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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8139 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 8139

Ministerial Statement

Court Order Enforcement Act. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8140

Mr. Sihota

Oral Questions

Carmanah Valley park study. Mr. G. Janssen –– 8141

Comox Valley transmission line. Ms. Edwards –– 8141

Logging in Stein Valley. Mr. Cashore –– 8141

Sterile insect release program. Mr. Barlee –– 8142

AIDS Needle-exchange program. Ms. Marzari 8142

Prosecution of Petro-Canada for Millstream Creek oil spill. Mr. Sihota ––

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8143

Sale of New Westminster property. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 8143

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8143

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Edwards

Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 59).

Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 8170

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989 (Bill 52). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Ree) –– 8170

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Davidson

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

School Act (Bill 67). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8177

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Cashore

Hon. S.D. Smith

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, on the floor of the House today we have Mr. John Murray

and Mr. Phillip Smiles, who are members of the Parliament and of the

Public Accounts Committee for the Parliament of New South Wales. They

are accompanied by Mr. John Horder, who is the clerk of the Public

Accounts Committee of New South Wales. They are visiting us in an

effort to broaden their education with respect to Canadian public

accounts committees, and they are engaging in a series of meetings with

the chairman and deputy chairman of the British Columbia Public

Accounts Committee as well as the auditor-general and the

comptroller-general. These gentlemen are en route to Edmonton to attend

the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts

Committees. Would members please make them most welcome.

MS. MARZARI :

As the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee here in British Columbia,

I similarly would like to welcome Mr. Smiles, Mr. Murray and Mr.

Horder. I had the privilege of meeting these gentlemen this morning in

the time slot which would have been given to the Public Accounts

Committee for the final drafting of our final report this year.

However, for lack of quorum the committee did not meet, and I am hoping

that when the committee does meet to perform and pull together its

final report, I can send it on to these gentlemen so that they will be

able to talk in Australia about what a good Public Accounts Committee

we have in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID : In the

members' gallery I have some special guests I'd like the House to

recognize. Guests of the House today are Mr. Philip Gertson and his

wife Rosella and their guests Mr. Marcos Esquivel and his wife

Christina from Costa Rica. Also in the members' gallery, from White

Rock, are Don and Elinor Wiltse and Les and Shirley Dahlgren. Would

this House make these people a special welcome.

MR. BARLEE :

In the House today are Mr. Tom Johnston and Mr. Jack Edie, both of

Summerland, who are down here on a business trip concerning the future

of the ALR lands. They come from my historic riding of

Boundary-Similkameen. Would the House accord them a warm welcome,

please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We have two members on our side of the House today

who are celebrating birthdays. I'd like the House to join me in wishing

them both a very happy day. There is a slight difference in their ages. One

is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), and the other is the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

MR. SIHOTA :

It's always a pleasure to welcome a good friend to the Legislature, and

it's certainly a privilege for us on this side of the House to welcome

Mr. Paul Gill and his wife from Vancouver to the buildings and wish

them well in their visit to Victoria. Would all members please join me

in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. BRUCE : I rise

today not to make an introduction, but on a somber note with respect to

the passing of a gentleman who I consider to be a great Canadian. He

was an elder of the Cowichan Indian band; his name is Abel Joe. I can

remember Abel, for many years, having grown up in the community. I knew

Abel as a very wise and, I thought, compassionate man. He was not a

tall man — physically that is — but he stood tall and was truly proud to

be an Indian. He worked long and hard in preserving — and educating

people about — the Indian culture, and he was a leader in our community

in the development of the great performance, the Indian opera Tzinquaw.

suppose you could say that as man he could sing like a bird, and if you

looked at him and knew of him, the type of bird you would think of was

not so much a robin or a sparrow, but more of an eagle, in the strength

that he had as a man. He is truly a great loss to the Cowichan people,

to our community, to our province and indeed to our country. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that a message of condolence be sent by this House

to the Cowichan people.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, we

on this side of the House would like to echo the sentiments offered by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat. A number of us had the privilege and

pleasure of knowing Abel Joe. We know he was a fine man and an

embodiment of all that most of us hold to be important and significant

in one's public duties. His cause and his fight for social justice is

well known to all of us, and we will miss him. Sadly we will not see

his like again.

Introduction of Bills

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT

Hon.

Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm most pleased to bring before this House a bill that establishes a

program for government investment in strategic infrastructure in the

province. The Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act establishes

a mechanism for funding infrastructure which is of a long-term regional

or provincial benefit for which funding is not available within any

existing programs.

The bill will help in achieving two key

objectives, namely: (1) to encourage and facilitate new industries so

that the development potential of all regions can be more fully

realized; and (2) to provide more British Columbians in rural or remote

areas with

[ Page 8140 ]

access to services already available in other regions of the province.

This

bill responds to the long-term development needs of the regions, and

this bill represents another step in advancing our highly successfully

regional development initiative. I look forward to further discussion

of the bill with members during second reading.

Bill 74

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

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

Ministerial Statement

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I wish to make a report to the House by way of a ministerial statement.

I wish to report to the Legislature today that cabinet approved this

date orders-in-council designating the state of Washington and nine

Australian jurisdictions as reciprocating states for the purpose of our

Court Order Enforcement Act.

This means that where a court

orders money to be paid in civil proceedings in one location, the

holder of that judgment will be able to apply to register it with the

appropriate court in the reciprocating location. When registered, the

judgment will be treated as though it has been granted and enforced by

a British Columbia court. This order will now give British Columbia

reciprocal civil law arrangements with 15 foreign jurisdictions as well

as ten other Canadian civil jurisdictions. Reciprocal arrangements such

as these effectively extend the reach of British Columbia law far

beyond our borders.

In making these arrangements we extend

the law's protection for all British Columbians. This government has

now declared 57 jurisdictions throughout the world to be reciprocating

states for the purpose of enforcing family maintenance orders. The

Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has urged me to expand

these arrangements in order to help women particularly when enforcing

their court orders. We have done this where we have been satisfied that

a similar local mechanism is or will be in place for enforcing British

Columbia maintenance orders.

Today there are influences

which speak to the urgency of adopting the same dynamic approach to the

development of reciprocal arrangements covering civil court judgments

as we have done in the area of family law. One such influence concerns

environmental protection, and the Environment minister (Hon Mr.

Strachan) has been a major catalyst for moving this process along. When

the environment is damaged in one part of the world, we all suffer. Air

and water don't recognize borders. Polluters will have fewer places to

hide if we enhance this reciprocity arrangement in the enforcement of

our court orders. Such reciprocal arrangements also mean that judgments

arising from commercial contracts will be enforceable across many

jurisdictions.

[2:15]

This

government is committed to the principles of freer trade and the

expansion of links with our existing trading partners throughout the

world. We are also committed to forging trade relations with new

international partners, especially those along the Pacific Rim, be they

neighbours to the west or to the south. In expanding our trade links we

must ensure that decisions arising out of trade agreements and other

contracts are enforceable in both the courts of British Columbia and

those of our trading partners. To this end I intend to actively promote

expanding these reciprocal arrangements with many more jurisdictions.

Next week I will be discussing expansion of these arrangements at a

meeting of Canadian and American attorneys-general.

We are

ensuring that British Columbia builds the legal framework to compete

and prosper in our rapidly changing world economy by providing a simple

process for cross-boundary dispute resolution as we develop a

world-integrated and sustainable economy here in British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA :

We received notice of this matter about three minutes before the

minister made his statement. I want to make several comments in

relation to this. Reciprocal enforcement of court orders is nothing

new. We've known them to exist in this province for some time and have

entered into these types of engagements in other provinces for

literally dozens of years. Often these things are done through

order-in-council or statutory amendment; seldom are they done through

ministerial statement. It seems peculiar that the Attorney-General —

who one can describe as a Premier with training wheels — is using this venue to raise this very issue.

The

minister mentioned two areas that I want to comment on in particular:

women and the environment. The problem with respect to women on this

type of issue is not so much with the enforcement of court orders in

foreign jurisdictions; that is indeed a problem. But the critical

problem is the conflict that occurs from different orders from

different jurisdictions — in other words, one order from the

United States and one in British Columbia — and the inability to

reconcile which of those two orders has paramountcy.

The

thing that needs to be established with respect to maintenance is to

attempt to develop a uniform way of determining which of the orders is

to be paramount. This is the problem that the government should be

working on, quite frankly, on the international scene.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

I take some offence to the Premier's comment that this is sad. I don't

want to get into that. I think it's a very important issue, and he

obviously doesn't appreciate its magnitude. Perhaps if he spent some

time practising in this area, as I have, he would realize to what

extent it's a problem.

The second area that the minister talked about in his statement deals with the enforcement of orders

[ Page 8141 ]

coming

from environmental prosecution. That raises two issues. First of all,

this province has neglected proceeding with prosecution and securing

judgments on environmental pollution. The province needs to do its job

here in prosecuting environmental matters and then proceeding with the

enforcement of orders.

The second problem, which relates to

the environment and in my view is critical, rises from the west coast

oil spill. We are still awaiting from the Attorney-General, and from

this government, commencement of action in the United States for

damages caused to our beaches, to our small businesses and to our

tourist operators on the west coast of Vancouver Island from that oil

spill, which was caused by negligence on the part of American

authorities. What we look for from this side of the House is initiative

by this government to sue those responsible for the economic damage

inflicted to our west coast. That is what I was hoping we would see in

an announcement from the government on the environment.

Oral Questions

CARMANAH VALLEY PARK STUDY

MR. G. JANSSEN :

For the Minister Responsible for Parks. During the minister's estimates

he told this House that his staff was undertaking an analysis of park

options for the Carmanah Valley. Can the minister tell this House

whether this report has been completed or what his recommendations are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

Thank you, Mr. Member, for the question. We will be having some

discussions in cabinet on this issue. I mentioned at the time that I

would express the Parks ministry point of view in cabinet, and that's

where I'll be doing it.

MR. G. JANSSEN : A

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure this House that no

decision will be made on the Carmanah until the recommendations of his

staff analysis have been released?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : No.

COMOX VALLEY TRANSMISSION LINE

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the minister as Minister of State for Vancouver

Island-Coast and North Coast. The residents of the Comox Valley have

complained about the possible health effects of a high-voltage power

line through the region, and the Utilities Commission has put a stop to

construction and ordered a hearing into the possible health hazards for

those people. What specific steps has the minister taken to safeguard

the health of Comox Valley residents?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We have brought that concern forward, and it's presently before the commission.

MS. EDWARDS :

Supplementary to the same minister. What steps has the minister

contemplated and what steps would he take to ensure the process for

their input into this beyond such time as the commission has its

hearings?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We'll be waiting for the commission report, and then there will be equal access to the report.

MS. EDWARDS :

Supplementary to this, since the minister of state seems to be waiting

for something else to happen, has the Minister of Health done something

to assess the health hazards of this high voltage line?

HON. MR. DUECK :

It being my birthday today, I think they should be kind and not ask

questions, at least on this particular day. However, since the question

was asked, from time to time we do a health study when requested. I am

not aware of one on that particular issue. If you would like, I will

take that on notice, follow through and perhaps get you an answer in

the near future.

LOGGING IN STEIN VALLEY

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs: does the

minister support the Wilderness Advisory Committee's recommendation

that a road should not be constructed through the Stein River canyon

and that logging should not commence without a formal agreement between

the Lytton Indian band and the provincial government?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I think that's a question that would be much more appropriate for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker).

MR. CASHORE :

With all due respect, I think it's a question that's most appropriate

for the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs in this province. In

keeping with his responsibility, I would like to ask the minister if he

is prepared to continue, in good faith, negotiations with the Lytton

and Mount Currie Indian bands, as promised in a recent letter to those

bands.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Obviously the member has

confused the titles on the letterhead he has been copied with. I have

not written to the Mount Lytton band or to the Wilderness Advisory

Committee. I think, if you will follow the issue, you will find that

all of the negotiations have been between the Minister of Forests, on

behalf of the province, and the various parties.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate, then, his

position on this issue? Where does he stand on this issue with regard

to the Indian bands?

[ Page 8142 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : The Minister of Forests will continue to negotiate on behalf of the province.

MR. CASHORE :

Then I take it that the minister is saying he has no responsibility

whatsoever for ensuring that the interests of these two Indian bands

are looked after with regard to these negotiations. Is that what this

minister is saying?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : No, Mr. Speaker.

STERILE INSECT RELEASE PROGRAM

MR. BARLEE :

This is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it's fairly important. I

think at least six or seven members of the House will understand it,

including myself.

During estimates I asked the minister

whether the SIR program is going to be implemented during this session.

The SIR program happens to be the sterile insect release program, which

means they release a number of sterile codling moths out into the

female population. The result is very few little codling moths. The

minister informed me that he was aware of the importance of this

program. It was tried ten years ago, and it worked. The minister said

to write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I did that, did not get an answer, and have not

got an answer from you.

Is this program going to go ahead? It's badly needed in the Okanagan. I await the minister's response.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's indeed a pleasure to respond to my critic. As you know, this

government leads in agriculture; we do an exceptional job. In fact, I

did exactly what you said I did: I discussed it with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. It was brought to the cabinet table and is under

consideration for legislation in this session. That's a positive action

by a positive government.

MR. BARLEE : A

supplementary to the minister. If you were doing so well, the

orchardists in the Okanagan wouldn't want to pull 4, 000 acres out of

the ALR, which they are about to do. This will help them, and

consideration really isn't good enough. What is required is action now,

this year; otherwise, it's delayed one more year.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I thought I made the point pretty clearly that it was considered for legislation and we will take the appropriate action.

AIDS NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAM

MS. MARZARI :

A question for the Minister of Health, the birthday boy. The federal

government has recently announced that it will provide 50-cent dollars

for the costs of a needle-exchange program for intravenous drug users

to prevent AIDS. Have you decided to participate in that program which

could be very cost-effective for this province?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I received the letter late last night. I have not yet had time to

consider it. When that has been done and discussions have taken place

with my officials, we will then have an answer for you.

PROSECUTION OF PETRO-CANADA

FOR MILLSTREAM CREEK OIL SPILL

MR. SIHOTA :

During his estimates the Attorney-General was asked about prosecution

of Petro-Canada, which had spilled a considerable amount of oil into

Millstream Creek in the Western Communities. At that time he said that

action would be taken within a week. It has now been two months. Could

the minister explain why no prosecution has been taken against this

environmental polluter?

[2:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Yes, what I said during my estimates is that a decision on prosecution

would be taken within the next two weeks, and in fact that decision has

been taken.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister explain

why, in light of all of this government's propaganda about being tough

with polluters and in the face of all of that kind of rhetoric, the

government has not proceeded with prosecution of Petro-Canada in this

case?

HON. S.D. SMITH : One of the important elements

of our justice system which seems to have escaped the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is that decisions about prosecutions ought not

to be taken in a political arena. They ought to be taken by the

individuals who are charged with the responsibility of making a

decision based on evidence, circumstances and facts. Those individuals

are in the Ministry of Attorney-General's Crown counsel office. They

will make their decision on this issue, as they have on all others,

based on two profound and important principles: (1) what is the

likelihood of conviction; and (2) is the prosecution in the public

interest. Those are the principles upon which all of those decisions

are taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this member has on a number of

occasions in this House and outside the House invited me to inject

myself into the administration of justice by making political

decisions. I want to tell this House that I will not accede to that

kind of an attitude about the administration of justice in this

province. There is no place for political interference in the

administration of justice in the province of British Columbia. I would

further ask that member to reflect upon his attitudes in that regard.

Before he causes further public embarrassment to his law professors at

the University of Victoria, I would ask him to take a refresher course

in ethics and criminal procedure.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't need to invite the Attorney-General to make political

[ Page 8143 ]

decisions; he's quite capable of doing that himself and does it with great regularity.

This

is a question that deals with the administration within his own

department; he knows that as well as I do. Perhaps he can avoid the

cheap shots and deal with the issue. Will the minister confirm that the

reason the government has not proceeded with prosecution of this oil

spill here on Vancouver Island is because your environmental

legislation is so weak that you know full well you cannot secure a

prosecution? Will you confirm that, Mr. Minister?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, the response to that rather flaccid rejoinder to the earlier weak question is no.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the

minister given approval to the Vancouver city council to roll back to a

more manageable figure the increases of 100 percent, 200 percent and

300 percent that have been experienced by small business people in the

city of Vancouver? Has that approval been given to the city council by

his ministry?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : After meeting with

the citizens who had this tax problem as a consequence of local

government decisions, the government did present to the city of

Vancouver two options that would assist the city in dealing with that

issue, which is basically — I remind the House again — an

issue of who pays what proportion of local government services: in

other words, a tax distribution problem. The government did provide two

alternatives. The city council chose one of them, and my colleague the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the government

signed an order-in-council yesterday to facilitate the city's rolling

back the due date for property taxes, and which contains a provision

whereby penalties and interest could be forgiven for the rollback

period.

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I would like to respond to a question taken on notice, directed to me

yesterday by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

Mr.

Speaker, it is incumbent on all members of this assembly to act and

speak responsibly when dealing with matters of public interest. Members

are doing a disservice to the investment community and our valued civil

servants in making unfounded, poorly researched allegations.

The

latest statements show that the first member for Vancouver East has

become nothing more than a media-manipulating myth monger. His

innuendoes amount to a vicious, underhanded attack on honest civil

servants and reputable investors. This is the third occasion in the

past two months that the member has been shown to play fast with the

facts and to misinterpret them for cheap political headlines. If that

member has any respect for this House, any consideration for giving

straight answers to the people and any basic human decency, he will

withdraw his unsubstantiated accusations and humbly apologize for this

latest headline-grabbing outburst. The press conference that this

member held yesterday was not a spur-of-the-moment intuition; it was

planned in advance and, indeed, was given widespread publicity in the

media throughout the weekend.

In examining the facts, the

member has failed in his research efforts. I might add that I did not

receive a copy of the member's press release until well after question

period yesterday, and the only way I was able to get one was with the

cooperation of the press. My staff contacted the office of the first

member for Vancouver East for a copy, and we were refused. Had he taken

the time to simply ask me for the facts, I would have gladly provided

them in a timely manner and saved him the embarrassment he has suffered.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Chairman, last night when we adjourned I was on a point of order

with the junior member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who didn't seem to

understand the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard. It's passing

strange. I found out today that there are 1,177 Coast Guard personnel

in B.C. and 603 alone on the Island. It's interesting for a Vancouver

Island MLA not to understand that.

I did want to discuss

the issue of oil spills, which is where we left off last night. I was

discussing the oil spill response team. I thought I'd take some time

and advise the committee now, as they seemed to show some interest last

night in that response team. As I said last evening, there are two of

them: one located in the northern part of the province and one located

in the southern part of the province. In charge for the northern part

of the province is Ron Driedger, who is based in Prince George; and

Lanny Hubbard is based in Victoria for the southern part.

The

team managers are laid out as follows, and I'll just explain the

organization to you. There's what we call an incident commander —

on the north coast, as I said, Ron Driedger. I'll just go through the

north coast team. The deputy is Terry Roberts. A lad by the name of Bob

Williams assists the incident commander. Then there's the manager of

the provincial emergency program, there's a manager for environmental

surveillance; there's a manager of cleanup;

[ Page 8144 ]

there's

a manager of administration and a manager of field support. Also on the

team are specialists, including wildlife, fisheries and assessment

officers; there are supervisors of the cleanup teams, supervisors of

the disposal team and a supervisor of wildlife rehab, who's a

representative of the SPCA. And then there's an administrative

assistant.

Just to define some of the duties of the team:

the incident commander has the responsibility to organize all the B.C.

staff and resources assigned to respond to the oil-spill task at hand,

to implement response actions to mitigate the impact of the oil spill

on the environment and to integrate field-response actions with the

Canadian Coast Guard, the provincial emergency program and other

responsible parties as well as communications with the media.

The

deputy coordinates response-team strategy and decision-making meetings,

ensures complete record and rationale for all team decisions,

communicates with the team managers on behalf of the incident leader

where required, and assists and acts for the incident commander as

required.

There is a media officer, and of course those duties are self-explanatory with the title.

There

is the provincial emergency program personnel. Their job is to

supervise staff and the acquisition of equipment, supplies and

services — transportation, communications, accommodations, food,

equipment and supplies, clothing, first aid and safety — and to

arrange for other services as may be required for the incident team.

Then

there are the duties and responsibilities of the surveillance team.

Their job is to initiate and coordinate impact assessments, prioritize

biological and other resource protection and cleanup requirements,

plan strategies related to proposed protection and cleanup actions,

survey and evaluate impacts and cleanup activities, and undertake other

assignments as directed by the officer in charge — in effect,

liaison with other agencies in the collection and evaluation of field

information and in the development of response strategies.

There

is the wildlife rehab supervisor. That position is to establish

facilities and direct personnel to receive, rehabilitate and care for a

variety of birds and animals and provide assistance and advice in the

collection and transport of oiled wildlife to cleanup stations.

There

is the supervisor of the disposal team. This team identifies collection

points and arranges for transport of oily debris, establishes oiled

debris holding and transfer facilities, arranges for the disposal of

oily debris, and interfaces with federal, provincial, municipal and

industry representatives as required.

You can appreciate

that in the case of the Grays Harbor cleanup, we did deal with the

municipal officials in terms of some of the burning of the debris and

latterly with people who had industrial incinerators to take care of

that problem.

Then there is the manager of cleanup

operations. That person's responsibility is to organize teams to

undertake beach cleanup, to collect and dispose of oily debris and

affected wildlife, to ensure safety for all persons employed in cleanup

operations, to effect liaison with other task force managers as

necessary to facilitate efficient operations, to advise and recommend

priorities for cleanup operations, to assist in the development of

response strategy and its implementation, and to undertake other

assignments as requested.

[2:45]

There is the supervisor of cleanup teams, who organizes staff and

volunteers to undertake cleanup action at assigned areas, ensures the

safety of all team members while in the field and traveling to and from

field assignments, assists others as necessary in the collection,

transport and disposal of oily debris, reports on activities and

recommends improvement to cleanup actions.

That essentially

is the team that we put in place. As I said earlier to the committee,

Mr. Chairman, we have two of those response teams in place now. They

have both undergone simulated actions, one on Vancouver Island, the

other in the Queen Charlottes. We believe it's a well-rounded response

team, and it certainly has the technical capacity and the ability in

terms of the staff we have posted to these teams to handle all the

duties required.

I am sure members will find that

interesting; I noticed some interest last night. As I said, we have had

interest expressed by the government of Alaska, and as I advised the

committee last night as it became known to me, the government of Norway

has also indicated an interest in looking at the schematic that we put

in place and understanding the way we have constructed our response

team and assigned their various duties to them. So I think that in that

sense we can see that the British Columbia reaction to the events of

January and then later to the events at Easter time has been to really

put leadership in place and design strategies that will enable us to

better react if those regrettable incidents, God forbid, ever recur.

While

we're on the subject of oil spills, a question was posed earlier today

on another matter, but I will deal with it now because it does have an

impact on the Ministry of Environment. That was a question regarding

judgments. I can advise the committee, with respect to the Attorney's

OIC, that the Ministry of Environment can sue for judgments in B.C. and

have them enforced in Washington, or vice versa. That is the effect of

the OIC that was brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly

today. Of course, it does have impact on the Ministry of Environment,

so I wanted to make that point.

MR. SIHOTA : You could do that before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Well, I don't know if I could. Given the advice we've heard from you

lately, I'm suspicious of that. I would rather go with the advice of

our Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith).

Interjection.

[ Page 8145 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You'll have a chance to speak.

MR. SIHOTA : You don't even know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Simmer down. Just relax. It's okay. You'll get your chance to stand up

at your little microphone and do your thing. Okay. Just relax. Take it

easy.

I'll repeat that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I see. You're right, and the Attorney-General of British Columbia is wrong.

Anyway,

this means that with respect to oil spill judgments, we can sue in

British Columbia and enforce in Washington. If we didn't have that

ability, then suing in B.C. would have no impact on any other

jurisdiction. But according to the information given to me from the

Attorney-General of British Columbia, we do have that capacity now, and

that's what we needed.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I

welcome more questions on the issue of oil spill response or any other

issues that come under the purview of the Ministry of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, the Minister of Tourism asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID :

On behalf of the Premier, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I

introduce a friend of the Premier and mine. Visiting from Milestone,

Saskatchewan, we have in the members' gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Ed

Bohn. Would the House give them a very special welcome.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for that statement. At the

beginning of his remarks there was some chatter going on, and I

couldn't get it quite clear with regard to this team and the 1,177

employees — 603 on the Island. Are those employees of the Ministry

of Environment in British Columbia, or are they employees of the Coast

Guard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That was for the benefit of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who didn't understand federal jurisdiction.

They are members of the Canadian Coast Guard. The personnel complement in British

Columbia of the Canadian Coast Guard takes the lead in oil spill response in

Canada — on the Pacific coast, as on the Arctic coast and the Atlantic coast.

In any event, their presence in B.C. is 1,177 personnel; the Vancouver Island

complement is 603. I have a bracketed note here: 471 are permanent employees.

Obviously the Canadian Coast Guard has a large number of part-time employees.

As a matter of fact, I think Dave LeBlanc is one of them, if I'm not mistaken.

I think he told us in Tofino that he is a part-time employee of the Canadian

Coast Guard. So that would explain the difference in the numbers.

But

to repeat and answer the member's question: that's Canadian Coast Guard

personnel — the federal agency. There are 1,177 in B.C.; 603

employees on Vancouver Island, of whom 471 are permanent.

MR. CASHORE :

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Minister. I would assume from what the

minister has said that of those 1, 177 employees, some of them are

part-time casual employees. Is that correct? Perhaps a nod of the

head....

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I can only recite the

numbers that have been given to me, and also point out from personal

experience that I know that Dave LeBlanc, who did yeoman's volunteer

work at Tofino, is also.... I think he categorized himself as a

part-time employee of the Canadian Coast Guard. So that would be the

only example I know. But I suspect that he would be typical of the

part-time employees.

MR. CASHORE : We can take it,

then, that that is not a contingent of full-time employees, but they

are employees of the Canadian Coast Guard. Mr. Chairman, when we

concluded last night, the minister was making a point that it was

inappropriate for my colleague to talk about the Coast Guard, and the

minister has talked about the Coast Guard for the last ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I believe that both the minister

and my colleague are correct in talking about the Coast Guard, because the minister

brought the Coast Guard into this discussion early on in the oil spill fiasco.

He was being questioned on CBC one morning on the early morning program, and

it was being asked of him: "Why have you been taking so long to act?"

He said: "It's the responsibility of the Coast Guard. They have the

lead role in this. Just tell us what to do. We're prepared to follow."

Mr.

Chairman, the minister himself brought the Coast Guard into this

discussion. Obviously, in order to discuss oil spills and the

interrelationship of the governments, and in trying to figure out who

has responsibility, we have to talk about it in that context. That

being the case, I would like to say that, having received these

figures, we can take confirmation from the minister's comments that if

this contingent was in place prior to the oil spill, clearly the Coast

Guard did not have the ability to respond adequately; and if the

minister doesn't agree, it is certainly agreed on by the general public

in their observations of the fiasco that ensued.

I might at

this time just point out that I do appreciate the comment that the

Minister of Environment just made with regard to Dave LeBlanc in

attempting to set the record straight on the issue of his cabinet's

appreciation of the work of Mr. LeBlanc, who was very highly regarded

by the general public

[ Page 8146 ]

for

his work in coordinating the volunteers. By his comment, this minister

has distanced himself from the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and his

remarks during his estimates, which were most unfortunate. I am pleased

to hear this expression coming from within the cabinet because I think

it's tremendously important that we support the work that volunteers do

in such a disaster or emergency.

HON. MR. REE : He never belonged to PEP.

MR. CASHORE : Okay.

The

facts that the contingent of Coast Guard people is available within

this province and that there was such an inadequate response to the

spill are indications that the Minister of Environment — whose

mandate is as large as the entire province of British Columbia —

has a responsibility to take a lead role, especially when that role is

not being taken by other jurisdictions. It's clear that the

federal-provincial agreement is that the Coast Guard has the lead role.

But what about the role of the Ministry of Environment to ride herd on

that and make sure it's happening on time and is being done properly?

Just

as an example, if the situation were to develop again tomorrow, isn't

the Ministry of Environment concerned with the statements made by the

Solicitor-General that we have to wait for a report before we get more

garbage bags and rakes into some of the communities where the

volunteers would go if there were another such disaster? Isn't the

Ministry of Environment concerned about taking leadership in those

areas to ensure that the equipment and the capacity to deal with the

situation are in place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

A couple of minutes ago I read you the contingency plans that we've put

in place and the variety of positions in it — the schematic and

the responsibility of the people. I'll read it again if you want, or

you can look it up in Hansard , but I think that pretty well answers your question.

have a very detailed response team in place. We have two of them: one

for the north and one for the south. We have identified all their

duties, how they are going to coordinate with all other agencies, and

as I said, it doesn't seem to be faulted in any quarters. As a matter

of fact, we have the governments of Alaska and now Norway wanting to

look at this plan, because they think it's a good way of dealing with

the issue and of managing and detailing the staff.

I thank

you again for your question, but the response is the same as before:

there are two teams in place; they have their duties identified. The

response is identified. We see it as a first-class organization and

make no apology for it.

With respect to the Coast Guard, I

would just love to do all sorts of things that the federal government

has jurisdiction to do, but regrettably we can't. This is a

Confederation, the country of Canada. There are provincial

responsibilities and federal responsibilities.

The Department of National Defence — in case you're not aware of it —

has a navy, a Coast Guard, helicopters and ships and does search and

rescue and all that type of work on the high seas, and it really

doesn't become our responsibility till something is land-based; in

other words, until it hits our shore.

You can check with

your constitutional friends on that to better learn the distinction

between the two governments, but that is the way it works. Perhaps some

of your members have served in the armed services and could tell you

what the distinction is, or perhaps you could talk to some of the

people who live in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who also serve in the armed

services. They can maybe enlighten you and your colleague on the

distinction between the two governments and the various agency

responsibilities.

MR. SIHOTA : A question to the

minister. During question period, I asked the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith) some questions relating to Millstream Creek. Will the

minister confirm that the recommendation from his ministry to the

Attorney-General's department was that prosecution should proceed with

respect to the spill on Millstream Creek?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, I will neither confirm nor deny interministerial communications.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, there's no blanket for commenting on what his ministry

recommended. We discussed yesterday what his ministry had recommended

regarding charges for the contamination of soils at Port Renfrew, and

the minister discussed quite openly the two statutes that would apply

in that instance. It seems to me that the minister himself has already

commented on these matters. Am I correct in concluding that one of the

reasons the minister does not want to answer that question is that that

was the recommendation?

[3:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No.

MR. SIHOTA :

So the minister is saying that the matter of the recommendation was not

one of the reasons. Could he tell the House why he is not prepared to

tell us what the recommendations of his own people were? He did that

yesterday with respect to Port Renfrew, to the extent that he could.

Could he now tell us what the internal recommendations of his own

people were?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

If we have discussions with respect to a prosecution that might or

might not take place — we are having those discussions with the

Attorney-General's ministry, and I don't know if they've concluded

yet —

I don't think it's in the best interest of the people of British

Columbia to be discussing it in this forum. As a matter of fact, I

think it would offend the rule of anticipation.

MR. SIHOTA : The only thing that would offend anything is the minister's rather flippant response to

[ Page 8147 ]

the

question. The point remains that his ministry investigated. I'll just

ask the minister a number of questions then. Did his ministry identify,

during the course of its investigation, which regulation and statute

were broken with respect to the Millstream Creek spill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't particularly care for this junior barroom lawyer — cub

reporter, cub lawyer — line of questioning. Perhaps the member

could put everything into one big question, and I'll get to it.

MR. SIHOTA :

Then could the minister tell the House in general terms what the

conclusions of his ministry's investigation were with respect to the

spill at Millstream Creek?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No.

MR. SIHOTA :

So much for open government. Could the minister give an accounting to

the House of the investigation made by his people? When did it begin?

When did it end? What did you discover? Under which enactments was the

investigation carried out?

Could the minister confirm to

this House that the reason he is unwilling to answer these questions is

the embarrassment he feels at me asking these questions? Is he somehow

embarrassed because I'm asking these questions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, I'm certainly not. The point is that an investigation has gone on.

Internal communications have happened between two ministries, and a

decision may or may not have been made. I don't think it's in the best

interests of anyone to carry on this type of discussion or to try to

extract from me what may follow if prosecution is to occur. I certainly

would not be serving the environment or the people of British Columbia

in the best manner if I were to divulge that to you.

I know

you have an insatiable appetite for this type of stuff, but you're not

going to get it from me. You can ramble on all day. When I'm prepared

to tell you or the people of British Columbia anything with respect to

this incident, I will, but not until such time as I'm prepared to do

that.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister should understand

that he is responsible to the people of British Columbia through this

House, and the questions we put to him from this side of the House.

There's an expectation that he will provide answers to the questions.

Of course, there's no obligation that he will provide answers, but if

the democratic process is to work, and work properly, then of course

the minister would live up to his moral duty to answer these types of

questions.

I can understand the predicament the government

finds itself in. It talks very tough in saying that we're going to take

on corporate polluters and be tough with them. But the proof lies in

the pudding. This was a spill that occurred after all the tough talk

started. It occurred after the oil spill on the west coast. It's the

first opportunity the government has had to explain its actions and to

prove that it is indeed prepared to get tough with polluters.

conversations with ministry officials are such as to lead me to believe

that a recommendation has been made to lay a charge. The

Attorney-General has confirmed — the minister doesn't seem to have understood this —

that there will be no prosecution. He's not going to jeopardize the

process, in light of the comment already made by the Attorney-General

along the lines that there will be no prosecution. If there's no

embarrassment or fear on the part of the minister, could he explain why

he is not prepared to engage in an open discussion as to the decisions

made in his own ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Quite

frankly, Mr. Chairman, because I don't accept what the member is saying

as being factual. I don't think he's got it right. Until I saw

verification from my ministry staff, I would not accept what he's

saying. I have no reason to accept what he's saying.

MR. SIHOTA : That's always the easy out —

just to say you don't believe the other guy. Let me put it to the

minister this way; let me give him the other out. Is he saying that he

has reason to believe that the staff in his own ministry have

recommended that no action be taken with respect to the Petro-Canada

spill at Millstream Creek?

If the minister wants to wimp

out and not answer questions, that's his prerogative. If he doesn't

want to do his job.... Any time we get into some tough questioning

here, the minister decides he's just going to sit. If he is not

prepared to answer questions and deal with some of the tougher issues

in his own ministry, I suggest that he quit and let someone else do the

job of Minister of Environment, someone who is at least prepared to

answer some very basic questions.

I don't think the type of

conduct that we're seeing in the House from the minister is what's

expected of a minister of the Crown when being asked very basic

questions that deal with the administration of his ministry. The

actions of the minister are shameful in terms of just sitting there

smirking away and not answering questions when he knows there's a

straightforward contradiction between his government's rhetoric about

being tough and what appears to be — not appears to be, but what is

indeed — the lack of action on the part of the government in

prosecuting these people. You can have it every way, but eventually

some people will call you on it. You can stand up and say, "Yes, we are

going to have $3 million fines," or $1 million fines or whatever, but

if you're not going to prosecute, if you're not going to take these

people to court, it doesn't matter much.

We've cited

statistics in the past as to how neglectful you have been in protecting

the environment. We know how bad you've been before, and look at you

today. You are not prepared to improve your track

[ Page 8148 ]

record

in that regard. My suggestion to the minister is that it's time he got

real and decided what his job is. Are you going to be an advocate for

the environment or not? You've got a problem here: you know someone

broke the law; you know your regulations were violated; you know there

was a trespass on the environment; and you know that something went

wrong which prevented you from proceeding with the prosecution. Are you

prepared to tell this House now what went wrong?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I will try to be as polite and as delicate as I can on this issue.

We've got a member who doesn't understand what the Coast Guard does,

and we've got another critic who can't read a museum sign. Now the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is leading in certain information

which I quite frankly don't believe. I'm sorry; I just can't believe

that member.

MR. SIHOTA : If the minister says he

doesn't believe me, then he has obviously come to the conclusion that

there are differences in fact between what I am saying and what he is

saying. In order to prove me wrong, which I'm sure the minister would

delight in, will he now stand up in the House and tell us which facts

in his possession will rebut what I am saying? Provide us with the

information that you've got, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER : In the spirit of open government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In the spirit of good environmental law, the answer is absolutely not. It would be silly.

MR. SIHOTA :

Good environmental law means prosecuting these people who spill oil

into creeks and streams in British Columbia, and you are not doing it.

You are not doing it in my riding, you are not doing it in Howe Sound,

and you are not doing it in other areas in this province where fish

habitat is being affected by pulp mills.

MR. CASHORE : They don't have the staff.

MR. SIHOTA :

You don't have the staff, you don't have the conservation officers, but

most importantly, you don't have the will. You are selling out. The

whole history of this Social Credit Party has been one of sellout to

large corporate interests...

MR. R. FRASER. That's ridiculous.

MR. SIHOTA : ...and telling them that they are not prepared to take action.

MR. PETERSON : A crock of baloney.

MR. SIHOTA :

If that causes a sting to some of the members over there, then take a

look at the record of prosecutions. My colleague from Coquitlam has

brought it out over and over again.

MR. PETERSON : The so-called expert in everything. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. SIHOTA :

Read the annual report from your own ministry, which shows how little

prosecution you guys do. You walk in here and say: "Oh yeah, we just

hired Peter Ewert to do some work in terms of prosecution of these

matters." That's just flim-flam for two reasons: (1) you don't have the

legislation that can do the job; and (2) you don't have the will to do

the job, because you've sold out to those large companies that walk

into your office in the middle of the afternoon and say: "Hey, look,

give us a break." And it's break after break that you're giving them.

fairness, I'm quite happy to say to the minister that there are

instances where breaks should be provided, but there are also instances

where prosecution should take place. I'm not questioning the minister

on those examples where it's legitimate to provide someone with a

break; but in those situations where it's not, where his own people

recommend prosecution, it's a different story.

We'll come

back to the matter of Millstream. Maybe the minister on sober second

reflection will come to the conclusion that he's prepared to answer

some of the questions and let those people in my riding know why no

charges have been laid. Tell the people in my riding, who saw the oil

come in and affect their property and their enjoyment of their

property, why this government which talks so loudly walks so softly

when it comes to prosecution. Mr. Minister, you owe an explanation to

the public, people in my riding who are affected, as to why you aren't

taking any action on the spill at Millstream Creek. Be honest, just

tell us; just admit that it's either a failing of legislation or a lack

of will.

I want to ask him some questions that deal with

the oil spill which occurred on the west coast. Maybe he will be more

forthcoming in his discussion on that. There was obviously some damage

that was caused, and I referred to this during the course of the

ministerial statement: economic damage and also costs incurred by his

ministry in the cleanup. First, has the minister quantified the costs

to the taxpayers in terms of that west coast oil spill? Second, could

he tell us what he is doing in terms of trying to recover those costs

from the United States government?

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We have quantified our staff, and we have held a meeting with the

Ministry of the Attorney-General and federal officials from External

Affairs and justice. If the member wishes to refresh his memory, in

early January I was advised by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard that because we

were dealing with another country, it would be an affair of

negotiations between External Affairs and the Secretary of State in the

U.S. I don't know if that has changed or not, but that was the advice

that was

[ Page 8149 ]

given publicly, and the member should be aware of it, because Lucien Bouchard said that in January.

have a couple of options here in terms of what we are going to do, and

I don't know if I'm about to explore those yet. But I can assure you

that we will insist on seeking compensation for the damage that was

done to the coast of British Columbia.

I'd like to just get

back to something the member said earlier about willingness to

prosecute. I can assure you that nothing would make me happier than to

prosecute PetroCan. I also have to reject solidly that the big

corporate interests walk into my office and dictate what I'm doing. As

a matter of fact, the big corporate interests in British Columbia are

going to be coughing up about $1 billion by the time I'm finished with

them in terms of....

MR. SIHOTA : More tough talk.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, just add it up. They're into about $800 million so far in terms of

dioxin control. I'll show you the press releases. I'll read them to

you, if you can't understand them yourself.

Low-sulphur

oil. You probably don't understand that either, but that's in place

now. When you include air shed work that's being done in Prince George

— again, the construction is in place — the cost to the pulping

industry

will be close to $1 billion. So I wouldn't say that they can walk into

my office and tell me how they're going to operate; we tell them how

they're going to operate, and the proof is there. You asked for

proof —

the proof of the pudding or in whatever immature way you characterized

it. It's there, I can assure you.

I will send you the press

releases issued by Northwood, Canfor and all the other people about the

work they're doing. I will send you the press releases with respect to

low-sulphur oil, and I will show you the air work that's being done in

Prince George by Canfor and Northwood. I'll show you the construction

estimates and the money that's committed now, and you'll see that we're

well into $1 billion So I can't accept your laughably uninformed

charges that we're not being tough on the industry.

MR. SIHOTA :

While you're showing me things, maybe you'll also agree to show me your

file on Millstream Creek and explain why you're not taking action

against Petro-Canada. You know, it's just amazing how the minister can

blabber about everything else but is ill-prepared to talk about the

proof And it's amazing how he can sprinkle in one cheap shot after

another in his response but not deal with the guts of the issue:

namely, an explanation from his ministry for why they can allow

Petro-Canada to pollute what we describe as a creek but what is

actually quite a large area of water in my riding and not take any

action.

MR. CASHORE : It's a PR ministry.

MR. SIHOTA :

You know, it is. The minister talks about public relations. It's a PR

ministry. Press releases come cheap; paper is cheap. But action is what

counts. We ain't seen it from your ministry. We just have this new

greening of the Socred Party all of a sudden, as if the Premier's hair

is just starting to turn green with some realization that it's an issue

that is high on the polls. Where was your concern before? Get off it.

Who are you trying to fool, Mr. Minister? You guys have a rotten record

on the environment. it has been quoted to you already by my colleague.

Now that you have your chance to prove that you're going to do better,

you're not doing it.

Could the minister tell me how much

compensation? What are those costs? He says he quantified them. Could

he give us a dollar figure of what it cost the taxpayer — from his

ministry — to clean up the oil spill?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before I recognize anybody else, I would like to mention at this

point that it would seem to me that the language being used in this

debate could be moderated considerably and the same level of debate

achieved by so doing. I would request that as we proceed, more moderate

language be the order of the day.

MR. R. FRASER : I enter this debate with delight.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : Yes, Mr. Member for Langley — and I'll be moderate as always.

want the opposition to hear and be reminded what their plan was for the

future when they talked about the oil spill on the west coast. They

said: "Store up a few garbage bags and some gloves just in case." As we

all know, garbage bags are biodegradable; they deteriorate one way or

another. What are they going to do? Run around with gloves and garbage

bags. Not this government; not the federal government either.

We're

trying to make sure there's a vessel on the west coast capable of

scooping up the oil before it gets to the shore. That's what we're

doing, and that's what that minister is supporting. There is such a

vessel in provincial waters right now that a local company is working

with the federal government to modify so it can be used for picking up

oil from the water.

There was interesting talk about the

greening of this government. What an interesting idea. Their idea of

greening is to say to all the loggers: "Don't log; don't cut down a

tree." Where's their position? You never hear it. When Jack Munro and

the loggers come to the Legislature steps, where are they? They're

hiding down in the legislative dining-room. Why are they hiding down

there? Because Jack Munro told them to hide down there. This minister

and the other ministers go out and talk to the friends — and the

enemies — of the government. But the opposition leader, the opponents,

whatever.... Whoever's out there, we'll go and talk with them, but not

those

[ Page 8150 ]

members

opposite. No, when their special interest friends come by, they run for

cover. They always have; they always will. They won't face a hard job.

Now they're backtracking on some of their great press and TV releases —

Backtrack Bob they call him — and on and on it goes.

That

member there asks what we're doing. "Take action against the U.S.

government." Of course, there's protocol, and that's what this

minister's going through; there are channels for these things.

want to remind those members opposite where their responsibility lies.

It's called critical, constructive opposition. I don't see too much of

that. Nagging and harassing the minister — which they can't do, but

they're trying — pretending we're in a court of law when we're in a

chamber to gather information and make sure the public knows what

everybody in government is doing, how we're spending the taxpayers'

dollars, what the Coast Guard actually does. Learning how to read and

think is what we want from the members opposite.

MR. PETERSON : Did you say "think"? That's mission impossible.

MR. R. FRASER :

I want them to think. I know it'd difficult for them, but they've got

to try. You know, the garbage-bag mentality.... You don't save garbage

bags; you use better methods. It applies to every ministry, whether

it's Education, Environment, Forests or Municipal Affairs. Let's have a

little upgrading here.

I want to hear from the minister

about what he's doing so that everybody in this whole chamber will know

and everybody in the province will know what the government's doing.

We're going to have a combination of environment, forestry and all

those other things that make it work. We'll show up at the meetings and

talk to everybody. We'll be there. Will they? That's the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The member earlier asked a question about funding. We don't have the

figures totally together yet. There's a request by the federal

government to use a federal format in terms of identifying our costs,

and that's being worked on now. Presumably they'll be ready as soon as

possible, in terms of identifying what the costs have been to the

taxpayers of British Columbia, from the point of view of both the

Ministry of Environment and other ministries that were involved. We can

make those figures public, but they are not available at this point.

There are probably still some expenses being incurred as well.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Garbage bags and garbage-bag mentalities have been mentioned in the

House by the member for Vancouver South. I'd like to ask the minister

how many garbage bags, rakes and shovels were purchased during the oil

spill. How much money did the Ministry of Environment spend on the

cleanup of that oil spill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The provision of supplies was the responsibility of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree).

MR. G. JANSSEN : I'm glad to see the Solicitor General is back in the House to hear the Minister of Environment's response to that question.

It's

my understanding that the provincial government paid out no money to

purchase any materials and that those materials were in fact donated.

They're still donated, and they're sitting in a warehouse — an

attachment to the fire hall — waiting to be used when the next oil

spill happens, because the people of the west coast from my riding

recognized fully the inadequate response by the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On a point of order, the member was informed a couple of minutes ago

that supplies are a responsibility of the Ministry of

Solicitor-General. Questions about that should then be addressed to the

minister. His estimates have since passed, and obviously the member

missed that opportunity, but he might try in question period tomorrow.

MR. CASHORE :

On a point of order, the issue that the member for Alberni is

addressing is an environmental issue. It relates to a total

coordination of environmental deployment of resources, and it

interfaces with the Solicitor-General, but it is appropriately on

environmental turf.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just in

response, the question was to do with garbage bags and rakes. I advised

the committee that that is a responsibility of the Ministry of

Solicitor-General. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam may take a

different view of that, but regrettably that is the way the government

is organized. Whether he likes it or not the Ministry of

Solicitor-General has the PEP program. They are responsible for those

types of supplies, and I understand, as the member advises me, that it

was well canvassed in the estimates. I repeat: the debate now is not

only repetitive but I would suggest it is also quite futile.

MR. G. JANSSEN : The minister suggests that is how the government is organized; I would argue that that is how it is disorganized.

he doesn't want to take any responsibility for the purchase of material

or supplies when an environmental disaster happens, we recognize the

confusion that existed between not only his ministry but also the

Solicitor-General's ministry and the Coast Guard when the oil spill

happened and how long it took to sort out. Perhaps he could tell us if

an inventory has been done as to how many birds, seals and crabs were

killed, what the environmental damage was of the oil spill on the west

coast and whether a tabulation has been done of those facts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There's information being prepared now. But you have to understand the

[ Page 8151 ]

tragedy

of the situation. The spill is a killer to birds or other sea life when

it's still an oil slick, and as it dissipates and turns into patties,

it's not so dangerous. Many of the birds washed ashore were American

birds; they were identified because of the species. They had been

killed in the slick by the oil when it was still on the surface area. A

lot of that kill happened in the Canadian waters as well, but it began

to dissipate as the oil clumped and sunk below the surface, so it's

going to be very difficult to identify what the Canadian loss has been

as opposed to the American loss, because the people I spoke to at

Tofino did indicate that they recognized species more unique to the

United States drifting in with the spill itself, so there's that

explanation.

I'm also advised that the federal government

has taken on the task of identifying what the wildlife loss will be,

and presumably they'll be presenting that information publicly as soon

as they have it available.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I thank

the minister. It seems that he doesn't have a responsibility for

purchasing materials, and now the federal government has the

responsibility for tabulating the losses. Perhaps he could tell us, in

light of the Attorney-General's ministerial statement earlier this

afternoon about compensation.... I still have a number of constituents

who are seeking compensation for losses when the fisheries were closed

and when oil was tracked through their restaurants. The municipalities

there expended a certain amount of dollars cleaning up the beaches

within their boundaries. Will the ministry be pursuing through the

Attorney-General compensation for those constituents of mine who are

still waiting to hear from this government whether or not they will

receive any remuneration for their losses?

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If the

member had heard the Attorney-General's statement earlier in the

Legislative Assembly, or listened to my debate later on today, he'd

know that that clearly is an issue of the Attorney-General and also

External Affairs of Canada and justice of Canada.

I guess

at this point it's probably appropriate that maybe I respond by

pointing out that there are ministers and ministries in Canada other

than the Ministry of Environment. Everybody seems to think that we are

responsible for everything: federal jurisdiction, the law and a variety

of measures. I wish I could take unto myself and unto this ministry

those awesome responsibilities; however, that's not the way it's done

in cabinet. There are shared responsibilities for the management of the

know that some of the members opposite are going to wring their hands

with glee and say: "Oh, gee, you don't do anything." Well, we do quite

a bit We have an extensive budget and an extensive staff However, when

it comes to Coast Guard helicopters, the laws of the land, external

affairs and negotiations with other countries, they are not our

responsibility. I know that may be difficult for some of the

members to accept; nevertheless, that's the way it is. I'll provide

them more details in written form on the administration of government

and the way we are organized in B.C. and in Canada If they wish.

MR. CASHORE :

Earlier the minister was talking about the Coast Guard. He was just

saying a moment ago that he's not responsible for these different

ministries and governments, which is true. He does have a

responsibility, though, in a creative way, to ensure that there is

effective coordination for the benefit of the protection of the

environment.

One case in point that I find very interesting

was reported to me a few days ago. It's about a spill that took place

in Fitz Hugh Sound. It's alleged — again, I'm not saying it is a fact —

that one of the Regent line ships, either the Princess or the Sun, had

possibly dumped its bilge while going through the Inside Passage, and

that it soiled ten or 15 miles of beach. About 400 pounds of debris was

collected up, and the tugboat Martha L. Black from the Canadian Coast

Guard was dispatched to deal with the situation.

Apparently

it was heavy bunker oil. There were some people from the area who, I

believe, helped the Coast Guard crew work on cleaning up that spill.

One of the things that concerned me was that apparently what was used

in cleaning up that spill was jet fuel, which is very similar to

kerosene. With all of these things, there are two arguments. One

argument is that it evaporates very quickly, and therefore it has a

minimal environmental impact; the other argument is that it's actually

more toxic than the bunker oil. Where it does manage to seep into the

sand, the biota and the life on the rocks where it's used, it

potentially creates a problem. I realize that it's difficult to know

right away all of the impacts of all of these things.

As I

tried to investigate this case, I asked if the following agencies were

contacted prior to the Coast Guard undertaking its clean-up work using

this substance, which is alleged to be toxic to the degree of being

more dangerous than what it was to clean up. Was federal Fisheries

notified? Was Environment Canada notified? Was PEP notified? Was the

British Columbia Ministry of Environment notified? My understanding is

that PEP isn't necessarily notified in all cases unless it's deemed

that it should be, for whatever criteria.

I would think

that where a substance would be placed on the British Columbia

shoreline, certainly the Ministry of Environment should be notified.

I'm not saying it wasn't. I am just saying that the information I have

is that it wasn't. I'd be very happy if, through your deputy, Mr.

Minister, you are able to report that indeed your ministry was

notified. If the answer is — since I'm trying to save some time here —

that you have been notified, then I want some technical data with

regard to an assessment of the use of kerosene in such a situation.

also understand from a person who was a witness that there were people

there who were asked to place the substance on a beach, which was a

clam beach, and that they refused to do so, in the belief that it could

cause some toxicity among the commer-

[ Page 8152 ]

cial

clams there. Again, it raises a question: if this kerosene was being

sprayed on the rocks in an area where there were clam beaches, is it

not a really serious concern that with the tidal action and everything,

material might be carried into the area where that clam beach is? I'd

like the minister to comment on that, most importantly with regard to

the interface between the Coast Guard and the Ministry of Environment in such a situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of

all, were we informed? The answer is yes. Investigation took place

immediately. I understand that the ship they thought had dumped that

bilge oil.... The Coast Guard could not come to any conclusion that

they had done that. However, there was no question that the bilge oil

was there. They couldn't find the person who had done it; that is

regrettable. I guess we'll always be suspicious about who did dump the

bilge oil.

The Ministry of Environment was notified and is

responsible for cleaning up or accepting all of the debris, and it has

done that. There was some discussion between our officials and federal

officials with respect to the methodology, and I can't give you a

technical opinion on the use of jet fuel; as you say, it's just a very

dry kerosene. But at first blush and as a layman, I would suspect that

the kerosene would be a better product to use than anything else. It

would also be a little better than what's there, because if it's bilge

oil, it would be sulphur. It could probably have lead in it and other

contaminants, so the use of clean jet fuel would probably be the lesser

of two evils in trying to get rid of the debris and the contamination.

You

can also appreciate that the salt water ocean is a very hostile

environment to anything, including jet fuel, and it would quickly

dissipate. You mentioned the tides; the tide action there is

significant, so probably the decision to use jet fuel as a clean-up was

the best decision. It was made by technical experts who surveyed all

remedies available to them, and to use jet fuel to clean it up was far

superior to just leaving the bilge oil there.

That would be

my opinion at this point, but it's pretty hard to second-guess

technicians who were on the scene, and who make these judgments as

quickly as they can before the damage spreads.

MR. CASHORE :

I would like to ask the minister — I don't expect him to be able to do

this during estimates — to gather some information through his ministry

on this, because I think it's a very important issue, especially with

regard to the adjacent clam bearing beaches. Those of us who do some

boating in the summertime know that areas where vessels are tied up are

closed to shellfish fishing, because fuels are leaking into those

waters causing toxicity and therefore a dangerous situation.

Specifically

with regard to the area of Fitz Hugh Sound, I would appreciate it very

much if the ministry would ask the federal officials to do some testing

on that beach in that area, just to ensure that it is covered. We know

that those clam beaches are receiving a great deal of activity at this

time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on to the issue of

the B.C.-Washington spill task force. As you know, the task force was

set up as part of the minister's response following the oil spill. As

far as I know, the first meeting took place fortuitously on Easter

weekend, which happened to be the same weekend as the Alaska oil spill.

I would be interested in knowing how many times this task force has

met, when it has met, and where it has met.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I will get to those questions quickly. I would just like to talk

briefly about Fitz Hugh Sound. I will provide the information — we have

taken notes — that the member has asked for as quickly as we can with

respect to analysis of the soils and any potential damage to the clam

fishery.

You will recall, Mr. Member, that I was speaking

yesterday about the lighthouse keeper at Carmanah Point being the first

one to notice the Grays Harbor spill. I said that the lighthouse keeper

immediately checked to see if it was bilge oil and then — recognizing

the quantity of the spill — made the quick decision that it must be the

Grays Harbor oil, because of the amount there.

The reason

they made the assumption it was bilge oil was because — and I asked

that question — it happens quite commonly that they will find little

bits of oil coming onshore from guys dumping their bilges. They

immediately report to marine traffic controllers — who are like air

traffic controllers — to check on the passage and the activity in the

various shipping lanes to see if they could track somebody.

It's

a really serious problem; there's no question about it. You might

recall that at the same time we were having our problem there was a

very bad problem on the east coast — I think in Nova Scotia — with

respect to a bilge oil spill. In that case there had been quite a bit

of oil dumped from a ship's bilge, and it had done some serious damage

to the beaches. It's something we have to live with; it's not a very

pleasant situation.

It would behoove all governments to

continue to do better enforcement of the shipping lanes and to ensure

that the traffic off our coast behave themselves. But it is a difficult

thing to track, particularly if some guy is dumping in the middle of

the night and then is carrying on at 15 to 16 knots. You will never see

that spill until he's long gone.

As I said, I will get you as much information as quickly as I can with respect to Fitz Hugh Sound and the damage there.

With

respect to the task force, they have met formally twice. They have met

informally and had discussions on more occasions, and their meetings

have been located in Victoria and in the state of Washington.

MR. CASHORE :

I agree with the minister's remarks with regard to the problem of ships

dumping their bilges. I've hiked the West Coast Trail three times and

have noticed some pockets on the beach where obviously these substances

have been dumped, and I recognize the problem. I appreciate

[ Page 8153 ]

the

diligence of the light keeper at the Carmanah light. Even though it may

be slightly out of order, I would put in a good word for maintaining

manned — or personned — lighthouses. I know the minister agrees.

[3:45]

With regard to the meetings of the task force, I would think two

formal meetings is really an indication that this.... Given the scope

of what the PR hype has indicated this is all about, I don't think it

has really been enough to begin to produce the needed result in terms

of cross-boundary agreements on a number of really important issues. I

do recognize that the minister is looking forward to the advice of

David Anderson, but David Anderson has been giving free advice to the

minister for quite some time. Prior to them starting to pay him for it,

he had several letters to the editor and columns in the papers, and he

has already given the minister some of those findings. So we have a

pretty good idea where some of that should be going, and to delay is

certainly questionable.

One of the things that was pointed

out during the development of the relationship between Washington and

British Columbia as this work progressed was that the meetings in

Canada were to be held in camera, yet according to the more progressive

environmental and information laws and that sort of thing in the state

of Washington, the meetings in Washington had to be open to the public.

I find therein that this government has fallen into a rather

embarrassing indictment of really being behind the times with regard to

this type of situation. In view of the fact that he wants to promote

cooperation with Washington, and in view of the fact that the meetings

are required to be open there, has the minister dealt with the question

of having the same standards for meetings when they're conducted in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of all, I

have to react mildly, but react nevertheless, to the notion that this

is PR hype. Officials from three states and one Canadian province are

working diligently on behalf of their respective governments. I

certainly wouldn't characterize or slander their good works with the

term 'TR hype." I think that's most inappropriate. I hope the member

recognizes what he's saying, and what he's saying about some very

dedicated people.

Secondly, with respect to the meetings,

two meetings have been held, as I said, but four subcommittees have

been formed from that to identify various issues. As I said earlier,

officials are attending from the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon,

and of course from the province of British Columbia. The first meeting

was held in camera in Victoria, and that was at the request of all

parties. The second meeting, held in Washington, was open. It is our

opinion that subsequent meetings held anywhere will be open. We have no

problem with that. But in the best interests of drawing the committee

together, of having frank and meaningful discussion, it was felt that

all parties agree to hold the first meeting in camera.

want to repeat what I said yesterday with respect to everybody looking

at what everybody else is doing: sometimes that is counterproductive. I

know there are sunshine laws in the United States, but in dealing with

other EPA officials that I've met with on committees from time to time

to discuss business, we find that when you have this type of sunshine

legislation and you have open meetings to discuss virtually everything,

most of the business then gets done on the telephone or by fax. In

fact, the open meetings provide the public with nothing. The real

committee work is done away from the glare. So putting those laws in

place is sometimes quite unproductive, although generally I support

open meetings. That has always been my policy as an MLA and, as the

record will show, as a school board chairman, which is the position I

held before. I have never been in favour of closed meetings except

when, for one reason or another, they have to be closed. There are some

downsides to this total sunshine legislation, and they are downsides

that can be counterproductive to the issues at hand.

MR. CASHORE :

My comments with regard to PR hype were directed solely towards the

politicians on the government side. I do recognize that the individuals

who have been appointed to work on this process are doing the best they

can under the circumstances.

With regard to openness of

meetings and freedom of information, that whole range of issues comes

up so much in our environmental discussions because of a public that is

becoming ever more knowledgeable, ever more useful in terms of being

able to make use of having information available to them and

contributing to the body politic and to the process of creative

development and effective decision-making. I would just remind the

minister that Ron Holcomb of the Washington ecology department and a

member of the committee said: "There are very few meetings that can be

closed to the public down here." He very much believes in the public

process. "It's the way we do business," he said.

Notwithstanding

the points that the minister makes about sunshine legislation and all

that sort of thing, the fact is that there should be legislation in

British Columbia that enables the public to have a much greater degree

of access to what is going on than presently exists. This is affirmed

time and again by people in our province who want to be part of the

solution and not part of the problem — as our friend here has

characterized some people as being.

I want to turn now to

the memorandum of cooperation between the British Columbia government

and the state of Washington. It's an instrument that was signed on July

10, 1972. When you look at the setup of the meetings of the task force

and the scope of the job description of what that is to achieve, you

get a kind of an eerie feeling as you go through the 1972 documentation.

has been admitted that this material sat on a shelf and was virtually

lost from view. Also, the minister doesn't have to say it; I will say

what he has

[ Page 8154 ]

said.

He blames three years of an NDP government for saying that it was lost,

and yet totally ignores his responsibility of the stewardship of the

ensuing 14 years.

I know the minister is going to make that

point because he wants to get it on the record, but the fact is that if

we were to take a look at the staff complement within his ministry

during the restraint years — and unfortunately I don't have those

figures with me, but I will bring them into the House at a later part

of these estimates — it's very clear that during previous Social Credit

administrations decisions were made that made it impossible for his

staff, who worked so hard within that ministry, to be in the process of

keeping in touch with every dust-carrying document on the shelves, etc.

So when the oil spill came along, the number one task for this

government was a PR task. It was to convince the public that something

was being done when the instrument already existed, an instrument that

this government had failed to make use of because they wanted to get

the public relations value out of it again.

It didn't

really work. I would hasten to add it didn't work at all. The public

saw through it. Cartoons were in the media — the media that the

minister has referred to as being hysterical and using hype. But the

fact of the matter is that an instrument existed, an instrument that

could have been used, an instrument that could have saved valuable time

so that the protection of our coastline could be much further along

than it is now in terms of the deployment of equipment, in terms of

international agreements as to how to proceed in the event of an

emergency, in terms of having the equipment in place that would enable

such a disaster to be dealt with quickly.

While I am saying

that, I am going to go on to another matter, because I am trying to

cover as much ground as I possibly can in a short time.

is really unfortunate to realize that there is technology in British

Columbia that could be made use of and that we have to wait until we

get the studies and reports of these various task forces before we can

get down to doing the job of, for instance, a proper

done-in-British-Columbia assessment of the OSCAR technology.

arranged for a meeting to take place between the principals of the

OSCAR people and the Minister of International Business and Immigration

(Hon. J. Jansen) because I believed — and it's a point I made, having

listened to the budget speech of the first member for Little Mountain

(Mrs. McCarthy) — that when it comes to British Columbia technology and

the whole area of environmental development, the need for environmental

technology that can be used worldwide, British Columbia has an

opportunity to be a world-class centre in the development of that

technology.

I see the minister nodding his head. The

minister from time to time, when referring to the OSCAR technology, has

referred to it as a skimmer. The principals of that company have

pointed out to the minister and to others that it is not a skimmer; it

is a system that goes to a depth of close to three feet and has a

phenomenal rate of separating water from oil and returning the oil to a

contained area.

I don't have the capability to say whether

or not it works, but it has been tested. Apparently it has been

evaluated on the basis of the wrong technology, the wrong criteria by

the federal government, and therefore it has not had a fair

representation. Just imagine it manufactured in British Columbia, and

British Columbia having a requirement through its international

agreements that every oil tanker offshore has to have one of these on

its deck, perched beside a crane — they have a unit that is as small as

40 feet long — and that in the instance of a spill at sea, this

technology supposedly could deal with this problem right at the source.

the very least, these people deserve to have a very thorough hearing. I

know that the principals of the OSCAR group have met with the deputy

minister. As a matter of fact, I went to meet with the deputy minister

the same day they were there. I just want to encourage the minister to

do everything he possibly can to enable this technology here in Oak Bay

to have a fair hearing, with a possible view to its becoming a

job-creating export that could be very beneficial to the people of

British Columbia, not to mention that were it deployed in strategic

areas along the coast it could be very beneficial there as well.

The

first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain mentioned submersibles,

which is another technology that British Columbia is renowned for. A

third technology that I would mention is the Candel Industries Sea

Rover electronic tracking device, which is already deployed in some

federal government departments and used for tracking the patterns of

currents. When I was at a hearing on environmental issues that was

conducted in Vancouver, one of the principals of that company was asked

if that device was used in the Grays Harbor spill. He said no. He also

said that had it been deployed, it could have told the ministry that

the spill was indeed moving towards Carmanah Point and other places

along the coast. Again, this is made-in-British Columbia technology.

The post office box is Sidney.

I would think that if the

technology can be proven, it shouldn't be necessary to wait until some

committee reports to decide that we should have some of these devices

available to us. We should also be looking at the possibilities for

using it as an export commodity as we get up to speed in the area of

exporting sound environmental technology.

With that, I'll wait for the minister's comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

As the member can well imagine, I've had many presentations from

companies and individuals who have told me about the technology they

have.

By the way, Dave McIntyre of OSCAR is from Prince

George. He's a friend of mine; I've known him for some time. He used to

be in a radio station up there, so I'm familiar with the proponents. He

may not like my use of the word "skimmer," but at three feet, when

we're dealing with materials that could be

[ Page 8155 ]

far

deeper than three feet, as a layman I would categorize it as a skimmer,

because the clumps of bunker, which, as I said earlier, have the same

specific gravity as water, do sink quite quickly.

[4:00]

There have been many suggestions put to us, notably the one by my

colleague the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). It has

to do with a piece of equipment that's going to be operating on the

west coast, hopefully, if my urgings are listened to.

The

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) inquired earlier about

an oil spill involving several hundred litres of oil spilling into

Millstream Creek in his riding from a Petro-Canada operation. The

company was required to determine the source, and they excavated and

found a problem with an oil separation unit. So it wasn't a deliberate

spill; in fact, it was a malfunction. They repaired the problem, the

majority of the oil was recovered, and a small amount of contaminated

soil was removed from the site. The Ministry of Environment staff

investigated, and the case

summary report went to Crown counsel about

the middle of May. Further inquiries should be made with Ministry of

Attorney-General.

With respect to the decision taken by the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), the member's data, as I thought

earlier, is incorrect. He did mislead the House on that issue.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't know why the minister says there's been misleading. The fact is

that the Attorney-General indicated in this House that the decision had

been made not to prosecute. I take it that the minister doesn't

disagree with that. I have the quote of the Attorney-General from his

statement in question period. In fact, I was just looking it over to

make sure I had heard it right. I asked him to explain why they had not

proceeded with the prosecution. The gist of the answers appears on page

7 of the Blues: they had chosen not to prosecute. The Attorney-General

has already made the statement, so I would ask the minister to withdraw

any comments that I was misleading the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The information I have is that you were incorrect. You'll have to ask

the Attorney what he said or what he heard you say or what question he

asked, but the information that I have with respect to prosecution is

at odds with what you have advised the committee.

MR. CASHORE :

On a point of order, there's a disagreement between the two members

with regard to who said what, but the phrase that has been used is

"misled the House." I'm sure that the deputy House Leader knows the

rules of the House, and I would ask him to withdraw that

unparliamentary statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr.

Chairman, if it offends the committee I'll withdraw the imputation of

misbehaviour. I didn't use the term "deliberately misled," which would

really be unparliamentary, but I'll withdraw the terms.

are at odds on this issue. I don't think there's any point in my

carrying on further discussion, as there appears to be more of a

difference of opinion between the Attorney and me than between the

member and me, although I suspect he's wrong and doesn't have all the

information because he was wrong in the information he presented to the

House in terms of the extent of the spill.

As I said, it

was not a deliberate spill. It was a malfunction of an oil separation

unit. They repaired the problem. The oil was recovered — you didn't

mention that. The soil was removed from the site. You brought none of

that information to the House, or if you did you didn't bring it in

that form.

Back to the questions posed by the member with

respect to oil spill technology. As I said earlier, we have had

literally dozens of suggestions, some far out — I guess we could

categorize them that way — and some quite substantial.

the member for Vancouver South indicated, a firm that he was talking to

and gentlemen that I met have a substantial operation and could, if the

technology is correct, prove to be very beneficial to us in cleaning up

oil spills. OSCAR is another remedy. There are chemical remedies

available to us, and we are investigating everything.

The

interesting thing, though, is that David Anderson — who really has

spent the last 20 years researching this — has told me that the big

problem you face is the shipping industry itself. It obviously has lax

regulations. We know their personnel practices really aren't too good

when we understand the character of the captain of the ship. We have

other problems — or at least David Anderson has serious problems, and

he's spent so much time investigating this area that I have a tendency

to agree with him. He has serious problems with, first of all, the

construction of ships. He talks about double hulls, but he's not so

convinced that double hulls are the answer so much as better propulsion

units. I'm advised that most of these oil tankers are simply a long

steel skin with one motor, one screw in the water, very difficult to

start, very difficult to stop, very difficult to manoeuvre. It's been

characterized by David Anderson to me as a big, long balloon floating

in the water, full of oil, with a skin that thin and very poor

propulsion equipment. He would suggest that we first of all double the

horsepower, have double screws and perhaps bow thrusters, and that

would make the ships far more maneuverable. That, no doubt, could have

prevented the Alaska oil spill, the Exxon Valdez spill, because the

ship, as we know, diverted because of an ice pack and then ran aground

on a reef. Probably its inability to manoeuvre is what caused it to hit

that reef.

That appears to be where David Anderson is

focusing, and I think it's the correct focus: prevention in this case,

and ensuring that regulations go to our federal government and that our

American friends make the same representations to their federal

government with respect to maritime shipping regula-

[ Page 8156 ]

tions,

construction methodology, personnel practices, navigational aids....

That's the most important thing that will come out of David Anderson's

report; at least my preliminary discussions with him would indicate

that that's where his focus is.

There's no question, Mr.

Member, that we have to investigate all of the technology in terms of

cleanup, and we are doing that. As I said, we have received literally

dozens of suggestions: some a bit bizarre, some valid, sincere and

amounting to a considerable investment on behalf of the proponent.

We're investigating all of them. I do thank the member for that

observation, and I can assure him that we are looking at all of that

material very closely.

MR. CASHORE : I can agree with

the minister about some of the submissions being a bit bizarre. But I

would like to say that while I agree that the major effort should go

into prevention, crisis intervention is almost equally important and

requires a tremendous amount of research and input. Having said that, I

would like to turn for a moment to another topic. We may come back to

some of this later.

Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the

Expo soils. Perhaps the best way into this would be to refer to Hansard

of June 8, when I asked a question of the Minister of Environment. I

pointed out that: "On June 1, during the minister's absence, the acting

Minister of Environment told this House that the province would assume

complete responsibility for cleaning up the toxic soil removed from the

Expo site and would seek to recover costs from responsible parties if

this dumping was unauthorized. Yesterday the minister told this House

that the persons who removed those toxic soils would be responsible."

Then I asked: "Does this mean that neither you, Mr. Minister, nor the

BCEC gave permission for the contractors to haul away and dump this

toxic soil?"

To that you answered: "We're both right. I'm

trying to sort this one through. Since we have allegations only of the

soil being contaminated and that it was known to be contaminated by the

person who removed it, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment

further until those allegations are proven or disproven. We're making

an assumption about a mystery area at this point."

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

then went on to ask a supplementary. I asked the minister if he gave

permission for the dumping of Expo soils at Westwood, at the foot of

Penzance Drive in Vancouver harbour — I think Penzance Drive is in

Burnaby, actually — and at other locations around the lower mainland.

To that, in typical fashion, the minister responded: "No, I wouldn't

have. I was Deputy Speaker during those days." So then I rephrased the

question and asked if the Ministry of Environment gave permission, and

the minister took that question as notice.

I would like to ask the minister if he would now be willing to give the answer

to that question: did the Ministry of Environment, did a ministry of environment

or did his ministry give permission for the dumping of Expo soils at Westwood,

at the foot of Penzance Drive in Vancouver harbour and at other locations around

the lower mainland? I'd appreciate it if he would take each one of those

cited locations as requiring an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

To the member, we're having to do some research here into the practices

involved during the construction phase in False Creek. The ministry was

not involved in the approval of soils dumped at that time, because we

had been assured by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, or it was the

understanding, that only clean fill and excavation rubble was being

landfilled from the Expo site. Ocean dumping went on, and that may or

may not have contained more contaminated material. That was done under

permit, under the Ocean Dumping Control Act, as I explained to the

member last month, with federal approval.

So we did not

permit any contaminated soils to leave the Expo site for any landfill

site in those Expo-building years. Since then, though, we have been

investigating the material. We're looking at invoicing. We're looking

at hauling records — as best we can find them — from the British

Columbia Enterprise Corporation and from other Crown corporations

involved in the False Creek development, and we are doing some testing.

We have found at the Westwood site some higher hydrocarbons and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contamination, but that could be just

due to the presence of some asphalt in the fill. We haven't quite

determined on that. But we are acting in an advisory capacity to the

B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and we are enforcing our own regulations

in this respect. We do now have regulations, which we didn't have in

place in 1983-84-85, for this type of material. So simply to enforce

our own regulations, we are now investigating the material that may

have come out of that site and areas in which it may have been dumped.

Mr.

Member, I can advise you and the committee that I'm going to be leaving

the assembly for about two minutes and that my good colleague the first

member for Vancouver South is going to tell us of a very exciting

venture in oil-spill equipment which he is familiar with. I will return

shortly.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

That will be only if he gets recognized by the Chair. There being no

one else standing, would the first member for Vancouver South continue.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, one of the great tragedies of this assembly is the number

of times you have to repeat to the opposition members things said by

the minister. We do these things so that they will get a better grasp

on what happens in the province of British Columbia, get a better

handle on how things are handled by the ministers and the government per

[ Page 8157 ]

se, and in the process get a little better grip on their jobs as members of the loyal opposition.

spoke briefly about some of the technology coming into the province

with respect to picking up oil on the ocean surface; it could even be

used on lakes for that matter. We have vessels now... Incidentally,

there's a lot of history to them. We have one vessel in the province of

British Columbia that is capable of being converted into a vessel that

can pick oil off the surface of the ocean. It is a hopper dredge, to be

specific. The principle is quite simple: the oil is scooped up by a big

mechanism on the front and dropped into the hopper. The oil is lifted

off the top, the water is taken off the bottom, and when the vessel is

filled, it is taken to shore and the cargo discharged. It's not a

difficult process, actually; it's a really simple one.

For

the benefit of the members who haven't spent much time looking into

this particular subject, I can assure them that it's quite common to

have vessels like this plying European waters. Indeed, there is one

Russian vessel totally dedicated to this task, whether or not there

happens to be any oil on the water. So that will give you some

indication of how serious it can be.

Channel, I think there are some 300 vessels a day going through, which

presents a significant hazard. These vessels are of course monitored

very carefully. We had some quite significant spills in the Channel

area, and that is why ships like this Russian vessel were built.

The

B.C. version is a little different, in that it will be a convertible

vessel, if you want to put it that way. It can be used for oil-spill

cleanup, or it can be used simply for its designated function, which is

that of a hopper dredge. It's not a bad idea. It will provide an

opportunity for the governments of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and

British Columbia to use this vessel as and when needed. As I said, it

should get us out of the garbage-bag mentality. Why wait until the

product gets to the shore? Let's pick it up when it's on the surface of

the ocean, so that we can prevent some of the damage to wildlife, to

the shore and to all the other things affected by these rather

unpleasant oil spills.

I could carry on at great length,

Mr. Chairman, but having seen that the committee probably wants to pass

this particular thing, I'll just take my chair.

MR. BARNES :

I have a very brief question I wanted to canvass with the committee.

First, though, I want to commend the government for hiring a former MLA

as a consultant on oil spills, who is also a former Member of

Parliament who spoke quite forcefully and knowledgeably about the

dangers of oil spills at a time when few would listen. I just want to

say that maybe there is some poetic justice in the irony of the

situation. Certainly Mr. David Anderson is infinitely qualified to

advise the government, and it sounds as though the government is paying

attention to what he has to say. With that, let's hope sanity will

prevail in the future, because oil spills are a serious danger and

threat to the future of all. It's an issue we must address

cooperatively and with a common concern for our survival and our future.

Mr.

Chairman, I just had one specific question getting back to the Expo

site and the toxic soils which were removed and dumped on various sites

throughout the lower mainland, including Westwood, Point Atkinson, the

foot of No. 6 Road in Richmond and some sites near the ocean. You've

explained that the federal government was responsible for giving

permits for ocean dumping. Was any of the soil dumped on the site now

called Portside Park at the foot of Main Street in the East End just

next to Canada Place? That site is also referred to as Crab Beach,

which I'm sure most of us know as Create a Real Available Beach. It was

fought for quite vigorously by a number of local organizations in order

to provide a park for the downtown east side. Most notable was the work

of Don Larson, who has been a spokesman down there, Jim Green of the

Downtown East Side Residents' Association, Steve Learey and Sue Harris;

you can name all of the people who have been working in that area from

the Carnegie Community Centre as one of their headquarters.

But

there is some concern. They are quite shocked that after all this work

and all of the negotiations between the city, the Vancouver Port

Corporation and others to create this park at great expense of blood,

sweat and tears, they now find that there is a possibility of threats

to the youth that may be using it, to the people that may be coming

there.

As you know, it's a destination park. It is a very

beautiful site, one that the city can be proud of. It's an absolutely

panoramic place, one of the nicest parks, perhaps, in the lower

mainland, although it certainly is not as large or as accessible as we

would like to have had it, mainly because of the difficulty of getting

to it.

Nonetheless, could you clarify the situation with

respect to any danger of toxic waste having been dumped on the land.

There are two problems, I guess. One is the ocean, the water part, and

the other is landfill. There is just consternation on that question. We

want some verification whether there is anything to be concerned about.

There is every reason to be concerned, but we don't know if it's valid.

Could you tell us if any Expo soils were in fact dumped on that site?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, I would just like to thank the member for his comments

about David Anderson. It is kind of him to say that. David Anderson, as

the member indicated, was a Member of Parliament and was a member of

this Legislative Assembly representing the Liberal Party — and did a

remarkably good job. He was also, of course, a passionate speaker on

concerns about the environment, particularly concerns about oil

shipments.

One hates to have a disaster of this magnitude

force the government to have someone like David Anderson come on as a

commissioner, but I guess, if we can look at any good side of this, we

certainly have someone who is uniquely qualified in North America to do

the job. We have a Member of

[ Page 8158 ]

Parliament,

someone well versed in politics, trained in the law, and really steeped

in this whole situation for a good part of the 1970s. To have a talent

of that capacity and that knowledge in dealing with this issue and to

have that a B.C. person is good, to say the least. We are fortunate

that we have David Anderson here to assist us in this issue, and I am

sure his work and his deliberations are going to be productive for us.

the member's specific question with respect to Crab Beach, I am looking

at all the information here that lists the allegations of where Expo

soils may have been taken. They are allegations only, and none of them

point to any knowledge of soils going to Crab Beach from the False

Creek site. The media report has said there may be some at the helijet

site, which, as you know, is a bit distant from the Crab Beach area. We

are investigating the shipments and that movement now, but we have

nothing to substantiate the allegations that have been made that

contaminated soils went....

We did not issue any permits

for land filling of excavated materials from the Expo site. The ocean

dumping, by the way, was done well off the coast of Vancouver Island,

so there would be no concern of ocean dumping contaminating the water

at Crab Beach. This was done off Bamfield, as I am advised, out in the

Pacific Ocean and probably at some depth Again, that is permitted under

the Ocean Dumping Control Act, so the dumping was probably some

distance out to sea. In any event, to get to the member's question, we

did not issue any permits for land filling from the Expo site. We

cannot track any movements to Crab Beach, but we are investigating all

records now with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to see if we can

identify any shipments that may have occurred without our knowledge

during that construction phase.

MR. BARNES : So far,

so good, Mr. Chairman. I am encouraged very much by the minister's

remarks, because obviously, if there is any fear, even though it's

apprehensive, about danger to health of those who may come to visit the

Crab Beach park, we should be concerned. I am encouraged by your

assurances that to your knowledge — I say to your knowledge; those are

my words — you are going to double-check by reviewing all of the

records to ensure that there were no permits to dump on that site at

Crab Beach.

Chances are you won't find any, but you can

appreciate that until we know for certain, proof positive, that beach

is safe, there is that consternation and concern, and I certainly

wouldn't want to encourage people to be totally unmindful that there

could be some risk. This is the job of those advocates down there who

have written to me and to the Leader of the Opposition and others

expressing concern and fear that if there is the remotest possibility

of this happening, we want to know.

I would urge the

minister to delegate some official way in which we can determine

exactly, for sure, that there is absolutely no danger whatsoever. It

would be a real tragedy if we found that people had contacted some kind

of substance inadvertently and years down the down the road were

finding that it resulted in some risk to their health. None of us, I'm

sure, would want that to happen.

Could the minister perhaps

respond again with respect to any immediate plans he may have to

delegate some kind of investigation specifically at the Crab Beach site

to give us that extra assurance that all possible effort has been made;

that all tests have been taken that are available, even though there

may be only a one-in-a-thousand chance of something happening. Because

of the nature of the park, the fact that it is going to be frequented

by young people and unsuspecting guests coming there, we want to be

able to promote the park with absolute confidence that it's safe.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We can ascertain how Crab Beach was constructed and what fill was put

in there, if any. We should have a pretty good handle on where it came

from. I'll look at that on behalf of the member and endeavour to get

back to him as quickly as I can with that information. I do respect his

concern. It's a beautiful little piece of property. it really is a

little gem in that part of town and quite pretty. I drive by there from

time to time when I go in to catch the helijet; I know what he's

speaking of. It's a real credit to that community. I'll endeavour to

find out what I can on behalf of the member.

MR. BARNES : I want to thank the minister, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE :

I just want to make sure that I understand the answer that the minister

gave. Can we take it from that, then, that the Ministry of Environment

will arrange for the testing of the soils in that park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Not at the outset. What we'll do is examine the landfill practices that

were in place for the construction of that park, if any. Then we will

make a decision on whether or not we should test soils. I think it

would be premature to say much more until we've looked at the paper

trail. That's the way we're investigating all these concerns now, as I

said earlier, with respect to all the sites that have been mentioned

that may have taken Expo soils.

They are only allegations

at this point. We haven't been able to find anything out by way of

permit or by records we've found that can substantiate the allegations

that have been made. We are investigating the paper trail, and we will

include Crab Beach in that investigation. If the paper trail causes us

some alarm, we will certainly do testing such as we have done at the

Westwood site.

MR. CASHORE : Paper can get lost. I

understand that in this situation it has been reported that, if not

lost, it has been misplaced or is difficult to track down. We're

dealing with a public health issue that

[ Page 8159 ]

relates

to the environment. It's a difficult situation because we might not be

able to prove it by the paper trail if the paper trail is no longer in

existence. To say it will be ascertained whether or not such soils

actually were deposited there.... That may, presumably, not be borne

out in terms of the paper trail.

If I can interpret what

the minister is saying, I think he's saying that if there's a gap in

the paper trail, then they would consider testing. I would just like to

encourage him along that track. As the second member for Vancouver

Centre pointed out, there are a lot of people who are really concerned

about that. This could be a situation, as in other instances, where the

paper trail runs out.

I would like to agree with the

minister that Crab Beach is a nice little jewel of a park. One of the

things he will notice when he travels by there on the way to the

helijet is that very few people are there. One of the reasons is the

difficulty of access. While I realize, Mr. Chairman, that I'm out of

order in making that point, it's something that we in this House should

work to encourage the federal government and municipal authorities to

correct.

With regard to the soils, if I understand the

minister, he's saying that no permits have been given to transport

those soils; he's not saying that soils were not transported from the

Expo site. It seems to me that the minister is saying that no permits

were given to remove soils. Is it correct that soils may indeed have

been removed but simply without the benefit of a provincial government

permit?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Permits were not issued

and nor were they requested, I guess, from the provincial Minister of

Environment for land filling of excavated materials from the Expo site.

Where we had identified contaminated soils, they were dumped under

permits under the ocean dumping act and taken to ocean dumping sites,

not landfill sites.

So our preliminary conclusion is that

we are dealing with allegations only. However, because the issues have

been raised and allegations have been made, we are investigating all of

the records that we can find from the Expo corporation to ascertain

whether or not toxic materials might have been inappropriately moved

somewhere else. As I told you, we've done some preliminary testing at

Westwood and have found some trace polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;

but we suspect it could be old asphalt pavement, which of course is

made from oil. We are doing further testing there. That's where we are

at this point. As further information is either proved or not proved,

as evidence is found to be correct or incorrect, we will be advising

all concerned, because we are a regulatory ministry and we cannot allow

contaminated soils to be present, under our own legislation, without

remedy.

MR. CASHORE : With regard to the testing that

was done at the Westwood site — and I appreciate that it was done — the

minister says trace elements of PAHs were found there. What was the

measurement of those trace elements? The minister, with the assistance

of his staff, I think would have to put that in parts per trillion or

parts per million, or whatever the breakdown is. For this to have

meaning to those of us who are lay people on this issue, we also want

to know the government's standard against which these trace elements

would be measured to say whether or not they would cause the minister

to want to take further remedial action.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

With respect to the test holes done at Westwood, we drilled five and

found one to show trace hydrocarbons and polyc