[ Page 6981 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sustainable log harvest. Mr. Miller –– 6981

Mr. Jacobsen

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 6983

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6983

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Solicitor-General. (Hon. Mr. Ree)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6987

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Guno

Mr. Cashore

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Crandall

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to the House today: Jack Munro, president of the IWA; Earl Foxcroft, president of IWA Local 185 in Port Alberni; and Ken Georgetti, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I would ask everybody to also make welcome all the lumber and pulp workers of Port Alberni who are here today in support of integrated forest management.

MR. MILLER: I'd like to introduce a group of workers from Local 171, the loggers' local, which I used to be a member of: Bob Patterson, Bill Owens, Murray Cantelon, Jim Mag and Mike McQuillan. Also with them is Norm Garcia, editor of the IWA Lumberworker. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the House today is Mr. Ian Arrol, a former conservative Member of Parliament for York East in the Toronto area. Mr. Arrol is now retired and living in Victoria.

Just before I take my seat, acknowledging the introduction of Jack Munro, I should mention — and I don't think Mr. Speaker would forgive me if I didn't — that Mr. Munro is one of his famous constituents and, I would suggest, maybe one of his very strong supporters as well.

MR. KEMPF: Visiting us in the gallery this afternoon are a couple of people who are no strangers to these precincts: Ina and Cliff Ludtke. As many would know, Cliff was on the Sergeant-at-Arms staff for a number of years, and Ina was my secretary for ten years. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to join the minister in welcoming the fine constituents of Alberni and Earl Foxcroft, president of Local 185 — people who have contributed so much to this province.

MRS. McCARTHY: Today in our gallery are representatives from the Victoria Newcomers' Club. This is quite a remarkable organization that meets monthly and welcomes and ensures that newcomers to this city are kept in touch with all of the activities over a three-year period. Then, of course, they go on to become old-timers in Victoria. Today we have 23 representatives led by Mrs. Lesley Brennand, and I would ask the House to welcome them to our assembly today.

MR. BRUCE: On behalf of my colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), I would like the House to welcome 55 grade 11 students from Hope Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Dale.

MR. DE JONG: I would like to introduce to the House today one of my younger brothers, Henry, and his wife Tena, who are in the members' gallery. I would ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to add greetings to some distinguished visitors to the Legislature: Jack Munro, Ken Georgetti and Earl Foxcroft, who are exercising their democratic rights of free speech at the Legislature today. I was delayed while an MP was exercising his right of free speech to me about the Carmanah Valley. Again, I would like to have both sides of this House welcome some of the strong leadership that we have in British Columbia in the labour movement.

MR. SIHOTA: I have never seen anyone get heckled during introductions.

I also want to join the member for Omineca in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Ludtke. Mr. Ludtke was very active in Esquimalt in the Legion, and it is a pleasure to see him here today. Would all members join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SUSTAINABLE LOG HARVEST

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. The information from a Canadian forestry study done by Reid Collins indicates a sustainable coastal log harvest of 26 million cubic metres annually and a 1989 usage forecast of about 36 million, leaving a shortfall of about 10 million. Is the minister aware of this information?

HON. MR. PARKER: The report would deal with the Crown land cut, which is about 26 million, and the balance would come from lands that aren't under the aegis of the Forest Service.

MR. MILLER: Clearly the report shows a shortfall in sustainable cut. On March 4, Mr. Minister, Bob Sitter of Interfor said that part of the company's problems with supply could continue in the future as the entire coastal industry confronts a possible downsizing of harvest. Has the minister met with Mr. Sitter to discuss the implications of this statement on employment in the forest industry in coastal British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't met with Mr. Sitter, Mr. Speaker, but the cut levels in the province are about 26 million cubic metres on lands that are administered by the Forest Service. The additional cut that the member alludes to will be coming from lands that don't fall within the Forest Service management regime at all. Those include Indian reserves, federal lands, private lands and old temporary tenures. Once the old temporary tenures are completed and the forest renewed, they go back into the allowable cut. The allowable cut is 26 million, and that's a sustainable level of lands that are managed by the Forest Service.

[ Page 6982 ]

MR. MILLER: Despite their application for a tree farm licence on northern Vancouver Island, which said there would be no layoffs, Canadian Pacific Forest Products has now announced 112 people laid off. They said the layoffs were directly related to declining harvest levels. Is the minister aware of that situation and the implications of that for declining employment on the Island?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're aware that the changes in the harvesting areas for that licensee dictated a different type of logging activity. We'll see more helicopter harvesting in that area. Also there was some withdrawal from all replaceable tenures in the province to support a small business enterprise program throughout the province. That cut has impacted on all major licensees, as well as minor licensees with replaceable tenures. That's a policy that has been administered equally across the province, and it has served to provide us with a means to encourage value-added industry in the small business sector in the province. We have a number of successes, most recently the one in Port Alberni, which is a value-added enterprise in conjunction with Japanese interests. It will be using wood that for the most part has not been accessible before helicopter logging technology came in. That makes a big lift to employment in Port Alberni. Not only that, but as I understand it, they all will be members of the IWA.

MR. MILLER: I don't know if that mill is going to replace the jobs we've lost in the last six months.

On January 14, 1987, Professor Pearse, who is quite knowledgeable about the forest industry in British Columbia, had this to say about the coastal cut: "There is a critical timber supply in the coast." The Ministry of Forests inventories that suggest there is a 74-year supply of old growth are misleading, and the concept of sustained yield is not being practised. Has the minister met with Professor Pearse to discuss his allegation about the difficulty we are having on the coast of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't met with Dr. Pearse about his allegations. If he was prepared to have a lengthy discussion on it, I imagine we'd be happy to get together with him and see what his points are. The sustainable yield on the coast is established through each of the timber supply areas and the tree farm licences on the coast and in the interior. That's the way the forests are managed in the province.

There are some 35 timber supply areas in the bounds of the areas covered by tree farm licences. Those are on a five-year review, and there is a continuing forest inventory to determine what the denudation has been and the reclassification of stands as we learn to work with stands that before were considered unmerchantable but now are considered merchantable species and merchantable operations — that is, the logging chance is economically viable now.

[2:15]

A good example is sky car logging; another good example is helicopter logging. The point is that the allowable annual cut has to be reviewed on a regular basis, and each one of those management units is reviewed on a five-year basis because technology and utilization change. We see things like we've seen in the Peace River country where, all of a sudden, a weed that was being cleared by farmers is now a meaningful crop, and that is the aspen of that area.

So things change; you have to be in a flexible mode. That's exactly the way the AACs in this province are administered.

MR. MILLER: Last year, when I raised the problem of annual cut and shortages with the minister, he said that if industry "sees fit to build the plants a little larger than the wood will supply, then they must be looking at filling it with raw materials from other sources. I would like to see us as a net importer of raw material...." Could the minister advise the House where British Columbia is going to import logs from to maintain jobs and employment in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER:- The opportunities in the forest industry in British Columbia are many and varied, because across the whole spectrum, from employees right through to consultants, we have expertise that is world class. Because of that we are able to get into segments and niches in the forest industry that would make us world compatible. Not only that, but we can look at wood supplies from all over the world. Some of those wood supplies can be not only in round wood but in various stages of fibre, whether it's sawdust, hog fuel, shavings or what have you.

I would like to see full utilization of the forest resource of British Columbia, and I would like to see us utilizing forest resources from other parts of the world to provide manufacturing and job opportunities right here in B.C.

MR. MILLER: That's nice to know. The ministry granted a forest licence in my region to a company to build a 125,000 cubic metre sawmill. That mill is built. It can now only handle a 28-inch log. In the last few weeks the minister approved an export permit for 60,000 cubic metres of logs in excess of 28 inches. Is that an example of good planning and good utilization of the fibre of this province, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm dismayed that this member has not taken the trouble to talk to his own constituents to find out what the economic opportunities are in the town where he lives. The Wedeene River sawmills are undertaking a small family operation that is set up to utilize the forest resources on the north coast and to provide jobs right in his town. There are probably a lot of constituents actually in that mill who vote for him, so he should be paying attention to what's happening there. Being able to sell these oversized logs that happen concurrently with the current harvest that feeds that mill gives him the

[ Page 6983 ]

cash flow — if he bothers to check — to provide the large log side that they need to utilize the whole profile. That's exactly what they're undertaking, and we're assisting them in doing that.

MR. MILLER: For clarification, is it the policy of the Minister of Forests to allow companies to use the forests of British Columbia to gain the capital to build processing facilities? Is that the policy of this administration, allowing them to export logs to get the money to build the mills?

HON. MR. PARKER: There was a sawmill once upon a time in Prince Rupert and it closed. Now a family on the north coast, living and working in Prince Rupert, made a successful bid proposal and were awarded a forest licence. Under the terms of the forest licence, they were to develop a sawmill. They struggled along and managed to do that by marketing their logs both domestically and overseas. They put that cash right into the town of Prince Rupert, into site development. They had to take a chunk of mountainside and make it flat so that they could put the mill in there and employ people. They have done that; they are providing employment. They are providing cash flow in the town — that's important to Prince Rupert — and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the member for Prince Rupert is against that.

MR. MILLER: The minister misses the point. The same government gave $26 million to Louisiana-Pacific to build a mill up in the northeast corner of the province. I talk to the people of my constituency.

One of the ways we can head off this timber shortfall in British Columbia is through the FRDA II agreement. The federal government has now pretty well put the kibosh on that; they've scrapped it. Could the minister explain why his government so heartily embraced the federal budget, knowing the negative implications for B.C.? Why did this government leap before they looked in terms of the federal budget, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR PARKER: I had discussions with the federal forests minister, Hon. Frank Oberle, in advance of the budget announcements for his ministry, and the point he made to me was that we could expect replacement agreements through the western development agreement and not through another forest resource development agreement, and that there were a number of opportunities through that avenue. That's precisely what we're pursuing with the WDO. As a matter of fact, we've been on record now for about 18 months at a $700 million level for five years on forest renewal that would not only take care of backlog NSR, but also look after the stand tending that's so important.

MR. JACOBSEN: Probably my memory is not very good, but I'd just like to ask the minister a question concerning the allowable annual cut on the coast, because I'm a bit confused about the conversation and the concern about the annual cut. It seems to me that a while back, when some of us on the government side of this House stood up and expressed our concern about including Lyell Island and Burnaby Island in the South Moresby park, the people who are now concerned about the annual cut on the coast criticized us very severely for not proceeding with it. We were concerned about the 250,000 cubic metres of lost annual cut and the IWA jobs. I'd like to ask the minister if it is correct that these are the same people who were criticizing us for not including....

Interjections.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there any order in this House?

To the Minister of Crown Lands. Have negotiations on the Westwood lands been carried on with only one developer over the last month or so?

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I said the other day, in the fullness of time this House will find out all about that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave on behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations that the committee be allowed to sit this afternoon.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 41: minister's office, $273,577 (continued).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those members who were in the committee will recall that just before the lunchtime adjournment the Chair undertook to bring back some information on the scope of debate that can be allowed on the line of questioning being put forward by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in terms of which items were and were not sub judice.

Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 118, on the sub judice convention, reads: "Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."

[ Page 6984 ]

The Chair has also been advised that the particular case in question is of a criminal nature and therefore the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is duly advised of that. I would also point out to members who wish to stand on points of order on this matter that the Chair cannot predict in advance what line of debate a member will take and therefore has no way of knowing in advance whether a member's remarks are in or out of order.

Having said that and having promised this morning to bring this matter before the committee, I shall call the committee to order and recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: In talking about the Knight Street Pub affair, when we had the 12 o'clock break, we were talking about the differences between the ombudsman's findings and those of the ministry's own internal investigation.

On page 65 of the ombudsman's report he says: "While this office may agree with the substance of the majority of the ministry's conclusions vis-à-vis the 63 allegations, it cannot commend the process by which those conclusions were reached. The ministry's investigation was inadequate and too narrowly focused; irregularities were either not noticed or not questioned."

I want to ask the minister this: in light of that finding, once this report landed on the minister's desk, did he go back to Mr. Doney — who I understand conducted the internal investigation — and ask him what went wrong with the ministerial investigation?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is correct that Mr. Doney was in charge of the investigation. There is no doubt that he was assisted by a member of the Attorney-General's department and the then general manager of licensing. We did discuss the issue of the investigation, and I suppose it would be wrong to say that if we were doing that investigation with some of the knowledge that we have today, it would have been a stronger one. In any case, I could see no evidence of anything other than a correct investigation, albeit there may have been some things that were not investigated, as the ombudsman later determined. The ombudsman said the investigation was too narrow. The narrowness of the investigation was based on the allegations that came forward from the individual who lived within the referendum area.

MR. SIHOTA: In a very cavalier way, the minister keeps on dismissing the role of his ministry. The gist of his argument is that his people are not investigators.

On page 66 of that same report the ombudsman says: "It was the inherent responsibility of the ministry to be thorough and exacting in the investigation of complaints concerning its past administrative actions. In these circumstances it is concluded that the ministry failed to meet this standard."

[2:30]

Again, Mr. Minister, it seems to me that once this report landed on your desk, you ought to have summoned your people into your office and found out just what went wrong. Did you do that? Yes or no.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, because the ombudsman's report happens to agree with the member's line of thinking I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but I think it was done in a fair and reasonable manner. Yes, we had a lot of discussions about the investigation. Yes, we did do some things that will strengthen if we are required to do it. But we don't — nor do we still intend to — reconstruct a referendum from day one unless there is pretty good evidence for some need of doing that. Originally, when we went into the investigation, that evidence wasn't before us.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that you would have wanted to call your people into the woodshed and find out what they did wrong. In terms of information that was or wasn't before you, I want to ask the minister this question. When the ministry conducted its own internal investigation, it held a press conference. The minister, Mr. Doney and Mr. Hick were present. At that press conference the minister and his officials were asked whether or not they were aware of the communications between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick, which I referred to earlier on this morning. The reply that was given by his officials at that time was that they were unaware. It subsequently became evident that they were aware. Did the minister inquire of Mr. Hick as to why he took that position at the press conference, only to have discovered later on that indeed what he articulated at the press conference was a lie?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, first of all, the member opposite is wrong. The question was directed at one individual at the press conference. That individual answered in a way that was different than my knowledge of the situation. We did have discussions of that. There was never any question addressed to anybody other than that one individual.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the minister know at the time that Mr. Hick was lying?

HON. L. HANSON: As I said earlier, the knowledge that I had was different than an answer that was given there. I guess that would equate to lying.

MR. SIHOTA: What information did the minister have at that time with respect to the conversation between Mr. Hick and Mr. Poole?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, keeping in mind the Chairman's warnings about the criminal nature of a trial that's going on, the knowledge that I had — and I'm not a legal mind, so I have no idea if I am stepping out of line or not — which I have expressed before publicly and to the media was that when the

[ Page 6985 ]

Issue of the Knight Street Pub was raised with me, I was advised of a conversation that went on between Mr. Poole and the then general manager. That conversation had gone on a long time prior, or at least that call between the two had gone on a long time prior to the issue of the Knight Street Pub. The knowledge that I was given at that time was that the call was made but that the general manager's decision to put the firm on the approved list had nothing to do with the phone call. That was the knowledge that I was given at that time.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps the minister can elaborate and tell us what led him to that conclusion?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, the conclusion was fairly simple. The information I was given was that the call was made and that it had no influence on the appointment.

MR. SIHOTA: Who gave the minister that information? Was it Mr. Hick who told you that there was no connection between those two? Who was it?

HON. L. HANSON: The general manager of licensing, who was Mr. Hick at the time, advised me that he had received that call but that It was not the reason that he placed the company in question on the approved list. I asked him what he had done. He said that he had investigated their past performance, and that they had in fact conducted a referendum prior to that. I later found that not to be true.

MR. SIHOTA: When did the minister discover that not to be true?

HON. L. HANSON: My recollection of it — and what I was referring to — was what the general manager attributed to the firm, that they had held a referendum in the past. I believe it was the ombudsman's report that pointed out that their past experience was in conducting a pre-referendum poll for the applicant as opposed to actually conducting a referendum. If my memory serves me correctly, I wasn't aware of that until the ombudsman's report came out.

MR. SIHOTA: Which of these matters did the minister discuss with Mr. Poole?

HON. L. HANSON: I didn't discuss any of them with Mr. Poole.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the minister discuss any of these matters with the Premier?

HON. L. HANSON: No.

MR. SIHOTA: In that case, perhaps the minister can tell us what discussions he had with the Premier in relation to the entire Knight Street affair prior to his internal investigation.

HON. L. HANSON: I have no recollection of any discussions other than.... I guess it's been a year now. Because the issue was a fairly high-profile one, I imagine that I might have been asked some questions by the individuals, but I never had any discussions with them about the issue.

MR. SIHOTA: Did you receive any representations from Mr. Poole with respect to this entire matter prior to the conduct of your internal investigation?

HON. L. HANSON: I didn't have any discussions. I don't remember whether there was a question. As you are aware, cabinet meetings and so on are a weekly occurrence. There's a lot of contact along those lines, and it was a high-profile issue, but I never had any discussions specific to that issue.

MR. SIHOTA: The ombudsman concluded that there was political interference from the Premier's office during the initial stages — and I want to emphasize the initial stages — of the pub application. Is it the minister's position that the first time he became knowledgeable of any interference was after Mr. Owen's report?

HON. L. HANSON: If I understand the question correctly — did I learn of the phone call to the general manager after the ombudsman's report — no, I knew it before that, but I don't know exactly when. But it was when the issue was raised.

MR. SIHOTA: After the press conference that I referred to earlier, did the minister canvass this matter again with Mr. Hick in light of the response that he gave at the press conference?

HON. L. HANSON: We had discussions, yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell us what those discussions were?

HON. L. HANSON: It was a personnel matter, and I don't discuss all of the discussions that I had with the staff. Suffice it to say that the answer given at the press conference wasn't my understanding of the situation, and we did have a discussion about that.

MR. SIHOTA: So you put it to him at that time that he had lied.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to reveal that discussion. I have acknowledged to the member opposite that the answer given at that press conference was not the information I had, and we did have a discussion about it.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the minister see it as his responsibility to correct that statement in light of his knowledge?

[ Page 6986 ]

HON. L. HANSON: No, I didn't see it as a responsibility, but I certainly saw It as a responsibility of the individual. It was his choice.

MR. SIHOTA: Did you put it to him that he should do that?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, the discussion that I had with my staff member is a personnel issue and I'm not going to discuss it.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me, as we have canvassed this matter this afternoon and this morning, that there is a tremendous lack of understanding on the part of the minister as to what his ministerial responsibilities ought to be in these types of cases. Throughout, right from the beginning all of the minister's lack of appreciation of what it was that Mr. Hick told him as it related to the conversations that Mr. Hick had with Mr. Poole.... The minister casually dismissed the ombudsman's report. His attitude, still here today, was evident at that time: "Yes, I guess the ombudsman found something that we didn't find; yes, it is true that my people aren't investigators and maybe the ombudsman's people are.

There is a whole tale here of what seems to me to be an indication that the minister just doesn't have an appreciation of what his job is, quite frankly, in terms of ministerial responsibility — calling some people in on the carpet, making sure the truth is known to the public, adhering to some sense of ethics and demanding that there be explanations from his ministry.

The ombudsman described the ministry's investigation at one point — I believe in his draft report — as being "shallow and superficial." I think that was the quote attributed to the so-called draft report of the ombudsman. It seems to me that the minister's entire attitude about this matter is shallow and superficial, and he is glossing over his obligations to the public, to the process of licence applications, to cabinet, to this House and to the province.

[2:45]

It seems to me that there are a whole series of loose ends still remaining here, things that we've canvassed only peripherally today: the relationship between Mr. Toigo and the financing of the McRobbie proposal at the front end; matters that, of course, are still before the courts In relation to Mr. Giordano and the way in which Delta Media Services was provided favour; the role, if any, of the Premier in this situation; the absence of follow-through by the minister himself with respect to his internal investigation and calling on the carpet some people; his failure to utter the truth when he, during the heat of a press conference, knows that what's being said is not consistent with reality, but allowing it to be uttered without thinking that there is an obligation on his part to correct.

I don't know exactly what standard this government establishes for its ministers and at what point the Premier comes to the conclusion that perhaps it's not appropriate to maintain a minister within a particular portfolio. I have a lot of respect for the minister — and I think I have tried to show that during the course of our debate on other matters — but with respect to this matter there are a whole series of critical failures of judgment by the minister which make one wonder just how low the standard is that's expected, and just why it is that some people continue in the portfolios they have.

I want to bring to the minister attention another pub licensing proposal application in the works right now which causes me great concern. I don't know to what extent there are political pressures being borne here, but I am worried about what is happening on Bowen Island with respect to a pub being established at the Snug Cove Marina.

The application has been made by a Mr. Rondy Dike to establish a 45-seat marina pub and restaurant. At the time the application was made, there were three licensed outlets — still are — and a government store to serve a community of approximately 1,000 permanent adult residents. The proposed pub of Mr. Dike is located just slightly down the road from another pub owned by a Mr. Hannen, known as the Bowen Pub.

On September 17, 1987, Mr. Dike's application for the pub licence was considered by the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. In a letter dated that day it was said:

"A marine pub must have marine identity, and that is why the original preclearance was granted for location at the seashore. It is also questionable whether a preclearance would be granted today, given that there is now a neighbourhood public house just two blocks away. The population for the area is very small and to put in another pub on the road would not be fair to the residents nor to the other licensee. Under the circumstances, I cannot approve your request to relocate, nor can I grant your request for increased seating."

And then he went on to reject the application for the licence on those grounds.

The appeal was heard on April 19, 1988, and a marine pub — remember this is not on water; this is now sitting on land — was granted. In granting the appeal, Mr. Doney said:

"I am aware that there have been concerns expressed by some Bowen Island residents about there being a marina public house at Snug Cove. Accordingly, I have given consideration to requiring the applicants to submit their proposal to a public referendum. However, as I am advised that the entire marina proposal will require a change in zoning and that a public hearing will be required, I believe that the community concerns can be satisfactorily addressed in the course of the rezoning process."

That was in April. In May, the application was heard by the Bowen Island Trust Committee. They felt it was a mistake to include the proposal for the pub in the larger rezoning package. They chose to eliminate the proposed pub from the rezoning package, and by correspondence dated November 7, 1988, the Island Trust wrote to the minister and said that they are, and I quote, "most emphatic in stating that the public hearing does not substitute for a referendum, " and called for a referendum.

[ Page 6987 ]

On February 20, 1989, the government wrote back and concluded that a referendum is not required.

What is peculiar about this entire situation is that originally the ministry said that there would be a referendum and they granted a preclearance. Then they asked that it go to rezoning, at which point the public hearing concluded that there had to be a referendum. The ministry then reconsidered the matter and came to the conclusion that there should not be a referendum at all.

Meanwhile — and I have all the documents here and will make them available to the minister — the proposed pub is going on being constructed. The community wants a referendum. The ministry has decided there is not going to be a referendum. The federal government, through Mr. Siddon, has now come in with approximately $1 million to provide some assistance to Mr. Dike for the establishment of a pub on Bowen Island at Snug Cove. Those funds were provided to Mr. Dike to develop his marina proposal, as I have it in a letter that came to my office on May 1. The minister doesn't have it.

There have been a whole series of contraventions of bylaw provisions, which I have here, which I intended to go through carefully with the minister, but having received a note that we're out of time, I just want the minister's assurance that his ministry will investigate the circumstances surrounding the development of the pub at Snug Cove on Bowen Island, and will reverse its decision and refer this matter — as it should — to a public referendum.

The policy reason as to why you should is that it was originally a marina pub; it has now been relocated and situated in a fashion that it no longer meets the requirements of a marina pub. Therefore the regular rules as to referendum should be abided by if it's not a marina pub, then a referendum has to be held.

I want to know from the minister, of course, why his ministry made the decision, through Mr. Doney, not to have the public referendum after the Islands Trust had asked for it. I will grant the minister that I have glossed over it really quickly because of the pressures of time. But I will make all this information available to the minister and he can go back over Hansard and read my questions. I would like answers from the minister with respect to what's happening at Snug Cove.

HON. L. HANSON: I most certainly will do that, because a number of things that the member has mentioned are just not true.

First of all, it is still a marine pub; it still has access from the water and still has a conditional requirement to provide wharfage that it has care, control and custody of. The member is making allegations that the grant from the federal government is to help him build a marine pub. That grant is to provide some water amenities in terms of dockage and so on for a much larger project than the marine pub.

On the issue of the referendum, the member is again wrong. The referendum in the case of marine pubs is discretional. The question was asked of the Islands Trust: "If you want to have a referendum held, let us know." My knowledge at this point is that one member was for a referendum and the rest were opposed to it. Certainly we have no difficulty with a referendum. I can see absolutely no reason why there would be. I would like to invite the member opposite to make some of his earlier allegations outside this House, and then we could put them to a true test of whether they are correct or not.

Also, the actions that the ministry took regarding the Knight Street Pub are clearly indicated in the actions taken as a result of the ombudsman's report being tabled: namely, to cancel the licence.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll forward to the minister the details of what I've got here, and he can go through them. I just went through all the documents and quoted from them. It's a simple matter of going through the documents and the minister clarifying where the information is wrong.

On the Knight Street Pub situation, the fact that you've implemented some of the ombudsman's recommendations doesn't by itself explain your lack of action. That's the point we've been trying to get through to you during the course of this morning's estimates.

Vote 41 approved.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $26,373,218 — approved.

Vote 43: prevention and treatment of substance abuse, $50,661,204 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

On vote 67: minister's office, $248,681.

HON. MR. REE: I'm honoured to present to this House and the people of British Columbia, for the first time in the history of this House, the estimates of the Ministry of Solicitor-General. In establishing the Ministry of Solicitor-General in July 1988, this government gave greater emphasis to the justice system. By forming two ministries we adopted a framework that parallels that of the federal government and most of the other provinces. That framework separates the judicial and legal arm of government from law enforcement and the regulatory arm.

My ministry, which I have the privilege to lead as the first Solicitor-General of this province, is the fourth largest ministry in terms of employees and the eighth largest in terms of its budget. Combining police, corrections and motor vehicle regulation in my ministry has given us an enhanced capability to manage and coordinate law enforcement and public safety in this province.

[3:00]

In addition to these major programs, the ministry provides a large number of regulatory services.

[ Page 6988 ]

Some, like the Police Commission, Motor Carrier Commission, Parole Board, coroner's service and Order-in-Council Patients' Review Board, are closely linked to the central programs of the ministry. Others regulate areas which, because of their social impact, are particularly sensitive. These include the control of public gaming through the public gaming branch and the Gaming Commission, the regulation of horseracing through the Racing Commission and the regulation of the motion picture and video industry through the film classification branch and the Motion Picture Appeal Board. Finally, the Commercial Appeals Commission serves as a board of general appeal body for a number of acts that regulate commercial activity varying from real estate to liquor regulation.

In a phrase, Mr. Chairman, we are in the business of public protection and safety. We are concerned not only that the citizens of British Columbia are protected from those who would flout our laws but also that the individual rights and freedoms of our citizens are protected in dealing with enforcement and regulatory agencies. We want the citizens of our province to feel safe when they walk on our streets, but we also want them to be assured that should they or their children come in contact with the justice system, they will receive fair, responsible and humane treatment.

I want to assure this House that with the formation of two ministries responsible for justice we have — where possible — continued to share services with the Ministry of the Attorney-General. In addition, I have maintained — as has my ministry — a close working relationship with the Ministry of the Attorney-General to ensure a coordinated and effective justice system.

Also, we will work with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways through our motor vehicle branch to protect our investment in the highway infrastructure.

During the past nine months, I have had the opportunity to travel widely in the province to see firsthand the employees of my ministry at work. Whether it was with volunteers of the provincial emergency program during the clean-up operations following the oil spill on the west coast of the island ' with the police hosting an international conference on Asian youth gangs, at the opening of our new correctional facility at Kamloops or reviewing traffic safety proposals for the staff of the motor vehicle branch, I have been impressed by the professionalism and the dedication of the employees of the ministry. I am convinced that the employees of my ministry have a strong sense of commitment to service, even in such difficult places to work as Oakalla in Burnaby.

Before discussing our plans for 1989-90, I would like to review some of the major accomplishments of the ministry over the last year which have enhanced the safety of our citizens. The corrections branch has continued on its long-term capital plan to develop the most modern correctional service in Canada. During February 1989, I was pleased to officially open the new Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre for 160 inmates. This centre clearly shows a move by correc-

tions to a more effective system of prison management through modern living unit design, making the prison safer for the public, the staff and the inmates. The corrections branch has continued the use of electronic monitoring by bracelets for minimum security prisoners in Vancouver, and that is an effective system of control.

Last year the Drost report into the January 1988 escapes from Oakalla was submitted to my ministry. I am pleased to tell this House that we were able to meet virtually all of the recommendations of that report, which included such matters as increased training for staff and enhanced security measures at Oakalla.

In the area of police services, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit established an organized gang squad. This squad has worked closely with the Attorney-General's special prosecution team to fight gang activity. During the last year this cooperation resulted in 125 successful prosecutions for serious offences. CLEU also recently hosted an international conference for police agencies from many other countries to share strategies dealing with gangs. This branch has continued to develop victim service programs throughout the province and provide assistance in the development of crime prevention programs.

The police services branch also provides support for over 1,400 volunteers who work as auxiliary reserve police in this province.

During the last year the provincial emergency program went through a major reorganization and restructuring in order to more effectively and efficiently respond to situations throughout the province. The provincial emergency program was involved in responding to the Tofino oil spill, flooding in northwestern B.C., the avalanche near Stewart, the cold spell in the Fraser Valley and to many local search and rescue endeavours.

The motor vehicle branch has continued to emphasize safety through the introduction of programs such as a commercial vehicle inspection program and a national safety code for all commercial vehicles. A major reorganization began in the motor vehicle branch which will ensure greater regionalization and better access to services for all citizens of the province. In addition we've begun the process of offering some motor vehicle services through government agents' offices. For example, services that are presently available at locations such as Penticton, Fort St. John, Campbell River and Kamloops will be extended to 23 locations in all.

In August 1988 we established an organ donor registry through the motor vehicle branch with over 97,000 registered donors as of May 22, 1989. Since April 1 of this year, there have been 23 additional registered donors. It speaks well for the program. I would encourage all members of this House and all British Columbians to register so that we have sufficient donors to meet the needs of our citizens.

As you can see, it has been an eventful year for the Ministry of the Solicitor-General. This budget is one

[ Page 6989 ]

that will help us meet the challenges of the nineties to build a better British Columbia.

In the coming year, thanks to sound financial management by my colleague the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), this government has been able to allocate an additional $34.6 million to the Ministry of the Solicitor-General and has done so within the framework of a balanced budget. This 11.7 percent increase will make B.C. a safer place in 1989-90.

As I have stated in this House previously, the deaths and injuries on our highways are tragic and unacceptable. During 1988, 615 people were killed on our highways, down slightly from 1989, but a 17 percent increase over the 525 killed in 1984. As a result of my concerns with the carnage on our highways, I announced a new traffic safety program February 13, 1989.

During this fiscal year a major priority of my ministry will be the implementation of that program. The cornerstone of that initiative will be the traffic safety directorate which will have the responsibility to oversee all government programs dealing with traffic safety and to implement new programs over the next year. I announced the appointment of the chairman, Keith Godfrey, on May 18, and I can assure this chamber that the directorate will be in business on June 1, 1989.

As part of our emphasis on traffic safety, the prohibition for all serious drinking and driving offences was raised from six months to one year effective April 1, 1989. It has become apparent that points on motor vehicle offences alone do not serve as a deterrent for irresponsible drivers. Last year there were over 500,000 moving traffic violations. Therefore in the year ahead I anticipate bringing forward legislation to reintroduce fines for moving traffic violations in addition to the penalty points.

However, in spite of the best efforts of government, the safety of our highways is everybody's responsibility. I want to take this opportunity to encourage all British Columbians to take personal responsibility for their driving habits, and to make the personal efforts to make our roads safer.

During the coming year my ministry is committed to enhancing emergency preparedness throughout the province and to providing additional training to the 6,855 dedicated provincial emergency program volunteers, who are the key to any effective response The additional $621,000 allocated in this budget will allow us to meet this commitment. The provincial emergency program will continue to work closely with all levels of government. We will be coordinating our efforts with the Ministries of Health and Environment to ensure an effective response to emergencies.

In the year ahead my ministry will continue to implement the corrections capital construction plan Construction will continue on three centres replacing Oakalla in Burnaby: the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre, the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women and the Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre.

During 1989-90 these projects will expend $80 million and generate 540 person-years of employment. Upon completion the centres will buy a total of $3.2 million in goods and services from their local communities each year, and will employ 378 staff. Once they are completed, Oakalla will be closed.

In addition, we will be moving ahead to complete new youth centres in Prince George and Kamloops. I hope also to be able to take steps towards the replacement of Willingdon Youth Detention Centre.

While only comprising 6 percent of the general population, British Columbia's native people make up approximately 16 percent of our jail population. In cooperation with the native community, we wish to reduce the numbers of those incarcerated and increase the effectiveness of non-custodial programs. The corrections branch during this year will be consulting with the native community to develop specific programs for the native people of this province.

My ministry, through the police services branch, will continue to negotiate with the federal government to renew the policing contract with the RCMP, which expires in 1991. I'm proud to say that British Columbia is the lead province in these negotiations. We're consulting with the municipalities through the UBCM to ensure that their needs are heard and met.

New programs at the motor vehicle branch will be closely aligned to the traffic safety initiative. The branch will be introducing a new computerized system of testing for drivers — with the first system being installed in North Vancouver this Friday afternoon — additional educational programs and enhanced vehicle inspections.

In addition, the motor vehicle branch will be introducing changes in the area of compliance and enforcement of all commercial vehicle regulations to ensure equity across the province.

Mr. Chairman, 1989-90 will be a busy year for my ministry. We will continue to move forward in our efforts to provide public protection and safety to citizens of this province. We will also do so through the dedication of ministry employees, and the continued delivery of effective programs. I am confident that together we can build a better and safer British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, today at noon and at this moment in Government House, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is presenting exemplary service awards to seven employees of the corrections branch of this ministry. Those seven employees have in the aggregate contributed 187 years of service to the province of British Columbia. I met with them at lunch and congratulated them. They have done yeoman's service for the people of British Columbia.

At this moment I would like to introduce two of my staff who are with me, Mr. Dennis Murray, my deputy minister, and Mr. Jim Kempling, assistant deputy minister, administration. I welcome them to this House and welcome their assistance in the presentations and debate on my estimates.

[3:15]

[ Page 6990 ]

MR. GUNO: I am glad to rise and lead the debate from this side of the House on this very important portfolio which, as the Solicitor-General has pointed out, is a new addition in the ministries and an important one, as I said. I would just like to preface my remarks by frankly admitting that I was caught rather off guard in terms of timing. I had anticipated that this matter would be coming up next week. I just got back from my own riding, which takes up a lot of my time. I'm relatively new in this area; I was only appointed last month.

It's a ministry that covers a wide area of a very complex nature and one very significant as far as the public is concerned. It focuses on important areas of public safety the corrections areas and — I think one of the more important ones — the provincial emergency program.

The way we're going to proceed, in terms of examining the priorities that have been set out by the Solicitor-General, is for me to rely on many of my colleagues who have far more in depth experience or knowledge in various areas. I'm going to play for a while the role of a quarterback in terms of just trying to coordinate this very important examination. But somewhere down the line I'd like to address a couple of areas that I think warrant more scrutiny. I think that the Solicitor-General focused on them towards the last part of his remarks in a very vague and general way.

Aside from the provincial emergency program, I want to take a look at what the Solicitor-General is doing in terms of dealing with the phenomenon of the incredible number of native people who are in the provincial corrections facilities. As he pointed out, they are something like 16 percent of the prison population, of a people who only comprise something like 3 percent. Anyone with the vaguest sense of justice would say that that is so disproportionate that it requires a far more comprehensive look than just a vague commitment on the part of the Solicitor-General to address the matter.

I notice, in going through the files, that when this ministry was created there were certain priorities that were identified. These are areas that I also want to focus on, to see whether or not they are still priorities as far as the Solicitor-General is concerned, or whether they have actually been put into place. He mentioned the implementation of a private vehicle inspection program which, by this document, was to be established by October 1, 1988. I want to canvass further just how far that's gone and just exactly what resources are being allocated for this very important program that would ensure and enhance traffic safety.

The other priority item that was identified by this document is that there would be an established comprehensive safety standard for truckers by December 1, 1988. Again, it's a matter that does concern people who drive on our highways and want to be assured that there is a program to ensure that commercial vehicles using the roads are meeting some very basic standards.

The minister mentioned the enhanced organ donor initiatives. I would applaud any initiatives in that area. I think it's a very important public health and social initiative; it's gratifying to see it being put into place.

Another priority item that I see listed is the report of the task force on the horse-racing industry in British Columbia, to make recommendations to cabinet by October 15, 1988. I would like to hear from the Solicitor-General exactly what the status is of that review. I have to admit, coming from the northwest riding of Atlin, that horse-racing is really not a big thing. You could probably count the number of horse races on one hand. We do have horses, but we don't use them for racing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Something worthwhile?

MR. GUNO: Something worthwhile, yes.

The last item I see noted is preparation of a response to the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre, Oakalla, inquiry for presentation to cabinet within 60 days of receipt. These are the sorts of things that have been addressed, but I want to hear the Solicitor-General reiterate the commitment that this kind of initiative will not be focused in the lower mainland but will be going on throughout the province.

I'll stop there for now and canvass the minister's response to those areas.

MR. BARNES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Do we have a quorum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do not have a quorum. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I will ring the division bells until such time as sufficient members have returned.

We will now continue with the debate.

HON. MR. REE: I don't know whether the member wishes a complete response at this time to these items. He indicated he would be exploring these items as we proceed through estimates. I understood that he was just making some general statements. Maybe the member could indicate whether he wants the answers to all of those questions at this time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. GUNO: In the establishment of the Solicitor General’s ministry certain priorities were set out. The Solicitor-General points out that it has been a great year and that they have the necessary resources now to meet the mandate they were given. I just wanted to get a status report, in a very general way, on these priority items. Maybe that's how we can begin the assessment of your ministry.

HON. MR. REE: The member asked about the private vehicle inspection program which we were going to put into place for October 1, 1988. When I became Solicitor-General it became very apparent

[ Page 6991 ]

that it would be impossible to implement the program by that time, because there were insufficient facilities to inspect all of the 2.7 million vehicles in the province when they came due. Mind you, initially we were only looking to inspect vehicles aged five years and older. There were just no facilities for them. So we postponed it for a year and have been doing some further research on that matter.

However, we have increased the commercial side of vehicle inspection quite substantially. On April 1 of this year we included an additional 40,000 commercial vehicles: vehicles 8,200 kg and larger, excluding farm vehicles, of course. The majority of commercial vehicles of that size or larger now require annual or semi-annual inspections, including all vehicles that are licensed by the Motor Carrier Commission. By doing that, we have added to the demand for inspection facilities, so they are still coming on stream for a goal of eventually having private vehicle inspections. Whether they will be this year or not, I cannot make a commitment at this time.

I certainly consider it desirable, particularly in light of the environment concerns we have today, to check for emission control from vehicles — older ones are certainly guilty of this. Many people, when they have to get their mufflers repaired, drop the conversion unit that was in the car and put on straight, former types of mufflers, and that affects the emissions coming out of the vehicles.

I have instructed the motor vehicle side of my ministry to look at the feasibility, when commercial vehicles are being inspected, of also looking at emission control as part of the inspection. I will await a report back on that. When we do get into the private passenger vehicle — if we do — in consultation with the Ministry of Environment we may eventually direct emission inspections at the same time.

With regard to the replacement of the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre, or Oakalla, in Burnaby, I think it is very common knowledge — announcements and speeches have been made — that we anticipate knocking down Oakalla by the end of 1990. I would like to be able to do it by July of next year, to be present and see the big ball swinging and the top towers coming down, but I don't think it's quite feasible to have it done by that time.

The contracts and constructions are underway for the replacement facilities for Oakalla. As I indicated in my introduction speech, they are: the Fraser correctional centre in Maple Ridge, the Surrey pre-trial centre, and the women's centre down in the Big Bend area on the southwest side of Burnaby. These three institutions will be in a position to relocate all of the inmates at Oakalla. I feel they will be a considerable addition to the environment of our correctional facilities.

Too often we look at correctional facilities as a place for inmates to be housed, and too many of the public say, "Lock them up, throw the key away and forget about them while they're in there." We forget that we have employees in these facilities, and they are entitled to a reasonably sound, safe and pleasant facility in which to work. That has to be taken into consideration. I know I've heard a number of people saying, "Oh, well, our new facilities are too luxurious, " and all that. Certainly they're not luxurious compared to hotels, and I certainly don't want to ever have to stay in one. But the way the new ones are constructed is safer in keeping the inmate in, and there are far superior working conditions for the employees.

Horse-racing. What and when I advise cabinet is between cabinet and me. I know I was to inform cabinet by October '88 on the Jawl report. The member is probably familiar with the fact that I have asked the city of Vancouver to advise me on the feasibility of placing a one-mile standard — configuration racetrack at Hastings Park. I asked the city to report back to me on that possibility, if they could, by June 1 of this year. I have not heard back from them. They have had public hearings; I understand that there was a public hearing last night and that the mayor made certain statements. I would expect to hear officially from the mayor on behalf of council when council deals with the results of those public hearings.

[3:30]

On safety standards for trucks: some of these are in place. As far as weights and sizes are concerned, there have been changes during the year for sizes and weights of trucks using our highways, depending upon, of course, the width of the highways, strength of the paving and so on.

Also we've adopted some of the National Safety Code for trucking, dealing with hours of work and hours of driving. I don't agree completely with the hours set out in the National Safety Code, but I agree that we do need a National Safety Code. I had hoped that the hours would be a little different. They provide for 15 hours a day, of which 13 can be driving and two doing other duties. I consider that's 15 hours of work and I would like to have seen the 15 hours of work.

We were overwhelmed by central Canada, which knows only the TOM route in Canada — that is, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal — as far as trucking is concerned. They can travel that route very simply within the 13 hour time-period. We have more difficulty in western Canada traveling from Vancouver to Edmonton or Vancouver to Calgary and the like. I don't think they know what a mountain is in central Canada, and they don't appreciate the problems we have. I would have liked to have seen that 15 hours as a total work period, and not 13 and two.

MR. GUNO: Thank you to the Solicitor-General for the response, but I think we will revisit the whole area of the motor vehicle branch tomorrow.

Right now I want to focus on the area of the provincial emergency program. In doing some very basic research, I ran into the valuation study of the provincial emergency program which was tabled sometime last year. One of the conclusions was that the provincial emergency program — and I quote from page 87 — "...currently is incapable of re-

[ Page 6992 ]

sponding effectively to a major disaster." It goes on to state that the program might actually be a liability In a major disaster situation.

I note the Solicitor-General has pointed out some of the improvements that have been made. In light of the fact that for years this program was underfunded and given very low priority, and given the rather limp response by this government and the federal government to the west coast spill last year, I wonder if highlighting it as a big improvement warrants such praise.

I know that in 1984, for instance, this program was budgeted at something like $1.77 million. In 1987, the Solicitor-General's budget shows that $2.44 million was allocated. In a May 5 press release, with regard to earthquake preparedness planning, an additional $600,000 increase to the PEP program was announced. It's not clear whether or not the $600,000 is part of that $2.44 million or on top of that.

HON. MR. REE: It's part of it.

MR. GUNO: It's part of it.

I just want to make these remarks. Do we have sufficient resources and plans to prepare B.C. to deal with a major disaster and to minimize the extent of injury, death and property damage that would ensue should a major disaster — whether it's natural or man-made — ever occur? God willing, let's hope it doesn't.

There is the reality that we live on a major fault line, and experts have predicted that we are due for a fairly major earthquake. Given those prospects, can the minister assure this House that sufficient funds have been actually allocated to develop a comprehensive contingency program?

The bottom line is not so much an arbitrary amount of money that has been allocated, but whether or not we have the kind of response capability to meet such a disaster. The increase that the Solicitor-General has announced.... Can he justify the fact that it does not go anywhere near the amount that the report suggests it should, in terms of really developing this response, or at least getting to a position where we can say with some confidence that we have the manpower, the management, the coordination and the ability to coordinate our efforts with the federal people or with the Americans? Can the minister give the House the assurance that we are at that state?

HON. MR. REE: I am having some difficulty with the member's question. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and he uses the term a "major disaster." I would like to have some example of what he considers to be a major disaster. It depends on what you are looking at. If you spill a barrel of oil in a small pond, that can be a major disaster for the environment of that pond, but it may not be a major disaster to the province.

I would like some guidelines to be able to say that we have facilities or we don't have facilities for a major disaster. What are you implying? He mentions the fault line. I'm trying to gather whether he is very concerned that government should improve facilities in the event that we do have an earthquake. Possibly the member can assure me on this so that I'll have an opportunity to answer him.

MR. GUNO: I'm rather taken aback with the Solicitor-General's response. I think any government worth its salt should put in place contingency plans to meet realistic expectations of some kind of disaster. I think it's well known — or I thought it was well known.... First, our own capability of meeting any kind of disaster is simply not adequate, whether it's an oil spill in a bucket.... I think that's where we start. That's the line of departure. Secondly, as I pointed out, the rather dismal response to the west coast spill in recent months should be quite convincing evidence to the Solicitor-General that we're not ready to deal with any kind of a disaster no matter what scale.

In setting out planning priorities, I think we ought to be able to firstly start from the worst case scenario to one where we can deal with the run of the mill disasters. I don't think this government is capable right now of dealing with even the most minimal kinds of....

Interjection.

MR. GUNO: You are the Solicitor-General. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to canvass the Solicitor-General exactly what....

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the MLA for Atlin is canvassing the minister's estimates. The minister is responding by asking questions. It is not the estimates of the member for Atlin. We are dealing with the estimates of the Solicitor-General. I would appreciate it if the minister would answer the questions.

MR. GUNO: I thank my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam for his interjection. I'm trying to solicit from the Solicitor-General, and I'm being solicited in return.

I just want to know whether or not you have that confidence, whether or not the increase that has been made to this program is capable of dealing with even some of the more, as you call them, run of the mill disasters. I'm not a doomsday person. I don't think that we should go around saying that the sky is falling in. I think we at least should have the confidence that if something happens of major proportion, we have a government that has contingency plans in place that are comparable to other jurisdictions. I don't think this government has that.

HON. MR. REE: As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder at times — in saying what is beautiful or what isn't. I would say emphatically at this point that we do have plans in place for containing a disaster such as what took place on the west coast of Vancouver Island at Tofino. At that time the provin-

[ Page 6993 ]

cial emergency program responded excellently. There were well over 200 volunteers up there at one time. There were over 10,000 man-hours put to cleaning up the beaches and the mess created by this spill.

The provincial emergency program cannot prevent disaster; it was not created to do that. That, I gather, is what the member is looking for. The provincial emergency program is to assist the public and protect property after a disaster takes place. The provincial emergency program and the resources available to it were more than adequate at the time of the spill on the west coast.

The member may have other criticisms, like the information we received from the U.S. Coast Guard as to where the oil was first spilled; I don't know. You can criticize them. You can't criticize the provincial government's response to that spill, because it was excellent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: There were certain federal responsibilities of possible cost and so on, but the provincial government and its provincial emergency program responded regardless of whose responsibility it was. We moved equipment, and we moved people in there. There were certain members that talked about getting the army up there. If you put the armies on the beaches up there, they could create as much damage environmentally as the spill did. That was sensitive and was considered at the time. These comments came from people who weren't there and didn't know what they were doing. I visited the place, and there was excellent work being conducted up there and excellent work by the volunteers who were participating. We had many native people from the area contributing and working on the beaches too, and we wish to thank them for their contribution to British Columbia.

[3:45]

As for resources for the future, yes, we do have in that $641,000.... It's not just $600,000, it's $641,000, and $41,000 is a fair bit of money, as the member would know; it's about equal to the pay of an MLA, I believe. It includes additional funds for training, which is going on this year. There was training last year down at Arnprior in Ontario, as far as earthquakes and other disasters were concerned.

Oh yes, earthquakes. The member is very concerned that we do not have resources in the event of an earthquake. This government is committed to having resources and plans in place by the end of the year in the event of a major "earthquake." However, the reason I was asking the member about his party's philosophy with respect to preparedness for earthquakes was that I wanted to know whether that member agreed with the leader of the NDP in preparedness for earthquakes, or if he was of a different opinion. I believe then-mayor Harcourt compared earthquake planning to war-gaming and said there was no point trying to anticipate all the details of a disaster. This is Mayor Harcourt of the city of Vancouver. "Just how much can you build into your preparation based on the fact that an earthquake might come any time in the next 200 years? You could carry that on further. How do you start preparing for the next ice age? I mean, there comes a limit as to how much you can prepare for these kinds of things." That is the philosophy and the mentality of the leader of the NDP. That's why I was trying to find out whether you agreed with your leader or not, because I wanted to know how to respond to your questions.

Do you? Oh, I'm told I can't ask you questions. You're the inquisitor.

MR. MOWAT: He didn't do his homework.

HON. MR. REE: I think they should do their homework.

This afternoon we don't have the Leader of the Opposition, so I had to read that out. I don't expect him to come in here. He was in here for five minutes this morning.

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Member.

MR. GUNO: No, it doesn't answer my question, and yes, you're right, I'm the inquisitor and I don't have to answer your question.

You ask whether I'm expecting the government can prevent disasters. I'm not sure if I can make that assurance. But certainly natural disasters.... I'm not asking for divine intervention, but I think there are some very valid criticisms in this report, which was made about two years ago, and I think we are legitimate in asking at least whether or not there have been sufficient improvements to at least give us.... I agree with the leader: you can't anticipate. It's foolhardy to do that. We're not gods, we don't have crystal balls, but I think we could make some reasonable assumptions about things.

The government has certain responsibilities to ensure they would be ready if and when such an event occurred. That's what we're talking about. Is there a minimal standard of preparedness we should be at? I don't think the government has responded to a report that questions the government's commitment to emergency programs and says the involvement and dedication of government does not meet any of the requirements of effective disaster planning and response. It says — and I want to know if this is true today — that there is no provincewide emergency plan for British Columbia, no provincewide plan providing a role for all ministries in case of a major disaster; 30 percent — and this was last year — of municipalities do not have emergency plans; and rural areas are not covered in any of the plans. I certainly can vouch for that, coming from a very rural riding. I want to know if anything has changed since the report made these comments.

HON. MR. REE: Since the historical report the member refers to was written, as he's well aware, we've increased the budget — possibly as a result of the report, which had an impact on it. As I said earlier, we can now have additional training of our regional people and our volunteers all over the

[ Page 6994 ]

province. In addition, I made an announcement, at a recent seminar sponsored by the provincial emergency program at the Justice Institute, that we are studying and will have an earthquake response plan in place by the end of this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: Which is more than we would anticipate having from the NDP, in light of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Atlin, who said that he agreed with the leader that you can't. But I've had many experiences of getting into preparedness for events that may or may not happen. I think it is very important and this government feels it is very important that we do take into consideration these contingencies, that things may happen to people.

We have plans in place. Outside Chilliwack there's a potential avalanche. There are plans there in place with respect to that: protecting people, protecting property. Where we know these things may happen.... And they do happen in the course of events in this world, so we hope that we are in a position to respond.

There are many things that can be done. We can establish two separate communication centres in the province just to take care of the contingency if one of them is damaged in an earthquake. We can provide equipment for communications. We can inventory health facilities that are available, where we can get them, airport facilities for flying in....

MR. BLENCOE: You got two tins and a string for a radio?

HON. MR. REE: Maybe the member for Victoria is used to communicating that way.

MR. SIHOTA: You use smoke signals?

HON. MR. REE: I haven't done that, Mr. Member, since I was a child. You may still be doing it, and I would anticipate that that is probably how you do communicate with people.

Yes, certainly we will have this plan in place before the end of this year, and, as I say, inventory materials that we may need. We may have to fly in equipment from other jurisdictions if we know it's available. There's no sense storing it all in one location, but you find out where it is, where we can get generators from where we need them, where we can bring in police protection, health protection and those sorts of things.

MR. CASHORE: We're into discussion of the provincial emergency program, which has gained a great deal of profile because of the oil spill that occurred on December 22 off Grays Harbor.

It seems to me that we're getting off to a start here where the minister is responding with answers that are less than forthcoming. This is a matter of extreme importance to all the people of British Columbia, and the people of British Columbia are waiting for answers with regard, in specific terms, to the way that oil spill was handled, and In terms of the more micro situation with regard to the adequacy of the provincial emergency program itself.

The fact is that the minister is not saying anything new when he says that you can never be completely prepared for all eventualities. That is a given. Nobody is going to argue with you when you say that and when you affirm the fact that our leader has said that. We cannot possibly prepare for all the eventualities that might happen.

I want to start off by asking the minister this: given that the amount budgeted for fiscal year '88-89 was $1,820,346, and that given that there is something of an increase — on a percentage basis it might seem to be fairly significant — to $2,441,442, in the minister's opinion is that adequate for the kind of eventuality that we might anticipate, given that there have been two very serious oil spills in our environs, in the waters of our neighbours, and given that, yes, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) has pointed out, we are in a major earthquake area, and given that we have a province here to protect in times of emergency? Does the minister feel that the amount budgeted, $2,441,442, Is adequate? That's the first question.

The second question is: would the minister tell this House what he has learned and what he has done to put in place a more effective provincial emergency program than the one that existed at the time of the Grays Harbor spill?

HON. MR. REE: I would emphatically state that the funds we have are adequate for emergency preparedness. Those funds are basically for training and for setting up planning. The funds in the vote that the members are referring to are not used for the purposes of the oil spill or for damage to people's property. That comes out of the emergency vote, not out of provincial emergency programs. The $2.4 million, which is a 25 percent increase over the preceding year, is for the purposes of planning and training. I would suggest it is adequate for this year.

The Ministry of Solicitor-General was very aggressive in obtaining this additional $600,000 for our budget over last year, because we felt it was insufficient last year. I'm not going to comment further than that on the dollars that were available last year for training within the ministry. That is what I inherited. The Ministry of Solicitor-General has fought for and received additional funds, which we feel are more than adequate.

MR. CASHORE: The minister has not said what he plans to do with those funds. I don't happen to think that it's adequate, given the part of this province that we have to protect. The minister did say that the money that would be used in an emergency comes out of the emergency vote. I think he said something about that earlier, when I had to leave the House to pick something up. I wonder if the minister would

[ Page 6995 ]

just repeat what the amount is in that vote he is referring to.

HON. MR. REE: The emergency vote — I'm not sure just what it is — is sufficient funds within the plans available under the emergency vote. In other words, if we have an emergency such as cleaning up an oil spill or an earthquake, the dollars are there. There are limitations on the use of the dollars, as you probably are aware, with respect to damage to people's properties. There is a limit of 80 percent of damage. I can't give you specifics on it, but there is a limit as to the amount that will be paid to anyone who has damage to their property In the event of a disaster.

As for the $2.4 million, I'm having some difficulty having to repeat it. It is for planning and training in the event of a disaster.

[4:00]

I'm not using the term "major disasters, " because within that provincial emergency program we have some mountain rescue people who do an adequate and most commendable job in going out and finding lost hikers, lost skiers and so on. Certainly in my riding on the North Shore, these people are praised. They go out at risk to their life and limb in all sorts of weather, and usually it's the worst weather when people are lost in the mountains. These people go out as volunteers and put their lives on the line to help others. There's that type of emergency versus your earthquake and large oil spill. There are adequate funds available for the training of those people. In addition there are adequate funds for the planning of major programs.

The earthquake response plan — which I stated, and I will state again for the member for the third time so that he'll hear it — is planned to be completed before the end of the year. We have contingency plans being studied with respect to oil spills. I have asked that one be developed with respect to the area surrounding Victoria, because it is highly at risk from a potential oil spill of a large tanker going through to the United States or to Anacortes.

These things should be planned. We should know where we're going to get our necessary equipment. Someone said garbage bags. Where do we get garbage bags, shovels and rakes? Quite often communities would not have sufficient available. Where can we call in bulldozers if we need them? Where can we call in skimmers for the water, depending upon the condition of the water?

One of the problems we had at Tofino was the nature of the water out there. You could not clean up that spill offshore. There were no facilities for cleaning it offshore. By the time it had come to our beaches, it was under the water and suspended below the surface. There was nothing that could be skimmed, and you couldn't have put skimmers up there with the weather as it was at that time. It could not have been contained offshore by the time it got up there. The only method of getting it was when it came on the beach. The volunteers who were up there, the provincial emergency program and our Canadian Coast Guard did a most commendable job.

MR. CASHORE: I too appreciate the work of the people who worked with the provincial emergency program in rescuing skiers in the minister's riding and other areas of the province, and I agree that they do an excellent job.

The fact is that this program was simply not prepared to deal with a spill such as the Grays Harbor spill. Not only were they not prepared, but the attitude among those who had political responsibility was simply inadequate.

The minister was stating a little while ago something about members across the floor being on-site. Surely the infrastructure of this ministry was available to enable the minister to be on-site right from the beginning. When was the beginning? The beginning, Mr. Chairman, was December 22, 1988. It was at that time that the spill started and it was at that time they were quite pleased to look elsewhere and be reassured that the spill was going anywhere but in this direction. "The prevailing currents aren't coming in this direction; that's the best information we have available, " they said.

One of the things that this provincial emergency program did not have in its equipment was a device made right here in the Victoria area by Candel Industries Ltd. called the Sea Rover. This is a radio tracking device. Had that relatively inexpensive device been available, it could have been deployed at Grays Harbor at the time, and it wouldn't have been left to chance to find out if the oil was indeed approaching British Columbia's shores. That device would have informed the provincial emergency program that it was on the way. I would be interested to know if the program has purchased these devices and now has them available to use if such an instance were to occur again. I'd also be interested to know if, when the oil was leaving Prince William Sound, this device was deployed so there would be an electronic means of tracking where that spill might have gone and where it might still be going.

I want to get onto what I think was the story with regard to the oil spill. The minister has referred to it: the phenomenal service provided by volunteers. Were it not for volunteers, there would have really been nothing effective to mitigate the effects of the disaster. The minister himself, who brags about having been on-site.... Yes, he did fly over it in a helicopter on January 11. The spill occurred on December 22. By the time he flew over it, the volunteers were telling me that they needed the helicopters to deploy their workers to get out to the remote beaches so they could clean them up, and by that time the politicians finally arrived.

The minister said on January 11: "1 don't believe it is as serious as we've been led to believe." He said that in a radio report on CBC.

MR. BLENCOE: Who said that?

MR. CASHORE: The minister said that.

[ Page 6996 ]

The day after that, to give him credit, he changed and said that upon reflection it was a pretty serious situation out there. As a matter of fact, at that point the minister himself called it a disaster. Now within one day there has been a kind of conversion or deathbed repentance or something, and we've gone from something that was being grossly exaggerated to a disaster.

Let's get back to the people who were out there — the volunteers. I've been talking to some of the volunteers and to David LeBlanc, and some of their comments were very interesting. I might mention that one of the first things volunteers mentioned to me was that there were a lot of people who showed up on the scene whose clothes were damaged because of the circumstances of their work. That's understandable. Now if they went to the emergency program to have their clothes cleaned or replaced, it took at least two or three weeks to get the money to replace their clothes. This effectively took good volunteers away from the cleanup. You can't expect that in that weather they are going to be out there naked, having turned in their clothes to get them cleaned up. These people couldn't afford an additional pair of pants.

The volunteers talked about the various things that caused them considerable frustration. For one thing, they tell me that while there were some PEP officials over there, they weren't really out on the beach working side by side with the volunteers. In fact, one of the volunteers told me that he was a bit concerned when he would see these people out on the driving range hitting golf balls on some of the good days that occurred on the west coast at that time. There didn't seem to be a sense of what was really required, and the only way in which that basic requirement was dealt with was when David LeBlanc took charge. At that time, to their credit, the PEP people saw the natural leadership ability in that individual and began to make use of his skills.

The fact is — and this was reported to me by another volunteer — that some of them were so frustrated that they took to throwing tar balls and dead birds at some of the PEP employees; an expression of abject frustration over their attempt to get out there and help to do something about this situation, when all they were finding was a Keystone Kops routine coming from this ministry.

One of the frustrations was that they had to sign in every day. They weren't trusted. I want the minister to make a note to tell us exactly how much money they spent on the volunteers. How much did they spend for the box lunches, cleaning clothes and things like that?

Apparently, when volunteers went further afield — away from the main beaches, where you couldn't drive to the beach — Dave LeBlanc was allowed to sign a chit indicating that they were out in the field and weren't going to be coming back to sign in every day. This was a very cumbersome arrangement and quite inadequate.

Another comment from volunteers was that they perceived in many instances that PEP was really not facilitating their Individual Initiatives.

Here is an interesting thing. The minister talked about getting skimmers and the difficulty of the circumstances out there. There is no question about that. But if another British Columbia technology had been deployed — the OSCAR technology, if that was available at source — it could have had a tremendous mitigating effect.

These volunteers told me that they didn't get garbage bags, at least initially, from PEP; they got them from Overwaitea. They told me that they got rakes not from PEP but from K Mart. Apparently they weren't K Mart's best quality of rake and they kept breaking down.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to thank my colleague for his concern.

Apparently they did get their gloves from PEP, but the longshoremen donated tar-baby suits that some of them wore.

I was talking to David LeBlanc and he told me that there were two good things about the way PEP handled this emergency. He said the first one was the implementation of workers' compensation....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: No, the second one was that they appreciated the box lunches. But the fact was that it wasn't really adequate. These people should have been treated in the way you might treat a logging crew that you wanted to make sure had adequate meals and accommodation so that they could get out there and carry on with the very worthwhile job that they were doing. I would think that the minister should consider some basic compensation for these people for wages and time spent, so that there would be a reasonable recovery for them.

One of the things Mr. LeBlanc pointed out was that the coordinator in these programs should be a person who really knows the area well, and it is his perception that in the Tofino area, that is not the case. He spoke to me about volunteers not seeing the area coordinator at the cleanup site. This raises the question of the training being experienced by the people who work for PEP. The minister mentioned that before, and I am glad to hear him say that some planning is taking place in that area.

The fact of the matter was that because of the Keystone Kops routine between the Coast Guard and the province, the whole process didn't get going until long after it was too late to be able to do the initial job that needed to be done. Throughout the entire process we constantly heard of the frustrations of not being able to get enough garbage bags or enough food and not being able to deal with some of the problems that people had.

I noticed that during all this, people were going over to Granville Island to get donations of food from

[ Page 6997 ]

the entrepreneurs, so that they could bring it in vans over to the area and feed the volunteers.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I don't think that is funny, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. REE: I haven't heard so much hogwash in a long time.

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, if that is hogwash, then I would suggest that the minister watch the tapes of the news that we saw on television during that time, because they certainly saw what was going on.

Also there was a great deal of concern expressed about the housing situation. As a matter of fact, I heard that in some cases there were people working for the Coast Guard who actually made their own arrangements to house volunteers because nobody else was looking after that need.

I would like to ask the minister if the provincial emergency program has been in touch with the owners of the motels to pay for the cleanup of the carpets and various other supplies that were damaged by things being tracked in.

I would like to ask the minister — I think this is an important question — if he can tell us what the inventory is of garbage bags, rakes, shovels, gloves and tar-baby suits deployed at Tofino, at Ucluelet and at all other strategic areas up and down the coast. My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is volunteering to answer that question, if the minister needs some coaching.

I have some other questions I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to give the minister a chance to respond. I would like to caution him that if he chooses to turn this into an inappropriate political statement in order to bafflegab and avoid the appropriate response, then he is depriving the people of British Columbia of reasonable answers to reasonable questions that people want answers to.

HON. MR. REE: Never would I deprive the people of reasonable answers to reasonable questions. It's when we get unreasonable hogwash coming from that member in the type of questions he is asking and statements he is making.... He is sitting there and making, in a pious way, with a holier-than-thou attitude, statements that are completely untrue.

I did not fly over the area. I flew up to the area; I spent a whole day and a night and a morning on the beach, talking to people. The authority you're using was one of the greatest alarmists that we had up there to contend with.

I sat at a meeting that night and said: "Stop all the bellyaching that's going on up here. The job we have is to clean this place up. Let's get it cleaned up. Don't go around looking to blame people for what hasn't happened. Our job is to do it."

The PEP people were on the ground within hours of the oil hitting the beaches. We had three coordinators up there. No one threw any balls of oil or dead animals at them.

Volunteers, you say, are wanting compensation. These are dedicated people who are volunteers; compensation takes them out of the realm of volunteers. These are dedicated people who came up to help with the oil spill. If you want to turn around and make them mercenary, then that's up to you. But these people came up and volunteered their time because they were interested in the environment, interested in the beach, and interested in helping British Columbia. That's what they came up there for. They knew they were volunteers.

As for buying garbage bags at Overwaitea or rakes at K Mart: yes, we bought garbage bags where we could get them, to start with.

MR. SIHOTA: Why didn't you have them in the first place?

HON. MR. REE: I imagine the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would have the mentality to want garbage bags stacked in every little community and hamlet up and down the coast — together with rakes and lunches and all the rest of it — in preparation for a spill. That would be the mentality of planning that you would get from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

But no, we try and look at it in the overall. Part of the planning we have is inventory and knowing where this equipment can be obtained, because a lot of times the local communities do not have the resources handy. Where can we get them? Where can we bring it in from? That is going into our plans.

The PEP people off golfing. That is a slanderous statement, Mr. Member, to the people of the provincial emergency program. It is slanderous, and you should apologize to them. If you haven't got the guts to do so, I'll let them know you haven't.

You ask about signing in every day. Certainly we asked them to sign in every day, so that we could arrange as to where they would go to do the most good in cleaning up. We didn't want people wandering around without any supervision, so that we could do an effective job. That is one of the main reasons of signing in; also to ensure that if they were injured when they were there, they could receive workers' compensation. I don't know about you, Mr. Member, but possibly you think everybody in the province could have said: "Well, I was there and got injured and workers' compensation has unlimited funds to pay." No; as a responsible government and a responsible provincial emergency program branch, we had to act responsibly, and that meant signing people in.

I think you've got to look at the proof of the pudding now. You go up there and that beach is nice. That beach is going to be open for thousands and thousands of visitors coming there this year. I think a lot of that's the proof of the pudding.

At the moment, I don't think we have received a single claim from a motel for any damages. I would

[ Page 6998 ]

be interested in being advised of It. We would certainly follow it up as to what went on there.

We did have some problems of too many people wanting to come that we couldn't control, or you would have too many people on the cleanup. Many people in the province phoned and volunteered their services. Some we discouraged; some who wanted to come at specific times had to be scheduled to come up days later. One of our problems was on the weekends. Large numbers of people gave up their weekends to come in and help clean up that spill.

The member commented with respect to my statement to the press on the day I was up there. In light of oil spills around the world, the spill at Tofino was not a major spill in terms of quantity. It was a disastrous spill, as I stated earlier, because any spill is disastrous, and it's major in the eyes of the beholder. In light of spills on the east coast, in light of the Valdez spill and spills in France and on the English Channel, it wasn't major; but it did create a lot of disaster, and we were there to limit that disaster once the spill had taken place.

There was nothing you could do to stop that oil from coming ashore, Mr. Member. You suggested that we should have been down at Grays Harbor dropping things in the water to monitor it, or up at Prince William Sound at the Valdez spill. You're suggesting that we fly into other territorial waters when these things happen. There are international treaties on that. That is not the responsibility of my ministry; that is the responsibility of the federal government and the Canadian Coast Guard. They are the ones that would be tracking that, not the provincial emergency program. The responsibility and mandate of my ministry is to go in and minimize the damage after the event has taken place. I think you have done a disservice to all the people, all the volunteers in the provincial emergency program, and I think it's reprehensible.

MR CASHORE: I find It absolutely appalling that this minister would refer to an individual who helped to coordinate this spill as an alarmist. If I'm incorrect in my understanding of what the minister was saying, I would stand corrected. But if the minister is referring to Mr. David LeBlanc, who is widely recognized as having provided excellent volunteer service at that time, it is most unfortunate.

I would like the minister to tell us whether in his opinion the spill is over and is no longer a problem. If he believes that to be the case, I would like to send to him by one of the Pages some photographs that were given to me by a group involved in work all up and down the coast. These five photographs, taken in the Cape Scott area, depict garbage bags full of debris; they depict workers; they depict a dead bird soiled with oil on the beach. It's not a pleasant sight. There's also a picture from the Vancouver Province. Unfortunately it's not dated, but I believe it was taken in the first two weeks in April.

Yesterday I was talking to Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Zakreski, and both of them told me it's still a problem; that they would be able to go out and find oil on beaches today. I would like the minister to tell us just what the current state is of the oil spill. Is it still a problem, or is it a problem that PEP has written finish to?

HON. MR. REE: Oil spills will always leave a residual problem. One of the worst aspects about the oil spill is that it does great ecological damage that it takes years to recover from — if we ever recover from it: the birds that were killed, the sea life that was killed, the sea life that may continue to be killed as a result of that spill. There's oil, I'm quite confident, on the bottom of the water which may be there for years until it eventually degrades. It is causing damage there, but it's something that can't be cleaned up.

I'm confident that some amounts are still being washed ashore, and I'm confident that there's still some buried underneath some of the sand beaches which will come to light from time to time. The only thing we can do is continue to monitor it and to clean it up when we can. But right now the beaches are adequate for the summer visitors who wish to come up and enjoy that part of the province and that part of Vancouver Island. I have camped there myself in the past, and I would feel quite safe going up to camp there now — subject, of course, to the weather. Sometimes you get some really good storms coming in there. The weather, unfortunately, at the time the spill came ashore in early January was very poor. That's one of the worst times of the year. That's one of the things that made it hard to stop it from coming ashore. I don't think there was anything that could have been done at that time.

Yes, Mr. Member, I agree. These things happened, the things that you stated were in the pictures — the birds and the damage and that. It's not pleasant; it's not nice. We don't like them happening and we don't want them to happen. That is why we set plans in place. That is why this government is working on an earthquake preparedness plan, not like your leader would have done. We are trying to plan to prevent these things from being catastrophic or anything like that in the future. We are looking towards preparing for these things. That's why this ministry has additional money this year: so we can look after these disasters when they happen.

MR G. JANSSEN: I'm disappointed in the minister. The spill happened, as you know, In my riding. It took the minister 11 days to respond, a minister who is supposedly in charge of the provincial emergency program and who was told on January 1 that the oil hit the beach at Carmanah. Eleven days later, the man who supposedly is in charge of the provincial emergency program decides he's going to go up and have a look. Then he has confusion as to whether it's a disaster or an overstated, overrated oil spill.

[4:30]

I also take exception to his calling Mr. David LeBlanc, one of my constituents who led in that oil spill, an alarmist. In fact, when phone calls — my phone calls — were placed to the provincial emergency program to find out what the situation was,

[ Page 6999 ]

the provincial emergency program directed them to David LeBlanc, because he was apparently in charge. He knew what was going on, and he's being called an alarmist.

I take exception to that remark from the minister, on behalf of my constituent. He should be thanking that member of my constituency for carrying on a program that the provincial emergency program wasn't carrying on. In fact, it would have been a good idea for the minister to recognize that at the time and hire Mr. LeBlanc to run the PEP in Tofino, instead of leaving it to the inadequate services provided by the PEP people in his ministry.

I'd like to canvass the minister on how prepared they actually were in Tofino at that time. He talks about garbage bags. Most of the garbage bags were supplied by local businessmen in Tofino and, when they ran out, in the Alberni area. How many garbage bags did the minister's provincial emergency program pay for? How many shovels did they pay for? The shovels came from the Forests ministry. How many wheelbarrows? How many coveralls were supplied as were promised?

How much money did you actually put out to help those volunteers who were on the beach day after day after day? In fact, when asked, the provincial emergency program said that Burrard Clean, the private contractor that was called in, was to hire the people. How many people were provided by the provincial emergency program to fight that oil spill?

HON. MR. REE: Volunteers, as I stated earlier — if the member had been here, he would have heard — provided 10,000 hours up there. I'm sorry to take the time of the House to repeat the answers. If members would attend, they would hear and we could get on with business.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The question was: how many PEP people?

HON. MR. REE: Those are PEP volunteers. Mr. Member, it having been in your riding, I'm confident that you know — but you may not — that there were a number of people up there on the cleanup. The provincial emergency program was doing some of the coordinating on it.

There were people from the private contractor — I believe he was hired by the owners of the oil or the barge; I'm not sure which. He was representing them, and he was also hiring people for cleaning up the beaches. His people stayed around for quite a long time afterwards, going out to some of the other islands and so on and to the harder places to get at. There were also employees of the Canadian Coast Guard up there doing cleanup.

Basically the provincial emergency people did not get into the more dangerous areas to do cleanup. You are probably aware of that. They did an excellent job — 10,000 volunteer hours in that cleanup. I can't tell you the exact dollars. I don't think the dollars that were spent matter. I think what is important is: was the job done? I think the job was adequately done by the provincial emergency program.

The overall responsibility for the program was the Canadian Coast Guard's. I trust that your colleagues in Ottawa will ask the appropriate questions there. I'm not the one responsible for that. My mandate was the provincial emergency program. We had more than adequate people there; we had more volunteers than we could use. We provided workers' compensation. We provided the cost of cleaning clothes. We provided meals for them. We were not responsible for the others who came in who were hired by the contractor or by the Coast Guard or by the parks department, which had people up there.

We went In there the night I was there — and by the way, you're wrong as usual; the people over there are always wrong on their dates and facts. I did not go up there on January 11. Get your dates right. I was up before then.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: Sure, I was up there on the 10th. You see, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

We had provincial emergency people up there within hours on the very day the oil came ashore, and it was my mandate to see that people were up there to do the job. We had competent people up there. We had coordinators, I believe, who came from Vancouver. I'm not too sure at this point where they came from. We had a team of three up there within hours, and they did an excellent job.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Is the minister advising us that provincial emergency people — three of them, I think he stated — were at Carmanah on January 1 when the oil came ashore?

HON. MR. REE: To the member: that is not what I said. As usual, they try to put words in people's mouths. They were not there when the oil came ashore. They were not standing there looking for it to come ashore. At least two of them were there, I believe, on January 1, and the third would have been up there on January 2. I'll confirm that to you later, but they were there within hours of the oil coming ashore. As soon as we got word of it, they were there.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The native community in Alberni, the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council and particularly those bands in the Tofino area — the Clayoquot, the Ahousat and people from Ceepeecee and Hot Springs Cove — did a lot of work, as I'm sure the minister is aware, in cleaning up the outer islands. They also lost a lot of their livelihood, because they traditionally are fish-eaters and live off the beaches, the mussels, the clams, the crabs and bottom fish that inhabit those very rich waters.

They would have liked to see some compensation for their losses, as would the village of Tofino, which spent a lot of its resources cleaning up the beaches within its jurisdiction, and also fishermen whose

[ Page 7000 ]

livelihood was curtailed at the time, because they couldn't fish those waters any longer. The hotel owners and the cafe owners had signs on their windows and doors stating: "Please remove your oily shoes before entering." Their carpets were soiled. If the minister has ever had oil on his carpets, he realizes the expense involved in trying to remove that.

Yet none of these people were offered compensation, and the minister earlier stated that 80-cent dollars were available for property damage. Is he saying now that he's willing to compensate those people? Is he willing to offer some compensation to those people, many of whom volunteered their hours away from their businesses and communities to see that their environment remained as pristine as it was before the oil spill? Can he now offer the people of that area some compensation for the out-of-pocket losses they incurred?

HON. MR. REE: I haven't seen or received a single claim from the people the member is talking about. I cannot offer compensation to them until I've received a claim from them.

Possibly the member for Alberni can consult with his learned colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) as to where you would normally go and who you would seek redress from, in the event of a loss or damage you have sustained. Normally that goes to the party who caused the loss or damage.

The responsibility of the provincial emergency program is to clean up the mess and the damage there. Then we have, as I tried to explain earlier to the member.... Oh, you weren't here at the time; your shift changed, so I have to repeat myself. The compensation plan provides for damage to your own property, in which there is a limit, where there has been severe — like the storm up in the northwest of the province last year, or when there is a flood or some natural disaster where property is damaged.... There is a limit; I think it is 80 percent or a limit of $100,000. There are some deductibles and there are some things that are excluded. That is the extent to which the provincial emergency program goes towards individuals in the event of a storm.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Normally, in instances like you have at Tofino, you would go to the parties responsible. Now I would hope those people, if they have claims, are in touch with their Member of Parliament for that area to see that their claims would be included in any large claim the Dominion of Canada might be making against the United States. I would certainly ask the Member of Parliament up there to try and assist these people as he should. If he is going to represent them, he should look to them to that extent.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I was here, Mr. Minister, so you're wrong. That's why I asked the question, and if you would bother to answer the question as asked, we wouldn't have to repeat ourselves so often on this side of the House, and we would get through these estimates a lot quicker.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Is the minister making another derogatory remark about one of my constituents?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he'd send you a garbage bag.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I was there, Mr. Minister, putting oil in garbage bags — garbage bags I supplied that certainly weren't supplied by your ministry.

The people in Tofino were directed by the provincial emergency program to make their claims to an office set up in Ucluelet by the Canadian government, which would assist them in pursuing their claims privately with the owner of the barge. Each individual claim has to be privately processed and pursued in order for those people to get compensation. Some 80 claims, Mr. Minister, if you don't know the number, are now in progress. But this government — and I asked at the time — refuses to represent those people in a class action suit against the Washington State government, whose environmental branch made the decision to tow the barge out to sea in the first place.

Will the minister act on behalf of the residents of the province of British Columbia? Will he recognize his responsibility as Solicitor-General? Will he represent the people of the Alberni riding — my constituents — in seeing that they receive some compensation? Obviously it's much easier for the provincial government to act on behalf of 80 residents of the province than it is for each resident to pursue an action on his own.

HON. MR. REE: I realize the member is reasonably new to these precincts.

MR. G. JANSSEN: A new-generation New Democrat.

HON. MR. REE: You probably also belong to the national New Democrats, don't you?

As far as the claims are concerned, it would not be within the purview of the Solicitor-General's ministry to....

[4:45]

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE: No, the responsibility for this, if there was any, would be for the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), and I don't believe you brought this issue up during his estimates. Maybe you should make a point of it during question period, make another submission or write to him about it. It's not for the Solicitor-General to pursue these types of claims in any way, shape or form. At any rate, the member well knows to register.... The federal gov-

[ Page 7001 ]

ernment will be looking after this. I think he is completely out of order.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find the concerns of some of these members of the opposition with respect to environment, oil spills and so on extremely hypocritical. Their leader, as I said earlier, isn't interested in earthquake preparedness. They fought so hard against the Mackenzie pipeline that the only method of moving petroleum or gas down the coast is by ship, which is a greater threat to our environment than a pipeline would be.

The only conclusion I can see is the opposition, if their government would lead us down a line to, I guess.... The newest and the biggest industry in the province would be.... Well, we wouldn't even have candles for light.

MR CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, order, please. There is a requirement during the Committee of Supply to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the ministry in question. The ministry in question is your ministry, and for the life of me I can't understand how this debate relates to the estimates of your ministry. If we could restrict our discussions to vote 67, I'd ask you to proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, to embrace the comment that my colleague from Alberni just made, it would be a very easy matter for the Ministry of Solicitor-General to set up an office in Ucluelet and Tofino — and in my riding out in Port Renfrew, because there were damages all up and down the coast in my riding as well — and take note of all the claims, pay out those people who have legitimate claims, and then subrogate and take action on a class basis by this government against Washington State for their negligence in taking this barge and towing it out, I believe, 22 miles or 45 kilometres to sea, which allowed the oil to come up here. It is interesting that if they had gone a little bit further, they would have hit the currents and it would have gone to L.A. Instead, they went only as far as to hit the currents that went to our coast.

It's interesting that after Valdez it didn't take long for litigation to be commenced down in L.A. against Exxon to make sure that those people up there were protected for loss of income and for damages. The same could be done by this government. Commence the action now and negotiate with the Americans — so you don't have to go to court tomorrow — for the payment of our damages. Those damages include the costs of the Ministry of Solicitor-General — if any; so far we haven't been able to establish that his ministry spent any money on the costs to clean up. His ministry, the Attorney-General's ministry and other ministries, federal and provincial, could just commence an action now, much like the Americans did to us on the Trail smelter.

You can do it. And don't give us, to quote the minister's words, "hogwash" in terms of why you can't do it and get into some jurisdictional dispute between the A-G and the Solicitor-General. Take some leadership. Commence those court actions on a class basis. Pay out those people. Subrogate those claims. Don't leave it up to their resources. You can't say to someone who is a small businessman running a cafe in Tofino that on the basis of private civil action they have to commence an action down in Oregon for $5,000 worth of damage to a carpet. Let's get real here. Or to say to a fisherman who's lost maybe $50,000 worth of income that he's now got to go down to Oregon to collect the bill and to sue not just the barge company but the American Coast Guard and Washington officials who made the decision to take the barge out to sea — that's where the deep pockets are — and to have some private fisherman out of Tofino commencing action against the American government.... Talk about inequality of power when you get in front of the courts.

There was leadership lacking. Your ministry, Mr. Minister, sold off the surplus garbage bags that you had sitting here in Victoria in a warehouse a few months prior to the occurrence of the oil spill. You sold off a lot of those supplies that you had, because this government, because of its privatization initiative, wanted to empty out that warehouse and give it over to the private sector. So it just sold off all its stuff. That's a policy decision you made, and it came home to roost really quickly, because it just so happened that the oil spill happened that fast.

No one over there in the provincial emergency program so much as thought to walk down the street here in Victoria into my riding in Esquimalt, drop by the military base and say: "Look, chaps, what have you guys got over here that we can use?" They had people; they had organizational ability; they had an abundance of supplies.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they were willing.

MR. SIHOTA: They wanted to go out there, believe you me. The reason why I know that is that I met with those officials and they were aghast that they hadn't been asked. I think, if memory serves me right, that I met with them on January 19, but I could reference that date for the minister. They hadn't been asked as of that date. I could be wrong by a week on that date, and I'll check on my calendar.

HON. MR. REE: Who was that?

MR. SIHOTA: National Defence, by PEP, to get involved.

I want to focus on another element of this spill. I want to ask the minister a question first, and then I'll explain why I'm asking him. Could the minister tell us what lessons his ministry has learned, what it intends to do now, in this year's budget, as a consequence of that oil spill which occurred and as a consequence, in particular, of the experiences that the ministry had, let's say, between December 23, 1988, and the middle of February 1989, when you were actively on site, up until then? In that time period, what lessons did you learn? I'd like some precision to that. What steps have you taken in this year's budget to make sure that there is support for those lessons?

[ Page 7002 ]

MR. R. FRASER: Didn't we all listen with interest to a few of those presentations over there. Buried deep in the words of their presentation is socialism, socialism, socialism. Can you believe it?

What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman? We are going to have warehouses full of garbage bags, gloves and rakes, just in the event.... Paying out all that money for an event that may never happen, holding in storage products that will age and degrade. So if one came and it was old, the equipment wouldn't work, and you would have wasted all that money. Is it not better to buy a product when you need it than to hang on to it? What an extreme waste of money. Garbage bags, really. The minister has heard a lot of hogwash from that side of the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew please restrain himself. Other members, please, it's going to take some time anyway, so why don't we go through it peacefully. The member for Vancouver South.

MR R. FRASER: I don't mind if they try to heckle me, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it strings out the debate a little, and that's what we want to do here. We want to make sure that every single fact comes out and that the minister has a chance to defend himself in full in front of the entire province, right here on the floor of the Legislature. I know that's what he wants.

There are stories I hear from the opposition, pictures of unfortunate animals that have been killed in an oil spill. I don't know what the advantage of that is. We understand it is not a pretty sight. None of us wants to see it. I don't think we need high tech to tell us that the currents go up the coast, as the member from that riding.... Where is that fellow? And indeed, who really cares?

There is no question that the size of tankers we are using these days cause great damage if they are ruptured and the oil spills. There is certainly no question in the minds of us on this side of the House that indeed great care must be taken. That is why the Premier of this province got together with the Governors of the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon, so that in the event of another spill — which we don't want to see, of course — all jurisdictions could get together, mobilize their resources, contain the spill and do what has to be done, so that this province can prosper and tourism will grow, and animals, birds and human life will survive. That is the motive. We don't want to save garbage bags; we want to save the ecology, and there is a great big difference.

Part of this ministry involves the police and jails. I want to talk a bit about that, because there have been some studies and one or two experiments on electronic anklets for prisoners. Instead of sending prisoners to jail, we send them home, and so they have to pay for their own maintenance. If I understand these little devices well enough, they would be put on people who are non-violent, people who are stupid enough to get caught and convicted of impaired driving, for example — who indeed could be dangerous, incidentally.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I am talking about the personality, not the opportunity. There is a little difference. If you think about it, you will understand.

It occurs to me that if we can take impaired drivers out of the jails and make them become jailers for themselves in their own homes, think of how unpleasant that could be. Think of what the spouse might say, or the children. "Why are you here?" — whatever spouse it might happen to be; not to mention any gender. "Why are you here when you should be at work or out at some meeting? Is it perhaps that you are wearing that little anklet that the Solicitor-General has put around your ankle so you can't leave a certain radius of the house. Is that why?" To be humiliated at home, 24 hours a day — I'd bet a lot of people would rather go to jail than have that happen.

We don't take the car out of circulation. We don't bury the public in debt for keeping jails; we put people in their own jails at their own expense. I want to hear more about that, Mr. Minister, because I think it is a great, economical idea.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Can we track oil the same way?

MR. R. FRASER: Well, some of the more hopeless members of the opposition, Mr. Chairman, who are desperate for one headline or another, go to any length, accuse the minister of not caring — when I know he does. He was out there. I know he is as upset about the oil spill as you are. I know he is as concerned about the cost of jails as I am. That's the difference. The socialists will buy, hoard and keep; this government will make an opportunity for people to work and earn.

HON. MR. REE: It's a pleasure to hear a question from somebody who appreciates positive actions, positive things, that we are doing within the ministry, not those that are, as that member said, just looking for a headline, the negative Nellies that always say, "too much, " or "not enough." Nothing is ever good enough for them.

[5:00]

With respect to the specific electronic bracelet program — the ankle bracelets — this has turned out to be very successful.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE: Well, someone used the term "cardboard cops." They're better than the invisible ones that we see over there.

The electronic ankle bracelets is a very positive and successful program that has been developed in British Columbia; we in British Columbia were the first province. Costwise, it is excellent, because the cost of monitoring the electronic bracelets is around

[ Page 7003 ]

50 percent or 60 percent of that of keeping a person incarcerated in an institution.

The electronic bracelets operate on the basis that people who are not a direct threat to society as being violent per se can still go to their homes and their workplaces while they are fulfilling a sentence for the offence for which they've been convicted. They are restricted, certainly, as the member said; they are sort of jailed in their own homes. But they are monitored electronically while they are at the workplace and while they are at home through the telephone system. The person wearing the bracelet can only go to work or stay at home. If he goes elsewhere, then he's breaching his temporary parole and would go back into the institution.

The advantage of the electronic bracelets is that the person sentenced — and this has to be indicated by the court, and the judges have to get to know of the system and what's available there — can serve his full time consecutively, day after day, whereas a lot of people convicted of impaired driving have to show up at the jail on Friday night or Saturday night and serve on weekends. It extends it over a longer period of time, and that's very costly to administer and to control.

In due course, approximately 11 percent of our current prison population might be handled by these bracelets, which would be a great advantage, productivity-wise, to the province.

Now the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was criticizing that the provincial emergency program did not call in the National Defence; as of January 19 they didn't call them in. I don't know at this point whether National Defence was ever called in, because the responsibility for calling in National Defence would not have been with this ministry; it would not have been with the provincial emergency program. It was the Canadian Coast Guard's responsibility. I do know that there were considerable conversations between the Canadian Coast Guard and the provincial emergency program coordinators with respect to the possibility of calling in National Defence to assist. But the decision was the Canadian Coast Guard's, and the responsibility was the Canadian Coast Guard's, to call in National Defence. It's not within this ministry.

The member asked questions as to what we have learned, what we propose to do as a result of lessons learned from the spill. I am confident that the member is well aware that we are endeavouring to put into place a coordinated plan through the Ministry of Environment, with the federal government, with Washington, D.C. — the United States — and with the states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska, to have a coordinated effort in the event of a repeat of the Grays Harbor spill or a similar or larger or smaller type of disaster.

The government is very, very concerned that this doesn't happen again. I think it probably will, but what can we do to minimize the damage when it does happen again? I think the member is well aware of the statements by the Premier and his concern with these tankers going up and down the coasts of British Columbia; the threat to British Columbia. I would hope that wiser heads would prevail and some other means of transporting the product would come into place. It certainly could. It would be far safer for the environment and for the ecology of the province, and for our waters, if it could be obtained. As I tried to indicate before, there have been others — particularly the NDP — who have been against such an alternate mode of transportation and have strongly fought against it.

Those are some of the lessons we have learned. We are, from these lessons from the spill, as I said earlier, building up inventories — not of actual purchased goods on site, but knowing where the inventory of goods can be obtained at the time of an emergency, whether it be a spill or an earthquake or some other thing. Where can we go and quickly get the materials necessary, what quantities of materials we might need, depending upon the size of the disaster — that sort of thing — and mode of transporting it there.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me rephrase that question to the minister. I understand what he's saying in terms of agreements with Washington and Alaska. Albeit agreements were in place back in the seventies, and as far as I understand, at least up until 1983 those agreements were being acted upon, because I talked to the previous coordinator of the provincial emergency program out of Victoria. Internally, what lessons have you as a government learned, and what steps are reflected as a consequence to those lessons in your budget this year?

HON. MR. REE: In the budget for this year there is, as I said, an additional $641,000. A lot of the impetus of getting the additional funds allocated to the provincial emergency program I would say came from the event at Tofino and other kinds of disasters that happened around the province: the need for the upgrading of our volunteer people as far as training is concerned, the need for upgrading our coordinators in the various regions of the province. All of that came and we have the additional funds.

As for the lessons learned, we learned the methods of setting up a team to go in and coordinate. We didn't have specifically designated people for the spill at Tofino, and we would have that in place now to direct them into the area. I say one of the biggest things is the planning of it, and the inventory of equipment.

If we have something happen in some location, how do we or can we get in housing if we bring in people? There are many places in this province that are very difficult to get to, certainly on the coast. What facilities can we get in there for the people? Where could we get the volunteers from, because that is what the provincial emergency program is involved in with respect to volunteers.

MR. SIHOTA: I've asked the minister the question a couple of times, and I'll explain in a second why I asked him this. Let me say that $641,000 really doesn't even begin to attend to the problem. Let's

[ Page 7004 ]

face it, if there was a true commitment to deal with the lessons learned from the west coast oil spill, there would have to be a greater allocation for provincial emergency planning in British Columbia than that which has been allocated in this year's budget. I'll leave it for my colleague.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says it's $2.44 million. Two years ago it was $1.9 million; last year you fell to $1.6 million. All you've done over two years is take It from 1.9 to 2.4 now. You've barely, if at all, kept up with inflation. Last year, if this minister wants to know, this program was cut back — if memory serves me right — by about 6.9 percent, and if the minister wants to know, this provincial emergency program has been a bit of an orphan in government. It's been kicked around from Environment to Attorney-General and now to Solicitor-General. It's been unwanted, and it's been dealt with in that fashion and underfunded. It's been written off, much as the representative for Vancouver South would want.

In other words, why prepare for an oil spill, because it's not going to happen. You've done absolutely nothing — $2.44 million when you sit in a province that has oil tankers going up and down the coast and we sit on a major earthquake fault.

Mr. Minister, let me give you one simple example. What would happen here in Victoria tomorrow if there was a chemical spill on the E&N Railway, a major disaster, and you had to evacuate people? You don't even have a plan right now to evacuate people properly at the community I live in, Esquimalt, because no matter which way you get into Esquimalt — and you think about getting to a hospital in the event of an earthquake or a chemical spill — you have to go through three different bridges. If you had an earthquake, those bridges go down. What arrangements has this province made to deal with people in Esquimalt? What arrangements have you made with the military in terms of the military hospital? They're waiting for you to contact them, Mr. Minister, and your ministry hasn't done that.

Think about a chemical spill in Victoria — and we have major chemicals coming in and out of here by way of rail. Let's say it was released into the air — which is not much of a fabrication because it's bound to happen — and it was potentially dangerous and there was a cloud hovering over the city of Victoria that was giving people difficulty. There's one route to get away and that's up the Malahat. When you've got a population base of 250,000 people, it doesn't take a lot. Because people aren't going to wait for the next ferry to Port Angeles. They're not going to wait for that infrequent service every two hours that we have to Vancouver. They're not going to sit around for the Marguerite to chug in or the Clipper. They want to hop in their cars; they want to get out of here. One road up the Malahat.

There isn't a plan in place to deal with that type of an eventuality. You try to tell me that this is some kind of a commitment from government. A budget of $641,000 for earthquake preparedness in this province doesn't even deal with the basic requirement that you need, according to documents that I've cited before, and which my colleague for Atlin (Mr. Guno) will be citing a bit later on.

It's flimflam PR for this government and its Premier to stand up and say: "Yes, we're concerned about emergency preparedness for disasters, and we'll be prepared like good boy scouts next time around." The reflection of commitment isn't in that budget. You have a report before you that tells you you need a dollar per person in British Columbia to deal with earthquake preparedness alone. There are about 2.5 million people in B.C. — maybe $3 million. That's more than your entire budget for provincial emergency planning.

How can you possibly stand up and say that the $641,000 is some kind of significant contribution by the province to emergency planning. That's some kind of commitment. Commitment my foot! You don't even have enough in your whole budget to deal with what your own officials tell you you need for earthquakes, let alone oil or chemical spills.

[5:15]

It's a joke, Mr. Minister. It's an absolute joke what this government has in terms of commitments with respect to provincial emergencies. You've got a report, which my colleague for Atlin already referred to, from August 1987, if I remember it right, that says this province is wholly unprepared for a major disaster. You tell us how many of those recommendations you've moved on. How many have you moved on that have a financial consequence to?

Come now, don't play these games of deception and try to tell us that yes, somehow this government has got its act together. It's sitting there with its fingers crossed and its eyes closed hoping that there's going to be no disaster. If there is one, we're simply not prepared for it, particularly in the highest risk areas on the islands and all along the coastline of this province right from the riding of Victoria to the riding of Atlin. It's a joke, and it's a joke that the minister is sitting here wanting to know what the score in the hockey game is and not paying attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no score, I'm told, and if we could just proceed on that basis.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It's just indicative of where this government's coming from.

Let me tell the minister why I asked him the question.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's got to come out of contingency.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's always there.

[ Page 7005 ]

MR SIHOTA: It's always there; it will always be dealt with. Don't worry; be happy.

You've got reports from August 1987 telling you what's wrong. Things are bad, and you're telling us they're good. Read that report from August 1987. Before you do that, read what I've got here, which is a document internally generated through your ministry for the Interministry Committee on Emergency Preparedness in British Columbia. Shall I explain why I asked you the question? It's entitled "West Coast Oil Spill." It says: "December 23, 1988 to February 9, 1989: Lessons learned. General. Fourteen recommendations." I asked the minister the question because I wanted to see just how many of these recommendations the government has acted upon. Let's go through them.

"1. Cabinet committee for emergency preparedness is required to provide government policy." My question to the minister is, has that been done?

"2. Deputy minister's committee for emergency preparedness is required to provide direction" — remember, this is on oil spills — "on the implementation of government policy and make recommendations to cabinet committees on emergency preparedness, response and recovery issues." Has that been done? What were the recommendations to the committee, and how were those recommendations reflected in the $2.4 million that the minister takes so much pride in?

"3. One provincial agency to be responsible to the deputy minister's committee for the direction and control of the provincial response to and recovery from emergencies /disasters." Has that been established? Is that agency in existence? What funding is provided to the agency to do the work that this document asks be done? This document reinforces over and over again the absence of control and any meaningful coordination.

"4. Direction and control to be administered from a provincial control centre." Have you done that? Have you got a plan in place for that?

"5. A provincial plan is necessary to identify the roles and responsibilities of ministries and Crown corporations, authority to activate the plan, and procedures covering the implementation of the plan." Is that plan ready? Are those roles and responsibilities defined? Who has the authority to activate the plan? Who's in charge?

"6. All agencies, federal, provincial, municipal and native groups, should have been part of the decisionmaking process as the first step in reaching agreement on who or what agency could best supply what services in support of the Canadian Coast Guard." I want to know from the minister with respect to that recommendation, in light of what my colleague from Alberni had to say, what arrangements have been made with native groups, who tend to know the terrain of this province better than others. What arrangements have been made for the furtherance of recommendation No. 6?

"7. A provincial government media person is required on site for the duration of emergency operations." Has the minister hired someone to do media work for you? It seems to me that's usually number one in the government's mind. The province has a right to know what you're doing with respect to No. 7. How is that request embodied in your report?

"8. All agencies need to share information by daily situation reports." Have you now drafted a system, Mr. Minister, to make sure there are daily situation reports? Have you got the forms that are necessary? Have you got enough to deal with an eventuality should it arise? That's simple. It doesn't even cost any money.

"9. Need to develop a 'fly-in kit' designed to provide necessary equipment and supplies to establish and maintain on-site operations for a minimum of five days." The Boy Scouts say you have to be prepared. The minister says we're not going to behave like Boy Scouts. We're not going to be prepared. We're just going to sell off everything. If we need it, we'll go down to K Mart and buy it. I want to know whether by now you've developed a fly-in kit. Do you have the necessary equipment and supplies to maintain an on-site operation for five days?

"10. Need to develop policy and procedures for the operation of a volunteer centre." Have policies and procedures been developed? Have you acted on the lessons that you learned from the oil spill?

"11. Require financial policy and procedures to process payments and signing of contracts to cover expenditures of emergency funds on site with a three- to five-day turnaround time." That's an interesting one, keeping in mind what my colleagues from Alberni and Coquitlam had to say about making sure people got their clothes cleaned and supplies provided for and their expenses looked after. Has the minister developed a financial policy and procedures to process payment? Have you set up the necessary system with the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations? Have you got something that deals expeditiously with the expenditure of moneys under the emergency vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. Time has expired.

MR. GUNO: I've been listening with great fascination to my colleague's speech, and I would gladly give up my place to hear him further.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank my colleague from Atlin.

This is a government which, we found out in the last two days in Labour estimates, isn't able to pay its auxiliary employees within the law; i.e., eight days. I want to know whether or not you've set up a system that will allow a three- to five-day turnaround for the expenses mentioned in recommendation 11 of this document, which I understand went from the committee to cabinet.

"12. Emergency communication, phone lines-fax procedures required for action in one day. Installation of telephones and fax within 24 hours is necessary." That's what you learned. What steps has his ministry taken, and how is that reflected in this year's budget? Have you bought the emergency

[ Page 7006 ]

telephone equipment, Mr. Minister? Is that provided for in this year's budget? Do you have the fax procedure set down? Are you capable now of putting in the telephone lines?

"13. All memoranda of understanding and/or agreements related to emergency preparedness response and recovery .. need to be reviewed and updated as required." They talk about federal-provincial, provincial-state, American-Canadian and interministry agreements. I want to know, Mr. Minister: do you finally have a central library where all of this information sits so that you know what the agreements and the chains of command are? Have you collated all of that information? Have you assigned staff to review it? Have you updated it? Those are basic questions.

"14. The province of B.C. needs to take a stronger proactive role and to be perceived by the public to be doing so." No kidding. The ultimate question that threads itself through all of those lessons learned that I've just quoted to you is: how did this government allow such a deplorable state of organization to be created in the first place? Some of the things recommended in this report would be obvious to the untrained eye. How could it be that this government allowed such a shabby state of affairs to develop in the provincial emergency program? How was that allowed to occur? I will tell you why, in some instances. It's because provincial emergency programming is not a priority with this government. It's not prepared to commit funds to it. It made a wilful decision in 1983 to cut back the program. No ministry wanted it. It's a victim of restraint, of neglect and of the philosophy that seems to find its way in and out of this government.

I recognize the minister is new to this portfolio, but this policy of "let's hope it doesn't occur, because if it doesn't occur we'll be okay...." This government is afraid of putting preventive dollars into anything when it really gets down to it — meaningful preventative dollars in Social Services, Health or provincial emergency.

I've asked the minister some fairly detailed questions, but I've prefaced them by trying to give him a chance by asking him twice what the lessons learned were. I want to sit here and listen to the minister give some fairly detailed answers as to how each one of those steps is being dealt with in this year's budget, what steps you've taken and what steps you haven't I look forward with some interest to what the minister has to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members might be interested, just before we proceed, to know that the first period of the hockey game has ended, and Calgary is leading 1-0.

HON. MR. REE: I am pleased that one member over there is interested in planning, in light of what their leader isn't interested in planning for.

Yes, I'd like to go through this again — a quote from a Vancouver magazine of September 1986. The then Mayor Harcourt compared earthquake planning to war-gaming and said there is no point trying to anticipate all the details of the disaster. "Just how much can you build into your preparation, based on the fact that an earthquake might come any time in the next 200 years? You could carry that on further. How do you start preparing for the next ice age? I mean, there comes a limit as to how much you can prepare for these kinds of things." That sounds as if it is coming from the ice age man.

[5:30]

At any rate, I don't think the provincial emergency program is a victim of neglect in this ministry. I am proud of it being part of this ministry. Since I have been the minister responsible for PEP, I have promoted it and fought for it and I've talked about it. I have even said in this House that it's probably the best value for the dollars, with 6,855 volunteers. It is no victim of neglect, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: That was a slip to the erstwhile heir apparent over there.

At any rate, I think the paper that the member for Esquimal–Port Renfrew is quoting from is a very proper demonstration of how thorough PEP is being in follow-up on the spill. It is a responsible paper, as a result of debriefing after the event, and it looks at action that can be taken and plans that can be put in. It has certainly been a direction from me for PEP to be prepared to do these plans, to do this work and to make these recommendations. It shows you how responsible they are in doing that, because I've asked for that type of information from them: what we can do so these things don't get away from us; what we can learn from events. That's how you do a lot of learning — looking back at what took place In the past.

As far as that paper is concerned, it is being directed to my ministry, through my deputy minister, to prepare a presentation with other members of other ministries and come down with a report to cabinet as soon as it is completed. It is actively being pursued, and inquiries are being made. There are a lot of Interministry responsibilities, as you well know, in that recommendation by PEP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: No, the difference happens to be, I guess, between responsible consideration and knee-jerk reaction, and we're looking at knee-jerk reaction from over there. I am very proud of what's taking place within the ministry towards emergency preparedness.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I'd like to follow up a bit on what you didn't answer to my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I'd like to put together a few more things that may relate to this. One of them is the statement you are quoted as having made near the end of April this year, in which you said that the provincial government will have an emergency plan

[ Page 7007 ]

in place by the end of this year. Is that plan to be based on those 14 recommendations that were put to the cabinet? Will the province have a plan that will be able to coordinate the activities of the various ministries and volunteers and other actors in a time of emergency in the province?

HON. MR. REE: At the moment, PEP is preparing an earthquake plan, which we hope will be completed by the end of this year. I have mentioned it two or three times this afternoon. If the member had been here, she would have heard that.

As to what will be in the plan, we will find out when the plan is complete. They are making inquiries. They've been down talking to people in California with respect to earthquakes down there and what requirements are needed. I can't answer your questions until later on, when we complete our research towards completion of the plan.

MS. EDWARDS: Would it be possible for you to suggest whether the kind of coordination you are suggesting might happen within the province would also happen with other jurisdictions outside the province?

I begin my discussion partly from a request that has been made in relation to mine disasters. I don't know if mine disasters have been mentioned, but it's very possible that we could have a mine disaster in this province. The response would probably require a coordinated action on the part of this province, perhaps other provinces throughout Canada, perhaps the federal government and perhaps even some of the states and the federal jurisdiction of the United States.

My question is: when you are pursuing this plan, are you pursuing it for coordination which will go beyond the borders of the province as well as for coordination within the borders of the province?

HON. MR. REE: The earthquake plan is basically dealing with toxic problems, earthquake problems, oil spills, disaster spills.... A lot of the same criteria would apply, I would think, in a mine disaster. Part of the overall plan — I keep harping on it — is an inventory of resources. What is available to us? Where is it? Where can we get generators from? Maybe we have to fly them in out of Winnipeg or Spokane or somewhere else. Where are they available? It is physically impossible to stockpile in every location everything you might need for every type of possible emergency. If we have it inventoried where we can get it in a hurry, we can punch it out on the computer. You know it's there. You've got ten generators here that can be obtained. You've got the necessary bulldozers there, hospital accommodations here in proximity to where the disaster took place. You've got airfields here, air ambulances available — that sort of thing on any type of emergency.

Have we entered Into agreements — as we have, you are well aware, for oil spills — with Washington, Oregon, Alaska, the United States federally and our federal government for interprovincial and interstate planning regarding a mine disaster? I can't answer that. I'll try to get some information for you. I'm not aware of it at this time.

MS. EDWARDS: I know that mine disaster planning may be carried out largely within the mining ministries. I also believe that it would be foolish to suppose that there was any kind of great mine disaster response planned by this government that was not coordinated with the provincial emergency plan — even in such areas, for example, as heavy rescue crews, which would be needed in the case of earthquakes and certainly would be needed in the case of underground mine disasters. Since we're on heavy rescue crews, I understand it is generally said that British Columbia has no capacity to do heavy rescue. Is that to wait to the end of the year with the plan, or is there something going ahead that is allowing this province to be able to respond with such an activity, which is so immediately recognized as necessary in emergency response?

HON. MR. REE: We always have.... That's why the provincial emergency program is there. In the event of an emergency.... We had the Tofino spill from Grays Harbor; we were able to mobilize 10,000 hours of volunteer labour there. In smaller emergencies, people are lost in the mountains. We have volunteers; we can coordinate them to go in and help out there.

We have 100 planes on our inventory of volunteers, if we need planes to fly to spot, if there's any kind of disaster, whether it be small or large — the problems up in northwest British Columbia when they had the storms up there. Our emergency people can be in there helping people that are in trouble, providing communication.

The volunteers of the provincial emergency program come from all walks of life; they include firemen, municipal employees, police people, skiers, truck-drivers; people from all walks, professional and otherwise, with a large number of capabilities. If you end up with your mine disaster, there will be people available to come in and organize and call on those with mining knowledge — engineers or the rest of it — to protect the public. That is what the emergency program is about.

We are continuing to upgrade our response capability, and that is why we continue to do the planning for it. Earthquake planning has become prominent lately because of the engineering reports of this possible fault under Vancouver Island — the San Juan fault, I think — which we always thought was offshore. Now they're looking at it and saying: "Well, there is this fault whereby we could end up with a very major earthquake in Vancouver Island or Vancouver."

We're planning to try and have resources for that, in the event of a major earthquake — what we would have to do in order to, as I say, protect life and limb. Certainly the best authorities tell you that the first 48 or 72 hours after the event.... Really, a lot of the preparedness is up to the individual, because it takes

[ Page 7008 ]

that time to get it all organized. We are encouraging municipalities to develop earthquake plans. We are educating children in the schools as to what to do in the event of earthquakes: where to get water, where would food reserves be, to stand in doorways and not under chandeliers. A lot of those things which the member for Vancouver East laughs about and thinks are funny will save hundreds of lives in the event of an earthquake. He's got no concern for children.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE: He hasn't. He laughs about it.

We've got to educate them to protect themselves in that event, because the first 48 to 72 hours are a crucial time. That's all part of earthquake planning. Big Brother government can't be there; it's got to be put in in that first 48 to 72 hours. You learned about that from the earthquakes in Armenia. We're learning about these things. You learn from every event, and that's what we're trying to do. We continue to upgrade our plans. An emergency plan is available at the moment, and we’re upgrading it with respect to an earthquake. That's why we'll have a major plan available by the end of the year.

MS. EDWARDS: My question was more specific, Mr. Minister: has British Columbia got the capacity for heavy rescue? Armenia is brought in regularly in the discussions I've read about this. As you've pointed out, it doesn't matter whether a child goes under a table when the disaster occurs or whether a miner was under a rock; after that it depends on somebody else, not whether you were trained to hide your head under a table or desk. It matters whether you have a heavy rescue team ready to go in and whether in fact it's ready for earthquake disasters, mine disasters or whatever other kind of disaster you might have — an explosion of some kind, or that kind of thing. My question is whether we're to the point now where we don't have people, particularly federal authorities, saying B.C. lacks the ability to organize heavy rescue, which is a pretty basic thing to have to be ready for an emergency. Will British Columbia have heavy rescue capability, and when is it going to be?

[5:45]

HON. MR. REE: We have a great deal of capability towards heavy rescue at the moment. As I stated earlier, during the last year — and certainly prior to that — we've been having people trained. We had people down to Arnprior in Ontario on earthquake preparedness during this last year, on training plans. We have coordinators and volunteers being trained all the time in rescue work. We have police and firemen that are trained in rescue work.

The thing about the planning is to coordinate all these people so that you have all the inventory of them. You know the ones you can call within the area of the disaster. The problem that we have is to pick out where the disaster is going to happen. You can't do that. As I say, you've got to inventory it so that you know what you've got within areas, and the time-frame to get them there in the event of a disaster. A lot of your people could be involved in that disaster, and then be incapable, at the time, of helping you, so where can you bring these outside resources in from for that?

That, Madam Member, is the best answer I can give you. We're certainly looking at it. We're conscious of the fact that in human affairs we are going to have...and nature's going to give us these emergencies and these disasters. We're out to minimize the loss of life as best we can.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I don't think we've yet got an answer. My question was to do with a situation that raises alarm in the minds of many people in this province. In fact, two or three weeks ago it was quite possible to say that British Columbia does not have the capacity to provide heavy rescue, which is a term that has a fairly specific meaning.

You say: "Oh well, we're training 100 volunteers of all kinds, in all areas, and so on." We, as yet, have not got any answer that says yes, British Columbia, in the case of some kind of a disaster that required that kind of expertise — and it would be an expertise that is very specific.... We don't have it. You don't even indicate that we're going to have it or that we're going in the direction of having it.

There's no reason in the world why it shouldn't be provided under the provincial emergency program so that it is available not only for the kind of emergencies that you are assuming would be under your jurisdiction, but, as I said, for those under the jurisdiction of another ministry perhaps. It might become a possibility that we are called in to help another province, another state. Where is it available?

You talk about doing inventory. That's fine, but If you're going to do inventory, are you planning to have that available? Are you planning to do some interjurisdictional planning that says we will have it available from somewhere else then? Is that what's happening? Where is the planning that's going on? For example, have you dealt with issues such as the fact that airlines cannot carry oxygen, and what happens if you have a disaster and you have a rescue team and there's not adequate oxygen? Have you looked at those interjurisdictional possibilities that can arise just as easily as the possibilities within the province?

MR. CRANDALL: I'd like to direct a question to the minister in regard to local government participating in the provincial emergency program. It has to do with the days that I spent in the regional district. We wanted to have the ability to raise funds from our own tax base to improve local facilities for an emergency program. At that time, and I don't think it's changed now, we didn't have the ability to do it, because letters-patent provisions were not approved by the provincial government. I'd just like to know if local governments today have the ability to raise taxes for emergency programs.

[ Page 7009 ]

HON. MR. REE: I regret I cannot answer directly at this time. I will get back to the member on it, possibly tomorrow — the situation of whether local government can raise taxes for emergency programs.

On the other member's comments about heavy rescue capabilities, I'm told that the largest portion of National Defence heavy rescue in Canada is stationed at Camp Chilliwack, and that there are good working relations and these people can be called upon too if the disaster is of such a size that they are required. Of course, these people — the engineers and what not — at Camp Chilliwack have a great deal of capacity, capability and competence in that field.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.