[ 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.