[ Page 7011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Provide for Rent Review (Bill M217). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 7011

An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator (Bill M218). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 7011

Presenting Reports –– 7011

Private Members' Statements

Women. Mrs. Gran –– 7012

Ms. Pullinger

Small business. Mr. G. Janssen –– 7013

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Horse-racing. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 7015

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Guno

Housing. Mr. Blencoe –– 7017

Hon. Mr. Richmond

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

On vote 67: minister's office –– 7019

Mr. Guno

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Cashore

Mr. De Jong

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, this morning we are very privileged to have in the members' gallery Dr. David Tonkin and his wife Prue. Dr. Tonkin is secretary-general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a very prestigious organization which all of us are well aware of. He's currently stationed in London, England. A number of us from both sides of this House had the pleasure last evening of having dinner with these two delightful people. I would ask everyone to give them a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to second the hon. member's welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Tonkin. For those members who weren't present at your dinner last evening, Dr. Tonkin gave a brief but very eloquent speech about the fellowship of membership in Commonwealth parliaments. It's been a real pleasure for us to have them in British Columbia, and I hope they come back soon.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today is a young man from my constituency, a young businessman who owns the Sign Works, probably better known for his contract with B.C. Hydro. He also is a writer of songs, an excellent singer and a young man who hopes to reach the brass ring in his life. Would the House please welcome my son, Blair Gran.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR RENT REVIEW

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Provide for Rent Review.

MR BLENCOE: This bill is part of a legislative package to deal fairly with rental issues in British Columbia. The bill does the following. It establishes a flexible system of rent review, which is triggered by the tenant seeking a review. The act requires that if a tenant requests a review, the landlord must justify to the tenant the amount of the rent increase by providing a statement of expenses, similar to the previous system of rent review that existed in British Columbia. The bill guarantees landlords that increases in reasonable operating expenses will be covered by increases in rent. It also protects tenants from having to pay additional rent as a result of the landlord selling the tenant's home or changing the landlord's corporate ownership or structure.

The bill is a mechanism that will ensure that both landlords and tenants are treated equally in law and will establish a level of security for tenants they currently do not enjoy.

Bill M217 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR
A RENTALS MEDIATOR

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this bill is another important component of our legislative package to bring fairness back into landlord and tenant issues. The bill establishes the rentals mediator to administer the Residential Tenancy Act and resolve disputes between tenants and landlords.

The bill provides for the establishment of the office of rentals mediator in the same way as the former rentalsman was established by the New Democrat government of the day. The rentals mediator will have exclusive jurisdiction to mediate matters relating to repair and service orders, locks and access, landlord right of entry, arbitration of disputes, security deposits, rent increases, termination of the tenancy agreement, orders of possession and service of notice. The rentals mediator and the office would also administer rent review.

The bill, along with others we have presented on landlord-tenant matters, is another legislative step towards ensuring fairness and equity between landlords and tenants in British Columbia.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

MR. CHALMERS: I have the honour to present the report from the Select Standing Committee on Labour,Justice and Intergovernmental Relations respecting the matter of judicial salaries in British Columbia. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7012 ]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

WOMEN

MRS. GRAN: This morning I have chosen to make a statement on women and how the issues surrounding us directly relate to children. It's a subject I have always felt strongly about, one I have spoken about many times, and one I intend to continue speaking about inside and outside of this House.

Most of the issues surrounding women today are there because they are the mothers and the primary caregivers. Caring for children and preparing for their future in today's society presents many challenges for families, and an even greater challenge for single-parent families — the majority of which are women. There are 35,000 single-parent families receiving social assistance in British Columbia; only 1,700 are men.

The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond) has introduced many worthwhile initiatives, including a broad range of programs to assist single parents to become independent, and I commend him for that. The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) has also worked hard to encourage universities and colleges to update courses and provide educational opportunities tailored to single mothers. Day care has also been expanded by societies at the colleges and universities.

However, it is not enough. Governments and society in general must clearly recognize that the growing numbers of women and children who live in poverty is a symptom that simply cannot be ignored. Women who work at low-paying jobs and support children have an even heavier burden to carry. The benefits enjoyed by most Canadian families are nonexistent for those women and their children. Low wages and inadequate job benefits are the two biggest reasons why many of Canada's children are poor.

These children suffer ill health from poor nutrition, hardships and educational failure. Poverty's impact on families creates stress and problems which can make the difficult job of parenting almost impossible. Can you imagine working all day, worrying about how your children are being cared for while you are at work and coming home not only to the loneliness that comes with single parenting, but the knowledge that you will probably never be able to give your children what they deserve?

[10:15]

I want to encourage communities to open their hearts to these women and their children. Established agencies, for example, could set up programs where two-parent families become support groups for single-parent families. It is, after all, a Canadian tradition to invest in families. Families with children must be a community priority as well as a government priority. This government has made a very important and significant commitment to strengthening families, and I encourage them to continue with it.

It is important to also note that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has taken strong steps to enforce maintenance orders, an admission that women and children are at risk.

It is estimated that over 60 percent of children in families led by mothers are poor. Children who grow up in poverty run the risk of remaining second-class citizens all of their lives. So it is my belief that caring about women and ensuring that they have equal opportunities also benefits children and in the end benefits all of us.

MS. PULLINGER: First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate the first member for Langley's concern for something that all of us on this side of the House are very concerned about, the situation of women in this province and the fact that it affects children as well; there's no question about that.

One of the problems that I'm hearing right off the bat, though, is that women are being seen only as mothers, and my colleague the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has addressed that thoroughly in this House. While that's a very valid point and we all understand that poverty is a feminine complaint.... If you're single, you have a 50-50 chance of being poor. If you're a woman over 65, you have a greater chance of being poor. If you are a single mother with children, your chances of being poor are something like 70 percent. We recognize that on this side of the House. But I think it's important that we look a little bit beyond just that role for women. We have to take it in the context of the society and of the kind of society this government is either creating or allowing to happen without taking an active role in effecting change.

Earlier this year this government promised women of this province a women's ministry — or a minister of state responsible for women's issues — in the throne speech. It appears that it was just that, a promise. We've seen no action and there was no money in the budget for it. Quite clearly this has been a response to the polls, and the government's polls are showing the same things that our polls are showing: that this government lacks any credibility whatsoever on women's issues.

This government has done nothing significant to address the problems that affect women in our society — those very real problems — but that also, as the member opposite pointed out, affect children in our society. One of those problems she touched on is a problem that women face in the workplace. The gap in wage levels, for instance, is 40 percent across Canada. That 60-cents-on-the-dollar job that women have translates into a 60-cents-on-the-dollar pension. Those women who choose to work at home to look after their kids themselves have no wages, and they have no pensions. As Dorothy O'Connor mentioned in her essay "Poverty: The Feminine Complaint," she wondered why it is that raising wheat is work and driving a truck is work but raising children isn't. I think that's a serious question.

The difference in wages between men and women and the government's role in that, I think, is very

[ Page 7013 ]

clear. As I say, across Canada the gap is 40 percent. Not too long ago the newspapers in British Columbia noted that women in British Columbia make more like 52 percent of what men make.

These issues need to be addressed. In Ontario they've taken that kind of action; the gap has now closed to 30 percent. There are growing numbers of women in the workforce. They are trapped in low paying jobs. The government has taken no action to move them out. We have no day care. If you're going to work, you need to do something with your children. There are 200,000 children who need care, and there are 19,000 licensed spaces. That means an awful lot of kids in unlicensed spaces, and there are some 60,000 children under 12 with no care at all in the daytime.

Clearly there are some very serious problems. The member opposite mentioned education. However, women can't get education over two years funded by the government. They have no child care support, as I mentioned. There's no affirmative action, and things like the most fundamental right of all, the right to control their own bodies, is not recognized by this government.

Also the issue of violence against women and children hasn't been addressed. Rather than doing something positive about the violence — a woman is raped or beaten something like every 13 minutes — to change the attitudes by providing some education and to reinforce and support women in that situation, the government has withdrawn funding. The need for shelters and transition houses is painfully obvious. It's not being addressed.

MRS. GRAN: I believe that understanding, communication and education will one day enable us not only to recognize, but effectively eliminate the tragedy faced by many women and children. Schools will perhaps offer courses on parenting, preparing us for the most important task in our lives: nurturing our next generation.

A better understanding of human sexuality will some day allow us to come to terms with the most silent reality in our midst: sexual abuse. The appalling fact is that adults do have sex with children with traumatic results for most of those victims. Better treatment for the abuser and the victims must be found, and organizations such as SARA — Sexual Assault Recovery Anonymous — must receive support and encouragement, not just from the community, but from governments at all levels.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), with already huge budgets and obligations, must still somehow respond to the need for at-home care for the physically and mentally disabled children. Women head many of the families of disabled children, and keeping their children out of institutions is first and foremost in their minds.

Drug and alcohol programs currently in effect — and I want to compliment the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) for his initiatives — must be closely monitored for effectiveness. Substance abuse is no longer only an adult problem but is affecting more and more children at all income levels.

We live in a beautiful and wealthy province with a diverse population of people. The challenges that face us as politicians are many and varied. Many are expensive, while others require simple understanding. I am optimistic about the future, but at the same time, I recognize that it is easy to be complacent when everything in your own life is in order.

The grass roots of our constituencies will tell us where the problems are and what they are; communication and cooperation will show us how to solve them. There are many issues that transcend party lines, and I believe that the issues surrounding women and children do, Mr. Speaker. I encourage each member of this Legislature not only to encourage the government to continue responding and caring, but also to show leadership within our communities for the sake of our children and, ultimately, for the sake of our own futures.

SMALL BUSINESS

MR. G. JANSSEN: My statement today revolves around small business, and I will be touching on what the member for Langley has just finished her statement on: women in small business.

There has been great change in the last few years in wealth distribution in the province of B.C. and indeed in Canada. In 1980, 1 percent of the population in Canada controlled 19 percent of the wealth, whereas in 1984, 20 percent controlled 69 percent of the wealth. It is evident that the recession we experienced in 1981 didn't affect everyone; in fact, it affected only those at the lower end of the earning levels. In 1984, the bottom 40 percent owned only 2 percent of the wealth generated in Canada. In 1987, the bottom 60 percent, including many of the middle class, had the lowest percentage of national income since records have been kept in Canada.

You may ask what this has to do with small business. As we know, the consumer represents many of those figures, and the consumer is the one that generates wealth and growth in small business communities. Despite those statistics, small businesses with 50 employees or less generated 93 percent of the net jobs in the private sector; businesses with 51 to 100 employees generated only 11 percent of the net job creations. In fact, firms in Canada with 500 employees or more had a net loss in 1987 of 50,000 employees.

We realize that in order for small business to survive there has to be spendable dollars out in the marketplace. We saw no tax reduction in the budget that was presented in this House, on top of the already $1,400 in tax increases imposed by this government in the last two years. In fact, it seems that this government is now competing for the spendable dollar that comes off the paycheque of the average worker in the province of B.C.

Wealth generation can be created by allowing people to spend the dollars to create the jobs to purchase the goods to create a healthy small business

[ Page 7014 ]

environment. Many women work at that very low standard of $4.50 an hour — minimum wage — hardly enough to go out and buy anything other than the necessary commodities. It's not enough to go out and buy even basic goods, furniture and luxury items that will generate the growth. In 1975 the minimum wage kept people above the poverty line; now it offers an income that is 30 percent below the poverty line.

When we went through the estimates of the minister responsible the other day, there was a call to raise the minimum wage. If we were to raise it to keep up with inflation from 1975, we would have to raise it to $7.23 an hour. The government's argument that this would drive many small businesses out of business is totally false. We know that during the 1981 recession, unemployment and welfare, the safety nets of our society, provided the spendable dollars that were generated through businesses — mostly small businesses — which kept us from sliding into a depression. It kept a certain amount of money out in the marketplace that kept business alive and allowed it to struggle through those very hard times. A realistic minimum wage and a guaranteed income are healthy for purchasing power and for small business. Poor-paying jobs are no solution for financial independence.

[10:30]

Women are starting new businesses in this province twice as often as men. In fact, when they start those businesses, they are creating three jobs to every one created by men in small business. It is natural, I think, for women to go into small business. As we well know, women operate the family budget; certainly my wife does. I'm sure that many other members of this House who are busy working here put the financial affairs of the household in the hands of their spouses. This gives them a great ability to manage budgets that are virtually identical to budgets in small business. Yet what are women faced with when they go to the banks? They are turned down four times as often as men for loans to start small businesses. They face incredible sexist deterrents when dealing with other members of the business community.

This government should be encouraging women by the creation of a ministry of women — which was promised and has not yet come to fruition — to overcome the obstacles placed in their path, such as inadequate day care. So many small business people in this province, women especially, have to go and manage a business but have nowhere to put their children, because there are no day care centres available. We must encourage and help small businesswomen in this province to overcome those obstacles. We must help them with special credit options, with seed capital and with venture capital.

Women face many barriers when attempting to get into the small business community.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: My colleague the hon. Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) would be the normal interested responder. In his absence, I will attempt, albeit inadequately, to respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. member for Alberni.

The hon. member opposite opened his monologue with a discussion of the concentration of wealth. I trust the hon. member is aware that this is an endemic problem worldwide, despite the efforts of interventionists around the world. They have been singularly unsuccessful in remedying the basic disparity that exists between the gifts that the good Lord gave each of us as individuals. Notwithstanding the good intentions of interventionists.... That's a euphemism for socialists, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the good wishes of those proponents, the fact of the matter is that they have been unable to dramatically change the basic truth in our society that the challenge to a government — as this government believes — is to ensure that there is an equal opportunity for all, but it is not an obligation for government to guarantee an equal outcome for all. There must be, in this society that we have inherited, a recognition of merit; there must be a reward for effort; there must be some incentive for people to aspire to higher levels.

Therefore I make the philosophical statement that the socialist governments around this world are moving away from the interventionist philosophy and moving towards more of an effort to allow the free market to ensure that society moves ahead in a coordinated way with consensus. Clearly we're dealing here with a basic philosophical thrust, and I can only point to the record as to the lack of success of those who would argue that this issue requires massive intervention.

The hon. member then moved to a discussion of tax policies. It seems to me appropriate to point out, once again, that this government is extremely proud of our tax policies across the whole range of taxation issues. We have among the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada. We have the second-lowest sales tax rate. Our corporate income tax rates are competitive, and we intend to keep them competitive so we don't drive business out of the province. Our small business rate is also competitive. If the hon. member were to study the budgets of the other provincial jurisdictions in Canada, he would quickly see that unlike those other jurisdictions, our government is not increasing taxes in order to sustain profligate spending practices. We are very proud of our competitive taxation structure. We've been able to balance the budget without increasing taxes. We noted with surprise that one of the principal provincial partners in Confederation recently initiated new taxation measures including taxing tires. Can you imagine?

In any event, we are not at all prepared to allow comments about taxation policies to go unanswered. Look at us compared with the rest of Canada, look at our fiscal policies compared with the rest of Canada, and you, like me, I suspect, would emerge from that

[ Page 7015 ]

study as even prouder British Columbians, irrespective of our party ideologies.

The hon. member then moved into a discussion of minimum wage. He seems to have embarked on some new adventure — some new statement — which I found surprising. He said, if I can paraphrase — I didn't capture the exact words — that it's totally false that increasing minimum wage would hurt small business. That seems totally contrary to all the public utterances by most small business organizations that I'm familiar with. Indeed, when you get involved in a discussion of minimum wage, you always get down to the point: are you really going to help the people you are trying to help? How do you ensure that students get their first-time job? How do you ensure that service areas are able to provide some basic income levels for those who wish to do something in a gratuitous sense for society? There's no evidence whatsoever in the studies I've read dealing with the issue of minimum wage that conclusively proves that It is in the interest of those....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I must respond to the minister's comments that people want to work for a minimum wage because they have a gratuitous sense. As a free-enterpriser, Mr. Minister, I know people do not go to work for gratuitous sense; they go to work to make a dollar — hopefully a dollar that will keep them out of poverty. That's something the minimum wage doesn't do.

I know that the Minister of Finance has been in that portfolio for some time, and I don't know if he needs a lesson. But we on this side of the House and certainly the rest of the people in the province know what the balanced budget really means. That means that you spend as much money as you take in. You don't take $500 million out of the budget stabilization fund, add it to the budget and call it balanced. That is very simple basic economics, and what the minister is practising is political flimflam. We just want to get that right.

I'd like to return to small business and offer some suggestions to the government and the minister about funding a small business. In many cases the biggest hurdle is getting the seed capital that's required to start a business. In British Columbia there is some $37 billion in employee pension funds, and rather than, as the minister has suggested in the budget speech, investing in — pardon the words — the Vancouver Stock Exchange, he should be taking an example from the solidarity fund in Quebec, which has great success in putting pension funds into job creation by offering a tax break on those investments to the workers. In fact, in British Columbia only 10 percent of those $37 billion is invested in British Columbia. The rest is invested somewhere else with no return to the province, no return to small business and no job creation element.

The loan-loss insurance which is practised, similar to the loan-loss insurance offered by the CMHC, could be well implemented in British Columbia when it comes to financing small business. Most useful in the promotion of these small business enterprises would be....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up under the standing orders.

HORSE-RACING

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to make a statement on the future of thoroughbred racing in this province. I wish it were a more hopeful statement that I'm going to make, because I'm going to issue a plea for an industry that is ailing and needs some help and some attention. I'm speaking about horse-racing. I'm speaking about 10,000 British Columbians who are involved in this industry indirectly. It's a clean industry, which is a natural industry for British Columbia to lead in Canada, just as California does in the United States.

It is a very noble industry in this province, from breeders and owners to grooms and jockeys, from farriers and riders to concessionaires and all those who work in our racetracks, and I'm trying to speak for them today.

On February 2, 1988, the government announced a task force to recommend the feasibility of a world-class track and its location and operation. This four member task force, you remember, was chaired by Mohan Jawl, who is a distinguished international breeder. It also included the president of the Canadian Trotting Society and two other individuals well respected in the world of racing, including the chairman of the Racing Commission.

This task force reported to me at the end of June 1988, before I vacated my office, and the report was released to the public on August 23, 1988. The report recommended, basically, that the track at Exhibition Park be used on an interim basis and be upgraded and used for a standardbred and thoroughbred facility, then be phased out of thoroughbred racing, and that thoroughbred racing be moved to some other location — maybe Colony Farm — and that Exhibition Park stay as a world-class facility for standardbred racing.

Not until March 15, 1989, did we have a response from the government, which then reiterated its commitment for a new world-class track somewhere in the lower mainland and asked the city of Vancouver to determine if it would commit to Hastings Park as a location of thoroughbred racing and to commit sufficient land. So since March 15, the city has been grappling with what to do not only with the racetrack, but also with the PNE. Last week the city of Vancouver held a number of public meetings on this subject. Not surprisingly, those public meetings have come to the conclusion that most of the people who live around Exhibition Park don't want the PNE to stay there and don't want any expansion of racing. In fact, they would like to have a greenbelt. If I lived next to Exhibition Park, I probably would feel the same way, so I don't criticize them.

[ Page 7016 ]

We'll be getting the city's response very shortly, but don't hold your hat. If you're a betting person, you can bet that Hastings Park is dead as far as an expanded racetrack is concerned. The city is going to turn thumbs down on that proposal.

We have lost a golden opportunity, in my opinion, in the last eight months to give leadership for a new site for thoroughbred racing. Because we've delayed and asked others to determine the destiny of racing, we have lost our momentum and the opportunity to create a first-class world track. I don't care whether that track is at Exhibition Park, Colony Farm, Delta or Timbuctoo. I just want to see a track built that's going to attract world-class racing and take this industry and put it back on its feet.

If you read the Jawl report, you can see the problems that the racing industry faces. He says that major owners have left Exhibition Park and are either out of the business altogether or run their horses in other jurisdictions. He points out the problems with that track. Many will argue that five and a half furlongs is an adequate track, that you can see all the action, that it's a nice place to be. But the betting results, the handle and everything else don't point to that. People are not turning up for racing the way they should. Racing dollars are going to other forms of gambling, and if this industry is going to flourish, we've got to have a world-class track.

[10:45]

Probably the best place for that track now is right downtown where you've got a market, where you've got people who are used to it. It's probably the best place for the moment. You would have a track if you went out to Colony Farm; there's no question about that. But that may be too far ahead of its time.

Also it's going to cost money. You're not going to have a racetrack built without a considerable amount of money being put out. It's going to cost between $60 million and $120 million. The government is not going to be able to wash its hands of it and say that entrepreneurs will put that up, because entrepreneurs are not going to put up that kind of money for a track unless they have a slice of the action and unless they have land given to them at low lease costs. We, as a government, are going to have to support a racetrack; we're going to have to put some support in there. When the racetrack is built, it can be operated on an economic basis and can get a return on the additional revenues it will bring in to pay it off, but the government is going to have to be proactive. Meadowlands in New Jersey wasn't built by a government sitting back and waiting for bids from the private sector; it was built because they were proactive.

Another problem in racing is the operation of racing now. Most decisions are made by a combination of the track operator, the city and other bodies; they're not made by the horsemen. The horsemen themselves don't determine the destiny of racing, and we've got to have some kind of general industry body that makes the decisions on race dates and that sort of thing. The only way that can be done is to restructure racing, to get a world-class location and to have the industry involved in its own operation.

I don't care who operates the racetrack or where it's located, but I know that if we wait another six months, if we don't move on this and get a location and get going, this opportunity is going to slip forever. Don't think it's only thoroughbreds either. Standardbreds are probably going to need a wider location and better opportunity for racing days, because they face a lot of competition from the United States and proposals like Auburn. They're probably going to need a larger facility. So we've probably got to combine these two facilities.

What I say is that the government has got to get on with the job that the Jawl commission recommended many months ago. We've wasted very valuable time and a whole season. I hope you're listening, I hope the government's listening and I hope we're going to have some action.

HON. MR. REE: The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head does make a very important point with respect to the importance of horse-racing within our community, the number of people whose livelihood depends upon it and what it contributes to our economy and community, not only as a business but as a place of recreation in other ways.

He says he doesn't care where the racetrack is, but he does make some comments that it should be downtown. To that extent I can concur with the member, and that is why I have asked the city of Vancouver to look at the feasibility of a mile-long standard-configurated racetrack being located at Hastings Park. At the moment, it looks to me as if it's the most feasible location. Anywhere else, the cost would be considerably higher. Hastings Park still has the built-in clientele that has come for years, and a racetrack of that size can be built at the Hastings Park site.

I honestly believe that it would satisfy a great number of the concerns of those who wish green space at Hastings Park. A lot of the people complaining are not aware of the extensive size of the infield of a mile-long racetrack. I could envisage a track there with free access to the infield for the general public, park facilities for children and adults, having all that available to them in the infield. It could be done in Hastings Park as it is elsewhere in the world. This is one of the reasons that I have gone to the city of Vancouver — the government has — and asked them to come up with some information. I understand the mayor, after listening to the general public, stated the other day that it will not be going to Hastings Park. I have not received an official communication from the council of the city of Vancouver to this effect. I look forward to seeing what that communication is when it does arrive — and act accordingly.

The member is quite right that a decision has to be made soon as to where an adequate racetrack can be located or will be built. The province does not wish to own the racetrack. It should be owned and operated by the racing industry or entrepreneurs as such. In the structuring of the racetrack, the province has to

[ Page 7017 ]

take that into consideration. Some of the suggestions in the Jawl report were looking to considerable government subsidy for the racetrack. From studies we have done and information I have received we felt we could minimize these sorts of subsidies — these costs to government — at the Hastings Park site.

As the member has indicated, the decision has to be made soon, and I concur with him.

MR. GUNO: The only reason I am responding is that this falls within my critic role. I come from a riding where thoroughbred horse-racing isn't a very big priority. In fact, the only important race that sometimes occurs is when we try to outrun an irate grizzly bear — and I wouldn't give odds on that one. So I wouldn't blame the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) if he were to dismiss my response as horse feathers.

The only thing that I would like to comment on is his plea that the government be proactive in terms of providing upfront support for establishing a world-class horse-racing track. I agree with him. I think the government should act on the report tabled not too long ago. But at the same time, I think we have to balance that off with the fact that given the plight of the poor in the province, the government should address those first, before they talk about what we in Atlin would call glossy stuff. We don't have a horsy set in Atlin. I do recognize, though, that it does contribute to the economy of the lower mainland. We are all for diversifying the economy, and if that's what it's going to do, then we support it.

MR. B.R. SMITH: It's very gratifying to have supportive horse sense from the far north. I have no doubt that he is a pretty fair handicapper too, when he gets down to the racetrack; maybe as good as the member for Vancouver East.

On a serious note, to wind this up, putting a racetrack out on Colony Farm, where there is all kinds of room, where you could have riding activities, barns, a turf track, also combine with that a trotting track.... It would be absolutely ideal. Let's face it, that's what the industry should have. But it's probably an idea whose time isn't yet ready, because of the distance and the cost. Woodbine would never have worked in Toronto, even with the huge population, had it not been for the beneficence of the late Mr. E.P. Taylor, whose unlimited resources, foresight and love of that industry allowed him to bankroll the place himself. And still, that track is not used heavily on weekdays — even with seven million people to draw on. The people in the lower mainland who are interested in racing probably aren't quite ready to go out to Colony Farm. They will be in 15 years; there's no doubt about that.

We have got to get a site, and we have got to get busy. I was pleased to hear the minister's remarks about the downtown location. I also agree with his criteria as to what a first-class track should include. I think he has got the right criteria.

We have been dithering as a government for years — for a decade — on this question and on the PNE and PNE lands. I was there when we were dithering; I know we were. We should have moved the PNE, we should have rationalized that site, we should have cooperated with the city and we should have got on with it. And we haven't. Let's do it now. Please do it now. Please, Mr. Minister — for racing.

HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, for many years this government has neglected one of the key areas of concern to the people of British Columbia: housing. That neglect is now having a dramatic effect on the lives of all British Columbians.

Adequate and affordable housing is one of the basic necessities of life. This government has failed to recognize that simple truth. This government has failed in its obligation to provide the conditions which would allow an ample supply of suitable housing to be constructed.

Month by month, over the past two or three years, the cost of becoming a first-time homeowner has increased rapidly — far more rapidly than household income — and there is no end in sight. During the first quarter of 1989, the median Multiple Listing Service house price on Vancouver's west side was $420,000. The income required to buy a house at the bottom end of the west-side market is estimated by city of Vancouver officials to be $113,000 per year. On the east side of Vancouver, the median MLS house price was $177,000, and an income of about $54,000 a year is required to purchase a house at the bottom of the price range in that market. The average house price in Victoria in April 1989 was $152,900.

Average British Columbians are being driven out of the home-ownership market and speculators are rushing in. The only option left for many families is to remain in the rental marketplace. But renters also are facing an incredible squeeze. In 1987 and 1988 in the city of Vancouver, for example, there were only 778 private rental housing starts. In the same two years, 457 rental units were demolished and 920 rental units were sold as condominiums. It is a simple equation: 1,377 rental units lost to only 778 constructed. That's a net loss of 599 rental units, even though vacancy rates were near or below 1 percent.

In the lower mainland, CMHC figures indicate that about 1,800 to 2,000 rental units are being lost each year to demolition and condo conversion. This more than wipes out any potential net gain from the federal-provincial social housing program which results in less than 1,800 units per year throughout the entire province.

On the advice of conservative economists and the province's landlords, the Social Credit government abolished rent controls, rent review and the rentalsman in 1983 and '84. This action was taken on the theory that the rental market would operate normally; supply would begin to equal demand once this form of so-called market interference was removed. We heard that over and over again. It has now been more than five years. That seems long enough to

[ Page 7018 ]

determine if this giant leap of right-wing faith has worked.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Where is the market response to the very high demand of rental housing? Where is the housing this government promised British Columbians in return for taking away their rent review, in return for taking away their rentalsman and their tenant security? Let's look at Vancouver as an example. In 1983, 750 private rental units were built. In 1988, with rent review gone, with the rentalsman gone, less than half that number were constructed, 315. That's five years later, after this government removed all sense of security for tenants in the province of British Columbia. So much for the market doing what you said it would do.

The Social Credit housing experiment has failed and failed miserably. This government has gambled with the dreams of British Columbians for purely ideological reasons, and British Columbians today are paying the price. The only impact of removing rent review and the rentalsman is that rents have dramatically increased. Rent increases of 30 percent to 40 percent and 50 percent are now all too common. Since demand is high, new supply is low and existing stock is under threat of demolition or condominium conversion, renters have no choice. Landlords can charge whatever they want. Your government said renters would have a range of options to choose from, and landlords who imposed inordinate rent increases would have vacancies in their buildings. But it has not happened; you let them down.

[11:00]

But this government didn't stop there. You destroyed regional planning, and that has proven to be a serious mistake. Now there is no planning for regional development, and no regional coordination for growth and investment. The result? Housing has become increasingly unaffordable in some areas, while other areas of the province continue to stagnate. If you continue to allow population and investment to concentrate in the Vancouver area, no amount of money or range of programs will be able to help. The land market and hyperspeculation will cause an enormous gap between the cost of living in the lower mainland and the rest of the province. Mr. Speaker, this province is headed for big trouble under the stewardship of this government. Current growth trends in the lower mainland are not sustainable. The environment and quality of life are already beginning to suffer. It won't stop until effective regional planning begins.

The evidence is in. This government has failed. It promised housing in return for destroying the rentalsman, rent review and tenant protection. It simply has not delivered. Its latest attempt at a housing policy has proven to be nothing more than a public relations exercise. The people of this province know this government's housing policies have not worked They want real action, they want it now and they want protection from this government when dealing with dramatic rent increases.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: just before we continue, hon. members, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MERCIER: As much as I would love to comment on the former speaker's comments, I simply rise to make an introduction of some visitors from Brantford Elementary School and Edmonds Elementary School in my riding, with teachers Mike Begg, Susan Zacks, Leah Thompson and Cheryl Melvin. I would like the House to make welcome these elementary students and their teachers, knowing full well that the students will be future voters in our province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The people of British Columbia should know — and I include our young members in the gallery who are watching the parliamentary process at work this morning — that every time a member from that side of the House gets up to speak, they speak about bigger and more powerful government and spending more and more of your money.

This member is probably the biggest proponent of that. He talks about rent controls. He wants to bring back Big Brother and rent controls, which do not work. Wherever they've been tried in the free world, they haven't worked. The Toronto experiment is a classic example. Every economist in the world, whether right-wing, centre or left-wing, will tell you that rent controls do not work. Wherever they've been tried, they've been a miserable failure. But this member still espouses: "Bring back the rentalsman, and we'll solve the problems." If we'd had rent controls over the last few years, the problem would be ten times what it is today.

MR. PERRY: You weren't listening.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: They talk about listening, Mr. Speaker. I think I listened very intently when their member was speaking. They try to listen with their mouths open, and it doesn't work.

Yesterday we saw a classic example of what can happen when the private sector and levels of government work together. The announcement in Vancouver by the mayor and Mr. Poole was triggered by this government's new housing policy. It was triggered because we are making cheaper money available so that the private sector can move in and build rental accommodation for people. The member makes some outrageous statements, and we'll check the Blues. He says homeowners are being driven out of their homes. What a pile of nonsense! I don't know of any homeowner in this province who has been driven out of his or her home. It takes two people to make a deal: a buyer and a seller. Nobody is being driven out of their homes.

There is a problem with rental units in this province. There is no question about that. That's why we have addressed the rental market. The company

[ Page 7019 ]

that was formed yesterday to take advantage of this government's housing policies will build 2,000 rental units in the next 18 months, done by British Columbians investing in British Columbia. Not done because a government brought in rent controls. Not done because a member from Victoria proposed Bill M201.

Take a look at the last page of M201 and see what that would do to anyone thinking of becoming a landlord. Take a look at what it will cost to be a landlord in this province if that member ever becomes the Minister of Housing. There won't be anybody building anything, because every time a tenant gets notice it will cost the landlord $2,000 minimum, plus $1,500 moving expenses. Do you think people are going to build rental accommodation? Not very likely.

When you look at announcements like yesterday's — very positive announcements — where British Columbians are going to take advantage of a government policy to build rental housing, as well as what the government is building.... Contrary to the negative people they have found to comment on it — the member's friends in COPE — it's not going to take any housing away from the social programs already underway by this government. I'm pleased to see it, and I'm pleased to see that our moves in the housing area were the trigger that caused this to happen. The appointment of Mr. Thomas as the chairman of the board and the policies we have put in place for housing are what will solve the rental housing problem in the lower mainland and the Saanich Peninsula.

In the few seconds I have left, I just want to repeat that every time a member for that side of the House gets up to speak — every time they open their mouths — I want the people to note that it means bigger government and/or more spending of the taxpayers' dollars.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister didn't hear the data. In 1983, during rentalsman and rent review, 750 units were created; in 1988, five years later, 315 units. Where was the response of the private sector? You failed British Columbians.

You promised housing. You can flimflam the people of this province all you like. The people of B.C. want deeds, not words, from their provincial government. Immediate provincial action is required to deal with the serious housing difficulties facing British Columbians today. To stop the loss of existing rental stock through demolition and condo conversions, we have introduced a renters' protection bill We need to protect renters from landlords' inordinate rent increases. We have this morning introduced rent review and rentals mediator legislation to deal with inordinate rent increases in British Columbia. This government continues to abandon the people of the province. We want to help protect access to homeownership by discouraging speculation in the housing and urban land markets, and we have proposed a speculation tax to protect British Columbians from the quick-buck speculators.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We want to respond to the current need for affordable housing by increasing social housing unit allocations. As a start, we have pledged to double the number of units currently being provided by this government. We want to provide authority, so that planning and effective sustainable regional development strategies for the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island can begin, and we can plan for growth in the province of British Columbia — not like this government that abandoned growth planning in the province.

During this session, we on this side of the House have proposed our solutions to the problems, which this government has allowed to cloud the dream of British Columbians — the dream to own their own home or to rent housing that meets their needs and does not break their bank accounts. That's what we want to do in the province of British Columbia.

British Columbians want to know if this government is going to persist in ignoring their needs. Or is it now going to move in a real and significant way to address the problems afflicting the housing and rental markets in this province? We want action — not some flimflam that does nothing for the people of the province, and that's what we stand on.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Vote 67: minister's office, $248,681 (continued).

MR. GUNO: I want to continue the line of questioning we had yesterday on the provincial emergency program. I think this demonstrates how we on this side of the House treat this important program very seriously.

Given the responses of the minister in yesterday's debate, we have concerns about the minister's rather cavalier attitude about this important program. The inadequacies in this program in terms of funding, as reflected in the budget, the lack of leadership and the lack of coordination and organization, which was amply demonstrated in the whole west coast oil spill, show that this government continues to treat this important program with dangerous indifference.

Instead, we get the minister treating the House with a barrage of non sequiturs in response to very serious questions posed by various members from this side of the House.

Even the high levels in his department are concerned. I want to read into the record some memorandums and letters that demonstrate the concern of people in his own ministry and other ministries who are involved in at least setting some minimal standard of preparedness in emergency response.

[ Page 7020 ]

This is a letter dated February 8. It's addressed to Mr. Murray Stewart, chairman of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee of the Ministry of Solicitor-General. In the second paragraph, after pointing out that the presentation from the subcommittee was requested before February 9, and that time was not available for permitting the drafting of a comprehensive document, it goes on:

"However, it is felt by the subcommittee members that the situation warrants the strongest representation possible to the provincial government for direction on what is perceived as an unfocused state of emergency preparedness in the province for a catastrophic earthquake. There is a dire need for support from the political level for a coordinated approach with determined and involved leadership.

"If clear direction is not provided, then there seems little purpose to seek involvement of many persons who are deeply concerned at what is perceived as a very real threat."

In many of the minister's responses — and this is what I mean about his cavalier attitude, Mr. Chairman — he talks about beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure how he connects a very realistic assumption that a major earthquake may happen, and that we should somehow be ready for it, with beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Certainly members of this important Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee have demonstrated that they have some serious concerns about the priority this minister is placing on this important program.

[11:15]

Another memorandum that I want to bring to the attention of the House is also to Mr. Murray Stewart, who is the director. Incidentally, this letter was written February 15, 1989, a little over three months ago. This memorandum is from a Mr. Patrick Wolfe, who is a co-chairman, I suppose, of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee. Funding and secretarial support is the subject.

"If the provincial emergency program is to be the central agency for provincial emergency preparedness, as its name implies, then it needs to be funded accordingly. Serious questions about government support and program viability are raised when the provincial emergency program has to go hat in hand to IEPC and the ministries for such basic requirements as travel funding and secretarial assistance for IEPC.... It is imperative that your travel budget be increased to enable you to attend the important quarterly meetings of the national industry-government major industrial accidents coordinating committee."

"As you are well aware, the August 1987 evaluation study of PEP stated that 'the provincial emergency program is currently incapable of responding effectively to a major disaster.' While progress has been made, you and your staff have repeatedly stressed to IEPC that fundamental problems continue to exist. The west coast oil spill is the most recent object lesson in this regard."

What is alarming is Mr. Wolfe's conclusion.

"However, if the likelihood of consequential change and real improvement is not strong, our ability and our willingness to respond to this need is significantly undercut. It draws our existence as a committee into question."

My question to the minister is whether anything has happened since this report was made.

HON. MR. REE: In some ways I think counsel has lost its case.

You mentioned I have a cavalier attitude. No, Mr. Member, I do not have a cavalier attitude, because the provincial emergency program is a very important part of this ministry, and one of the reasons government put the provincial emergency program in the Ministry of Solicitor-General is that the product of the Solicitor-General is public safety. I am very dedicated to public safety, and that includes the provincial emergency program.

We did fight hard and we did get additional funding to implement some of the recommendations in those reports. Those reports are before the interministerial committee at this time. They are looking into it to come back and give a report to cabinet, for the purpose of implementing some of the recommendations.

MR. GUNO: Again the minister demonstrates the attitude that flip answers will substitute for real, serious response. This is not a trial, if I might remind the minister; this is a political process whereby we have an opportunity to examine the priorities you've placed on different areas in your ministry.

In terms of the concerns addressed by these memoranda, I am wondering.... I think the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) presented 14 areas, yet you responded in a very general sense, not responding to any of them item by item. We are not going to accept general rhetoric. We want some very specific answers. We want the people of British Columbia to be assured that if a real emergency arises again we are in a better position to respond.

Can the minister at least address some of those very specific items that were tabled yesterday?

HON. MR. REE: I will not reply specifically to the points raised. To do so would be a knee-jerk reaction that I would expect from the NDP. This government is acting in a responsible manner to bring in the necessary programs. The funds have been made available in this budget for planning, training and the implementing of those programs.

I think the hon. member has not distinguished between the funds used for the cleanup of an emergency versus the training and planning. The $2.4 million available in the budget of the provincial emergency program is for planning and training. Emergency funds are in the emergency vote for the cleanup or for the reaction to any emergency.

MR. SIHOTA: Yesterday I asked the minister some very basic questions, and my colleague from Atlin is right that all we got in return were some generalities. Sure, you can make some distinctions between the differences in the two budgets — the 2.4 and what that goes for, and any funds that you may have in

[ Page 7021 ]

contingency to deal with an emergency response. But you've got to be prepared to deal with that emergency situation should it arise, You've got a choice: you can either be prepared and be in a situation where you can have an efficient utilization of dollars and an efficient response to a disaster; or you can be unprepared and then try to throw money at the problem in the midst of a crisis, which really doesn't get you too far as you run around going from K Mart to K Mart trying to buy garbage bags.

Yesterday I raised the 14 points that were referred to cabinet, and I asked some very basic questions. I don't want to repeat each one of those questions, because the minister has Hansard before him, but I want to know which of those 14, specifically, you have addressed, which ones you haven't, and I want some specific answers to the questions I raised. We can get into all sorts of political accusations, but I think the minister himself would have to agree with me that those were straightforward administrative questions in terms of what his ministry is doing.

The questions start on page 27 — I see the minister flipping through the Blues — and they go over to page 28. The minister's response to them — and I realize it was at the end of the day and everybody wanted to watch the hockey game; at least the minister did.... I want answers to all 14 of those questions, because they're based on....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Not only did the minister want to watch the hockey game, but I'm saying he's a Montreal fan, which may explain his mood today.

I want answers, Mr. Minister, and they're very basic administrative questions about things that your ministry should be attending to this year. Let's get some answers to each one of those questions. The minister's got them on page 27; let's go through them one by one and get some answers.

HON. MR. REE: I'd like it correct for the record that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew did not raise the issues that are in Hansard. The ministry raised these issues; the ministry wrote these questions down. It was within the provincial emergency program that these issues came out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: No, you used the term. Read your Blues tomorrow or tonight. You said: "I raised these items." You did not raise these items. These items were raised by the ministry within a report prepared by the provincial emergency program, which report we are dealing with, which report is being put together, and information, to go to cabinet in due course. Then we will come out and exactly explain what has been done on these items that were raised. That, Mr. Chairman, is the responsible process: to do it properly, not to waste money irresponsibly and go out and develop them without proper study of them

That's the knee-jerk reaction we'd expect from the NDP.

MR. SIHOTA: just to satisfy the minister, I made it very clear yesterday that these were documents that were prepared by that program and submitted by the interministerial committee — I think I referred yesterday to the interministerial committee — and now are within the mandate of his ministry and before him and apparently directed at the end of the day towards cabinet. I made that very clear yesterday, and that's clear from my comments. So when I say I raised them, I raised them in that context, and I was quoting from the document that had been provided to me and now sits before your ministry. Let's allow that issue to be evaporated, now that I've dealt with it.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm going to go through them carefully, if the minister doesn't want to answer them, because it seems to me that the bottom line here is that his ministry — and he's the minister in charge — was given 14 very specific recommendations after the oil spill on the west coast.

I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, that that oil spill had a devastating effect on lives and communities of people living in the riding of Alberni and my riding. There's an expectation that this government would deal with those issues with dispatch. We don't want another oil spill on our coastline, and we don't want to go through the same type of agony that we went through as communities in December and January. It's incumbent upon the government to learn from the lessons of that disaster and be prepared to deal with them in the future. It's been three and a half months that you've had that information, which details the lessons learned from December 23 to February 9. You've had three and a half months. Are you telling us in this House that after three and a half months your ministry still hasn't dealt with those critical issues?

Shame on you, Mr. Minister, if that's the case. I tell you that my colleague for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) and myself don't want to have to walk down those beaches knowing that if another spill hits this province, there'll be the same level of unpreparedness as still exists today. All of the talk about Valdez, all of the airline trips up and down that coast, all of that public relations propaganda is one thing. But it's another to begin to deal with preparing for another disaster, should it hit us.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You bet I'm upset. I'm really upset, because I know what happened in those communities. I was there, as was my colleague for Alberni in his riding. If the minister wants, I will bring in a stack of letters that I've got from residents in my riding who were affected financially. Native groups have lost their fishing territories; school kids — grade 4

[ Page 7022 ]

and 5 kids — were out there cleaning it up, and have written me letters with drawings and all that kind of stuff — and it's not nice stuff.

I tell you, I'm damned mad that this government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your feelings on this particular subject. It is unparliamentary to use swear words in the House. Perhaps if you would moderate your voice a little, we could proceed.

[11:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I apologize for using the word "damn." I'm mad that despite all of the flimflam and the, propaganda, you haven't acted on those 14 recommendations. Thank God, there is some civil servant in this province who has been thoughtful enough to have provided us with that documentation, so we can ask, during the course of these estimates, just what action you have taken since the oil spill.

Yesterday we detailed those 14 lessons that your ministry said they've learned. All we want to know is what steps you have specifically taken with respect to those 14 recommendations. They are cogent recommendations. It may catch the minister off guard that we've got that document, but the minister has an obligation. It's remarkable how unprepared you were last time around.

I find it astonishing that you haven't begun to deal with some of the more basic questions that arise from those lessons in light of the oil spill. You know, three and a half months have passed, and you would think that after having had a disaster of that magnitude strike our coastline, the government would move with dispatch to make sure that they are prepared to deal with it, should one strike tomorrow.

I'm not going to let the minister off the hook by taking some general comments. I'll go through them one by one — all 14 of them. I'll repeat what I asked yesterday here in the chamber. I want to know what his ministry is doing. The first recommendation was this: "A cabinet committee for emergency preparedness is required to provide government policy." I'm quoting from yesterday's Hansard: "My question to the minister is: has that been done?" I want to ask the minister, with respect to the first recommendation.... We're going to go slowly through all 14 of them, Mr. Minister. Has that cabinet committee for emergency preparedness been established?

HON. MR. REE: Are you going through them one by one?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I want the answer to that one first. Has that committee been established?

HON. MIL REE: I appreciate the member's concern and the emotion he has shown over this issue. I am just as concerned, but I don't get as emotional over it as he does. I try to keep my cool, carry on and do things responsibly.

As for No. 1, it is being actively considered.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not even a financial item to ask that a cabinet committee be established. I take it that the cabinet committee has not been established.

The second recommendation made by your bureaucrats or the interministry committee was, and I quote: "Deputy ministers' committee for emergency preparedness is required to provide direction on the implementation of government policy and make recommendations to cabinet committees on emergency preparedness response and recovery issues."

Question to the minister: has that been done? What were the recommendations to the committee? How are those recommendations reflected in the $2.4 million that the minister takes so much pride in?

HON. MR. REE: To save the time of the committee: I have replied to this inquiry previously. The answers will continue to be the same for all 14, so the member has no need to ask all 14. He would be wasting the time of this committee.

MR. SIHOTA: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear that answer. Could he just repeat that answer again for the record?

HON. MR. REE: As I indicated, I have replied to the member's 14 statements that came from the interministerial committee. Yesterday I replied to it. This morning I have replied to item 1. To save this committee's time, the answer for all 14 is the same as for item 1. So the member need not waste this committee's time by reiterating all 14.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess the minister is saying that that's under consideration. Three and a half months later, the recommendation of his officials still hasn't been acted upon, and it's not reflected in the $2.4 million in his budget.

The third one was: "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 emergency disasters."

Am I to assume that that has not been established? Am I to assume that no work is being done to create that agency? Am I to assume that there is no funding within the minister's budget for the establishment of that agency?

HON. MR. REE: He can assume erroneously, as he usually does. As I have said, these items are all being actively considered. Some of the increase in funds for the ministry was because we recognized something had to be done. That is why we fought for the increase in the funds for the provincial emergency program. The funds are available when we make the final decisions on the matters set out in those 14 items.

MR SIHOTA: I don't want to get back into a debate in terms of whether $641,000 amounts to

[ Page 7023 ]

much, considering the cutbacks you provided that program in the past.

When the minister says "actively under consideration," could he tell this House who's considering it? What time lines have been provided — what schedules — to come to some conclusions as to those recommendations?

HON. MR. REE: The interministry committee is considering it. There are a lot of people involved within government to implement some of these recommendations. It takes a considerable amount of time for that to be put into place. There are no deadlines set for coming to conclusions, except that it should be done as soon as possible so that we can bring it to cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. We'll just wait while things tick along. We'll wait for another disaster to occur. We'll have the same problem that we had this time: that this ministry won't be prepared.

You've had three and a half months. It would seem to me that this is a priority. It would seem to me that with all the posturing the Premier has been doing, this would be a priority. It would seem to me that with all of the chatter that this government has about concern for the protection of the environment, it would be a priority.

It's all hollow. I can't believe it. I just can't believe that these things are sort of going along, taking their time. We have people in front of the TV cameras, smiling and saying: "Yes, we are signing agreements with Washington State; yes, we have been up to Valdez; yes, we are concerned about the environment."

The basic responsibility falls within this ministry It's just like business as usual: inadequate funding; no significant increases in the budget; no action based upon the lessons learned from the oil spill, three and a half months later. What does the minister want? Does he want us to ask him all these 14 questions six months from now to see if we've made any progress? Is he prepared to let us know publicly what you're doing?

If we didn't happen to have this document, I don't think the minister ever would have admitted that there is a problem. Everything's under consideration That's good old bureaucratic bafflegab. I can't believe that after that oil spill, after the disaster — and your comments yesterday calling some of the people who did tremendous work out there alarmists — you still haven't done anything. It's all under consideration. There's not even a time line as to when you're going to implement this, when it's going to get in front of cabinet — not even costing. Does the minister intend to go to Treasury Board later on this year and ask for supplemental funding, or has that supplemental funding already been committed to by the government?

"Recommendation 4: direction and control to be administered from a provincial control centre." I take it that hasn't been done either. Is that true, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REE: As I've indicated, Mr. Chairman, it is all under very active consideration. It has a priority. I'm gathering from what the member is saying that he doesn't wish us to consult with the appropriate people around; he doesn't wish us to consult with the native Indians. This does take time, and that's part of the process. Does the member suggest I should sit in my office and draw the plan without any consultation with anybody else. That's what the member is suggesting. It's a bunch of hogwash.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, the first member for Vancouver South asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce an old friend, a former colleague, a good British Columbian and a hardworking gentleman, Mr. George Wilson. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll save the minister the agony of having to go through all 14 of them and respond to them.

You've had a quarter of a year to talk with the groups affected. You've had close to half a year since the incident occurred, and you haven't taken any action. It seems to me that the appropriate thing for government to do would have been to assess what those lessons are and on a priority basis haul in the people necessary to consult between February and March and make the recommendations you had to make to Treasury Board, get the additional funding and get on with the job. You haven't done that. It would have been something if you had before us today in estimates a budget that was equipped to deal with another oil spill, an earthquake or a chemical spill in this province. You haven't developed a plan.

Look at some of the recommendations: "A provincial plan is necessary to identify the roles and responsibilities of ministries and Crown corporations." You would think that after three and a half months you'd have some kind of provincial sub-plan to deal with oil spills.

Recommendation 6 talked about all agencies — federal, provincial, municipal and native — being part of the decision-making process as the first step in reaching agreement as to who or what agency could best supply what services in support of the Coast Guard. Surely by now you should have been able to communicate with federal, provincial, municipal and native groups.

[11:45]

The other 14 are there, but the minister says they're all under consideration. That's management for you. That's really driving your officials hard to make sure they do the job and put in a little overtime. That's leadership. This is the true reality of where you stand on really doing something to protect the environment. The minister should be ashamed of the

[ Page 7024 ]

lack of progress by his ministry. I find it astonishing, and in some ways even offensive, but certainly tragic that you haven't moved despite the oil spill and the lessons learned, and despite the fact that your officials were pretty quick in giving you a full list of those lessons.

I'll let some of my colleagues continue, and I'll listen with interest to what transpires here. But I'm wondering, finally, if the minister is prepared — in light of the fact that this material is now public and we've raised it in the House — to provide the public with progress reports. Will you agree to table progress reports in the House from time to time on how you're progressing on these 14 lessons, so that we're kept abreast of what's happening in your own ministry? Are you prepared to make that information public in terms of progress so that the public has some confidence that indeed you're doing something — that's there's something substantive beyond just simple words? Are you prepared to make sure that you will go on reporting to the House how you're progressing on these 14 items, so that we can monitor what you're doing? Surely that would be just a minimal requirement so that we on this side of the House know how you're doing, so that there's some accountability by the minister to this Legislature, and, more importantly, so that the public knows what you're doing. Will you agree to give us progress reports in this House — just table them; we don't require great speeches — to tell us how you're doing on each one of these 14? Will the minister agree to do that?

HON. MR. REE: I think the report the member is referring to is indicative of the leadership of this government, in that promptly after the spill the government revisited the spill, considered lessons to be learned and things to be done, and prepared this, which is now under active consideration within the last two and a half months. In addition, we obtained additional funds within the ministry to do the study on this, to take some action on it. It is being looked after.

As to a progress report, this government always puts out a progress report when its decisions have been made from cabinet, and I undertake to do that. We will certainly let the general public know when cabinet makes decisions on this.

MR. SIHOTA: Will you table them in the House?

HON. MR. REE: The decisions? You'll see the decisions when the decisions are made and when they are implemented. We send out through the media a lot of reports of decisions of cabinet, decisions within the ministry. You'll receive them the same as everybody else does, Mr. Member, and the general public.

MR. GUNO: We shall wait with bated breath for those progress reports.

I think it bears repeating that the issue really is the recognition of this government's responsibility. It's incumbent on any government to be in a position to respond to any form of emergency that may arise. I think we're all familiar with Murphy's law, which states that if anything can go wrong it will. Here we have to contend with another law: the law of the Socreds. It's rather an incantation, actually, not a law: "Rain, rain, go away, little Johnny wants to play." It just ignores reality.

I don't think the people of British Columbia want a K Mart emergency program or even the cardboard police enforcement that the Solicitor-General advocates. The people in British Columbia expect and deserve a well-planned, coordinated emergency program. God willing, we may never need them, but at least we can go to bed at nights knowing that the Solicitor-General is on the watchtower, ever vigilant and ever ready to meet any emergency program. So far the increase in the budget does not give us any comfort, and we may have to spend some restless nights in the future.

At any rate, I just wanted to demonstrate, comparing the increases in other budget lines in your Solicitor-General ministry, that the increase in the emergency program is really very low. It does not support your contention that you're giving this a very high priority. The provincial emergency program budget was down last year to something like $1.8 million from $1.94 million the year before. Even this year's increase to $2.4 million is a substantial decrease when you consider inflationary factors. When you compare this with the other aspects of your ministry, most of which have been doubled in the last five to six years, it shows that this is one of the very lowest in priority. Yet I think it represents one of the most important programs that the Solicitor-General should be really pushing. I understand that there are only 29 FTEs employed in PEP, and I want to know if the minister can verify this. I will use PEP, rather than use the "provincial emergency program." Some of these positions are vacant. Of these, only nine, as I understand it, are in the field throughout B.C. Their role really is to administer the provision of provincial assistance in such situations as flooding and others. We have reports that these people do not even have enough gas money to get to a disaster when it occurs.

The real question is, Mr. Minister: if these people are not making the actual response to an emergency, who is? Who is trained to respond to emergencies such as many transportation accidents — vehicles, trains, shipping — and industrial incidents, not to mention major oil spills, or even minor ones? Who knows what to do? Our police really do not have any technical knowledge for meeting this kind of disaster, and the Ministry of Environment is insufficiently staffed to send personnel to the scene. My question to the minister is: do we have a first-line response to any of these eventualities?

HON. MR. REE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but some of the question I found unintelligible. I would like the member to repeat part of it, because I didn't understand the question. I'm not too sure whether

[ Page 7025 ]

he's criticizing the fact that we have only 29 employees. Actually, we have 7,382 people in the provincial emergency program. The provincial emergency program is a core program with the 29 full-time employees. The strength of the provincial emergency program is the volunteers who can be called upon from all walks and experiences of life within British Columbia. They are the people who are the core and the strength of PEP.

MR. LOVICK: What about the alarmists?

HON. MR. REE: The alarmist yesterday was.... No, that gentleman was....

MR. LOVICK: Some volunteers are better than others.

HON. MR. REE: That gentleman was a media darling.

MR. GUNO: It seems to me that the Solicitor-General has problems in deciphering even the simplest questions that have been posed to him throughout his estimates, so I'm not surprised that he considers my questions unintelligible. It's very simple; read my lips. What kind of first-line response do we have in place today? Who is coordinating the police, the Ministry of Environment...? It's very clear. Do we have anything in place today?

[Mr. Jacobsen in the chair.]

HON. MR. REE: I should ask the question: for what? We have a lot of people in place. People with different qualifications and abilities are in place in the province, whether they be our volunteers for emergencies, our regional coordinators or our people at the provincial emergency headquarters office here in Victoria. We do have people in place. For what purpose do you want them at the moment, what type of emergency and whereabouts? That's why I say: "For what?"

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor-General's response reminds me of Mark Twain's story about a cowboy running out of the saloon, jumping on his horse and riding out in all directions. That is really the state of our emergency program now, and your question is quite valid. In fact, you should turn it around on yourself. It's really somehow assessing what the emergency is and finding out what kind of response we have in place for that particular one.

It's coordination; it's management; it's anticipation. I'm just wondering if we have such a capability in place right now. Forget about what the emergency is; there are all kinds of emergencies, I grant you. Our question is whether you can meet any one of them in a well-coordinated way.

HON. MR. REE: We have and we do — 24 hours a day.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, earlier today in reference to the horse-racing discussion, we heard the word "dithering" with regard to this minister. The word "dithering" is much more appropriately applied when it comes to this minister's role in charge of PEP. For goodness' sake, when were dealing with horse-racing, we're dealing with public enjoyment; when we're dealing with PEP, we're dealing with public safety and with the environment. And what we are getting is dithering. This is incredible. I can hardly believe that I am in this House listening to some of these statements which not only lack appropriateness with regard to the issues being raised, but lack any kind of political sense. That really is interesting.

This minister, without any apology, yesterday referred to Dave LeBlanc — who has become, appropriately, something of a folk hero to the people of British Columbia because of the role he filled — as an alarmist. Nobody got through to this minister to advise him of the inappropriateness of such remarks, of the disastrous consequences that can come to him from making such inappropriate and foolish remarks, and today he refers to Dave LeBlanc as a media darling. Mr. Chairman, this is a most inappropriate abuse by a minister of a person who is recognized not by this ministry but by the people of this province as having performed a very worthwhile service, and one symbolic of the service that was provided by volunteers.

When my colleague from Atlin asks a question about how many people are working in PEP, and he refers to the very small number of full-time employees, the minister comes back by trying to ride on the coattails of the volunteers by coming up with some number in the six thousands.

[12:00]

What we are trying to do here is deal with a situation of grave seriousness to health and safety and to the environment of this province. What we are getting is most unsatisfactory. The line of questions that was asked by my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and my friend from Atlin comes down to this basic question: what if it happened today? Would things just be the same, or would anything have changed? What we get from this minister is: we're studying it; we are going to wait until we can report to cabinet. Mr. Chairman, the environment of British Columbia cannot wait for the cabinet to make a decision. The urgency is out there now.

I want to refer to a few things the minister said yesterday that I find quite alarming. I mentioned during my comments that because of the dithering of this ministry, fortunately some very fine-spirited businesses, individuals and trade unions had provided equipment to the volunteers who did not have equipment from PEP. I pointed out that garbage bags were provided by Overwaitea, rakes were provided by K Mart, some equipment was provided by the longshoremen's union — some type of protective clothing — and that food was also provided by merchants from Granville Island.

[ Page 7026 ]

The minister's response to that was: "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." This comment tries to imply that these people had not made these very worthwhile donations, that somehow the government had got in on the act, by trying to change the meaning of the point that I had made in the House. Those were good corporate citizens and good private citizens who had come forward, and this minister hasn't even had the appropriateness to stand up in this House and congratulate these people.

It is true that he did issue some certificates. I know that some people got certificates from the minister, and I commend him for that. But some of those people should have received the kind of compensation that, if it were not wages — and the minister points out that after all they were volunteers — at least would have trusted them and enabled them to have the kind of expense money that was needed so that they could carry on. If some volunteer only had one pair of pants and those pants were heavily soiled by the oil, then at least he wouldn't have to quit so that he could take his pants to a cleaners and then get the chit back to PEP and then several weeks later be able to afford to buy another pair of pants. I mean, this is the kind of inappropriateness that was going on, the kind of Keystone Kops routine. Here my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is asking very sensible questions, and we can't even get an answer that even a semblance of putting things in place has happened.

Something just came to me that our people got from the library, and it is consistent with the report that was referred to, the 14 points, by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. This is a report from Environment Canada, environmental protection service, and it is listing oil spill countermeasure equipment in the Pacific coastal region. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday when I asked the minister what additional equipment had been placed in such places as Tofino and Ucluelet, how many garbage bags, rakes, some of this very basic stuff that volunteers need to get started — it's just a beginning; it's not enough of what is needed, but knowing that it's very basic beginning equipment — the minister responded by saying there was really no point in deploying this stuff in those communities because they had to have their one major inventory. We're still waiting to hear where that inventory is and what is in it.

The minister made a tacit statement that he really didn't agree that such an inventory should be deployed in places like Port Renfrew and Tofino and Ucluelet and all those other places up and down the coast where they should be deployed. This is not terribly expensive equipment. This report from Environment Canada — a 1986 report, I believe — saying where equipment is deployed has no page for Tofino. I'm sure the provincial emergency program is aware of that. Apparently there's no equipment deployed in Tofino in some sort of a warehouse where it can be accessed readily in an emergency, similar to the fire-hall concept. In a few minutes I'm going to pass this book along to my friend for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, because I'm sure he would be interested in seeing what equipment the federal government said existed in 1986 in his area.

There is a page for Ucluelet, consisting of four headings and ten lines. I'm sure the provincial emergency program is interested in what is in Ucluelet. It lists 152 metres of harbour boom and anchor buoys. It doesn't say how many anchor buoys; it just says anchor buoys. Under absorbents it says: "Unstated quantity of absorbents." Imagine that, Mr. Minister; it happens again. Have we got a number on that now? Do we know what they have there? Have you taken the trouble to find that out? It lists safety equipment and special clothing: "Life jackets, clothing, fire extinguishers, first-aid equipment." It doesn't say how much. Under "Other Equipment" it says: "Pit liners." It would be interesting to know if that equipment was used during the spill.

During the debate yesterday, when I asked the minister about having the infrastructure in place to be able to make use of available volunteers, he said: "We did have some problems of too many people wanting to come that we couldn't control...." The situation was that we needed an infrastructure that could be deployed to enable those people whom you couldn't control to fulfil what they were setting out to do, which was to help clean up the beaches.

Last night I phoned David LeBlanc. I phoned other people who worked on the oil spill, and they told me of days when.... One woman told me of a day when she and another volunteer were the only people on one of the major beaches. They could see the tide coming in, and a new amount of oil had been deposited on that beach. They just felt helpless. They saw the birds dying. They saw some shore birds — sanderlings — and knew they were going to be threatened by this new tide. They knew they didn't have the people who could help them to protect and save that beach. Yet this minister says there were "too many people wanting to come that we couldn't control." It shows that the mind-set, the philosophy, the approach, is just inappropriate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

After saying that they couldn't control them, the minister went on to say: "...or you would have too many people on the cleanup." Really, is this minister being briefed on the situation out there and how it should be appropriately dealt with? Another point that he made was: "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 minister refers to that as a problem. It should be recognized that on weekends there would be a lot of volunteers; that would be the time to have people out there in the field to deploy those volunteers and turn that weekend into not a problem, but an opportunity. That would be an appropriate approach.

I mentioned to the minister that a form of British Columbia technology should be deployed. I recall

[ Page 7027 ]

that the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), during her speech on the budget, I believe, referred to British Columbia technology that could be used in situations like this. I referred to other kinds of British Columbia technology, among them Candel Industries' Sea Rover radio tracking device. In response, the minister said: "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 plan."

This is evidence of the attitude that simply won't work. To quote the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), it's evidence of the attitude of "We're prepared to follow." It's not the attitude of taking the initiative to protect the environment of British Columbia. Surely it's not simply a matter that it's international waters and it's a federal responsibility. It's a matter of a proactive, aggressive approach that moves what needs to be moved; to make the arrangements to get up to those waters off Prince William Sound or to get to Grays Harbor and deploy the material.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was referring to the 14 points. Those are important points. One of the points that we are making in all of this is that this government lacks the political will to deal with this situation. It is a problem of political will. It is a problem where this minister is still responding with excuses instead of coming forward with proactive plans. He is not able to give any semblance of an answer to the questions asked of him. He is saying the environment has to wait upon cabinet. The environment cannot afford to wait upon cabinet.

If there was the political will, if there was not the attitude of managing our environment by public relations, this government would not have had to go through the public relations process they've gone through of setting some things in place. As Miro Cernetig did, they could have made use of the parliamentary library. By going to the library they could have found the 1972 memo of cooperation between British Columbia and the state of Washington. They would have found that it was all on paper once before. This paper-tiger government could have found that the paperwork had already been done They didn't have to issue all their press releases saying that they were going to be setting up a process. They could have acknowledged and recognized that the instrument was in place. What was needed was action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, hon. member, but your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. JONES: I am enjoying the fascinating remarks of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, and I'm anxious to hear more. Encore!

MR. CASHORE: The cabinet doesn't need to meet in order to answer the questions of the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. The cabinet has already met. It met in 1972 and came up with an action plan. I have that plan here. I think some of it should be read into the record. This is a plan between the British Columbia government and the state of Washington.

"In this regard the province and the state agree to work with dispatch and a sense of urgency" — did you hear that, Mr. Minister? — "to develop a coordinated program of oil pollution prevention and abatement. Areas of potential inclusion in the program shall include but not be limited to:

"The creation of integrated control and communications systems."

There's one of the answers. You didn't have to wait for the cabinet to meet.

"(2) The establishment of traffic pattern and approach procedures.

"(3) The establishment of procedures for determining the times and places for the transferring of oil, including means and methods of transfer.

"(4) The development of a coordinated monitoring an inspection program.

"(5) The development of joint plans of action to cope with oil spills, including surveillance and environment degradation assessments relating to such spills.

" (6) The creation of a fire department concept which allows equipment, material and personnel available to either the province or the state to be used in control and cleanup operations within boundary waters.

" (7) The creation of a data bank which utilizes an exchange procedure for sharing all of the relevant data — technical, scientific or otherwise."

[12:15]

Here we have had management of our environment by public relations when all we needed to do was get somebody to go to the library — as Miro Cernetig did — and find that the instrument already existed. But the political will is not there, so that is not going to happen. When you have no vision, the people perish. When you have no political will, the words that are written on paper are not words that are translated into action.

Mr. Chairman, I would also add that supplemental to this memorandum of cooperation between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington, dated August 1972, is some supporting documentation: "Oil Spill Emergency Plan for the Province of British Columbia to Operate in Conjunction With Washington State Oil Spill Action Plan." If the minister would send somebody to the library, I'm sure they could find this. It goes through all the details that would answer the questions the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is just asking. It's all there, Mr. Chairman, but this minister seems to be hoping that there will be an election and they'll never have to deal with what they're putting down in the press releases they're putting out. That's inappropriate. Our environment can't wait on that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister that for the rest of these estimates he seriously consider changing his approach, that he

[ Page 7028 ]

enter into a dialogue, that he engage in some creative thinking and that he put forward some practical ideas. If this minister digs down deep, I'm sure he will be able to find within himself wells of resources that will enable him to join with other members of the House and work together cooperatively so that we can deal with an environmental problem, an environment that cannot wait upon a cabinet that lacks the political will, that does only lip service, and that is a danger to our environment. This government is an environmental disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I think the last point I made is one that needs to be considered very seriously. All rhetoric aside, all the points that on each side of this House we might want to make, the fact is that the protection of our pristine environment depends on being able to put our minds and thoughts together and come up with programs that are going to work. This minister still has a chance during these estimates to indicate a change of heart, a change of direction and something that's going to work for the people of British Columbia, instead of the approach of trying to manage the environment by public relations.

MR. DE JONG: I hadn't planned on entering the debate; however, I feel that I should do so, because I think the members of the opposition are trying to mislead the public in what they're saying about the disasters that have happened and that may happen or may never happen.

When you look at it, there are basically two types of disaster: those that have some warning or forewarning and those that you have no warning of whatsoever. It's pretty easy for anyone to sensationalize on a disaster that in fact has happened, particularly one you didn't know was going to happen.

I'm certainly not, Mr. Member of the Opposition, trying to minimize your concern. I'm as concerned as anyone about disasters that may happen and so on, and I'm certainly not minimizing what has happened on the west coast over the past year. But at the same time, I would like to have heard from the members of the opposition, in particular those from the communities affected by the disasters, about what they have done and what they have suggested to the minister that should be done.

MR. SIHOTA: You'd better read Hansard.

MR. DE JONG: You've done this yesterday, but you haven't done it prior to being in this House in the debate — that's what I'm saying. Mr. Chairman, they should be as concerned about the spill when it happens as when they get into a debate in the House here and sensationalize on something that's happened after the fact.

I would just like to get into some historical things that I've been involved with. From time to time we have a really high snow buildup in the mountains in British Columbia, and we have periodic flooding resulting from those snow buildups, and it depends on the weather conditions and the snow in the mountains.

For 15 years I've been on the emergency committee of the local council dealing with those potential high waters that could in fact threaten the farmlands of Matsqui municipality. May was usually the month of high water, but if there was threat of high water we wouldn't wait until May to prepare for it. We would have meetings in February, as soon as the first threat of high water came, and there would be preparedness in the local community. It didn't take a pile of money — thousands of dollars — to put this together; it was a matter of getting people alerted to what may happen. Again, I must emphasize that we have two types of disasters: those you don't know are going to happen and those you have warning of, and I'm speaking of the ones we have warning of.

But at the same time we've had hundreds and thousands of people involved as volunteers to help assist in avoiding flood conditions. We've had people going all night bagging sandbags along the Fraser River. If it hadn't been for those volunteers and their eagerness to preserve their community from flooding, we would never have survived. No government here in Victoria would have been able to help us out.

I must also say that we've had the greatest cooperation from the ministries in Victoria to assist us in whatever needs we had, be it sandbags or equipment. Each year we would have a complete list of equipment from the local community as well as what was available from the province and the various federal emergency programs, should a disaster strike or the potential of a disaster. I don't think there has to be too much difference between those types of disasters, expected or unexpected, but there can be this similar type of cooperation and committees set up by the minister along the coastline for those communities that may be affected by those types of disasters.

That's really my question to the minister: is he planning to coordinate a similar approach to the disasters that have happened elsewhere in the province, in particular, in the diked areas in the Fraser Valley? I'm sure that every municipality in those areas has experienced the cooperation of your ministry and the ministries prior to yours. Are you prepared to communicate with the various communities and to have a type of committee established in each community so that there is a direct contact, perhaps through the local government and so on, so that the effects of either an expected or unexpected disaster can be lessened or even avoided?

HON. MR. REE: I thank the second member for Central Fraser Valley for his comments, which are excellent and reasoned rather than what we hear from the opposition.

The provincial emergency program or branch does actively encourage municipalities to establish their own responses to emergencies. We have regional coordinators throughout the province. A large number of them are on the staff of municipalities or in other functions within the municipalities. We will continually discuss and assist municipalities with the means of reaction to emergencies. As the member

[ Page 7029 ]

mentioned, there are more emergencies than just oil spills on the coast — all of which are important. As I say, I thank the member for his comments.

As to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and his excellent research in going to the library and digging out this memorandum of agreement, which, I gather, is dated August 1972.... I believe that was shortly before there was a change of government. I have no record or recollection of any action being taken by that government towards emergency preparedness during the three years it was in power. Its attitude was probably much the same as that of the present members of the opposition — the same party that was in government at that time — that masses of dollars out of the back of a truck at the time of an emergency, or before, is all that's necessary.

We saw a former Leader of the Opposition at the time of economic problems in the forest industry saying that we'll stockpile logs to keep people cutting in the forests, even if you can't sell them. This is an attitude or a mentality which we find with the NDP. They do not look at numbers. The member from Maillardville-Coquitlam criticized my comment about too many people volunteering to help on a weekend being a problem. He does that without any thought or knowledge of the circumstances that were prevalent in that area at that time — weather-wise and the rest of it.

MRS. BOONE: Were you there?

HON. MR. REE: I went up there, and I was there for a day and a half. I was there overnight, I attended meetings and I was on the beach. I talked to volunteers. I was down on the beach, and I was up in the town. I talked to the mayors and to the committee.

MR G. JANSSEN: Alarmists?

HON. MR. REE: Your alarmist, who you tell me was a great volunteer up there, has never been and is not a volunteer for the provincial emergency program. He's a part-time employee of the Coast Guard.

MR. CASHORE: Well, why are you running him down?

HON. MR. REE: I'm not running him down. But he was more difficulty, and he was a media whatever you-call-it. He created more difficulties. He would not cooperate when the coordinating offices were set up.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Why were you making phone calls to his office?

HON. MR. REE: He would not cooperate in any way, shape or form with the provincial emergency program. No, he was not there to help solve the problem; he was part of the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. members.

HON. MR REE: At any rate, too many volunteers up there could be a problem; we were conscious of that. The weather and accommodation for them.... That's their attitude. Oh, you should look after that. We can move in accommodation for them overnight, and things like that. You can't do that, Mr. Member, and you'd know that if you had any intelligence.

[12:30]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Do you thank people by calling them down?

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, would you please tell the chirping birds to keep quiet?

MR. CASHORE: There are not many birds chirping on the west coast of the Island.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: I think they're crows. You know what crows eat.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: Well, with the type of debate that we're getting from over there, Mr. Member, I'm sorry that I have to respond to it, because they don't understand what they're talking about. At any rate, the criticisms of the provincial emergency program are strictly unfounded.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: No, because they did an excellent coordinating job on the west coast back in January.

MR. CASHORE: You waited three weeks.

MR. WILLIAMS: You didn't have any shovels.

MR. CASHORE: How many garbage bags in Ucluelet?

HON. MR. REE: I'm waiting for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) to tell me. You told me that he had the inventory; he has a record of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, you've forgotten that there's a Chairman here.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, my apologies; we could never forget you.

To put it in perspective, the job done by PEP and the volunteers was excellent. They don't have to take the criticism that this opposition is laying on them. This opposition has no respect for the volunteers of this province. They want everything paid for as such. We have many dedicated people who were prepared

[ Page 7030 ]

to come up there and work. We had many dedicated people who donated not only of their time but other things, not expecting to be compensated in dollars, as members of the opposition expect anytime they might do something. These people are concerned about our country, our environment, our province, and they are to be commended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to introduce some students from my old alma mater, University Hill Secondary School, who are visiting in the gallery. I'm not sure if I can see them, but I'd like the House to make them very welcome. I think they've come at an important time during an issue that concerns all British Columbians, and I hope they enjoy the debate.

MR. GUNO: First of all, I want to correct a mistake I made in terms of wrongly attributing a quote I made to Mark Twain. Actually, it was the great Canadian humorist I should have attributed it to, Stephen Leacock.

I have to leave in about five minutes. I just wanted to respond to the charge that we are somehow criticizing the efforts of the volunteers. I think — if you really listened hard enough — our point really was that we laud the efforts of the volunteers. It was their support and coordination from this government that we were really zeroing in on.

You talk about the lack of shovels. I was wondering where the Premier was. He's famous for handing out shovels.

There is one area that I wanted to canvass. It's a fairly mundane issue, but I think it's important. I understand that PEP has now installed a hotline communications system. I have a number. I understand that since that hotline became operational last year, statistics show that they have received something like 11,000 reports or calls, many of them unsolicited, many of them just calls that came in. This is a substantial increase over the number of calls that were made to a similar hotline that was under the aegis of the Ministry of Environment when this program was under that particular ministry.

However, I don't discern in the budget any substantial increase to meet that kind of demand — a demand that's increasing. Nor is there any indication that there is any kind of response to those calls that are coming in. What's even more curious is that if such a line is set up to meet emergencies.... What is being done by the Solicitor-General to advertise to let the public know about it? It's not in the Victoria directory. If this is a system geared towards emergency response, I think it would be reasonable to ensure that it's well publicized.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's an unlisted number.

MR. GUNO: Specifically, I want to know which other agencies are tied into it. Or do they know anything about it? Can they put complaints received by them on to the system? Who has the primary responsibility for ensuring that there is a response? If the minister wants me to repeat those item by item, I will. But you have a pen and paper, and those are fairly short questions.

HON. MR. REE: The member is quite right that we have an emergency response telephone number. It is inside the front cover of every telephone book in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's the number?

HON. MR. REE: Maybe I could get a telephone book, so that I could help the member who is incapable of reading the number himself in a telephone book. I'll tell him exactly where it is: it's inside the front cover of the telephone book. If he can't read it himself, someone on his side can.

Yes, we are receiving a large number of calls there. The resources that we have at the provincial emergency offices are adequate to service this hotline on a 24-hour basis. We get many calls on the line that are not necessarily provincial-emergency-related, but the staff there tries to assist anybody who calls in the best way they can.

With respect to interfacing with other hotlines that government may or may not have, we have not done anything towards that and have not looked at that. This line is primarily there — and we try to keep it clear — for emergencies when they happen, so they can be reported to the headquarters, and the coordination of the response to the emergency can be as quick and effective as possible.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the minister most of the morning. I have been listening to the members from this side of the House attempting to get some answers and to see what the minister has in mind if another disaster should strike the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is my riding. I've been listening intently, and I'm just amazed. I'm a little bit shocked that the minister yesterday referred to one of the people who spearheaded the cleanup there, one of my constituents, as an alarmist. I was hoping he would have read the Blues and recognized his mistake. But what does he do today? He calls him a media darling. When I as member for that riding phoned the emergency program office in Tofino, I was told: "Why don't you phone the fire hall. That's where Dave LeBlanc is. He's coordinating the cleanup effort. That's where we're directing everybody to."

This is the person who was recognized as spearheading that, the person who went out and got the garbage bags, got the shovels from the Forest Service, got the rakes, the coveralls and everything, who begged, pleaded and organized that — and the minister stands up in this House and refers to him as part of the problem. On behalf of my constituents I

[ Page 7031 ]

take exception to that remark. By referring to the person who led the effort to clean up the beaches, to clean up that oil, the disaster that occurred in my riding, Mr. Minister.... I take exception to the fact that you maligned the leader of that and all the other people who were helping him out and looking to him for direction. You say he's an alarmist, a media darling and part of the problem. I expect you to congratulate that person, not to malign him in this House.

Earlier, when the member for Esquimalt was questioning the minister on what was happening, the minister said the 14 points raised by that member were under active consideration and he was consulting with people. I would like to ask the minister whether he has met with David LeBlanc. Has he met with the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot? Has he met with the villages of Ucluelet or Tofino for consultation? Has he met with the Pacific Rim Park officials? Has he met with the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council?

HON. MR. REE: No.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. We will continue these estimates when we sit Monday next at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.