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)

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6981 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sustainable log harvest. Mr. Miller –– 6981

Mr. Jacobsen

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 6983

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

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6983

Mr. Sihota

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

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6987

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Guno

Mr. Cashore

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Crandall

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to the House today:

Jack Munro, president of the IWA; Earl Foxcroft, president of IWA Local

185 in Port Alberni; and Ken Georgetti, president of the B.C.

Federation of Labour. I would ask everybody to also make welcome all

the lumber and pulp workers of Port Alberni who are here today in

support of integrated forest management.

MR. MILLER: I'd like to introduce a group of workers from

Local 171, the loggers' local, which I used to be a member of: Bob

Patterson, Bill Owens, Murray Cantelon, Jim Mag and Mike McQuillan.

Also with them is Norm Garcia, editor of the IWA Lumberworker. I'd like

the House to make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the House today is Mr. Ian

Arrol, a former conservative Member of Parliament for York East in the

Toronto area. Mr. Arrol is now retired and living in Victoria.

Just before I take my seat, acknowledging the introduction of Jack

Munro, I should mention — and I don't think Mr. Speaker would forgive

me if I didn't — that Mr. Munro is one of his famous constituents and,

I would suggest, maybe one of his very strong supporters as well.

MR. KEMPF: Visiting us in the gallery this afternoon are a

couple of people who are no strangers to these precincts: Ina and Cliff

Ludtke. As many would know, Cliff was on the Sergeant-at-Arms staff for

a number of years, and Ina was my secretary for ten years. I'd ask the

House to make them very welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to join the minister in welcoming

the fine constituents of Alberni and Earl Foxcroft, president of Local

185 — people who have contributed so much to this province.

MRS. McCARTHY: Today in our gallery are representatives from

the Victoria Newcomers' Club. This is quite a remarkable organization

that meets monthly and welcomes and ensures that newcomers to this city

are kept in touch with all of the activities over a three-year period.

Then, of course, they go on to become old-timers in Victoria. Today we

have 23 representatives led by Mrs. Lesley Brennand, and I would ask

the House to welcome them to our assembly today.

MR. BRUCE: On behalf of my colleague the member for

Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), I would like the House to welcome 55 grade

11 students from Hope Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Dale.

MR. DE JONG: I would like to introduce to the House today one of my

younger brothers, Henry, and his wife Tena, who are in the members' gallery.

I would ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to add greetings to some

distinguished visitors to the Legislature: Jack Munro, Ken Georgetti

and Earl Foxcroft, who are exercising their democratic rights of free

speech at the Legislature today. I was delayed while an MP was

exercising his right of free speech to me about the Carmanah Valley.

Again, I would like to have both sides of this House welcome some of

the strong leadership that we have in British Columbia in the labour

movement.

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

I also want to join the member for Omineca in welcoming Mr. and Mrs.

Ludtke. Mr. Ludtke was very active in Esquimalt in the Legion, and it

is a pleasure to see him here today. Would all members join me in

giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SUSTAINABLE LOG HARVEST

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. The information from

a Canadian forestry study done by Reid Collins indicates a sustainable

coastal log harvest of 26 million cubic metres annually and a 1989

usage forecast of about 36 million, leaving a shortfall of about 10

million. Is the minister aware of this information?

HON. MR. PARKER: The report would deal with the Crown land

cut, which is about 26 million, and the balance would come from lands

that aren't under the aegis of the Forest Service.

MR. MILLER: Clearly the report shows a shortfall in

sustainable cut. On March 4, Mr. Minister, Bob Sitter of Interfor said

that part of the company's problems with supply could continue in the

future as the entire coastal industry confronts a possible downsizing

of harvest. Has the minister met with Mr. Sitter to discuss the

implications of this statement on employment in the forest industry in

coastal British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't met with Mr. Sitter, Mr. Speaker,

but the cut levels in the province are about 26 million cubic metres on

lands that are administered by the Forest Service. The additional cut

that the member alludes to will be coming from lands that don't fall

within the Forest Service management regime at all. Those include

Indian reserves, federal lands, private lands and old temporary

tenures. Once the old temporary tenures are completed and the forest

renewed, they go back into the allowable cut. The allowable cut is 26

million, and that's a sustainable level of lands that are managed by

the Forest Service.

[ Page 6982 ]

MR. MILLER: Despite their application for a tree farm licence

on northern Vancouver Island, which said there would be no layoffs,

Canadian Pacific Forest Products has now announced 112 people laid off.

They said the layoffs were directly related to declining harvest

levels. Is the minister aware of that situation and the implications of

that for declining employment on the Island?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're aware that the

changes in the harvesting areas for that licensee dictated a different

type of logging activity. We'll see more helicopter harvesting in that

area. Also there was some withdrawal from all replaceable tenures in

the province to support a small business enterprise program throughout

the province. That cut has impacted on all major licensees, as well as

minor licensees with replaceable tenures. That's a policy that has been

administered equally across the province, and it has served to provide

us with a means to encourage value-added industry in the small business

sector in the province. We have a number of successes, most recently

the one in Port Alberni, which is a value-added enterprise in

conjunction with Japanese interests. It will be using wood that for the

most part has not been accessible before helicopter logging technology

came in. That makes a big lift to employment in Port Alberni. Not only

that, but as I understand it, they all will be members of the IWA.

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

On January 14, 1987, Professor Pearse, who is quite knowledgeable

about the forest industry in British Columbia, had this to say about

the coastal cut: "There is a critical timber supply in the coast." The

Ministry of Forests inventories that suggest there is a 74-year supply

of old growth are misleading, and the concept of sustained yield is not

being practised. Has the minister met with Professor Pearse to discuss

his allegation about the difficulty we are having on the coast of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't met with Dr.

Pearse about his allegations. If he was prepared to have a lengthy

discussion on it, I imagine we'd be happy to get together with him and

see what his points are. The sustainable yield on the coast is

established through each of the timber supply areas and the tree farm

licences on the coast and in the interior. That's the way the forests

are managed in the province.

There are some 35 timber supply areas in the bounds of the areas

covered by tree farm licences. Those are on a five-year review, and

there is a continuing forest inventory to determine what the denudation

has been and the reclassification of stands as we learn to work with

stands that before were considered unmerchantable but now are

considered merchantable species and merchantable operations — that is,

the logging chance is economically viable now.

[2:15]

A good example is sky car logging; another good example is

helicopter logging. The point is that the allowable annual cut has to

be reviewed on a regular basis, and each one of those management units

is reviewed on a five-year basis because technology and utilization

change. We see things like we've seen in the Peace River country where,

all of a sudden, a weed that was being cleared by farmers is now a

meaningful crop, and that is the aspen of that area.

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

MR. MILLER: Last year, when I raised the problem of annual

cut and shortages with the minister, he said that if industry "sees fit

to build the plants a little larger than the wood will supply, then

they must be looking at filling it with raw materials from other

sources. I would like to see us as a net importer of raw material...."

Could the minister advise the House where British Columbia is going to

import logs from to maintain jobs and employment in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER: - The opportunities in the forest industry in

British Columbia are many and varied, because across the whole

spectrum, from employees right through to consultants, we have

expertise that is world class. Because of that we are able to get into

segments and niches in the forest industry that would make us world

compatible. Not only that, but we can look at wood supplies from all

over the world. Some of those wood supplies can be not only in round

wood but in various stages of fibre, whether it's sawdust, hog fuel,

shavings or what have you.

I would like to see full utilization of the forest resource of

British Columbia, and I would like to see us utilizing forest resources

from other parts of the world to provide manufacturing and job

opportunities right here in B.C.

MR. MILLER: That's nice to know. The ministry granted a

forest licence in my region to a company to build a 125,000 cubic metre

sawmill. That mill is built. It can now only handle a 28-inch log. In

the last few weeks the minister approved an export permit for 60,000

cubic metres of logs in excess of 28 inches. Is that an example of good

planning and good utilization of the fibre of this province, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm dismayed that this member has not taken

the trouble to talk to his own constituents to find out what the

economic opportunities are in the town where he lives. The Wedeene

River sawmills are undertaking a small family operation that is set up

to utilize the forest resources on the north coast and to provide jobs

right in his town. There are probably a lot of constituents actually in

that mill who vote for him, so he should be paying attention to what's

happening there. Being able to sell these oversized logs that happen

concurrently with the current harvest that feeds that mill gives him the

[ Page

6983 ]

cash flow — if he bothers to check — to provide the

large log side that they need to utilize the whole profile. That's

exactly what they're undertaking, and we're assisting them in doing

that.

MR. MILLER: For clarification, is it the policy of the Minister of Forests

to allow companies to use the forests of British Columbia to gain the capital

to build processing facilities? Is that the policy of this administration, allowing

them to export logs to get the money to build the mills?

HON. MR. PARKER: There was a sawmill once upon a time in

Prince Rupert and it closed. Now a family on the north coast, living

and working in Prince Rupert, made a successful bid proposal and were

awarded a forest licence. Under the terms of the forest licence, they

were to develop a sawmill. They struggled along and managed to do that

by marketing their logs both domestically and overseas. They put that

cash right into the town of Prince Rupert, into site development. They

had to take a chunk of mountainside and make it flat so that they could

put the mill in there and employ people. They have done that; they are

providing employment. They are providing cash flow in the town — that's

important to Prince Rupert — and I cannot, for the life of me,

understand why the member for Prince Rupert is against that.

MR. MILLER: The minister misses the point. The same

government gave $26 million to Louisiana-Pacific to build a mill up in

the northeast corner of the province. I talk to the people of my

constituency.

One of the ways we can head off this timber shortfall in British

Columbia is through the FRDA II agreement. The federal government has

now pretty well put the kibosh on that; they've scrapped it. Could the

minister explain why his government so heartily embraced the federal

budget, knowing the negative implications for B.C.? Why did this

government leap before they looked in terms of the federal budget, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR PARKER: I had discussions with the federal forests

minister, Hon. Frank Oberle, in advance of the budget announcements for

his ministry, and the point he made to me was that we could expect

replacement agreements through the western development agreement and

not through another forest resource development agreement, and that

there were a number of opportunities through that avenue. That's

precisely what we're pursuing with the WDO. As a matter of fact, we've

been on record now for about 18 months at a $700 million level for five

years on forest renewal that would not only take care of backlog NSR,

but also look after the stand tending that's so important.

MR. JACOBSEN: Probably my memory is not very good, but I'd just

like to ask the minister a question concerning the allowable annual cut on the

coast, because I'm a bit confused about the conversation and the concern

about the annual cut. It seems to me that a while back, when some of us on the

government side of this House stood up and expressed our concern about including

Lyell Island and Burnaby Island in the South Moresby park, the people who are

now concerned about the annual cut on the coast criticized us very severely

for not proceeding with it. We were concerned about the 250,000 cubic metres

of lost annual cut and the IWA jobs. I'd like to ask the minister if it

is correct that these are the same people who were criticizing us for not including....

Interjections.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

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

To the Minister of Crown Lands. Have negotiations on the Westwood

lands been carried on with only one developer over the last month or so?

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave on behalf of the Select

Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations

that the committee be allowed to sit this afternoon.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

AND CONSUMER SERVICES

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those members who were in the committee will

recall that just before the lunchtime adjournment the Chair undertook

to bring back some information on the scope of debate that can be

allowed on the line of questioning being put forward by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in terms of which items were and

were not sub judice.

Beauchesne's Rules and Forms ,

fifth edition, page 118, on the sub judice convention, reads: "Members

are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the

courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub

judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or

undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of

a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House

upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."

[ Page 6984 ]

The Chair has also been advised that the particular case in question

is of a criminal nature and therefore the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew is duly advised of that. I would also point out to members who

wish to stand on points of order on this matter that the Chair cannot

predict in advance what line of debate a member will take and therefore

has no way of knowing in advance whether a member's remarks are in or

out of order.

Having said that and having promised this morning to bring this

matter before the committee, I shall call the committee to order and

recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: In talking about the Knight Street Pub affair,

when we had the 12 o'clock break, we were talking about the differences

between the ombudsman's findings and those of the ministry's own

internal investigation.

On page 65 of the ombudsman's report he says: "While this office may

agree with the substance of the majority of the ministry's conclusions

vis-à-vis the 63 allegations, it cannot commend the process by which

those conclusions were reached. The ministry's investigation was

inadequate and too narrowly focused; irregularities were either not

noticed or not questioned."

I want to ask the minister this: in light of that finding, once this

report landed on the minister's desk, did he go back to Mr. Doney — who

I understand conducted the internal investigation — and ask him what

went wrong with the ministerial investigation?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is correct that Mr. Doney was in

charge of the investigation. There is no doubt that he was assisted by

a member of the Attorney-General's department and the then general

manager of licensing. We did discuss the issue of the investigation,

and I suppose it would be wrong to say that if we were doing that

investigation with some of the knowledge that we have today, it would

have been a stronger one. In any case, I could see no evidence of

anything other than a correct investigation, albeit there may have been

some things that were not investigated, as the ombudsman later

determined. The ombudsman said the investigation was too narrow. The

narrowness of the investigation was based on the allegations that came

forward from the individual who lived within the referendum area.

MR. SIHOTA: In a very cavalier way, the minister keeps on

dismissing the role of his ministry. The gist of his argument is that

his people are not investigators.

On page 66 of that same report the ombudsman says: "It was the

inherent responsibility of the ministry to be thorough and exacting in

the investigation of complaints concerning its past administrative

actions. In these circumstances it is concluded that the ministry

failed to meet this standard."

[2:30]

Again, Mr. Minister, it seems to me that once this report landed on

your desk, you ought to have summoned your people into your office and

found out just what went wrong. Did you do that? Yes or no.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, because the ombudsman's report

happens to agree with the member's line of thinking I don't necessarily

agree with everything in it, but I think it was done in a fair and

reasonable manner. Yes, we had a lot of discussions about the

investigation. Yes, we did do some things that will strengthen if we

are required to do it. But we don't — nor do we still intend to —

reconstruct a referendum from day one unless there is pretty good

evidence for some need of doing that. Originally, when we went into the

investigation, that evidence wasn't before us.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that you would have wanted to call

your people into the woodshed and find out what they did wrong. In

terms of information that was or wasn't before you, I want to ask the

minister this question. When the ministry conducted its own internal

investigation, it held a press conference. The minister, Mr. Doney and

Mr. Hick were present. At that press conference the minister and his

officials were asked whether or not they were aware of the

communications between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick, which I referred to

earlier on this morning. The reply that was given by his officials at

that time was that they were unaware. It subsequently became evident

that they were aware. Did the minister inquire of Mr. Hick as to why he

took that position at the press conference, only to have discovered

later on that indeed what he articulated at the press conference was a

lie?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, first of all, the member opposite is

wrong. The question was directed at one individual at the press

conference. That individual answered in a way that was different than

my knowledge of the situation. We did have discussions of that. There

was never any question addressed to anybody other than that one

individual.

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

HON. L. HANSON: As I said earlier, the knowledge that I had

was different than an answer that was given there. I guess that would

equate to lying.

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

HON. L. HANSON: Again, keeping in mind the Chairman's

warnings about the criminal nature of a trial that's going on, the

knowledge that I had — and I'm not a legal mind, so I have no idea if I

am stepping out of line or not — which I have expressed before publicly

and to the media was that when the

[ Page 6985 ]

Issue of the Knight Street Pub was raised with me, I was advised of

a conversation that went on between Mr. Poole and the then general

manager. That conversation had gone on a long time prior, or at least

that call between the two had gone on a long time prior to the issue of

the Knight Street Pub. The knowledge that I was given at that time was

that the call was made but that the general manager's decision to put

the firm on the approved list had nothing to do with the phone call.

That was the knowledge that I was given at that time.

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

HON. L. HANSON: Again, the conclusion was fairly simple. The

information I was given was that the call was made and that it had no

influence on the appointment.

MR. SIHOTA: Who gave the minister that information? Was it

Mr. Hick who told you that there was no connection between those two?

Who was it?

HON. L. HANSON: The general manager of licensing, who was Mr.

Hick at the time, advised me that he had received that call but that It

was not the reason that he placed the company in question on the

approved list. I asked him what he had done. He said that he had

investigated their past performance, and that they had in fact

conducted a referendum prior to that. I later found that not to be true.

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

HON. L. HANSON: My recollection of it — and what I was

referring to — was what the general manager attributed to the firm,

that they had held a referendum in the past. I believe it was the

ombudsman's report that pointed out that their past experience was in

conducting a pre-referendum poll for the applicant as opposed to

actually conducting a referendum. If my memory serves me correctly, I

wasn't aware of that until the ombudsman's report came out.

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

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

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

HON. L. HANSON: No.

MR. SIHOTA: In that case, perhaps the minister can tell us

what discussions he had with the Premier in relation to the entire

Knight Street affair prior to his internal investigation.

HON. L. HANSON: I have no recollection of any discussions

other than.... I guess it's been a year now. Because the issue was a

fairly high-profile one, I imagine that I might have been asked some

questions by the individuals, but I never had any discussions with them

about the issue.

MR. SIHOTA: Did you receive any representations from Mr.

Poole with respect to this entire matter prior to the conduct of your

internal investigation?

HON. L. HANSON: I didn't have any discussions. I don't

remember whether there was a question. As you are aware, cabinet

meetings and so on are a weekly occurrence. There's a lot of contact

along those lines, and it was a high-profile issue, but I never had any

discussions specific to that issue.

MR. SIHOTA: The ombudsman concluded that there was political

interference from the Premier's office during the initial stages — and

I want to emphasize the initial stages — of the pub application. Is it

the minister's position that the first time he became knowledgeable of

any interference was after Mr. Owen's report?

HON. L. HANSON: If I understand the question correctly — did

I learn of the phone call to the general manager after the ombudsman's

report — no, I knew it before that, but I don't know exactly when. But

it was when the issue was raised.

MR. SIHOTA: After the press conference that I referred to

earlier, did the minister canvass this matter again with Mr. Hick in

light of the response that he gave at the press conference?

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

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

HON. L. HANSON: It was a personnel matter, and I don't

discuss all of the discussions that I had with the staff. Suffice it to

say that the answer given at the press conference wasn't my

understanding of the situation, and we did have a discussion about that.

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

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to reveal that

discussion. I have acknowledged to the member opposite that the answer

given at that press conference was not the information I had, and we

did have a discussion about it.

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

[ Page 6986 ]

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

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

HON. L. HANSON: Again, the discussion that I had with my staff member

is a personnel issue and I'm not going to discuss it.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me, as we have canvassed this matter

this afternoon and this morning, that there is a tremendous lack of

understanding on the part of the minister as to what his ministerial

responsibilities ought to be in these types of cases. Throughout, right

from the beginning all of the minister's lack of appreciation of what

it was that Mr. Hick told him as it related to the conversations that

Mr. Hick had with Mr. Poole.... The minister casually dismissed the

ombudsman's report. His attitude, still here today, was evident at that

time: "Yes, I guess the ombudsman found something that we didn't find;

yes, it is true that my people aren't investigators and maybe the

ombudsman's people are.

There is a whole tale here of what seems to me to be an indication

that the minister just doesn't have an appreciation of what his job is,

quite frankly, in terms of ministerial responsibility — calling some

people in on the carpet, making sure the truth is known to the public,

adhering to some sense of ethics and demanding that there be

explanations from his ministry.

The ombudsman described the ministry's investigation at one point —

I believe in his draft report — as being "shallow and superficial." I

think that was the quote attributed to the so-called draft report of

the ombudsman. It seems to me that the minister's entire attitude about

this matter is shallow and superficial, and he is glossing over his

obligations to the public, to the process of licence applications, to

cabinet, to this House and to the province.

[2:45]

It seems to me that there are a whole series of loose ends still

remaining here, things that we've canvassed only peripherally today:

the relationship between Mr. Toigo and the financing of the McRobbie

proposal at the front end; matters that, of course, are still before

the courts In relation to Mr. Giordano and the way in which Delta Media

Services was provided favour; the role, if any, of the Premier in this

situation; the absence of follow-through by the minister himself with

respect to his internal investigation and calling on the carpet some

people; his failure to utter the truth when he, during the heat of a

press conference, knows that what's being said is not consistent with

reality, but allowing it to be uttered without thinking that there is

an obligation on his part to correct.

I don't know exactly what standard this government establishes for

its ministers and at what point the Premier comes to the conclusion

that perhaps it's not appropriate to maintain a minister within a

particular portfolio. I have a lot of respect for the minister — and I

think I have tried to show that during the course of our debate on

other matters — but with respect to this matter there are a whole

series of critical failures of judgment by the minister which make one

wonder just how low the standard is that's expected, and just why it is

that some people continue in the portfolios they have.

I want to bring to the minister attention another pub licensing

proposal application in the works right now which causes me great

concern. I don't know to what extent there are political pressures

being borne here, but I am worried about what is happening on Bowen

Island with respect to a pub being established at the Snug Cove Marina.

The application has been made by a Mr. Rondy Dike to establish a

45-seat marina pub and restaurant. At the time the application was

made, there were three licensed outlets — still are — and a government

store to serve a community of approximately 1,000 permanent adult

residents. The proposed pub of Mr. Dike is located just slightly down

the road from another pub owned by a Mr. Hannen, known as the Bowen Pub.

On September 17, 1987, Mr. Dike's application for the pub licence

was considered by the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. In a

letter dated that day it was said:

"A marine pub must have marine identity, and that is

why the original preclearance was granted for location at the seashore.

It is also questionable whether a preclearance would be granted today,

given that there is now a neighbourhood public house just two blocks

away. The population for the area is very small and to put in another

pub on the road would not be fair to the residents nor to the other

licensee. Under the circumstances, I cannot approve your request to

relocate, nor can I grant your request for increased seating."

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

The appeal was heard on April 19, 1988, and a marine pub — remember

this is not on water; this is now sitting on land — was granted. In

granting the appeal, Mr. Doney said:

"I am aware that there have been concerns expressed by

some Bowen Island residents about there being a marina public house at

Snug Cove. Accordingly, I have given consideration to requiring the

applicants to submit their proposal to a public referendum. However, as

I am advised that the entire marina proposal will require a change in

zoning and that a public hearing will be required, I believe that the

community concerns can be satisfactorily addressed in the course of the

rezoning process."

That was in April. In May, the application was heard by the Bowen

Island Trust Committee. They felt it was a mistake to include the

proposal for the pub in the larger rezoning package. They chose to

eliminate the proposed pub from the rezoning package, and by

correspondence dated November 7, 1988, the Island Trust wrote to the

minister and said that they are, and I quote, "most emphatic in stating

that the public hearing does not substitute for a referendum, " and

called for a referendum.

[ Page 6987 ]

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

What is peculiar about this entire situation is that originally the

ministry said that there would be a referendum and they granted a

preclearance. Then they asked that it go to rezoning, at which point

the public hearing concluded that there had to be a referendum. The

ministry then reconsidered the matter and came to the conclusion that

there should not be a referendum at all.

Meanwhile — and I have all the documents here and will make them

available to the minister — the proposed pub is going on being

constructed. The community wants a referendum. The ministry has decided

there is not going to be a referendum. The federal government, through

Mr. Siddon, has now come in with approximately $1 million to provide

some assistance to Mr. Dike for the establishment of a pub on Bowen

Island at Snug Cove. Those funds were provided to Mr. Dike to develop

his marina proposal, as I have it in a letter that came to my office on

May 1. The minister doesn't have it.

There have been a whole series of contraventions of bylaw

provisions, which I have here, which I intended to go through carefully

with the minister, but having received a note that we're out of time, I

just want the minister's assurance that his ministry will investigate

the circumstances surrounding the development of the pub at Snug Cove

on Bowen Island, and will reverse its decision and refer this matter —

as it should — to a public referendum.

The policy reason as to why you should is that it was originally a

marina pub; it has now been relocated and situated in a fashion that it

no longer meets the requirements of a marina pub. Therefore the regular

rules as to referendum should be abided by if it's not a marina pub,

then a referendum has to be held.

I want to know from the minister, of course, why his ministry made

the decision, through Mr. Doney, not to have the public referendum

after the Islands Trust had asked for it. I will grant the minister

that I have glossed over it really quickly because of the pressures of

time. But I will make all this information available to the minister

and he can go back over Hansard and read my questions. I would like

answers from the minister with respect to what's happening at Snug Cove.

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

First of all, it is still a marine pub; it still has access from the

water and still has a conditional requirement to provide wharfage that

it has care, control and custody of. The member is making allegations

that the grant from the federal government is to help him build a

marine pub. That grant is to provide some water amenities in terms of

dockage and so on for a much larger project than the marine pub.

On the issue of the referendum, the member is again wrong. The

referendum in the case of marine pubs is discretional. The question was

asked of the Islands Trust: "If you want to have a referendum held, let

us know." My knowledge at this point is that one member was for a

referendum and the rest were opposed to it. Certainly we have no

difficulty with a referendum. I can see absolutely no reason why there

would be. I would like to invite the member opposite to make some of

his earlier allegations outside this House, and then we could put them

to a true test of whether they are correct or not.

Also, the actions that the ministry took regarding the Knight Street

Pub are clearly indicated in the actions taken as a result of the

ombudsman's report being tabled: namely, to cancel the licence.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll forward to the minister the details of what

I've got here, and he can go through them. I just went through all the

documents and quoted from them. It's a simple matter of going through

the documents and the minister clarifying where the information is

wrong.

On the Knight Street Pub situation, the fact that you've implemented

some of the ombudsman's recommendations doesn't by itself explain your

lack of action. That's the point we've been trying to get through to

you during the course of this morning's estimates.

Vote 41 approved.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

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

HON. MR. REE: I'm honoured to present to this House and the

people of British Columbia, for the first time in the history of this

House, the estimates of the Ministry of Solicitor-General. In

establishing the Ministry of Solicitor-General in July 1988, this

government gave greater emphasis to the justice system. By forming two

ministries we adopted a framework that parallels that of the federal

government and most of the other provinces. That framework separates

the judicial and legal arm of government from law enforcement and the

regulatory arm.

My ministry, which I have the privilege to lead as the first

Solicitor-General of this province, is the fourth largest ministry in

terms of employees and the eighth largest in terms of its budget.

Combining police, corrections and motor vehicle regulation in my

ministry has given us an enhanced capability to manage and coordinate

law enforcement and public safety in this province.

[3:00]

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

[ Page 6988 ]

Some, like the Police Commission, Motor Carrier Commission, Parole

Board, coroner's service and Order-in-Council Patients' Review Board,

are closely linked to the central programs of the ministry. Others

regulate areas which, because of their social impact, are particularly

sensitive. These include the control of public gaming through the

public gaming branch and the Gaming Commission, the regulation of

horseracing through the Racing Commission and the regulation of the

motion picture and video industry through the film classification

branch and the Motion Picture Appeal Board. Finally, the Commercial

Appeals Commission serves as a board of general appeal body for a

number of acts that regulate commercial activity varying from real

estate to liquor regulation.

In a phrase, Mr. Chairman, we are in the business of public

protection and safety. We are concerned not only that the citizens of

British Columbia are protected from those who would flout our laws but

also that the individual rights and freedoms of our citizens are

protected in dealing with enforcement and regulatory agencies. We want

the citizens of our province to feel safe when they walk on our

streets, but we also want them to be assured that should they or their

children come in contact with the justice system, they will receive

fair, responsible and humane treatment.

I want to assure this House that with the formation of two

ministries responsible for justice we have — where possible — continued

to share services with the Ministry of the Attorney-General. In

addition, I have maintained — as has my ministry — a close working

relationship with the Ministry of the Attorney-General to ensure a

coordinated and effective justice system.

Also, we will work with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

through our motor vehicle branch to protect our investment in the

highway infrastructure.

During the past nine months, I have had the opportunity to travel

widely in the province to see firsthand the employees of my ministry at

work. Whether it was with volunteers of the provincial emergency

program during the clean-up operations following the oil spill on the

west coast of the island ' with the police hosting an international

conference on Asian youth gangs, at the opening of our new correctional

facility at Kamloops or reviewing traffic safety proposals for the

staff of the motor vehicle branch, I have been impressed by the

professionalism and the dedication of the employees of the ministry. I

am convinced that the employees of my ministry have a strong sense of

commitment to service, even in such difficult places to work as Oakalla

in Burnaby.

Before discussing our plans for 1989-90, I would like to review some

of the major accomplishments of the ministry over the last year which

have enhanced the safety of our citizens. The corrections branch has

continued on its long-term capital plan to develop the most modern

correctional service in Canada. During February 1989, I was pleased to

officially open the new Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre for 160

inmates. This centre clearly shows a move by correc-

tions to a more effective system of prison management through modern

living unit design, making the prison safer for the public, the staff

and the inmates. The corrections branch has continued the use of

electronic monitoring by bracelets for minimum security prisoners in

Vancouver, and that is an effective system of control.

Last year the Drost report into the January 1988 escapes from

Oakalla was submitted to my ministry. I am pleased to tell this House

that we were able to meet virtually all of the recommendations of that

report, which included such matters as increased training for staff and

enhanced security measures at Oakalla.

In the area of police services, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit

established an organized gang squad. This squad has worked closely with

the Attorney-General's special prosecution team to fight gang activity.

During the last year this cooperation resulted in 125 successful

prosecutions for serious offences. CLEU also recently hosted an

international conference for police agencies from many other countries

to share strategies dealing with gangs. This branch has continued to

develop victim service programs throughout the province and provide

assistance in the development of crime prevention programs.

The police services branch also provides support for over 1,400

volunteers who work as auxiliary reserve police in this province.

During the last year the provincial emergency program went through a

major reorganization and restructuring in order to more effectively and

efficiently respond to situations throughout the province. The

provincial emergency program was involved in responding to the Tofino

oil spill, flooding in northwestern B.C., the avalanche near Stewart,

the cold spell in the Fraser Valley and to many local search and rescue

endeavours.

The motor vehicle branch has continued to emphasize safety through

the introduction of programs such as a commercial vehicle inspection

program and a national safety code for all commercial vehicles. A major

reorganization began in the motor vehicle branch which will ensure

greater regionalization and better access to services for all citizens

of the province. In addition we've begun the process of offering some

motor vehicle services through government agents' offices. For example,

services that are presently available at locations such as Penticton,

Fort St. John, Campbell River and Kamloops will be extended to 23

locations in all.

In August 1988 we established an organ donor registry through the

motor vehicle branch with over 97,000 registered donors as of May 22,

1989. Since April 1 of this year, there have been 23 additional

registered donors. It speaks well for the program. I would encourage

all members of this House and all British Columbians to register so

that we have sufficient donors to meet the needs of our citizens.

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

[ Page 6989 ]

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

In the coming year, thanks to sound financial management by my

colleague the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier), this government has been able to allocate an additional

$34.6 million to the Ministry of the Solicitor-General and has done so

within the framework of a balanced budget. This 11.7 percent increase

will make B.C. a safer place in 1989-90.

As I have stated in this House previously, the deaths and injuries

on our highways are tragic and unacceptable. During 1988, 615 people

were killed on our highways, down slightly from 1989, but a 17 percent

increase over the 525 killed in 1984. As a result of my concerns with

the carnage on our highways, I announced a new traffic safety program

February 13, 1989.

During this fiscal year a major priority of my ministry will be the

implementation of that program. The cornerstone of that initiative will

be the traffic safety directorate which will have the responsibility to

oversee all government programs dealing with traffic safety and to

implement new programs over the next year. I announced the appointment

of the chairman, Keith Godfrey, on May 18, and I can assure this

chamber that the directorate will be in business on June 1, 1989.

As part of our emphasis on traffic safety, the prohibition for all

serious drinking and driving offences was raised from six months to one

year effective April 1, 1989. It has become apparent that points on

motor vehicle offences alone do not serve as a deterrent for

irresponsible drivers. Last year there were over 500,000 moving traffic

violations. Therefore in the year ahead I anticipate bringing forward

legislation to reintroduce fines for moving traffic violations in

addition to the penalty points.

However, in spite of the best efforts of government, the safety of

our highways is everybody's responsibility. I want to take this

opportunity to encourage all British Columbians to take personal

responsibility for their driving habits, and to make the personal

efforts to make our roads safer.

During the coming year my ministry is committed to enhancing

emergency preparedness throughout the province and to providing

additional training to the 6,855 dedicated provincial emergency

program volunteers, who are the key to any effective response The

additional $621,000 allocated in this budget will allow us to meet this

commitment. The provincial emergency program will continue to work

closely with all levels of government. We will be coordinating our

efforts with the Ministries of Health and Environment to ensure an

effective response to emergencies.

In the year ahead my ministry will continue to implement the

corrections capital construction plan Construction will continue on

three centres replacing Oakalla in Burnaby: the Fraser Regional

Correctional Centre, the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women and the

Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre.

During 1989-90 these projects will expend $80 million and generate

540 person-years of employment. Upon completion the centres will buy a

total of $3.2 million in goods and services from their local

communities each year, and will employ 378 staff. Once they are

completed, Oakalla will be closed.

In addition, we will be moving ahead to complete new youth centres

in Prince George and Kamloops. I hope also to be able to take steps

towards the replacement of Willingdon Youth Detention Centre.

While only comprising 6 percent of the general population, British

Columbia's native people make up approximately 16 percent of our jail

population. In cooperation with the native community, we wish to reduce

the numbers of those incarcerated and increase the effectiveness of

non-custodial programs. The corrections branch during this year will be

consulting with the native community to develop specific programs for

the native people of this province.

My ministry, through the police services branch, will continue to

negotiate with the federal government to renew the policing contract

with the RCMP, which expires in 1991. I'm proud to say that British

Columbia is the lead province in these negotiations. We're consulting

with the municipalities through the UBCM to ensure that their needs are

heard and met.

New programs at the motor vehicle branch will be closely aligned to

the traffic safety initiative. The branch will be introducing a new

computerized system of testing for drivers — with the first system

being installed in North Vancouver this Friday afternoon — additional

educational programs and enhanced vehicle inspections.

In addition, the motor vehicle branch will be introducing changes in

the area of compliance and enforcement of all commercial vehicle

regulations to ensure equity across the province.

Mr. Chairman, 1989-90 will be a busy year for my ministry. We will

continue to move forward in our efforts to provide public protection

and safety to citizens of this province. We will also do so through the

dedication of ministry employees, and the continued delivery of

effective programs. I am confident that together we can build a better

and safer British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, today at noon and at this moment in Government House,

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is presenting exemplary service

awards to seven employees of the corrections branch of this ministry.

Those seven employees have in the aggregate contributed 187 years of

service to the province of British Columbia. I met with them at lunch

and congratulated them. They have done yeoman's service for the people

of British Columbia.

At this moment I would like to introduce two of my staff who are

with me, Mr. Dennis Murray, my deputy minister, and Mr. Jim Kempling,

assistant deputy minister, administration. I welcome them to this House

and welcome their assistance in the presentations and debate on my

estimates.

[3:15]

[ Page 6990 ]

MR. GUNO: I am glad to rise and lead the debate from this

side of the House on this very important portfolio which, as the

Solicitor-General has pointed out, is a new addition in the ministries

and an important one, as I said. I would just like to preface my

remarks by frankly admitting that I was caught rather off guard in

terms of timing. I had anticipated that this matter would be coming up

next week. I just got back from my own riding, which takes up a lot of

my time. I'm relatively new in this area; I was only appointed last

month.

It's a ministry that covers a wide area of a very complex nature and

one very significant as far as the public is concerned. It focuses on

important areas of public safety the corrections areas and — I think

one of the more important ones — the provincial emergency program.

The way we're going to proceed, in terms of examining the priorities

that have been set out by the Solicitor-General, is for me to rely on

many of my colleagues who have far more in depth experience or

knowledge in various areas. I'm going to play for a while the role of a

quarterback in terms of just trying to coordinate this very important

examination. But somewhere down the line I'd like to address a couple

of areas that I think warrant more scrutiny. I think that the

Solicitor-General focused on them towards the last part of his remarks

in a very vague and general way.

Aside from the provincial emergency program, I want to take a look

at what the Solicitor-General is doing in terms of dealing with the

phenomenon of the incredible number of native people who are in the

provincial corrections facilities. As he pointed out, they are

something like 16 percent of the prison population, of a people who

only comprise something like 3 percent. Anyone with the vaguest sense

of justice would say that that is so disproportionate that it requires

a far more comprehensive look than just a vague commitment on the part

of the Solicitor-General to address the matter.

I notice, in going through the files, that when this ministry was

created there were certain priorities that were identified. These are

areas that I also want to focus on, to see whether or not they are

still priorities as far as the Solicitor-General is concerned, or

whether they have actually been put into place. He mentioned the

implementation of a private vehicle inspection program which, by this

document, was to be established by October 1, 1988. I want to canvass

further just how far that's gone and just exactly what resources are

being allocated for this very important program that would ensure and

enhance traffic safety.

The other priority item that was identified by this document is that

there would be an established comprehensive safety standard for

truckers by December 1, 1988. Again, it's a matter that does concern

people who drive on our highways and want to be assured that there is a

program to ensure that commercial vehicles using the roads are meeting

some very basic standards.

The minister mentioned the enhanced organ donor initiatives. I would

applaud any initiatives in that area. I think it's a very important

public health and social initiative; it's gratifying to see it being

put into place.

Another priority item that I see listed is the report of the task

force on the horse-racing industry in British Columbia, to make

recommendations to cabinet by October 15, 1988. I would like to hear

from the Solicitor-General exactly what the status is of that review. I

have to admit, coming from the northwest riding of Atlin, that

horse-racing is really not a big thing. You could probably count the

number of horse races on one hand. We do have horses, but we don't use

them for racing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Something worthwhile?

MR. GUNO: Something worthwhile, yes.

The last item I see noted is preparation of a response to the Lower

Mainland Regional Correctional Centre, Oakalla, inquiry for

presentation to cabinet within 60 days of receipt. These are the sorts

of things that have been addressed, but I want to hear the

Solicitor-General reiterate the commitment that this kind of initiative

will not be focused in the lower mainland but will be going on

throughout the province.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do not have a quorum. The matter has been

brought to the attention of the Chair. I will ring the division bells

until such time as sufficient members have returned.

We will now continue with the debate.

HON. MR. REE: I don't know whether the member wishes a

complete response at this time to these items. He indicated he would be

exploring these items as we proceed through estimates. I understood

that he was just making some general statements. Maybe the member could

indicate whether he wants the answers to all of those questions at this

time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. GUNO: In the establishment of the Solicitor General’s

ministry certain priorities were set out. The Solicitor-General points

out that it has been a great year and that they have the necessary

resources now to meet the mandate they were given. I just wanted to get

a status report, in a very general way, on these priority items. Maybe

that's how we can begin the assessment of your ministry.

HON. MR. REE: The member asked about the private vehicle

inspection program which we were going to put into place for October 1,

1988. When I became Solicitor-General it became very apparent

[ Page 6991 ]

that it would be impossible to implement the program by that time,

because there were insufficient facilities to inspect all of the 2.7

million vehicles in the province when they came due. Mind you,

initially we were only looking to inspect vehicles aged five years and

older. There were just no facilities for them. So we postponed it for a

year and have been doing some further research on that matter.

However, we have increased the commercial side of vehicle inspection

quite substantially. On April 1 of this year we included an additional

40,000 commercial vehicles: vehicles 8,200 kg and larger, excluding

farm vehicles, of course. The majority of commercial vehicles of that

size or larger now require annual or semi-annual inspections, including

all vehicles that are licensed by the Motor Carrier Commission. By

doing that, we have added to the demand for inspection facilities, so

they are still coming on stream for a goal of eventually having private

vehicle inspections. Whether they will be this year or not, I cannot

make a commitment at this time.

I certainly consider it desirable, particularly in light of the

environment concerns we have today, to check for emission control from

vehicles — older ones are certainly guilty of this. Many people, when

they have to get their mufflers repaired, drop the conversion unit that

was in the car and put on straight, former types of mufflers, and that

affects the emissions coming out of the vehicles.

I have instructed the motor vehicle side of my ministry to look at

the feasibility, when commercial vehicles are being inspected, of also

looking at emission control as part of the inspection. I will await a

report back on that. When we do get into the private passenger vehicle

— if we do — in consultation with the Ministry of Environment we may

eventually direct emission inspections at the same time.

With regard to the replacement of the Lower Mainland Regional

Correctional Centre, or Oakalla, in Burnaby, I think it is very common

knowledge — announcements and speeches have been made — that we

anticipate knocking down Oakalla by the end of 1990. I would like to be

able to do it by July of next year, to be present and see the big ball

swinging and the top towers coming down, but I don't think it's quite

feasible to have it done by that time.

The contracts and constructions are underway for the replacement

facilities for Oakalla. As I indicated in my introduction speech, they

are: the Fraser correctional centre in Maple Ridge, the Surrey

pre-trial centre, and the women's centre down in the Big Bend area on

the southwest side of Burnaby. These three institutions will be in a

position to relocate all of the inmates at Oakalla. I feel they will be

a considerable addition to the environment of our correctional

facilities.

Too often we look at correctional facilities as a place for inmates

to be housed, and too many of the public say, "Lock them up, throw the

key away and forget about them while they're in there." We forget that

we have employees in these facilities, and they are entitled to a

reasonably sound, safe and pleasant facility in which to work. That has

to be taken into consideration. I know I've heard a number of people

saying, "Oh, well, our new facilities are too luxurious, " and all

that. Certainly they're not luxurious compared to hotels, and I

certainly don't want to ever have to stay in one. But the way the new

ones are constructed is safer in keeping the inmate in, and there are

far superior working conditions for the employees.

Horse-racing. What and when I advise cabinet is between cabinet and

me. I know I was to inform cabinet by October '88 on the Jawl report.

The member is probably familiar with the fact that I have asked the

city of Vancouver to advise me on the feasibility of placing a one-mile

standard — configuration racetrack at Hastings Park. I asked the city

to report back to me on that possibility, if they could, by June 1 of

this year. I have not heard back from them. They have had public

hearings; I understand that there was a public hearing last night and

that the mayor made certain statements. I would expect to hear

officially from the mayor on behalf of council when council deals with

the results of those public hearings.

[3:30]

On safety standards for trucks: some of these are in place. As far

as weights and sizes are concerned, there have been changes during the

year for sizes and weights of trucks using our highways, depending

upon, of course, the width of the highways, strength of the paving and

so on.

Also we've adopted some of the National Safety Code for trucking,

dealing with hours of work and hours of driving. I don't agree

completely with the hours set out in the National Safety Code, but I

agree that we do need a National Safety Code. I had hoped that the

hours would be a little different. They provide for 15 hours a day, of

which 13 can be driving and two doing other duties. I consider that's

15 hours of work and I would like to have seen the 15 hours of work.

We were overwhelmed by central Canada, which knows only the TOM

route in Canada — that is, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal — as far as

trucking is concerned. They can travel that route very simply within

the 13 hour time-period. We have more difficulty in western Canada

traveling from Vancouver to Edmonton or Vancouver to Calgary and the

like. I don't think they know what a mountain is in central Canada, and

they don't appreciate the problems we have. I would have liked to have

seen that 15 hours as a total work period, and not 13 and two.

MR. GUNO: Thank you to the Solicitor-General for the

response, but I think we will revisit the whole area of the motor

vehicle branch tomorrow.

Right now I want to focus on the area of the provincial emergency

program. In doing some very basic research, I ran into the valuation

study of the provincial emergency program which was tabled sometime

last year. One of the conclusions was that the provincial emergency

program — and I quote from page 87 — "...currently is incapable of re-

[ Page 6992 ]

sponding effectively to a major disaster." It goes on to state that

the program might actually be a liability In a major disaster situation.

I note the Solicitor-General has pointed out some of the

improvements that have been made. In light of the fact that for years

this program was underfunded and given very low priority, and given the

rather limp response by this government and the federal government to

the west coast spill last year, I wonder if highlighting it as a big improvement warrants such praise.

I know that in 1984, for instance, this program was budgeted at

something like $1.77 million. In 1987, the Solicitor-General's budget

shows that $2.44 million was allocated. In a May 5 press release, with

regard to earthquake preparedness planning, an additional $600,000

increase to the PEP program was announced. It's not clear whether or

not the $600,000 is part of that $2.44 million or on top of that.

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

MR. GUNO: It's part of it.

I just want to make these remarks. Do we have sufficient resources

and plans to prepare B.C. to deal with a major disaster and to minimize

the extent of injury, death and property damage that would ensue should

a major disaster — whether it's natural or man-made — ever occur? God

willing, let's hope it doesn't.

There is the reality that we live on a major fault line, and experts

have predicted that we are due for a fairly major earthquake. Given

those prospects, can the minister assure this House that sufficient

funds have been actually allocated to develop a comprehensive

contingency program?

The bottom line is not so much an arbitrary amount of money that has

been allocated, but whether or not we have the kind of response

capability to meet such a disaster. The increase that the

Solicitor-General has announced.... Can he justify the fact that it

does not go anywhere near the amount that the report suggests it

should, in terms of really developing this response, or at least

getting to a position where we can say with some confidence that we

have the manpower, the management, the coordination and the ability to

coordinate our efforts with the federal people or with the Americans?

Can the minister give the House the assurance that we are at that state?

HON. MR. REE: I am having some difficulty with the member's

question. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and he uses the term a

"major disaster." I would like to have some example of what he

considers to be a major disaster. It depends on what you are looking

at. If you spill a barrel of oil in a small pond, that can be a major

disaster for the environment of that pond, but it may not be a major

disaster to the province.

I would like some guidelines to be able to say that we have

facilities or we don't have facilities for a major disaster. What are

you implying? He mentions the fault line. I'm trying to gather whether

he is very concerned that government should improve facilities in the

event that we do have an earthquake. Possibly the member can assure me

on this so that I'll have an opportunity to answer him.

MR. GUNO: I'm rather taken aback with the Solicitor-General's

response. I think any government worth its salt should put in place

contingency plans to meet realistic expectations of some kind of

disaster. I think it's well known — or I thought it was well known....

First, our own capability of meeting any kind of disaster is simply not

adequate, whether it's an oil spill in a bucket.... I think that's

where we start. That's the line of departure. Secondly, as I pointed

out, the rather dismal response to the west coast spill in recent

months should be quite convincing evidence to the Solicitor-General

that we're not ready to deal with any kind of a disaster no matter what

scale.

In setting out planning priorities, I think we ought to be able to

firstly start from the worst case scenario to one where we can deal

with the run of the mill disasters. I don't think this government is

capable right now of dealing with even the most minimal kinds of....

Interjection.

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

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the MLA for

Atlin is canvassing the minister's estimates. The minister is

responding by asking questions. It is not the estimates of the member

for Atlin. We are dealing with the estimates of the Solicitor-General.

I would appreciate it if the minister would answer the questions.

MR. GUNO: I thank my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam

for his interjection. I'm trying to solicit from the Solicitor-General,

and I'm being solicited in return.

I just want to know whether or not you have that confidence, whether

or not the increase that has been made to this program is capable of

dealing with even some of the more, as you call them, run of the mill

disasters. I'm not a doomsday person. I don't think that we should go

around saying that the sky is falling in. I think we at least should

have the confidence that if something happens of major proportion, we

have a government that has contingency plans in place that are

comparable to other jurisdictions. I don't think this government has

that.

HON. MR. REE: As they say, beauty is in the eye of the

beholder at times — in saying what is beautiful or what isn't. I would

say emphatically at this point that we do have plans in place for

containing a disaster such as what took place on the west coast of

Vancouver Island at Tofino. At that time the provin-

[ Page 6993 ]

cial emergency program responded excellently. There were well over

200 volunteers up there at one time. There were over 10,000 man-hours

put to cleaning up the beaches and the mess created by this spill.

The provincial emergency program cannot prevent disaster; it was not

created to do that. That, I gather, is what the member is looking for.

The provincial emergency program is to assist the public and protect

property after a disaster takes place. The provincial emergency program

and the resources available to it were more than adequate at the time

of the spill on the west coast.

The member may have other criticisms, like the information we

received from the U.S. Coast Guard as to where the oil was first

spilled; I don't know. You can criticize them. You can't criticize the

provincial government's response to that spill, because it was

excellent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: There were certain federal responsibilities of

possible cost and so on, but the provincial government and its

provincial emergency program responded regardless of whose

responsibility it was. We moved equipment, and we moved people in

there. There were certain members that talked about getting the army up

there. If you put the armies on the beaches up there, they could create

as much damage environmentally as the spill did. That was sensitive and

was considered at the time. These comments came from people who weren't

there and didn't know what they were doing. I visited the place, and

there was excellent work being conducted up there and excellent work by

the volunteers who were participating. We had many native people from

the area contributing and working on the beaches too, and we wish to

thank them for their contribution to British Columbia.

[3:45]

As for resources for the future, yes, we do have in that

$641,000.... It's not just $600,000, it's $641,000, and $41,000 is a

fair bit of

money, as the member would know; it's about equal to the pay of an MLA,

I believe. It includes additional funds for training, which is going on

this year. There was training last year down at Arnprior in Ontario, as

far as earthquakes and other disasters were concerned.

Oh yes, earthquakes. The member is very concerned that we do not

have resources in the event of an earthquake. This government is

committed to having resources and plans in place by the end of the year

in the event of a major "earthquake." However, the reason I was asking

the member about his party's philosophy with respect to preparedness

for earthquakes was that I wanted to know whether that member agreed

with the leader of the NDP in preparedness for earthquakes, or if he

was of a different opinion. I believe then-mayor Harcourt compared

earthquake planning to war-gaming and said there was no point trying to

anticipate all the details of a disaster. This is Mayor Harcourt of the

city of Vancouver. "Just how much can you build into your preparation

based on the fact that an earthquake might come any time in the next

200 years? You could carry that on further. How do you start preparing

for the next ice age? I mean, there comes a limit as to how much you

can prepare for these kinds of things." That is the philosophy and the

mentality of the leader of the NDP. That's why I was trying to find out

whether you agreed with your leader or not, because I wanted to know

how to respond to your questions.

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

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

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

This afternoon we don't have the Leader of the Opposition, so I had

to read that out. I don't expect him to come in here. He was in here

for five minutes this morning.

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Member.

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

You ask whether I'm expecting the government can prevent disasters.

I'm not sure if I can make that assurance. But certainly natural

disasters.... I'm not asking for divine intervention, but I think there

are some very valid criticisms in this report, which was made about two

years ago, and I think we are legitimate in asking at least whether or

not there have been sufficient improvements to at least give us.... I

agree with the leader: you can't anticipate. It's foolhardy to do that.

We're not gods, we don't have crystal balls, but I think we could make

some reasonable assumptions about things.

The government has certain responsibilities to ensure they would be

ready if and when such an event occurred. That's what we're talking

about. Is there a minimal standard of preparedness we should be at? I

don't think the government has responded to a report that questions the

government's commitment to emergency programs and says the involvement

and dedication of government does not meet any of the requirements of

effective disaster planning and response. It says — and I want to know

if this is true today — that there is no provincewide emergency plan

for British Columbia, no provincewide plan providing a role for all

ministries in case of a major disaster; 30 percent — and this was last

year — of municipalities do not have emergency plans; and rural areas

are not covered in any of the plans. I certainly can vouch for that,

coming from a very rural riding. I want to know if anything has changed

since the report made these comments.

HON. MR. REE: Since the historical report the member refers

to was written, as he's well aware, we've increased the budget —

possibly as a result of the report, which had an impact on it. As I

said earlier, we can now have additional training of our regional

people and our volunteers all over the

[ Page 6994 ]

province. In addition, I made an announcement, at a recent seminar

sponsored by the provincial emergency program at the Justice Institute,

that we are studying and will have an earthquake response plan in place

by the end of this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: Which is more than we would anticipate having

from the NDP, in light of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition

and the member for Atlin, who said that he agreed with the leader that

you can't. But I've had many experiences of getting into preparedness

for events that may or may not happen. I think it is very important and

this government feels it is very important that we do take into

consideration these contingencies, that things may happen to people.

We have plans in place. Outside Chilliwack there's a potential

avalanche. There are plans there in place with respect to that:

protecting people, protecting property. Where we know these things may

happen.... And they do happen in the course of events in this world, so

we hope that we are in a position to respond.

There are many things that can be done. We can establish two

separate communication centres in the province just to take care of the

contingency if one of them is damaged in an earthquake. We can provide

equipment for communications. We can inventory health facilities that

are available, where we can get them, airport facilities for flying

in....

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

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

MR. SIHOTA: You use smoke signals?

HON. MR. REE: I haven't done that, Mr. Member, since I was a

child. You may still be doing it, and I would anticipate that that is

probably how you do communicate with people.

Yes, certainly we will have this plan in place before the end of

this year, and, as I say, inventory materials that we may need. We may

have to fly in equipment from other jurisdictions if we know it's

available. There's no sense storing it all in one location, but you

find out where it is, where we can get generators from where we need

them, where we can bring in police protection, health protection and

those sorts of things.

MR. CASHORE: We're into discussion of the provincial

emergency program, which has gained a great deal of profile because of

the oil spill that occurred on December 22 off Grays Harbor.

It seems to me that we're getting off to a start here where the

minister is responding with answers that are less than forthcoming.

This is a matter of extreme importance to all the people of British

Columbia, and the people of British Columbia are waiting for answers

with regard, in specific terms, to the way that oil spill was handled,

and In terms of the more micro situation with regard to the adequacy of

the provincial emergency program itself.

The fact is that the minister is not saying anything new when he

says that you can never be completely prepared for all eventualities.

That is a given. Nobody is going to argue with you when you say that

and when you affirm the fact that our leader has said that. We cannot

possibly prepare for all the eventualities that might happen.

I want to start off by asking the minister this: given that the

amount budgeted for fiscal year '88-89 was $1,820,346, and that given

that there is something of an increase — on a percentage basis it might

seem to be fairly significant — to $2,441,442, in the minister's

opinion is that adequate for the kind of eventuality that we might

anticipate, given that there have been two very serious oil spills in

our environs, in the waters of our neighbours, and given that, yes, as

the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) has pointed out, we are in a major

earthquake area, and given that we have a province here to protect in

times of emergency? Does the minister feel that the amount budgeted,

$2,441,442, Is adequate? That's the first question.

The second question is: would the minister tell this House what he

has learned and what he has done to put in place a more effective

provincial emergency program than the one that existed at the time of

the Grays Harbor spill?

HON. MR. REE: I would emphatically state that the funds we

have are adequate for emergency preparedness. Those funds are basically

for training and for setting up planning. The funds in the vote that

the members are referring to are not used for the purposes of the oil

spill or for damage to people's property. That comes out of the

emergency vote, not out of provincial emergency programs. The $2.4

million, which is a 25 percent increase over the preceding year, is for

the purposes of planning and training. I would suggest it is adequate

for this year.

The Ministry of Solicitor-General was very aggressive in obtaining

this additional $600,000 for our budget over last year, because we felt

it was insufficient last year. I'm not going to comment further than

that on the dollars that were available last year for training within

the ministry. That is what I inherited. The Ministry of

Solicitor-General has fought for and received additional funds, which

we feel are more than adequate.

MR. CASHORE: The minister has not said what he plans to do

with those funds. I don't happen to think that it's adequate, given the

part of this province that we have to protect. The minister did say

that the money that would be used in an emergency comes out of the

emergency vote. I think he said something about that earlier, when I

had to leave the House to pick something up. I wonder if the minister

would

[ Page 6995 ]

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

HON. MR. REE: The emergency vote — I'm not sure just what it

is — is sufficient funds within the plans available under the emergency

vote. In other words, if we have an emergency such as cleaning up an

oil spill or an earthquake, the dollars are there. There are

limitations on the use of the dollars, as you probably are aware, with

respect to damage to people's properties. There is a limit of 80

percent of damage. I can't give you specifics on it, but there is a

limit as to the amount that will be paid to anyone who has damage to

their property In the event of a disaster.

As for the $2.4 million, I'm having some difficulty having to repeat

it. It is for planning and training in the event of a disaster.

[4:00]

I'm not using the term "major disasters, " because within that

provincial emergency program we have some mountain rescue people who do

an adequate and most commendable job in going out and finding lost

hikers, lost skiers and so on. Certainly in my riding on the North

Shore, these people are praised. They go out at risk to their life and

limb in all sorts of weather, and usually it's the worst weather when

people are lost in the mountains. These people go out as volunteers and

put their lives on the line to help others. There's that type of

emergency versus your earthquake and large oil spill. There are

adequate funds available for the training of those people. In addition

there are adequate funds for the planning of major programs.

The earthquake response plan — which I stated, and I will state

again for the member for the third time so that he'll hear it — is

planned to be completed before the end of the year. We have contingency

plans being studied with respect to oil spills. I have asked that one

be developed with respect to the area surrounding Victoria, because it

is highly at risk from a potential oil spill of a large tanker going

through to the United States or to Anacortes.

These things should be planned. We should know where we're going to

get our necessary equipment. Someone said garbage bags. Where do we get

garbage bags, shovels and rakes? Quite often communities would not have

sufficient available. Where can we call in bulldozers if we need them?

Where can we call in skimmers for the water, depending upon the

condition of the water?

One of the problems we had at Tofino was the nature of the water out

there. You could not clean up that spill offshore. There were no

facilities for cleaning it offshore. By the time it had come to our

beaches, it was under the water and suspended below the surface. There

was nothing that could be skimmed, and you couldn't have put skimmers

up there with the weather as it was at that time. It could not have

been contained offshore by the time it got up there. The only method of

getting it was when it came on the beach. The volunteers who were up

there, the provincial emergency program and our Canadian Coast Guard

did a most commendable job.

MR. CASHORE: I too appreciate the work of the people who

worked with the provincial emergency program in rescuing skiers in the

minister's riding and other areas of the province, and I agree that

they do an excellent job.

The fact is that this program was simply not prepared to deal with a

spill such as the Grays Harbor spill. Not only were they not prepared,

but the attitude among those who had political responsibility was

simply inadequate.

The minister was stating a little while ago something about members

across the floor being on-site. Surely the infrastructure of this

ministry was available to enable the minister to be on-site right from

the beginning. When was the beginning? The beginning, Mr. Chairman, was

December 22, 1988. It was at that time that the spill started and it

was at that time they were quite pleased to look elsewhere and be

reassured that the spill was going anywhere but in this direction. "The

prevailing currents aren't coming in this direction; that's the best

information we have available, " they said.

One of the things that this provincial emergency program did not

have in its equipment was a device made right here in the Victoria area

by Candel Industries Ltd. called the Sea Rover. This is a radio

tracking device. Had that relatively inexpensive device been available,

it could have been deployed at Grays Harbor at the time, and it

wouldn't have been left to chance to find out if the oil was indeed

approaching British Columbia's shores. That device would have informed

the provincial emergency program that it was on the way. I would be

interested to know if the program has purchased these devices and now

has them available to use if such an instance were to occur again. I'd

also be interested to know if, when the oil was leaving Prince William

Sound, this device was deployed so there would be an electronic means

of tracking where that spill might have gone and where it might still

be going.

I want to get onto what I think was the story with regard to the oil

spill. The minister has referred to it: the phenomenal service provided

by volunteers. Were it not for volunteers, there would have really been

nothing effective to mitigate the effects of the disaster. The minister

himself, who brags about having been on-site.... Yes, he did fly over

it in a helicopter on January 11. The spill occurred on December 22. By

the time he flew over it, the volunteers were telling me that they

needed the helicopters to deploy their workers to get out to the remote

beaches so they could clean them up, and by that time the politicians

finally arrived.

The minister said on January 11: "1 don't believe it is as serious

as we've been led to believe." He said that in a radio report on CBC.

MR. BLENCOE: Who said that?

MR. CASHORE: The minister said that.

[ Page 6996 ]

The day after that, to give him credit, he changed and said that

upon reflection it was a pretty serious situation out there. As a

matter of fact, at that point the minister himself called it a

disaster. Now within one day there has been a kind of conversion or

deathbed repentance or something, and we've gone from something that

was being grossly exaggerated to a disaster.

Let's get back to the people who were out there — the volunteers.

I've been talking to some of the volunteers and to David LeBlanc, and

some of their comments were very interesting. I might mention that one

of the first things volunteers mentioned to me was that there were a

lot of people who showed up on the scene whose clothes were damaged

because of the circumstances of their work. That's understandable. Now

if they went to the emergency program to have their clothes cleaned or

replaced, it took at least two or three weeks to get the money to

replace their clothes. This effectively took good volunteers away from

the cleanup. You can't expect that in that weather they are going to be

out there naked, having turned in their clothes to get them cleaned up.

These people couldn't afford an additional pair of pants.

The volunteers talked about the various things that caused them

considerable frustration. For one thing, they tell me that while there

were some PEP officials over there, they weren't really out on the

beach working side by side with the volunteers. In fact, one of the

volunteers told me that he was a bit concerned when he would see these

people out on the driving range hitting golf balls on some of the good

days that occurred on the west coast at that time. There didn't seem to

be a sense of what was really required, and the only way in which that

basic requirement was dealt with was when David LeBlanc took charge. At

that time, to their credit, the PEP people saw the natural leadership

ability in that individual and began to make use of his skills.

The fact is — and this was reported to me by another volunteer —

that some of them were so frustrated that they took to throwing tar

balls and dead birds at some of the PEP employees; an expression of

abject frustration over their attempt to get out there and help to do

something about this situation, when all they were finding was a

Keystone Kops routine coming from this ministry.

weren't trusted. I want the minister to make a note to tell us exactly

how much money they spent on the volunteers. How much did they spend

for the box lunches, cleaning clothes and things like that?

Apparently, when volunteers went further afield — away from the main

beaches, where you couldn't drive to the beach — Dave LeBlanc was

allowed to sign a chit indicating that they were out in the field and

cumbersome arrangement and quite inadequate.

Another comment from volunteers was that they perceived in many

instances that PEP was really not facilitating their Individual

Initiatives.

Here is an interesting thing. The minister talked about getting

skimmers and the difficulty of the circumstances out there. There is no

question about that. But if another British Columbia technology had

been deployed — the OSCAR technology, if that was available at source —

it could have had a tremendous mitigating effect.

These volunteers told me that they didn't get garbage bags, at least

initially, from PEP; they got them from Overwaitea. They told me that

they got rakes not from PEP but from K Mart. Apparently they weren't K

Mart's best quality of rake and they kept breaking down.

Interjection.

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

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

I was talking to David LeBlanc and he told me that there were two

good things about the way PEP handled this emergency. He said the first

one was the implementation of workers' compensation....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: No, the second one was that they appreciated the

box lunches. But the fact was that it wasn't really adequate. These

people should have been treated in the way you might treat a logging

crew that you wanted to make sure had adequate meals and accommodation

so that they could get out there and carry on with the very worthwhile

job that they were doing. I would think that the minister should

consider some basic compensation for these people for wages and time

spent, so that there would be a reasonable recovery for them.

One of the things Mr. LeBlanc pointed out was that the coordinator

in these programs should be a person who really knows the area well,

and it is his perception that in the Tofino area, that is not the case.

He spoke to me about volunteers not seeing the area coordinator at the

cleanup site. This raises the question of the training being

experienced by the people who work for PEP. The minister mentioned that

before, and I am glad to hear him say that some planning is taking

place in that area.

The fact of the matter was that because of the Keystone Kops routine

between the Coast Guard and the province, the whole process didn't get

going until long after it was too late to be able to do the initial job

that needed to be done. Throughout the entire process we constantly

heard of the frustrations of not being able to get enough garbage bags

or enough food and not being able to deal with some of the problems

that people had.

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

[ Page 6997 ]

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

Interjection.

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

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

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, if that is hogwash, then I would

suggest that the minister watch the tapes of the news that we saw on

television during that time, because they certainly saw what was going

on.

Also there was a great deal of concern expressed about the housing

situation. As a matter of fact, I heard that in some cases there were

people working for the Coast Guard who actually made their own

arrangements to house volunteers because nobody else was looking after

that need.

I would like to ask the minister if the provincial emergency program

has been in touch with the owners of the motels to pay for the cleanup

of the carpets and various other supplies that were damaged by things

being tracked in.

I would like to ask the minister — I think this is an important

question — if he can tell us what the inventory is of garbage bags,

rakes, shovels, gloves and tar-baby suits deployed at Tofino, at

Ucluelet and at all other strategic areas up and down the coast. My

colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is

volunteering to answer that question, if the minister needs some

coaching.

I have some other questions I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, but I

would like to give the minister a chance to respond. I would like to

caution him that if he chooses to turn this into an inappropriate

political statement in order to bafflegab and avoid the appropriate

response, then he is depriving the people of British Columbia of

reasonable answers to reasonable questions that people want answers to.

HON. MR. REE: Never would I deprive the people of reasonable

answers to reasonable questions. It's when we get unreasonable hogwash

coming from that member in the type of questions he is asking and

statements he is making.... He is sitting there and making, in a pious

way, with a holier-than-thou attitude, statements that are completely

untrue.

I did not fly over the area. I flew up to the area; I spent a whole

day and a night and a morning on the beach, talking to people. The

authority you're using was one of the greatest alarmists that we had up

there to contend with.

I sat at a meeting that night and said: "Stop all the bellyaching

that's going on up here. The job we have is to clean this place up.

Let's get it cleaned up. Don't go around looking to blame people for

what hasn't happened. Our job is to do it."

The PEP people were on the ground within hours of the oil hitting

the beaches. We had three coordinators up there. No one threw any balls

of oil or dead animals at them.

Volunteers, you say, are wanting compensation. These are dedicated

people who are volunteers; compensation takes them out of the realm of

volunteers. These are dedicated people who came up to help with the oil

spill. If you want to turn around and make them mercenary, then that's

up to you. But these people came up and volunteered their time because

they were interested in the environment, interested in the beach, and

interested in helping British Columbia. That's what they came up there

for. They knew they were volunteers.

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

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

HON. MR. REE: I imagine the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

would have the mentality to want garbage bags stacked in every little

community and hamlet up and down the coast — together with rakes and

lunches and all the rest of it — in preparation for a spill. That would

be the mentality of planning that you would get from the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

But no, we try and look at it in the overall. Part of the planning

we have is inventory and knowing where this equipment can be obtained,

because a lot of times the local communities do not have the resources

handy. Where can we get them? Where can we bring it in from? That is

going into our plans.

The PEP people off golfing. That is a slanderous statement, Mr.

Member, to the people of the provincial emergency program. It is

slanderous, and you should apologize to them. If you haven't got the

guts to do so, I'll let them know you haven't.

You ask about signing in every day. Certainly we asked them to sign

in every day, so that we could arrange as to where they would go to do

the most good in cleaning up. We didn't want people wandering around

without any supervision, so that we could do an effective job. That is

one of the main reasons of signing in; also to ensure that if they were

injured when they were there, they could receive workers' compensation.

I don't know about you, Mr. Member, but possibly you think everybody in

the province could have said: "Well, I was there and got injured and

workers' compensation has unlimited funds to pay." No; as a responsible

government and a responsible provincial emergency program branch, we

had to act responsibly, and that meant signing people in.

I think you've got to look at the proof of the pudding now. You go

up there and that beach is nice. That beach is going to be open for

thousands and thousands of visitors coming there this year. I think a

lot of that's the proof of the pudding.

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

[ Page 6998 ]

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

We did have some problems of too many people wanting to come that we

couldn't control, or you would have too many people on the cleanup.

Many people in the province phoned and volunteered their services. Some

we discouraged; some who wanted to come at specific times had to be

scheduled to come up days later. One of our problems was on the

weekends. Large numbers of people gave up their weekends to come in and

help clean up that spill.

The member commented with respect to my statement to the press on

the day I was up there. In light of oil spills around the world, the

spill at Tofino was not a major spill in terms of quantity. It was a

disastrous spill, as I stated earlier, because any spill is disastrous,

and it's major in the eyes of the beholder. In light of spills on the

east coast, in light of the Valdez spill and spills in France and on

disaster, and we were there to limit that disaster once the spill had

taken place.

There was nothing you could do to stop that oil from coming ashore,

Mr. Member. You suggested that we should have been down at Grays Harbor

dropping things in the water to monitor it, or up at Prince William

Sound at the Valdez spill. You're suggesting that we fly into other

territorial waters when these things happen. There are international

treaties on that. That is not the responsibility of my ministry; that

is the responsibility of the federal government and the Canadian Coast

Guard. They are the ones that would be tracking that, not the

provincial emergency program. The responsibility and mandate of my

ministry is to go in and minimize the damage after the event has taken

place. I think you have done a disservice to all the people, all the

volunteers in the provincial emergency program, and I think it's

reprehensible.

MR CASHORE: I find It absolutely appalling that this minister

would refer to an individual who helped to coordinate this spill as an

alarmist. If I'm incorrect in my understanding of what the minister was

saying, I would stand corrected. But if the minister is referring to

Mr. David LeBlanc, who is widely recognized as having provided

excellent volunteer service at that time, it is most unfortunate.

I would like the minister to tell us whether in his opinion the

spill is over and is no longer a problem. If he believes that to be the

case, I would like to send to him by one of the Pages some photographs

that were given to me by a group involved in work all up and down the

coast. These five photographs, taken in the Cape Scott area, depict

garbage bags full of debris; they depict workers; they depict a dead

bird soiled with oil on the beach. It's not a pleasant sight. There's

also a picture from the Vancouver Province . Unfortunately it's not dated, but I believe it was taken in the first two weeks in April.

Yesterday I was talking to Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Zakreski, and both of

them told me it's still a problem; that they would be able to go out

and find oil on beaches today. I would like the minister to tell us

just what the current state is of the oil spill. Is it still a problem,

or is it a problem that PEP has written finish to?

HON. MR. REE: Oil spills will always leave a residual

problem. One of the worst aspects about the oil spill is that it does

great ecological damage that it takes years to recover from — if we

ever recover from it: the birds that were killed, the sea life that was

killed, the sea life that may continue to be killed as a result of that

spill. There's oil, I'm quite confident, on the bottom of the water

which may be there for years until it eventually degrades. It is

causing damage there, but it's something that can't be cleaned up.

I'm confident that some amounts are still being washed ashore, and

I'm confident that there's still some buried underneath some of the

sand beaches which will come to light from time to time. The only thing

we can do is continue to monitor it and to clean it up when we can. But

right now the beaches are adequate for the summer visitors who wish to

come up and enjoy that part of the province and that part of Vancouver

Island. I have camped there myself in the past, and I would feel quite

safe going up to camp there now — subject, of course, to the weather.

Sometimes you get some really good storms coming in there. The weather,

unfortunately, at the time the spill came ashore in early January was

very poor. That's one of the worst times of the year. That's one of the

things that made it hard to stop it from coming ashore. I don't think

there was anything that could have been done at that time.

Yes, Mr. Member, I agree. These things happened, the things that you

stated were in the pictures — the birds and the damage and that. It's

not pleasant; it's not nice. We don't like them happening and we don't

want them to happen. That is why we set plans in place. That is why

this government is working on an earthquake preparedness plan, not like

your leader would have done. We are trying to plan to prevent these

things from being catastrophic or anything like that in the future. We

are looking towards preparing for these things. That's why this

ministry has additional money this year: so we can look after these

disasters when they happen.

MR G. JANSSEN: I'm disappointed in the minister. The spill

happened, as you know, In my riding. It took the minister 11 days to

respond, a minister who is supposedly in charge of the provincial

emergency program and who was told on January 1 that the oil hit the

beach at Carmanah. Eleven days later, the man who supposedly is in

charge of the provincial emergency program decides he's going to go up

and have a look. Then he has confusion as to whether it's a disaster or

an overstated, overrated oil spill.

[4:30]

I also take exception to his calling Mr. David LeBlanc, one of my

constituents who led in that oil spill, an alarmist. In fact, when

phone calls — my phone calls — were placed to the provincial emergency

program to find out what the situation was,

[ Page 6999 ]

the provincial emergency program directed them to David LeBlanc,

because he was apparently in charge. He knew what was going on, and

he's being called an alarmist.

I take exception to that remark from the minister, on behalf of my

constituent. He should be thanking that member of my constituency for

carrying on a program that the provincial emergency program wasn't

carrying on. In fact, it would have been a good idea for the minister

to recognize that at the time and hire Mr. LeBlanc to run the PEP in

Tofino, instead of leaving it to the inadequate services provided by

the PEP people in his ministry.

I'd like to canvass the minister on how prepared they actually were

in Tofino at that time. He talks about garbage bags. Most of the

garbage bags were supplied by local businessmen in Tofino and, when

they ran out, in the Alberni area. How many garbage bags did the

minister's provincial emergency program pay for? How many shovels did

they pay for? The shovels came from the Forests ministry. How many

wheelbarrows? How many coveralls were supplied as were promised?

How much money did you actually put out to help those volunteers who

were on the beach day after day after day? In fact, when asked, the

provincial emergency program said that Burrard Clean, the private

contractor that was called in, was to hire the people. How many people

were provided by the provincial emergency program to fight that oil

spill?

HON. MR. REE: Volunteers, as I stated earlier — if the member

had been here, he would have heard — provided 10,000 hours up there.

I'm sorry to take the time of the House to repeat the answers. If

members would attend, they would hear and we could get on with business.

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

HON. MR. REE: Those are PEP volunteers. Mr. Member, it having

been in your riding, I'm confident that you know — but you may not —

that there were a number of people up there on the cleanup. The

provincial emergency program was doing some of the coordinating on it.

There were people from the private contractor — I believe he was

hired by the owners of the oil or the barge; I'm not sure which. He was

representing them, and he was also hiring people for cleaning up the

beaches. His people stayed around for quite a long time afterwards,

going out to some of the other islands and so on and to the harder

places to get at. There were also employees of the Canadian Coast Guard

up there doing cleanup.

Basically the provincial emergency people did not get into the more

dangerous areas to do cleanup. You are probably aware of that. They did

an excellent job — 10,000 volunteer hours in that cleanup. I can't tell

you the exact dollars. I don't think the dollars that were spent

matter. I think what is important is: was the job done? I think the job

was adequately done by the provincial emergency program.

The overall responsibility for the program was the Canadian Coast

Guard's. I trust that your colleagues in Ottawa will ask the

appropriate questions there. I'm not the one responsible for that. My

mandate was the provincial emergency program. We had more than adequate

people there; we had more volunteers than we could use. We provided

workers' compensation. We provided the cost of cleaning clothes. We

provided meals for them. We were not responsible for the others who

came in who were hired by the contractor or by the Coast Guard or by

the parks department, which had people up there.

We went In there the night I was there — and by the way, you're

wrong as usual; the people over there are always wrong on their dates

and facts. I did not go up there on January 11. Get your dates right. I

was up before then.

Interjection.

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

We had provincial emergency people up there within hours on the very

day the oil came ashore, and it was my mandate to see that people were

up there to do the job. We had competent people up there. We had

coordinators, I believe, who came from Vancouver. I'm not too sure at

this point where they came from. We had a team of three up there within

hours, and they did an excellent job.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Is the minister advising us that provincial

emergency people — three of them, I think he stated — were at Carmanah

on January 1 when the oil came ashore?

HON. MR. REE: To the member: that is not what I said. As

usual, they try to put words in people's mouths. They were not there

when the oil came ashore. They were not standing there looking for it

to come ashore. At least two of them were there, I believe, on January

1, and the third would have been up there on January 2. I'll confirm

that to you later, but they were there within hours of the oil coming

ashore. As soon as we got word of it, they were there.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The native community in Alberni, the

Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council and particularly those bands in the

Tofino area — the Clayoquot, the Ahousat and people from Ceepeecee and

Hot Springs Cove — did a lot of work, as I'm sure the minister is

aware, in cleaning up the outer islands. They also lost a lot of their

livelihood, because they traditionally are fish-eaters and live off the

beaches, the mussels, the clams, the crabs and bottom fish that inhabit

those very rich waters.

They would have liked to see some compensation for their losses, as

would the village of Tofino, which spent a lot of its resources

cleaning up the beaches within its jurisdiction, and also fishermen

whose

[ Page 7000 ]

livelihood was curtailed at the time, because they couldn't fish

those waters any longer. The hotel owners and the cafe owners had signs

on their windows and doors stating: "Please remove your oily shoes

before entering." Their carpets were soiled. If the minister has ever

had oil on his carpets, he realizes the expense involved in trying to

remove that.

Yet none of these people were offered compensation, and the minister

earlier stated that 80-cent dollars were available for property damage.

Is he saying now that he's willing to compensate those people? Is he

willing to offer some compensation to those people, many of whom

volunteered their hours away from their businesses and communities to

see that their environment remained as pristine as it was before the

oil spill? Can he now offer the people of that area some compensation

for the out-of-pocket losses they incurred?

HON. MR. REE: I haven't seen or received a single claim from

the people the member is talking about. I cannot offer compensation to

them until I've received a claim from them.

Possibly the member for Alberni can consult with his learned

colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) as to where you would

normally go and who you would seek redress from, in the event of a loss

or damage you have sustained. Normally that goes to the party who

caused the loss or damage.

The responsibility of the provincial emergency program is to clean

up the mess and the damage there. Then we have, as I tried to explain

earlier to the member.... Oh, you weren't here at the time; your shift

changed, so I have to repeat myself. The compensation plan provides for

damage to your own property, in which there is a limit, where there has

been severe — like the storm up in the northwest of the province last

year, or when there is a flood or some natural disaster where property

is damaged.... There is a limit; I think it is 80 percent or a limit of

$100,000. There are some deductibles and there are some things that are

excluded. That is the extent to which the provincial emergency program

goes towards individuals in the event of a storm.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Normally, in instances like you have at Tofino, you would go to the

parties responsible. Now I would hope those people, if they have

claims, are in touch with their Member of Parliament for that area to

see that their claims would be included in any large claim the Dominion

of Canada might be making against the United States. I would certainly

ask the Member of Parliament up there to try and assist these people as

he should. If he is going to represent them, he should look to them to

that extent.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I was here, Mr. Minister, so you're wrong.

That's why I asked the question, and if you would bother to answer the

question as asked, we wouldn't have to repeat ourselves so often on

this side of the House, and we would get through these estimates a lot

quicker.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. G. JANSSEN: I was there, Mr. Minister, putting oil in

garbage bags — garbage bags I supplied that certainly weren't supplied

by your ministry.

The people in Tofino were directed by the provincial emergency

program to make their claims to an office set up in Ucluelet by the

Canadian government, which would assist them in pursuing their claims

privately with the owner of the barge. Each individual claim has to be

privately processed and pursued in order for those people to get

compensation. Some 80 claims, Mr. Minister, if you don't know the

number, are now in progress. But this government — and I asked at the

time — refuses to represent those people in a class action suit against

the Washington State government, whose environmental branch made the

decision to tow the barge out to sea in the first place.

Will the minister act on behalf of the residents of the province of

British Columbia? Will he recognize his responsibility as

Solicitor-General? Will he represent the people of the Alberni riding —

my constituents — in seeing that they receive some compensation?

Obviously it's much easier for the provincial government to act on

behalf of 80 residents of the province than it is for each resident to

pursue an action on his own.

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

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

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

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

[4:45]

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE: No, the responsibility for this, if there was

any, would be for the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), and I don't

believe you brought this issue up during his estimates. Maybe you

should make a point of it during question period, make another

submission or write to him about it. It's not for the Solicitor-General

to pursue these types of claims in any way, shape or form. At any rate,

the member well knows to register.... The federal gov-

[ Page 7001 ]

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

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find the concerns of some of these members

of the opposition with respect to environment, oil spills and so on

extremely hypocritical. Their leader, as I said earlier, isn't

interested in earthquake preparedness. They fought so hard against the

Mackenzie pipeline that the only method of moving petroleum or gas down

the coast is by ship, which is a greater threat to our environment than

a pipeline would be.

The only conclusion I can see is the opposition, if their government

would lead us down a line to, I guess.... The newest and the biggest

industry in the province would be.... Well, we wouldn't even have

candles for light.

MR CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, order, please. There is a

requirement during the Committee of Supply to discuss the

administrative responsibilities of the ministry in question. The

ministry in question is your ministry, and for the life of me I can't

understand how this debate relates to the estimates of your ministry.

If we could restrict our discussions to vote 67, I'd ask you to proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, to embrace the comment that my

colleague from Alberni just made, it would be a very easy matter for

the Ministry of Solicitor-General to set up an office in Ucluelet and

Tofino — and in my riding out in Port Renfrew, because there were

damages all up and down the coast in my riding as well — and take note

of all the claims, pay out those people who have legitimate claims, and

then subrogate and take action on a class basis by this government

against Washington State for their negligence in taking this barge and

towing it out, I believe, 22 miles or 45 kilometres to sea, which

allowed the oil to come up here. It is interesting that if they had

gone a little bit further, they would have hit the currents and it

would have gone to L.A. Instead, they went only as far as to hit the

currents that went to our coast.

It's interesting that after Valdez it didn't take long for

litigation to be commenced down in L.A. against Exxon to make sure that

those people up there were protected for loss of income and for

damages. The same could be done by this government. Commence the action

now and negotiate with the Americans — so you don't have to go to court

tomorrow — for the payment of our damages. Those damages include the

costs of the Ministry of Solicitor-General — if any; so far we haven't

been able to establish that his ministry spent any money on the costs

to clean up. His ministry, the Attorney-General's ministry and other

ministries, federal and provincial, could just commence an action now,

much like the Americans did to us on the Trail smelter.

You can do it. And don't give us, to quote the minister's words,

"hogwash" in terms of why you can't do it and get into some

jurisdictional dispute between the A-G and the Solicitor-General. Take

some leadership. Commence those court actions on a class basis. Pay out

those people. Subrogate those claims. Don't leave it up to their

resources. You can't say to someone who is a small businessman running

a cafe in Tofino that on the basis of private civil action they have to

commence an action down in Oregon for $5,000 worth of damage to a

carpet. Let's get real here. Or to say to a fisherman who's lost maybe

$50,000 worth of income that he's now got to go down to Oregon to

collect the bill and to sue not just the barge company but the American

Coast Guard and Washington officials who made the decision to take the

barge out to sea — that's where the deep pockets are — and to have some

private fisherman out of Tofino commencing action against the American

government.... Talk about inequality of power when you get in front of

the courts.

There was leadership lacking. Your ministry, Mr. Minister, sold off

the surplus garbage bags that you had sitting here in Victoria in a

warehouse a few months prior to the occurrence of the oil spill. You

sold off a lot of those supplies that you had, because this government,

because of its privatization initiative, wanted to empty out that

warehouse and give it over to the private sector. So it just sold off

all its stuff. That's a policy decision you made, and it came home to

roost really quickly, because it just so happened that the oil spill

happened that fast.

No one over there in the provincial emergency program so much as

thought to walk down the street here in Victoria into my riding in

Esquimalt, drop by the military base and say: "Look, chaps, what have

you guys got over here that we can use?" They had people; they had

organizational ability; they had an abundance of supplies.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they were willing.

MR. SIHOTA: They wanted to go out there, believe you me. The

reason why I know that is that I met with those officials and they were

aghast that they hadn't been asked. I think, if memory serves me right,

that I met with them on January 19, but I could reference that date for

the minister. They hadn't been asked as of that date. I could be wrong

by a week on that date, and I'll check on my calendar.

HON. MR. REE: Who was that?

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

I want to focus on another element of this spill. I want to ask the

minister a question first, and then I'll explain why I'm asking him.

Could the minister tell us what lessons his ministry has learned, what

it intends to do now, in this year's budget, as a consequence of that

oil spill which occurred and as a consequence, in particular, of the

experiences that the ministry had, let's say, between December 23,

1988, and the middle of February 1989, when you were actively on site,

up until then? In that time period, what lessons did you learn? I'd

like some precision to that. What steps have you taken in this year's

budget to make sure that there is support for those lessons?

[ Page 7002 ]

MR. R. FRASER: Didn't we all listen with interest to a few of

those presentations over there. Buried deep in the words of their

presentation is socialism, socialism, socialism. Can you believe it?

What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman? We are going to have

warehouses f