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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1523 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122) Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1523

Point of order

Adjournment of the House at 6 p.m., March 20. Mr. Chabot — 1523

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1524

Mr. Speaker — 1524

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Natural gas pipeline and exports. Mr. Morrison — 1524

Public hearings on coal export. Mr. Phillips — 1526

Ferry service to B.C. middle coast region. Mr. McClelland — 1527

Comptroller-General's report on B.C. Hydro finances. Mr. McGeer — 1527

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

Mr. Liden — 1527

Mr. Curtis — 1529

Ms. Young — 1536

Mr. McClelland. Order of debate — 1541

Mr. Gardom — 1542

Mr. McClelland — 1544

Erratum — 1559

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 122 intituled

An Act to Amend the Health Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 122 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the proper place for this. You jumped a little quickly for me.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to have the House welcome to the

galleries today a group of people from the old age pensioners of

Langley. They are sitting over the House and we welcome them all here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of privilege. Yesterday while the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) was on his feet, the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) rose on a point of order. While on that point of order, he drew

attention to the clock. The records clearly indicated to me that you

did not make a ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for

North Peace River, which indicates very clearly that the floor still

belonged to the Member for South Peace River.

MR. SPEAKER: He couldn't very well have possession of the floor if the Member for North Peace River had possession.

MR. CHABOT: No, on a point of order — he was interrupted very briefly

on the basis of a point of order. The floor was not yielded by the Member for

South Peace River. In fact, the Speaker wilfully recognized the motion to adjourn

by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was not recognized by the

Speaker; there is no recognition in Hansard that he was recognized. He did not

have the floor and the only Member who had the floor was the Member for South

Peace River.

On page 291 of the eighteenth edition of May, it clearly states as

follows: "…during the transaction of unopposed business no division

can be taken, the Speaker has disregarded a challenge to the question

put on a motion for the adjournment of the House, and" …here is the

significant part of it… "treating the motion as a formal motion, has

declared that the Ayes had it, and left the chair."

The official Opposition humbly suggests, Mr. Speaker, that you acted

improperly in your edict on this situation. We dispute, in the name of

democracy, when using May as a reference that the motion to adjourn

clearly compels the Speaker to leave the chair after declaring the Ayes

have it.

Also on January 30, there was a motion put before this assembly

which says: "That…there will be two distinct sittings on each day."

No construction other than formal vacation of the chair in retiring of

the Speaker can be placed on these words. The Mace should leave the

table, the Speaker should walk out, the Speaker should return and

reconvene the House with the normal established and accepted warning

procedures. Otherwise, the words "distinct sittings" can really have no

meaning. Following the House reconvening, public bills and orders

should have been called in the normal way.

We shouldn't have tolerated the type of facetious remarks we heard

that, "should we go to prayers as well". I think those kind of remarks

should have been avoided.

MR. SPEAKER: That is irrelevant to our consideration, is it not?

MR. CHABOT: O.K. But really the procedure was wrong, the

Member had the floor, the procedure of two distinct sittings has been

violated in the procedure that was established here last night.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you there is ample precedent for what happened last night. I wonder if Mr. Speaker would…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …would take the matter under advisement

and perhaps bring down a written ruling. The Hon. Member who has spoken

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) can supply any precedents he has. I or

the Premier will supply precedents

[ Page 1524 ]

too, and possible a written ruling should be made

on this matter which is important if democracy is not to grind to a

halt on some occasions and so that democracy can function in this

chamber. I think there is ample precedent for it. Perhaps the decision

should be reserved and considered carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with both Hon. Members that it is a very

important matter. It has been a matter I have been considering with

great concern — what the rule is, in view of the fact that we never had

the position put to the Chair in the previous precedents in this House,

although it is contained in May as a measure that may be used. I would

like, therefore, to take the point of order in consideration and try to

prepared with the assistance that I can get, some kind of a ruling on

it that will satisfy the House. Usually a point of order is taken up at

the time and argued at the time. We are doing retrospectively, in

effect, something that we should perhaps have done last night with

greater care.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On the point, Mr.

Speaker. If I may, could I refer you while you are considering that, to

Mr. Speaker Murray's decision recorded in theJournals on Monday,

February 21, 1966 when a similar event occurred. Perhaps the now Leader

of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) might offer his explanation as to

why that occurred at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I'll take the point of

privilege that was raised into account and try to report back to what I

can find on the point as expeditiously as possible.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, could I also make the point that the Members did in fact leave the House during this period?

MR. SPEAKER: I have taken that into account in considering

the thing as well. I certainly will, because any bearing on the

question in parliamentary law, I'll do all I can to research it. Now,

may we proceed Hon. Members?

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

AND EXPORTS

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my

question to the Premier and President of the Council. Will the Premier

advise the House if British Columbia will oppose the further export of

natural gas to the United States which will result from the contract

reached between El Paso and West Coast Transmission before the National

Energy Board, and will he oppose it until such guaranteed supply can be

provided for Vancouver Island?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, as you know, there

will be a National Energy Board hearing very shortly. We will make our

position clearer to that National Energy Board hearing. We are in

principle — and I use these words carefully — we are in principle not

opposed to further export.

However, we are opposed to the fact that previous contracts signed

were signed at a very, very low price and were not returning adequate

funds to the people of British Columbia out of a natural resource.

Therefore, when we approach the energy board we will point out that our

position is: although we are restricted by contracts signed by previous

administrations, our point of view on our approval of further exports

must be conditioned on the fact that we are not receiving sufficient

revenue from those natural resources.

That is our position but we are restricted by the previous

governments in adequate negotiations. We will do our best to see that

if future exports are allowed, they will be contingent on the previous

contracts being reopened.

MR. MORRISON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the same Hon. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Will the Premier advise the House if the plans

to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island have any priority with this

Government and has the Premier a target date for pipeline construction

to the Island to begin?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not made a final decision on the

matter. However, it is also conditioned on the fact that we are

hamstrung in terms of return of revenues because of inadequate

negotiations in our opinion in previous contracts which allow British

Columbia natural gas to sell at 35 cents per unit while at the same

time the value is twice as much on the California market.

A previous administration has left us with those poor contracts.

Until we get new pricing and make our position clear, we will not be in

a position to make a final decision on natural gas to Vancouver Island.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria. On the same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A supple-

[ Page 1525 ]

mentary question, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like clarification from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that

he has no objection in principle to the export of energy resources but

only to the question of price and royalty obtained.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The export of natural gas is what I made

clear, not natural resources per se. We are locked into long-term

contracts on natural gas which we cannot alter by law. I am not happy

with those long-term contracts. No one in North America today makes

such long-term contracts. Perhaps the previous administration, in

making those long-term contracts, was not aware of the energy demands

that have taken place.

However, with that information, and where we are now in terms of the

commitments we have to export natural gas, we must do two things:

(1) protect the requirements of the Province of British Columbia; (2) make

the point clear to the National Energy Board that if further natural

gas exports are to take place and we have taken care of British

Columbia's requirements, future exports of that natural gas should be

at a price that is far more realistic than what has taken place to the

present.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

I'd ask the Leader of the Government to reconsider his position

regarding allowance of export of natural gas from British Columbia at

any time. At this time, because the Energy Board of British Columbia in

their report said that there's a shortage of natural gas in British

Columbia — and therefore we should oppose the export of any further

natural gas from our province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I must say again, because

there seems to be some misinterpretation from a former Premier who was

responsible for making the decisions that now lock us in in some

regard. Now the point that I am making — and if you listen carefully

I'll repeat the remarks and then you can read them twice in Hansard — I said British Columbia's requirements first. First. And I said that in answer to the…well, we'll read it back in Hansard

tonight. British Columbia requirements in terms of the information we

have, not only the inadequate information we received, but our own

studies.

Now if there are to be further exports — and I make that clear, as I

said earlier — the conditions of those exports must be the price after

British Columbia's needs are met first. I made that clear in the

supplement.

If the energy board indicates there's a shortage for our long-term

needs, the question of future exploration, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, should be considered, and I want to point this out.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not a separate question…in terms

of proven reserves. Let's not fog the issue up so that the people of

British Columbia understand exactly what it is. In terms of proven

reserves further export is not a wise policy, but we are locked into

long-term exports and contracts that this Government received as

inherited.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a new application altogether.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, a new application; but on proven

reserves and also the question of potential reserves. British Columbia

is one of the last great areas in North America in terms of possible

discoveries of natural gas. Let's make that clear. Another new

discovery was made just within the last few months.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Prudhoe Bay is separate. It's outside

of our jurisdiction. Within our jurisdiction the ratio of exploration

at the present time in terms of potential natural gas sites is higher

in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction. Comparative ratios

are, to the United States for example — one drill per 8 square miles

potential is left in the United States; the comparative ratio in

British Columbia is one drilling per 116 square miles. So the obvious

ratio is there.

Now in terms of those reserves we will…you point out that we will

protect first of all British Columbia's needs if there are to be

exports. We are not opposed to export if those reserves show that

they're available.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well certainly you are, because you think you'd do it on the same terms you did it to this….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And won't at any terms. We say, after

protecting British Columbia's interests, we will export but at a far

higher price. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1526 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: You sold us out. You sold us out at 22 cents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to point out that when a

question is asked which expresses opinions or arguments, it leads to

this situation we've just listened to where both sides, in effect the

questioner and the answerer, are expressing opinions and arguments and

it takes up the question period. May forbids it, at p. 323, eighteenth

edition.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the point raised by the First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), did the Premier state the reason

why natural gas could not be brought over to Vancouver Island? Did he

state it was because the price would not be high enough or because

there were too few gas reserves in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said the decision has not been made yet; so you're presuming.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier. Is the

Premier in favour of a two-price gas system for British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no opposition to a two-price gas

system in British Columbia. But we are confined by the National Energy

Board rules. There is a whole method that must be determined by

Alberta's position as to whether or not a two-price system will be

allowed by the National Energy Board. I'm not opposed to that approach.

But there is the authority of the National Energy Board. Their

authority must make a decision on Alberta's policy. But I'm not opposed

to Alberta's policy.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the

position of the British Columbia government in representations to the

National Energy Board preserve the distinction made between export

price and domestic price which was contained in the last decision of

the energy board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not a matter before the board at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Does the Government approve of the additional request for 450 million cubic feet per day being exported?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not until we've made our position clear to the energy board on Tuesday.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON

COAL EXPORT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Premier

advise me when public hearings are going to be held with regard to the

export of coal through Britannia Beach?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there won't be any export of coal

until there's a deal. At the present time there are still negotiations

going on for the deal. If there is a deal then there is a need for a

port. If there is a need for a port and the need for the port indicates

Britannia, then the public hearing. No decision will be made without

following the proper stages.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. Would the Premier

advise me how long Coalition have or Brascan have to exercise their

option with the Government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have a two-year extension on their

option with Brameda. We have made an offer to buy out Brameda's shares

in a deal. Our offer is pending the completion of Brameda's sale to

Brascan.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the

negotiations that are going on are there any plans for a new townsite

at the minesite rather than use the existing town of Chetwynd?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no alteration from our point of

view in Brameda's negotiations and planning that took place between the

two private interests, that is Brameda and Coalition. Now that's our

position at this time. There's no alteration in terms of those

conditions and those plans that were laid down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise me how

much longer he expects these negotiations to continue and when the

decision should be forthcoming? Any estimate of time, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There has been a change in the local management of Coalition and that has

[ Page 1527 ]

delayed the negotiations. We learned this morning

that the new people named by Coalition wish to see the Government

within the next week and we'll continue. Now I have no idea how long

the negotiations will take. We've had the delay because they've had a

change in personnel.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is

the estimated cost of bringing the Sukunka coal operation into

production and what will be the estimated cost of a coalport?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those questions have been asked before, Mr.

Speaker. I've had to point out that those questions are prejudicial to

the negotiations that are taking place at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

FERRY SERVICE TO B.C.

MIDDLE COAST REGION

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the

answer to this question for about two weeks; I think since the first

day the question period started. I'm going to try the Minister of

Highways today and ask him: now the Ocean Falls purchase has been made

public, Mr. Minister, is the Minister prepared to authorize the

expenditure which was approved by the previous government for the ferry

to service that middle coast area, which would call at Powell River,

Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Bella Coola and that whole area?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): There's no problem

answering that question. It's a very simple question. It will depend on

the future plans for Ocean Falls as they're developed by the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There was a Treasury Board authorization made. Has that authorization been cancelled?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure there was a Treasury Board

authorization — if there was, then it's still there. The authorization

is still there. Nothing's been cancelled.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

COMPTROLLER-GENERAL'S REPORT

ON B.C. HYDRO FINANCES

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

whether he has studied the report of the Comptroller-General regarding

the state of finances of the B.C. Hydro and whether he'd be prepared to

release this publicly at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have not completed the study. It's not a

question of state of finances; it's a question of how the accounts are

handled. I have not completed my own reading of the report.

MR. McGEER: Will you release it?

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Continued debate on second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta adjourned the debate.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and for a few days before that we heard quite a lot about the Land Commission Act .

We witnessed a great waste of time, I think, in most of the 12 hours

that were used by one Member, because that Member failed to really deal

with the principle of saving the farmland. He failed to really deal

with the principle of making the best use of all of the lands in this

province.

We all know what's been happening in the past. We know that for over

20 years we've seen thousands of acres disappear — thousands and

thousands of acres in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island as

well. We know that nothing was done, and that the threat is still there.

The threat to the loss of farmland is even greater today than it was

in the past. Many of us have looked at the situations in other

countries. We said yesterday, and we say it again today, that the

little countries of Europe with larger populations than ours have saved

farmland. They have a lot of farmland. It's not by accident — it is as

a result of very strict regulations that are supported by the farm

people of those countries. Those people, many of whom are here today,

tell us about those regulations and they support what's happened and

they support what we're doing here.

Of course, there are many people in British Columbia, and particularly in the Fraser Valley near

[ Page 1528 ]

the urban areas who are sort of would-be farmers or

own farmland and are masquerading as farmers in some of these meetings

that we've been attending.

I know, and you know too, that the people that own that farm that used to grow

all the corn on the outskirts of Ladner used to sell corn to the people passing

by and to all of the outlets in the lower mainland. That farm is owned by Wall

and Redekop.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. LIDEN: I've asked them, and we can all ask ourselves,

whether it's their intention to farm that. Of course it isn't. We know,

too, that there's 316.2 acres — the old Del Grauer farm on the

outskirts of Tsawwassen — that are owned by Block Bros. I've asked

them: is it their intention to farm? No, they say, it's their intention

to subdivide. That's what they tell us.

Where I ran across a lot of these people was at the meeting up in

Surrey that was supposed to be all farmers and concerned citizens.

There were an awful lot of Block Bros. people there. They came and gave

me their cards afterwards and spoke to me. They told me that it's not

their intention to farm that land at all. Of course it isn't. They

intend to subdivide. And when I told them, "Even the Delta council

wouldn't allow you to do that today," they say, "That's today's Delta

council, but we might be able to change that for tomorrow."

That's the sort of threat that we're faced with in the Fraser

Valley. And that's the sort of thing that we have to deal with. There's

a whole lot more land in the Fraser Valley that's in exactly the same

kind of a position.

A number of parcels of land are owned by various investment

companies in the vicinity of the Delta City Hall. Those people are not

farmers. They have no intention of farming; they intend to use it for

subdivision.

We see that the Dawson Development Companies own a great deal of

land in the vicinity of Number 10 Highway — all in agricultural areas.

What's their intention? Their intention, of course, is to take that

land out of the farming community and destroy it as we've seen so much

of the farmland destroyed.

There are other places in British Columbia where there are problems

as well. Not too long ago on a Kamloops talk show there was a person

who phoned in and stated that he owned land in that area. He had a

message for the government. His message was: "Stick by your guns; don't

back down on Bill 42." That same farmer had something else that he

spoke about on that programme. He had a card in the Social Credit

Party, and he said he had a message for them, too. That message was

that he wasn't going to keep that card much longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a smart Socred!

MR. LIDEN: There's a great many people that are beginning to take a

little different look at the situation than what they were doing a week ago.

They told me that they had a couple of meetings up in the Peace River country

— well-attended meetings. Many farmers were there, and they had lengthy

meetings and discussed the bill and the principle of what's happening in great

detail. They made some decisions, and their decisions were in favour. They said

the count at those meetings was between 75 and 80 per cent of the people that

were in favour of the principle of the Land Commission Act .

Besides that there are telegrams here from somebody in Delta:

BILL 42. STAND FAST BE STRONG DON'T CHANGE YOUR POSITION.

AN HON. MEMBER: What percentage of farmers…?

MR. LIDEN: I think there's quite a great percentage of them.

I've talked to them and I know they're not all in there, but there's a

lot of them in there. They're having discussions and they are making

decisions — decisions that ought to be of some interest to you.

There is a growing number of people supporting the principle of

saving the farmland. There are editorials in papers that are changing.

I want to read just a little bit out of an editorial that I picked up

here. It says:

"The sky is falling in, in Victoria. The Socreds, after

being struck on the skull by the Land Commission Act , began imitating Chicken

Little and his cry, 'Run and tell the king' and, in this case, Prime Minister

Trudeau. Others similarly struck, and whose grasp for reality is equally questionable,

are screaming: 'The revolution is at hand!' Before long someone will probably

grasp his trumpet and announce the beginning of Armageddon….

"The Land Commission Act

benefits the vast majority of farmers who want to farm. No longer will

the real estate companies tantalize them with offers they can't refuse.

When all has been said and done, and the hoots and hollers of those

prophets of doom, red baiters and Chicken Littles will fade into much

deserved obscurity."

I think it's high time that someone reminded them what happened to

the little boy who cried "Wolf!" once too often,. That's the sort of

thing that's beginning to appear in the newspapers.

I'm not going to take the time that the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) took when he read a number of telegrams and so on, but

I've got

[ Page 1529 ]

lots of letters. Following the meeting in Ladner

that my friend attended, I received 147 letters — not signatures on a

petition, not post cards that were addressed by someone else, but 147

letters. And they were complimentary — all of them — and I am going to

read you just one little one here.

"This letter is to inform you of our full support of

the measures you are introducing to save the farmlands of British

Columbia. Having been brought up in England, we have firsthand

experience of the controlled use of land and believe that it is

absolutely necessary to take similar steps here if our environment is

to be preserved and if B.C. is to continue to produce at least some of

the goods required by a rapidly increasing population," and so on.

Today I received another letter that I think a lot of people received. It's from the United Church of Canada. It says:

"The following resolution was passed at the spring

executive meeting of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of

Canada, on Thursday, March 15, with 49 persons present from all over

the province. The resolution was to do with Bill 42, the Land Commission Act .

"The British Columbia Conference of the United Church

of Canada supports the principle of integrated land use by the

provincial government, as set out in the objectives of Bill 42,

section

7(

a) to 7(

h) inclusively."

There are other things in the letter where they suggest amendments, and so on, that I am not going to deal with at this time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Read it all.

MR. LIDEN: I've got lots of telegrams and lots of letters

that suggest various amendments and so on and they will be dealt with

at a later date, a later time.

But I think that right now we have in British Columbia a real chance

to do something for British Columbians; a real chance to do something

for this generation and for future generations. It seems to me that we

are right on target when we bring in a bill of this kind. It's a chance

to support this generation and the next generation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate on Bill 42. I wondered in fact if I would go on pension before the moment arrived.

First of all, I think it is appropriate to declare, although it is

not required, but I willingly declare my personal property ownership — that is real estate property ownership: a home owned by my wife and

myself in Saanich, joint tenancy; a half interest in a small lot

cottage on Gabriola Island; fractional interest in a single lot with a

residence on it in Victoria city. No member of my family is in the real

estate business in any way, shape or form. To my almost certain

knowledge, no member of my family has ever been in the real estate

business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: Nothing is wrong with being m the real estate

business, Mr. Speaker. Some people are a little nervous about being in

the real estate business. I'm going to read a few letters a little

later on because this does seem to be important, to present various

points of view. But you know, Mr. Speaker, when one steps back from

debate in this House and around the province and tries to absorb all

that has been written and said about this since the Minister of

Agriculture introduced his legislation just about three weeks ago, the

problem of analysing the torrent of debate is in itself, I suggest,

indicative of the number of faults to be found in the bill.

In my view as a layman, it is bad law. In spite of all the pleas

that we have heard to "trust us, let us have your amendments, let's

discuss the bill calmly and rationally"— it remains, as far as this House is concerned, bad law.

In its present form, it represents the worst kind of state

interference and centralized control. Even if it is amended…and a

number of us in opposition wonder how any major and meaningful

revisions could be introduced to something which is so overwhelming and

so all embracing. Even if it is amended, I doubt that any of us in

opposition will find it possible to give our full endorsation. The

measures proposed under this bill as it has been presented to us are

extreme, and I suggest smack of the collectivization policies of

totalitarian government. Surely…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CURTIS: I wrote this, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member carry on with his address.

MR. CURTIS: Surely if the genuine desire to control the

misuse of land had been present among the architects of Bill 42, the

Members of the present Government, then it would have been possible to

devise

an Act which would have effectively promoted the very worthwhile

objectives of preserving open

[ Page 1530 ]

space, farm and wilderness lands and which would

have guarded against the danger of pressures being exerted on some

elected representatives but, at the same time, conferring on those

elected representatives a greater say in the regulation of the reserved

areas.

Instead, and this seems to be very basic to the issue before us, the

people of this province have been presented with a document that has

sent shock waves of surprise, of disappointment and, as we know,

unrestrained outrage around British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is overkill. It represents something

close to a serious error in judgment by this new and still

inexperienced government. It carries with it also I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, a distinct odour of sour grapes mixed in with a reasonably

fair measure of revenge rather than positive action against those who

have contributed to the carving up of valuable and attractive farm land.

If it bears the unmistakable marks already described, it also

carries another mark and this one worries a number of us. It carries

the mark of dissident planning purists — the "cloud niners" among us.

But it goes much further than that in our view. Bill 42 says where land

is concerned you, the individual citizen, may have no rights. The state

will have to step in to exercise its full control because all of you

are either (

a) greedy, (

b) dishonest, (

c) incompetent, (

d) stupid or

(

e) apathetic.

It's vindictive legislation, Mr. Speaker, because many of us suspect

it has distressed at least two or three Members of the cabinet. In

spite of their earnest protestations to the contrary, it's proving a

source of worry and embarrassment to some of the more moderate members

of the present Government. But as more than one newspaper editorial and

commentator have observed in the last few weeks, why should any of us

really be surprised? This is "big brother" government and in some

respects, 1984 has just arrived about 11 years early.

However, in case there are still those in the province who believe

that the NDP didn't really intend to go this far, and that somehow

things got a little out of hand, let's examine a few excerpts from a

newspaper column written by one Mark Rose, the socialist member of

parliament for Fraser Valley West. I'm quoting from the newspaper, the

Langley Advance of Thursday,

March 8, and I quote in its entirety: Under the small heading "From

Parliament Hill" there's the larger headline: "Is this land your land?"

How's that for a start, Mr. Speaker? Is your land my land? Here's

what Mr. Rose says…. I'm sorry, I said I was going to quote in full

but I will not, only in the interests of time. I hope I'm not altering

the meaning of the

article in just pulling out these excerpts.

"The present outcry against the legislation is largely

because it offends the mythology of land ownership in North America.

But of course, nobody really owns the land. What one owns usually is

the surface rights and is granted a real estate or "royal estate".

Later in the same article:

"Although I have not studied the land bill in detail

it seems to me that the proposed five-man commission will assume the

land use powers of the municipalities. I can only presume that this

commission is expected to better withstand pressure to rezone for

subdivision, pressures formerly felt only by municipal councils. While

I agree that farmland should be preserved, but because many

constituents of mine are justifiably upset, I've recently written a

letter to the Hon. David Stupich, copy to Premier Barrett, which asks a

number of questions and suggests some alternatives."

Then, Mr. Speaker, there follows about four questions on the general

topic, the last of which is most significant in terms of the strenuous

opposition this bill has prompted. Here it is:

"Does the government intend to hold public hearings

throughout the province, and have the benefit of public wisdom before

implementing the legislation?"

Well that's a very good question, Mr. Speaker. "Does the government

intend to hold public hearings and have the benefit of public wisdom

before implementing the legislation?"

The question has been asked to this government by Mr. Mark Rose. How

does the House like that earlier line, Mr. Speaker, "…the mythology

of land ownership in North America."

Now there's an interesting challenge to the Minister of Agriculture

and his cabinet colleagues; public hearings before implementation of

the legislation. What about public hearings at any time before or after

the legislation, Mr. Speaker? There's no mention of them in Bill 42.

There is not one word before or after the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most annoying aspects of Bill 42 and

the defence of it by the Hon. Minister and others on the Government

side, both in this House and in talking to the media, is the continuing

reference to farmland. The title of the bill is Land Commission Act . That, Mr. Speaker, means all land.

Why does the Minister persist in referring to it as a farmland

preservation measure when he knows and the rest of us in this House

know that the powers it carries would permit this super group of

non-elected types, whoever they may be, to deal with any piece of land

in this province. If they so chose, and if the cabinet agreed? Look at

section 8, and read that insidious little word "designate". Again and

again and again, Mr. Speaker, this is a land bill.

Section 8 confers on the Provincial Land Commis-

[ Page 1531 ]

sion the power to establish four types of reserves,

agricultural land reserve, greenbelt land reserve, land-bank land

reserve and parkland reserve.

Sections 10, 11 and 12 spell out in some considerable detail the

regulations with respect to the agricultural land reserve, but there

are no sections setting out any regulations concerning the other three

categories. Are these, Mr. Speaker, going to be set up by more of those

infamous regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — regulations which are beyond the reach of this Legislature after we all

go home and which the present Government party found so terribly

distasteful when it was in Opposition?

Why has this distinction been made between the agricultural land

reserve and the other three? Tell us, through you Mr. Speaker, tell us.

Tell the people of British Columbia, Members of the cabinet and the

Government, just what you and your non-elected mandarins might have in

mind under these other categories.

In our review of this bill — and I have had discussions with a

number of people who are not necessarily in complete agreement with the

policies of our particular party — we come back time and time again to

the fact that this legislation, by accident or by design, and I have to

suspect the latter, is designed to completely emasculate local and

regional district government. The control of any land designated under

the Act has been removed from the municipal councils and regional

districts boards insofar as use or zoning of that land is concerned. I

refer you then to

section 10(4) and

section 20(5). As we read it, and

we have heard nothing to the contrary in this House, that control has

been placed strictly and totally in the hands of the non-elected

commission.

It would seem to us that it would be a far healthier situation if

the commendable objective of preserving farm, park, greenbelt and open

space land, could be achieved without denying to elected

representatives at the local and regional level a major responsibility

of determining how those lands are to be regulated. The present

Government, much to my very great surprise and regret, obviously feels

that municipal councils and regional district boards, or at least some

of them, have succumbed to the pressure of developers and other special

interest groups. So the Government, this fine provincial government,

has therefore, in its best "big brother" form, decided, Mr. Speaker, to

take the control out of the hands of the elected representatives and

place it in the hands of a commission — civil servants.

I have already touched on the fact that they are not directly

responsible to the citizen through the election process. Let's put the

philosophy to one side for just a moment and also examine the sheer

logistics of this five-person commission, located somewhere in Victoria

or Vancouver trying to deal with all the requests, the inquiries, the

misunderstandings, the appeals and the difficulties which will be

encountered by the average citizen who must deal with the commission.

These five persons, in addition to being completely removed from the

electorate, are also far removed from and therefore, in our view,

understandably ignorant of local conditions, and local or regional

planning and land use policies.

So when he and his fervent band of helpers — overzealous helpers, I

might add — realized the public outrage developing over Bill 42, the

Minister of Agriculture suddenly decided to start inviting suggested

amendments to get some "John Q. Public" input into this piece of

philosophy. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just about time. Just about

time. The Minister now invites constructive observations. That is not

an easy request to fill but he has told us so often that he wants to

hear observations, suggestions, proposals that will assist in getting

them out of the Bill 42 box.

There are so many points in this bill which defy a sincere attempt

to overcome their deficiencies, but we are going to try in any event.

First, in the case of an agricultural land reserve, any zoning bylaw

of a municipality or regional district affecting land in the reserve, I

suggest should not come into force until it has been approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet. Any approval of a

subdivision of land in the reserve by an approving officer should not

come into force until it is confirmed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, the designation must not be

retroactive. In other words, zoning bylaws, subdivisions and

particularly lawful uses in existence six months prior to December 21

of last year, should not be affected by the designation of any area as

an agricultural reserve.

Secondly, in the case of the other reserves — the three which aren't

really dealt with to any great extent, greenbelt, land bank and park — zoning bylaws of municipalities or regional districts affecting land in

reserves should also be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

However, this is a possible consideration — these should be of a

temporary nature, say for six months or a year, and the municipal

council or the regional district board in whose territory the reserve

is located should have the right during that period to apply for funds

set aside under

section 21 of the Act for the purchase of these

properties as greenbelt, land bank or park reserve.

Councils and regional boards should also be in a position to request

that additional lands are put in the reserve, or that certain lands

should be removed from the reserve in accordance with local or regional

plans, again in an attempt to inject this local, regional,

knowledgeable input. Now, if the councils or regional boards fail to

apply for funds to purchase these lands within the period of that

reserve, that waiting period, then the Crown could either continue the

reserve and purchase the land itself or it could lift

[ Page 1532 ]

the reserve. Of course, during the period of the

reserve, the use of the land for any purpose except the legal use,

which existed for those six months prior to December 21, or for

greenbelt or park, would be unlawful.

Now, I have a few other points, Mr. Speaker. Where the Act gives

this land commission — these five people — the power to permit or

refuse to individuals the right to use, subdivide or build on their

lands, the decision of the commission has to be subject to an appeal to

an elected agency or to the court.

Secondly, the designation of all reserves and not just farm reserve,

should be subject to the prior approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Again, I refer to

section 8.

Thirdly, it should be made clear that land in an agricultural

reserve which passes from a deceased person to his or her beneficiaries

does not lose the exemption given to agricultural land in

section

11(2). The next subsection, as we read it, would result in such land

losing that exemption.

Fourthly, it is vitally important that the Act make clear that when

land is designated as a reserve, the lawful use to which that land was

put for a certain period prior to December 21 should be allowed to

continue. Otherwise, it could be argued that the existing use of the

land is inconsistent with the designation of the land as, say,

greenbelt or park reserve.

Again, Mr. Speaker, (the question of the year) where does this bill

speak about public hearings? Where does this so-called "government for

the people" show its willingness in Bill 42 to consult, to communicate

with the people, with the citizen who may consider himself or herself

affected?

This leads naturally to the very major point concerning prior

consultation with properly elected local and regional governments.

Where was the input, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 42 before the fact from the

Union of British Columbia Municipalities? Where was the contact with

cities and district municipalities? Where was an honest and

straightforward attempt to hear what locally based, locally elected

people had to say about this type of legislation?

Let's get one thing quite clearly on the record in this House today,

with respect to this bill. Municipalities are people — they are not

five or seven or nine persons who go to a meeting every couple of

weeks. The whole fabric of local government, as I have understood it,

and as it has been practised pretty well, is based on communication

with the local citizen and careful consideration of that citizen's

viewpoint before certain steps are taken. There is really, Mr. Speaker,

I suggest, nothing more democratic than a typical, municipal council

public hearing.

I was very sorry to read in the Vancouver Sun on March 14 a quote attributed

to my seatmate hereon my left — I emphasize "on my left". The

heading is: "Pressure Groups — MLA Hits Developers." The dateline

is Burns Lake and the last paragraph, quoting the New Democratic MLA for Omineca

(Mr. Kelly), I suggest is not worthy of him: "We will not listen to arguments

put forward by the Union of B.C. Municipalities because that group is loaded

with real estate types who are only interested in their own welfare."

Mr. Speaker, let's have some names. Let's have some names of people

who have misused their position in local government in this province.

Let's have some names of municipalities which have misused their

rights, instead of vague references in this House and outside to local

government which is "loaded with real estate types".

There was no local consultation. I wondered about the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and what his input was in the

preparation of this bill. I'm sorry that he's left the House, but he

may find it just a little cooler outside.

What about the Department of Municipal Affairs? Who really authored

this proposed legislation? Was it one Minister, was it two? Did all

interested Ministers of the Crown have an opportunity to review the

several drafts? — and we've been told there were several drafts. Were

these reviewed by the concerned Ministers in detail with their senior

civil service people?

What about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his top advisers?

Were they totally involved in the work leading to introduction of Bill

42? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs give his full and unreserved

support to a bill which says in effect: "Sorry, local governments;

you've all dropped the ball. In land matters you've failed

miserably…."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, excuse me for interrupting. It's

become a practice, in which I think we're in breach of the rules, to

read long speeches. If you look at May, at pp.404-5, the reading of

speeches is forbidden.

Now I see the Member probably has copious notes. I am just wondering

if he could bring the written portions of his speech to a termination

fairly soon. Would that be possible, do you think?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My notes are not that copious.

We considered bringing down more public reaction to the bill which is

now before the House. I have to admit to still having a certain amount

of nervousness in this House and hence I have written my notes in

greater detail than I would perhaps as a more experienced Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize it's a new session and there are lots

of new Members. I have tried to restrain myself from commenting too

much on it. But I do hope that Members will try to make their speeches

fluid and without too much reference to notes.

[ Page 1533 ]

MR. CURTIS: I'll take the point, Mr. Speaker, and attempt to avoid the straightforward reading of the material.

We are concerned about the input of the Department of Municipal

Affairs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the preparation of

this particular bill, and the suggestion that suddenly local government

is not capable of coping with the problem which has developed in

certain parts of British Columbia.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, that if that is his opinion, if that is what in

effect he is saying to us, then I'm extremely disappointed and

disillusioned about his attitude towards local government which is put

under his control in this House and in this government. It certainly is

a vote of non-confidence, not only in the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

but in every mayor and alderman, regional district chairman and

regional district director who has offered himself for public office in

British Columbia and has been successful in that offering.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the people saying about Bill 42? The

reaction that we're getting is very strong. I'm sorry that this type of

legislation has made it necessary for a number of our citizens to react

in extreme anger and with demonstrations and threats of more protests.

However, it is a fact that drastic action by government frequently

promotes drastic reaction. Extreme measures bring out the extreme. The

few in our society who love to jump into any heated battle will appear

at a time like this.

Mr. Speaker, this one, it seems to us, goes much further. The people

of British Columbia with whom we have come into contact are both

alarmed and angry. The leader of our provincial party, Derril Warren,

has met hundreds of them all over British Columbia in the past three

weeks and that's the message that he's brought back to us. That was the

message I received in the Fraser Valley about 10 days ago.

Now it's very easy for some Members of the Government to speak in

this House derisively about the Conservative leader without a seat. But

let me assure the House of this, Mr. Speaker: legislative seat or not,

Derril Warren carried a strong and an urgent message to the ordinary

and concerned people of British Columbia in the past two or three

weeks. They responded with enthusiasm and encouragement, with letters

and with signatures.

They also know, and many others now know and have noted, that the Progressive

Conservative Party in this House stood alone at the first available opportunity

to express disapproval of the manner in which this Government was approaching

matters concerning agriculture, farmers, citizens' rights and land. They watched

and they listened as the other two Opposition parties let their pride get in

the way of their common sense. Mr. Speaker, they're not going to forget that

fact.

Bill 42 has united the ordinary people of this province in a way in

which we feel few of us would have expected so early in the life of a

new government. Bill 42 has brought us letters, coupons, signatures,

and telephone calls by the thousands. At this point in our office just

under 8,000 individual, separate pieces of mail received in the space

of a very few days — and that is not counting signatures, either sent

individually or on petitions.

Bill 42 has prompted response from every imaginable type of citizen.

This I think is very significant — from the apartment tenant in

Vancouver and Victoria, from the pensioner in Chilliwack who told me

that he lived just around the corner on the second floor of a building,

the homemaker in Fort St. John, the rancher in the Cariboo, and yes,

Mr. Speaker, a number of men and women who admit to disappointment in

the present Government and admit to having voted for this new

Government last August 30. They are angry, Mr. Speaker. With or without

amendments to Bill 42, we suggest it's going to take them a long time

to get over that anger.

Now you've asked me, Mr. Speaker, to depart from the text and to

carry on with the ad lib portion of my remarks. I feel compelled,

therefore, to attempt to give the House, with your permission, the

feeling of some of the letters which we have received. I want to make

it very clear that I have automatically discarded those letters which

are extreme in their tone or in their language, rude to the Government

or to individual Members, because I really feel that serves no

particular point. Rather, to give you letters which come from many

parts of the province, some of them addressed to my colleague in front

of me, addressed to our leader, addressed to the office itself and

addressed to me.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CURTIS: Yes. As a matter of fact the pile I've brought in

is representative of the ratio of all these letters. I believe there

are two in here which indicate general approval of Bill 42 with some

reservations.

"I was in full support of your speech against Bill 42.

My husband and I both attended the meeting at Ladner yesterday. I was

surprised at the lack of support for the NDP as the Member for Delta

was elected not by one vote, but others. I had expected some support

for them and I thank God there was so little. I wish to thank you for

your efforts and travels to inform the people."

From Comox:

[ Page 1534 ]

"Thank you for the stand you have taken against Bill

42. This is a real service to the people of British Columbia who, like

ourselves, usually sit back and say plenty but do nothing. With the

present Government in power we can no longer afford to be quiet. The

best of luck to you personally," et cetera.

From Vernon:

"I have been in Canada for 20 years now and I never

thought to encounter a Government here which resembles the ones that

drove us away from Europe in the first place. The land Act is

outrageous."

I would digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to say that we have

received and examined a number of letters from various parts of the

province which carry that particular tone. That, I suggest, should be

very distressing to all of us.

This one is from 8th Avenue, Vancouver:

"Keep in there fighting, Mr. Warren. We did not vote for your party but support your stand here."

Richmond:

"In our opinion, and we are obviously not alone, this

bill is a direct infringement of our rights. We are not only protesting

this bill as farmers, which we are, but also as Canadian citizens of a

supposed democratic society. We find the entire concept of Bill 42

nightmareish. Still can't believe a B.C. government could ever consider

such a barbaric piece of legislation. Thank you for your time and

effort."

Seymour Street, Kamloops:

"This letter concerns Bill 42, the Land Commission Act , which is about to have second reading in the Legislature. We are opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

"The bill was originally intended to preserve

farmland. As it now reads, one finds the bill concerns itself with all

land in B.C. We feel the proposed five-man commission could not fairly

legislate such an extent of land. Under a democratic government one is

entitled to a system of appeal at a public hearing. We believe Canada

and B.C. advocate democracy. The bill allows only for appeal by

farmers. This appeal is closed to the public.

"In conclusion, we believe there is a need for

legislation to preserve farmland. We do not believe in Bill 42. Please

inform the Government of our opposition."

Casey Drive, Victoria:

"Please do all in your power to defeat Bill 42. It

really scares us after being in power for such a short time that this

Government would bring in such a bill."

This is a strong letter against, and I believe it has been read into

the record by others, therefore I'll pass over it. It's addressed to

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and it appears to have

been reproduced for all Members of the House, Mr. Chairman.

This one is from Kamloops, and I think this one is also very significant for the postscript.

"Dear Members of the Legislative Assembly.

We wish to register our protest to Bill 42, the Land Commission

Act as it is a drastic and direct infringement on the personal freedom of every

citizen of British Columbia. Yours very truly."

Signed by a husband and wife.

"P.S. the only land we own is 50 ft. by 120 ft."

From West 70th, Vancouver 14.

"For the first time in my life I am writing to a

government official. I am all in favour of your government insurance

Act covering cars, and the old age pension laws. I voted NDP along with

my wife and mother in the last election, but it will be the last time

as I refuse to consider your Bill 42 covering the Land Act. This is the

Act of a dictator and I spent 3 years getting rid of the last one. I

have about 4,000 customers per year, most of them workingclass men.

Today a number have told me they feel the same way I do. You have four

years, but there is no way your NDP Government will last."

This one is from Vancouver — a copy of the letter addressed to the Hon. Premier.

"I am writing with respect to Bill 42. While most of

us agree that preservation of farmland is an admirable goal, a small

commission with near dictatorial powers is offensive to my sense of

democracy. I would like to point out that you were always highly

critical of the Social Credit government, for governing by

order-in-council. Yet the NDP are doing the same thing on an almost

grander scale.

"Also, any Act where discretion is often left in the hands of one individual is not democratic or fair.

"Also, no avenues for appeal against the ruling of

such a commission is not democratic. I thought the "D" in NDP, stood

for Democratic."

From Surrey, 124th Street:

"Please stop Bill 42, I think it's ridiculous, and the

worst piece of legislation we've ever had in the whole of Canada. We

are former NDP and helped put this Government into power but we intend

to vote them out next election."

Signed by a husband and wife.

From Victoria:

"With regard to Bill 42, which has to be the worst

piece of legislation that has ever been handed down and which I feel

infringes on my very rights as a citizen of the province. I also feel

[ Page 1535 ]

that the same bill saps the very initiative out of every working

person in this province to ever own anything that he can really call his own.

"I served in the Second World War for the very

freedoms which we have been able to enjoy since. And then a piece of

legislation such as this bill can be handed down and take away these

very freedoms which so many gave so much for. Excuse the spelling."

Now this one I thought would be interesting for the House. It's from Mr. Leslie H. Peterson:

"Dear Mr. Warren. I wish to join in opposing Bill 42. Please add my name to the list."

I don't know if it's "the" Leslie Peterson, Mr. Speaker. This one is from Haro Street, Vancouver:

"Please see that Bill 42 is stopped. I am appalled at

the NDP over this bill and other things they are doing. I surely hope

British Columbians will wake up, before it's too late.

This is suite 104 — West 16th Street, North Van:

"Please stop Bill 42. I fought World War II against such legislation."

From West 3rd Avenue, Vancouver 9:

"I urge you, the Conservative party, to stop Bill 42.

I am a senior citizen and landowner. We were mislead by the B.C.

Government on this."

There's a reference to another Act as well, which I will not read into the record. Vancouver 15:

"Please do all in your power to protect our democratic rights and stop Bill 42."

And then this one signed by, I think, an older

person quotes the first two lines of "Oh, Canada". Sechelt B.C. — this

is addressed to an individual Member of the House on the Government

side, Mr. Speaker.

"As an acquaintance of yours for many years — Texada

Island — and as my MLA, please, for the sake of all British Columbians

do what you can to stop Bill 42."

From Heffley Creek, B.C. RR 1:

"I have been a faithful voter for the NDP ever since

the days of the CCF and Harold Winch, and was delighted when we finally

made it. But now to my horror I find that we have elected a dictatorial

monster. Yes, I am against Bill 42 as it stands, as any thinking person

should be. We don't need you as a Godfather and you may count on one

vote less next time around."

Galiano Island; attaching a petition which I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, would represent most of the residents of Galiano

Island since it's one of the less populated Gulf Islands in the Capital

Regional District. And in part:

"there were 150 people who signed the petition. There were 17 people who did not sign, of those I contacted.

"It is very, very evident by the response that party

lines went by the wayside on this issue. It is a far too serious a

matter to let pass. Strongly suggest you make this petition available

to the official Opposition if you think they would be interested in it."

Here's another one — the only one I will quote from

the newspaper advertisements which were placed by the Progressive

Conservative party. I think this indicates the kind of fear that has

been evident in British Columbia in the last three weeks. This is:

"Afraid to sign, Langley ex-NDP." It's the only anonymous letter I

intend to read.

"To whoever wants to put in Bill 42, please stop Bill 42. Never, never again will we vote like this."

This is from — I think, 84th Avenue in Surrey:

"Mr. Warren. Thank you for your fight against the NDP. Withdraw Bills 42…"

And then there's reference to other bills not before us at the moment.

"…and the whole NDP Party. We need a strong leader, keep it up."

An ex-NDP."

This is a copy of a letter addressed to several Members of the House.

"As a native of British Columbia who has farmed

continuously since 1935, I am violently opposed to Bill 42. The whole

concept of any Government voting themselves such control over all land

has no place in British Columbia. Until much more thought has been

given to the controlling of land use, Bill 42 should be withdrawn.

Confiscation without proper compensation and without the right to

appeal, I shall never accept. I appeal to you to consider my thoughts."

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have taken enough time of the House in

reading letters. There's another one of support. This is from Central

Saanich Road, in the greater Victoria area, addressed to me.

" I would like to express my support for Bill 42. We

definitely need land zoning laws in all B.C. and not just in the

organized communities. I would support the idea of there being an

appeal board for those who own completely unarable land."

So, enough of the letters. Interestingly enough last night, Mr.

Speaker, I had to attend a meeting of municipal council in Saanich,

where we have been approached by a farmer who's been on this land with

his family for a good number of years and who has approached the

municipality with the view to selling the land. Not for development,

not for speculative purposes, but in the hope that the municipality

could buy the land and keep it for open space.

He commented very briefly on Bill 42. He also told us that one of

the reasons he's given up is not economics but sheer exhaustion. He has

had one day off since October of 1971, when he had four days off. As I

recall the comment, he doesn't remember the time that he had off prior

to that.

[ Page 1536 ]

These people are coming to local government, Mr. Speaker. And local

government, in some areas at least, in British Columbia has responded

and continues to respond to the desire on the part of many British

Columbians to preserve open space and to keep parts of our province

beautiful and attractive for this generation and for those to follow.

I have to refer the House, therefore, not to the horrible examples

that are alluded to from time to time by Members on the Government

side, but to what has taken place in the greater Victoria area.

The municipality of Saanich in the last several years has been

embarked on a major and expensive programme of land acquisition for

parks, for open space, to keep flood plains free of development and so

on. Between 1962 and 1972, this one municipality has acquired 373 acres

at an acquisition price of $2,080,000. The Capital Regional District

with provincial Government help under the Regional Parks Act ,

has acquired since 1965 or 1966, Mr. Speaker, a total of 3,862 acres of

park land and open space at a cost of perhaps in the neighbourhood of

$2.5 million to $3 million.

Thirty eight hundred and sixty-two acres of land purchased by the

same local government which has been subjected to so many hoots of

derision, veiled references of conflict of interest and so on, inside

this House and outside, since Bill 42 first came. Now if that is

irresponsible local government, Mr. Speaker, then I have to say that I

too am irresponsible.

I do not intend to engage in any kind of filibuster with respect to

the debate on this bill. I hope that a few of the points I have made

will be of some interest to the House. Bill 42 has given a number of us

in British Columbia a very real shock. Again, it is bad law; it is an

error upon an error, compounded upon an error, dating back to some time

last fall when as I suspect the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) tipped his hand, when he really didn't intend to, with respect

to pending legislation.

Bill 42, in its present form, should be tossed out completely. If

that is not possible, it should be modified to a sufficient extent so

as to be truly democratic and responsible. We feel ft's one of those

unforeseen political circumstances which has captured the public's

imagination and has aroused their anger. For the Opposition parties,

and particularly for the party we represent in British Columbia, it has

given us an issue of such magnitude that its effects will echo and

re-echo around this province for longer than this Government and its

somewhat embarrassed Members will care to remember.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. As has been established in this particular debate, I will

declare what real estate holdings I have. In joint tenancy with my

mother I own a small home lot in the east end of Vancouver and a

half-acre recreational lot on Gabriola Island. I have no stocks or

shares in any real estate company and I have no other interest in the

real estate industry.

To begin, I appreciate the remarks of the last speaker, as I believe

he made a contribution in the area of municipal and regional districts

having an input into the machinations of this Act. I appreciate that. I

think it's well taken. I believe that that will be taken into

consideration by the Government when the amendments are introduced into

the House.

I'd like to draw the attention of the House to some of the remarks

made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in one of

his days of debate — I don't recall which one. He alluded to the native

Indians at Wounded Knee and the Indian attitude toward dispossession.

He alluded to the aborigines of Australia and how they were being

dispossessed.

I would suggest to that Hon. Member that if he carried his analogy

far enough in regards to loss of private ownership of land, his several

lots in the South Peace River country rightfully belong to the Indians

indiginous to that area.

He made another statement in which he remarked about the "prosperous

Indians of the State of Oklahoma." They were very prosperous, they have

rights, they have liberty and they have land that they can call their

own. I'd like to tell the Hon. Member something about the Indians of

Oklahoma. The Indians that he is referring to in Oklahoma are not

native to Oklahoma. They are Cherokee. They are native to West Virginia

and Virginia. They were driven out of Virginia, some of the most

fertile land in the United States, and they were stuck on the worst

land they could find in the United States, the barren plains of

Oklahoma. They lived there in misery for years, dispossessed from the

fertile valleys and hills of Virginia.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the Indians of Oklahoma are

prosperous. But they're not prosperous because of their land. They are

prosperous because of what is underneath it — oil. They're oil rich.

Don't think that when oil was discovered in Oklahoma the white

community didn't try to finagle them out of their rights to that land,

but they didn't manage to do so.

Speaking of the Indian attitude toward land, I'd like to read some quotes from the Victoria Times , from the chairman of the executive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Philip Paul. He said:

"The demonstration Thursday against a proposed Land Commission Act was a shoddy display of non-Indian attitudes and values. 'You are years

[ Page 1537 ]

behind other nations in protecting your farmlands,' he said,

'and yet at this late date you have made land, vital for the survival of mankind,

a political issue.'

"Paul observed that the land question had nothing to

do with socialism, Social Credit, liberalism or conservatism. 'It's a

sane man's approach. You're polluting your rivers, your oceans and

streams, destroying your forest lands by malpractices and today you are

debating whether you will do the same with your farmlands,' he said.

Paul said every bona fide farmer is in favour of the bill because he

knows land is not a commodity.

"Paul said he is appalled at some of the politicians

who have made an issue of farmlands without any regard for the younger

generations and the generations unborn. 'But the debate reflects the

attitudes and values of the non-Indian,' he said. 'He will not hold a

demonstration to protest the construction of the highest highrise in

western Canada or the paving of miles of farmland. That doesn't

interest him at all.'

"He said one of the main problems facing Indians today

is the conflict over values attitudes. He is being pushed to accept the

values of non-Indians which he knows are false. The Indian still

instinctively believes in the attitudes of his forefathers who held

that land was an extension of man, he said.

"'The non-Indian has removed himself so far from

nature that he is afraid to walk alone on a trail for fear of what?

Harmless animals,' he said. 'He has put his faith in the almighty

dollar'."

I know that Chief Paul speaks for most of the Indians in British Columbia.

I had the privilege a few years ago of attending a series of

workshops that involved the Indian and non-Indian community in which we

really let our hair down. We talked to each other over a series of

about eight weeks at Capilano College. It was one of the most

constructive, rewarding experiences I've ever had — to find that the

native Indian feels that he is a part of the universe; he is not lord

of the universes, he is not lord of the land, he does not have dominion

over the land; he is a part of land. That is why the Indian community

recognizes as totems, seals, whales, ravens and wolves — because they

feel they are brothers to the lakes and the forests and the skies of

this province.

So I think that what we are doing here no very belatedly is adopting perhaps some Indian attitudes. It's about time.

Mr. Speaker, there's been some talk that this sort of thing has been

going on in other parts of the world. I'd like to give an example of

one area where this sort of thing is happening. I'm going to pass over

the name of this place for effect.

It all began in this jurisdiction. The quiet revolution in land use

control saw its first legislative success with the Legislature's

passage of the land use law in 1961.

In the initial years after the passage, others typically brushed it

aside as a strange phenomenon from a strange land. But now, as other

jurisdictions begin reform of their land regulatory systems, it is

increasingly apparent that this jurisdiction's 10 years of

administering this system of state-wide controls offers a valuable

source of practical experience.

The land use law gave agencies a degree of control over the use of

the land resources that was far in excess of that enjoyed by any other

jurisdiction. It created a land use commission and directed it to

divide the entire jurisdiction into four districts — conservation,

agriculture, rural and urban. The land use law authorized land in the

urban districts to be used for whatever purpose is permitted under the

local zoning regulations. Land in the agricultural and rural districts

was to be used only in compliance with regulations of the land use

commission, and lands in the conservation district were to comply with

regulations of the Department of Lands and Natural Resources.

I'd like you to listen to the description of this place. This

jurisdiction is a small place with a relatively small amount of land,

much of which is mountainous and not suitable for cultivation. In

addition, the climate is marked by great variations in rainfall from

one part of the state to another. For example, parts of the

northeastern plains receive about 75 inches of rain, while the

mountains a few miles away receive 300 inches, and the plains on the

southwestern side receive only 20 inches.

This combination of mountainous terrain and rainfall variability

leaves only a relatively small percentage of land suitable for

agriculture. About one and a half million of its four million acres are

used or usable for agricultural purposes, but about three-quarters of

this agricultural land is dry land used for grazing, with the result

that out of the four million acres of land in the state, less than

400,000 are suitable for crops. Does that description sound familiar?

It sounds like British Columbia.

The draftsmen of the land use law saw a threat in the economic boom

that hit this jurisdiction as the 1960's began. The new jet planes were

just beginning to make it accessible to tourists. Both of these factors

were stimulating a boom economy in the state, which in turn created a

concern that these development pressures must be kept under control.

The major city had been gradually expanding into the prime

agricultural area of the central valley. That sounds just like

Vancouver, going right straight up the Fraser Valley. The boom

threatened to accelerate this growth rapidly. The primary motive of the

law's sponsors was to preserve the central valley and the

[ Page 1538 ]

other prime agricultural land and to restrict the

city within narrow urban limits to avoid the Los Angeles type urban

sprawl that many foresaw.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what this jurisdiction's name is? — the

"Marxist People's Socialist Republic" of Hawaii. The island of Hawaii

has had this almost identical land commission Act in existence since

To mainlanders accustomed to land use control by local government,

the surprising aspect of the land use law is not the extensive controls

it contains, but the fact that public support was found for delegating

these controls to a state land use commission rather than to local

governments, which I think is very interesting.

It goes on to describe how the urban areas have been established and

how they have a reserve of land sufficient to accommodate urban growth

for the next 10 years. Rural districts have been mapped to include

certain areas characterized by low density residential development of

semi-rural nature on lots of at least one half acre, which is a large

lot zoning by Hawaiian standards. No rural areas have been mapped on

the island of Oahu and the classification has been used sparingly on

the other islands. The agricultural districts include both crop and

grazing-land plus the sugar mills and other industrial activities

typically associated with Hawaiian agriculture.

The commission was given powers to modify and expand the boundaries

of the conservation districts and subsequently added a substantial

amount of private land, so that by 1969, at least a third of the land

in the conservation districts was privately owned, much of it in

mountainous areas of more than 20 per cent slope.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, about this land use law that was

brought into existence in Hawaii were the people who did it. The people

who urged the government to bring this legislation in were the

agriculturalists, the farmers, who could see the land disappearing out

from under them.

The general goals of conservation received strong support from the

public. A recent public opinion survey shows 93 per cent support for

the proposition that preservation of scenic and natural resources

should receive strong emphasis in land use planning. More recently the

emphasis has changed. Environmental groups have tended to focus on the

basic issue of population growth. The same public opinion polls showed

69 per cent of the respondents taking the view that urban development

should be limited, at least to some degree.

This is from a book called The Quiet Revolution in Land Use . I believe it's dated December, 1972, so it's a very recent study, Mr. Speaker.

Other jurisdictions such as Colorado have land use Acts. Washington State has a land planning commission.

The idea that land is a resource, as well as a commodity, may appear

to be self-evident, as we come back to what Chief Paul says, but in the

context of our traditions of land use regulation, it is a highly novel

concept. Our existing systems of land use regulation were created by

dealers in real estate, interested in maximizing the value of land as a

commodity. Subdivision regulations were encouraged, which encouraged

uniformed lot fronting on public streets, enabling land to be divided

into tradeable units. The highest goal of the system was to enable

barkers to sell Florida lots in Grand Central Station.

Numerous systems of local land use regulation are beginning to

contain regulations that recognize land as a resource as well as a

commodity. Exclusive agricultural and industrial zoning reserves land

as a resource for those important uses. Regulations prohibiting topsoil

removal or requiring common open space find a justification in the

protection of land as a resource for recreation and beauty. Regulations

which require that a specified percentage of dwelling units in each

housing development be reserved for low income groups are recognizing

the importance of land as an essential resource for housing all

elements of society.

I would recommend this report to the Members of the assembly — they'd learn a lot from it.

Now we come to some other jurisdictions that are looking at land and land use control. In the Michigan Law Review ,

May, 1970, Representative Paul McClosky from California had a great

deal to say. He wrote an

article on "The Preservation of American Open

Space: Proposal for a National Land Use Commission."

It has been discussed in this House that if we do not stem the

takeover of our agricultural land, it doesn't matter anyway because we

could import food from other jurisdictions — from California. Well

according to Mr. McCloskey, California is on its way out as an

agricultural producer.

"It is more difficult, however, to stem the

accelerating loss of open space land. Long accepted which both permit

and provide an incentive for the development of land, effectively block

government action to conserve our most desirable open space.

"The difficulties caused by these principles and

institutions are exemplified by the situations in four California

valleys in various stages of development — San Gabriel, Santa Clara,

Napa and Livermore. Each of these valleys were once known as an area of

exceptional environmental quality with unique combinations of soil and

climate for the production of citrus fruits, of prunes and of grapes

for fine red and white wines.

"The mustard fields of San Gabriel Valley in Southern

California are now almost wholly replaced by industry and housing; the

Santa Clara

[ Page 1539 ]

Valley's fruit orchards are nearly

gone, and the world famous vineyards of the Napa and Livermore Valleys

are under very heavy pressure that it can be foreseen they will be

completely developed within 20 years."

If anybody's had the privilege of being in the Napa Valley, it's a beautiful place.

He urges a national land use commission consisting of a chairman and

four members appointed by the president and with the consent of the

senate.

"The commission should have the power to designate

areas for urban development to determine what areas will be dedicated

to agricultural use, to set aside lands for conservation and for

In determining whether privately owned lands might be developed by

their owner or whether they should either be conserved as open spaces

or become the site of an urban area, the commission should attempt to

deal first with these lands which are both particularly valuable as

open spaces and more heavily threatened by potential development.

"The commission should be granted the power to monitor

all open space lands owned by the federal government and no development

of or change in the use of these lands should be permitted without the

prior approval of the commission."

There are several other recommendations. They follow the same line.

In another jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, in the recent speech to the

Japanese parliament at the opening of that assembly, Prime Minister

Tanaka stated:

"The land problem is the biggest political issue we

face. Certainly land is property and the right to own or hold property

is guaranteed by our constitution. However, the contents of such

property rights are to be defined by law to conform with the public

welfare, and private property must be used for public purpose so long

as there is fair and proper compensation.

"I will endeavour to establish a public utility trust

principle as far as possible within the constitutional framework and to

see that land is widely and fairly used for the people.

"This is the basic principle of our land policy. It

will require both long-term and urgent emergency power policies to

remove the nationwide confusion,"

I'm sorry, this is a very bad photocopy.

"…of land use and to correct the suities brought

about by the rising price of land. Accordingly we will increase the

supply of land by an integral utilization of the whole nation's land,

decide a basic programme of land utilization throughout Japan and also

enforce various measures including a reporting system on any land

transaction, issuance of recommendations to suspend transactions when

necessary and regulatory controls over land development.

"We will also adopt such measures as would enable

prefectural governors to freeze for a specified period any development

activity to be made in areas they designate in order to prevent, in

particular, speculative land transactions; and with the same eneral

objectives to strengthen the reporting system on land transactions to

set up a new system for priority purchase and to provide a new right

for owners of land to request local public bodies to purchase their

land in certain areas."

He goes on about that. It's a very interesting thing.

So we have seen that Holland, Great Britain, Hawaii, Japan are all

thinking of this. They have either done it or are doing it. There are

other "socialist states" that are beginning to consider land control.

Prince Edward Island has a preliminary report on land ownership. It

suggests greater concern with land use than with non-resident

ownership. The commission report says:

"The impact of the increase in recreational activity

has been dramatic. It reports that within a few years it has led to a

startling increase in non-resident ownership and threatens to seriously

alter the aesthetic quality of the farmscape and shoreline upon which

the agricultural industry is based. It is for this reason the

commission finds that the general land use plan is needed to integrate

the differing requirements of rural, urban and recreation land users."

That's Prince Edward Island.

Here's another "socialist" outfit that's doing the same thing — Newfoundland:

"A new programme has been introduced, a land

consolidation programme designed to increase land available for higher

crop and livestock production goals; a capital assistance programme

which will enable larger, more efficient farms to be brought into

production through financial assistance; a human resources programme to

provide training and farm management assistance, including a relevant

information flow to existing and new farmers; a marketing programme

which will attempt to develop products that could be produced locally

but are not at present; a farm support programme to improve farm

productivity by making available special facilities and services that

are not normally provided."

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of land

use control is not revolutionary to British Columbia. It's being done

all over the world. Everywhere.

It's high time that it can be done.

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) attempted twice to force the Government to take some kind

of action to

[ Page 1540 ]

prevent or to rescind the sale of 320 acres to a

non-Canadian. She attempted to force the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) to do something about it. She tried to get the Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to prevent the

sale. And then, when they informed her that there was nothing they

could do under existing legislation, she was extremely unhappy with

them.

The following day she was out there on the steps screaming and

yelling, "They're taking our land away from us." But she wanted to take

that man's land away from him. She wanted the Government to do that.

There was an excellent

article in the Vancouver Province on

March 2, which I think puts some perspective on this idea of

compensation — a word that's been kicked around here. It's by Bruce

Yemen, a staff writer:

"Real estate is a risk just like the others. It's a pretty good bet the provincial government will tidy up its proposed Land Commission Act and

make it clear it can't seize private property without paying fair

compensation. But don't bet that this would quiet all the hysteria

generated by the legislation since it was introduced last week.

"Reaffirming the sanctity of title to private land is

something within the power of the provincial government. Curing the

inability of many people to distinguish between the right to own land

and the right to make money from owning land is probably beyond any

government's reach. It is not surprising that owning land and profiting

from it have got all mixed up in the same concept. Private ownership of

property is a fundamental principle of a free enterprise system and

profit motive is the dynamic force of the same system. More important,

the experience of most people in the past 10 or 15 years has been that

land is by far the best hedge against inflation. The idea that land

increases in value, no matter what, has achieved a semi-sacred

righteousness.

"By the same token, there is a widespread belief that the

use of zoning powers is a means of increasing land values for the greater good

of society. For many people it is impossible to imagine a case where society's

greater good is furthered by rezoning land to less lucrative use."

The result: the Government can count on a lot of hysterical opposition to any

move that will lower the market values of any land currently in the private

sector, farmland or otherwise. The only question is whether such opposition

will be presented in political rhetoric, that is, supposed defence of the right

of land ownership or in simple economic terms as the demand for compensation.

Let's assume the Government does fix up the Land Commission Act to

head off any argument that it is destroying the right to private land

title — or does that leave the landowners demanding compensation for

property values lost as a result of the Government's changing land-use

rules.

Let's consider a non-land example of dollar values lost as a result

of Government policy or threatened policy. West Coast Transmission

Limited is a case in point. In early 1972, people wanting to buy shares

in this company had to pay $30 or more per share. Before the provincial

election the price had dropped back somewhat but still was strong in

the upper twenties. Now, West Coast shares sell for $20 to $21 despite

impressive increases in earnings. Much of that drop can be attributed

to the provincial Government. A threat of nationalization, higher

royalties and taxes and a general uncertain business climate for B.C.

companies.

But how many shareholders of West Coast Transmission have demanded

compensation for their losses? It would be be ridiculous, of course, to

demand any such thing. Any investor with his eyes open would have known

the risk of buying West Coast Transmission shares — the risk of an NDP

Government taking power and putting the party's long-standing paranoia

about the company into practice. Yes, we are a little paranoic about

that.

As an investment, what would make land something special, something

different from an equity investment in a gas transmission company? The

social necessity of land? Not quite, because transmission of natural

gas is pretty vital too. The demand for one can be projected as

inevitably as the other in the medium term. Besides, an investor

assessing risks should put a negative value on commodities that are so

vital as to invite greater government regulations.

If the need for land isn't a guarantee of ever-increasing values, is

there somehow a rule of economic justice that should prevent land

values from being reduced by government action? It could be expressed

as, "Business can have its ups and downs, but land should at least hold

its own." Such a philosophy would be comforting to anyone considering a

land purchase, but it overlooks the basis of the concept of value. It

is a purely psychological thing, not an intrinsic part of the commodity

being valued.

Furthermore, value is a heavily future-oriented concept. We'll pay

$5,000 for an investment if it can be expected to sell for $10,000 in

five years. That makes it good value even if the $5,000 price is

outrageous by present standards.

The way markets operate, value is not only based on expectation of

that value, but you end up paying the imagined value that would hold

in, say, two years' time. Thus, highly regarded companies can sell for

30 to 40 times their current earnings per share, while companies with

less exciting future prospects can sell for 8 or 10 times their

earnings. When government actions damage exciting company prospects and

the market values of the shares, then the same principle is

[ Page 1541 ]

at work as with land that has sold at high prices in expectation of future returns.

All this doesn't mean, for instance, that no farmers in B.C. would

be entitled to compensation for damages suffered in the event the

Government sticks to its aim of saving the farmland for the future.

Some undoubtedly will be entitled. Neither does it mean that the owners

of other types of land won't have a legitimate grievance if the

government abuses the power to designate land reserves over existing

private property. It must be prepared to pay a fair price for the

property to those who wish to sell and who can't find a buyer because

of the indefinite threat implied in the government reserve. But there

should be no confusing issues of fairness with the supposed right to

make a profit out of land just because it's land.

I have been very interested in some of the comments made by various

Members thither and yon. "The Hon. Member for the galleries" (Mr. D.

Warren) who flits about the province was asked in Fort St. John about

his alternatives. Mr. Warren said he would continue the freeze on

farmland subdivision and set up a five-man commission, "perhaps with

the same five the NDP would have appointed to research the problems we

are facing and the conflict between the necessity of land for housing

and farmland."

There has been some talk that we should just stop cold, not move,

don't do anything until we have an inventory of the land we have in the

province. The land in British Columbia is currently being inventoried

and it has been since 1965. About only one-quarter of the province has

been mapped but it will not be completed, Mr. Speaker, until 1981. If

we wait until 1981 to complete an inventory of the land in this

province, there won't be any farmland left to inventory. It will be all

gone. I might add that in Hawaii they have very detailed maps

designating the various land areas. So we have to do something now and

the sooner we do it the better.

The Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was quoted in

the Press as saying at the demonstration that our party gave no warning

that we were going to do these things. Nearly everybody in this

province, Mr. Speaker, received a booklet, "A New Deal for People" and

in that booklet it outlined precisely what we were going to do — "establish a land zoning programme to set aside areas for agricultural

production and to prevent such land from being subdivided for

industrial and residential uses; establish a land bank for purchase of

existing and re-zoned agricultural land for lease to farmers on a

long-term basis." That was in the hands of most of the people in this

province.

It has been stated time and time again in this House for I don't

know how many years. The Press has reported it time and time again, so

there is no excuse that we brought it in without any forewarning, any

foreknowledge. I think what is disturbing everybody is the fact that we

are keeping our word. We are really doing what we said we were going to

do. It is interesting to speak about support. There is a geographer

here who says the land bill is not strong enough. He would like to see

it toughened up. There are three groups here — the Vancouver Natural

History Society, the B.C. Branch of the Canadian Society of

Environmental Biologists and the B.C. Environmental Council — all of

them support the bill. In fact, the Environmental Council has gone out

and done quite a good research job to inform the people of what we are

attempting to do with this Act.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation — in fact I am proud to report that I will fully support his bill. Thank you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the next Hon. Member,

I would just ask the two Members to be seated for a moment. I want to

make a comment from May. That is this:

"In the Commons when two or more Members rise to

speak, the Speaker calls on the Member who, on rising in his place, is

first observed by him. Formerly, if the Speaker's call was questioned

by the House, a motion was made that one among the Members who had

risen to speak be now heard or do now speak. This mode of proceedings

is not supported by present usage. It is the Speaker's duty to watch

Members as they rise to speak and the decision should be left with him."

Now, I read this

section because a couple of Hon. Members have made

approaches to the Speaker's desk requesting that they be allowed to

speak. I just want to outline that the proper procedure is that they

should only rise in their place and wait until they are recognized. It

is the responsibility of the Speaker to try to maintain the balance of

debate and to recognize Members as he observes them rise to speak.

Therefore, I will follow this policy. I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in your earlier

remarks you mentioned that you had a duty to maintain the balance of

debate. This afternoon already in the House you have recognized two

Government Members. The official Opposition has not spoken in the House

yet this afternoon. You've recognized one other Opposition Member and

you are now about to recognize another Opposition Member.

Mr. Speaker, that hardly constitutes a maintenance of the balance of debate in the House.

[ Page 1542 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member there is

no point of order. It is strictly the Speaker's prerogative to make

this decision and I will so do.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order, subject to standing order 37; a motion may be made by

any Member that so-and-so be heard. That is in the orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member now proceed with his speech?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, very much. I'm delighted.

Mr. Speaker, I'd be most interested to hear now, following the

debate that has been going on in this House for several days about this

bill, what "Peace in our Time" Pattison, who's the head of the Neonex

Company of Canada, would have to say.

You will perhaps remember, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't too long ago

that he took a look at the socialistic budget that was handed down and

he sort of nominated himself as the first state prophet for the

business community and he felt that there was nothing in the province

to be concerned about. But I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when he

saw Bill 35….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: I wonder if we could have just a little more interest and decorum here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're demanding equal time.

MR. GARDOM: I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, when this individual

saw Bill 35 carve into the insurance industry, why he said that that

didn't concern him, because he only had one such operation. Well, I'm

not going to comment upon his principle in that situation, but I would

say, Mr. Speaker, that "Peace in our Time" Pattison has said nothing

whatsoever about this particular bill. I'd be most interested to hear

what he's got to say about Bill 42 as the sickle falls closer and

closer to every individual enterprise in B.C. It's a very peculiar

thing to me, Mr. Speaker, why so many people in the province who are so

very deeply and genuinely concerned about Bill 42 are not equally

disturbed about Bill 35. Because these are completely parallel

situations.

Under Bill 42 you find the "Phantom Five" designating the use or

non-use of land by the owners of land, and in Bill 35 this Government

has designated — I'm using the past tense — that insurers may not carry

on their lawful business and that they are without redress.

That is purely and simply confiscation without compensation — 100

per cent confiscation without compensation. I suppose Castro would

indeed be proud of this kind of process. I would very much issue a

caveat to the land people that they perhaps could learn a little from

what happened and what has befallen the insurance people in the

Province of B.C.

I'd like to say a few words about basic principles, basic ethics,

basic standards for government citizen morality. Fifteen hundred years

ago, Mr. Speaker, Justinian gave this definition of law: "To live

honourably; to injure no other man; to render to every man his due."

This bill fails that 1,500 year-old test.

It is, Mr. Speaker, a vehicle for injury. It certainly does not

provide any means for rendering every man his due. You know, Mr.

Speaker, laws are not obstacles to be crashed through or evaded.

They're vital to the functioning of society. The only alternative to

the rule of law and the democratic way of life is the tyranny of the

strongest.

Laws have got to be fair; they've got to be certain; they've got to

be clear; they have to be concise. This bill also fails those four

tests. It substitutes something that indeed could amount to tyranny of

the strongest.

If absolute power or totality of power is neither desired nor in the

interests of society, or if absolute power is not going to be

exercised, then in the name of Heaven, Mr. Speaker, don't grant the

power in the first place.

If the power can be subject to abuse, the job is to rein it in, not

unleash it. But this Government, Mr. Speaker, has moved diametrically

opposite to those conventional wisdoms. And with this bill they would

be creating the surest path to tyranny and the greatest opportunity for

ruthless government oppression ever experienced in British Columbia.

No valid assurances or succour can be gained from what I would call

"death bed repentance utterances" from the Minister of Agriculture and

the Premier. Whether these repentances and utterances emanate from

stockmen's dinners or college campuses or backroom interviews doesn't

really amount to very much. Because when you hear these people very

feebly incant that there may be a farmer in the five-man commission,

there may be compensation for down-zoning, there may be a right of

appeal, there may be fair hearings, everything may be open to public

scrutiny, all right.

And the Premier — that great battler for parliamentary principle,

Mr. Speaker, that blue ribbon champion for open government, and that

unfaltering David slinging for the rights of the individual — said

this: "Our P.R. was lousy." You know what he should have said, Mr.

Speaker? He should have said,

[ Page 1543 ]

"Our bill is lousy."

The morality of this situation demands moral action and moral

response, not puerile assessments of socialistic information services.

What he's been doing is just trying to hand the Province of British

Columbia a bunch of equivocations and Madison Avenue sophistry.

You know, it's a pretty funny thing when you've got to go ahead and

suggest that the course of this bill has been influenced by the failure

of some NDP information services. That in itself is tantamount to a 100

per cent admission that the bill is 100 per cent O.K. — no need for any

amendments at all.

Had we only had a massive advertising campaign, is the Premier's

premise, to back up this bill, everything would have been fine and

dandy. There's nothing wrong with the bill. Well, if there's nothing

wrong with the bill why do we hear these statements coming from the

Minister of Agriculture and why do we hear them coming from the area

from which they come rather than in this House? The easiest way for him

to have them come into this House is for him to withdraw the bill, send

it back to the drawing board and have the thing done properly.

Good grief! You're a government! You're supposed to be a responsible

government and you're coming out with a piece of trash like this

legislation. Trash, t-r-a-s-h, so there's no misunderstanding of the

word.

To go ahead and indicate, as the Premier did, that the laws of this

land have to be subject to the successes or failures of the public

relations hirelings of this Government is an abdication of

parliamentary responsibility. I say it's a pretty poor assessment for a

democratic society.

Statutory viciousness, Mr. Speaker, whether by accident or design,

once it's started is a very difficult thing to check and even much more

difficult to remove. There's no clearer route to an abuse of

governmental power than by an ad hoc incorporation of a raft of

regulatory legislation without first determining if the legislation

will pass the tests, which are six in number, for statutory,

philosophical goodness:

(1) You've got to be sure that the nature and scope of the power is

not too wide. Does it comply with the basic principles of the rules of

law and of natural justice? The answer is "No" in this case.

(2) Are the persons who exercise the power qualified, trained,

capable and subject to legislative control and withdrawal? The answer

to that question, insofar as this bill is concerned, again is in the

negative.

(3) Is the procedure by which the powers are exercised fair and

just? Certainly not! There are not any procedures to find whatsoever.

How can you say they're going to be fair? How can you say they're going

to be just?

(4) Is there a proper right of appeal or opportunity for review?

None! Absolutely none. And what the Hon. Minister of Agriculture may

say at a stockmen's dinner, or he may say in a shower in the morning,

has nothing to do with what this bill is going to end up looking like.

And we haven't been told that.

(5) Do the courts retain control of the exercise of the power? Is

there any simple and efficient access to the courts to rectify any

failure to exercise the power or abuse of it? The answer is "No." Fails

again.

(6) Does the statute provide the opportunity for adequate

compensation for injury or loss resulting from the exercise or from the

abuse of the power? "No." Flunks that one too.

Any statute, Mr. Speaker, that won't pass that six-point test will,

in one way or another — any statute, not only this one — will in one

way or another be infringing or encroaching upon individual rights with

varying degrees of being unjust, oppressive, arbitrary or just plain

vicious. And from what I have seen of Bill 42, it fits the latter

category best.

There has to be a basic philosophy concerning the checks and

balances; also a basic philosophy concerning what the modus operandi

will be in a statute. We don't want to have in B.C. the establishment

of statutory situations where you find conflicts of interest; where the

expropriator and the payor are one and the same; where the judge and

the prosecutor wear the same hat; where the ground rules are unclear;

where the ground rules are not known, which is the situation here.

"Change the statute," they say. What a feeble way to govern. A new

Government, coming in, bringing in the most important bill in their own assessment,

and they frankly admit the thing's rotten from the start because it has to be

amended. What a way to do business.

Who drew it? Asking for help from every side. Who drew this thing?

Who made this great big fat decision? There's more than egg on chin,

I'd say, Mr. Speaker. There's an awful lot of omelettes on an awful lot

of chins over there.

To suggest amendment is nothing more than a pasteboard, hodgepodge

approach. If a statute will not pass the six tests that I've mentioned,

don't bring it in. This one without question flunks.

The hallmark of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is the rule of law and the

recognition and the acceptance by society of order. I'd say that this

mean bill transgresses both of those. It denies natural justice. It

erodes the rights of the individual. It confiscates without

compensation. It seizes without appeal. And it emasculates any right of

access to the courts. This is rigidism, centralism and regulationism in

the extreme.

Government by regulation. Rules and regulations decided behind the

red door of cabinet. The House of the Province of British Columbia is

here. This is the

[ Page 1544 ]

House of the people. Laws are made for the people

by the people; not behind the red door of cabinet. This is the place

where the regulations — which is the wrong word — should be decided.

This is the place where the laws should be debated.

Not by a named cabinet. Who elected the cabinet? They were named. They were just named.

What about this commission, this "Phantom Five," or "Patronage

Quintet?" They will have powers to make a 100 per cent decision, not

only of property but of lifestyle for the whole of the breadbasket of

B.C. — in fact just about all of the land in B.C. They will be a law

unto themselves.

"Let the sunshine in," the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

used to say, when he was in Opposition. He got into Government and he pulled

down the blind. That's what he did.

No checks; no balances. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts

absolutely. And this bill is a classic example of the absolute

corruption of power.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, a landowner in the Province of B.C. would

be so controlled he'd need an order-in-council to have a drink of water

— or you could think of some other more appropriate analogy.

But this seems to be the unalterable and radicalized direction and

the radicalization process of the NDP. New Democratic Party, the call

themselves; insofar as this bill is concerned it's "Non-Democratic

Party."

Once it's unleashed and in full swing, we'll see the second state in

the stateism in B.C. For state property of farmland, agrarian

socialism, state property of insurance, telephones, mines, lumbering,

logging resources, all the resources, business, this seems to be their

goal. As I said, bureaucratic stateism seems to be their label.

What will that produce? One great glob of omnipotent, stultifying,

inflexible bureaucracy. Demise of the individual, Mr. Speaker, appears

to be their purpose. Fortunately, that will be their end.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the best use that can be put to Bill 42 is this, and for the purpose of Hansard I hope they hear the "scrunch, scrunch, scrunch" as I tear it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several

myths going around and being perpetrated by the Government about the

bill that we're talking about today, Bill 42. The most serious of those

myths is that this is a bill to protect farmland. It is nothing of the

sort. It does nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make farming better for the

farmer, absolutely nothing. There are no provisions in that bill to do

that.

If this bill, Mr. Speaker, were for the protection of farmland, the

question I ask is: why wasn't it called the "Farmland Protection Act,"

instead of the Land Commission Act .

Nothing to do with the protection of farmland or the question of making

farming a more viable operation for the farmers all over British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should have been called the "Dairyland Act,"

because rather than helping the farmer its purpose is to "milk" the

farmer. It's a terrible piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like, in speaking about the principle of this bill, to talk a

bit about what this Government has been doing to perpetrate some of the

myths and Members of this Government in particular. I speak of the

Premier on the radio the other day and the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) on many occasions, on the radio and in the Press and

in interviews with various members of the media.

The Premier said on the radio the other day, Mr. Speaker — and all

of the Members of this Government that I've heard speak have talked

about this mythical

section in the Municipal Act that

is the same as their dictatorial legislation in Bill 42. I'd like to

set this Legislature and the people of British Columbia straight on

what that

section of the Municipal Act does say. It has nothing to do

with the kind of thing that is in Bill 42.

The Premier refers to

section 706. He says:

"May I refer you again to the

section of the Municipal Act where

section 706 it says 'property shall be deemed not to be taken or

injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of zoning.' "

Well it doesn't quite say that to begin with. It says "by reason of

the adoption of a zoning bylaw." If you'll check the rest of the Municipal Act as

it relates to zoning, it also says that "first of all the council shall

not adopt a zoning bylaw until it has held a public hearing." Where are

the provisions for a public hearing in Bill 42? There are none.

The zoning

section of the Municipal Act

also says that "When a council has adopted a zoning bylaw there shall

be established by bylaw a board of variance." Where is the provision in

Bill 42 for a board of variance? There is none.

Section 707(a), Mr. Speaker, says:

"Where subsequent to the acquisition of land by a

person, a zoning bylaw is adopted or amended so that no use of the land

is permitted, that person may, if not granted relief by the board of

variance, appeal to the Minister who may, by order binding on the

municipality, grant such relief as he considers proper."

More checks and balances, Mr. Speaker. None of those in Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker,

section 709 of the Municipal Act also says:

"The board of variance shall hear and deter-

[ Page 1545 ]

mine any appeal by a person who is aggrieved by a decision of

any official charged with the enforcement of a zoning bylaw or a bylaw under

the subsection."

There is no provision like that in Bill 42. No provision for appeal of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, subsection 4 of that same

section of the Municipal Act says:

"An appeal lies to a judge of the county court from a decision of the board."

That's the board of variance. More checks and balances, more avenues of appeal. All of those presently in the Municipal Act .

May I say, Mr. Speaker, the most damaging part of this whole

question is that the people who have been appearing on television, on

the radio and in the newspapers doing interviews, in quoting this

section have left the most important part of the

section out

altogether. That is

section 706(2), which says:

"Subsection I does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use."

As Bill 42 is almost exclusively dealing with land designated for

public use,

section 706 would not have any effect. What is it then?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going into the private use of land.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this Government and its Members

have been misleading and perpetrating this myth all over the Province

of British Columbia and it's about time they stopped.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

stood in his place and insisted that Bill 42 has no relation to any

piece of property under two acres in size. What absolute nonsense. May

I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) speaking on a

radio programme not too long ago in which he was asked a specific

question by a listener on an open-line show, "If a grocery store in

downtown Vancouver wanted to expand its operation and the government,

for instance, had plans to establish a co-op in that same neighborhood,

could the government designate the property on which that other grocery

store stood for urban use only and restrict its building permit?" The

agricultural Minister said, "Yes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in downtown Vancouver.

MR. McCLELLAND: Under the provisions in Bill 42 for the

designation of land for urban and industrial use, every square inch of

property in British Columbia is affected and that's what it says in the

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They say only two acres.

MR. McCLELLAND: Two acres is nonsense — every square inch of

property in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of

comment about the problem of not being taken or injuriously affected

with regard to zoning. Everybody recognizes that that's a legitimate

provision to be in any zoning bylaw for the protection not only of the

people in the community, but of the municipality, because we all know

that quite often when zoning bylaws are passed, the cry is heard

throughout the community: "My property has been devalued" or "My

property has been lowered." We all know that we need protection from

that and we accept that as a legitimate part of the zoning bylaw.

However, Mr. Speaker, let me cite you one example alone. Suppose I

bought, or you bought, or anybody else bought a piece of property

yesterday that was zoned in a municipality for industrial use, we'll

say, for $10,000 per acre. Suppose that property was two acres, you've

paid $20,000 for it. But suppose that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the

government comes along and says, "We're designating that land for

parkland."

AN HON. MEMBER: Suppose, suppose, suppose.

MR. McCLELLAND: Suppose, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: It can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: The legislation allows it.

MR. McCLELLAND: The legislation allows it, Mr. Speaker, so let's continue with the supposition.

I'm citing a perfectly legitimate example, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like

to be able to continue with my example without the interruptions of the

Member on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, suppose that that designation is given and now I have

two acres of parkland. What on earth do I want with two acres of

parkland? It's no good to me — so if I need to sell it, I must sell it

as parkland. It may be worth $1,000 per acre. In that instance, Mr.

Speaker, I've lost $18,000 right out of my pocket. Now the government

cannot tell me that I haven't been injuriously affected, or my land

hasn't been taken. I'm trying to say and I insist, there are cases when

zoning does affect the value of land and this Government must

compensate the owners in those cases.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also said on that same province-wide radio

open-line show, "farmland prices for farmland." He said, "We are not

interested in buying farmland. We are interested in ensuring that the

land stays as farmland."

If he's not interested in buying farmland, Mr. Speaker, what does he

need $60 million for? It must be to buy something. Why do they need the

assurance

[ Page 1546 ]

in this Act, that they will have, that the Minister of Finance shall be ordered by this five-man commission….

AN HON. MEMBER: Not shall — may.

MR. McCLELLAND: "Shall be ordered," Mr. Member, shall be

ordered to provide it with $25 million from time to time. What is from

time to time? Twice a week? Once a month? Four times a year?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 says that the Minister

of Finance "shall" pay at the order of this five-man commission. Who's

taking over power in this province? The five-man commission. Exactly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say right now too, that I d