[ Page 7033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 7033

Condom-vending machines. Mr. Perry –– 7034

Fatt's Island Poultry Farms. Mr. Sihota –– 7034

Student support for China's students. Mr. R. Fraser –– 7035

International arms export mart. Mr. Perry –– 7035

Military research in universities. Mr. Perry –– 7035

Westwood land for social housing. Mr. Williams –– 7035

Sustainable log harvest. Mr. Miller –– 7035

Tabling Documents –– 7036

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

On vote 67: minister's office –– 7036

Mr. Guno

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Peterson

Mr. B.R. Smith

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PARKER: On behalf of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) and myself, I'd like to introduce to the House a grade 4 and 5 class from Len Wood Elementary School in Armstrong, led by their teacher Vicki Green and hosted by Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd.

Fletcher Challenge operates a sawmill and plywood complex at Armstrong, and out of recognition for the enthusiasm with which Vicki Green and her students have pursued the grade 5 forestry curriculum, Fletcher Challenge has sponsored an expenses paid trip for this outstanding class and their teacher. Re resenting Fletcher Challenge is forester Mike Sigalet and public relations coordinator Jan Bauman.

On their tour they will see the UBC research forest at Maple Ridge, the Forest Museum at Duncan, Government House, the Royal B.C. Museum, the University of Victoria, the legislative buildings, B.C. Ferry Corporation and other points of interest. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, would you please welcome to the House today Elsie Hager and Ken Jones from North Vancouver.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I will start out by commenting on the shirt that I'm wearing today. I know it's not normal wear for the House. We have a lot of exciting projects in my ministry. You'll recall that earlier this month we had, through the Royal B.C. Museum, the Jason Project, which was certainly very beneficial to all students in our province. Wearing my sport and recreation hat, May 26 to June 4 has been declared Canada's Fit week. I would certainly like to acknowledge that this minister is not the best example to be setting, but certainly the staff in the ministry are excellent examples. I would ask the House to please recognize Canada's Fit week.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Premier and myself, to introduce two parties. First of all, in the members' gallery are constituents Harry Schonewille and Lynn Schonewille, my sister and brother-in-law, who are accompanied by my wife Jayne. Would you please welcome them.

The second party are again constituents. First of all is Marilyn Bevandick, who is a trustee on the Richmond Hospital Board. She is also a member of the board of revision in our municipality of Richmond and a former member of the executive of the Social Credit riding association in Richmond. She's accompanied by her husband Nick Bevandick and friends Don Eyre and Ines Turner. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. CRANDALL: I would appreciate it if the House would welcome Alf Lennox, who is the religious liberty director for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. He is in the precincts today.

Oral Questions

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands, regarding the Westwood lands. Would you deny that your staff have been carrying on negotiations with only one developer for the past two months or so?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I will have to repeat what I said on Thursday. In the fullness of time this House will have a full report.

MR. WILLIAMS: We may have to wait for the full moon. To the minister, did you not consider breaking up the site into separate parcels rather than selling the whole 1,400 acres?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will say that in the fullness of time I will reveal that to the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister, did you give any thought to the monopoly power you would put in the hands of one developer if you sold it in one piece?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I appreciate all these questions, and I'll certainly provide the answers in the fullness of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands again, Mr. Speaker. Did you never consider holding back at least some of the land at Westwood for social housing?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I will answer that in the fullness of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister responsible for transit, the member for Surrey-Newton. Was the minister asked to review the impact on transit of selling of the Westwood lands in one block?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The minister was not asked to review.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant). Were you asked to review the impact of this...? He's not here.

To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Were you asked to review the social housing needs prior to the sale of these lands?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice for the Minister of Highways.

[ Page 7034 ]

As for this minister, that member is assuming things that he has no knowledge of.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've been willing to give some of these ministers the benefit of the doubt, but I think that's been a mistake.

To the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands. There was a May 31 deadline for your response to deal with these proposals. Will you be meeting that deadline?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Time will tell.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands. You received letters of credit from some 18 bidders. Have most of those letters of credit been returned?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the fullness of time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could he advise the House whether those letters have been returned? Have you reconsidered selling completely? Have you considered keeping these lands in the hands of the Crown for development by the Crown for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would thank him for that question and say again that in the fullness of time we'll reveal everything.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe on the behalf of the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain I could ask the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands if he has ever learned from experience.

CONDOM-VENDING MACHINES

MR. PERRY: I'm hoping I'll receive a more pointed answer from the Minister of Health than we've heard in the last exchange.

I think the minister has heard of the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Yesterday the minister referred to a plan by a Qualicum high school to combat the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases by introducing condom-vending machines as a "stupid idea" or "rather ridiculous." Does the minister not agree that it is irresponsible to torpedo this proposal with his own personal opinion, especially when the school board is dealing with this issue on the basis of full public participation and the best medical advice available?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey fully knows that it is a school board matter and that it will be discussed at length I'm sure that my influence, either way, will not be reflected in their decision.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm relieved to hear the minister's answer now. But I wonder whether the minister, in his comments in the media, hasn't simply been imposing his own narrow personal point of view on the school board in the same way that he has on other health issues on the medical health officer and on the parents of this community. I'd like to hear a more definite reassurance that he will not interfere and that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) will not interfere with local control in health issues of this kind.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: There was a lot of noise in the House. I did not hear the question. Would you repeat it, please.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to hear a more a definite reassurance that the minister will not interfere, with his own personal opinions, against the best medical advice offered to school boards. Can you give us that reassurance, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I guess personal opinions do appear from time to time on both sides of the House and from all members. I think it's on the record that I have not interfered in various areas of health with my personal opinions. That was a personal comment, and I made it as such. It is strictly a school board issue, and they will deal with it. I'm sure they will have much discussion, and I'm sure the parents of the children will get involved. Let's leave it at that.

I would also say, since the question was asked, that I hear many personal opinions from that side of the House, and even from that member.

FATT'S ISLAND POULTRY FARMS

MR. SIHOTA: By way of a letter to me dated February 13, 1989, dealing with the matter of Lilydale and Fatt's Poultry, the Minister of Agriculture said that in providing the loan guarantee of $500,000 to Fatt's, the ministry had been provided with "satisfactory evidence of grower commitments to supply its plants with 50,000 birds per week on a continuing basis." Could the minister tell this House whether or not Fatt's has been able to provide those birds, as he says, on a continuing basis at the rate of 50,000 birds per week?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I believe on occasion Fatt's Poultry has had up to 50,000 birds per week, but I don't think it has been consistent.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that over the last 15-week period Fatt's has been averaging 39,600 birds per week and that on most of those weeks it has not been able to meet the minimum requirement of 50,000. In light of its failure to meet the most basic condition of getting the loan

[ Page 7035 ]

guarantee, is the minister now reassessing the government's financial support for Fatt's?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, that loan guarantee was an issue with my colleague the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). If it needs reassessment, I'm sure it will happen.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the Minister of Agriculture saying that it was the Minister of Finance and not him who supported and approved the loan guarantee?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As the member opposite should know, in the field of agriculture the applications come through the line ministries, and all applications are dealt with by Treasury Board.

STUDENT SUPPORT FOR CHINA'S STUDENTS

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. Canada enjoys a good reputation around the world for its impartiality — the UN peacekeeping forces and things of that nature. Among other things, we don't interfere with the internal operation of most countries. But we see recently in the TV coverage that we have students visiting from China taking part in supporting the student revolution — if you want to call it that — in their homeland. Does the ministry provide students with any counselling about the fact that that might not be welcome in Canada?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the hon. member for the question. I believe that these demonstrations were taking place on the campuses of universities which are governed by the University Act. We fund these universities, of course, but we try to give them the authority to operate independently I'm sure the students would welcome any sort of input they get from their professors or from other students on campus.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, we don't directly counsel those students or any other students on the campuses.

INTERNATIONAL ARMS EXPORT MART

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'll resist the temptation to comment on that previous question.

This is a question for the Minister of International Business and Immigration. Now that the minister has returned from ARMX '89, can he inform this House how much taxpayers' money was spent to host the British Columbia delegation at this international arms export mart in Ottawa?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't have those figures available to me, but I'll take the question on notice and get back to the member.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. Can the minister make a commitment to this House that the government will support only those businesses engaged in developing non-weapons technology and not those directly involved in the arms trade?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

MILITARY RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES

MR. PERRY: A new question for the Minister of Advanced Education. Last year my colleague the senior member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) asked the minister about the extent of U.S. military involvement in funding research at our major universities — that's in the Hansard of June 21, 1988. At that time, the minister did not provide any information. I would like to know, now that he has had a year to reflect on this, if he could provide the House with a complete list of contract research being done at British Columbia universities for military research?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll take the question on notice.

WESTWOOD LAND FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Housing. In the past couple of weeks, the minister has announced the intention of using Crown land and leasing it for social housing. In view of the 1,400 acres still available at Westwood, are you urging your colleague to reconsider his decision to sell that land?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For some reason, the opposition seem to have run out of concrete questions and have to ask hypothetical ones. As the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) has said, all the details of that particular transaction will be made known to the House in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Minister of Housing. Is there anything comparable in size in the lower mainland available to the Crown right now for social housing purposes? If so, where is it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again the member is making assumptions about a deal of which he has absolutely no knowledge.

SUSTAINABLE LOG HARVEST

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Last week I raised the issue of Wedeene River timber and the export of over 60,000 cubic metres of logs exceeding a diameter of 28 inches at the butt. The minister got quite exercised. Would the minister make a commitment that the mill will expand and be capable of handling logs of the dimension that he has authorized now to be exported?

[ Page 7036 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: That is the intent of the licensee.

MR. MILLER: That wasn't my question. I asked if the minister or the ministry were going to require that to be a commitment of the licensee to cut Crown timber. Are you going to make it a requirement, and if so, when will that mill have to be constructed?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's not our intent to make it a condition of any permit.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the 1988 annual report of the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in accordance with section 169(3) of the Credit Union Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

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

MR. GUNO: We want to continue — if we may, Mr. Chairman — on the question of the provincial emergency program as it relates to earthquakes. But I want to finish off the question about the hotline which has been installed through this program. I must admit that the figure I gave last Friday was 11,000; I understand it was only 2,000 calls. But that is still a significant increase over the number of calls received when that particular hotline was under the aegis of the Ministry of Environment.

One of the things that I have learned is that this particular hotline is getting an increasing number of reports, including anonymous ones, of illegal dumping, spilling and generally environmentally bad practices being carried out around the province, which are routinely passed on to the waste management branch. My question to the minister is: what form of follow-up is being put in place? In other words, once you refer these particular calls, what kind of follow-up occurs?

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I apologize; I didn't quite catch the time-span for those 2,000 calls. Are you suggesting 2,000 calls a year or 2,000 a month? Maybe the member could explain that.

Regarding calls on illegal dumping, I'll have to get some information on that and get back to the member at a later time.

MR. GUNO: We take it that this was during a full operational year, but I was hoping, you would be able to answer that.

I notice that none of your staff is present, and I wonder how we can conduct a fairly detailed discussion on your budget line items without the presence of your staff. Are you planning to have them here or...?

HON. MR. REE: They'll be here momentarily.

MR. GUNO: With regard to the system, I'm just wondering if you can provide us with any assurance that the hotline results, the information that is being collated under this particular program, are accessible to the public.

HON. MR. REE: The hotline is available to the public, certainly. As I indicated, it's inside the flyleaf of every telephone book in the province.

MR. GUNO: The minister misunderstood my question. Is the information garnered from these calls, and the statistics we gather from them, available to the public?

HON. MR. REE: I will make them available in this House.

MR. GUNO: I'm talking about just on a routine basis. Can someone, John Doe, walk into your ministry's office wherever this is being administered and look at the statistics and information you get from these calls?

HON. MR. REE: I really don't see any reason why John Doe would want to go in there and find out how many calls are coming in as such. That would be made available from time to time, but I don't think it would be available on a walk-in basis. If someone wishes to write to the ministry, we'll be happy to answer them.

[2:30]

MR. GUNO: So much for access to information in this province.

In the last two days we've been talking about the provincial emergency program on a fairly general basis, but also in the context of the recent oil spill on the west coast.

The minister has continually refused to provide details as to what steps he is taking to correct the inadequacies of this program in responding to these kinds of emergencies. In his own words, "To do so" — that is, to reply specifically to points raised — "would be a knee-jerk reaction." Perhaps the minister should be reminded that the estimates debate is precisely to do that, to elicit from the minister detailed answers to questions about various aspects of his ministry's budget. I refer to his rather brusque answer to the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), which reinforces our view that the minister is being cavalier about this program. I think the member raised a fairly important point about coordination and consultation, about having municipalities tuned in with whatever kind of emergency programs you

[ Page 7037 ]

have in place to deal with the kind of oil spill that occurred recently at that particular area.

I'd like to refer the minister to a document; it's actually the minutes of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee. Apparently they met on February 9, 1989, and concerns were raised relating to the total lack of preparedness by the province, and they wanted to send their concerns, by letter, to the Solicitor-General. In this regard the memo points out that it was the collective opinion of the IEPC members that it was unfortunate that the Solicitor-General was unable to remain for the general discussion, which identified the province's lack of preparedness for earthquakes or other disasters.

At that same meeting there was a report of the seismic safety subcommittee tabled by the chairman of that particular subcommittee, Mr. Terry Vaughan Thomas. In that report the sub chairman recommended that the IEPC consider recommending the allocation of $1 per person in the province to enable the development of a comprehensive earthquake preparedness plan for B.C. My first question: if the minister was not present when this very important issue was discussed, then how can he justify the fact that he totally ignored the recommendation for $1 per person; and what factors did he use to come up with a far lower figure in terms of meeting this very important program?

HON. MR. REE: I attended that meeting and gave opening remarks, at which time I stated that funds would be available and an earthquake plan report done by the end of this year. I was welcomed as the first minister ever to attend such a meeting on the subject, and I was thanked profusely for being there. My staff of the provincial emergency program coordinated and held that meeting. They submitted a report to me. Without cardboard types of myself, I can't be at everything. I did receive the report. It is certainly being considered by the government, as is the report on the oil spill which was prepared by the provincial emergency program.

Pursuant to that report, there were joint meetings between the federal government and our government as of May 11. Further meetings are going to be held towards preparing a submission for cabinet's consideration. These reports are continuously being actively reviewed, considered, studied, and submissions come from them to improve the responsibility of the provincial emergency program and the possibilities of minimizing events from happening. They are being actively reviewed.

MR. GUNO: I can see why the committee would be relieved to see the minister, being the first minister to attend such an important meeting. It really speaks volumes about the priority that the government has placed on this particular program up until now. I applaud the minister for attending that meeting.

A number of concerns were raised at that meeting, one regarding research. Their conclusion was that research is essential for the understanding of earthquake hazards and effects and for determining the means by which those hazards may be mitigated. They pointed out a number of areas that need a fair amount of research, including the causes and nature of earthquakes, the location of faults and subduction zones, and seismic potential. Another one is monitoring methods, modelling and forecasting. They also talked about delineation of geological and structural hazards, social and economic effect and the cost of hazard reduction. They identified $1 million as being almost the bottom line in terms of responding. Can the minister inform the House what amount of money has been spent on the kind of research that this particular subcommittee identified as vital in terms of preparedness?

HON. MR. REE: The dollar figure has not been allocated at this time. Since that meeting we've hired a planning officer to do the work the committee recommended.

MR. GUNO: I thought the minister was going to say more. My question really focused on the research. Does the minister have any idea how much has been allocated in terms of getting some knowledge about what is an earthquake and what does it mean, and how to prepare for earthquakes? That's really the thrust of the question.

HON. MR. REE: We have consulted many earthquake authorities. We've talked to people — particularly in California — who run seismic monitoring stations or who control that federally in Canada. We've talked to others in the United States. All this information is available by delineating where seismic faults are or the potentiality of earthquakes. That is not directly within the mandate of the provincial emergency program. The provincial emergency program is preparedness to respond in the event of earthquakes. We've hired the planning officer to review this research, consider it and come in with recommendations as to what we should be doing in light of all the research and knowledge they have as to potential earthquakes.

MR. GUNO: If there is such research and a report being prepared, I wonder if the minister can inform the House as to the time-line of that particular report. When can we expect it to be tabled? I think the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) said that we can't just dither away and not be ready. If anything, what have we learned in the recent past from the oil spill? I think he pointed out 14 points which you refused to answer. Those 14 points are really an indictment against this government in terms of treating this with such low priority. Can the minister tell us just what the time-line is on this particular report?

HON. MR. REE: For the third or the fourth time, it will be the end of this year, Mr. Member. Mr. Chairman, I get very concerned when the member keeps bringing up the 14 points from the oil spill. That is follow-up material — information garnered

[ Page 7038 ]

by this government through the provincial emergency program.

We have a continuing review and debriefing of any and all emergency events that take place in the province. We do that; we take that information, analyze it and respond to it. We will not respond in a knee-jerk manner as these members expect us to. The opposition.... Well, I think they should go see a medical doctor about their legs, because they're having difficulty.

We will do it in a responsible manner, and that's what we've proposed to do. As I said, on May 11 we had a meeting with our federal people on the oil spill report. That's ongoing. As a result of it, we have further amendments to the 1972 agreement with the state of Washington. We have consulted with the states of Oregon, California and Alaska on oil spills. These are all follow-up to it; we learned lessons from it.

Mr. Chairman, that February 14-point memorandum is owned by the government; it's not the opposition's. It's continuing work by the government.

MR. GUNO: That's a rather curious way of assigning ownership. I think that the owners are the people of British Columbia, whose taxes help pay for the preparation of that report. I think that it's incumbent on the minister to be able to answer very specific questions about those 14 points.

They raise some very valid concerns about the fact that we don't have an action plan in place. It says: "Lessons Learned." I would think that the most logical step after learning your lessons is to start correcting your mistakes. Our question in terms of trying to get detailed answers on those 14 points is to see whether any concrete steps have been taken to put these 14 recommendations in place.

The second part of this meeting which you walked out of, Mr. Minister, is preparedness, and the assessment and reduction of hazards — the first point being education and public information. These programs should be directed to the schools, general public, business organizations and the government. This kind of information package should include earthquake information, earthquake preparedness, procedures, survival skills and family and individual emergency preparedness planning. It also talks about programs developed to exercise emergency plans at all levels of government. These programs should include intergovernmental programs. I'm just wondering if these particular recommendations have been acted on, and whether the budget reflects that particular item.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REE: Yes, some of them have been acted upon. The members of PEP go around to schools. The Ministry of Education is preparing information pamphlets at this time in consultation with PEP. Some of the other recommendations certainly fall within the responsibilities of the planning officer whom we've hired to look at and prepare material. We encourage municipalities to provide their own earthquake response program of education to the public. There have been a number of educational programs provided to community TV, dealing with earthquakes. A great deal of that is being done on an ongoing basis, and it will accelerate as we receive more reports from our planning officer.

MR. GUNO: Another item identified by the subcommittee is the very important area of training. It recommended that a specific training program be developed for emergency response personnel, which should include heavy urban rescue, emergency social services and other programs related to emergency response. I'm just wondering what has been done since the report was tabled in PEP.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, one item is that the Provincial Emergency Program Academy has now been established at the Justice Institute for training volunteers, coordinators and staff for PEP. Heavy response teams are being identified. I was quite pleased yesterday to visit Port Day at the Pacific Marine Training Institute in North Vancouver and watch our North Shore Rescue Team participate with the Coast Guard, St. John Ambulance and a number of volunteer groups, all within the PEP organization and framework, rescuing people in simulated marine accidents. This is all ongoing; these people are there. They hauled simulated injured people out of the water by dropping from a helicopter. These things could take place at the time of any disaster. This is ongoing, and it is excellent.

You've got to understand the broad range and nature of volunteers within the provincial emergency program. As I've told you before — and I'll tell you again, Mr. Member — they cover an extreme range of abilities, skills, training and equipment, in the event of emergencies. It includes people fighting forest fires, people trained in mine disasters, marine rescue, mountain rescue and many others.

MR. GUNO: I understand that you have in place area coordinators whom you depend on to act as a first-line response in any given geographic location. I'm just wondering what sort of training they are getting now and whether they're.... I understand that there was some concern by the subcommittee about the level of training. It's another report; it's actually a report by Boydell. It points out that there is a severe lack of training for these area coordinators. I'm just wondering if anything has improved since this report was tabled.

HON. MR. REE: These coordinators get training in all aspects of rescue, whether it be toxic spill, earthquake, marine disaster to a certain extent or mountain rescue. I was very pleased to talk to the PEP coordinator who coordinated the event at Britannia the other day. It was an excellent job of anticipation and coordination up there. He has the background in chemicals. He's now going to the Pacific Marine Training Institute.

[ Page 7039 ]

They have a great number of skills and knowledge of their local areas. There is ongoing training. As I mentioned the other day, we've had people in Arnprior, Ontario, taking earthquake training at the school there. This is ongoing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GUNO: It's rather interesting to hear that from the minister, because as I mentioned, there were recommendations in the Boydell report — which dealt more or less with transportation of dangerous goods, but I think it applies to just about any emergency areas. It says that many of the area coordinators have no prior knowledge of or expertise in emergency planning. It goes on to say that the overall state of emergency planning in B.C. is so fragmented that such a provincial plan simply does not exist.

I find it hard to accept the minister's easy assurances. Mr. Terry Vaughan-Thomas stressed at that meeting that it was the consensus of the subcommittee that a solid indication of the government's commitment was required prior to continuing with the development of the general strategy and detailed roles necessary for adequate municipal, provincial and federal preparedness. The minister's response, whether by design or not, seems to ignore the fact that these reports — Boydell's report and also the subcommittee's — say differently. There seems to be a real consensus by people who are experts in this field that right now we have inadequate funding and a lack of coordination. Is the minister saying that these people are totally wrong?

HON. MR. REE: I guess it's a fact of life: many times people disagree with other people. I disagree with the comment in the report. I think the training and capabilities of the area coordinators in this province are commendable. I can see a continuing and an upgrading of training; that is always necessary for all of us. I think they're very competent, and we have nothing to be concerned about as far as that is concerned. In fact, one of our coordinators was commended for his participation and advice in the Valdez spill. So I disagree with that part of the report.

MR. G. JANSSEN: First of all, having been back in my constituency over the weekend, I would like to pass on to the minister some information on the storage of goods that doesn't appear in the book that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) brought forward. Tofino presently has 2,000 garbage bags, 200 shovels and 100 coveralls left over from the oil spill. So if another spill happens, you don't have to scramble around, as you did in the last case; you can simply phone up the fire hall. If you so desire, you can phone up Dave LeBlanc and make use of the articles that are there.

In debate on Friday I questioned the minister as to his comments about consulting with local agencies. I asked him if he had consulted with such groups as the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district or the villages of Tofino or Ucluelet, or virtually any other group involved in that oil spill, and he said he had not. Seeing that he has, as he calls it, a sizeable increase in his budget, I wonder whether he plans to initiate some meetings through PEP on the west coast to gather some information that may be helpful if, as some people say, another spill is only a matter of time.

MR. R. FRASER: I've been listening with some interest to the debate on the minister's estimates and in particular have been identifying the thrust of the opposition party when it comes to things like oil spills. Their main agenda seems to be the scrubbing of rocks or the accumulation of garbage bags and gloves and rakes as a sort of reactionary response to oil spills. If we look in the area of the English Channel and others where oil tankers are passing through hourly — there are hundreds a year going through — and where there have been some major oil spills and disasters, they would find there are more proactive ways of getting involved in oil spill cleanups, with the possibility that oil spills will go on for a long time.

One of the methods used in Europe for cleanup is not the accumulation of garbage bags, which, like gloves, degrade and become useless over a period of time in storage, whether it's light or dark, but vessels called hopper dredges. Normally they're used to scoop up sand from river bottoms or whatever; when they fill up, the ship is moved away and the cargo discharged in some manner, whether onshore or off. During an oil spill these vessels are converted into "slick lickers" — that's not the right word, Mr. Chairman — with great pontoon-like extensions on each side that can sweep up the oil lying on the surface. All that pickup is put into the cargo of the ship and taken off, and the oil is discharged before it gets to the shore.

I've been surprised that none of the members of the opposition who have said anything on this particular minister's estimates has said one word about this kind of technology. Instead, they've concentrated on the reactionary things: the use of garbage bags — which are produced by the million and which are easily available — along with gloves and rakes and all those other things. So one presumes they really wanted to delay as opposed to enrich the House with some information.

What they didn't know, and what they should have known, and what the government will know soon if it doesn't know already — and some of the ministers do know, because I've made a point of telling them — is that not too long ago a B.C. company purchased a hopper dredge. That vessel recently came through the Panama Canal and is presently in British Columbia. The company is putting this vessel into use as a hopper dredge working for them on the contract work they do, but they've told me that they're more than prepared to have the vessel converted into an oil-scooping rig on a standby basis. The interesting part about this proposal is that they will be using the dredge in its ordinary capacity unless there is a problem, so there will be no standby

[ Page 7040 ]

time required or standby expenses that the taxpayer will have to endure.

They have said, however, to the government of Canada that in order for them to participate in this program, they wish the federal government to provide them with some money to refit the vessel so that it can be converted into a vessel that can pick oil up off the surface of the ocean. Thus far, I understand, they have had no success with respect to their request, but it appears they have a vessel that is worth between $25 million and $30 million. It also appears that the conversion money they would require is about $2  million to $3 million. It's not definite as far as I know; it may be definite as far as they know.

[3:00]

That's not a large amount of money for the federal government to commit to such a program to protect the British Columbia coast. Therefore I am hoping that when the minister has some information in his hands, which I don't believe he has at the moment, and when he reads the information that I am sure will be provided to him — because this minister hasn't had the chance to see it yet — he will reflect very thoughtfully on what this British Columbia company wants to do. I hope he will be of a mind to encourage the federal government to participate in the conversion of this vessel so that the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon and the province of British Columbia would have at their disposal a vessel that would be an advance pickup instead of waiting for the oil to hit the beach.

It could go up there and do a lot of scooping work and protect the shores and wildlife from the damages of an oil spill. We shall, of course, be waiting anxiously for a federal government decision to come down. In the meantime, I just wanted to advise the opposition members that there are other ways to protect the shores of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska, and that we should all be concentrating on providing ourselves — all of us together — with this new chance.

I suppose there are some who would think that the Jones Act would prevent a Canadian vessel from working in the United States waters. However, I am persuaded that the unrealistic amount of damage that oil spills do to shorelines, environments and wildlife will more than overcome any resistance they might have to inflict the Jones Act upon their own shores, if you want to put it in that light.

I hope the minister will read this information very carefully and consult with his other colleagues, some of whom have it, and as time goes by will provide the opposition with the technology, or at least the information package, and that as a unit this House could prevail upon the federal government to assist this government with finding ways to prevent any further damage from oil spills to the extent possible, and that we can proceed in a more realistic way.

HON. MR. REE: To the member for Alberni, our interministerial committee on the follow-up from the oil spill will be consulting many British Columbians during the course of their studies and learning exercise.

They will, I would imagine — I would ask them to, and certainly would hope that they will — attend to the Tofino area. I know when I was up there I spoke to the mayors of Tofino and Ucluelet and learned from them at the time. I would hope the committee would consult with them the same way.

To the member for Vancouver South, at the meeting on May 11 with the provincial and federal government representatives, a great deal of consideration went to the method of preventing the spread and the method of cleanup of oil or contaminants when they are in the water. A type of skimming vessel is certainly something we would be looking at.

You use a phrase of looking at other ways of protecting our coastline. We did have a proposal some years ago that I think would have gone a long way to protecting our coastline from potential oil tanker spills. That would have been the Mackenzie pipeline, but unfortunately certain groups were adverse to that, feeling it was an environmental hazard. It might be a bit of a hazard, Mr. Chairman, but not nearly as much of a hazard, I think, as some of these large tankers we have coming down the coast.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the fact that after three and a half months he will be consulting with the people who were affected and who were involved in that oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island. They are waiting to give advice on how to clean up the next oil spill when and if it happens.

The member for Atlin was canvassing the minister briefly on the preparedness for earthquakes. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, in 1964, when an earthquake struck Alaska and sent a tsunami down the coast — I think the earthquake occurred on Amchitka Island — it sent a tidal wave that flooded Alberni Inlet. It had a staging effect as it came up the canal. It flooded the mills on the waterfront. It flooded the entire lower Somass River basin, knocking homes off their foundations. Luckily there was no loss of life. Since then, diking has been done in that area to stop any further damage should another tsunami hit or should we have another earthquake.

However, there are still a number of questions in that area because of the design of the canal. If another tsunami were to hit and have that billowing effect up the canal.... The lower Somass River area has only one exit road. There has always been talk about building a second exit, an evacuation road. There has been talk in Alberni about the dangerous goods and chemicals stored in the mills on the waterfront in oil storage facilities. I wonder if the minister has any information on how the provincial emergency program is prepared to deal with another tsunami coming up the canal.

HON. MR. REE: Obviously we are very concerned with the potential damage to the Alberni Canal. I've been down it on the Lady Rose. It's a beautiful, scenic environmental place, and I would hate to see any damage to it. I will certainly see that the earthquake

[ Page 7041 ]

planning officer we have appointed is cognizant of your comments. I also suggest that the member himself could initiate some action within his community and write the planning officer directly with the concerns and potential solutions you might have. I would think that it is an area open to earthquakes from far offshore of our own borders. There is potential for damage there, which other parts of the province would not have, and I think it should be brought to his attention for planning recommendations that he might have.

MR. G. JANSSEN: In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Port Alberni rescue squad, which in 1964 had a facility right on the Somass River — and still has it — had its building knocked off its moorings and swept away, and was therefore unable to be of much help in the 1964 disaster. They have acquired some more equipment over the years and have been looking at relocating. They have been looking to garner more funding — and they do raise the majority of funds themselves — for moving the facility and gathering more equipment to make themselves more prepared to help out a provincial emergency program. Would the minister be agreeable to re-establishing the Port Alberni rescue squad and giving it any additional equipment or training that they may require in order to be more effective in case another tsunami hits?

HON. MR. REE: I don't know whether an application has been submitted to PEP for consideration of what the member is requesting. I would ask him to do so, and certainly such an application would be looked at. There might also be funding somewhere.

Since you're talking about volunteers, I recall twice in the Nanaimo constituency assisting volunteer fire departments to get lottery grants to assist in rebuilding their stations. The then member would tell the fire people that there were no such funds available. I went to bat for the volunteer firefighters and, as I say, was able to get assistance and funding for them. It might be available, too, for your emergency people as a means of obtaining some funding. Maybe the member should seek that course at the same time.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Further to the question of the dangerous goods stored particularly on mill sites in the industrial area along the Alberni Canal in the oil storage facilities.... As the minister is undoubtedly aware, the firefighters' association of British Columbia recently hosted a reception and made a presentation to the members on both sides of the House on the storage and identification of dangerous goods. Under the provincial emergency program, is the minister initiating a report that will identify the various types of chemicals and the various types of dangerous goods that are stored at facilities such as the mills and the storage facilities lining the waterfront, not only at Alberni Canal but throughout the province, so that there is a record and that a proper response can be given if a disaster does strike?

HON. MR. REE: It was just recently that the member said that the firefighters came down and made an excellent presentation to both sides of the House in their offices. I had local people from my constituency come in and talk to me.

Not only the labelling of dangerous goods in stationary buildings but proper labelling as far as transit of dangerous goods is concerned is a very important issue. As far as the buildings are concerned, it falls within the Ministry of Environment. I'm very conscious of what the firemen said. It's an issue that I'm confident the Ministry of Environment will be following up on.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for his comments and his explanations. In the Alberni Canal, there was a false alarm a year ago when there was another earthquake. As a matter of fact, everybody stood down on the canal. We evacuated all the mills. We evacuated all the hotels. Everybody moved up to higher ground and waited for the tidal wave to hit. In fact, there was a small ripple that came up the canal. Jokingly, there was a local friend who had posted a sign on his property on the hill that said: "Waterfront property for sale." However, it did bring the realization that should a disaster hit, should another tidal wave come up that canal.... Admittedly, the one that came up in 1964 was some ten feet or three metres in height and washed away some homes. Luckily there was no loss of life, although there was some injury.

[3:15]

At that time, when that happened, the militia was brought out. I believe it happened on the Easter weekend. They patrolled the streets. There were some emergency shelters brought in by the army. I know it was discounted during the oil spill, but does the provincial emergency program consider bringing in the Armed Forces during the time of such a disaster?

HON. MR. REE: That threat of a possible tsunami coming up and then not materializing was an excellent exercise that we should learn lessons from about evacuation, preparedness and the rest of it. Probably that's something that the area should have once a year, with an alarmist sense, so that people would understand and know what they could do.

With regard to calling in the Armed Forces, they are often called in in the event of emergencies, particularly in a lot of our marine or mountain emergencies where we've lost people or ships. We call in the air force helicopter and what not. We certainly, as the member said, considered it for the Tofino oil spill and judged that it wasn't warranted at that time. But that is always an option. I cannot personally call in the armed services. I must get in touch with the Armed Forces counterpart in Ottawa, who would call them in, I would anticipate, generally upon our recommendations.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Just to move to a different topic here, as a member of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, I am alarmed to hear that at the end of this

[ Page 7042 ]

month there will be a reclassification of motorcycle licensing through his office. The class 6 motorcyclist in British Columbia.... Now, when you rent scooters or vehicles that are under the 49 cc range, what has been the practice in British Columbia — and I'm sure you've seen them out in the streets of Victoria around the parliament buildings — is that if you come from another jurisdiction where licensing is not required to ride those vehicles, you don't require the licensing in British Columbia. I gather it's a reciprocal agreement.

However, the ministry in its wisdom has decided, because of the confusion involved there, that B.C. drivers will also not need class 6 licences to ride those vehicles. Many of those scooters are rented out to teenagers, to groups of schoolchildren, who in fact come in here and drive around having no experience on those vehicles. They are capable of 50 kilometres per hour. Many of those students have accidents. The minister is undoubtedly aware that British Columbia has the highest mortality rate in motorcycle accidents, two per thousand. It is the highest vehicle accident rate with motorcyclists in Canada.

I just wondered: has the minister consulted with anybody before making this recommendation? Has his ministry done a report or a study that led them to the conclusion to allow people to ride these scooters without a class 6 licence?

HON. MR. REE: Traffic safety is a very great concern of mine, and making the roadways safer for users, whether it be cyclists, motorcyclists, auto drivers, passengers or pedestrians is, as I say, a great priority of mine.

At the moment I'm looking at the high numbers of bicyclists and motorcyclists who are injured and killed on the highway each year. With regard to your specific question, I'll bring an answer to you here later today — if not, first thing tomorrow morning.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I hope you do, Mr. Minister, because it is of great concern to the coalition of motorcyclists, as it is to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which has been continually raising premiums to motorcyclists in the province to offset the damage that's done. Even though 85 percent of the accidents are caused by four-wheel vehicles rather than the motorcyclists themselves, it seems that in ICBC’s wisdom the motorcyclist must pay for somebody else's mistakes.

I won't canvass the helmet law at this time, as it would probably take up most of the minister's time remaining in estimates.

However, I do want to reiterate that I think it's a mistake — and I'm sure ICBC and the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists considers it a mistake — to relax the requirements to ride scooters. I'd like to know exactly — and, as the minister said, he will be getting me that information — where this report came from and why no consultation was done with the groups involved.

Again on motorcycles, also a concern to me is the fact that right now in British Columbia — and I'd like to see a resolution to this problem — a young person who is 16 years of age can go down to a motorcycle shop, purchase a motorcycle that has in excess of 160 h.p. or 170 h.p., go to an insurance broker and purchase insurance and registration on that vehicle, go back to the shop he's purchased the motorcycle from and get on it and drive away, never once having to produce a class 6 motorcycle licence or prove that he in fact owns one. My son just recently acquired his licence and his motorcycle licence at the same time.

Many accidents occur with these first-time riders who are unfamiliar with the power of these machines. There is a nickname for them that I won't repeat in this House. But most of the accidents that people suffer — and certainly I was one of them — happen in the first two years of operation of these vehicles. Now that these more powerful, technologically advanced machines are available to young people....

In Japan they've limited the size of motorcycles sold there to 750 cc. Many European countries are moving to a power-to-cc ratio to cut down on these technological wonders that produce these massive amounts of horsepower and maneuverability.

Has the minister considered increasing the restrictions on obtaining licences and making sure that young people who obtain these motorcycles have the proper licensing and training before they get on them? It seems rather amazing to me that you have to be 19 years old in order to drive a vehicle with air brakes and yet you can go out and purchase one of these machines, which I consider more dangerous to the rider and to the public, with virtually no licensing requirements.

HON. MR. REE: I'm quite confident that the member is aware of the restriction on his son getting his licence at the age of 16 for operating a motorcycle and that the member acted responsibly in ensuring his son was adequately and responsibly trained and competent to operate the vehicle before he gave that consent; that he just didn't give that consent because his son requested it. Up to, I think, the age of 18, anybody getting a motorcycle licence must have the consent of their parent.

Certainly we are continuing to look at the feasibility of categorizing the licence by size. At the moment class 6 is for motorcycles. I believe other jurisdictions have a certain limit, as you're suggesting. In Japan you're licensed up to 750 cc, or some sort of thing, and then another licence after that. That is continually being looked at. It has been looked at and turned down, but it's certainly something that the chairman of the traffic safety directorate will be evaluating again.

I actually commend the laws in Japan, although I don't think it's feasible here. I don't think any government could be re-elected if they implemented them. In some ways I would like to see the training required here that is required before you get a licence in Japan, not only for motorcycles but also for motor vehicles, but unfortunately the costs sometimes run to $500, $600 or $700 for an individual just

[ Page 7043 ]

to get the licence. Your annual licences are very expensive to renew, too, in Japan.

With regard to the mopeds and mopeds in and around Victoria, or licensing within the province, there has been no change in the requirement. A class 5 licence entitled you to drive a moped in the past, and I guess the only change now is that we've extended it to the loped at the same time.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to ask the minister how he came to that conclusion. Was a study done? Was a report done? Why was that decision made? The B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists has been asking the ministry and ICBC to consult with them. If the minister is not aware of it, they will be here tomorrow taking various members from both caucuses and the media on a motorcycle ride, and presenting some information to both caucuses that hopefully will be taken into consideration. I just wonder why the decision was made through the minister's office to reduce the classification.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that the decision with respect to the single licence, regardless of the weight of the motorcycle, is basically common across Canada. It is a common decision in most of the jurisdictions in Canada. Four years ago we embarked upon requiring more thorough training for the motorcycle licence — the class 6 licence — and that is the reason they went into the single licence at that time. But the motorcyclist requires more training now to get his licence than he did four years ago.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm aware of that, but I consider, as do other people in British Columbia, that motor scooters.... Certainly in the report on the radio, the police officer In charge of traffic in the city of Victoria thought that was a wrong decision. He cited a number of accidents that have involved rented scooters in Victoria, and one serious one.

To simply say that this seems to be the case in the rest of Canada, and therefore we're going along with that decision.... I think the minister or the ministry he represents should have relied on a study or some reports or some input, if not from the British Columbia motorcycle association coalition, from ICBC; or perhaps by getting the law enforcement officers involved in giving some direction to the ministry. I think it's the wrong decision; there are other people who think it's the wrong decision. I wonder if the minister would consider looking into the matter and basing his ministry's decision on some solid facts, not just on the fact that everybody else is doing it, so why don't we.

The question, Mr. Minister, is: would you consider initiating a study so that you could have some facts to back up your decision, not simply the fact that, well, everybody else in Canada is doing it, so why don't we.

HON. MR. REE: I've already answered the question, Mr. Chairman. I told the member that it would be referred to the chairman of the traffic safety directorate for consideration. I told him earlier that we would look at it. If the member would listen, he wouldn't take up the time of this House by repeating questions he's already got the answers to.

MR. ROSE: I don't like to see the Solicitor-General, normally a very tranquil person, get himself all excited like this. It's not good for his health. I know he smokes cigarettes; as a personal remark, he shouldn't do that. It's not good for his blood pressure. After dealing with a few questions from the member for Alberni on this highly technical subject, he may want a short adjournment while he goes out for some warm milk and cookies. I'd be willing to sit down for five minutes and give him that opportunity.

[3:30]

However, I don't have the technical background of my hon. friend in these matters, since I've never been a biker — which I think applies to most of us here — but I was a little bit surprised to hear the minister say that he couldn't bring in certain kinds of regulations because no government could be re-elected if it did that. I don't think that's a basis, really.... I know we all respond to the popular will, and that's called democracy. But if something needs to be done, I think we have to be courageous about it. I think the minister has been courageous in other areas. I recommend that he give this suggestion serious study, because most of us simply don't have the background.

I'm basing my information on I don't know how many minutes' study, but not very many. I'm reading here a letter to the minister of September 9, 1988, having to do with ATVs, off-road vehicles — sometimes three-wheeled or four-wheeled — dirt bikes and snowmobiles. They cause a lot of injury as well, and a lot of accidents. Usually there's no insurance on them, they're not registered and they're driven by juveniles of varying ages. So I wonder if the minister.... I could ask some specific questions. This letter that I have here in my hand comes from the spinal cord injury prevention program. It's a pretty desolate feeling, I imagine, if you wake up some day and find out that you're going to be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. I haven't had to face that, but some people in this House have, and we all know Rick Hansen. Neither of these cases I mentioned were injured by off-road or ATVs, but certainly they were injured as a result of spinal cord injuries, and there's tremendous cost to themselves and to society because of it.

Rather than my asking specific questions, I wonder if the minister would care to indicate how he has responded to their representation. They've called for a number of things. If he would like me to refresh his mind on what they've called for, I'll do it. They've called for legislation to make mandatory the following: use of approved helmets by all vehicle operators; proof of third-party liability and personal no-fault insurance — that's pretty important, where snowmobiles are operating in areas occupied by cross-country skiers. There's the vehicle registration of the ATVs, both three-wheeled and four-wheeled — as a

[ Page 7044 ]

matter of fact, I think they've banned the three-wheeled kinds in certain American states, because of the numbers of injuries there. And there's operator licensing so that you're sure you have some control over the age limit and the maturity of the person using them. I recently saw a horrible film done by an amateur-photographer father of his son getting run over by one of these ATVs; he just bounced off it.

In addition to this, the spinal cord injury people, and obviously they're dealing with it.... They're a stellar group, incidentally; I'll give you some names in a moment, but it interrupts my flow here. Use of off-road vehicles by children under 14 years of age Use of off-road vehicles carrying passengers, except where a vehicle has been designed for that use — most of these are single-rider vehicles. And the operation of vehicles while impaired — which is obvious, whether you're talking about boats, snowmobiles, ATVs or automobiles.

Some of the people who are involved in this representation come from G.F. Strong, the School of Nursing, Western Rehab, MADD, the paraplegic association, the Coalition of the Disabled, the Royal Life Saving Society, University Hospital, the Head Injury Association, Ski West, the acute spinal cord injury unit of University Hospital, and a number of others, mainly doctors.

I wonder if the minister would care to respond and let me know what consideration and progress he has made since September '88 in addressing their representation.

HON. MR. REE: It was an excellent representation that was made by these people, dealing with a problem which is very serious and which a great number of people have sincere thoughts on. At the moment, it is under very active consideration. Primarily it's under the Ministry of Environment, but there's a joint committee between Environment, ICBC and my ministry, under the superintendent of motor vehicles.

By the way, I should introduce to the House — I think you've probably all met him at one time or another — Keith Jackman, the superintendent of motor vehicles in the province, who is here to assist today.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As the member is well aware, it's a difficult problem to address, because off-road vehicles or ATVs run the gamut from the actual bicycle to powered vehicles, in essence. I have some concerns, in that a constituent of mine recently had her children run down by some people with bicycles. Just how far and how extensively do we go into licensing, insuring and training of people who operate them. You know, you learn to ride a bicycle at six years or five years of age, or four years of age in certain cases. Do we license these people? Do we license the bicycle itself? So to what extent would one go on this? But I certainly think, when it comes down to the powered vehicles, those that are operating by motor or other than by human energy, that something should be done, because they can create a great deal of injury.

You mentioned helmets. Certainly I'm a supporter of helmets for any open-vehicle operation. I think bicycle riders should wear helmets. I had the unfortunate incident of seeing my son, who had been riding a bicycle, have a car turn right in front of him, and he went head over heels over the hood and down face forward onto the pavement. I think he should have been wearing a helmet; it would not have been nearly as serious had he been. Fortunately he had no internal injuries. He had cosmetic damages; he was not as good-looking when he was finished.

Third-party liability, yes. No-fault insurance: I have a personal feeling on that. On these items you're going down, I have been personally averse to moving towards no-fault through ICBC. I believe in the third-party liability basis. I found that that no-fault type of coverage was going to indicate that if you were riding a bicycle and you ran into a moving car or a stationary car — as long as you ran into a motor vehicle — the no-fault would have covered you. But if you were riding a bicycle in the same manner and you ran into a telephone pole, you wouldn't get any coverage. You only got coverage because you ran into a car. To me, if you're going to extend no-fault, it should be in all walks of life, not just restricted to motor vehicles or ATVs.

Vehicle registration, yes. You indicated that certain jurisdictions have outlawed the three-wheeled type of vehicle. I'm told that these are not prevalent — they're not being manufactured anymore — because of the representation by licensing authorities and insurance companies in North America, which B.C. was part of.

Driver's licences and driver training are good things that certainly should be looked at towards any legislation that's brought in. Age of operators: I know that a lot of people object to 16 as being too young for a motor vehicle driver's licence. I don't object to that; I got my licence at 15 and thought I was quite competent. As for what age you should be on a snowmobile, I haven't got the slightest Idea at this point.

I trust that has some answers for the member.

MR. ROSE: I won't pursue this much longer. I would just like to clarify that I wasn't speaking about pedalled vehicles or scooters or roller-skates or anything like that. There might be some suggestion that skateboards might well fall under the helmeted class as well. Again, as that other side of the House is prone to say, you can't regulate everything, and I think that's true.

The three-wheeled vehicles have been withdrawn because they were just unacceptable. The industry didn't withdraw them voluntarily, and there are no safety standards — or traditionally there haven't been. The industry wanted to police itself, but it wasn't until jurisdictions of government got involved in it that there was some action.

Just before I leave this topic, I would like to find out from the minister what progress is being made,

[ Page 7045 ]

what he is considering. Certainly we would look forward to some kind of time-frame. Then I want to move briefly to another topic to do with motor vehicles, and then I'll yield the floor to somebody else.

HON. MR REE: I regret I can't give a time-frame, except to assure the member, since we're talking legislation — it may be a little bit out of order here in the estimates — that no legislation is coming forth this session.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Since we have the superintendent of motor vehicles here, I would like to ask a question that perhaps he might be able to assist us on. I've been here now for six years, and I find myself making the same old speeches; this is another of my favourites. I sometimes ask the Minister of Highways — who was the appropriate minister at one time and may not be now — about this business of the kids lying on their bellies in campers on the cab, looking out the window, waiting for that camper to hit something, when they become projectiles. To me, this is a scandalously dangerous operation.

If you can require a baby to have a car seat for its own safety because the parents don't realize the power of mass and energy and movement, then certainly this is also true about campers. I know that people can't have a lot of vehicles, and if they have a large family there's not a lot of room and the kids like to look out the window when they're traveling. But this is scandalously dangerous and something's got to be done about it. I know there have already been many injuries and deaths as a result of this. I'd like to see something forbidding children — or adults, for that matter; persons — from lying down and looking out the window of a cab-over camper while the vehicle is moving.

HON. MR. REE: This is certainly a subject that will be considered for legislation next year, not this session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the minister that he's out of order. We may not discuss matters of legislation.

MR ROSE: I'm really pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you've admonished the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I wouldn't miss a chance.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure he will accept your discipline in the spirit in which it was given.

Another of my favourite speeches is the policing of Belcarra. Belcarra — and/or White Pine Beach, its contiguous neighbour — is a small municipality with tremendous traffic and a lot of visitors. Some 300,000 cars visit Belcarra Park and White Pine Beach every year, and it's growing. But each and every year the policing is being diminished. It's needed essentially on weekends.

I have a letter here that you sent to me: "Thank you for your letter dated January 24, 1989, regarding the delivery of police services to the Belcarra area. As you are by now aware.... I have written (copy to you and to Mayor Drew) in response to his letter dated January 13, 1989, regarding this matter...." A copy of the letter is attached.

[3:45]

Essentially, what it says here is that the extra policing, the supernumerary special constable program, has been withdrawn; by whom, I don't know, but it's been withdrawn. There's some chance that there might be an alternative. I would like the minister to comment on that and whether, since he wrote me this letter on March 8, there has been anything firm dealing with that area and what the minister intends to do about that in terms of providing this another way, rather than the way that has been done through supernumeraries. Just the extra allocation of police to direct traffic would be greatly appreciated.

HON. MR. REE: I have been very sympathetic to the requests, because Belcarra is an enjoyable area which draws people from the whole lower mainland. Unfortunately, in the early evening hours and sometimes in the late hours there are a number of people who abuse the privilege of the facility out there. We had two additional constables last year — a regular member and a supernumerary. I am not too sure whether it will be auxiliaries or regular constables this year, but there will be three additional people — which includes that, too, in a sense — available for the summer period for Belcarra. That would be an increase in manpower for the area.

MR. ROSE: I appreciate that. It's not just Belcarra itself; the contiguous municipalities, such as Port Moody, are also interested in this.

I have a final question on another subject. The other day in the House I asked the minister when the next annual report of the Racing Commission was going to be tabled, because the last evidence I have — the tabling of an annual report of an $11 million industry — was something like '83. I wonder when the next one is going to be tabled. I am not saying it hasn't been tabled. I don't know of it, and people who have been looking into the matter in the library can't find it. I would like the minister to say why this commission has not been reporting regularly, since it's a public commission. It deals with megabucks and public funds. Why isn't it reporting to the people?

HON. MR. REE: We hope that the first annual report of the Solicitor-General's office will be completed this fall. The Racing Commission report would be part of that annual report and should be available for the member. I believe the legislation says it may be tabled, but it is not obligatory to table the Racing Commission report.

[ Page 7046 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to revisit a topic that we dealt with on Friday; namely, the oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I want to ask the minister some further questions.

On Friday I pointed out to the minister 14 recommendations that had been made — or 14 lessons that had been learned by his people — on which, of course, the minister has now indicated there has been no action. This is a debate that took place on Friday, and I don't want to repeat my frustration with that. One of the things that was missing from there was the development of a manual to deal with oil spills. It seems like a good idea. Could the minister advise whether that is being actively considered by his department?

HON. MR. REE: I am not too sure whether the member is talking about a pocketbook-type of manual that people can carry around in their coat pocket or not; but I doubt if a manual on oil spills would, if it were comprehensive, fit in any coat pocket. I would think it would have to be a fairly extensive one. As far as planning for oil spills is concerned, what you do will depend on the area in which the spill occurs, the size of the spill, the equipment available, what manpower is available, what people should or should not be doing, the depth of the water, the nature of the oil and all of these sorts of things. A pocket-sized manual — the law of torts in a nutshell, which the member probably had in school — would not be available when it comes to oil spills.

MR. SIHOTA: I wasn't thinking of something that every volunteer could carry on a beach — some sort of handy-dandy manual — just a book to delineate areas of responsibility, to talk about who is in charge to deal with jurisdictional matters, to have a catalogue of where material is available and that kind of thing.

HON. MR. REE: This is what we are trying to get from part of our studies — if I were in the army, I'd call it the war plan — on what we'd do in the event of disasters. Certainly the telephone operators at the emergency response area have a manual telling them who to contact at the time of a phone call, depending on the nature of the phone call and so on. I can see there is certainly merit to what the member is talking about.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to let the minister know that there was a manual in place to deal with this last oil spill. It was developed in 1984. It was developed by the former coordinator of toxic spills, which is a position that had been created within government. It's a position that was cut back; it's been eliminated The individual has never been replaced. The entire manual is who knows where in terms of dealing with oil spill concerns. It was there when PEP was under the Ministry of Environment. First of all, I want to know from the minister why that manual — which would have avoided many of the delays and problems that we saw during the oil spill — just sat on the shelf during the course of the oil spill.

HON. MR. REE: There are, in essence, manuals available. Planning has been done and program responsibility has been set out, depending on the nature of the spills. With regard to toxic spills, oil spills and movement of dangerous goods, there is far more intensive planning now than there was in 1984 by this government, which continues to look at these things — being environmentally concerned. With the motor vehicle department, Environment and Transportation, this is going on all the time, Mr. Member. We are upgrading our response planning and programming for any emergency event. I mentioned that earlier. It's still going on.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister is: why was this manual — which had been developed for this very disaster, which delineated responsibilities among various ministries and which provided information on how to best tackle this oil spill — not utilized?

HON. MR. REE: We have programs and planning that did go on at the oil spill. The responsibility was clear; it was the Coast Guard's responsibility as far as the oil spill was concerned.

We put in the provincial coordinator for PEP. He knew his responsibilities and what part he played in the cleanup there. This was in place, Mr. Member. That's why it worked as well as it did. We had people on the ground within hours of that spill coming ashore. As far as the provincial side was concerned, it was an excellent exercise. I don't know why the opposition continues to knock the job that was done by many people in British Columbia in cleaning up that spill.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that an excellent job was done by his people with respect to the oil spill. The minister would have us believe that everything went off just perfectly, that there were no problems whatsoever and that they did a first-class job in handling the oil spill.

I have before me the minutes of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee of February 9, 1989. They deal with the west coast oil spill, which the minister says that from his and the province's point of view they did perfectly on.

Let me read the minutes for the minister, and let's juxtapose that with the minister suggesting that everything was done well. They say:

"Following general discussion, agreement was reached on the following major recommendations: (1) a requirement exists to determine what the coordinated provincial response will be for any disaster or large-scale emergency; (2) as a result of the general feeling that at cabinet level there was a lack of realization of the critical provincial response and coordination problem, it was agreed that a cabinet committee was required to determine government policy and direction for coordinated provincial re-

[ Page 7047 ]

sponse to any given emergency" — dealing with oil spills.

The minister tells us in this House that the response was excellent. His officials, in the minutes, tell us that a requirement exists to determine what the provincial response will be for a disaster of this type. The minutes tell us there was a general feeling of a lack of any coordination at the provincial level.

All along, your people had a 1984 manual that told you how to deal with the situation. You had a 1972 agreement with Washington State in place....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, you are holding me up.

You had a 1972 agreement in place with Washington State to deal with it. I won't belabour the point, as I raised it on Friday, but I want to know.... From this minister's budget this year, it seems to me that one of the things that's missing is an individual to coordinate the matter of spills and toxic dangers. You used to have a coordinator who arranged courses across the province on oil spills and other toxic matters. I want to know from the minister whether in this year's budget, after having cut this position in 1984, the government is reinstating that position.

HON. MR. REE: No, Mr. Chairman, we're not reinstating the position, but we have nine specialists, regional coordinators, in the province to coordinate disasters that take place within their region. We can also bring in ones from other regions to assist and back up a regional coordinator. Nine is better than one, Mr. Member.

[4:00]

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I haven't looked to see what you had in '84, from which you cut back, but I think you had one person quarterbacking those nine. What you've got now is a team out there without a quarterback. The absence of the quarterback certainly became evident during the course of the west coast oil spill. My suggestion to the minister is that perhaps he should take a look at the redeployment of someone in that job.

One of the things that used to happen in that job, of course, is oil spill courses. Could the minister tell us what provision is made in his budget this year in terms of courses to train people to deal with oil spills?

HON. MR. REE: We have developed a PEP academy at the Justice Institute for training regional coordinators and volunteers, and for continually up training all people, whether it be for oil spills, earthquakes, mountain rescue or marine rescue. PEP is continuing that, as I've advised before.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of this year's experience with the oil spill, could the minister tell me how many courses the province will be offering in terms of oil spill management?

HON. MR. REE: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not in a position to set out the complete agenda of each and every course we will be making available to people who come down for emergency response. Sometimes in training for one thing in emergency response, they are learning another, and that has to be considered at the time of the courses. I don't have at my fingertips the hours of training for each and every course at the Justice Institute in a 12-month period.

MR. SIHOTA: It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because my information is that very little is happening in terms of oil spill training. On the heels of a major oil spill; with all the chatter from the government about its concern for the environment; after the Premier's celebrated trip to Alaska; after all of the debates with Washington State; after all of the accolades — until we got into this debate — for all of the volunteers that worked down there, you would think that the government would have some expertise, you would think that the government would recognize that it lacked expertise during the course of the oil spill, and you would think that it would now begin to provide courses for individuals with respect to oil spills.

This year, in a draft submission to cabinet, this matter was raised. Let me quote from one of the points in that draft submission, which has now been provided to me:

"The Emergency Program Act designates considerable authority to the director of the provincial emergency program upon declaration of an emergency, and the civil emergency planning regulations stipulate the emergency planning and preparation required of all ministries and Crown corporations." This is what I want to emphasize: "However, no adequate means exist to accomplish the extensive provincial planning, exercising, training, testing and public awareness programs vital for preparation for the range of natural and commercial hazards for which the government must be prepared."

When you think about it, that's a fairly devastating comment by the government's own officials. I don't know if this submission has ever made its way to cabinet. As I say, I've got the draft of it, and maybe through some fear, the officials decided to take that quote out, but at one point they felt strongly enough to put it in. Could the minister tell us what specific steps his ministry is taking this year to deal with training, testing and public awareness programs for oil spills, as identified by his officials, or is it true what they're saying, that the program is inadequate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt seems to be exercised, but the Chair has no choice but to respond to whichever member is standing. The only member standing was the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Mr. Mercier). I recognized him, he failed to respond, and now the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) wishes to speak.

MR. PETERSON: I'd like to canvass the minister about the horse-racing industry in British Columbia,

[ Page 7048 ]

and on behalf of my constituents, some of the concerns they have expressed, the needs of the industry and what kind of commitment the minister may be able to give us.

I realize the minister has some urgent business he must attend to, so while he's attending to it, I'll talk a bit about the horse-racing industry. But I wish he would attend to it very quickly, because I wasn't intending to stand here all day.

However, let me carry on. First of all, let me talk a bit about Langley and the large and small acreages of standardbred and thoroughbred horse breeders in the area, who are very concerned about the direction the horse-racing industry in British Columbia is headed. Their concerns are — particularly with the thoroughbred industry — the lack of an adequate facility in the lower mainland, and because of that lack, the inability to attract top-notch horses. This results in the good horses going south of the border and the calibre of racing here perhaps deteriorating, making it very difficult for the business to be a viable, economic driver in terms of each individual breeder. The horse-racing industry is not only a form of leisure and entertainment; it's a way of life for many people, and it employs a lot of people. I don't have the figures in front of me, because I didn't intend to stand up here and talk for a long period of time, but the minister probably has them readily available.

In the Langley area there are many small acreages locked in the agricultural land reserve that are not really viable for any farming other than the raising of horses and things like that, and these small operations can utilize that land. It's a good lifestyle and the people really enjoy doing it, but there's no economic return. It seems that the bottom line is that in order to supply that economic return, we need a first-class facility in the province.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: The member opposite says Colony Farm. I don't really care where the facility goes as long as it meets the needs of the industry, so that the industry can develop, flourish and reach its fullest potential in this province.

My understanding is that we are now awaiting Vancouver city council's reply relative to the PNE site. If that site can adequately house what is required by the industry, fair enough; but if they're not prepared to provide the property needed to put up a first-class facility, then it shouldn't go there. I'm not an expert on that; I don't really know. All I know is that we need the facility.

I'm certainly glad to see that the minister has returned from attending to that urgent business. Perhaps now that he's relaxed, he could answer a few questions. First of all, can you tell me exactly when you expect to be able to announce something concrete, so that the horse-racing industry in this province can have some guidelines that they can make some plans on? Right now everything seems to be in the air. I just wonder if you could give us sort of a time-frame — I realize you can't put it into exact dates — of what you intend to do.

The second and most important question probably is this: will you guarantee that we will attempt to provide a first-class facility that will meet all the needs of the racing industry in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, the questions are fairly extensive. As to providing all of the needs of the racing industry, I don't know whether all needs can be provided. It is certainly the intent of this government to facilitate a first-class track within the province and in the lower mainland by the time the present lease to the existing Jockey Club in Hastings Park expires in 1994, and that there should not be any lost days of racing within the province.

I appreciate the member's concerns, coming from Langley, because that is an area of the province which is very active in the breeding, training, raising, running and owning of horses. It contributes to the horse-racing industry — not just the racing but the whole industry, agriculturally. It contributes many dollars to the economic benefit of the province and is a very important part of the agricultural economy of this province. The government is very conscious and cognizant of that, Mr. Chairman, and we'll do whatever we can to protect that.

There is definitely the need for not a world-class but a first-class track. I classify the definition of a first-class track as a track of a mile length with a standard configuration of approximately two and a half to one. It also should have the facility or the capability of a turf track at the same time. It should have a minimum of 1,400 to 1,500 stalls and, I would think, a grandstand of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people.

We have asked the city of Vancouver to consider whether they would accept a first-class track in the Hastings Park area. I honestly believe that such a track can be constructed and operated at that location. The city of Vancouver has been having some community hearings recently to get feedback from residents. To date it has not been supportive of the idea, from what I understand. I understand that they still have a further hearing.

I think part of the reason is that in the proposal for a first-class racetrack at Hastings Park, a large number of people do not appreciate the extensive area within the track itself, what we might call the inner track, which could accommodate a large community park facility and area, amenities for the people, playgrounds for children, picnic areas, and what not in a racetrack of that size. It would provide the people in Vancouver East and the western part of North Burnaby with a tremendous facility, and I think they should encourage it. The racetrack itself can help substantially in the cost of providing such a park for the people, if they would look at it from that point of view.

[4:15]

I would envisage, if the track was built there, that there would be tunnels under the track with free

[ Page 7049 ]

admission to the centre, the inner field of the racetrack. There should be concessions, possibly, available to the people in there. Some people would say that that would block your view, but I don't think concessions would block your view any more than the present tote board at a racetrack that you see.

MR. ROSE: Where is this racetrack?

HON. MR. REE: This could be in Hastings Park. I think it would be an excellent location for a racetrack — and satisfy your constituents, Mr. Member, through the Chairman — and it could be constructed within the time-frame so that we would not lose any racing days when the present lease to the Jockey Club expires in 1994.

We would put it out for proposals, expressions of interest from somebody to build and operate the track. We would certainly look into their background, their financial responsibility, and the plans that they would have with respect to the timetable of construction. All of these would be looked at in a businesslike manner. I would hope that that might alleviate some of your fears.

Unfortunately, if the city of Vancouver comes back and says no, they do not want a racetrack in Hastings Park, then we have to look at alternative locations. But certainly there should be a location in the lower mainland. I know that a number of members of this House, Mr. Chairman, would be averse to one area versus another because of some interests in their constituencies, but we would certainly try and locate an area which would be amenable and possibly successful as a racetrack.

We in the government do not wish to own a racetrack. We don't wish a racetrack built that would obviously fail and not provide the facilities needed by the people in the industry. So it's going to take some time. I cannot state a definite date. If the city of Vancouver comes back and says, "Yes, we would like one at Hastings Park, " our decision-making might take less time than if we have to locate it elsewhere.

MR. PETERSON: I have a couple more questions to the minister. Thank you for your reply. As I said in my opening remarks — perhaps you didn't hear because you were busy doing other things — my concern is not where it's located. My concern is that we have an adequate facility that meets the demands of the horse-racing industry and will give it the opportunity to meet its fullest potential in this province.

You mentioned the one-mile track, Mr. Minister, but you didn't talk about a turf track or a training track. It's my understanding that the industry feels that's one of the necessities. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I would like your views on that. Then I have one more question following that.

HON. MR. REE: I did mention that it would be in the proposal requirements that it not only be a one-mile track of the standard configuration, but it would also be able to facilitate a turf track. If I didn't,

I apologize, but I thought I did. I know I mentioned that in the House as late as last Friday.

With regard to the training track, the track itself could be used to a certain extent for training. But training can also be in a location other than where the racetrack is. Regretfully, I don't think a separate training track would be feasible at the Hastings Park site. It might be at other locations, or other locations might have the main track with a training track elsewhere, as we have at present.

MR. PETERSON: I'd like to thank the minister. I have one more question. What is the ministry doing in terms of looking at the concept of teletheatre betting, and what is its opinion of that? I am told, through relatively reliable sources, that it has been very successful south of the border. It certainly would contribute significantly to increasing the handle in British Columbia, thereby returning a bigger share both to the breeders, the racing industry and, of course, government. We mustn't forget that we do take our little piece of that action, and any time we can increase it, fair enough. I wonder if the minister could give me an overview of his ministry's ideas on the possibilities of teletheatre betting in the province.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, teletheatre betting certainly is becoming the in thing for the horse-racing industry in the United States and in due course in Canada. The federal government has recently passed Bill C-7 — I don't think it has been proclaimed yet, but it has passed the federal Parliament — which provides for teletheatre betting under the auspices of the Criminal Code. One of the restrictions of that bill is that it does not provide for third-party participation in the teletheatre betting as such, and it is restrictive from that point of view.

But I honestly believe that teletheatre betting may be the survival of the horse-racing industry. Teletheatre betting, if it is implemented responsibly in the province, could add at least an extra 15 percent to the handle, and that could make or break a new facility if we did not have it. It could make the facility if we did have it. I would foresee teletheatre betting being blacked out within the immediate vicinity of a racetrack, so that the live audience will attend at the racetrack rather than participate in their gaming through teletheatre betting. But if the racing is at Hastings Park, I would see teletheatre betting facilities being made available in Victoria, Prince George, Fort St. John, Kelowna or Penticton. I would like to see these facilities be of high quality with maybe a good-class restaurant, where the patrons can come in to enjoy their dinner and attend the races at the restaurant at the same time. That would be my vision of the participation in teletheatre betting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: The member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Rose) said "off-track betting." Maybe it is off-track betting, but certainly not in the view or perception we might have had of off-track betting

[ Page 7050 ]

parlours under.... What was the actor who recently...? I'm trying to think.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's falling apart now. Let's try to address the Chair.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I gather the members across the way don't include movie theatres as part of their entertainment. I'm trying to think of a type of betting establishment seen in New York. We don't look at off-track betting in that aspect; we feel that there should be other amenities with the betting location.

MR. PETERSON: I know the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is very anxious to carry on with his deliberations. He must have a very important appointment in his law office or something that he wants to get to. I'll be as quick as I can so he can get up.

I just want to thank the minister for his forthright answers. I will close by saying that while I don't believe in making decisions in haste, the clock is running, and there is some urgency to come up with some decisive action so that we can save and indeed enhance the horse-racing industry in British Columbia. I really would encourage him to do so as quickly as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member would like to review standing order 42.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me say this to the member for Langley. At least I've got another job to go to, unlike the member for Langley.

I want to ask the minister this question.

Interjections.

MR SIHOTA: If my own members would stop heckling me, I could probably get to the point.

I quoted the draft submission to cabinet on the oil spill, and I brought to the minister's attention the following. I'll quote it again to refresh his memory: "However, no adequate means exist to accomplish the extensive provincial planning, exercising, training, testing and public awareness programs vital for preparation for the range of natural and commercial hazards for which the government must be prepared."

That's what your own officials tell you, Mr. Minister. I want to know what provision exists in your budget this year to deal with those issues — training, testing and public awareness — in relation to an oil spill. What provisions have you made to deal with those gaps that your officials see as existing within your ministry?

HON. MR. REE: I think the member is a little bit incorrect in his nomenclature with respect to the document, Mr. Chairman. It's not a draft submission to cabinet; it's an in-house document as a result of the oil spill.

The largest percentage of dollars within the allotment for PEP is for training.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, in light of the oil spill this year, and in light of everything that transpired on the west coast, it seems to me that the government would be taking special initiatives to make sure that if we were to have another unfortunate incident, there would be funding in place to train people to deal with such an eventuality.

One thing we all learned on the west coast as a consequence of the last oil spill was how vulnerable we are. We all took for granted — I know I did — the splendid beauty we have here along our coastline. You kind of think about the day you keep putting off when you take your own kids down there to show them some of these beaches. It turns out, of course, that you had always taken it for granted, you're hit with an oil spill and you recognize how vulnerable you are. That shakes you. I want some comfort from the minister that steps are being taken to adequately prepare and train people to deal with oil spills. I don't think that's asking for much in light of what's happened, unless, of course, the government is betting that we don't see an oil spill for some time and has chosen....

With respect to an oil spill, Mr. Minister, my question to you is: what provisions have you made in your budget for these gaps which your officials identified, particularly in terms of training, public awareness and testing? Are you telling me that there is little, if anything, in this year's budget for training of volunteers in those areas?

Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought you had finished your remarks, but if you're still standing, continue.

MR. SIHOTA: I had, but I didn't see the minister get up.

I'll ask the minister again, if he didn't hear me. Are you telling me that there is little or no money allocated this year for training, public awareness and testing for oil spills? If there is money allocated in those areas, could you please tell us how much?

[4:30]

HON. MR. REE: There's a considerable amount of training being conducted and planned. I believe the member was here last Thursday and Friday; we discussed it at that time. I think we're getting into a lot of repetition of questioning here.

With earthquakes, there's a plan for the end of the year. We've indicated that as a result of the document of February 9 — I think that's what you're talking about: the debriefing report from PEP, the interministerial thing — meetings are being held in Ottawa as of May 11. We will be consulting with people. Training is going to be conducted at the Justice Institute. This is an ongoing thing. I will continue to sit on continuing questions.

[ Page 7051 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: It's getting painful. The minister has one, two, three officials from his department sitting there. I just want to know how much money. I don't have the breakdown of your budget here. In relation to an oil spill, I want to know how much money the province is allocating to train people on these pivotal areas of oil-spill management. I don't think it's a skill-testing question. I don't think it's a difficult question. How many courses on oil-spill training are you going to be offering to those people this year — one a month, one a week? Is it in Vancouver? Is it on the coast?

I want to be assured by the minister, as do a lot of people on Vancouver Island, that this government, in light of its experience with the oil spill on the west coast, has allocated funds to make sure that if it happens again, people are going to be trained and educated to deal with the eventuality. I didn't expect to get into any great tirade; I thought it was a simple matter of asking the minister. Is it that your ministry doesn't develop its budgets that way? If that's it, let's hear it. That will invite, I guess, a different set of questions. Is it just lost in one global budget such that you can't tell us? If you can't, then will you agree to break it down and get back to us later on during the course of these estimates?

I take it that the purpose of having these debates is to get some grip on what type of financial resources are being allocated to see if there's any meaning, any substance, to the words and all of the good things that the government keeps saying it's going to do about oil spills. I just want to know how much money is being allocated to courses, and how many courses. I don't think it's that difficult.

HON. MR. REE: I'll undertake to give you information in writing as to the moneys allocated for courses and the number of courses. I cannot break it down as to which ones are oil-related versus earthquake-related versus any other emergency-related type, because some of the training is common to all; so it's difficult to break it down that way. I think the member would have understood that before he asked the question.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister, first of all, for his response. I look forward to his reacting to that undertaking.

Let me come at it from a different angle. Again, if the minister wants to take it on notice, I'll be happy to do that and wait for a written reply from him. In relation to oil spills, what additional measures is the government taking this year in terms of training and public awareness which weren't in place last year? This is an opportunity for the minister to give us some good news, to tell us what his government has done in light of that experience. Just tell us what you've started to do.

HON. MR. REE: The writing will compare this year's against last year's.

MR. SIHOTA: The letter he's going to write to me will give me the comparison between this year and last year? Okay, that's fair enough. I'll wait for that information.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to make a few remarks of a general nature, so I'll be departing from the sacred subject of oil. I'm going to speak about some of the areas that are under this ministry, but I think I would be remiss if I didn't repeat my concern, which I expressed publicly last year, that it has been necessary to create a separate ministry to deal with these functions. I believe it was a very good idea to remove gaming from the justice portfolio. I never took comfort in having gaming under justice. I think that was very good. But I have continuing concerns that creating a separate ministry which must interface all the time with the other justice ministry in areas such as victims' programs, youth gang activities, and in all prosecutions and police investigations, was an unnecessary thing to do. Despite the fact that it has some historic precedent across the country, having two sets of bureaucracy does not make it any more effective, efficient or easy in this province to catch criminals and put them away.

Having said that, I'm going to move on so the minister doesn't have to fulminate in response to that. That is my opinion and I have said that before publicly.

On a happier note, I have no hesitation in saying that the people that work in the various branches of this ministry are absolutely A-1 dedicated public servants, and they do a super job.

I want to say a word about somebody who used to work in this ministry and who took early retirement: a very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Robin Bourne. Mr. Bourne decided to leave government service, and I believe that was entirely a personal, family-related decision. He had a very distinguished career with us. He came here in 1981 and was for many years the assistant deputy minister of police services. But that was not just his career; his career as a federal public servant saw him do the same job in the federal government. Robin Bourne was the Deputy Solicitor General of Canada from 1972 to 1979. He also served in relation to the McDonald inquiry; he was on the Morand commission for RCMP discipline and grievance procedures.

He, perhaps more than any, knew the difficulties in Canada that are attendant on running a police force and a security service together. He had all those very tumultuous and bad experiences through his life, with the barn burning and the other things that embroiled the security service in so much debate and ultimately led to a decision to separate the security service from the RCMP Police — a decision which I think was not a good decision. This government, when I was Attorney-General, went to Ottawa and appeared before parliamentary committees — Senate committees and so on — and pointed out that the problem was that the security force needed to be cleaned up, not made a new and separate monster, and it could be done within the RCMP. Robin Bourne

[ Page 7052 ]

believed that implicitly. He gave us a great deal of help and good advice.

Another thing that Robin Bourne worked on long and hard when he was in this government was trying to ensure that the Young Offenders Act was a workable piece of federal legislation, one that would meet the needs of law enforcement in this province and also be a reform measure to help youth. I'm afraid that we were not entirely successful with that piece of legislation. It was introduced, I think, prematurely and without being tested. Finally, after a number of years, the new Canadian government is now going to make some changes in it, I gather — probably changes along the lines that Robin Bourne advised and sought some years ago.

One of the worries that he and I had was that we were going to have major duplication of facilities and spend a lot of money on facilities; that we were also going to have an age bracket of offender, maybe under the age of 12, that would be not capable of being dealt with by any court; and also that we were going to have difficulties in raising very serious young offenders to adult courts. Well, we've had all those difficulties, except for the raising to adult court, which the courts have solved themselves and have solved in a satisfactory way. Also due to very strong submissions on behalf of our prosecutors in this province, we have made progress.

Robin Bourne, a dedicated public servant in the justice field, a distinguished soldier and Canadian, has decided to take early retirement, and this province and the justice ministries — the two of them — are the poorer as a result of it.

I want to reflect also, just for a moment, on police services and on the job that the police do in this province. The various municipal forces that I know very well — because I was chairman of one of those boards for some years — and also the RCMP give, I think, very, very high-calibre service to the citizens they represent. Policemen today have a much broader mandate than they ever had before. It's not just a mandate to enforce the law and catch people who break the law; their mandate is much broader.

You notice that with the advent of victim services, the pressures that are put on the police are often not recognized by citizens at large. They don't understand how much preventive policing goes on by the RCMP Police and by our local police forces, and they also probably have no idea of the tremendous strain on resources that occurs with police as witnesses in criminal cases waiting in courtrooms, as they inevitably do, and the overtime that's paid for that kind of project, and particularly for the extra call that's made on the police today to be witness assisters and preparers for people to go into court and go through their ordeal of giving evidence.

I'm very pleased to see that the government has continued its strong commitment to victim services. I think this is probably one of the most important initiatives that we've undertaken in the past ten years in the field of justice. Those programs support community organizations that already exist, or help community organizations get going to work in the community with volunteers to perform these functions. That is the way to go, and that's the route the government has been following.

I should observe also that on Thursday of this week, the University of British Columbia is giving an honorary degree to Mr. Raymond Burr. One of the criteria for that and one of the reasons that will be given in his citation is that Raymond Burr was one of the inspirations for victim programs in British Columbia. He came up here and did a number of public service broadcasts and tapings without fee. He gave generously of his time and showed us how in California a victims' toll-free line was started. We wouldn't have had that toll-free line if it hadn't been for Raymond Burr. He started one at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento and paid for it out of his own pocket to get it going. We owe him a debt. He has always retained his Canadian citizenship; he has always been interested in British Columbia. The victim programs that we are so proud of have a legacy from Raymond Burr.

[4:45]

I also want to commend this ministry's approach to gaming. I think it is the correct approach. It's a conservative — small c — approach, a cautious approach, and it has allowed the Gaming Commission to try and modify, alter and change policies and to be flexible. It has encouraged a very good general control on gaming and its proliferation; and also has ensured that the gaming we have for charitable purposes is spread around more evenly and fairly, so it isn't just the first ones in the gate who have these spots forever.

I know that this ministry is having difficulties, on the one hand, with the desire of the Lottery Corporation to make very substantial sums of money which are used for extremely good projects throughout this province. The Lottery Corporation is probably second to none in its management. It has very bright people who are always thinking of maximizing those revenues. But in its desire to have revenues and electronic bingo, I see the Lottery Corporation as being directly in opposition to what has been developed in the gaming branch for charitable bingo halls around this province. We could easily move to one big bingo machine run electronically and very efficiently out of Kamloops, but that could spell the end to charity bingo.

The minister can nod all he wants, but I have a little knowledge about this, Mr. Minister, and I am telling you that electronic bingo is a slot-machine, and it is going to remove all sorts of people in the ordinary charitable bingo industry in small communities in this province, and I don't like it one bit. I do appreciate, though, that this minister has displayed similar concerns and has really protected the independence of the Gaming Commission. I commend him for that.

I believe that this issue is very important and that he is on the right track, but I hope that the electronic bingo experiment will pass and go its way, and that we will not depart from the homespun bingo par-

[ Page 7053 ]

lours that we enjoy around the province. I don't think that we want to move to one big bingo machine.

I also would say to the minister that I hope one of the ministry's tasks next year will be to draft a new parole bill. We need new parole legislation. It is not adequate to simply have parole provisions contained in the Correction Act. It is obvious that provincial parole, while it doesn't have the importance of federal parole, because everybody is serving two years less a day or under, nevertheless needs its own act and an umbrella piece of legislation highlighting the importance of provincial parole, the independence of that parole board and the role of the chairman. That was something I had on the menu before I departed. I am not critical of its not coming forward in this session, because there is so much justice legislation anyway, but I hope that next year we will have prepared and introduced an independent parole act.

Mr. Chairman, I notice also that the minister has spoken about the Drost report and the development of correctional facilities. The thrust in that direction is very commendable. The facilities built in Kamloops, those under construction in Prince George and the new women's prison that will be built in the lower mainland in conjunction with the federal government are long-needed facilities. The closure of Oakalla will be welcomed, I think, by everyone in all parties and all communities. It has not had a good correctional history.

I spoke the other day on the subject of horse-racing. I am not going to repeat those remarks, but I should probably say on the record that I think this minister's heart has been in the right place on this issue. He wants to do something on this subject, and it isn't an easy subject to deal with; it's not something you can do overnight. But it cries out for solution and activity, and I'm afraid this industry is going to be in very difficult straits unless we have some activity. I believe the work being done by the officials of this ministry is commendable — I see some of the ministry here today — and I appreciate their service.

HON. MR. REE: Very briefly, I must echo the comments of the member with respect to Robin Bourne; his contribution to this province and to the justice system in the province is commendable. Also on the police and some of his other comments.

I must give that member credit for the initial efforts towards the improvement of prisons within this province. I think he deserves recognition for that. It has allowed me to continue the momentum and I hope to carry on with that. As I've indicated, it's not just to improve the facilities for the convicts, the people in the prisons; it's also to improve the working conditions for the guards and the corrections officers, who are entitled to humane working conditions. I thank the member for his comments.

MR. GUNO: I note that the time is six minutes to the hour, and I move the committee rise, report 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:54 p.m.