great importance. It is rather ironic that

one of the first departments to be cut in most governments is

the Department of Recreation and Conservation. I'm glad to see

that our government has taken an opposite view to other

jurisdictions.

You know, if we listened to the Liberal government over

there, we would be in real dire straits. The First Member — not

you, Mr. Leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) in his usual annual budget that he dreams up every

year, made this statement when he came to Recreation and

Conservation — after cutting all the other departments, saying

that our budget was inflationary. He says:

Recreation and Conservation, that's cut $17 million. We

would propose a 20 per cent increase in one year.... If the

parks don't all get built in one year, that won't be the end of

British Columbia. If the choice is postponing that extra park

construction for one year, or providing the kind of tax

incentives that will start mining and exploration, gas

exploration, oil exploration, or scientific research to build

new products and jobs for the future, it is better to make that

postponement.

This is what the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey says.

It's easy to tell how many parks he has in Point Grey. I am

glad to see that the Liberal government isn't in power, or the

department would be in dire straits.

As I say, our budget is a far cry from what it was in 1972. As the Minister,

and like every Minister here who is really with it with his department, I can

always use more money.

I know the opposition will want to discuss the parks, as I

say. They will want to discuss the 12 new parks and the many

new additions that were made to parks last year. I know they

will want to discuss the increase in acreage. The acreage in

parks in the past government at the end of their term in 1972

was just slightly over six million acres. Today the park system

in British Columbia has increased to 9,433,000 acres. Yes,

that's a far cry from the six million acres that were there

when we came into office. Do you know why? Because parks were

chopped at, taken away, mining, logging, and there was a real

depletion in park acreage with the past government.

I want to talk about the Community Recreational Facilities

Fund. The Community Recreational Facilities Fund is one of the

greatest programmes of recreation facility increase anywhere in

Canada. At a recent recreation Ministers' conference in

Halifax, it was admitted by all the other provinces that our

province is well out in front when it comes to creating

recreation facilities. I think we've proved that there was a

real gap in recreation facilities in this province. To date, we

have spent $35.5 million on recreation facilities in 200

communities, involving 602 projects. This has also brought

about a great increase in construction. In the construction of

buildings to date, $127.9 million has been brought into the

economy through the construction of new buildings.

Now there was a great hue and cry about a job security

budget in the past. This fund, to date, has created employment

from the construction of approximately 2,675 full man-years of

employment. It has also created, in the recreational industry

itself, 3,080 full-time positions. This has been a great

programme. It has been a great programme, but you wouldn't know

it by the press we've been getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: And is it any wonder that we may have to

pay for ads to tell the people just what we're doing? I have

some vivid illustrations here of examples of just what goes on

in our media. We have put out press releases stating that $30

million has been given away for recreation facilities...

MR. WALLACE: Well, give it back.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...communities, and guess where it

appears? Page 12, in a little corner right here — just a small

mention.

I have another illustration here of another announcement

where it mentions — and I can hardly even read it, it was in

such small print at the bottom of the page here — "'$30

million worth of

[ Page 1743 ]

recreational grants have been given today,' announced the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation." This is in The

Vancouver Sun , November 7, 1973. Here it is here, way down

in the corner. You know, you can hardly see it.

I've got other illustrations here but, you know, when it

comes to an announcement by the federal government, we have

here: "Ottawa to Increase Performing Arts Grants — Faulkner."

Here it is, headlines. But, you know, it's for a $1 million

announcement and, man, do they ever get coverage! It's for $1

million.

Interjections

HON. MR. RADFORD: But when we give away $35 million it appears on page

37 in a little tiny column. It's rather ironic.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Poor Jack! Tears are coming to

our eyes, Jack.

HON. MR. RADFORD: This fund has also — and I think you

Members will appreciate — been given with no bias whatsoever.

The leader of the opposition party, the Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) — the total of grants given in his

riding was $1.856 million.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That was part of the

amalgamation agreement. Don't take credit for that.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh! The Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) — the amount of grants given in his area: $1.214

million. Do you know what? The Minister who administers this

Act, from Vancouver South, do you know what his poor people

got? $28,687. Maybe I haven't been doing a good enough job for

my constituents, you know. Maybe I haven't been doing a good

enough job, but maybe there'll be an increase just before the

election or something. I hope the people put in a few more

grants.

MRS. JORDAN: Can't you people get along over there?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh yes, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), I forgot you. Oh, yes, there's $1,000,085...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Keep it coming.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...to that great, glorious constituency of

Oak Bay where most of the people are in real dire straits for

recreation, you know. It's rather ironic — they have a nice,

big golf course there. I think we've forgotten our philosophy a little bit when it

comes to this grant. Maybe we're being too fair.

MR. WALLACE: You're doing a great job, Jack. Keep it up.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I know you'll want to talk about the

Olympics. Oh, the Olympics! That's been forgotten about — the

government's decision not to have the winter Olympics in

AN HON. MEMBER: You scuttled it.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, there was a great hue and cry, you

know. I have an editorial here from, again, the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). He wrote a letter to the

Sun . Oh, it's in big letters here: "Olympics would be a

boost for B.C." He says: "The event, with so many potential

benefits, will surely be beneficial to the province. Are we

afraid the wrong people in our province might enjoy these

facilities in future years?"

I say that the government has made the right decision; I

think it has been proven by what has gone on in Montreal. I

think we have shown that we don't want to bring an extravaganza

here for a 10-day situation when we can use our recreation

facilities and bring them to all outlying areas of the

province.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Right on.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I know you will want to discuss the

Olympics. I know many Members of the Liberal Party certainly

made many statements on the reluctance of the Province of

British Columbia to bring the Olympics to B.C.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The green light's on.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Again, it is rather ironic that only two

countries applied for the Olympics when years ago there was

quite a competition to vie for the Olympics. This year we had

two — Lake Placid, New York, and Chamonix, France. Then at the

last minute there was only one. So something is wrong when we

talk about the Olympics. I think we should be recycling those

Olympic sites; that is what we should be doing.

MR. WALLACE: The light's on, Jack.

HON. MR. RADFORD: As I said...I don't want to go on — I

hope that the opposition will use my brief remarks as an

example to let everyone have a chance to question. I know many

times they have used the whole allotted time. I would hope that

you

[ Page 1744 ]

have constructive criticism, and I would ask you for any

suggestions you have or any advice you can give our department.

It is welcome from the opposition. So I sit down now and await

your questions.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, it is always

a pleasure to rise in my place. Unfortunately, the time is

short; we have only two hours to discuss this portfolio of $47

million — $23.5 million-an-hour questions. It is a very limited

time to make a thorough analysis of the expenditures of this

particular portfolio. However, that is the way it is in British

Columbia today.

MR. FRASER: Closure!

MR. CHABOT: But I do want to say that it is always a

pleasure to listen to the roly-poly, cheerful, long-winded

Minister give his explanation of what is happening in the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. I do want to

congratulate the Minister on the large increase in his budget.

However, he hasn't been heard or been as forceful as he should

have with the cabinet in some other areas. But in this

particular area he succeeded in having his budget increased by

$22 million, of which $6.1 million are for salary

contingencies.

Going through his projected expenditures I find that there

has been an increase by one in biologists and there has been an

increase by 16 in conservation officers. Mind you, you have to

delete the three wildlife assistants who, no doubt, have become

conservation officers, so there has been an increase of 13.

There are almost as many conservation officers and biologists

in the province as there are grizzly bears.

MR. FRASER: One biologist for every bear.

MR. CHABOT: I look at the parks branch allocation and as far

as staff is concerned, we look at the projected new salaries

that are provided for in these estimates, and they are

substantial. We find that the allocation of salaries is $3.2

million. However, the contingencies for salary increases are $4

million. That is a pretty substantial contingency for salary

increases. I am wondering if the Minister would explain just

why it is necessary to have over 100 per cent contingencies for

salaries when already there are provisions for large increases

in the projected costs of the various categories of employees

in the parks branch.

I have heard that there is a possibility that the provincial

parks will not open until June 15, six weeks later than usual.

If that is so, I wonder if the Minister would tell me why there

is this tremendous delay in opening up the provincial

parks.

Now a few brief questions to the Minister. I want to give everyone an opportunity

to have a few words here, but I want to say a few brief words about leghold

traps — that device which is used for the capturing of fur-bearing animals in

the province.

It is an extremely controversial subject today. It is an

issue upon which I have received more correspondence in this

session than upon any other subject. People are concerned with

the pain and suffering of fur-bearing animals in the province.

I have corresponded with the Minister on this issue, but it

appears that any time there is any pressure from the public

regarding the inhumane way of trapping fur-bearing animals, the

Minister issues another press release.

He was critical of the newspapers this morning because he is

not getting the publicity. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, if

newspapers were to publish everything that comes out of the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, as far as press

releases are concerned, they would have to have a special page.

There is almost a daily press release coming out of the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. The Minister burps

and he issues a press release; it's almost that bad.

I wrote to the Minister regarding the leghold trap device

and the Minister's secretary wrote and said: "Here's

up-to-date information on the humane-trapping issue, which is

self-explanatory. Here is the circular letter which we

distribute throughout the province when people express their

concern." The letter goes on to say that in September, 1973, a

joint federal-provincial committee was established for the

examination of a more humane means of trapping fur-bearing

animals. It continues that this is a long-term goal.

I don't think you should make this a long-term goal. I don't

think that it should be prolonged and spun out over a five-year

period, because in your press release you say that in addition

to this department's monetary commitments to the committee, a

$5,000 grant was previously awarded to the Canadian Association

of Humane Trapping to aid in trap research. A more recent grant

of $4,000 in trust has been awarded to the B.C. Association for

the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals to assist in the

development of what appears to be a promising and humane trap

invented by Mr. Bill Gabry of Avenby, B.C.

If you have one that's promising, Mr. Minister, I don't know

why it should take up to five years to put this trap into

operation in the Province of British Columbia. There are

people out there who are concerned with the way fur-bearing

animals die. I think that the action should be more quickly

resolved than what appears to be the procedure that is taking

place through your department.

Now the Minister talked about the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund. I want to say that it is

[ Page 1745 ]

one of the few pieces of legislation on which I have always

publicly commended the government. It's a good piece of

legislation and it's done a great deal in providing

recreational facilities, be it in incorporated municipalities

or unorganized territories as well. As the Minister mentioned,

it has benefited, I believe, 200 projects. In the latest

correspondence I have from the Minister dated November 29, it

mentions 175 projects, which no doubt has increased. It says

$32 million. These are all very worthwhile projects, a very

worthwhile endeavour on the part of the province.

What really disturbs me regarding the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund is the kind of credit the government

continuously attempts to take for the provision of these

recreational facilities in the community. Every Minister has a different version as community what

these facilities do. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer) and the Premier suggested that this is aid to

municipalities, and why should the government increase the per

capita grant? "We are giving them all this aid on the Community

Recreational Facilities Fund." Now make up your mind what it

is. It's either for the provision of recreational facilities in

the various communities of this province or it's municipal aid.

It can't be both.

Then the Minister also goes on to say how much it helps

employment in the Province of British Columbia. In British

Columbia we have over 102,000 people unemployed at this time,

and he says that it provides jobs.

I would suggest that projects that have been developed in my

constituency have been done by volunteer work — by volunteer

work — and in the organized municipalities it's been done by

the regular municipal employees. So if it happens in my

constituency, it must be happening throughout the province. So

how many jobs does it really produce? In some instances, by

contract, it must produce jobs. But the smaller communities

undertake these projects on a volunteer basis. So it's not

producing the kind of jobs you are attempting to lead the

people of this province to believe.

I asked the Minister a few days ago regarding the cutback in Careers '75, the

students' summer employment project. There was a very serious cutback there,

which I will make reference to a little later. But in talking about it the Minister

brought up again the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. Certainly the Minister

knows full well that Careers '74 didn't hire any students and that Careers '75

is a project for summer student employment, and you can't start mixing it up

with the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. But in answer to the question

the Minister suggested that that's where all the jobs are; they are in the Community

Recreational Facilities Fund for student employment. That's far from the truth.

So the Minister and the government take credit for a great variety of reasons

in this fund.

I said before that I supported the concept of the recreational fund.

Now the government has handed out the carrots to the various

municipalities and unorganized territories, and they've taken advantage

of it. Now reality has struck, the reality that they have been

encouraged to undertake the construction of these facilities, but now

where do they get the money to operate them? Where is the money coming

for the operating of these facilities? Many smaller municipalities in

many smaller unorganized territories find themselves in a very serious

dilemma.

I'm wondering whether government is going to offer any

operating grants. You've spent a lot of money, but there was a

catch-up period and now, no doubt, the time has come where the

allocation should be in operating grants. I wonder if the

Minister will tell me if he is considering or will consider

offering operating grants to the various communities that have

built these recreational facilities.

I have before me in the final report for 1974 the Cache

Creek checking station figures which give a fairly clear

indication, I guess, of what's happening throughout the

province on an average of game harvested and the number of

hunters in the province. We find in looking at these figures

that the harvest on every species is down very substantially.

The Minister talked about all the allocations for Fish and

Wildlife, the management that takes place in this particular

branch, and now we find that the harvest is down very

substantially.

We also find that the number of hunters is down. We find

that the resident hunters are down very substantially. Through

the sampling at Cache Creek we find non-residents are almost

down by 50 per cent from the....

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHABOT: Well, this is a sample from Cache Creek which

gives a fairly clear indication of the number of hunters. We

find that in 1973, checked at Cache Creek, were 3,607

non-resident hunters. In 1974, 1,970 non-residents were checked

there, for a decrease of 1,637. I'm wondering whether the

tremendous decrease is because of the prepaid trophy fee which

was instituted by the government for the purpose of generating

revenue.

I always thought the fish and wildlife branch was there to

manage the wildlife resources of the province. But it has now

been suggested by the department that the increase in prepaid

trophy fees and the various other tag fees was for the purpose

of generating revenue. It appears that they are more interested

in revenue than in game management.

I'm wondering if the Minister would tell me how seriously.... There's no doubt that the tremendous decrease in the

number of non-resident hunters has

[ Page 1746 ]

very seriously affected the guiding industry in the

province. The guiding industry in British Columbia a large

industry. We had last year 416 guide outfitters in the

province, of which 37 were native. It provided a labour force

for various categories, cooks and wranglers and so forth, of

2,000 people, which is a worthwhile industry. I'm wondering how

seriously it has been affected by the introduction of the

prepaid trophy fee and the escalation of the various fees in

the department.

One other subject regarding game management which I want to

discuss, and which disturbs me no end, I'm sure, disturbs many

other hunters and many other residents of the province, is the

establishment by the government of a private hunting preserve

in the province for one individual. I'm talking about the great

reserve which the government has established in the Spatsizi

River area on behalf of Howard Paish. The only access into the

area, basically, is through the Paish hunting territory. There

are some very revealing statements regarding the setting up of

the government's friend's private hunting preserve.

When I say the government's friend, he was engaged by the

government in 1973 for environmental studies to the tune of

$41,000 and possibly as much, if not more, in 1974, but we

don't have those figures yet. But I can't see any justification

for the establishment of private hunting preserves that benefit

strictly individuals in the province and do not benefit the

people who like the outdoors in this province.

On December 11, 1974, in The Vancouver Sun , there was

an

article regarding the establishment of the Paish private

hunting preserve. I'll just read some of the brief paragraphs

in here:

"Vancouver environmentalist Howard Paish is the owner of the

camp and was one of four men involved in proposing" — he

proposed his own private territory; can you imagine? — "the

establishment of the reserve and the conservancy to the

provincial government."

He helped tell the government how he could protect his

hunting territory.

"According to Kregina, Paish's camp was saved from becoming

part of the non-hunting reserve because he would have raised

great objections if it had been included."

Can you imagine! He would have raised objections. Then he

goes on:

"'When I prepared my first Spatsizi presentation, I

included the whole of Cold Fish Lake in the reserve,' Kregina,

an internationally known botanist, said in an interview.

However, he said he agreed to change the reserve boundaries

after being told by Dr. J. Bristol Foster, director of the

ecological reserve programme, that Paish would raise great

objections if this camp was included."

Well, could it be any clearer than that that you've jiggled

around with the boundaries up there to protect Paish's private

hunting territory?

"'I would like to see the lake included

in the reserve, but if that is difficult because it might be opposed by

some persons"' — he could have added "some persons" — "'then I think

the lake could be used as fishing ground,' Kregina said."

I don't think that Paish objects to the proposal as it now

stands. In fact, I think he's very pleased. He'll be the only

game guide in there. Well, these are the people that you've

engaged, professionals, that are making these statements. Then

he goes on: "Cowan, another individual involved in the study,

said that Paish's camp was left out of the reserve because it

is private property." When has the government been concerned

about private property? The Minister's bought a lot of land in

the Kootenays, in the East Kootenays to be specific, yet when

we find an area that the government feels should be protected

by an ecological reserve, they jiggle around the boundaries

because of a friend wanting a private hunting territory in the

area.

You can imagine how you've enhanced the value of this

hunting territory by restricting access into the area, by

setting up the no-hunting territory surrounding his location

and with the limited hunting on the periphery of the no-hunting

territory.

I think it's absolutely disgraceful, having read these

statements from people that are involved in the establishment

of ecological reserves in the province; and they worry about

one particular guiding territory. Yet we find that the Minister

hasn't been hesitant. I understand that his department's bought

a ranch in Fort Steele, right across from the Fort Steele

historical park, at considerable cost. The department has

bought considerable land in the East Kootenays for game

management, yet when it comes to the protection of the very

species that exist up in the northwestern part of the province,

because it happens to be Paish they leave Paish inside the

ecological reserve. So there doesn't appear to be any

consistency in what the government says and what it does. It

all depends who is involved in the various structures.

Now the Minister, when I asked him regarding the establishment of the new management

units.... In some 28 management areas we now have in British Columbia we now

have some 201 management units. Now when I look at it on this map, it is very

difficult to visualize just where the boundaries are established. But in the

Kootenay area, we find now that there are 40 management units, very narrow in

some instances, and I'm sure it will create a great deal of confusion and uncertainty

as far as the hunters are concerned. I don't know whether the reason for the

additional biologists or the additional conservation officers is for the purpose

of following the various hunters in the province to identify the various management

[ Page

1747 ]

units.

I find, just from a cursory examination of the regulations

and the opening dates that are spelled out here, that on

December 20 in management unit 4-6 white-tailed deer is opening — December 20. That's not too difficult to administer, I would

think, because it's on a permit basis. But where are the

boundaries? I wish the Minister could give me some clear-cut

answers as to where the boundaries will be.

We find also that on September 20 in management unit 4-10,

11, 12 white-tail deer opens. Now what about 4-9, which is just

adjacent? How is the hunter going to identify 4-9, and how is

the hunter going to identify the other abutting management

units?

It appears, at least at the moment, unless I can get some

clear-cut

definitions from the Minister, that it's going to be

an extremely confusing thing. It's going to be exasperating on

the part of hunters trying to identify which units they're in.

I facetiously, when asking the Minister the other day,

suggested that maybe he should tag each and every animal so you

could identify which management unit they belonged in. But I

don't know just how it is going to be administered.

Speaking about game management, I want to say a few words

about the protection of the habitat for big game. It appears in

some instances that this department talks about the multi-use

concept, the multi-use of the resource, and then in their

actions we find that they are utilizing the single-use purpose

of land utilization.

I do want to commend the department for its protection of

the habitat in certain regions of the East Kootenays. It is

something that I have advocated for some considerable time, not

only to your government but also to the former government. I

found that the former government did very little in respect to

the protection of the habitat for big game winter grazing

areas. You have commenced on the programme, and with an

expansion of that programme, certainly we find that we can have

multi-use in the East Kootenays.

As I said before, I am disturbed with the single-use concept

and the single-use practice which is evident in your

department. I maintain, and always have maintained, that with

proper management of the range wildlife and livestock can

equally benefit.

We have heard a lot of talk of management of the range,

primarily as far as livestock is concerned. There has been very

little done, despite statements made by the Department of

Agriculture. We see the only action being taken is by the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, but, in some

instances, at the expense of livestock. As I said before, with

proper range management both can survive and survive well.

We notice that the Minister was in the East Kootenays taking

part in the elk

feeding programme up in that area. I want to commend the department for feeding

the elk in a tough snow year, but we find that the government is unwilling to

take any consideration as far as livestock is concerned. On the range in the

Ta Ta area, for instance, which should be multi-use, there is no consideration

being given there regarding agriculture, as far as the Department of Lands or

the Department of Agriculture is concerned.

We have the same evidence in the Cariboo as well. A women

there wrote very recently, on April 17, and she says: "As I

write this there is 12 to 18 inches of snow on the ground, a

west wind blowing snow. A load of hay came in, costing $80 per

ton." She sent a sample and it is strictly garbage as far as

that is concerned. She says: "We have all our stock on full

feed and there is no turn here until May 15." And she goes on

expressing her concern. "I know you are going to say no funds

are available, but this cannot be so. Millions and millions of

dollars are found for recreation, research, exploration grants,

free stumpage, boats, pulp mills, and refineries when they say

there is not sufficient oil in all the capped wells now, and

then they sit back and let food and agriculture go down the

drain."

I find there is very little consideration for the multi-use

concept being practised. There is a lack of co-ordination

between your department and the other departments. I'm not

criticizing what you are attempting to do on behalf of game

management in the province, but let's practise it on a

multi-use basis.

There is a serious lack of consistency on the part of part

of the government in its treatment of both livestock and big

game. Now you've spent a considerable amount of money buying up

ranches in the East Kootenays for game management, which has

been detrimental to livestock as well. You spent here $195,000

on one ranch; $165,000 on another ranch; $185,000 on Bummers

Flats, adjacent to Fort Steele and Wasa.

I am wondering if the Minister could give me some

information regarding the development that is taking place on

Bummers Flats. I see a lot of potholes have been dug out; I

guess they are duck ponds on ummers Flats. There has been a

very costly dike which no rancher could have ever possibly

constructed because of the cost; it runs several miles — I

don't know how many miles it runs. Last year I noticed that the

water came over the dike, so what useful purpose does this dike

serve, protecting Bummers Flats? The feeling in the East

Kootenays is that this whole project is a bit of a costly flop.

I wonder if the Minister would like to comment on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Green light....

MR. CHABOT: Oh, gee. See, there we go again. Shortage of

time.

I have a few more questions to pose. I will just ask

[ Page 1748 ]

one more quick question of the Minister. This one concerns

Western Heritage Supply Ltd., a small book company in Vancouver

that supplies historical, informative facts about subjects and

people of British Columbia. Now they have been virtually kicked

out of their providing of these informative historical books in

Manning Lodge, virtually thrown out. They have lost their

account. I can't see any reason why the Minister would cancel

that account when we find that in Manning Lodge there are still

True Romance books and — as is stated here — "assorted

awful American magazines." Why would you throw this small,

struggling British Columbia publishing firm out of the right to

sell its publications in Manning Lodge? I have examined some

correspondence. I have a fair amount of correspondence here,

some from the Minister, and so forth, and I can't see any

justifiable reason for the action that you have taken regarding

these publications in Manning Park.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I have quite a list of questions and, as

usual, the opposition have used up their whole allotment of

time.

MR. CHABOT: There is no time.

HON. MR. RADFORD: First of all, you asked the question on

the $4 million increase for salary contingencies. This

includes 101 temporary-continuous personnel covered by bill

funding last year. No longer do we have bill funding, Mr.

Member, for parks. The parks can now plan year-by-year on what

their programmes are. The bill funding will no longer be used

as a political ploy as it was in the past. This also includes

77 new positions for better field offices and headquarters

programmes. The new salary levels are expected and the COLA is

also included. In general, the increases for staffing

provisions and these kinds of things (and I could give it to

you in detail but I think you are already aware of that) you

will see in the printouts were increased from 124 to 227. This

is a 103 increase of people who were temporary-continuous in

past years. We have some people who were on staff on a

temporary-continuous basis for nine and 10 years. Many of

these people didn't get the fringes and that that go along with

this. This is why it looks like our complement has increased a

lot. Many of the people were on a temporary-continuous

basis.

You made the statement that the parks will not open until

June, which is a ridiculous statement. Our parks are open now.

As a matter of fact, I think the Member realizes that many of

our parks are open all year round.

The leghold trap — this has been quite a controversial subject. I certainly

am aware of the cruelties involved with the leghold trap. As I stated before,

our government is in the forefront of bringing about the federal-provincial

committee which was instituted a couple of years ago to deal with bringing in

a more humane trap on a national basis. I think everyone realizes that we just

don't want to bring it in in one province; if we are really sincere about bringing

in a humane trap, we should do it on a national basis. This is why we have done

it in cooperation with the provinces and with the federal people. We have played

our role in that. We have given contributions on the ratio as to the harvest

of furs and trapping in the province. B.C. is seventh in the production of furs

in Canada. I think our contribution over a period of time is something like

$13,000.

On top of that, we earlier donated $5,000 to the Canadian

Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. Since

that time, we have instituted a provincial committee on the

protection of fur-bearing animals and the enhancement of

bringing in a humane trap. People who comprise this committee

are the status Indians, the non-status Indians, the Association

for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, the B.C. Wildlife

Federation and our branch. We have also given $4,000 to the

association for Bill Gabry, whom you mentioned was the inventor

of the Challenger trap, which has not been perfected. This is

the real problem. No trap yet has been deemed as humane. Some

of them are partially used, some of them are partially humane,

but we would like to see immediately one brought in that is

designated as a humane trap.

On top of this, we have instituted the trapping school in

Prince George, which was held for two terms at Caledonia

College. Again, this was done at the request and suggestion

from the association and the trappers' association. This of

course was brought about to introduce new methods of trapping.

New methods of humane trapping were carried out in the field,

and I feel that this province has probably done more than any

other province to bring about a humane trap and humane

trapping.

As a matter of fact, I have some letters here and I would

just like to read to you from Mrs. Clements' letter, dated

October 25, 1974 — she is the president of the humane trapping

society. She ends the letter by saying: "We are pleased to see

that the NDP government is showing leadership in this field.

Congratulations to you again and to the staff who seem to be

doing such good work in this field."

AN HON. MEMBER: File it.

HON. MR. RADFORD: You can see these letters any time you

want, Mr. Member.

Another letter, dated May 23, 1974, from Mrs. Clements says: "Thank you, Mr.

Radford, for your keen interest in this important problem. Congratulations to

the NDP government for taking

[ Page 1749 ]

the first positive steps ever in B.C. to solve the humane

trap problem."

Now a further letter, and we get back to The

Vancouver Sun newspaper again....

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A year ago?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, this letter was March 20, 1975. Mrs.

Bunty Clements had written letters to The Vancouver

Sun and portions of her letters were left out, so she

writes a letter to the editor of The Vancouver

Sun: "We write to correct a serious error in the

article by Lou Thomas relating to our movie 'Canada's Shame'

and our campaign to ban leghold traps."

She goes on and on and then she says: "This association

feels that more has been done in the last two years by the B.C.

government than in the last 20 years, but much more needs to be

done and urgently." That was never printed by The

Vancouver Sun by the way. Never printed. That was

March 20.

On April 11 we put out a press release — one of these press

releases again, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) —

and in this press release we related to the remarks made by

Mrs. Clements where she said that our government had done more

than any other government in the last 20 years. But guess what?

In the Sun newspaper...here we go again:

everything in the press release was in the newspaper, except

the remarks made by Mrs. Clements.

AN HON. MEMBER: A coincidence.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, it's kind of a coincidence, right.

But, again, we can expect these kinds of things, I guess.

Two days ago, by the way, I sent a letter to the

federal-provincial trapping committee asking for an increase in

their budget, and suggesting to them that this province is

willing to increase the budget to bring about a faster means of

finding a humane trap. We also urged that reports be given to

all the associations involved in this progress report.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked

questions about why all the slowness and why these traps aren't

being tested, et cetera. I related why in an answer to him.

It's quite a process of testing traps. Patents have to be

searched as the traps have to be patentable; engineering has to

be done on the traps; prototypes have to be made, et cetera.

The person who comes out with a humane trap, by the way, will

be a multimillionaire overnight with his invention. We are

hoping that a humane trap is found very shortly, and because of

the money involved in finding a suitable trap, I know there's

quite a surge right now to get into it and get on with the

job.

You mention the Community Recreational Facilities Fund

again. As I did say earlier, quite a few jobs were created from

construction underway or completed, equal to 2,675 full

man-years of employment. The Member is right when he says

there's a lot of voluntary work done, and that voluntary work

is taken into consideration for the two-thirds that is paid by

the organization to set this up.

MR. CHABOT: How about operating grants?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I think the people in the

community appreciate the one-third grant. This is what the

government has given and it has given an impetus to start and

build around these things. We have not considered operating

grants. These things are always considered when the grants are

given. As you know, we go through quite a screening process,

and this is one of the considerations before a grant is given —

that these people can carry on and maintain the facility.

We talked about Cache Creek checking station, and that the

numbers of game harvested are down, et cetera. This is true

because the number of hunters is down, naturally. You should

remember that the Cache Creek checking station is not just a

checking station for checking game. It's a biological station

where certain parts of species are taken in and examined, et

cetera.

The guide situation. It's true. You mentioned the figure

that indicates the guides and non-resident hunters have been

decreased by 50 per cent, and that's quite wrong, Mr. Member,

the number has decreased to 34 per cent and the residents have

decreased to 17 per cent. The non-residents have decreased from

6,784 to 4,488.

The Member mentioned Howard Paish having preferential

treatment. The Member should be reminded that this is an

old-established guiding area and that it's just a proposed

ecological reserve that is coming into being.

MR. CHABOT: So was the Molson hop farm. You bought that.

HON. MR. RADFORD: It's only a proposed ecological reserve.

The ecological reserve come long after the guiding territory

was established. And just for your information, Mr. Paish does

not hold a guiding territory or a guiding outfitter's

licence.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, he'll have one.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, you said earlier that he was a guide

and that he held a licence. He does not hold a licence. He will

not be eligible for either until he has held an assistant guide

licence for a period of

[ Page 1750 ]

two years. Then he will be eligible to be licenced as a

guide-outfitter, after March 13th.

You talked about land in the Kootenays, Mr. Member, and you

want to know about....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Can I have some order, Mr. Chairman? Thank

you.

You talk about the acquisition of land in the Kootenays, and

you talk about Bummers Flats and all the dikes that are being

built there, et cetera. Those dikes are built by Ducks

Unlimited at no cost to the Province of British Columbia. And

they're doing a tremendous job. They're doing a tremendous job.

This is in your area, Mr. Member, and you should be talking in

support of these things in your area.

You say there's been no cooperation between Agriculture and

our department? You're entirely wrong. You know that there's a

big programme going on now in the Kootenays — that brings in

Water Resources, Land, Agriculture — to bring about better

integration of the resources. You talk about cooperation. Our

department, Fish and Wildlife, took over a farm and managed

this far. And do you know what? I don't know if the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is aware of this, but our

department in managing this farm, and this rancher won the

rancher-of-the-year award in the Kootenays. And that was

managed by the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. GARDOM: Cabinet split!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I think I've answered nearly all of your

questions. You discussed the new management units, Mr. Member.

You know, this proposal came from your area 10 years ago, this

proposal for smaller management units. I'll read it right from

the paper. It says here:

"Wildlife groups, such as the Golden-Selkirk conservation

group, were suggesting this in 1965 and we concurred, but we

did not have the staff or budget to administer such a change

then."

This is from a paper up your way. It goes on to say:

"The new management unit areas will allow more specific

gathering of wildlife information and more precise regulations.

These areas will now be tied in with forestry, highways in all

the new management areas."

New maps will be printed this year to ensure that we will

assist the hunters, and just wait until you see these new maps,

Mr. Member. You will not get lost as you did in the past when

you went out into the bush.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, we much enjoyed the remarks of the

Hon. Minister this morning.

Everybody in this House appreciates that morality isn't the

private reserve of any political party. I wish this morning to

discuss only one topic because it is of significant importance

and seriousness that it has again got to be brought in front of

this Legislature in order that proper emphasis can be given to

it and that proper emphasis can be given to methods to improve

a system which is very cruel and very tortuous.

I am happy to see that at last, and I have to underline the

words "at last," this government has seen fit to do

something and to recognize a problem, but its priorities have

been mighty low; its emphasis has been mighty little.

The Hon. Minister was quoting extensively remarks from Mrs.

Clements. Well, I see in a Victorian report of April 16 that

they weren't satisfied with his answers about the action that

provincial and federal governments are taking to ban the leghold trap. She stated that. I also see in another report that

association representative Bunty Clements said that the

procedure....

HON. MR. RADFORD: Order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister has a point of order.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I believe there has been a bill presented

by this Member.

Interjections

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I intend to address myself to that question.

I noticed this morning, Mr. Chairman, that the first speaker, the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: May I make my point or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It has been drawn to the

attention of the Chair that there is a bill on the order paper.

However, since some latitude has been allowed other Members

already, I think we will allow the Hon. Member to continue on a

limited basis.

MR. GARDOM: I think we have a cruel enough system, Mr.

Chairman, without compounding it with a technical defence. I'm

ashamed of the Minister, trying to do that. Some people have

got to go ahead and make a plea for the speechless, Mr.

Minister.

I want to say a few words about human conscience; I want to

say a few words about man's inhumanity. I wish to show all of

the Members four instruments of torture. First of all, I'd like

to show you a leghold trap.

[ Page 1751 ]

This is used for squirrels and it catches birds, too. This

has been 30,000 sources of individual agony over the last

fiscal period.

This is used for muskrats; there have been some 31,000

sources of agony over the last fiscal period.

This is used for beaver; some 18,000 sources of agony over

the last fiscal period. It's an awful thing to have to talk

about agony and link it in with fiscal periods.

The trap that is on the desk of the Hon. Member is

one that is used for coyote and lynx; this was 11,683 sources

of agony over the last fiscal period.

Perhaps we should do unto others.... If any Member would

like to get the true emphasis of man's inhumanity, let him come

and be an exhibit.

The technology, Mr. Chairman, is available; the technology

is there. An appropriate step could be taken in a matter of

days — not weeks, not months, not years. The ethical decision

has been the decision that has been lacking, and it has to be

made — a policy decision has to be made. The public of this

province — indeed, of this country — thoroughly supports a

proper expenditure of funds and a proper policy to bring . We

have been snail's-pacing and it's not good enough. It's not

good enough for the Hon. Minister to say that B.C. has done its

job. It has made a contribution, but it has not done its job.

That is not only the fault of this Minister of this government;

it's the fault of everyone here, but the Hon. Minister is at

the controls and he has the power to bring about a

solution.

I'd like to direct myself to some very short, specific

questions, merely to illustrate that that which has been done

is not being done fast enough. I understand it took about six

months before the federal and provincial committee on humane

trapping could even acquire a co-ordinator. It took about eight

months for that organization to determine its objectives. The

Minister in the House in an earlier statement raised the point

that the traps first of all have to go to firms of patent

attorneys to determine their patentability, and that if only

drawings are submitted no prototypes can be made. But I gather

that there are no end of traps — 30 is the number that Mrs.

Clements refers to — that are made up and are awaiting testing.

This is the statement of Mrs. Clements, which the Minister

interrupted me on a few minutes earlier:

"Association representative Bunty Clements said that the procedure of testing new traps must be speeded up."

Can't we reach a decision in that? Say

yes.

"'There are 30 traps we know of just waiting to be tested just

gathering dust on the shelves.' She said some 10,000 letters had been sent to

Radford in the last month requesting action. 'The federal-provincial committee

on humane trapping,' she said, 'is doing nothing and part of the problem is

a small budget financed by all of the provinces.'"

So it is a dollar problem interfering with resolution of

something that is barbaric.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) says ban the traps and a solution will come

about pretty quickly. Perhaps that's an attitude that the

Minister should give serious thought to. Perhaps there should

be a moratorium declared on trapping until a practical solution

is arrived at.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

Earlier on in this session the Minister replied to questions

from myself and indicated that five traps had been tested.

Information that I have received, again via the same lady — a

most spirited citizen — is that two laboratories are required

to test traps: a mechanical laboratory and a biological

laboratory, plus there has to be field testing. But the present

state of the laboratories is that the machines for the

mechanical laboratories have not yet all been acquired. My

information is that the contracts for the biological laboratory

has not even yet been let. So no test could probably

effectively have gone through the testing process because the

mechanical lab is incomplete and the biological laboratory is

non-existent. Conceivably, field testing could not occur until

mechanical and biological tests are complete.

The humane trap development committee apparently put a

figure as being required to test traps at $75,000. That was a

rock bottom figure, I am informed, yet the federal and

provincial committee on humane trapping has allotted only

$70,000 total for six years. That is the information that I

have received. If that information is correct, I do wish the

Minister would correct it for me.

If it is not incorrect, I would ask the Minister if the

contribution of this province to the federal and provincial

committee on humane trapping in 1973-74 was $560; in 1974-75,

$2,216; and a total over the six-year period of $13,710.

I don't wish to get into these figures. I don't wish to

point fingers of blame, Mr. Chairman. What I want to do is

bring about a cure. The technology, Mr. Minister, is there. We

have to have the will to condemn and outlaw this kind of

cruelty. As I said, we have to make an ethical decision and

spend money, utilize some technological knowhow, and if there

is going to continue to be trapping, let's at least ensure that

it becomes more humane.

Ample warning, without any question of a doubt, has got to

be given to the people in the industry.

[ Page 1752 ]

What I am suggesting is changing trappers' methods, not

their lifestyles. We had a film brought over to this

Legislature, "Canada's Shame," and I am very sorry that

the attendance of this House at that film was very limited.

Many Members had informed me that they had seen it before, and

many of those Members who told me, Mr. Chairman, that they had

seen it before didn't have the stomach to see it again. If we

don't have the stomach to see something like that on film, we

should have the guts to do something to bring it to an end.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the

previous speaker, although he really didn't state what the

solution was. He said that we have the power to bring the

solution about, we should change trapping methods; but he

really didn't say what he wanted. Does he want to ban trapping

tomorrow, next week, right away?

MR. GARDOM: Ban the leghold trap.

HON. MR. RADFORD: You want to ban it right away?

MR. GARDOM: Ban the leghold trap.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Ban the leghold trap right away. This is

what the position of the....

MR. GARDOM: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. RADFORD: You didn't say that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I explained earlier that my position, and

this government's position, is that we have just sent a letter

to the provincial-federal committee on humane trapping urging

them to increase their budget, urging them to increase the

budgets of all provinces, saying that this province would be

willing to increase its commitment...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why don't you send a cheque instead?

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...and also that we would ask for

progress reports. This is one of the reasons the provincial

committee was set up as a supplement: we weren't satisfied with

the progress of that committee. The Association for the

Protection of Fur-bearing Animals people are on the provincial

committee.

I could go on and on, but there is no excuse really. There is an excuse in

as far as we are doing everything we can humanly possibly to bring about the

invention of a humane trap. But it is like so many other things — the cure of

cancer, the invention of this, the invention of that — it takes a considerable

time. Believe me, as I say, I would give anything tomorrow to announce that

a humane trap has been invented. I really would. I think the Member knows that

and appreciates that. But he comes in and says that he would like something

done; that we have the powers to do this; that what we need to do is change

the methods of trapping. He doesn't really say what he wants. Does he want to

ban trapping tomorrow?

He has made statements previously that many people derive

their living from trapping and that it shouldn't be banned

right away. People like Frank Conibear, inventor of the

Conibear trap — which is a trap which is partially humane. He

makes the statement: "I don't think there is much point in

simply banning the use of the leghold trap." He says:

"Trappers, who are often poor people, just can't afford to buy

an entire new stock of traps at the same time."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): How many

trappers are there?

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Member over there asked me about how

many trappers there are. There are 2,653 registered traplines

in the Province of British Columbia. The number of traplines

held by Indians in 1,663. Indian trappers are not required, I

am told, to have a trapper's licence and therefore the exact

number is unknown. Any number of Indians can trap on a

trapline. A whole band can trap on a trapline. We do believe

there are anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 trappers in the

Province of British Columbia.

You are talking about banning the leghold trap immediately.

The president of the association has told me that their

position is not to ban it immediately...

MR. GARDOM: I said a moratorium, my friend.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...because we would be talking about the

livelihood, the way of life of people that has been in

existence for 200 years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You should change that.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We want to change that, right. But the

whole solution is to bring in the invention of a humane trap,

and we would be willing to do that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What is the average annual income of a

trapper?

HON. MR. RADFORD: The annual average income of a trapper is

approximately $800. That may

[ Page 1753 ]

be a pittance to you, Mr. Member, but to those people, $800

is a lot of money in the north.

MR. GARDOM: They're on welfare!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I know that the trappers and the

consumptive users of this resource would like to see a better

trap, a more humane trap, come into existence. They've often

said this. So the whole problem resolves around the fact that

we haven't found a humane trap; we are looking for it. This

province has urged and done everything possible to bring about

an invention of a humane trap. If the Member has any ideas —

maybe he has a number of suggestions.

MR. GARDOM: I have; I made them.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Okay.

MR. GARDOM: Just in response, Mr. Chairman, the Minister,

with every respect....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You wish to correct some of the Minister's

statements?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I do.

The Hon. Minister indicated that I was not suggesting cures.

Hon. Member, neither you nor I, unfortunately, have the

capacity to design a humane trap. But I can tell you this: the

technology is there; the expertise is there. What I am asking

you to do is provide the steam to make that work, and that

means one thing — it means money. It doesn't mean $13,000 over

six years, of $5,000. When the trapping industry paid in $1.9

million in B.C. over the last fiscal period, why not go ahead

and take 10 per cent of that money and do a proper job? That's

the first point.

The second point is this: you asked about banning the leghold trap. I think if the position was taken by this government

that a moratorium would be declared on the leghold trap, say

effective July 1, 1976, you would find a lot of action and

interest in the industry, as well, to do something about

it.

It is not enough for you to sit back and piddle around with

$18,000 and say you are doing your job.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I related to you earlier what

we've done, what commitments have been there. There was an

agreement on a federal-provincial basis that the moneys be

given to the federal-provincial committee on a ratio basis as

to the harvest or the productivity of the fur resource in each

province. We have lived up to that commitment; we've gone

beyond that commitment. As I said, a letter has been sent

showing our willingness to increase our commitment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That letter was sent two days ago because

you knew your estimates were coming up.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll try not to take too much time because this

is a very interesting and vital portfolio and I know there are

many Members who wish to speak on it. I do have some questions

I would like to ask the Minister, and I'd like some

clarification from him.

First of all, would he confirm to or advise this House if in

fact he is designing a new policy for the Province of British

Columbia in which he is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, and

which would indicate — if the information that is circulating

but hasn't been confirmed is, in fact, true — that when Crown

parks or provincial parks, or provincial lands for recreation,

are turned over to regional districts there is going to be a

charge imposed upon the regional district in order to acquire

the administration and control of those lands.

I cite as an example the most disturbing news regarding

Silver Star Park which is actually in the constituency of the

Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). But it is of vital

importance to this province as almost one of the finest family

ski areas in the world — certainly the finest in North America.

It's a wonderful tourist attraction for the province, as well

as serving the local valley as a whole, the whole

Okanagan-Mainline area, actually, as a daily ski area.

As the Minister is aware, we have negotiated for some time

to have this park turned over to the regional district for

administration. I would like to make public — because I've

stood beside the Minister, or asked him to stand beside me —

that we are in complete agreement that when the administration

of this park is turned over to the regional district, there

must be an ironclad agreement that no housing development can

take place within that park — no condominiums, no living

accommodation.

The park is only 14 miles from the centre of downtown

Vernon. It is an excellent road, and highly accessible. If we

allow living accommodation to any degree within that park, it

is only a matter of time when people would have $20,000 or

$30,000 or $40,000 invested in a recreational cottage and they

would demand to live there year round. It would make a demand

in terms of developing sewers, water, light, fire protection. I

would like to say in speaking to that demand which would be

imposed that it would be used as an excuse to utilize those

facilities for year-round living for families.

I know the Minister stands with me; at least I believe he

has come to believe that I am right. I shall stand

unilaterally, unalterably opposed to the development of living

accommodations in that park, whether it's under the direction

of the provincial government or the regional district. But

short of that,

[ Page 1754 ]

Mr. Minister, my understanding was that we had come to a

situation where we could agree to the turning of the

administration of this park over to the regional district.

Now they have been advised by a number of your department

that there would be a levy of 8 per cent of capital costs, or

capital development and improvements that have taken place in

the park, levied against the regional district. This came as a

surprise, following meetings with our regional district and our

recreational planner and our regional district planner and Mr.

Broome and Mr. Matheson, and following the general impression

that there had been a position of mutual agreement found and

that it was merely a matter of formality in terms of turning

over the park.

So I would ask you, Mr. Minister, if in fact your department

or you intend to impose an 8 per cent levy on the capital

improvements in Silver Star Park. Is this to be an annual levy

or is this to be a capital cost for turnover of the park? And

if this is true, is this then the forerunner of a new policy in

British Columbia? I'm really shocked, Mr. Minister, by even the

suggestion that this type of levy would be made. I've never

heard of this in British Columbia. We have precedent after

precedent where Crown lands have been purchased by the

provincial government, or lands have been purchased by the

provincial government. Crown lands have been owned by the

provincial government and have been turned over to vocational

schools, to schools, for park purposes, for any number of

purposes short of commercial usage without any change other

than $1 as a binding token. I would be most disturbed, Mr.

Minister, to think that your department was going to embark on

this type of a programme, especially in light of what the

Minister had to say when he was extolling the virtues of his

spendings in this branch.

We all welcome money being spent in recreation and

conservation, but I would remind the Minister, thinking beyond

that, that the problems they're having in the United States in

having to cut back have not been paramount in British Columbia

because of the sound fiscal management and the policies of the

former administration. Your government and your department, and

your comments today, Mr. Minister, are riding on that

foundation, because this government has not expanded the

revenues of this province in the resource area. The majority of

your budget this year, Mr. Minister, that you're spending high,

wide and handsome, is coming right out of the taxpayers'

pockets in the form of increased taxes and revenues from income

tax, gasoline tax, clothing tax, shoe tax, taxes on

housing.

Under your administration, Mr. Minister, resource revenues in mining and forestry

are down. The revenues that you talk about are people revenues, and that's not

where the basic revenue of a province should come from. So you may not be in

such a happy position next year if your policies continue. I don't find it a

happy situation to know that the money you brag about spending and which we

all welcome into the recreation areas is in fact not coming from the basis resources

of this province. It's coming out of every pocket of every man, woman and child

in this province, and it's based on inflation. So they're being hit twice. Keeping

that in mind, if you're going to embark on a new policy of charging for the

transfer of land for recreation from Crown to regional district, I suggest that

this is just another shifting of your responsibilities, that it will be used

as a means to finance recreation indirectly and that you're not living up to

your commitments.

I'd like to ask you, Mr. Minister, about Mabel Lake Park in

the North Okanagan. This park is a beautiful piece of land on

Mabel Lake, covered in pine trees. It was acquired by the

former administration, the Social Credit government, and it was

acquired with the assistance of a number of people in the area

in a good cooperative effort. Since you became involved and

the NDP government took over, there's been nothing done in the

way of development. A small amount of money was spent last

year, Mr. Minister, for road development. This was to a large

degree wasted by the employment of incompetent workers, and the

people in the area were unhappy with the amount allotted. They

are unhappy with the slowness of the development, and they are

very unhappy that what moneys were spent were spent

unwisely.

Mr. Minister, it was a commitment of the former

administration and myself to the people of this area to have a

five-year programme in which to develop this park. You are now

three years behind the times. I would urge you, Mr. Minister,

that you've only got two years in which to complete that park

with boat launching facilities, with picnic facilities and

camping facilities in a small pocket-like environment. We don't

want a massive park. But I will gladly support the Minister.

I'll happily give him credit if he'll announce in the House

today that that park will be three-quarters completed this year

and fully completed next year.

The next point I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention

and discuss with him is this policy that has developed which

the Minister doesn't admit to, but is increasingly evident,

that the parks branch in British Columbia has been completely

emasculated by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R. A. Williams).

No longer is this branch, this department or this Minister

of Recreation and Conservation in charge of his department. No

longer do they have the say in which land should be purchased

for, utilized or transferred from forestry reserve to park

usage. The split, the break, the exclusion of this Minister —

the ignoring of this Minister — is so great that neither he

[ Page

1755 ]

nor his department even know what's going on after a

purchase has been made. I don't say this with any criticism to

the Minister himself in this light, nor to his department. I

feel that he has an excellent department and I support his

staff very thoroughly.

But, Mr. Minister, you're running around like a gilded lily

talking about parks when, in fact, somebody stole your stem and

you don't have any roots at all. I refer you for a specific

example to the whole purchase of the Cosens Bay area. It's

known down here as the Coldstream Ranch, but really it's the

Cosens Bay and a portion of the Coldstream Ranch.

Everyone welcomes the purchase of what lands were purchased,

but it's a tragedy and people deplore the fact that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, I assume

without your consent, has made this into a political fiasco.

The Minister is aware that this was a high-priority purchase as

a provincial park by the parks branch under the former

administration and that many efforts to purchase it were

frustrated because the owners did not wish to sell. At the time

it became evident that they would sell, the former

administration committed itself to purchase the park. They were

committed before it was for sale in discussions with directors

of the park. I'll name one specifically: Mr. Phillip Sterling,

now deceased, who was one of the major directors of the

Coldstream Ranch. But there was no way that that land could

ever go to any other use than recreation use in the Province of

British Columbia. The former administration was committed to

purchase it, but they wished to do so at a time when the owners

were willing to sell and on a willing seller-willing buyer

basis with proper negotiations if at all possible.

By rights that land should have been purchased two years

ago The negotiations were in place. Even today we're only at

the point where there appears to be an agreement. To the best

of my knowledge, there has been no transfer of title. There's a

good deal of work to be done. But I'm disturbed because the

Minister of Recreation has not been involved. His department

and his Deputy have not been involved in these negotiations. No

one has known what has been going on. The mayor of the

Coldstream municipality in which this whole land mass lies was

completely excluded from any discussions. The councilmen were

excluded from any discussions, with the exception of Mr. Leahy,

who the people felt has sold them short.

The Cosens Bay committee that one of your very competent

parks people, Mr. Ahrens, met with a number of years ago —

people such as Miss Reynolds, Miss Herriot, a biologist, Miss

Bishop, a naturalist — where we had representation of

naturalists, employed people, small business people, fish and

wildlife, put together an excellent slide presentation and an

ecological presentation and a financial presentation which was

used to present material to the Second-Century Fund of the federal government. It was

presented to your department; it was presented to the

government of the day. This presentation was made to service

clubs and other interested groups in order to keep up enough

public support to see that the administration did, indeed,

purchase this land.

When the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources took

over, all these people were excluded. That's all right if he

wants to do things in secret. But to have the Minister exclude

even the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation seems an unacceptable

situation. Compounded with this, for the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, on behalf of the Minister of

Recreation, to go to the interior at taxpayers' expense and at

an NDP political meeting try and make political hay out of the

purchase of this land is completely unacceptable. I suggest

that it's beyond the realm of responsibility of the Minister. I

believe that it's a questionable moral action. If the Minister

wished to make the announcement in the interior, so be it. But

it should have been made to the citizens at large — certainly

to the mayor of Coldstream, Alderman Kosty, Mr. Seymour, who

has taken many aerial photographs at his own expense; these

people should have been advised of the purchase. The Minister

should be condemned for playing blanked rank politics on a

project in which he had almost no input and which he has

bungled by this political hanky-panky. Because we have not

purchased all of the land that was recommended, he is to be

condemned.

Mr. Minister, you stand up and say that it's going to be

developed for camping, and in the same breath you say that

we're going to preserve the rattlesnakes. I ask you, Mr.

Minister, who's going to take priority — rattlesnakes or

campers?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rattlesnakes.

MRS. JORDAN: You're right. There are a few in the House, so

we might as well have a few more.

MR. WALLACE: Name names.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, your first obligation is to see

that the people of the area....

MR. WALLACE: Name names.

MRS. JORDAN: If the skin fits, rattle it.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): She's talking about

herself.

MRS. JORDAN: Your first obligation, as Minister, is to

consult with the people of the north Okanagan; at the same

time, Mr. Minister, consulting with your

[ Page 1756 ]

own department, because we in the Okanagan, and I as MLA, do

not want the Lands, Forests and Water Resources tsar of this

province administering that land. We believe it belongs under

the jurisdiction to the parks branch. We believe that there

must be a good deal of local input.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Minister, that the general feeling

is, both within your branch, I would venture to say, and

certainly from the public, that this must essentially be a

natural recreational area. Motorized vehicles should be

excluded. It should be used solely for footpaths. There may be

the necessity for some small picnic area developed, and then I

would expect very controlled vehicle access with provisions so

that handicapped people could be driven down to the picnic

areas and take advantage of the park.

There are a lot of other things I would like to talk about

with this park, but in view of the time, I won't. I would like

to again say that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or yourself, played around with

this purchase for political reasons. In so doing, we have lost

and not purchased one of the most vital sections of that park.

I refer to, I believe it is approximately 800 acres, which we

call the gulch. This includes Deep Lake, a number of marsh

grasses, and a very interesting cliff area. I urge you, Mr.

Minister, and I state before this House that it will be a

commitment of this party to see that that land is included in

the park.

I also have recommended for a long time, and have been

supported by the people in the area, that the forestry reserve

adjacent to the Cosens Bay area should be examined very closely

and brought largely into a recreational conserve so that we

will then completely project the arm and the east side of

Kalamaka Lake from any form of development, from any form of

logging or intrusion , not only will this provide a marvellous

recreational area for people, but it will serve as a means of

protection for the qualities of Kalamalka Lake.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The last question I have, Mr. Minister, and I would

like an answer, is whether or not the Minister himself, his department, or the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources have entered into any discussions

at any time with regard to using a portion of the Cosens Bay area or the Coldstream

Ranch area that has been purchased as a park for spray irrigation of the effluent

system in Vernon. There are rumours reaching the interior that in fact the Minister

has entered into discussions to use part of this parkland for the effluent spray

irrigation from Vernon. This is a most disturbing bit of information for the

people. If it is incorrect and the Minister will give a commitment this afternoon

that there will be no invasion by effluent spray irrigation, there will be no

destruction of that very unique habitat and those unique

ecological characteristics of that area by such a programme, I

will let the matter lie and I will be glad to take the news

back.

But I wish to advise you, Mr. Minister, on behalf of the

people whom I have the honour to represent, that there are

thousands of acres of rangeland, of arable land in the north

Okanagan which can be used in our very successful and very

worthwhile pilot project of using effluent spray irrigation as

a means of agricultural development. Cosens Bay is not the

place for this kind of an intrusion.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I am surprised at the Member for North

Okanagan bringing up Cosens Bay. She said that this should have

been purchased two years ago. Believe me, this is one of the

most outstanding beach areas in British Columbia, but it has

been there a long time, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It wasn't for sale.

HON. MR. RADFORD: It was there 20 years ago...

MRS. JORDAN: It wasn't for sale.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...when your government.... The

people in that area supported your government; it had

representation from your government; you were the MLA for North

Okanagan. The Premier (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett), as a matter of

fact, represented the area adjacent. That area had a cabinet

Minister for six years, but the past government didn't see fit

to bring this area into the park realm. They didn't buy it.

MRS. JORDAN: Was it for sale?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It's rather ironic that it took our

government to come in and realize the potential.

MRS. JORDAN: Was it for sale?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It was for sale.

MRS. JORDAN: In 1971?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Our parks people for years and years

wanted to bring that property into its present status.

MRS. JORDAN: It wasn't for sale, and you know it.

HON. MR. RADFORD: It had a cabinet Minister, as I mentioned,

for six years and representation from

[ Page 1757 ]

the past government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RADFORD: It wasn't considered, no. It took our

government to do it. Not only that, the Okanagan was really

devoid of parks. There weren't that many parks in that area,

although it lends itself to parks, swimming, camping, et

cetera. It was our government which brought in the Okanagan

Mountain Park last year — 25,000 acres. Recently we also bought

Ogopogo Island, also called Rattlesnake Island. We also

purchased Reluctant Dragon Cove on Okanagan Lake which will

allow boaters to bring their boats in and allow for some relief

for boats that get into trouble. It is a natural boat basin.

These are some of the things we have done in your area, and it

shows that this government is interested in the environment and

not just playing politics as the last government did.

The Member mentioned the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — certainly he had a part

to play in this. This land was bought through the greenbelt

fund, through the urging of the parks branch, I might add, and

was dealt with through our Environmental Land-Use Committee.

You are right, Madam Minister, it is a fragile area and it has

to be managed with the utmost care. The parks branch intends on

managing it to keep it as close as possible to the natural

environment. Motor vehicles will be banned from that area.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the sprays?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I was in the Okanagan last week talking to

the Similkameen-Okanagan Parks Society, and made the statement

there that the public and the community will be involved in

planning. They will be involved.

Now getting back to Silver Star Park....

MRS. JORDAN: Excuse me. Just before you leave, Mr. Minister,

what about the effluent spray irrigation?

HON. MR. RADFORD: There has been some discussion, but, as I

said, the plans are not finalized yet. We have only started to

consider what plans we have on that area and I can't answer

that question at this time. I know there have been some

discussions in the past — I am not too sure how far in the past — about spray irrigation on some of the inaccessible parts of

that property. But I wouldn't like to make a definite statement

at this time.

Talking about the Silver Star Park, transfer of land to the regional district

momentarily is being held up while the lands service works out the conditions

of turning it over to the regional district. As you know, we have had discussions

over the past year on transferring that into the regional park.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the 8 per cent?

HON. MR. RADFORD: This suggestion came out of the lands

service — that there should be a capital charge on regional

districts for improvements turned over by the province when

land is leased for regional park purposes. This is under the

jurisdiction of the land branch — the 8 per cent.

MRS. JORDAN: This is a new policy.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I don't know. You will have to address

that question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

MRS. JORDAN: No, you are the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation.

HON. MR. RADFORD: When you are talking about regional parks

and housing within parks, those decisions will be made at the

time of turning the area over. Our policy in our parks system

is to have no inholdings, although in the regional parks

situation, it is a little different.

You talked about Mabel Lake. The parks branch will commence

on 50 units, initial phase, of a campground in a new cluster

moved to a new site on the lake for senior citizens'

cottages.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to take credit for that

too?

MRS. JORDAN: You're the authority on taking credit around

here.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I have already mentioned Kalamalka Lake,

which I am surprised the Member brought up. But, as I said, for

20 years when your government was in power...

MRS. JORDAN: You're playing politics.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...it never did a thing about that park,

or any of the parks in the Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Why didn't you turn up at the meeting when you

had people coming from Penticton....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I am glad to get into this debate

today to discuss the Minister's estimates. Certainly I am very

pleased to see the amount that

[ Page 1758 ]

has been allotted this year for the running of that branch.

Of course, I am glad to see the backup staff the Minister has

with him today. I congratulate those who were promoted because

I am very confident that they deserved their promotions. They

have been well known to me over the years. Although I don't

know them personally, not well at least, I have known of them

and of the work they have done.

To start with, I want to relate what happened in my

particular area of the province last fall — the closure on the

antlerless animals in the region about 170 miles long west of

Prince George, including the Prince George area, and all the

way to Rose Lake, and would close the area down to hunting of

antlerless moose and deer. I am, of course, extremely happy

that happened because I had spoken in the House before on that

particular issue. This year, I think, is really going to be a

fine example of what's going to happen. I'm sure that there

will be a very low winter kill along with the kill of the

animals on the highways and on the railroad, which had happened

in previous years. So this is a fine year for it to happen.

I am a little reluctant, though, to say that I am pleased

because it has taken so long to take place. Just last year I

went into the branch office in Prince George and talked to the

people there — I'm on a personal friendship basis with some of

them — and I was assured that everything was in good order,

that things were as good as they were the previous year, that

the cow-calf ratio was good and so forth. But then all of a

sudden, in the fall, the biologist in charge issued a statement

to the press that said that the decline of moose kills was

suspected but not confirmed until a study was carried out in

the past year. In fact, he stated that this was one of the best

moose-hunting areas in the province.

Now the biologists you have in your branch — although I'm

sure they are all good men in their field — but I don't know

whether, in fact, their information has been fragmented, and

if, indeed, a study has been taken to show what is happening

in the province generally.

For example, I would like to show you what is happening in

the Alaska area — and, you know, it's not so far away from our

particular area. Here in this April issue of the Alaskan

magazine I quote what is being discussed by people of the

wildlife branch up there. They're doing a study on a specific

area going back as far as 1970. I'd like to quote just a couple

of paragraphs:

"Because of the tough winter of 1970-71 it wasn't surprising to find relatively few calves in November

of 1971 — 27 calves per 100 cows. Cows on the ragged edge of

death may resorb or abort foetuses, or calves that are born may

be small and weak.

"That in November of 1972 the cow-calf ratio of 38 to 100

was encouraging, making it appear that the moose were starting to rebound. But

in November of 1973 the biologists found only 22 calves per 100 cows and became

concerned. Something was killing moose calves before their first winter. Then

last November, 1974, the calf count had declined further, to only 18 per 100

cows. The problem became even more obvious."

The department's scientists figured the wolves were taking

all these animals before they had a chance to mature and get

out to fend for themselves.

I don't know whether that is what is happening in our

particular region. I don't really know whether the department

knows; or whether, if they do, are they concentrating this

information? For example, a year and a half ago — and I spoke

on it last year — I met a gentleman in Prince George who was

speaking to the wildlife branch up there about plant

succession. Now plant succession is a very important thing,

naturally, to that kind of wildlife. Sixty years ago there were

no moose in the Prince George-Burns Lake area; or if there

were, they were so few that not many people saw them in that

day. Of course, when the plant life that was ideal for moose

finally came into being, after all the great fires that took

place after the first white men came into the area, then there

was a great crop of moose and deer coming in directly after

that.

In recent years there has been a tremendous amount of

agriculture take place and the undergrowth is now developing

into large trees again. Possibly the area isn't really ideal

for moose now. So to blame farmers specifically for removing

moose habitat, I think, is a fairly poor excuse, although it is

part of the excuse.

I don't really know whether the biologists are telling us

the whole story. If they are, are they acting on the situation?

Why don't we, for example, keep certain areas for wildlife or,

indeed, even plant the kind of plants that are necessary to

keep moose? Is there any reason why we should have moose in the

first place? Why do we, for example, suggest that it's better

to keep wolves than it is to keep moose?

I think moose have every bit as much right to live as do

wolves. Now I know that they are a food animal to a wolf, but

when they come to the state where they eat themselves out of a

house and home, then I think we are going too far, especially

now when we have become what we think is so smart that we are

able to manage this province of ours like a large farm and

should, indeed, crop only those animals we need to crop to keep

the herds at a proper balance.

So I feel, Mr. Minister, that there is really not all that

kind of cooperation going on between the biologists, no matter

whether in this province or in Alaska or Alberta, and that the

public should be kept fully aware of what is going on in the

conservation of our game animals.

[ Page 1759 ]

I also would suggest, Mr. Minister, although I don't know

the figures for this year, after the very good move that you

did make in having that area closed off, that it might be

possible that the balance of bulls isn't in accordance with the

number of cows we have. It may be that that should be

considered for one or two years, too, because I really believe

the people in the areas involved really cooperate with you and

feel that you've done an excellent job in the area where you

made this closure. I would suggest that that might be a good

idea, if the balance is not as it should be.

Once again, I don't know whether the biologists are really

that familiar with the number of bulls it takes to serve X

number of cows. From what I have been told, it is not like a

bull elk that will corral 20 or 30 cows; a bull moose doesn't

do this. In fact, the cows come to the bull, and sometimes in a

season one bull may only service three or four cows. If we are

going to have to get that kind of a ratio, it just possibly

could be out of balance.

On predator control, I think that when you were in my riding

last summer or in the early fall, there was evidence presented

to you that the coyotes were in too numerous numbers in the

area. The local ranchers were complaining of their sheep being

taken. I don't have the statistics here today, but

whereas

just a few years back several ranchers had several hundred

sheep apiece, today the industry is just about non-existent in

the Vanderhoof area. I know that we need a balance of coyotes,

too, but one good weasel is as good as 10 coyotes if you're

talking about what they do on the land, killing mice and other

small animals that are a hindrance to the outdoors.

Also, I spoke on this once before, but I might as well say I

haven't changed my mind: it's about the sustenance permit. I

know it is a pretty dicey issue, but when we're talking about

saving a species of animals, I really believe that we have to

make a firm commitment on the number of sustenance permits we

are going to issue on behalf of the welfare department —

because that is exactly what they are for. Even the native

people that are involved, and it is not all natives, have

spoken to me, either at meetings or privately, and suggested

that as far as they were concerned they would like to see it

stopped.

I think, Mr. Minister, that soon, very soon, we must stop

issuing permits for taking these animals in mid-winter when

there is really no need for it. There is lots of beef

available. I think that everybody is aware that the cattle

industry is in a disastrous situation because farmers can't

sell their beef. I think, when you measure the actual value of

the animals we are talking about, that it would be in order to

supply, if necessary, the meat to replace the moose that are

going to be killed.

Once more, I would.... Well, I shouldn't say once more because I don't really

think I have mentioned this little issue before. I would like to refer to the

Stellako River. In the last two years, especially with the influx of people

to the area.... And it is an excellent river. In fact, in 1974 we had the best

fishing in nine years, and I think that that was because of the department plan

to shut the river down for two months in the spring. The river was closed during

the months of April and May to allow the spawners into the river, and I think

that was an excellent move.

But for a summer like this coming year, where we are going

to have a very low run-off, there is going to be a chance for

fishermen to literally wade that river from one end to the

other; and if they can't take them with a rod, they'll kill

them with a club.

I would like to see some thought put into making the

Stellako into a fly-fishing stream. There are, I believe, other

areas of the province, at least some areas of the river,

allotted for fly-fishing only. Fly-fishing is becoming more

popular all the time and, like other sports, there should be

some areas set aside for that kind of fishing. The Stellako

would be ideal for that kind of a sport.

Also, the day of using roe to take trout out of a stream

like that, I think, is outrageous. People come there and use

roe and they might tie on a piece as big as your fist, and what

trout can resist that? You might as well be throwing hand

grenades in as allowing the use, especially, of fresh roe. It

seems to be highly available there during the salmon season

when the salmon come in to spawn. The Indians are allowed to

take the salmon and they all have roe readily available for

sale. It's just a way of cleaning a river out of trout.

I'd just like to go on to my last subject, Mr. Chairman.

Although two others have spoken on it today, I would just like

to add my few opinions to theirs and hope that the Minister

would maybe use some of the things that we discuss as being

reason for why he might take some action on the issue. That, of

course, is the leghold trap. You know that I've spoken on this

on two previous occasions, and I imagine the Minister is

getting pretty tired of it; but so are a lot of other

people.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You've got to

keep at him.

MR. KELLY: I know that it's a pretty darned tough problem to

deal with, but the fact remains that if the people in his

department and he himself realize just what was happening in

this issue, he would act today — if not today, at least in the

very near future.

Just recently, about three weeks ago, a news announcement

came out of Fort Ware. It's a very isolated community in my

riding. Fort Ware has about 200 residents, all native, except

for about one

[ Page 1760 ]

or two. Everyone is on welfare in one form or another. All

the adult people trap. Yet three weeks ago a report came out

that if something wasn't done the people of Fort Ware were

going to starve to death. I think it shows you the

significance of really how much money is taken or derived from

trapping. It does not amount to a hill of beans when it's

applied to the population generally. The income, as it was

stated here a little while ago, was $800. I believe they

probably even make a little more. But if they don't get enough

money to live on, then there's something wrong with the whole

system.

I feel, as one of the Members stated here, that there's no

doubt that the whole thing is carried on for the benefit of the

fur industry, for the people that manufacture coats for export

abroad. Of course, Japan is coming to be a big buyer of furs

and they're manufacturing these fur coats in Japan, into very

valuable fur coats, and then again exporting them overseas from

that country.

Mrs. Clements, who I know now quite well, is only the head

of an association to help the animals when it comes to the

trapping. She doesn't want to see inhumane trapping. I don't

think that she could be considered an authority on trapping,

although I know she does know something about it. But when she

comes and speaks to public groups, she is only pleading really

on behalf of the animals and the torture that is taking place.

I don't think there is one person in this House that disagrees

with it being a very terrible way that these animals die.

In the most recent film that they had, "Canada's Shame," I don't think that too many people recognized that in

the first three instances those three animals were quite

humanely trapped. If all animals could be trapped as humanely

as that, then indeed there wouldn't be the furor that there is

being carried on today about the leghold trap, because each of

those animals was caught around the body and they would have

been dead within seconds.

But when you see an animal that is held by the leg, or by

some other part of its body, until it either dies of exposure

or is killed by another animal, or chews its leg off and gets

away, well, that's when the real pain of this thing comes to

the recognition of the people in the province and the people

that view it. The film I think was.... It's got to be used to

show people what is happening.

I think that if you banned the leghold trap today, there

would be an alternate trap tomorrow. I think there would

be.

In a recent film showing the Cree Indians in Labrador, they had the Conibear

trap. It is not only partly humane; let's face it, it is the most humane thing

available today and will kill 99 out of 100 animals. That average, as far as

I am concerned, is pretty darn good. Until that other alternative comes along,

at least a trap such as that, or similar to that, could be used.

MR. CURTIS: Why won't he take action?

MR. KELLY: I feel that money is the problem. I feel that if,

for example, there had been a large reward.... I don't know

whether you could put it into a prize or whatever it might be,

but if it could be large enough, somebody might actually invent

a trap of that nature that could be recognized and would be the

ideal trap for trappers to use. I think if could be done.

We are worrying about what a few thousand people may not get

in a bit of an income which, I think, even could be subsidized

if necessary until this alternative trap came in. I think there

should be a target date set for the removal of this trap. If

there isn't a trap on that day, well, then, that's tough luck! — I was going to say something else. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Put one of those in a trap and see what

happens. (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely necessary

that the Minister take some positive action now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now!

MR. KELLY: The committees, no matter how sincere they might

be...I just don't believe they have the gumption behind them

to get going into this thing in making those kinds of positive

statements we need today, or tomorrow at the latest. With that,

Mr. Minister, I would hope that you would try and take some

really positive action on something on this matter. Thank you

very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: On the subject of traps, I feel there are

several ways you can get trapped, whether you are an animal or

a human. (Laughter.)

I think necessity is the mother of invention. I like the

Member for Omineca's blunt statements. I am sure that if the

industry requires to trap animals — and I am sure that people in

that industry are entitled to go about their legitimate

business — I agree with him that if a date were set and some

other alternative had to be found, it would be found. It's

human behaviour down through the centuries that it is much

easier just to find an excuse rather than create a situation

which demands an answer.

With all due respect, I think the Minister was fudging when

he answered in the House the other day in question period and

put up all the technical reasons and all the bureaucratic

reasons why it is such a long, tedious, complicated business to

develop another trap. I think it is a question of conviction

and money.

When the Americans got the conviction and the money that

they were going to put a man on the

[ Page 1761 ]

moon, they put a man on the moon. I am not saying that they

haven't got their priorities all screwed up, but I am saying

that human nature is such that if somebody has enough will and

desire to do something and to develop a technique or an

implement or a machine, it can be done. Therefore I think the

comments of the Member for Omineca were most appropriate. I

would suggest maybe that the Minister now approach this

national-provincial committee with that proposal. I think there

must be a lot of time drifting by without any sense of urgency.

If we don't get the trap this year, well, next year, or the

next year maybe, or even the next year will be all right. Well,

that isn't all right.

I think the many people who are pursuing the issue and who

are writing to their MLAs or MPs — and we all know we have

received a great deal of public interest in this issue — have

every right to feel that time is not being wasted when the

initial decision has been taken to find an alternative.

I was very interested in the Minister's comments earlier on

this morning on the Community Recreational Facilities Fund,

when he used the phrase "giving away money" and "giving away

funds."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the people's money.

MR. WALLACE: I hope it was just a slip of the tongue, Mr.

Minister, because you weren't giving away anything; you were

giving back money that the government has already taken out of

your pocket and mine. The other day I was very unhappy with the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who believes in

self-advertising on the highways with these big signs: "$4.5

million of your tax money being well spent." At least the

Minister of Highways had the courtesy to use the phrase "giving

back the taxpayers' dollars." Let's make that very plain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WALLACE: Now having been very critical, let me be very

laudatory in saying that the benefits in Oak Bay from the

Community Recreational Facilities Fund have been considerable.

We got about $1 million, in fact, to build a recreational

complex. I want to recognize the benefits we are having in Oak

Bay from this provincial funding. I am already on record on

previous debates, but I do feel it is fair to acknowledge what

this government has done in that respect.

I wouldn't be carried away, however, with the feeling that

Oak Bay is getting anything it doesn't deserve. Oak Bay and the

greater Victoria area — I notice the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is listening attentively —

are the lowest cost factor in the province for automobile

insurance.

With the subsidizing across the province of a uniform rate,

I'm assured that certain people in Oak Bay are helping to make

the rates cheaper for drivers in other parts of the province.

So when you pick out Oak Bay and always refer to our small land

mass and suggest that the Community Recreational Facilities

Fund is going overboard for Oak Bay, there are a lot of things

that Oak Bay taxpayers are doing for other citizens elsewhere

in the province. I'm agreeing with the principle but I think

what I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that if you're willing to

play a little bit of politics in your speech, so am 1.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Shame!

MR. WALLACE: Oh! Shocking! Talking about....

HON. MR. LEA: Shame! Bringing politics on to the floor of

this House!

MR. WALLACE: Isn't that awful? (Laughter.) It's taken me

five years to learn that sometimes that's the only way.

(Laughter.)

Talking about politics and one's own riding, I'd like to

talk about a park which we're hoping to establish in Oak Bay —

a public park. The Minister knows the park I'm talking about.

I'm talking about Anderson Hill, which is an elevated, very

picturesque piece of land, about six acres, in Oak Bay

overlooking the waterfront It's some distance back, but it's

elevated and has a fantastic view of the waterfront, the Juan

de Fuca Straits, the Olympic Mountains and the Straits of

Georgia, looking north toward the San Juan Islands and Mt.

Baker.

The Minister has already been very sympathetic in listening

to the application from Oak Bay. I want to acknowledge the

opportunity that I had to appear before the Environment and

Land Use Committee of cabinet. Unfortunately, I haven't heard

the outcome of that situation, but I just do want to say that

Oak Bay would like to contribute by creating this park for

people outside of Oak Bay. There has often been the criticism

that Oak Bay is not providing on a regional basis the kind of

park facilities which Oak Bay residents use in other

municipalities.

Oak Bay has tried in various other ways to show a community

spirit towards the region. The Anderson Hill area proposal that

has been put forward is that Oak Bay would put up two-thirds of

the cost, the total being somewhere around $350,000. We feel in

Oak Bay that this would provide some significant advantages to

all the people in the region because, first of all, the site

has archaeological significance. Even if it were not to become

a public park, there

[ Page 1762 ]

probably could not be other uses because of the

archaeological remains that have been identified. I'm

told that the site really abounds with wildflowers and rare

species of plants and is of tremendous value from a botanical

point of view. There is also the fact that it is really quite

close to the city, so if it became a public park its access by

citizens only a few miles away in the downtown city region

would be most appropriate and useful.

For these basic reasons, I hope that we can perhaps work