[ Page 1823 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Oil pricing policy. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1823

Mr. Macdonald — 1823

Mr. Gibson — 1823

Mr. Wallace — 1824

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates

On vote 48.

Mr. Skelly — 1825

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1827

Mr. Skelly — 1829

Mr. Lea — 1830

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1834

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1835

Mr. Lea — 1836

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1836

Mr. Lea — 1837

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1838

Mr. Lea — 1839

Point of order

Withdrawal of unparliamentary language. Mr. Chairman — 1839

Mr. Lea — 1839

Mr. King — 1839

Mr. Chairman — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1840

Mr. Lea — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1840

Mr. Lauk — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1841

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1841

Mr. Speaker — 1841

Mr. Lauk — 1841

Mr. Speaker — 1842

Suspension of Mr. Lea from service of the House — 1842

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1842

Mr. King — 1842

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1843

Mr. King — 1843

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1844

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1845

Mr. Skelly — 1845

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1847

Mr. Nicolson — 1851

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1852

Mr. D'Arcy — 1852

Mr. Wallace — 1852

Public Works Fair Employment Act Repeal Act (Bill 35).

Order for second reading discharged — 1853

The House met at 8 p.m.

OIL PRICING POLICY

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short statement. I'd like to make a short comment on the position of the Government of British Columbia regarding the new oil prices announced by the federal government in Ottawa today.

As the House is no doubt aware, the government has announced that the price of oil will go up by $1.05 a barrel in July and an additional 70 cents in January. This means, of course, a rise at the pump of 3 cents a gallon in July and an additional 2 cents in January. This government must express some dismay that the federal government hasn't chosen to accept British Columbia's strong representation to phase out the federal 10 cents-a-gallon tax at the pumps that was imposed as part of the two-price oil system in Canada, along with raising the price of oil.

Mr. Speaker, I further say that British Columbia's government at this time will withhold any further support of the rise until such a time as we are assured that British Columbia will receive the approximately $2 per mcf at the border that we requested from the National Energy Board on export of our natural gas, which was a part of our proposal to the government concerning resource pricing, energy pricing and petroleum product pricing at the recent conference. This decision is expected within the next few weeks.

Our support to the government of Canada will depend upon two things. Primarily we hope the federal government and the National Energy Board will allow the approximately $2 per mcf that we requested on export of British Columbia's gas, and I would hope that they will reconsider their position of phasing out that vicious tax at the pump that was imposed only for the benefit of central and eastern Canada for the two-price oil system.

At the Western Premiers' Conference, the meeting of the First Ministers, I reiterated British Columbia's strong stance on the matter of provincial rights in maximizing the revenues of our natural resources. We continue to oppose the federal government's intervention in this most important of all provincial jurisdictions. I reject entirely the statement that came out of the Ontario Legislature today, attributed to the Hon. William Davis, and reports that the Liberal leader in Ontario suggested that the federal government should expropriate the oil industry in western Canada for the benefit of central and eastern Canada, and I would hope that all members in this House will rise to oppose that suggestion out of Ontario that the federal government expropriate the resources of western Canada for the benefit of the east.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You found it was a big boys' game! (Laughter.)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I wish to congratulate the Premier on his failure to get the price increase he wanted. He wanted at least a $2 increase in the price of a barrel of oil. This would have meant 10 cents increase for the gasoline consumers by July 1, and 5 cents for every dollar in the barrel of crude. As it is now, the increase visited on the people of the province of B.C. will only be 7 cents by the end of this year, based upon $1.70, so I take this opportunity to wish the Premier continued failure.

I would say that British Columbia itself produces 55,000 barrels a day of crude oil, which is cut back now because Imperial Oil is on a slow strike against this government in the Boundary Lake field. The flow from that field has been reduced by 10,000 to 15,000 barrels a day. They're running into technical difficulties, Mr. Premier, which means they want more money — and the Premier's going to give them more money.

I want to know whether the increased money given to the oil companies is going to be taken back in higher royalties. The costs of production of our own fields have not increased, and this is a pure bonanza to those fields and to those producers. If the money is not to be brought back into the coffers of the public of the province of British Columbia, it is simply going to flow into the international oil companies, and their subsidiaries who drill and explore, with no guarantee whatsoever that that drilling and exploring will take place in the province of British Columbia or in the Arctic of Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You know better than that!

MR. MACDONALD: Just to put our position on the record, when the Premier says that it's too bad that somebody wants some expropriation of resources, I say that the public of Canada ought to expropriate one of the great producing international companies in Canada, and that is Imperial Oil — drill through that medium with the best managerial techniques, the best drilling prospects and bring natural gas and crude oil flowing into Canada through a public enterprise with the revenues to the public, and the consumer protected.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Premier that this party opposes any suggestion emanating out of Ontario — not quite any suggestion, but this particular suggestion...

[ Page 1824 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Any Tory suggestion! (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: ...that the federal government should expropriate the resources of the west.

I was entertained to hear the Premier speak of this vicious tax of 10 cents a gallon, which is imposed on gasoline only for the benefit of central Canada. The Premier neglected to say that most of this vicious tax is paid by central Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier suggested that another government, a government over which we have no jurisdiction in this House, should phase out part of their taxation system without suggesting where else they might raise the revenue. If somebody else suggested that about our government here, the Premier would rightly call him irresponsible. I don't think he should have said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Separatist!

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Are you defending Ottawa?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier said that he would withhold further comment....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor on a reply to a statement by the Premier.

MR. GIBSON: I seem to have their attention but not their agreement, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

The Premier said that he would withhold further comment on the gas price increase, and I'm very puzzled by that since he was so much in favour of it last week, in terms of the rise in the price of oil. I'll take it that he's still in favour of that.

The one thing that we are still missing is a commitment on the part of our government in British Columbia to encourage exploration from such additional funds as may flow through and be controllable at the provincial or the corporate level. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is very much the duty of this government. Unlike the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), I am not concerned about more money going through to the company as long as we make sure that that money is used in exploration, and I say that's the duty of the government.

MR. WALLACE: Well, speaking as the oil expert for the Conservative Party (laughter), I must say that the Premier has a great time, first of all, telling me to send my speech to Premier Lougheed and now telling me to attack Premier Davis. I'm just having a terrible time with these Tory premiers in the rest of Canada.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, there won't be one here, so you don't have to worry, Scotty!

MR. GIBSON: Now, now, was that nice?

MR. WALLACE: The House seems to be in a restless mood after supper, Mr. Speaker.

My view, as I've stated several times in this House, is that the essential challenge is to provide the necessary incentives to explore and find new sources of oil. There's no question that that is the central problem, that proven resources are far smaller than was stated in 1973. The conflict I find is that by putting up the price of oil closer and closer toward the international price, unquestionably we are increasing inflationary pressures at a time when we are all dedicated to trying to control inflation.

Although I jokingly referred to myself as the Progressive Conservative oil expert, I don't for a moment look at it any other way than the layman in the street. All of us, as ordinary citizens, know that there is no other ingredient than perhaps the price of food and shelter which so intimately affects the cost of living as the price of crude oil and all the derivatives we use, so I really find this conflict difficult to reconcile. On the one hand we are trying to fight inflation and, at the same time, we are putting up our own Canadian resources in price in the manner mentioned.

But I would, on the other hand, say very clearly that Ontario, or any other province, has no right whatever to talk about expropriating the resources in some other province. I can't support the Premier too strongly in that context. But I do think that the challenge to provinces such as ours, and Saskatchewan and Alberta, is not to be blinded by the Ontario spectre, and to remember that there are Maritime provinces with no natural resources worth mentioning.

As far as I'm concerned, the 10-cent-a-gallon tax, which enables the federal government to help subsidize the price of oil to people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and New Brunswick and the Maritime provinces, is some evidence of the fact that we're not just paying lip service to Confederation but we are, in practice, proving that we're willing, to a degree, to sacrifice some of our provincial wealth to help those provinces less well off than ourselves. Therefore, like life itself, it is a compromise.

These absolute kinds of statements that emanate from other provinces and the proposal that the

[ Page 1825 ]

Premier referred to, which I was unaware of, that Premier Davis had suggested expropriation...it's quite unacceptable, totally unacceptable. In fact, that kind of suggestion from Ontario, which is probably the richest province in the whole country — just because on this occasion it thinks that its ox is being gored rather than someone else's — doesn't contribute much to the spirit of Confederation and national unity.

So I feel that if we have to reject the two-price system and proceed, as the Premier has stated he will, towards reaching the international price, I do hope that in the weeks and months ahead he will give us some outline of the mechanism which will guarantee that not only exploration will occur but that we can have an optimistic and reasonable hope that new sources of crude oil will be discovered within Canadian boundaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further this evening, I beg your indulgence for a few moments to introduce to the House some guests from Adelaide, Australia. We're honored this evening to have the presence in the members' gallery of Mr. Connelly, the Speaker of the House in Adelaide, and Mrs. Connelly and the Clerk of the House, Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Dodd. I hope you'll welcome them.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)

On vote 48: minister's office, $114,053 continued.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Just before the supper recess, the minister made a cursory introduction of the department that he now administers and the branches which have been consolidated under his jurisdiction. Then there was the reply from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Prince Rupert brought out some information that concerned us a great deal on this side of the House, particularly concerns about the attitude of the new Minister of Environment towards the public and towards the truth. He quoted a statement made by the Minister of Environment or repeated in the Vancouver Sun of December 23, 1975, in which the Minister of Environment is reported to have said that "politicians shouldn't always be honest or candid with the public."

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Shame! Shame!

MR. SKELLY: He was quoted after his defeat in the 1974 federal election: "You can't afford to be completely honest with people. There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and conned."

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): What an attitude!

MR. SKELLY: An unbelievable statement from a person who was running at that time in a federal election, had just suffered a defeat, ran again and is now a minister of the Crown in British Columbia. We're wondering, Mr. Chairman, if that minister still believes those statements to be true, still espouses that type of philosophy, and if so, whether or not we can expect him to be perfectly candid, perfectly honest, in dealing as between hon. members in this House, in answering questions on the minster's estimates.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He was a Conservative.

MR. SKELLY: I don't know if he's not a Conservative now, Mr. Member. After all, we're dealing with a vote here for the minister's office of $114,000 — $43.3 million for the total budget of his department, which he says should be doubled. We'd like to have his assurance, as representatives of the public, of those same people that he feels should be bribed and conned.

He said: "There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and conned." We want to have his assurance during the discussion of that minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, that he will be giving us straightforward answers in this House, that he will be candid and honest and frank with the representatives of the public who are sitting on both sides of this House.

We're also concerned, Mr. Chairman, about that minister's ability to handle a Ministry of the Environment, and about his concern for environmental matters within the province. When the minister was first appointed, when he was first sworn in, he admitted he had no idea why he had been chosen for this office. Believe me, we had no idea why he had been chosen either. It's quoted again in the Vancouver Sun, January 8, 1976: "Environment minister, Jim Nielsen, frankly admitted" — and I hope he was being frank at the time — "that he had no idea why he had been chosen for the portfolio, because he had no background nor any particular interest in the field."

"Foot in Mouth Disease Afflicts Government" is

[ Page 1826 ]

the headline on that article.

So that is another concern we have about this minister: concerning his interest in the department, concerning his frankness in his dealings with other members in this House, as between members in the House, Mr. Chairman, when he has made remarks that a large number of members of the public believe they should be bribed and conned and that politicians should not always be honest or candid.

We're concerned also on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, about some of the attitudes that this minister seems to subscribe to, attitudes that are representative in other departments and other instrumentalities of the government. For example, there was a statement in the paper today by Robert Bonner from B.C. Hydro where he was defending his attitude that moose are more important than men, and he said...

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): He said men are more important than moose.

MR. SKELLY: Or men are more important than moose. Yes, thanks. It was wishful thinking on my part.

He said this: "Bonner defended his 'moose or men' statements made earlier this year by saying that people should take precedence over animals in the environment as long as any future energy sources are harnessed in a fashion he terms as reasonable." They were very similar to statements made by the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) up in Terrace just a little while ago, where he says: "Well, who cares about a few ducks or a few geese when we're building a pipeline across the northern part of the province?"

MR. LAUK: Was that tongue-in-cheek, Tom?

MR. SKELLY: Also, it's very similar to statements made by that Minister of Environment just after he was appointed. "When a major development takes place you can't just look at what's happening to the land, the water or the wildlife, " he said; "you have to take into consideration what's happening to the people." That's an important position to take, Mr. Minister, if you are the minister for a department that is exploiting the environment for the benefit of the people of this province, if you were going out cutting timber, for example, and facilitating the cutting of timber in this province, if you were going out mining, for example, or facilitating mining in this province. But this minister is supposed to be the devil's advocate, especially in that government. He is supposed to be the advocate for that very land and the air and the wildlife of this province, for without them, men can't live in this province, Mr. Minister.

We're wondering about the attitude of this minister, whether he is — as he has expressed doubts himself — qualified to sit as Minister of Environment in this government, whether he is being perfectly frank with the people of this province, whether he is intending to be perfectly honest and candid with members of this House who represent the people of this province, who he says wish to be bribed and conned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair can't accept as parliamentary any suggestion that an hon. member will not be honest with the House. If the hon. member is suggesting that something like this is a possibility, then he must withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the minister's statements unconditionally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry, the hon. member does not understand.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please may I conclude this point of order, and then I will recognize you?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May I just conclude this statement? The member has clearly misunderstood. It is not the statement of the minister that we wish you to withdraw, and I must ask you to withdraw. It is an imputation against the character of another member of this House to suggest that he might not be candid or honest with the House, and therefore I must ask the member to withdraw. On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) read clearly the undisputed statements of the Minister of Environment where he said that one cannot or should not always be candid with the public. Now for heaven's sake, all the member for Alberni is saying is that this brings a cloud upon that minister. That minister has to clear that. He said clearly in his opening remarks, which were very well delivered in this House and should be noted by the back bench in improving their speech material, that the minister how has an opportunity to make clear to this House and to the public that he did not mean those remarks, that those were foolish remarks and he is trying very hard to repent. That in no way imputes that that minister will say or do anything in this House that will not be honest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. If you will take your seat for just a moment,

[ Page 1827 ]

may I just cite a couple of authorities? It is the responsibility of the Chair not only to rule in this instance but to provide the atmosphere in this House in which all of us would feel very, very comfortable. Now here is standing order 40(2), which says: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House...." Beauchesne, in the fourth edition, also says on page 115: "A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House." As a result, I think that we should guard against this kind of thing in the House.

I think we can clear this up very readily by just asking the member whether he wishes by his remarks to impute any wrongdoing or any wrong motive on the part of the minister. Could you answer that?

MR. SKELLY: No, I am not imputing anything to that minister, Mr. Chairman. I am simply citing something that that minister said when he said that he should not always be honest or candid with the public, when he said: "You can't afford to be completely honest with people. There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and conned."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. As long as you are not translating that to actions which might be anticipated by the minister in this House, you may proceed. I must remind the member that we have listened to him now three times make an innuendo which could be found offensive. I must warn against it.

MR. SKELLY: I do not wish to make any innuendo, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister's statements are perfectly clear as to what he believes his transactions between himself and the public should be. I am simply asking his assurance that those won't be the bases of his transactions between himself and members of this House when answering questions. When the minister has an opportunity to stand in his place and reply to those questions, I am sure that he will assure us that those statements are not still his beliefs.

We are concerned about that statement, Mr. Chairman. We are concerned about the positions this minister has adopted vis-à-vis the environment as the minister responsible for protection of the environment in this province. We are concerned about the whole attitude of the government over there and whether this minister has in actual fact, because of his inability and because of the fact that he has no previous background in the environment and has expressed no interest in it, been appointed by the Premier of this province to preside over the degradation of the environment of this province and the destruction of the land, the air, the water and the wildlife of this province. I'd like some assurance from that member, who hasn't made very many statements in this House in defence of the environment, that he intends to be the devil's advocate for the environment in that cabinet that so sorely needs an advocate for the environment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the critics on the opposite side of the House have mandatory obligations to make statements which may be somewhat negative. I certainly appreciate their role in that process. It is interesting how the member who was most recently speaking drifted away from the quote-quote on occasion and substituted new words for the alleged quote but it made it a bit more of an impact by altering the words. That's fine.

The statement attributed to me, which took the form of a full-page ad in the last provincial election, I might add, was indeed made, similar to what was quoted by the member after July 8, I believe it was, 1974. Interestingly enough, if I can just go back a moment, the comment was made in context with an interview I had at the Vancouver Sun after the election campaign and the election night of that federal election. In due course, I was speaking with a reporter from the Sun. She asked me about my comments and thoughts about politics and so on. I did say that I had learned a great deal from the election campaign.

One thing I had learned was that a politician cannot afford to be completely honest or candid with the population if he intends to be elected. Interestingly enough, that entire federal campaign was based on a wage-and-price concept in controls, as you know, which the Liberal Party federally opposed and then introduced after they had been elected. I would suggest that had they been totally honest and candid with the people that, indeed, this was their concept, they may not have been successful and been elected.

However, I suppose the problems of being totally candid are many. Previously the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) suggested to me the same quote, and then he said in another quote: "The minister, being totally candid, said he didn't know anything about environment." So there's a perfect illustration of when you are candid how people will not accept your candid statement but rather use it later to try and embarrass you or whatever use it is....

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that — we accept it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Unfortunately for these members, because they were not invited to the swearing-in ceremonies of the new government at Government House, because the people of the province decided they didn't want them there, they were, unfortunately, not in a position to hear what

[ Page 1828 ]

was said;

MR. LAUK: Now don't be arrogant.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now rather than argue with the press, very simple questions were asked by reporters that day. I don't know how you went about appointing your ministers, and I'm not sure what your Premier asked you or mentioned to you when he asked you to serve in the cabinet, but when the Premier asked me to be Minister of Environment, I didn't ask him why. A reporter from the Vancouver press asked me: "Why were you chosen for Environment?" Appreciating the language of our land, I told him very frankly: "I do not know why, " because I hadn't asked why.

MR. LAUK: You didn't eh?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What's the point? (Laughter.) One accepts certain things.

MR. LAUK: Did you say that the Premier didn't know why either?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We didn't pursue the issue. There were more important things to pursue at that time. Now interestingly enough — just to defend a position, if it's of any interest — the question asked was: "What do you know about the Department of Environment?" Of course, at that time there was no Department of Environment, and I told the reporter that I knew nothing about the Department of Environment. It hadn't really been established at that time, but that is somewhat immaterial.

To the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea's) interesting point about the parks raised earlier, indeed I must admit that there was some confusion because a statement had been made that parks, perhaps, would be under the Department of Environment. And to include the parks branch within the Department of Environment received a certain amount of consideration.

I don't have the documents before me, but I can assure the member for Prince Rupert that it's accurate — it's of interest that we received a tremendous amount of representation from various interested groups, including the Wildlife Federation, which were opposed to putting the parks branch within the Department of Environment...and various other persons involved in naturalist groups. But perhaps the greatest lobby was from people within the department of parks who felt that it should be a very important and integral part of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. LAUK: Was that before or after they met you?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They put up a very strong lobby that it be retained as an integral part of Recreation and Conservation. They felt unless the entire department was transferred, it would be better not to break off parks from the Department of Recreation and Conservation. Certainly that was part of the consideration in the consolidation of the departments which eventually formed the Department of Environment.

Had the member for Prince Rupert been doing his homework, he would have found that an order-in-council had been passed very early which assigned these duties to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. This was also available to the press, but apparently it didn't catch their attention that day because no one pointed it out.

I certainly take under consideration the comments made by the member for Prince Rupert relative to the possibility of conflict — the Lands department in the Department of Environment, and I think I can understand some of the comments he made. But I really do not believe that it is the major conflict, perhaps, you may see. The Department of Lands administers lands, and in many, many instances, the use of land is considered by the Department of Lands first with the possibility of its ecological effects or its environmental effects. So in that instance, the Department of Environment certainly has a great deal of control over the use of these lands. I think that perhaps, at this moment in time at least, it's a very valuable function of the Department of Environment relative to lands.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order. I thought I heard the hon. minister say that no one can get elected if he or she is candid with the public. I'd just like to double-check that because I don't consider that a proper thing to say.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Don't overprotect the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did the hon. minister impute any improper motive to any member of this House in making that statement?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Including yourself?

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 48 pass?

[ Page 1829 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think we should hear the minister's statement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I certainly did not. At least: I wanted to attempt to explain the context of that statement. Being completely honest and candid has many more applications rather than some of the very stringent applications of the words honest and candid. Certainly I didn't mean honest relative to criminal activity or anything. But I think it perhaps may be of general information that sometimes when you are totally honest with a person, or totally candid with a person, you cannot get a positive response from that person. I could perhaps cite doctor-patient relationships where very often a doctor is hesitant about telling the patient precisely what his problem may be, because it could be something detrimental to his well-being.

I'm sure that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has been as candid and honest with the people in his riding as possible and I'm sure they appreciate that.

Now I have no desire to reflect upon the character of any member in this House, none whatsoever, nor was.... I don't really believe that was the question before us. I was attempting to explain statements which have been made, but if the members choose not to accept the explanation, I can't be responsible for that. I might mention that that quotation was run in a full-page ad in the Richmond Review during the election campaign, a day or two before the election, by the New Democratic Party of Richmond, and it resulted in a 53 per cent majority for myself.

MR. SKELLY: I find it strange, Mr. Chairman, that the member wouldn't give other members of this House an assurance that he intended during this discussion of his estimates to be completely honest with people, to be completely honest and candid.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: This is the kind of assurance that we requested in view of the quotations which were cited in the Vancouver Sun of December 23, 1975. He did say, upon winning the 1974 federal election, that Liberals...

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not finished yet.

... who had opposed wage-and-price controls, then made a switch a few years later and adopted wage and price controls — actually wage controls — throughout the country. I think the Prime Minister of Canada (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) was perfectly candid when he came down and made the statement that they had a change of heart, that they had seen the situation differently. It was the same as the First Minister of this government when he promised to impose an anti-inflation freeze on taxes in British Columbia and he came and made a candid statement to the House that he couldn't keep that promise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 48.

MR. SKELLY: We accepted that candid statement, that he had had a change of heart within four months of taking office. All we're asking, Mr. Chairman, is an assurance that that minister doesn't believe the statements that he made in 1974 and that he's going to be perfectly honest and frank and candid with other members of this House in dealing with estimates of the Department of Environment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I really wonder if it's necessary for any hon. member of this House to provide other members of the House with such an assurance. If the member for Alberni is suggesting that any statements made by myself are less than honest and candid, I would appreciate a direct suggestion rather than some form of innuendo.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, since no statements were made in this House which he is mentioning directly rather than quotes, I would wonder if indeed any member of this House is required by any other member to assure the House that they will indeed be honest and candid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this House, all members are hon. members and by virtue of their membership here they need give no assurances of whether or not honesty will be the greatest guide in this House. It is assumed, it is implicit in the membership that all members being honourable are also honest. I think that we should get back to vote 48. I think that we could conclude that matter.

MR. SKELLY: Just on that same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we can accept that ruling by you. It's simply that the quotation cited in the Vancouver Sun of December 23 is a reflection on all elected members — not just the Minister of Environment but on all of us. If he's standing up in this House right now and saying that all members of this House are expected to be perfectly honest and frank and truthful with each other, then, as a member of this House, I take that as an assurance from himself that he is included in those remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member. That area's been well covered and I trust that we can get on to vote 48.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I agree that it's been well canvassed and I think people will, you know,

[ Page 1830 ]

read of this debate in Hansard and know exactly where matters stand. I agree with you that it's been canvassed entirely enough.

The one thing that I did bring up before was other remarks that the minister had made, the fact that he was surprised he was appointed, that sort of thing, and saying that he had no interest in the environment. I would have assumed that he would have surrounded himself with people who may have had a history of dealing with environmental issues and people who do have an interest in the environment. I noticed that when his executive assistant, Keith Frew, was interviewed and asked, "Mr. Frew, what do you know about the environment?", he said: "Well, I don't know anything. It's new, isn't it?" I suggest that possibly the minister's not surrounding himself with people who know what it's all about either, and I think that that would be a great loss to the province.

I believe that Mr. Frew was the assistant to the minister when he was in radio, and pushed the buttons and held callers off and that sort of thing. I assume that.

lnterjections.

MR. LEA: Now Jimmy... ! I told you, Jim, if you haven't got a Liberal card you're going to stay down there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on a subject that I have been asking questions about for some weeks, and that's the summary report of the federal-provincial Thompson River task force that was begun in 1973 by both the federal and provincial governments. I would like to just briefly say that this report really was initiated early in 1971 when complaints from the public about the deterioration of water flow in the Thompson River system were received by several government agencies. In other words, members of the public — anglers, the public at large, and also environmental groups — became very concerned about the Thompson River and also Kamloops Lake. In the fall of 1973 it was decided that a federal-provincial task force would be formed, consisting of the province of British Columbia in the form of the Pollution Control Board and the government of Canada in the form of Environment Canada. This task force was completed in 1975.

I would like again to stress the fact that it was the public at large that brought this matter to the attention of government agencies, and said: "Look, we're a little concerned about the Thompson River, we're a little concerned about Kamloops Lake and we'd like government to look into this and see whether we have justification to be concerned and, if so, what can be done." The summary report on that task force was made public on January 22, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go through, as I see it, the story surrounding the release of this task force to the public and also to the two polluters that were named in this report, the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser.

The first thing that came to my attention was a press release from the Kamloops Daily Sentinel of December 24, 1975, headlined: "Thompson Gets a Peek at Pollution Report." It's by Bob Miller, Sentinel staff writer. Quoting from this article, from the beginning, it says:

"Mayor Al Thompson will get a sneak preview of the controversial Thompson River pollution study while in Vancouver during the first week of January. 'I'm going down to be briefed on the study and will report back to city council,' he told council Tuesday."

It's known now through my questions to the minister, Mr. Chairman, during question period that indeed that meeting did take place in West Vancouver between Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops, representatives of Canada and representatives of the province of British Columbia — the pollution control branch and Environment Canada.

On January 2, 1976, a letter was sent from the president of SPEC Kamloops, Don Ellsay, and it's addressed to the Hon. William Bennett, Premier, Province of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia. It says:

"Dear Sir:

SPEC Kamloops wishes to express its most vigorous opposition to the continued and protracted series of delays in the release of the Thompson River-Kamloops Lake pollution study.

"Our information is that the report has been in draft form since at least the end of November, and is being held back by senior government officials in Vancouver. Further, we wish to register our objection to the secrecy surrounding the report and to the fact that a sneak preview of the study is currently being afforded selected persons, including the mayor of the city of Kamloops, seemingly in their roles as representatives of the polluters involved.

"SPEC Kamloops therefore asks that preferential treatment in access to the study cease immediately, that the study promptly be made freely and conveniently available to the public who, in fact, paid for it, and that a copy of the study be forwarded at once to SPEC Kamloops, Box 244, Kamloops, B.C.

"A prompt and complete explanation of the above news report is respectfully requested.

Yours truly,
             (signed)

[ Page 1831 ]

Don Elsay,
             President,
             SPEC, Kamloops."

It was carbon-copied to Mr. Nielsen, Minister of Environment, and Mr. R. Mair, Minister of Consumer Services, because the minister is the representative for Kamloops in the Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I didn't know that. The minister says he was the NDP returning officer. I don't know what difference that makes. Anyway, the letter was referring, Mr. Chairman, to this news report where the mayor said he was going for a sneak preview.

He also must have carbon-copied the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), because the leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Oak Bay, wrote to Mr. Ellsay, the president of SPEC, on January 7, 1976, and said:

"Dear Mr. Ellsay:

This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of a letter sent to the Hon. William Bennett, Premier of British Columbia, dated January 2. In that letter you were seeking immediate release of the Thompson River-Kamloops Lake pollution study, which is apparently in draft form, and is being made available privately to selected individuals, including the mayor of the city of Kamloops.

"If this is happening, I can certainly appreciate your concern and distress. My office will make inquiries of the Minister of Environment to find out when the study is to be released publicly. We will be in touch with you again when I have some accurate and useful information to pass on to you.

"Yours sincerely,
Scott Wallace, MLA."

That's a pretty responsible letter to a person who is not even a constituent of the member for Oak Bay.

This was a letter on January 8, 1976, which has the Minister of Consumer Services' crest:

Canadian Scientific Pollution and
Environmental Control Society
Box 244
Kamloops, British Columbia

Attention: Mr. Don Ellsay, President

Dear Mr. Ellsay:

Thank you for copying me in your letter of January 2 last to the Premier outlining your opposition to the handling of the Thompson River-Kamloops Lake pollution study.

This matter does not come within my jurisdiction. However, I trust you will be replied to by the Minister of Environment as soon as possible. I appreciate you informing me of your views.

Sincerely,
(signed)
K. Rafe Mair,
Minister

cc: The Hon. J. Nielsen,
Minister of the Environment

When I look at these two letters, Mr. Chairman — the letter from the hon. member for Oak Bay writing to a person who is not his constituent, showing concern, saying "I'll endeavour to try and do something for you," and the letter from the Minister of Consumer Services to his constituent, which is a very curt letter, not suggesting that he would help in any way on an environmental matter, with a carbon copy to the Minister of Environment — I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister of Environment took his colleague to task for writing this kind of a letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a very nice letter.

MR. LEA: This letter is an insult. That letter is an insult to any constituent who writes his MLA. This letter is nothing more to me, Mr. Chairman, than a letter of someone showing contempt for environmental matters, a letter thinking that anybody connected with environmental societies is nothing but a kook and a nut.

MR. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): That one is.

MR. LEA: He says "that one is."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. This is really not the administrative responsibility of the minister whose vote 48 is. Let's return quickly to vote 48.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this indeed has to do with the Minister of Environment because it's a matter that the Minister of Environment is involved with. He is receiving carbon copies of letters from his colleagues to do with environmental matters, and we're discussing the vote of the Minister of Environment. As I said, this letter conveys to me that the person who wrote it thinks that environmental groups are kooks and nuts and that Mr. Ellsay is a kook and a nut, and the minister has confirmed that. He said across the floor: "Yes, that one is."

The next letter is from the Minister of Environment to Mr. Don Ellsay, dated January 15, 1976:

"Dear Sir:

I have a reply of the copy of your letter of January 2, 1976, to the Hon. W.R. Bennett, Premier, concerning the federal-provincial Thompson River task force report.

[ Page 1832 ]

"I understand that the report is now in the hands of the Queen's Printer and that copies should be available within the next two weeks.

Yours very truly,

(signed)
James A. Nielsen,
Minister"

I would suggest that this letter probably Mr. Chairman, would have been a bit more help if this letter of January 8 had not been written. If this letter had not been written and carbon-copied to the Minister of Environment, probably this letter would have been just a little more help. He would have offered a few suggestions on how he could help a president of a local environmental group, Mr. Chairman. But he took his cue. He got a carbon copy of that president of SPEC's letter from his own MLA.

Then on January 21 the Kamloops Sentinel says: "Pollution Report May be Released Thursday." (This was Wednesday.) Sure enough, on January 22 the report was made public. The Kamloops Daily Sentinel on the 22nd said: "City Mill Blamed for River Pollution." Well, of course, there were two groups that knew that for sure already — the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser — because they'd had a sneak preview of the report. They had that on January 8. And coincidentally, Mr. Chairman, if we can believe that this kind of coincidence can happen, guess what? The same day that the report was released, Weyerhauser had their press release and it went in the Kamloops Daily Sentinel the same day.

That is the danger that this minister seems not to understand, or at least he didn't indicate to me during questions that I asked during question period. He doesn't understand that it was the public who first raised the topic. It was the public and environmental groups that first went to government agencies suggesting that just maybe there was a problem in the Thompson River and Kamloops Lake and possibly it should be looked into.

What happens? The study was done. The two polluters named in the study were called in and said: "Hey, guys, here's the report. Here's the report." What did they do? They got their story ready to be released on the same day that the report was released. Is that the kind of government we want? Do we...?

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): That's a serious charge.

MR. LEA: You're darned right it's a serious charge, and it's true. It's true.

MR. KERSTER: Do you have the proof?

MR. LEA: Next, January 26, a news release from SPEC...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...over the signature of Don Ellsay, president, SPEC Kamloops:

"SPEC Kamloops believes a number of important points have become evident with the public release of the federal-provincial Thompson River task force summary report. These include:

"(1) By identifying the pulp mill and the city as the major polluters, the report has confirmed what citizens and the representatives of environmental organizations have been charging for years and have thus vindicated them in their objections.

"(2) The report itself is good, its conclusions are sound, and its recommendations should be implemented promptly. For example, both city and pulp mill phosphorus discharge should be reduced significantly; pulp mill colour should be substantially reduced from its brown-to-black discolouration level; fish-tainting agents should be removed, and so on.

"(3) The report's recommended environmental socio-economic study should be begun at once within the context of a comprehensive study of the total Shuswap-Thompson drainage basin based on water resource management.

"(4) Finally, SPEC believes that in light of the summary report, the city of Kamloops should reorder its scale of values and give the highest priority to the protection of our environment through vastly improved sewage treatment and disposal."

That was January 26. March 15, another letter from Don Ellsay, president of SPEC Kamloops, this time addressed directly to the minister:

March 15, 1976

Mr. J. Nielsen,
Minister of Environment,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia

Dear Sir:

With the release of the Thompson River task force report, and in light of the conclusions of this study, SPEC Kamloops feels that careful and consistent monitoring of discharges from both Weyerhauser Canada's effluent ponds and the city of Kamloops sewage lagoons is essential.

The lengthy and complicated studies undertaken to determine the causes of the pollution of the Thompson River should now warrant immediate action by the provincial government to ensure that steps are taken to rectify the existing problem. Your assurance that everything possible will be done to restore the Thompson River to a healthy

[ Page 1833 ]

condition would be appreciated.

Yours truly,
Don Ellsay

To my knowledge, this letter hasn't been answered. Why, Mr. Chairman? Can we speculate and say it was the letter of January 15 to Mr. Ellsay, carbon-copy to the Minister of Environment, which I said...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...showed nothing but contempt for environmental issues and, in particular, SPEC Kamloops and Mr. Ellsay as president of SPEC? Of course we can. The Minister of Environment, being led down the garden path by a colleague; the Minister of Environment, thinking he is going to satisfy the wishes of the MLA for that region, who just happens to be a cabinet colleague, thinking he is going to satisfy those wishes. No letter.

Let's get to the questions.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Graham Lea's the leader.

MR. LEA: On March 29, 1976, during question period, I asked the Minister of Environment these questions:

This is a question directed to the Minister of Environment: has the Thompson River task force report, which was prepared jointly between the provincial government and the federal government, been released and, if so, on what date?

The answer from the minister:

Mr. Speaker, in reply, I do not believe the report has been released to this time. If the hon. member would like a further answer, I will be happy to find out from department officials when it is anticipated it will be released.

The report was released on January 22. On March 29 the minister didn't know that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you want an honest answer or not?

MR. LEA: He didn't know.

MR. KING: He still doesn't know why he was appointed to the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. KING: No one else knows either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: A further answer on April 5 on the Thompson River system report from the Hon. Mr. Nielsen. In this one....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lose heart, fellas.

MR. LEA: In this one he says.... This is after the meeting of January 8, where Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops, the province and the federal government met to discuss the summary report. The last two paragraphs of the minister's answer of April 5:

The order is in the form of a permit; amendments would follow the availability of the technical reports and would be subject to appeal in the normal way. It's noted that the letter transmitting the report to the directors, dated December 1, 1975, stated: "The findings and conclusions of the summary report reflect the overall view of all task force submissions and therefore may vary slightly from those expressed in the individual technical reports." At this meeting the directors inquired as to when the back-up technical reports would be available and, in the absence of these reports, how to determine the degree of variation referred to in the letter of transmittal.

One final comment. Following discussion by the study committee...

This is the meeting being referred to, I would assume, between Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops and both governments.

...the authors agreed clarification of certain sections was required prior to final printing, which was done by the federal Queen's Printer in later January, 1976. Three hundred copies of the report were printed, and besides being distributed to federal and provincial government departments, copies were made available to such public groups as the Steelhead Society, Savona Community Association, Spences Bridge Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, Pacific Trollers Association, United Fisherman and the Native Indian Brotherhood of B.C.

Forgot to mention SPEC — left it out.

The fact of the matter is, what did it say in that report that went to the meeting of January 8? The minister said that there were changes made. I wonder if the minister would table the original draft in this House. What changes were made to the report?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I have that report. That's not the one that went to the meeting, Mr. Minister, apparently.

I also asked the minister during question period

[ Page 1834 ]

who attended the meeting. The minister said that the authors of the report attended the meeting. He didn't mention at that time that some authors of the report had attended the meeting and others hadn't, which turned out to be the case. But what changes were made, if any, in the report?

But I think what we can look at here, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the environmental groups, concerned about the Thompson River, and concerned about Kamloops Lake, got short shrift from the Minister of Environment because of an offhand, rather cavalier, overbearing letter that was sent to Mr. Ellsay on January 15 from the Minister of Consumer Services and representative for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) in this House. The minister says: "Yes, he feels that way." He says that he feels that way.

HON. MR. MAIR: Go ahead, read the letter.

MR. LEA: I've read the letter. I'll read it again.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The whole thing is objectionable, and I'll read it again. I read the letter from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as Leader of the Conservative Party, where he pointed out his concern and that he would endeavour to do something. Now Mr. Ellsay's own MLA, the Minister of Consumer Services, wrote back a letter saying:

"Dear Mr. Ellsay:

Thank you for copying me in your letter of January 2 last to the Premier outlining your proposition to the handling of the Thompson River-Kamloops Lake pollution study. This matter does not come within my jurisdiction. However, I trust you will be replied to by the Minister of Environment as soon as possible. I appreciate your informing me of your views.

Sincerely yours,
K. Rafe Mair."

His MLA!

What would you do if you were a minister, Mr. Chairman? What would you do if you were a minister and received a carbon copy of this kind of letter from that constituent's MLA? You would take it as notice that you were not to treat him in a very nice way. Consequently, I suggest to you that the environmental groups in that area got short shrift from this government, through the Minister of Environment, because of this very, very silly letter by the Minister of Consumer Services — I admit, new to office, but surely some common sense and courtesy should be shown to the leader of the environmental group in his own riding, and obviously, if he is in his own riding, a constituent.

Mr. Chairman, I think this whole situation is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, that the Minister of Consumer Services would write that kind of letter to Mr. Ellsay, carbon copy to the Minister of Environment. Disgraceful!

I suggest to you that possibly this letter had some bearing on the manner in which this report was released to the polluters but not to the environmental groups and to the public. A sneak preview on January 8, and no release to the environmental groups, no courtesy shown to them. They weren't called in and said: "Look, you instigated this. What do you think of it?" Only to the polluters — and the environmental groups got it on the same day as the general public, on January 22. An absolute disgrace!

HON. MR. MAIR: I rise to question the rather convoluted reasoning of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) — two points of order.

First of all, my intention, and the meaning intended in the letter that the member has quoted from and the remark from the Leader of the Opposition indicating that I did not regard myself as representing all the people of Kamloops, but just the Socreds — both of which points, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to clear up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no provision, Mr. Minister, unless you raise a valid point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: My point of order is this, with respect, Mr. Chairman.... I could speak on it, I suppose, just basically speaking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You rose on a point of order and I'm just waiting to hear your point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, perhaps in order to obviate any of those difficulties, Mr. Chairman, I would simply speak on the question of the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 48, the Minister of Consumer Services.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the letter which the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has quoted from I consider to be a very polite letter directed to Mr. Ellsay. I intended, certainly, no rudeness to him. I tried to point out to him very clearly that the problem he raised was not in my jurisdiction. It's true it was not. It was in the jurisdiction of the hon. Minister of Environment.

Both the salutation and the closing words were, I think, in the greatest of good form and politeness, and notwithstanding the fact that I personally do not agree with what Mr. Ellsay does in Kamloops in

[ Page 1835 ]

SPEC, I intended no disrespect and intended no rudeness to him, and I rather gather that he would not have taken it as being rude at all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, had I wanted to act as if I did not represent all the people in Kamloops, but only the Socreds, I would have acted as the previous administration had done and simply not bothered to answer the letter. I think people in Kamloops got something like four or five letters in three and a half years out of those people when they were in government. I answered the letter promptly, Mr. Chairman. I answered it in what I considered to be a fair and polite manner. I intended to be fair and polite, and I suggest that anyone who takes any other meaning from that has to put a convoluted meaning upon it which is not worthy of consideration by the members of this House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman, relative to the comments of the member for Prince Rupert. First of all, I'd like to advise the member that it would be my pleasure to table the report requested at the conclusion of tonight's proceedings, if you so desire.

MR. LEA: I couldn't hear. Somebody was talking.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I said it would be my pleasure to table the report you requested....

MR. LEA: I have that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, this was the first report, the one you spoke of. If it's your desire, I'll table it after the conclusion of tonight's session.

MR. LEA: I have that. I'm talking about the report that went to the January 8 meeting.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe you asked for the first report. You said you had the second report. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you. If you do not have it, maybe we could work this out and if you would like it....

MR. LEA: Oh! Is that report not the one I have?

HON. ME. NIELSEN: I don't know which one you have, I'm sorry. However....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My understanding was you were requesting a first report. This was the original report you referred to, I believe, and if you'd like to see it, I'll certainly table it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, perhaps we could solve this if we had the Page take the report across.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, not at the moment.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this Thompson River report, which has received a considerable amount of discussion in the House previously by way of questions and answers — if I could just offer a few comments based on information of research which has been provided me by my department staff. It says: "After review, a meeting was held on January 8, 1976, in the offices of the Environmental Protection Service in West Vancouver...." Minutes of the meeting, or at least a statement of the meeting.... The meeting was held January 8, and I'm not suggesting that the member for Prince Rupert is in error, but the mayor is not listed as having been in attendance.

MR. LEA: He said he was. The mayor said he was.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The representatives of the city of Kamloops as noted by these minutes are — now they could be wrong — Alderman Stocks and Mr. Nyberg, a city engineer, but that's a moot point.

"After a review, a meeting was held on January 8 in the offices of the Environmental Protection Service in West Vancouver. The meeting brought together the two principal dischargers named in the report, the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser, and the authors of the report and members of the study committee. Now the purpose of holding the meeting was: (1) To meet a commitment...

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to this!

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

...made in 1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops that the report would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents."

The commitment was made in 1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops that the report would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents.

One of the reasons for the meeting was to follow through with an obligation, apparently, which had been made previously, by as much as a year previously and perhaps longer than that. I don't know what the reasons were at that time.

The second point made: "It would permit the dischargers named in the report to clarify with the authors the meaning of various sections of the report" — perhaps it may be appreciated that a lot of the report is technical, and these people wanted to get together; at least they expressed a desire to get together as far back as 1974 to go over some of the

[ Page 1836 ]

technical jargon — "and to advise the dischargers as to the method by which the report's recommendations would be implemented" — namely on orders from the director of pollution control, issued under the jurisdiction of a provincial statute, which is the Pollution Control Act.

The meeting was not held in secret. The people who were invited to that meeting were responsible representatives of various agencies, the environmental protection service of the federal government, the pollution control branch of the B.C. government, the inland waters branch, Weyerhauser and Kamloops. There seemed to be very little out of order with such a meeting, particularly when we receive information that a promise had been made by the former government that the city of Kamloops would see the report prior to its release.

I have been advised, upon direct question, that the former minister was apparently aware of this consideration and commitment.

MR. LEA: Which former minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The former minister who would have been responsible for the Pollution Control Act — presumably the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams).

Now if the former minister had made that commitment, or if the former minister had permitted that commitment to be made by a deputy minister or someone else within the department, I see nothing particularly wrong with that type of commitment. Indeed, if the people who were the major polluters — and there was no secret as to who the major polluters were, even prior to the report being released — wanted an opportunity to speak to the technical people who were responsible for the report to have an opportunity of going over some of the technical information, I see that as nothing shocking or alarming.

If you would like to compare the two reports to see if some major changes were made, if alterations were made which perhaps gave Kamloops an advantage or Weyerhauser an advantage, I can make that report available to you. It's of some interest that the city of Kamloops has begun a study and have approved $20,000 to $50,000 plus labour to carry out some experimental work employing chemical additions to the lagoons to see if they can treat the problem, so progress is being made.

One of the reasons, I understand, or at least I am informed, there was some urgency in seeing that the polluters were aware of the situation was so they could get on with the job of trying to clean it up. But if you see anything sinister in this, then I suggest that it's something which has occurred within your own mind, and it would appear that things followed a very natural course going back as far as 1974 when the commitment was originally made.

If you feel that the minister responsible at that time or officials within the department at that time were perhaps in error to make such a commitment, that's fine. But the commitment was made and it was followed through. I see nothing sinister.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate it if the minister would.... I think we can check it — we don't have to do it formally — we can check and see if we have the same report. December, 1975, is on the report that I have — December 1, 1975, the letter of transmittal.

But I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, who authorized that the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser were both told that they would have a chance — Weyerhauser and Kamloops, or just the city of Kamloops? How was it done? Was it done by telephone? Was it done by letter? Who wrote the letter? Who made the telephone call? Was it done at a meeting? Who made the commitment?

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that January 8 was the time the meeting took place between Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops, Environment Canada and the pollution control branch. It seems to me that if the Minister of Environment didn't read from the correspondence of the Minister of Consumer Services that the environmental group shouldn't get it, there was ample time between January 8. It could have been in the afternoon of January 8, in the evening of January 8, on January 9, on January 10. In other words, the environmental groups could surely.... These were the groups that brought it to the attention of the government agencies. Surely these groups, the anglers along that river, the public at large, the environmental groups who took the ball, got it rolling, got government agencies concerned...and what happened? They were left out in the cold.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Environment, upon the wish of the Minister of Consumer Services, treated those environmental groups differently than he treated the polluters, he treated them differently that he did the polluters.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think perhaps I can explain something to the member opposite from my own knowledge as a citizen of Kamloops at the time and also as a member of the city council of Kamloops from July 1, 1973, through to the end of 1974.

The question of pollution of the Thompson River was hardly raised by SPEC. It was raised by everybody who had anything to do with the Thompson River and Kamloops Lake for years and years. SPEC was one of them. Quite properly, the

[ Page 1837 ]

governments got together for a study, no question about that at all. But I think the House should know that in July or August of 1973 members of the pollution control branch or certainly that department attended at city hall, at city council, and gave a verbal report to them. That report was also given at the same time to members of Weyerhauser who attended the meeting. It was an in-camera meeting and I attended it.

AN HON. MEMBER: January 8?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, no, this was back in 1973. This was when the first report came down, when the first findings were made. Now shortly thereafter, the federal people also gave a similar report to the members of city council and officials of Weyerhauser. If my recollection serves me correctly, Mr. Tom Rust, who was the president of Weyerhauser at that time, was at one or both of those two meetings.

Now at that time, you may recall, member opposite and for Prince Rupert, there was a schism between the federal government and the provincial government as to what the polluting causes were. As a matter of fact, it was not really a question of what the causes were, because everybody knew that it was the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser. It was a question of degree that they were split on and it was a question of degree of proof. I recall very well these two meetings. So there was nothing secret the whole way through. No secrets at all kept from these two particular groups — the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser, who by all logic were the only people who could possibly be responsible for this pollution.

Now it is quite true also, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members opposite, that during this whole time from the very beginning, Mr. Ellsay of SPEC insisted that he be brought into the picture on all of the findings of the committees, or committee, depending upon how they were getting along at the time. At all material times he was turned down on his requests to be brought into the picture. Whether that's right or wrong is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Ellsay was not kept in the picture, because he had no status in the matter, certainly throughout the time I was involved, which was July 1, 1973, through to the end of 1974.

So I hope that clarifies at least to this extent that there were certainly no secrets. Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops were kept abreast of the situation, and while, of course, I was not involved in the provincial government at the time, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some sort of verbal communication giving the findings was also communicated both to the city and to Weyerhauser during the course of these studies.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this is getting rather confusing. But I think at the same time we're getting a little bit of this straight, too.

I still contend that the Minister of Environment obviously thought that the Minister of Consumer Services wanted him to treat Mr. Ellsay in an offhand and cavalier manner. I'm asking the minister: did the Minister of Consumer Services ask you to treat Mr. Ellsay in a different way than other environmental groups or any others?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I can assure the member for Prince Rupert that no, certainly not, the Minister of Consumer Services, as MLA for the district, did not broach the subject relative to Mr. Ellsay. I don't know the day Mr. Ellsay was in my office, not that it is that important, but I have met with Mr. Ellsay and we've had some discussions. But, no, of course not. The information in the letters which you have read were recognition, acknowledgement of receiving his correspondence and so on.

I'd like to just stress once again, though, that it seems that the history of this report and the preliminary reports leading up to it go back farther than perhaps we realize to begin with. It would seem that there was some type of an ongoing understanding between the two governments and the major polluters in the Thompson River to continue some type of an ongoing study as the report progressed. I would take it that the January 8 meeting was one of the last of such meetings.

I stress once again that it followed a commitment which was made in 1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops — my notes do not say to Weyerhauser, but to the city of Kamloops — that the report would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents. The report's contents were quite technical, and my understanding is that the people who were responsible for the pollutant, major pollutants at least, wanted to understand precisely what was meant by the authors as to their technical references and so on. The arrangement was made. A meeting was made and they got together January 8, 1976, to discuss the report prior to its release to the general public.

MR. LEA: I think it is all clear now. I asked the Minister of Environment if he had been requested by the Minister of Consumer Services to treat Mr. Ellsay in a different manner than he would treat anyone else. The minister said he was not.

I now draw the committee's attention to a memorandum of January 21, 1976 to the Hon. James Nielsen, Minister of Environment:

"Jim,

If you have not found out already, you soon will find out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in dealing with

[ Page 1838 ]

him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will offend me or in any way compromise my position.

(signed)
K. Rafe Mair"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MR. LEA: Now how say you?

MR. SKELLY: Perfectly candid.

MR. LEA: Have you been perfectly candid?

AN HON. MEMBER: I beg your pardon?

MR. LEA: Have you been perfectly candid?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): With this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a proper question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: It's not a proper question? I have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether he had ever been requested by the Minister of Consumer Services to treat Don Ellsay in any other way than he would treat anyone else. He said he had not, yet there is this memorandum to the Minister of Environment from the Minister of Consumer Services. I will read it again if you didn't understand: "Jim, If you have not found out already, you soon will find out that Don Ellsay......

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I am sure that that has been pretty well canvassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. LAUK: What's going on here?

MR. LEA: I would like to make it perfectly clear.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'll start again.

"Jim,

"If you have not found out already you soon will find out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in dealing with him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will offend me or in any other way compromise my position.

(signed)
K. Rafe Mair,
Minister"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What was your question again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: You've already answered the question. You have already answered the question, Mr. Minister. For political reasons....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: For political reasons, Mr. Chairman, SPEC Kamloops was treated differently by the Minister of Environment at the request of the MLA who represents that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Verbal garbage!

MR. LEA: Not verbal.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Not verbal.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're twisting it because you can't read and understand English.

MR. LEA: I can read it. It says:

"Jim,

"If you have not found out already you soon will find out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in dealing with him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will offend me or in any other way compromise my position.

(signed)
K. Rafe Mair,
Minister"

HON, MR. NIELSEN: Where is the request you speak of?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. LEA: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Environment owes the members of this House an apology.

[ Page 1839 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes.

MR. LEA: He owes them an apology and the Minister of Consumer Services owes an apology to the entire province of British Columbia and everyone in it. What crass political nightmare is this? Because a person is NDP I suppose that they are going to be treated differently by this government even though that person is the president of an environmental group — even though that person is the president and a member of an environment group.

The Minister of Environment told me that he had not been requested by the Minister of Consumer Services to treat Don Ellsay in any other way than he would treat anyone normally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I read perfectly well, Mr. Chairman. I understand perfectly, I think, Mr. Chairman. I also understand that I used to listen to that minister when he was a hotliner and who prided himself that he was a fair man, that he was a truthful man.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Right. I remember one time listening when he said: "What about the Environment and Land Use Secretariat?" He said: "Secretariat — doesn't that sound communist to you?"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nonsense!

MR. LEA: You said it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you have a copy of the tape?

MR. LEA: I'll get it for you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nonsense!

MR. LEA: I understand things perfectly well, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nonsense! You haven't proved it.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that once again the Minister of Environment has misled this House. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, he has deliberately misled this House because he knew of the existence of this letter. He deliberately misled this House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LEA: ...and he deliberately misled the province of British Columbia. There are no two ways about it. He has misled deliberately this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you'll have to withdraw, please.

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Deliberately misled" — please withdraw.

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw that the minister has deliberately misled this House and that he has deliberately misled the people of this province. I will not withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should resign!

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw it. He deliberately misled this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please be seated. I order you to withdraw "deliberately misled."

MR. KING: On a point of order, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Prince Rupert has related the undisputed facts, facts which appear in the handwriting of the two ministers concerned. Under the circumstances....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry. No way.

MR. KING: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I think that the facts are clear, They are clear to the members of this House; they are clear to the public of British Columbia. The ministers stand indicted by their own handwriting, by their own....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated.

MR. KING: By their own memo, Mr. Chairman, where they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated, Hon. Member.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that when the ministers are indicted by their own memo, then the....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[ Page 1840 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. Will the hon. member for Prince Rupert withdraw the words "deliberately misled"? Kindly do, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I will not withdraw the truth. He deliberately misled this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. The Speaker has been called, Hon. Member. Please be seated.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during debate the member for Prince Rupert accused the Minister of Environment of deliberately misleading this House. I asked that the member withdraw this remark. On refusal, I further ordered him to withdraw. He again refused. I am therefore reporting this matter to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members, as I understand the matter which has been placed before me, in the course of debate, just before I assumed the chair, the hon. member for Prince Rupert, in speaking in debate, accused the hon. Minister of the Environment of deliberately misleading the House. I also understand from the remarks of the Chairman that the hon. member for Prince Rupert was asked not once, but more than once, to withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House."

I now say to the hon. member for Prince Rupert that he is as aware of the rules of the House as anyone. He also must be aware that the accusation of deliberately misleading the House is offensive to the members of the House and constitutes unparliamentary words.

I would therefore ask the hon. member to reconsider his position and withdraw the phrase "deliberately misleading the House."

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you, of course, as Speakers have pointed out before, have no knowledge of what took place in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have knowledge of what was reported to me by the Chairman.

MR. LEA: I would like to inform Mr. Speaker of exactly what did happen in committee, so that he may judge whether he should indeed even ask me to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I must advise you that while it is a fact that the Speaker has no knowledge of what happened in committee except that which is reported to him, that is not now a matter of debate. The Chairman has performed his duty, as it appeared to him and as he is bound to do by the rules of this House, in that he has asked you to withdraw a phrase used in debate, the phrase being "deliberately misleading the House," and it was a phrase that was applied to the hon. Minister of Environment in debate.

I have a duty to perform also, and now that that....

MR. KING: The minister should resign.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter now, Hon. Member, that the report has been made to the Chair. I must ask you to reconsider your position, as an hon. member of this House, and withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House."

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I say that if I were to do that I would be lying to this House. I have no intention of doing that.

The minister deliberately misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, as a matter of the rules by which I am bound, as well as yourself, and as Speaker of this House, I now order you to withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House."

MR. LEA: I won't lie to this Legislature. He deliberately misled the House. I won't lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not a matter of skating around the words or the implication. I think you are aware yourself, as I am, of the seriousness of the charge. I now order you to withdraw those words.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize the difficulty in Speakers not being aware of the debate in committee, and I also understand the respect with which the Speaker must hold the Chairman of committee. At the same time, there may be — and there is precedent for this — some occasion for the Speaker to call for the Hansard record of the debate below, and determine whether or not the hon. member is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

It appeared from the debate in committee that certain memorandums were passed between ministers

[ Page 1841 ]

which were denied....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! We can't enter into a debate, Hon. Member, as you know.

MR. LAUK: I'm only trying to be helpful to you, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I realize that, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...if there can be some way that we can avoid a confrontation. The member obviously is of the opinion that he cannot, in all honesty, withdraw the allegation when the minister denied the existence of a communication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter before the House is the use of unparliamentary words which were offensive to the members of the House as hon. members. The unparliamentary words are: "deliberately misleading the House."

I give you one more opportunity, Hon. Member, to withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House."

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of trying to solve the dilemma, and in the interests of trying to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, perhaps I might remind the House — not you, Mr. Speaker, of course, but so that things are put in their proper perspective and perhaps the member can therefore withdraw — that the suggestion was that Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a matter of entering into debate on what was said on the floor of the House when the Speaker was not present. It's a matter now of the Speaker determining, under the rules of this House, what must be done.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm only concerned that the member for Prince Rupert may have misunderstood the sequence of events and therefore not be fully cognizant of all of the facts, and therefore not able to withdraw where perhaps he would if he did know all of the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm only doing it in the interest of decorum, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that perhaps he might have misinterpreted the sequence of events and that my helping him may assist the House in this dilemma.

MR. SPEAKER: Regardless of what may have been said while the House was in committee — and I realize that at times tempers rise in this House, with and without provocation, and as I was not present I cannot comment on that and I don't intend to — I am very clear on the rules and the duty of the Speaker and I am very clear on what the rules are in this House. The rules are that the words "deliberately misleading the House," as applied to another hon. member, are offensive and unparliamentary words. I must now order the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw those words.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, again with regret, I will not lie: he deliberately misled this Legislature. He deliberately did it and there's no doubt about it. It can be proven in Hansard and there's no doubt about it. If I were to withdraw, I would be lying and deliberately misleading this House. I will not do it.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, Hon. Member, I must act in accordance with standing order 20 in our standing orders as contained on page 5 of those standing orders, because of the fact that we are all bound by the rules of this House. It is clear to the Speaker that the refusal by the hon. member to withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House" is grossly disorderly.

I ask you to withdraw immediately for the remainder of this sitting.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order on this particular matter, Hon. Member. It is a matter of the Speaker doing the duty that's assigned to him by all members of the House.

MR. LAUK: I think Mr. Speaker is mistaken. I don't think Mr. Speaker has the power under standing order 20. I would argue that where the impugned conduct of the member occurs, it is incumbent upon the presiding officer to take such action. Standing order 20 clearly indicates that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day's sitting. This action should have taken place by the Chairman. It is shown clearly under standing order 20.

Perhaps Mr. Speaker is thinking about some other power that he may have.

MR. SPEAKER: No, Hon. Member. Please be seated.

MR. LAUK: I have a second point of order. The second point is that clearly this is not a gross disorderly conduct on the part of the member, and should not require such action.

[ Page 1842 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is the opinion of the Speaker, upheld by any jurisdiction you would care to name, that the words "deliberately misleading the House" are offensive and unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: You haven't even read the transcript so you don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: Those are the words that were reported to me by the Chairman of committee.

My duty is clear, Hon. Member. I must ask you, because of your refusal to withdraw those words, to withdraw from the House for the remainder of today's sitting.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): A point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the report of the Chairman....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no further discussion.

MR. NICOLSON: It was done improperly, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, the matter has been concluded.

AN HON. MEMBER: The innocent hang and the guilty go unpunished.

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

On vote 48: minister's office, $114,053 — continued.

HON. MR. MAIR: If I understand the Leader of the Opposition just prior to this unpleasantness, he accused me of standing indicted, which I assume means that I have done something wrong.

MR. KING: Not in your mind.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I haven't done it in anybody's mind. It's because you will not look at the facts. Mr. Chairman, if I may very briefly relate the circumstances. It was objected to that SPEC was not invited to a meeting on January 8 because of some interference by me. On January 21, a memo, the authorship of which I do not deny, was sent to my....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, are you speaking to a point of order or....

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I am. My conduct has been called into.... It has been suggested that I stand indicated. I can only assume that means that I have committed some wrong.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, I believe you are entering into a debate. If you have a point of order, please state it or speak to vote 48.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I call a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation that I have committed anything that I should be indicted for or anything wrong at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, are you imputing any improper motives to the minister?

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am imputing improper representation of the member's riding and his constituents. I take from the memo where the Minister of Consumer Services clearly indicates that because a man is a member of the New Democratic Party that he cares nought if his colleague, the Minister of Environment, ignores him and represents him in any way he chooses. There'll be no problem with the MLA for Kamloops. I think that that is a crassly political position for any member of the Legislature to take. Every member, once he is elected....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please, you may not impute an improper motive to any member of this House. You know that full well.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there's certainly a right in this Legislature to impute improper and ineffective and politically inspired misrepresentation of a riding. Now that is certainly nothing that abridges the legal conduct or the rules of this House that I am aware of. There are some members who are capable of representing their constituents in an effective and impartial way. There are others, and in this case, by the minister's own admission....

You are asking me for a statement. I wish you would let me make it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please, if you are talking about the actions of an hon. member of this House, you may not impute an improper motive. You understand that.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty in finding it correct and acceptable to me that a

[ Page 1843 ]

member would write a memo to his colleague suggesting that because one is a member of an opposing political party, he does not care how they treat it. By a minister of the Crown! If that is not improper conduct in terms of representation, then I don't know what it is. That's the most blatant, scandalous thing I've ever heard in this Legislature, and certainly he is indicted by the memo which he wrote and which was read in the House by the hon. member for Prince Rupert. Now that's the fact that has been laid before this House. In terms of any illegal conduct or anything of that nature, I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting pretty shoddy representation of one's constituents. I want to get on to the vote, Mr. Chairman, so I can expand on this. This is a scandalous revelation in this House tonight.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned with the Leader of the Opposition's opinion of memoranda I may have sent. I am concerned with his statement that my conduct was indictable, or words to that effect. I stood indicted before this House. Now the memorandum he takes offence at was sent long after the events which gave rise to the outburst by the member from Prince Rupert. Whether or not the memorandum itself is impolite, improper in the sense of being not in accordance with the common wording of memoranda, is not the point. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition says I stand indicted, and it's those words I wish to have withdrawn. He can have whatever opinion he wants of the memo. I told the House right off the bat before that memo came before the House, Mr. Chairman, that I didn't think very highly of Mr. Ellsay. I made that perfectly plain. That memo does nothing more than fortify that statement. The fact is that he's NDP is the best that can be said for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we continue, hon. members on both sides of the House have been using intemperate language tonight, and it would be more beneficial to the business of this House if we could modify our language, get back to the spirit of the vote and carry on with debate.

MR. KING: Yes, on the minister's vote, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a number of calm observations to make. I want to say that as Leader of the official Opposition I certainly regret what has occurred tonight. I regret that the House has been somewhat unruly, but in all seriousness, with the kind of memoranda that the Minister of Consumer Services wrote to his colleague, the Minister of Environment, and as revealed in this House, which has a latent suggestion that because of one's political views they should be treated in another way — that is the only conclusion that can be drawn — then it is a matter of grave concern. I find it small wonder that tempers rise and the words fail at times in terms of describing that kind of reprehensible conduct. I find that....

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KING: It certainly is reprehensible, and Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: Perhaps the most frustrating part of this whole exercise so far, aside from the fact that my colleague from Prince Rupert was asked to withdraw from the House for stating what he believed to be a fact.... Perhaps the second most distressing factor is that neither minister involved seems to find anything improper or untoward about the kind of memoranda that went back and forth with respect to the president of an important organization in Kamloops.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What back and forth?

MR. KING: Well, there was certainly a memo going one way. Perhaps it wasn't answered. The ministers claim they answer their mail and I had assumed that perhaps the Minister of Consumer Services would have found a response. Perhaps that's not the case.

This is a very disturbing revelation, and I am sure that every member of the House, including the government backbenchers, is concerned to find a minister of the Crown — two ministers of the Crown — indulging in the kind of internal memoranda which can only be interpreted by any responsible-minded person as failing to give credence to an important community organization such as SPEC, an integral organ in terms of protecting the environment in this province, which the Minister of Environment is responsible to do also.

Where he should be seeking the cooperation and welcoming the dialogue of those groups, here he is receiving confidential, secret memoranda from his colleague saying: "Look, treat this man in any way because he's NDP." I think this is an absolutely sad day for politics in British Columbia. Absolutely sad.

I reiterate, the most startling, the most sorry commentary on that government and on those ministers is that they apparently find nothing wrong with that kind of an approach to politics in 1976. A sad day for B.C. politics, to say nothing of the fact that the Minister of Environment, in response to the

[ Page 1844 ]

member for Prince Rupert's question, specifically and unequivocally denied that he had received any representation from his colleague the Minister of Consumer Services — specifically denied that. And I'm not going to reflect on the minister's integrity or on his motivation. But it leaves me speechless in terms of describing that kind of conduct by an hon. member of this House. I would think that both of those ministers, the Attorney-General and the government are going to give long and serious thought to developments in this House tonight.

I would point out that under circumstances much less serious than this, hon. members of other parliaments have deemed that the proper and the respectful thing to do to parliament is resign their seats on the cabinet benches in situations like this. However, I leave that to the reflection of the members involved. They are the ones who must live with themselves.

I want to make one last point, Mr. Chairman, and it was a statement made by the Minister of Environment when he was clarifying a statement attributed to him by the Vancouver Sun, which was previously raised by the member for Prince Rupert. The minister got up and said: "Well, that was somewhat out of context. The fact that I was quoted as saying....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Do you remember what Barrett said about the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, the facts of one case certainly do not justify another.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You remember that one.

MR. KING: I certainly remember it, and I want to say that the vociferous Liberals of that day, of which I believe the Attorney-General was a member, were determined to use unparliamentary language, to be continually day after day expelled from the House, in the interests of their indignant quest for justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I want to say: where is that tonight? Where is that sense of propriety tonight?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: The Attorney-General sits there in the comfortable coalition...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: ...and has forgotten his principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Could we move to vote 48?

Interjections.

MR. KING: The comfortable pew — and I refer to it as in church pew. (Laughter.) It seems that the Attorney-General is quite flexible; he's able to adjust his principles to accommodate power wherever it resides, even if it is in a coalition of questionable makeup, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member....

MR. KING: I'm being interrupted Mr. Chairman. Protect my right to make my point here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask you to....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Call this House to order. Everyone is always picking on poor old King!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Back to vote 48.

MR. KING: That minister got up and said: "I want to correct the statement attributed to me in the Sun where after the last federal election I was quoted as saying that in order to win elections, or in order to survive in politics" — I forget the exact wording — "you have to be somewhat dishonest and less than frank."

Interjections.

MR. KING: "You can't be candid and frank; the people don't want you to be that way, " the Minister said. The minister made that statement, and then he clarified it by saying: "Well, I didn't really say that. I said: 'If you want to be elected, you can't be completely honest and frank.'" Now that's what the minister rose and said tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question, and my question is very simple. If we are to draw the conclusion from that statement that he lost the federal election in 1974 because in essence he was too honest and frank, I want to ask the minister what conclusions this House should draw from his success at the polls last December 11. I'd like to hear the minister's answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, the answer to your question is the ineffectiveness of the NDP candidate in Richmond.

[ Page 1845 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, Mr. Minister. On vote 48, please!

MR. KING: Are we to believe that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer Services.

HON. MR. MAIR: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that there is a smile on the Leader of the Opposition's face. He seems to be feeling a little better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, we are on vote 48.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's move to the subject at hand, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, Mr. Chairman, if you will, I would just like to clarify a sequence of events that has troubled the opposition concerning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this on vote 48?

HON. MR. MAIR: Concerning vote 48 — yes, it is.ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must keep the debate strictly to the matter at hand. It is vote 48.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is dealing specifically with issues raised by the opposition....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed on vote 48.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would just like to point out a sequence of events, Mr. Chairman — I will be very, very brief — just so that the record is perfectly clear. January 8 was a meeting between the City of Kamloops, Weyerhauser and the people responsible for the report. On January 21, 13 days after that, a memo, the authorship of which I freely admit, was sent by myself to the Minister of Environment. That memo was sent in connection with a meeting I knew was going to take place between Mr. Ellsay and the minister on February 6 next. It had nothing to do with the meeting on January 8 which caused so much difficulty. I thought the record should be clarified in that respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, there is more at issue here than simply a memo and a sequence of events. What we are talking about is the Thompson River-Fraser River drainage, a system which the Minister of Environment should have full responsibility for in this province — the very lifeblood, the very living artery of this province.

Mr. Chairman, that member, when he was first interviewed by the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times when he became a minister, said that he was interested.... One of the quotes from him — I don't know if he will dispute this or not — was that he was interested in political history of the world from 1800 to the present. He should know the history, the political economy, the social value and the environmental value of that Thompson-Fraser River system which is, as I say, the living artery of this province.

The gold rush, the millions of dollars of gold that were taken from that river system — the very reason this province was created as a political entity in the first place was because those people came seeking gold on the Fraser-Thompson system. The value of fisheries from that river system...$37 million, Mr. Chairman, net value from that system in any one year. It's $37 million net value to this province from fisheries, a fact that that member should be quite concerned about as Minister of Environment. Agriculture — his own riding was deposited from effluvial soil brought down by that river over the past 18,000 years. The people he represents live on the deposits made from that river system.

The reason the task force was set up in the first place — the reason why those citizen groups, rod and gun groups, fish and wildlife groups — the reason the city of Kamloops and other people got together to demand a federal-provincial task force on the algal growth in the river and the putrefaction of Kamloops Lake was that they feared that that river system was dying. A task force was established.

The member for Prince Rupert documented the events that led up to the publication of the summary report of that task force. But the fact he was talking about was that instead of releasing that report to members of the public at the same time as to the polluters involved, the people who authored the task force report — in fact, only some of the people who authored the task force report...some were not present at that meeting. According to the published report, a representative of the fish and wildlife branch of the province and a representative of the federal fisheries branch were not represented at that meeting on January 8. Some of the authors of that report were represented. Both the polluters were represented and the pollution control branch was represented — interesting that all the authors were not there.

In the material tabled by the minister it shows that two of the authors were left out, and in addition — and this is the most surprising part — in the minister's

[ Page 1846 ]

statement in reply to a question by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the authors — and I suppose the pollution control branch and the polluters — agreed to changes in the report at that secret meeting on January 8. They agreed to changes in a report done by a federal task force in a secret meeting between the pollution control branch, the authors of the report and the people involved in the pollution, Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops.

To quote from the minister's reply to the member for Prince Rupert: "The authors agreed clarification of certain sections was required prior to final printing, which was done by the Queen's Printer in late January, 1976." In other words, the report that was presented was changed, not with the input of the people who were concerned about the environment in the area, not with the input of the citizens of Kamloops, with the members of those rod and gun clubs, with environmental groups such as the one led by Don Ellsay. They weren't present; they weren't invited to that meeting. The only people present at that meeting were the polluters, the pollution control branch and some of the authors of that report.

Now whether or not the timing of the minister's memo is in doubt here, I think it is not the timing that's really a matter of question. The very fact that the representative of Kamloops, whose citizens had demanded this task force in the first place, whose rod and gun clubs had demanded that this task force take place, who were concerned about the death of Kamloops Lake, who were concerned about the pollution of the whole Thompson-Fraser River system...they were not represented, and he didn't care about their being represented. In fact, he said in his memo.... And whether he said it on January 21, 1976 in writing or whether he said it before, I think the minister does stand indicted, not because of the memo or the timing of the memo but because of his attitude to pollution on the Thompson-Fraser River system and Kamloops Lake.

The real reason for the indictment is that he is not concerned about the environment. That doesn't seem to bother him at all. He's only concerned about the political affiliation of the member who, at that time, was president of SPEC. He said in his memo: "Jim, if you've not found out already, you soon will find out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside."

That minister, Mr. Chairman, seems to have a fetish about backsides. When he's not kicking people in the backside, he seems to feel that they are a pain in the backside — some people from his own constituency who express strong concern about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are you discussing the minister under whose responsibility vote 48 comes?

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying, Mr. Chairman.... I am discussing the minister under whose office vote 48 comes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask the member to return to vote 48 and the minister who has the responsibility for vote 48.

MR. SKELLY: We are considering vote 48, Mr. Chairman, and I'm referring these remarks specifically to vote 48.

It appears to me that the attitude of the Social Credit government concerning the environment is not whether the Thompson River system was polluted, whether there was danger to the Thompson-Fraser system, whether Kamloops Lake was in danger of being putrefied and dying. The fact that they were concerned about that was that one of the major people involved in defending this river system from pollution, in defending the lake from putrefaction, was a member of the NDP and therefore the Minister of Environment shouldn't pay any attention to him at all. What kind of minister is that? What kind of a representative for Kamloops do they have? What kind of a Minister of Environment do we have if he's willing to take this kind of a memo from the Minister of Consumer Services? What defence has he offered? What happened as a result of February 6 last?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, with all respect, I do not believe that it is under the control of the Minister of Environment to edit memos coming from another minister's office. Therefore let's return quickly to discussing vote 48.

MR. SKELLY: There was an attempt, Mr. Chairman, to influence the Minister of Environment by referring to the political affiliation of somebody who had expressed grave concern over the poisoning of the Thompson River-Kamloops Lake area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then if this is your opinion, I would suggest, Hon. Member, that perhaps this issue should be taken up either under the estimates or under a bill sponsored by the minister in charge or perhaps by substantive motion. But perhaps now we could go to vote 48 and the Minister of Environment.

MR, SKELLY: We will ask the Minister of Environment what were the results of the meeting on February 6 with SPEC and in particular with Don Ellsay.

What action does he plan to take on the report of the task force on the Kamloops Lake-Thompson River system? Was the minister influenced by the politics of the people in environmental and rod and gun groups who made representations to him and were excluded from private meetings between the polluters, the pollution control branch and the

[ Page 1847 ]

federal Department of the Environment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The specific reference to the meeting of February 6, the meeting which included Mr. Don Ellsay, had been requested by the SPEC organization and they brought with them several representatives from different regions of the province, including Kamloops and Mr. Ellsay. We had a long discussion. They presented a brief, not relating specifically to any one river but relating to various areas of interest within the province of British Columbia, which we discussed and they presented. I thought we had a reasonably good discussion for a period of time — I think it was about an hour or an hour and a half — and Mr. Ellsay was there at that time. We had a pretty good discussion, I think, a pretty frank discussion.

The confusion over these reports perhaps may be somewhat understandable in that the people who were preparing them...

MR. KING: The understatement of the year!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...the people who were preparing them, the technical people particularly, the authors so-called, worked with other persons who were involved in providing information for this, the information given to me. The authors agreed that clarification of certain sections was required prior to final printing, which was done by the Queen's Printer.

I would like to offer an example of the alterations which were made, or the changes. In the original draft, on page 9, the last sentence read: "Colour increases as great as 30 times background were noted during extremely low river flows." The final report used the sentence: "Maximum colour increases occur during extremely low river flows." Now I don't know what the political ramifications of such an alteration are. It seems to be a political problem tonight.

On page 13 of the report there were two other alterations from the preliminary report to the final report. Reading from the first report it says: "Maximum allowable phosphorus releases throughout the year are provided in the Canada Centre for Inland Waters technical report." The final release said: "The option of a variable schedule for waste water phosphorus release that is related to the physical dynamics of Kamloops Lake is recommended for consideration in the Canada Centre for Inland Waters technical report."

MR. LAUK: Excuse me, Mr. Minister, the committee is not in session. The Chairman is not in his chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm glad you brought that to my attention.

That was on page 13, as I mentioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to the head of the class, Gary.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A paragraph which read: "Fish tainting agents should be identified and removed from the major point...."

MR. SKELLY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you not wish an answer to your question and concern?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 48, please continue.

MR. SKELLY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Possibly the minister could facilitate the actions of the committee by tabling the original report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. You cannot table items in committee and the member knows that.

Vote 48, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, they've dragged this out. I think it's only proper that they listen to some of the explanations and perhaps the answers.

A sentence within the first preliminary report said: "Fish tainting agents should be identified and removed from the major point source discharges — Weyerhauser Canada Ltd. and the city of Kamloops — to the Thompson River system." The final report said: "Studies should be initiated to identify and remove fish-tainting agents from the major point source dischargers — Weyerhauser Canada Ltd. and the city of Kamloops — to the Thompson River system." I think there was one word added to that.

These were the changes which occurred in this report. That's all the commotion has been about tonight. Those are the changes which occurred in the report. They were recommended by the persons who wrote the report upon discussions with other persons who were responsible for the polluting, apparently. They felt that this perhaps might be better understood — at least, that's the explanation given. So much for the great saga of the Thompson River report, perhaps.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the great saga of the Thompson River isn't over, although I suspect that under a Social Credit government it possibly could be.

It's interesting that one of the admissions that was dragged out, to use the minister's words, was that none of the people involved in the environmental groups were represented at that meeting on January 8 — only the polluters and only the authors of the report and only the pollution control branch. Now that's not necessarily political.

[ Page 1848 ]

Another thing is that one of these sentences which the minister quoted — and I hope he'll make the report public — before it was amended by the polluters in consultation with the government offices involved.... One of the sentences he quoted was that "emissions at the source," which is Weyerhauser in Kamloops — and I'm sorry I didn't get the exact wording but I hope you'll table the document later in the House — "emissions at the source which taint fish should be removed" was changed to "studies should be implemented to look at fish-tainting emissions from Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops outfalls." I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I would appreciate it if the minister would take that report in the House when the time comes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just to facilitate this very, very quickly — and I'm not trying to pursue it to the point of being ridiculous — the first report did say: "Fish-tainting agents should be identified and removed." The second said: "Studies should be initiated to identify and remove fish-tainting agents." So it's a play on words, perhaps.

While we're on this incredible debate this evening, I think perhaps it may be of some interest and I believe a member did ask what were the results of that meeting with SPEC in my office I believe on February 6. A letter from SPEC addressed to myself said:

"This is to thank you and Mr. Mair for meeting with us February 6 in Victoria. There are many environmental problems facing B.C. The task you have is a formidable one. We look forward to working with you on them.

Mike Jesson,
President"

I might add that the communications with SPEC and representations from that organization seem to be on a pretty reasonable basis. I'm not aware that we've had any major confrontation with these organizations so far, and I look forward to continued good relations with these people, even though we may not at all times be able to agree fully on all matters.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, on another issue other than the Thompson, I appreciate hearing the reply that SPEC wrote to the minister as a result of their meeting on February 6. It appears that they're not all political hacks, kooks, nuts and other epithets that were applied to them by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair).

One of the main problems with the minister's office about which I am particularly concerned is the administration and operation of the pollution control branch. There have been many suggestions on this side of the House over the years concerning the operation of that branch and many criticisms of the manner in which the PCB carried out its functions and enforces the Pollution Control Act.

One of the problems which appears to occur is the very close relationship between the pollution control branch, their employees and the polluters in this province. I think a perfect example is the one that was brought up tonight regarding the results of a secret meeting between polluters, the branch and the task force participants. There appears to be a more than cosy relationship between the pollution control branch and polluters in this province. It's not a new problem, especially under a Social Credit government.

Mr. Chairman, under the previous Social Credit government — that is, the one that existed before the NDP beefed up the Environment and Land Use Committee, the fish and wildlife branch, the Land Commission and other environmental protection agencies of this province — the relationship between resource management agencies of the province and resource users in British Columbia appeared to be far too cosy for comfort. When plans were brought up to exploit a certain resource, say timber, the timber companies seemed to have a back-door access to the government. Plans were presented to the Forest Service or to the government. They were virtually approved in principle before being referred to other environmental agencies, and as a result we have an emphasis on a single-resource policy rather than a multiple-use policy which used to be the words mouthed by the previous Social Credit government, with the consequence that we had a loss of things like water purity, wildlife numbers in the province, and lands that were of high recreational value such as parklands, to mineral and timber exploitation.

In the case of the Pollution Control Board I am told by environmental groups that this is still the case. In spite of the regulations under the Pollution Control Act, specifically regulation 4, the polluters meet with PCB personnel on an informal basis long before they make an application for a permit. In many cases contaminant levels are established on an informal basis between PCB personnel and the polluters before any application is made.

Regulation 4 under the Pollution Control Act states that when an application is made, immediate notification must go to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and several other ministers concerned with pollution of the air, land and water in the province. But because of the fact that informal discussion takes place between PCB employees and polluters in this province, the other agencies are not informed until it's virtually a fait accompli that contaminant levels are established and an agreement in principle has been reached between the Pollution Control Board and the polluters in the province who are dumping contaminants into the air, land and water of British Columbia.

[ Page 1849 ]

As a result, the polluters have an advantage over other resource agencies and environmental groups who are seeking to protect habitat in the province and who are seeking to protect the purity of land and water in the province and the air of the province and to protect recreation lands — and also environmental sections of the federal and provincial governments.

So these people have an advantage over resource-protection agencies because they have the open door to the pollution control branch and are able to discuss informally contaminant levels before application is made. In other words, the relationship between the polluters of the province and the pollution control branch are far too cosy for comfort, and that's the reason why we have such a high level of pollution in the air, land and water of this province. When the minister responds to that I hope he'll comment on the problem, because it's an extremely important one from the point of view of those whose duty it is to protect the environment, as opposed to those who seek to minimize the operating costs in degrading it.

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that in the news recently there was an article about the pollution prosecution in other states. The specific one I'm referring to is the Reserve Mining case in Minnesota, where Reserve Mines Ltd. was dumping taconite and mine tailings into Silver Bay in Lake Superior. The penalties under the Pollution Control Act in the state of Minnesota are $10,000 maximum per day for every day that the offence continues. In our Act, section 20, the penalties, upon summary conviction, are fines of not exceeding $1,000, three months imprisonment, or $500 for every day that the offence takes place. It seems to me that as the result of these very low penalties, in comparison with the penalties imposed in other states, polluters in British Columbia virtually have a licence to pollute in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why didn't you change it?

MR. SKELLY: You're the government. Why don't you change it? What are your proposals?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read the reports of the Reserve Mining case. I got in touch with the special assistant to the Attorney-General of the state of Minnesota, who is responsible for prosecuting pollution control cases, and just examined the penalties that were imposed on the Reserve Mining Co. in Lake Superior for the dumping of mine tailings into that lake.

For dumping mine tailings into the lake over a period of about 300 days, the fine was $837,000 — $2,500 a day for each day of the offence. The maximum penalty provided under that Act, as I stated before, is $10,000. The judge also imposed sanctions against the company of $200,000 to recompense the state of Minnesota and other environmental groups in that state, similar to SPEC, for legal costs they incurred in prosecuting the Reserve Mining Co. In addition, Reserve Mining Co. was forced to pay the cost of waterworks in Duluth, which they were forced to install in order to purify their water system as a result of the contamination of the lake by Reserve Mining Co.

In fact, compared to penalties imposed in the U.S., imposed in Japan, imposed in other countries, and compared to the energy and efficiency of the pollution control boards or environmental protection agencies in those states in prosecuting pollution control offences, we do virtually nothing in this province. In fact, questions were continually asked by members of the New Democratic opposition before we became government in 1972: how many penalties, how many prosecutions were imposed under the Pollution Control Act of 1967? Over a five-year period, one was reported. Over the last three years, when the NDP was in office, that was increased 12 to 15.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Would you like me to answer?

MR. SKELLY: Okay, if you'd like to answer, sure.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in a somewhat gracious mood, I must say that I concur with the member for Alberni that the fines should be increased. It may be of some general interest that the fines have not been increased since the Act was first brought in in 1967. I don't know why your government didn't increase them, but I suppose there were other things to do. I think that's an excellent point and I'll certainly look into that very rapidly.

The prosecutions, of interest again — we have initiated five prosecutions in this fiscal year. Apparently the records are kept in the fiscal year — five prosecutions in the 1976-77 fiscal year; 1975-76, 13 prosecutions; 1974-75, 16 prosecutions; 1973-74, 9 prosecutions; 1972-73, 6 prosecutions.

The people of Duluth are to be congratulated in some of their decisions, and I trust that the courts of our land have proper penalties available to them to follow suit. It would be interesting to perhaps get a copy of their fines and how they go about it, for some type of viewing. But I do agree with the member for Alberni that the fines do seem to be somewhat permissive — $1,000 and then a continuing fine for a period of time. We'll certainly take your consideration under advisement.

MR. SKELLY: Just a few final questions that I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment before

[ Page 1850 ]

carrying on with his vote, and one is that I mentioned a kind of cosy relationship between the polluters of the province and those who are empowered or established, implemented by the government to impose pollution control regulations. It seems that those people have an engineering orientation rather than an environmental orientation. Hopefully with the change of the name in the department and the promise of the Premier before the election to do away with the pollution control branch and to operate through a Department of Environment, this engineering orientation rather than an environmental orientation will be turned around as well.

I'm pleased to see that the minister is stepping up prosecutions that he's taking into consideration increases in fines and increases in maximum penalties that will provide disincentives to pollute. I understand that people from the Westwater Institute have met with the minister over the past five months to discuss this very fact on the north arm of the Fraser, which is severely polluted according to Westwater, and they have demanded higher penalties in order to discourage the dumping of toxic chemicals into the Fraser River, which, as I said before, is the most important river system of the province.

Another thing is that it seems to be possible for polluters to bypass the whole prosecution process by submitting letters called "official notification" to the pollution control branch regional offices whenever they are exceeding the permitted contaminant levels. So all they have to do when they are exceeding the level of contaminants is to send a letter down to the pollution control branch, giving the reasons why they are exceeding the permitted contaminant levels, and they are not prosecuted at all.

Part of the reason I think, is the sloppy attitude and the cosy relationship between the pollution control branch and the polluters that allows this type of relationship to carry on. Every time permit levels are increased there should be a penalty imposed to prevent the pollution of our waterways, our air and our land in this province, and far too often companies the size of Cominco, of MacMillan Bloedel.... There are many cases I can think of. The PCB files were open to the public under the NDP, and many cases of official notifications did come to light as a result of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's just drop the level of the noise in the House so the member can be heard.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to see some change in that procedure so the official notification system, which is really a bypass of the penalty system, can be changed and financial sanctions imposed on polluters who do exceed their contaminant levels.

Another thing that environmentalists complain about all the time is the fact that the pollution control branch drags its feet. All you have to do in order to get the right to pollute a river in this province is to apply for a permit, and while the branch is dealing with the permit over a three- or four-year period, you can dump effluent in the river to any extent that you please. So if somebody complains about the effluent, you then apply for a permit, and it eliminates grounds for complaint because the people will write to the pollution control branch and get a letter in reply saying the permit is under consideration and nothing will be imposed until the permit has been considered.

It seems as if the branch has been dragging their feet on the issuing of permits time and time again, and I would like to hear what the minister's response is to that.

I asked the Minister of Environment questions relating to (1) official notifications. There seems to be a way of getting around prosecutions. By making an official notification to the regional office by letter, companies or permitees can exceed permit levels of contaminants, simply by officially notifying the Pollution Control Board that they are doing so and giving the reasons.

Is he planning to step up action against polluters who seem to be getting around the Act and around the penalty provisions of the Act time and time again by these letters of official notification? It seems that the prosecutions of the branch are sloppy, that they don't really go after polluters, and I think, as I said before, this is the result of a cosy relationship between the PCB and the polluters themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know, that's a pretty strong accusation.

MR. SKELLY: It is a strong accusation. Also the accusation of foot-dragging on the part of PCB in processing permits while allowing polluters to dump effluent into rivers or into the air; and I wonder what the minister plans to do about this.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not necessarily agreeing witESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)h the comments from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). The cosy thing, I suppose, sounds something improper. Certainly the members of the pollution control branch and polluters and other persons have a relationship of some kind where they can communicate. That wouldn't necessarily mean it is cosy; certainly I wouldn't suggest it is improper.

The concept that a person may notify their intent does not necessarily mean that they would not be prosecuted. It may be that, something may be occurring and for a period of time or a specific occurrence they may be violating a permit. Perhaps in the past this has been regarded as all right if they were notified, but it does not necessarily avoid prosecutions. We are giving great consideration to

[ Page 1851 ]

modifications within the pollution control branch to see that necessary action is taken so that the persons responsible can do several things, one of which is to move much quicker than they can now under the legislation.

The legislation in part outlines a plan of procedure which the director is to follow. Some of it suggests that his actions are unnecessarily held up because the person who is believed to be responsible for pollution is to be advised of the condition and requested to upgrade his facilities and so on. This seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic and holds up actually solving the problem. Certainly we are giving consideration to try and move in much quicker so a person responsible, such as the director, may go in and say: "Let's get this stopped now rather than go through a bunch of paper procedure." Certainly we will give consideration to this.

MR. SKELLY: Just departing for a moment from the pollution control branch, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about a broader concern that has been brought up recently by development of a parallel runway at Vancouver airport to accommodate additional traffic at the airport over the years. Meetings have been held recently, one by the fishermen's union in April in New Westminster. There has been a task force report into the developments at Vancouver International Airport and some of the proposals to extend a runway out into Sturgeon Bank.

A recent article in The Fisherman by Richard Morgan expresses grave concern about the decreasing environmental quality of the lower Fraser River and the estuary. He says that "heedless dredging, dumping of effluents, and increasing urbanization are posing a formidable threat to the Fraser's role as the world's greatest. salmon-producing river, as well as the area's enormous agricultural potential." According to Richard Morgan, no fewer than 26 proposals are being made in the Fraser delta area. One of these includes the Iona Island ferry terminal, another the extension of runway 0826 at Vancouver International Airport. In addition to those, there are 24 other proposals — marinas, industrial park developments, this type of thing. I am wondering what the minister's activities have been in the area of protecting the Fraser estuary, most of which is located within the boundaries of his constituency, especially the area of Sturgeon Bank.

In the past we haven't been too familiar with the value of estuary areas, but this one in particular is probably one of the most important in the world, if not in Canada. I am wondering what the minister is doing to prevent the continuation of some of these projects which threaten to destroy the viability of the estuary of the Fraser River and to reduce the salmon populations and to create problems with the fishing industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Alberni, I believe it was last week we spent some time with the hon. Minister of Fisheries for Canada, Romeo LeBlanc, when he visited Victoria. I can assure you that the majority of the time spent in his company, along with his various officials from the department, dealt with Sturgeon Bank. I have a meeting coming up — I am not sure of the exact date, but it is within a very short period of time — with the major landowners on Sturgeon Bank. We are going to see what can be resolved in that area.

We have stressed repeatedly with the federal government our desire that they join with us in an arrangement whereby we can acquire those lands. We realize their great potential and their great value. We have received I wouldn't say a commitment, but a reasonably favourable response from the federal government, although they have not yet committed themselves. We will permit them a reasonable period of time to reflect and advise. If not, presumably we may have to move in on our own.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring up another topic here. During the election the Social Credit Party put out a pamphlet which they might recognize. They had a section on housing.

One of the points was that they would make government-owned land available for housing at cost. There was also, of course, a lot of elaboration in terms of making rural Crown land subdivisions available. Now since this minister has taken office I've written him a letter and I've ben told to.... I wrote and I got a reply from the minister. I think him for the reply relative to Burtbeck Creek subdivision, on which I asked that there be some action taken to replot it and put it on the market because there is a demand.

I was told to contact the regional land manager at Nelson. I was told by the regional land manager at Nelson that there's a very low priority and it would take three years for your department, once they decided to move, to get such a'project going.

I submit to the minister that that isn't good enough. I was also told that it was questionable as to whether or not there was a demand. Well, I'd like to assure the minister that there is a demand. There is a demand all over this province.

One example was in Kitimat — the Cablecar subdivision which we put in. It isn't a matter of whether people have ownership, outright ownership, or lease. A lot of people would settle for a lease if that's the way — and in fact would prefer to lease — but they'd also take ownership if that's your policy.

I would like to hear the minister give a statement. What are your objectives? How many serviced lots are you going to have on the market by the end of next

[ Page 1852 ]

August?

These are dollars which could be recycled and which could be put right back into your treasury by the end of the fiscal year. If you have imagination, if you have the determination, you can get it done and it needn't be any sort of a financial burden. And if you need any help, I'd be glad to give some suggestions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm most pleased that the former Minister of Housing is still very much interested in housing. I can assure him that action is being taken. The answer you received from the person in Lands in Nelson would have been based on information which he, at that time, possessed. I'm very pleased to advise the member for Nelson-Creston that a meeting was held last week, after previous meetings and discussions had been held, which was the beginning of a correlation of the Department of Lands and the Department of Housing to move very, very quickly on the use of Crown land for housing.

A tremendous amount of work is being undertaken at the moment to identify suitable areas. Apparently this is quite a problem — to get an inventory together and to try and resolve some of the bureaucratic problems which have prevented such subdivisions in the past. We're going to try and persuade some of the other ministers who are responsible for other jurisdictions to see our way, to see if we can move ahead and provide reasonable housing for the people of the province of B.C. just as quickly as we can.

As to how many lots we would want to make available, we would want to make enough lots available that we can help resolve the problem of housing.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the fact that some consideration is being given. But there isn't a great difficulty in building rural lots. What sizes of acreage do you have in mind, Mr. Minister? Really, you should set some sort of a.... You know, what are your objectives, within a ball-park figure — 1,000 lots for this year, 5,000, 10,000 rural lots? You must have some idea, and I'd like to know. Will the minister make an effort to have something underway in the Nelson district this year?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We certainly will work towards making such subdivisions available in areas of the province where there is a great need, and if Nelson is within that category, certainly. We do not discriminate against the areas of the province if need is there. I've been informed, and perhaps the former Minister of Housing may correct me if I'm in error.... I wouldn't like to promise a certain number of lots, because sometimes you fall short and people feel you've failed. I understand that the former government promised 5,000 lots in a year, and produced 434.

MR. NICOLSON: I kept my promises; that's a lie.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would hope, indeed, if we do make any promises, our average will be much better than 10 per cent.

MR. NICOLSON: You had better read our annual reports.

You haven't instigated one housing unit.

MS. BROWN: He hasn't checked his facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue this a bit further in the time left. In the West Kootenays, and I suspect in other parts of the province, there are a number of old subdivisions, subdivisions which have been registered going back to the turn of the century, 1910-1920. Many of these lots, Mr. Chairman, have reverted to the Crown over the years, if indeed they were ever sold. I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could indicate to us whether he wishes to take any action to see that some of these existing subdivisions already registered, already with roads, already fitting in with regulations, already fitting in with the regional district or municipal zones that they're in, could be put on the market, because I suspect he's going to have a major problem with some people in one of the departments under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and a major problem with the Minister of Mines and Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) department. I'm very interested and wondering whether some of these lots could be put on the market, because they don't require a long time. They don't require a great deal of study. I think they could be acted upon in very short order if the government of the day wished to do so.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, one of the areas in environment which is of very general concern is the lack, or the apparent lack, of coordination between involved ministers of the cabinet in this whole question of power development and the damming and future damming of many of our rivers.

In a relatively abrupt way the people of British Columbia were told a few weeks ago of a billion dollar project in the neighbourhood of Revelstoke which will have some very substantial environmental impact, and such preview, I think was the word used, such environmental preview as had been prepared led to some public expression of concern, even by

[ Page 1853 ]

members of the minister's own department. Mr. Jim Walker, I believe, of the fish and wildlife branch accused the government of really doing a snowjob on the proposed Revelstoke dam. He stated that it had been admitted that there would be serious effects on sports fishing and wildlife and that B.C. Hydro was rushing the project. In fact, the statement was made that the work would begin in 1977, or that tenders would be called, as I recall it, late in 1976.

His statement, and the statement of others, was to the effect that there's no way that a proper detailed study could be carried out in time so that we could be assured of the ultimate impact of this dam. Mr. Chairman, it's now two minutes after 11 and there are many other questions I want answered in addition to this one.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the order for second reading of Bill 35, Public Works Fair Employment Act Repeal Act, standing in my name, be discharged.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.