[ Page 1499 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings Presenting reports

Report of special committee to appoint standing committee members. Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy –– 1499

Milk Board report –– 1499

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 84.

Mr. Skelly –– 1499

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1504

Mr.Cocke –– 1511

Mr. Macdonald –– 1512

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress –– 1513

On vote 84.

Mr. Skelly –– 1513

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1517

Mrs. Wallace –– 1518

Division on the motion that the committee rise and report progress 1521

On vote 84.

Mr. King –– 1521

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1523

The House met at 8 p.m.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents the annual report for the year ended December 31,1976, for the provincial Milk Board.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 84: minister's office, $124,088-

continued.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Surely before the estimates of the minister's office pass, the minister is going to answer some questions that have been asked of him. Do we have assurance that the minister will answer some of the questions that have been asked of him previously? We've discussed his estimates for something like two and a half or three hours of the House's time. We've asked a lot of very serious, urgent questions of this minister and we've received no real responses from the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't expect much.

MR. SKELLY: No, we don't expect too much from that minister. It's surprising that that minister is here when the Premier is still over having dinner with the Council of Forest Industries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again, wrong again!

MR. SKELLY: Surely that member should be having dinner with the Council of Forest Industries, He should be keeping an eye on them and on the Premier.

There are some questions that we'd like to have answered by that minister. First, a few days ago the minister expressed some reservations about the environmental reports that were done on the Kitimat pipeline. He said he had some disturbing concerns about these environmental reports, the fact that it took something like 43 days to complete the assessment of the marine impacts, and probably not much longer for the terrestrial impacts, and that even the people who did the reports themselves suggested that the reports don't justify the term "environmental impact studies."

In view of this and the minister's admission that he's not satisfied with the reports, we asked him if he would then call on the National Energy Board - if he has the power to do so. He could possibly call on the Premier to call on the National Energy Board - to delay their hearings on the Kitimat pipeline proposal until we've had adequate time to get environmental impact statements on that pipeline prepared. The minister hasn't answered that question. We're hopeful that he's had some time to reconsider and possibly he'll answer that question tonight before we rule on his estimates.

He has also not made a strong statement or any kind of a policy statement one way or the other. Again, perhaps he doesn't have the power to do this. It seems he's one of the lowest on the totem pole in that cabinet organization. Perhaps he doesn't have the power.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: We'll get to that in a minute, possibly.

Perhaps the minister is so low on the totem pole that he can't make a policy statement on the environment. Possibly he has to consult with the Premier, who then has to consult with the oil companies. I'm not sure. Could the minister make a strong policy statement on what his opinions are on the Kitimat Pipeline?

We've had varying statements from the government to date. We've read in the Financial Times of Canada that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) will be intervening in favour of the pipeline before the National Energy Board. The Premier went through the northern part of the province and he said that the pipeline would be a good thing economically for that area, without much consideration of the actual economic and environmental impacts. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) a short time ago said in Penticton he was 100 per cent in favour. Yet the Minister of the Environment says they haven't made up their minds one way or the other, and that he's not going to tell the people how the government has made up their minds, or if and when they make up their minds, until they intervene before those National Energy Board hearings. We would like to hear from the minister what his personal opinion is about the Kitimat pipeline and what the policy of the government is before those hearings take place,

But, Mr. Chairman, it's only two months until those hearings come up. We would like to have a little advance knowledge from the government so that the

[ Page 1500 ]

people will be aware on what information he has made up his mind. We know that it's inadequate environmental information. We would like to have a little advance knowledge from the government so that the people will be aware on what information he has made up his mind. We know that it's inadequate environmental information. We would like to know that the minister's position is on the pipeline.

Also the minister has mentioned that the federal government is going to be holding public hearings on the pipeline, again based on inadequate environmental information. I would like to know if the minister will call on the federal government to hold off discussions and public hearings on the pipeline until we get some adequate environmental studies. The minister has already admitted that the studies to date are woefully inadequate. How can people go into public hearings, how can they be expected to comment in an informed way on a pipeline proposal of this magnitude without adequate environmental impact statements? It just doesn't make sense.

We want to call on this minister to answer our questions: what is his position on that pipeline? And I won't repeat it again in those words because I know that the Minister of the Environment wants to make a statement on that pipeline, and perhaps he'll do so tonight.

I've also asked the minister previously about other forms of transporting oil. I mentioned that I had been in touch with some railway companies in the United States and that Alaska railway has proposed a means of transporting oil between Alaska and the lower 48. They've talked about an interconnection of those railway systems. Also, there are railways in the states that to date haul oil across existing railway facilities with existing rolling stock....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't hear what Jet Lags said there, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could get him to his feet during this debate.

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

MR. SKELLY: I was talking about Southern Pacific Railway. They've stated that it's economically feasible to haul oil. Since 1974, a year after the former Premier made the proposal in the first place, Southern Pacific has hauled something like 690 million gallons of oil by rail. It's economically feasible, it's environmentally sound, and there have been none of those oil disasters on the railways that we find on the high seas at the rate of almost one a day.

We're wondering if the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has looked into that proposal. He talked about the technology of transporting oil. He talked about the possibility of doing it safely. It's never been demonstrated that it can be done safely. We'd like to know if the Minister of the Environment has investigated that possibility.

Now the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) stated that he will be meeting with Alaskan officials, United States officials, B.C. and Washington officials, and that they'll be talking about an inter-connection between Alaska State Railways and the B.C. Rail. He said that oil is not one of the topics that will be discussed. But we're calling on the Minister of the Environment tonight to answer some questions. Is he looking at rail transportation as an alternative to marine transportation of oil down our coasts?

Also on the McGregor River valley; this is another....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The McGregor Diversion: this is another concern that the people of the province have brought to the attention of the members of the opposition. They are extremely concerned about what the government's position is on the McGregor River. Now I'm not sure if that minister has the power to make a decision in cabinet. But we're wondering what his opinion is as Environment minister. What is his position on the McGregor River Dam? Is he in favour of diversion of the McGregor over to the Peace like the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is? Is he in favour of diversion or is he opposed to it? We'd like to know....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm opposed to it. The New Democratic Party is opposed to the diversion of the McGregor through the Peace River. That's the policy position of the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Almost everybody in this province, Mr. Member for Columbia River, is on welfare as the result of Social Credit policies - 120,000 people unemployed. This is the member who's been calling for jobs, jobs, jobs, until he gets into government. We haven't heard him mention the word - maybe because nobody has a job since he entered the government. But he got a job. He got a job in cabinet - maybe because he didn't mention jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 84.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, and we were on the McGregor

[ Page 1501 ]

Dam, Mr. Chairman, the McGregor Diversion. The minister piped up with a statement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you want another loan? Do you need another loan to go belly up again?

MR. SKELLY: This is the member who said there were already too many wilderness areas in the Kootenays.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I ask the member to withdraw that statement that there was any collusion between me and a former minister. I believe it's unparliamentary, as well as being a lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are just a little less than 20 minutes into the evening sitting and already I find it important to draw to the attention of the House standing order 17.

"When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order, and no member shall speak without being recognized in his place." The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I ask the member to withdraw the allegation, which is totally untrue, that there was any collusion between myself and a former minister on the issue of a loan to any co-operative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let me just ask, hon. minister, were you imputing any wrongdoing to a member of the House?

MR. SKELLY: He certainly was!

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I wasn't, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If so, I must ask you to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I wasn't, but I attribute certain erroneous remarks that the member for Alberni made in respect to a speech I made in this Legislature last year.... I would suggest that he should withdraw those erroneous and ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. CHABOT: . . . inflammatory statements he's attributed to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. The purpose of this point of order is not to enter the debate but strictly to inquire.

MR. SKELLY: He doesn't have the guts to enter into debate! Just withdraw!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not attempting to enter the debate but I'm telling you this - that member is deliberately lying about statements I made in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: You told a lie so you withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! All hon. members are aware of the fact that an attack upon a member of the House is in essence an attack upon the House itself. There are certain phrases which, traditionally, have been unacceptable in this House, and I think for valid reason. One of them is attributing to another member of the House a deliberate misleading or a lie. So I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing to any member of this House?

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, HON. minister.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Chairman, did not withdraw the allegation of collusion against the member for Alberni, which I distinctly heard and many other members did too. I would ask him to withdraw that remark. It's most improper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I have asked the minister to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing against any member of this House. He did it unequivocally and that is satisfactory to the

[ Page 1502 ]

Chair. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the minister's....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

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

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for Columbia River for his unequivocal withdrawal of the untrue allegations that were made against me. I would also welcome a royal commission of inquiry into my financial affairs. It might be helpful at this point - it's some time till payday.

In any case, we were dealing with the Minister of the Environment's estimates, Mr. Chairman. How much time do I have left after this?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got all night - no problem.

MR. SKELLY: I've been assured that we have all night.

We were asking the Minister of the Environment, through you, Mr. Chairman, if he's willing to take an unequivocal stand against the McGregor diversion. We've gone in detail through the anticipated impact of the McGregor diversion, the effects on the Fraser River fishery, the effects on the fishing industry and the employment situation in the member's own riding, how it will put out of work hundreds - even thousands - of people should that diversion go ahead, how it'll turn the Fraser River into essentially an open ditch, how it will then justify the construction of the Moran Dam on the Fraser and eliminate that river as a natural fisheries river, a spawning river, part of the natural environment of this province.

So we're looking forward tonight to an unequivocal statement on the part of the Minister of the Environment opposing any dam such as the McGregor dam which would have such a terrible impact on the fisheries and water resources of this province.

The minister stated recently that during the time the NDP was in power we only passed one amendment to the Pollution Control Act. He attempted to imply that this meant that the NDP wasn't concerned about pollution. The fact that we had only made one amendment to the Pollution Control Act when they had made 51 .... This is the kind of legislative tokenism, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Credit government and the previous Social Credit government always used to indulge in.

Whenever they were put under pressure by environmental groups, the former Premier used to write up an Act on the back of a cigarette carton and hold it up and say: "Look at this powerful legislation we have to protect the environment."

The Pollution Control Act was one thing. He wrote up that Act in response to developments such as Utah Mines and Western Mines up at Buttle Lake near Campbell River. Always he would come up with legislation in response to serious environmental problems - never with action but with a lot of legislation.

When a member talks about there being something like 51 amendments to the Pollution Control Act under Social Credit government, it's legislative tokenism. They didn't put that legislation into effect; they didn't translate it into action. It was nothing but legislation - words, words and more words. That was the policy of that government with regard to the environment.

The minister has recently brought in another amendment, most of which is absolutely unnecessary. We discussed that during the debate on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and made our position on this side of the House absolutely clear. Most of it was already covered under the Emergency Powers Act which this province already has on the books. Most of it was unnecessary, but the minister was attempting to come up with a position that appeared to indicate that the government was concerned about the environment.

This was a reaction to some of the environmental problems which have been taking place and the possibility of oil spill disasters down the coast. It is presenting legislation to try to give the impression that this province would be ready and willing and able to attack those problems should they arrive upon us. But as I said before, it's simply legislative tokenism. Just passing the legislation doesn't give you the power to prevent or to clean up environmental disasters, should they happen.

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that when that party was in office before 1972, we asked them about enforcement of the Pollution Control Act. How many people had been charged with offences under that Act? What were the penalties enforced against those people who had violated the Act? I'd like to quote from the Journals of the House, February 24,1971:

"Mr. Hall asked the hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources the following questions: have there been any prosecutions under the Pollution Control Act of 1967? If the answer to No. I is yes, how many prosecutions have been made?

"The Hon. R.G. Williston replied as follows: (How many prosecutions?) None."

So we had an Act that had penalties in the Act that

[ Page 1503 ]

specified violations of the Act. There were no prosecutions under that Act under the former government. They always used to pick up a bill and wander around the province at election time and say: "Here we have powerful environmental legislation in British Columbia." But when it comes to action, when it comes to enforcement, nothing happens. We expect the same from this government on their legislation.

What about other areas, other countries, other jurisdictions? I mentioned last y car during Environment estimates the Reserve Mines case at Duluth, on Lake Superior in Minnesota. During that case a fine was levied against Reserve Mines Ltd. for dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior, a fine of something like $2,500 a day for every single day that the Act was violated in that state - 335 days. Each day they were fined $2,500, plus they were also assessed $200,000 in court costs in that case. That's where strong environmental legislation is in effect and where there's a government in office that seeks to have that legislation enforced and doesn't use it as legislative tokenism to give the appearance that they're concerned about the environment. That's in Minnesota, Mr. Chairman.

In Japan, we all know the history of Minamata and the Chisso Chemical Company that released mercury into the waters in Japan over almost a decade. We also know what happened to that company as a result of its pollution of the environment. For the number of people that Chisso Chemical Company poisoned.... One hundred and six citizens of Minamata died as a result of that pollution. Many others became deaf, blind or insane as a result of that pollution released by Chisso company. So far, Chisso has had to pay the staggering sum of $67.3 million to 793 victims of that disease, Mr. Chairman, caused by pollution on the part of that chemical company.

We've never had that kind of enforcement in this province. There was no enforcement of that legislation under the previous Social Credit government. The first prosecutions began under the Pollution Control Act when the New Democratic Party became government in 1972, and I'm pleased to say that the minister has continued them. Last year, as a result of a speech I made in the House, he even increased the penalties. Subsequent to a speech I made in the House, Mr. Chairman, he increased the penalties from $1,000 to $10,000. It still constitutes a licence to pollute when you look at the magnitude of penalties that were paid by Chisso Chemical Company in the Minamata affair or by the Reserve Mines Ltd. in Duluth in Minnesota - $69 million for the damage that they did to people who suffered from that disease in Japan. Millions of dollars for the environmental impacts they had in Lake Superior under the Reserve mining company case.

So there has been no enforcement, there are no adequate penalties, and there is no opportunity under the Act for the people of the province who feel that their environment has been destroyed to take a class action against a polluter, to take a civil action against a polluter for destroying the environment. If we want serious environmental legislation, then that's what we should have in this province, not the kind of legislative tokenism that this type of minister and this type of government brings in.

An interesting comment in the Time magazine article, March 17,1975:

" 'Pollution is an act akin to murder, ' charged a government environmental officer who argued that taxpayers' money should not be used to bail out an industrial polluter."

Yet in this province, we virtually have a licence to pollute. The penalties are so small and prosecutions are so rare. Of all the fines and penalties enforced as a result of those prosecutions in the last year, the maximum penalty was $900.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MR. SKELLY: The maximum penalty for polluting the environment was $900, according to Mr. Ferguson, an officer in that minister's department. And yet we get a statement from an environmental officer in Japan that pollution is an act akin to murder.

The environment belongs not to us, Mr. Chairman. We're stewards of that environment. It belongs to all people for all generations. Pollution is a crime akin to murder, and yet, under our Act, the maximum penalty enforced last year was $900.

So I would like to ask the minister: does he contemplate any changes in the Pollution Control Act that will increase those penalties, that will make it increasingly difficult or make it impossible for polluters to wantonly destroy the environment of this province? I don't think that minister, Mr. Chairman, has the jam to present that kind of legislation. I don't think his government would support him if they attempted to present that kind of legislation. Even if they did present the legislation, I think that that minister and that government would order their officers not to enforce the legislation because what they believe in is simple legislative tokenism.

I challenge that minister to present strong pollution control legislation which levies fines against companies and people who pollute this province wantonly and which makes sure that those fines constitute a disincentive to pollute. I challenge that minister to get up and say that he is going to present that type of pollution legislation. I doubt that he has the jam to do that.

Under the Act that he presented earlier in this session he inserted a section which allowed the government to make a claim against the polluter and

[ Page 1504 ]

that claim would be enforceable in the court, subject to an appeal. But it's only for the expenses of the government in cleaning up possible environmental damage. What we really need on the part of this minister, especially in the area of pollution, is adequate policing. We know that in the criminal realm, the greatest disincentive to crime is not the penalty. It's the certainty of being caught and having that penalty imposed upon you. If there is no opportunity or there is no enforcement capability, then you can write any penalty whatsoever into the Act. If there isn't the certainty of detection and bringing that person to justice, then there is no point in writing penalties into the Act.

In the PCB situation in Can-Cel in Prince Rupert is a case in point. When the generator at Can-Cel exploded, it exploded because of a lack of non-conductive coolant in the transformer. The reason for that is that that transformer had been leaking coolant for at least a month, and probably a year, prior to the explosion taking place. Why don't we have pollution control officers going around this province, when we're aware of the danger of that chemical and its carcinogenic effects? Why don't we have people going around this province checking those transformers, making sure that that leakage doesn't take place and making sure that equipment is kept up to proper standards? There isn't adequate enforcement of the Pollution Control Act in this province. As a result there isn't prevention, and accidents such as the one that took place at Can-Cel occur and we have environmental disasters forced upon us - or the potential for environmental disaster forced upon us - because we don't have that enforcement capability.

I'm asking the Minister of the Environment today: what is he going to do to beef up that department to give them the enforcement capability and to give them the inspection capabilities so that they can go around and prevent these types of disasters from happening? There is no point in having the legislation, there is no point in having the penalty clauses, and there is no point in having the fines and punishment if there's no enforcement capability, if it simply constitutes a licence to pollute. What is the minister going to do about that?

I'll give the minister an opportunity to answer some of those questions. Maybe he's taking notes there; but just so that he hasn't forgotten, will the minister make representations to the National Energy Board to hold off their hearings until there has been adequate opportunity to have those environmental studies done?

Will the minister consider the alternative of railway transport of oil from Alaska so that we're not presented with the danger of marine oil traffic down our coast and the inevitability of an oil spill disaster?

Will the minister consider increasing the enforcement aspects of the Pollution Control Act and the inspection capability under that Act to make sure that toxic spills, such as the one that happened at Can-Cel, don't happen in the future, and that when they do, adequate enforcement takes place so that those polluters who refuse to keep up their operations and maintain their equipment and constitute a danger to the environment are called to account in the courts of this province and are penalized accordingly?

I hope the minister will answer those questions.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Covering some of the points raised by the member for Alberni, to begin perhaps in a very general way, it's a continued point of amusement among the press and the public when that member stands up and complains about such Acts as the Pollution Control Act and its inadequacies, according to his ideas - the lack of enforcement, the lack of this, the lack of that. It's too bad the member wasn't a member of the former government - I believe you were. It's too bad that someone would not listen to you when you had those concerns.

MR. SKELLY: They did.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They did? The 1967 Pollution Control Act was brought in. It was amended with approximately 50 amendments, as I mentioned the other evening. Your party was responsible for one minor amendment changing the designation of the Minister of Health to the deputy minister or vice versa, and that was it.

Apparently, according to you, pollution occurred in 1976 - that's when it began.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, please address the Chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, according to the minimal capabilities of the mind of the member for Alberni, pollution began in 1976, not during the term of office that perhaps constitutes the greatest pollution in the province. But apparently the Act was adequate while they were in power. They chose not to modify it.

Of course, there was a good reason for that. The minister who was responsible for it was too busy trying to convert the province into his own brand of socialism. He didn't have time to be concerned about pollution. He didn't have time to change the Act. He didn't have time to bring it in line to the thinking of some of you people. It's most unfortunate that that former government chose not to act, but chose to play strange political games.

Interjections.

[ Page 1505 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps some time Peter Pan will have an opportunity of making some intelligent comments.

The good people who live along the Fraser will be pleased to hear the member for Alberni refer to it as an "open ditch."

MR. SKELLY: After you're finished with it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They probably would appreciate that. The member for Alberni quoted, I believe, in the paper some time back about the fear tactics of this McGregor report. The same evening he's talking about oil disasters, the Fraser's going to be wiped out, no fish left, an open ditch. Fear tactics!

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Fish before people!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The people of the federal Ministry of the Environment who are responsible for compiling that report, Mr. Member, have a great deal of ability and intelligence when it comes to these matters. They have a tremendous resource in their potential, by reason of their staff positions, to properly analyse the potential danger of a McGregor diversion or any other diversion.

Mr. Chairman, what the member does not mention in the McGregor report is that the McGregor diversion concept was one of a number of diversions considered, all of which were rejected except the McGregor, which was considered to be a possibility. We are advised by way of that report that the fish loss could represent something about 7 per cent. The newspapers reported 25 per cent, but they were speaking of System E, not the McGregor alone. It's unfortunate that that member didn't have some research done on that.

The National Energy Board is to hold hearings on the application by the Kitimat pipeline, as the House knows, Mr. Chairman. The National Energy Board is required under Statute to hold such hearings. The federal Minister of the Environment is very concerned about the possibility of damage to the environment, as one would expect. I'm sure if the federal minister believes that inadequate time is before us before these hearings, he'll be speaking to representatives of the National Energy Board in that it's within their jurisdiction. It's a federal matter.

We'll be making representations to the National Energy Board. We've already made representation to the federal Minister of the Environment, who I'm very pleased to say, by way of some of his people, said that they were very, very pleased - not the minister, but some of his people - at the co-operation they now find in British Columbia which was absent a couple of years ago.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll bet.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The facetious remarks by the member, of course, should be ignored. There was one comment thrown across the floor which was most unfortunate.

Some of our own government members refer to the opposition as children, which is perhaps one of the greatest disservices we could offer to the children of B.C., by identifying them in that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an understatement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, may I just caution you, although there has been no objection raised by the opposition members? I think that perhaps is the kind of remark that would not lead to kindly debate following this. Perhaps the minister could abstain from that kind of language.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's just that I have a great respect for children.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni doesn't seem to understand due process. He doesn't seem to understand that when a person makes an application - whether it be for a lease, a permit or other - he has a right in our democratic system to have that permit or application heard, without interference at the political level, well before the process begins. Perhaps some people who think that way would rather have the judge make the decision known before the case is heard. This is basically what they're asking for, for who knows what reasons - political purposes, I suppose, more than anything else.

MR. LEA: No, we've had orders from Moscow, Jim.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That could very well be. That wouldn't come as a surprise to many people in B.C.

The Ministry of Environment, along with other ministries in this government, develop co-ordinated policies through the government, unlike some of the ad hockery that we witnessed previously when certain departments in the government were empire-building - using the green belt Act to buy a ship, a floating green belt of some kind, as an example.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Are you against that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Using the green belt Act to acquire a ship, Mr. Chairman, is a very odd way of acquiring a vessel - a floating green belt. What a strange, strange attitude.

Mr. Chairman, the member says: "Interfere with a public hearing or interfere with the National Energy Board hearing, but then have public hearings. Make your decision known first, and then have public

[ Page 1506 ]

hearings." It probably makes sense to him.

The mighty Fraser is an open ditch according to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . I'll have to relate that to the many people who live along the Fraser.

We were hearing discussions, Mr. Chairman, about the inadequacies of legislation relative to environment. During a quick search through some of our environment legislation - although certainly there are many sections of several Acts that relate to environment - some of the better-known pieces of legislation in British Columbia relative to the environment could be considered: the Environment and Land Use Act, which is quite basic, the Ecological Reserves Act, the Pollution Control Act, 1967 - all of which were brought in by the Social Credit governments of the day.

The former government brought in the Land Commission Act, which you could perhaps relate to environment in one way, although the stated purpose of that Act was to preserve agricultural land. Even then, we could perhaps suggest that there may have been some environmental aspects involved in that. We'll give them half a point for that, and perhaps an additional half point for the one amendment they did bring in on the Pollution Control Act a couple of years ago.

The member discussed some of the appeals, some of the prosecutions that have taken place under the Pollution Control Act. He's quite right that a number of prosecutions have occurred. He was somewhat upset that the largest fine was $900. Perhaps the member is unaware that the courts decide the amount of the fine. Legislation permits a fine up to $10,000, which is 10 times what the former government felt was a maximum necessary for polluters.

The member seems to want something to occur where we have a tragedy - 106 people to die - so they can say: 'Let's get $69 million somehow from a company." I think the value of life is much greater than that, Mr. Member. If that's the only thing that turns you on, then we simply don't agree - 106 deaths to satisfy whatever inner desires you have to fine a company.

The fear tactics don't seem to be developing the response perhaps some people think should occur. I give great credit to members of the press for the manner in which they handled the PCB spill at Prince Rupert, at Can-Cel. There was no great panic. Certainly it was a serious situation. That's why the information was released as quickly as we had it. But there was no great panic because the press chose not to make it a panic situation.

MR. LEA: Why didn't you let the mayor of Prince Rupert know about it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni was discussing the feasibility of shipping oil by rail. I suppose that rail transportation always has been, since its early inception, one of the most intelligent forms of transportation. Some members of this House have had experience with rail and appreciate the tremendous capabilities of the rail transport system.

However, one of the facts of life is that the Valdez route has been laid; the pipeline is in place. I don't think the Americans are going to sit down and listen to one province of Canada, or even to the government of Canada, instructing them as to what form of transportation they should use for their oil.

One of the reasons for that, Mr. Chairman, is because there have been governments in this country who have not shown by their actions that the Americans can trust them always as good neighbours. We've seen this cited time and time again by governors or by other more senior people in the government of the United States.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , Mr. Chairman, wants to know if we're opposed to this, if we're opposed to that. Opposed is one of the basic, fundamental words of their vocabulary. They are opposed to everything. That's why, very fittingly, they're in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the member speaks about sending out staff to inspect every transformer in the province and every other potential pollution hazard. How pleasant that would be if we had the staff. But, Mr. Chairman, may I remind the House that it was the former government that began reducing the staff by 15 per cent, and we are still understaffed. They realized their budgetary programmes were running out of control and they panicked, so they cut staff. We're still suffering from the cut in that staff.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we are going toward more inspections. On behalf of the pollution control branch and the people involved in that branch, they have had a busy year. The year 1976 was a very busy one for them. Other than the court actions that the member was speaking of, the investigations by the branch total a great number.

I could give you examples: permit inspections - in excess of 4,000; waste discharge samples - 2,500; ambient air samples - in excess of 2,000; stream, lake and marine samples - in excess of 4,000. These people are on the job. They're doing their job. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a disservice to the officers of the pollution control branch when any member of this House would suggest that they may disobey the law, and not do as that law says. That's what the member suggested. They might be told to ignore it. I think that's a shocking attack on the integrity of our officers, and I simply will not accept that.

Interjections.

[ Page 1507 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Twisting words, twisting words, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The suggestion was made, Mr. Chairman, that we might tell our people not to enforce the law. I have more belief in the individuality and integrity of those officers. They would probably tell any government that told them not to to do something themselves.

The other comments offered by the member for Alberni, Mr. Chairman, since they were not always made in a serious manner, don't really deserve that much recognition or reply. I repeat that this member and that party, with their remarks about their concern for the environment, took no action themselves when in government, and a year and a half later they come back and they have all the answers once again.

MR. SKELLY: Just to respond to some of the inaccuracies that the minister responded with - and I'm sure he didn't intentionally twist all of those statements around that I made - he said that I called the Fraser an open ditch. Mr. Minister, my family has lived for four generations on the banks of that river -several of them are buried on the banks of that river. I have never referred to that river as an open ditch, but I'm concerned that as a result of the policies of this government it will become an open ditch, that they will kill the salmon resource in that river and they will destroy the river as a water supply for this province. They seem to have no concern whatsoever about the water quality of that river and the fact that it supports one of the greatest salmon stocks in the world.

MR. LEA: Then where will George get his drinking water?

MR. SKELLY: What I said was that I was concerned this government and that Minister of the Environment - if he has any power in this government at all - will turn that river into an open ditch. That was my concern, Mr. Minister. I never, at any time, said the Fraser was an open ditch. That Minister acts the same way as he did when he was a radio announcer ...

MR. LEA: A hotliner.

MR. SKELLY: . . . a hotliner - twisting everything, distorting everything, changing everything, and attempting to cut people off when he can't twist, distort and change the information at his disposal.

MR. LEA: Where's Frew?

MR. SKELLY: Where is Frew? Where's Frew and what does he do? He used to plug the minister in when his microphone wasn't working. What does he do now? He takes the minister's shoes over to the Empress to get polished. He takes his suits out to get cleaned. Where is he tonight?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, under vote 84 we wish to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. SKELLY: Did you say the "administrative abilities" or the "administrative responsibilities", Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Responsibilities, sir.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you. I'm glad that I have that clear. The minister said he's got respect for children. If he had any respect whatsoever for the children of this province, Mr. Chairman, he would be more concerned than he is at the moment for the environment that those children will inherit from us. He has no respect whatsoever for the children of this province. If he did, he would be the strongest Minister of the Environment we ever had instead of succeeding one of the strongest ministers we ever had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, I will not accept from that member, or from any other member, an accusation that I have no respect for children.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Ask that member for Alberni to withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. In the warmth of debate, as Mr. Beauchesne calls it, sometimes accusations are made against members which ought not to be intended and I am sure are not intended. I did not hear anything unparliamentary but I would ask the hon. member for Alberni to please use more moderate language in his approach.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I began this debate using moderate language, discussing the administrative responsibilities of this minister, asking why this minister hadn't made statements about his

[ Page 1508 ]

personal position on certain issues, asking why he hadn't taken a strong stand against environmental issues which threaten this province and threaten the environment that the children of this province will inherit. There has been no response from that minister on those questions. They were moderately framed, directly placed. What, Mr. Minister, are your positions on these matters?

Instead, the minister comes back in the typical knee-jerk reaction of a hotline announcer with attacks on the member who asks the question. What kind of a minister is that? The questions were reasonably framed. They are the jurisdiction of his department, and he comes back and attacks the person and attacks the party which asks those questions.

Certainly we take a stand on issues such as the McGregor River. Whether in opposition or in government we took a firm stand on those environmental issues. Certainly we take a stand on the Kitimat pipeline and any issue such as that which affects our province and the children who will inherit this province from us. And the minister attacks us for asking those questions - moderately framed, directly presented and without direct answers whatsoever. What kind of a minister do we have here?

He mentioned applicants for permits and that we shouldn't give them the right to an adequate hearing. It's the responsibility of any developer who wishes to change the environment of this province to present, in detail, the impacts that the development will have on this province; and if he can't present it in quality material and in adequate detail, then he doesn't have the right to a hearing until he presents that information so that people can discuss it in an informed and intelligent way.

That minister himself recognized that on the Kitimat proposal the information that's presented has been inadequate. He admitted it, yet he seems to waffle around it. He's wishy-washy. He says he talked to the federal Minister of the Environment and he's hopeful that that minister is going to make representations to the National Energy Board. Previous governments in this province had no hesitation whatsoever in making representations to the federal government to ask them to fulfil their obligations to the people of British Columbia. We did it all the time when we were in office, Mr. Chairman. It was we who made the proposal for alternative transport of Alaska oil before the question became the issue it is today.

So we're not asking that developers not be permitted their day in court, not be permitted public hearings. We're saying that it's the obligation of those developers when the development has such an impact on the province and threatens the environment of the province that they present adequate quality material before they have a right to a hearing before the people of this province. The minister has admitted himself that adequate material, quality material, has not been presented. Yet he's not willing to make representations to the federal government directly to hold off the hearings until material of that quality is presented.

What kind of an Environment minister do we have here? No Environment minister at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SKELLY: He has no sensitivity whatsoever to the natural setting of this province, no sensitivity to the surroundings, the lands, the forests, the clean air that our children will be inheriting from us only if this minister takes a strong stand against some of the developments that are taking place in the province. I'm not saying that you cut off or that you oppose all these developments. I am simply saying that they should have minimal impact on the environment of this province.

Then he quoted all the Acts that were passed by the previous Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Some of them. I don't mean to distort the minister's statement - he quoted some of them. He talked about the Environment and Land Use Act. Again, there was the perfect example of legislative tokenism. I remember when the Premier was wandering around the province waving that Act, saying: "We have the strongest legislation of any jurisdiction in Canada." Certainly - if you'd used it it would have been the strongest.

How many times did the previous government use section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act? How many times did they say: "We're going to put a moratorium on this development until all the information is in and the people have had an opportunity to judge the information and put their input in. Then we'll decide whether that development proceeds or not"?

One of the first things that the government that I was involved in, Mr. Chairman, did when we came to office.... One of the proudest moments of my life was to sit in this House as a member of the party which presented to this Legislature the Land Commission Act. That member says the greenbelt Act and Ecological Reserves Act were something to be proud of - certainly.

We don't criticize the former Social Credit government for presenting those Acts. They were needed; they were necessary; and like the Land Commission Act that we presented, they were long overdue. We're very pleased that the previous government presented those Acts. But under the previous government, Mr. Chairman, we lost millions

[ Page 1509 ]

of acres of parklands, millions of acres of land that was ecologically sensitive, that was recreationally valuable. That land can't be restored; once you lose it they don't make it any more. What's the good of an Ecological Reserves Act if you're going to fritter that land away to other developments? What's the good of a greenbelt preservation Act and a greenbelt fund -which, by the way, they pulled all the funds out of -if you're going to take land away from greenbelt, away from recreation reserves and away from parkland, or permit mining and forestry development in parkland? To say that you have the Act and then to avoid taking action based on those Acts is a sham, It's treachery.

There was no protection of the environment under that previous government. They had that Environment and Land Use Act that they waved around. They said it was the strongest environmental legislation in North America, and they never used it. What happened under that Act? A bunch of cabinet ministers got together and under that Act made the decisions that they were going to make anyway before they had the Act.

Who set up the secretariat?

MR. KING: They prosecuted a laundry.

MR. SKELLY: Prosecuted a laundry! What they've done to small business since then is shameful.

Mr. Chairman, who set up the secretariat under that Environment and Land Use Act? Who hired some of the brightest and best people all over North America to do studies of the environment? We even got a few from the federal government. When we changed governments we got a few duds. But who hired the brightest and the best people from all over North America for that Environment and Land Use secretariat, people who would make informed and intelligent input into environmental decisions that were going to be made in this province? Before they had a group of cabinet ministers sitting in isolation, in privacy, making the decisions under that Act that they would have made anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing the administrative responsibilities of this minister.

MR. SKELLY: Yes. The Environment and Land Use Committee, of which he is chairman.... Sometimes he gets confused, Mr. Chairman, and he forgets that he's chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee. He wrote a letter to one of my colleagues once after she wrote a letter to him, and said: "I'm referring your letter to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ." She referred the letter back to the minister, saying: "This is your responsibility." Then he wrote to the member on our side and said: "On further perusal of your letter I find that I am chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee." (Laughter.) This is the guy who's responsible for the protection of the environment in our province. He is an environmental disaster, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, one of the proudest moments of my life was standing in this House when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) presented the Land Commission Act which, for the first time in North America, set aside and defended forever the farmland of British Columbia. We have very little of that resource in this province, Mr. Chairman. Something like 3 per cent of the total land area of British Columbia is suitable for agriculture, whether now or in the future.

We took the step, unprecedented in North America, to preserve that land for agriculture insofar as it could be preserved forever. We were concerned about our children. We were concerned about the fact that farmers in this province were being driven out of business by commercial and residential development. We were concerned that high prices for that land was driving farmers out of business and in order to get pensions they had to sell off their land. We were concerned that because of the high capital requirements to buy that farmland at the prices it was selling at, young farmers couldn't get into the business at a time when people were going back to the land. They realized that they had been alienated from the land; they wanted to return, they wanted to become a part of the food production system in this country. Yet they were denied that right because land was being frittered away and allowed to be developed by that former government.

We were becoming more and more dependent, Mr. Chairman. You should know this because it's your riding that is one of the most affected. Food production plants were closing down in this province. Farmers were being driven off the land, and agriculture in British Columbia was becoming more and more uneconomical as a result of the policies, or neglect of policy, on the part of the previous government.

Maybe I'll get on to Chilliwack sometime this evening, Mr. Chairman, because there are a few concerns I have about the agricultural land reserve in that area, and maybe we share some concerns on that issue. The minister mentioned the Land Commission Act, and it's subject to his jurisdiction so that's why I brought that Act up.

Now he talked about our negotiations with the Americans. We try to instruct the Americans, he said. Before, when the Social Credit government was in office prior to 1972, they instructed us. We always took instructions from them, and they ripped us off like no other government in history. The loss on the

[ Page 1510 ]

Columbia River Treaty is a perfect example.

The Skagit Valley, under this minister's jurisdiction, is a perfect example of how the Americans dictated to us when it came to the lands and the environment and the water resources of this province and of this country.

Finally, a government came into office and said: "We're going to even up the score a little bit. We're not going to take instructions and continue to take instructions from the United States. We're not going to continue to allow our land, our water resources and our environment to be sacrificed to the interests of a country which is much larger and much stronger than ours. We are going to take a stand." We did take a stand, Mr. Chairman, on the part of the people of this province. We took a stand against the Americans when necessary. That's not to mean that we didn't go and look to the Americans when legislation that they had presented was valuable to us, particularly environmental impact legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to the administrative responsibility of this minister.

MR. SKELLY: Just getting to that, Mr. Chairman.

We never were anti-American. We were always pro-British Columbia and pro-Canadian. We never took instructions from the Americans simply because they were stronger and they were more numerous than us. We went down to meet with them. Probably for the first time in the history of this province, we established a relationship with the States on environmental issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, to the administrative responsibility of this minister under vote 84.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the Skagit Valley power projects. This type of thing is the environmental responsibility of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the administrative responsibilities of this minister are now under discussion, under vote 84.

MR. SKELLY: The minister brought these up himself, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please limit your remarks to those which are in order.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Just responding to some other statements that the minister has made. I talk about fines and I talk about penalties and I talk about $69 million in compensation for the loss of 160 lives at Minamata. Of course I'm concerned about those lives. I wouldn't have brought up the issue if I wasn't concerned about those lives. There's no way you can compensate people in dollar terms for the loss of life, or the debilitating disease that those people suffered as a result of mercury poisoning: blindness, deafness, insanity. There's no way that money can compensate those people. But it does provide a disincentive to pollute the resources that those people are forced to use. What I'm talking about in terms of money is a disincentive to pollute, and I will not allow that member to distort that statement to the point where he says that I say that money is to compensate for the loss of human lives. Mr. Chairman, that was at no time a statement of mine. I don't feel that lives can be quantified in terms of money and never will believe it, and that's why I'm a member of the party that I am.

Cutting the staff by 15 per cent: he says that the reason the pollution control branch is not effective in inspections is that the staff was cut by IS per cent. In every area of the environment that we dealt with when we took over as government in 1972 we found that there were staff deficiencies. People had been asking for more staff for months and years and years, and were always denied staff. The Premier always talks about how they've cut back on staff here and they've cut back on staff there. That's how this government has become efficient.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , in discussing the Hydro bill: how are we going to save money at Hydro? The first thing he says is to cut back on staff. We've fired all the bus drivers. Always talking about cutting back staff, and then he criticizes us for cutting back 15 per cent.

When I became member of the Legislature for Alberni, there was one conservation officer - one person was responsible for the enforcement of fish and wildlife regulations in an area from Nitinat Lake to Muchalat Inlet. On about a third of Vancouver Island, there was one person to enforce the legislation. By the time 1975 rolled around we had a few conservation officers in Port Alberni and they even had equipment to work with. They didn't before. They had to borrow it from the Forest Service.

We had a conservation officer in Gold River; we had a conservation officer at Tofino, who has since been removed by this government. We had staff going around and looking at environmental problems. The staff in the fish and wildlife branch enforcement section increased by 400 per cent in my riding, and then it was cut back 15 per cent. That is what this minister is trying to say. Certainly we increased staff in areas where it was necessary. One of those areas was the enforcement of environmental legislation.

Talk about increasing staff. We hired that whole Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat to give us that valuable input we required to make environmental decisions in this province. Now people

[ Page 1511 ]

in that secretariat feel that their jobs are on the line because the whole thrust of this government is big, monumental developments. We're going to get a building in Vancouver probably named the W.R. Bennett Building, we've got two ferries that are going on line in Vancouver that will probably be named. . . . I'd better not name names, but they're building monuments. The type of development and developmental thrust of this government is to get involved in huge developments that have a terrific impact on the environment....

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): We'll cut down that building.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Burrard says we'll cut down that building - never mind starting it. If you'll reflect back a little in time, there was the B.C. Tower - you know, the big, black ivory tusk that was going to appear in the middle of Vancouver without any consultation with the city at all, of course. The present government's attitude is: never consult at all with the people.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): If you guys are so smart, why did the public throw you out?

MR. SKELLY: In two years you're not even to be asking that question, Mr. Member - not in this House, at any rate. But we are concerned about environmental issues, and we're not attempting to develop fear around these issues. The fear is out there because of this government. The fear is already out there.

A petition coming in from Duncan in the Kitimat pipeline - miles from the potential impact of the pipeline - is signed by 1,500 people from that area. There are 5,000 on a petition from Prince Rupert. I get letters every day from all over the province -Kelowna, Richmond particularly - that say: "Stop the pipeline. Do what you can to stop the pipeline. Oppose the pipeline!"

We get this from fishermen - talk about people who want to stop the pipeline, who want to oppose the pipeline. The minister says we always oppose, oppose, oppose. Yet the kind of letters and the kind of communications we get from the people throughout the province tell us to oppose this pipeline. Fishermen from the member's riding are going to put their lives in the path of those supertankers. They've stated in convention that, if necessary, they'll put their lives on the line, that they'll go up to Otter Passage, that they'll go up to Douglas Channel, that when those tankers start coming up that inlet, they're going to put their lives in the way of those supertankers.

That's what I call opposition. That's the type of opposition that I admire. When the environment of this province is on the line, those fishermen and those people from organizations such as SPEC, which the minister attacked in his opening speech in the House this year, are willing to go out and put their lives on the line.

So I'll ask the minister again, without any kind of distortion, without twisting words around, without deliberately putting information into the mouths of people that didn't originate with those people, if the minister will tell me if he is going to ask the National Energy Board to hold off hearings until there is an opportunity to do adequate environmental studies. Is he going to do that? Is the minister going to do that? Is the minister going to tell us that he is going to take a firm stand against a dam on the McGregor River which has the potential to destroy the salmon fishery and the water resource value of the Fraser?

So I'll leave those questions now, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to answer. I hope that he doesn't take the opportunity again to distort the information which he's been given tonight.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how amused I am tonight. The last time this minister came into this House for his estimates he had a runner running backwards and forwards. The member for Alberni was asking rational questions, as he did earlier tonight, but because that minister had a runner back and forth, giving him all the answers to the questions that he was asked, he felt that he could get up and in a rational way, in a good radio-announcer way, read what he was told to say. Tonight he didn't have that luxury; obviously there is nobody in his office feeding him the lines ...

Instead of that, that minister got up tonight and gave the clumsiest political speech that I've ever heard in this House - with the exception of the First Minister's. What's happening to the other side when they want to get their estimates through? Instead of answering questions they get up and give a political speech against the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , who is one of the most thoughtful people around on the ecology of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's just a thankless job for the member for Alberni to try to contain himself when I'm not even trying tonight.

I just want to remind that minister who stood in his place when he was winding up ~debate on that Mickey Mouse amendment to the Pollution Control Act and said at that time that our party, when we were government, just amended it once. We enforced the Pollution Control Act, which was completely unique and quite new to this province. Prior to that, I remember when I first stood in this Legislature. I listened to some of my colleagues tell us that one laundry in Victoria had been charged under the Pollution Control Act - one laundry in Victoria in

[ Page 1512 ]

1971! Incredible performance!

Mr. Chairman, you can have all of the Acts of government before you - all the statutes that you like - but if you're not using those statutes, if you're not enforcing those statutes, what good are they? However, as the member for Alberni stated unequivocally, when we were government we brought in new legislation for the whole North American continent to look at, and they're all looking at it now and they were at the time. It's a piece of legislation that led North America. It's a piece of legislation that can possibly, under the present circumstances, even protect farmland now.

I don't believe, however, that that minister has much intention of doing so. I see what he's doing with the Land Commission. He's sacking the commissioners. He's moving very slowly toward putting that very good piece of legislation in the same kind of condition as that legislation that's been in force in this province for some time.

I don't think that we've got a very thoughtful Minister of the Environment. He was right when he was appointed. He said he wasn't sure why they were appointing him because he knew nothing about it. You know one thing that he's proven? He's learned nothing about it in the past year and a quarter. He's learned absolutely nothing!

The other day when he was having his questions answered by runners that were coming up from his office - or down from his office, wherever it might be - he did a fairly good job. But tonight he's been a disgrace because he's not answering questions. He's not talking in terms of what he's going to do about the protection of our environment.

That minister's reference to children, I think, is another disgraceful thing. He has absolutely no right to come in here and do the kinds of things that he's doing - not at all - if he expects to have any kind of consideration from the opposition. We were prepared with that minister to ask him questions, listen to his answers and debate those answers if necessary. Instead of that, he comes in here and makes a terribly clumsy political speech.

I certainly want to go into the whole Chilliwack situation. I want to go into the sacking of the commissioners. But I'm not going to do that prior to the time of my colleague from Alberni who wants to talk on that very same subject, I now yield the floor, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver East who so obviously wishes to get something out of his system.

MR. MACDONALD: I just wanted to ask a simple question. (Laughter.) You know, I'm not going to be critical of the minister in terms of him tampering with justice. He just made a very good speech, did he not? "Be careful not to prejudge the Kitimat hearing; that's very bad. Don't do that! Watch out that you don't interfere with a minister of the Crown with the enforcement procedure. You mustn't do that!"

You wouldn't think this was the guy who went on a walking saunter with Captain Terry and the pirates before the Meadow Creek....

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one was the pirate?

MR. MACDONALD: Eh? What I'm saying is that what this minister was doing, and he asked the question in this Legislature a little while ago: "Did I do wrong?" And the answer is yes, he did do wrong. You have no conception whatsoever of your function. You've been installed in office, after saying that you knew nothing about it, as minister to protect the environment and not to take walking tours on the subject that is before the Land Commission Act with one of the applicants who has been pressuring this government and has been giving campaign funds to this government, and then "depointing" the commission - not firing, not sacking - "depointing" four out of five members of that Land Commission. And he says: "Did I do wrong?" The answer is yes, you're tampering with judicial process. If the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who's in his seat here, had gone....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, let me start that sentence again. Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour was to discuss with the Labour Relations Board, which is an independent tribunal set up by our Legislature, one of the pending cases before the Labour Relations Board in the presence of one of the applicants who happened to be a member of his own party and who happened to have made substantial campaign contributions to the Social Credit Party in the just-concluded provincial election, that would be wrong. If the Minister of the Environment - as he said when he stood up here about a month ago - in all innocence is to ask if that was wrong, he ought to be given a resounding answer because he doesn't know what his job is.

Under the Land Commission Act in section 2, there is appointed a five-man commission with semi-judicial powers. It was intended that that Land Commission would not be subject to political pressure. It was a Land Commission Act with separate....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll debate this with Omineca any time you want to. If you don't understand this, if you're just part of that timber outfit and play for your timber any way you can get it....

[ Page 1513 ]

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk about that.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless, when this Legislature sets up an independent tribunal like the Land Commission, the Labour Relations Board, the liquor appeal board, the Corporate and Securities Services Appeal Board, then it is not proper for a minister of the Crown to discuss with them a pending case, particularly when that minister is going to be sitting perhaps on appeal from that very tribunal. You've all heard, have you not, about the judge's affair, where a minister of the federal government merely picked up the phone and gave the time of day with a judge in the city of Montreal named McKay?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's a good name, McKay!

MR. MACDONALD: It's a good name, McKay, but it was a bad....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: But the politician should not pick up the phone. He should not discuss a pending case with those who have to judge that case, when two adversaries are going to appear and expect justice. When he does that, Mr. Chairman, that is called tampering, and it is entirely wrong.

We have the very justifiable suspicion that this minister is an advocate for those who would break the Land Commission Act, that this minister is the felt presence in the government of the land speculator who hates with all the money hunger in his heart the kind of effort that the previous government made to preserve the green space of this province for the people of the province. That's what you are - you're an advocate. You don't like that Land Commission Act. Oh, it was a poor piece of legislation, wasn't it? You couldn't wait until you "depointed" four out of five commissioners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying very clearly is that this minister has been tampering with an independent tribunal which has been established by this Legislature. That is highly improper, and he is an advocate for those who would destroy the Land Commission Act. He is unfit to be Minister of the Environment - that's what I'm saying.

MR. C. D’ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek permission to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 28

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. SKELLY: There was someone on his feet for Fort George, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was up first.

MR. SKELLY: I'll defer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 84 pass? The hon. member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: I guess he lost his courage, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw that.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw it. I unconditionally withdraw that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I withdrew it.

[ Page 1514 ]

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker accused the Minister of the Environment of tampering with the Land Commission appeal process in which a supporter of the Social Credit party in the form of Captain Harry Terry - getting fewer all the time - had an appeal before the Land Commission. The minister went out with Captain Terry, took a look with Captain Terry at the proposal, and at other proposals such as the Block Brothers proposal out there in the Hazelmere Valley. And he accepted an invitation on behalf of one of the appellants in that case, an inquiry which was being held before the Land Commission of British Columbia.

The member for Vancouver East suggested that it was wrong of him to get involved in an appeal before a quasi-judicial body such as the Land Commission. But that's not the only time that it's happened. I'd like to talk about the application from Chilliwack of Sardis Land and Development company in which the people of Chilliwack, the Save the Farmland Committee, has asked ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, the hon. member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: ... the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government of British Columbia to inquire into possibilities of collusion, conflict of interest and political patronage in an application before the Land Commission by Sardis Land and Development company, a company that was involved in the establishment of a sewer district in Chilliwack, and in the application to delete approximately 127 acres from the agricultural reserve in the township of Chilliwack.

The minister had his staff hear the allegations of that Save the Farmland Committee. I'm talking about the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . They heard the allegations of conflict of interest and they offered to look into them and investigate them. Unfortunately, it was not #a public inquiry. Like so many of the in-house inquiries of the activities of this government, the public isn't invited to make statements and to investigate on their own behalf what is taking place in government. All of these are in-house inquiries.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member is drawing conclusions that have not been reached by this ministry with respect to the matter he is discussing. I suggest that he is misleading the House - not intentionally. But in view of the fact that the meeting to which he has referred took place only yesterday ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's out of order. He's out of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ... he cannot conclude . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: that an in-house inquiry is underway at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister. Hon. minister. Hon. minister? The phrase "misleading the House" is unparliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw it, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's out of order. He's also out of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I indicated perhaps "not intentionally, " that he is misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you withdraw, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not supposed to interrupt a speech like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: I suggested that an inquiry was being done, and that it was an in-house inquiry.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're jumping to conclusions.

MR. SKELLY: This is how I heard it from the Save the Farmland Committee.

[ Page 1515 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: Sorry. If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: The minister's staff said that they would look into the allegation and inquire into the allegations on that point. So if that's not an in-house inquiry, then I withdraw the assertion that an in-house inquiry was taking place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Proceed.

MR. SKELLY: But the Save the Farmland Committee, which, again, is an all-party committee representing people of all political parties with information from....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It's a public committee. You just sign a membership card.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Pirie. The person who originally approached the Attorney-General on the subject.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. SKELLY: The Chilliwack Council of Churches...

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, numerous denominations, If you don't know the parties that are operating in this province, Mr. Premier, you deserve a little political education, and maybe you'll get it tonight. You know this is a Premier who is willing, Mr. Chairman, to sit in his seat in the House but not to get up and face the music during his own estimates. Whenever the heat is on, he always shuffles it off to the Ministry of the Environment or to some other ministry. He can't take the heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: What heat?

MR. SKELLY: Yes, that's what I say. There's not much heat at all. It's very minimal, but he can't take it anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could we get back to vote 84, please?

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Vote 84 - the Environment and Land Use Committee, the agricultural land reserve.... I'm talking about the allegations by the Save the Farmland Committee that there has been collusion, conflict of interest and political patronage around the application of Sardis Land and Development company and the township of Chilliwack in requesting a deletion of approximately 127 acres from the agricultural land reserve in the township of Chilliwack. They allege that the Minister of the Environment met with the MLA for that area (Mr. Schroeder) and with one of the appellants - Wally Johnston, the president of Sardis Land and Development - to discuss that application in Chilliwack some six weeks ago.

I am wondering if the minister will answer a question. Did you in fact meet with the president of Sardis Land and Development company at any time concerning the application to delete that 127 acres comprising sewer district 10 in the township of Chilliwack? Did you meet with Sardis Land and Development company with Wally Johnston or his agents to discuss deletion of that area from the agricultural land reserve? All it takes is a yes or no.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I've met with many people over the years, including just before Christmas with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) concerning an intermediate care centre in Port Alberni. It was a very productive meeting. I've met with many ministers over the last four or five years. But I was not an appellant in a case involving a deletion from the agricultural land reserve. I was not an appellant in a case before a quasi-judicial body involving deletion of land worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a developer from the agricultural land reserve. I am asking the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: did he meet with Sardis Land and Development company, or with their agents or their president, Walter Johnston, over that application for deletion of the land in sewer district 10 from the agricultural land reserve in the township of Chilliwack?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's before the Land Commission, Mr. Member, and it has been before the Land Commission.

But the member for Vancouver East also pointed out the connection of this member with developers throughout the province, particularly in his riding. I would like to ask this member if he received campaign funds or campaign assistance from a

[ Page 1516 ]

developer in his riding, Bill Wright, a person who proposed the Ferry Marsh development at Ferry Road in Delta. Did the minister receive a campaign donation from Dayhu Investments or from Bill Wright? Subsequently, did he take a tour of that person's development proposal at Ferry Road ...

MR. LEA: Another tour!

MR.SKELLY: ... after receiving campaign funds and financial assistance in his campaign from the person who made application for a development at Ferry Road marsh?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You'll have an opportunity to get up on your feet, Mr. Minister, at any time. It's only 9:50 or 9:55.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. SKELLY: Tell that member, Mr. Chairman, that he will have an opportunity to question me during my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed on vote 84, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: This is a letter from the Richmond Social Credit association.

"This is your opportunity to participate in the return of responsible government to the province of B.C. Your Richmond Social Credit association is asking for your support. Your financial support is welcome and cheques can be made payable to the Richmond Social Credit association. Thank you for your help and co-operation.

"Yours truly,

"Bill Wright."

He is the proponent of the Ferry Road development. Did the minister take a tour of that property?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What title is mentioned in the letter?

MR. SKELLY: Dayhu Investments Corporation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I fail to see where this has anything to do with vote 84. Unless you can relate it, I'll have to ask you to switch your topic.

MR. SKELLY: This, Mr. Chairman, is the minister responsible for the lands in the province of British

Columbia and for the environment of the province of British Columbia. In particular, this minister recently was in discussion, and entered into an agreement, with the federal Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. LeBlanc) over the management of the lower Fraser estuary, which is threatened by several developments, including Vancouver airport, Roberts Bank superport, the Ferry Road marsh development.

Did this minister, after receiving campaign funds from Bill Wright of Dayhu Investments, take a tour of the property? What was the result of that tour? What did you talk about? Was it the weather, or the income from this letter-writing campaign that Bill Wright was involved in? How much money did you get from Bill Wright?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What was the date?

MR. SKELLY: When were you nominated, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the vote at hand. I must ask you to get back to vote 84 or take your seat, please.

MR. SKELLY: When's your birthday? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 84.

MR. SKELLY: I'm trying to indicate that it has nothing to do with it. It was 1975, the same year as the election, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What date? Not the year.

MR. SKELLY: Did you take a tour of that property with Bill Wright? Did you talk to Mr. Wally Johnson, or a representative of the Sardis Land and Development Ltd. with regard to a deletion from the agricultural land reserve?

Mr. Chairman, there are numerous applications before the Land Commission and the cabinet concerning deletions from the agricultural land reserves in the Fraser Valley. There are numerous allegations of collusion and conflict of interest on the part of members of municipal governments, and the money involved is in the hundreds of millions -possibly billions - of dollars in upward zoning of land that's presently in the agricultural land reserve.

What we're calling into question is this minister's right to serve in that position with the tight connections he has with developers, with the applications he's been involved in, with the fact that he's toured properties owned by admitted Social Credit members - people who donated to Social Credit campaigns. We're asking this minister if, in fact, he took the tours of these properties, and if he was involved in those appeals before the Land

[ Page 1517 ]

Commission. We'll await the minister's answers to those questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni would not supply sufficient information to make any sense of one of his allegations. He chose to quote out of context. He refused to give a simple answer as to the date.

MR. SKELLY: How do you know it was out of context?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Because it was incomplete, and that's what out of context means.

MR. SKELLY: No, it doesn't.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You refused to provide some basic information.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, he refuses to supply basic information. He takes it out. He doesn't answer simple questions as to what title the person was referred to in the letter.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Treasurer? Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the member's misunderstanding perhaps of campaigning and such, I think it's quite proper for a political organization to seek campaign funds. Probably you did the same thing and, quite properly, the treasurer would be the person sending out such communications.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I don't know.

MR. LEA: Did you get campaign funds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The man he referred to was the treasurer of the Richmond constituency association, and he did a great job for us in Richmond.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member may be aware,

Mr. Chairman, that in most campaigns you have a financial chairman who looks after campaign materials. Very seldom does a candidate know where the money comes from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course, I'm sure in Alberni he was very familiar with it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are certain jobs that are designated and delegated, and they've done a good job about it.

I was interested in the suggestion and accusation by the member for Vancouver East. There are many, many areas in the province that I've had the opportunity of touring, looking at, investigating to see what commotions are about, to see what some of the controversies are about - lands in Williams Lake and elsewhere, land that has been before the Land Commission or is before the Environment and Land Use Committee. We even had the audacity to go out and look at the Chilliwack appeal that was before the Environment and Land Use Committee. We had the audacity to look at the Greater Vancouver Regional District appeal. All of this was before the Environmental and Land Use Committee.

MR. MACDONALD: With the Chairman? Was the Chairman there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Chairman was certainly with me during the tour of the Hazelmere Valley. In fact, it was the Chairman who suggested we go out and have a look at these properties. He was going out to acquaint himself with it and, contrary to this rather strange attitude they have, it was not at the invitation of the much-hated Captain Terry. My goodness, no.

MR. LEA: You wanna bet?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: One of the reasons there has been so much controversy about Meadow Creek Farms is because the former government encouraged them to race there. The former government encouraged them to establish horse racing at Meadow Creek Farms.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, this very member who makes these wild accusations tonight signed the order-in-council that made it possible for

[ Page 1518 ]

racing at Meadow Creek Farms.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The third member for Vancouver East.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It came as a shock, Mr. Chairman, to some citizens of this province that ministers of the Crown would take time to look at controversial areas - areas which are of concern to citizens of this province. It came as quite a shock to some of them that ministers would take time to leave Victoria and go and look at various areas in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: You discussed the case with the Chairman. It's worse than the judge's affair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, kindly give the minister the courtesy of answering your questions. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Vancouver East, in speaking of the Meadow Creek, may not be aware of the history of the Meadow Creek. Certainly many persons are not. The suggestion that we were invited to attend by one of the appellants is incorrect.

MR. MACDONALD: You volunteered to go yourself. You heard about it and said, "I'll go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a great interest in these areas under conflict and it's my intention to get a first-hand point of view wherever possible, and first-hand knowledge of these areas. My deputy and I also had an opportunity this past year of looking at the Okanagan Lake problem. We even had the great thrill of watching some of the sewage lagoons in Kamloops, which may or may not, in the member for Alberni's mind, be some type of conflict.

I thought for a moment that the member for Prince Rupert was lurking in the lagoon, but apparently he wasn't. It was some preacher of some other type. I thought perhaps, for just a moment, but I was mistaken.

The member for Alberni, Mr. Chairman, speaks about collusion relative to Sardis Land and Development company. I'm sure that the member is referring to newspaper stories where people are quoted about collusion relative to a former municipal employee or a judge or something. This, presumably, is the collusion which you're referring to.

Going back to Meadow Creek for just a moment, the member for Vancouver-Burrard asked the question earlier in question period about an application before the Land Commission, when we went out and had a look at it in January, 1976, 1 believe it was. There was an appeal before the commission, which, as I mentioned, was denied. The appeal was denied by the Land Commission, just as, for the information of the member for Alberni, the appeal before the Land Commission on the Sardis development - presumably it's the same one you're speaking of - was denied.

MR. MACDONALD: Then you fired them all.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's where it is right now. The Sardis Land Commission appeal was denied, I believe, in January of this year. That's where it sits. There's been no further appeal to my knowledge.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To my knowledge, I have not met with people representing Sardis Land and Development and discussing Sardis Land and Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: To your knowledge!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have the great privilege of meeting quite regularly with the MLA for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) because he's doing a great job for his constituents.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): This has turned out to be quite an exciting night, and I think that it is a very good thing that we are showing the kind of interest that we are showing in one of our most valuable and most quickly diminishing resources, and that is land.

I was very interested to read an article in one of the daily newspapers not too long ago regarding some of the problems that are occurring in Brazil with land. It's a case where the government and the church, the native people and the landowners are actually involved in hand-to-hand struggle and physical fighting over the ownership of land. It is perhaps a good thing that here in British Columbia we have become aware of the intrinsic value of our land and the importance of retaining it.

It's interesting, too, to note that it's only less than five years ago that we had public opinion very aroused when the former government introduced the Land Commission Act. People were marching in this province opposed to that Act. But now, some five

[ Page 1519 ]

years later, we find that public opinion has changed. People have recognized here in British Columbia the importance of preservation of this most precious of all commodities. Now we find them out marching in opposition to the possible dismantling of the Land Commission and of the land reserve.

One of the major causes of the difference of opinion that arises over land and land control was pointed out last summer during the Habitat meetings in Vancouver when the then federal Minister for Urban Affairs, Barnie Danson, came to Vancouver.

In the course of his remarks he endorsed the Habitat resolution that the unearned increment, the profit motive should be removed from land. If those capital gains accruing to owners of land were not allowed to happen but were taken over by the state or the province or the government of Canada, these sorts of moves would be the things that would prevent the confrontations developing and would prevent the continued pressures from occurring on the land, and it could be used for its best environmental need rather than falling prey to the pressures of the monied interests.

I would like to ask this minister where he stands in this particular aspect of land development. Is he in accord with the federal minister and the resolution from Habitat which indicated that the profits accrued from developing land should be returned not to the holder of those lands, but any unearned increments should be returned to the state? I would like to ask the minister where he stands on that particular statement.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the number of pieces of land that have been considered over the last year or less and the number of newspaper items I have come on continuously, one after the other, asking to be considered to be removed and the concern that has been expressed. It has just been one after the other after the other.

1 have here something about Maple Ridge, with 141 acres. People are concerned about that. An industrial site was being developed, and that was before the Land Commission was brought into effect. That's 141 acres there, and that's part of the terrific erosion that was taking place before we had the Land Commission. You know, it's thousands of acres a year disappearing in that Fraser Valley.

We go all over the province. In my own constituency, Fairbridge Farm is out of the land reserve. The Captain Terry situation has been referred to many times tonight where we've had this very controversial case developing and where we've had groups of agriculturists - the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, for example - really opposing that. Now those are the technical people, the people that are supposedly knowledgeable about agricultural land, Mr. Chairman. They are concerned and opposing this particular move. Even some of the members of the

Ministry of Agriculture - the people who work with agriculturists and agricultural land - were concerned and opposed that move and came out and made a stand. But still we go ahead and find that the new Land Commission, the new appointees, have seen fit to remove that piece of land with no further evidence, nothing different, the same evidence that was presented before and turned down. Now it has been removed.

There is case after case. On the Englishman River development, here the people north of Nanaimo in the Parksville area are hitting the minister for inaction and we see the concern of the local residents there regarding this. Always we see this kind of a move going on with people continuously concerned about what is happening in our land.

When we come to Chilliwack, of course, this is the most outstanding example. The 1,800 acres have been turned down now twice, but still we find that the thin edge of the wedge is there, and now we're going to move with a small parcel and try and get that out.

Mr. Chairman, really this minister is charged with the stewardship of our most valuable resource, and it would seem to me that he is not fulfilling that stewardship. He is letting our land fritter away. He is letting these bits and pieces go. In spite of the public opinion, the sentiment that is being expressed, one by one the pieces of land are falling away.

Another one in my own riding is the Timbercrest. It's still in the land reserve, but what is going to happen? What is the policy of the government? Certainly the people in the agricultural industry are concerned. Ralph Barichello very recently - he is, as you are well aware, the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture - has said, and I will quote just briefly:

"The Land Commission has been too busy in its first three years hearing appeals, but the original intent was to hear a minimum, thereby giving the commissioners time to review the province's 27 agricultural land reserves."

The farm president complained that the minister now responsible for the Land Commission, Environment minister Jim Nielsen, keeps hinting at major amendments to farmland preservation legislation and Mr. Barichello would like to know why.

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

We've had another case of land in the agricultural land reserve, a very interesting case, Mr. Chairman, in the northern central part of the province. It was referred to earlier too - the Weldwood-Eurocan mill near Houston. A very strange sort of proceeding has gone on there. I wonder whether or not the minister has viewed that piece of

[ Page 1520 ]

property, whether or not he has viewed the possible site of the mill at Houston. Has he viewed any alternative site? Is he aware of the kind of hysteria that hit Houston with that in camera council meeting called to try and get that piece of land out of the land reserve, the attempt on the part of the council following the elections for municipal officers, the regional district meeting called by the old council there on December 15 the same way a move to attempt to get those pieces of land out? Is he prepared to stand behind the Land Commission in its attitude to view that particular piece of land there?

MR. KEMPF: How do you know they're going to review?

MRS. WALLACE: I understand that the Land Commission is holding hearings in that area, and I understand that you, Mr. Member, were very instrumental in those council and regional meetings.

MR. KEMPF: That's correct.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quoting from an article here from the Smithers Interior News:

"The present mayor of Houston says that he will not be bullied by the scare tactics of the company or by the MLA, J. Kempf, who is urging the people of Houston and the council to support the request for the Development Corporation for fear they will locate elsewhere."

And you say this isn't political, Mr. Chairman!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: That is the elected mayor of Houston, accusing you of scare tactics, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: Earlier tonight there was a letter referred to by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . I would be very pleased to file this letter with the House, if the House is interested. It's a letter that I received from one of my constituents and it enclosed a clipping from a newspaper. it says: "Government Interpretation Key to Log-sorting Venture on Estuary." This was a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of the Environment which says:

"Please find enclosed a recent article from the Cowichan Leader. Is there anything your department can do to stop further industrial development on this beautiful and productive Cowichan Bay estuary? Further industrial development will spell an end to fish, waterfowl and so on."

When the minister got that letter, Mr. Chairman, he replied to my constituent. You know, this wasn't the day after he was appointed as minister or a month after his election on ~December 11. This was July 2,1976, Mr. Chairman. He had been in office for some six months and he wrote to my constituent.

MR. SKELLY: He still didn't know why.

MRS. WALLACE: He said:

"Thank you very much for your letter of June 27 regarding industrial development on the Cowichan Bay estuary. However, this subject now falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Travel Industry. I am forwarding your letter to the hon. Grace McCarthy."

He didn't know, Mr. Chairman, that the Environment and Land Use Committee was under his jurisdiction apparently.

Eventually I had a letter on September 3 from the minister after I had followed this up, apologizing for his mistake. But really, Mr. Chairman, after six months as Minister of the Environment not to realize that the Environment and Land Use commission fell under his jurisdiction....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's not a commission.

MRS. WALLACE: "Committee, " then. The Environment and Land Use Committee fell under his jurisdiction. After six months, Mr. Chairman, to refer it to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Minister of Travel Industry, seems to me just a little bit too much. It seems to me to prove that in fact the Premier of this province saw fit to appoint an Environment minister who was not anything more than a token minister, a sop to the people of this province who felt that we should have an Environment minister. That is a very dangerous thing in my opinion, because it makes people become a bit complacent. They think their environment is being looked after; they think they have a minister who is responsible for that environment. Instead we have a token minister who, by his own word, is not knowledgeable and by his own action has proved he is not knowledgeable. By this letter he has proved it, if by nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get on with the people's business. You've been yakking all night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please, hon. members. I must put the motion.

[ Page 1521 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 28

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 84.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have quite a number of issues to deal with under the minister's vote pertaining to my own riding. I do want to say that I was absolutely appalled by the minister's response to questions this evening, particularly to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . Seldom have I seen such an irresponsible response to legitimate questions by a minister who has his estimates before the House and is seeking his salary from the House. I don't know who has been counselling the minister, but I would hope that he takes his responsibilities to the public of British Columbia a bit more seriously than he took his employment with the CJOR hotline in Vancouver and tries to give some serious answers, rather than attacks in response to questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's been documented in this House before how that minister responded to the press in the city of Prince George when he was asked about the dismissal of the Land Commission. He indicated that the wire service could go to blazes, as it were, and told the reporter who was seeking information from him that it was none of his business.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Quote!

MR. KING: All right, I'll quote, Mr. Chairman, to be precise and accurate.

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

MR. KING: It was reported in the Prince George Citizen on October 8,1976, that the conversation went as follows. I want to be accurate and the minister can certainly respond if he wishes or if he finds anything he objects to in the newspaper accounting. As an opener, the reporter introduced himself:

" 'Mr. Nielsen, we have received word from Victoria that the Land Commission, all but the chairman, have been sacked.'

"The minister: 'Who wants to know?'

"The reporter: 'The wire service.'

"Response: 'The wire service can go to hell.'

"''Did you sack the commission?'

"''Who says I did?'

"'Two members say they got letters, and your man, press officer John Arnett, did not deny it.'

"'That's perfectly correct; he doesn't have any right to comment on anything like that.'

"'But you have. You are the minister involved. Is it a fact you fired these men?'

"'What men?'

"'The Land Commission.'

"'No comment.'

"'Why did they get sacked?

"'The first answer answers that. Don't you know what "no comment" means?

"'Come on, Mr. Nielsen, you were a radio man. You know what "no comment" means. Did you fire those men?

"'No comment.'

"'Thank you, sit, for nothing.'

"'If you were smarter, you'd have gotten more. "

End of dialogue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Arrogance!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that is arrogance, in my view. I had hoped that, since that happened in October, 1976, perhaps the minister had amended his attitude and recognized that he has a responsibility to report the conduct of his ministry to the people of British Columbia, who pay his salary and on whose behalf all branches and all departments of government function. I find it very disturbing that the minister carries precisely the same attitude into this House as he responded to the press with. Rather than attempting to justify his policies and providing information to the House, he responds with an attack on the questioner, in a most arrogant, condescending

[ Page 1522 ]

way. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that this minister is going to be a long time in this House waiting for his salary if he continues to react with that type of attitude.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Threatening and lecturing.

MR. KING: I'm not threatening, Mr. Chairman; I'm promising the minister, because I think it's a shocking performance.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I want to ask the minister for some further information with respect to a document which I tabled in the House some weeks ago. I interpreted this document to be a government blacklist of public servants working in the lands branch of the minister's department. The point is, I don't want to get into a debate on the semantics of whether or not it was a blacklist. I claim it was. I interpret it that way. The government takes a contrary view. Fair enough.

What I'm interested in, Mr. Chairman, is the minister's report to this House, when his estimates were first introduced, indicating that he is now undertaking an investigation as to the propriety of the allegations contained in Mr. Ohlemann's letter, which characterized some members of the lands branch as being members of the New Democratic Party, others as being members of the Social Credit Party. My main concern in introducing that document in the first instance, Mr. Chairman, was that no one should be characterized by their political persuasion in a democratic society - and I would hope that British Columbia still meets that definition.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, and I'm elected also. That is a much different realm, Mr. Attorney-General, from public servants who, for the purpose of continuity -which is important to public administration - have been apolitical. I think most of them are certainly very professional types of people and do a good job. It's recognized that all governments change some of the senior administration when they come in - we did; your government has. Fair enough. But that does not extend to the middle area of management, and to the lower echelon of departmental staff, and so on. Their political affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively perform the functions laid before them.

What intrigues me, and what I want the minister to explain to the House, is why he waited a whole year. It's over a year, I believe, since the first list was mailed to him. If I recall correctly, it was in early January of 1976, and in February of 1977 the minister comes before the House and tells us that he is now investigating the propriety of Mr. Ohlemann's letter categorizing some of his departmental staff by their political affiliation, and that he has submitted this to the Public Service Commission for an opinion. Well, that sounds great, but I want to know, Mr. Chairman, why the minister sat on that document for over a year and kept it on file in his office.

Whether or not he acted in any way on the basis of the allegations contained in that document, this House can only speculate over. The minister may say that it did not colour his judgment in terms of dealing with those people. That's something the House can accept or look on with some skepticism, as many would. I want the minister to explain why he waited over a year before determining that perhaps there was impropriety in keeping on file this kind of information which can be categorized in the most charitable way as mischief-making, tattletale conduct by a person within his department.

Why did he keep that on file? Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney-General can tell the minister, under human rights legislation throughout Canada, it is not only discriminatory to make allegations or to treat people differently on the basis of their political persuasion, their religious persuasion, or their colour or creed. It is improper and in violation of the law also to keep on file records regarding people's conduct or serious allegations about people which could provide the grounds for discrimination against them.

I say that that is certainly a violation not only of the letter of the law but certainly of the spirit of the British Columbia Human Rights Code. I want a full explanation from the Minister of the Environment as to why he sat on that kind of document which well could have been the basis for discriminatory action against senior members of his staff, and found nothing improper about it until after it was raised in this Legislature. At that point he reluctantly confessed that indeed he did have that material on file in his office. After that, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Reluctantly?

MR. KING: Yes, I believe so. There was a question of the semantics of where the documents came from before the minister finally agreed that, yes indeed, he did have that material and it wasn't on file at his office. I don't believe that occurred on the same day that the documents were filed, so I think there was some degree of reluctance there. That's my interpretation, and the minister may wish to take issue with that - fair enough.

But I think it's a very serious matter. It's a matter that the Premier has not addressed himself to. He chose to deal with the threat to the security of the government made obvious by a leak of documents from a government department. That's a legitimate

[ Page 1523 ]

concern too; I do not quarrel with that. But surely a more fundamental concern should be any suggestion that public servants have been victimized, have been discriminated against, have been in any way held apart on the basis of some arbitrary and rather insidious categorization of their political preference.

I do not accept the minister's assurance to the House that he is now cleansed of all responsibility because he is now looking into it and has now referred it to the Public Service Commission for some advice on how to proceed. He's a minister of the Crown, Mr. Chairman, and I think he should have seen the impropriety of him retaining that kind of allegation on his files in a manner that could allow not only he himself but certainly staff members in his office to treat those people so categorized in other than a normal way that a senior public servant would expect to be treated. So I think that's something that the minister has an obligation to report on and explain why he waited over a year to take that kind of action.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the outset, I have a number of matters within my riding that I wish the minister would comment on to give me some indication of the present status of these issues, One relates to the Slocan Valley Resources Society that was set up under the previous administration. I think the minister is familiar with that. I know that there's an overlapping of responsibility of cabinet jurisdiction with respect to that committee. It relates to the Forests department as well as the Ministry of the Environment's department.

But, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the committee was to provide some basis at the local level for local public participation in setting the priorities for utilization of resources embodying not only perhaps new concepts toward forest management but to try to do so in a way that brought some degree of greater harmony between that need, that concept, and the legitimate concerns of environmentalists, the fish and wildlife branch and so on.

I know that the committee is still meeting periodically with some of the local representatives of the forestry branch and, presumably, the environment branch, too. But I would appreciate from the minister some indication of precisely what the future of that committee is. I understand they have no funding. They have no indication of any budgetary allotment to allow them to continue the kind of research into local resource development that they had undertaken in a very capable and intelligent way over the previous two or three years. So I would appreciate that information from the minister.

I think I'll let it go at that for the moment, Mr. Chairman, and give the minister a chance to respond to those couple of points without bogging his mind down with too many points to answer to at one time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to provide you with a status report on the Slocan Valley Resources Society. I understand the Ministry of Forestry is in the line agency in that now and we have representation from our water rights branch. The member, I believe, of water was leading that.

The comments and questions relative to the letter - we can both agree that it was a letter, at least, no matter what our semantics may be. The reason this letter sat in the drawer for a year's time or near that was simply because the letter made no impression whatever. It was not recorded as having been received and it simply laid at the bottom of a drawer for that period of time until the member brought it to the attention of the House. As a matter of fact, I believe the date on the letter was the day after the government was sworn in. I think it was December 23,1975. With all respect to the member, I really suggest that if you look at the letter, it is virtually impossible to read the signature anyway to try to determine who this person may be. There was no indication in that letter as to who this person was, whether he worked for the Ministry of Environment, Lands or whatever. The letter simply made no impression whatever. When you raised the question in the'House, I replied to you that I would have to look very carefully to see if such a document existed, and it was discovered to exist indeed.

The point that I think is quite important is the propriety of such actions by any member of the civil service. When I made my inquiry to the Public Service Commission I did not make an accusation that someone had actually done this, because at that time there had been no indication by the person who later claimed responsibility for the letter. I felt it was important for the Public Service Commission to provide me with a view as to the propriety of such actions by any member of the public service, particularly as it relates to that person's oath of office or to any code of conduct that may be established by the Public Service Commission.

I do not have a reply as yet from the Public Service Commission. Some of my senior staff have also offered an evaluation of the situation relative to the Lands office. At the moment, we have not reached a conclusion on that.

So in answer to the major question, again I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the reason the letter did not have any effect at all was because it made no impression. It was soon forgotten except by whoever stole it and made a copy. That's the only time that it was brought to our attention in the House. Presumably it would have sat there endlessly until someone may have taken the liberty of stealing it again and made another copy. But that's the simple explanation.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's response,

[ Page 1524 ]

Mr. Chairman. I understand then that he is awaiting an evaluation from the Public Service Commission as to the propriety of someone in his department transmitting this kind of what turned out to be very erroneous information.

He is the minister; he's a minister of the Crown. He's certainly in charge of the Ministry of the Environment I wonder if he would care to just give me some indication of what his own personal views are. I think this is a reasonable question, Mr. Chairman. A minister is responsible for his department. I know that the minister did write letters to the offended people, and I commend him for that. But I think that he must have a view regarding proper conduct to be expected from people within his department. I know that he is prepared to report to the House when the Public Service Commission response comes in. In the meantime, I'd appreciate his own view on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the member appreciates that I don't wish to prejudge the case, nor do I want to make any suggestions to the chairman of the Public Service Commission. But I said shortly after the issue was raised in the House that I felt that such a practice was questionable. I've reiterated that it had so little impression on me that perhaps that might indicate that I really think that that type of.... If it is a practice, should it occur more than once by anyone, I think it's an absolutely unnecessary part of any person's occupation. Personal information transmitted in such a way, I think, can be dangerous, particularly if it's inaccurate.

I can't attest to the accuracy of the comments. When the press spoke with me outside of the House on that day, I had to ask them what names were involved, because I certainly didn't know which names were on there. I can't attest to the accuracy because I've never questioned any of these people at any time as to political affiliations or political concerns, desires or attitudes. I made a facetious remark that all of them couldn't be NDP because some of them are pretty bright people, but that was a facetious remark at that time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's true nevertheless.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, to the member, yes, I consider it to be a very serious situation. If that type of communication is being circulated, I think it is a very, very questionable practice. I await the report from the Public Service Commission. I think perhaps it's an indication that I did take it that seriously to follow through in that manner to the Public Service Commission.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to continue in the same light and facetious vein, I would hope that the minister's definition of "bright" would preclude membership in the NDP anyway. I think that's well taken.

I had hoped, though, that the minister might offer some comment on what he viewed to be the morality of people tattling - carrying tales regarding their fellow employees in his department. He views it as questionable, and I think that's somewhat encouraging. But I would have expected a bit stronger statement from the minister regarding the conduct of people in his department. I would expect some indication from the minister as to how he feels about the morality of people transmitting that kind of information.

1, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, received a letter a short time ago myself regarding one of the government cabinet ministers. I viewed it to be rather scurrilous and rather irresponsible, and I responded giving that indication. I certainly see no reason why a minister or a politician should hesitate to make that kind of a judgment. Surely we're elected to take a firm stand with respect to the morality of issues such as that, and to so indicate to those in our department for which we're responsible.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member realizes that there is a due process when it comes to allegations against civil servants, they being members of their union and being represented. There is an acceptable process for any type of complaint against a civil servant. I'm certainly not going to prejudge, nor would I ever consider myself to be a person who would judge some other person's morals - any person's morals. We're not discussing morals; we're discussing the propriety of actions of a person in the civil service through a legitimate inquiry with the Public Service Commission. The person has all the protection of his union, all the protection of the collective agreement, all the protection of the rules and regulations of due process of grievances. Mr. Member, being a prominent worker in the past in unions, I'm sure you would appreciate that that must be regarded as vitally important, because we are not going to prejudge any person. If the Public Service Commission responds, then perhaps we have an opportunity of looking into the matter further.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his assessment of the contractual rights of the person in his department. Quite frankly, I must say, Mr. Chairman, I had no great difficulty deciphering the signature to that letter, and certainly I didn't see that as any insurmountable obstacle to finding out where the letter came from.

But grievance procedure within the government service has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at

[ Page 1525 ]

hand. If the minister proposes some sanction against the employee, then of course that employee has recourse through his union. But that does not interfere with the minister's right, and indeed his obligation, Mr. Chairman, to set up rules of conduct which he thinks are morally acceptable....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Morally?

MR. KING: Yes, morally acceptable. Of course, morally acceptable.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Whose morals?

MR. KING: Well, I think the morality, Mr. Chairman, set down within the Human Rights Code is something that is fairly safe, and it is generally accepted that it wouldn't involve the kind of personal judgment that the minister seems to find repugnant. I think it's pretty much common sense in most institutions that the boss would not encourage ratting or tattletaling on fellow employees unless there was some criminal conduct involved, but certainly not on the basis of their political persuasion, their religious preferences, their private lives in any way.

Mr. Chairman, if the minister is not prepared to do that, I think he is evading his responsibility. He is the head of that department. He has an obligation to give direction. He has an obligation to lay down a code of rules and a code of conduct in his department. I'm surprised and shocked that he apparently is unwilling to do so and is going to the Public Service Commission to tell him whether it was really proper, whether it was morally correct for someone in his department to send in a letter condemning and categorizing fellow workers as being a threat to the security of the department because of their political persuasion.

Mr. Chairman, if we do indeed have a minister of the Crown who is not prepared to take a public stand, or indeed to issue direction to his departmental employees on the basis of what is decent, what is proper and what he perceives to be morally correct, then I have to assume that that is the approach of this government. I say that the people of British Columbia are in trouble tonight. I think they're in real trouble if that is indeed the case. I can only assume that employees, upon hearing the minister's attitude, will feel free to engage in any kind of activities, secure in the knowledge that the minister will evade his responsibility to give direction, -to admonish and censure where necessary, and simply shirk his responsibility and hand it over to the Public Service Commission.

I think that's a rather shocking position for a guy who used to go on hotlines and tell us that he had all the answers to the ills of society in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. I'm tremendously disappointed.

Well, if he can't answer that satisfactorily, 1 guess we have to draw our own conclusions.

Interjections.

MR. KING: 1 would request of the minister to indicate to me whether he intends to provide the House with the information relative to the response he receives from the Public Service Commission. Will the minister let us know what advice he gets? Will you let the House know what advice you receive? Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before 1 entertain the motion of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that a motion was accepted by the Chair erroneously this evening. We would like to draw it to your attention, make sure that you know that the error did occur, and that a precedent was not intended to be established. A motion to report progress, having been negatived, cannot be repeated during the pendency of the same question, being subject to the same rule as that observed in the House itself, which will not admit of a motion for the adjournment of a debate to be repeated without some intermediate proceeding. Some intermediate proceeding is also intervening business, which is interpreted by Beauharnois to be something that can be properly entered in the Journals of the House. The Chair this evening entertained two such motions in order, and a precedent is not intended to be established.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just so you are aware that the same situation did occur on a previous night sitting, where two motions for the committee to rise did occur, without intervening business in the way which you describe it, I would just wonder whether, in light of this occurring on more than one occasion, a precedent has, indeed, been set.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, a precedent is not intended to be established. The Chair does not knowingly allow this to happen.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, during committee earlier on this evening an incident arose which I would ask you to take under advisement and report back to the

[ Page 1526 ]

House. The issue involved a charge by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) had - I forget what the term was - been guilty of collusion. I can't recall the precise wording but the charge was collusion, which I hold in a very, very serious way, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was asked by the Chairman of the committee to withdraw, whereupon he issued a further charge that the member for Alberni was lying. I believe the member for Alberni responded....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Deliberately.

MR. KING: Yes, "deliberately lied, " and the member for Alberni also accused the minister of lying. I am less concerned with the charges that occurred after the Chairman intervened than I am with the initial charge of collusion.

The Chairman's ruling, Mr. Speaker, was that the....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, please?

MR. KING: The point of order is the Chairman's ruling that it was adequate for the Minister of Mines to simply indicate that he imputed no improper motive. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Chair for a ruling as to whether or not it is adequate. I am asking the Speaker to give a ruling on whether it is adequate to simply indicate that no improper imputation is meant rather than to specifically withdraw the words and the charge levelled when it is of such a serious nature that it reflects on the integrity and the honesty of a member of this House.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you be so kind as to examine the Blues tomorrow for the exchange that did occur and to give guidance to this House. I am concerned not only for the members involved but I am concerned that....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a point of order or a speech, hon. member?

MR. KING: I am making a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I think is serious in terms of this Legislature functioning in future. I would hope that Mr. Speaker would want to listen to this point of order because I certainly do not intend....

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order I am prepared to listen to, hon. member.

MR. KING: I do not intend to be slandered and have it go on the records of this House without being specifically withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to accept that.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not accused anyone on the government side of the House of any illegal or improper action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: 1 have certainly never refused to specifically withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not engage in conversations across the floor.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there's a great distinction here. If people are allowed to leave on the records of this House specific charges of improper conduct, of lying, of collusion, of graft, of stealing and matters like that without specific withdrawals, 1 suggest that this place will degenerate into an impossible institution.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you study the Blues, you will have an opportunity to reflect on the exchange that took place. I would appreciate your ruling so that there can be consistency both in the House and in committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mirabile dictu, Mr. Speaker. 1 now move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I just say one word replying to the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan before the motion to adjourn is taken?

1 view with equal concern the conduct of the members of this House in recent weeks which has bordered on the unparliamentary too frequently and too often from both sides of the House, when in debate they have skated close to the thin edge of disaster. I don't think it's good for either side of the House to engage in that type of debate.

The Speaker has no knowledge of what took place in committee, and the Chairman of committee is competent to handle the things that do happen in committee unless they are reported to me when the House rises. I am quite prepared to review the tapes with the Chairman of committee, and with any other member of this House who so desires, but I must say this to the hon. members. Those things that happen in committee will be handled in committee by the Chairman of committee.

I would hope that in future all of the members of this House will be guided by the suggestion by this Chair that the type of debate which 1 have observed and which I have read in the Blues in recent weeks is not becoming of a legislative assembly and that many members have skated consistently so close to the edge

[ Page 1527 ]

of disaster as to be questionable as to whether they should sit, or be asked to leave the chamber.

I hope you take that - all of you - as a word of suggestion on my part that if we are to operate as a legislative assembly, assembled to do the business of the people of the province, then we must live with the rules of the House and engage in debate which is competent within the rules of the House and which does not reflect repeatedly on the conduct of other members, or impugn those members to the extent that has happened in the last few weeks.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 07 p.m.

APPENDIX

Pursuant to Order, the Hon. Grace McCarthy (Provincial Secretary) presented the following report:

REPORT
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Room,
March 2,1977

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed January 13 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report and recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committees for the present Session be as follows:

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS-Messrs. Mussallem (Convener) , Davidson, Haddad, Rogers, Schroeder, Strongman, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, the Hon. K. R. Mair, the Hon. E. M. Wolfe, Messrs. Lauk, Levi, Macdonald, Gibson, and Wallace.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-The Hon. J. J. Hewitt (Convener) , Messrs. Calder, Kahl, Kerster, Loewen, Veitch, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, the Hon. A. V. Fraser, the Hon. P. L. McGeer, the Hon. D. M. Phillips, the Hon. L. A. Williams, Messrs. King, Lauk, Skelly, Stupich, Gibson, and Wallace.

AGRICULTURE-Messrs. Bawtree (Convener) , Davidson, Schroeder, Shelford, Strongman, the Hon. J. J. Hewitt, the Hon. D. M. Phillips, Messrs. D'Arcy, Stupich, and Mrs. Wallace.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING-Messrs. Lloyd (Convener) , Haddad, Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Schroeder, the Hon. J. R. Chabot, the Hon. H. A. Curtis, the Hon. A. V. Fraser, Messrs. Barber, Barnes, Nicolson, and Gibson.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE-MESSRS. Loewen (Convener) , Bawtree, Veitch, the Hon. K. R. Mair, the Hon. L. A. Williams, the Hon. E. M. Wolfe, Mr. Macdonald, Ms. Brown and Sanford.

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES-Mrs. Jordan (Convener) , Messrs. Kahl, Kerster, Mussallem, the Hon. R. H. McClelland, the Hon. P. L. McGeer, the Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm, Mr. Cocke, Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy and Wallace.

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS-Messrs. Kempf (Convener) , Calder, Kahl, Rogers, Shelford, the Hon. Jack Davis, the Hon. R. H. McClelland, Messrs. Barnes, Lea, and Lockstead.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES-The Hon. J. A. Nielsen (Convener) , Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Kempf, Kerster, Lloyd, Schroeder, Strongman, the Hon. J. R. Chabot, the Hon. Jack Davis, the Hon. T. M. Waterland, Mr. Lea, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. Skelly, King, Gibson, and Wallace.

Respectfully submitted.

GRACE M. McCARTHY, Chairman