Can't go wrong with Winchester in the Model 70 and Ruger, excellent values. Avoid Remington, Marlin, and go to Savage etc if looking to save $. Now after my piece below I'll bow out because this thread with become a sh1t show, all personal opinion.
So kamlooky likely has it right, go to a shop, see what you like.
Here's a breakdown of features people consider desirable:
-Stainless, if you hunt rainy locations, likely as you're in BC: Winchester, Ruger, Savage, Remington, Tikka, Kimber etc etc have options.
-Synthetic stocks: same as above.
-Wood stocks, much classier, more soul: Winchester, CZ and Ruger do these best for low-cost hunting rifles, Ruger and CZ the better of the three. Kimber does nice stocks for a little more $.
-Controlled Round Feed, think Mauser style claw extraction, means the round is captured and guided into the chamber through the whole feeding process by the extractor. Your can push the bolt half forward on a loaded magazine, back it up, go forward again, do it upside down, etc and it will still function normally. A Push Feed, means the round is rather unceremoniously just shoved into the chamber, not controlled by the extractor, backing up part way on the bolt and starting again will cause a jam, and operating upside down or at extreme angles can often be a problem too. In practice, push feed works just fine, but controlled round feed is preferred and desired for hunting dangerous game for obvious reasons. You won't be doing that with your .300, but why not have the better system? Options in reasonable price ranges for controlled round feed are: Winchester, Ruger, CZ, and some others. Kimbers are also CRF. Remington, Savage, Tikka etc are push feeds.
-Integral scope mounts, less parts to cause issues in your zero, less expense in the case of Ruger as excellent rings are included free (or you've already paid for them at purchase, you pick how you view it). It's a better system, period, not a fan personally of screwed on bases though again, they work. Options are Ruger and CZ for integral bases among the common offerings, Ruger's come with the rings and are a bit more scope friendly.
-Weight, if you hunt or shoot at the range in normal fashion, not a consideration. If you hunt sheep at 7500', definitely important. At the range or deer fields, a little weight in a .300 is welcomed and softens the recoil impulse. For climbing mountains, you'll want something very light like a Kimber.
-Construction quality, some guns are built primarily to be cheap to manufacture, for instance the Remington 700, Tikka T3, etc. Round stock receivers, meaning less machining operations are required, and to use the Remington 700 in particular as an example, a bolt that is soldered together from three pieces. The bolt handle is one of the soldered on parts. Again, works OK, but there are better choices, Winchester, CZ, Ruger all have one piece bolts with integral handles. They also are free of plastic junk parts and pot metal junk parts (my Rem 700's pot metal trigger guard broke on me years ago, didn't leave me pleased). Kimber has a plastic follower, and MIM (metal injection molded, they use it in Formula 1, pretty decent), not a fan of the plastic follower but good guns otherwise.
So, there's my opinionated short rundown, missing a lot of stuff I'm sure too. But it's a start.
