1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill No. 101) Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1445

An Act to Amend the Strata Titles Act (Bill No. 124) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 1445

An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act (Bill No. 143) Mr. Brousson. Introduction

and first reading — 1445

Oral Questions

Per capita grant increase to municipalities. Mr. Curtis — 1445

Minister's views on UCB administration. Mr. Chabot — 1446

Tax grants to Ocean Falls regional district. Mr. Williams — 1447

Discussions on Columbia Cellulose at Prince Rupert, Mr. Smith. — 144

Plebiscite re amalgamation of Kamloops. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1448

Action to end elevator strike. Mr. Wallace — 1448

Merger of Dairyland and Noca Dairies. Mrs. Jordan — 1448

Ferries to service middle coast area. Mr. McClelland — 1449

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

Point of order. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1449

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1452

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1452

Mr. Phillips — 1453

Motion to adjourn. Division — 1482

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Sound.

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

Speaker, I would ask the Members to join me in welcoming 50

students from Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver,

together with their teachers, Mrs. Bent and Mr. Wall.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome students from Arbutus Junior Secondary

School.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith

transmits a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Landlord and

Tenant Act and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 101 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

STRATA TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 124 intituled

An Act to Amend the Strata Titles

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 124 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MOTIVE FUEL USE TAX ACT

Mr. Brousson moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 143 intituled

An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 143 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.

Oral questions.

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

Islands.

REQUESTED PER CAPITA GRANT

INCREASE TO MUNICIPALITIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as municipal councils

throughout British Columbia will be giving final consideration

to their annual budgets within the next two weeks in most

cases, can the Minister give the House any information with

respect to the request which has been made in various forms

concerning an increase in the per capita grant to

municipalities for the year?

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): I gave that

information in the budget speech.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, just one minute, please. If the

information is available at some other source, then question

period is not the proper place to elicit it. Does the Hon.

Member know whether the information he asked is already

available in the budget speech?

MR. CURTIS: The matter has been raised subsequent to that,

Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason for the question today.

MR. SPEAKER: Then you are asking for something that would be

in effect be a different change in policy and questioning the

Minister on advice that may be given to the Crown and not yet

had been given.

MR. CURTIS: Is that a rhetorical question?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be all I'm asking, if that is what

you are doing… (Laughter). If that is what you are doing,

then you are out of order.

I would like to know what the Member is asking, because if

he is asking for advice to be given to the Crown…

[ Page

1446 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You're

fishing.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm certainly fishing. Nothing on the hook

though, I can see. (Laughter).

MR. CURTIS: That's "i — n — g", Mr. Speaker.

The matter has been raised in the House since the delivery

of the budget speech — in fact, by Members of the

Government backbench. I tried to indicate there was a matter of

some urgency in view of the fact that municipal councils early

in April are preparing their final budgets for the year. Are we

going to have a further increase in the per capita grant or are

we not?

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking if there has been a change in

Government policy.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not proper under the question

period.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MINISTER'S VIEWS ON

WCB ADMINISTRATION

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

Could the Minister of Labour tell me or tell the House whether

he is satisfied with the administration of the Workmen's

Compensation Board?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there again. I'm advised in Beauchesne the

question is too broad. It would require, probably half a day to

answer. Consequently…

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: …if you expect an answer other than yes or

no. Do you want that? It is too broad according to

Beauchesne .

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I'm

prepared to utilize the rest of the question period in

discussing the matter of administration if the Member so

wishes.

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly there are changes I think which

could be brought about to improve the administration of the

Workmen's Compensation Board, in general terms within the confines of the rather

ineffective legislation which was established to provide for

the workmen of the province under the former administration. I

think the board has done a reasonably good job in applying that

legislation.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister says the board has done a relatively good job.

HON. MR. KING: Reasonably.

MR. CHABOT: A reasonably good job. His executive assistant,

in an interview with the Revelstoke Herald not too long

ago, disagrees with the point of view as stated by the Minister

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. On the point of order which has been

raised. You can't enter into a debate; if you had a

supplementary question would you kindly get to your

question.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not entering into a debate. It's a

supplementary. My supplementary question is: the executive

assistant to the Minister of Labour states that the

administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act leaves

something to be desired. That is a completely different reply

than what the Minister has given us. I'm wondering whether he

is announcing whether the executive assistant to the Minister

of Labour announces Government policy, Government attitudes,

Government position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can state unequivocally that

the administrative assistant from my office does not enunciate

Government policy. I might add that neither do I emasculate him

in his freedom to make comments on views that he may have. That

is a democratic right of anyone.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Recently in an announcement made — which

has to do, I consider, with Government policy — by an

executive assistant in which the executive assistant to the

Minister of Labour had this to say: "Government insurance

agencies may eventually be administered by one bureaucracy

rather than by existing system of several separate departments,

according to Dale Compton administrative assistant to Labour

Minister Bill King."

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Are you asking whether a statement in a

newspaper is correct?

[ Page 1447 ]

MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: What are you doing?

MR. CHABOT: I'm asking whether the executive assistant to

the Minister of Labour is announcing Government policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, ask that.

MR. CHABOT: I must preface it with the remarks he made. It

says:

"During a weekend interview with the Herald , with

governmental insurance departments that might be included under

a single department include car insurance, hospital insurance,

social welfare, workmen's compensation…"

MR. SPEAKER: I refer the Hon. Member to page 147 of

Beauchesne …

MR. CHABOT: "…they said I suggest this is another one of…"

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Would the Hon. Member please be

seated.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I just wanted to…

MR. SPEAKER: Page 147 of Beauchesne ; it clearly states in

the notes under that heading on questions, that it is not

permitted to ask questions which are framed in the manner that

the Member did, using a newspaper statement as a basis for his

question. This practice is not to be encouraged in this House,

and the Hon. Member knows that.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious to me by the remarks in the

newspaper that executive political appointees are announcing

government policy in British Columbia today.

MR. SPEAKER: Once again you're entering into debate.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may just respond. I have no

knowledge of the newspaper

article to which the Member refers.

With respect to political appointments, I would advise that my

administrative assistant is a member of no political party

whatsoever. I do have some views about the political

affiliations of the Herald to which the Member

refers.

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

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that

the announcement of policy was reserved for the administrative assistants of

the official Opposition. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Party policy.

TAX GRANTS TO

OCEAN FALLS REGIONAL DISTRICT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon.

Minister of Finance. With respect to the Government's proposed

operation of Ocean Falls, will the regional district in that

area be given grants in lieu of taxes which might otherwise be

paid by the private operator of that company?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The whole matter is under review. It's a

brand new experience for the Government. We hope to include the

regional district in planning of the area. We're concerned

about the development of the whole area, and there will be

meetings taking place hopefully in the near future as we decide

other business with the regional district on this matter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? Then the Hon. Member for

North Peace River.

DISCUSSIONS WITH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

RE PRINCE RUPERT OPERATIONS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources. Would the Minister kindly inform the House

the results of any discussions with Columbia Cellulose

concerning the takeover of the Prince Rupert operations?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; Minister

of Recreation and Conservation): There are no results.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Bait him a little more.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, go ahead.

MR. SMITH: Is the Minister suggesting by the terse reply

that there are no pending negotiations with Columbia Cellulose

on any of their holdings in the Province of British

Columbia?

[ Page 1448 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You're not listening! You're not

very bright.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think I made the point abundantly

clear, Mr. Speaker.

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

PLEBISCITE RE

AMALGAMATION OF KAMLOOPS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On municipal affairs, Mr.

Speaker: in light of the judicial decision regarding the

amalgamation of the City of Kamloops and the court order

requiting the Minister to hold a plebiscite or vote on the

feelings of the residents of the area, may I ask him whether or

not steps have been taken to date to fulfil the wishes of the

court and have such a vote taken?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I refer to Beauchesne again.

Anything which might prejudice a pending trial in a court of

law should not be asked.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm under the

impression that the decision had been rendered, requiring the

Minister to….

MR. SPEAKER: There is at present, I understand from advice

given in this House in a previous time, an appeal taken and

therefore it's still before the courts. The Hon. Member for Oak

Bay.

ACTION TO END

ELEVATOR STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour

whether he has any information to give the House regarding

steps he has taken in the elevator strike?

HON. MR. KING: I'm in a position to report that my

department is in constant touch with the Ontario Department of

Labour and indeed with every other Department of Labour in the

provinces across Canada. I do anticipate being able to make an

announcement either today or tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MERGER OF DAIRYLAND

AND NOCA DAIRIES

MRS., P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister

of Agriculture: have the Minister or any Members of his department had discussions

or correspondence with any personnel of Dairyland Ltd. regarding the proposed

merger between Dairyland and Noca Dairies?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'm not sure

that I got the import of that question, Mr. Speaker. I have met

with…

MR. SPEAKER: I think the only question I have at the moment

in dealing with the question put before me is whether there is

any jurisdiction under this Minister as to whether two private

organizations have a merger or not. Does it, Hon. Member?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it pertains to the Minister of

Agriculture and the Milk Board. I would like to know if your

department or yourself or any Members have had discussions with

Dairyland, with relation to the proposed merger

between Dairyland and Noca.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it is a

proposed merger at this point. I have met with representatives

of Dairyland and that topic may have come up in the

conversation — I'm not sure. It has come up in

conversation with different individuals. Whether it came up

with Dairyland I just can't say at this point.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr.

Minister. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to give us

the dates of these meetings and file the correspondence with

the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There has been no correspondence on this

subject, Mr. Speaker. Do you want the dates of any meetings

that I had with any representatives of Dairyland on any

subject? Is that it?

MRS. JORDAN: With regard to the possible merger of Dairyland

and Noca Dairies.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it has

never been a topic of formal discussion at any of these

meetings. I'm just not sure what meetings, if any, it came up

at, but I can give you the dates of all the meetings.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this is occupying a great deal of

time to no purpose. I would suggest…

MRS. JORDAN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, this is very

important.

MR. SPEAKER: I know it is, but I am suggesting another

method…

[ Page

1449 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister, and he has been very kind…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You'll just take up the time of

the question period if you keep up. I'm trying to suggest to

the Hon. Member that the Minister can file the information when

he gets it or take this question as notice. He's obviously

answered that he can't give you the dates.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you'd stop talking and

let the Minister talk then we…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister would be so kind to review his

notes and…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated!

AN HON. MEMBER: She's succeeded in taking up most of the

time for the question period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

FERRIES TO SERVICE

MIDDLE COAST AREA

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question once again to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

Now that the Ocean Falls purchase has been made public, will

the Minister now be prepared to tell the House whether he is

prepared to authorize the expenditures approved by the previous

government for the new ferry in the middle coast area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that

the jurisdiction with respect to ferries is with the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When I was

addressing this question before to the House, I was told to

address myself to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. I'm going exactly where I was told to address the

question, and if that Minister refuses to answer the question,

then the question period is of no value whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time limit is up,

unfortunately. But we can always renew the question tomorrow if

you think you haven't been dealt with properly.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move that the House proceed to

public bills and orders, with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise on a point of order

concerning Bill 42 and the Government's proposed amendments to

that Act. My point of order is in two parts.

First, I request that you, Mr. Speaker, examine rule 75 of

our standing orders which reads: "No bill may be introduced

either in blank or in imperfect shape." Mr. Speaker, I have

consulted the authorities on this section, I have talked with

those who have considerable experience in the rules of this

House, and I find that as the words in this

section are not

restricted by previous decisions, we can take the words as they

are written.

The question then becomes, Mr. Speaker: what constitutes

"blank or imperfect shape"? What bills fall under such a

heading? Mr. Speaker, I submit that a bill which the Government

intends to amend substantially on matters of principle, dealing

with appeal and due process…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I point out to the Hon. Member

that the question before the House that you've raised on a

point of order is whether this bill is in "imperfect shape." So

the first question that has to be answered by the Speaker is

whether it is in imperfect shape.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To assist the Speaker in your

deliberations, Sir, I…

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am very grateful to the Hon. Member for

giving me a brief of his argument, which I studied. I intend to

deal with it in detail later. But in the meantime, I point out

to the Hon. Member that nowhere does he point out where at the

present time this bill is in any sense imperfect in its

shape.

It has all the necessary sections in it to complete a bill.

There is not at this stage anything that we have in the way of

knowledge before the House, on the order paper or otherwise, in

fact, that would indicate

[ Page 1450 ]

that it is not in perfect shape. I might point out that what

is called a "dummy bill" is one which is put in with blank

pages in it.

This is complete in its form, and the Hon. Member is

anticipating something that has not yet happened. If he says

that there are going to be any changes in the bill, then his

point of order is in advance of the actual situation that he

contemplates. I have no knowledge of any amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the reason I proposed the

question to the Premier about four or five days ago on the

question of whether amendments would be coming forward on this

bill, and whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) speaking in Kamloops was government policy,

was to indicate that there are cases, Mr. Speaker, where this

bill may well be in imperfect shape, simply because it has been

accepted as government policy by the Premier that there will be

amendments to this bill — amendments of which we in this

House, as you correctly state, know nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: My point is that you're anticipating a matter

that is not before the House. I point to Beauchesne on page 60,

section 71. The Speaker in this case said: "I must deprecate

the practice of putting questions of this kind to the Speaker.

It's the Speaker's duty merely to answer questions of order and

procedure as they arise."

Now the question has not arisen yet of any amendments. It is

an invariable rule in this House, and in May, that amendments

to bills do not come in during second reading. We are now

embarked on second reading and the debate on the motion that

the bill has second reading is now in progress.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely my

point.

MR. SPEAKER Well this is no time then to raise the question, anticipating

possible amendments that are not before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the

Government's announced intention is that parts of this bill are

redundant and blank. They're of no value to us…

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point before the House at this

time. What they intend to do in the future is still to be

unwrapped by the future. Therefore, I have nothing before me in

law or the law of parliament that I can look at. Therefore,

you're anticipating a question that may or may not arise. You

can't ask me to rule on theoretical things in the future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Premier

in this House four days ago is a statement in which, I think,

some reliance can be placed.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, I've made my ruling. I'd

be pleased to deal with it in greater detail in more time

available and give you my written reasons for this

decision.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a

two-part point of order, as I said. You have ruled on

one. I believe you've ruled more on the substance of the

material I gave you, rather than what I've said in this House,

which I believe is unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: You were making statements about something that

hasn't happened yet and you don't know if it will or will not

happen.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether or

not we are correctly following the rules in discussing this

bill at this time, when the Government has made statements

concerning amendment. The statement of Beauchesne on page 277

is, I believe, applicable, Mr. Speaker. He says: "It may become

necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make

considerable changes to its provisions, which can only be

accomplished at this stage by discharging the order for the

second reading and withdrawing the bill."

You'll find similar statements, Mr. Speaker, in May at page

950 to 951. Also, you can find them in the authorities of the

Speaker's Decisions elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that I've

studied those points with detail. I've examined them and

consulted on them.

Where it says, "It may become necessary, before second

reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its

provisions, which can only be accomplished at this stage by

discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing

the bill," that is a permissive thing that has been done

in this House on many occasions by permission of the House, by

leave of the House. It's merely a method that can be used if

the House wishes to do so. It is not mandatory.

We're dealing with the principle of a bill. The principle of

the bill, in broad outline, has to do with the control of

farmland.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That point I would dispute…

MR. SPEAKER: And when you look at the details of each

section of the bill, as it exists…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1451 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're discussing the principle,

in broad outline, of a bill that has to do with farmland, if

you want me to put it that way. There are sections to the bill

that deal with specific matters in relation thereto. But as you

all know, you are not to discuss the specific clauses of a bill

in second reading. You're supposed to discuss the thing in

broad detail. That is what I'm saying you can only do at this

stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, Mr. Speaker, and we've heard seven

hours of broad detail. This is why I'm attempting to assist the

House by putting forward sensible suggestions…

MR. SPEAKER: It can only be done with leave of the whole

House and I doubt if you'll get it. You might ask.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you have commented upon

— I will not say dealt with — you have commented

upon the first of the two points which I wish to raise. I gave

both points to you in a prepared statement beforehand so you

would have the opportunity of following my arguments on this.

The second point is also important.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point you have indicated is from

Beauchesne …

AN HON. MEMBER: I haven't heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were quoting from

383 of Beauchesne .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the second point, which you

are ruling out of order on the strength of having read my

comments beforehand, has not yet been placed before the Members

of this House. If, in the absurd situation — the extreme

situation — that the House wished to overrule you on such

a ruling, Mr. Speaker, how would they be able to do it unless

you allow them now to hear the point?

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right. Proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. The second point is this,

Mr. Speaker. The point has been made that amendments are

acceptable at third reading. This, of course, is only partially

true because it is not true for all amendments. There is a time

and a place for amendments which affect the principles of a

bill. I'll discuss that point later on, Mr. Speaker

— whether or not the principles of the bill are such

things as denial of natural justice, rights of appeal, due

process and things of that nature.

The point of fact is that there is a time and a place for minor amendments

— which is third reading — and substantial amendments dealing with matters of

policy cannot be placed before the House at third reading. So I raise this for

your honoured consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: It's done in committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's right. The function of the…

MR. SPEAKER: At third reading, at that stage, then it's

recommended back to the House for amendment — individual

clauses — otherwise not.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You, Mr. Speaker, are going to be placed

in a most invidious position in third reading.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we are predicting it on the strength of what

the Premier himself has said in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You haven't made a point of order at all.

You're in an argumentative debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You haven't even heard it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member proceed

because I don't want anyone to suggest that I would not want to

hear his argument in detail. (Laughter). Why are you laughing

at that? I have asked him to proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the rules of admissibility

of amendments are explained in detail in May and Beauchesne . I

would quote a couple of the rules. "A committee is bound by the

decision of this House given on second reading in favour of the

principle of a bill and should not, therefore, amend the bill

in any manner destructive of this principle."

I have, Mr. Speaker, in addition, in the notes that I gave

you, quotes from two decisions of British Speakers and further

quotes from May . If you wish, you can find them in Beauchesne ,

page 285, paragraphs 406 and 408.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you will accept those quotations as

read or at least as commented upon, I'm pointing out the

pitfalls we face in this debate after second reading, at third

reading, even if we give this bill second reading. Statements

have been made by Ministers and the Premier regarding

amendments

[ Page 1452 ]

on third reading which affect the principle of the bill and

which cannot properly be entertained by you or the Chairman of

the committee in future discussions in this chamber.

So you're going to be placed, Mr. Speaker, in the most

unenviable position of ruling out of order amendments which the

Government apparently wishes to bring in, in defiance of our

rules and British parliamentary practices, at this stage. I

cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you or any other Speaker in a

British common law jurisdiction would rule that amendments

dealing with the denial of natural justice, amendments dealing

with the right of appeal, amendments dealing with due process,

are anything other than matters of high principle in a

jurisdiction which has British common law.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the third point I raise

— and it's important to mention — is that if this

bill does pass second reading at this stage, and if the

precedents of May, Bourinot, and Beauchesne as well as the

previous rulings of British and Canadian Speakers are not

followed, then the Government will be unable to propose

substantive amendments at third reading.

Then the Government has a choice: either withdrawing the

bill at third reading and re-introducing a new bill,

which may waste every hour we have presently spent in this

House on this bill; or else passing the bill and then

introducing a bill to amend the bill which has already been

passed, which is a perfectly legal way of proceeding, which

will once again mean a brand new debate from first to third

reading on a new bill. Either way, it appears that we're in for

a whole new debate on this subject and that the time and energy

that we are devoting to Bill 42 — in particular, that our

friend from South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is devoting to

Bill 42 — will be for nought.

So I believe it's important, Mr. Speaker, for your Honour to

rule on the two questions of order which I have raised: whether

it's proper for an imperfect bill to proceed and whether the

Government's proposed amendments will be receivable on third

reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I may speak to the points of order presented by

the Member. First of all, the first point is based on a procedure for amendments.

It's clearly spelled out in our standing orders

section 80 bills may be amended

in committee;

section 85 all the amendments of committee. So there is procedure

there — and we must deal with the procedure, not with the content of the bill.

We deal with the procedure; unlike my friend, I'll deal with the procedure,

not the content.

The second point is that he's surmising — he's

surmising contents of amendments. He's spent the last 15

minutes taking up the time of this House surmising what may be

in those amendments and trying to make a point of order out of

surmise. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we continue

that route, this House will dissolve into no action at all. I

suggest that we stick to the standing rules. If the Member

doesn't like the standing rules, he can either stomp out in

petulance or find some other means.

Interjections by some Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've heard fully on the

two points of order raised by the Hon. Member. I'd already

dealt with the first point of order, which was that we could

not anticipate the kind of amendments that may or may not be

before the House at a later time. Therefore, it would be

premature, according to May or to Beauchesne, to proceed at

this time to surmise, as has already been indicated.

The second point of order dealt with the question of

Beauchesne, clause 383, where it says, "it may become

necessary, before the second reading, to make considerable

changes in the provisions of a bill." That can only be

accomplished, according to Beauchesne, at that stage by

discharging the order for second reading and withdrawing the

bill. In every case, invariably, that is done with the leave of

the House. The bill is the property of the House once it's

introduced, and can only be removed from the House or changed

or withdrawn with leave of the whole House. Therefore, I cannot

see how that

section of Beauchesne is anything else but

permissive. It is not mandatory.

Therefore, you're speculating at this stage when you suggest

that there is anything imperfect in the form of the bill as

it's presently before the House. It reads as a bill. It has

separate sections that are all complete in it, as it stands on

the order paper. I cannot see that your first argument about it

being imperfect, therefore, stems from anything else but

statements that have been made somewhere that the bill is

subject to some amendment when it gets to committee after

second reading. But that is customary that you deal with the

bill in general principle at this stage, and do not relate it

to specific clauses of the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot deal with amendments that are not

here and therefore I must rule your point of order as not

tenable. I would call upon the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

[ Page

1453 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased

that during your recent discourse with the learned leader of the Liberals that

you told us the true intent of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: I've been listening to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well you told us, I think, the real intent

when you said that the purpose of Bill 42 is to control

farmland. Control, and that's the key word and I'm certainly

glad that you informed the House.

I'm certainly glad that the Hon. leader of the Liberals now

has told his Liberal Constituency Association in Nanaimo why he

hasn't brought in amendments and I'm sure that they'll be

pleased with their leader because of the explanation given in

the House here this afternoon.

So now that everybody's happy, and now that everybody's had

their say, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to continue where I left

off last evening when I was discussing…I'm certainly

getting lots of support, not only in this House but outside.

Mr. Speaker, I was discussing…

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): If you

submit it to the country you'll find the supporters.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was discussing the Municipal Act , Mr.

Speaker, and statements made by the Premier about the

Municipal Act . Before I got started on discussing this

Act, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I was called a liar by

the Member for Vancouver…

MR. SPEAKER: I think you've been through that, Hon. Member.

I don't think we should go back to something…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I don't want to go back. But I do want to

point out to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think you think and I

think that some of the other Members of the House think that I

am being repetitious. I want to point out to the Speaker that

this speech was prepared by me prior to Bill 42, and I have not

brought back, gone over or rehashed one single bit of my

speech. I have points left that I left off when I finished

speaking a week ago Tuesday night. I want to bring this to the

Speaker's attention, because I am not trying to be tedious, and

I am not trying to be repetitious.

If I still wanted to do so, I would read the entire Municipal Act . I would

read the entire Land Act and I would read lots of other things that the laws

of the Legislature permit me to do. I just want to get this one point cleared

up with you, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed. This material here is material that

I have brought into this House several times. So now that we understand each

other…

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that

reading speeches is not desirable in the House. In fact I'd

like to see us all get away from reading speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think that the Speaker would accuse me

of reading speeches. I can think on my feet. There are certain

sections that I would read because I don't want to be

misquoted. This is a very important element. There will be

certain excerpts that I would read but other than that…

So now I'll carry on, Mr. Speaker. I was going to inform the

House of the points that I have brought up in previous talks on

this floor, but if you…

MR. SPEAKER: I think they all have Hansard .

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll just carry on.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Read

section 791.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to read some sections out of

the Municipal Act . And I know that you've been reading

them my friend. I know you're on pretty shaky ground and I

appreciate the situation you're in.

Now, we were discussing comments that the Premier made on an

open-line show on Saturday which was rebroadcast twice so

that everybody would have the opportunity…

I'll just read this back and then I'll go into the

Municipal Act . He said, "May I refer you again to the

section of the Municipal Act where in 706 of the

existing Municipal Act , where it says" — I'm

quoting the Premier's own words on the Jack Webster show

— "property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously

affected by reason of the adoption of zoning." Now my point,

Mr. Speaker, was and still is that the Premier was not telling

all of the story on zoning to the citizens of British

Columbia — was not giving all of the sections which are

applicable to zoning; was not telling the entire story. I am

going to read the

section on zoning from the Municipal Act so that this House will be aware of the checks and

balances, as they presently exist, in the Municipal Act .

I'm going to start by reading from the Municipal Act ,

which is

chapter 255 of the statutes, division 3, Mr. Speaker,

and it's entitled, Zoning,

section 702:

"The Council may by bylaw, hereinafter referred to as

a zoning bylaw,

(

a) Divide the whole, or a portion of the area of the municipality

into zones and define each zone either by map, plan or description, or any combination thereof,

(

b) Regulate the use of land, buildings and

[ Page 1454 ]

structures including the surface of water within such zones,

and the regulation may be different for different zones and for different uses

within a zone. For purposes of this clause, the power to regulate includes the

power to prohibit any particular use or uses in any specified zone or zones.

(

c) Regulate the size, shape and siting of structures within

such zones, and the regulations may be different for different zones, and with

respect to different uses within a zone."

There's nothing like this in Bill 42.

"Without limiting the generality of clause B., require the

owners or occupiers of any building in any zone to provide

off-street parking and loading space for such building,

and may classify buildings and differentiate and discriminate

between classes with respect to the amount of space to be

provided, and may exempt any class of building, or any building

existing at the time of adoption of the bylaw from any of the

requirements of this clause. "

Now this is part and parcel of zoning, and that is

section

702, clause 1. Nothing was said by the Premier about further

clauses. Further regulations concerning the public is in

section 2. This is where we get into the meat of it a little

more.

"In making regulations under this section, the council shall

have due regard for the following considerations…."

This is where people in municipal offices and elected civic

governments have to take into consideration the land that they

are going to zone. They have to take into consideration the use

of the land, and the fact that it belongs to persons other than

the Crown. I'd like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what

considerations must be made. "The promotion of health, safety,

convenience and welfare of the public." — and I'm quoting

this from the Municipal Act — "The prevention of

the overcrowding of land and the preservation of the amenities

peculiar to any zone. The securing of adequate light, air and

access."

Section (

d) says:

"The value of the land and the nature of its present and

prospective use and occupancy."

So by giving only one

section of the Municipal Act

under zoning, the Premier did not tell the entire story. If all

of the power, as he says, or would infer, is in the Act, why

does he pass Bill 42? So there's a bit of double talk here, Mr.

Speaker, a bit of double talk which leaves the ordinary person

in a difficult position, because he can't understand it.

One time we say one thing and the next time we disagree with

what we've already said.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back and say that the principle of

Bill 42 is, as you've ably put it, to control farmland. But

I'll go a little further and say it's to control all land. And

why?

We must also take into consideration, when zoning, the character of each zone,

the character of the buildings already erected and the peculiar suitability

of the zone for particular uses. The conservation of property values is written

right in the Municipal Act . There is absolutely nothing in Bill 42 about the

conservation of property values, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the order-in-council changed all

land values. It skyrocketed present land immediately and

depressed other land values. Already, without even passing a

bill, this Government has ruined land values in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

I say again, the Municipal Act clearly states, in

section (

f) of

section 2 of

section 702, the conservation of

property values. The Premier says again, in referring to

section 706, which is the only

section he read: "We recognize

that we have gone further and said that society owes an

obligation to those farmers who are bona fide farmers; not the

weekend farmers."

Well, maybe we don't have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to the

weekend farmers as far as making their farming an economically

viable unit. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have a great

obligation to the weekend farmers when it comes to protecting

their assets. I think it should be the right of an individual,

if he so desires, to go out in the country and buy a few acres

and raise a few horses or ponies for his children, or maybe a

cow or some chickens. I think that he should have that right.

Bill 42 in essence is going to take that right away from

him.

We talk about farming and we talk about preserving farming

as a way of life. I would like to say that we should also in

Bill 42 give some consideration to preserving the family as a

way of life. In what better way could you bring up a small

family than to have them on a small acreage outside of town

somewhere where they can have some space to flex their muscles,

where they can maybe learn to drive a tractor and learn how to

plant seeds in the garden? I think we owe these people an

obligation as well. As I say, I don't think it has to be a

viable operation but…The Premier laughs. I don't think it's

a laughing matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not laughing at you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm sorry. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier

wouldn't be laughing at me, because I know that boys that come from a farm seem

to have a great sense of responsibility and I think they make good citizens.

Now I am not saying that people raised in the city don't but I am saying that

by and large the farm boy is a pretty wellrounded individual who makes a good

citizen. So I would say that families who desire to move to a little acreage

outside of town should certainly be given the

[ Page

1455 ]

opportunity to do so.

Now the Premier again defeats his own words, because he

says: "To accomplish that," and he's referring to this

obligation, "we have gone beyond the idea of gimmickry and

said, 'Yes, we'll take the tax off the land and do other

things."' And I presume that when he was saying that, Mr.

Speaker, he was referring to taking the taxes off the land as

"gimmickry," or maybe some of the other things to

preserve farming as "gimmickry." Now I don't think that's a

very intelligent statement coming from our Premier when we're

talking about preserving farmers — referring to certain

things which have been asked for by the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and by the Farmers' Union of British Columbia as

"gimmickry."

Well, I guess he can interpret things the way he wants. But

I certainly don't think it's very intelligent to refer to these

things as "gimmickry."

"Yes, we'll take the tax off the land," he says, "and do other things.

We proposed to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to come to us by this fall

with recommendations in these areas: (1) in terms of pension security; (2) in

terms of economic viability of small fruit farms; and (3) brand new marketing

concepts." Is this some of the "gimmickry" that the Premier was referring to,

Mr. Speaker? I would like to think not.

But here he's asked the Federation of Agriculture for input

after the damage is already done. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that before we pass damaging Bill 42 we should have input. This

is what I've been asking for.

The Premier has asked for input. The Minister of Agriculture

has said that he wants input.

However, I will continue with another point, Mr. Speaker. I

will quote the Premier again when he says, "There is no way he

could expect urban value for his land by rezoning before this

Act came in."

I'm going to refer to another

section of the Municipal

Act — a very important section, Mr. Speaker. It's

section 478, and this, Mr. Speaker, outlines the duty of the

municipality to make compensation for property taken or injured, and arbitrations

to determine amounts. It's clearly spelled out in the

Municipal Act . I can hardly believe that the Premier is

not aware of these sections of the Municipal Act because

I think he discussed sections of the Municipal Act

before going on this radio programme with the Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald). So I'm sure that the Attorney General

would be aware of this

section of the Municipal Act and

I'm sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) would be aware of this section. It says:

"The council shall make to owners, occupiers or other persons

interested in real property entered upon, taken, expropriated or used by the

municipality in the exercise of its powers, or injuriously affected by the exercise

of any of its powers, due compensation for any damages…"

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What

section is that?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's

section 478 of the Municipal Act .

"…Including interest upon the compensation at the rate

of 6 per cent per annum and from the time the real property was

entered upon, taken, or used necessarily resulting from the

exercise of such powers beyond any advantage which the claimant

may derive from the completed work."

MR. LAUK: Do you know what that means?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"And the claim of compensation, if not mutually agreed upon,

shall be decided by three arbitrators, to be appointed as hereinafter mentioned;

namely, the municipality shall appoint one, the owner or tenant or other person

making the claim or his agent shall appoint another, and such two arbitrators

shall appoint a third arbitrator within 10 days after their appointment."

So there are sections in the Municipal Act which

clearly protect the rights of the individual. And there are no

sections in Bill 42 to protect anybody from anything, Mr.

Speaker.

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

don't know what it means.

MR. PHILLIPS: "But in the event of such two arbitrators not

appointing a third arbitrator within the time, one of the

judges of the Supreme Court shall on application of either

party by summons in chambers of which due notice shall be given

to the other party appoint such third arbitrator."

Well, now the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is

coming to the Premier's rescue again.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The Premier's shadow.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's coming to the Premier's rescue again and

telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Well,

maybe all those thousands of people out there in British

Columbia don't know what they're talking about either,

according to somebody's

interpretation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're the only one.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll just read another section, which is "The

power to acquire land for sites other than municipal purposes."

We'll see what's in that

section of the Act, under section…

[ Page 1456 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to be quiet.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know the Act so well you should know the

sections off by heart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell him. Let him find it.

MR. PHILLIPS: "The council may develop property owned by the

municipality for use as a residential, commercial or industrial

area, or any combination of such uses and provide such works

and services as are deemed necessary or beneficial to the

development."

This is another power that a municipal council has.

"For the purposes of subsection 1, the council of a city or

district municipality may, by resolution or bylaw, acquire

property other than expropriation, or by bylaw and with the

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, acquire

property by expropriation."

MR. LAUK: What's wrong with that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's already in the Act. That's the point that

I am saying. It's already in the Municipal Act , Mr.

Speaker. It's there and there certainly is a right of appeal;

but there's nothing in Bill 42 with any right of appeal.

MR. LAUK: There's no expropriation in Bill 42 either.

MR. PHILLIPS: There doesn't have to be expropriation. It's

confiscation. You don't need to expropriate when you have the

powers of a dictatorial five-man commission to go in and

do anything they want. You don't need expropriation laws. No,

certainly not. You don't need any of the checks and balances

that exist in the Municipal Act . You don't need them,

Mr. Speaker, because you have a dictatorial five-man

commission in this little bill. No checks and balances

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. But there is in the Municipal

Act . It gives the people the right to appeal. There's nothing

in Bill 42 that gives anybody the right of appeal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, there isn't. You can "hem" and "haw". If

there is, why does the Minister of Agriculture run up to the

farmers and say, "We're going to change the

section and put in

some right of appeal "? Tell me that.

MR. LAUK: You're talking about expropriation.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You don't know what

you're talking about either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. Order. Would the Hon.

Member proceed despite the objections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was a caller on this line who brought up

this very point. Webster says something to the effect that he

should get a fair market value. The man is complaining that he

isn't getting a fair market value for his land. The Premier

says, "Zoning changes have no cause for compensation under

law." Well now, Mr. Speaker, don't you agree that that's

misleading?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's totally incorrect, not misleading.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a good word. Thank you very much. The

Premier was totally incorrect in making that statement on the

open-line show. What do you do, with a Premier like that,

Mr. Speaker? You can't spank him like a baby. You have to tell

the people that he's made a totally incorrect statement. I

guess that's what I'm doing here this afternoon — advising

the House that the Premier made a totally incorrect

statement.

Webster says, "They'll get the value of the changed zoning.

Is that right?"

"Not of the changed zoning," the Premier says; "they'll get the value,

not of what could be or should be or may be, but get the value at the time when

it is zoned at the time." Now he is talking about property values when the five-man commission zones the land.

But what has happened already, Mr. Speaker, is that farmland

values have been deflated to the point where anybody could go

out and buy them because of the reaction to Bill 42. So now

that the value of farmland has been deflated, this commission

can go in and buy up the land at 1952 prices and zone it as

farmland and, five years down the road, resell it at a

fantastic profit. That's what this five-man commission

can do, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure that that is not what this

five-man commission has in mind. Once they zone a piece

of property next to a piece of property they can deflate the

value without any compensation. There are certainly no checks

and balances there.

The Premier says, "Farmland prices for farmland. We are not

interested in buying farmland. We are interested in assuring

that the land stays as farmland." Not interested in buying

farmland. I want the House to note that, because in a few

moments I'm going to bring up a contradictory statement.

I think those are the main points of this much publicized open-line programme

on Saturday. I was very disappointed in some of the things the Premier

[ Page

1457 ]

said.

There's another point here, Mr. Speaker, and I'm quoting the

Premier again on this radio show:

"Because I think that one of

the reasons is that people who attack the bill didn't do their

research or were deliberately misleading people because under,

and I keep referring to

section 706 and the terms of

compensation, they must have known surely that the

section is

already in the Municipal Act and we are only including

the

section in the new Act. See, Jack, you didn't do your

homework."

That's what the Premier says, again emphasizing

section 706 — but only

section 706.

He says, "There never was before for rezoning and there

isn't now. We are carrying on the existing policy." And he's

talking about compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No change at all.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is certainly nothing whatsoever in Bill

42, and now the Attorney General goes along…I am sure it

was the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, who must have been

advising the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER ; He's wrong too.

MR. PHILLIPS: "…no change in the law," he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better go back and tell him too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you been in here this afternoon? Do I

have to go back and read you the Municipal Act ?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to read it to him, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is astounding, Mr. Speaker, absolutely

astounding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: …absolutely astounding that the Attorney

General would attempt to mislead me here in the House this

afternoon.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): It's astounding that

I should know more about it than you do, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think you should know more about it.

You're the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the demonstration here last Thursday by a group of

concerned farmers, the Premier says: "The meeting the other day was nothing

more than a political manoeuvre." A political manoeuvre. Concerned farmers.

Concerned over Bill 42, who took all the time and the cost of coming to Victoria

to show their concern over Bill 42 and the Premier says, "The meeting the other

day was nothing more than a political manoeuvre."

I guess that this, Mr. Speaker, shows the contempt of both

the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture for the people of

this province. I guess this is why, Mr. Speaker, they didn't

take the opportunity the other day, when they had all of these

people here, to explain Bill 42 to them. Maybe they know that

if they explained the Municipal Act to these farmers,

and only half-explained it to them, the farmers would be

intelligent enough to know what the exercise was all about.

The Premier says, talking about Bill 42, "I don't agree that

it was sloppily drafted. This is brand new ground we're

breaking but we have done a very poor public relations job in

preparing ourselves and the community for this bill." Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that it isn't a case of a poor public

relations job in bringing in Bill 42 at all. It's a case of the

people understanding Bill 42. That's what the concern is all

about.

It's pretty hard to sell something that isn't right. I don't

care, Mr. Speaker, how extensive a public relations job the

Premier wanted to do on Bill 42, or the Minister of Agriculture

wanted to do on Bill 42. He's had lots of opportunity since

Bill 42 was introduced to do a good public relations job,

because there's certainly been lots of input.

The Minister of Agriculture was on "Hourglass" last night

and he had half an hour to do a public relations job on Bill

42. He didn't do a very good job, Mr. Speaker, because he will

not retreat from the ground which he holds which in essence is

that if you now own land and pay taxes, you don't really own

the land. You're just really renting it. That is the ground

that the Minister of Agriculture stands on. It's pretty hard to

do a public relations job on that, Mr. Speaker, because you're

never going to sell that to the people of this province.

I don't think public relations jobs are going to cram this

Bill 42 down their throats. I don't care how glossy the print

is or how expensive the ad is or who writes the speeches.

You're not going to shove Bill 42 down the throats of the

people of British Columbia.

The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is because the truth

will out eventually.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If he's right, why doesn't he sit

down?

MR. PHILLIPS: When the truth is suppressed, Mr. Speaker,

then this won't be the kind of country that I want to live in.

When there is no room for the truth

[ Page 1458 ]

to surface; when people's rights are denied, and when

legislation is introduced that doesn't have the time for proper

hearing, and the Premier says that "we did a poor public

relations job." I would think, Mr. Speaker, that it wouldn't be

necessary for this Government — and I hope it wouldn't be

a policy of this Government — for every piece of

legislation that comes in for them to go out and do a public

relations job on it; to try and sell it and shove it down

people's throats.

People are intelligent. Sometimes I think they're insulated

from these chambers. There are things that go on here that

maybe they don't hear about. But eventually, Mr. Speaker, they

do find out about them. If they're not happy with what the

Government does, then they — as the Government says

— they "turf them out."

Then Mr. Webster says — and I'm glad the Attorney

General is in the House — "In my previous interview, I

nearly fell over backwards when the Attorney General told me he

wasn't aware that there was no right of appeal in your

bill."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, any time you can make Jack Webster fall

over backwards, it's got to be a pretty astounding statement, I

would think. He doesn't fall over backwards very easily. He's

heard a lot of pretty rough statements but I guess the Attorney

General really got to him that day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometimes he falls on his face.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you said that. I didn't.

No right of appeal in the bill, and the Premier goes right

ahead and says, "Well, there is a right of appeal in the bill."

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no right of appeal in Bill 42 but

there certainly is in the Municipal Act .

Then the Attorney General turned around 180 degrees. The

Attorney General's response to that, when we got him in the

comer and talked to him a little more, is what he had intended

to say. He said that under this bill there is the exact kind of

appeal procedure that exists under the Municipal Act. So

there's some more double talk.

This was quite a radio programme. I didn't get all of it

taped but I think that I have pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker,

that it's a poor kind of public relations. It's a poor policy

of the Premier and it's a poor policy of the Government to go

out on an open-line programme and not tell the whole

story — to try to tell people that the Municipal Act

is similar to Bill 42. You, Mr. Speaker, and I know that

this is not the case.

If the powers of expropriation are not needed, which has been said before —

and the Premier said it again here — I would like to ask the House, Mr. Speaker,

why is it in the bill?

section after

section gives the Government the power

to do things that you say you are not going to do. Have you recognized that,

Mr. Speaker? They want the power in the bill to do things that they're not going

to do. They say, "Oh, we're not going to do that."

The Minister of Agriculture said last night, "Oh, we're

not going to take your house." He was telling another political

man there last night on "Hourglass", "We're not going to touch

your house." Well, if they're not going to take the house and

they're not going to take the barn and the chickens, why do they

need the power? Why do they want the Act passed? It's a very

interesting point, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? If they're not going

to do it, why do they need all the power?

There are sections in the Act that give them power to zone.

There's another

section in the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, that gives them the power to rezone. What I'm pointing

out there is that this is very difficult in the Municipal

Act but very easy in Bill 42. So the five-man

commission can zone land as a park and then turn right around

six months later and rezone it as an industrial site, without

any compensation for zoning it in the first place or any

compensation for rezoning it in the second place. That power is

in Bill 42.

The power in the Municipal Act — and this is

why there hasn't been that much problem with zoning under the

Municipal Act — is that land is usually zoned up.

Once land is zoned by the Municipal Act, a municipal

council has to go through a lot of meetings and a great many

procedural wrangles to rezone it again. Under Bill 42, Mr.

Speaker, our five-man commission can zone it as it sees

fit and a year later it can be rezoned. That's a very

interesting point. Having used the designation once, they can

turn around and redesignate under Bill 42. Under the

Municipal Act , no. You can't do that.

The word "designation" is used in Bill 42 instead of

"zoning." That's the deliberate use of a word that conjures up

use of farmland to misguide the public. In constructing Bill

42, Mr. Speaker, why didn't they use the word that's always

been used and stick to the term "zoning"? Because that's

exactly what it means. But people are seeing through the word

"designation" and they know that it's zoning.

Having designated, Mr. Speaker, they can lift the

designation at will under Bill 42. Under the Municipal

Act , it's practically impossible. Does the Hon. Attorney

General recognize this fact? Is somebody going to have the

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go on an open-line programme

across this province and explain this

section of Bill 42 versus

the existing sections of the Municipal Act ?

The Premier should know this very well, Mr.

[ Page

1459 ]

Speaker, because right in his own riding of Coquitlam there

was a big kerfuffle which came out of city council's decision

to use a small sliver of parkland to widen a road. So I know

that the Premier is not speaking from ignorance of the

Municipal Act Because in his riding of Coquitlam this

land was designated as parkland. The city council wanted to

widen a road. Before they could widen the road, Mr. Speaker,

they had to rezone part of this parkland. Immediately after the

decision was made, city council in Coquitlam was in

trouble.

There are the checks and balances, Mr. Speaker, that I'm

talking about, that presently exist in the Municipal

Act . People are checks and balances. Elected people are

checks and balances. They're there; they're on the scene.

Public opinion, public hearings — they're all there. But

under Bill 42, this five-man commission, Mr. Speaker, is

going to be insulated from the public. A very disastrous and

dangerous move indeed.

This instance, Mr. Speaker, happened right in the Premier's

own riding — right in Coquitlam. There was certainly lots

of input by the people to take just a small sliver of parkland

and rezone it. In many instances in municipal affairs, Mr.

Speaker — I think you'll agree with me — they even

go to a vote. They hold a plebiscite to rezone land. They even

go to the point of having a plebiscite.

Bill 42 says that this five-man commission can

"designate and redesignate" — that's what it says, Mr.

Speaker — zone and rezone, insulated from the public. Put

that situation there in Coquitlam, for instance. Had this five-man commission been there, it would have just taken

the sliver off of the parkland and said, "It's now highway," without any problem whatsoever. There would have been

no public hearings, no elections, no plebiscites. Maybe that's

the way the Government wants it, Mr. Speaker. I'm almost

inclined to believe that, because of Bill 42. They will do

whatever they want to.

As a matter of fact, even in many parks, Mr. Speaker, city

councils have had trouble getting the authority to put in

comfort stations. Maybe we want to do away with these

problems.

Somebody will say it's certainly a very efficient form of

government. A five-man commission goes around the

province and says, "This is the law." The big stamp, Mr.

Speaker. No right of appeal. Not all of the clauses are checks

and balances as are in the Municipal Act . They just go

around with a big stamp. Declaration: "I now declare this

parkland as highway " — and the five-man commission

puts their big stamp on it, Mr. Speaker, and it's law. I'd say

it's a very efficient form of government, but not running true

to our democratic process. A process that has been won by

blood, sweat and tears.

Mr. Speaker, in the city of Hope, the council wanted to put their city hall

on parkland. The people of Hope, in a democratic way, flexed their muscles and

said, "There's no way that you're going to put that city hall on our parkland.

This is parkland, and it's zoned as parkland and it shall remain as parkland."

Now there again, take that situation and put your five-man commission in under Bill 42, and the big stamp

comes out again and says, "You shall be allowed to put this

city hall on this parkland," and the stamp comes down.

This is the law.

I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, this five-man commission

is going to have to have the judgment of a Solomon.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pointing these out because they are all

relevant to Bill 42. In Terrace, the local government was going

to put an arena — which is recreation, and parkland is

recreation — they were going to put an arena on parkland

of Terrace. What did the local government do? What did the

local people do? They said, "There is no way. No way, even

though it is recreation and this is parkland." There'd be cars

to park in the park. There's be kids in the arena playing

hockey. It's recreation, that's what parkland is for, but

putting this building and all the pavement, and all the things

that go with it to create a parking lot — the people

said, "No way."

I'm not sure in this case — did they go ahead and do

it or not? No. Well, if they did, certainly the people had the

chance to put their input into it. They had a chance to

thoroughly discuss it and look for other sites.

You see, if the five-man commission had been in there,

they'd get out their big stamp again. They'd say, "This arena

shall go on this parkland." Then bang, down with the big stamp

and it automatically becomes law.

I think that's a very important point I'm making here, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture is

listening. They can under this bill, having taken land from one

thing, can use it for another. Or, Mr. Speaker, once they've

zoned land they can rezone it for a thousand other uses.

They can take and put mines in the middle of our parks if

they so desire, Mr. Speaker. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? If

there's a park Garibaldi Park or even up on Whistler Mountain

this five-man commission can come down with that big

stamp and say, "This shall be mining territory" — and a

big mine can go up there. They can use all those lovely ski

tows and the gondolas and everything to get the mining supplies

up to the top of the hill to dig the mine if they so desire.

That's just the five-man commission. Now that's dreadful,

isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely dreadful.

The thing that really bothers me about this too, Mr.

Speaker, is that I would hate to think what could happen. Could

we build a hypothetical case here. Under Bill 42, if it comes

into being, we'll take a

[ Page 1460 ]

hypothetical case.

Here's a nice dairy farm beside a nice little village in the

lower Fraser Valley. Everybody's happy and everything is

prosperous. Along comes this five-man commission and they

say, "We're going to put a highway through there. We don't want

these smelly old cows on either side of the highway so we're

going to designate each side of the highway, where this farm

was, as parkland.

The farmer doesn't have one single thing that he can say

about it, Mr. Speaker. You know, they can put him right out of

business; run the road right through the middle of his barn if

they desire. That's under the principle of Bill 42, Mr.

Speaker.

The other thing they can do is put certain enterprises

beside a farm. They can designate it for industrial purposes

from farmland. They can designate farmland into other than

farmland uses, Mr. Speaker. And that's a very important point.

They can take all our good farmland, this five-man

commission can, and under the Act, they can designate it out of

agricultural use. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) realizes that this is in the Act, Mr. Speaker.

They can actually take farmland in the lower Fraser Valley

and they can designate it for housing. They can designate it

for industry, light and heavy. They can designate it for

storage yards. They can designate it for highways. They can

designate it for parkland. They can designate it or zone it, as

the word zoning is used in the Municipal Act , for a

thousand and one different things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Centralized bureaucratic nightmare.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I really don't know what it would be. I

suppose you could call it a centralized bureaucratic nightmare.

But certainly, Mr. Speaker, you have to make no mistake about

it, it's going to be centralized control of all land in British

Columbia. This sort of thing is not permissible, Mr. Speaker,

under the Municipal Act . It is just not permissible. As

a matter of fact, it's practically impossible.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: But which?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a what?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under Bill 42 Gloccamorra might be designated industrial land because the power is there. I'm

glad that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) came in

because I know that if our Minister of Highways were the

Premier of this Province…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't think they'd get the whole story? I

believe that if he were explaining the Municipal Act , he

would give people the whole story. I really do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think he would.

I'm sorry that the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

who has had so much input into my speech is not here, because

I'm going to talk about his constituency for just a moment.

Vancouver Centre, and the people of Vancouver Centre, seem to

think, Mr. Speaker, that they are insulated from Bill 42. Some

of them have been misguided and they feel that Bill 42 is

strictly for the farmer. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

Province of British Columbia were trying to take over some land

which was to be assembled for low-income housing. They

assembled…Are you getting ready to speak on Bill 42?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They took over some land to

be assembled for low-income housing. Now this was the

They put this land in the hands of a developer who was going to

develop low-rental housing. When they put the whole

package together they found at this particular point in history

— at this red hot point in history — that this was

not a feasible operation right now.

So the developer was going to sell some of this land to the

City of Vancouver for a firehall. What happened? Do you know

what happened, Mr. Speaker? The people in Strathcona Park

flexed their muscles — democracy exercised its rights

— and they said, "No way are you going to put that

firehall there. No way." They didn't have to go to an election,

they just flexed their muscles.

Take that versus a five-man commission who would have

the power over this assembled land to say, "Yes, you can put

this firehall here; you shall put this firehall here." And down

comes that big stamp of the dictatorial five-man

commission. It comes crashing down and says, "This is the

law."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Even in

[ Page 1461 ]

Terrace.

MR. PHILLIPS: "This is the law." That's the way it'll be,

Mr. Speaker, under Bill 42. It affects your area and my area

and it affects Vancouver Centre, because here is an instance

right here, Mr. Speaker. That's the way Bill 42 is written.

They will put their big stamp on it and say, "That's it." And

there will be no input and no output.

AN HON. MEMBER: There isn't any right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the Minister of Health would listen to

me. I just got through giving you an instance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

I heard the instance.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't believe that we should have all of

these people flexing their muscles and saying, "We don't want

this or we don't want that." As I said before you were in the

House, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance,

this five-man dictatorial commission is going to be

efficient. You're not going to have to hold hearings; you're

not going to have to listen to the local citizens; you're just

going to bring that big five-man commission stamp down

and say, "This is the law." That's the way it'll be. No matter

how you [illegible] it in any way you want to, that's it.

These are what we call checks and balances in a democratic

system. The people can have their input. If they don't like

something, they say so. Maybe they don't always win and maybe

as we progress things have to go ahead.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You're

not winning now, that's for sure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about you in just a moment.

I'm glad you spoke up and I'm glad you're in the House, Mr.

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

There are checks and balances now. There are none under Bill

42. I'd like to ask the Members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk

and Mr. Barnes) if they're going to vote for this bill, because

it's going to affect them. This bill will allow the sort of

thing to happen that I have just spoken about.

I've got another instance which is apropos to Bill 42, and again it's in Vancouver

where the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) comes from. The Vancouver School

Board wants to go into the land development in the West End. They want to lease

school property to a developer for an apartment building, Mr. Speaker. The land

is presently designated as an open-space school site, so the building will

be low and it'll be in open space.

Now you say there are no checks and balances in the

Municipal Act . What do the people say? The people of that area

say that it is a criminal act to take this land which was for

school purposes and use it for anything else.

So the school board, under pressure through our democratic system, is evidently going to back down and they're not

going to allow a developer to put an apartment building in

there. That is law working in the true process. That is our

democratic right.

Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to visualize this same

situation after Bill 42, should that day ever come in British

Columbia — which I hope never does — when Bill 42

would be passed. Supposing it were passed. Go to this

situation, Mr. Speaker: the school board that wants to do this

would go to the five-man commission and they would say:

"Mr. five-man commission, we want you to designate this

area from an open-space site to apartment land."

The five-man commission says, "It shall be done." And

when they say it, it is the law, because the five-man

commission is insulated from input. There is no right of

appeal. This is what we are talking about, This is why we don't

want Bill 42 to pass. We don't want to return to those days. We

don't want a dictator in British Columbia, We didn't elect a

dictator in British Columbia.

I'll take the Municipal Act , which was supposed to

have been brought in by the Social Credit government, my

friend, any day, to Bill 42. You tell me that was dictatorship,

Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Aw, come on," is right. Come on!

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we didn't elect a

dictator on August 30. And that's exactly what will happen if

Bill 42…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I could say a few things about you, but I'm

not going to. I'll keep on with my talk here.

So the school board had to back down. This is democracy.

Checks and balances. Bill 42 gives the power with no right to

appeal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take you back in history a

little farther. I'd like you to go back in history with me to

when Stanley Park in that great City of Vancouver had no road

through it. Somebody decided that they had to get across the

harbour so they were going to build a bridge. In order to build

this bridge they must have a road to it, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1462 ]

otherwise traffic wouldn't be able to get to it.

At that time there was no main highway through Stanley Park.

Do you remember the tremendous uproar when the people of

Vancouver spoke and said, "We do not want the road through the

park?" The people who said they didn't want the road through

the park didn't win, did they, Mr. Speaker? No, the road went

through the park.

The point I am trying to make here is that in their

democratic way the people of Vancouver had their say, and the

people of British Columbia spoke about what you're talking

about too. That's the democratic way. But had Bill 42 been in

power at that time, all the five-man commission would

have to do is say, "We're going to designate this parkland into

a roadway," and that would have been the law. Nobody

would have had any right of appeal; there would have been no

meetings, no checks and no balances. This again is the

dictatorship that I'm talking about, the dictatorship part of

Bill 42.

When the five-man commission says, "This is the law," there is no right of appeal, because that is the law.

Under Bill 42 there is no right of appeal, no compensation, no

right to anything. Dictatorship.

This is the last example — Jericho Hill —

parkland, owned by the federal government and sought by the

city council for a park. The city decided that they wanted to

put an arterial highway through this land, and they have the

right to zone it under the Municipal Act .

What happened? It became a very major issue on the platform

of the TEAM organization in Vancouver before the last civic

election. This TEAM group was against it; and the people spoke

and they elected this group to power.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, all of that is not written in the

Municipal Act . But what I am saying is that under the Municipal

Act people have the right to voice their opinions. If they are

endangered or their property values are taken, there's a right

to compensation, there's a right to hearings. None of this is

in Bill 42.

It's very interesting when you get into all of the

ramifications of Bill 42, isn't it? It's very interesting

indeed. Checks and balances.

Had Bill 42 been law the city council could go to the five-man commission and, with a little pressure applied

here in the right spot on some of the men in the commission,

with a little pressure there, a little push here and a little

pull there, they could have talked the five-man

commission into zoning this land that they wanted for the

highway through Jericho, Hill Park. The five-man

commission would bring down their big stamp and say, "This is

the law," and it would be the law. The people could

shout all they wanted to but the five-man commission

would have spoken.

All they would have to do is run their decisions up a flagpole and let the

wind blow them clean, because their decisions would be out of the reach of the

ordinary man, Mr. Speaker. Their decisions would be insulated from any input.

Their ears would be plugged by power. Their minds would be clouded by the instructions

from the cabinet. They will not have to listen because they are not elected.

Their term is secure. No one, Mr. Speaker, would be able to talk to this commission.

I'm going to move on to another portion, Mr. Speaker.

There's been lots of input from the farmers, which the Minister

of Agriculture asked for. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture

has come up with nine recommendations to the Minister of

Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the farmers' union in your

area?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm glad you brought that up. You know,

Mr. Speaker, when you're trying to get legislation pushed

through the House to make the farmers' union the bargaining

agent, you're not going to tramp on the toes of the Minister

who is going to have to bring in this legislation. Certainly,

the farmers' union is in the unenviable position of having to

support Bill 42 whether they like it or not, because they want

their own bill brought into the Legislature to make them the

bargaining agent for all the farmers of British Columbia.

I honestly think that the farmers' union are scared out of

their pants to come out and say what they truly believe about

Bill 42. They're in a very unenviable position. So they have

taken the easy way out and they've joined with a lot of other

people. They do not represent the majority of farmers in my

area, I'd like to inform the Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, bring the Member to order.

I'm going to read these recommendations from the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture into the record because I want it

down in black and white so that when we see the amendments that

the Minister of Agriculture brings in, we can see them. I'm

going to read them one by one. I'm quoting the recommendations

by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They are:

1. The requirement that the five-member land commission be

appointed for a specified term of office and that the majority be farmers. 2.

The elimination of the right of the commission to farmland itself. (They want

section 12 (

b) of Bill 42 eliminated.) 3. The elimination of the commission's

authority to designate land banks or park-

[ Page 1463 ]

land. 4. The elimination of its authority to acquire or sell

personal property. (Now, the Minister of Agriculture said, "We're not going

to touch your personal property." Well, if he's not going to touch the personal

property, get it out of the Act.)

5. Inclusion of a requirement that any changes in the title to

property be recorded and prior notice given the landlord. (A very reasonable

request.) 6. Inclusion of a requirement that all decisions of the commission

be published and circulated. (Now we're getting around to what I was talking

about sooner, Mr. Speaker, when I say "input." Some of the insulation is coming

away from this five-man commission now. I don't think that's what the Government

want. I don't think that they'll put, that in their amendments.) 7. Inclusion

of a

section spelling out the guarantees of the right of farmers to carry on

normal farming operations on agricultural land. (It's amazing, Mr. Speaker,

that a bill that purports to preserve farmland and preserve the farmer doesn't

even have that as a tenet in the Act. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker. It's supposed

to preserve farmland. Why isn't it written in the Act?)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't you realize you're making a farce

of property…?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making a farce of anything, Mr.

Attorney General.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole bill is a farce.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll carry on. 8. Incorporation

of the right to have all agricultural land and agricultural

reserves considered as farmland for assessment purposes.

(That's not in the bill — a bill that is to preserve

farmland.) 9. Drafting of new

definitions for the terms "bona

fide farmer," "family farm." "agricultural land, "

"agricultural land reserve" and "commission land."

We'll just see how many of these amendments get into the

bill when it's reworked.

In other areas there is concern about preserving farmland. The ecologists are

interested in preserving land. I was interested in an

article — "Support a Good

Idea. Don't Let Bill 42 be Killed." It's sponsored by the Sierra Club of British

Columbia, Box 385, West Vancouver. They've got some good clauses in their ad:

"Farmland in British Columbia scarce — only 2 per cent of the total area." Well,

it's only 4 per cent of the land in British Columbia, not 2 per cent.

"Farmland is being urbanized at the rate of 10,000 acres

per year. This has been the fate of 195,000 acres in the past 20 years."

Let's turn the paper over. From the information I can gather from my research,

there has always been more acreage brought under cultivation in British Columbia

in the last 20 years than there has been taken out. So if we have taken out

195,000 acres, we have put in over 200,000 acres. I would say there is no stretch

of any imagination there. I haven't been able to get the exact acreage in the

research I was doing, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't able to come up with it.

I know that hundreds of thousands of acres of land have been

turned into good farmland since 1952 by the previous

government. In many areas in the north there are many millions

of acres yet to be brought under production.

But I'm not disputing their ad. I think that they're

concerned. The thing that bothers me is that down at the bottom

of this ad it says: "The restrictions and power of Bill 42 are

less onerous than those that already govern an urban landowner.

Contrary to propaganda, the bill does not give the right to

expropriate any property." Certainly Bill 42 doesn't give the

right to expropriate because Bill 42 doesn't need the right to

expropriate. When you have a five-man commission that can

confiscate your property, you don't need the power to

expropriate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "By designation," you say, "by zoning."

So the thing that bothers me about this — and I think the

Sierra Club have done a lot of good in British Columbia. But

they should — the same as the Premier should, and the

same as everybody who talks about Bill 42 should — get

their facts straight and tell the facts to the people. This is

not being done.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know the reason that the Attorney

General is so concerned. The message is getting to the people

and this concerns the Attorney General very much. He's very

concerned because the people are getting the message about Bill

42. When he says that I'm standing up here and making a farce

of the House and all of this, that really doesn't bother me

because the people are getting the message about Bill 42. As I

said before, if I have to go into every hamlet in British

Columbia and tell the people at little meetings…I may not

have the opportunity to go on a province-wide

open-line but I will do it, because the people are going

to be informed about Bill 42.

Not all groups in British Columbia support Bill 42.

[ Page 1464 ]

Not all people in British Columbia support Bill 42. Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to read you a wire from another group in

British Columbia. It's from the Kelowna and District Fish and

Game Club.

They're interested in preserving our ecology and so forth,

but they're not supporting Bill 42. This wire is sent to the

Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, MLA for South Okanagan. It's dated March

14, 1973:

"THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS PASSED AT AN EXECUTIVE MEETING

OF THE KELOWNA AND DISTRICT FISH AND GAME CLUB HELD ON MARCH 14, 1973.

And I quote from the wire:

"THE KELOWNA AND DISTRICT FISH AND GAME CLUB IS A BODY INCORPORATED

UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND HAS A MEMBERSHIP

OF APPROXIMATELY 900 MEMBERS. PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE CLUB IS 40 ACRES OF

RECREATION LAND ON WHICH THE CLUBHOUSE NOW STANDS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE MAY

LOSE THIS VALUABLE PROPERTY. WE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN TURNED DOWN ON A SECOND TRACT

OF LAND WHICH A FARSIGHTED GROUP OF MEMBERS HAVE ENDEAVOURED TO OBTAIN. WE ARE

ALL CONCERNED WITH BILL 42, AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED. WE PROPOSE A MOTION

THAT BILL 42 BE REJECTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

J.S. TREADGOLD, SECRETARY."

There is a group of wildlife fish and gum people who are

interested in preserving our country. They are against Bill 42

for the simple reason that it is a dictatorial bill and will

not necessarily accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.

I discussed briefly at one time the Green Belt Protection

Fund Act . I said that it was doing the job that it was set

out to do. I want to read from Hansard ,

dated February

29, 1972. The speaker is now the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), at that time the land critic for

the official Opposition. He says this, and I quote, This was just last

session, a year ago now.

He said, "…you could probably buy $ 100 million worth of

green belt rather than $25 million worth of green belt. Well,

the Premier says that's right. It is right. But what I want to

know is why aren't you doing something about it?" I presume

that the Member was urging the government at that time, at the

passing of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act , not to

back it up with $25 million but to back it up with $100

million. It would certainly take that. The intent of the bill

was to put $25 million a year and pay as you go.

Now we won't need all that money. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because on

the land that you were going to buy under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act ,

the values have been deflated. Now you can buy land for which you used to pay,

say, $3,000 an acre for probably $1,500 an acre. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that's

the reason that our question paper saying, "How much money has been spent since

August 30?" has not been answered, because I don't think any has been spent.

One of the sinister ideas behind Bill 42 is to depress the. value of the land

and then go out and buy it. Point made.

I just want to read some other comments that the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources made during the

reading of this bill. I'm quoting the Hon. Robert Williams,

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, during the

passing of Bill — I don't know what the bill was, but

it's

chapter 24 of the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act :

"Now, there's a case for it for many reasons. These are

probably the most productive farmlands in the province. They

are close to the metropolitan heartland, and the great

population and in the case of some parts of them in terms of

developing them for their full agricultural potential there

will probably be major capital works necessary. In the case of

Serpentine and the Nicomekl in particular there's a genuine

flood control problems water table problems and so on. They

should be dealt with so that this area is developed into a

major food basket that is producing more and more all the time.

Simply because there are these problems of major capital

expenditures that the individual farmers in those areas might

well not be able to carry, there is a case for using the green

belt fund to preserve those key agricultural lands.

"It's also a unique opportunity," he says, "Mr.

Speaker, for making it feasible for more young people to go

into farming in British Columbia. I would note that the

Government of Saskatchewan is presently planning on going into

a land bank programme on a significant scale in order to

overcome this capital problem — that is the capitalized

value of the land is preventing people from becoming farmers

and producers on the land today. A programme such as this which

would allow a tremendous amount of leasehold farming to take

place, and those key areas would be great in terms of allowing

that possibility."

Now, the point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is

this. The Member pointed out what is being done in Saskatchewan

which has a socialist government. They have a land bank

something similar to our Green Belt Protection Fund Act .

But they didn't go to the steps that Bill 42 goes to, in being

completely dictatorial and taking over all land. This, Mr.

Speaker, is the point that I'm making.

The Member goes on to say, "Now, I know that the government

is usually reticent to allow the development of any bureaucracy…" and he's referring to a committee which would be our

Environment and Land Use Committee. He says that the Social

Credit government doesn't like building bureau-

[ Page 1465 ]

cracies. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the present

Government does like building bureaucracies because this five-man commission is a bureaucracy of the first

part.

"I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the ideal situation

would be to have this administered not by the Minister of Finance but by a Minister

of the Environment for British Columbia."

Well, I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 42 should not have been

brought in by the Minister of Agriculture but should have been brought in by

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I think it's his ideas that

are behind the bill. The ruse that it's going to be used to save farmland is

sometimes very debatable, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to talk for a few moments on what other

jurisdictions are doing with regard to conserving farmland.

Before I go, I should say that anybody who is interested can

look in the statutes of British Columbia and study the Green

Belt Protection Fund Act ,

chapter 24, which was, prior to

August 30, doing a fantastically tremendous job of preserving

farmland. But now the book is closed. The Act is there but it's

not being used. A

chapter in our history has gone by and a new

one has evolved. The Green Belt Protection Fund Act can

never function properly again until land values get back to the

same position they were before the land freeze

order-in-council was brought in on December 30. So

it's a closed chapter. A very sad case, Mr. Speaker, because it

was working; it was doing a good job. Another one of our

democratic phases passed out the window.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago I said that I thought

the Act should have been brought in by the Minister of Lands

and not the Minister of Agriculture. I have several reason for

saying that. One of them is — and I'd like to ask you this

question — why has class 4 soils been included in the

freeze? It has nothing to do with farmland. Many are small

acreages with boulders and shrub trees and unlevel —

suitable for housing, not for farming. But Bill 42 wants

control of these too, Mr. Speaker.

The bill must have been conceived by an imbecile, Mr.

Speaker, because it shows a want of intelligence. I can't

conceive that a reasonable man could bring in Bill 42. The

cabinet's sole purpose, it says, is to preserve farmland. Then,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, why did the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) launch a provincial

programme of residential land acquisition if the bill is to

preserve farmland. Why? The Minister of Municipal Affairs

together with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr Stupich),

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

Williams) have a three-way thing going here for them.

Two days before the Act was introduced, why did the Minister

of Municipal Affairs write to all mayors of all B.C.

municipalities asking them to sell municipally-owned land

to the provincial government? A very good point, Mr. Speaker. A

very good point. I wonder it maybe the Premier would answer

that point in some of his open-line shows sometime.

There has to be a sinister plot behind Bill 42, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. I think it would be hard to say the point

you mentioned is relevant to the particular matter under consideration. Could

you return to the consideration of Bill 42?

MR. PHILLIPS: I say it is relevant to Bill 42 because it has

to do with the government buying land, and if that isn't what

Bill 42 is all about, well then, correct me if I am wrong.

He also asked the mayors — this is another important

point and it is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to

you. It is very relevant. It is all around Bill 42. He also

asked the mayors to suggest land not owned by the municipality

which we should purchase: "What land do you consider good for

provincial land acquisition programme?" Under the smokescreen

of Bill 42, this was going on.

Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? I didn't until I researched

it. Now the clouds are gathering, Mr. Speaker, and they grow

greyer every day. The more research I do on Bill 42, the more

informed I become of a sinister plot to gain control of all

land in British Columbia. I must thank the Government for

giving me the opportunity to do this research. I thank the

Government for giving me this opportunity to do this research.

I thank the Government for giving the people of British

Columbia the opportunity to study Bill 42 because they said

they would listen and I am sure they are hearing lots.

We used to sing in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, "Happy

days are here again." No one is singing that today. Now they

are singing, "Rainy days are here again." Rainy days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frosty days.

MR. PHILLIPS: Frosty, freezy days. They are here. What a

catastrophe. Can this Minister of Agriculture turn British

Columbia into China? On March 14, Mr. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm certainly glad that the Premier is

listening to my remarks this afternoon. He is practically alone

in the House — no, there is one other cabinet Minister

with him.

[ Page 1466 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader just came back.

MR. PHILLIPS: Our leader is sitting right in front of me

here. Sitting right in front of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Both of them.

MR. PHILLIPS: People already are not obeying Bill 42, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, they're not obeying the land freeze

Act.

"Fraser Valley municipalities are granting construction

permits for buildings to be erected on frozen farmland, it was

learned today, apparently as a result of a hint from the B.C.

Department of Agriculture to go ahead."

Now, we have legislation by hinting. A very important point.

As the result of a hint. First they bring in the

order-in-council and they freeze all lands, then

they go around the province on open-lines and now they

are hinting to people that it is O.K. to do something. They are

hinting.

"Joe Antalack, assessor of the Pitt River municipality, said

permission has been obtained verbally from Victoria to issue

building permits on some property subdivided years ago and

about which there is no real dispute as to its ultimate

use."

Is this, Mr. Speaker, going to be the policy throughout all

of British Columbia? That is the question here. It is a

revelation — it certainly is a revelation. Certainly it's

a revelation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the people out there are

finding out what it is all about too. The people out

there are finding out what it is all about. "Some of the lots

involved," he said, "were sold recently, others have

been held for years." This is after the freeze. Are all

municipalities going to have the right to do this?

That's a very important point, Mr. Premier. What is good for

one should be good for everybody else. This is on farmland. On

farmland. Read it. "Buildings O.K.'d! on Farmland."

AN HON. MEMBER : They're frozen all right — they are

frozen all over the province.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We won seven, my friend — a record in this province

— and we'll win the next one!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you care for the Province of British

Columbia or your own ego?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please respect

standing order number 17, to allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about him over there?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"'In each case,' Antalack added, 'the applicant is required

to furnish a letter of intention to use the property as

farmland.'"

So you send in the letter of intention and it just

depends on what mood the government is in. Is that the way it

is going to be? Verbal approval?

I mentioned just a moment ago about the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and Bill 42. The Minister

of Municipal Affairs the other day in the House as a result of

a question from the leader of the Liberals (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

— this is very appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because it is to

do with Bill 42, certainly. The question was:

"In light of the recent reports that prices for housing in

Vancouver have increased more than any other metropolitan

centre in Canada, I wonder if he would release to the House any

studies that he has got which would indicate why the provincial

government in the budget increased the homeowners grant by $50

million. In addition, if this information is new to him, would

he indicate what his department intends to do, perhaps, to

increase the amount of money available so that price increases

in houses can be brought back to a reasonable level?"

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister answered: "Yes, I am aware the

costs of land, especially, have increased tremendously."

What he should have gone on to say is "as a result of Bill

42."

"I am aware that the costs of land, especially, have

increased tremendously in the lower mainland and elsewhere in

the province. The step that we are taking is to purchase land

to put out for either sale or lease throughout the area."

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe we are getting to the heart of the plot behind Bill

42. "The step that we are taking is to purchase land to put out for either sale

or lease throughout the province." — in other words the Government wants to

own all the land in British Columbia. That is what I have been saying, and here

is the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

writes to all the mayors and all the city councils and says: "I want to

[ Page

1467 ]

buy up all your land that you have." Furthermore he says: "Do you recommend

any other land around that we can gobble up?"

There is a lot more to Bill 42 than meets the eye, Mr.

Speaker — a lot more to Bill 42 than meets the eye.

"We are hoping to purchase large stocks of land which

I mentioned in my throne speech address. I said we were presently

negotiating throughout the lower mainland in Moody, Coquitlam, Burnaby

and Vancouver. I am quite aware of the increase in costs."

Yet, Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, and say you are against Bill 42

and it is to preserve farmland. What has what the Minister of

Municipal Affairs talked about got to do with that? What has

that got to do with farmland? That isn't going to help preserve

farmland, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with farmland.

Mr. Anderson asked a supplementary question. He said, "Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. I've heard the Minister

mention government purchase of land. I wonder if he could tell

us whether under these various schemes that there have been any

resales. Because it appears to me that if the government keeps

on buying land, it will just help to drive the price up

further."

What did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) answer to that? "No, lands that have been purchased so

far have been municipal lands generally. There have been no

resales at the moment. I have announced to the Press that lands

will be available shortly on a lease basis at considerably

reduced prices. So people that are desirous of purchasing

property in the lower mainland should wait for a short time

because lots will be on the market at a considerably reduced

price to what they are at the present time."

Now my point is, Mr. Speaker, are they going to lease the

land or are they going to sell it? At one time he says they're

going to lease it, the next time he says they're going to sell

it at considerably reduced prices. So the government and the

Department of Municipal Affairs is really getting into the land

business and playing with the prices. Not only does Bill 42

shove the prices sky high, then the government goes in and

tries to buy at these sky high prices and shoves the price up

further while the poor little man-on-the street who

wants to buy a piece of property to build himself a house is

just out of luck.

A question by the leader of the Liberals — "I was

wondering whether or not in the purchase of these lands is the

sale by tender or will there be sales unreported and

unadvertised?" This is very important because I want to point

out the answer to you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll give the answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"On the question of some of the sales or some of the leases or

some of the rentals" — now we're going into the rental business as well as leases,

that's short-term; rental is considered short-term,

less than six months — "it will be a varied situation.

Some of them will be going to subsidized people, others will be

going onto the open market so that certainly the ones that are

going into the open market will be by tender or bid, or some

other such method of public sale. There will be room in the

scheme for certainly looking after people with minimum

incomes." — nothing wrong with that — "So that there

won't be a bidding up of land prices at the sale price, there

will have to be provisions made for those of limited income to

be able to take

part in the exercise."

So my understanding of what the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is really getting at is that the whole of Bill 42, the

idea behind it, is to get all of the land in British Columbia.

Under

section B-12 they can farm it — now they're

going to build houses, and they're going to rent it or they're

going to lease the land. Now if that isn't, Mr. Speaker, what

I've been saying all along, and that is why there is something

behind Bill 42 more than the preservation of farmland.

The Government MLAs have been going out to their

constituencies to tell the people the good news. But they're

out there, Mr. Speaker, not telling all the good news. They're

not telling the bad news, about Bill 42 either.

It's the legal use of the Member… It's the legal…

Gosh, I can't understand that. Anyway, the Member for Vancouver

Burrard…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I wrote this speech quite a while ago you

will have to remember.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Will the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: What I am saying is that the MLAs from the

Government are going out and they're talking at public

meetings. Some meetings they're not talking at because

sometimes they don't show up. I want to say what the Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said to 35 students from

the University of Victoria the weekend before last, or was it

this weekend? She said, "Really a lot of the complaints about

the Act have to do with the language it's written in."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's "legalese".

MR. PHILLIPS: "It's legalese," the Member said. Many

people aren't used to the language that the legislation is

written in. Well I should say that people

[ Page 1468 ]

are not used to this type of language because they've never

seen it before, Mr. Speaker. Never in the annals of a

democratic society has a bill such as Bill 42 been brought

down. That's why people can't understand it. I think the

Member's right. They're not used to Marxist theory thinking in

this province, Mr. Speaker.

"The purpose of the Act is simply to zone farmland," she

says. And yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't feel that way, he wants

all land. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the

people all of the time, Mr. Speaker,

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Remember that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Bill 42 is an attempt to fool all of the

people. Fortunately, our democratic rights:are still intact and

Bill 42 hasn't really fooled anybody. The people know and the

people who support it know, because, Mr. Speaker, the people

who support it want to get their hands on every square inch of

land in British Columbia. And if the Members on the Government

side support this bill, they're supporting the acquisition of

all land in British Columbia be it private or otherwise.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) —

glad he's in the House — used the same lines as the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) up in his area. He

says that the bill has been made controversial by some people.

Ah, but the Minister of Highways, he just didn't use "just some

people." He said that the bill has been made controversial by

the big mouth hot-liners. Why didn't you come right out

and say that when you were up in your riding?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): It's a misquote.

Politicians are still angry because they lost the last

election.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the people out there might be angry

because they lost the last election. And I'll tell you, that's

a very good point, Mr. Speaker, because that's what Bill 42 is

all about. The people out there are angry. They didn't elect a

dictator. Now they find they've got one, Mr. Speaker. That's

what's making them angry, Mr. Minister of Highways, and you

know it, Mr. Minister of Highways, because you can read the

public. You know they're mad. You know they're angry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You come and run against me in the next

election.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, well you come up and run in my riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and it's also warmer. Also warmer my

friend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Will the Hon. Member return to his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have you know the Member for South Peace,

Mr. Speaker, is out in the hinterland developing this great

province. He doesn't live here on the island where the sun

shines 365 days a year. Those are good people up there. They

fight the mud. They fight the snow. They don't live down here…

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech please

and not engage in a conversation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, would you ask the Minister of Highways to…

DEPUTY SPEAKER : And I would ask the Hon. Members to observe Standing

Order 17-2 and not interrupt the Hon. Member while he's proceeding with his

comments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Member for

Omineca (Mr. Kelly) the "some people" who have made the bill

controversial, are the people who drew up the bill. They are

the people who are making it controversial. Not me, or not any

hotliners, not the Minister of Social Welfare. No, the people

who made Bill 42 controversial are the people who drew it up.

Yes, the people who drew it up. They're the ones that made it

controversial, Mr. Speaker. They're the ones that made it

controversial. Yes, they redrafted it six times. They should

have gone and redrafted it another six — 60 times.

No, Mr. Speaker, the plea from these controversial people

that the Members are talking about — the plea from them

is, "Give us back our farmlands and don't make serfs of us."

That is the plea, Mr. Speaker, "Don't take away our

rights."

In Arizona, Mr. Speaker, they are creating minifarms out of

desert land. Unthought of. Unheard of. We don't know what the

potential land use is in this province.

Take a trip down the Rhine. Where are the grapes grown?

They're not grown on flat land.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've done the same thing in the

Okanagan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure. What we need to study, before we go into

this controversy, are ways to utilize land. That's why I

recommended before that we do some travelling around.

[ Page 1469 ]

What they're finding in Arizona, Mr. Speaker, is that people

are buying up these little mini-farms that were

previously desert. They're going out there and they're finding

that they want to farm. They are producing…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're trying to rush him.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are producing, Mr. Speaker, vegetables.

They're finding that they're having to have schools for these

people. These mini-farms are sprouting up by the

thousands on land that was previously desert.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the Hon. Members on the Government

side please be quiet so the Hon. Member may speak?

I would also ask the Hon. Member on the front bench on the

Opposition side not to provoke them.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order'.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Would the Hon. Member for Peace River please be seated?

Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre state his

point of order?

MR. LAUK: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: you do not

chastise one side of the House without chastising the other

when both are equally to blame. He started a cross comment and

we're entitled to reply…

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Do not chastise one side as opposed to the other.

You're bought and sold by that Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER : There is no point of order. I did comment to the Opposition

side after I'd concluded with the Government side.

Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly thank the Member for Vancouver

Centre for giving me that short break. This is a very important

point that I'm bringing up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chirp, chirp.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are the problems of the House all solved, Mr. Speaker?

May I continue? All right.

It's a very important point. We're talking, under Bill 42,

about farmland and about land, period. I'm sure there are many

areas in British Columbia that can be utilized as good farmland

that we are overlooking today. That's why this

article is very

apropos. Also in the Peace River area today, with the use of

new methods, new fertilizers, new plows and rotation, land that

used to be considered moose pasture, Mr. Speaker, is now

growing good crops. I am sure that in the area that you

represent there is much land that could be used for agriculture

if it were looked at in the proper perspective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty thousand acres in the Okanagan.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what we need to preserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty thousand acres in the Okanagan not

considered…

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. I am recognizing only the Member for

South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The headline is "Arizona Mini-Farms Sprout but

Irrigation a Maxi-Job." Sure, it's a big job.

"Mini-farms are luring people to Arizona from many states,

but the new farmers are finding out there's more to irrigation than sprinkling

a lawn. City folks and others anxious to enjoy outdoor life in this state's

mild climate have set up 2,000 to 3,000 mini-farms of one to 10 acres in the

state. But they have so many questions that Arizona has recently appointed its

first mini-farm extension agent."

It's interesting. It really caught on.

"William Johnson advises that teaching about 2,000 families living on such mini-farms how to

irrigate, plant fruit trees, raise vegetables or poultry or

rabbits, feed a goat, and even in one case, curry a child's

pony. So far as is known here he has a somewhat unique

job."

What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I talked about

this before, is the right of an individual to have his little

plot of land and to raise his rabbits or his carrots. This is

good. Bill 42 is not going to promote that; Bill 42 discourages

that, Mr. Speaker.

They don't want to carve up the farmland so that a person

can have his little mini-farm. This is what they're doing

in Arizona.

All right, let's take a look at it. Why don't we take a look at some land?

If the Government wants to do something to preserve farmland, there's lots of

bushland that could be farmed. You could raise ponies or chickens on it. Every

time we think of farmland, Mr. Speaker, we think in terms of utilizing

[ Page

1470 ]

it to grow, something. The Government has overlooked this,

because they say: "No, you can't do that. You can't have these

little mini-farms."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a very good point.

In the State of Arizona they have named a full-time

agent just to look after mini-farms. They're teaching

these farmers. what to do.

I have one more point to make, Mr. Speaker, on this before I

move on. "The mood of America is a search for tranquillity"

— so says this particular article.

"Tranquillity means many things. People here are searching

for a quiet refuge from the storm, from wars abroad, from

conflict and violence, both at home and abroad. But it is more

than that. People find taxes beating on their heads and they

are calling for an end to it, or at least a respite. And here

in this heart of mid-America the people are seeking to

bar their door on the intruding ways of the

heavily inhabited areas of this country, particularly

those in the east. T