1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 7011

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

Introduction and first reading –– 7011

Presenting Reports –– 7011

Private Members' Statements

Women. Mrs. Gran –– 7012

Ms. Pullinger

Small business. Mr. G. Janssen –– 7013

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Horse-racing. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 7015

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Guno

Housing. Mr. Blencoe –– 7017

Hon. Mr. Richmond

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

On vote 67: minister's office –– 7019

Mr. Guno

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Cashore

Mr. De Jong

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, this morning we are very privileged to have in the

members' gallery Dr. David Tonkin and his wife Prue. Dr. Tonkin is

secretary-general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a very

prestigious organization which all of us are well aware of. He's

currently stationed in London, England. A number of us from both sides

of this House had the pleasure last evening of having dinner with these

two delightful people. I would ask everyone to give them a very warm

welcome to British Columbia.

MR. PERRY : I'd like to

second the hon. member's welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Tonkin. For those

members who weren't present at your dinner last evening, Dr. Tonkin

gave a brief but very eloquent speech about the fellowship of

membership in Commonwealth parliaments. It's been a real pleasure for

us to have them in British Columbia, and I hope they come back soon.

MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today is a young man from my

constituency, a young businessman who owns the Sign Works, probably

better known for his contract with B.C. Hydro. He also is a writer of

songs, an excellent singer and a young man who hopes to reach the brass

ring in his life. Would the House please welcome my son, Blair Gran.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR RENT REVIEW

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for Rent Review.

MR BLENCOE :

This bill is part of a legislative package to deal fairly with rental

issues in British Columbia. The bill does the following. It establishes

a flexible system of rent review, which is triggered by the tenant

seeking a review. The act requires that if a tenant requests a review,

the landlord must justify to the tenant the amount of the rent increase

by providing a statement of expenses, similar to the previous system of

rent review that existed in British Columbia. The bill guarantees

landlords that increases in reasonable operating expenses will be

covered by increases in rent. It also protects tenants from having to

pay additional rent as a result of the landlord selling the tenant's

home or changing the landlord's corporate ownership or structure.

The bill is a mechanism that will ensure that both landlords and tenants are

treated equally in law and will establish a level of security for tenants they

currently do not enjoy.

Bill

M217 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

A RENTALS MEDIATOR

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill is another important component of our

legislative package to bring fairness back into landlord and tenant

issues. The bill establishes the rentals mediator to administer the

Residential Tenancy Act and resolve disputes between tenants and

landlords.

The bill provides for the establishment of the

office of rentals mediator in the same way as the former rentalsman was

established by the New Democrat government of the day. The rentals

mediator will have exclusive jurisdiction to mediate matters relating

to repair and service orders, locks and access, landlord right of

entry, arbitration of disputes, security deposits, rent increases,

termination of the tenancy agreement, orders of possession and service

of notice. The rentals mediator and the office would also administer

rent review.

The bill, along with others we have presented

on landlord-tenant matters, is another legislative step towards

ensuring fairness and equity between landlords and tenants in British

Columbia.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

MR. CHALMERS :

I have the honour to present the report from the Select Standing

Committee on Labour,Justice and Intergovernmental Relations respecting

the matter of judicial salaries in British Columbia. I move that the

report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS : I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7012 ]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

WOMEN

MRS. GRAN :

This morning I have chosen to make a statement on women and how the

issues surrounding us directly relate to children. It's a subject I

have always felt strongly about, one I have spoken about many times,

and one I intend to continue speaking about inside and outside of this

House.

Most of the issues surrounding women today are there

because they are the mothers and the primary caregivers. Caring for

children and preparing for their future in today's society presents

many challenges for families, and an even greater challenge for

single-parent families — the majority of which are women. There are

35,000 single-parent families receiving social assistance in British

Columbia; only 1,700 are men.

The Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond) has introduced many worthwhile

initiatives, including a broad range of programs to assist single

parents to become independent, and I commend him for that. The Minister

of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) has also worked hard to encourage

universities and colleges to update courses and provide educational

opportunities tailored to single mothers. Day care has also been

expanded by societies at the colleges and universities.

However,

it is not enough. Governments and society in general must clearly

recognize that the growing numbers of women and children who live in

poverty is a symptom that simply cannot be ignored. Women who work at

low-paying jobs and support children have an even heavier burden to

carry. The benefits enjoyed by most Canadian families are nonexistent

for those women and their children. Low wages and inadequate job

benefits are the two biggest reasons why many of Canada's children are

poor.

These children suffer ill health from poor nutrition,

hardships and educational failure. Poverty's impact on families creates

stress and problems which can make the difficult job of parenting

almost impossible. Can you imagine working all day, worrying about how

your children are being cared for while you are at work and coming home

not only to the loneliness that comes with single parenting, but the

knowledge that you will probably never be able to give your children

what they deserve?

[10:15]

I want to encourage communities to open their hearts to these women

and their children. Established agencies, for example, could set up

programs where two-parent families become support groups for

single-parent families. It is, after all, a Canadian tradition to

invest in families. Families with children must be a community priority

as well as a government priority. This government has made a very

important and significant commitment to strengthening families, and I

encourage them to continue with it.

It is important to also

note that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has taken strong steps

to enforce maintenance orders, an admission that women and children are

at risk.

It is estimated that over 60 percent of children

in families led by mothers are poor. Children who grow up in poverty

run the risk of remaining second-class citizens all of their lives. So

it is my belief that caring about women and ensuring that they have

equal opportunities also benefits children and in the end benefits all

of us.

MS. PULLINGER : First of all, I would like to

say that I appreciate the first member for Langley's concern for

something that all of us on this side of the House are very concerned

about, the situation of women in this province and the fact that it

affects children as well; there's no question about that.

One

of the problems that I'm hearing right off the bat, though, is that

women are being seen only as mothers, and my colleague the first member

for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has addressed that thoroughly in

this House. While that's a very valid point and we all understand that

poverty is a feminine complaint.... If you're single, you have a 50-50

chance of being poor. If you're a woman over 65, you have a greater

chance of being poor. If you are a single mother with children, your

chances of being poor are something like 70 percent. We recognize that

on this side of the House. But I think it's important that we look a

little bit beyond just that role for women. We have to take it in the

context of the society and of the kind of society this government is

either creating or allowing to happen without taking an active role in

effecting change.

Earlier this year this government

promised women of this province a women's ministry — or a minister of

state responsible for women's issues — in the throne speech. It

appears that it was just that, a promise. We've seen no action and

there was no money in the budget for it. Quite clearly this has been a

response to the polls, and the government's polls are showing the same

things that our polls are showing: that this government lacks any

credibility whatsoever on women's issues.

This government has done nothing significant to address the problems that affect women in our society — those very real problems —

but that also, as the member opposite pointed out, affect children in

our society. One of those problems she touched on is a problem that

women face in the workplace. The gap in wage levels, for instance, is

40 percent across Canada. That 60-cents-on-the-dollar job that women

have translates into a 60-cents-on-the-dollar pension. Those women who

choose to work at home to look after their kids themselves have no

wages, and they have no pensions. As Dorothy O'Connor mentioned in her

essay "Poverty: The Feminine Complaint," she wondered why it is that

raising wheat is work and driving a truck is work but raising children

isn't. I think that's a serious question.

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

[ Page

7013 ]

clear. As I say, across Canada the gap is 40

percent. Not too long ago the newspapers in British Columbia noted that

women in British Columbia make more like 52 percent of what men make.

These issues need to be addressed. In Ontario they've taken that kind of action;

the gap has now closed to 30 percent. There are growing numbers of

women in the workforce. They are trapped in low paying jobs. The

government has taken no action to move them out. We have no day care.

If you're going to work, you need to do something with your children.

There are 200,000 children who need care, and there are 19,000 licensed

spaces. That means an awful lot of kids in unlicensed spaces, and there

are some 60,000 children under 12 with no care at all in the daytime.

Clearly

there are some very serious problems. The member opposite mentioned

education. However, women can't get education over two years funded by

the government. They have no child care support, as I mentioned.

There's no affirmative action, and things like the most fundamental

right of all, the right to control their own bodies, is not recognized

by this government.

Also the issue of violence against

women and children hasn't been addressed. Rather than doing something

positive about the violence — a woman is raped or beaten something like every 13 minutes — to

change the attitudes by providing some education and to reinforce and

support women in that situation, the government has withdrawn funding.

The need for shelters and transition houses is painfully obvious. It's

not being addressed.

MRS. GRAN : I believe that

understanding, communication and education will one day enable us not

only to recognize, but effectively eliminate the tragedy faced by many

women and children. Schools will perhaps offer courses on parenting,

preparing us for the most important task in our lives: nurturing our

next generation.

A better understanding of human sexuality

will some day allow us to come to terms with the most silent reality in

our midst: sexual abuse. The appalling fact is that adults do have sex

with children with traumatic results for most of those victims. Better

treatment for the abuser and the victims must be found, and

organizations such as SARA — Sexual Assault Recovery Anonymous — must receive support and encouragement, not just from the community, but from governments at all levels.

The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Social Services

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), with already huge budgets and

obligations, must still somehow respond to the need for at-home care

for the physically and mentally disabled children. Women head many of

the families of disabled children, and keeping their children out of

institutions is first and foremost in their minds.

Drug and alcohol programs currently in effect — and I want to compliment the

Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) for his initiatives — must be closely monitored

for effectiveness. Substance abuse is no longer only an adult problem but is

affecting more and more children at all income levels.

live in a beautiful and wealthy province with a diverse population of

people. The challenges that face us as politicians are many and varied.

Many are expensive, while others require simple understanding. I am

optimistic about the future, but at the same time, I recognize that it

is easy to be complacent when everything in your own life is in order.

The

grass roots of our constituencies will tell us where the problems are

and what they are; communication and cooperation will show us how to

solve them. There are many issues that transcend party lines, and I

believe that the issues surrounding women and children do, Mr. Speaker.

I encourage each member of this Legislature not only to encourage the

government to continue responding and caring, but also to show

leadership within our communities for the sake of our children and,

ultimately, for the sake of our own futures.

SMALL BUSINESS

MR. G. JANSSEN :

My statement today revolves around small business, and I will be

touching on what the member for Langley has just finished her statement

on: women in small business.

There has been great change in

the last few years in wealth distribution in the province of B.C. and

indeed in Canada. In 1980, 1 percent of the population in Canada

controlled 19 percent of the wealth,

whereas in 1984, 20 percent

controlled 69 percent of the wealth. It is evident that the recession

we experienced in 1981 didn't affect everyone; in fact, it affected

only those at the lower end of the earning levels. In 1984, the bottom

40 percent owned only 2 percent of the wealth generated in Canada. In

1987, the bottom 60 percent, including many of the middle class, had

the lowest percentage of national income since records have been kept

in Canada.

You may ask what this has to do with small

business. As we know, the consumer represents many of those figures,

and the consumer is the one that generates wealth and growth in small

business communities. Despite those statistics, small businesses with

50 employees or less generated 93 percent of the net jobs in the

private sector; businesses with 51 to 100 employees generated only 11

percent of the net job creations. In fact, firms in Canada with 500

employees or more had a net loss in 1987 of 50,000 employees.

realize that in order for small business to survive there has to be

spendable dollars out in the marketplace. We saw no tax reduction in

the budget that was presented in this House, on top of the already

$1,400 in tax increases imposed by this government in the last two

years. In fact, it seems that this government is now competing for the

spendable dollar that comes off the paycheque of the average worker in

the province of B.C.

Wealth generation can be created by

allowing people to spend the dollars to create the jobs to purchase the

goods to create a healthy small business

[ Page 7014 ]

environment. Many women work at that very low standard of $4.50 an hour — minimum wage — hardly

enough to go out and buy anything other than the necessary commodities.

It's not enough to go out and buy even basic goods, furniture and

luxury items that will generate the growth. In 1975 the minimum wage

kept people above the poverty line; now it offers an income that is 30

percent below the poverty line.

When we went through the

estimates of the minister responsible the other day, there was a call

to raise the minimum wage. If we were to raise it to keep up with

inflation from 1975, we would have to raise it to $7.23 an hour. The

government's argument that this would drive many small businesses out

of business is totally false. We know that during the 1981 recession,

unemployment and welfare, the safety nets of our society, provided the

spendable dollars that were generated through businesses — mostly small businesses —

which kept us from sliding into a depression. It kept a certain amount

of money out in the marketplace that kept business alive and allowed it

to struggle through those very hard times. A realistic minimum wage and

a guaranteed income are healthy for purchasing power and for small

business. Poor-paying jobs are no solution for financial independence.

[10:30]

Women are starting new businesses in this province twice as often as

men. In fact, when they start those businesses, they are creating three

jobs to every one created by men in small business. It is natural, I

think, for women to go into small business. As we well know, women

operate the family budget; certainly my wife does. I'm sure that many

other members of this House who are busy working here put the financial

affairs of the household in the hands of their spouses. This gives them

a great ability to manage budgets that are virtually identical to

budgets in small business. Yet what are women faced with when they go

to the banks? They are turned down four times as often as men for loans

to start small businesses. They face incredible sexist deterrents when

dealing with other members of the business community.

This government should be encouraging women by the creation of a ministry of women — which was promised and has not yet come to fruition —

to overcome the obstacles placed in their path, such as inadequate day

care. So many small business people in this province, women especially,

have to go and manage a business but have nowhere to put their

children, because there are no day care centres available. We must

encourage and help small businesswomen in this province to overcome

those obstacles. We must help them with special credit options, with

seed capital and with venture capital.

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

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

My colleague the hon. Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) would be the normal interested responder. In his absence, I

will attempt, albeit inadequately, to respond to some of the issues

raised by the hon. member for Alberni.

The hon. member

opposite opened his monologue with a discussion of the concentration of

wealth. I trust the hon. member is aware that this is an endemic

problem worldwide, despite the efforts of interventionists around the

world. They have been singularly unsuccessful in remedying the basic

disparity that exists between the gifts that the good Lord gave each of

us as individuals. Notwithstanding the good intentions of

interventionists.... That's a euphemism for socialists, Mr. Speaker.

Notwithstanding the good wishes of those proponents, the fact of the

matter is that they have been unable to dramatically change the basic

truth in our society that the challenge to a government — as this government believes —

is to ensure that there is an equal opportunity for all, but it is not

an obligation for government to guarantee an equal outcome for all.

There must be, in this society that we have inherited, a recognition of

merit; there must be a reward for effort; there must be some incentive

for people to aspire to higher levels.

Therefore I make the

philosophical statement that the socialist governments around this

world are moving away from the interventionist philosophy and moving

towards more of an effort to allow the free market to ensure that

society moves ahead in a coordinated way with consensus. Clearly we're

dealing here with a basic philosophical thrust, and I can only point to

the record as to the lack of success of those who would argue that this

issue requires massive intervention.

The hon. member then

moved to a discussion of tax policies. It seems to me appropriate to

point out, once again, that this government is extremely proud of our

tax policies across the whole range of taxation issues. We have among

the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada. We have the

second-lowest sales tax rate. Our corporate income tax rates are

competitive, and we intend to keep them competitive so we don't drive

business out of the province. Our small business rate is also

competitive. If the hon. member were to study the budgets of the other

provincial jurisdictions in Canada, he would quickly see that unlike

those other jurisdictions, our government is not increasing taxes in

order to sustain profligate spending practices. We are very proud of

our competitive taxation structure. We've been able to balance the

budget without increasing taxes. We noted with surprise that one of the

principal provincial partners in Confederation recently initiated new

taxation measures including taxing tires. Can you imagine?

any event, we are not at all prepared to allow comments about taxation

policies to go unanswered. Look at us compared with the rest of Canada,

look at our fiscal policies compared with the rest of Canada, and you,

like me, I suspect, would emerge from that

[ Page 7015 ]

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

The hon. member then moved into a discussion of minimum wage. He seems to have embarked on some new adventure — some new statement — which I found surprising. He said, if I can paraphrase — I didn't capture the exact words —

that it's totally false that increasing minimum wage would hurt small

business. That seems totally contrary to all the public utterances by

most small business organizations that I'm familiar with. Indeed, when

you get involved in a discussion of minimum wage, you always get down

to the point: are you really going to help the people you are trying to

help? How do you ensure that students get their first-time job? How do

you ensure that service areas are able to provide some basic income

levels for those who wish to do something in a gratuitous sense for

society? There's no evidence whatsoever in the studies I've read

dealing with the issue of minimum wage that conclusively proves that It

is in the interest of those....

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

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I must respond to the minister's comments that people want to work for

a minimum wage because they have a gratuitous sense. As a

free-enterpriser, Mr. Minister, I know people do not go to work for

gratuitous sense; they go to work to make a dollar — hopefully a dollar that will keep them out of poverty. That's something the minimum wage doesn't do.

know that the Minister of Finance has been in that portfolio for some

time, and I don't know if he needs a lesson. But we on this side of the

House and certainly the rest of the people in the province know what

the balanced budget really means. That means that you spend as much

money as you take in. You don't take $500 million out of the budget

stabilization fund, add it to the budget and call it balanced. That is

very simple basic economics, and what the minister is practising is

political flimflam. We just want to get that right.

I'd like to return to small business and offer some suggestions to the government and the minister about

funding a small business. In many cases the biggest hurdle is getting

the seed capital that's required to start a business. In British

Columbia there is some $37 billion in employee pension funds, and

rather than, as the minister has suggested in the budget speech,

investing in — pardon the words — the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, he should be taking an example from the solidarity fund in

Quebec, which has great success in putting pension funds into job

creation by offering a tax break on those investments to the workers.

In fact, in British Columbia only 10 percent of those $37 billion is

invested in British Columbia. The rest is invested somewhere else with

no return to the province, no return to small business and no job

creation element.

The loan-loss insurance which is

practised, similar to the loan-loss insurance offered by the CMHC,

could be well implemented in British Columbia when it comes to

financing small business. Most useful in the promotion of these small

business enterprises would be....

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

HORSE-RACING

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to make a statement on the future

of thoroughbred racing in this province. I wish it were a more hopeful

statement that I'm going to make, because I'm going to issue a plea for

an industry that is ailing and needs some help and some attention. I'm

speaking about horse-racing. I'm speaking about 10,000 British

Columbians who are involved in this industry indirectly. It's a clean

industry, which is a natural industry for British Columbia to lead in

Canada, just as California does in the United States.

It is

a very noble industry in this province, from breeders and owners to

grooms and jockeys, from farriers and riders to concessionaires and all

those who work in our racetracks, and I'm trying to speak for them

today.

On February 2, 1988, the government announced a task

force to recommend the feasibility of a world-class track and its

location and operation. This four member task force, you remember, was

chaired by Mohan Jawl, who is a distinguished international breeder. It

also included the president of the Canadian Trotting Society and two

other individuals well respected in the world of racing, including the

chairman of the Racing Commission.

This task force reported

to me at the end of June 1988, before I vacated my office, and the

report was released to the public on August 23, 1988. The report

recommended, basically, that the track at Exhibition Park be used on an

interim basis and be upgraded and used for a standardbred and

thoroughbred facility, then be phased out of thoroughbred racing, and

that thoroughbred racing be moved to some other location — maybe Colony Farm — and that Exhibition Park stay as a world-class facility for standardbred racing.

Not

until March 15, 1989, did we have a response from the government, which

then reiterated its commitment for a new world-class track somewhere in

the lower mainland and asked the city of Vancouver to determine if it

would commit to Hastings Park as a location of thoroughbred racing and

to commit sufficient land. So since March 15, the city has been

grappling with what to do not only with the racetrack, but also with

the PNE. Last week the city of Vancouver held a number of public

meetings on this subject. Not surprisingly, those public meetings have

come to the conclusion that most of the people who live around

Exhibition Park don't want the PNE to stay there and don't want any

expansion of racing. In fact, they would like to have a greenbelt. If I

lived next to Exhibition Park, I probably would feel the same way, so I

don't criticize them.

[ Page 7016 ]

We'll

be getting the city's response very shortly, but don't hold your hat.

If you're a betting person, you can bet that Hastings Park is dead as

far as an expanded racetrack is concerned. The city is going to turn

thumbs down on that proposal.

We have lost a golden

opportunity, in my opinion, in the last eight months to give leadership

for a new site for thoroughbred racing. Because we've delayed and asked

others to determine the destiny of racing, we have lost our momentum

and the opportunity to create a first-class world track. I don't care

whether that track is at Exhibition Park, Colony Farm, Delta or

Timbuctoo. I just want to see a track built that's going to attract

world-class racing and take this industry and put it back on its feet.

you read the Jawl report, you can see the problems that the racing

industry faces. He says that major owners have left Exhibition Park and

are either out of the business altogether or run their horses in other

jurisdictions. He points out the problems with that track. Many will

argue that five and a half furlongs is an adequate track, that you can

see all the action, that it's a nice place to be. But the betting

results, the handle and everything else don't point to that. People are

not turning up for racing the way they should. Racing dollars are going

to other forms of gambling, and if this industry is going to flourish,

we've got to have a world-class track.

[10:45]

Probably the best place for that track now is right downtown where

you've got a market, where you've got people who are used to it. It's

probably the best place for the moment. You would have a track if you

went out to Colony Farm; there's no question about that. But that may

be too far ahead of its time.

Also it's going to cost

money. You're not going to have a racetrack built without a

considerable amount of money being put out. It's going to cost between

$60 million and $120 million. The government is not going to be able to

wash its hands of it and say that entrepreneurs will put that up,

because entrepreneurs are not going to put up that kind of money for a

track unless they have a slice of the action and unless they have land

given to them at low lease costs. We, as a government, are going to

have to support a racetrack; we're going to have to put some support in

there. When the racetrack is built, it can be operated on an economic

basis and can get a return on the additional revenues it will bring in

to pay it off, but the government is going to have to be proactive.

Meadowlands in New Jersey wasn't built by a government sitting back and

waiting for bids from the private sector; it was built because they

were proactive.

Another problem in racing is the operation

of racing now. Most decisions are made by a combination of the track

operator, the city and other bodies; they're not made by the horsemen.

The horsemen themselves don't determine the destiny of racing, and

we've got to have some kind of general industry body that makes the

decisions on race dates and that sort of thing. The only way that can

be done is to restructure racing, to get a world-class location and to

have the industry involved in its own operation.

I don't

care who operates the racetrack or where it's located, but I know that

if we wait another six months, if we don't move on this and get a

location and get going, this opportunity is going to slip forever.

Don't think it's only thoroughbreds either. Standardbreds are probably

going to need a wider location and better opportunity for racing days,

because they face a lot of competition from the United States and

proposals like Auburn. They're probably going to need a larger

facility. So we've probably got to combine these two facilities.

What

I say is that the government has got to get on with the job that the

Jawl commission recommended many months ago. We've wasted very valuable

time and a whole season. I hope you're listening, I hope the

government's listening and I hope we're going to have some action.

HON. MR. REE :

The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head does make a very important point

with respect to the importance of horse-racing within our community,

the number of people whose livelihood depends upon it and what it

contributes to our economy and community, not only as a business but as

a place of recreation in other ways.

He says he doesn't

care where the racetrack is, but he does make some comments that it

should be downtown. To that extent I can concur with the member, and

that is why I have asked the city of Vancouver to look at the

feasibility of a mile-long standard-configurated racetrack being

located at Hastings Park. At the moment, it looks to me as if it's the

most feasible location. Anywhere else, the cost would be considerably

higher. Hastings Park still has the built-in clientele that has come

for years, and a racetrack of that size can be built at the Hastings

Park site.

I honestly believe that it would satisfy a great

number of the concerns of those who wish green space at Hastings Park.

A lot of the people complaining are not aware of the extensive size of

the infield of a mile-long racetrack. I could envisage a track there

with free access to the infield for the general public, park facilities

for children and adults, having all that available to them in the

infield. It could be done in Hastings Park as it is elsewhere in the

world. This is one of the reasons that I have gone to the city of

Vancouver — the government has — and asked them to come up

with some information. I understand the mayor, after listening to the

general public, stated the other day that it will not be going to

Hastings Park. I have not received an official communication from the

council of the city of Vancouver to this effect. I look forward to

seeing what that communication is when it does arrive — and act accordingly.

The

member is quite right that a decision has to be made soon as to where

an adequate racetrack can be located or will be built. The province

does not wish to own the racetrack. It should be owned and operated by

the racing industry or entrepreneurs as such. In the structuring of the

racetrack, the province has to

[ Page 7017 ]

take

that into consideration. Some of the suggestions in the Jawl report

were looking to considerable government subsidy for the racetrack. From

studies we have done and information I have received we felt we could

minimize these sorts of subsidies — these costs to government — at the Hastings Park site.

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

MR. GUNO :

The only reason I am responding is that this falls within my critic

role. I come from a riding where thoroughbred horse-racing isn't a very

big priority. In fact, the only important race that sometimes occurs is

when we try to outrun an irate grizzly bear — and I wouldn't give

odds on that one. So I wouldn't blame the member for Oak Bay-Gordon

Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) if he were to dismiss my response as horse

feathers.

The only thing that I would like to comment on is

his plea that the government be proactive in terms of providing upfront

support for establishing a world-class horse-racing track. I agree with

him. I think the government should act on the report tabled not too

long ago. But at the same time, I think we have to balance that off

with the fact that given the plight of the poor in the province, the

government should address those first, before they talk about what we

in Atlin would call glossy stuff. We don't have a horsy set in Atlin. I

do recognize, though, that it does contribute to the economy of the

lower mainland. We are all for diversifying the economy, and if that's

what it's going to do, then we support it.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

It's very gratifying to have supportive horse sense from the far north.

I have no doubt that he is a pretty fair handicapper too, when he gets

down to the racetrack; maybe as good as the member for Vancouver East.

a serious note, to wind this up, putting a racetrack out on Colony

Farm, where there is all kinds of room, where you could have riding

activities, barns, a turf track, also combine with that a trotting

track.... It would be absolutely ideal. Let's face it, that's what the

industry should have. But it's probably an idea whose time isn't yet

ready, because of the distance and the cost. Woodbine would never have

worked in Toronto, even with the huge population, had it not been for

the beneficence of the late Mr. E.P. Taylor, whose unlimited resources,

foresight and love of that industry allowed him to bankroll the place

himself. And still, that track is not used heavily on weekdays —

even with seven million people to draw on. The people in the lower

mainland who are interested in racing probably aren't quite ready to go

out to Colony Farm. They will be in 15 years; there's no doubt about

that.

We have got to get a site, and we have got to get

busy. I was pleased to hear the minister's remarks about the downtown

location. I also agree with his criteria as to what a first-class track

should include. I think he has got the right criteria.

We have been dithering as a government for years — for a decade — on this question

and on the PNE and PNE lands. I was there when we were dithering; I know we

were. We should have moved the PNE, we should have rationalized that site, we

should have cooperated with the city and we should have got on with it. And

we haven't. Let's do it now. Please do it now. Please, Mr. Minister — for racing.

HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, for many years this government has neglected one of the

key areas of concern to the people of British Columbia: housing. That

neglect is now having a dramatic effect on the lives of all British

Columbians.

Adequate and affordable housing is one of the

basic necessities of life. This government has failed to recognize that

simple truth. This government has failed in its obligation to provide

the conditions which would allow an ample supply of suitable housing to

be constructed.

Month by month, over the past two or three years, the cost of becoming a first-time homeowner has increased rapidly — far more rapidly than household income —

and there is no end in sight. During the first quarter of 1989, the

median Multiple Listing Service house price on Vancouver's west side

was $420,000. The income required to buy a house at the bottom end of

the west-side market is estimated by city of Vancouver officials to be

$113,000 per year. On the east side of Vancouver, the median MLS house

price was $177,000, and an income of about $54,000 a year is required

to purchase a house at the bottom of the price range in that market.

The average house price in Victoria in April 1989 was $152,900.

Average

British Columbians are being driven out of the home-ownership market

and speculators are rushing in. The only option left for many families

is to remain in the rental marketplace. But renters also are facing an

incredible squeeze. In 1987 and 1988 in the city of Vancouver, for

example, there were only 778 private rental housing starts. In the same

two years, 457 rental units were demolished and 920 rental units were

sold as condominiums. It is a simple equation: 1,377 rental units lost

to only 778 constructed. That's a net loss of 599 rental units, even

though vacancy rates were near or below 1 percent.

In the

lower mainland, CMHC figures indicate that about 1,800 to 2,000 rental

units are being lost each year to demolition and condo conversion. This

more than wipes out any potential net gain from the federal-provincial

social housing program which results in less than 1,800 units per year

throughout the entire province.

On the advice of

conservative economists and the province's landlords, the Social Credit

government abolished rent controls, rent review and the rentalsman in

1983 and '84. This action was taken on the theory that the rental

market would operate normally; supply would begin to equal demand once

this form of so-called market interference was removed. We heard that

over and over again. It has now been more than five years. That seems

long enough to

[ Page 7018 ]

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

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Where

is the market response to the very high demand of rental housing? Where

is the housing this government promised British Columbians in return

for taking away their rent review, in return for taking away their

rentalsman and their tenant security? Let's look at Vancouver as an

example. In 1983, 750 private rental units were built. In 1988, with

rent review gone, with the rentalsman gone, less than half that number

were constructed, 315. That's five years later, after this government

removed all sense of security for tenants in the province of British

Columbia. So much for the market doing what you said it would do.

The

Social Credit housing experiment has failed and failed miserably. This

government has gambled with the dreams of British Columbians for purely

ideological reasons, and British Columbians today are paying the price.

The only impact of removing rent review and the rentalsman is that

rents have dramatically increased. Rent increases of 30 percent to 40

percent and 50 percent are now all too common. Since demand is high,

new supply is low and existing stock is under threat of demolition or

condominium conversion, renters have no choice. Landlords can charge

whatever they want. Your government said renters would have a range of

options to choose from, and landlords who imposed inordinate rent

increases would have vacancies in their buildings. But it has not

happened; you let them down.

[11:00]

But this government didn't stop there. You destroyed regional

planning, and that has proven to be a serious mistake. Now there is no

planning for regional development, and no regional coordination for

growth and investment. The result? Housing has become increasingly

unaffordable in some areas, while other areas of the province continue

to stagnate. If you continue to allow population and investment to

concentrate in the Vancouver area, no amount of money or range of

programs will be able to help. The land market and hyperspeculation

will cause an enormous gap between the cost of living in the lower

mainland and the rest of the province. Mr. Speaker, this province is

headed for big trouble under the stewardship of this government.

Current growth trends in the lower mainland are not sustainable. The

environment and quality of life are already beginning to suffer. It

won't stop until effective regional planning begins.

The

evidence is in. This government has failed. It promised housing in

return for destroying the rentalsman, rent review and tenant

protection. It simply has not delivered. Its latest attempt at a

housing policy has proven to be nothing more than a public relations

exercise. The people of this province know this government's housing

policies have not worked They want real action, they want it now and

they want protection from this government when dealing with dramatic

rent increases.

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

Leave granted.

MR. MERCIER :

As much as I would love to comment on the former speaker's comments, I

simply rise to make an introduction of some visitors from Brantford

Elementary School and Edmonds Elementary School in my riding, with

teachers Mike Begg, Susan Zacks, Leah Thompson and Cheryl Melvin. I

would like the House to make welcome these elementary students and

their teachers, knowing full well that the students will be future

voters in our province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The people of British Columbia should know — and I include our young members in the gallery who are watching the parliamentary process at work this morning —

that every time a member from that side of the House gets up to speak,

they speak about bigger and more powerful government and spending more

and more of your money.

This member is probably the biggest

proponent of that. He talks about rent controls. He wants to bring back

Big Brother and rent controls, which do not work. Wherever they've been

tried in the free world, they haven't worked. The Toronto experiment is

a classic example. Every economist in the world, whether right-wing,

centre or left-wing, will tell you that rent controls do not work.

Wherever they've been tried, they've been a miserable failure. But this

member still espouses: "Bring back the rentalsman, and we'll solve the

problems." If we'd had rent controls over the last few years, the

problem would be ten times what it is today.

MR. PERRY : You weren't listening.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

They talk about listening, Mr. Speaker. I think I listened very

intently when their member was speaking. They try to listen with their

mouths open, and it doesn't work.

Yesterday we saw a

classic example of what can happen when the private sector and levels

of government work together. The announcement in Vancouver by the mayor

and Mr. Poole was triggered by this government's new housing policy. It

was triggered because we are making cheaper money available so that the

private sector can move in and build rental accommodation for people.

The member makes some outrageous statements, and we'll check the Blues.

He says homeowners are being driven out of their homes. What a pile of

nonsense! I don't know of any homeowner in this province who has been

driven out of his or her home. It takes two people to make a deal: a

buyer and a seller. Nobody is being driven out of their homes.

There

is a problem with rental units in this province. There is no question

about that. That's why we have addressed the rental market. The company

[ Page 7019 ]

that

was formed yesterday to take advantage of this government's housing

policies will build 2,000 rental units in the next 18 months, done by

British Columbians investing in British Columbia. Not done because a

government brought in rent controls. Not done because a member from

Victoria proposed Bill M201.

Take a look at the last page

of M201 and see what that would do to anyone thinking of becoming a

landlord. Take a look at what it will cost to be a landlord in this

province if that member ever becomes the Minister of Housing. There

won't be anybody building anything, because every time a tenant gets

notice it will cost the landlord $2,000 minimum, plus $1,500 moving

expenses. Do you think people are going to build rental accommodation?

Not very likely.

When you look at announcements like yesterday's — very positive announcements —

where British Columbians are going to take advantage of a government

policy to build rental housing, as well as what the government is

building.... Contrary to the negative people they have found to comment

on it — the member's friends in COPE — it's not going to take

any housing away from the social programs already underway by this

government. I'm pleased to see it, and I'm pleased to see that our

moves in the housing area were the trigger that caused this to happen.

The appointment of Mr. Thomas as the chairman of the board and the

policies we have put in place for housing are what will solve the

rental housing problem in the lower mainland and the Saanich Peninsula.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister didn't hear the data. In 1983, during rentalsman and rent

review, 750 units were created; in 1988, five years later, 315 units.

Where was the response of the private sector? You failed British

Columbians.

You promised housing. You can flimflam the

people of this province all you like. The people of B.C. want deeds,

not words, from their provincial government. Immediate provincial

action is required to deal with the serious housing difficulties facing

British Columbians today. To stop the loss of existing rental stock

through demolition and condo conversions, we have introduced a renters'

protection bill We need to protect renters from landlords' inordinate

rent increases. We have this morning introduced rent review and rentals

mediator legislation to deal with inordinate rent increases in British

Columbia. This government continues to abandon the people of the

province. We want to help protect access to homeownership by

discouraging speculation in the housing and urban land markets, and we

have proposed a speculation tax to protect British Columbians from the

quick-buck speculators.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

want to respond to the current need for affordable housing by

increasing social housing unit allocations. As a start, we have pledged

to double the number of units currently being provided by this

government. We want to provide authority, so that planning and

effective sustainable regional development strategies for the lower

mainland and southern Vancouver Island can begin, and we can plan for

growth in the province of British Columbia — not like this government that abandoned growth planning in the province.

During

this session, we on this side of the House have proposed our solutions

to the problems, which this government has allowed to cloud the dream

of British Columbians — the dream to own their own home or to rent

housing that meets their needs and does not break their bank accounts.

That's what we want to do in the province of British Columbia.

British

Columbians want to know if this government is going to persist in

ignoring their needs. Or is it now going to move in a real and

significant way to address the problems afflicting the housing and

rental markets in this province? We want action — not some flimflam that does nothing for the people of the province, and that's what we stand on.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

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

MR. GUNO :

I want to continue the line of questioning we had yesterday on the

provincial emergency program. I think this demonstrates how we on this

side of the House treat this important program very seriously.

Given

the responses of the minister in yesterday's debate, we have concerns

about the minister's rather cavalier attitude about this important

program. The inadequacies in this program in terms of funding, as

reflected in the budget, the lack of leadership and the lack of

coordination and organization, which was amply demonstrated in the

whole west coast oil spill, show that this government continues to

treat this important program with dangerous indifference.

Instead,

we get the minister treating the House with a barrage of non sequiturs

in response to very serious questions posed by various members from

this side of the House.

Even the high levels in his

department are concerned. I want to read into the record some

memorandums and letters that demonstrate the concern of people in his

own ministry and other ministries who are involved in at least setting

some minimal standard of preparedness in emergency response.

[ Page 7020 ]

This

is a letter dated February 8. It's addressed to Mr. Murray Stewart,

chairman of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee of the

Ministry of Solicitor-General. In the second paragraph, after pointing

out that the presentation from the subcommittee was requested before

February 9, and that time was not available for permitting the drafting

of a comprehensive document, it goes on:

"However,

it is felt by the subcommittee members that the situation warrants the

strongest representation possible to the provincial government for

direction on what is perceived as an unfocused state of emergency

preparedness in the province for a catastrophic earthquake. There is a

dire need for support from the political level for a coordinated

approach with determined and involved leadership.

"If

clear direction is not provided, then there seems little purpose to

seek involvement of many persons who are deeply concerned at what is

perceived as a very real threat."

In many of the minister's responses — and this is what I mean about his cavalier attitude, Mr. Chairman —

he talks about beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure

how he connects a very realistic assumption that a major earthquake may

happen, and that we should somehow be ready for it, with beauty being

in the eye of the beholder. Certainly members of this important

Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee have demonstrated that

they have some serious concerns about the priority this minister is

placing on this important program.

[11:15]

Another memorandum that I want to bring to the attention of the

House is also to Mr. Murray Stewart, who is the director. Incidentally,

this letter was written February 15, 1989, a little over three months

ago. This memorandum is from a Mr. Patrick Wolfe, who is a co-chairman,

I suppose, of the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee.

Funding and secretarial support is the subject.

"If

the provincial emergency program is to be the central agency for

provincial emergency preparedness, as its name implies, then it needs

and program viability are raised when the provincial emergency program

has to go hat in hand to IEPC and the ministries for such basic

requirements as travel funding and secretarial assistance for IEPC....

It is imperative that your travel budget be increased to enable you to

attend the important quarterly meetings of the national

industry-government major industrial accidents coordinating committee."

"As

you are well aware, the August 1987 evaluation study of PEP stated that

'the provincial emergency program is currently incapable of responding

effectively to a major disaster.' While progress has been made, you and

your staff have repeatedly stressed to IEPC that fundamental problems

continue to exist. The west coast oil spill is the most recent object

lesson in this regard."

What is alarming is Mr. Wolfe's conclusion.

"However,

if the likelihood of consequential change and real improvement is not

strong, our ability and our willingness to respond to this need is

significantly undercut. It draws our existence as a committee into

question."

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

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

You

mentioned I have a cavalier attitude. No, Mr. Member, I do not have a

cavalier attitude, because the provincial emergency program is a very

important part of this ministry, and one of the reasons government put

the provincial emergency program in the Ministry of Solicitor-General

is that the product of the Solicitor-General is public safety. I am

very dedicated to public safety, and that includes the provincial

emergency program.

We did fight hard and we did get

additional funding to implement some of the recommendations in those

reports. Those reports are before the interministerial committee at

this time. They are looking into it to come back and give a report to

cabinet, for the purpose of implementing some of the recommendations.

MR. GUNO :

Again the minister demonstrates the attitude that flip answers will

substitute for real, serious response. This is not a trial, if I might

remind the minister; this is a political process whereby we have an

opportunity to examine the priorities you've placed on different areas

in your ministry.

In terms of the concerns addressed by

these memoranda, I am wondering.... I think the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) presented 14 areas, yet you

responded in a very general sense, not responding to any of them item

by item. We are not going to accept general rhetoric. We want some very

specific answers. We want the people of British Columbia to be assured

that if a real emergency arises again we are in a better position to

respond.

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

HON. MR. REE :

I will not reply specifically to the points raised. To do so would be a

knee-jerk reaction that I would expect from the NDP. This government is

acting in a responsible manner to bring in the necessary programs. The

funds have been made available in this budget for planning, training

and the implementing of those programs.

I think the hon.

member has not distinguished between the funds used for the cleanup of

an emergency versus the training and planning. The $2.4 million

available in the budget of the provincial emergency program is for

planning and training. Emergency funds are in the emergency vote for

the cleanup or for the reaction to any emergency.

MR. SIHOTA :

Yesterday I asked the minister some very basic questions, and my

colleague from Atlin is right that all we got in return were some

generalities. Sure, you can make some distinctions between the

differences in the two budgets — the 2.4 and what that goes for, and any funds that you may have in

[ Page 7021 ]

contingency

to deal with an emergency response. But you've got to be prepared to

deal with that emergency situation should it arise, You've got a

choice: you can either be prepared and be in a situation where you can

have an efficient utilization of dollars and an efficient response to a

disaster; or you can be unprepared and then try to throw money at the

problem in the midst of a crisis, which really doesn't get you too far

as you run around going from K Mart to K Mart trying to buy garbage

bags.

Yesterday I raised the 14 points that were referred

to cabinet, and I asked some very basic questions. I don't want to

repeat each one of those questions, because the minister has Hansard

before him, but I want to know which of those 14, specifically, you

have addressed, which ones you haven't, and I want some specific

answers to the questions I raised. We can get into all sorts of

political accusations, but I think the minister himself would have to

agree with me that those were straightforward administrative questions

in terms of what his ministry is doing.

The questions start on page 27 — I see the minister flipping through the Blues — and they go over to page 28. The minister's response to them —

and I realize it was at the end of the day and everybody wanted to

watch the hockey game; at least the minister did.... I want answers to

all 14 of those questions, because they're based on....

Interjection.

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

want answers, Mr. Minister, and they're very basic administrative

questions about things that your ministry should be attending to this

year. Let's get some answers to each one of those questions. The

minister's got them on page 27; let's go through them one by one and

get some answers.

HON. MR. REE : I'd like it correct for the record that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew did not raise the issues that are in Hansard .

The ministry raised these issues; the ministry wrote these questions

down. It was within the provincial emergency program that these issues

came out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE :

No, you used the term. Read your Blues tomorrow or tonight. You said:

"I raised these items." You did not raise these items. These items were

raised by the ministry within a report prepared by the provincial

emergency program, which report we are dealing with, which report is

being put together, and information, to go to cabinet in due course.

Then we will come out and exactly explain what has been done on these

items that were raised. That, Mr. Chairman, is the responsible process:

to do it properly, not to waste money irresponsibly and go out and

develop them without proper study of them

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

MR. SIHOTA :

just to satisfy the minister, I made it very clear yesterday that these

were documents that were prepared by that program and submitted by the

interministerial committee — I think I referred yesterday to the interministerial committee —

and now are within the mandate of his ministry and before him and

apparently directed at the end of the day towards cabinet. I made that

very clear yesterday, and that's clear from my comments. So when I say

I raised them, I raised them in that context, and I was quoting from

the document that had been provided to me and now sits before your

ministry. Let's allow that issue to be evaporated, now that I've dealt

with it.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm

going to go through them carefully, if the minister doesn't want to

answer them, because it seems to me that the bottom line here is that

his ministry — and he's the minister in charge — was given 14 very specific recommendations after the oil spill on the west coast.

want to tell you, Mr. Minister, that that oil spill had a devastating

effect on lives and communities of people living in the riding of

Alberni and my riding. There's an expectation that this government

would deal with those issues with dispatch. We don't want another oil

spill on our coastline, and we don't want to go through the same type

of agony that we went through as communities in December and January.

It's incumbent upon the government to learn from the lessons of that

disaster and be prepared to deal with them in the future. It's been

three and a half months that you've had that information, which details

the lessons learned from December 23 to February 9. You've had three

and a half months. Are you telling us in this House that after three

and a half months your ministry still hasn't dealt with those critical

issues?

Shame on you, Mr. Minister, if that's the case. I

tell you that my colleague for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) and myself

don't want to have to walk down those beaches knowing that if another

spill hits this province, there'll be the same level of unpreparedness

as still exists today. All of the talk about Valdez, all of the airline

trips up and down that coast, all of that public relations propaganda

is one thing. But it's another to begin to deal with preparing for

another disaster, should it hit us.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

You bet I'm upset. I'm really upset, because I know what happened in

those communities. I was there, as was my colleague for Alberni in his

riding. If the minister wants, I will bring in a stack of letters that

I've got from residents in my riding who were affected financially.

Native groups have lost their fishing territories; school kids — grade 4

[ Page 7022 ]

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your feelings on this particular

subject. It is unparliamentary to use swear words in the House. Perhaps

if you would moderate your voice a little, we could proceed.

[11:30]

MR. SIHOTA :

I apologize for using the word "damn." I'm mad that despite all of the

flimflam and the, propaganda, you haven't acted on those 14

recommendations. Thank God, there is some civil servant in this

province who has been thoughtful enough to have provided us with that

documentation, so we can ask, during the course of these estimates,

just what action you have taken since the oil spill.

Yesterday

we detailed those 14 lessons that your ministry said they've learned.

All we want to know is what steps you have specifically taken with

respect to those 14 recommendations. They are cogent recommendations.

It may catch the minister off guard that we've got that document, but

the minister has an obligation. It's remarkable how unprepared you were

last time around.

I find it astonishing that you haven't

begun to deal with some of the more basic questions that arise from

those lessons in light of the oil spill. You know, three and a half

months have passed, and you would think that after having had a

disaster of that magnitude strike our coastline, the government would

move with dispatch to make sure that they are prepared to deal with it,

should one strike tomorrow.

I'm not going to let the minister off the hook by taking some general comments. I'll go through them one by one —

all 14 of them. I'll repeat what I asked yesterday here in the chamber.

I want to know what his ministry is doing. The first recommendation was

this: "A cabinet committee for emergency preparedness is required to

provide government policy." I'm quoting from yesterday's Hansard :

"My question to the minister is: has that been done?" I want to ask the

minister, with respect to the first recommendation.... We're going to

go slowly through all 14 of them, Mr. Minister. Has that cabinet

committee for emergency preparedness been established?

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

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

HON. MIL REE :

I appreciate the member's concern and the emotion he has shown over

this issue. I am just as concerned, but I don't get as emotional over

it as he does. I try to keep my cool, carry on and do things

responsibly.

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

MR. SIHOTA :

It's not even a financial item to ask that a cabinet committee be

established. I take it that the cabinet committee has not been

established.

The second recommendation made by your

bureaucrats or the interministry committee was, and I quote: "Deputy

ministers' committee for emergency preparedness is required to provide

direction on the implementation of government policy and make

recommendations to cabinet committees on emergency preparedness

response and recovery issues."

Question to the minister:

has that been done? What were the recommendations to the committee? How

are those recommendations reflected in the $2.4 million that the

minister takes so much pride in?

HON. MR. REE : To

save the time of the committee: I have replied to this inquiry

previously. The answers will continue to be the same for all 14, so the

member has no need to ask all 14. He would be wasting the time of this

committee.

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

HON. MR. REE :

As I indicated, I have replied to the member's 14 statements that came

from the interministerial committee. Yesterday I replied to it. This

morning I have replied to item 1. To save this committee's time, the

answer for all 14 is the same as for item 1. So the member need not

waste this committee's time by reiterating all 14.

MR. SIHOTA :

I guess the minister is saying that that's under consideration. Three

and a half months later, the recommendation of his officials still

hasn't been acted upon, and it's not reflected in the $2.4 million in

his budget.

The third one was: "One provincial agency to be

responsible to the deputy minister's committee for the direction and

control of the provincial response to and recovery from emergency

disasters."

Am I to assume that that has not been

established? Am I to assume that no work is being done to create that

agency? Am I to assume that there is no funding within the minister's

budget for the establishment of that agency?

HON. MR. REE :

He can assume erroneously, as he usually does. As I have said, these

items are all being actively considered. Some of the increase in funds

for the ministry was because we recognized something had to be done.

That is why we fought for the increase in the funds for the provincial

emergency program. The funds are available when we make the final

decisions on the matters set out in those 14 items.

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

[ Page 7023 ]

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

When

the minister says "actively under consideration," could he tell this

House who's considering it? What time lines have been provided — what schedules — to come to some conclusions as to those recommendations?

HON. MR. REE :

The interministry committee is considering it. There are a lot of

people involved within government to implement some of these

recommendations. It takes a considerable amount of time for that to be

put into place. There are no deadlines set for coming to conclusions,

except that it should be done as soon as possible so that we can bring

it to cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA : That's fine. We'll just

wait while things tick along. We'll wait for another disaster to occur.

We'll have the same problem that we had this time: that this ministry

won't be prepared.

You've had three and a half months. It

would seem to me that this is a priority. It would seem to me that with

all the posturing the Premier has been doing, this would be a priority.

It would seem to me that with all of the chatter that this government

has about concern for the protection of the environment, it would be a

priority.

It's all hollow. I can't believe it. I just can't

believe that these things are sort of going along, taking their time.

We have people in front of the TV cameras, smiling and saying: "Yes, we

are signing agreements with Washington State; yes, we have been up to

Valdez; yes, we are concerned about the environment."

The

basic responsibility falls within this ministry It's just like business

as usual: inadequate funding; no significant increases in the budget;

no action based upon the lessons learned from the oil spill, three and

a half months later. What does the minister want? Does he want us to

ask him all these 14 questions six months from now to see if we've made

any progress? Is he prepared to let us know publicly what you're doing?

we didn't happen to have this document, I don't think the minister ever

would have admitted that there is a problem. Everything's under

consideration That's good old bureaucratic bafflegab. I can't believe

that after that oil spill, after the disaster — and your comments yesterday calling some of the people who did tremendous work out there alarmists —

you still haven't done anything. It's all under consideration. There's

not even a time line as to when you're going to implement this, when

it's going to get in front of cabinet — not even costing. Does the

minister intend to go to Treasury Board later on this year and ask for

supplemental funding, or has that supplemental funding already been

committed to by the government?

"Recommendation 4: direction and control to be administered from a provincial

control centre." I take it that hasn't been done either. Is that true,

Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REE :

As I've indicated, Mr. Chairman, it is all under very active

consideration. It has a priority. I'm gathering from what the member is

saying that he doesn't wish us to consult with the appropriate people

around; he doesn't wish us to consult with the native Indians. This

does take time, and that's part of the process. Does the member suggest

I should sit in my office and draw the plan without any consultation

with anybody else. That's what the member is suggesting. It's a bunch

of hogwash.

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

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce an old friend,

a former colleague, a good British Columbian and a hardworking

gentleman, Mr. George Wilson. Would the House please join me in making

him welcome.

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

You've

had a quarter of a year to talk with the groups affected. You've had

close to half a year since the incident occurred, and you haven't taken

any action. It seems to me that the appropriate thing for government to

do would have been to assess what those lessons are and on a priority

basis haul in the people necessary to consult between February and

March and make the recommendations you had to make to Treasury Board,

get the additional funding and get on with the job. You haven't done

that. It would have been something if you had before us today in

estimates a budget that was equipped to deal with another oil spill, an

earthquake or a chemical spill in this province. You haven't developed

a plan.

Look at some of the recommendations: "A provincial

plan is necessary to identify the roles and responsibilities of

ministries and Crown corporations." You would think that after three

and a half months you'd have some kind of provincial sub-plan to deal

with oil spills.

Recommendation 6 talked about all agencies — federal, provincial, municipal and native —

being part of the decision-making process as the first step in reaching

agreement as to who or what agency could best supply what services in

support of the Coast Guard. Surely by now you should have been able to

communicate with federal, provincial, municipal and native groups.

[11:45]

The

other 14 are there, but the minister says they're all under

consideration. That's management for you. That's really driving your

officials hard to make sure they do the job and put in a little

overtime. That's leadership. This is the true reality of where you

stand on really doing something to protect the environment. The

minister should be ashamed of the

[ Page 7024 ]

lack

of progress by his ministry. I find it astonishing, and in some ways

even offensive, but certainly tragic that you haven't moved despite the

oil spill and the lessons learned, and despite the fact that your

officials were pretty quick in giving you a full list of those lessons.

I'll

let some of my colleagues continue, and I'll listen with interest to

what transpires here. But I'm wondering, finally, if the minister is

prepared — in light of the fact that this material is now public and we've raised it in the House —

to provide the public with progress reports. Will you agree to table

progress reports in the House from time to time on how you're

progressing on these 14 lessons, so that we're kept abreast of what's

happening in your own ministry? Are you prepared to make that

information public in terms of progress so that the public has some

confidence that indeed you're doing something — that's there's

something substantive beyond just simple words? Are you prepared to

make sure that you will go on reporting to the House how you're

progressing on these 14 items, so that we can monitor what you're

doing? Surely that would be just a minimal requirement so that we on

this side of the House know how you're doing, so that there's some

accountability by the minister to this Legislature, and, more

importantly, so that the public knows what you're doing. Will you agree

to give us progress reports in this House — just table them; we don't require great speeches — to tell us how you're doing on each one of these 14? Will the minister agree to do that?

HON. MR. REE :

I think the report the member is referring to is indicative of the

leadership of this government, in that promptly after the spill the

government revisited the spill, considered lessons to be learned and

things to be done, and prepared this, which is now under active

consideration within the last two and a half months. In addition, we

obtained additional funds within the ministry to do the study on this,

to take some action on it. It is being looked after.

As to

a progress report, this government always puts out a progress report

when its decisions have been made from cabinet, and I undertake to do

that. We will certainly let the general public know when cabinet makes

decisions on this.

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

HON. MR. REE :

The decisions? You'll see the decisions when the decisions are made and

when they are implemented. We send out through the media a lot of

reports of decisions of cabinet, decisions within the ministry. You'll

receive them the same as everybody else does, Mr. Member, and the

general public.

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

think it bears repeating that the issue really is the recognition of

this government's responsibility. It's incumbent on any government to

be in a position to respond to any form of emergency that may arise. I

think we're all familiar with Murphy's law, which states that if

anything can go wrong it will. Here we have to contend with another

law: the law of the Socreds. It's rather an incantation, actually, not

a law: "Rain, rain, go away, little Johnny wants to play." It just

ignores reality.

I don't think the people of British

Columbia want a K Mart emergency program or even the cardboard police

enforcement that the Solicitor-General advocates. The people in British

Columbia expect and deserve a well-planned, coordinated emergency

program. God willing, we may never need them, but at least we can go to

bed at nights knowing that the Solicitor-General is on the watchtower,

ever vigilant and ever ready to meet any emergency program. So far the

increase in the budget does not give us any comfort, and we may have to

spend some restless nights in the future.

At any rate, I

just wanted to demonstrate, comparing the increases in other budget

lines in your Solicitor-General ministry, that the increase in the

emergency program is really very low. It does not support your

contention that you're giving this a very high priority. The provincial

emergency program budget was down last year to something like $1.8

million from $1.94 million the year before. Even this year's increase

to $2.4 million is a substantial decrease when you consider

inflationary factors. When you compare this with the other aspects of

your ministry, most of which have been doubled in the last five to six

years, it shows that this is one of the very lowest in priority. Yet I

think it represents one of the most important programs that the

Solicitor-General should be really pushing. I understand that there are

only 29 FTEs employed in PEP, and I want to know if the minister can

verify this. I will use PEP, rather than use the "provincial emergency

program." Some of these positions are vacant. Of these, only nine, as I

understand it, are in the field throughout B.C. Their role really is to

administer the provision of provincial assistance in such situations as

flooding and others. We have reports that these people do not even have

enough gas money to get to a disaster when it occurs.

The

real question is, Mr. Minister: if these people are not making the

actual response to an emergency, who is? Who is trained to respond to

emergencies such as many transportation accidents — vehicles, trains, shipping —

and industrial incidents, not to mention major oil spills, or even

minor ones? Who knows what to do? Our police really do not have any

technical knowledge for meeting this kind of disaster, and the Ministry

of Environment is insufficiently staffed to send personnel to the

scene. My question to the minister is: do we have a first-line response

to any of these eventualities?

HON. MR. REE : I'm

sorry, Mr. Chairman, but some of the question I found unintelligible. I

would like the member to repeat part of it, because I didn't understand

the question. I'm not too sure whether

[ Page 7025 ]

he's

criticizing the fact that we have only 29 employees. Actually, we have

7,382 people in the provincial emergency program. The provincial

emergency program is a core program with the 29 full-time employees.

The strength of the provincial emergency program is the volunteers who

can be called upon from all walks and experiences of life within

British Columbia. They are the people who are the core and the strength

of PEP.

MR. LOVICK : What about the alarmists?

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

MR. LOVICK : Some volunteers are better than others.

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

MR. GUNO :

It seems to me that the Solicitor-General has problems in deciphering

even the simplest questions that have been posed to him throughout his

estimates, so I'm not surprised that he considers my questions

unintelligible. It's very simple; read my lips. What kind of first-line

response do we have in place today? Who is coordinating the police, the

Ministry of Environment...? It's very clear. Do we have anything in

place today?

[Mr. Jacobsen in the chair.]

HON. MR. REE :

I should ask the question: for what? We have a lot of people in place.

People with different qualifications and abilities are in place in the

province, whether they be our volunteers for emergencies, our regional

coordinators or our people at the provincial emergency headquarters

office here in Victoria. We do have people in place. For what purpose

do you want them at the moment, what type of emergency and whereabouts?

That's why I say: "For what?"

MR. GUNO : Mr.

Chairman, the Solicitor-General's response reminds me of Mark Twain's

story about a cowboy running out of the saloon, jumping on his horse

and riding out in all directions. That is really the state of our

emergency program now, and your question is quite valid. In fact, you

should turn it around on yourself. It's really somehow assessing what

the emergency is and finding out what kind of response we have in place

for that particular one.

It's coordination; it's

management; it's anticipation. I'm just wondering if we have such a

capability in place right now. Forget about what the emergency is;

there are all kinds of emergencies, I grant you. Our question is

whether you can meet any one of them in a well-coordinated way.

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

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, earlier today in reference to the horse-racing

discussion, we heard the word "dithering" with regard to this minister.

The word "dithering" is much more appropriately applied when it comes

to this minister's role in charge of PEP. For goodness' sake, when were

dealing with horse-racing, we're dealing with public enjoyment; when

we're dealing with PEP, we're dealing with public safety and with the

environment. And what we are getting is dithering. This is incredible.

I can hardly believe that I am in this House listening to some of these

statements which not only lack appropriateness with regard to the

issues being raised, but lack any kind of political sense. That really

is interesting.

This minister, without any apology, yesterday referred to Dave LeBlanc — who has become, appropriately, something of a folk hero to the people of British Columbia because of the role he filled —

as an alarmist. Nobody got through to this minister to advise him of

the inappropriateness of such remarks, of the disastrous consequences

that can come to him from making such inappropriate and foolish

remarks, and today he refers to Dave LeBlanc as a media darling. Mr.

Chairman, this is a most inappropriate abuse by a minister of a person

who is recognized not by this ministry but by the people of this

province as having performed a very worthwhile service, and one

symbolic of the service that was provided by volunteers.

When

my colleague from Atlin asks a question about how many people are

working in PEP, and he refers to the very small number of full-time

employees, the minister comes back by trying to ride on the coattails

of the volunteers by coming up with some number in the six thousands.

[12:00]

What we are trying to do here is deal with a situation of grave

seriousness to health and safety and to the environment of this

province. What we are getting is most unsatisfactory. The line of

questions that was asked by my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

and my friend from Atlin comes down to this basic question: what if it

happened today? Would things just be the same, or would anything have

changed? What we get from this minister is: we're studying it; we are

going to wait until we can report to cabinet. Mr. Chairman, the

environment of British Columbia cannot wait for the cabinet to make a

decision. The urgency is out there now.

I want to refer to

a few things the minister said yesterday that I find quite alarming. I

mentioned during my comments that because of the dithering of this

ministry, fortunately some very fine-spirited businesses, individuals

and trade unions had provided equipment to the volunteers who did not

have equipment from PEP. I pointed out that garbage bags were provided

by Overwaitea, rakes were provided by K Mart, some equipment was

provided by the longshoremen's union — some type of protective clothing — and that food was also provided by merchants from Granville Island.

[ Page 7026 ]

The

minister's response to that was: "As for buying garbage bags at

Overwaitea or rakes at K Mart, yes, we bought garbage bags where we

could get them, to start with." This comment tries to imply that these

people had not made these very worthwhile donations, that somehow the

government had got in on the act, by trying to change the meaning of

the point that I had made in the House. Those were good corporate

citizens and good private citizens who had come forward, and this

minister hasn't even had the appropriateness to stand up in this House

and congratulate these people.

It is true that he did issue

some certificates. I know that some people got certificates from the

minister, and I commend him for that. But some of those people should

have received the kind of compensation that, if it were not wages — and the minister points out that after all they were volunteers —

at least would have trusted them and enabled them to have the kind of

expense money that was needed so that they could carry on. If some

volunteer only had one pair of pants and those pants were heavily

soiled by the oil, then at least he wouldn't have to quit so that he

could take his pants to a cleaners and then get the chit back to PEP

and then several weeks later be able to afford to buy another pair of

pants. I mean, this is the kind of inappropriateness that was going on,

the kind of Keystone Kops routine. Here my colleague from

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is asking very sensible questions, and we can't

even get an answer that even a semblance of putting things in place has

happened.

Something just came to me that our people got

from the library, and it is consistent with the report that was

referred to, the 14 points, by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

This is a report from Environment Canada, environmental protection

service, and it is listing oil spill countermeasure equipment in the

Pacific coastal region. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that

yesterday when I asked the minister what additional equipment had been

placed in such places as Tofino and Ucluelet, how many garbage bags,

rakes, some of this very basic stuff that volunteers need to get

started — it's just a beginning; it's not enough of what is needed, but knowing that it's very basic beginning equipment —

the minister responded by saying there was really no point in deploying

this stuff in those communities because they had to have their one

major inventory. We're still waiting to hear where that inventory is

and what is in it.

The minister made a tacit statement that

he really didn't agree that such an inventory should be deployed in

places like Port Renfrew and Tofino and Ucluelet and all those other

places up and down the coast where they should be deployed. This is not

terribly expensive equipment. This report from Environment Canada — a 1986 report, I believe —

saying where equipment is deployed has no page for Tofino. I'm sure the

provincial emergency program is aware of that. Apparently there's no

equipment deployed in Tofino in some sort of a warehouse where it can

be accessed readily in an emergency, similar to the fire-hall concept.

In a few minutes I'm going to pass this book along to my friend for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, because I'm sure he would be interested in

seeing what equipment the federal government said existed in 1986 in

his area.

There is a page for Ucluelet, consisting of four

headings and ten lines. I'm sure the provincial emergency program is

interested in what is in Ucluelet. It lists 152 metres of harbour boom

and anchor buoys. It doesn't say how many anchor buoys; it just says

anchor buoys. Under absorbents it says: "Unstated quantity of

absorbents." Imagine that, Mr. Minister; it happens again. Have we got

a number on that now? Do we know what they have there? Have you taken

the trouble to find that out? It lists safety equipment and special

clothing: "Life jackets, clothing, fire extinguishers, first-aid

equipment." It doesn't say how much. Under "Other Equipment" it says:

"Pit liners." It would be interesting to know if that equipment was

used during the spill.

During the debate yesterday, when I

asked the minister about having the infrastructure in place to be able

to make use of available volunteers, he said: "We did have some

problems of too many people wanting to come that we couldn't

control...." The situation was that we needed an infrastructure that

could be deployed to enable those people whom you couldn't control to

fulfil what they were setting out to do, which was to help clean up the

beaches.

Last night I phoned David LeBlanc. I phoned other

people who worked on the oil spill, and they told me of days when....

One woman told me of a day when she and another volunteer were the only

people on one of the major beaches. They could see the tide coming in,

and a new amount of oil had been deposited on that beach. They just

felt helpless. They saw the birds dying. They saw some shore birds — sanderlings —

and knew they were going to be threatened by this new tide. They knew

they didn't have the people who could help them to protect and save

that beach. Yet this minister says there were "too many people wanting

to come that we couldn't control." It shows that the mind-set, the

philosophy, the approach, is just inappropriate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

After

saying that they couldn't control them, the minister went on to say:

"...or you would have too many people on the cleanup." Really, is this

minister being briefed on the situation out there and how it should be

appropriately dealt with? Another point that he made was: "One of our

problems was on the weekends. Large numbers of people gave up their

weekends to come in and help clean up that spill." The minister refers

to that as a problem. It should be recognized that on weekends there

would be a lot of volunteers; that would be the time to have people out

there in the field to deploy those volunteers and turn that weekend

into not a problem, but an opportunity. That would be an appropriate

approach.

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

[ Page 7027 ]

that

the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), during

her speech on the budget, I believe, referred to British Columbia

technology that could be used in situations like this. I referred to

other kinds of British Columbia technology, among them Candel

Industries' Sea Rover radio tracking device. In response, the minister

said: "You're suggesting that we fly into other territorial waters when

these things happen. There are international treaties on that. That is

not the responsibility of my ministry; that is the responsibility of

the federal government and the Canadian Coast Guard. They are the ones

that would be tracking that, not the provincial emergency plan."

This

is evidence of the attitude that simply won't work. To quote the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), it's evidence of the

attitude of "We're prepared to follow." It's not the attitude of taking

the initiative to protect the environment of British Columbia. Surely

it's not simply a matter that it's international waters and it's a

federal responsibility. It's a matter of a proactive, aggressive

approach that moves what needs to be moved; to make the arrangements to

get up to those waters off Prince William Sound or to get to Grays

Harbor and deploy the material.

The member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was referring to the 14 points.

Those are important points. One of the points that we are making in all

of this is that this government lacks the political will to deal with

this situation. It is a problem of political will. It is a problem

where this minister is still responding with excuses instead of coming

forward with proactive plans. He is not able to give any semblance of

an answer to the questions asked of him. He is saying the environment

has to wait upon cabinet. The environment cannot afford to wait upon

cabinet.

If there was the political will, if there was not

the attitude of managing our environment by public relations, this

government would not have had to go through the public relations

process they've gone through of setting some things in place. As Miro

Cernetig did, they could have made use of the parliamentary library. By

going to the library they could have found the 1972 memo of cooperation

between British Columbia and the state of Washington. They would have

found that it was all on paper once before. This paper-tiger government

could have found that the paperwork had already been done They didn't

have to issue all their press releases saying that they were going to

be setting up a process. They could have acknowledged and recognized

that the instrument was in place. What was needed was action.

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

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

MR. CASHORE :

The cabinet doesn't need to meet in order to answer the questions of

the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. The cabinet has already met. It met in 1972 and came up with

an action plan. I have that plan here. I think some of it should be

read into the record. This is a plan between the British Columbia

government and the state of Washington.

"In this regard the province and the state agree to work with dispatch and a sense of urgency" — did you hear that, Mr. Minister? —

"to develop a coordinated program of oil pollution prevention and

abatement. Areas of potential inclusion in the program shall include

but not be limited to:

"The creation of integrated control and communications systems."

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

"

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

"

(3) The establishment of procedures for determining the

times and places for the transferring of oil, including means and methods of

transfer.

"

(4) The development of a coordinated monitoring an inspection

program.

"

(5) The development of joint plans of action to cope with

oil spills, including surveillance and environment degradation assessments relating

to such spills.

(6) The creation of a fire department concept which allows equipment,

material and personnel available to either the province or the state to

be used in control and cleanup operations within boundary waters.

"

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

[12:15]

Here we have had management of our environment by public relations

when all we needed to do was get somebody to go to the library — as Miro Cernetig did —

and find that the instrument already existed. But the political will is

not there, so that is not going to happen. When you have no vision, the

people perish. When you have no political will, the words that are

written on paper are not words that are translated into action.

Mr.

Chairman, I would also add that supplemental to this memorandum of

cooperation between the province of British Columbia and the state of

Washington, dated August 1972, is some supporting documentation: "Oil

Spill Emergency Plan for the Province of British Columbia to Operate in

Conjunction With Washington State Oil Spill Action Plan." If the

minister would send somebody to the library, I'm sure they could find

this. It goes through all the details that would answer the questions

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is just asking. It's

all there, Mr. Chairman, but this minister seems to be hoping that

there will be an election and they'll never have to deal with what

they're putting down in the press releases they're putting out. That's

inappropriate. Our environment can't wait on that.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister that for the rest of

these estimates he seriously consider changing his approach, that he

[ Page 7028 ]

enter

into a dialogue, that he engage in some creative thinking and that he

put forward some practical ideas. If this minister digs down deep, I'm

sure he will be able to find within himself wells of resources that

will enable him to join with other members of the House and work

together cooperatively so that we can deal with an environmental

problem, an environment that cannot wait upon a cabinet that lacks the

political will, that does only lip service, and that is a danger to our

environment. This government is an environmental disaster.

Mr.

Chairman, I think the last point I made is one that needs to be

considered very seriously. All rhetoric aside, all the points that on

each side of this House we might want to make, the fact is that the

protection of our pristine environment depends on being able to put our

minds and thoughts together and come up with programs that are going to

work. This minister still has a chance during these estimates to

indicate a change of heart, a change of direction and something that's

going to work for the people of British Columbia, instead of the

approach of trying to manage the environment by public relations.

MR. DE JONG :

I hadn't planned on entering the debate; however, I feel that I should

do so, because I think the members of the opposition are trying to

mislead the public in what they're saying about the disasters that have

happened and that may happen or may never happen.

When you

look at it, there are basically two types of disaster: those that have

some warning or forewarning and those that you have no warning of

whatsoever. It's pretty easy for anyone to sensationalize on a disaster

that in fact has happened, particularly one you didn't know was going

to happen.

I'm certainly not, Mr. Member of the Opposition,

trying to minimize your concern. I'm as concerned as anyone about

disasters that may happen and so on, and I'm certainly not minimizing

what has happened on the west coast over the past year. But at the same

time, I would like to have heard from the members of the opposition, in

particular those from the communities affected by the disasters, about

what they have done and what they have suggested to the minister that

should be done.

MR. SIHOTA : You'd better read Hansard .

MR. DE JONG : You've done this yesterday, but you haven't done it prior to being in this House in the debate —

that's what I'm saying. Mr. Chairman, they should be as concerned about

the spill when it happens as when they get into a debate in the House

here and sensationalize on something that's happened after the fact.

would just like to get into some historical things that I've been

involved with. From time to time we have a really high snow buildup in

the mountains in British Columbia, and we have periodic flooding

resulting from those snow buildups, and it depends on the weather

conditions and the snow in the mountains.

For 15 years I've

been on the emergency committee of the local council dealing with those

potential high waters that could in fact threaten the farmlands of

Matsqui municipality. May was usually the month of high water, but if

there was threat of high water we wouldn't wait until May to prepare

for it. We would have meetings in February, as soon as the first threat

of high water came, and there would be preparedness in the local

community. It didn't take a pile of money — thousands of dollars —

to put this together; it was a matter of getting people alerted to what

may happen. Again, I must emphasize that we have two types of

disasters: those you don't know are going to happen and those you have

warning of, and I'm speaking of the ones we have warning of.

But

at the same time we've had hundreds and thousands of people involved as

volunteers to help assist in avoiding flood conditions. We've had

people going all night bagging sandbags along the Fraser River. If it

hadn't been for those volunteers and their eagerness to preserve their

community from flooding, we would never have survived. No government

here in Victoria would have been able to help us out.

must also say that we've had the greatest cooperation from the

ministries in Victoria to assist us in whatever needs we had, be it

sandbags or equipment. Each year we would have a complete list of

equipment from the local community as well as what was available from

the province and the various federal emergency programs, should a

disaster strike or the potential of a disaster. I don't think there has

to be too much difference between those types of disasters, expected or

unexpected, but there can be this similar type of cooperation and

committees set up by the minister along the coastline for those

communities that may be affected by those types of disasters.

That's

really my question to the minister: is he planning to coordinate a

similar approach to the disasters that have happened elsewhere in the

province, in particular, in the diked areas in the Fraser Valley? I'm

sure that every municipality in those areas has experienced the

cooperation of your ministry and the ministries prior to yours. Are you

prepared to communicate with the various communities and to have a type

of committee established in each community so that there is a direct

contact, perhaps through the local government and so on, so that the

effects of either an expected or unexpected disaster can be lessened or

even avoided?

HON. MR. REE : I thank the second

member for Central Fraser Valley for his comments, which are excellent

and reasoned rather than what we hear from the opposition.

The

provincial emergency program or branch does actively encourage

municipalities to establish their own responses to emergencies. We have

regional coordinators throughout the province. A large number of them

are on the staff of municipalities or in other functions within the

municipalities. We will continually discuss and assist municipalities

with the means of reaction to emergencies. As the member

[ Page 7029 ]

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

to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and his

excellent research in going to the library and digging out this

memorandum of agreement, which, I gather, is dated August 1972.... I

believe that was shortly before there was a change of government. I

have no record or recollection of any action being taken by that

government towards emergency preparedness during the three years it was

in power. Its attitude was probably much the same as that of the

present members of the opposition — the same party that was in government at that time — that masses of dollars out of the back of a truck at the time of an emergency, or before, is all that's necessary.

saw a former Leader of the Opposition at the time of economic problems

in the forest industry saying that we'll stockpile logs to keep people

cutting in the forests, even if you can't sell them. This is an

attitude or a mentality which we find with the NDP. They do not look at

numbers. The member from Maillardville-Coquitlam criticized my comment

about too many people volunteering to help on a weekend being a

problem. He does that without any thought or knowledge of the

circumstances that were prevalent in that area at that time — weather-wise and the rest of it.

MRS. BOONE : Were you there?

HON. MR. REE :

I went up there, and I was there for a day and a half. I was there

overnight, I attended meetings and I was on the beach. I talked to

volunteers. I was down on the beach, and I was up in the town. I talked

to the mayors and to the committee.

MR G. JANSSEN : Alarmists?

HON. MR. REE :

Your alarmist, who you tell me was a great volunteer up there, has

never been and is not a volunteer for the provincial emergency program.

He's a part-time employee of the Coast Guard.

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

HON. MR. REE :

I'm not running him down. But he was more difficulty, and he was a

media whatever you-call-it. He created more difficulties. He would not

cooperate when the coordinating offices were set up.

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

HON. MR. REE :

He would not cooperate in any way, shape or form with the provincial

emergency program. No, he was not there to help solve the problem; he

was part of the problem.

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

HON. MR REE :

At any rate, too many volunteers up there could be a problem; we were

conscious of that. The weather and accommodation for them.... That's

their attitude. Oh, you should look after that. We can move in

accommodation for them overnight, and things like that. You can't do

that, Mr. Member, and you'd know that if you had any intelligence.

[12:30]

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE :

Well, with the type of debate that we're getting from over there, Mr.

Member, I'm sorry that I have to respond to it, because they don't

understand what they're talking about. At any rate, the criticisms of

the provincial emergency program are strictly unfounded.

Interjection.

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

MR. CASHORE : You waited three weeks.

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

MR. CASHORE : How many garbage bags in Ucluelet?

HON. MR. REE :

I'm waiting for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) to

tell me. You told me that he had the inventory; he has a record of it.

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

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

put it in perspective, the job done by PEP and the volunteers was

excellent. They don't have to take the criticism that this opposition

is laying on them. This opposition has no respect for the volunteers of

this province. They want everything paid for as such. We have many

dedicated people who were prepared

[ Page 7030 ]

come up there and work. We had many dedicated people who donated not

only of their time but other things, not expecting to be compensated in

dollars, as members of the opposition expect anytime they might do

something. These people are concerned about our country, our

environment, our province, and they are to be commended.

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

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY : I'd like to introduce some students from my old alma

mater, University Hill Secondary School, who are visiting in the gallery. I'm

not sure if I can see them, but I'd like the House to make them very welcome.

I think they've come at an important time during an issue that concerns

all British Columbians, and I hope they enjoy the debate.

MR. GUNO :

First of all, I want to correct a mistake I made in terms of wrongly

attributing a quote I made to Mark Twain. Actually, it was the great

Canadian humorist I should have attributed it to, Stephen Leacock.

have to leave in about five minutes. I just wanted to respond to the

charge that we are somehow criticizing the efforts of the volunteers. I

think — if you really listened hard enough — our point really

was that we laud the efforts of the volunteers. It was their support

and coordination from this government that we were really zeroing in on.

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

There

is one area that I wanted to canvass. It's a fairly mundane issue, but

I think it's important. I understand that PEP has now installed a

hotline communications system. I have a number. I understand that since

that hotline became operational last year, statistics show that they

have received something like 11,000 reports or calls, many of them

unsolicited, many of them just calls that came in. This is a

substantial increase over the number of calls that were made to a

similar hotline that was under the aegis of the Ministry of Environment

when this program was under that particular ministry.

However, I don't discern in the budget any substantial increase to meet that kind of demand —

a demand that's increasing. Nor is there any indication that there is

any kind of response to those calls that are coming in. What's even

more curious is that if such a line is set up to meet emergencies....

What is being done by the Solicitor-General to advertise to let the

public know about it? It's not in the Victoria directory. If this is a

system geared towards emergency response, I think it would be

reasonable to ensure that it's well publicized.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's an unlisted number.

MR. GUNO :

Specifically, I want to know which other agencies are tied into it. Or

do they know anything about it? Can they put complaints received by

them on to the system? Who has the primary responsibility for ensuring

that there is a response? If the minister wants me to repeat those item

by item, I will. But you have a pen and paper, and those are fairly

short questions.

HON. MR. REE : The member is quite

right that we have an emergency response telephone number. It is inside

the front cover of every telephone book in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS : What's the number?

HON. MR. REE :

Maybe I could get a telephone book, so that I could help the member who

is incapable of reading the number himself in a telephone book. I'll

tell him exactly where it is: it's inside the front cover of the

telephone book. If he can't read it himself, someone on his side can.

Yes,

we are receiving a large number of calls there. The resources that we

have at the provincial emergency offices are adequate to service this

hotline on a 24-hour basis. We get many calls on the line that are not

necessarily provincial-emergency-related, but the staff there tries to

assist anybody who calls in the best way they can.

With

respect to interfacing with other hotlines that government may or may

not have, we have not done anything towards that and have not looked at

that. This line is primarily there — and we try to keep it clear —

for emergencies when they happen, so they can be reported to the

headquarters, and the coordination of the response to the emergency can

be as quick and effective as possible.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the minister most of the

morning. I have been listening to the members from this side of the

House attempting to get some answers and to see what the minister has

in mind if another disaster should strike the west coast of Vancouver

Island, which is my riding. I've been listening intently, and I'm just

amazed. I'm a little bit shocked that the minister yesterday referred

to one of the people who spearheaded the cleanup there, one of my

constituents, as an alarmist. I was hoping he would have read the Blues

and recognized his mistake. But what does he do today? He calls him a

media darling. When I as member for that riding phoned the emergency

program office in Tofino, I was told: "Why don't you phone the fire

hall. That's where Dave LeBlanc is. He's coordinating the cleanup

effort. That's where we're directing everybody to."

This is

the person who was recognized as spearheading that, the person who went

out and got the garbage bags, got the shovels from the Forest Service,

got the rakes, the coveralls and everything, who begged, pleaded and

organized that — and the minister stands up in this House and refers to him as part of the problem. On behalf of my constituents I

[ Page 7031 ]

take

exception to that remark. By referring to the person who led the effort

to clean up the beaches, to clean up that oil, the disaster that

occurred in my riding, Mr. Minister.... I take exception to the fact

that you maligned the leader of that and all the other people who were

helping him out and looking to him for direction. You say he's an

alarmist, a media darling and part of the problem. I expect you to

congratulate that person, not to malign him in this House.

Earlier,

when the member for Esquimalt was questioning the minister on what was

happening, the minister said the 14 points raised by that member were

under active consideration and he was consulting with people. I would

like to ask the minister whether he has met with David LeBlanc. Has he

met with the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot? Has he met with

the villages of Ucluelet or Tofino for consultation? Has he met with

the Pacific Rim Park officials? Has he met with the Nuu'chah'nulth

Tribal Council?

HON. MR. REE : No.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada