1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3331 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Consultations with Ottawa

on federal tax law changes, Mr. Wallace — 3331

Differences in provincial and federal NDP policies. Mr.

D.A.

Anderson — 3331

Variations in ICBC body work charges. Mr. Bennett — 3332

Facilities at Mica Creek construction site. Mrs. Jordan — 3333

Citizenship requirements for access to Crown lands. Mr.

D.A.

Anderson — 3333

Proposed meeting between United Fruit Growers and the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Curtis — 3333

Use of out-of-province contractors on government projects. Mr. Phillips — 3334

ICBC use of land in North Vancouver for wreck storage.

Mr. Gibson — 3334

Committee of Supply: Department of Recreation and

Conservation estimates.

On vote 225. Mr. Wallace — 3350

Mr. Chabot — 3335 Ms. Brown — 3355

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3337 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3356

Mr. Rolston — 3338 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3360

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3340 Mr. Dent — 3361

Mr. Phillips — 3340 Mr. Curtis — 3361

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3341 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3362

Mr. Phillips — 3342 Mr. Richter — 3362

Mr. Smith — 3342 Mr. Kelly — 3362

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3343 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3364

Mr. Smith — 3346 Mr. Chabot — 3364

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3346 Mrs. Jordan — 3365

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3348 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3365

Mr. Bennett — 3349 Mr. Phillips — 3366

Mrs. Webster — 3350 Hon. Mr. Radford — 3366

Hon. Mr. Radford — 3350

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

am advised of the attendance in the gallery today of a second

group of students from Handsworth School in North Vancouver,

accompanied by their instructors, Miss Hunter, Mr. Adams and

Mr. Macdonald. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

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

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

of Sister Henrika of Seattle, and point out that she and the

Premier both share the same experience of having had the same

teachers in Seattle. It proves that even with a standardized

education not all can turn out well. (Laughter.)

I would like the House to welcome her today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome

the Sister as well, and to assure her that I think the Leader

of the Opposition is not attacking her. (Laughter.)

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's my

great privilege to advise the House that we have in the gallery

today 49 grade seven students from Crescent Park Elementary

School in the great city of Dawson Creek in the great Peace

River area. Accompanying these students are their teachers, Mr.

Lawrence, and chaperones Mrs. Webb, Mrs. Flack, Mr. MacLean and

Mr. Flynn. These students arrived yesterday and they are going

to be spending the remainder of the week here in the great

capital area of Victoria.

Many of these students from the great Peace River area have

never had the opportunity of seeing the ocean before. But more

importantly, 90 per cent of them have never had the opportunity

of seeing the Legislature in action. So I'm sure that all the

Members will be on their greatest behaviour this afternoon.

Now I'd like you to join with me in giving them a real

hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't know that bill was before the House.

(Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

CONSULTATIONS WITH OTTAWA

ON FEDERAL TAX LAW CHANGES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Industrial Trade and Commerce, with reference to

his speech of yesterday expressing deep concern at proposed

federal changes in the taxation laws governing corporations,

whether the Minister has taken any specific measures to consult

with the federal government?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a new federal government on July 8, to which

I will make representations.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister

have any similar concern regarding proposed taxation measures

in the provincial field?

HON. MR. LAUK: That area of fiscal responsibility has

traditionally lain with the province, and that was the point I

was making yesterday. This is a direct attack on provincial

autonomy.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since

the proposals that the Minister attacked federally are very

similar to those before the House, is the Minister considering

resigning his position with this government?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would not resign. The

proposals before this House in the nature of Bill 31 have

absolutely no similarity to the budgetary proposals of John

Turner. We are proposing royalties in the right of the Crown.

They are proposing a taxable income situation, which is totally

different.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary. Does the Minister not

agree that this is a form of taxation against corporations

which is indeed similar to the federal proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the question is argumentative in

this case.

DIFFERENCES IN PROVINCIAL

AND FEDERAL NDP POLICIES

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

could ask the Premier whether this savage attack upon the

federal NDP policy by the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce was authorized by the Premier in response to

the statement by David Lewis that he hopes people will still

vote federal NDP despite the mistakes of the provincial

government.

[ Page 3332 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is

for any Liberal to admit it publicly these days; but I want to

respond to the Member by saying that I agree. You can read in

Hansard the excerpts from the speech from the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when

we had a rather lengthy exchange around provincial rights — and

the Minister's statements concerning provincial rights under

the BNA.

I point out to the Member that I've made it very clear that

we are as a government Canadians first, but the BNA Act must

not be altered by the basis of a federal budget without

cooperation from all the provinces. I share the Minister's

concerns as expressed so ably by your colleague, sitting next

to you, earlier in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further

supplementary? I think the Premier is certainly on safe ground

to agree with my hon. friend from West Vancouver. But as he

totally ignored the policy of David Lewis and the federal NDP,

may I ask him whether or not this speech, which took the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce out of

this House for a full day to take

part in a federal campaign,

was in response to the statement by Lewis that he hopes that

some people would still vote federal NDP despite the mistakes

of your party and government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, although I have tried to

avoid bringing politics to this Legislature, (Laughter) I want

to point out that what the Member seems not to understand is

the reasons why his party is no longer in power. The federal

NDP voted against that budget that the Minister was

criticizing; and that Member doesn't understand that that's why

the federal Liberal government fell. That's why we voted

against them. I congratulate the Member and all British

Columbians who essentially agree with this sentiment, along

with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I know your

position is in danger. That's why I don't like to bring up

politics in the House.

VARIATIONS IN ICBC

BODY WORK CHARGES

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Commercial Transport, Mr.

Speaker. Could the Minister explain to the Legislature why the

ICBC has chosen to pay $16 in Campbell River and certain other

north Island points for body work, while only allowing $14 in

Port Alberni?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): To the

best of my knowledge we are not paying $16 anywhere. We changed the system in

Campbell River and one or two other places from the hourly assessment by the

adjuster back to the old system where we ask the garages to put in a total cash

bid. So we have no knowledge of what their hourly rate is. It's the total cash

bid, three bids, and it goes to the lowest bidder.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary. I was quoting a news release

of early May where it states that the hourly differential is $2

between the two areas. I'd like to know if the Minister can

advise the House as to whether the towing charges from Port

Alberni to Victoria more than eat up any difference in charges

between the two areas.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was that press release quoting me? Was it

quoting an ICBC official?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If it's one of Dan Campbell's quotes,

we'll ignore that. We'll ignore that. What was the other

question?

MR. BENNETT: The quotes from ICBC and the dispute with the

repair shops in Port Alberni. The supplemental question I asked

is: could the Minister advise the House whether or not the

towing charges — because he advised the House that they've been

towing vehicles from Port Alberni to Victoria — eat up any

differential in cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, there's a

section in the

standing orders that allows me to ask you a question. Would you

please tell me which paper you're quoting from and the date of

that paper?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, it's a Canadian Press article. It deals

with May 1 in the Vancouver Province , dateline Port

Alberni and it quotes Lyle Kidd, president of a collision

repair firm there, in relationship negotiations between the….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No speeches. Just answer my question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Member….

MR. BENNETT: The Hon. Minister of Commercial Transport asked

me a question and I'm answering it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the whole matter is

really going beyond the rule in question period. You cannot use

a newspaper

article as the basis for a question.

MR. BENNETT: The supplementary, my question,

[ Page 3333 ]

which he still hasn't answered is: Is the differential from

hauling a vehicle from Port Alberni to Victoria for repairs

eating up any of the differential in cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I don't admit there's any

differential in cost. And it's good policy.

MR. BENNETT: Well then, supplemental: could the Minister

advise the House what it costs to tow the vehicles from Port

Alberni to Victoria to get them repaired?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I recollect the towing rates were

published and made public some months ago when we reached

agreement with the towing firms. I'll get the exact towing

charges for you.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Would the Minister also when

he's giving us the rates then tell us the number of units that

have been brought from Port Alberni to Victoria for repair and

how often they're being brought and how recent? I'd like to

have not only the numbers but….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to take that question as

notice.

FATALITIES AT

MICA CREEK CONSTRUCTION SITE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Labour. It regards the accident at Mica Creek

yesterday where four men were tragically killed by the collapse

of scaffolding in an elevator shaft in the area where the

underground power station is going.

Has the Minister set up more than a routine inquiry? In

other words, has he set up a special inquiry into this accident

in light of the fact that there are minimum standards and those

standards should be of a supreme importance where there was

such a distance involved? And if negligence is proved on the

basis of it being a Crown corporation, is the Minister willing

to propose special compensation to these families on this

basis?

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

understand that the accident occurred in the area of a

contractor's jurisdiction rather than that of Hydro, in the

first instance. In the second instance, I would not wish to

presume guilt on anyone's behalf in this kind of an — accident.

I understand that an investigation is underway by Workmen's

Compensation Board people, and until I have some first-hand

knowledge and some first-hand report of what occurred at the

site, I would not be prepared to announce any further action at

this time.

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS

FOR ACCESS TO CROWN LANDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: May I ask whether it's a requirement of the

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that persons

seeking land-use permits or other access to Crown lands be

Canadian citizens or landed immigrants?

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

It is not clear — access to Crown Lands? What is meant by access, Mr. Speaker?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could explain

slightly more. In view of the fact that the B.C. Forest Service

has informed a native Canadian Indian that he must sign an

affidavit swearing that he is a Canadian before he could be

granted the right of access across Crown lands to a timber

sale, which he currently holds, I wonder if the Minister would

inform the House whether applicants responding to government

advertisements abroad for timber sales will not be granted

access across Crown lands to that timber unless they become

landed immigrants.

HON, R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure if the Crown entertains

applications from abroad, and supports them, some suitable

supplementary arrangements will be made which could allow such

access.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I then ask a further supplementary?

Will it be a requirement that B.C. Indians, Canadian Indians,

will be required. to sign affidavits of citizenship before they

also can get access to timber rights that they hold?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well I think that's a….

Interjection.

PROPOSED MEETING BETWEEN

UNITED FRUIT GROWERS AND

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

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

the Premier. May I ask if he met today with representatives

of the tree fruits industry known as United Fruit Growers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I had a load of them in my office. I

always welcome all residents of British Columbia, whenever I

have the opportunity.

MR. CURTIS: I'm pleased to hear that. Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. As a result of that meeting did the Premier arrange

another meeting with

[ Page 3334 ]

the representatives of United Fruit Growers with the

Minister of Agriculture?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They asked if I would see if the Minister

was free, because the Minister's

schedule for the day was

normally filled up. They came down on spec. I said yes, I would

check with the Minister. I did and the Minister has made

special time available for them, and I think that's very good

of the Minister to do that.

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

Agriculture. Is it correct that the representatives of United

Fruit Growers have attempted unsuccessfully over the past two

to three weeks to have such a meeting?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Well, Mr.

Speaker, if it is correct, I haven't heard about it.

MR. CURTIS: Has the Minister not been informed by his

secretary that representatives of United Fruit Growers were

anxious to see him at some time, in the recent past?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Which is a little different from two

weeks, Mr. Speaker. The day before yesterday representatives of

that group did phone and ask if they could see me yesterday or

today. They were informed by my secretary, without even

consulting me, that my appointments were booked up yesterday

and today and they are. I have an appointment with the Land

Commission at 2:30 and I'm not sure just how long that one will

run. I have another appointment at 4 o'clock and I have agreed,

if the first appointment is finished before 4 o'clock, that I

will meet the representatives of the United Fruit Growers.

USE OF OUT OF PROVINCE

CONTRACTORS ON

GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister

of Agriculture. In view of the fact that British Columbia

taxpayers' money is backing a loan for South Peace Dehy

Products construction of their plant, is the Minister aware

that 90 per cent of the contractors on that project are from

the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and is this going to

be his policy in the future?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not the source of the contractors,

my concern is with the labourers working on the job, and as to whether or not

they are unionized. I have had some information to the fact that they are not

union labour and I've expressed that concern to South Peace Dehy Products Ltd.

I'm awaiting a reply from that company.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The

services that are being rendered by these contractors from

outside the province were available in Dawson Creek, and the

tenders were by invitation only, not a firm bid to tender. If

the taxpayers' money is going to be backing this project, does

the Minister not feel that where possible, British Columbia

products and services should be supplied?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the qualification was in

there where possible. The information supplied to me by the

directors of that corporation was that the contractors who were

asked to bid on it were experienced in building this type of

plant. You will appreciate that there was some delay in getting

started in construction. You'll appreciate that there was some

concern to get the plant constructed as quickly as

possible.

The directors of the corporation, who are not controlled by

the government — we have one vote on that board — the directors

of the corporation felt that in the interest of getting a plant

constructed as quickly as possible, they should go to the

experienced contractors and use local labour. As I said

earlier, my concern is that the local labour be union shop.

ICBC USE OF LAND IN

NORTH VANCOUVER FOR WRECK STORAGE

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister of Transport and

Communications: Is the Minister aware that ICBC land on the

Dollarton Highway in the District of North Vancouver, contrary

to the original understanding, is not being used for the

storage of wrecks? And pursuant to a resolution of the district

council earlier this week, is he prepared to get the wrecks off

that land and to undertake it won't be so used in the

future.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check the documents

relating to any original agreement before I could answer that

question.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

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

[ Page 3335 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, today we will

continue discussing the Department of Recreation and

Conservation. We will start off by continuing the debate on the

Minister's office, which allows the Members a great deal of

leeway and I hope they enjoy the continuing debate in freedom

and in good spirit.

MR, J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to

see that the Premier is in good spirits today and suggests that

there is freedom of debate in the Legislature. I want to tell

the people in the galleries the Premier was telling the people

in the gallery that there is freedom of debate in estimates

today, but there might not be next year, because a committee….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the vote, please?

MR. CHABOT: A little bit of democracy disappeared today, Mr.

Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak about the responsibilities of

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I noticed an

article in The Victoria Express regarding the Minister's

ability in trap shooting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shooting off his trap? (Laughter.)

MR, CHABOT: I understand he has distributed a great series

of glossy pictures; 8 x 10 pictures of the Minister have been

circulated not only throughout British Columbia but all parts

of Canada as well — glossy pictures at taxpayers' expense of the

Minister with a gun pointed at what we don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clay pigeons.

MR. CHABOT: Well, where is the clay pigeon in the picture?

Another one with a trophy. Another one.

The Minister says he doesn't even know that it was being circulated. I've been

on the mailing list of the Department of Recreation and Conservation for some

considerable time and I receive a lot of these brochures. But no one sent me

two 8 x 10 glossy pictures of the Minister's shooting skill. I'm wondering if

any other Members of this assembly have seen these glossy, expensive pictures

that are being circulated not only throughout British Columbia but in other

parts of this nation as well. At what cost? Hundreds of dollars of taxpayers'

money, at government expense. These are taxpayers' dollars we're talking about

to promote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

AN HON, MEMBER: Nice guy.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Expensive guy.

MR. CHABOT: The next thing he'll do, like Icky-bicky (ICBC),

is have a series of TV programmes and radio spots to tell them

what a great Minister he is. Someone says that picture went as

far as South America. I want to say this: there's no one in

South America who is going to be voting for you. Why didn't you

only distribute it in British Columbia? I realize the majority

of those 850 brochures along with the 1,700 pictures did go to

British Columbia but why circulate them out of the province?

Maybe you'll make a national magazine or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: International Sportsman.

MR. CHABOT: The next thing we know it's liable to be

published in Beautiful British Columbia. That's going a

little far, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I want first of all to speak very briefly about

the summer employment programme and the youth training

programme of the department. I want to say at the outset,

before maybe some of my words may be misconstrued, that I

strongly support the youth training programme that has been in

place for some considerable time. It was instituted by that

former progressive government that we had in the Province of

British Columbia and carried on and expanded by the present

government from an expenditure of $400,000 to $750,000. It's an

excellent programme. I've had the opportunity in years gone by

to witness some of the experiences the young people from the

city have had at the provincial park in Wasa and I have nothing

but praise for the programme.

I'm wondering what kind of coordination there will be

between that programme and the summer employment programme

where the Parks Branch is being allocated $2.1 million and

hiring 360 students for the purpose of maintenance and

construction work within the park system of our province. It

was my understanding that was partially the responsibility of

the young people who are employed in the youth training

programme.

I'm wondering as well whether the Minister has looked at the

kind of wages he is paying to the young people. He has

increased the fee to $13 a day and I'm certainly not going to

fight that; I consider they're

[ Page 3336 ]

getting a tremendous experience. Maybe $13 might be a little

high when one considers that the young people, 15 years of age,

are getting free board, free meals and free lodging and gaining

a tremendous experience of understanding the outdoors. It's an

excellent opportunity.

But then we find within your employment programme that

you're hiring other students in the senior grades of our

educational system and paying them $400 a month without free

meals and lodging. There appears to be a discrepancy. The I

5-year-olds, in most instances, will be receiving, with the two

combined, substantially more than those in grades 10, 11, and

12 who will be employed in the employment programme of the

parks. I'm wondering what the Minister has to say about this

situation.

I come from a region of parks, an area that has more parks

per capita than anywhere in the world. We have three massive

national parks, Yoho, Glacier and Kootenay. Revelstoke, Mr.

Minister of Labour, happens to be in your riding, in case you

don't know it, and I don't claim that park. We also have a lot

of provincial parks as well. We have Mount Assiniboine, we have

Hamber, class A parks, and we have the Bugaboo Glacier class A

park as well. Last but not least, we now have that massive

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy; 325,000 acres of land within my

constituency has been made into a park. It really gives an

excellent opportunity for big game to forage without the

harassment of the hunting population. It's not unusual, really,

in some of the parks — for instance, in Kootenay — to take a

drive through that park and see hundreds of elk in one

afternoon. I would suggest there's probably a higher

concentration of elk in that region than anywhere else in

Canada. These parks do afford a substantial amount of

protection for this big game, which is to be commended as

well.

But I'm concerned about some of these expansions that we see

take place and the effect it has on big game guiding in my

territory. For instance, the expansion of the Assiniboine

provincial park taking in the Simpson River area has removed a

substantial amount of area from hunting. We now see the Purcell

Wilderness Conservancy with its 325,000 acres. They haven't

banned hunting but it's going to be regulated in the Purcell

Wilderness Conservancy.

I was wondering if the Minister could tell me what is meant

by, "hunting will however be permitted subject to Fish and

Wildlife Branch regulations." Does that mean that big game

guides who make their livelihood in that wilderness conservancy

will be allowed to continue to hunt in that area? Does it mean,

as well, that the British Columbia or the resident hunters will

have an opportunity to hunt in that Purcell wilderness

area?

The Minister issued a press release on October 29, 1973, and talked about some

land acquisitions as being the last chance for wildlife. He says, "We're speaking

about areas where wildlife populations have decreased by 50 per cent in the

last 10 years." I don't doubt for a moment that there has been a decrease in

wildlife population in my area; not at all. Primarily because of hunting pressure,

the decrease has occurred — hunting pressures caused by not only the increase

in hunting population but because of additional accesses put into the area.

The Trans-Canada Highway and the Creston-Salmo Highway have made it possible

for people from the more populated part of the province to get into these Kootenays

for hunting purposes. As well as mining and logging roads, new accesses to the

more wilderness areas of the region have had a tremendous effect on wildlife

population. There's no doubt about that.

I'd like to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that wildlife is

not in a last-chance situation as you've suggested in your

press release. It has an opportunity to continue to flourish.

It will never be the same again because of the fact that the

only hunting taking place 15 years ago in that region was by

local resident hunters. You didn't have the influx from the

other areas and that's why there has been this decrease in

population. It's not as serious as you might project in the

press release that you issued.

Had it been serious, I'm sure those very capable,

imaginative biologists would have set certain restrictions on

hunting years ago because you don't decimate game populations

over night. It's only until recently that you could harvest two

goats or two deer, antlerless as well, in the region. If the

game population is as critical as you attempt to portray it — which I don't really believe it is — then you have no one else

to blame but the biologists in your department who haven't

brought in the kind of regulations necessary to allow game to

flourish in the east Kootenays.

Now your department has purchased some farms or some

ranches, primarily in the Fort Steele and the Bull River area.

I'm not going to criticize the department for these purchases

because I understand that part of these ranches occupied some

of the finer and more critical habitat in the region.

But I don't think that it's necessary, really, now that

you've bought these in the Bull River and the Fort Steele area — these ranches to protect certain critical habitat — it's not

necessary to expand on that programme and buy up all the

ranches in the area. I don't think it's necessary.

I look at the programme you have at Bummer's Flats in the

Fort Steele area where you're establishing grazing for domestic

cattle and also nesting grounds for ducks. Basically you're

establishing single-use purpose there. It's not an integrated

use because certainly the big game won't be nesting or the

livestock won't be in the area where the ducks are

[ Page 3337 ]

nesting.

I notice the big fences that are being erected down there on

Bummer's Flats, primarily for the purpose of domestic livestock

grazing. I think it's the intention of the department to keep

the cattle down there on Bummer's Flats and keep the game up on

top.

Well, that's the kind of a project that no farmer or no

rancher could possibly ever undertake, because he wouldn't have

enough money. You've found it necessary to dike eight miles of

the Kootenay River to make this feasible, and only government

could carry out this kind of a programme.

But I don't think that it's necessary, as I said before, to

continue to purchase farms and ranches in the east Kootenays. I

think what you really need in your department is an integrated

land-management programme, something I have suggested from time

to time over the years. I firmly believe that domestic cattle

and big game can live together with proper range management,

with proper improvement to the habitat.

I wonder what kind of programmes the Minister has undertaken

since he's been in that portfolio to promote range improvement

for big game. He has the professional people within his

department and the Department of Agriculture as well. If

they're talking to each other, I'm sure they'll both agree that

livestock and big game can live together. I would suggest to

the Minister that if there hasn't been a programme started to

upgrade and improve the habitat and range, it should be

undertaken as quickly as possible.

I've seen many years ago where wild horses by the hundreds

flourished — not only flourished, but made it possible for big

game to survive as well; because in the winter months, when

it's difficult for deer and elk to get grass, the horses would

plough the crust off the snow and make it possible for the big

game to feed behind them.

That is ample evidence to me that both can survive together.

However, the wild horses are gone now. Dr. Ballard bought them

all — $5 a head. I want the Minister to tell me what kind of

programmes he has in that respect.

A couple of other short questions, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering if the Minister could outline to me either

verbally or by written

summary, the kind of wish-stocking

programme that's been undertaken in the east Kootenays, or is

proposed for 1974 in the east Kootenays. I want to tell the

Minister that he shouldn't be hesitant to make this information

available for not only 1974, but for 1973 as well, and make it

a matter of policy.

If you're going to distribute, Mr. Minister, 8 x 10 glossy pictures of yourself

throughout British Columbia and other parts of the world, certainly you shouldn't

be hesitant to tell the elected representatives in this assembly what kind of

stocking programme you've undertaken from the hatcheries throughout British

Columbia.

There is a policy that was carried out by the former

government, and I don't know why it hasn't been followed

through by your department in outlining what kind of programmes

you've undertaken. I was wondering if the Minister could also

tell me what kind of programme he has for park development

within that great constituency of Columbia River.

One other project I want the Minister to give some

consideration to is one which was started by the former

government; it was the development of a beach at Athalmer — a

public beach. There is a desperate need for more public

facilities on that beach.

There is limited access now, and all we're asking for….

The former government started establishing this beach. But what

we really need, Mr. Minister, is some change houses and some

picnic tables and a few things like this at a little bit of

water so that people can enjoy that great recreational part of

the province that I come from.

The Minister is suggesting maybe that I should sit down.

Maybe he wants to announce what kind of dollars he's going to

allocate for the further development of the Athalmer beach. I

hope, Mr. Minister — I'm not asking for much — I hope that

you'll tell me. I hope, Mr. Minister, that you'll tell me that

you've allocated something in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to

$25,000.

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

Yes, Mr. Member. In regard to the

article which appeared in The

Express, they mention that the estimated number of

envelopes that went out was 850. I can assure you that they're

quite wrong. As a matter of fact…

MR. CHABOT: 830?

HON. MR. RADFORD: . …my information is that six envelopes

went out: one to the newspaper in Victoria, one to Nanaimo and

four to Vancouver. So exactly six envelopes went out with six

glossy pictures which were produced by the Travel Industry

department. And a few other releases went out enclosed with

other releases that were already sent. So the report is quite

unfounded and erroneous. It has no validity whatsoever.

Concerning the youth programme, Mr. Member, I think you were

around in the days when the former government instituted….

It wasn't called the Youth Training Programme then; it was

called the Boys Training Programme. I believe that in 1953 the

amount was $150,000. In the following year it was still

$150,000. Then lo and behold, in the following year — I think

it was 1958 — they reduced it to

[ Page 3338 ]

$75,000.

When we came into government, I think the allotment was

$250,000, and this year I believe it's around $700,000. One of

the reasons for that is that we have expanded our programme. We

have made it available to more of the youth, and we've also

raised the salary from $6.07 to $13 a day this coming year.

With regard to the "Careers 74" programme in the parks,

these people will be paid the going rate as to what the job is

being paid already. Any students coming on and applying for a

job and taking on that job will be paid the going rate.

With regard to the Purcell wilderness area, it is open to

hunting. It will have no effect on the existing guides who are

in the area.

Also, with regard to some of your statements on the east

Kootenays, it's true that during the past 10 years the

ungulates in that area have been reduced by 50 per cent, due

largely to a loss of habitat and in some areas due to increase

in hunting, but more due to the loss of habitat.

We did acquire the three lands that you mentioned, and I

think Bummer's Flats is an area where we have gone ahead and

done some things in that area along with agriculture. You asked

earlier about what is being done with integration of the

resources between Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Branch.

I can assure you that that's just what is happening in the

Bummer's Flats area.

There's one area where Ducks Unlimited have put in $100,000

to increase the nesting and bring back the waterfall in that

area. But also they have put in five miles of dikes, which will

rehabilitate that area,

whereas before the area flooded every

winter. Now we hope, especially this spring, that the dike will

be completed and will hold out the water.

This area I will now enable us to graze probably more cattle

than were grazed at the upper levels before. Previously there

was no grazing, I don't think, in that area due to flooding and

the alkali content of the soil.

So we are working together with agriculture. I do agree with

you that domestic animals and ungulates can five together. As a

matter of fact, wild ungulates in many cases depend on domestic

animals to eat up and leave the important fescues that the

wildlife live on.

The real problems in the past have been in the overgrazing

and we find that domestic cattle have been eating up their own

food plus the food that the wildlife rely on in the wintertime.

Thus in winter the ungulates have nothing left and are forced

to starve and fend for themselves in a terrible way

sometimes.

In regard to stocking of lakes in your area, if you were in the House yesterday

you would have heard the statement I made about 380 lakes being stocked in B.C.

The new policy of this department is that each MLA will be informed of the lakes

that are being stocked in their area and the lakes that are being poisoned in

their area. They will be informed periodically by this department from now on.

I think that's answered all of your questions, Mr.

Member.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, how's the

Minister's personal ski programme? I understand he went skiing

on the weekend — a little bit of glacier skiing. Is it working

out okay? Are you working off a bit of that excess?

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: That's right. It's a much better form of

recreation than shooting. I must say I have my difficulties

with shooting. I had dinner with one of the guides and the

Minister at lunch today and I'm sure there's a great deal we

can all learn in that field.

Just mentioning skiing, I appreciate your thoughts there. I

really feel we're missing out in this particular form of

recreation. It might interest the House that there is more snow

down at Mount Baker right now than I have ever seen in 25

years. There's a great deal of skiing and it's a potential that

has to be promoted. There are 1.6 million skiers in this

country. Some of the best and longest runs, such as the one you

saw on the weekend, need to be promoted. It should be a

seven-month operation. Now, unfortunately, it is peaking around

early March, but I think with the travel industry a great deal

more could be done to prolong that kind of peaking and that

plateau so that we get the benefit of seven months of an

operation.

We have an alpine ski business that no other part of the

country really can boast of. We know incidentally of the

success of the package ski tours especially into Banff, and I

think with some less success into Jasper. Now there is a pretty

aggressive programme into Whistler, Of course, in my riding

there are projects in their infancy like Hemlock Valley that I

think have a tremendous potential. But it does require

sustained advertising….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he's trespassing on the Department of Travel

Industry.

MR. ROLSTON: Okay, programme across the country. I'm glad

that at least you are bringing in a consultant to look into the

ski business. As you know, it's something where you have to be

very careful where you put the lifts; you have to make very

sure of the snow pack and the reliability to sustain a business

for several months.

I am appreciative too that you are now as a department

working much more closely with Highways. One of the really

great things about this NDP government is that now departments

are coordinating their various programmes so that you're

[ Page 3339 ]

not fouling up other departments. Highways, for instance,

are not fouling up your programmes. I also would like to think

that the Transport and Communications people…and that the

whole movement of people into recreational areas is being

carefully worked out by your department so that we don't end up

with massive parking lots, which surely is not as important as

the actual focal point. We could be talking about Cyprus Bowl,

we could talk about any ski development.

We could certainly be talking about Weaver Lake or Alouette

Park. There was a lot of static about the whole parking problem

in Alouette Park. Your man there now is not allowing parking

along the road and I think quite rightly so, because a motor

car must not dominate the scene in large provincial parks. I'm

thinking of the day parks in the Dewdney riding where people go

out on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon just for three or four

hours away from suburbia.

It's very very important that there be careful coordination.

So therefore, as a government which is committed towards

transport and a sensible movement of people, your parks need to

be tied in with the transit authority. You have at least

started that in Mount Seymour Park with a winter ski bus

programme, and I certainly commend you.

Could you tell me about SAM? Would the MLAs and the regional

districts at least get the itinerary of SAM?

MR. CHAIRMAN ; Order, please. I would point out that there is a vote

for SAM.

MR. ROLSTON: Okay, well we'll bring it up when it comes.

I would like to ask you about the wayside stations and boat

ramps that are not in parks. I gather that you're doing a study

now. Could you report to the Legislature on how far you have

developed your policy regarding who is responsible for boat

ramps, wayside stations and highway picnic places which aren't

in a provincial park? There is some confusion as to the

jurisdiction. Again, I think most MLAs have had problems in

this regard. I would like to think that you can be a little

more flexible and work out a deal with Highways so that at

least somebody is coordinating, and seeing that the garbage is

picked up, seeing that the stations are kept clean, that they

are really very presentable and that the boat launchings have

the snags pulled off them.

I really commend you when I think of the Harrison River, for instance. You've

heard speeches before from me about the tremendous potential of the Harrison

River as a recreational facility and, of course, the whole Harrison Lake. As

we work with the regional districts we see that there could be a tremendous

historic park at the Kilby Provincial Park that could be developed even more

with paddle wheels and ships going up and down the Harrison River down to Minto

Landing on the south side of the Fraser which was a historic route. This could

also be a tremendous historical value as well as a recreational value.

Incidentally, on the weekend I spent four hours on the

Fraser River, an unbelievable recreational potential which

right now just isn't used. What are you doing as you work, with

the GVRD, who are picking up strategic parkland. I'm thinking

of Kanaka Creek, I'm thinking of around Langley, right down to

tidal water. It is very, very important that if we pick up this

property we maintain it and that we have some kind of policy

with the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Incidentally, in talking to some of these people you get the

impression that they would like in a sense to have one massive

regional district. As the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

once said, maybe we'll get back to the lower mainland regional

district concept.

Personally, I think you could charge more for your

provincial parks. I think you should go for $3. You're now

opening them longer. I gather you are starting to charge now on

April 1. You're starting to charge a longer season now. It's

heavily subsidized — why not $3? You're providing excellent

facilities. If we need to have a special rate for senior

citizens, fine, although I think you'll find that those people

are probably the least to complain. I think you could have a

longer season with greater use. We're having longer vacations

and staggered vacations. Again, this money could go back into

better management of these facilities.

I would really appeal to you to go for 5 cents for beer

bottles. I'm a little confused, but I think one of the most

destructive things is to see broken beer bottles along the

highways. Now, maybe 5 cents is not really that much of a

disincentive. Could you report to the Legislature on the

studies on charging 5 cents for beer bottles, and of course

getting similar exchange?

I think one of the real tragedies that we might be facing in

Canada is that some of the most excellent material artifacts

and other material are leaving this country. Maybe the Minister

could inform the House as to the progress in the federal

jurisdiction of some kind of legislation to stop artifacts from

leaving our country — Indian artifacts and other aboriginal

artifacts which are just too valuable.

As you know, I spent a lot of time with a museum director

trying to negotiate or at least helping in the consultation

with people who own very, very valuable Indian collections. I

have one collection here, the Thomas Crosby collection, which

is one of the most outstanding private Indian collections left.

It's essential that this material and any other material

not

[ Page 3340 ]

leave Canada. Is there any assurance that the Americans have

legislation? We hear rumours — it's only rumours — that there

could be legislation that the Americans, I suppose in somewhat

of an altruistic way, will impose upon their people that would

bring stuff into their country. I think it's crucial that this

material stay in the country.

I commend you for at least using money to pick up some

excellent collections such as the Collinson Indian collection.

I gather that you're working on a special display of Indian

material which will be displayed in the museum, possibly this

year.

My final comments are about the student programme. Quite

frankly, I wish we could hire more students in the work crews.

I gather we are still limited to 250 students. That's certainly

not many students; that's a small summer camp programme to a

church or a scout or another group. Surely we can do better

than that.

And how many girls? Six girls!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's hear from you. That statistic has

been the same for quite a few years. Can't we do a little

better than that? Those are the work crews. I would like to

have thought that maybe we left it. I had a lot of constituents

who said, "leave it at $6.25 but quadruple the size." You've

got some very large real estate and very large geography to

deal with and only 250 people on the work crew? I'm thankful

that we have work crews at Alouette Park and yet I think we

could do better. I think we could multiply that very excellent

effect, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) said. We

could increase a statistic this year, I'm sure.

So those are some questions. Thank you.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The responsibility of boat launching right

now only lies with us within our parks but we have been working

with Hydro and with Highways and cooperating in certain other

areas. We have developed facilities on the Arrow Lakes and on

the Libby Reservoir in cooperation with Hydro. We are

currently exploring a more coordinated approach with the other

agencies and will be working out a programme on boat launching

and other situations.

With regard to the Fraser River recreation area, we have

been having some meetings with some of the regional districts

on this and we see this as a potential in the future. We

realize that it's of necessity, especially from Hope down to

Vancouver.

As far as the museum artifacts, we did create a special fund

of $250,000 last year for the first time to stop the flow of

artifacts going outside of B.C. and Canada. To date, we have

expended about half of that fund.

In regard to the youth crew, this year we had over 4,000 applications for jobs

to the youth crew. Last year I think we only had somewhere around 700 or 800,

so that reflects the real concern of those looking for a job of $13 a day versus

$6 a day. I think it would be rather hard to acquire enough students at the

$6 a day rate. After all, the government has reduced the working limit down

to 15, and it would be rather hard to get some of our students to come out and

work for only $6 a day. They do work pretty hard, Mr. Member. They get some

training and some education in the outdoors but they do a fair share of work

and I think $13 is a fair wage.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I will be brief. I

want to say that I don't have to talk about the wolves this

year. The socialist government is so bad they've even sent the

wolves to better hunting grounds. But I want to tell you, if

the situation changes, if the Minister should relax, I'll be

back next year to talk about the wolves again. I just want to

throw that out as a statement to the Minister.

I want to commend the Minister for the commitment he has

made to me to upgrade a couple of parks in our area,

particularly Swan Lake. That park can be used by children and

residents in the area who haven't got the vehicles or the money

to travel over the rough road to One Island Lake or the longer

distance to Lake St. Charles in the North Peace riding or

Moberly Lake, because the price of gasoline is going up. If

that lake is not upgraded so that it can be used by the local

residents, a lot of children and residents of the area will be

deprived of a Sunday afternoon or a Saturday afternoon or a

weeknight outing to a place where they can have a picnic and

maybe do a little boating.

Also, I remind the Minister of his commitment to upgrade the

boat-launching facilities at Spencer Tuck Park at Moberly

Lake.

I would also like to ask the Minister if he would have his

department take into consideration at the present time the fact

that a new access to the Kiskatinaw Park will be needed once

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) puts the new bridge

over the Kiskatinaw River and reroutes that road. I hope this

will be done within a couple of years so a new access to that

park will be necessary. Otherwise, you might as well close the

park up because the bridge and the road will be relocated so a

link to the new highway will be necessary and should be taken

under consideration by the Department of Highways when they are

rerouting that particular area of the Alaska Highway.

This is a large budget that the Minister has; it has been

greatly increased over previous years. I've discussed many

times with the Minister the stocking of Moberly Lake. There

have been lake trout in that lake for years but they are so few

and far between in there now that it would take you a week to

catch

[ Page

3341 ]

one. What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that lake trout did

live in that lake with the jackfish that are in there. They

lived for years. I can't see why, if it is going to be too

costly to poison the lake and get the northern pike out of

there, we can't put additional stock of lake trout in

there.

Are there any hatcheries in the province producing lake

trout? I've heard from one of the biologists that yellow

pickerel would live in that lake. Couldn't we get some game

fish in that lake? It's a large body of water, it's the largest

recreational lake in the area. I hope that the residents of

that area, before they go to their great reward, the pioneers

of that area, will have the opportunity to go to that great

lake and do some sport fishing.

The Minister said that 380 lakes are being stocked in the

province this year. I want to tell the Minister that the

northeastern part of British Columbia is probably the only area

in British Columbia that does not have a large number of lakes

that are presently good for sport fishing. But in the

northeastern part of British Columbia, due to the fact that we

are an extension of the great plain, the lakes in that area

need stocking because about the only fish that we have are

jackfish in the area.

If 380 lakes in this province are being stocked, surely to

goodness some of that budget can go toward putting either more

lake trout in Moberly Lake or putting a new species of fish,

something like yellow pickerel, that will live with the

jackfish. I would like the Minister to give me some words of

encouragement this afternoon for those great people in the

Peace River area that something will be done in that

regard.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I think you had quite a bit of

correspondence on the Moberly Lake problem. As you know,

studies and samples of the lake trout go back as far as 1951.

I'm reading right now from a letter that was sent to Mr.

Jackman, and probably a copy to you. It was explained even back

in those days that it's really not economically feasible to

stock Moberly Lake because of its large size. The only lakes we

are stocking are small lakes that can be stocked

economically.

You are right when you say that we have stocked 380 lakes.

Quite frankly, there are many lakes in the north that need

rehabilitating and their inlets and outlets. But, quite

frankly, quite a few lakes in the northeastern part of the

province are not really fishy-type lakes and do not lend

themselves really to fishing.

I think you were out of the House yesterday when I announced

that tenders have been let for a new hatchery in Abbotsford as

of May 1. We will be looking into hatching and bringing forth

different species of fish.

But the Moberly Lake question of stocking that lake is just

not feasible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just one further brief comment.

I don't know what the Minister refers to as a "fishy-type

lake." But I do know that in the Provinces of Alberta and

Saskatchewan, many farmers are stocking dugouts. Would you

consider a dugout a "fishy-type lake"? But they are stocking

these dugouts and rainbow trout are proliferating in there.

They are able to live there due to the winds on the prairies

putting oxygen in the water.

Surely to goodness a natural lake should be considered a

"fishy-type lake."

As I say, lake trout have lived in Moberly Lake, they're a

good sport fish, and they have lived in there for years. All

I'm saying is that if you start putting them in, gradually you

could build up the stock, or with something like yellow

pickerel.

Now, economics…everything is relative and I don't want

to go into some of the economics of this government, Mr.

Chairman. I don't want to go into some of the moneys they are

spending on various projects because it would take me all

afternoon to explain some of them that are uneconomical.

I think if the Minister would just give consideration…. I asked him: are there any hatcheries in the province that

produce lake trout or yellow pickerel? Or is he going to start

one so we can start getting some fish. If you start now, the

sooner the better.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, there are hatcheries that produce

lake trout and yellow pickerel. No, not the yellow pickerel,

just the lake trout.

However, as an example, even if stocking Moberly Lake were a

desirable management alternative — which it is not, due to the

size and species complex, et cetera — it would take

approximately 540,000 yearlings annually to have the lake

produce at a reasonable level. As I was saying to you, this

requirement is greater than the total annual output of our

three existing hatcheries, so you can see what the cost would

be.

The benefit analysis of a proposal such as this just do not

stand up to close scrutiny. It just doesn't make economic

sense. You're right when you say that in Alberta they're

growing trout in dugouts, et cetera, that's true. But Moberly

Lake is certainly no dugout, you know, when you compare the

size.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further last comment on this. The

Minister tells me, and I don't know where he got his figures,

that we're going to require 540,000 fingerlings for five years

to stock Moberly Lake. I don't know whether they came out of a

computer or whether they come out of a biologist, but what I'm

saying, Mr. Chairman….

AN HON. MEMBER: The fish? (Laughter.)

[ Page 3342 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the figure.

What I'm saying is that there have been lake trout in that

lake; it used to be good fishing in the lake. The lake has been

fished out, but they are still living in there. What I'm saying

is that if you put two fish in there per year, that's two more

than we'll have now.

Now, I don't buy this 540,000 fish. If you put 20,000 in

this year, that's 20,000 more than we've got. And if you start

now with some, you know, maybe it'll grow, because they are

living there and they must be reproducing or they wouldn't be

there. There are still some. All I'm asking you is to put some

more back in; I don't say that you have to put 540,000. Where

did you get that figure?

HON. MR. RADFORD: It came out of the air.

MR. PHILLIPS: Out of the air, I think so. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's interesting to see

the Minister being so honest today and saying that he pulled

that figure right out of the air, because I think that's

probably what happened.

The Member for South Peace River has got a good point. I'd

just like to recall for a few minutes, for the benefit of the

Minister, a lake not too far from Moberly, Charlie Lake. For

years and years and years the local rod and gun club in the

Fort St. John area tried to get the department to do something

about stocking that lake. They played around with it and they

had no success at all with their hatching programmes — putting

eyed eggs in it, and all the rest of it — until the local

people who knew there was nothing in that lake but very coarse

fish, suckers at that particular time, got so fed up that a

number of the members of the rod and gun club made a trip to

Swan Lake. By one means or another they acquired about 250

adult jackfish, brought them back in a tank truck — this would

be almost 15 years ago now — and dumped them into Charlie Lake.

You know what happened? Lo and behold, within five years that

lake was loaded with jackfish.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Is that legal? Is that legal?

MR. SMITH: It wasn't the best fish in the world, but I tell

you, there's a tremendous amount of people having an awful lot

of fun, and their children are having an awful lot of fun every

year catching few pike out of that lake. It wasn't an ideal

solution.

We've talked about Moberly Lake, and I'd just like to throw

out one suggestion to the Minister. In Williston Lake at the

present time, I'm told by your department officials that most

of the rainbow that congregate around the power inlets, the

turbines, are very good sized fish, but they're not

spawning.

Your men tell me that the fish they've taken and sampled

this year, for some reason — maybe it's because of water

temperature or some other problem — the fish are full of spawn,

but they're also full of spawn from last year that was

re-absorbed. They can tell, by opening the fish, the spawn that

was generated this year as compared to last year.

Now, why doesn't your department investigate to find out if

rainbow trout will spawn either in Moberly Lake itself or in

the Moberly River which runs out of the lake? If there is a

chance of those rainbow spawning in that area, why don't you

just move a few hundred,500 or 1,000 adult fish, from Lake

Williston by tank truck to Moberly Lake and dump them in? Those

fish are adult fish and they'll spawn if conditions are right.

You might even have to improve a few gravel beds somewhere, but

I tell you it would be an awful lot cheaper than running around

all over the province conducting surveys about what could be

done. I have a notion that it just might work.

Lake trout have been in that lake for years, at one time in

abundance. But because of local fishing regulations and the

fact that the native people were allowed to net fish for a

long, long time, the population of the lake is greatly

decimated.

I don't know whether there's a possibility of adequate

spawning in that area or not. But if there is, the removal of

few hundred or 1,000 adult rainbow trout from Williston Lake

and relocating them in Moberly Lake would improve the fishing

of Moberly and not do one speck of harm to Williston because of

the size of that lake.

That's a suggestion I throw out to you — no charge, Mr.

Minister, no charge. You didn't have to hire a firm of experts

to give you that advice, or conduct a survey or appoint a

commission. No charge at all. Just an idea from someone who

lives in the area, and it just might work. Probably it

would work better if you didn't listen to some of the experts

you have in your department. You might try it first and then

let them prove that you were wrong, rather than the other way

around.

It's interesting to participate in this debate and I have

one or two other suggestions I'd like to make to the

Minister.

I know the Minister's getting a great deal of pressure about

the use of leg-hold traps in British Columbia. Now, one of the

alternatives to the leg-hold traps is the Connibear, but it's

not entirely successful. In certain areas with heavy snow

conditions, particularly if they have snow, sleet and ice

conditions, the Connibear doesn't work at all. It works well

underwater for beaver and things of this nature. But with most

of the small fur-bearing animals it could work well, I believe,

or perhaps a modification of the Connibear.

I know your department and you are concerned about this and

you've provided some money for

[ Page 3343 ]

investigation. But for goodness sakes, when you're

investigating the possibilities of improvement or building a

new trap which would be far more humane than the leg-hold trap,

why don't you go to the association which represents those

people in the trapping business and ask them to have some

input. They have an association recognized in the Province of

British Columbia — the B.C. Registered Trappers Association. If

there's anywhere in British Columbia where we have a collection

of expertise and knowledge gained over a period of many years,

it's right within that association.

So here again, instead of depending upon the ivory tower

experts, get to the grass roots level, Mr. Minister, and at

least ask for input from these people. You might even go so far

as to making it possible for some of these people who trap as a

profession to spend some time and effort in designing a new

type of trap. You might even subsidize that programme.

You might just come up with some very practical answers for

the people who are deadly opposed to the use of leg-hold traps

in the Province of British Columbia. You just might come up

with an answer, provided that they could see something in the

way of a return for the investment of time and energy and

expertise they put into that.

It you're not going to at least get them involved in a

financial way, at least ask for their opinions and advice,

because these people spent a lifetime in the bush and there's

nobody that knows the problems better than they do.

I'd like to compliment the Minister. I was a little rough on

him last night — with good cause — but I'd like to compliment

the Minister on the administration of the Community

Recreational Facilities Fund. It is a good fund, Mr. Minister,

and it has provided large sums of money to capital construction

projects to all communities in the Province of British

Columbia, both large and small.

I'm sure that I speak for the people and the groups that

have worked hard on recreational facilities when I say that

they're very pleased with the fact that jointly with the

government they've been able to accomplish something that would

have taken them a lot longer if they had to raise all the

dollars on a local basis.

I think it's a good fund. I hope that it will be continued for the benefit

of new communities and communities who still do not have the recreational facilities

that they would like for the people that are there. To me it is one of the better

funds and has certainly provided dollars — and not always in large amounts —

sometimes only in the matter of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and

sometimes to the tune of hundreds of thousands, I know. But quite often that

small amount of money to a small community made the difference between providing

a recreational facility for their members and not being able to provide it.

I've talked about the problems of the big game guides and

the matter of permit hunting in the Province of British

Columbia last night. Unfortunately, I didn't get any answers,

so I'll just recap the question, Mr. Minister.

Will the system of permits now in effect in three game

management areas of the province be extended to cover the whole

Province of British Columbia, or is it just an experiment? I

want an answer to that.

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

I would like the Minister to comment on what he is prepared to do with respect

to the problem of prepaid trophy fees and the way that it is detrimentally affecting

the people in the guiding business. Is it not possible, if you're concerned

about the number of animals taken, to limit the number or the species to a certain

extent and allow the hunters who seek the services of a professional big game

guide to pay the trophy fees after the hunt is over, on the understanding and

the basis that they're going to be limited anyway as to the number of game animals

they take out?

In my opinion, Mr. Minister, you're going to generate as

much revenue one way as the other, because you're going to lose

a great deal of revenue if you continue the present system.

You're also going to create very trying circumstances and

possibly impossible conditions for those people who are in that

industry of guiding hunters on a professional basis in this

province. I'd like some comments from the Minister on those

points.

HON. MR. RADFORD: In regard to the permit system, the Member

didn't bring in any alternatives as to how we are to control

the harvest, or control the population problem. All he said

was: "Don't bring in the permit system."

MR. SMITH: Limited access.

HON. MR. RADFORD : I should remind the Member, as I stated

last night, that this more or less was brought in out of the

blue. I should remind the Member that we had several meetings

with the guides concerning the permit system and the prepaid

trophy system before we brought these into being. Also, the

permit system should not be a surprise to yourself or to the

guides because, as a matter of fact, an indication of this

system has been printed on page 6 of the licences for the past

four years.

I know that the Member himself is a hunter, and he probably

doesn't read the regulations too well. As I said, that was

printed on page 6 of the regulations in the past four years — that we were going to bring in a quota system or a permit

system.

[ Page 3344 ]

Now the reason for bringing in the permit system is to

control the number of hunters going into an area to the amount

of game in that area. That's really what intensive game

management is about — especially if there is an area with a

limited number of species in that area. There must be some way

to protect those species in that area.

Also, there is another concern about new access, or new

roads, opened up into an area that has a real abundance of

game. There should be some way of controlling an influx of

hunters going in there. We are looking into all of these

areas.

The permit system is not a new system; the Member knows

that. The Province of British Columbia and, I think, the Yukon

Territory are the only two areas that do not have a permit

system in Canada. The permit system has been working for years

throughout the States. It has to come about because of

population problems in many cases.

Certainly we have brought this in in three areas that the

Member mentioned yesterday. We brought it into the Ashnola to

control the harvest of California bighorn sheep in there. We

are limiting those permits to 50 in that area. In the Nass,

where the goats have been closed for the last five years, we

are allowing 100 permits in that area to harvest the goats. The

reasons they were closed down in that area were because of the

of these animals. In the other area — management area 3, I

think it is — the Bute-Toba Inlet, there is a sharp decline in

the number of grizzlies in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the illegal kill?

HON. MR. RADFORD: That is why we propose to put the permit

system in there. We've only allowed 15 permits to be issued in

that area.

The permit system is a draw system. It's been working in

other provinces throughout the States. Permits will be closed

on June 28. I think announcements will be made on July 2. The

cost of applying for a permit is $5. Those that are successful

will be notified, and those that are unsuccessful will have

their $5 returned to them.

This is an experimental situation on the permit system for

the first time in British Columbia. We do not intend to have

the permit system throughout the Province of B.C., but if we

find an area where a species is endangered, I'm sure we will

bring in the permit system.

I know that the guides who are concerned with this are good

game management people. Most of the guides are good game

managers. They have to be to protect their own area. I'm sure

they would go along with this kind of a situation of protecting

a species that was endangered.

As far as the prepaid trophy system is concerned, I related the government's

position on this that B.C. and the Yukon Territory are the only provinces not

to have the prepaid trophy system. I believe that the non-residents coming into

B.C. should pay for the experience, for the use of the environment.

After all, it's not that much of an increase. If they

garnered their animal previously they paid the approximate fee

of about $40 on top of their licences. It's only costing in

some cases $60 to $100 more for them to pay it ahead of time.

When it comes to grizzly and sheep, which are the more exotic

animals, certainly they are going to pay more from now on.

I read out letters yesterday — letters and telegrams from

your area, from constituents of yours — supporting our permit

system, supporting the trophy system. The B.C. Wildlife

Federation supports the system and has been advocating that

system for years.

I think I know why the guides are opposing this system of

the prepaid system. It kind of lets them off the hook a bit

because previously, as I mentioned yesterday, non-residents

could come into the province and buy every species tagged for

$39.50; and he would go out with his guide that he contracted

probably to shoot a grizzly or a sheep — at $3,000 per animal,

by the way….

MR. SMITH: Per hunt.

HON. MR. RADFORD: In his hunt he probably would have a

problem of obtaining those animals and would probably come

across a moose or deer, or whatever, and he would ask the

guide: "Can I take that animal?" The guide would say: "Yes, but

it'll cost you X numbers of dollars more than what's already

been contracted for."

MR. SMITH: Those contracts are based upon a hunt.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The hunter would feel better; he had an

animal. The guide was let off the hook a little bit; he had a

little more money to add to it. Actually that system maximizes

the harvest, because now when a non-resident comes into the

province, to buy all those tags he has to pay $1,200. You will

find that the non-resident will probably only buy for two

species or three, and you will find that he will search out a

successful guide.

He will search out to find what the success ratio is of the

guide; thus the onus is put on the guides to be more

responsible and to be more productive, Thus it really will

bring about a better hunting situation, better conditions of

hunting. It will uplift and upgrade the whole hunting

situation.

I believe that the prepaid trophy system is necessary. After

all, the guides require a down payment before they contract

with anybody. The

[ Page 3345 ]

resident hunter has to pay ahead of time before he goes out.

I think it's only fair that the non-resident do the same

thing.

You're worried about the revenue. Well, the policy of the

game department now is not to maximize the revenue for the sake

of just harvesting animals. The policy now is to bring in

intensive game management and good game management, not just to

produce revenue.

MR. CHABOT: You're changing your position.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not changing my position. Like any

other resource, especially this renewable resource, the first

benefit should go to the residents of the province.

Now as far as the Community Recreational Facilities Fund

goes, I would agree. The Member is pretty happy. He should be,

because he received more grants than probably any other MLA

going. I guess it's true that with his past experience in the

past government he has that ability to be able to seek out and

harvest the grants, you know. As a matter of fact, the number

of grants in the Peace River-Liard…. There were 15 grants

given in that area — 15 grants! How many other MLAs in this

House received 15?

I receive a lot of flak from my own Members, Mr. Member. Not

one of my Members received 15 grants. Do you know how much of a

population is in your area? — 43,255, and you got 15 grants. It

was a total amount of $598,542. Do you know what it was per

capita? It was $13.84 per capita in your area.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I hope we don't take

that riding next time.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Member for West Vancouver-Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) the other day got up in the House and condemned

the Special Funds Appropriation Act, and he talked about

the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. He said that it was

controlled by some mysterious committee apparently under the

control of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He went

on to talk about the Sechelt situation — where he had some

misinformation, I must say.

He said:

Last week in a board room on this floor representatives from

the community of Sechelt came down to find out why, when they had been assured

that they were getting funds under this particular piece of legislation, they

were suddenly being denied.

That's true. They were being investigated, as we investigate all of the grants

that are put to us. Information was given to us that public access was not being

given in that situation. We had the Attorney-General check it out; it was unfounded,

and they now have received their grant. Right? But to say that it's being administered

by some mysterious committee is not altogether true.

I'd like to inform the Member about the technical committee. Many of the Members don't even know what goes on. They like

getting the money for the grants, but they really are not that

much aware of what goes on behind the scenes in giving out

these grants.

We have a technical committee which is made up of the Human

Resources department director, the administration officer from

Municipal Affairs, the director of the Community Recreation

Branch, an adviser from the museum department — also the

administration officer from the Department of Education. These

people form a liaison committee consisting of various Members.

They examine all applications and provide the technical input

concerning the disposition of proposed projects in relation to

their department. They look after the technical-financial part

of the application.

Now the other committee, which is an advisory committee,

which is made up of various people, citizens throughout the

community…. I could go on and relate their names. They are

from all different parts of B.C., and they have expertise in

education and in recreation.

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

there?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, there's Roger Adolf, who is regional

director of the B.C. Native Amateur Sports and Recreation. Mr.

Adolf is an expert on the native recreational needs and has

travelled through B.C. Dr. Eric Broom, who wrote the Broom

report, is on that committee — and Ed Carlin; I think he was a

past candidate for the Liberals. He's superintendent of schools

in Grand Forks. Mr. Carlin is the former vice-president of the

B.C. Sports Federation and past president of the B.C.

Federation of School Athletic Associations.

There are Eileen Dawson, assistant recreation director at

Richmond; Caesar Guyana, a recreation director at Terrace;

Anthony Holland, chairman of applied arts and coordinator of

the theatre programme of Vancouver City College; Norm Olnyk,

chairman of the physical education and recreation department of

Vancouver City College; Dunc Russell, superintendent of parks

and recreation for Oak Bay.

This is the mysterious committee, Mr. Member. These are the

people that make recommendations to me about the grants. I will

say that in all the recommendations, in all the spending of the

$23 million that we've been involved in, I've never changed one

of those recommendations — not one. Mr. Member, another thing:

in my own riding there's only been one grant given of $19,000 — in my own riding. But I can't keep a promise that….

[ Page 3346 ]

MR. SMITH: Just a supplemental. I think the Minister was

really being a little unfair when he spoke in rather broad

terms about the $3,000 that a big game guide gets for allowing

a non-resident hunter to shoot a grizzly bear.

The Minister knows full well that those people contract, be

they resident or non-resident, for a hunt of a minimum of 14

days and quite often they're 28 or 30 days. If, by the luck and

circumstance of the day, they harvest the game animals that the

guide has said he would try to get them in the first one or two

or three days of the hunt, they still have the privilege and

the opportunity of spending the whole 14 or 28 days in the bush

at the big game guide's expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: True.

MR. SMITH: Okay, why don't you say so? They sell a complete

hunt for a specified number of days, and the person who buys

that hunt is entitled to stay for his total length of time. Now

if he harvests his game in the first two or three days and he

wants to sit by the campfire or dangle a line in one of the

streams and do a little fishing, or just ride the mountains

with the guide, that's his privilege; he's paid for it.

He's entitled to that along with the fact that he's been

given a wilderness experience for the number of days they

contracted. Now hopefully they'll be able to harvest for him,

or at least show him where the game animals are at.

But, believe me, no professional big game guide in the

business wishes to take a hunter out and harvest every

conceivable animal that that man can buy tags for. No one wants

to do that. They know as well as you know and I know that that

is a decimation of the game population on a needless basis.

Most of the people will be quite happy to go in with two

possible prime thoughts in mind, prime animals that they want

to get if possible. Quite often they're not successful because

circumstances, weather conditions prohibit them from harvesting

those animals.

All I am saying is if, because of those circumstances,

instead of getting a prize bighorn, there is an opportunity for

that man to harvest a nice moose — and be quite happy because

he paid for the hunt and he got a game animal that's a trophy — he should be permitted to do it and pay the department the fees

that are required for that particular experience.

Now if he goes in and has to buy all the tags in advance,

there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the big

game guides to produce or else. All the animals he buys tags

for they'll want, when you get into the area of prepaid species

licences. I think that would be tougher on the game populations

than the system we had before.

It's a matter of argument and debate, I know. I don't agree with the Minister's

concept any more than I agree with the fact that he really listened to the big

game guides before he brought in the permit system or the species licence on

a prepaid basis.

He had conversations with them, but I think that they were

mostly one way, Mr. Minister. They came into the office and you

told them what was going to happen. That's not the matter of

seeking the advice, recommendations and ideas of an

organization or a group that are vitally concerned. So we have

our differences of opinion on that particular basis, Mr.

Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I want to congratulate the Minister for

clearing up the mystery with regard to the grants available for

community recreation facilities in the province. I don't know

why it takes speeches in this House, and long delays after

those speeches are given, to finally obtain this information. I

think if the people in Vancouver South, for example, are not

getting fair treatment from this government, they should write

to their MLA and really complain. Maybe he could get to the

bottom of this mystery of why it is so difficult to get

approval from the government for moneys they are entitled to

have. I know perfectly well that both of the MLAs for Vancouver

South will bring all kinds of questions to bear on the

government right away. They won't wait until an election year

before they get the money given to the area of Vancouver

South.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it was a mystery. Quite seriously,

Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why, when committees or

organizations are set up to approve grants or funds of this

kind, Members of this Legislature are not fully informed as to

the procedure that is applied to those applications

step-by-step as they move through the government system.

Of course applications have to be dealt with by technical

committee to see that there isn't some fundamental mistake

being made which is going to result in catastrophes for that

community once it starts to develop. Of course there have to be

advisory people to recommend to the Minister whether or not a

particular project is really in the best interests of the

community, because there are a lot of well-meaning people who

become enthused about particular projects and they have a way

of generating further enthusiasm in the community. Perhaps it

is sometimes better to take a step back and reassess. I'm glad

to find that the Minister is doing just that.

But what I can't understand, Mr. Chairman, is why, after

going through all of this exercise, applications for grants are

delayed and delayed and delayed.

There is an application pending for West

[ Page

3347 ]

Vancouver which has already been delayed three times. The

reason for the delay is certainly beyond my comprehension,

based again upon the information that has been made available

to me. If the Minister would like to clear up that mystery it

would help me and would also help the community.

The strange thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the last question

that was posed to the municipality was where it was going to

get the money to fulfil its share of the cost of the project.

It is already clearly outlined in its previous submissions

precisely where the funds would originate.

The real problem that develops from these kinds of delays

is, in this particular instance, that the project may not go

ahead because since last November or December when the

applications were first submitted costs have escalated so that

the funds that the municipality has available to carry out this

project are likely to fall short. If the Minister had moved

more expeditiously in dealing with this application, and I

would suspect it applies to others, then the facility would be

under construction now and would probably be completed in its

appropriated time.

I want to deal with another matter, Mr. Chairman, which I

know is a major responsibility of the department.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is just making his

application for a community resources grant, I think.

(Laughter.)

I'm speaking to the Minister about Cypress Bowl. I wonder if

he would be good enough to advise the committee precisely what

the plans are for his department with regard to the facilities

to be provided in Cypress Bowl, and when those facilities will

be available to the public. We have been engaged in debates

about Cypress Bowl for quite a number of years and a lot of

expectations have been built up in the community, that it will

be an exciting winter recreation area. Unfortunately, I am

concerned that some of the announced plans of the department

might be over much concerned with downhill skiing. I trust that

is not going to take place.

It is also well known to anyone who has been in the Bowl and

who knows the area that it is a year-round recreational

facility. Indeed it probably provides access to some of the

most exciting mountain trail areas available to the population

in the lower mainland. I trust that in the development of the

Cypress Bowl facility the government will not overlook that

possibility.

It is really an access to an area where thousands of people in the lower mainland

can easily find themselves in a real wilderness situation. It is probably one

of the most convenient areas to take some of the pressure off of a small part

of Garibaldi Park — that is the mountainous sections of Garibaldi Park that

is available for hiking, climbing and other recreational activities flowing

out of the opportunity that mountain wilderness provide.

We all recognize that Garibaldi is a very sensitive area,

and increased traffic of recent years has given rise for

concern as to whether or not some destruction has taken place.

Cypress Bowl is the access to an area which could provide a

relief from some of that pressure.

I would be pleased if the Minister could indicate quite

clearly what his intentions are in the

schedule of time he has

established for the opening of Cypress Bowl to various

activities because there is a great deal of consternation

building up in the metropolitan community as to just what is

being done in Cypress Bowl, and when it is going to be

available for use.

Attendant upon the use of Cypress Bowl is, of course, its

access. Anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the North

Shore mountains will recognize the giant mark of Zorro that is

now across the mountainside, which nature will hopefully

correct to some extent. That's the road to Cypress Bowl. It was

constructed under the responsibility of the Department of

Highways. The Minister had advised me that the Department of

Lands still retains some interest in that roadway, but that it

is really a road to recreation and will fall under the

responsibility of this Minister and his department.

I would like to know to what extent the Minister envisages

that road being available for private passenger motor vehicle

use which necessitates the construction of large parking areas

up the mountain, which I happen to think will be a waste of the

government's funds and of the available land.

I would like to know whether the government is seriously

planning with B.C. Hydro, or any of the other public

transportation systems, the provision of bus routes into

Cypress Bowl, because in that way a large number of people can

be taken into the Bowl without having to utilize land for

private passenger vehicle use.

I would also like to know the extent to which that road will

be available as an access to other areas on the mountainside.

I've discussed this matter privately with the Minister, and I'm

not talking about the matter which we discussed privately.

The concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not that

access road will be made available for the development of the

private land on that mountainside. Not only will such

development have a serious effect on the recreational use of

the North Shore mountains, but it will have a tremendous effect

and perhaps a disastrous impact on the orderly development of

the municipality — particularly those areas lying above the

Upper Levels Highway. I trust that the Minister is giving very

careful concern to this problem.

It would be of major assistance to know whether or not that

is to be a limited-access highway; if so,

[ Page 3348 ]

what the limits will be. Is it to be a non-access highway in

the sense that it will merely be used to transport people from

the Upper Levels Highway to Cypress Bowl and back? Or is it to

be a free-access road whereby the owners of land along that

road will be afforded access wherever it happens to cross their

private property?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, in regard to your comments on

the recreational facilities fund, and you referred to grants

being held up in our department, that is not so. Usually the

grants are held up because of financing, because some of the

requirements of our guidelines are not met — public access, et

cetera.

I think you were referring to the District of West

Vancouver, and an indoor pool that was deferred. Right? On

April 1, 1974, it was deferred until June, and this was for

lack of secure financing. That's why it was held up.

The whole application was deferred, as a referendum to

assist in the financing of construction was twice defeated — once three years ago and again two years ago. It appeared that

there was no percentage in allotting funds to a project that

apparently was not supported by the community, and could not

raise the necessary other two-thirds financing.

The District of West Vancouver indicated in their

application that $350,000 was to be financed through the Winter

Capital Projects Fund. However, the Department of Municipal

Affairs did not feel that these funds could be made available

because of the failure of the two referenda.

Our letter of April 1 requested a formal letter of approval

from the WCP fund and further information on a possible third

referendum. To this date we have received no reply answering

our questions, although West Vancouver has indicated in a

letter of May 1 that a new application would be forwarded

between June 1 and deadline. We expect that the new application

will clear up all the unanswered questions and that they will

then become eligible for a grant.

This has been forwarded to West Vancouver….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What was the date on that letter?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I haven't got the letter. I've just got

notes on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But what was the date?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I think it was…indicating a letter of

May 1, right.

You know, you have some other grants that have been turned down too, Mr. Member.

Bowen Island Recreation Commission: initial inquiry February 19, 1973. Application

was sent out June 21, 1973. Second inquiry March 5, 1974. Applications were

sent out again April 19. To date, no reply and no indication of what the project

is to be even, from Bowen Island.

The British Columbia Squash Racquets Association: initial

inquiry October 9, 1973, and we go on with different replies — and to date, no reply and no indication as to what the project

is to be.

Another one from the Britannia Beach Historical Society: initial inquiry September

20 and to date, no further reply.

Eagle Harbour Community School: initial inquiry February 21,

no indication of what the project is to be.

And we go on: Pemberton Ice Area, Mount Currie, and I think there was another

one called Squamish Indian Band: initial inquiry March 5, 1974. Application

sent April 20, 1974 — to date, no reply and no indication.

So these are some of the reasons for the hold-up. You have

been receiving letters from our department saying that the

grant has been approved tentatively, and, really, tentative

approval is subject to the receipt of clarification of

financing approved by the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Another reason — a copy of the lease agreement between the

village, Sunshine Coast — oh, this is another one. But these

are different reasons — clarification as to public access….

This is why we have to sometimes tentatively approve them. This

is what we mean by tentative; it means that we are waiting for

additional information.

Quite frankly, a lot of the smaller communities need help in

filling out the application forms, et cetera. We intend hiring

technical consultants and a few people who will go around,

especially in some of the outlying communities that do not have

the expertise in dealing with these situations, and give them a

hand and help them out. So these are the reasons some of the

grants are held up.

Regarding Cypress Bowl, I made a recent announcement that

because of additional funding this year, skiing would come into

being in Cypress Bowl in 1975-76. It could be earlier, but

we're having a target date of 1975-76. At that time we hope to

have two chairlifts ready for skiing in 1975-76. For 1977-78 we

will have additional chairlifts. Altogether we could go as high

as five or six chairlifts in that area.

Trails will be put in. I think we are already working on a

trail system from Cypress Bowl to Garibaldi. We, can link up a

lot of trail systems through that whole area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: It will be utilized the year round. We do

have concerns about some of the higher

[ Page 3349 ]

elevations. Probably they will receive more use than they

should and we'll have to watch that very carefully.

We will be instituting a park-and-ride concept, especially

for weekends, for that area. Probably through the week we will

be able to utilize a 600-car parking lot situation, but on

weekends we intend getting people to park in designated areas

and be transported up there by bus.

We will also be having picnic areas along the road leading

to Cypress Bowl. If the Member has ever been up in that area he

will note that you really receive a tremendous panoramic view

of the Vancouver area. Picnic sites will be instituted

there.

As for access off this road, plans at this time are for

non-access off the road to Cypress. However, we will be

examining that further. The reason for this is safety and some

of the problems which could be brought about by access into

some of the lands in that area.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Just three

questions dealing with a few of the areas in the Okanagan, to

the Minister.

The first one concerns Permask Lake and its capacity as a

source of trout eggs for the province-wide stocking programme

in British Columbia. There has been a problem. From year to

year there has been a road-ploughing programme so they could

get in from Summerland to clear the screens and get the trout

eggs. This has to be done in early May, but I understand, in

consultation with my constituents last Saturday, that there had

been some difficulty this year in getting the machines to

plough the road. As of last Saturday this had not taken place.

Apparently this should take place the first week in May or as

the weather changes, so the officials can get in from

Summerland. I wonder if the Minister is going to make any

continuing arrangements for this road?

I understand that it is now a class A park. Now this is a

class A park, I wonder whether the Parks Branch will be taking

over the road maintenance, and whether this road will actually

be a designated road, because I understand the road itself was

pushed through by the fish and game clubs in the area, and is

partly maintained by logging interests.

They cleared boat launching facilities and the campground

area in there, and the person who has been administering that

all these years, although without a permit, has been looking

after the garbage and the maintenance of the area, acting as a

caretaker. I wonder if the Minister has made provision to put

someone in the area this year, and what facilities the

government intends to put in this class A park at Permask Lake,

and whether this person, or ranger, or warden will be in this

area as of this June when the caretaker who has been there will

have been given notice to vacate.

Secondly, I'd like to question the Minister as to whether

he's made any provision in his budget, or has any plans to

provide access to Okanagan Mountain Park. This new park area,

but something that has been worked on for years, has no

official access, no regular access for the public, and is not

available to them. Now that we have this area, is the Minister

going to provide access to this park?

Is the Minister holding any discussions to purchase Ogopogo

Island as an adjunct to this park? This island has been very

controversial the last few years, through both the former

government and this, in trying to stop private development and

waste-disposal facilities on the island. Now that it's been

stalled and because of its adjacency to the park, and because

the island would be a natural part of the park, is the

government holding any discussions to purchase it? Will this be

forthcoming?

I heard the Minister yesterday make some allusion to

expansion of two facilities at Okanagan Lake Park, but he

didn't spell out what the expansion was. It was in connection

with the announcement for facilities in three other parks. I

just wondered if the Minister could elaborate on the facilities

and whether there will be increased density in the campground

at Okanagan Lake Park, whether it will be extended, whether

it's a water system, or what the facilities are.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, Mr. Member, I believe the Pennask

Lake Park is a fairly new park, and I will send you the

information you ask for on that.

Regarding Okanagan Mountain Park, I'm not too sure but I

think there are plans for some access into that park, But I

will check on that and let you know also.

Now Okanagan Lake Park: we are bringing about a conversion

there for day use to a campground, and we will be spending

$75,000 in that park this year. Also, other innovations will be

made to the existing buildings there that house the caretaker,

I guess, at a cost of $5,000. Altogether $80,000 is being spent

this year on Okanagan Lake Park.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. On the Pennask Lake Park,

the concern is there because the road is passable. It's been

worked on for years. Because the caretaker of that area — which

was a park reserve; it wasn't a park until now — has been given

notice to vacate as of June, have you made any temporary

provision to put a supervisor or someone into that area as of

June? If you're not ready to announce the development of the

park, is there someone that will be put into the park to

protect the area? Pretty soon the tourists will be coming and

that area can be spoiled very, very quickly.

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll take that into

[ Page 3350 ]

consideration and let you know within the next few days.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand

it's in the rules that we don't read newspapers in the House.

I'm surprised that a senior Member of the government should be

setting an example to the younger Members of this Legislative

Assembly by having a paper delivered to him in the

Legislature.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would just like to ask

the Minister a very short supplementary question as to what the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was

asking him about. I was very interested in the questions

concerning Cypress Park.

I have had submissions made to me by various people, not

necessarily in my own constituency, who are interested in the

hiking trails and in the skiing in and around the Pacific

southwest part of the province. There are some excellent hiking

trails. One of the places that they are very concerned about

has been Cypress Park because of the snowmobiling and

Ski-dooing. I would like to ask the Minister if snowmobiling

and Ski-dooing have now been banned in Cypress Park.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The area is still not a park, Madam

Member, and that jurisdiction still falls under the Lands

department. We'll be making that exchange soon. We have tried

to cut down on the amount of snowmobiling that's been going on

in there, but we really don't have that jurisdiction as

yet.

MRS. WEBSTER: Supplementary question to that, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to ask if there is any definite time limit as

to when Cypress Bowl is going to be taken over as a park.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's very obvious this debate's

a real cliff-hanger. I can just sense the electric atmosphere

in the chamber. (Laughter). The galleries are crowded. The

House is three-quarters empty.

I really feel that this is a more important department than appears to be the

case from the attention it's receiving in debate. I say that not in a cynical

or critical way, really; it's just an observation. I'm surprised that when we're

living in an era which used to be 40 hours a week and now is 37.5 hours a week

— and there are negotiations at all levels to try and get it down to 35 hours

a week — it's very obvious that recreation becomes one of the most important

challenges to our modern community, As a physician I often come to the conclusion

that a lot of the problems I used to see in the office were related to boredom

and lack of involvement by people in constructive and satisfying pursuits when

they're not at work.

I suppose some people do feel that sitting in a chair with a

glass of beer and sitting in the sun is recreation. But,

frankly, I think that on the North American continent there's

too much of that kind of recreation and not enough of the more

active participation.

I strongly support the government's very substantial

increase in the budget for this department from something of

the order of $14.1 million to $25.6 million. I haven't worked

out the percentage; that's not quite double, but certainly

almost double.

I just would like to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman. I

think it's a little unfortunate that so many of the debates are

taking place in this House without the Members having access to

the annual report. I know each Minister has a great deal of

statistics to gather, and so on, but I sometimes wonder — and I

just make this as another observation not just to this Minister

or this government…. Very often, it seems to me, annual

reports emphasize statistics and figures and the number of

carcasses at Cache Creek, et cetera. I must say in passing that

I'm no hunter by any stretch of the imagination. I never have

fired a gun in anger, so I shouldn't comment on that.

But it seems to me that so much of the basic philosophy of

the department can be encompassed in an annual report. Perhaps

later in the season, or later in the year, Ministers could

perhaps present some kind of supplementary report with the

emphasis on the statistical side. Whenever my office makes

inquiries as to why annual reports are not available, so often

we get the answer: "Well, there's a whole lot of statistical

detail not available." This is not an enormously important

issue, but I think we can do a better job of debate if we had

some basic information from the previous years.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The first point I'd like to make in regard to this whole

question of recreation and the use of leisure time is that

there's a tremendous fragmentation throughout the government of

several departments — all with a finger in the recreational pie,

if I could use that phrase.

For example, this report on leisure which was commissioned

by the Minister of Travel Industry — the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) — is an absolutely first-rate delineation of

some of the kinds of goals we should have in trying to solve

this problem, or at least to make more people aware of the

constructive ways in which they can use leisure time.

First of all, might I just say that I wonder why this

[ Page 3351 ]

kind of document was particularly commissioned by that

particular Minister. I'm not criticizing the fact that it was

done. It's an excellent report. But this question of

fragmentation of recreational interests among several

departments of government does lead to problems. Briefly, I

want to mention one in a moment.

On page 28 Mr. Broom writes:

"There is considerable confusion emanating from the division

of responsibility for recreation services within the overall

provincial government structure. The Department of Recreation

and Conservation provides opportunities for recreation in areas

of hunting, fishing and parks-related activities through its

conservation and management roles and through the Provincial

Museum Branch."

I don't want to quote the whole thing, but it goes on to

point out that indeed the Provincial Secretary is responsible

for other areas which are as intimately involved in the general

matter of recreation and leisure pursuits.

I just want to quote the final paragraph on page 29. Mr.

Broom says:

"Such a fragmented structure produces both duplication and

neglect of services resulting in poor value for money spent and

an inadequate provision of recreational opportunities for the

people of the province.

"These deficiencies stem from a general parochialism not

only in government, but throughout the province, and a lack of

research and planning — but most of all from a lack of central

government leadership and policies."

Now I know the government has just received this report and

it needs study, but I think that's a pretty basic premise which

Mr. Broom outlines, based on a great deal of study and travel

throughout the province. I hope the Minister might comment on

that. I just want to leave the Broom report in a moment, but

the very interesting recommendations right at the end of the

report seem to sum up this point I'm trying to make. Despite

the fact that we do have many facilities and many programmes,

the fragmentation of administration is something that must be

tackled. Recommendation No. 79 states that the provincial

government:

"create a new department of leisure services with a mandate

for cultural heritage and recreation development in British

Columbia;

"establish within the department of leisure services three

branches with responsibility in the above-named areas."

And it goes on to enlarge on that general

recommendation.

The last recommendation in the report is that the provincial

government:

"establish an interdepartmental leisure services coordinating

committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of leisure services to coordinate

provincial government policies and programmes relating to leisure services."

I would be interested, and I'm sure the House would, to hear

what the Minister's general feeling is about this fairly basic

recommendation which really, I think, will govern the success

with which recreational facilities are not only augmented in

the province and enhanced but the degree to which they provide

good value for money for all the citizens.

I'm very happy to see you in the chair, Mr. Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent), because I've got a very interesting story to

tell to demonstrate this very fragmented approach to the

provision of recreational services. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it's

no news to you to hear about the Kitsumkalum ski project. After

all, it has been on the go since November, 1971. The Chairman

smiles. I understand the Hon. Member for Skeena was somewhat

rash at one of the meetings in his local association when he

said that he promised skiing in 1973 or he would resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Is skiing there, yet?

MR. WALLACE: Skiing, my friend? They haven't even got the

lift in yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's skating around that now.

MR. WALLACE: But anyway, that's the kind of statement all

MLAs make now and again and wish they had never opened their

mouth. I don't want to be harsh on the Member.

Briefly, this Kitsumkalum ski project is a prime example of

the messing around that goes on between different departments.

Ministers send memos to each other. I don't know whether the

files get lost or the Minister is too busy and so on but I'm

sure there are many pretty difficult times when the Minister

can't deal with the matter promptly.

Following on the quotation from this Broom report, I just

don't want to leave the subject without making it very plain

that some pretty drawn out plans and negotiations go on. This

Kitsumkalum ski development first started to be explored and

developed in November, 1971. I've got a whole sheaf of pages of

chronology here. There have been meetings and conversations and

discussions and so on.

To criticize I think one should be specific. Let me just

give the House an example of what I'm talking about. As

recently as early January of this year, the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was in Terrace

[ Page 3352 ]

and he was asked on a newscast to comment on the Kitsumkalum

ski development. The Minister of Highways said he was not

familiar with the project. He had been out of his office for

two or three weeks, and that's excusable. He was not averse to

the idea but he really wasn't familiar with the details. The

following day, after he had talked with some of the media, I

understand, he was further questioned about the Kitsumkalum ski

development and he said he was not aware of the details. He was

asked specifically about the highway access and he said that he

didn't know about that. He was asked if he would not be

responsible as Minister of Highways and he answered, well, yes,

up to a point.

That was early in January. I've got a copy of a letter here

which this Minister sent to the Minister of Highways on

November 21, 1973. I'll read just the small portions that are

relevant: "My dear colleague." I think that's a delightful way

to address a fellow Minister: "My dear colleague." It reminds

me of the very erudite approach that's used in the United

Kingdom between Prime Minister and Ministers. It sounds

somewhat dignified and I think that's rather nice. At any rate

he's writing to the Minister of Highways on November 21 and he

says:

" A recreation area has recently been established which encompasses Kitsumkalum Mountain, located

six miles northwest of Terrace." No, I won't go into all the

details.

"The Parks Branch is presently trying to assist the society in getting the development started. One

of the main problems which must be resolved is the question of

road access to the base of the hill."

And the Minister goes on to describe alternatives.

"After fully reviewing the alternatives, it has been

concluded that the most favourable solution is to construct

approximately three miles of road which would leave the Can-Cel

industrial road at the north boundary of the Indian reserve and angle

up the northeast side of Kitsumkalum Mountain to the parking area at

the base of the ski lift. This route is quite feasible and would

minimize the conflict between private vehicles and industrial traffic."

It's very obvious that this Minister has done a great deal

of research. He knows exactly what the problem is. The trouble

is that the other Minister apparently wasn't listening or for

some reason was not in the ball game. I quote again from the

Minister's letter to the Minister of Highways:

"As this road is intended to be a public road, I am writing

to request the assistance of your department in undertaking the construction

of this access and securing the necessary right-of-way through the Indian reserve.

The matter of the right-of-way through the reserve lands is doubly important

inasmuch as it is intended to bring power into the ski hill from Terrace and

the right-of-way must be established before B.C. Hydro will install the line."

So here's another arm of government quite inevitably and

correctly involved in this deal too.

There is this very diligent Minister of Recreation, on

November 21, sending a memo to the Minister of Highways on a

very key aspect of a recreational development. Yet, when that

Minister of Highways is asked in Terrace early in January — I

haven't got the exact date; I think it's about January 8 or 9 — he says he doesn't know anything about it.

I just feel that this is a good example of the need for

better coordination and integration of the different arms of

government involved in the whole recreational field. I think

that gives excellent evidence as to why that recommendation by

the Broom report for a Minister of leisure services is

absolutely vital.

To quickly finish up on this Kitsumkalum thing, I made some

inquiries today. I'm sure the Member for Skeena, who is looking

very serious in the chair, would be very interested to know the

latest hang-up, because there is another hang-up.

The provincial government has agreed to provide money from

the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. I'm delighted about

that; I want to mention that a little later too. For obvious

reason, even if we can't meet the Member's promise for skiing

in 1973, surely, since the government has agreed to provide

money from the fund, we could have skiing by 1974. But oh, no.

The problem now is that the ski society needs a $60,000 line of

credit, I understand, to be able to make a down payment on the

lift which is available and ready to be brought to the mountain

and so on. But there are hang-ups with the regional district

also: a referendum has to be held, I understand, in June. To

put all this together will be later than June, and that will be

too late to get the lift installed. There won't be skiing in

1974 either. You hear that, Mr. Chairman? There will not be

skiing in Kitsumkalum; not even in 1974. Yet, with a little bit

of…

MR. CHABOT: Yet he's still here.

MR. WALLACE: …vigour and a little conference among the

Ministers concerned, I make a plea for the skiers in that

area.

The Minister can probably speak when I sit down and tell us

that he supports a greater degree of integration of departments

in this respect. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if there is

hope that this can be put together in some way so that they can

start skiing at least a year later than they planned.

Because the Minister of Transportation and Communication

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) has been

[ Page

3353 ]

chirping away in his seat a little bit. I just thought that

again to….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): When?

I never said a word.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, about five minutes ago you had some little

quips. I enjoy your quips; they're not always valid but they're

interesting.

But again, seriously, this question of interrelation of

departments…. This time I'm thinking more in terms of

conservation. I'd like the Minister to tell us if he is

involved at this point in the deliberations over the

possibility of a new ferry route involving Gabriola Island.

We have somewhat of an irony here. We've just debated a

piece of legislation — and I have no wish to reflect on

legislation before the House. But I think it's fair to say in

passing that we have here a transit proposal. Granted, it

hasn't been finalized and I don't know what status the proposal

is presently at. Such details which have been revealed make it

very plain that this, in effect, is an extension of the

Trans-Canada Highway through the Gulf Islands with a bridge to

Vancouver Island.

I have to harp back to the point I made in the earlier

debate that the only group under the new legislation which

doesn't have to get permission from the trust is Crown

corporations. They only have to give notice that they're going

to build a highway for traffic through the lower end of

Gabriola Island and have a bridge to Vancouver Island.

I don't want to make a big song and dance about it at this

time because I notice that a clipping in March 30 of this year

from The Vancouver Sun mentions, "Highways Minister

Graham Lea told the Legislature Friday that the government has

yet to decide whether to locate a ferry terminal on Gabriola

Island connected by a bridge to Vancouver Island." It obviously

isn't decided. But it's very obvious that this is another kind

of area where you should be very intimately involved in the

planning. The very uneasy look you have in your eye right now

suggests to me that you're not being consulted at all. Correct

me if I'm wrong.

The other factor I would suggest in this whole question of conservation is

somewhat similar to the criticism I made of the Minister of Lands and Forests.

To what degree is the public really being asked to participate? Let us just

again refer briefly to the proposed ferry terminal on Gabriola Island. Can the

Minister tell us to what extent he is involved in cabinet discussion and to

what extent is the cabinet, in turn, consulting with the people on the island

and the people intimately involved? Has the plan been dropped as far as that

goes? Maybe that could end the whole debate right there if you tell us that

you've dropped plans to have a ferry terminal on Gabriola Island.

It just brings me back to the point that there are many

Ministers of cabinet who have tremendous involvement in the

recreation and conservation field. The efficiency and capacity

of the Minister to do his job seems to me to be very seriously

impeded by one or two of the examples I've quoted.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd just mention another case in point where a Mr. Carr and

his son wrote to me from Mount Robson. I have to apologize that

I can't be right up-to-date on my facts. I tried to reach Mr.

Carr the other day and I failed to establish contact. I would

just like to read a very brief note from the letter he sent to

me.

He said his son purchased a private property 20 years ago

and installed a hand-operated gas pump and built a small store.

A year or two later he built four tourist cabins and coffee

shop-restaurant, employing three or four people from Valemount.

He goes on to state that his son and his wife have expanded

this business and worked very hard at it.

Then out of the blue comes a lot of communication and

interference. Maybe that's too strong a word — but inquiry and

direction of one kind or another from the regional district.

I'm not going to quote the person quoted in the letter because

I don't know how valid this criticism is. But somebody from the

regional district started, in the words of Mr. Carr, to harass

his son in various ways as an official in the regional

district. Here we have the regional district in the

picture.

Then, just to the point that his son suffered some degree of

emotional illness, the next thing that happened was that, last

fall, Mr. Aaron, supervisor of B.C. parks, contacted Mr. Carr

and told him that the parks wanted his property. They were

willing to give him another site three miles west of the

present location.

I don't want to make a long debate out of this; I just want

to say that it does appear there are various arms of government

not only getting involved with projects l