1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th 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, MARCH 13, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1275 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Filming in House for technical test. Mr. Speaker — 1275

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance estimates.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1275

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1275

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the National Film Board, as you

recall, on Friday did a tape of part of the debates of this

House and it apparently included the part of the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) on the land bill. They were

going to reproduce this, and I felt it was wrong that it should

only show part of the bill without discussion from the

Opposition side. That means that if you consent we could have

the lights on. It's very difficult; we don't like those lights

but with your consent it could be done.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking for your permission to have them

proceed to complete that tonight.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of

order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) starts again?

MR. SPEAKER: A terrible question to answer — yes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope he doesn't start over again.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Withdraw the bill if he

doesn't stop.

MR. SPEAKER: Well it is up to you whether you consent. I ask

your leave to let them proceed as they were doing Friday, so

that at least they get a fair presentation from at least two

sides of the House, and I hope more.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

SERVICES AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE

(continued)

Vote 87; Accounting Division, $339,042 — approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the House proceed to public bills

and orders.

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 42.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River,

adjourned the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It is a pleasure to

discuss the business of the province in this Legislature. I

feel, Mr. Speaker, before I start that I should advise the

House of what I discussed this afternoon. It is like Walt

Disney; if they have a continuing programme from Sunday night

to Sunday night, at the beginning of the next Sunday night they

say what has happened. So a very short

summary, Mr.

Speaker.

I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) this afternoon that there was feedback. I also pointed

out to the Minister of Agriculture that there was no shortage

of food in British Columbia or in the world now or in the

immediate, foreseeable future.

I also pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and to the

Members of this Legislature that the same thing was happening

in British Columbia today that happened one hundred years ago

or many more years ago than that. The same thing was happening

in British Columbia that was happening — or parallel situations

were happening in the United States. Parallel situations were

happening in Australia…

[ Page 1276 ]

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): And Wounded

Knee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Wounded Knee, yes. I started to point out

before I adjourned the debate of what had been done in British

Columbia to preserve agricultural land. Now this evening I

intend to discuss for just a short while food shortages in the

world, food production in British Columbia, land planning and

what I hope will be some concrete solutions to the problems

that have been caused by the introduction of Bill 42 in this

Legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't, Mr. Attorney General — I'm not running

the…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He doesn't know what's in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not running the Government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Before I start, before I go too far, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to remind the House, to point out to the

House, a statement regarding Bill 42 that was in this evening's

Vancouver Sun . The headlines — and I am sure the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in his chair — but the headlines shocked me, Mr. Speaker.

As I said this afternoon, I've always admired…there he

is. I've always admired the intelligence, to a point — I don't

agree with his philosophy — but I've always admired the

intelligence of the Hon. Minister of Highways.

I said that I was disappointed that he had allowed Bill 42

to go as far as it had gone. However I was further shocked and

greatly disenchanted with the Minister this evening. I was

reading the headlines in this

article in tonight's Vancouver

Sun . "Strachan…."

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll take another hour to get his speech

ready.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Strachan defends the Land Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. PHILLIPS: But that's not what concerns me, Mr. Speaker,

about this article. What really concerns me is that this

Member, who has sat many, many years longer in this House than

I have…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS: …sat many, many years longer than I have. A

man of intelligence, a man who holds a very responsible

portfolio in this Government says, "that hysteria whipped up by

the big mouths…."

AN HON. MEMBER: Big what?

MR. PHILLIPS: "Big mouths."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I guess, Mr. Speaker, because the snow

job that was created to let Bill 42 pass under without people

knowing what it was all about…

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that an "Arch Snow" job? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: It didn't happen because through what you call

the big mouths, people of this province have become informed of

what is in Bill 42 and the far-reaching effects of Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had a seat by the exit too.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said he defended government insurance and

at the same time he forced insurance agents with a lecture on

the New Democratic Party's land commission legislation.

"Opposition to the Land Act," Strachan said, "is

primarily the result of the hysteria whipped up by some hotline

big mouths who are getting hysterical about their ratings…"

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think he is attacking the right of

individuals in British Columbia to speak about Bill 42 as they

desire.

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly.

MR. PHILLIPS: He goes on to say it's these hotline big

mouths who are getting hysterical about their ratings. They

certainly have chosen a good subject, because it is on the

tongue of every person in British Columbia — your Bill 42.

You created the hysteria — your Government created the

hysteria, Mr. Speaker, on February 22, when you introduced this

bill. You created the hysteria.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Also, he criticized politicians who were still

mad because they didn't win the last election. Well, it is

pertaining to the bill, sure it is.

[ Page

1277 ]

Well, it disappointed me that the Minister of Highways would attack open-line

radio commentators by calling them "big mouths."

The Minister of Agriculture not only called the radio hot

liners "big mouths," but he said…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think

it was the hotlines that really whipped up the hysteria. That's

the point that I'm trying to make.

I read an editorial this afternoon from the Vancouver

Province . Here's an editorial two days after the bill

was introduced in the House. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I

don't agree with the hysteria anyway, but certainly it hasn't

been "whipped up." What is happening is that the people of this

province are beginning to realize, not necessarily all by

hotlines, but by articles in the paper and by editorials — here

is another editorial out of the Vancouver Province ,

"Dictatorship Down on the Farm." Would that be called whipping

up hysteria?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Completely false.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has said that the statement is

completely false. Let's examine the statement in a little more

detail. I wasn't going to, but now I'm forced to.

"The provincial government's proposed new land use legislation is like

one of those good news-bad news jokes."

I'm quoting from this editorial.

"The basic objective is sound but the methods to achieve it are bad, bad,

bad."

That's what the editorial says.

To that editorial I'd like to add my own comment and say I

think that the methods are bad, very bad, very, very bad,

extremely bad. Yes, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That's a bit repetitious.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The editorial

says:

"To save farmland from rapacious developers and urban sprawl, the Government will set up a commission to

oversee the use to which land is put."

To save the land from

the developers. I thought we were preserving farmland here.

"That is all land. That's good, because it's unlikely that

the overview needed for a total land use policy could be

achieved any other way."

The Minister of Highways says that's

not true about the editorial.

AN HON. MEMBER: The heading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the heading. I see. Well, we'll carry on

for just a moment:

"The Government has tripped over its good intentions."

Do you agree with that, Mr. Minister?

"It proposes to give the commission authority that would put

it above the constraint of moral justice and break the bounds

of common sense. Its powers would be so sweeping that it would

be impossible, almost, to draw a line in a blueprint without

the commission's say-so."

That's not me saying this, Mr. Speaker. I've said some quite

strong things about this bill. But I didn't say that you

couldn't draw a line across a blueprint. That's the editors of

the Vancouver Province . When they say something like

that, I think maybe the people do get the idea that they should

take a look at Bill 42. That's what the news media is all

about. That's the purpose of editorials — to make people think.

Not to tell them how to think but to make them think.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) may not agree with that. He would like to think that

some of the papers try to tell people how to think. But when

governments have control, Mr. Speaker, of the news media — my

gracious, we might as well move out.

"It would wipe out the function of municipalities in

regional districts…."

I've said that before.

"…. in deciding how best to use the land in their areas.

The implication is that centralized provincial government knows

better than local people what is best for their districts."

This I'm going to talk about a little later, Mr. Speaker,

because we're talking about centralized control of land. I

think this editorial puts it very well.

"While it's true that some municipalities have zoned land to

produce higher tax return rather than to promote good land use,

the Government seems intent on throwing the baby out with the

bath water."

I didn't say that. That's the Vancouver Province .

Certainly I think that some municipalities have made the odd

mistake in zoning land, but should everybody in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, be punished? Should every landowner in

British Columbia be punished because of this? It's pretty harsh

punishment.

It's questionable that Victoria could ever do the detailed

planning implied in the legislation with the facilities we have

here; certainly a five-man commission couldn't.

[ Page 1278 ]

I quote from this editorial again:

"The bill would give the commission arbitrary and even

confiscatory authority. It could purchase or otherwise acquire

consider advisable. It could make up its own rules that would

make it a game the Government would always win. But worse

still, nobody else would really know how to play it."

Yet the Minister says that politicians who lost the election

have been whipping up hysteria.

Certainly when an editorial in a daily newspaper which has

the circulation that the Vancouver Province has comes up

with a strong editorial like this, I don't think they're trying

to whip up hysteria. I think they're trying to point out to the

people what we've been saying all along about this bill — that

it's vicious, dictatorial and undemocratic.

The commission would also have the complete authority over

the use of land for other than farm purposes. This is something

that I've questioned ever since the bill came out. If we're

trying to preserve farmland, why does this all-powerful

commission have to have the say over every other square inch of

British Columbia whether it be farmland or not?

"Its decisions would be final and would not be subject to

appeal."

This is another pretty strong statement, Mr. Speaker, about

a pretty strong bill. Yet the Minister of Highways says

hysteria is whipped up by "big-mouths."

I've said a couple of things in this Legislature in

discussing this bill that leaves me flabbergasted from thinking

about the intelligence of some of the statements that have been

made. Certainly I want to discuss this bill with a lot of

common sense. I want to point out to the Government, Mr.

Speaker, exactly what could happen in British Columbia by

pointing out what has happened in other jurisdictions. I think

we should be sane and sensible in discussing this bill.

"That would be dictatorial and contrary to common as well as

moral justice."

I didn't say that. I'm still quoting from one of these

editorials that told the people of British Columbia exactly

what was in the bill. I hope that some of the Government

backbench read some of these articles as well.

The

article goes on to say, and I quote again:

"The Government is right in adopting the principle that

farmers aren't entitled to compensation now for loss of

possible future gain from the change in land use. The farmers

have been arguing they would suffer loss if they haven't the

right to sell their land to developers and retire on the

proceeds."

Well, there's two lines of thoughts there.

Back in England, at the time of the socialist government there, they agreed

that the farmer should be compensated at all cost. And they agree that legislation

like this, the labour takeover of land, would be irreversible. And that, Mr.

Speaker, is what I was talking about in this Legislature this afternoon when

I said that possibly, if this bill passes, in later years there would be uprisings

and confrontations — the same as there is now in the United States of America

by the native Indians. We would be having to go, like our own native Indians

are, maybe to The Hague to get justice, to get our lands back. What I'm pointing

out, Mr. Speaker, is why, while this is going on in other areas and people are

trying to get their land back, why do we take their land away in the first place?

Why not just withdraw the bill?

Going into compensation, which the province doesn't

necessarily agree with, but Wilson in England, when he was

Prime Minister of Great Britain, he agreed with it. He favoured

the widest possible acquisition of land for public use with the

exemption of public land owners and working farmers. He would

not be inhibited by the alleged inflationary consequences of

the compensation involved.

Yet we have in many areas deflated the price of farmland

when the farmland freeze was brought in in December. Yet no one

wants to compensate the farmer. The province says, "Well we're

not sure that we should."

But Mr. Wilson made it clear in a speech that

nationalization of land would be the main plank in Labour's

platform for the next general election. One of the reasons that

he gives, which this government hasn't come out and said, but I

think is behind this bill, Mr. Speaker — he told party

supporters in Edinburgh that Labour's policy for land must be,

and would be comprehensive, socialist and irreversible — it

would make easier the provision of housing, schools, roads,

parks and access to the countryside.

Mr. Speaker, in that last statement that it would make it

easier for the provision of housing, schools, roads, parks and

access to the countryside — nothing about agriculture. That

makes me wonder, what is the real principle, what is the real

idea behind Bill 42?

The real idea, Mr. Speaker, is control, complete takeover.

Complete takeover of every square inch of land in British

Columbia under the guise, Mr. Speaker, of the preservation of

farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Making you sick, Mr. Minister?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I propose, Mr. Speaker, to back up this statement with

some more facts, because, as I said, I want to deal with this very, very important

matter. If you agree with me that you're taking over all land in British Columbia

for another reason than to preserve farmland — why, stand up and say so, and

[ Page

1279 ]

withdraw the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it now, don't wait for spring.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, we've had a commitment from

that government that they're not going to withdraw the bill.

I'll discuss that a little later.

The Minister of Agriculture says he's going to ram it

through.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'll find it later, and if I don't find

it before I sit down, it's in here. If I don't find it, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture, I'll be quite happy to withdraw

it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's in there because I just went through some

of this material before I came in here, and if I don't find it,

Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'll withdraw. You remind me

before I am through speaking, and I'll withdraw the

statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometime tomorrow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to finish this editorial

because it makes some more good points that I feel are very

important to the debate on Bill 42, so I'll just

continue.

"But the government has gone further. The bill says that

land shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by its

designation as an agricultural greenbelt, land bank, or park

reserve."

That could reduce the present value of land, and has no

bearing on the preservation of farmland, Mr. Speaker, no

bearing whatsoever on the preservation of farmland.

The editorial continues, "Farmland will always keep its

value as farmland. But there's unlikely to be any market for

property in an area reserved for future use as greenbelt, land

bank or park. Yet the government doesn't propose to provide

compensation for that kind of loss."

The next point in this editorial is very important, Mr.

Speaker. It says, "The government need not have resorted to

overkill in its quest for more rational land use." That's

exactly what I'm saying.

I'm going to go through some of the things that we were doing, that is, what

the previous government was doing. This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker

— "The government need not have resorted to overkill." But what did I say this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker? Overacted, overacted, over reacted. "The Government

need not have resorted to overkill in its quest for rational land use." That's

what makes me think again, Mr. Speaker, that there's got to be some sinister

reason behind Bill 42, because we don't need Bill 42 to preserve farmland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: We don't, we don't. You just listen and I'll

explain why.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON, MEMBER: Turn him off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure rubbish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial says, "All it

needed to do was establish a broad policy framework within

which municipalities and regional districts could work. It

could include a provision that all land now designated for farm

use would remain so unless changed with the consent of the

commission."

There, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, is a good suggestion.

You said, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that you would listen. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Minister of

Agriculture, that I hope he does listen. "It could include a

provision that all land now designated for farm use would

remain so unless changed with the consent of the commission."

That's a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. And it's an out.

It's an out for the Minister of Agriculture who has backed

himself in to an impossible position, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What did you say, Mr. Member for Cariboo?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Farmland would be preserved. The haphazard

use of other land would be subject to rational development

serving the interest of the province as a whole. Ultimate

responsibility for land use would remain with the government."

There is a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. You'd still have

the control, but you wouldn't have the dictatorial five-man

commission exercising its control over every square inch of

land in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: A quorum of three — down from five to

three.

MR. PHILLIPS: The government's farm plan reads like George

Orwell's Animal Farm .

[ Page 1280 ]

"As democracy," and I'm quoting the article, "As

democracy, it's a scandal." Bill 42 is a scandal in a

democracy. I said it was dictatorial and undemocratic. The

Vancouver Province says it's a scandal. I'll have some

more words for it later.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to these words very, very

closely. I want the whole House to listen to these words, very,

very closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, these are new words, Mr. Speaker. What

does the Vancouver Province say? It says, "It must be

fought." "It must be fought." Mr. Speaker, I ask you if that is

hysteria whipped up by big mouths.

The Vancouver Province is our second largest daily

newspaper in British Columbia. Up in the great northern part of

the province, the western part of the province, Mr. Speaker,

the eastern part of the province, it's their daily paper

because of the logistics of when it's printed and when it can

get there. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, I didn't say — nor do I

think any member of this Opposition has gone out, or been at

any meeting I've ever been to, or any hotline that I've been

on, and said it must be fought. That is what the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) maintains to be a hotliner

whipping up hysteria.

What does it go on to say, Mr. Speaker? It says: "It must be

fought by everyone." Not only, as the Minister would allude, by

politicians who lost the election or by the Members of the

Opposition. But this bill must be fought by everyone in the

province.

I wouldn't call it hysteria; I'd call it the concerned

public, Mr. Speaker.

It goes on to say — and there's a lot of strength in this

statement, Mr. Speaker. It goes on to say: "With all the

strength society can muster."

Those are very, very strong words indeed, Mr. Speaker. You

know living in a democracy, Mr. Speaker, that a democracy can

muster more power than any other form of government, than any

other people in the world. We proved that not too long ago,

from 1939 to 1946. We proved that we could muster a lot of

power in our democracies in the world.

Why, Mr. Speaker? To preserve our homeland and to protect

our land. That's what it's about. When you get right down to

it, that's what it's all about.

I'm sure that there are many Members in this House who had

people travel overseas during the last war to fight for the

freedom that we now enjoy. All of this freedom, Mr. Speaker,

can be taken away by a government that really doesn't care

about the rights of the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: By one stroke of the pen.

MR. PHILLIPS: The rights of the people, Mr. Speaker, who less than 8

months ago elected it to power.

I would say it's a very sad situation. I would say that

probably the democratic rights of the people in this democracy

will be upheld — at least I hope they will be upheld.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government opposite will

realize before it's too late what it is doing and that it will

withdraw the bill. Because there will be no peace in British

Columbia until the rights of the individual are put foremost.

This is our democratic right. This is what built this great

nation of ours. This is what built this great province of ours.

This is why we're here as legislators tonight. We're here to

protect the rights of the individual, to see that democracy is

carried out. That's what government is all about.

When the people exercise their rights, when they feel that

their rights are being taken away from them, it sort of leaves

me wondering why and how a Member of the Crown could make such

a statement and could call it "hysteria."

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on for just a moment where I

left off this afternoon when I was discussing what had been

done in British Columbia to preserve land during the last 20

years. I stated in 1957 that all lakeshore property — I won't

say it was frozen — shall remain in the name of the Crown

forever.

You go to other provinces today, Mr. Speaker, and you will

find that the best lakeshore property has been bought by people

who could afford it many years ago. The ordinary man on the

street could not afford to buy lakeshore property.

Mr. Speaker, by this great policy being enacted in British

Columbia now there are many labourers, small farmers, people

who haven't gone around and been able to gobble up all the land

in British Columbia because of this policy, who now have the

freedom to lease their little plot of lakeshore property from

the government and to build their little cabin on it and to

enjoy the heritage that is theirs by right.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because of the farsightedness of the last

administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, our environmentalists, who

are supposed to be looking after all of our nature in British

Columbia and preserving our land, would lead you to believe

that nothing has been done.

I think it's time that the people of British Columbia became

aware of what has been done and what the laws in British

Columbia are concerning the preservation of farmland, Mr.

Speaker. Because it's been a good policy.

It hasn't always been 100 per cent. I don't think that

you're going to have Utopia anywhere. There isn't Utopia in

other provinces. But I certainly want to advise you, Mr.

Speaker, that Bill 42 will never bring Utopia in the regulation

of land in British Columbia either. As a matter of fact, it'll

do just the opposite.

[ Page 1281 ]

I also pointed out that the majority of the land in British

Columbia that is being used for mining, for forestry, wasn't

given to these companies. They call some of the news media and

some of the programmes that you hear today by the

environmentalists, Mr. Speaker, would lead you to believe, if

you didn't know otherwise, that all of this land in British

Columbia had been given to these companies. They call them

international companies and say that their head offices are in

Chicago and New York and they call them rip-off artists — all

of which I say, Mr. Speaker, is whipping up hysteria in the

opposite direction because it's not factual.

I say again that these environmentalists who are supposed to

be interested in protecting the land in British Columbia for

future generations are doing a disservice. Because, as I

pointed out this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, if they oversell…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I remind you of standing order 43

which says, "Mr. Speaker, after having called the attention of

the House to the conduct of a Member who persists in

irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments

or of arguments used by other Members in the debate, may direct

him to discontinue his speech."

I don't want to have to ask you to do that, but you keep

repeating this evening what you said all afternoon. I would

request that if you have anything further to say that you press

on quickly so that we will not have to exercise that standing

order.

MR, PHILLIPS: Deliberately, but not quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: I think whether he did it deliberately or

otherwise, he should press on to fresh arguments, if he has

any. They may all expire and there'll be nothing left for

anybody else. However, proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly

proceed. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. I

certainly didn't intend to — however, it is a very important

point indeed.

I discussed a couple of policies with regard to controls on

land in British Columbia. Now I would like to read from the

Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1970 , Ch. 17.

Part

II: "Disposition of Crown Land, general provisions."

Before I read, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that

approximately 95 per cent of all the land in British Columbia

is owned by the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want the other 5 per cent too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ninety-five per cent, Mr. Speaker. There is no

other jurisdiction in North America where the Crown owns 95 per cent of the land. So what we're

talking about in Bill 42 is 5 per cent of the land in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and yet the panic for Bill 42.

I'm going to read to you from

Part II, Ch. 17, "The

Disposition of Crown Land, general provisions:"

"Crown land is not acquired by prescription or

occupation.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law

to the contrary, no person shall acquire by prescription or by occupation not

lawfully authorized or by any colour of right any right, title or interest in

or to any Crown land or in or to any lands as against the interests there of

the Crown."

That is in the new Land Act that was brought in in

1970. I wonder if all the people of British Columbia realize

this.

"No rights vested by filing of applications." This is the present Land Act that exists today, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King). I don't know how many of the Members opposite are aware of this.

Section 7:

"No person shall acquire any right whatsoever, either vested

or contingent, in or to Crown lands, or any priority in respect

of such lands by reason of filing an application for Crown

lands under this Act."

This Act is for the protection of land in British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker.

Section 2:

"No disposition of Crown land is binding on the Crown until

the certificate of purchase, grant, lease, licence of

occupation, right-of-way or easement is executed by the Crown

in accordance with this Act, and no negotiations or

arrangements, whether in writing or otherwise preliminary or

prior to the execution of the documents herein referred to,

shall be binding on or commit the Crown to perform a complete

disposition."

Mr. Speaker, if you want to check into the rules and

regulations in the Lands department, you will find that it is

very difficult to get Crown land, either to buy it or to lease

it for agricultural purposes. Yet we would be led to believe

that the province was disappearing, Mr. Speaker. Did you

believe that? Well, you must have.

No. You didn't believe that. I'm glad to hear that, Mr.

Speaker. But I'm sure that some of the backbench Members

believed it. It's a very important point.

I'm going to bring up another point, Mr. Speaker. This

refers to foreign ownership of land in British Columbia. This

is very important. I would like all the Members in the

backbench, some of whom said land ownership is not important,

to pay very strict attention to this portion of our Land

Act , which is

[ Page 1282 ]

not a statute that we whipped up here tonight. It's been in

the book since 1970.

Section (

a) says:

"No person who is not a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Canadian Citizenship Act

and whose application for disposition of Crown land has not

been allowed prior to the coming into force of this Act, shall

be entitled to a Crown grant."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, since 1970 no Crown land has

passed to anybody other than a Canadian citizen. Now I would

hope that some of the methods that have been used to create

hysteria would be used to inform the people of what is going on

in British Columbia, what the true situation is.

I sometimes get the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that it's a

one-sided deal, because an organization in Vancouver sent a

wire to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon — and it's

headlined on "Hourglass" tonight — to preserve our land and our

environment and all the rest that goes with it. I would suggest

and I would hope that our television cameras would point to

this Act in the book and to some of the other things that I'm

bringing up here about how land is being preserved in British

Columbia, and get away from this hysteria. Because they're

doing themselves more damage than good.

I want to point out something else in this Land Act .

It was completely revised, a complete new chapter, three years

ago. It's not amendments to the Act; it's a complete new Act.

As things arise there must be new regulations, but they must be

orderly and they must be in the interests of the people, not

necessarily in the interests of what the Government wants to

impose on the people. This is a democratic right.

Section 11:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may for any purpose that he considers advisable in the public

interest, by notice signed by the Minister and published in the

Gazette , reserve Crown land from disposition under the

provisions of this Act."

It already exists.

Now we run into a basic difference of opinion here, Mr.

Speaker, because the Minister of Agriculture says that Bill 42

does not give the five-man commission any more power than the

Government already has.

I think we should explore that statement, because I wouldn't

want people to misunderstand it. I won't say I wouldn't want

them to be misled, but I certainly don't want them to

misunderstand it. Because the five-man commission may not have

any more right of say over the 95 per cent of British Columbia

by the province and by the Crown at the present time, but they

certainly have more say over that other 5 per cent which is

owned by the people.

Now this is the point — individual people, individual farmers. This is the

point. I hope the Press gallery realizes and points out to the people of British

Columbia that it is only 5 per cent of the land in British Columbia we're talking

about — the other 95 per cent is very well covered by regulations at the present

time.

There's just one more point that I wish to bring up on this

Act, Mr. Speaker: the power of the Minister to withdraw Crown

land from disposition. This is another attempt:

"The Minister may for any purpose that he considers advisable

in the public interest temporarily withdraw Crown land from disposition under

this Act and he may amend or cancel such withdrawal."

I was going to be able to point out to you, Mr. Speaker,

large tracts of land in British Columbia that had been

withdrawn, but as I said this afternoon, I didn't expect this

bill to come up until tomorrow, so I haven't got it here. But I

would like to have been able to show you, Mr. Speaker, that

before August 30 there were very, very large tracts of land in

British Columbia that were not even available to farmers. There

was some that was farming land, but it was being treated in

economic units to add to certain farms that were not large

enough to make them economically viable units. This land was

reserved. It was not being sold to farmers who were going to

come in and take out what was considered not to be an economic

unit.

Now these, Mr. Speaker, are some of the things that have

been going on. That's why, as I said before, I can't understand

all the panic.

Mr. Speaker, why was more research not done before this Act

was brought down? Because had more research been done, Mr.

Speaker, maybe the bill wouldn't have been brought down as fast

as it was. I think we have to look into the events leading up

to this disastrous day, February 22. The Minister of

Agriculture had an idea — I don't know where he got it. Maybe

he got it from the NDP convention. Maybe he got it from the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams). I don't know where he got it, but he got it. Maybe

it's his own idea. As a matter of fact, I think it is his own

idea.

He said at the meeting — and I'm sorry I haven't got these

articles here. I had them copied but I inadvertently left them

in my office. But I'll give you the headlines, Mr. Speaker.

October 30, 1972, Victoria Times : "Land Controls

Loom."

Ten or eleven days later, November 9, 1972, Vancouver

Province : "Stupich Decries Farmland Loss."

Now did the Minister actually go out and see how many acres

were being taken out, how many requests for subdivision were

being made? I don't know, Mr. Speaker. Did he do his

research?

Then, on November 30: "Farm Freeze Hinted by

[ Page 1283 ]

NDP." I think that stopped people in their tracks for a few

minutes, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture was on a course from which he

could not return. He was caught in the stream of his own rapid

and hasty decisions. He was getting close, Mr. Speaker, to the

falls, and he had to do something.

Unfortunately, on December 20, he went over the falls and

put in that infamous order-in-council. Over the falls and down

the drink. He was severely damaged in that fall on December

There was so much reaction that on January 18, Mr. Speaker,

it was amended to define farmland. I think, Mr. Speaker, that

it was amended to define farmland to try and allude that the

whole thing was to preserve farmland.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, the thought behind the

order-in-council, and the thought behind Bill 42, is to freeze

every square inch of land in British Columbia. Once the

Minister of Agriculture headed on this course there was no

return. That's why I say, when he spoke here the other day, he

was on pretty shaky ground.

There was no consultation with the farmers. Mr. Speaker, no

public hearings, no meetings such as we're having now. Too bad

the damage had to be done then.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources (Mr. R.G. Williston) who wanted to

make some changes in the preservation of farmland. He was going

to, but he consulted and he withdrew certain things in this

House that he was going to withdraw at one time. He said, "Give

me some feed-in. Let me know how you feel this problem should

be handled and together we can solve it."

There is no problem in the world, Mr. Speaker, that cannot

be solved if good men with common sense sit down with the idea

of solving it. It can be solved. But it takes a lot of logic.

These problems are not solved overnight.

You look at a situation one day and it looks this way;

tomorrow you look at it and you get another point of view and

it looks a different way. You get all the feed-in and then you

make an intelligent decision. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that

has not been done in this case.

Now, before I carry on I want to point out, before I lose

this point, that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, said

that he was decrying the loss of farmland. Now I want to point

out that…

AN HON. MEMBER: I think that report's been repeated 50

times.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not repeating anything. This is an

entirely different article. I'm going to quote a couple of

things from an article. This is an

article in the Vancouver Province on March 10 — that's last Saturday,

the day after the Minister spoke. It's headlined "One Man's

view of the Land Act." John B. Jeffrey is the author. It points

out in here that while the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's all right. He's got a good idea.

Just because a man happens to be in real estate, Mr. Speaker, I

don't think we should just toss everything he says out the

window. Because I think if anybody knows anything about land

dealings in British Columbia it would certainly be the men who

deal in land. And to set all real estate people up in British

Columbia as rip-off artists is not fair. It's unkind. I will

not mention that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) said this about real estate agents.

This man says:

"While the ordinary landowner has had a sketchy

understanding that the Crown actually owned the land and that

he had an estate in it, this has not undermined his faith in

his ownership possession. Why, haven't governments over the

years provided protective legislation for the property

owner?"

In this

article he says that the number of applications for

subdivision actually decreased:

"Stupich contends that the action was necessary because of

an extremely alarming rush of subdivision applications. This

alleged rush, according to the Hon. Minister, was preceded by a

speech he made in New Westminster of November 30, 1972, in

which he said, 'I would not advise anyone to invest in farmland

with any intention to develop it for industrial or residential

purposes.' "

Mr. Speaker, the

article continues:

"Logically one would expect the records of the

municipalities in the lower mainland to provide ample proof of

the Minister's claim. After all, this is an area in which that

monstrous anti-socialite, the developer, lurks.

"The Municipalities of Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley,

Matsqui and Maple Ridge, containing some 362,900 acres or

nearly 570 square miles, were untouched by the rush to

subdivide." So, Mr. Speaker, where was the rush?

The

article continues:

"In fact, subdivision business took a drop in December. Each

municipal planning department recorded business below the

monthly average and the entire six corporations had an

aggregate application record of 101,

whereas they had been

averaging 139 per month prior to the pre-freeze rush."

The decrease in these areas was more than a third — Mr.

Stupich, where was the alarming rush?

[ Page 1284 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think if we're going to be credible in

this very important matter, we certainly should keep our facts

straight. I don't know where the Minister found the rush, but

he certainly didn't find it in the lower Fraser Valley,

according to this article. I would imagine that this man, since

it's a printed article, would do his research.

Maybe it was in the Okanagan. Was it in the Okanagan, this

big land rush? I'm bringing these points up, Mr. Speaker,

because I think they're valid points. I would like the

Minister, when he stands in the Legislature to close this

debate, to answer some of these questions.

The Minister of Agriculture on Friday last, Mr. Speaker,

said, "It is a bill which gives the Government control over all

lands." Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the Government absolutely

no power at all that the Government doesn't already have. This

bill does give a commission some power.

At that time the Legislature erupted. As I said before, this

five man commission does receive more power from Bill 42 than

the Government ever had because the five-man commission has the

power over private land. This is the point.

Chapter 17 gives the Government complete control over Crown

lands. Certainly. The Crown owns them, in the right of the

Queen.

There's another statement from the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture that I can put absolutely no credibility in

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. That's why I say the Minister of

Agriculture is in very deep water. His political career is on

the wane.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture said on Friday

last, from the beginning, and I'm quoting him: "We've said

we'd listen. There's precious little of any value in this Act

to listen to." Now that's his words. I say, Mr. Speaker, that

if the Minister of Agriculture is going to listen, we should

get together in one of the committee rooms, a few of us who

have done some research on Bill 42, and tell him where it's at.

Because, Mr. Speaker, unless there is some sinister movement

behind this Bill 42, I have to take a real hard look at the

intelligence displayed in bringing down the Act.

Now I've explained what controls there are under

Chapter 17,

Mr. Speaker. And I propose to tell you about another Act in the

statutes of this province, which goes a long way towards

preserving farmland and protecting greenbelts.

The Act I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is the Green Belt

Protection Fund Act ,

Chapter 24. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that I wasn't in this Legislature in the last three

years. And I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that this talk I

am giving here today was completely researched by myself. I

knew about the Green Belt Protection Fund Act , Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can make all the comments you want to. I

did my own research to discuss this bill. I wish that some of

the other Members on that side would do more research, and I

know they will before they finally vote on this Act.

I don't know what that's in there for? Oh yes I do. Yes.

The Green Belt Protection Fund Act , Mr. Speaker.

Purpose. The purpose of the Act is to preserve all and any land

in British Columbia, but at the same time protecting the rights

of the individual, Mr. Speaker. I want to read from this Act,

Mr. Speaker, because it's very important:

"Whereas it is deemed to be in the public interest to

encourage the establishment and preservation in perpetuity of areas of

land commonly known as greenbelts throughout the province; and

whereas

it is deemed necessary in furtherance of this purpose to acquire in the

name of Her Majesty in the right of the province such lands throughout

the province, and to establish a fund for this purpose…."

Similar in some respects to the tenets of Bill 42. I haven't

got a copy of it handy. Has somebody got a copy? Would you find

me a copy of Bill 42 please?

Similar to certain tenets — I'll just read it out of Bill 42

so that you can understand how close they are in this area.

"Objects and powers." I'll just discuss the objects, because

the powers I'll deal with later. "The object of the commission

is to preserve agricultural land for farm use." I'm reading

from

section 7 of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot debate details….

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Speaker, then I'll refer to the

objects of the bill — the principle of the bill.

The principle of the bill is to preserve agricultural land

for farm use, and I'm talking about the principle of Bill 42 —

"to encourage the establishment and maintenance of family

farms and land in an agricultural reserve for use compatible

with the preservation of family farms and farm use. Preserve

greenbelt land in and around urban areas and encourage the

establishment and maintenance of land in the greenbelt land

reserve compatible to the preservation of greenbelts."

Very, very similar. Mr. Speaker, the objects are running

very close to each other. Why all the rush to bring in a new

Act? If you want to preserve farmland, if you want to preserve

greenbelt areas, the statute already exists, funded by $25

million. In the Act, it says that each day the Minister of

Finance…. All right, I'll read it, "Appropriation for the

fund — The

[ Page 1285 ]

Minister of Finance shall, on the 31st day of March, 1972,

in addition to all other moneys to be expended under the

authority of any other Act of the Legislature, pay from the

Revenue Surplus Appropriation account of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or partly

from all these funds…." Anyway, what it says in essence is

that it can pay more moneys into this. $25 million each year.

Bill 42 says $25 million.

Now, from the time this Act was passed, Mr. Speaker, until

the end of August, there was approximately $7 million expended

from this fund, and many thousands of acres of farmland were

purchased. Many thousands of acres of land for greenbelt was

purchased. Yet the Minister of Agriculture would lead me to

believe, and lead a lot of other people to believe, that we

must rush into Bill 42. That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, there's

got to be some sinister move behind Bill 42.

There is a question on the order paper which has not been

answered — Question 108. Mr. Richter asked the Hon. Minister of… No that's not it, I'm sorry. There is a question on the

order paper here — I'm sorry, but I thought I had it right here

at my fingertips. I must have thrown out the wrong page. But

there is a question on the order paper asking how much money

has been expended out of this fund until September 30.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): By the time you find

the answer, you won't even remember the question.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Sure refutes you guys who said we

didn't do anything.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh here it is, I'm sorry. The question is

asked by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) and the question is here. It hasn't been answered yet,

so I can't give you facts. But I can find the question. Don't

worry Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). The question is

directed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The following question is with respect to the $25 million

Green Belt Protection Fund Act introduced by the former

government in February 1972. What is the total amount of

money spent under this Act in the period prior to September 15,

1972? We haven't the answer to that question.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't answered anything.

MR. PHILLIPS: That question has been on the order paper for quite some

time, Mr. Speaker. But I do know that to the end of August 30, Mr. Speaker,

there was approximately $7 million expended. What is the total amount of money

spent under the same Act in the period since September 16, 1972? In other words,

in the last few months, how much money has been spent from the Green Belt Protection

Fund Act fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Will the Minister be here for his

estimates?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we can't ask the question in the

House. I wanted the answer to this question before I went into

debate on this Bill 42. We can't ask it on the floor of the

Legislature, because it's on the order paper and we don't get

the answers on the order paper. So I'm to think that there's

been no money expended in the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act since September 15.

Why, Mr. Speaker, all of this urgency to protect farmland

and to establish greenbelts and all the urgency about land in

British Columbia, when there's

an Act already existing on the

statutes funded by at least $18 million? That's approximately

what was left in this fund.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't add up. It

just doesn't add up. If there were no statutes and no money,

then you could get concerned and say maybe there is some

urgency. There's no urgency here. The only urgency, Mr.

Speaker, is to gain control of every square inch of land in

British Columbia so that you control the people — so that you

control the production of agricultural products.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why there was an urgency, Mr. Speaker.

An urgency to execute the Communistic doctrine of the

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just about as low as you can get.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out, and the

Minister of Agriculture can't stand to hear the truth. He can't

stand to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's keep the debate at a high

level. It's getting pretty low.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It's up to both sides.

[ Page 1286 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell the truth in this House, Mr. Speaker, and

everybody gets all excited. Now if I'd issued a falsehood or

something — well, all right, the bill is here and it's funded,

and you're so almighty — in such a big rush to buy up farmland,

and protect farmland. Why didn't you use the existing

legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer. Answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: You sit over there and make light of it. How

can I, Mr. Speaker, relax when this type of action is taking

place here in British Columbia? And the man says, "Sit down and

relax."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, don't relax. But make sense.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

you can make light of this. You can make light of this all you

want to. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are not

laughing. No, they're not laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll see them there. They'll be here

standing on the lawn. You'll see them marching.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, what else do we have, Mr. Speaker? What

other legislation now exists? Let's refer to

chapter 1,

Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1972 . What is this

called, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what this statute is

intituled? It is called the Accelerated Park Development

Fund Act . I can forgive the Members of the backbench,

because a lot of them are new and maybe they haven't been told

about existing legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all new.

MR. PHILLIPS: I can see, Mr. Speaker, that very few Members

of the Government backbench want to hear what Bill 42 is all

about. Nor do they want to hear about the existing

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: We could outvote them right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker — a

very, very serious matter. The people of the province are being

stampeded; that is what is happening.

The Accelerated Park Development Fund Act says:

"Whereas it is deemed to be in the public interest to continue

to create additional employment opportunity by the accelerated park development

programme inaugurated in 1971 by the Accelerated Park Development Act

now therefore,

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly

of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:…"

This bill was passed last year, Mr. Speaker, when you were sitting over here.

So all the Members of the cabinet have no excuse for not knowing about it.

"The Minister of Finance, shall on the 31st day of March,

1972, in addition to all moneys to be expended under the

authority of any other Act in the Legislature, pay from the

revenue surplus appropriation account of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or partly

from the revenue surplus appropriation account and partly from

the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such proportions as he may

consider requisite or advisable, $10 million to establish a

fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be called the

Accelerated Park Development Fund."

There is $10 million more for the preservation of land in

British Columbia.

"The Minister of Finance shall on the 31st day of March,

1972, in addition to the moneys authorized by subsection 1, pay

from the revenue surplus appropriation account of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund

or partly from the revenue surplus appropriation account and

partly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such proportions

as he may consider requisite or advisable, the unexpended

balance at that date of the sum of $15 million authorized to be

paid under the Accelerated Park Development Act , to be

added to the Accelerated Park Development Fund established

under subsection l."

The thing further in this Act, Mr. Speaker, is that

expenditures from the fund are very important.

"The Minister of Finance may pay, at such times and in such

amounts as he may consider requisite or advisable, out of the

Accelerated Park Development Fund, upon certification by the

Comptroller-General that the expenditure comes with the

purposes of the Act, moneys for the purpose of creating…."

— and this is the key word in this, Mr. Speaker — "or

improving parks in the province, including land acquired under

the Green Belt Protection Fund Act ."

So, why Bill 42? I would really like to know, Mr. Speaker.

You want to preserve archaeological and historic sites. You go

chapter 4 — another Act which allows the Government to buy

up sites in the province which are of historic value, to be set

aside for future purposes to preserve our history. You name

it.

So what have we got? Mr. Speaker, we have got a new land Act of 1970, which

has good teeth in it. It prevents land in British Columbia from being sold to

[ Page

1287 ]

people who are not Canadian citizens. The land Act controls

95 per cent of the land in British Columbia, and doesn't take

away the rights of anybody. It's good, solid legislation.

Last year, because of the need, three further Acts were

passed in this Legislature. All the Members of the cabinet were

here for the purpose of preserving our heritage and seeing that

our land isn't taken from us, isn't wasted, is preserved. Why

then, Mr. Speaker, with the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act , the Land Act , the Historic Site Act and

the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act , do we need

Bill 42?

Well, I'll tell you why we need Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) knows

that we don't need Bill 42 and I don't think the Member for

Shuswap is going to vote for Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right, he's going to vote with us.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Shuswap knows that Bill 42 is

not necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I discussed

with the then Premier of British Columbia, (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

because I was concerned about the protection of farmland,

another method of preserving farmland in British Columbia. It

was a way that wouldn't do away with the rights of anybody, but

would truly preserve farmland — what I should say is that it

would preserve farmland that is presently owned by farmers in

the province. I haven't any cut-and-signed agreement, but I

think if you want to check some of the statements I made during

the election campaign, they're very close to this because it's

had a lot of discussion — this would be that if people who are

presently on farms and own farmland would like to dedicate that

farmland to agriculture in perpetuity, taxes on that farmland

would be relieved by the Crown.

It is good solid idea for preserving farmland. I had

discussions and many good long debates with the then Premier

over this and he certainly didn't agree with me right away.

I'll say that. But in the end he did.

I have always been concerned. I have always said that one little thing here

or one little thing there is not going to preserve our farming. I have said

this ever since I have come down here. I have said in this House that you have

got to have a broad plan. You just can't come up with one thing zeroing in on

one segment of agriculture and say it is going to preserve agriculture. Or in

one particular area. You have got to have a broad plan that is going to be equitable

to all the farms in all of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR., PHILLIPS: No, this would not destroy the value because

the person who dedicated his land to agriculture in perpetuity

would be doing it of his own free will and accord. There would

be no forced sales.

Another thing about the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act . With land purchased in British Columbia under the

Green Belt Protection Fund Act , the person who sold the

land didn't even know who he was selling it to.

AN HON. MEMBER: "No growth" out with the lights.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's too bad the lights wouldn't go out on

Bill 42. (Laughter). Yes, if the lights don't go out on Bill

42, it'll be a dark day. I'm very interested in that statement

by the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), because if

there had been more words in British Columbia before this

ill-conceived bill was brought down in this House, it wouldn't

be here and there wouldn't be the problems in British Columbia

that there are today, Mr. Attorney General.

There needs to be a lot more words about Bill 42 than I'll

give you. There will be more, Mr. Speaker. Democracy will flex

its muscles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when democracy flexes its

muscles, the ripples will be heard in every corner of this

Legislature…the whole world!

Mr. Speaker, you'd better believe that the whole world is

looking at the British Columbia today. Because the whole world,

Mr. Speaker, didn't realize that dictatorial legislation such

as Bill 42 could be brought down in a free, democratic

Legislature. That's why the eyes of all the provinces in Canada

and any nation in the world are on British Columbia tonight,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They tried to say the waffle is the same as

a pancake. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General

says we're having too much…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We know that. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Your national leader doesn't

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to

[ Page 1288 ]

finalize this third way of preserving farmland. If the

farmer would dedicate his land to agricultural perpetuity, it

would be marked on the deed and recorded in the Land Registry

Office. I'm not saying that all taxes would be removed, but

there would be tax relief to that farmer as long as that land

remained in.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that should there be a

death in a family which created a succession problem, the

Government could buy that farmland and either sell it back on

reasonable terms to the heirs or lease it to them. No forced

sales, Mr. Speaker, but an excellent idea of preserving

farmland without being dictatorial. The price could be

negotiated by an unbiased group of appraisers.

Mr. Speaker, this is not written in the statutes, but it was discussed in public.

I made statements to this effect. The Premier announced it as being Government

policy. You see, Mr. Speaker, if there had been some research done and there

had been some exchange of ideas, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a mess

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in a mess.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is a mess, not only for the farmers but for

every landowner in British Columbia. It's a mess for a large

number of young people who would like to build a home. The

price of existing home sites has gone out of all reason. You

know that.

You talk about people ripping off profits on land. I'll tell

you, anybody that had land cleared for subdivision prior to

Bill 42, or prior to the "Land Freeze Act," just made a

50 per cent profit on December 20, or whenever the first

order-in-council went in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What caused it?

MR. PHILLIPS: What caused it? I don't know what caused

it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another thing that I have suggested in

this House to preserve farmland is that if you don't want to

buy the farms on the death of one of the original owners, do

away with the succession duties. I discussed this in the House

during the estimates of the Premier. I asked him to look into

it Because there are many farms that have to be sold on the

death of one of the owners to find enough money to pay the

succession duties.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have outlined for you some very reasonable ways

in which farmland could be preserved in British Columbia, methods which have

no sinister reason behind them other than to preserve farmland. Urgency, yes.

Panic, no. All we have heard in terms of farmland being gobbled up has been

in general terms. It may be that farmland should be preserved. However, definite

progressive steps were being made in that direction — without taking away the

rights of the individual, without throwing the entire real estate industry in

British Columbia into chaos, without shoving the price of lots already designated

out of the reach of the common person, without depressing the price of farmland

that was not designated.

And without causing grief, Mr. Speaker, and misery and

heartache for the farmers in many areas of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the same end could have been accomplished

without bringing about the bitterness that exists today in the

Province of British Columbia, without bringing about the

distress and without bringing about the sorrow that it has

brought to many homes in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, men toiled the earth, picked the roots, picked

the rocks, slaved long hours in the heat of the noonday sun.

From early morning until late at night, they toiled, and then

on that frightful afternoon Mr. Speaker, February 22, Bill 42

was tabled in this Legislature.

These people, Mr. Speaker, the salt of the earth, who knew

the job of ownership, who knew the comfort of ownership, who

knew the security of ownership, were cast into a period of hell

on earth. Mr. Speaker, today these people are drawn by anguish.

The pang and the agony and the torture and the torment of

having their toils stripped from under them. That is the

situation in British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker.

They suffer in this province today indeed as those persons

suffered in war-ravaged countries who were driven off their

land at the point of a bayonet.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers and the landowners in British

Columbia today have fallen on evil days. It is our duty as

Members of this Legislature to see that this mood of

despondency passes, that the bill is withdrawn and that their

security returns.

I have outlined in this Legislature this afternoon and this

evening methods by which this can be done and methods by which

it was being accomplished. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that during the 20 years of the previous government many

hundreds of thousands of acres of land were brought under

production under another Act of the Legislature known as the

Land Clearing Act ,

an Act which assisted farmers to

bring raw land into production, provided loans and assisted but

didn't do the hard work. That the farmer had to do himself. No,

Mr. Speaker, the previous administration was interested in

preserving land in British Columbia. There was no panic; no

panic button legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of every Member, every

free-thinking Member, every clear-thinking Member, every Member

who votes with his conscience,

[ Page 1289 ]

whether on this side of the House or on the backbenches of

the Government — it is their responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to

stand in this Legislature and to vote against Bill 42.

I want the backbench Members of the NDP to search their

conscience before the vote on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker. I want them

to have a knowledge, or a sense of right and wrong. I want them

to be aware of the existing legislation. I want them to know…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what Member asked that question — foolish question. It's certainly a question of an immature

legislator. If he doesn't know after me pointing out…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please get on with your point. I'd

rather you address the chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Members to know, Mr. Speaker, that

if they vote against Bill 42, they will carry the feelings of

guilt for the rest of their days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on now to another point. Maybe

before I do, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House some

of the opposition to Bill 42. I'd like to read to the House,

Mr. Speaker, some of the wires that I received this evening. I

didn't solicit them.

People say there is no opposition to Bill 42 — if the

Minister of Agriculture wasn't in the House for quite some

time.

Now these aren't letters and, Mr. Speaker, they're not post

cards. These are wires from CP-CN Telecommunications. They're

all signed from concerned citizens and here's one from

Vancouver. And it's addressed to:

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ATTENTION: W.A.C. BENNETT

PLEASE DO YOUR BEST TO KILL BILL 42.

Now I don't know whether there would be anything against

reading these names out if the Member wants to know who they're

from. They're here for his inspection.

This one is addressed to another Member of the Opposition:

DON PHILLIPS, MLA,

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

VICTORIA, B.C.

STOP BILL 42. RUSH.

No, I guess that's the man's name. S.A. Rush. (Laughter).

Well, I imagine that he was in a rush all right or he wouldn't

have sent a wire. And since the Minister of Health Services

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) desires, the first wire was from a Mr. A.

Zimmerman.

Here's another one, dateline Langley.

DON PHILLIPS

LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS

KILL BILL 42. EDWARD WISE.

Another one; all kinds of them. It says: STOP BILL 42.

This one says the following:

CARL LIDEN, MLA, NDP

AS MY MLA AND A HIGHLY PAID ELECTED CIVIL SERVANT I URGE

YOU AND YOUR PARTY IN THE NAME OF TRUE DEMOCRACY AND MY FREEDOM OF RIGHT TO

KILL BILL 42 NOW.

MR. O.H. DAVIS

If the Minister of Health would like to check these wires, I

certainly didn't go around and have them typed up if that's

what you're alluding to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. and Mrs. G.K. Petrie and Mr. and Mrs. T.

Jongedijk. Another one to Don Phillips…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I read that one; I hope Mr. Liden got that

one. I hope he pays attention to it.

That's why I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Members opposite are

going to have a difficult time. They're going to have a

difficult time when Bill 42 comes up for second reading.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier bring a conscience

clause into the House to allow the Members of the NDP backbench

to vote as conscience dictates. Let them be exempt from party

rule. This is a critical situation; let's have a free vote on

Bill 42.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, now. Sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is their duty, Mr. Speaker, and their moral

obligation, when the constituents whom they represent are

against the Bill, for them to vote for the Bill. The onus is on

them to do what their constituents want them to do, Mr.

Speaker. It was their constituents that elected them to this

Legislature. It was their constituents who sent them here to

represent them. And if their constituents feel that Bill 42

should be killed, it is a responsibility and the duty of the

Government Members opposite to vote against Bill 42.

Another one here:

PAT JORDAN

KILL BILL 42

WALTER WALLACE RAY

That's dateline: Vancouver. Another one dateline: North Vancouver:

PAT JORDAN, PLEASE KILL BILL 42

[ Page 1290 ]

Another one too:

W.A.C. BENNETT

KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST BILL 42 AND

ALL OTHER BILLS THAT SMELL OF COMMU-

NISM.

Pretty strong words. When I said the feeling is running high

in British Columbia today, I meant it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if their constituents desire them to vote

against Bill 42, they should do it. If they have any sense of

duty, they will vote against Bill 42. Let the still, small

voice within them which is their conscience speak. Because if

they kill it, the next time it tries to speak to them they

won't be able to hear it, Mr. Speaker. Let their conscience be

their guide.

When Bill 42 comes up for second reading in this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, let them stand and vote against it. I

realize they have an obligation to their Government, but they

have a stronger obligation to the people who elected them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you have repeated that particular

argument now, this afternoon and this evening. I would ask you

to discontinue it, carry on or sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say

that on August 30, in their campaign, there was no mandate to

confiscate all the land in British Columbia. No mandate was

given to them on August 30. They had a mandate to do certain

things, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't have a mandate to take all

the land in British Columbia.

Another wire from Port Coquitlam: PLEASE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HAVE BILL

42 STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, why it is necessary that we point

out to the people of British Columbia and the people of the

Legislature exactly how those people out there feel about Bill

42. Another wire to W.A.C. Bennett from Port Coquitlam. STOP

BILL 42 PLEASE.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those people hate their Member pretty

bad.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vancouver. Surrey, B.C. W.A.C. BENNETT,

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, KILL BILL 42. Surrey, "KILL BILL 42."

West Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42 AT ALL COSTS."

AN HON. MEMBER: At all costs?

MR. PHILLIPS: At all costs. West Vancouver.

I certainly don't want to lecture the House, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to

point out that the people out there are concerned; they're very concerned. The

responsibility of pointing out to the Government that they should stop, cease

and desist with Bill 42 is the responsibility of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, here's another one. North Vancouver, "KILL BILL

42." From North Vancouver. You see, it isn't necessarily all

farmers that are…

Here's another one from West Vancouver: "I CARE ABOUT B.C. DO YOUR BEST

TO KILL BILL 42."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sure the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) knows more about law than that. The wires are here

for your inspection if you would like to see them.

AN HON. MEMBER: File them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I said they were here. You can look at them.

I'm not going to file them. They're personal wires. They came

in from concerned people.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there was no advertisement, no

manifesto, no contract contained in their election campaign

material that gives them the right to confiscate all land in

British Columbia. I find it hard to comprehend the moves that

this Government has made since August 30; very difficult to

understand, Mr. Speaker.

Why, with the outcry that is coming from the concerned

people out there, don't you listen? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the

Government must understand what the people mean. Some of the

people out there, Mr. Speaker, are hostile to Bill 42; some of

them are unfriendly.

Many of the people out there, Mr. Speaker, are cross. But

the majority of them are unfavourable toward Bill 42. If the

Minister thinks he has a mandate from a few party supporters

who have asked him to show their hand, the Minister is wrong.

Because he doesn't have that mandate. The Minister is dead

wrong.

No one gave the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, a

mandate to punish communities for the excesses of a few in that

community. No one gave the Minister of Agriculture the right to

discipline the communities. No one gave the Minister of

Agriculture the right to pass judgment on local communities. No

one gave the Minister of Agriculture the right to pass

retributive justice.

There are many forms of punishment in the world, Mr.

Speaker. Today and in past years, people have been lashed,

people have been sent to the scaffold, people have been thrown

into prison. People have been banished from their lands, put to

hard labour. But this Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, is mass punishment

for every landowner in British Columbia.

One of the greatest exercises in belittling people, Mr.

Speaker, is taking away their rights, taking away

[ Page 1291 ]

their security. This, Mr. Speaker, is a great exercise in

belittling the landowners in British Columbia.

What else did the past government do to preserve land?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says "nothing."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right. That's nonsense and you

know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when highways were built….

AN HON. MEMBER: Open your eyes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You open yours.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. I'll tell you the people that need to open

their eyes, Mr. Speaker. You should have opened your eyes

before you brought in Bill 42. You should have looked at the

existing legislation. But you don't seem to even want to listen

to reason, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite does not want to

listen to common ordinary reason.

He tells me to open my eyes. I think I have already

sufficiently pointed out that there's no panic in British

Columbia. They would like to make people think there is a

panic.

The reward of all the civic governments in British Columbia,

all the regional districts, Mr. Speaker, is to become lackeys

to a five-man commission, and that's exactly what they'll be.

All of the planning, all of the thoughts that they have put

into their own areas — thrown out the window.

All the people that have toiled many many years in the Lands

Branch to see that our province went forward with an orderly

development — they've been properly spanked now, Mr. Speaker.

They're beaten. They've been thrashed. They've been trounced

and lambasted after all their years of service in the Lands

Branch.

The worst thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that their minds

have been tortured. Because all the good legislation that

exists today has been thrown out.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 takes their jobs from them. Their

responsibility is dismissed. Indeed the great lyncher of this

province, the Minister of Agriculture, has done a job on every

civil servant in the lands commission. He's put the rope around

their necks, Mr. Speaker, with Bill 42.

One hundred and forty municipalities and 28 regional planning boards plus thousands

and thousands of independent landowners and thousands and thousands of farmers

and thousands and thousands of retired people living on their land in British

Columbia have been taken in by this Government, Mr. Speaker, and by Bill 42.

Their concern is before me in more wires that have been

received to kill Bill 42. Here's another one, Vancouver — not a

farmer, just a concerned citizen: "WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO

BILL 42 WHICH WE CONSIDER DICTATORIAL AND UNDEMOCRATIC." I

didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. That's in a wire.

Here's another one: "WE WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS BEING

STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE LAND COMMISSION ACT. PLEASE DO ALL IN

YOUR POWER TO OPPOSE BILL 42. GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS YOU IN

YOUR ROLE AS OPPOSITION LEADER." That's the Hon. W.A.C.

Bennett.

Another one, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Burnaby, "I BEG IF YOU PLEASE ALL YOUR

POWERS POSSIBLE TO STOP PASSING OF BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, "THE PEOPLE ARE

CONCERNED. KILL BILL 42."

Another one, KILL BILL 42."

Here's one from Vancouver, it says, TAKE HEART. BARRETT

FALLS FLAT ON FACE AGAIN. FLATTEN BILL 42."

"PLEASE, OH, PLEASE, KILL BILL 42." West Vancouver.

"PLEASE KILL VICIOUS BILL 42."

Mr. Speaker, the people are concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to say it again and again and again.

And when you get the message maybe you'll understand. Maybe

you'll open your heart and your mind. Maybe you'll act in a

responsible manner. Maybe you'll bring to the people of British

Columbia legislation that is good for all the province and good

for them, not legislation that is your own idea — legislation

that has been ill-conceived, rushed upon the people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the people are very concerned.

They're concerned because the price of real estate has gone up.

I know of a young fellow today who wanted to buy a house, Mr.

Speaker. He wanted to build a house. He said, "I can't afford

the lots at these prices. From the time I got married until

this bill came in, the price of lots has gone up 50 per cent

right here in Victoria." They have. You know they have. Some of

them have gone up 100 per cent.

The Minister says, "We're listening and we're

[ Page 1292 ]

concerned." I'd like to remind the Minister that if he was

really concerned about agriculture, he would take a look at

what is being done in Saskatchewan. There's a province, Mr.

Speaker, that is run by a socialist government. They didn't

come in with a dictatorial bill like Bill 42. In Saskatchewan

they are bringing in legislation to help the farmer. Don't tell

me that you don't know how to do it. I spent quite some time in

this House laying out a six-point programme to assist

agriculture in British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to move on. But before I move off

this subject, I want to say that if this bill is passed, all

the retired people, all the little people, all the small

landowners — their destiny will lie in the hands of a

dictatorial five-man commission. It's the coup de grace, Mr.

Speaker. It's the finishing stroke. All of this because the

Minister of Agriculture made a speech shortly after being

elected and being appointed to that position. There should be a

freeze on all land in British Columbia. The Minister panicked.

He had started an action; he had started a movement that

uneventful evening. Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed to his new

portfolio, he started speaking off the cuff, I presume. But he

started a stampede, Mr. Speaker.

Then, instead of using good judgment; instead of acting in a

normal way; instead of acting in a rational manner, he

proceeded to bring in Bill 42 and punish all of British

Columbia for the actions of a few. That's exactly what has

happened, Mr. Speaker. On December 20 they passed that famous

order-in council freezing all land in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: All land.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The whole of the City of

Langley is frozen — industrial land, commercial land, all

land.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, realizing that he had made

an error, they amended that famous order-in-council No. 448372.

It was amended to define farmland in an endeavour to take away

from the fact that all land in British Columbia was indeed to

be frozen. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker Why did the

Minister not act in a reasonable manner and tighten up on the

rules and regulations that presently exist? Why did he bring

this havoc upon us? And we have havoc in British Columbia

today, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, will go down in history as the man

who broke the back of the NDP Government — the Government, with its large majority,

which exercised its power with the agility of a tidal wave. The Minister has

said, realizing his error, "Bring in amendments. Amend the bill." You all remember

the story of Humpty Dumpty. Amending this bill would be like putting a raw egg

back together again. That's a fact.

The bill is not really to save farmland. The bill is really

to gain control over all land in British Columbia. The bill,

Mr. Speaker, is to have a nameless, faceless five-man

commission which will dance to the tune of the cabinet and

which, by the very purpose of the bill, will have to be

socialist in their thinking; to have them control all land in

British Columbia; to have them start farming operations in

British Columbia to produce food — not to help the farmer, Mr.

Speaker, but maybe to put the farmers out of business. I'm

going to mention that a little later.

This bill is so full of errors, so full of wrongdoing, so

full of cracks that it is impossible to repair. It's impossible

to amend it, Mr. Speaker, because it's an impossible bill. One

of the communist theories, I guess, is to gain control of the

land. Is that the sinister thought behind this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on now and discuss the deflated

farmland, the farmland that is owned by the farmers and that

has gone down in price. Maybe before I do that I should finish

reading these wires. NANAIMO: PLEASE KILL BILL 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nanaimo — whose riding is that?

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): The same guy sent the whole

works.

MR. PHILLIPS: TSAWWASSEN: PLEASE KILL BILL 42. And here's

one from Cloverdale: HON. W.A.C. BENNETT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS,

VICTORIA. This wire, Mr. Speaker, says this: DELIGHTED TO

HAVE YOU HOME. A wire addressed to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett.

PLEASE KNOW the wire continues, Mr. Speaker, THAT WE STAND 101

PER CENT WITH YOU TO KILL BILL 42. COMMENDABLE FROM CLOVERDALE…

I'd like to finish reading the wire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the wire continues — this is the important

part of this wire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah, sure. The wire continues, my friends in

the backbench over there, AND HURRY A PROVINCIAL ELECTION.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1293 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: They won't hurry a provincial election because

they know there wouldn't be enough of them left…

MR. WALLACE: Signed Bill Bennett.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly wasn't Scott Wallace.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not Bill Bennett. I'm surprised at

the frivolity with which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

treats this very serious discussion. This wire is signed by the

Rev. John L. York. The Member for Oak Bay sometimes amazes

me.

Another one. North Vancouver KILL BILL 42. No, Mr. Speaker,

I'm going to carry on because I have some further points that

I'd like to make. I know that the Government of British

Columbia and this five-man commission, Mr. Speaker, want to

control all land in British Columbia. Maybe they want to buy

all land in British Columbia and what is the easiest way to do

it?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Divide and conquer.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Silly, silly, silly!

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the Minister of Health says it's all

silly, silly, silly. Oh, silly, silly, silly. Then the Minister

of Health thinks that everybody who is against Bill 42, I

suppose, is silly, silly, silly. Is that what the Minister

means?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health Service

and Hospital Insurance just nodded his head and acknowledged in

this Legislature that anybody who is against Bill 42 was silly,

silly, silly. Well, I don't know how many psychiatrists there

are in the Minister of Health's department but I would suggest

that he make an appointment and go see one, Mr. Speaker.

Why all the holdouts on prime residential property? Do they

want to buy them for themselves, Mr. Speaker? I don't know.

These are questions that come to my mind when I look at what

existed. They've added fuel to the fire of an already acute

situation.

Home construction, Mr. Speaker, in this province today is

practically stopped because of Bill 42. New construction is practically stopped. Mr. Speaker, we have a

critical housing shortage in British Columbia because of our

expanding population. Today new home construction, Mr. Speaker,

has practically stopped and it has stopped because of Bill 42.

And the Minister of Health Services says, "silly, silly,

silly." I say, "shame, shame, shame" on the Minister.

The Minister has exercised some intelligence in this House,

Mr. Speaker, and I'm astonished. Maybe it's because it's late

at night, maybe Bill 42 is getting to the Minister, maybe he is

finally realizing that he made a mistake, Mr. Speaker. I think

that's the problem. We've heard, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out another very

important fact. I heard in this Legislature not very long ago

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) talk

about the acute apartment shortage in British Columbia. What

has Bill 42 done to an already acute situation? I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, and I ask the Members opposite. Are these some more

silly telegrams?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, these are real telegrams at 10:28

tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn't alluding, Mr. Speaker, to silly

telegrams. I was alluding to what the Minister of Health was

saying. I meant telegrams from people whom the Minister of

Health would consider silly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twist, twist, twist.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, we've talked about depressing

farmland and we've talked about land. I'm bringing up another

very valid point here. Does this Government, Mr. Speaker, want

to own all the land and all the homes? Are they going to go out

after Bill 42 comes into being and buy all the homesites…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not coming into being.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, after they try to get it into being. Is

this their intention? — that's what I mean. Mr. Speaker, are

they going to buy up all the land and build all the houses and

own all the property? Are they going to build apartments, Mr.

Speaker? Apartment construction at the present time is at an

all-time low.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Would you like to adjourn the debate now

until the next sitting of the House?

[ Page 1294 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: If you will accept a motion to adjourn…

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, you move the motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not through. I have…

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We realize that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada