1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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 )

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

43 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mrs. Wallace –– 43

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 45

Mr. Passarell –– 48

Mr. Mowat –– 51

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation annual report, 1982-83

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 54

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MRS. WALLACE: When we adjourned the debate last night, Mr.

Speaker, you made a ruling on my emergency motion, and you suggested

that the throne speech would be the area in which this matter could be

debated. I regret your decision, because it leaves a much broader

debate, and it does not ensure that the government deals with the

specific concerns that I intend to raise. I certainly intend to follow

your advice and deal this morning with my concerns relative to the

forest industry in the Cowichan Valley.

As I mentioned yesterday, we have had some rather horrendous blows

one after the other after the other. First, Western Forest Products,

300 employees; then the Chemainus mill, 900 employees; and now, even

more recently, the permanent closure of the B.C. Forest Products veneer

plant at Youbou, with 150 employees permanently without jobs. That is

in addition to the prevalent downturn in the forest economy right

across the province. It exaggerates and exacerbates the problem of the

downturn in the forest industry to have that many permanent closures —

mills that have not been kept up, where companies have not made

expenditures as their operations proceeded and have simply chosen to

close those mills down.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I do not really need to emphasize the dramatic situation that those

workers find themselves in. They have not worked at all in this current

year, and certainly last year a great many of them did not. Many of

them are out of unemployment insurance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Cowichan-Malahat

is addressing the throne speech. I wonder if we could be courteous and

not talk. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always appreciate

your efforts to ensure that the dignity of this House is maintained. I

know you face a very difficult job.

Mr. Speaker, my concern today is directed at what appear to be contradictory

statements. As I read the throne speech, I read that government intends to remove

roadblocks from industry, to ensure that industry has a free hand to do whatever

it wants to do. Yet the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — I saw him

in the House a moment ago, but obviously he has not had the courtesy to stay

and listen to what I have to say about forests in the Cowichan Valley — has

been widely quoted as telling MacMillan Bloedel, both before the election and

since "Use it or lose it. If you don't build a wood-fibre processing

plant in the Chemainus area, you will lose some of your cutting rights."

Now I think anyone would interpret such an action as a roadblock. Certainly

MacMillan Bloedel would interpret it as a roadblock. Certainly industry would

interpret it as a roadblock.

I don't know who to believe. I don't know what to believe. Is the

minister going to follow through, or isn't he? That is the question we

in the Cowichan Valley must have an answer to. We have tried — not just

me, but a committee representing locally elected officials of all

political stripes — since April 1 to get a meeting with this cabinet

and with that minister, and we have not been successful. We are trying

now to get that meeting. A week ago yesterday, at the instruction of

that same committee of locally elected officials, which is still

meeting, I wrote to the Premier — the Premier is in the House, and I

appreciate that, though he doesn't seem to be listening to my remarks —

and on behalf of that committee I asked for a meeting, a meeting of

himself, the Minister of Forests, and representatives of the Economic

Development Committee of cabinet. One week later — yesterday — I had

had no response.

In the meantime, we had another permanent mill closure announced by

another forest giant, B.C. Forest Products Ltd., the same forest giant

that is a co-owner of Western Forest Products that closed the Honeymoon

Bay mill — in spite of the assurances from the Minister of Forests that

he would protect those jobs, that he wouldn't let that happen. Now we

have them closing down the veneer plant. Is that minister prepared to

make the same statement to B.C. Forest Products? Is that minister

prepared to say to them, "use it or lose it," or is that a roadblock?

What is going to happen with this cabinet and this government, and what

is going to happen to those industries? Are the decisions that affect

the lives of the people who live in this province going to be made by

that cabinet, or are they going to be made in the eastern boardrooms

where those large international monopolies are controlled? I suspect,

Mr. Minister, the latter — and that's called removing roadblocks from

industry.

It's a serious matter in the Cowichan Valley. It's a matter so

serious that it has united the locally elected officials of all

political stripes.

We are prepared to continue, Mr. Premier, to pressure you if it

means coming and sitting in your office until we get a meeting. I hope

I can have an answer within another week, at least. I give you one

week, Mr. Premier. I hope that by that time you will have the courtesy

at least to reply so we can arrange a meeting. I know you are busy with

the pressure of the opening of the House, but it is a question that has

to be resolved. We have to know whether we are going to have pressure

put on MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., pressure put on B.C. Forest Products,

because they have taken the same kind of action, to ensure that their

timber rights are used as they should be used, to provide jobs here in

British Columbia for British Columbians, not in Japan or the United

States of America or wherever.

Those are my concerns. That is why I want a specific debate on this

issue, and I am sorry that we cannot deal specifically with that item.

If and when the Premier or the Minister of Forests or the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is so

fond of interjecting when I speak....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't you like your job? Do you want somebody else to do it?

MRS. WALLACE: As I say, it would be an auspicious occasion in this House if I were ever to complete my remarks

[ Page 44 ]

without an interjection from that particular

minister. I remember when I made my first speech in this House.

Certainly the new members will appreciate that it is rather nice to

have courtesy and not be interrupted when you are making that first

speech. It is something that we try to adhere to in this House. I don't

know why, but the first speech you make here is different somehow. I'm

sure the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who gave us a lengthy

oratorical dissertation filled with gems of wisdom yesterday, will

agree that it would have been difficult if there had been interruptions

to that speech. When I made my first speech in this House, I wasn't on

my feet five minutes before I was in a word battle with that minister,

and we've been in a word battle ever since, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're winning, Barbara, you're winning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think I've made my point

relative to the Chemainus issue — the B.C. Forests issue and the

MacMillan Bloedel issue. I've expressed my concerns, which have been

doubled and tripled by the further closure of the veneer plant and by

the apparent contradiction between what the minister has been talking

about and what the throne speech apparently says. It is difficult to

deal with specifics in a throne speech because it's always so vague.

[10:15]

As I look at the four points — the government's mandate, duplication

of government activities.... What activities? We don't know. It might

be good if there is actual duplication of non-essential activities, but

not knowing what those activities are — the multiplicity of boards and

commissions.... Now we certainly had some indication yesterday from the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) that we're going to see an end to

the Rentalsman. The applause indicates affirmative. I can tell you, a

great many people are not going to be able to afford to live in their

homes if that happens. We also heard rhetoric relative to the

elimination of the Agricultural Land Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. WALLACE: The applause indicates affirmative. I give

notice, Mr. Speaker, that if that Agricultural Land Commission is

removed, there's going to be such an outcry across this province that

the government will rue the day. The members from Fraser Valley

apparently haven't looked at statistics prepared by their own local

governments; these indicate that at the growth rate of two years ago,

which has slowed considerably, there is enough residential and

industrially zoned land in the Fraser Valley and the Greater Vancouver

Regional District area to last not to the year 2001 but to the year

2021, without even touching agricultural land. They haven't even looked

at that, aren't aware of that, and yet they get up here and talk about

getting rid of the agricultural land reserve. They're not interested in

making land available for housing; they're interested in making land

available for profits for their friends.

Interjections.

MR. MICHAEL: You made it up, and then you attack us.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and I have

shared a floor on previous occasions, in a different venue. In those

days he was a man inspired by a dream about cooperatives, yet he gets

up and talks about certification and decertification of trade unions

with a 10 or 20 percent.... It may come. He thinks that will bring

cooperation in the workplace; he thinks that will increase

productivity. You know, the only thing that may save us from that is

people like Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council, who has been the

most outspoken person against it.

HON. MR. FRASER: He quit. He's gone. Get up to date.

MRS. WALLACE: He's had his words. And the Employers' Council

is going to continue to have their words, because they recognize the

kind of instability that that would bring to the workplace — the

decrease in productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have too many minutes left and there is another

point that I must raise today. I'm glad the Minister of Highways is in

the House. I wish the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) were

here.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm always here.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, you're always here — the congenial

Minister of Transportation and Highways, who does a great job. But

there is a very urgent issue in my constituency that has to be resolved

before September.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you talk to the minister in his office?

MRS. WALLACE: It has to be resolved before September.

I have arranged meetings and I appreciate the cooperation I have had, Mr. Minister.

You have met with the parents — at least your ministry has met with the parents

— and so has the Minister of Education. Of course, you know what I'm speaking

of: the situation with the children at Mill Bay. I've raised this many times

in the House — the overpass that's needed over the four-lane, 90-kilometre-an-hour

Trans-Canada. Up until now we have been able to provide courtesy busing for

the 300 children who have to walk along that highway and cross it to get to

school. Because of government decisions relative to funding education, that

courtesy busing will be gone next September. That means that we have 300 children

between the ages of 6 and 16 walking along a 90-kilometre an-hour highway, crossing

four lanes at peak traffic times –– 9:00 in the morning and 4:00 in

the afternoon. Those parents are not prepared to stand for that. The school

board has done the best they can under their restricted financial situation,

and they've said: "Look, we'll provide busing if you pay for it

$9.00 per student per month."

Many of those parents are on social assistance, income assurance, or

nothing. They simply cannot afford it. Mr. Minister, I urge you — in

fact, I beg, I plead — that before September something is in place.

Between you and the Minister of Education and the local school board,

we must have an overpass, a light, a crossing guard or courtesy busing

— free. I never want to have to come into this House with the blood of

a child on my hands because I failed to convince this government to

take the kind of action that is needed. I'm convinced that the Minister

of Transportation and Highways does not want that, nor does the

Minister of Education, nor

[ Page

45 ]

does anyone on that side of the House. So, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, let us have action before, not after.

As far as the money goes, I got some money for you; I helped you

out, Mr. Minister. The Whippletree Junction left-hand turn slot was

going to be pretty expensive; you told me it couldn't be done. I think

I got the letter on June 13. The Highways people got in a bit of a jam

when they started repairing the Koksilah Bridge. When they closed off

the Cowichan Bay Road, the traffic was backing up trying to make a left

turn and was really fouling things up in their construction zone. So we

went down the road to Bench Road, which is the next road south, and we

decided that we could take a litre of yellow paint and paint a

left-turn slot at Bench Road to clear this traffic out of the

construction site. After we did that, we just sort of motioned down the

road a little farther, and we measured at Whippletree Junction, where

for the last six years it has not been possible to do that. And we have

an expensive, engineered feat to put in a very fancy left turn slot in

an area where we really don't want it. Anyway, the result was that the

local Highways people and the Victoria engineers got together, and I

got the minister's letter on the 13th saying it was too costly and they

couldn't do it, and we took another litre of paint and we did it on the

14th. So it's done, Mr. Minister. We don't need that money for that any

more.

I'll never bother you again about that one. But please take that

money and use it to do something for those kids in the south end before

one of them gets killed. Just the other night at Bamberton a man was

killed crossing the road in the same area. One child has been hit —

thank God, not seriously injured. Not to take that action to put in

some kind of protection for those children on that highway, in the name

of restraint.... Restraint that ain't; that's murder, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First, I'd like to say how happy I am to be

back here on this side of the House. I'm proud to be a member of such a

dynamic team, under the leadership of our Premier. I'd also like to

extend a welcome to all new members in the chamber. I would also like

to mention that I thought that the mover and seconder of the throne

speech did a very excellent job. Since then we have heard a number of

speeches, and it's quite obvious, particularly after listening to the

last speech, that a great deal of thought and consideration went into

the preparation of the speeches by the mover and seconder; I'm indeed

very proud of that. I think it is a sign of things to come from these

new members.

Having had an opportunity to talk to all of them, to visit with them

and to get to know them a little better, I know that members such as

the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) are going

to contribute a tremendous amount to this House and also to the

programs, etc., put out by this government.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your

appointment. We're very pleased to have you back there. Would you also

convey my congratulations to the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson)

on his appointment.

Listening to the speech by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) really

causes one to stop and think about what goes on in the mind of that person and

indeed in the minds of all her colleagues, I scribbled down a few notes as she

talked about plants closing and putting people out of work. I ask that member

where she was — indeed where her party was — when her party was talking about

closing down northeast coal. Where were you? Did you have the courage then to

go to the workers up there and tell them that you disagreed with that? Did you

say that it should be closed down and that they should not be working? Did you

do that? No, you would rather have a sit-in and you would rather parade. You

would rather do all those things to try to embarrass the government into forcing

private companies to stay in business, no matter what the economic condition.

Is that what you want?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I ask the member: where were you when they talked about stopping the

B.C. Place stadium? Have you been to the stadium? It's something we can

all be very proud of. More importantly, we can be proud of the fact

that many people are working there. You wanted to shut that down. You

wanted to shut it down and place more emphasis on those plants that

could not survive because the markets weren't there, plants that would

have to build up tremendous investment in stock because it wouldn't

sell. Is this the theory? Is this what's being recommended by that

member?

Just the other day we witnessed the official opening of the ALRT,

where many people are working. It's something we can all be extremely

proud of. That member and that party, along with all their friends on

the fringe areas out there who believe as they do philosophically, said

that we should not go ahead with it; that we should not have that sort

of vision; that instead of spending that money and moving into new and

exciting areas, we should buy used buses.

HON. MR. FRASER: They bought enough of them already.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Where did the buses come from?

HON. MR. FRASER: Winnipeg!

[10:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your party's transportation System is used

buses. Where are the buses now, Mr. Speaker? Is that what you want,

Madam Member? Do you want used buses breaking down on our main streets

as your transportation system? No, I don't think the people want that

at all. I don't think they're listening to you.

B.C. Place. What do they say about B.C. Place? Whenever this

government is working very hard to develop something that is going to

make Vancouver a world- class city, they say: "No, it should not be

allowed. It's gonna do this; it's gonna do that; it's gonna do the

other thing." Just think of the people you'd be putting out of work. Is

this what we want from government? I don't think so. I don't think so

at all.

I just want to very, very briefly suggest to the members in here and

to our friends visiting that they should just think in terms of the

tremendous mess that this province would be in if we had followed their

course of action and their beliefs. First of all, they say we should

not have restraint on public spending. "Turn her loose. Let her go. No

restraint on public spending." And then we'll see. With whatever money

we can borrow, we will build such things as Swan Valleys, we'll buy out

the Panco Poultry’s, we'll build Railwest plants and we'll get into all

of those things that are sure losers. But never mind, it's going to put

people to work. Oh yes, you'll put a few people to work today, but can

you imagine what would happen to future generations.

[ Page 46 ]

You talk about the ALR. I remember how you dealt with the ALR. I

remember very well. I can recall that at the instigation of that party

they formed what they call the Save The Farmland Committee. They

picketed and they paraded and they shouted and they screamed about the

loss of land in this province. And that's fine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, right. They called them renta-crowd.

I'd like this House to know that just across the fence from where I

live is one of the province's oldest farms, or I should say "was." In

spite of all the things they spout off and in spite of all of their

beliefs and everything else, that party allowed the subdivision of that

beautiful farm to take place.

HON. MR. FRASER: Shame on you!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I called the organizers of the Save The

Farmland Committee — a front, I believe, for their party — and I said:

"Where are you people? Here we have the finest farm in British Columbia

being cut up. The machines are in there right now tearing up the sod

and getting ready to pave." They didn't take it out of the ALR. Oh, no.

That would have created a real furor. They thought they would do it in

a quiet way. They allowed this subdivision to take place within the

ALR. It's just another way to skin the cat. But when I called those

people and suggested to them that they should come down and see what's

happening to this beautiful land that they have been trying to protect,

the response I got was: "I'm sorry, but it is out of our territory."

That wasn't the real reason, Mr. Speaker. The real reason can be proven

by the fact that that same group then moved about nine or ten miles

further west from our place and did their picketing right there. No,

the real reason for it was that that was their doing, and they didn't

want to make any fuss about it.

She talked about certification and decertification. Well, I believe

in certification and I believe in decertification. To that member, I

believe that whenever a group of employees come together and the

majority vote to certify, then we should protect that right. I can

recall the days when employees did not have the protection of unions.

My own father was one of them. They were really taken advantage of and

exploited. We need unions, and we must protect them. But the way that

we will protect them is to make sure that they are acting fairly to the

people that they represent. And I believe too, Mr. Speaker, through you

in response to the member's comments, that decertification is also

fair. After all, when you join a club or whatever it is and somewhere

along the line you decide that it no longer serves your purpose or it

is no longer to your advantage to be in it, you're allowed to come out.

Why not? As long as it's done in a democratic way.

HON. MR. FRASER: Let a little sunshine in.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We need democracy in the workplace. I am

one who has been through all of that turmoil, having come from Britain;

I saw the good they did, and then saw the thing take over and create

the destruction that has been created in that once great nation.

Therefore I can assure you that the greatest thing we can do for the

union movement is to make sure it is fair.

1 had occasion just recently to talk with a number of people who

found themselves unemployed because of rigid regulations by their own

union. As I talked to them, I gathered very, very clearly that those

people were saying: "We want our union, but we want to work. We're

happy with what we've got." Their families were saying: "We want to see

you working." So as you talk about that area, never lose sight of the

fact that what we are talking about is freedom to choose in a

democratic way. That is what we must all stand for — freedom to choose.

On May 5, the people of British Columbia said yes, we do have

confidence in your leadership, Mr. Premier; great confidence in the

leadership of our Premier. They also said they do support his positive

approach to recovery. They also said our restraint program is a fair

and equitable program, one that has led the way in all of Canada as far

as fairness is concerned. Oh yes, the federal cabinet came in with

their 6-and-5, and while it was a move in the right direction it was

far from being as good as the one brought in by our government. It was

fair simply because there is a gap out there between the high and the

low wage-earner, and it allowed for some measure of fairness to close

that a little bit. But most importantly, it allowed the free collective

bargaining process to carry on. Certainly I have heard the criticism

that this has been taken away, and that is nonsense. It has not been

taken away, nor will it ever be taken away. We defend it very strongly.

However, there is an available amount that must be bargained for,

and we must respect the people who have to pay the bill. The people out

there said on May 5 that this is not a time to be casting the blame on

others. It is not a time to be riding on the backs of our children, or

of our sick or elderly. This is a time to pull together and not cast

blame on others. Governments at all levels are being challenged. Their

ability to manage is being challenged. Also, our courage to make some

very difficult decisions is being tested at all levels of government

and in all areas where public spending has taken place. We must meet

these challenges, Mr. Speaker. The throne speech clearly states yes, we

are prepared to meet those challenges, and we will.

Governments have a responsibility to create a climate within which

the private sector may flourish. The proposals made by the opposition

party exclude and condemn the private sector to a sure death. I don't

believe that is what we want, and certainly the people of British

Columbia told us very clearly on May 5 that it is not what they want.

They want our Premier and this government to continue creating that

healthy climate out there whereby the private sector can flourish,

knowing that as it flourishes jobs are created and those in need

benefit. They are the taxpayers, the backbone of this country. So it is

very important that we move rapidly and positively in the direction of

removing many of the obstacles that get in the way of the private

sector. We must encourage them to succeed because as they succeed we

are giving even further assurance to our young people that their

education will be protected. We are giving further assurance to the

elderly of this province that their programs are going to be protected.

We are protecting, through this process, our health programs. I am

greatly encouraged by the direction outlined in the throne speech — the

outline to contain the size and burden of government — and I'm sure

that as we see our government's policies and programs unfold we will

continue to see our government's determination for fairness and equity

take high priority. All through these difficult times, we are going to

be making some very difficult decisions, but if those

[ Page 47 ]

decisions are closely analysed with an open mind, you will see that the trademark is fairness all the way through.

I am proud of the way in which most British Columbians have joined

our government in earning our way out of this recession. They turned

against the suggestions, proposals, promises and everything else that

were offered by the opposition party to spend our way out of it. No,

our people want us to earn our way out of it; they are prepared to

share, to take a little bit less and share with those who are less

fortunate. That feeling is very positive all over the province. It sort

of brings you back to the old days. When the neighbour's barn burned

down, they didn't all sit back and say: "Well, now the government

should come in and build a new barn" or "The government should do this,

that or the other thing." No, they used to get together and build a new

barn. That is the feeling that I sense coming back into the people of

British Columbia. It's a change of attitude. I think I told the House

one day about the fellow I met whose attitude was no different from the

member who just spoke — pessimistic. Everything was terrible. I said to

him: "How are you doing?" He said: "Oh, not bad." "It's been a

beautiful day," I said. "Well, not bad if it weren't for the rain."

"But," I said, "it hasn't been raining." "No," he said, "but they

forecast rain." That poor fellow lost a day in his life. There's an

attitude out there that up until recently was one of our greatest

problems. I see a turn-around and I'm thrilled to see that.

[10:45]

I'm particularly pleased and proud with the cooperation that I got

in my constituency during these times of restraint. Oh, sure, there are

always those who say that we would like a little bit more; after all,

that's natural. But I want the House to know that the teachers of

Central Fraser Valley, those working in the Ministry of Human

Resources, those in Health and all the way through the system out

there, have said: "We are prepared to cooperate, to share, to

communicate." That was tremendous encouragement for me.

Recently we experienced the opening of our new stadium something, as

I've said before, that we can all be very proud of. Why, the day that

we were down there, when they raised the new roof on it, I was walking

back and a couple of fellows on the sidewalk.... They weren't quite as

fortunate as most of us, but anyway they were there. I said: "How are

you doing, fellas?" They said: "Oh, just great. How's the stadium

coming? Is the roof up?" You know, here were two people, average

fellows, on the sidewalk, who most likely before this were feeling real

doom and gloom because times were tough — the opposition party was

saying that times are tough and people are dying because of this, and

so forth. These fellows were all excited. I was excited, and so were

all of the people around me. A tremendous accomplishment, on time,

within budget. Something we can all be very proud of. I know that our

friend from the Vancouver Centre constituency who is a very strong

supporter of sports will get up when he has his opportunity to speak in

this debate and congratulate this government on providing such a

marvellous facility. I think he should, and I'm going to challenge him

to do so.

We just witnessed the official opening of our ALRT system.

Tremendous. Yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier gave the

go-ahead to move the train — quietly it moved up and before you knew it

it was zinging by, loaded with people — I felt very proud indeed, and

so did all those folks out there. And I want to tell those members from

Surrey that they have my full support in getting that system out to

Surrey, The reason I have to support them is that we want it out to

Abbotsford some day too, and it will never get to Abbotsford if it

doesn't get to Surrey first.

There is no question about it. Here we are with the most modern

transportation system in the world, but something more important is the

fact that it is Canadian technology.

MR. NICOLSON: And you're ashamed of the maple leaf? You won't put it on the train.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Never mind! It's the Spirit of B.C., that

train system, and everyone who steps into it and moves along that

track, I am sure, will feel those spirits working on him.

As we talk about the fascination of the new system and all of the

things that it is capable of, we should never lose sight of the fact

that it did create a lot of jobs when we needed them in this province.

Also important, Mr. Speaker, within the whole program of that system is

the opportunity for this government to encourage new business in this

province because within the terms of the agreement we will see

industries develop — one well underway now — that will be in a position

to manufacture component parts for that system for export throughout

the world.

MR. LEA: Where did you get the money to create those jobs?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, don't be concerned. It's the custom of that member to do that, but we are fine.

Plans are well underway now for Expo 86, a project that will attract

up to 20 million visitors to this province, and possibly more. B.C.

Place development is well underway — a project, as I said earlier, that

will make Vancouver a world class city. Exciting times in British

Columbia!

Northeast coal is another project that will generate income for many

years to come. I am not going to go into any detail on it, because I am

sure that our member responsible will want to do that — the best

salesman this province ever had. Northeast coal is a tremendous project

that will not only get us into the production and export of coal, but

it will open that great part of our province to other possibilities.

I'm proud, too, that we have a new townsite — Tumbler Ridge — which

I hope to visit very shortly, a town now made up of pioneers. I hope

that those people will not be the kind who are going to sit back and

wait for government to do things, but rather get in there and do things

for themselves. They are proving to us that they have that ability by

the fact that they are there.

Mr. Speaker, these projects don't just happen. They are caused to

happen. These projects were caused to happen by a Premier with a

vision, and a government that works.

I look forward to the many challenges that this ministry, the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, offers me. I want to end by saying that

I am tremendously impressed by the warm, cooperative feeling out there

at the municipal level. At this point I haven't had an opportunity to

get around to many of our regional district directors, but I fully

anticipate that same cooperative approach — a feeling of being part of

a team. Anywhere I've travelled so far, they say: "We are part of a

team. We want to work together."

I say to those out there who would like to play partisan politics

between elections: that's not the way to build up your political image.

The way to build up your political image is to produce for the people

who put us in office.

[ Page 48 ]

Our municipalities have already demonstrated their desire and

ability to bring their spending under control. They are partners in

restraint officially adopted by the UBCM. That's the sort of spirit we

want. That's the sort of cooperation and the feeling that we need in

this province.

MR NICOLSON: What about going into IGA stores and telling the employees to decertify?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Protect me, Mr. Speaker, against this vicious attack here.

I would be remiss if I didn't commend and offer my sincere

appreciation to our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and our

previous Minister of Municipal Affairs for the tremendous amount of

work that they put into developing a new approach to property taxation.

I speak of the introduction of the variable mill rate. That has met

with very positive response. Those ministers who worked on that and

came up with the final recommendation did a tremendous job. There are

thousands and thousands of property owners, municipalities and councils

out there who say "thank you," because it is a very fair approach to

property taxation. It is fair and it permits the flexibility necessary

at the municipal level.

I'm encouraged also by the throne speech. During the campaign we

talked about recovery through restraint on the public sector and

encouragement of the private sector. I'm going to read, Mr. Speaker, if

I may, from the throne speech that part that really made me feel very

good indeed. Our mandate is to "downsize government by eliminating some

programs that may be desirable but are not essential, and by

transferring other activities to the private sector." There is

absolutely no question in my mind that little frills and things that

were thought to be possible in days gone by have become a right in the

minds of some today. The taxpayer cannot afford them. It's not the

government. We haven't got any money. We use tax dollars. Right?

"It is a mandate to reduce the duplication of government

activities — including the multiplicity of boards and commissions that surround

government — and to strive for maximum efficiency and effectiveness in delivering

programs." Mr. Speaker, that is a responsibility of ours. I say that cost effectiveness

and efficiencies are not something that you introduce and practise during a

time of economic downturn; it's something that should be practised at all

times by all levels of government. All levels of government should be on a restraint

program at all times.

MS. SANFORD: Like Bennett's office.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: At all times.

"It is our mandate to improve our industrial relations so as to

foster greater productivity and international competitiveness — the

only sure ways to preserve existing jobs and create new employment."

There is absolutely no question in my mind about the need for this,

because one of the great problems that we have, as it affects not only

our cost of living but our ability to export, has to be productivity.

The only way we're going to increase productivity is to lead the way.

We in government have to lead the way. I, as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, will not at any time ask any municipality or regional district

to do something that I would not be prepared to do in my position. We

must lead the way. That's what this says.

Finally, "it is a mandate to encourage private sector confidence."

People out there have been concerned about the statements made by the

opposition about how they will borrow money, how they will get into

business, how they will support losing businesses and so forth. That

doesn't give confidence; that discourages investment. We will

"encourage the private sector confidence by eliminating regulatory

roadblocks" — very essential — "allowing greater scope for the free

play of market forces and creating a stable investment climate so that

business, small and large, and existing and new industries can create

permanent jobs in our province."

I support this throne speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm amazed every time that member gets up. I

think it must be a tradition that runs with being a Minister of

Municipal Affairs: doubletalk.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order!

MR. PASSARELL: Order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that on the list?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: I see we've got a change on the chair, so I'd

like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment to this

lofty position and hope that he has some fun for the next four years.

There are two things I'd like to discuss that were involved in the

throne speech that I find unacceptable. The first one, Mr. Speaker, has

to deal with native affairs. A lot of time the Social Credit Party

finds itself with slogans and neat public relations tricks, but I think

they know exactly what they're doing with some of these gimmicks. One

example of this conscientious deception, Mr. Speaker, in the array of

tricks that was presented in the throne speech, has to deal with the

constitution and native rights.

[11:00]

From the doubletalk in their constitutional resolution, you might

think that this government is at last intending to deal fairly with the

native people and recognize the stake they have in the land and

resources of this province, which throughout the years have been taken

by force and fraud. I don't know what they mean by saying that

non-Indians could or should have their homes taken from them; this was

mentioned by Premier Bennett during the campaign, as a political scare

tactic. What I'm talking about is honest negotiation and reasonable

decisions that recognize the native rights issue in dealing with the

native people's continuing stake in resources and in lands in this

province and across the country and their rights to a fair share of the

profits from those resources and lands taken from them. You might think

that the government's constitutional resolution presented in the throne

speech was prepared to at last deal fairly with the native people. If

you look very carefully at the resolution, you will see that it is a

weasel document made by poltroons. It follows from resolution that the

only way native people in this province will receive title and be

recognized is through the provincial government's consent. Mr. Bennett

and his Social Credit government will be the only ones to recognize

native land claims. Mr. Bennett and his anti-native allies in other

provinces are trying to use the constitution to defeat native

[ Page 49 ]

people, to remove all hope that the law courts will make a decision in favour of the first citizens of this province.

I have just a little bit more to say on the native issue, Mr.

Speaker. Nearly half the people in this province voted against the

Social Credit government. I believe that this whole issue of native

land claims and aboriginal title should be thrashed out at length in a

series of public meetings at the community level, with a full exchange

of information between the governments and native people involved, and

then submitted to a referendum for the people of this province to vote

on. And only after the alternatives have been placed before the people

and their informed opinion solicited, should any government —

particularly this government which over the years has shown itself to

be anti-native.... Only then should a decision to make a change be made

by the people. At this time I would hope that the Social Credit

government could be persuaded to give up government by slogan and

gimmicks and experience real democracy. Maybe once you tried it you

might even get to like it.

To go on to the Speech from the Throne, I would like to deal with the economic aspects of the speech.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Ree) talks about bears. There are 225,000 people unemployed in

this province, and you want to talk about bears. Is your only interest

in sitting here today to talk about bears?

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, there's the rest of them. We get the

rest of the government coming out now. They are showing where their

real interest is — while the Premier goes around appointing relatives

to high-paying positions in this province. When we start dealing with

the charade of yesterday, which was an embarrassment to the people of

British Columbia.... School children were told to take a Canadian flag

out of their hands and replace it with a British Columbia flag. What is

this? Do you want people to set up a republic of British Columbia?

The Speech from the Throne was a depressing document. It showed that

the government of the day does not understand the economic crisis that

confronts British Columbia and the whole of North America. The trouble

lies deeper than the temporary recession, because when that recession

comes to an end we're still going to be in trouble. The machinery of

North American industrial production has bogged down. Its technology

and its mode of operation are out of date.

The Social Crediters and small-c conservative parties and

governments throughout this country are part of the problem, because

they are too narrow in their ways to do much that is useful. One

example of how far this government strays from reality is when they

preach their little sermons about what they call free enterprise and

socialism — as the previous speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon, Mr. Ritchie), mentioned. The free market is a fairy-tale. It has

never existed and it never will. Total public ownership has never

existed and never will.

The Socreds under the late W.A.C. Bennett introduced publicly owned

ferries. Why? Because the system prior to that was ineffective, caught

in a bureaucracy. It wasn't doing its job. Mr. Bennett Sr. was quite

right in taking it over. He was a gifted entrepreneur himself, and so

he launched a public enterprise to provide the service that private

enterprise could not provide. He also did something else — another

example. He introduced publicly owned hydro. You might say that he

practised socialism on a large scale while he was Premier, at the same

time warning people against the socialist hordes. One commentator

recently called this a remarkable exercise in political doublethink.

But the real problem has nothing to do with the Mickey Mouse slogans

and the gimmicks used during campaigns by this government. It's just

empty talk about free enterprise and socialism, because they don't

exist. The real problem with North American industry and the North

American small-c conservative governments that we find popping up more

and more is their incompetence. The real problem is not being able to

adapt to a changing world. Present day Socreds and the other small-c

conservative governments are part of this problem. In the throne speech

this government actually boasted about its incompetence, and they made

a virtue out of it. The Socreds say in their throne speech that they

trust the private sector to solve all their problems. But if we look at

reality, it's been the large corporations which dominate the so-called

private sector that have failed, and they continue to fail.

I use as an example a fairly recent book, a new book put out by Robert Reich, who is a Harvard economist. His book is entitled The Next American Frontier .

He points out that the big industrial corporations in North America are

dinosaurs loaded down with top-heavy private bureaucracies. They are

too slow to invent and too slow to bring in new technology. And they

are far too slow in making any changes in their own organization, when

they need to be making decisions to be more lean, productive and

competitive.

With the more industrial and progressive governments of western

Europe and Japan we've seen private enterprise and public enterprise

work together quite effectively. They have a tradition in those

countries of working together effectively. But in North America and

Britain any such cooperation is paralysed by a belief that government

enterprise is ineffective and bad and that private enterprise is

positive and good. Well, a so-called small-c conservative government,

such as the Social Credit government in this province, the Grits and

the Tories and the Reagan Republicans in the United States really

believe this. They hold to it like an

article of religious belief. But

you can't solve the economic problems we're facing in this province

today and across this country by reciting myths and fairy-tales. You

have to look at what's really happening across this country and in this

province and figure out practical ways to do something about it.

Mr. Reich also pointed out something that's been obvious for a long

time, and that is that North American industry is based on a

mass-production, assembly-line technique. Mass production assembly-line

factories and industries are moving out of North America. They are

moving to poor countries like Korea or Hong Kong, the Philippines,

Malaysia, Brazil. The industrial revolution is moving one step further:

it is moving to the Third World. Western Europe and Japan are adapting

to the change by retraining their labour force and switching to what

Reich calls flexible system production.

Right now in this province we have 225,000 people unemployed. I

noticed in the paper this morning that it came out that the EBAP

program could expire this week because of funding cuts; the money is

not there. There are 2,800 people across this province engaged in the

EBAP program, But

[ Page 50 ]

when we see this production of retraining our

labour force.... In western Europe and Japan they are turning out

precision-made and custom-built products by processes that make up on

the rapidly changing technologies. We are falling further and further

behind in this country, and particularly in this province. The old

style of industrial organization is no longer working. It is something

like the army: the general, or the top manager and the middle managers,

do the thinking; the routine assembly-line workers are just following

orders that come from above. Parts of North American industry and

industry in British Columbia will follow this course over the next few

years, but we are also faced with seeing more and more factories move

to Third World countries. We are losing the potential in this province

to Third World countries. The system is no longer appropriate for most

of the work that can be done in advanced industrial countries.

[11:15]

The major production unit on this continent has become a team of

highly skilled, co-operative workers who put their heads together and

exchange skills and ideas so they can move faster and faster into this

ever-changing industrial world. We need some changes in our industrial

organization in this country and this province. The old style has been

hidden behind a shelter of special tax benefits, tariff protection,

import quotas, subsidies and business bailouts, and they use these

government benefits to make profits without rebuilding their production

team and their machines. We can see this with Dome Petroleum. Instead,

these big corporations have engaged in an elaborate game of paper

entrepreneurship — mergers, takeovers and all kinds of other fancy

corporate titles for the manoeuvre of exchanging paper. A problem is

that many of the brightest minds in North America are caught up in

these sterile, non-productive games.

But the real problem is that while these games are being played,

this paper entrepreneurship between the corporations, millions and

millions of people across this province and country, across North

America, are unemployed and have no prospect of a job. This is the

so-called private sector that the Social Credit government relies on so

often. They declared in the throne speech their trust in the private

sector, but we know there is no private enterprise in this province.

It's certainly not a free-market system. It's a partnership of small-c

conservative government, such as the Social Credit, and big business.

One can't survive without the other. Small-c conservative governments

such as the Social Credit Party must give grants and subsidies and help

pay the way for big business. It is a partnership that's made up of

equal parts of incompetence and greed.

The problem is not that there is even a partnership between the

government and big business; the problem and the solution is that

private enterprise and public enterprise must work together. There is

no free market; there is only a network of corporate big government and

corporate big business in this country and this province. It is an

incompetency managed by narrow, conservative people. And caught in the

middle of this — and something that is not being addressed by the

government of the day — are the vigorous and creative small business

people in this province and country who would like to invent and grow.

They find themselves hemmed in by the incompetency brought down upon

them by the big government and big business. The Socreds, whatever they

say to the contrary, are the party of corporate big business and

centralized big government,

The complaint is not against the fact that government gives

incentives to private enterprise; there is nothing wrong with

incentives in themselves. But if the government pays a bonus for

creative small- or large-business endeavour, it should be because it's

more productive, because it retains a labour force and because it

creates new jobs. If big government does this and the mandate is

fulfilled, it is a responsible government, and sometimes it does

happen. No government is absolutely always wrong, regardless if it's a

small-c conservative government as we have in this province. But more

often, Mr. Speaker, it does not happen and the government has to pay

for incompetency in the work force. It pays a bonus to non-productive

paper entrepreneurs.

Because of this blind belief that the private enterprise system has

a magic formula that this government believes in, the Social Credit

government has been — I don't want to use the word dumb — maybe

ignorant to give away many of the assets that we as taxpayers have

owned. We've handed them over to the paper entrepreneurs — the paper

shufflers — of corporate big business. This is exactly what happened in

the case of BCRIC. We turned over public ownership to a bunch of paper

entrepreneurs. Now in the throne speech they're promising the same kind

of folly. They say they're thinking about privatization. Does that mean

giving away more publicly owned assets and operations and placing them

into the top-heavy and inefficient bureaucracies of corporate big

business?

In the throne speech they talk about making government leaner and

more productive. I think everyone in this House has to agree with that

statement if it's done in a reasonable, decent and humane way, step by

step — not through mass firings, for instance, in the public service,

but by gradual rescue of people from dead-end, useless jobs that are

phased out and from unemployment and by the rebuilding of private and

public enterprise. But you very rarely ever hear the small-c

conservative government such as the Social Credit and the Tories and

the Grits and the Reagan Republicans talk about trimming down the

bureaucracies of corporate big business and making it leaner and more

productive.

As Reich points out, the trouble in North American big business is

that it's grown too big and it's lazy. It's a bunch of paper

entrepreneurs. Meanwhile creative and incentive small business is often

denied the same rights that are given to big business. We are seeing

more and more bankruptcies in the small business area, while bigger and

bigger corporations are passing more and more paper between themselves.

If anyone deserves to be labelled the weaker members of society, it's

the group of leaders that we have today who give us public relations

gimmicks and slogans instead of rational and capable management. The

Socreds are a party of big business and centralized big government, and

in both of these spheres they and their allies have shown over the

years a weakness and a lack of foresight. Hydro is publicly owned, but

is run with the rigid arrogance that centralizes most big bureaucratic

private business corporations. It's no better or no worse, and you

won't cure it by doing what some people think the Socreds are getting

ready to do, through this throne speech: chopping it up and giving away

pieces of it to the so-called private sector — the private- sector

corporate giants, which are just as bureaucratic and just as arrogant

as what's happening in the head offices of Hydro today.

[ Page 51 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, what you have to do is to be more sensitive and

efficient. A multitude of small-scale projects could be built

throughout the north: local-consumption dams for local industry and

local development, which have no adverse effect upon the environment,

instead of building massive hydro dams for billions and billions of

dollars of debt. Such projects could be run by cooperatives; they could

be run by local and regional councils, as well as by private enterprise.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I hear some of the more right-wing members of the....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Heil Hitler!

But, Mr. Speaker, such projects, instead of giveaways, should be

looked upon as being a productive and positive solution to some of the

problems facing the industrialization of the north. The Social Credit

Party, the party of big business and big government...

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: ....has never got Hydro to buy surplus power at

reasonable rates, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going crazy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, you sure helped him out. He's no longer government.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: He doesn't even want to run for senator; you've tainted him.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You've ruined his political career in the United States because of your stories about Hydro.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You've given him the kiss of death, Mr.

Premier. He had a political future ahead of him, that young man. That

young man had a political future ahead of him.

But back to the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're an embarrassment.

MR. PASSARELL: An embarrassment? The Premier talks about an

embarrassment. That Premier was an embarrassment to the people of this

province yesterday, with the little game that he played with the

federal government — taking flags away from children and replacing them

with your own Republic of British Columbia flag.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your colleagues in Ottawa have been doing that for ages.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member continues.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't want you to get too wound up. You know what happens when you get wound up. We don't want you to get too wound up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your pockets!

MR. PASSARELL: What are you doing with your hands underneath your seat there? Just settle down, I'm almost finished here.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of doctrinaire Social Crediters who

seem to have it in their minds that when they talk in the Speech from

the Throne about privatization of some more of our prosperities, more

of our inspirations and aspects that belong to the taxpayers and giving

them away.... Those are the two issues I wanted to cover.

The issues I wanted to cover were the government's poor record on

Indian native affairs and the resolution that they brought forward, as

well as some thoughts concerning public and private enterprise. I thank

you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOWAT: I must say how honoured I am to sit in this House

as the second MLA for Vancouver–Little Mountain and to be a member of

Premier Bennett's team that will lead this province to the greatest

future and heights that we have seen in many a decade.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election as

Deputy Speaker, and would you convey to the Speaker of the House my

congratulations to him. To my colleagues, I am very pleased to join

you. To my new colleagues, I think we are indebted to our colleagues

who have been here before and are helping to show us the ropes and to

show us how we can conduct ourselves in this House as we conduct the

business of government for the citizens of our province.

I thank the Speaker, the government and the opposition for allowing

me to do my speech while sitting. As you often have heard from some of

our opposition members, they stand and sleep. I promise you I shall not

stand and sleep, but I shall sit and speak.

[11:30]

I would like to thank the voters of the Little Mountain constituency

for electing me as their second member. I would like to thank the first

member of the Little Mountain constituency (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for her

assistance in the recent campaign. I wish to pay credit to the member

of Little Mountain who I am replacing, the Hon. Evan Wolfe, who was

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Finance in this government — a

difficult person to follow. He has given a great deal to the

Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency and to the citizens of British

Columbia. I pay tribute to him.

[ Page 52 ]

Vancouver–Little Mountain is an excellent constituency. It starts

with Queen Elizabeth Park at the top, our Vandusen Gardens. It goes

down to the shores of False Creek, where we are seeing development take

place, with a lot of affordable housing. It moves over to Granville

Island, where we are seeing a dynamic market and future development

taking place, with many creations of jobs for our citizens, and a

tourist area for persons coming to our great province.

In our riding we have a large residential area. We have light and

heavy industries and a lot of the service industries. Sitting on Oak

Street we have the new Grace Hospital, which I understand was named

after our first member for Little Mountain, or else our first member

for Little Mountain was named after the hospital. Within that complex

we have the Children's Hospital, which is the finest in North America.

I hope that my colleagues and the members of the opposition would take

the time to travel through that facility to see what is available for

the children in this province. On that site we are going to be building

a $10 million research centre, and I am pleased to say that this is

going ahead with funding from this government.

The first member and I recently toured the newly opened Brock Fahrni

extended-care unit in this hospital. It is an outstanding centre. It

has many of our veterans from the First and Second World Wars in the

Shaughnessy Hospital complex at the Brock Fahrni Pavilion. I think this

government is to be congratulated for the funding they have put in to

look after our veterans.

This government is also going to build a $9 million extended-care

unit on the site of the CNIB grounds. It will replace Queen Elizabeth

Hall, where many of our blind citizens are residing at this time. The

new facility will be one that is updated and brought up to code. It is

a brand-new facility and will be an addition to our constituency.

Our constituency is one that is changing all the time, but we will

be looking after our members. I plan to be a very strong voice for all

persons in that constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pay tribute to all the volunteer

organizations that serve so many of our citizens throughout this great

province. Without these people and volunteers, we would not be able to

provide these services to so many of our citizens that need them. I

must say that I commend this government for the way in which they

review the moneys they put into these agencies. They check their

programs and they review their expenditures. But we must thank the

volunteers that give so freely of their time and devotion, to the

betterment of our community.

Mr. Minister, in 1981 this government took on the challenge of the

International Year of Disabled Persons that came through a declaration

of the United Nations. I must say that the former Minister of Education

and now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), as the chairman of the

Cabinet Committee on Social Services, led this province in a program

that was unequalled in Canada for the International Year of Disabled

Persons. We had as our honorary chairman the great Terry Fox, who gave

so much not only to our province but to all of Canada. On the wisdom of

the Hon. Minister of Education at that time, we had the opportunity to

form a committee to run the international year. The committee consisted

of eight persons representing the disabled community and eight persons

representing the ministries on the Cabinet Committee on Social

Services. This government gave that committee $3 million to go into

programs initiated by the disabled community.

There were 277 programs that have led to a great deal of awareness,

a great deal of assistance to the disabled of the community. At the

same time this government spent $14 million in its ministries to aid

and implement programs — new ones — for the disabled of our community.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this sum of $17 million was more money

than all the other provinces in Canada combined. Out of that year came

a report entitled "Challenges," and I would commend those members of

the House who have not had it to receive one and read it. There were 38

recommendations through that committee and reported in the book. I am

pleased to say that many of these recommendations have been achieved.

Some of them are still being implemented and some are on hold because

of the restraint program. But the majority of the disabled community

understand the need for restraint in these times. They realize that in

British Columbia we have the best services in Canada for the disabled.

We have the most benefits and services for health, pensions — they are

the highest in Canada. That's why so many disabled people from other

provinces come to live in British Columbia. We have the educational

opportunities, the vocational training, the job placements, the housing

and the sports and recreation for our citizens with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, the awareness that was created in that year is still

going on, and we are seeing today the quality and full participation in

our community by those people with special needs, and particularly our

disabled citizens.

I've had the privilege of serving for five years on the College of

Pharmacists. The College of Pharmacists is governed by the Pharmacists

Act of British Columbia. It is one of the professional agencies that

allow a consumer to sit as a full voting member of the council. I think

the members should know how important and how professional the

pharmacies are in their role of protecting health. They have brought in

mandatory patient profiles, whereby each person who receives a

prescription drug is put on a chart, so that an account can be kept of

the drugs these people are taking. Through this system we have found

that many people are double-doctoring; they are using double

pharmacies; often the interaction of drugs causes great physical harm

and they have to be hospitalized, at great cost to the province. The

continuing education programs put on by the College of Pharmacists, the

yearly competency assessment programs, and drug diversion — taking

drugs off the street and making sure they are properly used for the

health and welfare of all our citizens — is to be commended. The

college has a fan-out system: if drug prescription pads are stolen from

doctors' offices and forgeries occur, they can be quickly countered

when each pharmacy phones three other pharmacies, so that within

minutes the whole province is alerted about where the forgeries may be

coming from.

Speaking of health matters, our government's continued program, as

outlined in the throne speech, of de-institutionalizing persons so that

they may return to the community is to be commended. Programs such as

the homemakers, attended care, nursing care, physiotherapy and

occupational therapy given in a person's home leads to a much happier,

healthier and better lifestyle for so many citizens.

I must commend the Minister of Health for the development of the

acute spinal cord injury unit at Shaughnessy Hospital. It has become

world-famous. It is a 22-bed capsule unit, which treats spinal cord

injuries. We now see a dramatic

[ Page 53 ]

change in the length of time during which a person

is confined to hospital because of this catastrophic disability.

Because of on-site treatment by paramedics, together with the advantage

of the use of air ambulances and initial treatment within the first

four hours of getting them into the spinal cord unit, a lot of

paralysis can be prevented. We are now seeing many of these persons

walking away without permanent or lengthy paralysis. They then go on to

the the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre, which is unique in British

Columbia and unique in the world. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that since

the advent of this tremendous spinal cord injury unit, the time that a

person would spend institutionalized has been cut from two years to

three months. The prevention programs through the Ministry of Health;

the seatbelt program through the motor vehicle branch, where we are

going for an 80 percent campaign of click up and buckle up; and the

drinking-driver program under the Attorney General, will stop a lot of

the needless carnage that is happening on our roads today.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, how pleased I was to note in the throne

speech about more programs for physical fitness for the health and

well-being of all citizens. I must state that my colleague, the first

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the first

member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), are former park

commissioners of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, and I am

presently a park commissioner and chairing that commission. I must say

that in Vancouver we play a very active role in fitness and recreation.

We have 22 community centres, 147 parks, 11 swimming pools and 7 ice

rinks, and they have been invaluable benefits to the recreation and

health of our citizens.

We recently came across a problem, though, Mr. Speaker. The unions

came to us and requested that because of the number of persons

unemployed, could we give them free access to our pools and rinks. We,

as commissioners, felt it was time to work with the labour unions to

see if we could stop the confrontation and make a compromise. We

compromised: we gave, freely, three hours per week to the citizens of

Vancouver — the citizens of British Columbia are also eligible to use

the pools and ice rinks. We asked that in return they come to us and

assist us in a program we had in mind. The program was a federally

funded program that would allow up to 50,000 man-hours of work for

young persons to do jobs within our parks system that would not take

away from union jobs but would rather employ these persons at over $5

an hour, over $40 a day, to give them funds to go back to universities,

colleges and schools. But we found that the unions said no, and, Mr.

Speaker, the shame of it all was that many of the members we would have

employed in this program were family members of the same union. Again I

repeat that this would be at no cost to the citizens of British

Columbia. Other areas of our province have taken the opportunity to

take

part in these federal programs, and I think that the union should

be condemned for what they did in not allowing our young people to work,

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver–Little Mountain we also have another problem, and that is the Vancouver city council.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. MOWAT: They're led by an "anti" mayor who is

anti-everything. The majority of the aldermen — or alderpersons or

councillors, as they now want to be called — are led by the left, and

they are against everything. They were against the stadium, and now

even Uncle Mikey likes it. The other night he spoke about it in glowing

terms: "We are pleased to report that the stadium came in on time and

on budget." They are still having commissions about the Olympic Stadium

that was built in 1967. We noted in the paper the other day that our

sister province of Alberta has formed three commissions to look into

the cost overruns of the Saddledome, which is behind

schedule with

great overruns. This council in Vancouver was against B.C. Place. They

were against the Spirit of B.C. ,

our ALRT, and they were against Canada Place. But now that they're

coming on-stream and providing jobs, many services and many supplies,

they're falling in line and they're singing their praises. They have so

many committees on that council that are contrary to anything that we

are trying to do in the private sector, that they continue to stop

progress.

The other day I was in council and the Woodward's development at

Oakridge was there pleading to get their development permit. Finally,

after the opposition sail they wanted the paint changed from grey to

white on the post that holds up the canopies, and the colour of the

windows, the speaker for the development said: "Mr. Chairman, we have

been trying for 12 years to bring this development to the citizens of

Vancouver — it abuts our riding and it's in Vancouver South — and it's

going to be an $86 million project." There comes a time when it's no

longer viable for a developer to proceed with this kind of a project,

and they are ready to go to the province of Alberta, So we must change

this government in the city of Vancouver to a positive....

In these times we can no longer wait and wait for jobs and the

purchase of building materials and supplies. We must continue to

develop within the free enterprise system. I see one of my roles as an

MLA for Vancouver–Little Mountain as being to bring co-operation and

not confrontation between the city council of Vancouver and this

government, and I pledge to help bring a change to that council.

Yesterday my colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) spoke at great length about the Spirit of B.C.

— what it has done in the way of jobs and what it will do when it

reaches Surrey, Abbotsford and beyond. He spoke about the jobs being

created in B.C. by that, and all I can add after my ride on it

yesterday is that that system is totally accessible to all citizens of

British Columbia: those with physical disabilities, with babies in

strollers, seniors with mobility problems.

This government is to be commended for the legislation it passed in

August 1979, which addressed the standards of design for the physically

disabled. It was

part 10 of the National Building Code. It has enabled

the disabled of our province to get around so they could get jobs and

education. I

[ Page 54 ]

understand that the visually impaired are now being taken into consideration, as well as those with hearing impairment.

I have been asked to move that we adjourn debate at this time until

the next sitting of the House. I thank you and hope I will be able to

continue and get another 40 minutes then.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report for 1982-83 of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada