1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

1823 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Oil pricing policy. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1823

Mr. Macdonald — 1823

Mr. Gibson — 1823

Mr. Wallace — 1824

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates

On vote 48.

Mr. Skelly — 1825

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1827

Mr. Skelly — 1829

Mr. Lea — 1830

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1834

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1835

Mr. Lea — 1836

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1836

Mr. Lea — 1837

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1838

Mr. Lea — 1839

Point of order

Withdrawal of unparliamentary language. Mr. Chairman — 1839

Mr. Lea — 1839

Mr. King — 1839

Mr. Chairman — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1840

Mr. Lea — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1840

Mr. Lauk — 1840

Mr. Speaker — 1841

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1841

Mr. Speaker — 1841

Mr. Lauk — 1841

Mr. Speaker — 1842

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

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1842

Mr. King — 1842

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1843

Mr. King — 1843

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1844

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1845

Mr. Skelly — 1845

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1847

Mr. Nicolson — 1851

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1852

Mr. D'Arcy — 1852

Mr. Wallace — 1852

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

Order for second reading discharged — 1853

The House met at 8 p.m.

OIL PRICING POLICY

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a

short statement. I'd like to make a short comment on the position of

the Government of British Columbia regarding the new oil prices

announced by the federal government in Ottawa today.

As the House is no doubt aware, the government has announced that

the price of oil will go up by $1.05 a barrel in July and an additional

70 cents in January. This means, of course, a rise at the pump of 3

cents a gallon in July and an additional 2 cents in January. This

government must express some dismay that the federal government hasn't

chosen to accept British Columbia's strong representation to phase out

the federal 10 cents-a-gallon tax at the pumps that was imposed as part

of the two-price oil system in Canada, along with raising the price of

oil.

Mr. Speaker, I further say that British Columbia's government at

this time will withhold any further support of the rise until such a

time as we are assured that British Columbia will receive the

approximately $2 per mcf at the border that we requested from the

National Energy Board on export of our natural gas, which was a part of

our proposal to the government concerning resource pricing, energy

pricing and petroleum product pricing at the recent conference. This

decision is expected within the next few weeks.

Primarily we hope the federal government and the National Energy Board

will allow the approximately $2 per mcf that we requested on export of

British Columbia's gas, and I would hope that they will reconsider

their position of phasing out that vicious tax at the pump that was

imposed only for the benefit of central and eastern Canada for the

two-price oil system.

At the Western Premiers' Conference, the meeting of the First Ministers,

I reiterated British Columbia's strong stance on the matter of provincial

rights in maximizing the revenues of our natural resources. We continue to oppose

the federal government's intervention in this most important of all provincial

jurisdictions. I reject entirely the statement that came out of the Ontario

Legislature today, attributed to the Hon. William Davis, and reports that the

Liberal leader in Ontario suggested that the federal government should expropriate

the oil industry in western Canada for the benefit of central and eastern Canada,

and I would hope that all members in this House will rise to oppose that suggestion

out of Ontario that the federal government expropriate the resources of western

Canada for the benefit of the east.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I wish to congratulate

the Premier on his failure to get the price increase he wanted. He

wanted at least a $2 increase in the price of a barrel of oil. This

would have meant 10 cents increase for the gasoline consumers by July

1, and 5 cents for every dollar in the barrel of crude. As it is now,

the increase visited on the people of the province of B.C. will only be

7 cents by the end of this year, based upon $1.70, so I take this

opportunity to wish the Premier continued failure.

I would say that British Columbia itself produces 55,000 barrels a

day of crude oil, which is cut back now because Imperial Oil is on a

slow strike against this government in the Boundary Lake field. The

flow from that field has been reduced by 10,000 to 15,000 barrels a

day. They're running into technical difficulties, Mr. Premier, which

means they want more money — and the Premier's going to give them more

money.

I want to know whether the increased money given to the oil

companies is going to be taken back in higher royalties. The costs of

production of our own fields have not increased, and this is a pure

bonanza to those fields and to those producers. If the money is not to

be brought back into the coffers of the public of the province of

British Columbia, it is simply going to flow into the international oil

companies, and their subsidiaries who drill and explore, with no

guarantee whatsoever that that drilling and exploring will take place

in the province of British Columbia or in the Arctic of Canada.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Just to put our position on the record, when

the Premier says that it's too bad that somebody wants some

expropriation of resources, I say that the public of Canada ought to

expropriate one of the great producing international companies in

Canada, and that is Imperial Oil — drill through that medium with the

best managerial techniques, the best drilling prospects and bring

natural gas and crude oil flowing into Canada through a public

enterprise with the revenues to the public, and the consumer protected.

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

want to assure the Premier that this party opposes any suggestion

emanating out of Ontario — not quite any suggestion, but this

particular suggestion...

[ Page 1824 ]

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

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

I was entertained to hear the Premier speak of this vicious tax of

10 cents a gallon, which is imposed on gasoline only for the benefit of

central Canada. The Premier neglected to say that most of this vicious

tax is paid by central Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier suggested that another government, a

government over which we have no jurisdiction in this House, should

phase out part of their taxation system without suggesting where else

they might raise the revenue. If somebody else suggested that about our

government here, the Premier would rightly call him irresponsible. I

don't think he should have said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Separatist!

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

The Premier said that he would withhold further comment on the gas

price increase, and I'm very puzzled by that since he was so much in

favour of it last week, in terms of the rise in the price of oil. I'll

take it that he's still in favour of that.

The one thing that we are still missing is a commitment on the part

of our government in British Columbia to encourage exploration from

such additional funds as may flow through and be controllable at the

provincial or the corporate level. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is

very much the duty of this government. Unlike the hon. member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), I am not concerned about more money

going through to the company as long as we make sure that that money is

used in exploration, and I say that's the duty of the government.

MR. WALLACE: Well, speaking as the oil expert for the

Conservative Party (laughter), I must say that the Premier has a great

time, first of all, telling me to send my speech to Premier Lougheed

and now telling me to attack Premier Davis. I'm just having a terrible

time with these Tory premiers in the rest of Canada.

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

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

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

My view, as I've stated several times in this House, is that the

essential challenge is to provide the necessary incentives to explore

and find new sources of oil. There's no question that that is the

central problem, that proven resources are far smaller than was stated

in 1973. The conflict I find is that by putting up the price of oil

closer and closer toward the international price, unquestionably we are

increasing inflationary pressures at a time when we are all dedicated

to trying to control inflation.

Although I jokingly referred to myself as the Progressive

Conservative oil expert, I don't for a moment look at it any other way

than the layman in the street. All of us, as ordinary citizens, know

that there is no other ingredient than perhaps the price of food and

shelter which so intimately affects the cost of living as the price of

crude oil and all the derivatives we use, so I really find this

conflict difficult to reconcile. On the one hand we are trying to fight

inflation and, at the same time, we are putting up our own Canadian

resources in price in the manner mentioned.

But I would, on the other hand, say very clearly that Ontario, or

any other province, has no right whatever to talk about expropriating

the resources in some other province. I can't support the Premier too

strongly in that context. But I do think that the challenge to

provinces such as ours, and Saskatchewan and Alberta, is not to be

blinded by the Ontario spectre, and to remember that there are Maritime

provinces with no natural resources worth mentioning.

As far as I'm concerned, the 10-cent-a-gallon tax, which enables the

federal government to help subsidize the price of oil to people in Nova

Scotia and Newfoundland and New Brunswick and the Maritime provinces,

is some evidence of the fact that we're not just paying lip service to

Confederation but we are, in practice, proving that we're willing, to a

degree, to sacrifice some of our provincial wealth to help those

provinces less well off than ourselves. Therefore, like life itself, it

is a compromise.

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

[ Page 1825 ]

Premier referred to, which I was unaware of, that

Premier Davis had suggested expropriation...it's quite unacceptable,

totally unacceptable. In fact, that kind of suggestion from Ontario,

which is probably the richest province in the whole country — just

because on this occasion it thinks that its ox is being gored rather

than someone else's — doesn't contribute much to the spirit of

Confederation and national unity.

So I feel that if we have to reject the two-price system and

proceed, as the Premier has stated he will, towards reaching the

international price, I do hope that in the weeks and months ahead he

will give us some outline of the mechanism which will guarantee that

not only exploration will occur but that we can have an optimistic and

reasonable hope that new sources of crude oil will be discovered within

Canadian boundaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further this

evening, I beg your indulgence for a few moments to introduce to the

House some guests from Adelaide, Australia. We're honored this evening

to have the presence in the members' gallery of Mr. Connelly, the

Speaker of the House in Adelaide, and Mrs. Connelly and the Clerk of

the House, Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Dodd. I hope you'll welcome them.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni):

Just before the supper recess, the minister made a cursory introduction

of the department that he now administers and the branches which have

been consolidated under his jurisdiction. Then there was the reply from

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Prince Rupert

brought out some information that concerned us a great deal on this

side of the House, particularly concerns about the attitude of the new

Minister of Environment towards the public and towards the truth. He

quoted a statement made by the Minister of Environment or repeated in the Vancouver Sun

of December 23, 1975, in which the Minister of Environment is reported

to have said that "politicians shouldn't always be honest or candid

with the public."

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

MR. SKELLY: He was quoted after his defeat in the 1974

federal election: "You can't afford to be completely honest with

people. There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and

conned."

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

MR. SKELLY: An unbelievable statement from a person who was

running at that time in a federal election, had just suffered a defeat,

ran again and is now a minister of the Crown in British Columbia. We're

wondering, Mr. Chairman, if that minister still believes those

statements to be true, still espouses that type of philosophy, and if

so, whether or not we can expect him to be perfectly candid, perfectly

honest, in dealing as between hon. members in this House, in answering

questions on the minster's estimates.

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

MR. SKELLY: I don't know if he's not a Conservative now, Mr.

Member. After all, we're dealing with a vote here for the minister's

office of $114,000 — $43.3 million for the total budget of his

department, which he says should be doubled. We'd like to have his

assurance, as representatives of the public, of those same people that

he feels should be bribed and conned.

He said: "There are a large number of people who want to be bribed

and conned." We want to have his assurance during the discussion of

that minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, that he will be giving us

straightforward answers in this House, that he will be candid and

honest and frank with the representatives of the public who are sitting

on both sides of this House.

We're also concerned,

Mr. Chairman, about that minister's ability to handle a Ministry of the

Environment, and about his concern for environmental matters within the

province. When the minister was first appointed, when he was first

sworn in, he admitted he had no idea why he had been chosen for this

office. Believe me, we had no idea why he had been chosen either. It's

quoted again in the Vancouver Sun , January 8, 1976:

"Environment minister, Jim Nielsen, frankly admitted" — and I hope he

was being frank at the time — "that he had no idea why he had been

chosen for the portfolio, because he had no background nor any

particular interest in the field."

"Foot in Mouth Disease Afflicts Government" is

[ Page 1826 ]

the headline on that article.

So that is another concern we have about this minister: concerning

his interest in the department, concerning his frankness in his

dealings with other members in this House, as between members in the

House, Mr. Chairman, when he has made remarks that a large number of

members of the public believe they should be bribed and conned and that

politicians should not always be honest or candid.

We're concerned also on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, about

some of the attitudes that this minister seems to subscribe to,

attitudes that are representative in other departments and other

instrumentalities of the government. For example, there was a statement

in the paper today by Robert Bonner from B.C. Hydro where he was

defending his attitude that moose are more important than men, and he

said...

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

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

He said this: "Bonner defended his 'moose or men' statements made

earlier this year by saying that people should take precedence over

animals in the environment as long as any future energy sources are

harnessed in a fashion he terms as reasonable." They were very similar

to statements made by the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) up in Terrace just a little while ago, where he says: "Well,

who cares about a few ducks or a few geese when we're building a

pipeline across the northern part of the province?"

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

MR. SKELLY: Also, it's very similar to statements made by

that Minister of Environment just after he was appointed. "When a major

development takes place you can't just look at what's happening to the

land, the water or the wildlife, " he said; "you have to take into

consideration what's happening to the people." That's an important

position to take, Mr. Minister, if you are the minister for a

department that is exploiting the environment for the benefit of the

people of this province, if you were going out cutting timber, for

example, and facilitating the cutting of timber in this province, if

you were going out mining, for example, or facilitating mining in this

province. But this minister is supposed to be the devil's advocate,

especially in that government. He is supposed to be the advocate for

that very land and the air and the wildlife of this province, for

without them, men can't live in this province, Mr. Minister.

We're wondering about the attitude of this minister, whether he is —

as he has expressed doubts himself — qualified to sit as Minister of

Environment in this government, whether he is being perfectly frank

with the people of this province, whether he is intending to be

perfectly honest and candid with members of this House who represent

the people of this province, who he says wish to be bribed and conned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair can't accept as

parliamentary any suggestion that an hon. member will not be honest

with the House. If the hon. member is suggesting that something like

this is a possibility, then he must withdraw.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May I just conclude this statement?

The member has clearly misunderstood. It is not the statement of the

minister that we wish you to withdraw, and I must ask you to withdraw.

It is an imputation against the character of another member of this

House to suggest that he might not be candid or honest with the House,

and therefore I must ask the member to withdraw. On a point of order,

the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) read

clearly the undisputed statements of the Minister of Environment where

he said that one cannot or should not always be candid with the public.

Now for heaven's sake, all the member for Alberni is saying is that

this brings a cloud upon that minister. That minister has to clear

that. He said clearly in his opening remarks, which were very well

delivered in this House and should be noted by the back bench in

improving their speech material, that the minister how has an

opportunity to make clear to this House and to the public that he did

not mean those remarks, that those were foolish remarks and he is

trying very hard to repent. That in no way imputes that that minister

will say or do anything in this House that will not be honest.

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

[ Page 1827 ]

may I just cite a couple of authorities? It is the responsibility of

the Chair not only to rule in this instance but to provide the

atmosphere in this House in which all of us would feel very, very

comfortable. Now here is standing order 40(2), which says: "No member

shall use offensive words against any member of this House...."

Beauchesne , in the fourth edition, also says on page 115: "A personal

attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House." As

a result, I think that we should guard against this kind of thing in

the House.

I think we can clear this up very readily by just asking the member

whether he wishes by his remarks to impute any wrongdoing or any wrong

motive on the part of the minister. Could you answer that?

MR. SKELLY: No, I am not imputing anything to that minister,

Mr. Chairman. I am simply citing something that that minister said when

he said that he should not always be honest or candid with the public,

when he said: "You can't afford to be completely honest with people.

There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and conned."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. As long as you are not translating that

to actions which might be anticipated by the minister in this House,

you may proceed. I must remind the member that we have listened to him

now three times make an innuendo which could be found offensive. I must

warn against it.

MR. SKELLY: I do not wish to make any innuendo, Mr. Chairman.

I think the minister's statements are perfectly clear as to what he

believes his transactions between himself and the public should be. I

am simply asking his assurance that those won't be the bases of his

transactions between himself and members of this House when answering

questions. When the minister has an opportunity to stand in his place

and reply to those questions, I am sure that he will assure us that

those statements are not still his beliefs.

We are concerned about that statement, Mr. Chairman. We are

concerned about the positions this minister has adopted vis-à-vis the

environment as the minister responsible for protection of the

environment in this province. We are concerned about the whole attitude

of the government over there and whether this minister has in actual

fact, because of his inability and because of the fact that he has no

previous background in the environment and has expressed no interest in

it, been appointed by the Premier of this province to preside over the

degradation of the environment of this province and the destruction of

the land, the air, the water and the wildlife of this province. I'd

like some assurance from that member, who hasn't made very many

statements in this House in defence of the environment, that he intends

to be the devil's advocate for the environment in that cabinet that so

sorely needs an advocate for the environment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the critics on

the opposite side of the House have mandatory obligations to make

statements which may be somewhat negative. I certainly appreciate their

role in that process. It is interesting how the member who was most

recently speaking drifted away from the quote-quote on occasion and

substituted new words for the alleged quote but it made it a bit more

of an impact by altering the words. That's fine.

The statement attributed to me, which took the form of a full-page

ad in the last provincial election, I might add, was indeed made,

similar to what was quoted by the member after July 8, I believe it

was, 1974. Interestingly enough, if I can just go back a moment, the

comment was made in context with an interview I had at the Vancouver Sun

after the election campaign and the election night of that federal

election. In due course, I was speaking with a reporter from the Sun .

She asked me about my comments and thoughts about politics and so on. I

did say that I had learned a great deal from the election campaign.

One thing I had learned was that a politician cannot afford to be

completely honest or candid with the population if he intends to be

elected. Interestingly enough, that entire federal campaign was based

on a wage-and-price concept in controls, as you know, which the Liberal

Party federally opposed and then introduced after they had been

elected. I would suggest that had they been totally honest and candid

with the people that, indeed, this was their concept, they may not have

been successful and been elected.

However, I suppose the problems of being totally candid are many.

Previously the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) suggested to me the

same quote, and then he said in another quote: "The minister, being

totally candid, said he didn't know anything about environment." So

there's a perfect illustration of when you are candid how people will

not accept your candid statement but rather use it later to try and

embarrass you or whatever use it is....

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Unfortunately for these members, because

they were not invited to the swearing-in ceremonies of the new

government at Government House, because the people of the province

decided they didn't want them there, they were, unfortunately, not in a

position to hear what

[ Page 1828 ]

was said;

MR. LAUK: Now don't be arrogant.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now rather than argue with the press, very

simple questions were asked by reporters that day. I don't know how you

went about appointing your ministers, and I'm not sure what your

Premier asked you or mentioned to you when he asked you to serve in the

cabinet, but when the Premier asked me to be Minister of Environment, I

didn't ask him why. A reporter from the Vancouver press asked me: "Why

were you chosen for Environment?" Appreciating the language of our

land, I told him very frankly: "I do not know why, " because I hadn't

asked why.

MR. LAUK: You didn't eh?

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

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We didn't pursue the issue. There were more

important things to pursue at that time. Now interestingly enough —

just to defend a position, if it's of any interest — the question asked

was: "What do you know about the Department of Environment?" Of course,

at that time there was no Department of Environment, and I told the

reporter that I knew nothing about the Department of Environment. It

hadn't really been established at that time, but that is somewhat

immaterial.

To the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea'

s) interesting point

about the parks raised earlier, indeed I must admit that there was some

confusion because a statement had been made that parks, perhaps, would

be under the Department of Environment. And to include the parks branch

within the Department of Environment received a certain amount of

consideration.

I don't have the documents before me, but I can assure the member

for Prince Rupert that it's accurate — it's of interest that we

received a tremendous amount of representation from various interested

groups, including the Wildlife Federation, which were opposed to

putting the parks branch within the Department of Environment...and

various other persons involved in naturalist groups. But perhaps the

greatest lobby was from people within the department of parks who felt

that it should be a very important and integral part of the Department

of Recreation and Conservation.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They put up a very strong lobby that it be

retained as an integral part of Recreation and Conservation. They felt

unless the entire department was transferred, it would be better not to

break off parks from the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

Certainly that was part of the consideration in the consolidation of

the departments which eventually formed the Department of Environment.

Had the member for Prince Rupert been doing his homework, he would

have found that an order-in-council had been passed very early which

assigned these duties to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

This was also available to the press, but apparently it didn't catch

their attention that day because no one pointed it out.

I certainly take under consideration the comments made by the member

for Prince Rupert relative to the possibility of conflict — the Lands

department in the Department of Environment, and I think I can

understand some of the comments he made. But I really do not believe

that it is the major conflict, perhaps, you may see. The Department of

Lands administers lands, and in many, many instances, the use of land

is considered by the Department of Lands first with the possibility of

its ecological effects or its environmental effects. So in that

instance, the Department of Environment certainly has a great deal of

control over the use of these lands. I think that perhaps, at this

moment in time at least, it's a very valuable function of the

Department of Environment relative to lands.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

order. I thought I heard the hon. minister say that no one can get

elected if he or she is candid with the public. I'd just like to

double-check that because I don't consider that a proper thing to say.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly not.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 48 pass?

[ Page 1829 ]

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I certainly did not. At least: I wanted to

attempt to explain the context of that statement. Being completely honest and

candid has many more applications rather than some of the very stringent applications

of the words honest and candid. Certainly I didn't mean honest relative

to criminal activity or anything. But I think it perhaps may be of general information

that sometimes when you are totally honest with a person, or totally candid

with a person, you cannot get a positive response from that person. I could

perhaps cite doctor-patient relationships where very often a doctor is hesitant

about telling the patient precisely what his problem may be, because it could

be something detrimental to his well-being.

I'm sure that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) has been as candid and honest with the people in his riding as

possible and I'm sure they appreciate that.

Now I have no desire to reflect upon the character of any member in

this House, none whatsoever, nor was.... I don't really believe that

was the question before us. I was attempting to explain statements

which have been made, but if the members choose not to accept the

explanation, I can't be responsible for that. I might mention that that

quotation was run in a full-page ad in the Richmond Review during the

election campaign, a day or two before the election, by the New

Democratic Party of Richmond, and it resulted in a 53 per cent majority

for myself.

MR. SKELLY: I find it strange, Mr. Chairman, that the member

wouldn't give other members of this House an assurance that he intended

during this discussion of his estimates to be completely honest with

people, to be completely honest and candid.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not finished yet.

... who had opposed wage-and-price controls, then made a switch a

few years later and adopted wage and price controls — actually wage

controls — throughout the country. I think the Prime Minister of Canada

(Hon. Mr. Trudeau) was perfectly candid when he came down and made the

statement that they had a change of heart, that they had seen the

situation differently. It was the same as the First Minister of this

government when he promised to impose an anti-inflation freeze on taxes

in British Columbia and he came and made a candid statement to the

House that he couldn't keep that promise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 48.

MR. SKELLY: We accepted that candid statement, that he had

had a change of heart within four months of taking office. All we're

asking, Mr. Chairman, is an assurance that that minister doesn't

believe the statements that he made in 1974 and that he's going to be

perfectly honest and frank and candid with other members of this House

in dealing with estimates of the Department of Environment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I really wonder if it's

necessary for any hon. member of this House to provide other members of

the House with such an assurance. If the member for Alberni is

suggesting that any statements made by myself are less than honest and

candid, I would appreciate a direct suggestion rather than some form of

innuendo.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, since no statements were made in this House

which he is mentioning directly rather than quotes, I would wonder if

indeed any member of this House is required by any other member to

assure the House that they will indeed be honest and candid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this House, all members are hon. members and

by virtue of their membership here they need give no assurances of

whether or not honesty will be the greatest guide in this House. It is

assumed, it is implicit in the membership that all members being

honourable are also honest. I think that we should get back to vote 48.

I think that we could conclude that matter.

MR. SKELLY: Just on that same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

think we can accept that ruling by you. It's simply that the quotation

cited in the Vancouver Sun of December 23 is a reflection on

all elected members — not just the Minister of Environment but on all

of us. If he's standing up in this House right now and saying that all

members of this House are expected to be perfectly honest and frank and

truthful with each other, then, as a member of this House, I take that

as an assurance from himself that he is included in those remarks.

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

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

[ Page 1830 ]

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

The one thing that I did bring up before was other remarks that the

minister had made, the fact that he was surprised he was appointed,

that sort of thing, and saying that he had no interest in the

environment. I would have assumed that he would have surrounded himself

with people who may have had a history of dealing with environmental

issues and people who do have an interest in the environment. I noticed

that when his executive assistant, Keith Frew, was interviewed and

asked, "Mr. Frew, what do you know about the environment?", he said:

"Well, I don't know anything. It's new, isn't it?" I suggest that

possibly the minister's not surrounding himself with people who know

what it's all about either, and I think that that would be a great loss

to the province.

I believe that Mr. Frew was the assistant to the minister when he

was in radio, and pushed the buttons and held callers off and that sort

of thing. I assume that.

lnterjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on a subject

that I have been asking questions about for some weeks, and that's the

summary report of the federal-provincial Thompson River task force that

was begun in 1973 by both the federal and provincial governments. I

would like to just briefly say that this report really was initiated

early in 1971 when complaints from the public about the deterioration

of water flow in the Thompson River system were received by several

government agencies. In other words, members of the public — anglers,

the public at large, and also environmental groups — became very

concerned about the Thompson River and also Kamloops Lake. In the fall

of 1973 it was decided that a federal-provincial task force would be

formed, consisting of the province of British Columbia in the form of

Environment Canada. This task force was completed in 1975.

I would like again to stress the fact that it was the public at

large that brought this matter to the attention of government agencies,

and said: "Look, we're a little concerned about the Thompson River,

we're a little concerned about Kamloops Lake and we'd like government

to look into this and see whether we have justification to be concerned

and, if so, what can be done." The

summary report on that task force

was made public on January 22, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go through, as I see it, the story

surrounding the release of this task force to the public and also to

the two polluters that were named in this report, the city of Kamloops

and Weyerhauser.

The first thing that came to my attention was a press release from

the Kamloops Daily Sentinel of December 24, 1975, headlined: "Thompson

Gets a Peek at Pollution Report." It's by Bob Miller, Sentinel staff

writer. Quoting from this article, from the beginning, it says:

"Mayor Al Thompson will get a sneak preview of the

controversial Thompson River pollution study while in Vancouver during

the first week of January. 'I'm going down to be briefed on the study

and will report back to city council,' he told council Tuesday."

It's known now through my questions to the minister, Mr. Chairman,

during question period that indeed that meeting did take place in West

Vancouver between Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops, representatives of

Canada and representatives of the province of British Columbia — the

pollution control branch and Environment Canada.

On January 2, 1976, a letter was sent from the president of SPEC

Kamloops, Don Ellsay, and it's addressed to the Hon. William Bennett,

Premier, Province of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings, Victoria,

British Columbia. It says:

"Dear Sir:

SPEC Kamloops wishes to express its most vigorous opposition

to the continued and protracted series of delays in the release of the Thompson

River-Kamloops Lake pollution study.

"Our information is that the report has been in draft

form since at least the end of November, and is being held back by

senior government officials in Vancouver. Further, we wish to register

our objection to the secrecy surrounding the report and to the fact

that a sneak preview of the study is currently being afforded selected

persons, including the mayor of the city of Kamloops, seemingly in

their roles as representatives of the polluters involved.

"SPEC Kamloops therefore asks that preferential

treatment in access to the study cease immediately, that the study

promptly be made freely and conveniently available to the public who,

in fact, paid for it, and that a copy of the study be forwarded at once

to SPEC Kamloops, Box 244, Kamloops, B.C.

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

Yours truly,

(signed)

[ Page 1831 ]

Don Elsay,

President,

SPEC, Kamloops."

It was carbon-copied to Mr. Nielsen, Minister of Environment, and

Mr. R. Mair, Minister of Consumer Services, because the minister is the

representative for Kamloops in the Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I didn't know that. The minister says he was the NDP

returning officer. I don't know what difference that makes. Anyway, the

letter was referring, Mr. Chairman, to this news report where the mayor

said he was going for a sneak preview.

He also must have carbon-copied the leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), because the leader of the

Conservative Party, the hon. member for Oak Bay, wrote to Mr. Ellsay,

the president of SPEC, on January 7, 1976, and said:

"Dear Mr. Ellsay:

This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of a letter sent

to the Hon. William Bennett, Premier of British Columbia, dated January 2. In

that letter you were seeking immediate release of the Thompson River-Kamloops

Lake pollution study, which is apparently in draft form, and is being made available

privately to selected individuals, including the mayor of the city of Kamloops.

"If this is happening, I can certainly appreciate your

concern and distress. My office will make inquiries of the Minister of Environment

to find out when the study is to be released publicly. We will be in touch with

you again when I have some accurate and useful information to pass on to you.

"Yours sincerely,

Scott Wallace, MLA."

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

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

Canadian Scientific Pollution and

Environmental Control Society

Box 244

Kamloops, British Columbia

Attention: Mr. Don Ellsay, President

Dear Mr. Ellsay:

Thank you for copying me in your letter of January 2 last

to the Premier outlining your opposition to the handling of the Thompson River-Kamloops

Lake pollution study.

This matter does not come within my jurisdiction. However,

I trust you will be replied to by the Minister of Environment as soon as possible.

I appreciate you informing me of you r views.

Sincerely,

(signed)

K. Rafe Mair,

Minister

cc: The Hon. J. Nielsen,

Minister of the Environment

When I look at these two letters, Mr. Chairman — the letter from the

hon. member for Oak Bay writing to a person who is not his constituent,

showing concern, saying "I'll endeavour to try and do something for

you," and the letter from the Minister of Consumer Services to his

constituent, which is a very curt letter, not suggesting that he would

help in any way on an environmental matter, with a carbon copy to the

Minister of Environment — I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister

of Environment took his colleague to task for writing this kind of a

letter.

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

MR. LEA: This letter is an insult. That letter is an insult

to any constituent who writes his MLA. This letter is nothing more to

me, Mr. Chairman, than a letter of someone showing contempt for

environmental matters, a letter thinking that anybody connected with

environmental societies is nothing but a kook and a nut.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. This is really not

the administrative responsibility of the minister whose vote 48 is.

Let's return quickly to vote 48.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this indeed has to do with the

Minister of Environment because it's a matter that the Minister of

Environment is involved with. He is receiving carbon copies of letters

from his colleagues to do with environmental matters, and we're

discussing the vote of the Minister of Environment. As I said, this

letter conveys to me that the person who wrote it thinks that

environmental groups are kooks and nuts and that Mr. Ellsay is a kook

and a nut, and the minister has confirmed that. He said across the

floor: "Yes, that one is."

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

"Dear Sir:

I have a reply of the copy of your letter of January 2, 1976,

to the Hon. W.R. Bennett, Premier, concerning the federal-provincial Thompson

River task force report.

[ Page 1832 ]

"I understand that the report is now in the hands of

the Queen's Printer and that copies should be available within the next

two weeks.

Yours very truly,

(signed)

James A. Nielsen,

Minister"

I would suggest that this letter probably Mr. Chairman, would have

been a bit more help if this letter of January 8 had not been written.

If this letter had not been written and carbon-copied to the Minister

of Environment, probably this letter would have been just a little more

help. He would have offered a few suggestions on how he could help a

president of a local environmental group, Mr. Chairman. But he took his

cue. He got a carbon copy of that president of SPEC's letter from his

own MLA.

Then on January 21 the Kamloops Sentinel says: "Pollution Report May

be Released Thursday." (This was Wednesday.) Sure enough, on January 22

the report was made public. The Kamloops Daily Sentinel on the 22nd

said: "City Mill Blamed for River Pollution." Well, of course, there

were two groups that knew that for sure already — the city of Kamloops

and Weyerhauser — because they'd had a sneak preview of the report.

They had that on January 8. And coincidentally, Mr. Chairman, if we can

believe that this kind of coincidence can happen, guess what? The same

day that the report was released, Weyerhauser had their press release

and it went in the Kamloops Daily Sentinel the same day.

That is the danger that this minister seems not to understand, or at

least he didn't indicate to me during questions that I asked during

question period. He doesn't understand that it was the public who first

raised the topic. It was the public and environmental groups that first

went to government agencies suggesting that just maybe there was a

problem in the Thompson River and Kamloops Lake and possibly it should

be looked into.

What happens? The study was done. The two polluters named in the

study were called in and said: "Hey, guys, here's the report. Here's

the report." What did they do? They got their story ready to be

released on the same day that the report was released. Is that the kind

of government we want? Do we...?

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

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

MR. KERSTER: Do you have the proof?

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

Interjection.

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

"SPEC Kamloops believes a number of important points

have become evident with the public release of the federal-provincial

Thompson River task force

summary report. These include:

"

(1) By identifying the pulp mill and the city as the

major polluters, the report has confirmed what citizens and the

representatives of environmental organizations have been charging for

years and have thus vindicated them in their objections.

"

(2) The report itself is good, its conclusions are

sound, and its recommendations should be implemented promptly. For

example, both city and pulp mill phosphorus discharge should be reduced

significantly; pulp mill colour should be substantially reduced from

its brown-to-black discolouration level; fish-tainting agents should be

removed, and so on.

"

(3) The report's recommended environmental

socio-economic study should be begun at once within the context of a

comprehensive study of the total Shuswap-Thompson drainage basin based

on water resource management.

"

(4) Finally, SPEC believes that in light of the

summary report, the city of Kamloops should reorder its scale of values

and give the highest priority to the protection of our environment

through vastly improved sewage treatment and disposal."

That was January 26. March 15, another letter from Don Ellsay,

president of SPEC Kamloops, this time addressed directly to the

minister:

March 15, 1976

Mr. J. Nielsen,

Minister of Environment,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, British Columbia

Dear Sir:

With the release of the Thompson River task force

report, and in light of the conclusions of this study, SPEC Kamloops feels that

careful and consistent monitoring of discharges from both Weyerhauser Canada's

effluent ponds and the city of Kamloops sewage lagoons is essential.

The lengthy

and complicated studies undertaken to determine the causes of the pollution

of the Thompson River should now warrant immediate action by the provincial

government to ensure that steps are taken to rectify the existing problem. Your

assurance that everything possible will be done to restore the Thompson River

to a healthy

[ Page 1833 ]

condition would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

Don Ellsay

To my knowledge, this letter hasn't been answered. Why, Mr.

Chairman? Can we speculate and say it was the letter of January 15 to

Mr. Ellsay, carbon-copy to the Minister of Environment, which I said...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...showed nothing but contempt for environmental

issues and, in particular, SPEC Kamloops and Mr. Ellsay as president of

SPEC? Of course we can. The Minister of Environment, being led down the

garden path by a colleague; the Minister of Environment, thinking he is

going to satisfy the wishes of the MLA for that region, who just

happens to be a cabinet colleague, thinking he is going to satisfy

those wishes. No letter.

Let's get to the questions.

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

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

This is a question directed to the Minister of Environment: has

the Thompson River task force report, which was prepared jointly between the

provincial government and the federal government, been released and, if so,

on what date?

The answer from the minister:

Mr. Speaker, in reply, I do not believe the report has been released

to this time. If the hon. member would like a further answer, I will be happy

to find out from department officials when it is anticipated it will be released.

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

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

MR. LEA: He didn't know.

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

Interjections.

MR. KING: No one else knows either.

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

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

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

MR. LEA: In this one he says.... This is after the meeting of

January 8, where Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops, the province and

the federal government met to discuss the

summary report. The last two

paragraphs of the minister's answer of April 5:

The order is in the form of a permit; amendments would follow

the availability of the technical reports and would be subject to appeal in

the normal way. It's noted that the letter transmitting the report to the

directors, dated December 1, 1975, stated: "The findings and conclusions

of the

summary report reflect the overall view of all task force submissions

and therefore may vary slightly from those expressed in the individual technical

reports." At this meeting the directors inquired as to when the back-up

technical reports would be available and, in the absence of these reports, how

to determine the degree of variation referred to in the letter of transmittal.

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

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

...the authors agreed clarification of certain sections was

required prior to final printing, which was done by the federal Queen's

Printer in later January, 1976. Three hundred copies of the report were printed,

and besides being distributed to federal and provincial government departments,

copies were made available to such public groups as the Steelhead Society, Savona

Community Association, Spences Bridge Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Cattlemen's

Association, Pacific Trollers Association, United Fisherman and the Native

Indian Brotherhood of B.C.

Forgot to mention SPEC — left it out.

The fact of the matter is, what did it say in that report that went

to the meeting of January 8? The minister said that there were changes

made. I wonder if the minister would table the original draft in this

House. What changes were made to the report?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

I also asked the minister during question period

[ Page 1834 ]

who attended the meeting. The minister said that the authors of the

report attended the meeting. He didn't mention at that time that some

authors of the report had attended the meeting and others hadn't, which

turned out to be the case. But what changes were made, if any, in the

report?

But I think what we can look at here, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that

the environmental groups, concerned about the Thompson River, and

concerned about Kamloops Lake, got short shrift from the Minister of

Environment because of an offhand, rather cavalier, overbearing letter

that was sent to Mr. Ellsay on January 15 from the Minister of Consumer

Services and representative for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) in this House.

The minister says: "Yes, he feels that way." He says that he feels that

way.

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

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The whole thing is objectionable, and I'll read it

again. I read the letter from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

as Leader of the Conservative Party, where he pointed out his concern

and that he would endeavour to do something. Now Mr. Ellsay's own MLA,

the Minister of Consumer Services, wrote back a letter saying:

"Dear Mr. Ellsay:

Thank you for copying me in your letter of January 2 last

to the Premier outlining your proposition to the handling of the Thompson River-Kamloops

Lake pollution study. This matter does not come within my jurisdiction. However,

I trust you will be replied to by the Minister of Environment as soon as possible.

I appreciate your informing me of your views.

Sincerely yours,

K. Rafe Mair."

His MLA!

What would you do if you were a minister, Mr. Chairman? What would

you do if you were a minister and received a carbon copy of this kind

of letter from that constituent's MLA? You would take it as notice that

you were not to treat him in a very nice way. Consequently, I suggest

to you that the environmental groups in that area got short shrift from

this government, through the Minister of Environment, because of this

very, very silly letter by the Minister of Consumer Services — I admit,

new to office, but surely some common sense and courtesy should be

shown to the leader of the environmental group in his own riding, and

obviously, if he is in his own riding, a constituent.

Mr. Chairman, I think this whole situation is disgraceful,

absolutely disgraceful, that the Minister of Consumer Services would

write that kind of letter to Mr. Ellsay, carbon copy to the Minister of

Environment. Disgraceful!

I suggest to you that possibly this letter had some bearing on the

manner in which this report was released to the polluters but not to

the environmental groups and to the public. A sneak preview on January

8, and no release to the environmental groups, no courtesy shown to

them. They weren't called in and said: "Look, you instigated this. What

do you think of it?" Only to the polluters — and the environmental

groups got it on the same day as the general public, on January 22. An

absolute disgrace!

HON. MR. MAIR: I rise to question the rather convoluted

reasoning of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and also, if I may,

Mr. Chairman, a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King)

— two points of order.

First of all, my intention, and the meaning intended in the letter

that the member has quoted from and the remark from the Leader of the

Opposition indicating that I did not regard myself as representing all

the people of Kamloops, but just the Socreds — both of which points,

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to clear up.

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

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

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, perhaps in order to obviate any of those

difficulties, Mr. Chairman, I would simply speak on the question of the

estimates.

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

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the letter which the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has quoted from I consider to be a very polite

letter directed to Mr. Ellsay. I intended, certainly, no rudeness to

him. I tried to point out to him very clearly that the problem he

raised was not in my jurisdiction. It's true it was not. It was in the

jurisdiction of the hon. Minister of Environment.

Both the salutation and the closing words were, I think, in the

greatest of good form and politeness, and notwithstanding the fact

that I personally do not agree with what Mr. Ellsay does in Kamloops in

[ Page 1835 ]

SPEC, I intended no disrespect and intended no rudeness to him, and

I rather gather that he would not have taken it as being rude at all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, had I wanted to act as if I did not represent all

the people in Kamloops, but only the Socreds, I would have acted as

the previous administration had done and simply not bothered to answer

the letter. I think people in Kamloops got something like four or five

letters in three and a half years out of those people when they were in

government. I answered the letter promptly, Mr. Chairman. I answered it

in what I considered to be a fair and polite manner. I intended to be

fair and polite, and I suggest that anyone who takes any other meaning

from that has to put a convoluted meaning upon it which is not worthy

of consideration by the members of this House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman, relative

to the comments of the member for Prince Rupert. First of all, I'd like

to advise the member that it would be my pleasure to table the report

requested at the conclusion of tonight's proceedings, if you so desire.

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

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

MR. LEA: I have that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, this was the first report, the one you

spoke of. If it's your desire, I'll table it after the conclusion of

tonight's session.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe you asked for the first report.

You said you had the second report. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding

you. If you do not have it, maybe we could work this out and if you

would like it....

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My understanding was you were requesting a

first report. This was the original report you referred to, I believe,

and if you'd like to see it, I'll certainly table it.

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

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

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this Thompson River report, which has

received a considerable amount of discussion in the House previously by

way of questions and answers — if I could just offer a few comments

based on information of research which has been provided me by my

department staff. It says: "After review, a meeting was held on January

8, 1976, in the offices of the Environmental Protection Service in West

Vancouver...." Minutes of the meeting, or at least a statement of the

meeting.... The meeting was held January 8, and I'm not suggesting that

the member for Prince Rupert is in error, but the mayor is not listed

as having been in attendance.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The representatives of the city of Kamloops

as noted by these minutes are — now they could be wrong — Alderman

Stocks and Mr. Nyberg, a city engineer, but that's a moot point.

"After a review, a meeting was held on January 8 in the

offices of the Environmental Protection Service in West Vancouver. The meeting

brought together the two principal dischargers named in the report, the city

of Kamloops and Weyerhauser, and the authors of the report and members of the

study committee. Now the purpose of holding the meeting was:

(1) To meet a commitment...

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to this!

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

...made in 1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops that the report

would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents."

The commitment was made in 1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops that the report

would not be released without first making them aware of the report's contents.

One of the reasons for the meeting was to follow through with an

obligation, apparently, which had been made previously, by as much as a

year previously and perhaps longer than that. I don't know what the

reasons were at that time.

The second point made: "It would permit the dischargers named in the

report to clarify with the authors the meaning of various sections of

the report" — perhaps it may be appreciated that a lot of the report is

technical, and these people wanted to get together; at least they

expressed a desire to get together as far back as 1974 to go over some

of the

[ Page 1836 ]

technical jargon — "and to advise the dischargers as to the method

by which the report's recommendations would be implemented" — namely on

orders from the director of pollution control, issued under the

jurisdiction of a provincial statute, which is the Pollution Control

Act.

The meeting was not held in secret. The people who were invited to

that meeting were responsible representatives of various agencies, the

environmental protection service of the federal government, the

pollution control branch of the B.C. government, the inland waters

branch, Weyerhauser and Kamloops. There seemed to be very little out of

order with such a meeting, particularly when we receive information

that a promise had been made by the former government that the city of

Kamloops would see the report prior to its release.

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

MR. LEA: Which former minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The former minister who would have been

responsible for the Pollution Control Act — presumably the former

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams).

Now if the former minister had made that commitment, or if the

former minister had permitted that commitment to be made by a deputy

minister or someone else within the department, I see nothing

particularly wrong with that type of commitment. Indeed, if the people

who were the major polluters — and there was no secret as to who the

major polluters were, even prior to the report being released — wanted

an opportunity to speak to the technical people who were responsible

for the report to have an opportunity of going over some of the

technical information, I see that as nothing shocking or alarming.

If you would like to compare the two reports to see if some major

changes were made, if alterations were made which perhaps gave Kamloops

an advantage or Weyerhauser an advantage, I can make that report

available to you. It's of some interest that the city of Kamloops has

begun a study and have approved $20,000 to $50,000 plus labour to carry

out some experimental work employing chemical additions to the lagoons

to see if they can treat the problem, so progress is being made.

One of the reasons, I understand, or at least I am informed, there

was some urgency in seeing that the polluters were aware of the

situation was so they could get on with the job of trying to clean it

up. But if you see anything sinister in this, then I suggest that it's

something which has occurred within your own mind, and it would appear

that things followed a very natural course going back as far as 1974

when the commitment was originally made.

If you feel that the minister responsible at that time or officials

within the department at that time were perhaps in error to make such a

commitment, that's fine. But the commitment was made and it was

followed through. I see nothing sinister.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate it if the

minister would.... I think we can check it — we don't have to do it

formally — we can check and see if we have the same report. December,

1975, is on the report that I have — December 1, 1975, the letter of

transmittal.

But I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, who authorized that the city

of Kamloops and Weyerhauser were both told that they would have a

chance — Weyerhauser and Kamloops, or just the city of Kamloops? How

was it done? Was it done by telephone? Was it done by letter? Who wrote

the letter? Who made the telephone call? Was it done at a meeting? Who

made the commitment?

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that January 8 was the time the

meeting took place between Weyerhauser, the city of Kamloops,

Environment Canada and the pollution control branch. It seems to me

that if the Minister of Environment didn't read from the correspondence

of the Minister of Consumer Services that the environmental group

shouldn't get it, there was ample time between January 8. It could have

been in the afternoon of January 8, in the evening of January 8, on

January 9, on January 10. In other words, the environmental groups

could surely.... These were the groups that brought it to the attention

of the government agencies. Surely these groups, the anglers along that

river, the public at large, the environmental groups who took the ball,

got it rolling, got government agencies concerned...and what happened?

They were left out in the cold.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Environment,

upon the wish of the Minister of Consumer Services, treated those

environmental groups differently than he treated the polluters, he

treated them differently that he did the polluters.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think perhaps I can explain something to the

member opposite from my own knowledge as a citizen of Kamloops at the

time and also as a member of the city council of Kamloops from July

1, 1973, through to the end of 1974.

The question of pollution of the Thompson River was hardly raised by

SPEC. It was raised by everybody who had anything to do with the

Thompson River and Kamloops Lake for years and years. SPEC was one of

them. Quite properly, the

[ Page 1837 ]

governments got together for a study, no question about that at all.

But I think the House should know that in July or August of 1973

members of the pollution control branch or certainly that department

attended at city hall, at city council, and gave a verbal report to

them. That report was also given at the same time to members of

Weyerhauser who attended the meeting. It was an in-camera meeting and I

attended it.

AN HON. MEMBER: January 8?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, no, this was back in 1973. This was when

the first report came down, when the first findings were made. Now

shortly thereafter, the federal people also gave a similar report to

the members of city council and officials of Weyerhauser. If my

recollection serves me correctly, Mr. Tom Rust, who was the president

of Weyerhauser at that time, was at one or both of those two meetings.

Now at that time, you may recall, member opposite and for Prince

Rupert, there was a schism between the federal government and the

provincial government as to what the polluting causes were. As a matter

of fact, it was not really a question of what the causes were, because

everybody knew that it was the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser. It was

a question of degree that they were split on and it was a question of

degree of proof. I recall very well these two meetings. So there was

nothing secret the whole way through. No secrets at all kept from these

two particular groups — the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser, who by

all logic were the only people who could possibly be responsible for

this pollution.

Now it is quite true also, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members

opposite, that during this whole time from the very beginning, Mr.

Ellsay of SPEC insisted that he be brought into the picture on all of

the findings of the committees, or committee, depending upon how they

were getting along at the time. At all material times he was turned

down on his requests to be brought into the picture. Whether that's

right or wrong is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is

that Mr. Ellsay was not kept in the picture, because he had no status

in the matter, certainly throughout the time I was involved, which was

July 1, 1973, through to the end of 1974.

So I hope that clarifies at least to this extent that there were

certainly no secrets. Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops were kept

abreast of the situation, and while, of course, I was not involved in

the provincial government at the time, I wouldn't be at all surprised

if some sort of verbal communication giving the findings was also

communicated both to the city and to Weyerhauser during the course of

these studies.

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

I still contend that the Minister of Environment obviously thought

that the Minister of Consumer Services wanted him to treat Mr. Ellsay

in an offhand and cavalier manner. I'm asking the minister: did the

Minister of Consumer Services ask you to treat Mr. Ellsay in a

different way than other environmental groups or any others?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I can assure the member for Prince Rupert

that no, certainly not, the Minister of Consumer Services, as MLA for

the district, did not broach the subject relative to Mr. Ellsay. I

don't know the day Mr. Ellsay was in my office, not that it is that

important, but I have met with Mr. Ellsay and we've had some

discussions. But, no, of course not. The information in the letters

which you have read were recognition, acknowledgement of receiving his

correspondence and so on.

I'd like to just stress once again, though, that it seems that the

history of this report and the preliminary reports leading up to it go

back farther than perhaps we realize to begin with. It would seem that

there was some type of an ongoing understanding between the two

governments and the major polluters in the Thompson River to continue

some type of an ongoing study as the report progressed. I would take it

that the January 8 meeting was one of the last of such meetings.

I stress once again that it followed a commitment which was made in

1974 and 1975 to the city of Kamloops — my notes do not say to

Weyerhauser, but to the city of Kamloops — that the report would not be

released without first making them aware of the report's contents. The

report's contents were quite technical, and my understanding is that

the people who were responsible for the pollutant, major pollutants at

least, wanted to understand precisely what was meant by the authors as

to their technical references and so on. The arrangement was made. A

meeting was made and they got together January 8, 1976, to discuss the

report prior to its release to the general public.

MR. LEA: I think it is all clear now. I asked the Minister of

Environment if he had been requested by the Minister of Consumer

Services to treat Mr. Ellsay in a different manner than he would treat

anyone else. The minister said he was not.

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

"Jim,

If you have not found out already, you soon will find out

that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in dealing

with

[ Page 1838 ]

him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will offend

me or in any way compromise my position.

(signed)

K. Rafe Mair"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MR. LEA: Now how say you?

MR. SKELLY: Perfectly candid.

MR. LEA: Have you been perfectly candid?

AN HON. MEMBER: I beg your pardon?

MR. LEA: Have you been perfectly candid?

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

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

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

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

MR. LEA: I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether he had

ever been requested by the Minister of Consumer Services to treat Don

Ellsay in any other way than he would treat anyone else. He said he had

not, yet there is this memorandum to the Minister of Environment from

the Minister of Consumer Services. I will read it again if you didn't

understand: "Jim, If you have not found out already, you soon will find

out that Don Ellsay......

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. LAUK: What's going on here?

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'll start again.

"Jim,

"If you have not found out already you soon will find

out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in

dealing with him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will

offend me or in any other way compromise my position.

(signed)

K. Rafe

Mair,

Minister"

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: For political reasons, Mr. Chairman, SPEC Kamloops

was treated differently by the Minister of Environment at the request

of the MLA who represents that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

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

MR. LEA: Not verbal.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Not verbal.

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

"Jim,

"If you have not found out already you soon will find

out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic pain in the backside. Best of luck in

dealing with him. He is solid NDP and nothing you say to him will

offend me or in any other way compromise my position.

(signed)

K. Rafe Mair,

Minister"

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

Interjections.

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

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

[ Page 1839 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes.

MR. LEA: He owes them an apology and the Minister of Consumer

Services owes an apology to the entire province of British Columbia and

everyone in it. What crass political nightmare is this? Because a

person is NDP I suppose that they are going to be treated differently

by this government even though that person is the president of an

environmental group — even though that person is the president and a

member of an environment group.

The Minister of Environment told me that he had not been requested

by the Minister of Consumer Services to treat Don Ellsay in any other

way than he would treat anyone normally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

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

perfectly, I think, Mr. Chairman. I also understand that I used to

listen to that minister when he was a hotliner and who prided himself

that he was a fair man, that he was a truthful man.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Right. I remember one time listening when he said:

"What about the Environment and Land Use Secretariat?" He said:

"Secretariat — doesn't that sound communist to you?"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nonsense!

MR. LEA: You said it.

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

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nonsense!

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

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that once again the

Minister of Environment has misled this House. I say to you, Mr.

Chairman, he has deliberately misled this House because he knew of the

existence of this letter. He deliberately misled this House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LEA: ...and he deliberately misled the province of British

Columbia. There are no two ways about it. He has misled deliberately

this House.

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

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw.

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

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw that the minister has

deliberately misled this House and that he has deliberately misled the

people of this province. I will not withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should resign!

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

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

MR. KING: On a point of order, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

the member for Prince Rupert has related the undisputed facts, facts

which appear in the handwriting of the two ministers concerned. Under

the circumstances....

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

MR. KING: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I think that

the facts are clear, They are clear to the members of this House; they

are clear to the public of British Columbia. The ministers stand

indicted by their own handwriting, by their own....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated.

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

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

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

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[ Page 1840 ]

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

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

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

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during debate the member for

Prince Rupert accused the Minister of Environment of deliberately

misleading this House. I asked that the member withdraw this remark. On

refusal, I further ordered him to withdraw. He again refused. I am

therefore reporting this matter to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members, as I

understand the matter which has been placed before me, in the course of

debate, just before I assumed the chair, the hon. member for Prince

Rupert, in speaking in debate, accused the hon. Minister of the

Environment of deliberately misleading the House. I also understand

from the remarks of the Chairman that the hon. member for Prince Rupert

was asked not once, but more than once, to withdraw the words

"deliberately misleading the House."

I now say to the hon. member for Prince Rupert that he is as aware

of the rules of the House as anyone. He also must be aware that the

accusation of deliberately misleading the House is offensive to the

members of the House and constitutes unparliamentary words.

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

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

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

MR. LEA: I would like to inform Mr. Speaker of exactly what

did happen in committee, so that he may judge whether he should indeed

even ask me to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I must advise you

that while it is a fact that the Speaker has no knowledge of what

happened in committee except that which is reported to him, that is not

now a matter of debate. The Chairman has performed his duty, as it

appeared to him and as he is bound to do by the rules of this House, in

that he has asked you to withdraw a phrase used in debate, the phrase

being "deliberately misleading the House," and it was a phrase that

was applied to the hon. Minister of Environment in debate.

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

MR. KING: The minister should resign.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter now, Hon. Member, that the report

has been made to the Chair. I must ask you to reconsider your position,

as an hon. member of this House, and withdraw the words "deliberately

misleading the House."

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I say that if I

were to do that I would be lying to this House. I have no intention of

doing that.

The minister deliberately misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, as a matter of the rules by which I

am bound, as well as yourself, and as Speaker of this House, I now

order you to withdraw the words "deliberately misleading the House."

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not a matter of skating around

the words or the implication. I think you are aware yourself, as I am,

of the seriousness of the charge. I now order you to withdraw those

words.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize the

difficulty in Speakers not being aware of the debate in committee, and

I also understand the respect with which the Speaker must hold the

Chairman of committee. At the same time, there may be — and there is

precedent for this — some occasion for the Speaker to call for the

Hansard record of the debate below, and determine whether or not the

hon. member is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

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

[ Page 1841 ]

which were denied....

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

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

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

MR. LAUK: ...if there can be some way that we can avoid a

confrontation. The member obviously is of the opinion that he cannot,

in all honesty, withdraw the allegation when the minister denied the

existence of a communication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter before the House is

the use of unparliamentary words which were offensive to the members of

the House as hon. members. The unparliamentary words are: "deliberately

misleading the House."

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

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the

interests of trying to solve the dilemma, and in the interests of

trying to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, perhaps I might remind

the House — not you, Mr. Speaker, of course, but so that things are put

in their proper perspective and perhaps the member can therefore

withdraw — that the suggestion was that Weyerhauser and the city of

Kamloops....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a matter of entering

into debate on what was said on the floor of the House when the Speaker

was not present. It's a matter now of the Speaker determining, under

the rules of this House, what must be done.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm only concerned that the

member for Prince Rupert may have misunderstood the sequence of events

and therefore not be fully cognizant of all of the facts, and therefore

not able to withdraw where perhaps he would if he did know all of the

facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm only doing it in the interest of decorum,

Mr. Speaker, in the hope that perhaps he might have misinterpreted the

sequence of events and that my helping him may assist the House in this

dilemma.

MR. SPEAKER: Regardless of what may have been said while the

House was in committee — and I realize that at times tempers rise in

this House, with and without provocation, and as I was not present I

cannot comment on that and I don't intend to — I am very clear on the

rules and the duty of the Speaker and I am very clear on what the

rules are in this House. The rules are that the words "deliberately

misleading the House," as applied to another hon. member, are

offensive and unparliamentary words. I must now order the member for

Prince Rupert to withdraw those words.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, again with regret, I will not lie: he

deliberately misled this Legislature. He deliberately did it and

there's no doubt about it. It can be proven in Hansard and there's no

doubt about it. If I were to withdraw, I would be lying and

deliberately misleading this House. I will not do it.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, Hon. Member, I must act in

accordance with standing order 20 in our standing orders as contained

on page 5 of those standing orders, because of the fact that we are all

bound by the rules of this House. It is clear to the Speaker that the

refusal by the hon. member to withdraw the words "deliberately

misleading the House" is grossly disorderly.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order on this particular

matter, Hon. Member. It is a matter of the Speaker doing the duty

that's assigned to him by all members of the House.

MR. LAUK: I think Mr. Speaker is mistaken. I don't think Mr.

Speaker has the power under standing order 20. I would argue that where

the impugned conduct of the member occurs, it is incumbent upon the

presiding officer to take such action. Standing order 20 clearly

indicates that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order members whose

conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House

during the remainder of the day's sitting. This action should have

taken place by the Chairman. It is shown clearly under standing order

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

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

MR. LAUK: I have a second point of order. The second point is

that clearly this is not a gross disorderly conduct on the part of the

member, and should not require such action.

[ Page 1842 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is the opinion of the Speaker,

upheld by any jurisdiction you would care to name, that the words

"deliberately misleading the House" are offensive and unparliamentary.

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

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

My duty is clear, Hon. Member. I must ask you, because of your

refusal to withdraw those words, to withdraw from the House for the

remainder of today's sitting.

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

MR. SPEAKER: There is no further discussion.

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

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

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

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

HON. MR. MAIR: If I understand the Leader of the Opposition

just prior to this unpleasantness, he accused me of standing indicted,

which I assume means that I have done something wrong.

MR. KING: Not in your mind.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I haven't done it in anybody's mind. It's

because you will not look at the facts. Mr. Chairman, if I may very

briefly relate the circumstances. It was objected to that SPEC was not

invited to a meeting on January 8 because of some interference by me.

On January 21, a memo, the authorship of which I do not deny, was sent

to my....

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I am. My conduct has been called into....

It has been suggested that I stand indicated. I can only assume that

means that I have committed some wrong.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I call a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I

asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation that I

have committed anything that I should be indicted for or anything

wrong at all.

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

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am imputing improper

representation of the member's riding and his constituents. I take from

the memo where the Minister of Consumer Services clearly indicates that

because a man is a member of the New Democratic Party that he cares

nought if his colleague, the Minister of Environment, ignores him and

represents him in any way he chooses. There'll be no problem with the

MLA for Kamloops. I think that that is a crassly political position for

any member of the Legislature to take. Every member, once he is

elected....

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

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there's certainly a

right in this Legislature to impute improper and ineffective and

politically inspired misrepresentation of a riding. Now that is

certainly nothing that abridges the legal conduct or the rules of this

House that I am aware of. There are some members who are capable of

representing their constituents in an effective and impartial way.

There are others, and in this case, by the minister's own admission....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please, if you are talking about

the actions of an hon. member of this House, you may not impute an

improper motive. You understand that.

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

[ Page 1843 ]

member would write a memo to his colleague suggesting that because

one is a member of an opposing political party, he does not care how

they treat it. By a minister of the Crown! If that is not improper

conduct in terms of representation, then I don't know what it is.

That's the most blatant, scandalous thing I've ever heard in this

Legislature, and certainly he is indicted by the memo which he wrote

and which was read in the House by the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

Now that's the fact that has been laid before this House. In terms of

any illegal conduct or anything of that nature, I'm not suggesting

that. I am suggesting pretty shoddy representation of one's

constituents. I want to get on to the vote, Mr. Chairman, so I can

expand on this. This is a scandalous revelation in this House tonight.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned with the

Leader of the Opposition's opinion of memoranda I may have sent. I am

concerned with his statement that my conduct was indictable, or words

to that effect. I stood indicted before this House. Now the memorandum

he takes offence at was sent long after the events which gave rise to

the outburst by the member from Prince Rupert. Whether or not the

memorandum itself is impolite, improper in the sense of being not in

accordance with the common wording of memoranda, is not the point. The

point is that the Leader of the Opposition says I stand indicted, and

it's those words I wish to have withdrawn. He can have whatever opinion

he wants of the memo. I told the House right off the bat before that

memo came before the House, Mr. Chairman, that I didn't think very

highly of Mr. Ellsay. I made that perfectly plain. That memo does

nothing more than fortify that statement. The fact is that he's NDP is

the best that can be said for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we continue, hon. members

on both sides of the House have been using intemperate language

tonight, and it would be more beneficial to the business of this House

if we could modify our language, get back to the spirit of the vote and

carry on with debate.

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

I just have a number of calm observations to make. I want to say that as Leader

of the official Opposition I certainly regret what has occurred tonight. I regret

that the House has been somewhat unruly, but in all seriousness, with the kind

of memoranda that the Minister of Consumer Services wrote to his colleague,

the Minister of Environment, and as revealed in this House, which has a latent

suggestion that because of one's political views they should be treated

in another way — that is the only conclusion that can be drawn — then it is

a matter of grave concern. I find it small wonder that tempers rise and the

words fail at times in terms of describing that kind of reprehensible conduct.

I find that....

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

MR. KING: Perhaps the most frustrating part of this whole

exercise so far, aside from the fact that my colleague from Prince

Rupert was asked to withdraw from the House for stating what he

believed to be a fact.... Perhaps the second most distressing factor is

that neither minister involved seems to find anything improper or

untoward about the kind of memoranda that went back and forth with

respect to the president of an important organization in Kamloops.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What back and forth?

MR. KING: Well, there was certainly a memo going one way.

Perhaps it wasn't answered. The ministers claim they answer their mail

and I had assumed that perhaps the Minister of Consumer Services would

have found a response. Perhaps that's not the case.

This is a very disturbing revelation, and I am sure that every

member of the House, including the government backbenchers, is

concerned to find a minister of the Crown — two ministers of the Crown

— indulging in the kind of internal memoranda which can only be

interpreted by any responsible-minded person as failing to give

credence to an important community organization such as SPEC, an

integral organ in terms of protecting the environment in this province,

which the Minister of Environment is responsible to do also.

Where he should be seeking the cooperation and welcoming the

dialogue of those groups, here he is receiving confidential, secret

memoranda from his colleague saying: "Look, treat this man in any way

because he's NDP." I think this is an absolutely sad day for politics

in British Columbia. Absolutely sad.

I reiterate, the most startling, the most sorry commentary on that

government and on those ministers is that they apparently find nothing

wrong with that kind of an approach to politics in 1976. A sad day for

B.C. politics, to say nothing of the fact that the Minister of

Environment, in response to the

[ Page 1844 ]

member for Prince Rupert's question, specifically and unequivocally

denied that he had received any representation from his colleague the

Minister of Consumer Services — specifically denied that. And I'm not

going to reflect on the minister's integrity or on his motivation. But

it leaves me speechless in terms of describing that kind of conduct by

an hon. member of this House. I would think that both of those

ministers, the Attorney-General and the government are going to give

long and serious thought to developments in this House tonight.

I would point out that under circumstances much less serious than

this, hon. members of other parliaments have deemed that the proper and

the respectful thing to do to parliament is resign their seats on the

cabinet benches in situations like this. However, I leave that to the

reflection of the members involved. They are the ones who must live

with themselves.

I want to make one last point, Mr. Chairman, and it was a statement

made by the Minister of Environment when he was clarifying a statement

attributed to him by the Vancouver Sun , which was previously

raised by the member for Prince Rupert. The minister got up and said:

"Well, that was somewhat out of context. The fact that I was quoted as

saying....

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: You remember that one.

MR. KING: I certainly remember it, and I want to say that the

vociferous Liberals of that day, of which I believe the

Attorney-General was a member, were determined to use unparliamentary

language, to be continually day after day expelled from the House, in

the interests of their indignant quest for justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

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

Interjections.

MR. KING: The comfortable pew — and I refer to it as in

church pew. (Laughter.) It seems that the Attorney-General is quite

flexible; he's able to adjust his principles to accommodate power

wherever it resides, even if it is in a coalition of questionable

makeup, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: That minister got up and said: "I want to correct the statement attributed to me in the Sun

where after the last federal election I was quoted as saying that in

order to win elections, or in order to survive in politics" — I forget

the exact wording — "you have to be somewhat dishonest and less than

frank."

Interjections.

MR. KING: "You can't be candid and frank; the people don't

want you to be that way, " the Minister said. The minister made that

statement, and then he clarified it by saying: "Well, I didn't really

say that. I said: 'If you want to be elected, you can't be completely

honest and frank.'" Now that's what the minister rose and said tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question, and my question

is very simple. If we are to draw the conclusion from that statement

that he lost the federal election in 1974 because in essence he was too

honest and frank, I want to ask the minister what conclusions this

House should draw from his success at the polls last December 11. I'd like to hear the minister's answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In answer to the question of the Leader of

the Opposition, the answer to your question is the ineffectiveness of

the NDP candidate in Richmond.

[ Page 1845 ]

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

MR. KING: Are we to believe that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

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

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

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, we are.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, Mr. Chairman, if you will, I would

just like to clarify a sequence of events that has troubled the

opposition concerning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this on vote 48?

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

(continued)

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed on vote 48.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would just like to point out a sequence of

events, Mr. Chairman — I will be very, very brief — just so that the

record is perfectly clear. January 8 was a meeting between the City of

Kamloops, Weyerhauser and the people responsible for the report. On

January 21, 13 days after that, a memo, the authorship of which I

freely admit, was sent by myself to the Minister of Environment. That

memo was sent in connection with a meeting I knew was going to take

place between Mr. Ellsay and the minister on February 6 next. It had

nothing to do with the meeting on January 8 which caused so much

difficulty. I thought the record should be clarified in that respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, there is more at issue here than

simply a memo and a sequence of events. What we are talking about is

the Thompson River-Fraser River drainage, a system which the Minister

of Environment should have full responsibility for in this province —

the very lifeblood, the very living artery of this province.

Mr. Chairman, that member, when he was first interviewed by the Vancouver Sun

and the Victoria Times when he became a minister, said that he was

interested.... One of the quotes from him — I don't know if he will

dispute this or not — was that he was interested in political history

of the world from 1800 to the present. He should know the history, the

political economy, the social value and the environmental value of that

Thompson-Fraser River system which is, as I say, the living artery of

this province.

The gold rush, the millions of dollars of gold that were taken from

that river system — the very reason this province was created as a

political entity in the first place was because those people came

seeking gold on the Fraser-Thompson system. The value of fisheries from

that river system...$37 million, Mr. Chairman, net value from that

system in any one year. It's $37 million net value to this province

from fisheries, a fact that that member should be quite concerned about

as Minister of Environment. Agriculture — his own riding was deposited

from effluvial soil brought down by that river over the past 18,000

years. The people he represents live on the deposits made from that

river system.

The reason the task force was set up in the first place — the

reason why those citizen groups, rod and gun groups, fish and wildlife

groups — the reason the city of Kamloops and other people got together

to demand a federal-provincial task force on the algal growth in the

river and the putrefaction of Kamloops Lake was that they feared that

that river system was dying. A task force was established.

The member for Prince Rupert documented the events that led up to

the publication of the

summary report of that task force. But the fact

he was talking about was that instead of releasing that report to

members of the public at the same time as to the polluters involved,

the people who authored the task force report — in fact, only some of

the people who authored the task force report...some were not present

at that meeting. According to the published report, a representative of

the fish and wildlife branch of the province and a representative of

the federal fisheries branch were not represented at that meeting on

January 8. Some of the authors of that report were represented. Both

the polluters were represented and the pollution control branch was

represented — interesting that all the authors were not there.

In the material tabled by the minister it shows that two of the

authors were left out, and in addition — and this is the most

surprising part — in the minister's

[ Page 1846 ]

statement in reply to a question by the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), the authors — and I suppose the pollution control branch and

the polluters — agreed to changes in the report at that secret meeting

on January 8. They agreed to changes in a report done by a federal task

force in a secret meeting between the pollution control branch, the

authors of the report and the people involved in the pollution,

Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops.

To quote from the minister's reply to the member for Prince Rupert:

"The authors agreed clarification of certain sections was required

prior to final printing, which was done by the Queen's Printer in late

January, 1976." In other words, the report that was presented was

changed, not with the input of the people who were concerned about the

environment in the area, not with the input of the citizens of

Kamloops, with the members of those rod and gun clubs, with

environmental groups such as the one led by Don Ellsay. They weren't

present; they weren't invited to that meeting. The only people present

at that meeting were the polluters, the pollution control branch and

some of the authors of that report.

Now whether or not the timing of the minister's memo is in doubt

here, I think it is not the timing that's really a matter of question.

The very fact that the representative of Kamloops, whose citizens had

demanded this task force in the first place, whose rod and gun clubs

had demanded that this task force take place, who were concerned about

the death of Kamloops Lake, who were concerned about the pollution of

the whole Thompson-Fraser River system...they were not represented, and

he didn't care about their being represented. In fact, he said in his

memo.... And whether he said it on January 21, 1976 in writing or

whether he said it before, I think the minister does stand indicted,

not because of the memo or the timing of the memo but because of his

attitude to pollution on the Thompson-Fraser River system and Kamloops

Lake.

The real reason for the indictment is that he is not concerned about

the environment. That doesn't seem to bother him at all. He's only

concerned about the political affiliation of the member who, at that

time, was president of SPEC. He said in his memo: "Jim, if you've not

found out already, you soon will find out that Don Ellsay is a gigantic

pain in the backside."

That minister, Mr. Chairman, seems to have a fetish about backsides.

When he's not kicking people in the backside, he seems to feel that

they are a pain in the backside — some people from his own constituency

who express strong concern about....

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

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

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

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

It appears to me that the attitude of the Social Credit government

concerning the environment is not whether the Thompson River system was

polluted, whether there was danger to the Thompson-Fraser system,

whether Kamloops Lake was in danger of being putrefied and dying. The

fact that they were concerned about that was that one of the major

people involved in defending this river system from pollution, in

defending the lake from putrefaction, was a member of the NDP and

therefore the Minister of Environment shouldn't pay any attention to

him at all. What kind of minister is that? What kind of a

representative for Kamloops do they have? What kind of a Minister of

Environment do we have if he's willing to take this kind of a memo from

the Minister of Consumer Services? What defence has he offered? What

happened as a result of February 6 last?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, with all respect, I do not believe

that it is under the control of the Minister of Environment to edit

memos coming from another minister's office. Therefore let's return

quickly to discussing vote 48.

MR. SKELLY: There was an attempt, Mr. Chairman, to influence

the Minister of Environment by referring to the political affiliation

of somebody who had expressed grave concern over the poisoning of the

Thompson River-Kamloops Lake area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then if this is your opinion, I would suggest,

Hon. Member, that perhaps this issue should be taken up either under

the estimates or under a bill sponsored by the minister in charge or

perhaps by substantive motion. But perhaps now we could go to vote 48

and the Minister of Environment.

MR, SKELLY: We will ask the Minister of Environment what were

the results of the meeting on February 6 with SPEC and in particular

with Don Ellsay.

What action does he plan to take on the report of the task force on

the Kamloops Lake-Thompson River system? Was the minister influenced by

the politics of the people in environmental and rod and gun groups who

made representations to him and were excluded from private meetings

between the polluters, the pollution control branch and the

[ Page 1847 ]

federal Department of the Environment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The specific reference to the meeting of

February 6, the meeting which included Mr. Don Ellsay, had been

requested by the SPEC organization and they brought with them several

representatives from different regions of the province, including

Kamloops and Mr. Ellsay. We had a long discussion. They presented a

brief, not relating specifically to any one river but relating to

various areas of interest within the province of British Columbia,

which we discussed and they presented. I thought we had a reasonably

good discussion for a period of time — I think it was about an hour or

an hour and a half — and Mr. Ellsay was there at that time. We had a

pretty good discussion, I think, a pretty frank discussion.

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

MR. KING: The understatement of the year!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...the people who were preparing them, the

technical people particularly, the authors so-called, worked with other

persons who were involved in providing information for this, the

information given to me. The authors agreed that clarification of

certain sections was required prior to final printing, which was done

by the Queen's Printer.

I would like to offer an example of the alterations which were made,

or the changes. In the original draft, on page 9, the last sentence

read: "Colour increases as great as 30 times background were noted

during extremely low river flows." The final report used the sentence:

"Maximum colour increases occur during extremely low river flows." Now

I don't know what the political ramifications of such an alteration

are. It seems to be a political problem tonight.

On page 13 of the report there were two other alterations from the

preliminary report to the final report. Reading from the first report

it says: "Maximum allowable phosphorus releases throughout the year are

provided in the Canada Centre for Inland Waters technical report." The

final release said: "The option of a variable

schedule for waste water

phosphorus release that is related to the physical dynamics of Kamloops

Lake is recommended for consideration in the Canada Centre for Inland

Waters technical report."

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

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

That was on page 13, as I mentioned.

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 48, please continue.

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

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

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

Vote 48, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, they've dragged this out. I

think it's only proper that they listen to some of the explanations and

perhaps the answers.

A sentence within the first preliminary report said: "Fish tainting

agents should be identified and removed from the major point source

discharges — Weyerhauser Canada Ltd. and the city of Kamloops — to the

Thompson River system." The final report said: "Studies should be

initiated to identify and remove fish-tainting agents from the major

point source dischargers — Weyerhauser Canada Ltd. and the city of

Kamloops — to the Thompson River system." I think there was one word

added to that.

These were the changes which occurred in this report. That's all the

commotion has been about tonight. Those are the changes which occurred

in the report. They were recommended by the persons who wrote the

report upon discussions with other persons who were responsible for the

polluting, apparently. They felt that this perhaps might be better

understood — at least, that's the explanation given. So much for the

great saga of the Thompson River report, perhaps.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the great

saga of the Thompson River isn't over, although I suspect that under a

Social Credit government it possibly could be.

It's interesting that one of the admissions that was dragged out, to

use the minister's words, was that none of the people involved in the

environmental groups were represented at that meeting on January 8 —

only the polluters and only the authors of the report and only the

pollution control branch. Now that's not necessarily political.

[ Page 1848 ]

Another thing is that one of these sentences which the minister

quoted — and I hope he'll make the report public — before it was

amended by the polluters in consultation with the government offices

involved.... One of the sentences he quoted was that "emissions at the

source," which is Weyerhauser in Kamloops — and I'm sorry I didn't get

the exact wording but I hope you'll table the document later in the

House — "emissions at the source which taint fish should be removed"

was changed to "studies should be implemented to look at fish-tainting

emissions from Weyerhauser and the city of Kamloops outfalls." I'm not

sure of the exact wording, but I would appreciate it if the minister

would take that report in the House when the time comes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just to facilitate this very, very quickly

— and I'm not trying to pursue it to the point of being ridiculous —

the first report did say: "Fish-tainting agents should be identified

and removed." The second said: "Studies should be initiated to identify

and remove fish-tainting agents." So it's a play on words, perhaps.

While we're on this incredible debate this evening, I think perhaps

it may be of some interest and I believe a member did ask what were the

results of that meeting with SPEC in my office I believe on February 6.

A letter from SPEC addressed to myself said:

"This is to thank you and Mr. Mair for meeting with us February

6 in Victoria. There are many environmental problems facing B.C. The task you

have is a formidable one. We look forward to working with you on them.

Mike

Jesson,

President"

I might add that the communications with SPEC and representations

from that organization seem to be on a pretty reasonable basis. I'm not

aware that we've had any major confrontation with these organizations

so far, and I look forward to continued good relations with these

people, even though we may not at all times be able to agree fully on

all matters.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, on another issue other than the

Thompson, I appreciate hearing the reply that SPEC wrote to the

minister as a result of their meeting on February 6. It appears that

they're not all political hacks, kooks, nuts and other epithets that

were applied to them by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Mair).

One of the main problems with the minister's office about which I am

particularly concerned is the administration and operation of the

pollution control branch. There have been many suggestions on this side

of the House over the years concerning the operation of that branch and

many criticisms of the manner in which the PCB carried out its

functions and enforces the Pollution Control Act.

One of the problems which appears to occur is the very close

relationship between the pollution control branch, their employees and

the polluters in this province. I think a perfect example is the one

that was brought up tonight regarding the results of a secret meeting

between polluters, the branch and the task force participants. There

appears to be a more than cosy relationship between the pollution

control branch and polluters in this province. It's not a new problem,

especially under a Social Credit government.

Mr. Chairman, under the previous Social Credit government — that is,

the one that existed before the NDP beefed up the Environment and Land

Use Committee, the fish and wildlife branch, the Land Commission and

other environmental protection agencies of this province — the

relationship between resource management agencies of the province and

resource users in British Columbia appeared to be far too cosy for

comfort. When plans were brought up to exploit a certain resource, say

timber, the timber companies seemed to have a back-door access to the

government. Plans were presented to the Forest Service or to the

government. They were virtually approved in princi