1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3319 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial

Secretary estimates.

On vote 152.

Mr. Nicolson –– 3319

Mr. Gibson –– 3320

Mr. Skelly –– 3322

Mrs. Dailly –– 3324

Mr. Wallace –– 3324

Mr. Barber –– 3327

Mr. Lloyd –– 3328

Mrs. Wallace –– 3329

Ms. Brown –– 3330

Mr. Hewitt –– 3330

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3331

Mr. Skelly –– 3335

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3336

Department of Recreation and Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 184.

Mr. Chabot –– 3337

On vote 194.

Mr. Skelly –– 3338

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3338

Legislation estimates.

On vote 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 3338

Mr. Wallace –– 3338

Committee of Ways and Means –– 3339

Supply Act No. 2,1976 (Bill 85). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction, first reading, second reading, committee,

report and third reading –– 3339

British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act (Bill 24)

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Wallace –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

section 3.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

Mr. Gibson –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Gibson –– 3340

section 4.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3341

section 6.

Mr. Wallace –– 3341

Mr. Stupich –– 3341

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

Mr. Lockstead –– 3345

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3345

Amendment to

section 8.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

>On

section 19.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3346

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

section 20.

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3346

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

Report and third reading –– 3346

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented the annual report of the Department

of Human Resources entitled Services

for People .

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions standing on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

(continued)

On vote 152: minister's office, $75,258 — continued.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, last evening

we expedited things by bringing up various responsibilities other than

minister's office. I would ask if I could bring up a couple of very

short matters relating to recreation and conservation in this vote.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, as

we agreed in the beginning of the Provincial Secretary's estimates, I

would prefer if you would confine your remarks to Provincial Secretary,

superannuation and public service questions. Then when I can get my

staff here and change the staff for recreation and travel industry, we

could go into those two departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you get that staff here now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for Nelson-Creston

has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to bring a couple

of items to the minister's attention; I'm not going to ask for an

answer at this point. I will have to get away a little early today. I'd

just like to make two very brief suggestions — one under recreation and

conservation in which there has been an increase in campers' fees.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The question's more important

than the answer, you know that.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an excellent suggestion made by a person

in my riding. For senior citizens it might be an excellent programme to

allow senior citizens to get by without the extra surcharge camper fee

in those designated park sites. By presentation of a Pharmacare card,

resident senior citizens of British Columbia could easily identify

themselves and not have to pay the surplus $2 charge. I'd like the

minister to consider that.

The other does relate to the Creston Valley waterfowl management

area. I'd like to bring to the minister's attention a question asked in

the federal House by Mr. Brisco, MP for Kootenay West: what percentage

of the capital cost of operation the Creston Valley wildlife management

area is paid for by the federal government and by the government of

British Columbia, and are the salaries of employees paid by the

provincial government or the federal government?

The answer from the minister in the federal House was that the

Creston Valley wildlife management area operates using funds derived

from grants to a trust fund by the governments of Canada and British

Columbia, and appropriations by the B.C. Legislature. A

summary of the

funds provided in 1974-75 — grants to the trust fund for 1974-75 were:

Canada, $55,000; British Columbia, $55,000. But appropriation by the

B.C. Legislature for 1974-75 was $72,130; therefore the percentage

contributed by Canada was 30 per cent and by British Columbia 70 per

cent. In addition, the B.C. Department of Labour supplied $44,000 for

summer help in 1974-75. All building maintenance is done by the B.C.

Department of Public Works. The CVWMA also derives a limited revenue

from granting of permits, campground fees, et cetera. Employees are

paid by the British Columbia government out of funds appropriated for

the Creston Valley wildlife management area. Therefore British Columbia

is paying more than 50 per cent of its fees.

Now there has recently been a resolution agreed upon by the

convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. On the back of the

newsletter, which I'm sure the minister has a copy of — June, 1976,

volume 6, No. 3 — it points out: "The Creston Valley wildlife

management area is a tight, defensive principality given to autocratic

decision-making behind bureaucratic barriers thrown up to ward off

outside interference, Graham Kenyon told the convention."

To the minister I'd like to point out that I wholly agree with these

remarks. There are such practices, such rather unheard of practices in

terms of hiring and such, that two of the resident managers also have

their wives on staff. Of the four residents there…Mr. Dwight Moore,

his wife is on staff; and his assistant, his wife is on staff. These

are the types of practices which are not allowed within the regular

civil service. We're paying 70 per cent of the actual

[ Page 3320 ]

costs of operation, as I've outlined, so I think

British Columbia

should take a firmer hand and should bring it more in line with

practices which are commensurate with the practice of the Public

Service Commission. In fact, I would submit that it should be disbanded

and it should be brought under the Department of Recreation, wildlife

branch.

It points out that on the board of management, Dr. Hatter has

represented British Columbia ever since it's been founded — I believe

in 1968. There have been three different federal representatives, but

there's a third position on the board which has never been filled, and

that third position is for a citizen. They have recommended in here

that that position be filled and they have recommended Frank Shannon,

who was awarded the Julian Crandell award as Canada's outstanding

conservationist for his work in the Creston campaign which began 35

years ago. They are petitioning the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation to appoint Frank Shannon as the third and citizen member

of the authority as provided under

section 17(

c) of the CVWMA Act,

1968. I would urge the minister to give it urgent consideration.

While I was a government minister I was not fully aware, although I

worked on this throughout those years, of the extent to which British

Columbia was carrying the load financially. I would say that it will be

a continuing source of embarrassment and will work against the best

interests of conservation in the area if this autocratic type of

organization…. These people are the untouchables, really, within the

control of the minister. This organization has run autocratically

roughshod over the local citizenry. They continue to grasp at every

area within the flats. I am sure they would flood all the existing

agricultural area in their zeal. I think that some type of curb has to

be brought in to this in order that it can be done.

I regret that your deputies are not here. I thank you for the

opportunity of allowing me to express this at this time and I am just

asking the minister that she take this under very serious advisement

because this is a situation which is a problem, and it has come to the

attention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. I am sure that if she were

to confer with some of her local regional people in the Department of

Recreation, particularly in the fish and wildlife branch, she would

find that things are a little bit less than perfect in terms of the

management.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, if

I see correctly, the minister's officials from both of her branches are

here now. I would like to start out by talking on the Provincial

Secretary side of things and draw to the minister's attention what I

believe to be an injustice and ask her to take it under personal

review. It relates to the case of Mason Gaffney and his payment, or

lack of payment, under the Public Inquiries Act and, in particular, on

the commission for property assessment and taxation.

Just to run through the history of this case, Mr. Chairman, the

commission was appointed on July 24, 1975, order-in-council 2468. Dr.

Gaffney and two other academics from the University of British Columbia

were appointed. For connoisseurs of such questions, the presiding

member of the executive council on that occasion was Leo Nimsick. The

commission commenced its work. It was stipulated that all of the

commissioners, and this was very carefully stipulated, were to be paid

$175 a day. This was mentioned in the order-in-council. The

commissioners commenced their work and, in due course, the election of

December 11 was held and a new government elected which apparently

disapproved of Dr. Gaffney, because one of the first things they did

was to abolish the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British

Columbia, which I thought a very sad thing. In any event, we have

passed that bill and nothing can be done about it.

Now time went on, and on May 5 Dr. Gaffney received a letter from

the secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Bryson, which stated in part:

"We have received certain vouchers presented on your

behalf for an honorarium in connection with your work on the property

assessment and taxation inquiry. We would refer you to the enclosed

memorandum from the former planning adviser to cabinet in which it is

pointed out that, as policy, full-time employees or members of

government boards should not receive any additional remuneration unless

it is approved in advance by Treasury Board. This is to advise that we

are still operating under this policy directive and, as there was no

approval in advance by Treasury Board in your case, we are unable to

honour payment of the honorarium."

Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very curious that the

secretary of the Treasury Board said there was no advance approval

because in fact there was a specific order-in-council, which certainly

supersedes anything the Treasury Board might do and is superior in

authority, which stipulated that…. Oh, I'm sorry, I mentioned $175 —

that was to be paid to the chairman. The honorarium which was to be

paid to the other commissioners was $150. Now Mr. Bryson referred to a

directive from the former planning adviser to cabinet, and that

apparently was a document of October 7, 1974, signed by Marc Eliesen,

saying in part:

"It is suggested that in the future all full-time

employees or members of government boards should not receive any

additional remuneration unless there is explicit approval in

[ Page 3321 ]

advance by Treasury Board."

As I say, Mr. Chairman, there

was in this case approval in advance

by order-in-council But even beyond that, I would argue that Dr.

Gaffney in his status as the head of the Economic Policy Analysis

Institute of British Columbia did not fall in the category of a

full-time employee or member of a government board. I would suggest

that this was an autonomous institution, much as is the University of

British Columbia, for example. Two employees of the University of

British Columbia remain on that commission and remain under full pay.

Now there was some activity following Mr. Bryson's letter of May 5.

On May 6 a further order-in-council was passed deleting Dr. Gaffney's

name from order-in-council 2468 of 1975. On May 7 a letter was sent to

Dr. Gaffney by the Deputy Provincial Secretary saying, in effect, that

the matter had been further considered by Treasury Board. I quote

briefly here:

"As your claims to date have been submitted in good

faith, payment will be authorized for services claimed up to and

including May 6, the approval date of the amending

order-in-council."

Well, that was a good letter for Mr. Wallace to send. I would

suggest that under the terms of the initial order-in-council the

government really had no choice but to pay that money, because it was

in debt under the terms of the original order-in-council.

But, Mr. Chairman, what's bothering me is what's happening from

there on. Dr. Gaffney remains a member of this taxation inquiry

committee; he remains a person of very high credentials in the field of

property taxation on this continent. I can send the Deputy Provincial

Secretary a list, which runs to some eight pages, of specific

publications in the property taxation field by Dr. Gaffney. It can give

a little bit of his history.

From 1958 to 1962 he was professor and associate professor of

agricultural economics, University of Missouri; consultant to the

Lincoln Foundation; 1962 to 1971, professor of economics, University of

Wisconsin and visiting professor of economics, UCLA; 1963 to 1965, he

was chairman of that department; 1971 to 1973, he was senior research

associate, Resources for the Future, Inc. In Washington. Mr. Chairman,

I can tell you that that is no Mickey Mouse outfit; that is a very

prestigious resource land-use-oriented institution, one of the most

prestigious in the United States. This is a man with good credentials.

He is a man whose philosophy may not be entirely congenial to that of

the government but I suspect that may be a bit of a misunderstanding

too, because he has a fairly conservative philosophy.

I believe myself, Mr. Chairman, that this is a case of harassment

because Dr. Gaffney's name became associated with that of Bob Williams,

and the name of Bob Williams isn't popular with members of the

government today. That's their business but I would ask that innocent

third parties not get caught in that kind of a trap. Dr. Gaffney has

advised me that some of the positions he brings to this commission are

a favouring of uniformity, critical of most claims for exemption or

preferential low assessment, a favouring of the immediate introduction

of 100 per cent assessment, a favouring of the neutrality of taxation

and reliance on the marketplace — these are all things that can be read

out of his works, Mr. Chairman — regarding property taxation generally

more favourably relative to most other taxes than many economists do.

Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this man brings to this

commission a valuable viewpoint. It is my opinion that he should

continue on the commission until it has completed its work. I would ask

in that case why his payment is being stopped. I would suggest that he

stands in no different position than the other two professors,

Professor Clark and Professor Hamilton, I think it is, who are serving

as members of this commission.

I would suggest that the only reason that payment could be stopped

to Dr. Gaffney and not to the other two professors is because of a

deliberate attempt to harass him. If the government doesn't like his

views, I don't think that they should discharge him on that account. I

should think they should receive the report which will be the balanced

and mixed views of all the commissioners and then reject the report if

they like. But to try and condition the report in advance by firing one

of the members is wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate he hasn't been fired, but telling a

man to work without pay is tantamount to doing that. I would reject any

argument that his position as head of the Economic Policy Analysis

Institute is equivalent to being a full-time government employee or

member of a full-time government board. This is a distinct, independent

academic institution which has now been abolished. I think the

government, if they really proceed with this view, are just trying to

pour some more ashes over Dr. Gaffney's head after having yanked his

institute out from underneath him.

So my plea, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the Provincial Secretary to make

a personal review of this case in a charitable manner, realizing that

we're only talking about a few months, not a great cost to the Crown.

But we're talking about equity, about British Columbia's reputation in

how it treats public servants and how it treats people that are brought

in from other parts of the world by any government, even if one

disagrees with the views of the former

[ Page 3322 ]

government. That's my representation in that

regard. I hope the

Provincial Secretary will take it seriously.

My second comment is on the other side of her department. It will be

very brief. It has to do with trapping methods and specifically the

minister's announcement regarding the leg-hold trap. The minister,

under date of May 21, issued a press release on which I have several

questions.

First of all, the press release required that registered trapline

owners have to check their traps every 72 hours. I would ask the

minister how she possibly intends to enforce this. There are extended

traplines all over British Columbia — particularly northern British

Columbia — and I can't believe that her department begins to have the

manpower to enforce this rule. To me it's just a nice thing to say but

largely unenforceable. It can give no real comfort to those persons who

are concerned about the effect of leg-hold traps and animals suffering

for extended periods of time.

Secondly, I would ask if she has received a letter — which I'll just

try and find it here now — from a gentleman named Watmough in Terrace,

British Columbia, asking for a meeting on the question of the 5 per

cent royalty which this press release introduced. The minister may have

already agreed to a meeting, I don't know. But if she hasn't, I would

ask her if she would agree to such a meeting.

The discrepancy which Mr. Watmough points out in the government's

philosophy is this: the government has decided to abolish a royalty in

the case of minerals — quite properly, in my view. Yet here they are

introducing a royalty — again, 5 per cent, just what they are

abolishing in the mineral field — in the animal-skin field. I would ask

the minister if she would make a comment on that or if she would agree,

if she has not already done so, to meet with a group of trappers to

discuss it.

Next I would ask her if she has any current report on the work of

the committee on humane trapping. We received a report in late April,

which was very welcome, from that federal-provincial committee, which

noted that field testing will begin in the 1976-77 trapping season,

which I assume is this coming winter. What worries me, Mr. Chairman, is

that we have had these kinds of promises for many years now. We've

always been told that work is going forward, but always next year we're

told that we're sorry, there is no humane trap yet and therefore we

can't get rid of the leg-hold trap yet.

The minister's press release which I referred to earlier was useful

in the sense that it dispensed with leg-hold traps with teeth, but on

the other hand, those traps aren't a large percentage of the leg-hold

traps in use today. This unfortunate practice is still continuing. We

know that there are people whose livelihood depends on it, but we know

at the same time that unless real pressure is put on by the government

and by this Legislature the easiest thing to do is just to continue on

with the old methods.

I would ask the minister again — I can't discuss in any specific

terms the bill I have on the order paper — if she will not put some

kind of deadline on it when she will say that from this time on the

leg-hold trap will be banned. We can talk about whether it should be

one year or five years. But would the minister, in principle, say she

is prepared to put a time limit on for the final banning of the

leg-hold trap? That, as nothing else, will guarantee that a substitute

will become available within that time period. The research will be

done because it will have to be. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say

to the minister at this point. I thank you for the time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary could answer one question. Is she considering

Travel Industry under this estimate as well?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you. I met yesterday in Qualicum Beach with

a group representing 27 motels, hotels, marinas and three chambers of

commerce. They're very concerned about the situation with regard to the

tourist industry on Vancouver Island, especially as the ferry rates

have created an impact on them that is almost unbelievable.

The returns in that industry, in that central area of Vancouver

Island, have dropped well over 50 per cent. Many people are having

difficulty making mortgage payments. Most people who I talked to are

falling short of making mortgage and utility payments. One person I

spoke to put an investment of $250,000 in a hotel and is now losing

something in the neighbourhood of $150 a day — in the month of June.

I'm wondering if the minister, as the minister responsible for

tourism, is concerned about the area of central Vancouver Island, is

concerned about the tourist industry in that area of Vancouver Island,

and if she plans to approach the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and ask him for an immediate rollback

of the ferry increases until some type of impact study is done on the

tourist industry on Vancouver Island to determine exactly what the

impact of that ferry rate increase has been. Thirty-one people

representing 27 businesses and three chambers of commerce in the area

are very concerned about the fate of the tourist industry in central

Vancouver Island as a result of that ferry rate increase.

Another thing — and this goes back to Recreation and Conservation —

is that the minister, during the Provincial Secretary

section of her

estimates, said in relation to Gene Errington that Gene Errington

[ Page 3323 ]

wasn't relieved of her position as a result of her

political

beliefs. To quote the minister: "Everyone is entitled to their own

political beliefs." But a memo has gone around her department that says

— and I am just paraphrasing the memo — "This confirms my request to

exercise sound judgment in releasing information to the public or the

press, particularly information of an internal confidential or possibly

controversial nature. Please inform your staff to exercise the greatest

care in this matter. It has been brought to our attention that leaks of

embarrassing information will be dealt with severely."

I'm wondering just what implications….

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Can you tell me what was the date on the

memo?

MR. SKELLY: I'm sorry, I can't give you the date or the

signature on the memo — just the contents. But it is posted on the wall

of most of the offices in the Department of Recreation, ostensibly to

inform the staff but….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's been sent out. Okay, I'll ask a

question: was it sent out under the minister's instructions?

I'd just like to carry that on a little further, relating to Mike

Jessen, who was a clerk, I believe, in the Nelson office, and also

president of SPEC in the Nelson area. His position — clerk 2, fish and

wildlife branch — involves ledger work, bookkeeping invoicing, et

cetera. They've had that position in the Nelson office — I believe it's

the Nelson office — for four years. Two other persons have held the job

before Mr. Jessen, and that same position is in existence in every

other regional fish and wildlife office in the province.

On May 18 Mr. Jessen was told that his position would be renewed

until September — he was called by the Victoria office. Coincidentally,

May 29, at an annual meeting of SPEC, of which he is president, he

criticized the government's energy policy and called for the

resignation of Robert Bonner as an advocate of that party.

Coincidentally, on June 8 he was informed that his position was not

being renewed.

I'm wondering if the reason Mr. Jessen's position is not being

renewed is that he criticized a member of the Social Credit Party who

was appointed to a high office in B.C. Hydro and advocated a power

policy for the province with which Mr. Jessen did not agree. That's the

second question.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

My question also relates to the minister's announcements with regard

to humane trapping. I think she should be congratulated for some of the

things she has done — particularly with regard to servicing traplines

on private lands every 24 hours, and I believe on public lands to

service traplines every 72 hours. I understand that daily inspections

have been part of the Canadian trappers' code of conduct for some time

now and that the B.C. Trappers Association is a member of the Canadian

Trappers Association, and I expect that they do subscribe to that code

of conduct.

But there is also a question of enforcement. I'm wondering how the

minister is going to enforce the requirement that trappers service

their traplines every 24 hours on private land and every 72 hours on

public land. There's been a dearth of conservation officers in this

province over the past many years. We increased the number of

conservation officers, under the NDP government, by almost 250 per cent

or more. I'm wondering just how the minister intends to enforce the

requirement that trappers service their traplines every 24 hours on

private land and every 72 hours on public land.

Also in relation to the federal-provincial committee on humane

trapping, I understand that the province is contributing somewhere in

the neighbourhood of $3,000 a year — an average of, say, $3,000 a year

— to that organization for the development and testing and improvement

of humane trapping throughout the country, yet there is only one

full-time staff member on that committee. B.C. has a representative on

the committee but he's a full-time civil servant within the province,

and there really is no capability on the part of the federal-provincial

committee for humane trapping to test traps.

I understand that 80 traps have been submitted, but field work or

testing has only been possible on three of the 80 traps that have been

submitted. There simply isn't enough money; there simply isn't enough

of a contribution from this government and from other provincial

governments to test humane traps.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned that

the minister has done away by regulation with leg-hold traps with teeth

or protuberances on them. But, again, my understanding is that most

trappers have done away with the teeth on traps years ago — back around

the turn of the century. They did too much damage to the pelts and

destroyed the value of the pelts, so most trappers have done away with

the use of that trap in any case and the regulation passed by the

minister is virtually worthless because most trappers have done away

with that type of trap. In fact, none are being manufactured or sold in

the province.

One thing I'm particularly concerned about — again going back to

the regulations brought down by the minister — is that she has

increased the royalties on furs tremendously. I understand that the

royalties

[ Page 3324 ]

brought in over the years past have been in the

neighbourhood of

$30,000 to $35,000 to $37,000. I'm wondering if the minister plans to

raise the contribution by British Columbia to the federal-provincial

committee on humane trapping in order to accelerate their process of

testing and developing new trapping procedures.

Another concern of mine is the question of wolves. The minister has

opened the season on wolves in many areas of the province. She has also

permitted, under the regulations, the trapping and snaring of wolves. I

don't think there's been enough information or research done into wolf

populations throughout the province. A few years ago it was said that

the population of wolves in the province was 20,000. Information we've

received more recently is that there is something like 7,000 wolves in

the province. Yet the minister in her press release of May 21 said that

because of their increasing population over the past several years,

there has been created a harvestable surplus, and while nature will

take care of this surplus through starvation, disease or parasites, the

trapping of wolves is a legitimate way to harvest part of the surplus.

This is the basis of all wildlife management.

I'm wondering what studies are available to show that the wolf

population has increased over the past several years. The information

that we get is that there were 20,000 wolves, roughly, in the province;

that more recently there are 7,000 wolves, and the minister has opened

season on wolves and made it possible to trap wolves throughout the

province. So I'm wondering on what information she has allowed wolves

to be trapped in the province.

Many people are concerned about the trapping of wolves; we've

received hundreds of letters from concerned people throughout the

province. I'm wondering if the minister has received any pressure. We

all recall the speeches made by the present Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) demanding that wolves be trapped in the

northern part of the province, saying that wolves threatened the cattle

herds and the sheep herds and any number of herds. I'm wondering if the

minister has succumbed to pressure from people like the present

Minister of Economic Development in opening the season to trapping. I

wonder if she could answer some of those questions for me.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, there are two

areas I want to just bring up very briefly. I just want to reiterate

the comments, first of all, made by the member for Alberni. I have

great personal concern over the new regulations on the snaring and

trapping of wolves, and I am just asking the Provincial Secretary if

she would seriously reconsider this edict which has gone out and,

following up what the member for Alberni said, if she would have a

study done on the actual reasons for this. Is it necessary? Is the wolf

population really the hazard that it is supposed to be?

In reading other arguments against this policy, it is suggested that

the wolves are not the hazard which has been suggested by certain

pressure groups, and the population is decreasing. So I feel very

concerned personally that this move has been taken by this government,

perhaps without proper study. I hope the minister will be able to tell

us what the basis was for this new regulation for the trapping of

wolves.

There is another point I wish to bring up — and it's moving from

wolves to the Library Commission — but I'm very concerned about what's

happening in the Fraser Valley Regional Library area. I'm surprised

that some of the members from the Fraser Valley are not up on their

feet, some of the government backbenchers, speaking on behalf of their

constituents with reference to the cutbacks in the library services in

that area. I know the minister is well aware of the problem. She has

had a number of occasions, I think, to meet with people who are

concerned.

Basically what I wanted to ask her is just a quick background again.

The Fraser Valley library system, as you know, did get the approval of

16 participating municipalities to bring together the structure of the

library system in the valley. It serves approximately 480,000 library

users.

Now they have in previous years received a capital grant of $150,000

from the Library Development Commission and they have been told, I

understand, by the Provincial Secretary that this grant has now ceased.

The concern is, of course, that the participating municipalities went

in on this bringing together of the services on a regional basis on the

proviso that the capital grant would be provided from the government.

I realize that was perhaps a commitment made by the former

government, but what I'm really asking the minister is if she will

reconsider the discontinuance of that grant. After all, it serves over

450,000 people in the Fraser Valley. If the grant is not forthcoming

this year their whole project to gather together a complete library

system for the Fraser Valley could be dead for a number of years. I

know there's great disenchantment with the people who have dedicated

themselves for many years in the Fraser Valley to developing a proper

library system.

So my questions to the minister are: will she reconsider the

discontinuance of that $150,000 capital grant and will she reconsider,

in the abeyance of a proper study, the matter of trapping of wolves?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to speak on just one or

two areas of the minister's responsibility. Usually we stand up here

and criticize and find fault, but I would like to start off by saying

[ Page 3325 ]

how much I appreciate the tremendous work that's

done by the

minister's deputy, Mr. Laurie Wallace. The minister's deputy is

involved in a vast variety of responsibilities and seems to be

buttonholed by many of the MLAs and citizens from all the various

groups in society. I just want to place on record the fact that I never

met anyone who is more approachable and more patient and more diligent

in exploring matters brought to his attention by the MLAs.

In particular I want to pay tribute to Mr. Wallace for the

tremendous effort he puts into the processing of requests for various

grants. There must hardly be a more difficult job in the civil service

than having literally thousands of people coming to this particular

official with their hand out. That is a term that's not used politely

nowadays, but in point of fact the deputy is often approached for

assistance. I particularly want to express appreciation for the very

conscientious consideration he gave in screening a grant to the

handicapped recreation centre in Victoria.

Knowing as I do that the government is trying to run a tight ship

and keep control and restraint on budgeting, this particular grant that

was finally made available is just of enormous value, not only to the

handicapped persons concerned but to the parents and relatives of many

of these seriously handicapped children and young adults who otherwise

would have very little exposure to recreational pursuits, or even

outdoor trips beyond the confines of their own home.

It's in areas like this that the deputy minister does an outstanding

job.

One of the subjects I want to touch upon is the question of

electoral reform. I am sorry that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

isn't in his place at this moment because he made a statement in March

of this year, while he was speaking in the House seconding the motion

of acceptance of the throne speech, that he thought that the Norris

Commission was a waste of taxpayers' money. I think that was a very

intemperate criticism of the work done by a highly esteemed and greatly

respected citizen of British Columbia who has a lengthy record of

outstanding service to British Columbia.

Judge Norris will long be remembered and long praised in this

province for a great deal of the service that he's given to the

province and to the country. I think that was a very unfair and

intemperate criticism by the member for Omineca, when in point of fact

Judge Norris was appointed in a thoroughly correct manner with terms of

reference to study the electoral boundaries in British Columbia. I

might say he was assisted in that job by the gentleman I've just

mentioned, Laurie Wallace — another person of an outstanding record of

service to this province.

I don't think it builds anything at all in the respect for our

democratic system or for the functioning of government, regardless of

its political label, when people of that status and calibre spend hours

late into the night doing work for this province and then an MLA stands

up in this House and says it was all just a waste of taxpayers' money.

I think that was an insulting comment.

The fact is that in good faith the former government felt that

electoral boundaries should be withdrawn. They went the route of a

neutral commission, which is quite the way that it has been done many

times before. I just feel that this kind of comment castigating the

efforts of people appointed to do a responsible public job was quite

unfair.

Since the election, Mr. Chairman, we have had a statement from the

Premier of the province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) back in February of this

year. The Premier had been interviewed by the Vancouver Province .

He stated that the Social Credit government will establish a commission

on electoral reform. Included in its review will be campaign spending,

party funding and alternative voting methods.

I won't go into all the details of his statement but it's quite

obvious that the Premier believes — I agree with him — that there is a

great need to review the Elections Act and in particular to investigate

many of the requirements for keeping the province up to date in

relation to its electoral methods. In particular, research is needed to

examine the methods of compiling and maintaining voters lists.

Certainly the Provincial Secretary has been very frank in

acknowledging in recent months the tremendous difficulty that there was

in preparing adequately for the by-election in Vancouver East. So while

I am asking for information and making suggestions, I am not at the

same time overlooking the complexity and the amount of detailed work

that is involved in keeping our electoral methods up to date.

But I am particularly interested in whether the Provincial Secretary

can tell us if any decision has been made either by her department or

by cabinet as to when this commission might be set up and what the

range in terms of reference will be.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) is taking his morning stroll through the chamber, because he

was one of the particular proponents when he was in the Liberal Party

and considering a change of location politically. He strongly suggested

that the preferential ballot or some form of preferential balloting as

practised in a variety of differing ways in many different countries

would be very appropriate for British Columbia. In fact, at one point I

know the former Liberal leader, who is now in the cabinet as Minister

of Education, made that a condition of joining the Social Credit Party

— that he would have a commitment from the leader at that time that a

return to preferential balloting would be in the best interests of the

voter

[ Page 3326 ]

and the best interests of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Was it a secret meeting? Tell us about those

meetings. What else did he demand?

MR. WALLACE: The member for Prince Rupert is asking questions

that relate to certain meetings that took place.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were alleged to have taken place.

MR. WALLACE: No, one can be more specific than saying they

were alleged to have taken place. They did take place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on the Department of the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just don't like to evade

any questions. When people ask for answers I like to provide open

opposition.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Have you stopped beating

your wife?

MR. WALLACE: I never did beat my wife, not even once.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did she beat you?

MR. WALLACE: You mean, "try it, you might like it"?

(Laughter.)

If anything, Mr. Chairman —

with some difficulty I am getting back

to the point — the former Liberal leader was very strong on the need in

this province for preferential balloting. He made it a condition of his

joining the Social Credit Party. We've heard very little since then

either from the former Liberal leader or from any of his colleagues who

made the same conversion — went the same conversion route — some time

ago. I believe regardless of their feelings that there is a strong

sentiment within the province among many voters that some form of

preferential balloting should certainly be researched and examined by

such a commission as the Premier mentioned in February. I wonder if the

Premier can give us any up-to-date commitment not only that such a

commission will be set up but when it will be set up and how it will

function.

Earlier in the session, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister about the

situation of our lottery in British Columbia under the Lotteries Act.

The record in Hansard on June

7 records the minister's answer that she

would be tabling a report under

section 8 of the Lotteries Act as soon

as it becomes available. I presume that it is not yet available.

Therefore in light of the minister's statement on May 8 in response

to federal planning to extend the Olympic Lottery, I wonder if the

minister could give us some information prior to the tabling of a

report as to the financial status of the B.C. lottery.

I'm quoting from The Vancouver Sun of May 8:

"B.C.

Provincial Secretary, Grace McCarthy, warned that the new lottery" —

that's the federal lottery called Loto Canada — "will virtually kill

off the Western Canada Lottery and cost B.C. a substantial amount in

revenue."

I wonder, since it seems likely that we won't be getting the full

report tabled before the session ends, whether the minister can give

us….

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was tabled.

MR. WALLACE: When was it tabled?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Two weeks ago.

MR. WALLACE: I asked the question on June 7. If the minister

has since tabled the report I regret that I was unaware of this.

I wonder in terms of her strong response to the federal proposal if

she can give us some idea how crucial this would appear to be in

siphoning off money that would otherwise come into the western lottery.

Another comment the minister made was quoted in the Vancouver Province

on May 11: "But no doubt we'll have to live with it — I can't see

Ottawa changing their mind." Was there any consultation at all with the

federal government before they announced this proposal, which I gather

is going ahead regardless, and is there any attempt being made at this

state in the situation to discuss the proposed extension of the Olympic

Lottery in the light of what I think is a very legitimate concern by

the minister and by two or three of the other western provinces who are

participants in the western lottery?

There's a third quick point I'd like to ask. I don't expect the

minister to have all the details, but I appreciate the letter she wrote

to me some months ago about the problem of oil spills and the

inadequate definition of jurisdiction as to which government should pay

what for oil spills. I received in April of this year a typical example

of the problem as outlined by Mr. Clements on behalf of the Cowichan

Valley regional district. He pointed out that an oil spill occurred

along the west coast of the Island, actually in the Alberni electoral

riding. Environment Canada was contacted and estimated that the cost of

cleanup would be $60,000 and suggested that the beaches be left for

nature to clean up the mess.

At any rate, there was a considerable amount of what briefly can be

called passing of the buck. Again, I'm not criticizing specifically

this jurisdiction,

[ Page 3327 ]

because as I pointed out in the House a year or two

ago we had the

same incredible bureaucratic buck passing when we had a small oil spill

in Oak Bay. Although the money involved in that oil spill was

relatively small there seems to be a great need for a better defining,

of jurisdiction against the day when undoubtedly we will have a larger

oil spill where the sum of money involved in cleaning up the spill will

have to be agreed upon and how it will be financed will have to be

agreed upon among three levels of government. I wonder if the minister

could give us any up-to-date encouragement that our discussions with

the federal government are leading somewhere.

A last point I would mention on this occasion is just to amplify the

feelings of other speakers in regard to the leghold trap issue. There's

no doubt that there must be cooperation between all governments and the

trappers and the public, but there's no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the

functioning of the federal-provincial committee is a little bit like

the humane trapping itself — painfully slow. The committee was set up

in September of 1973 and we're just a month or two away from September,

1976. In three years the progress, if it can be called that, has just

been incredibly slow. I don't know whether it's related to budgeting or

not, but I understand that B.C.'s contribution in 1973-74 was $560,

which would just about pay for one person's expenses to go from here to

Toronto and back for a meeting.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the member for Burrard interjects, that's

probably all it did do — pay for that one person to go on to that one

meeting.

In 1974-75, British Columbia's contribution was $2,116, and when the

committee submitted its first financial statement it had underspent its

budget. By January, 1976, not one trap has been fully tested, and

that's two and a half years after the committee was set up.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not overlooking the difficulties of national

committees where people have to all try and get together and come from

all directions, but even beyond that, communication apparently between

the federal-provincial committee and interested parties, including

members of the public, has been almost non-existent. The whole image

that emanates from this committee is that it's really not too enthused.

It doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that this is a problem that

concerns many, many Canadians all across the country — the concept of

respect for pain and suffering to animals, in this case fur-bearing

animals.

I know the minister can only do so much as one-tenth of the

provinces participating, but I wonder if she could give us any

encouraging news that this feeling of impatience by the public is

becoming more clearly stated and that the British Columbia government

will try and do something to expedite the protesting of traps. I gather

that the two or three traps that have been tested are really just some

variations of the Conibear trap that has been in existence for some

considerable time.

I notice one of the statements made in some of the material that has

been sent to MLAs quotes a line that has been mentioned in this House

before — that when we have the technology to put a man on the moon, it

seems that we are being either incredibly slow or just not serious in

our attempt to come up with a more humane form of trap to use for

fur-bearing animals. The statement made by the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly), and perhaps others in this debate, is that several days can go

by — and I think it was five days that was mentioned — before traps

have to be checked when apparently, in Ontario at least, the attempt is

made to check traplines every 24 hours.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt, from the amount of

correspondence that MLAs receive, that this is an issue of great

concern to a lot of people, and it does signify human respect for the

prevention of pain and suffering in animals at a time when human life

itself seems rather cheap. When we have all the problems, for example,

of public controversy over abortion and human suffering in all corners

of the globe, it seems that here is another area where we are not

really moving nearly as rapidly or as conscientiously as we should in

trying to eliminate pain and suffering.

I wonder whether the minister has any information on just exactly

how up to date the federal-provincial committee is in coming close to

finding a proper trap which is more humane, and whether, in fact, as

the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) suggested, we could not set a specific

date. I think in one of the communications we have received it has been

suggested that it would not be too unreasonable to suggest that a date

be set in 1977 and just state that after that date there shall be no

further use of leghold traps, with or without teeth. It would seem that

that proposal bears a lot of merit in one respect.

Human beings very often feel that as long as a date can be put off

and put off, you don't really have to work too hard towards that goal,

but if you know that as of January 1, 1977, that's it, then this might

be the kind of stimulus to getting some more rapid and more productive

research done in finding a trap.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'll be brief. My concern is about

development of the public lands at the Inner Harbour in Victoria for

which the Provincial Secretary now shares responsibility. Through the

agency of the Capital Improvement District Commission, the Provincial

Secretary has

[ Page 3328 ]

indicated to the people of greater Victoria that

that particular

instrument is at the moment the government's choice for the development

of these lands.

I should like to ask the Provincial Secretary, given the fact that

the CIDC has received no increase whatever in its $400,000 budget this

year, if she contemplates at some period later in this fiscal year,

through order-in-council or some other device, an increase in funds

available to the commission so that it might begin work which

apparently has been assigned to it. Now as the Provincial Secretary

knows, I myself was a member of the commission until a recent change in

government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR.BARBER: …and I'm well aware of the legal terms of

reference under which the commission operates. I am also well aware

that the commission, indeed, is in a proper and appropriate position to

co-ordinate, in a directing and leading manner, the various interests

and agencies that are presently involved at the various sites at the

Inner Harbour.

I should further like to know

from the Provincial Secretary, apart

from whether or not the commission might be given additional funds,

whether or not she can be understood, on behalf of the government, to

be personally responsible for the co-ordinating, as a member of

cabinet, of the agencies and departments of government which own

properties and have an historic interest at the Inner Harbour, and

further, whether or not Mr. John Webster — no relation, by the way, to

a former MLA in this House, no relation at all — previously assigned by

the then Minister of Lands to conduct a study of the opportunities,

financial and developmental, at the Inner Harbour, is still responsible

for that, or whether or not Mr. Webster might, say, be going back to

his original practice which was for development on behalf of the CPR

through Marathon Realty in Vancouver, and whether or not this man,

highly competent and, again, not a political appointee, and hardly a

supporter of the NDP, will be kept in some position in order to

continue the work he has been doing — surveying the interests,

surveying the assets and surveying the possibilities for development of

the Inner Harbour.

I wonder, thirdly, if the Provincial Secretary will indicate whether

or not, through the capital improvement district commission or through

her own offices, there will be a commitment made for public

participation in the design and the analysis in the debate around what

might occur in development at the Inner Harbour. As she is well aware,

the Inner Harbour is the site of great historic and affectionate

interest on the parts of the people of Victoria, and many of them have

repeatedly expressed, over many years, a personal interest in becoming

involved in plans and planning at the Inner Harbour.

My fourth and final question to the Provincial Secretary again is

centred on the question of leadership and the instrument, presumably

the CIDC, which will be used for the development of the public lands

now at the Inner Harbour. My question is this: does the Provincial

Secretary anticipate that there will be a direct liaison established

between her office and that of, shall we say, the mayor of the city of

Victoria, or other corporate representatives of the city of Victoria,

in the development at the Inner Harbour?

Again, during our period in government, regrettably — and during the

previous term in government, equally regrettably — when there was no

real progress at the Inner Harbour, save for the assembly of lands,

particularly the Reid Centre site, there was considerable conflict

between provincial planning authorities and municipal planning

authorities. My final question therefore, more succinctly, is this:

will the Provincial Secretary personally undertake to assure or

reassure the city of Victoria that they will be consulted in every step

along the way, that whatever agency shall be chosen to represent the

provincial government will, in a sense, represent them as well, and

that the public will have an opportunity, in a very practical and

immediate sense, to share in the design and the debate of what should

be invested at the Inner Harbour?

It really is a miraculous, toy-town Inner Harbour. It's an

astonishing little gem that is possessed by no other city on the west

coast. It's something that we should cherish very, very carefully —

plan very, very carefully. It deserves the attention and the scrutiny

of every member of this House and the opportunity for every member of

the public to participate in the design and the development of it.

I wonder if the secretary might care to answer those four questions

and perhaps make those three commitments today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): There are a couple of matters

I'd like to comment on briefly. I think the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano brought up the matter of the leg-hold traps. I think

it is one of the things that trappers themselves have been advocating —

a better trap. But it's like a lot of the old inventions, they still

haven't found a better system, and just to go to outright restrictions

and more enforcement, to try to check the trappers to see if they can't

get on every 24 hours…just to go to that system without finding a

better method, I think, would only add to the unemployment we already

have.

Trapping has been a way of life and a way of

[ Page 3329 ]

supplementing an income for a lot of people in the

outer reaches of

our province. Trapping has also been one of the things that opened up

our province originally, so I think before we get too carried away with

it we should find a better alternate system. It's a lot easier to

criticize than it is to come up with something constructive, many

times. I think he mentioned the possibility of hiring more game wardens

and more inspectors, but I think probably that is a pretty poor way to

increase employment. It's certainly better to find a better system.

One of the other matters that is of great concern to some of the

members in my constituency is the problem of giving proper directional

signing on the highways in the province. I'd like to call the

Provincial Secretary's attention to the problem the Vancouver game farm

is experiencing in trying to get proper directional signing off the

freeway. For the House's information, the Vancouver game farm was

opened in August of 1970, and the basic purpose of it is that as a

private operation it receives no grants or subsidies from any public

funding, nor any zoological association. Their two major purposes are

to propagate those animals in danger of becoming extinct, and to

provide research on the care and breeding of wild animals. The second

purpose is to provide an educational and entertainment centre for the

public interested in viewing wildlife from throughout the world.

I might say that after visiting the farm I was quite impressed with

the programme and the layout they have. They've already established

themselves as a well-recognized and reputable wild animal park. They've

been quite successful in their programme of raising and breeding

animals. They are quite a good supplement to Stanley Park, and over the

years since they've been established they've been a real asset to

thousands of school children, retarded and handicapped,

underprivileged groups and senior citizens.

They do offer special rates for these particular groups and I

believe they're providing a very worthwhile service in our province.

One of the major difficulties they have experienced is the problem

of the public trying to locate their turn-off. They are at the exit at

264th Street on the freeway. It's also the exit for Aldergrove and

Bellingham. They've attempted over the years to resolve this problem

with the Department of Highways but, as I'm sure everyone knows, there

has been a policy of trying to get away from excessive billboards and

advertising along the highways. Still it's a pretty difficult thing to

try to do just by the means of small brochures and by advertising

campaigns. I think possibly rather than helping to keep the billboards

down we're probably creating more traffic jams by not having proper

directional signing.

Again, I don't think they're asking for anything exorbitant, just

turn-off to their farm is. They were encouraged to use the title of

"Vancouver Game Farm" because Vancouver as one of the major cities of

British Columbia is recognized throughout the world and everyone knows

where it is. Possibly if they had used Aldergrove or something, the

Aldergrove turn-off would have been an indication. So I think these

people have cooperated and set up a very creditable institution there.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary, through the

Department of Recreation and Travel Industry, couldn't maybe have the

travel department itself erect signs, particularly in this instance,

and, I would think, in other areas of major tourist attractions,

whether beaches, ski hills or whatever they are, showing where the

turn-offs for these are and how to locate them. I'm not saying we

should get in the business of advertising for private interests, but

certainly highways are made to serve the tourist and the motoring

public. I would like, Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Secretary has any

idea along this line…. I think it's something that we should

encourage. It's a major industry in the province and it's a major

tourist attraction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Just a couple of brief

comments, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise under the Provincial

Secretary's estimates the question or the responsibility for the

Library Development Commission. I don't think this has been raised, to

my knowledge, and certainly I would like to commend to the Provincial

Secretary the work of the development commission.

I'm particularly concerned, of course, about the situation here on

the Island where we have two rather active groups in libraries — one in

the greater Victoria area and one in the central northern area of the

Island. I understand that there has been some meeting scheduled between

these two groups to try to work out the differences that have existed

between them in the establishment of boundaries. I understand too that

this is the major detriment to their getting the full benefits of the

funding and the facilities that have been established under the Library

Development Commission. I would certainly like to recommend to the

Provincial Secretary that she use her good influences to do whatever

can be done to create the opportunity for a more full participation on

the Island in some of the items that are undertaken by the Library

Development Commission in other areas of the province.

The other item that I wish to speak about, Mr. Chairman, is not

relative to that same category or

[ Page 3330 ]

same

section of her duties, but rather with the

Recreation. It has

to do with the White Crown ski development between Ladysmith and

Chemainus. This seems to range from being a dead issue to being a very

active issue. There seem to have been a great variety of studies, a lot

of time spent in reviewing the suitability of this property for ski

development. I think the people who are very anxious that this

development be carried out and completed are the family type of skiers

who recognize the need of a training slope where young people can

participate and learn to ski, an accessible sort of a slope. It's been

dubbed as a "bunny hill" but I think it is a little more than that. I

am not a skier but the people who do ski tell me that it has quite a

potential.

I know that there has been some hang-up with the exchange of

property and the availability of this property for a ski slope, in view

of the logging activities there with Crown Zellerbach and a bit, I

believe, with MacMillan as well. I would suggest that it is something

that is very much needed in this southern central Island area. It's a

good family sport.

We're having more and more spare time to use and we must use it in a

wise manner. This is, of course, what recreation is all about. I would

like to suggest to the Provincial Secretary that this is a very

valuable project and urge her consideration of development of that

White Crown ski development as soon as possible.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I couldn't

let the Provincial Secretary's estimates go through without asking her

to say a few words about culture because, as you know, she is the

cultural czar of the province, the person responsible for the

enrichment of the lives of all of us as we live and breathe and exist

here. I hope that when she stands up to terminate her comments on her

department, she will give us a report on what is happening to the

development of culture in this province.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, when we were government, we tried to

decentralize the distribution of funds so as not to have them

concentrated in the lower mainland. We believed it was important that

the rural areas and some of the more remote areas should have an

opportunity, too, for funding to develop their facilities. We also

believed that it was important that not only the great big professional

organizations like the Vancouver symphony or the McPherson theatre or

the Victoria symphony should get money, but that some of the smaller

groups — the ones that were struggling to get started and to survive —

should have some funding too.

We also believed that the craft industry was very important — that,

in fact, there are a lot of people in the province who contribute a lot

to the economy of the province through their crafts. We wanted to see

them involved in the funding as well. We also felt it was important

that anyone who wanted to participate in decisions should be able to do

so. For that reason, people serving on some of the regional committees

were paid a very small honorarium which made it possible for those with

small children, for example, to pay their babysitters so they could go

to meetings and have their transportation and very minor expenses paid.

I am kind of interested to know what the Provincial Secretary is

going to do in terms of extending those services, expanding them,

carrying them through, or whether this area, too, is going to be

contracted and attempts are going to be made, once again, to centralize

the funding in the lower mainland and specifically discriminate on

behalf of the larger arts communities, such as the big symphonies and

opera, rather than some of the smaller groups which are trying to get

started.

The only other comment I have to make, Mr. Chairman, has to do with

a group called ISIS which is a film and media group which is very

dependent on the Provincial Secretary for funding. They're asking for a

very small sum of money so they can continue their work of showing

films to schools, through the churches, various art groups, to the

mental health society. They're doing a very worthwhile job and they're

asking for a very small sum of money — I think it's about $21,000 or

something — none of which will be going into salaries. At this point,

they still have not heard whether their funding is going to be granted

or not. I think they would appreciate the Provincial Secretary making a

comment on this.

I also hope the Provincial Secretary will encourage the Department

of Public Works not to back down on their decision to continue buying

works of art from B.C. artists for hanging in our government buildings.

I think this is an important concept. Aside from creating employment

for our artists, it's part of building a tradition in this province. I

think the Provincial Secretary should stand beside the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) against the forces of the member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and others and help him so that he doesn't have to

back down on this very important programme.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I was

going to raise my questions under vote 157; however, the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) did touch on the Library Development

Commission and therefore I thought I'd stand at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the library grants programme and

how it affects the Penticton Public Library. As I read the definition

of the programme, it's to provide libraries and library association

grants to library systems, to public libraries, to regional libraries

and to public library

[ Page 3331 ]

associations. Mr. Chairman, the grant to the

Penticton Public

Library was denied as of 1972 due to the fact that a decision was made

by the Library Development Commission that the Penticton Public Library

was no longer a member of the regional district concept and therefore

would not qualify for the library grant.

Mr. Chairman, the grant is not that large — I think it's only

several thousand dollars — but as I understand it we are the only

municipal library which is not receiving that grant. When I read the

definition of the library grant programme, it does mention specifically

public libraries.

Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Penticton library board I

can assure this assembly that Penticton and the people who live in the

Penticton area are very proud of the library. We have a programme of

large-print books which are for those people who have seeing

difficulties. We have two or three language sections in the library. We

have what are known now as "talking books," which are for those people

who either cannot see or are paralyzed and cannot turn pages. These are

done on cassettes. Entire volumes of some best-sellers are produced by

that service and

are available through our library. We deliver to our local retirement

centre books on a weekly basis to make sure that the retired people in

the area have the availability of the library, and we also have a

volunteer home-delivery service.

Mr. Chairman, Penticton's public library was selected as the

demonstration library this year for the UBC school of librarianship.

This library does give service to the surrounding area. It is not

strictly for Penticton alone. It serves all the communities around it.

The board and myself have met with Mr. Davidson of the Library

Development Commission, but we do not seem to get anywhere. We've been

dealing with this since 1972. I strongly feel it's discrimination

against the Penticton Library. Really, the reasoning for this grant

system is to provide service. It is the taxpayers' money and there are

people in Penticton, of course, who contribute to the general revenues

of the province. I think money would be well spent to help promote the

library service in Penticton.

The use of the funding by the board would help them go into a

six-days-a-week operation. Mr. Chairman, I think that is important in

regard to the operation. As I mentioned before, the key to the library

is service to the community, and I think the Penticton library meets

that challenge.

Mr. Chairman, in looking at the Library Development Commission,

under the Act in

section 5 it does state that: "apportionment, subject

to the approval of the minister, the moneys annually apportioned by the

Legislature for the aid of public libraries under this Act, and of

public bodies that are engaged in promoting library services and

improving library standards and the standards approved by the

commission and regulations by the commission…." Mr. Chairman, I think

the minister does have charge of the commission, and I would ask her if

she would review the policy in order that the people of Penticton can

benefit from the library grant programme.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the last

comment on libraries, may I just cover the three areas that were

mentioned in regard to libraries.

First of all, Boundary-Similkameen, if you will recall, Penticton

opted out of the larger regional Okanagan library district and since

that time has struggled to go it alone. I think perhaps now the whole

concept of regional libraries has been established well in the province

by the former government and carried on by this government. I recall

being at a conference, as a matter of fact, that really came up with

the policy back in 1971-72 that established regional libraries. At that

time the Penticton group decided to go it alone, and now I think it has

second thoughts. All I can say is that the door is open. We will be

pleased to renegotiate. The door is open to the Penticton area, and I

will be very pleased to sit down with them and discuss it.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), raised a question on

libraries as well. With regard to the mention that she made of the

Fraser Valley library, there is a problem on the $150,000 grant in that

the grant. They have asked to have granting from two areas of

government, one from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund and one

from the library commission, and that is where that one is hung up at

the present moment. As you know, it is not government policy to have

double funding. So we are just at a problem there, but not one that

cannot be overcome. I think it will be.

I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) also

brought up her concern regarding the library system. I can reiterate

that we are in full agreement with the concept of the library

development system which has been established. This is one of the very

few votes in my department, and in fact in all departments, that has

been increased in government this year. It has been increased by

$100,000, which does not by any means cover the need or the concern

expressed by all members of the House and the public, but it shows the

intent of the government and certainly shows the concern of our

government to continue.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat brought up the point of the White

Crown development. I think you put it very well, Madam Member: it is

presently in limbo. There is an access problem. It involves the

purchase of Crown Zellerbach lands. It has a problem regarding the

cost, because we have been directing a lot of our money to the

completing of the Cypress Bowl development.

[ Page 3332 ]

However, there is a study by Al Raine, that is apparently available

or is going to be available regarding the place of government versus

private enterprise in ski development, which could lead to new policies

for government. We're going to be taking a look at that when time

allows. That may have some reference to your particular area of White

Crown.

I would like to also just suggest to the member for Fort George (Mr.

Lloyd) in the problem of directional signing for Travel Industry and

places of interest…. As you know, some years ago the province of

British Columbia — many, many year ago — made the decision that they

would not have on every highway commercial signing. That has been

policy established, kept up over many years through several

governments. I suggest to you that it is a good one. I don't think we

want to have a lot of commercial signs throughout.

There is a place for directional signs which will assist people and

our travel industry. It is one that we have to encourage. I will have

something to say about that in a while. It is a Highways department

programme; it is a Highways department policy Perhaps some sort of

combination regarding directional signs for tourist attractions could

be worked out, but I would suggest to you that commercial signing would

probably not be within the policy of this government.

I would like to mention to the first speaker for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), who doesn't seem to be in the House now…. I would just

like to say that in regard to his reference to the senior citizens'

park surcharge, as you know, the camping fees surcharge was put on

camps this year in 23 provincial parks. I would like to say that of the

325 provincial parks which we have, only 23 of the 120 camping

facilities have been increased. So this increase, which was the first

since 1971, if it does bear a hardship on senior citizens, it is

during just these peak times of use during the summertime — the summer

months — when we have in the parks help.

We have problems with vandalism, et cetera. The surcharge was put on

to overcome that — for the extra charges for cleaning, et cetera. So I

would suggest that it isn't really a hardship, but I will take under

consideration his suggestion.

Regarding the Creston Valley wildlife, I think the management areas

was set up originally under the former minister, Mr. Ken Kiernan. It

was hailed at the time as being one of the most progressive and unique

management area situations that could have been established. I think it

was lauded throughout the country and still is unique and progressive

in terms of other areas in the country.

It was set up so the funding was possible from federal, provincial

and private funding. Ducks Unlimited, for instance, has an investment

in the area. It's generally split 50-50. I am surprised at the figures;

I am going to look into that a little further. I am surprised at

the figures offered by the member for Nelson-Creston. The budget was

set up in the way that federal, provincial and private funds…. If you

took into account other contributing services which might change this

balance, I think you will believe that this was a fairly good deal.

I do want to stress that there is input from an advisory board of

citizens. Now this is relatively new. The member probably wasn't aware

of it. There is allowance made for

an advisory board. There are outside people who advise us on the

situation. The suggestion that we have Mr. Frank Shannon on the a board

is certainly a good one. He has done much to help the work of the

authority and should be commended for that work. I think perhaps we

could consider a citizen for the board, but we should really wait to

see how the workings of the advisory committee turn out before we

launch into anything like that.

I am taking under advisement the question of the four resident

managers with wives on staff on that particular area. It is not

governed by the Public Service Commission. However, I am going to take

that under advisement because that is news to me and I was not aware of

it. I am pleased to have the information.

I would like to now address an answer if I may to the hon. Liberal

leader and member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) regarding

Mr. Mason Gaffney's appointment by order-in-council, regarding the

commission of inquiry, to be paid $175 daily.

It is government policy and it has been under the previous

governments — it is under this government, certainly — an established

policy that when a member is on staff, on the public service in any

capacity, deputy minister, whatever, if they serve on a committee or

are asked to serve on a committee, they do not get duplicate funding —

i.e. they do not get paid in their capacity of deputy minister, as in

the case of my own deputy minister, Mr. Wallace, who so well served

along with Mr. Ken Morton of my electoral office on the electoral

reform commission.

We have two deputy ministers who served unpaid on the Purchasing

Commission and there are many, many examples throughout government

where that takes place.

Now Mr. Gaffney was on staff at a salary of approximately $40,000

annually. He is paid until September 30 of this year 1976. The

inference that perhaps he was taken out of the $175 per diem because of

political affiliation — I'm not aware of that. I do not take that

criticism, because I honestly do not feel that he was taken from it

because of that — nothing to do with his philosophy, nothing at all.

The policy is that no one in receipt of public money, on the public

payroll, gets additional sums

[ Page 3333 ]

while serving. So apparently he received money in

error and that

means that in spite of the fact that other people who have been serving

on other boards do not get paid, Mr. Gaffney did receive some funds up

to the point that it was discovered that he was getting double funding.

So although we didn't ask him for a refund of the money, the funds were

cut off at that point in time when the discovery was made.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the difference with the two other

professors?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The two other professors are not on the

government payroll. Very often university professors get leave from the

university for their time and sometimes pay back some of the funds into

the university. That's between the university and the professor, and I

don't have knowledge of Dr. Clark and Dr. Hamilton in that regard.

May I just address my remarks then to two or three members, among

them the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), who mentioned the problems

of the leg-hold trap and the whole problem of the humane treatment of

animals in British Columbia and, of course, all over? There is no easy

way to kill an animal. We have, as you made mention, abolished the

toothed leg-hold trap by order-in-council. I want to say in response to

some of the remarks regarding that, that in no way did I, when I was

making that announcement — and you'll notice I made it with several

other announcements or regulations — I made nothing of the fact that we

were abolishing that particular trap.

It is still in use, or had been up to that order-in-council, in use

in British Columbia, but admittedly very little. It was just to ensure

that it would not be used, because it is even more inhumane than the

regular leg-hold trap which we wish to address ourselves to now. So

please don't think that in making that announcement we were setting

ourselves up as it being any answer to the problem which everyone has

expressed so well today. I think that the fact that we made to little

of it at the time is certainly evidence of that.

On the May 21 press release which suggested the 72-hour check and

made it mandatory, may I just say that…? You mentioned, could I meet

with the trappers' association in regard to the enforcement of it and

in regard to all of the other problems that are concerned with the

trappers' association. I have told them that I will meet with them. I

have met with their executive director some two months ago, and because

of the pressure of the session and so on, I haven't had an

opportunity…. I was sorry I had to miss their annual meeting and also

the B.C. wildlife annual meeting because of the session being on and

duties here in the House. But I will certainly make it a point to meet

with those organizations.

As I understand it and as some of you have pointed out, the point of

enforcement on the 72-hour check…. As you know, we have some

conservation officers who would be enforcing it, and I think the

question was raised as to whether they would be sufficient and could

they do it. Let me say that during the winter season and during the

whole year, this particular 72-hour check only influences

approximately, in the areas that you're speaking of, about 10 per cent

of the total trapping situation. It was pointed out to me by the hon.

member for Skeena at the time the trapping regulations were set that

during the winter months, when the northern part of British Columbia is

so cold and inaccessible, the animals die so quickly in the cold that

even the 72-hour check isn't necessary.

So I just draw that to your attention. The 72-hour spread, which is

difficult to enforce, and difficult for even the trappers to enforce

during the winter months, is overcome by the natural winter conditions.

I would also like to mention the fur royalty which was mentioned by

the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson). There was a fixed figure

heretofore in British Columbia, and we were one of the last provinces —

either one or two of the last provinces in Canada — that did not

introduce a system which is now used across Canada. We changed, then,

from the fixed figure to a percentage. Now this percentage is a more

realistic way of reflecting and benefiting from the greatly increased

cost of furs, or the greatly increased price of furs, so it has a

return to the province.

The subject of the federal-provincial committee regarding the

leg-hold trap and humane methods of trapping: I met with Mr. Alec

Caron, the executive director of the committee, just within the last

two weeks — he was here in British Columbia. As you know, he is based

in Ontario. He was telling us at that meeting that the humane testing

that you are concerned with…. And all members seem to be concerned

with the speed in which that organization is moving ahead.

All I can say, in reading about it, is that I share your concern

that it has been slow heretofore. I think they have, through Mr. Caron

and through members of my staff who are on that committee, very good

reason for the slowness at the start. They seem to have fairly good

explanations. But I can say that he does tell me that they are now

undergoing actual testing of, I think it was, four devices which they

had great hopes for at Guelph, Ontario, at the testing laboratory. I

suggest to you that they are coming fairly close; at least, I feel they

are. I don't want to set up any false hopes, but I think that now the

organization is in a fairly viable situation.

[ Page 3334 ]

May I say this, though: it's new to me; I am going to be meeting

with them again, and I want to meet in the fall with that organization

to have an accounting of the work that is being done. I will assure

this House that my concern, my personal commitment to the House and to

the electorate, is that we will find a solution to this problem within

the next 24 months.

I am cognizant, as are you, of the 10,000 families, most of whom are

native Indians, who rely on trapping for a living. So it is no easy

task to make a commitment that will influence the lives of that many

families, and therefore we have to be cognizant of that. I assure you

that I will be; I assure you that we will work towards it and in the

fall hope to have some news regarding that particular organization.

Our commitment to that humane trapping seems very little — $3,200

annually. But the commitment of the total federal-provincial committee

is $2 million over five years. Our commitment will increase as the

return to British Columbia is greater. It can be called on, and

obviously will be called on, as the costs get greater on the testing,

which is the most expensive part of it. We are entering into that phase

now. We will be contributing more to it. I think the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) was raising that question.

The question of wolf population, again raised by the member for

Alberni: I think that the figures are low. I believe you mentioned

7,000. I am advised by my department that this is closer to 30,000 in

the province of British Columbia, and it has increased quite

considerably.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked whether or not that

study had been well done. It was done by our fish and wildlife branch —

all the surveys are done through our fish and wildlife department, with

information from ranchers, trappers and others living in remote areas.

They tell us now that the buildup is somewhere near 30,000 and

justifies the regulations that were put in.

I would like to mention the CIDC which the hon. second member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought forward. I would like to say that the

CIDC, a commission with its $400,000 budget, is still in place. I have

been able to have just one full meeting with them. As you know, it's a

planning concept. We hope to have complete public participation. You

were concerned about the city of Victoria participation. The mayor of

the city of Victoria sits on the board, as does Alderman Hood, so they

have a very great input, and we will certainly be establishing a

public participation in the whole development, because not only the

people in Victoria are concerned; all of B.C. is concerned about their

capital region.

I am not aware of the gentleman you mentioned by the name of

Webster. You and I should talk about that after, I think. I am sorry, I

am unaware of that and I cannot get information. As I can't get

information, I assume he is not on staff.

We have had great cooperation expressed by all of the member

municipalities, and I'm very optimistic about the work we can do

through CIDC to truly make the Inner Harbour the jewel that it should

be for our capital region.

I'd like again to return to the question from the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) regarding political influence and political appointments.

You mentioned a memo — you could not give me a date or a signature —

and you made mention of one Gene Errington, who, as you know, was

discontinued in her position in January of this year. I want to inform

the House that when I mentioned the name of Ms. Errington last week in

my questioning in the estimates under the Status of Women, I want to

mention to you that the information that I gave the House last week was

unknown to me till about two weeks ago, and I had no idea until that

point in time what Ms. Errington's policies or politics were.

To get back to the memo that the member for Alberni mentioned, I am

advised by my staff that they were unaware of any memo. Certainly it

was not issued from Victoria. I am unaware of it, and all I can say is

that if you do have specifics I'd like a date and I'd like a place. If

they are posted everywhere surely there must be a signature on them. If

you will make that available to me I'd be pleased to have it. It did

not emanate from my office.

I am also advised by staff that the Mr. Mike Jesson, who you

mentioned in the Nelson area as clerk 2 in Fish and Wildlife, was a

limited appointment. The limited appointments of the Public Service

Commission are not necessarily kept on staff, and that is to do with

the judgment of the department itself.

I am sorry, but I was completely unaware of the criticism that you

mentioned. I don't know of Mr. Jesson, his politics or his public

statements about B.C. Hydro. All I can say is that certainly no

political judgment was made in terms of not re-hiring him. He was a

limited appointment.

I've just covered all the questions, I think, but I think the member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the handicapped recreation centre

in Victoria where 300 handicapped youngsters are being served. I'm

really pleased he mentioned it because I know all members of the House

have their own particular concerns and I know they have wished to have

programmes. We can talk about libraries, and they're all very good. We

can talk about programme after programme in every single portfolio in

this House and every single department, but I don't think that any of

us would dispute the fact that if there's going to be funds given up

from one area to another, every member in this House will give it to

those less fortunate than ourselves, the disadvantaged and the

handicapped in this province.

I also wish to address my remarks to the electoral

[ Page 3335 ]

reform which you mentioned. I can tell you that we

have a

commitment, which was a commitment made by the party which was

fortunate enough to become elected in December, to bring electoral

reform before the next election as soon as the House rises. Somewhere

in the month of August I hope to get together a study and make sure

that I have something to report to the House in the next session. I do

have that timetable which is a personal one and a personal commitment

to that.

You mentioned also the question of lotteries. Loto Canada will be

competitive. You asked if there was a commitment from the federal

government prior to that statement being made by the federal

government. Yes, there was a commitment by the federal government to

meet with the provincial ministers and make a statement, make a policy

programme. Unfortunately the federal announcement was made before that

meeting was put together. I think that's where we felt a little

concerned, that it wasn't done.

Regarding oil spills, we're still trying to negotiate with the

federal government an agreement on jurisdictions. We're still awaiting

answers from the federal government. That's under active study and

consideration, and I hope that before we meet again we're going to have

jurisdiction settled on that question so we know where we all stand in

that regard.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the

minister's answers concerning some of the topics that we did bring up.

I understand the member for Burrard has one that wasn't answered, but

I'll be very brief.

The member did not respond to my question concerning the effect on

tourism in central Vancouver Island and the meeting I had yesterday

with those 27 businesses and the three chambers of commerce. I hope

that she will answer that question. What I was requesting was a

rollback in ferry fares and a study of the impact of ferry fare

increases on those people. I believe they will be in contact with the

minister shortly to provide in detail the impact that the ferry rate

increases have had on their business.

On the question of wolves, I wasn't aware of the study that was

done. However, it bothers me that the input to that study was from

trappers, farmers and others. I think we should have more research on

wolves in the province of British Columbia before a step is taken to

provide for the killing of wolves on traplines.

It mentions in the regulations that killing-traps only will be used.

The major type of killing-trap that's used for wolves is the snare. I'd

just like to give a description by a Mr. Lung, former director of the

Humane Trap Development Committee, Toronto, Ontario, of the snare:

"At best, the animal is choked progressively to death,

and since this situation is at the dictates of fear and struggling by

the animal itself, the period involved may be very prolonged."

I can see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is very

concerned about this, because he has presented a bill on this subject.

"If the noose is set too large, or carelessly, so that

the creature also puts a leg through the loop, the snare can cut into

the animal's body. A little thought suffices to bring out clearly the

suffering involved, particularly if the trapper does not return for a

long time. In some cases, the animal's torso can be virtually cut in

half if the noose closes around, say, the abdomen. In other cases,

extremities such as snout or legs can be caught, resulting in intense

misery."

I would like to see, before permitting the use of killing-traps for

wolves, some detailed study of the wolf population in British Columbia

— not one that simply involves input from farmers and trappers, but one

that is done by professional biologist staff, possibly from the fish

and wildlife branch.

We get the same thing on cougars on central Vancouver Island. When

we get input from the cougar hunters and farmers, there appears to be a

heck of a lot more cougars than there actually are. When we get some

professional studies, the number of cougars that actually exist on

central Vancouver Island is very, very small in comparison.

I understand that budget vote 032 that provides for special studies

in regional offices has now been cut back. In fact, that budget has now

been allocated to the student summer-employment programme, so that some

of these studies that would have been done on wolves by professional

people within the fish and wildlife branch are now being allocated to

the student summer-employment program. Those studies will not be done

by competent biological staff. I think that's unfortunate.

One final question relates to the issue of mining and forest

development in parks. This was brought up by several Social Credit

backbenchers, advocating mining and logging development in parks. The

Premier has assured the House that mining and logging development will

not take place in provincial parks — I think we're grateful for that

assurance. The Provincial Secretary also advised the House, I believe

on April 14, that there would be no more claim-staking in parks. I

believe that's already part of legislation passed as far back as 1974.

I would also like the assurance of the Provincial Secretary and the

Minister of Recreation that parks won't be eliminated to allow the

development of claims such as the big interior mountain claims like

Cream Silver Mines in Strathcona Park.

[ Page 3336 ]

We accept the assurance and we're grateful for the assurance that

mining and logging development will not be permitted in parks, but we

would like some assurance that parks won't be moved in order to delete

those claims from parkland in order to allow exploration and

development to go ahead in those parks. Could the minister provide that

assurance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, there'll be no mining in

parks under this administration. There will be no new claims. You've

made mention of Strathcona — there was a redefinition of the

boundaries, as you know, and there was a net gain parkwise. We have a

commitment to trying to solve the age-old contracts which both

governments have had a great deal of soul-searching over. We're hoping

to have a resolution between both mines and parks departments that can

overcome that. Again, I can just give you that commitment that we have

that conservation-minded policy in the government.

You mentioned your concern regarding the study done on the wolves.

It was done by professional biologists, assisted by outside help.

Please don't think it was all amateurs in the field. They had very good

input from outside people, but it was not done entirely by amateurs.

Our own professional biologists did that. I haven't had an opportunity

to check with the deputy, but I don't believe that the student studies

are discontinued. I gave some approval in the last few weeks for some

studies to be undertaken by students within the Fish and Wildlife. I

can't be quite sure of that; I just haven't had a second to do that.

One of the things I do want to answer is in regard to the cultural

programme question from the first member from Burrard. We are committed

to a decentralized programme through the Community Arts Council, and

we're very concerned that this continue.

I've been quite impressed with the kinds of things that are going on

in the province. We are going into the hinterlands, as you say, and we

are certainly committed to that programme — the continuation of it —

and I think that one of the things that perhaps brought our province

ahead through many years, certainly to the fore in Canada in the arts,

was the establishment of the cultural fund which has been of great

benefit to people in all parts of the province.

You made mention of ISIS and the request for $21,000. That's still

under study. I don't have a definite commitment to make to you today,

but I certainly will look into it and report further.

Finally, because it escaped my comments, I would like to end my

comments by saying to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), regarding

the travel industry, that it is and will be one of the most important

industries in this province. I suggest to you that it could be, with

the cooperation of the private sector working with government, the top

revenue portfolio in the province.

In your concern for the ferry rates, I'm going to say this: the

concern of Vancouver Island travel people is not entirely negative in

regard to the ferry rates. The good operators — and I have seen some

press on this and I've had some feedback from the industry itself —

are, of course, concerned with the increase in ferry rates. This

government is concerned about the increase in ferry rates. We didn't do

it for a popularity contest; we did it because it was an economic

measure that had to be taken. But I'm going to say this to you: the

travel industry on Vancouver Island will be enhanced by a $100,000

advertising programme undertaken jointly by Travel Industry and B.C.

Ferries. It begins on Monday of this coming week and it will cover the

lower mainland and the Seattle area to entice people.

I would just like to make this statement: the travel industry can be

very healthy in the province of British Columbia. It is being

influenced greatly this year by the people in the United States of

America who are staying home to celebrate their bicentennial. It is

still being influenced by the decrease of motor traffic outside of the

U.S.A. because of the cost and so on. That decrease started last year

and we're living with it this year, and it is influenced somewhat by

the pull of the Olympics in Montreal. But I would say that any good

operator who gives service to people is really not suffering on

Vancouver Island, or anywhere else in this province, and a lot of it

has to do with the fact that those private industries must go the extra

mile to make people feel at home. They are suffering greatly over a

very high-cost labour area and they have to make up for that with very

great service.

I am very confident that we can assist in our joint meetings with

industry. I've had many meetings. I've just come back from a meeting

where we saw the top, I guess, hospitality people in the world in

action in Honolulu. I can say that my desire is that we make that

industry very healthy in the province of British Columbia, and with the

cooperation of the industry, we're going to. We're committed to that

fact.

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: general administration, $319,330 — approved.

Vote 154: central microfilm bureau, $802,822 — approved.

Vote 155: postal branch, $3,495,996 — approved.

Vote 156: Legislative Library, $604,988 — approved.

Vote 157: library services, $3,780,944 — approved.

[ Page 3337 ]

Vote 158: Provincial Archives, $676,130 — approved.

Vote 159: Queen's Printer, $10 — approved.

Vote 160: Government House, $119,786 — approved.

Vote 161: Agent-General's office and British Columbia House,

$400,843 — approved.

Vote 162: Indian Advisory Act, $66,700 — approved.

Vote 163: Public Inquiries Act, $1,000,000 — approved.

Vote 164: grants and special services and events, $3,210,000 —

approved.

Vote 165: Provincial Elections Act, $580,792 — approved.

Vote 166: provincial emergency programme, $1,289,434 — approved.

Vote 167: British Columbia lottery branch, $10 — approved.

Vote 168: leisure services branch, $2,030,406 — approved.

Vote 169: unemployment insurance (public service) and Workers'

Compensation Act, $11,400,000 — approved.

Vote 170: British Columbia provincial museum, $3,483,458 — approved.

Vote 171: distribution of government publications, $250,000 —

approved.

Vote 172: public information, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 173: Public Service Commission, administration, $3,441,877 —

approved.

Vote 174: Public Service Commission, employee benefits, $24,150,000

— approved.

Vote 175: superannuation branch, administration, $1,009,546 —

approved.

Vote 176: superannuation branch, public service superannuation and

retirement benefits, $40,060,000 — approved.

Vote 177: superannuation branch, Members of the Legislative Assembly

Superannuation Act, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 178: superannuation branch, Municipal Superannuation Act,

$61,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Vote 179: minister's office, $34,400 — approved.

Vote 180: general administration — recreation, $912,904 — approved.

Vote 181: information and education branch, $390,785 — approved.

Vote 182: marine resources branch, $565,856 — approved.

Vote 183: fisheries enhancement programme, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 184: fish and wildlife branch, $10,079,600.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to lend support to the

press release of the fish and wildlife branch dated April 30 regarding

gun control, because gun control as suggested by the national

government will not contain violent crime in our country. I think that

the legislation which has been introduced by the national government is

only harassment of the law-abiding people who own guns in this country.

It's vague, it's unspecific. I am standing to support the fish and

wildlife branch in their press release of April 30.

Vote 184 approved.

Vote 185: Creston Valley management authority, $129,750 — approved.

Vote 186: parks branch — operations, $13,565,187 — approved.

Vote 187: parks branch — capital programme, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 188: grants-in-aid of regional parks development, $1,320,000 —

approved.

Vote 189: Pacific Rim National Park, $2,858,000 — approved.

Vote 190: youth crew programme, $1,000,000 —

[ Page 3338 ]

approved.

Vote 191: outdoor recreation branch, $405,254 — approved.

Vote 192: Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, $1,879,

811 — approved.

Vote 193: general administration — travel, $62,240 — approved.

On vote 194: travel division, $4,182,699.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to come to the

defence of the travel industry and the hospitality industry people on

central Vancouver Island. The Provincial Secretary said that they have

to go that extra mile to attract tourists to the Island. I think that

over the years they have gone that extra mile. They have provided a

very good industry on central Vancouver Island; they have attracted a

tremendous number of people to that area. They are a very good

industry, a very capable industry, a very efficient industry.

It hasn't been until this year that three chambers of commerce have

written to the government protesting the type of treatment that that

industry has received from the provincial government, specifically

relating to ferry rates. I would like to come to the defence of those

people, because they do provide a good service to tourists and they do

go that extra mile.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Member, I would just like to say that

you don't have to come to their defence. I wasn't attacking them.

Vote 194 approved.

Vote 195: Beautiful British Columbia Magazine, $1,173,587 —

approved.

Vote 196: California and London offices, $169,933 — approved.

Vote 197: film and photographic branch, $567,472 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $3,264,110.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to make three very brief

points and representations to the minister under vote 1.

First of all, I appreciate that this first session of the new

government was a very busy one and an unusual one. I would hope,

however, that in future sessions committees of the House could be used

a great deal more and in particular that in some cases they could be

used to travel around the province and sound out public opinion and

learn things from the people of this province, because I think that can

be a very helpful use of this Legislature.

The second point: I would hope that the government might consider

setting aside some money for the production of what I might call a

British Columbia Beauchesne . I think that it might assist the debate

and the procedure and the order in this Legislature if members had

available to them a compendium of Speakers' decisions over the years

and the law of this Legislature as it has evolved in some kind of

coherent form.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, not in any annotated and collected form, Mr.

Member.

Finally, I would suggest that the government give suggestion to

establishing or referring to the existing committee the whole question

of our standing orders and the procedures of this House, which would be

a study that would take a long time. But I would ask the government to

think about it, because I do think it could use some overhaul and

modernization.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think on this vote it would just

be very appropriate to express appreciation for the people who work

under the chamber. I'm thinking of the staff of Hansard . This

was a progressive move that was made by the former government. I think

all of us as individual members in the House depend enormously on the

work done by Hansard . I personally admire their efforts and I

think that it is never a better time than the last day of the session

to let all the staff of Hansard know that we not only appreciate the

standard of their work but we certainly appreciate the pleasant and

cooperative way in which they do their job.

Vote 1 approved.

Schedule A: $199,703,557 — approved.

MRS. McCARTHY: I move the committee rise and report

resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move

that by leave of the House the rules

[ Page 3339 ]

be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the Committee of

Supply on April 28, 29; May 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, 19, 26; June 4, 8, 22,

23, 24, 29, 30, 1976, be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the rules be suspended and the

resolutions from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now

leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good

the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the

province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

the following: (1) $199,705,557 to make good certain sums expended for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975; (2) $3,667,202,382 towards

defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1977, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section (1) of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1976.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is: that towards the making good

the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the

province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

the following: (1) $199,705,557 to make good certain sums expended for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975; (2) $3,667,202,382 towards

defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1977, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1976.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be

now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 85,

intituled Supply Act, No. 2, 1976.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I declare a short recess so that

the attendants may distribute to all of the hon. members a copy of

Supply, Act No. 2, 1976. So just stay in your places, if you don't mind,

and we will see that the bill is distributed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be

referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 2, 1976

The House in Committee on Bill 85; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise

and report to the House recommending introduction of Bill 85.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports recommending

the introduction of Bill 85.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports recommending introduction

of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be

adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the

House, the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3340 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the

House, the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to Committee of

the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85, Supply Act No. 2, 1976, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRY CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. WALLACE: I would like the minister to comment on whether

consideration was given under the definition of "ferry system" to

incorporate the ferries now under the Department of Highways. We have a

bill before the House which is meant to facilitate the ease with which

some responsibilities can be transferred to other departments. When I

was discussing the Municipal Affairs estimates, we talked about the

ferry system across Burrard Inlet which, I admit, is much more in the

nature of a very short trip for pedestrians, but I wonder if the

minister could tell if any consideration has been given, or is likely

to be given once this bill is set up, to incorporate all ferries under

this corporation, including those presently under the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the present intention is simply to transfer the

routes and the vessels now administered under the Department of

Transport and Communications, but at any time routes could be added or

deleted and vessels included or not but this would be a matter referred

by the directors to the government and would be a matter for

order-in-council or, of course, the government could take an initiative

of its own.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I was

wondering, in view of the minister's earlier remarks about the

possibility of worker representation on the board of directors under

the

section 3…. I see no mention of this in this

section and I was

wondering if the minister could possibly inform this House if he does

intend to proceed with the worker representation on the board of

directors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the directors will be appointed

by order-in-council. This is a matter for the cabinet. I'm personally

inclined to favour that kind of representation, but certainly it would

be a decision by the government as a whole.

MR. GIBSON: When it comes to boards of directors, I am always

worried about jobs for the boys. There's a lot of….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, that's right. There are a lot of government

backbenchers that there's just not going to be any room for in the

cabinet. I just want to know, is it the government's intention at all,

within their term of office, to put any MLAs on this board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge.

MR. GIBSON: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the

minister if he would accept an amendment adding a new

section 9, saying

that no MLAs shall be eligible. Mr. Chairman, I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: That should be subsection (9) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the proposed amendment as it is

submitted is incomplete. It simply

[ Page 3341 ]

says that no MLAs shall be eligible. However, it is not….

MR. GIBSON: To sit as directors — I had to scribble it out

quickly. I'll finish it off, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would have a completed form sent to the

table.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Isn't this wonderful to

be making law right on the floor of the House like this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dreamer!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment appears to be in

order. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am not sure if this is the right

section in

which to ask this question or raise this point, but I understand that

the service of B.C. Ferries is going to be transferred to the new

corporation for the sum of $1. I have it on pretty good authority that

there was a major organization prepared to — at one time not too long

ago — purchase the service for $1. I think it was the union and I have

it on very good authority they are now prepared to pay $2. So I just

wondered if the minister had a comment.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. WALLACE: On this rare occasion I wish to pay a compliment

to the government, because they've got two words in

section 6. Twice in

different subsections it says: "except expropriation." We have had so

much time and discussion in debate on various bills — and I'll be

referring in another bill later on today to the opposite of this point

— but I think it's very wise and a credit to the government that in

this particular

section in acquiring property it has made the point

very plain that it cannot exercise the power of expropriation. I

congratulate the government for that.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, if anyone is

getting hungry I would suggest that this is going to take a little bit

longer than the member for Oak Bay. You will recall, I am sure, that

this is one of the bills that did not get a very intensive examination

in second reading. It just seemed to me that at the time this went

through second reading there wasn't anyone in the House who wanted to

discuss government legislation. The only opportunity to really discuss

the principles of this legislation as I see it, having forgone that

opportunity, would be under

section 6.

I would certainly like to say something about the proposal to set up

the B.C. Ferry Corp., particularly now about the proposal to enter into

a leasing arrangement with some eastern financial interest. The

minister, at least, was good enough to make available to the members a

report that was done on this subject. I think perhaps this argument

would have been stronger had he not made this report available, because

in telling us about this arrangement he told us what a good job he had

done, or was at least proposing to do, on behalf of the Crown —

certainly seeking to serve the public interest best.

But I wonder, Mr. Chairman. And I intend to say that I don't think

it is serving the public interest; I don't think it is a prudent step

on the part of the Crown to enter into this proposed lease arrangement

which

section 6 authorizes the minister to do.

I like to look at it from the points of view of the government, the

people of the province of British Columbia and from the point of view

of the lessor as well.

Let's look at the benefits — the so-called benefits of the deal —

that the minister has quietly worked out to sell three new ferries —

and there's some question, and the report brings this out, as to

whether it could be three or two or…I suppose it could even be one.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to assume that we're dealing with three

ferries since the B.C. Ferry Authority is currently engaged in buying

three ferries. So let's assume that we're dealing with three ferries —

the figures, of course, would have to be different if we were dealing

with something less than that.

The minister boasted, in talking about this arrangement, that he's

going to save millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia.

It's been suggested by some that in doing this the minister is really

coming up smelling like roses in presenting this deal that's going to

save all these millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that anyone who takes a close-up sniff of

that boast will be instantly repelled, because there's an unwholesome

stench to the way this deal has been presented to the public — to the

whole deal itself.

It's another example of the political dishonesty and decay which has

already beset this coalition government. Political dishonesty. No

wonder the whole province is beginning to hold its nose over the

nauseating expediency of this recycled government.

It's past time this administration came clean with the public, and

that's my statement, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3342 ]

Remember the administration that talked about no increases in taxes,

the administration that talked about no deficit financing? It's going

to be on a pay-as-you-go policy. It's past time you came clean…. I'm

sorry, Mr. Chairman, not you. It's past time this government came clean

with the public by scrubbing up its act — cleaning up its act with some

strong soap and water.

Mr. Chairman, instead of saving the taxpayers…. And that's the way

the deal was presented to us, that it was going to save the taxpayers

some millions of dollars worth of money. Let's look at the deal a

little more closely. This wonderful sale-lease-repurchase scheme will:

(1) More than double the original $46.5 million

capital cost of these ferries to the people of British Columbia — $46.5

million is the figure for the total cost of the three ferries. We're

going to end up paying more than double that amount.

(2) It