1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act

(Bill No. 138).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1901

Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 45). Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1901

Oral Questions

Appointment of director of Human Rights Commission. Ms., Young

— 1901

Extension of BCR from Terrace. Mr. Chabot — 1901

Incorporation of Colwood, Langford, View Royal. Mr. Curtis — 1901

Proposed community plans for Galiano and South Pender

Islands. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1902

Copper smelter at Kitimat. Mr. Phillips — 1902

Union representation for ferry service officers. Mr. Wallace — 1902

Removal of sales tax from building materials. Mr. Brousson — 1902

Hiring of director of Human Rights Commission. Mrs. Jordan — 1902

Appointments to the Assessment Appeal Board. Mr. McGeer — 1903

Dismissal of administrator of Surrey Memorial Hospital. Mr. McClelland — 1903

Possible discrimination against female civil servants. Hon. Mr. Hall answers

earlier question — 1904

Old age pension increase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1904

Sandringham Hospital labour dispute. Mr. Chabot — 1904

LRB decision re Cominco employees vote. Mr. Chabot — 1905

Committee of supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation Mr. Chabot — 1905

Mr. Lewis — 1907

Mr. Phillips — 1907

Mr. Nicolson — 1914

Mr. Gardom — 1914

Mr. Brousson — 1915

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1916

Mr. Curtis — 1918

Mr. Kelly — 1919

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1920

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1921

Mr. Phillips — 1923

Mr. Williams — 1923

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1924

Mr. Williams — 1924

Mr. Wallace — 1924

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1925

Mr. Gardom — 1925

Mr. McGeer — 1926

Mr. Lauk — 1928

Mr. Phillips — 1928

Mr. Nicolson — 1930

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1931

Mr. Chabot — 1931

Mrs. Jordan — 1932

Mr. Fraser — 1935

Mr. McClelland — 1937

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1938

Mrs. Jordan — 1938

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1939

Mr. Chabot — 1939

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1939

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act (Bill No. 16). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction

and first reading — 1940

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): One of the

requirements of the Girl Guide organization is, in earning

their citizens badge, to see parliament in action. This

afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have as our guests in the House a

group of Girl Guides and their leaders from the Upper Lonsdale

area in North Vancouver. I hope the House will welcome

them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the

galleries today and earlier in this morning's session we have a

group of nearly 100 students from West Whalley School in

Surrey.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 138 intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 138 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

SEXUAL STERILIZATION

ACT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 45 intituled Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 45 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

APPOINTMENT OF

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Is the

Minister of Labour prepared at this time to accept

congratulations on his appointment of Ms. Kathleen Ruff as

director of the Human Rights Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of

order.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

EXTENSION OF

BCR FROM TERRACE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Premier

and the president of the British Columbia Railway. Has the

president of the railway issued instructions to the British

Columbia Railway for an extension of the railway from Terrace

through the Columbia Cellulose timber holdings north of Terrace

in order to accommodate the takeover by the Government of

Columbia Cellulose operation in British Columbia?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): If it is not out order, I'll take

it as notice of question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

INCORPORATION OF

COLWOOD, LANGFORD, VIEW ROYAL

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

I direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

ask if he has had any discussions recently, formally or

informally, with representatives of Colwood, Langford and View

Royal with respect to the possibility of incorporation of those

areas as municipalities?

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

have had discussions over the past few months with

representatives from View Royal, with representatives of the

Drakehill district in the areas of Colwood, Langford, Sooke — throughout the areas. Some of the conversations drifted to the

possible amalgamations, but there is certainly nothing firm or

fixed about it. That is only part of the discussions that were

being held but it was brought up at those times.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Sir. Mr. Speaker, is it likely

that there will be further conversations, perhaps of a more

meaningful nature, during the balance of this year? Does he

expect that, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1902 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't say too clearly on that. I will

not be initiating any discussions during the next few months

regarding this question. I may get questions from people in the

districts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLANS FOR

GALIANO AND SOUTH PENDER ISLANDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the

Minister could inform us if he has had an opportunity to review

the proposed official community plans for Galiano and South

Pender Island and if he hasn't yet had that opportunity, when

will he be doing so?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The plans of Galiano Island and the other

Gulf Islands are matters which are before the standing

committee on municipal matters. The committee will be making

its reports in regard to all the islands in the Gulf of Georgia

and in the Howe Sound area and farther up Vancouver Island.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the question is no longer then within

the Minister's jurisdiction while it is in the hands of

committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is just the point that I want

to confirm, Mr. Speaker. I, unfortunately, was under the

impression it still is in the hands of the Minister — and such

plans should be approved by him. Perhaps he could indicate

whether I am right or wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't know whether it is in my hands or

not. If it is, there will be no report from me until after the

committee has made a report to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

COPPER SMELTER

AT KITIMAT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Mines. Has he

entered into any negotiation with respect to the establishment

of a copper smelter at Kitimat?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No.

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

UNION REPRESENTATION

FOR FERRY SERVICE OFFICERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of

Highways with regard to officers on the ferry service: is there

to be a vote taken regarding their union representation as a

choice between the Canadian Merchant Service Guild and the B.C.

Government Employees Union? If so, when will the Vote be

taken?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Representations

have been made to the management of the ferry system under the

rules of the existing agreement between the employees of the

ferry system and the management of the system and they are

determining the present situation at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

REMOVAL OF

SALES TAX FROM BUILDING MATERIALS

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Finance. In view of the Government's expressed concern about

the high cost of housing, I wonder if the Government is giving

any consideration to removing the 5 per cent sales tax from

residential building materials?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the

budget speech to indicate that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MR. BROUSSON: Is the Government giving any consideration,

Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, your question is really going beyond

the rule which says that you can't ask information of what a

Minister proposes to advise the Crown. The Hon. Member for

North Okanagan.

HIRING OF

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

hope this question is in order. It is to the Hon. Minister of

Labour. Would the Minister please advise the House if Ms.

Kathleen Ruff, the NDP candidate in the last provincial

election, was hired as the director of the Human Rights

Commission after advertising in normal competition through the

Civil Service Commission?

[ Page 1903 ]

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the

situation with respect to the new chairman of the Human Rights

Branch was advertised. The position was advertised. A

competition was held through the Civil Service Commission and I

presume that the panel found Mrs. Ruff the most qualified

candidate for that position.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. Would it be in order for the

Minister to advise the House who was on the panel?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a civil service panel.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't know who is on the panel though.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is a matter of public record; you shouldn't

have to answer such questions.

HON. MR. KING: I'm not sure who was on the panel, to be quite honest.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I may be incorrect. I understood

this was a panel of the Civil Service Commission.

MRS. JORDAN: I wasn't sure from the Minister's statement

which panel it was. I understand the panels for the Civil

Service Commission rotate or alternate from time to time.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Member that

there were two representatives from the Department of Labour on

that panel — the Deputy Minister of Labour and the director of

the women's bureau. Other than that I couldn't tell you at this

point who else was represented on the panel from the Civil

Service Commission.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. And I appreciate the

Minister's not being quite familiar with this — this is

understandable. Would he take it as notice to bring to this

House how many applicants there were before the panel, and who

did sit on the panel?

HON. MR. KING: Well, familiarity hasn't got too much to do

with that, I don't think, Mr. Speaker. But if the Member wishes

to place that kind of question on the order paper, I would be

happy to get those details for her.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

APPOINTMENTS TO

THE ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

whether there have been appointments to the Assessment Appeal

Board terminated and whether new appointments have been made

for the 1973 fiscal year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could he

tell us whose appointments were terminated? Who will be

replacing those individuals?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The information is available through

order-in-council. It is public knowledge already.

MR. SPEAKER: Then there is no need to answer such

questions.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

DISMISSAL OF ADMINISTRATOR OF

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like to address my

question to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the

Minister of Health what action, if any, he has taken in regard

to the situation at Surrey Memorial Hospital where the

administrator was fired? I understand the staff is protesting

the dismissal.

If there is action being taken, will the Minister report to

the House on what that action is and what the results are?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I heard about the dismissal of Mr. Ian Manning at

the Surrey Memorial Hospital, I was over on the mainland at Riverview and I

immediately called BCHIS. I asked them to put two of our people onto the subject

and asked them to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of

Mr. Manning. As he has been a long-term administrator in a major hospital in

B.C., I felt that that's what should be done.

I have nothing further to say, other than the fact that it

was a surprise to me, as it would be to any other Member in the

House.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: will the

Minister be making a further statement or will a further

statement be available when you hear from your two people who

are investigating this?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine I'll be

answering questions at that time. I don't like to forecast

anything with respect to this kind of thing. I

[ Page 1904 ]

believe that it's a rather sensitive matter and I would

prefer that we first find out what's going on. At the present

time there are employees meeting from time to time, I

understand. Hotlines have been working on it. It's a bit

unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST

FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

I was asked a question regarding possible discrimination

against female employees in the civil service, in that they

were being asked to provide birth certificates and marriage

licenses to the various departmental managers by virtue of the

Civil Service Act .

I've investigated that, Mr. Speaker, and want to reply to

the question and tell the House that, first of all, all

employees in the civil service have to produce their birth

certificates to ascertain date of birth for superannuation

purposes. Female members of the civil service change their

names when they get married. If there's a difference in the

name between the name on the birth certificate and the name of

the person being employed, some connective proof must be

produced. That's why they're asked to produce their marriage

licenses.

I think it's fair to say that there is no discrimination.

What is at fault is the wording on the form, the authoritarian

and rather insensitive wording on a simple interdepartmental

form that's used. I've issued instructions that that be changed

and that the reasons for these requests be on the form

itself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

OLD AGE PENSION INCREASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of

Human Resources, Mr. Speaker: all senior citizens in Canada,

except those in British Columbia who are receiving Mincome,

will be receiving the $17.22 increase in federal pensions. I

wonder if he could inform the House whether he plans steps

before the end of the month so that the April federal cheques

can be met by a corresponding action on behalf of the

provincial government which would allow the full $17.22

increase to go to the senior citizens in British Columbia.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the Mincome recipients, I've already made a public announcement

about it. The pension will remain at $200 and they will not, in fact, get the

increase if they're above that. We've made that quite

clear. We've also said that we will review it in the fall.

Our commitment last fall, when we introduced the

legislation, was $200. The programme has been operating for

four months. I think we've certainly kept faith with the

seniors on that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of

the fact that last fall we were promised that any increases

bearing a relationship to inflation would be permitted, I

wonder whether the Minister would indicate at least an increase

allowing for inflation since last fall or even before might be

permitted these senior citizens at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is really not in order. It's

asking what advice he proposes to give the Crown and it's still

hypothetical in its nature. Any further questions? The Hon.

Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm just a little

confused. Perhaps the Minister would clarify what he is

Minister of.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Member is misnaming the Minister.

As I understand it, reading from this paper, he is still the

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. He's not the

Minister of Human Resources as yet. The Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

SANDRINGHAM HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I wonder if the Minister

of Labour could tell me whether there has been any progress in

the labour dispute at Sandringham hospital. What? I didn't hear

the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the answer is "yes".

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: would the Minister be

prepared to tell the House just what kind of progress has taken

place in this labour dispute? Is there going to be a collective

agreement between the employer and the employees'

representatives? If so, when will this collective agreement be

signed?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): No, I'm not prepared to

give the House what is not a fact. That would be forecasting

and I'm not in the crystal ball business. I can appreciate the

former Minister of Labour's concern, since he sat on that

dispute for over two years. Discussions are continuing, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 1905 ]

LRB DECISION

RE COMINCO EMPLOYEES VOTE

MR. CHABOT: Another question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Labour: yesterday he indicated to the House that he was

going to examine the decisions of the Labour Relations Board

relative to the Canadian Workers Union application for

representation of the workers at Cominco in the East and West

Kootenays. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Labour is

prepared to tell us whether he will allow a free vote of these

workers at Cominco.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, again the Member would reveal

that he wasn't very familiar with the legislation he

administered as Minister of Labour when he occupied that

seat.

The Minister of Labour, in fact, has no authority to grant

or deny a vote in certification proceedings. That is a function

of the Labour Relations Board which, under the legislation as

written by that former administration, is independent from the

Minister of Labour's office. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the

suggestion is that we should have political interference with

the decision of a quasi-judicial body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, the matter is not a subject of

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saved by the bell. (Laughter).

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION

AND CONSERVATION

On vote 222: Minister's office, $19,294.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to vote 222, the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation's office, Mr. Chairman,

I think that it's appropriate at this time to comment briefly

on the question of game management policies in this

province.

We evidence from time to time conflicting statements coming from different

departments. I thought there was a certain degree of coordination between departments,

and one department knew what the other department was doing. But apparently,

when it comes to game management, no one appears to know what

is taking place.

In the field, you hear the biologists maintain that there's

a critical conflict in grazing between livestock and big game.

From the Forest Service — those people who administer grazing

rights in the province, Mr. Chairman — we hear that there is no

conflict. I'm sure that most people in British Columbia who are

interested in big game management — and I think most people are — are very confused by the conflicting statements being made by

the grazing division and the Wildlife Branch of the Department

of Recreation and Conservation.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to us

really whether there is a conflict between livestock and big

game on grazing in the critical areas. When it comes to big

game, we in British Columbia live in a unique area. We have

probably the widest variety of species of big game to be found

anywhere in the world. I think that we should reassess from

time to time our policies relative to management of this

resource — and it is a resource. I consider it a very important

resource.

There has been a slight change of direction from the past. I

would like to see an acceleration of the change in direction on

this very important resource. But in the past, we tended to

manage the harvest instead of managing the land.

We have certainly lost some critical habitat that's most

important for the survival of certain species of our game.

There have been steps taken by the former government — probably

not as quickly as it should have taken place — but they have in

certain areas such as the Bull River area in the East Kootenays

bought out private land to ensure that the bighorn sheep would

have an opportunity of surviving, that there would be no

conflict. In that particular area there was a conflict between

livestock grazing and the winter range of the big game. But

they did move in that particular instance.

I am wondering whether the Minister is considering setting

aside some of the critical habitat in the province to ensure

that big game will have an opportunity to survive and to

expand. I think it's commonly known by the biologists in the

province as to where this critical range is. I think a major

study should be undertaken as to where they are. If they're

private property I think they should be purchased to ensure

that there's an expansion and a continuation of our game

resource in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Designation?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, there has been designation in the past on

Crown land for winter grazing for big game. Really, we have to

look at the resource. Wildlife is an industry, a big industry

in British Columbia. I don't think that we should necessarily

manage it for the sole right of the hunter, because

[ Page 1906 ]

there are a lot of people who like to see and take pictures

of big game.

Even though I am a hunter — but have not hunted for some

time — I still like the experience of watching big game in some

of the national parks. For instance in the area I come from,

the Kootenay National Park, it's quite a sight in the fall to

see up to 500 elk congregated on the side of the road. It does

attract a lot of tourists into the district — just the game.

The resource is one worthy of conserving and worthy of

increasing and improving.

There has been a fair amount of concern in the East

Kootenays relative to statements made, I believe, by biologists

on the possibility that we might go into quota hunting or

permit hunting in the province and probably in the East

Kootenays specifically — probably the first approach to permit

hunting. I am wondering whether the Minister would care to

expand on this possibility, whether there is a possibility and,

if there is, just when this might take place and just how these

permits would be allocated to those people that want to hunt a

particular species in the province.

How would the Minister overcome the problems of people who

derive their livelihood from guiding, for instance? Would there

be an allocation of permits to non-residents for hunting

purposes or would it be strictly for British Columbians?

British Columbians are concerned on this very question. They

feel that they should be given first priority in the particular

instance.

Now I want to raise two or three matters of local concern — the White Swan Lake area, which is a pretty popular lake, one

for which I must admit the new fish hatchery at Bull River has

done a tremendous job in restocking the lake. It's made it an

extremely popular lake, one which is heavily utilized by the

fishing population. I am wondering whether the Government is

giving consideration to the establishment of a campsite on this

lake.

I know that the Forest Service do control a little piece of

land — I forget just what the acreage is — that I think would

make an excellent spot for the establishment of a small

campsite and probably a small boat launching ramp as well.

Would the Minister care to comment as well, through you, Mr.

Chairman, on just what the status is on Premier Lake? Over the

last few years Premier Lake Park was administered by a local

park association. Just prior to the Minister's taking over the

portfolio, the former government did establish the Premier Lake

Park as a Class A park, because they felt it was in the best

interests of the people to have further development than there

was there in the past.

There was also a clear-cut indication that the development of the Premier Lake

Park would be underway — that is the campsite and the boat launching facilities

— this year. In other words, there was consideration of infusion of a substantial

amount of money and work into the development of a campsite there. I am wondering

whether the Minister will tell us whether this will take place and, if so, where

the management of this campsite will come from. Will it be administered by the

Wasa Parks branch?

One other point of concern in the are — I don't know what

stage it's at — but I understand there's a company by the name

of Black Forest Limited who, are in the process of or have

accumulated large acreage in the Columbia Valley for the

purpose of establishing a private game preserve. I don't know

whether it has been accumulated, whether there is cooperation

between your department and this particular company or whether

your Government is discouraging the expansion of this

experimental idea being proposed.

One other point I want to raise is that the provincial

government in 1960 did purchase a ranch on the shores of Lake

Windermere, a ranch called Sunshine Ranch, for the purpose of

establishing a campsite when the need was apparent. I have to

give great credit to that government of yesterday for having

had the foresight to purchase this ranch in 1960, I believe, or

it could be 1962. I'm not absolutely sure.

They got the ranch for I believe it was $30,000; the ranch

could be sold today for probably $80,000 or $90,000. I'm not

suggesting that you sell it, Mr. Minister, but I am suggesting

that the time is close when there will be a need for the

development of a campsite there.

I know that we do get a tremendous tourist trade into the

Windermere Valley. The facilities from time to time are at a

premium. I think that there should be some development there. I

don't say that it's necessary that the expansion take place

this year, but at least I'd like to see some kind of

undertaking to study just what type of facilities are required

and what type of facilities will be put in this particular

area.

Now I have a series of other questions but I don't want to

have the Minister writing all afternoon with my questions. I'd

like him to answer a few and I'll pose them as time goes

on.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Could I have the location of the last one

again — the ranch?

MR. CHABOT: Sunshine Ranch is on Lake Windermere, 10 miles

south of Invermere. It's about 160 acres. I think there's a

need. We have lost — talking about campsites and so forth — there have been private campsites that have been abandoned. I

think it was the policy of the former government that

[ Page 1907 ]

they felt if private enterprise was unwilling or unable to

provide the type of facilities that the public felt were

required, or in sufficient numbers, then the provincial

government would become involved in the providing of

facilities.

We have lost a fairly large private campsite to a large

condominium by New West Developments from Calgary. They put in

a complex of 80-some-odd units adjacent to Lake Windermere

which took away probably 150 to 200 trailer spots. That has

created a shortage in Windermere Valley. That's the reason I'm

asking the Government to give consideration to the development

of the Sunshine Ranch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to

express my concern in regards to the wildlife and the lack of

wildlife in many areas in the province. I think it's through

lack of foresight on the part of the last government that we've

ended up with a situation that's almost chaotic in the Fish and

Wildlife Branch. I think the money that's been allotted this

year will help to correct the number of game wardens that are

available throughout the province. But I say it's still far

less than what we should have.

I'd like to compliment the biologist in the Williams Lake

area who came out and brought in front of the Province the

state of the range for the wildlife in that area. I think that

this man is to be commended. I think if he had done it a year

ago he would have been fired, but under the present

administration this type of thing will be welcome as long as it

is constructive and factual.

I think there have to be some changes in the grazing laws.

I'm not saying that I have the answers to it, but I believe

that grazing laws coming under Forestry is not the right

department. I think that there should be a study done by an

independent group in regard to the impact of grazing upon

alpine and sub-alpine areas.

I think only through an independent group will we get the

right side of the story. If Forestry does it we're going to get

their side of the story; if Fish and Wildlife does it, we'll

have their side. I think an independent group at this time

would bring in a true story of what is happening to the

wildlife in the province.

I also say that hunters in the province are going to have to face up to a larger

fee for their right to hunt. I think it is unrealistic at this time to charge

$4 for a hunting license. I think that possibly a $20 fee would be more realistic.

I think that the Americans must be prepared to pay a much higher fee for their

trophies, possibly $500 for a head from a grizzly bear, sheep or moose. I think

only through participating a little more financially

will they realize how valuable these animals are in North America.

I'm hoping that the Minister will have a much bigger

allotment next year than what he has at the present time for

Fish and Wildlife. I think it's one thing that many, many

people in this province use as a way to vent their

frustrations.

I can see myself after the session next fall it will be much

nicer to go out and shoot a moose or a deer instead of going

out and committing suicide after listening to all the garbage

that we go through here. (Laughter).

AN. HON. MEMBER: Why take it out on them?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll tell you after listening to you for

seven hours, you need a head shrinker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I would also like the Minister to take a serious

look at the use of all-terrain vehicles in the hunting. The use

of snowmobiles and these types of vehicles are leaving the game

totally at the mercy of the hunter. Not only do these

snowmobiles make the area more accessible, but there has been

evidence of some people even chasing wild game with these

vehicles in the wintertime. I think that the Fish and Wildlife

Branch, if there's more money available, should have the proper

amount of staff to police this type of thing. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I want

to talk to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation about a

problem — we'll call it "Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf"

story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you playing Little Red Riding Hood on

us, too?

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We know who grandma

is.

MR. PHILLIPS: We'll take the responsibility for Little Red

Riding Hood, but you take the responsibility for the wolf.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

[ Page 1908 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is no fairy tale. This is

the true goods. All over this province the wolves are

threatening the livestock of the ranchers and the wolves are

even threatening human beings, and we have to ask our question…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all the wolves now?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask our

question — is this land made for the wolves or is it made for

the humans? To listen to some of the biologists and the

conservationists, I'd almost think that the wolves are a lot

safer than the humans. Certainly the wolves are a lot safer

than many of the cattle herds in this country.

This is a very serious problem, and you can joke about

wolves because of connotations to certain other connotations,

but it's a very serious matter.

I want to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman — I will

have to refer to some research that has been done here. I'll

refer to an

article in the Vancouver Sun dated February 24,

1973. Up in Omineca — and I wonder if the Member for Omineca

(Mr. Kelly) is going to stand up and support his ranchers:

"Wolves threatening cattle herds. Omineca ranchers appeal to

government."

Has there been any action taken by the government? That's

the question. What action has been taken?

"Burns Lake: Wolf packs in increasing numbers are wiping

out game…"

game as well as cattle herds.

"…are wiping out game in the rugged Omineca ranching area

and are threatening domestic cattle herds. 'They have eaten nearly all the deer

around here over the last three years,' cattle rancher Miles Shelford said Friday

in an interview.

"Shelford, brother of former Social Credit Agriculture

Minister Cyril Shelford, said he and other ranchers have

appealed to the Recreation and Conservation branch office in

Prince George to do something about the wolf problem. 'Now that

the wolves have just about wiped out the deer herds, they'll go

after the moose,' said Shelford, 'And unless something is done,

the moose will be gone in two years and that will make it worse

than ever for our cattle.'

"Shelford said the only answer is a return to the poisoning

method used about 20 years ago to control the wolf population. 'It's the only

way you can get a wolf. He's a pretty smart animal. The poisoning methods reduced

them to only a few back in the 1950's and we're going to have to

do it again.'

"He said the Shelford Range, operated by a company called

Shelford, Peebles and Lambert, lost 11 cattle in wolf attacks

during the 1972 grazing season. 'The cattle, about 1,000 head,

are presently in their winter quarters and relatively safe from

the wolves, but it will be a different story when we put them

out on the range in the spring."'

And this is going to be the story in many other areas. It's

going to be a different story when we put them out on the range

in the spring.

"Shelford said that about 200 wolves are known to be at

Babine Lake 20 miles north of here. He said the government

conservation officials from Prince George are cooperating with

the ranchers in the war against the wolves. 'We've had good

cooperation from the conservation people. They got rid of five

wolves on this range last year.' He said the government

predator hunter Milt Warren is coming into the Burns

Lake-Francois Lake area next week to look things over.

"In Prince George, provincial regional wildlife supervisor

Roger Goodland said the Wildlife Branch will check the reports

of increasing wolf activity in northern B.C. 'We are getting

reports from many areas of problems caused by the wolves. There

have been animal killings by the wolves and we're going to

investigate the severity of the problem."

But I wonder how much action, Mr. Minister, they will get

when the biologists in your department do not agree with the

method used 20 years ago.

We have another situation, Mr. Chairman, right here on

Cortes Island. "Thirteen sheep lost to wolves — game action

sought." Is any action being taken? This is the question. Here

is a case where one rancher says — sheep rancher Ken Hansen

says — "Either they go or I'll have to get rid of my sheep."

Either the wolves go or he goes and the sheep go. Which is the

most important? That is the question.

I wonder if some of the conservationists and some of the

biologists have read this

article on how these sheep were torn

to bits, some of them half killed. I wonder if it would be

better to get rid of the wolves or keep them in this situation?

"Ranger Ken Hanson says he is raising sheep to feed the wolves

here and he can't afford it any longer."'

There are many people raising cattle in the Peace River area

with the same problem. They are raising cattle to feed the

wolves and they can't afford it any longer.

"Since last August, 10 of his sheep have been killed by

wolves which are in the midst of a population explosion in

British Columbia. On nearby Reid Island wolves killed three

sheep last month."

This

article is dated February 8, 1973.

[ Page 1909 ]

" 'I've asked the game department to get rid of some of them

and I can't even get an answer,' Hanson said Wednesday. 'I

can't even get an answer. I'm holding the bag for a bunch of

wolves and it's not fair. Either they go or I'll have to get

rid of my sheep. Every island in the upper gulf is just loaded

with wolves and they are wiping out the deer population and

frightening the women who go salal picking.' "

Salal is a berry. It's a bush that they grow. They have a

thick rubbery leaf and a large red berry the local chickens

feed on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well that's got to do with recreation. I'm

just explaining to the Minister what salal is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just asking the Hon. Member to address

the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Mr. Chairman,

I'm quoting from this article:

"Hansen, who runs a guest ranch for children and a farm on

Cortes about 12 miles northeast of Campbell River said his

trouble started last August when he had 45 sheep, 'I went down

to feed them one morning and they were dead and wounded all

over the field,' he said. The wolves had completely eaten three

lambs and two more were gutted but not eaten."

Now this is a shameful situation. I can imagine how I would

feel — or even the Minister would feel, if he were a sheep

rancher out there on Cortes Island — to go down there one

morning…

I want you to hear the rest of this story. I just about

cried when I first read this:

"There were four wounded with their throats torn out and

their jugulars hanging almost to the ground. You could hear

them breathing through their windpipes right across the fields.

Hansen said he managed to save one of the wounded sheep but the

other three died. 'One died as we were sewing her up,' he said.

'I nursed my ram for three days and stayed up all night to feed

him barley-water, but one of his legs was three times normal

size and his throat was all chewed and finally he died.' "

I wish that some of the conservationists who were so

determined to preserve the wolves could have been there that

morning with this rancher and viewed this situation.

"Hansen paid $ 150 for the ram and only had it for one

season. 'You don't buy a ram like that one every day,' he said,

'All my ewes had two lambs, except one that had three and

another had four and I raised all those lambs.' Hansen said a

Fish and Wildlife Branch officer visited Cortes after the killings and set some cyanide traps for the wolves but

without success."

AN HON. MEMBER: It might be dogs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, possibly dogs. I guess that no one

actually had a picture of the wolves. But the point is if it

were dogs or wolves or coyotes, something has to be done.

Here's what happened. Just let me finish this article,

because you sound like just the exact epitome of what I'm going

to read here. You know, "It's got to be somebody else…it

couldn't be the wolves," the Minister said, "absolutely

not." That's the Minister of Mines who says, "No, it couldn't

be the wolves. It's got to be something else."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I said

it might have been dogs too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it might have been. It's always somebody

else. Everybody knows better than the rancher. That's the

amazing thing about this. Somebody knows better than the

farmer. Somebody knows better than the sheep raiser. Somebody

knows better than the cattle rancher. Somebody always knows

better than somebody else. The guy with the college education

has got all the answers. The guy out there that has to look at

the situation, he doesn't know anything. Somebody else has

always got the answers — in theory.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Most people know more than used

car dealers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then some people complained that a dog and a

cat had been killed by the cyanide and there was all kinds of

bad publicity. You see. This is the situation. Somebody

probably wanted to preserve the wolves.

I wish this man had taken colour slides of these poor little

lambs that morning with their jugular veins hanging down in the

grass, I wish he'd taken some colour slides. I would have

brought them here and showed them this afternoon to some of you

wolf preservers.

The vet did autopsies and found that the dog had been

poisoned with something other than cyanide and the cat had been

shot with a gun. But yet we've got to blame it on somebody

else, eh? They try to get rid of the wolves and it does other

damage. I suppose it poisoned some streams and all the fish are

gone, too.

"In November the wolves went into action again and

killed two more Hansen sheep, even though he had moved his

flock to a field near the

[ Page 1910 ]

house. 'I'd already sold one of them for $100 but hadn't

delivered it so I had to give the man his money back,' he said.

Since then Hansen has done all he can to persuade the Fish and

Wildlife Branch to shoot a few of the wolves but has had no

reply."

He has had no reply.

He's even sent a bucket of wolf feces and a couple of old

skulls to the branch to help them identify the species.

"There are baby deer feet in the feces and the deer

population around here is really down. There are also apples in

the feces and you can't tell me that apples are a normal diet

for wolves. These animals are hungry. Better to kill them than

to let them starve to death. Last year a collie dog owned by

Mrs. Shelly Bello was mauled by a wolf as she and two other

women were picking salal."

And it has a picture of the poor mauled dog here.

I'm not going to read all the article. It goes on to talk

about other sheep ranchers on the island. Then somebody comes

up and says that these are a special kind of wolf; they're a

special breed on this island and we must preserve them.

That

article was dated February 8; yet on February 23:

"Cortes Wolf Found To Be Mainland Variety," so it sort

of takes the credence out of the story. They weren't a special

variety at all.

"Wildlife lovers are breathing a little easier. The hungry

wolves of Cortes Island are not members of the endangered

Vancouver Island wolf species. Dennis Wilders of Nanaimo,

government predator hunter, said Thursday, 'The 3-year-old wolf

shot here Wednesday night with a cyanide gun belonged to the

British Columbia mainland species.'

"Wildlife officials expressed concern recently at the

prospect of an all-out war on the marauding wolves on this

small island after their attacks on farm animals. It was

thought at the time that the wolves belonged to the Vancouver

Island family. Wilders said an examination of the dead wolf

showed its hair colour and characteristics to be those of the

mainland species. 'The Vancouver Island wolf hasn't got the

kind of black hair this one has,' Wilders said."

Now I'd like to read another

article here for you. These are

giving you some idea, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman,

of the severity of the problem everywhere in the province.

We've got to have a clear-cut policy or some of these farmers

are going to take the law into their own hands and then the

wolves will be gone. If you want to set up some special areas

in the province to preserve them, maybe this is the way to do

it:

"Predators Create Problem in Peace, Cry 'wolf.' From the

epics of history to modern day, the cry 'wolf' has meant terror on the loose

and wolves have always been the animosity of man. But the

wolf has survived and today, where he once lived with unreasoning hatred,

he is thriving on almost equally unreasoning prejudice in his favour from a

generally uninformed public. Romanticize as one will — wolves and the interests

of man are not compatible; no more here than in the Peace River country where

farmers are struggling to help sustain a profitable meat raising industry.

"Deep concern of stock producers about increasing number of

timber wolves or black wolves in the area has been expressed

repeatedly. The need for proper effective action is urgently

required. This request was placed before the government last

fall by the South Peace Stockmen's Association." — The

Department of Agriculture.

And I mentioned this to the Minister of Agriculture when we

were going through his estimates — that something must be

done.

"Cortes wolf problem dumped i n government's lap." Maybe the

Minister will give me some answers. When the Member for Omineca

(Mr. Kelly) was speaking during the recent debate:

"Kelly also called on the government to give more tourist

promotion to the north but asked for more stringent enforcement

of hunting and game laws with more severe penalties.

"Game is being overkilled by hunters and if an increased

conservation staff cannot control the abuse, the province

should consider a system of rewards to aid enforcement."

I wonder how much the Member for Omineca knows about the

situation and whether it is really the wolves that are killing

off the game or whether it's the hunters that are killing off

the game or whether it's the wolves in that area that are

killing off the game.

Here's an interesting

article from the Victoria Times dated

March 7, 1973. The

article is entitled "Rustlers Face

Clampdown." So if a man goes out and shoots a steer the RCMP,

with all of their paraphernalia to catch him and fingerprints

and all of the modern techniques that they have…but the

wolf, he can go out and rustle a sheep and face no clampdown

whatsoever. That's a similarity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you suggesting a paw printing system?

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, no. Maybe we should have the RCMP go

after the wolves. I'm sure that they would do a better job than

the wildlife branch of the Department of Recreation and

Conservation is doing at the present time. This is a serious

problem.

It is amazing, you know. We really do go after the rustlers.

It's against the law. In the old days they used to string them

up if they caught them. It was a very, very serious offence.

Now the wolves are under the protection of our government. One

would almost

[ Page 1911 ]

think that the wolves of the province are really under the

protection of the Department of Recreation and

Conservation.

The ranchers all over this province have been complaining

about the wolf situation. What action has been taken? Here's an

interesting article. It says, "Who speaks for the wolves?"

"Reports tell us that sheep farmers on Cortes Island are

angry. The wolves which insist on living on the island, being

barbarous creatures, have eaten some of the sheep. The

Sun warns us that unless official steps are taken to end

this feasting, it is feared that the farmers themselves will

dispose of the criminals. After all, the more sheep those

sneaky wolves eat, the fewer there will be for us to eat. This

is an appalling prospect."

It's an appalling prospect when the Members on the opposite

side stand up and say that we've got to protect farmland

because there's a shortage of food, yet we let the wolves go

ahead and eat up a lot of the sheep and the livestock

throughout the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's eat some wolf.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a sad and sorry day, Mr. Chairman, when

the wolves in this province are threatening humanity

themselves. Here's an

article from the Vancouver

Province dated February 26, 1973: "Wolf threat kept

fatally injured girl from hospital." I hope, Mr. Chairman, that

the people who are so bent on protecting the wolves took the

time to read this article.

"A two-year-old Lytton girl who suffered fatal head injuries

in a fall was kept at home overnight without medical attention

because her parents feared an attack by wolves if they ventured

out in the darkness."

Now, I hadn't mentioned this area of the province

before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The incident was revealed here Sunday following the death

of Elizabeth Paul in Vancouver General Hospital. In an

interview with police, the youngster's mother, Mrs. Eunice

Paul, said the girl fell down a flight of stairs Tuesday at the

family home, six miles from Lytton.

"She said the youngster uttered a few words and lapsed into

unconsciousness. The injured child was placed on a bed, she

said, and not moved until the following morning, as they had no

means of transportation and it was dangerous to leave the house

on foot as wolves were prevalent in the area."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did the police say?

MR. PHILLIPS: "What did we say?" That's the whole story.

We've been listening to "we" for too long.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Police."

MR. PHILLIPS: We've been listening to "we" for too long. The

wolves have been protected by "we" for too long.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We've been

listening to you for too long. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The following morning, the police were told the parents

cradled the still unconscious girl in their arms and walked the

six miles to Lytton Hospital. From there she was brought to St.

Paul's Hospital in Vancouver and shortly afterwards transferred

to Vancouver General Hospital. She died there about noon on

Saturday.

"An RCMP officer at Lytton told the Province on

Sunday that he had never heard any reports of wolves in the

area. He said there are some coyotes but they are not a menace

to people. However, wolf packs have been reported in the north

and central parts of the province where livestock and wildlife

are being threatened."

But who knows? "We" and all the people who want to preserve

the wolves have all the answers. "We" are always right. He's

now on the animals' side. This is typical.

"B.C. Government hunter has no pride in his wolf record."

Well, this may be very well and good, but I don't imagine that

those ranchers and sheep raisers have any pride in the wolves

on their island either, or in the wolves that are cleaning out

their livelihood. I don't imagine that they have any pride.

As I say, we've got to decide, Mr. Chairman, who this earth

is for. Who is British Columbia for? The wolves or the people?

It's a very serious problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: They decided that August 30.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"Government hunter Bill Warren claims he holds a world

record but he isn't proud of it. 'I've killed more wolves in my

time than anyone else in the world,' he said in an interview

with the Sun . But he pointed out that he built up the

bulk of his record several years ago when the public attitude

toward the wolf was still oriented to the bum rape it had

received in folklore and nursery rhymes." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: "Rap," I think.

[ Page 1912 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Hmm?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Rap," I think.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Bum rap," yes. "Bum rap."

The Western Guides and Outfitters Association have been

talking to the department for some time. There again, I don't

want the Minister to stand up and say, "Well, you had it when

we were in Opposition." This is the problem, Mr. Minister and

Mr. Chairman. It is a case of the buck. I don't care who's

government. The biologists seem to have sway. They seem…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about that in just a moment.

They seem to set the policy because they're biologists; they've

studied all about biology and they have all the answers, so

they set the policy. I'm not saying that they're not

intelligent people but I'm going to point out to you that

they're not always right either.

The following

article — I'm just going to read to you a

little bit. I think it's very apropos. This

article is out of

the Western Guidelines , News of the Professional Guide,

dated January, 1973:

"The following

article on wolves was delivered to the

Northern B.C. Guides Association conference by Don Peck, who

hails from Fort St. John."

AN HON. MEMBER: A nice fellow.

MR. PHILLIPS: A very nice fellow, yes. He has a son playing

hockey with my son. Yes, a very nice fellow. I know him well.

He's got his head screwed on right too. He knows what it's all

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Get back to the point.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's a down-to-earth man who's had lots of

experience in guiding. He's been guiding for several years. He

may not have a degree in biology, but he's down to earth. He

calls an ace an ace and a spade a spade. He knows what it's all

about. He's an earthy man, in other words. (Laughter).

"When I was asked the other day by our executive if I would

talk on wolves, I felt like the guy must have felt that got

invited to play Russian roulette as a reward for 30 years of

service. I guess that's what's called callous justice. I kind

of just asked for it.

"I've always been pretty vocal about wolves. I haven't changed

my opinions any. As my old friend, Black Bill, always said, 'The Lord hates

a coward and I ain't one of those, so here goes.' "

This is the kind of a guy he is. He's a man's man, right

down to earth.

"On anything as continuous and contentious as the wolf

problem, I doubt very much if I can say anything that hasn't

been said before."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want Hansard to know that I'm reading

from this paper.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Why don't you quit while you're

behind. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: There aren't many wolves in your area, are

there, out there in Oak Bay, Mr. Member? You don't have the

problem. I suppose you're for the preservation of wolves so

that they can chew up…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please?

MR. PHILLIPS: We have so many Main Street specialists,

conservationists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I will continue.

"On anything as continuous and contentious as the wolf

problem, I doubt very much if I can say anything that hasn't

been said before. But just because it's been said before,

doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong. At the risk of

being boring and repetitious…"

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I'm reading from the article. "I'm

going to say…I'm going to say." (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: To be continued.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"….I'm going to say some of it again."

These long hours do make one…what shall I say? I won't

say it,

"The first revelation that I'd like to make…"

This is a very

interesting article.

"The first revelation that I'd like to make is that we of

the Northern B.C. Guides Association have just conducted a

survey of the mountainous portion of northern B.C. On this

survey we employed approximately 300 men.

[ Page 1913 ]

"These men were among the most skilled wilderness observers

in British Columbia, some of them having guided and trapped in

the area in excess of 40 years — others with less experience.

But the total task force could be termed competent bushmen who

derive the bulk of their livelihood from guiding and trapping…

"We used aircraft, both wheels and floats, to transport the

personnel into remote mountainous areas. From those points we

traversed the areas on foot and on horseback and covered most

of the game producing areas in what could be roughly called the

northern third of the province. In all we utilized in excess of

30,000 man-days with a cost to the outfitters in excess of

$750,000, with no allowance being made for his horses and other

incidentals."

Now listen to this, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Minister — and the

Press too:

"The consensus of this survey was that there has been a

terrific buildup of wolves, and that they are present in

devastating numbers over the total area. Now to me this is all

the evidence we need to substantiate the presence of a lot of

wolves.

"The next question is, are they an asset or a menace?"

I think this is where we get into the real nitty gritty

contention.

"Our biologists have told me that we need these wolves to

keep the animals healthy — that the wolves only kill the sick

and aged. Although I must admit that to see Old Doc Wolf out

there with his stethoscope checking Mr. Moose over to see if

he'd let him go down the gully or down the gullet isn't exactly

my own image of a wolf. Seriously, let us be benevolent for a

moment — it's getting close to Christmas — and concede for once

that the biologists are right in this instance. The wolves only

kill the weak and the sick. I would then pose the question," — and this is very important — "what is the weakest

thing in the animal kingdom? The answer is…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You wish I were weak!

"The answer is a newborn fawn or calf. It remains

susceptible for two or three weeks or even longer. By contrast

the rancher is in serious trouble if he doesn't have a success

ration of 80 to 85 per cent when calving out. Here we are with

the present wolf situation, losing 40 to 50 per cent of our

calves before they can run with their mothers, which is their

only protection.

"Don't get me wrong. I don't buy this malarkey about the

wolf only eating the weak. This is the case when all the wolves we have are

a few old stragglers and cripplers and cripples are all they

can catch. But basically a wolf is a meat eater. Show me a meat eater,

including myself, who wouldn't prefer a fat juicy animal to one that is just

ready to die. But make no mistake about it — wolves right now are killing off

the top and it will get worse as the winter gets longer."

I am just going to read one more excerpt from this article…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, great.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Your glasses

are in your left hand (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, the man

goes on to say that we don't really need a third party. This is

what the biologists say. He says that the wolves will sort of

look after themselves and nature will look after itself.

"Until man came along this arrangement was O.K. But now we

can harvest this game. We don't need that third party in there.

In effect, we are the predators, and we have to control the

wolves if we are going to have anything to hunt."

That is an interesting theory, Mr. Chairman, because I want

to say that our biologists today are being taught that we must

protect the predators. But who was the greatest biologist of

all time? Who really started preservation in North America? It

was Jack Miner, renowned the world over as a great

conservationist. I think anyone here in this Legislature will

agree with me that Jack Miner probably was one of the greatest

conservationists and biologists of his day.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Jack Miner what? Oh, I'm not talking about

your kind of mines, I'm talking about Jack Miner. (Laughter).

And this is Jack Miner, not Jack Underminer.

"This man's philosophy was that if a man shoots ducks or

game birds for food, then man should shoot kill or control

their natural enemies to the same extent man has harvested the

increase in ducks, pheasant, grouse or quail. In other words

such predators as crows that eat the birds' eggs, skunks that

are in the nest, turtles that eat the young ducks. And the same

thing applies to wolves."

However, he says:

"The university professors have taught their young biology

students that nature will balance itself. Jack Miner contended

that man has harvested the same crop for food and it was up to

man to reduce their enemies in the same proportion. In simple

language, Jack Miner said that wildlife would not stand the

killing of both man and their

[ Page 1914 ]

natural enemies, especially in such cases as the timber

wolf, which produces five or six pups in a litter, and the deer

only produce one or two fawns at one birth.

"No one needs to have a university education to see how deer would be outbalanced by the birth of wolves five to one, "

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a biologist. The reason that I am

pointing this out, Mr. Minister, is that this man is well

respected. He understands what our present biologists are being

taught, and this, Mr. Chairman, is where the Minister is going

to have to make a decision. He is going to have to set the

policy. I was quite disappointed last night when the Minister

was saying that this man, this biologist, this conservation

officer who spoke out about the Gang Ranch… He said that the

civil servants' tongues had been tied previous to this. This

remark bothered me…

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Who tied them?

MR. LEWIS: The Socreds tied them.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and I think that it is all very well and

good that civil servants should certainly have their say. But

if they are going to have their say they are going to have to

answer the public as well. They are going to have to stand

behind their statements. There has always been in our society

the practice that the elected officials set the policy, and the

elected officials stand behind it if the people don't agree

with you, then the next time an election comes up they kick you

out. Now it is all very well and good for civil servants, and

we have got a case in these biologists where they are, so far

as I am concerned, polarizing a lot of the people about this

wolf problem. So this just makes it that much more difficult

for the Minister to come out and set a policy.

Now I am not going to say anything more right at this

particular moment, Mr. Chairman. There are all the Members who

don't seem to be very concerned about the ranchers, the

livestock producers. I was sent to this Legislature, Mr.

Chairman, to represent the people and to represent the people

of my area, and I am going to take as much time as is necessary

to represent them.

I know that the Members would like to get back to their

constituencies, but we were sent here to do a job, and we have

to do that job. And if you haven't got any wolf problems up in

Prince Rupert and in Vancouver Centre and Vancouver–Little

Mountain, well, I've got one in my riding, and I'm going to sit

in my place right now and let the Minister tell me what he is

going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Earlier in this session I

brought up the question of the non-residents' fishing license

fees. I pointed out that the Pearce-Bowden report determined

that the average cost per day to a non-resident fisherman was

97 cents.

This results from two different types of licensing, or one

might say three. A non-resident fisherman has the choice of

paying $3.50 for a three-day permit, or $10.00 for an annual

permit, or $1 for a person under 18. This compares with an

annual permit for residents of $3 but, as I pointed out, 97

cents a day is not very much, compared with what our tourists

are prepared to pay in the ways of green fees for golfing or

other forms of recreation and, indeed, what non-residents said

they were prepared to pay for the use of the recreational

resource.

I have here one of three petitions which were sent to me as

a result of this speech I made earlier. This one happens to

have 11 names on it. The other ones have some 180-odd names.

These were taken up — I don't exactly know the origin of them

but they were sent to me. I notice on this particular one that

most of the addresses are from within my riding, but there are

many from outside of the riding — some in Westbank, Ladysmith,

Kimberley. What it says is this:

"We the undersigned request immediate action by our government on the following points: a substantial

increase in license fees to non-residents; a reduction in limits

to all non-residents; and a permit to remove fish from the

province."

I would like to know what the immediate plans are this year,

and perhaps in the future, in terms of collecting a little bit

more from the different areas of the resource. The Hon. Member

for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) mentioned fees in hunting. I would like

to know what directions we're heading in and what we might be

able to expect in the short-term and long-term run, especially

in terms of non-residents' fishing license fees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, followed by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GARDOM: I most enjoyed the talk from the Member for

South Peace (Mr. Phillips), Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact,

it reminded me very much of the very interesting discussion we

used to have from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) when

he used to sit over here. Its length used to vary

proportionately with the frostline in his area. I very much

wonder today whether we're going to hear from the Minister of

Mines. He always used to talk a great deal about the songbirds

in the province. We haven't had even a chirp from him since his

newly found

[ Page 1915 ]

affluence.

I would like to draw to the Hon. Minister's attention a

couple of points which I indeed hope he is aware of. That is

the very great and very cruel problem that is continuing in the

Province of B.C. concerning these leghold steel traps. These

were initiated in Europe, I suppose, in the days when the

barons used to use them to catch socialists or poachers, as the

case may be. I think it's a shocking thing to find that they're

continuing on at the present time.

The most important and savage point, of course, is the fact

that I do not think we have given adequate consideration or

time as a society to preventing this very cruel and inhumane

treatment. Dealing with the vicious cruelty that is inflicted

upon these fur-bearing animals as a result of being trapped, we

can find about five points which have been set forth very

dramatically and correctly by an association known as the

Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals.

They mention that the first torture is caused by the jaws of

the trap snapping on the legs of the animal — the abundance of

power used frequently shatters the leg bones. Second is the

ghastly fear and panic experienced by the animal once it

realizes that it is trapped. Much of the trapping — indeed most

of the trapping — occurs during the winter months. We find them

suffering from cold as they bite very viciously at these steel

traps in weather much below zero, with the hope that they can

release themselves.

Usually an animal that comes to a trap is very hungry. So

apart from the pain they suffer, the fear they experience and

the problems of the elements, they're also starving to death

and become very easy prey for predators. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping indicates that

it may indeed be necessary to take wild animals. But they

suggest that there is a far more humane way. They have

suggested that for some species, the conibear or quick-kill

type trap is more humane and economically much more viable. In

practical terms it's extremely more efficient.

I gather that in the prior administration, the department in

British Columbia had participated in some degree over the years

in the distribution of these particular traps in the area of

beaver trapping. I believe the department went ahead on the

basis that they would trade one conibear trap for one leghold

trap.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note that the Humane

Trap Development Committee of the SPCA set tip projects at

Guelph and McMaster universities which were designed to develop

humane trap standards and also suitable humane traps. I believe

that the department contributed $1,000 to this particular

project.

But we've got to go ahead and give immediate attention

to legal instruments for the establishment of humane trapping. If the Government

does not do it, it's my intention to introduce some kind of legislation and

recommend that it be introduced, before you rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman.

I'm delighted to see that you are that alert. But I think that it would be most

provident in the Province that we do have some restriction in the use of spring

traps.

I think it should be an offence, punishable on

summary

conviction, to use any kind of a trap for fur-bearing animals

save and except a trap that can be approved via the particular

department of this Minister. I would like to hear from the

Minister as to whether or not any effective steps — and let's

underline the word "effective." There's been an awful lot of

talk about this over the years and so very, very little done.

Have there been any effective steps taken by this department

towards the end that I'm mentioning?

Fine and dandy. A necessary job must be done but we must

have a heart. We must have a heart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, during the debates on the estimates of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) I raised the matter of the potential for parks of the

area of the Chilliwack Valley and the Skagit Valley. In the

same general area, I'm aware that there are some requests

proposed to the department from the Okanagan-Similkameen Park

Society for extensions to Manning Park the Paradise Meadows

area and many of the historic trails of that area — the Hudson

Bay Trail, the Dewdney Trail and so on.

The question I would like to leave with the Minister is

this: I'm aware that to date the Parks Branch has done no

studies that I can learn of in those areas along the border and

just to the west of Manning Park. What I would like to ask the

Minister is: will he make a commitment to do some studies in

those areas from the Parks' point of view? Not from the

Forestry Service's point of view, but from the Parks' point of

view.

Last year, immediately following the two-hour discussion we

had from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) on the

subject of fish and wildlife, I outlined at some length the

problems on Brent Mountain. The Parks Branch had wanted very

badly to obtain the top of Brent Mountain for parks purposes.

There were problems developing of commercial development in

that area and no action by the government and perhaps, at that

point, some question of conflict of interest and so on.

[ Page 1916 ]

I have heard nothing that I'm aware of in the Press or any

official announcements, though I believe some things have been

done. I would like to learn what the present policy of the

Government is with regard to the Brent Mountain area.

From my own constituency, Mr. Chairman, last summer the City

of North Vancouver council raised with the former Minister and,

more recently, with this Minister, the question of camping

facilities on the North Shore. It's a real concern on the basis

of tourist pressures and pressure from the travelling public for

provision of overnight camping spots.

The Minister has suggested that these cannot be arranged,

either in Cypress provincial park or in the Mount Seymour park.

I don't really want to argue with him on that but I would like

to ask him to outline the policy of his department with regard

to that sort of thing. In many parts of Canada, in areas very

close to major cities, it is possible to camp overnight. I

wonder if we shouldn't be trying to find facilities of that

kind.

I'm not sure that the North Shore of Burrard Inlet is the

most suitable place, but I would like to hear the Minister's

comments on this. If he doesn't feel that Mount Seymour park or

the Cypress area, for instance, are suitable, are there other

areas that might be developed?

Mr. Chairman, I recall the debates two years ago on the Act

to establish ecological reserves. At that time I think I shared

with this Minister and with a number of people now present in

the cabinet a concern that the Minister who was going to be

made responsible for the Ecological Reserves Act was

also, at that time, the Minister of forestry. I think we were

concerned that there was apparently a conflict of interest in

that area. I think many Members of the present Government

shared that concern. We outlined it at great length.

I'm having some of the same kinds of concerns at the present

time, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to the Minister in his

capacity last night as Minister of forestry talking about the

problems of cottonwood logging in the Skagit Valley and other

areas, his concern that the jobs that needed to be created at

the Scott Paper plant, his concern for allowing the logging to

proceed next to the Skagit provincial park.

I begin to wonder if we haven't got a conflict of interest

within the department where the same Minister, Mr. Chairman, is

responsible on the one hand for recreation and conservation — and I underline the word "conservation" in this regard — and

the parks and those kinds of responsibilities as well as the

responsibility for the well-being and the health of the forest

industry in British Columbia. Now I'm not suggesting that those

things are not compatible; but there is perhaps a conflict of

interest. I think it's very difficult for one person to resolve

that within himself.

It would seem to me that finally what we must achieve

is the very thing that many Members on the Opposition side, including this party

and including many Members now on the Government side, spoke about at great

length in past years. We need a department — I don't know if you'd call it the

Department of the Environment, but that was one name that many of us have given

it — a department that is basically responsible for the preservation of the

environment, for all the matters to do with the wildlife, the recreation and

the conservation areas; quite a separate department from that which is responsible

only for the well-being of the forest industry.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

I appeal, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister to comment on this.

I have a good deal more confidence in this Minister with regard

to his interest and his feeling for conservation matters than

the previous Minister. But I think there is danger in combining

them in the same Ministry.

One more point in this regard, Madam Chairman, is the fact

that I am sure that two Ministries must be a tremendous

workload. Regardless of the great capabilities of this Minister

with his very, very broad shoulders, he's lost considerable

hair, I think, in the last 6 1/2 months and has a little more

snow on the roof as well. I would hope that he would find some

way to divide these responsibilities fairly soon.

Finally, Madam Chairman, I want to make the same comment

here that I made as far as the Minister of forestry is

concerned. Having heard this same man on the Opposition side

make many of these kinds of comments as to the policies that he

thought should be instituted in government in terms of wildlife

protection and parks and all of these matters, in 6 1/2 months

in office and two months in this Legislature and so far a

couple of hours into the debates of this department, we have

not heard from him any firm policy statement as to the policies

of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

I think, Madam Chairman, a Minister with this kind of

responsibility should make those policies clear to the

Legislature.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we can start at this end and work

back to the wolves, Madam Chairman.

The question of environmental matters is something that's

been under consideration by the Government since we came into

office. We've reviewed the actions of other provincial

administrations and some American states. We've considered the

matter fairly thoroughly but we want to give it some more work,

so the question of establishing another department of

government or integration with a department of

[ Page 1917 ]

government is still under active consideration.

I accept the concern with respect to separation between the

resource departments and environmental protection. Certainly

it's not the intent of Government to see these two areas

merged. There's no question about the policy of the Government;

it's more a matter of timing and dealing with other

priorities.

I would anticipate that something will be done this year in

terms of separating the functions.

I might say that there's been some genuine advantages in

terms of viewing the problems of both the resource department

and the conservation department at the same time.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a short term.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: For a short term, I agree. I'd be quite

happy to see the empire contract considerably, Mr. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We're not talking about the same

empire.

With respect to ecological reserves, they're presently

managed through the Department of Lands and the Deputy Minister

of Lands is the main person responsible. There may well be a

case for reconsidering ecological reserves in relation to

changes in terms of an environmental ministry.

Urban camping. I am afraid I don't really have any

suggestions at this stage. The department hasn't seen its role

as that. The department has to re-think the whole recreational

role that it has. It's been a rather limited role in the past.

I limit it more to wilderness preservation more than anything

else. There's obviously a broader recreational role to be

played at the provincial level. That's something the Government

has under consideration.

Brent Mountain. I guess it's only good news in the Okanagan.

The special use permit that the Forest Service granted with

respect to a ski development in the delicate alpine areas

around Brent and Sheep Mountains was cancelled, I think, about

two months ago. We're now giving consideration to the

possibility of preserving the alpine area with some type of

reserve or park status. It was non-performance on the part of

the developers of the ski area that gave us an opportunity to

cancel out the special use permit and preserve the alpine area

from destruction.

The area west of Manning Park. Yes, we certainly are

prepared to carry out studies in that area.

The question of the leghold trap. As the Member from Point Grey indicated,

there is research going on at McMaster University to develop more humane traps.

B.C. and Alberta have contributed funds for that purpose. We've had a group

of our own backbenchers concerned about this problem

as well and they've made some recommendations to us. As a result, we have earmarked

$5,000 this year in the coming budget for further research at these universities

with respect to this problem.

The training programme has commenced, as the Member

indicated. It may well be that we can accelerate that. That

deserves further consideration.

Regarding some of the points made by the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot), Premier Lake…

AN HON. MEMBER: Points?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Some of the matters raised by the Member

for Columbia River.

Premier Lake is a priority area and funds are being provided

this year for improvements at the Premier Lake site. The

Sunshine Ranch on Lake Windermere I'm not familiar with. We'll

have to pursue it further.

The Black Forest area. I presume it's the Darkwoods area to

the west of Creston and south of Nelson. I've held meetings

with the principals and consultants to Darkwoods and Black

Forest and the discussions will be ongoing. We see the problem

there as part of the general problem with respect to tree farms

and the tree farm legislation. We have not approved any new

tree farm tax concession areas in the province since we came

into office.

Black Forest, as you may recall, was a huge area of some

150,000 acres more or less that was acquired originally at a

tax sale in 1951 for $8,000. It has a present value probably

of $5 million, which tells us something about the way we've

squandered our land resource in the province.

In terms of game management in the area and the creation of

a private preserve, there is no intention of allowing that. The

company is aware of that and does not intend to. To give them

credit, I understand they never did intend to do so.

With respect to White Swan Lake, there are no plans at this

stage.

Wasa Lake, as I understand it, is fully developed.

The question of setting aside critical wildlife areas is one

that's ongoing. As we indicated, we are in process in

particular areas of trading and setting aside Crown lands for

wildlife purposes. So that's an ongoing approach.

The question of fees and hunting licenses is under

consideration and I might say that from most of the wild life

groups and fish and game clubs, we've had correspondence urging

an increase in hunting and fishing fees. It's my own feeling

that any increase in fees should be tied to intensive

management of the resource.

There's no doubt that, in terms of the economic rent of the

resource, we're simply not charging what it's worth. Certainly,

with respect to non-nationals or

[ Page 1918 ]

people from outside of the country hunting in British

Columbia, I think we're certainly undercharging. We've got that

under active consideration, changing the fees with respect to

non-resident, non-national hunters.

The need though, as we see it, is to tie a programme of

intensive management together along with the increases. That

kind of programme has really only begun. There's certainly

opportunities in the East Kootenay and in the lower mainland

and elsewhere for an intensive management programme, so that we

really use the land base in relation to the resource in a

worthwhile way.

The permit hunting is something that has been discussed; I

think the Member for Little Mountain (Ms. Young) has raised it

in the past. It's something that I would want to give more

thought to before there was any change in policy. But in terms

of staffing of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, as indicated in

the budget, there's a significant increase. There are 12

conservation officers being added and there are some 18

biologists being added.

I think it's a division that's been starved in the past.

This is only a beginning as far as we're concerned. When an

increase in fees comes about — because it will come about — it

will too be tied with more staffing and more people out in the

field working with the people and in the resource.

I might say, though, that it's our judgment there's a

limited capacity to assimilate people as well, and we don't

want them tripping over one another. So, we see the 18

biologists and 12 conservation officers as a worthwhile start

in redirecting attitudes with respect to the management of this

resource.

Regarding the wolves, I wondered for a minute if the

"predator" was a new product devised by Colonel Sanders, but I

guess the predator problem is a serious one, and there's a

concern amongst the public on both sides. I would say that

certainly the letters we get, say for example with respect to

Cortes Island, were virtually five to one in favour of the

wolves. Not that that necessarily means very much but it's an

indication of a kind of public attitude that also exists.

With respect to ranchers and farmers though, their problems

are genuine and we certainly will provide people when we

receive complaints from legitimate interests such as ranching

and agricultural people.

The Member is right; the wolf species on Cortes is not the

Vancouver Island species at all. The means that are presently

used to deal with predators or wolves is a cyanide gun. I don't

think there's much doubt that a general poisoning approach, as

was once the case, certainly wouldn't be acceptable today

either by our specialists or by the public at large.

It's a difficult problem and there's a need for some balance,

but where farmers and ranchers are having a genuine problem, we

are certainly prepared to intervene.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Madam Chairman,

thank you. I would like to express, through you to the

Minister, appreciation for his department's actions with

respect to regional park development. Frankly the appreciation

goes back prior to last August because I do feel that his

predecessor, Mr. Kiernan, was particularly sympathetic to

regional parkland acquisition.

I have been critical of other aspects of the former

administration, but I cannot be critical of the manner in which

proposals from this regional district, as a matter of fact,

were submitted, were accepted and promptly acted upon. That

appears to be the case. Through you Madam Chairman, I would ask

the Minister to express appreciation to his senior departmental

people. When the Capital Regional District has found a

particular parcel which we felt was suitable for a parkland

purchase, we have been given very prompt and usually positive

support.

Now, having said something pleasant…

AN HON, MEMBER: "However…"

MR. CURTIS: However, I would like to show the Minister a

document which I think he has seen before, and perhaps some

other; Members, through you Madam Chairman, might be interested

in it. It is slightly yellow on the edges now. This is the

first anniversary, as a matter of fact, this weekend of the

completion of what I feel and what a number of other people

feel, including I believe the Minister, was a very

comprehensive proposal under the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act of one year ago.

We responded in the Municipality of Saanich, not just on a

municipal basis, but on what we thought was an area-wide basis,

outlining in considerable detail and with some very

enthusiastic work by volunteers and by professionals as well,

to put together a submission, which I'm sorry to say has not

been acted upon.

It was not acted upon by the previous administration. They

were very busy buying some land in the remaining months of

their life in office. The Minister answered on a question on

the order paper not too long ago — to a question I put which

indicated that not too much money had been spent of the $25

million since.

But, Madam Chairman, as I go through this, and I can almost

smell the dust as I turn the pages, it seems that it deals with

so many of the things which have been spoken of by Members of

this House, both sides, in various debates since the end of

January…the importance and functions of a greenbelt…the flood plains in a greenbelt…existing institutional or

private open space types…lands with an analysis

[ Page 1919 ]

of the type of land to be found in the area which

we were

prepared to suggest…farming within the greenbelt…recreation…wild

life sanctuaries…historic preservation…the role of the provincial

government…the regional significance of a greenbelt

plan.

Madam Chairman, you may be interested in the map because

it's pretty dramatic if you have a quick look at it. Firstly,

under the overlays, the situation as it is today with greater

Victoria; the inner harbour here, some parkland and open space

which has been secured — phase one of the plan, if you will,

which is shown with this overlay — and then, Madam Chairman,

the ultimate plan.

I have to say, Madam Chairman to Mr. Minister, 1,865 acres

would give, I suggest, the capital region a greenbelt in which

this generation and many more could take considerable

pride.

There's been no action on this, and I'm sorry. I would like

the Minister to take just a couple of minutes to tell us if he

can, if he will, when there may be some action. I would be

happy to make this proposal available to you, Madam Chairman,

or to any Member of the House who would wish to have a look at

it. We were proud of it a year ago and we are still very proud

of it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Of

course, I'm excited about what has happened when I look at the

budget for this coming year. When I see an excess of $1

million, which would bring it up to a total of $4,196,000 and

some, that we can expect great things from our wildlife branch,

our Recreation and Conservation Branch.

But I am slightly disappointed about what has happened for

northern British Columbia. The Minister said a minute ago, Madam

Chairman, that there are 12 conservation officers and 15

biologists for the province. Of course it looked like some of

them could be tripping over one another but, Madam Chairman, we

only had three for northern British Columbia; three people, and

one of those is for the Queen Charlotte Islands. So that's

actually only two for northern British Columbia — a land mass

like that is hard to imagine. I really believe that with the

problems we have, two conservation officers are not sufficient

in northern British Columbia today.

While I can't refer to everybody's riding, in my own riding

I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that this winter 400 to 500

moose were poached. This is for the lack of conservation

officers — people who actually work at apprehending these

poachers. For example, just recently two plainclothesmen were

sent into the Fort St. James area and did apprehend poachers

killing moose this winter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. KELLY: No, they haven't any time. The RCMP do not have

the time to partake in this sort of carrying on. A miner told

me on a visit to Fort St. James about three weeks ago that on

the Pinchi Lake Road, leading to the Pinchi mine, you could see

tracks in the last two months — at least 20 tracks — where moose

had been dragged out of the bush.

I say this is going on on all the roads throughout the

riding and there are many hundreds of miles of these back roads

where people can get in and take moose. The price of meat today

has just driven people to do this illegal action. I consider

this very serious that we just don't have the people. It

doesn't matter how many plainclothesmen they bring in, it has

been regarded as the thing to do in this day and age.

Something else that bothers me, Madam Chairman, is the

permit system. In the interior today they are issuing permits

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

native people problem is one thing but I am strictly opposed to

issuing permits to welfare cases. In the month of January, in

Vanderhoof alone, 82 permits were issued to take moose. If they

took only 82 that would be one thing, but it is a common fact

that the holders of these permits — and in most cases they have

10 days to exercise them — go out and take two or three moose

and there is no one there to check them up.

It is a known fact also that you can go to the beer parlour

in Fort St. James or in Vanderhoof and buy yourself a roast of

moose meat. This is going on all the time. If this is happening

in my riding, what is it doing in other ridings? I have

complained previously about the shortage of animals; the game

is in short supply. The animals do go to the lower elevations

which is usually along the main rivers and along these rivers,

of course, are the highways where people are residing. It is

nothing for a farmer to have a dozen moose crossing his

property, maybe feeding on the fence lines or somewhere where

there is bush. It is quite easy for anyone to get a moose at

anytime in the winter.

When these animals are in short supply, this shows you what

a serious situation this is. I am really anxious to see the

department add staff to the northern part of our province.

The native problem is something else. I think even the

native people recognize the fact. I have had many native people

come to me and say: "Doug, there is a shortage of moose. What

are you going to do about it?"

I think if we were to go to the native people and say,

"Look, we are not able to issue permits any more," then

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

see this permit system cut out, at least until the stock of

animals were brought back to where we can say there are

sufficient animals to allow

[ Page 1920 ]

this to happen again. I don't want to infringe on any of the

aboriginal rights of our native people but if there is such a

short supply of animals, then I think, Madam Chairman, we have

to do something about it.

Back to the predators. I don't like to be repetitive about

this because the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

was talking about it. I don't altogether say that the wolves

are to blame. There are coyotes and both black and grizzly

bears. We know that bears do take a lot of the young animals

especially just after the moose have calved in the spring. I

had a guide explain to me this fall that in his particular

guiding area, several black bears are in that area and we know

for a fact that they do take a large number of calves. I don't

know what you could do about that particular subject except

make black bear hunting more attractive.

A recent survey by the game department showed that in very

large areas in my constituency, there was a real marked

shortage of calves with the adult animals. This is very obvious

to a biologist as he is going along making a count. I would

suggest that these calves have been taken by predators. Mankind

is one, but if you make an overall count I think the wolves do

have to be taken into consideration.

Concerning the complaints that have come from my riding that

the Member mentioned, I know the predator-control man was to

see the farmers and apparently they are trying to satisfy them

at least for the present time. I wouldn't blame all loss of

cattle on wolves only; there are other predators. The only

thing is, who is right and who is wrong? Are the grizzly and

black bear plus wolves entitled to live there as well as the

livestock?

I would like to see, Madam Chairman, the game department set

aside land in these low areas for our game. I would like to see

land that is going to be zoned agricultural that is bush land

now in the low valleys set aside as preserves for these

animals. In the wintertime, you see a good herd every once in a

while. If this was to be set aside, at least they would have

some cover for the winter — there are getting to be too many

farmers in the low valleys — if we are to keep a decent

population of moose and deer in existence.

There are practically no deer left in our area at the

present time. We had a very serious winter kill a year ago. We

had snow so deep the animals, including the moose, had to swim

through the snow even down on the lowest valley floors. It

wasn't hard for the predators to catch up to them. Everyone

realizes this is probably what happened in those particular

cases.

In the fish end of it, there are many hundreds of lakes in the northern part

of the province and most of them have fish in them. One of the complaints is

that before the game department will do anything about either restocking or

closing those particular lakes or streams, they will wait until they are just

about fished out.

I am anxious to see, number one, that we have a fish

hatchery in northern British Columbia. There are no fish

hatcheries in northern British Columbia. To my knowledge, only

four lakes in the whole of northern British Columbia received

any planted fish last year. That is pretty tough potatoes as

far as I'm concerned. We should have a lot more lakes and

streams stocked.

Once again I would urge that licenses be looked into and

this might help control the amount of fish taken. We do have

many non-residents coming in and we sell them licenses to fish

for one day. They might only stay for one day if we increased

this fee; it might prevent them from taking these fish.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Madam Chairman, a few quick

questions. First of all, perhaps the Minister might comment on

why, if he is so interested in raising the license fees, it has

not been done already. For about the first time in my life I

managed to get my fishing license for 1973-74 before my 1972-73

expired and I find the license fee is exactly the same — $3.

Hunting licenses are much the same.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I sent in another two bucks for a

steelhead license, Mr. Premier, a total of $5, which seems

pretty absurd in light of the remarks that he made himself. I

wonder why, if he's had six months as Minister, it's not been

possible to make these changes.

A quick extra comment on that. In the middle of the

Depression, in 1932, the hunting license in British Columbia

was $3. It's gone up $1 since then. It seems like the price is

completely out of line. So I wonder if the Minister could

indicate why no action has been taken on this in the last six

months, which presumably would have been the time required for

printing up licenses with different fee schedules on them.

There are one or two other comments on which I would like

the Minister to remark. I have in my hand the Creston flood

plain evaluation of alternatives for development — this is the

summary of the original study. It's a very good one indeed.

It points out that in the area of the Creston flood plain,

recreational development has a very much greater value than

agricultural development. The figures, from the point of view

of provincial use, are 4.5 million to under 2.5 million.

Now I see in his estimates there are no slots for

economists. I wonder how it's possible to get things

[ Page 1921 ]

like this study done on a continuing basis unless his

department gets involved in having their own staff. The

Pearce-Bowden report of course was excellent, but are we to

rely always upon the University economists to do this sort of

work? It's quite clear that proper assessment of wildlife value

is very necessary in British Columbia.

In Oregon the figure put on the value of a single steelhead

taken from a stream is, I think, well above $60. Probably in

British Columbia for every salmon caught at sea the value, in

terms of economic value, is well above $80.

I wonder whether the Minister would comment on whether or

not we have the staff to do the right type of economic

evaluations. Because we are hearing frequently in the committee

of the House on forestry and fisheries of the fact that there

is a need for this type of study. We're also hearing that the

people with other resource interests, such as logging, have

plenty of economists capable of doing the same evaluation

studies for the value of lumber and timber. So I wonder if the

Minister could indicate why in his estimates he does not have

any slots there for economists.

Another point I'd like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the B.C.

Hydro and its development plans. I have in my hand a clipping

of November 20 from the Vancouver Province referring to the

B.C. Fisheries Association — comments regarding hydro

development, in particular, the Chilco Lake area, the Homathko

River — the Homathko Park complex was one they were referring

to specifically.

The association took that stand opposing any further power

developments in that area because it would affect approximately

one out of five Sockeye in the whole Fraser system if

developments took place there. At that time, according to this

news report, the Premier had asked B.C. Hydro to take another

look at the project which had been turned down by the B.C.

Energy Board. I wonder whether this second look has been taken

and whether once more the proposals for development in that

river system have been turned down. Because, of course, if it

does take place we are in for a substantial loss in the

fisheries resource.

Madam Chairman, there are quite a number of questions I have

regarding an extremely valuable sports fish — steelhead. I

mentioned it earlier with reference to Oregon. I wonder whether

the Minister could indicate to us whether he has been able to

arrange any cost-sharing arrangements with the federal

Department of Fisheries regarding steelhead stocking on various

streams in British Columbia.

It's one of these silly situations where the steelhead are a provincial fish

and salmon which use the same river for spawning and act in much the same manner

happen to be a federal fish and the hatchery programmes tend to be complicated

by this. I wonder whether the Minister has come across

any cost-sharing or joint hatchery programmes which could result in greater

numbers of steelhead, in particular on streams which are short, and near major

urban centres.

In the same general area, I wonder whether the Minister

could indicate to us in the House what steps have been taken

with regard to extending the closed areas of streams at certain

times of the year to prevent steelhead smoults from being

taken. It's a disastrous situation where a small steelhead

smoult is taken as a trout and quite often killed when that

fish, if allowed to proceed to sea and return, would return as

a fish of up to 20 pounds perhaps. It seems ridiculous that

we're allowing the catching of the steelhead, a very valuable

sports fish, at probably its least valuable point in terms of

food value, recreational value or anything else.

A more local problem, Mr. Minister, is the Thetis Lake

watershed area in the greater Victoria area. There is a local

group who wish to have this area purchased by the government

under one of our various funds, greenbelt or otherwise, to

protect this recreational area. They have attempted to have

meetings with you and my information, which is three weeks out

of date, is that they have not yet been able to have a meeting.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate first whether or

not he's had it in recent weeks and, if not, when will it take

place?

It goes without saying that the comments of my friend from

Saanich have indicated the need for this type of greenbelt

environmental protection in the capital region. This particular

group I think has a good proposal which I endorse. I wonder if

the Minister could indicate whether he's had the time to meet

with them and to take it up with them?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, the Thetis Lake area: I

haven't had the opportunity of meeting with the local society

as yet but I certainly will do so within the next few weeks, I

hope. I know there is a great concern locally whether it can be

considered a priority area — though in terms of the province,

this is something else again.

The question of economists: it's true, there is nothing in

the budget for this department with respect to economists. We

have in fact only one young economist in the forest service

staff. When you consider the fact that is our major industry,

it says something about attitudes of the past.

We will be increasing the economic group in the Forest

Service. There is also an additional fund before the House in

another bill, $5 million, the interest of which is to be used

for various research and consulting purposes. The prime work

that we see with respect to that revenue is in the economic

field. So that both in resource and integrated areas there is

[ Page 1922 ]

fact a considerable amount available in the coming fiscal

year for economic advice to the provincial government.

The bulk of the work done to date, has been done of course

by consultants to the department. Pearce Bowden has been the

main consultant to the department and done some excellent work — as other members have indicated through the debates.

The question of the Homathko: there is a review of the

alternatives with respect to power for Vancouver Island and

that is one of them. There would be no decisions with respect

to any of the sources without environmental impact studies

being part of the process. That would be a requirement. I

appreciate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, the environmental impact study has

not been done. Only basic engineering work is being done now,

but it is understood by the authority that the environmental

study would be a requirement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously it is going to have to be in

the next year.

The question of our relationship with the federal

government: there is a meeting this weekend, as we indicated

earlier, which will include the federal Minister of the

Environment and it will be an opportunity for us to discuss

areas of cooperation. The federal responsibility in some of

these areas is primarily research, as we see it. It is a

question of jurisdiction in which we are somewhat concerned

about.

As to the raising of licenses — why hasn't this been done

yet? Well, I think the important thing is that we have

increased the budget of the department. We also can increase

revenues. The important thing is we have increased the budget

of the department; we do have these 12 conservation officers

and 18 biologists coming on staff so that the department is not

being frustrated because of a lack of increase in the fees. As

I indicated earlier, what we want to tie that to is an

intensive management programme so that those that do hunt and

fish can see the result from the money they put in. They can

see wild life land acquired in the East Kootenay, in other

areas, and in the lower mainland for intensive management — wetland areas and so on. The intent is not to have just an

increase in fees but rather an increase in fees for a

purpose.

With respect to regional parks, which the Member for Saanich

and the Islands raised, I think it is true that the record of

the former Minister with respect to regional parks in the

capital was very good. I think that ours hasn't been bad either

in six months.

I suppose part of the reason is that we sort of are

temporary residents here. How temporary, I'm not too sure. We

develop an affinity for the region. I think that's natural

enough, it's a very special region.

I think it's unfortunate that other parts of the province

haven't seen fit to take advantage of the regional park

legislation because it's clear that what's happening — there's

something of an imbalance. I think there's a need in these

urban regions — in the capital and in the lower mainland.

That's where the great pressures are. But it's unfortunate that

other regions haven't seen fit — amongst them, for example,

Boundary-Similkameen. There were opportunities on Christina

Lake, where we were prepared to make exceptions to the general

rule in order to preserve land and still the region didn't see

fit to preserve a site that was obviously important to

them.

The greenbelts: the planner from Saanich is of course an old

colleague of mine from university days. I have reviewed the

Saanich report and it's certainly the most comprehensive and

one of the best reports that has been prepared with respect to

this problem or opportunity.

It does seem to me that it's too bad that the map stops

where it does because you've got that stretch out toward

Langford, Colwood and Metchosin which has been a kind of

ignored part of the capital region, it seems to me. It's an

area that has real urban sprawl problems and yet has some of

the really delightful natural landscape of the region. While it

hasn't been ignored in terms of regional parks, I think the

concept of the greenbelt which was developed by Saanich really

does have to be extended into that part of the capital region

as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's true. The land commission

legislation was drafted, I understand, to take greenbelts into

consideration. The amendments might affect that to some extent.

I am certainly sympathetic to the Saanich proposal and it's

something that I hope that with the land commission, the

Environment and Land Use Committee could give consideration to — now that the Environment and Land Use Committee is becoming

more active and will have increased staff.

With regard to the north: the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly)

is quite right in expressing his concern with respect to the

lack of people in the north, particularly again the northwest.

There will be an increase up there, there's obviously a need

for a supervisor in the westerly region.

The idea that the wildlife of the Queen Charlottes should be

managed out of Prince George, I guess it is, it just won't

work. So obviously a new administrative centre in the northwest

is necessary with respect to fish and wildlife management. That

will make it

[ Page 1923 ]

possible for the people in Prince George to do a more

effective job in the more immediate environs of Prince George.

It would seem that a likely location would be in the Terrace

area so that we could service the coastal area and the

magnificent area to the north along the Stewart-Cassiar

Highway.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Regarding the question of setting aside land for game, I

think there's some agreement there. As I've indicated, any

increase in fees would be tied to that kind of programme so

that the fee increase would be used in a positive way.

The question of fish hatcheries: there is a proposal which

is presently being worked on by Public Works — a fish hatchery

at Abbotsford, however. Now that hatchery — both steelhead and

trout — could well service all parts of British Columbia. That's

the high priority one and it's presently in the hands of Public

Works, and on the edge of Treasury Board. So it's our hope and

expectation that there'll be some activity with respect to the

hatchery quite soon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River followed by the Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I don't

want to belabour the wolf problem but the Minister said that if

there was a problem in an area that he would do something.

Well, there's been a problem in our area in the community

pasture. His department is aware of the problem and I would

like to ask the Minister what action he is going to take

because in these community pastures, in particular the

Groundbirch pasture, the government has spent a lot of money

creating them.

They're being used by ranchers in the area but this spring

they're not going to be used. The ranchers are not going to be

able to afford to put their cattle down there unless something

is done about this problem. And his department has been well

aware of this problem because I personally talked to some

officials in his department last fall myself. I'm still waiting

for a report, still waiting for some action.

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, it's getting to the point

that I don't dare to go back home unless I have a positive

answer. I might have to stay here all summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I'm going to stay here, I might as well

stay in this Legislature because it's nice and warm — so I

think you get the message.

I have to have an answer on this wolf problem and what is going to happen.

What's going to be done? I'll wait for the Minister's

reply about something positive, because as I say, his department knows of this

problem. They say, "Give us some input and we'll give you the answer."

I want to talk about a little spot in northern British

Columbia that is very dear to my heart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, is the Hon. Member raising a new

subject?

MR. PHILLIPS: Am I raising a new subject? Well I'm not sure

that I understand the Chairman. I'm talking about something

under the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would allow the Member to make a

supplementary question arising out of the answer that was just

made, but I would prefer that he wait for a few minutes until

we've gone around and canvassed the other Members and come back

again to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've got all afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be prepared to wait if…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I'll recognize the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston on a supplementary question arising out of the

answer that was given. Not a new subject at this time. Well,

these appear to be new subjects. I'll recognize the Hon. Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we just want to be sure everyone gets a

fair chance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I appreciate

your fairness, Mr. Chairman, I just hope that the fairness is

not going to interfere with the functioning of the

committee.

Anyway, it's a new question. Every period brings its own

debates and creates certain words which excite emotion among

all people — so I'll throw a couple of words at the Hon.

Minister. What about Cypress Bowl? That's one which…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I knew that you were waiting for somebody to

ask that question and I've got many things I can say about it.

We've had many, many hours of debate. I'm sorry that the Hon.

Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is not here to raise

this matter because I know that he had great interest in it

before.

Mr. Minister, can you please tell us what's happening with

Cypress Bowl? I know there has been

[ Page 1924 ]

some land exchange…When are we going to see the new

plans for Cypress Bowl? I'll sit down now, if you can tell

us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm glad the Hon. Member raised the

question of Cypress Bowl because it's a matter that's taken a

great deal of the time of this House over the years.

The budget proposed for the Cypress Bowl development in the

coming year is something around $2 million. That's essentially

finishing off the road which we're already committed to.

Activity with respect to trails throughout the area: some

activity in relation to the small lakes in the area — essentially working on it in terms of summer use of the area at

this stage, plus replanting, reforestation and a continuation

of that kind of cleanup work as a result of the mess left by

previous activities.

The question of the winter use of the area is still under

study and the plans are being reconsidered. The parking lots as

proposed were on the Hollyburn Ridge area and would have

affected all of the climax forest that exists on Hollyburn

Ridge. That was a matter of some concern — whether you trade

off the values of the ridge for the parking facilities. That's

still being reviewed, as are the ski areas themselves. We, in

effect, decided that a one-year moratorium was worthwhile with

respect to the parking lot pattern and the winter ski

development and how we handled people in the area.

The previous budget that had been proposed and was underway

by the former administration was considerably higher. It was

our judgment that the work that had been done was not adequate

and needed consideration. In view of the sad history of the

Bowl we weren't anxious to see the recreational solutions not

well thought out.

I think a one-year moratorium — it's not really a moratorium

since we are spending at least the amount that I indicated. The

one year will give us the time that is needed to come up with a

worthwhile plan.

I think it is generally not recognized that areas like the

mountains north of West Vancouver and north of the city are

probably as important in terms of summertime activity as they

are in terms of winter activity. The winter activity is very

capital-intensive; the summer activity is not. Preparation for

summer activity is labour-intensive. That is why we have taken

the approach we have. There will be an intensive use of labour

in there throughout this season.

As I think I indicated earlier, when one goes through the Hollyburn Ridge area

one is impressed by the quality of the area because of the lack of intensive

application of capital. And when one spends time in Cypress Bowl one is impressed

at the destruction in the area with the application of capital, either for forestry

purposes or other purposes. So that the year, I think, is most worthwhile.

In terms of the land area itself, we have come to an

agreement in principle with the District of West Vancouver with

respect to a land exchange, so that the Hollyburn Ridge area,

which is presently owned by the district, will become part of

the park, and the Crown lands that are presently a watershed

area of West Vancouver to the west and a little to the south

will become the property of West Vancouver. So there is

agreement in those areas.

I think the servicing questions with respect to the bowl — the sewer system and items like that — are still under review

as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplemental to that, Mr. Chairman: Two

million dollars will be expended, you think, in this next

fiscal year. Would the Minister please indicate when he thinks

it might be available for public use?

Secondly, is the development of Cypress Bowl being

approached with the thought in mind that it may be the gateway

leading to certainly summer use of areas which lie north of

Cypress Bowl, because I believe that once Cypress Bowl is made

into an access that some exciting summer trail possibilities

arise as you go through the Bowl and on north.

If that is the direction that is taken then I would

wholeheartedly support the present concept. I think that far

too much attention has been paid to the use of Cypress Bowl as

a downhill ski area, which is, as the Minister points out,

capital-intensive — it brings tremendous numbers of people for

short periods of time, and ignores the long term problems and

the long term potential of