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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Energy Act (Bill No. 148) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 1581

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first

reading — 1581

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147) Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill No. 118) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction

and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill No. 134) Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulations Act (Bill No.

137) Hon.

Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 1581

Ruling

Adjournment of the House at 6 p.m., March 20. Mr. Speaker — 1582

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Shortage of B.C. Railcars. Mr. Fraser — 1584

Comfort allowance for Pearson Hospital patients. Mr. Schroeder. — 1584

Member for North Okanagan. Mr. Barnes — 1585

Flood prevention measures in Kamloops. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1585

Decision on elevation constructors' strike. Mr. Wallace — 1586

Details of dental plan. Mr. McGeer — 1586

Recruitment of women to civil service jobs. Mr. D.A. Anderson. — 1587

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

Mrs. Jordan — 1588

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Administrator.

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits

a bill intituled Energy Act and recommends the same to

the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 21, 1973.

Bill No. 148 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.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message

from His Honour the Administrator,

WATER UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits

a bill intituled Water Utilities Act and recommends the

same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 21,

Bill No. 146 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.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Administrator.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits

a bill intituled Telecommunications Utilities Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government

House, March 21, 1973.

Bill No. 147 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

MEDICAL GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 118 intituled

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 118 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 HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 134 intituled

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 134 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

HEARING AID REGULATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 137 intituled

An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid

Regulations Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No.137 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.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this in relation to non-contentious

business?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You were so sharp this

afternoon that we neglected introducing guests in the gallery

and I wonder if I might ask your leave to do so?

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: I know you will be pleased, in granting this

leave, to know that we have a group of seven students from the

Windfield High School with their chaperons, Mr. and Mrs.

Rossthorne from Oyama and Mr. and Mrs. Dave Aspinal, their

teacher. They are here today; they have travelled a long way;

they will be visiting the gallery in Victoria and they earned

this trip themselves. I hope the Members of

[ Page 1582 ]

the House will join with me in giving them a warm

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

raised an important matter relating to the adjournment of the

House caused by the interruption of business at 6 p.m., March

20, while debate on second reading of a bill was underway. The

Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was addressing

the House.

The sequence of events disclosed in the records indicate

that while the Hon. Member was speaking after 6 o'clock p.m.

the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) rose "on a

point of order", drawing attention of the Speaker to the clock.

The Speaker asked the Hon. Member who had been speaking to be

seated and he quite properly complied. A Minister, the Hon.

Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) rose while the

Speaker was in the chair and moved the adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

When objection was heard (not formally, however) the Speaker

indicated to the House that the Hon. Member who had seated

himself at the interruption of business did not thereby lose

his place in the debate which had been underway. This ruling is

confirmed by May, seventeenth edition, p. 444 at the bottom of

the page. An examination of the Journals has disclosed no

occasion where a similar situation has arisen. Hon. Members

will recall that on a number of occasions the Speaker and the

Chairman of a committee have left the chair at the hour of

interruption, returning at 8 p.m., but on such occasions no

motion of a formal or any other nature has been made prior to

the chair being vacated.

It seems significant, however, that on such occasions when

the Chairman has left the chair at the hour of interruption,

and after the hour of 6 p.m., he has reported to the House and

asked leave to sit again, a time therefore has been appointed,

and has been ordered by the House. In other words, formal

business has in fact been transacted after the moment of

interruption.

Such a procedure is noted also in the British Journals and

referred to in May, eighteenth edition, p. 291. See the Commons

Journals 1957-8, p. 180. Our standing order 3, clause 1,

recently adopted reads:

"If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday,

Wednesday or Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other

hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the

chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m.

unless otherwise ordered."

From this wording it seems implicit that when some

conclusion of the business at hand is required and another hour agreed upon

for the sitting, it can be done. This is borne out in May, seventeenth edition,

page 633, which reads:

"Procedure when business is not completed at the end of a

Sitting — A Committee of the whole House has no power either to

adjourn its own sitting or to adjourn its consideration of any

matter for a future sitting. If its consideration of the matter

be not concluded, or all the matters referred to it have not

been considered, in the Lords, the House is resumed and the

chairman moves 'that the House be again put into committee' on

a future day. When the House is put into committee, it may be

resumed upon a question put by the Lord in the chair. In the

Commons, the Chairman is either directed (a question to that

effect having been put and agreed to) to 'report progress, and

ask leave to sit again' or (if proceedings in the Committee are

cut short by the hour interruption) he reports progress and

asks leave to sit again without such direction in the

House."

Thus after the hour of interruption, certain formalities to

preserve the order of business are committed as cited in that

excerpt.

The Chairman does not leave the House, but calls in the

Speaker, reports to him, and a time is thereupon fixed by the

House for the resumption of the business interrupted. All of

this occurs after the hour of interruption and by reason of the

time having been noted.

Clearly, May contemplates the preservation of the business

of the day should the House wish to do so. Failing action by

the House to agree upon a next sitting time, the Speaker

returns at 8 o'clock p.m. that evening.

To resume the narrative of events at adjournment time on

March 20, a motion to fix the hour for the next sitting was

moved by the House Leader. At this point, the question to be

resolved by the Speaker was the nature and extent of business allowable to be transacted

at the hour of interruption. It seemed to me in the brief time

available that if it was competent for the House to act upon

the report of the Chairman after the hour of interruption as above noted, it was also

competent for the House at this time to determine the hour of

its next sitting.

Standing order 3 provides that an hour other than 8 o'clock

p.m. may be agreed upon. Such motions in accordance with the

practice indicated in May do not, in the opinion of the Chair,

fall into the category of opposed business but are clearly

formal matters involving the business and hours of sitting of

the House. This is borne out in our standing orders by standing

order 45 clause 2, which states that, "adjournment motions

shall be decided without debate or amendment." Standing order

34 declares that, "A motion to adjourn…shall always be in

order…."

Thus, so long as the House is assembled and

[ Page 1583 ]

properly constituted, such motions according to our standing

orders appear to be in order.

Were it otherwise, the proceedings of parliament could be

frustrated every day by a Member holding the floor until past

the hour of interruption.

May, seventeenth edition, p. 466, states that in such a case

a Member,

"….who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate uses his right of speech for the

purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs

the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House,

is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct…. He is,

however, guilty of a contempt of the House, and may be

named."

I emphasize that I am not thereby imputing such a motive to

the Member in the case herein. Thus the House has by custom the

power to prevent its proceedings from being thwarted or

obstructed, whether by a Member refusing to adjourn the debate

at the hour of interruption or by using the speech for the

purpose of obstructing the business of the House as cited in

May. That this is so is implied by the fact that May indicates

that another Member who has not spoken at the hour of

interruption may stand and move adjournment of the debate if

the Member who has occupied the floor may still resume after

the adjournment.

A further matter arose to which the Hon. Member has

referred.

Following the motion and a division which occupied some

time, the Speaker left the chair at 6:13 o'clock p.m. after a

division and returned without pause to the chair. The House

resumed the business with which it had been occupied at

adjournment, namely, the speech of the Member who had been

speaking at the hour of interruption.

Our orders of the day were not called, but no formal

objection to this was taken. Indeed, it was clear that it

seemed the wish of the Members that the debate resume with the

same Member retaining his place in the debate. He resumed his

speech without protest and the House continued without further

pause.

The physical presence of the Mace on the table after the

Speaker had left the chair was also mentioned. According to

Hatsell, "When the Mace lies upon the table the House is a

House; when under, it is a committee; when out of the House,

no business can be done; when from the table and upon the

Sergeant's shoulder, the Speaker alone manages."

In my view, with respect, the position of the Mace on the Table in no way invalidated

the adjournment and resumption of the proceedings. The House was assembled and

duly constituted. It adjourned; and pursuant to its express will, the Speaker

immediately returned to the chair after having left it. The Mace still being

in the chamber, the business of the House could be done immediately in accordance

with the motion passed.

It is worth noting that although we follow the customs and

usages of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in all

cases not provided for, no mention of their standing orders is

included in our standing order 1.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , fourth

edition, p. 9, states:

"As Canadian procedure was based on British precedents insofar as circumstances permitted them to be

followed in a new country, our Legislatures from the day of the

Constitution Act of 1791 naturally referred in all cases

of doubt to the usages and customs of the House of Commons of

the United Kingdom. But they have never considered themselves

bound by the standing orders in force at Westminster which

govern local practice and are not applicable to any other

legislative body than the one for which they were passed."

In the British practice, a motion to adjourn could be

contentious business by reason of their standing orders

providing for debate. Our standing order 45, clause 2, departs

from this, and appears to be similar or analogous to their

exempted business. Perusal of British Journals confirms that

at the hour of interruption there may follow resolutions,

motions, and even resolving of the House into committee,

providing there is not debate on the matter in the process of

doing so. So as is also true in our Legislative Assembly on the

motion to adjourn debate or to adjourn the House.

An example to illustrate the British practice can be found

at p. 372 of the Commons Journal, 1891, volume 213.

In sum: in my respectful opinion, the assembly by reason of

standing order 3, clause 1, can adjourn the debate and agree

upon the next sitting at the hour of interruption since the

motions are made without the right to debate and because the

assembly has the power to preserve its proceedings by its own

will and purpose. In that course, the Speaker must be the

servant of the House in leaving and returning to the chair.

Once the two motions were disposed of, he was bound to

comply therewith.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like

to comment briefly on the most Olympian ruling or decision ever

brought down in the history of this parliament. I'd just like

to briefly say that much of the….

MR. SPEAKER: There is no debate on this ruling.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not debating.

[ Page 1584 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, sit down.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't make a point of order on the decision

of the Chair. You can appeal a point of order that has been

raised and ruled upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were the servant of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: If you are conversant with the rules of the

House, you know that you can't debate a ruling after it has

been handed down. You can appeal it. If you have an appeal to

that ruling, do so now while you're on your feet or be seated,

please. Do you appeal the ruling?

MR. CHABOT: When will it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to have a

copy of that lengthy decision, or ruling, or whatever you just

brought down?

MR. SPEAKER: It will be in the Journals tomorrow. You can

have it now….

MR. CHABOT: I reserve the right to comment, to rise on a

point of privilege, a point of order, or any other point, on

that ruling you just brought down.

I MR. SPEAKER: You have a right to appeal my ruling and I invite you

to do so if you wish.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to do it until such time as I have

had an opportunity to….

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated!

MR. CHABOT: What a decision!

MR. SPEAKER: Then appeal it.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

SHORTAGE OF BCR

RAILCARS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question, Mr. Speaker,

to the Premier, as President of the British Columbia

Railroad.

Have any concrete plans been made to correct the worsening

shortage of railcars, reaching 1,250 this week (up 200 from

last week) and resulting, already in a loss of 300 jobs along

the road due to layoffs and no storage facilities for lumber

from the lumber industry?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is a very valid

concern that the Member has raised. I asked for a meeting

yesterday afternoon with the president of the railroad. He

informs me that he is meeting later this week with

representatives of other Canadian and U.S. railways to see

about the boxcar shortage. There is a boxcar shortage all over

North America.

I have asked for an immediate report from the president of

the railway as to what can be done by the railway itself to

begin construction here in British Columbia of our own railway

cars, and I hope for that report in a short while. In the

interim I have asked him, and he has agreed, to make every

effort to get as many cars into the interior as possible.

It's an anomalous situation. Business is so good that we are

losing jobs because we can't get the boxcars — yet the jobs are

there and the opportunity is there. He is working on it

immediately.

I repeat, I have asked for a report about the feasibility of

building our own boxcars here in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject, the Hon. Member for

Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on

the same subject. Have you issued any orders to speed up the

car orders that are on order? I understand there are around

500 cars on order, and maybe it would be good if you issued an

order to speed up the delivery of these.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we had a board meeting Tuesday of

this week and we discussed the 500 car order that was placed

last year. We've asked that that be expedited. Unfortunately,

once the cars are made for delivery they are put on railroad

tracks, and on the way out for delivery they are grabbed off by

the other railroads. This is a bad situation. I wouldn't like

to believe that the giant railroads of Canada would treat our

BCR unfairly, but I certainly hope that a large number of the

500 we ordered get out here and we get to use them first.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to ask the

Premier and President of B.C. Railway first of all whether he's

on good speaking terms with himself, because he said he was

going to talk to the president…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vice-president.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask him why, in light of

this shortage that we've had, the B.C.

[ Page 1585 ]

Rail did not undertake long-term rental arrangements until

such time as further boxcars could be constructed. It would

have solved this problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're not available to rent. I've given

complete authority to the vice-president some time ago because

we anticipated the pressures because of the boom in the

interior logging and lumber industry, but they are just not

available to lease. If the Member knows of any that are available to lease, let

us know — privately, so no one else hears and we can get a

chance at them first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. The point of

fact is in dispute. Nevertheless, there is no way we can settle

that for now. I wonder….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, Mr. Member, are you saying that

there are cars available for lease?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it

was quite possible at an earlier time, to my knowledge, to

arrange for long-term rentals….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. The Member must take

responsibility for the statements he makes. If he's asking a

question, that is one thing; if he is making a statement, that

is argumentative.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What action is being

taken, Mr. President of the Railway, to get our boxcars back

from the United States and Mexico?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are trying to recover as many cars as

we can, but all railroads have a reciprocal exchange of

railroad cars, and if we recall all our cars that means that

everybody recalls their cars. We have to rely on the inter-rail

agreements between railways.

We're making all efforts we can to get as many boxcars as we

can into the interior. We are using all channels we can. We are

even discussing with American railroads….

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a little further north?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even further north, Mr. Member, and it's

quite valid. It's a serious problem and it's not one that we've

decided to take action on immediately. We've discussed this

since last fall. We anticipated the shortage last fall. If I

recall correctly, the daily shortage now in North America is

18,000 cars short every day, right across North America.

MR. SPEAKER: On a different subject, the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

COMFORT ALLOWANCE FOR

PEARSON HOSPITAL PATIENTS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Health Services. Have the patients at Pearson

Hospital in Vancouver been receiving their comfort allowance,

their additional comfort allowance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather the Member indicated Pearson Hospital?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.

HON. MR. COCKE: There has been a hold-up in that situation.

However, it has been ordered and they will be receiving their

comfort allowance, which will be retroactive to January which

is something quite new and innovative.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MEMBER FOR NORTH OKANAGAN

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance.

At the last sitting of the House, the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stated that she intended to speak on the

Land Commission Act , Bill 42, until she fainted, or

dropped, or something like that. To my mind this constituted a

potential emergency situation, and I'm wondering if the

Minister has any plans to accommodate the…. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I have to rule that question out of order.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

FLOOD PREVENTION

MEASURES IN KAMLOOPS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am always pleased to see doctors in the

House, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he recovers from that last

crack from our friend on my left.

I'd like to ask him: why have no steps been taken to repair

the north end of the dyke in the Oak Ridge subdivision, Oak

Hill subdivision area of Kamloops,

[ Page 1586 ]

which was the scene of pretty disastrous flooding last

year?

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

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am presently reviewing a Press release right

on my desk with respect to the Oak Hill situation. The problem at Oak Hill,

which was most disastrous last summer, is one that has concerned us. Our primary

concern is with respect to the people in the houses, rather than protecting

all of the vacant lots. We have been most concerned about finding the best location

for a dyke and optimizing the overall situation in that location. We have been

negotiating as well with the numerous developers in the subdivision.

A detailed Press release will be ready shortly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If the

Press release is simply under revision at the moment, could not

this be made public in this House as opposed to the normal

manner with Press releases which this Government has

adopted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if there is a question period

tomorrow, but I don't believe there is….We want to proceed.

There is not a problem, unfortunately, this year because of the

snowpack — at least not a serious problem, it would appear.

But we would like to make sure that some interim steps are

taken before the major programme itself gets underway, and we

want to do that as soon as we can.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then can we get from the Minister an

undertaking to present, by way of Press release or statement in

the House of some nature, a decision tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think undertakings are

part of the period. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

REPAIRS ON 'QUEEN OF VICTORIA'

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. To the Acting Minister of Highways — I understand that

one of the four key vessels on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run is

experiencing continuing operating difficulties. Inasmuch as

this is an essential connection between southern Vancouver

Island and the lower mainland, it would be appreciated if the

Acting Minister could comment on this.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

I'll have to take that question as notice. I'm just not familiar

enough with what's happening there, but I will pass it on.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, if I may. If the

Acting Minister is considering this matter, is it not a fact

that the service was interrupted last Sunday by the fact that

the vessel could not…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it is a duty of a Minister

who has a particular portfolio to be asked questions about another portfolio

of which he is not the Minister. I don't think he has administrative responsibility

in this House toward that portfolio, nor should he be answering, according to

the rules. Now I may be in error, and if I am, I'd like to be corrected.

MR. CURTIS: I am just trying to elicit some information.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you are, but I don't think this

Minister has to answer questions under someone else's

administrative jurisdiction.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

DECISION ON

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Labour, Mr.

Speaker — two days ago he said he would have a decision to

announce on the elevator constructors' strike. He promised us a

statement in a day or two.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, if the

Member for Oak Bay will refer to the comments which I made in

Hansard , I made no such promise. My exact phraseology

was that I anticipated that I might be in a position to make an

announcement. Unfortunately I'm not in that position as

yet.

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

Grey.

DETAILS OF DENTAL PLAN

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance. Will he be prepared to release to the House details

of the dental plan which he announced last weekend?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the dental plan that I

announced last weekend was clearly visible on channel 6. That's

where all the stories came from. I was suggesting at that time

that our approach — and if you would like to take a look at

what I said it may be available — I was prognosticating the

future and where we were going within the next few months. I

indicated that I had had a number of reports and was getting

more. As a matter of fact the next report that

[ Page 1587 ]

I expect to have would be from the College of Dental Surgery

in the near future.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask

the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance whether

we should attend the House or watch channel 6 for the next

development? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That's entirely rhetorical. I point out

also that under Beauchesne, at p.148, it raises a matter of

policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to

the question, and therefore is really not appropriate for

question period.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

RECRUITMENT OF WOMEN

TO CIVIL SERVICE JOBS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial

Secretary. In the light of reports that the number of females

employed in the higher ranks of the civil service is at the

disastrous level of under 1.3 per cent, may I ask him what he

is doing to make sure that qualified women are being recruited

for jobs in our civil service?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in answer

to the question, which I think is so far-reaching that I'm not

at all certain that I can deal with all the points he raised in

the one question: we inherited a civil service which is

composed of 50 per cent temporary and 50 per cent permanent

people; a civil service that didn't have collective

bargaining; a civil service that frankly was suffering from a

great number of ills and woes. We're tackling every one of

those things in order, including the one you mentioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sound like Webster. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm inclined to suggest that the answer itself

points out that it's a matter of rather large policy you're

asking to be settled in this question, and future advice by a

Minister to the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with due respect I feel that

when a question is asked which is fairly specific — and I would

call it non-contentious — if the Minister simply says that the

variety of problems facing his department is enormous, it's not

an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: You're asking the Government's opinion on

matters of policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm asking whether any specific steps,

Mr. Speaker, will be taken or have been taken recently to

rectify this unfortunate imbalance of the sexes in the higher

ranks of the civil service. I feel that that's a fairly precise

and specific question.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly would allow that in that form.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's nice.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is my duty to observe the

rules and to allow or disallow questions, and to say "That's

nice," is impertinent.

Proceed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that at

the majority of Executive Council meetings that have taken

place since we took office, that question and others like it,

particularly in the field of the employment of women, have been

discussed by all cabinet Ministers in that chamber.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On which now? On this vote?

MR. McGEER: On the motion to proceed to public bills and

orders, Mr. Speaker. This is private Members' day, and if we

follow orders of the day, which we're bound to by rules of the

House, then we proceed to public bills in the hands of private

Members.

May I refer you to the printed orders on orders of the day

and our own standing orders in the House. In my view, Mr.

Speaker, it would require unanimous consent of the House to

pass by private Members' day and move to public bills and

orders.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was under the

impression that there was an agreement amongst Whips. If there

is a single objection to this, then of course we'll move into

committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is correct in regard to the

rule that this is private Members' day and under business to

be done on Thursday it would normally be public bills in the

hands of private Members unless the House has otherwise ordered

a precedence motion.

[ Page 1588 ]

There is a precedence motion before the House dealing with

estimates, other than the introduction of bills and question

period.

MR. McGEER: …the sitting, which means we move to private

Members' day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I concur with the Hon. Member. What I am

suggesting is that I was accepting the motion on the basis that

you obviously had come to some conclusion on this — that you

were all granting leave. But if you do not grant leave then the

precedence motions have to proceed. It's a matter of choice, I

suppose. It's up to you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a motion on the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion of precedence before the

House. The House Leader is entitled, under the motion of

precedence, to go on to that precedence motion unless otherwise

agreed.

MR. McGEER: We understand that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. So?

MR. SPEAKER: So what is the House Leader proposing to

do?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, question on the motion, obviously,

unless there is an objection….

MR. SPEAKER: I can't accept the motion if any Member objects

to it, without leave being granted that the motion proceed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to

move to public bills and orders.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, before we give leave, I wonder if

the House Leader could give us some indication of when there

will be a private Members' day. We haven't had one this session

and it's been in my view a regrettable tradition of the House

that we never do have private Members' day. If the House Leader

would give us some indication when we can have such a day, I

think the House would be prepared to give unanimous

consent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if you're suggesting this

motion is open for debate, let me advise you that I'm under, I

hope, some co-operation from the Whips. I'm only going on

what the Whips agreed. If the Whips decide, I'm at their

disposal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): What day can we have a private

Members' day?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I really think we cannot be

bargaining across the floor, one side and the other, in front

of me. I suggest, therefore, that that's a matter really for

the Whips. I have to decide whether leave has been granted.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Continued debate on second reading of Bill

42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

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

the debate.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. As I take my place in this debate, I would just

comment that in light of the remarks made by the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), it is very

comforting. to know that should I collapse from exhaustion I

will fall into tender arms.

Mr. Speaker, you were out of the chair for some of the time

last night and I'm sure you would be pleased to know that our

debate proceeded on the principle of Bill 42, the Land

Commission Act, in which we reaffirmed then and we reaffirm

our position now that we are very much in favour of the

protection of greenbelts and the development of a viable

agricultural industry in British Columbia and the protection of

parklands for our province and our people.

But in examining the legislation, we recognize that the

legislation itself as drafted, and as being discussed under

this principle, is wrong; and that it is in fact part of an

overall socialist Government's plan to put their hands and

their claws on the control of the lands of British Columbia.

This principle is wrong. It is bad legislation.

It's a foreign bill to Canada and to the Province of British

Columbia, and a foreign bill for this Legislature to be

debating.

It is discriminatory. It is poorly drafted. It is full of

inequities. It is the centralized control of power. Mr.

Speaker, it is a Fabian flag hoisted on a Marxist pole,

designed by this Government to camouflage the true meaning of

its principle by draping it around the bodies of the farmers of

this province to lie forever on their land.

I pointed out in part then, Mr. Speaker, and will point out

again today in another area, why it is important for the

farmers to remain individuals with their individual rights.

Time after time, as we look around other countries where there

has been state control of land, state control of agriculture

and state control of farmers, it has not achieved its ultimate

objective; in fact it has decreased the objective.

[ Page 1589 ]

We will point out again in other ways, Mr. Speaker, why it

is important that the people of British Columbia have a return

of their democratic rights and a return of fair play and

equity, as much as is humanly possible.

I pointed out in part then, and I will point out in other

areas today, why the independent farmer is a productive farmer,

an enthusiastic farmer, and a farmer who will excel and has

proven that he will excel in this province and this country

well beyond the production of industry.

Mr. Speaker, recalling the debate last night, I would ask

through you again that the Government accept its responsibility

to the people of British Columbia and withdraw this bill. Take

it back into the chambers and replace it with a statement that

there will be public hearings all around British Columbia with

an opportunity for everyone in British Columbia to have input

into this bill as it would be redrafted. Not just for farming

in this province, but farmers all over the province — farmers

in the Kootenays, farmers on the northern centres of Vancouver

Island and farmers in the extreme north.

Because this bill and the principle of this bill is so wide

in scope that it affects every square inch of land in British,

Columbia, give the small homeowner — whether he or she be in

Vancouver or Victoria or Comox or Nelson or Fort St. John or

Pouce Coupe — wherever this homeowner resides in British

Columbia — let them have an opportunity to put their say into

the drafting of a new bill; a bill that would be fair to them

and would be fair to their democratic rights.

Don't do as the Premier did, at the last moment when the

heat was on, and say, "Come to Victoria and talk to me " — then

not see them. Let this committee go to them. The pensioner in

Fort St. John can't afford to come to Victoria. The small

homeowner in Nelson has difficulty in being able to afford to

come to Victoria. Because when they come, Mr. Speaker, they not

only have to pay for their fare and their accommodation and

their eating; many of them have to pay for somebody to look

after their home or take their place in business. It's just too

expensive and it's just too improper, Mr. Speaker, that people,

the average person of British Columbia, should have to do this

in order to have their democratic rights protected.

Through you Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again, withdraw

the bill. Listen to the people. They will support you on this.

Don't stand on pride, Mr. Premier — a false pride. And don't

through you Mr. Speaker, take away the democratic rights of the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines this bill, one realizes the complexities of

administration are going to weave a web across this province such as we've never

seen in a lifetime. That must be re-examined. I said last night, Mr. Speaker,

I wish I'd been a fly in the cabinet when that bill came in for examination.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) said.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Minister of Highways at that time

slapped his hand down on his desk and said, "That's what we do

to a fly." And that's exactly what went on in that cabinet,

because they slapped their claws on the democratic rights of

the people of British Columbia without a thought to democracy,

without a thought to what they were doing and certainly as

evidenced in the principle of this bill, without any thought as

to how they would administer such an odorous plan in British

Columbia.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) says that

this bill is designed to help the farmer and that he is

dedicated to the farmer. He denies the questions and he denies

the suggestions that it isn't designed to help the farmer in

spite of all that's going on.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, if the

Government is so sincere, and if the Minister of Agriculture is

so concerned, why he has not acted to preserve agricultural

land in British Columbia?

I would cite an example in the area that I represent. I

won't name names, but when the land freeze came on, this

lifetime farmer had indeed subdivided his land, the subdivision

was enacted but not signed. It was in the Department of Lands

for registration and approval by the highway department and

approval by the regional district.

Why then, Mr. Speaker, didn't the Minister of Agriculture go

to this man and say, "You have a subdivision. How much did you

get for your land? How much was the land value before the

freeze? How much money have you put into having this land

surveyed? How much money have you put into having a proper plan

developed for this land? How much money have you put into legal

fees?" Then add that up.

Then why didn't he say to the farmer, "How much do you

anticipate your revenue will be in the next three years?" Or,

figure out a reasonable interest on the money already spent,

then say to that farmer, "We have $17 million in the Green Belt

Protection Fund which is designed for the preservation of

parklands and agricultural land in the Province of British

Columbia, and it was passed by the Legislature. And the

multi-land use committee says that this land is better used for

agriculture." Then why didn't the Minister of Agriculture

suggest that the regional district would rather see this land

used for agriculture and then offer to buy the plan and the

land.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture had done what he

had every right to do under legal legislation, acquire this

prime — and it is prime —

[ Page 1590 ]

agricultural orchard land freely, reasonably negotiated

between the government…. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Agriculture's leaving, so I guess he has a guilty

conscience.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll still be talking. The

fact, that the Minister of Agriculture leaves at this time, on

this rather contentious point, is only one more reason why the

Members of this side of the House must talk, ask questions and

endeavor to bring this radical Government to its senses, and

bring to this province some semblance of relief from the fear

that's over this province and the chaos that this Government

has brought to this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your own leader walked out on you last

night and he hasn't heard a word you say and I don't blame him.

(Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Well, we have that portly, petulant boy Premier

back again. Isn't that nice. The more petulant he gets, Mr.

Speaker, the more I know we're speaking the truth. That Premier

is uncomfortable and he knows he's wrong. He's sitting on his

false pride. He will not do the right thing for the people of

this province. That, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is why this side

will talk. If he would listen, if he would sit down and open

his ears and close his mouth, then the people of British

Columbia would have more confidence in him.

But, Mr. Speaker, the point at issue is: why — when the land

was there, its category was there, the money was there, and

according to the Minister of Agriculture, the sincere desire to

preserve farmland in British Columbia was or should have been

there — did the Government O.K. this subdivision, make an

exception to their own freeze? Why didn't that land come into

the hands of British Columbia on a voluntary basis?

Mr. Speaker, the Ministers don't answer the questions; they

don't listen to the people of British Columbia. The people are

concerned and this Opposition is concerned.

We become increasingly concerned as the days go by, by the

conflict of statements that are being made by this Government

outside this House, not to this Legislature, not to be debated

by this Legislature if they can avoid it. The fact is that

these statements are just causing more and more and more unease

in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what do we see from the Minister who says "trust me" as late as

yesterday, while the debate was going on in this House, when we were questioning

the Minister on whether or not he was making statements upon the actions of

himself and this Government about bringing in amendments outside this House

that he wasn't making to this Legislature, when he was making statements to

groups about amendments — groups like SPEC, groups like university students

and not to the farmers and the landowners who are involved? He denied it — right

here on the floor of the House.

What do you find in the paper today, Mr. Speaker?

"'Two prospects,' says Stupich. Farmer sought as member of

B.C. Land Commission." This is for the B.C. Land Commission

that has been protested against so violently by the average

person in British Columbia — a commission that has been set up

by Bill 42, the Land Commission Act , the principle of

which we are debating in this House today.

No law has yet been passed by this Legislature; no authority

has been given to this Minister or this Government to set up

this Act, this commission or appoint members. But already,

while the Minister stands in this House and says, "I am

not making statements outside the House and policies outside

this House," we find that he is. Not only is it

improper, but I would suggest that it is almost downright

immoral.

What did he say in Victoria? "Agriculture Minister David

Stupich said Tuesday that he has found two prospective members

for the proposed controversial land commission." He has found

two prospective members. He is running around personally doing

the hiring of people for a commission that is not even yet

established, which is highly controversial and which we feel

will not be established.

Just blatant bulldozing, Mr. Speaker. Where did the Minister

of Agriculture make this vital statement? Was it to the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture? No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't to the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Was it to some landowners, some

small homeowners in British Columbia, in the north or in the

Kootenays or even here in Victoria? No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't.

Was it made on the floor of this Legislature? No, Mr. Speaker,

it. wasn't.

I'm sure you would like to know where it was made, Mr.

Speaker. It was made to a noon audience of 250 students at the

University of Victoria, at a meeting arranged for by the young

New Democrats — a legitimate group, indeed, Mr. Speaker, but

hardly the place where the Minister of Agriculture should be

stating the policy of his government when it is already under

debate on the floor of this House.

What did he say? He has interviewed the two "who I would

like to see on the commission." "Who I the Tsar of the lands

of British Columbia would like to see on this commission." Not

who the cabinet would like to see, not who the 30-odd NDP

Members of this House would like to see, not who this

Legislature would like to see, not who the farmers would like

to see or the small landowners would like to see on that

commission — but who "I" would like to see, says the Minister

of Agriculture.

[ Page 1591 ]

Would you like to know why, Mr. Speaker, he would like to

see them? Because they both agree with the goals of the Land

Commission Act and of the Government's approach to the

preservation of farmland. Mr. Speaker, the length and the

breadth of this province is in a turmoil, in a state of fear

and in a state of deep, deep concern about this very Act

because of the dramatic powers that are involved in the

principle of the Act and that will be taken away from the

public, out of this Legislature and out of the cabinet, and put

into the hands of appointed members.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture

and the Premier and the Members of that Government and other

Ministers are going out to committees, going out to meetings

all over this province saying: "Yes, the powers are there, but

we won't use them. Trust us." How could they possibly trust

them, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister says such a damning

statement as: "I have already interviewed the two that I would

like to see on the commission. They both agree with the goals

of the proposed Land Commission Act and approve of the

Government's approach to the preservation of farmland."

Mr. Speaker, if it was unbelievable that this Government

should bring in this Act in the first place in the form in

which it is, it is even more unbelievable that they would

proceed as they are, and that the Minister of Agriculture would

dare to make these statements to a university student body and

their own young NDP members, let alone anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, the

article goes on to say: "When questioned later, Stupich said

he would not name the two because they have not yet been discussed with the

cabinet." Even further blatant abuse of power, the same blatant abuse of power

about which this opposition is concerned and the people of British Columbia

are concerned. "He also announced at that meeting that the commission would

not be made up of five members but that it would be made up of nine members."

— a statement that he has never made in this House.

Let's go on to see what other unbelievable statements he

made. At a time when the Government is insisting in this House

that there would not be buying and selling of land under this

Act and that the powers of this Act would not be used, he says:

"The commission will have the power to designate land as

agricultural, land bank, reserve for future urban use,

parkland, reserve of greenbelt. It will also be able to buy

farmland and sell it and lease it " — a direct contradiction,

Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of Agriculture on the

University of Victoria campus to what he told the Federation of

Agriculture, to what he was telling the beef growers in

Kamloops, to what he is telling the public of British

Columbia.

As if that isn't enough, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, and he must have been

lulled into it because it says: "Stupich told his student audience which was

generally quiet and friendly, that the commission members will have to be appointed

on a political basis" — a political basis, Mr. Speaker — "because they will

be dealing with individuals in the province everyday on a contentious issue."

What is this Minister saying? He is saying that the Land

Commission Act is another avenue for political patronage of

the NDP Government in British Columbia. While he and the

Premier and the Members of this Government are travelling the

width and breadth of this province, saying "trust me,"

they are at the University of Victoria, stating that these

Members will be appointed on a political basis.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

Madam Speaker, how could the people of British Columbia

possibly trust this Government? How could the people of British

Columbia possibly have any faith in the Minister of

Agriculture?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right, Mr. Member. I pointed out to the

House last night, Madam Speaker, how, when the Minister of

Agriculture started out in this programme in British Columbia — I talked about the meeting in Oliver and Osoyoos where he made

a very plausible presentation and ended up by asking people to

trust him. But from that date on he has consistently made

misstatements, conflicting statements — statements such as this

around this province. Yes, the people of British Columbia

cannot trust him and they cannot trust this Government and

there is ample reason why.

May I go on further? He says, after announcing that they

will be political appointments: "In order to gain public

confidence in the commission," Stupich said, care will

be taken to see that the Members will not be strictly pork

barrel selected group," — an open admission by the agriculture

Minister of British Columbia that the NDP Government makes pork

barrel appointments.

Madam Speaker, the public of British Columbia and this

Opposition have been concerned about this. And it has arisen in

previous debates. It has consistently been denied by the

Government that they make pork barrel appointments, Yet we see

another statement of conflict — an open admission by the

Minister who says "trust me" that their Government makes pork

barrel appointments.

The Minister has said consistently, outside this House and

during his earlier statements in this House, that the bill

contains compensation factors; this in spite of the fact that

the Attorney General didn't know that it didn't; and this in

spite of the fact that it had been pointed out repeatedly by

various

[ Page 1592 ]

members in the opposition that the bill does not contain

compensation factors. And this has been stated in spite of the

fact that the people of British Columbia have pointed out to

this Government that the bill does not contain compensation

factors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, that's the whole point: this

isn't a purchase bill, it's a confiscation bill. If you'd open

your mind and listen, you would know why. And if you'd read

some of the mail from your constituents you would know why they

think it's a confiscation bill.

Stupich reiterated that there will be no monetary

compensation for devaluation of land through the commission's

designations.

Mr. Member, how much more clearly does it have to be spelled

out to you, through you, Madam Speaker? Do you, through you

Madam Speaker, have to wait until the claw of socialism is on

your land? Or do we, Madam Speaker, assume that that Member is

part of the pork barrel, that this Government is admittedly

involved in, and that his lands are free from the clutches of

this Government.

If that's the case, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to that

Member that he not rely on this assumption, because over and

over again this Government is proving that it is not only

unreliable, but that it is bordering on the verge of political

immorality such as we have never seen in British Columbia.

This is one meeting, Madam Chairman. Heaven knows what would

happen if we had the recordings of five of his meetings. But he

said — and we know he doesn't say the same thing at every

meeting.

The whole debate in here from the Government side has been

on the point that this bill is designed to help the farmer in

British Columbia. The Minister still insisted upon this this

morning after I had pointed out to him that it is the farmers

who they are saving that are revolting. He pointed out that

this Government is concerned. But what did he tell the meeting

last night?

I would also say that he pointed out to various agricultural

meetings what he had done for the farmers in British Columbia

since taking office. But he told the meeting last night that

the Government has not yet proposed any measures — any measures

— to make farming more economical, such as the reduction and

removal of taxes on farmland. But his reason Madam Speaker, is

most interesting.

He says, that they haven't done this because the British

Columbia Federation of Agriculture indicated it would appear at

this time to be a bribe to get farmers' support for Bill

Madam Speaker, this Government was elected on a platform

which said in part, the removal of taxes from farmland in

British Columbia and all homes.

They made other election promises such as taking the

controls that this Social Credit government had tried to put on

to help curb inflation. They promised to repeal Bill 33 because

it was a contentious bill to a special group in our society — not the public, but a special group.

What did this Government do, Madam Speaker, when they came

into office? Did they meet the commitment of taking, property

taxes off land, farmlands and private homes in their concern

for agriculture? You bet your rootin'-tootin' dollar they

didn't.

But they did remove the 6.5 per cent inflationary control.

And they did repeal Bill 33 which, as I said before, can only

be described as

an act of charity compared to Bill 42, this

Land Commission Act .

They brought in automobile insurance — or a bill for this;

not the $25 package that was offered, but a bill that put

another claw in British Columbia in the form of monopoly — and

a bill with the same principle as we're debating here that has

a clause in it and it lies before this House now; fired without

cause, and without notice.

It is these principles, Madam Speaker, that are interwoven

in every

section of this bill: a monopoly, controlled without

notice and without cause, without compensation and without

faith.

How can we help but question, how can we help but say, that

this Minister of Agriculture is no more concerned in the

preservation of agriculture in British Columbia, nor is this

Government, than he ever was. He and this Government are

concerned with power.

I pointed out last night, and I won't repeat it Madam

Speaker, what this Government could have done to genuinely show

its concern for agriculture. That included the commitment they

made to the voters of this province — it was their commitment,

Madam Speaker, no one else's. Theirs.

They knew how to take the taxes off the land, and they were

going to do it. But again we see that the pork barrel came

first. The real concerns of the people and the real problems of

the people come second or third or fourth or fifth. Then to try

and blame the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture for

the inaction of their own Government is unbelievable.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture is signing his letters

over and over again today, and no wonder. That man is disturbed

and that Minister of that position is in trouble.

The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, I admit

quite freely, asked the Social Credit Government to take taxes

off land. They didn't consider it a bribe for the farmers then.

They didn't ask us because they felt that they were going to

have to give up something in order to get it. They asked

because they felt it was a genuine need.

Whether or not the general public agreed was

[ Page

1593 ]

another matter. But that Government made a commitment. Now

it says that it was because of the British Columbia Federation

of Agriculture's request that they not do it, because it would

be designed as a bribe.

The Minister has said that he wants input into this bill.

He's had input and input and input. There's been input put into

his ears since he first came into office. What is his answer to

this now when the heat is on; He said, "because the federation

suggested similar government action now would be seen as a

bribe."

Stupich said, "The onus is on them to produce a package."

Stupich said one possibility which he supports would be to

remove taxes from farmland. In unorganized areas now — another

conflicting statement; another example of complete lack of

understanding, complete lack of planning of this Minister and

this Government.

What about the lands within the municipalities? What about

the farmlands that are frozen in the Kelowna City — the new

Kelowna City? What about the thousands of acres of farmland

that are frozen in the new City of Kamloops; not a city

created, Madam Speaker, by the people themselves, by a free and

democratic vote after the whole programme has been studied as

to its pros and cons and to its costs — not by the democratic

way but by decree of this NDP socialist, all-powerful

Government — a labour Government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No way they're for Labour. In failing to

understand the complexities of the problems they're creating

and dealing with, they don't understand that they're making the

life of the working person in British Columbia more and more

difficult, more and more controlled. Or do they understand?

That's the question.

So from an election platform of complete removal of taxes

from all farmlands we now find that the Minister of Agriculture

is thinking that perhaps he might now ask the Government to

remove them from farmlands in unorganized areas. Maybe they'll

give a grant to the municipalities in lieu of their taxes. But

that grant won't cover the taxes. Nowhere does he say that he

would take taxes off all farmlands in British Columbia.

At the same time he has compounded the problems of the

farmers in these edict-created communities. They can't get

water. They can't live with their neighbours because good sound

farming principles are not compatible with subdivision living.

He's shown no concern for this; only this clawing for

power.

Madam Speaker, he goes on to say:

"Referring to the Government's announced intention to introduce

amendments,' Stupich said, 'it is my hope they will not be tabled in the Legislature

until after second reading.'"

Why? The Minister knows this bill is bad. The public knows

this bill is bad. The Minister is asking the Opposition to

write his legislation for him rather than writing it himself.

But he says, "I hope that there will be no amendments

introduced until after second reading, even if that is next

June." What is the Minister trying to prove? Is this another

case of false pride; whatever happened to that boyhood dream of

preserving agricultural land?

He says, "Opposition Members have been demanding the

amendments be made immediately." I would ask that Minister to

withdraw that statement publicly because he has misled those

students. The position of the Opposition has consistently been,

"Withdraw the bill. Have public hearings." "Trust me, trust me," says the Minister of Agriculture.

It goes on, Madam Speaker. You can go through one simple

speech made by this Minister at a crisis time in British

Columbia and find inequity, contradiction and downright immoral

statements. Withdraw the bill. Then wake up and get your

integrity back, or try to.

What do we find again? Wednesday, March 21: "Stupich Pledges

More Changes to Controversial Land Act. The provincial land

commission — which may have as many as seven or nine members…." said the Minister, "will have many amendments." Again he

reaffirms that he won't withdraw the bill, even if debate goes

on until next June.

But instead of the four amendments that he announced to the

SPEC group, he's now announced that there may be four more.

Madam Speaker, there are only 22 sections to this bill. We have

pointed out to the Government that the bill cannot be amended

because the fabric of the principle of this bill is woven

through every section. That is the complexity and that is

what's wrong with the bill. At first there were to be no

amendments. Then there were to be four amendments. Now there

are to be at least eight amendments.

Why, in the name of common sense if nothing else, doesn't

this Government withdraw the bill, hold public hearings and

redraft legislation that will return equity and fair play to

British Columbia?

What else is going on in this province by other Ministers?

The one matter I'd like to bring up now was made right here in

the House by the Minister of Highways. I see he's gone back to

repairing the ferries again. I hope to goodness he repairs the

ferry that mysteriously disappeared at 8 o'clock on Thursday

last, a ferry that was scheduled to sail by reservation from

Tsawwassen at 8 a.m. with people and buses reserved by the

British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. That ferry

disappeared, Madam Speaker. It didn't sail and the people

didn't get to Victoria. The question of what happened to that

ferry has

[ Page 1594 ]

never been answered.

The farmers in this province hope that now the Minister of

Highways is out getting his answer so he can give it to this

Legislature. They're concerned that when they're invited to

Victoria and they make reservations, they can't get here. They

want to know why.

What does the Minister of Highways say in his firm and

formal presentation to this House? I would quote from the

Vancouver Sun , Wednesday, March 21, 1973. The headline is "Vote

against land bill is vote for blacktop." This is typical of the

simplistic approach and the simplistic attitude that this

Government is taking to complex and deep-rooted and serious

concerns in this province.

It's not just the Minister of Highways; it's a reflection of

the whole cabinet's thinking. Just last night, when I was

discussing the growing of rice in Japan where the farmers are

independent and allowed to proceed on their own basis, the

Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) said that they were going

to blacktop the paddy fields in Japan and that they had. He

backed down when I pointed out to him that Japan, whose staple

diet is rice, out produces and overproduces its own needs.

They have this hang-up that all farmers are subdividers.

They have a hang-up now that if you vote for democracy and you

vote for equity in British Columbia and you vote for the rights

of people, then you're voting for blacktop. How ridiculous.

He says, "The Social Credit opposition was accused of

deliberate attempts to destroy the democratic system…."

How could he say that when the democratic rights are destroyed,

then you're voting for blacktop. "Highways Minister Bob

Strachan during the 8 ½ hour debate…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm not sure he will be the "Minister of

potholes." We just finished debating his estimates, Mr. Member,

and the projected highway development for British Columbia

passed by this Legislature — rightly so. One day later he got

up and said that he was going to spend millions and millions

more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please speak to the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: The farmlands of British Columbia will be like

the Black Hole of Calcutta, Madam Speaker, if this Government

proceeds with its dictatorial and grasping programme. You will

never get the farmer to farm them.

I've tried to point out to this House that you keep farmers on farmland by

seeing that they get a fair income and a return for their labours and leaving

them relatively free. Not destroy the value of their land, not destroy their

democratic rights, not make them serfs on the land to serve in the Black Holes

of Calcutta.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: They laugh all the time, Mr. Member.

The Minister of Highways says, "Anyone who votes against

this bill is selling agriculture in B.C. down the river," Strachan said. He charged that the filibuster unleashed

by the Socreds was a deliberate attempt to frustrate and

destroy the democratic system.

Is it democratic to have your land rights taken away from

you? Is it democratic to have your values destroyed of your

capital assets that you've worked for? Madam Speaker,

agricultural land didn't just lie here. Take the Okanagan where

our home is and where I have the honour to represent some of

the people. That land wasn't prime agricultural land, lying

plowed, harrowed and watered, ready for the seed. That land was

made agricultural land by the blood, sweat and toil of people,

human beings. It's their land, Madam Speaker, they made it what

it is, and they deserve a fair value from it and from their

labours.

Is it democratic to take those rights away? Is it a

filibuster to fight to have those rights protected; is it a

vote for blacktop if you vote for their rights? No way.

This is where he goes on and says, "a vote against the

controversial bill will be a vote in favour of blacktopping the

Fraser Valley." What do the Fraser Valley people have to say

about it? Letters, visits — not to the Opposition, but to the

Government. And when they're frustrated by the silence of the

Government and unwillingness of the Government to listen, then

they come to the Opposition.

The farmers that this bill is designed to save are having

meetings. The small homeowners that this bill is supposed to be

saving are having meetings. Are they in favour of blacktop? No

way.

Just recently, after we've heard the endorsation of our

stand against this bill from the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities — they oppose it, the lawyers oppose it, the

people oppose it, the farmers oppose it — and still the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), speaking for

Government policy, says to oppose it is to vote for

blacktop.

What do the mayors of the Fraser Valley say when he says

that if you vote against that bill you're voting for blacktop?

They're joining the land bill fight. They know, Mr. Speaker,

they have zoning and planning, that they have a legitimate

procedure to help preserve agricultural land in British

Columbia and the Fraser Valley that is fair and is equitable.

They know that

[ Page 1595 ]

the Land Commission Act brought in by this

Government, Bill 42, is a land seizure Act and not a land

preservation Act.

What does the Minister go on to say? I'll read some letters

in a minute from the people:

"Strachan said the provisions of the land bill most

criticized by the opposition paralleled provisions of the

Greenbelt Protection Act introduced by the Socred."

Well, Mr. Speaker, isn't that interesting? This is another

statement of "socialist truth" — or should, I say "Marxian

truth" — that we're getting in British Columbia. Half

truths.

He says, "The opposition has been critical of the sections

of Bill 42 which would allow a five-member land commission

appointed by the cabinet to purchase or otherwise acquire land.

The phraseology of the greenbelt Act is the same,' Strachan

said."

Oh, no way, Mr. Speaker.

Let me quote to you from the Green Belt Protection Fund

Act ,

section 1:

"The Minister of Finance shall, on the thirty-first day of

March, 1972, in addition to all other moneys to be expended

under the authority," et cetera, et cetera,

"Appropriation Account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or

from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or partly from the Revenue

Surplus Appropriation Account and partly from the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, in such proportions as he may consider requisite

or advisable," up to "twenty-five million dollars to

establish a fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund." .

for the preservation of greenbelts. But also, Mr. Speaker,

section 2:

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

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

Green Belt Protection Fund, upon certification by the

Comptroller-General that the expenditure comes within the

purposes of the Act, moneys to acquire land for the purpose of

establishing and preserving green belt areas throughout the

Province."

Mr. Speaker, the differences are that the Minister of

Finance "shall," and "up to," and there is a

counterbalance.

What do we find in the Land Commission Act — and I hope you

will just allow me one small quote, because it relates to the

principle as proposed —

section 7, subsection (i). This five-man

commission may, "purchase or otherwise acquire land, on such

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

No checks and balances. No marketplace. They do it, they

tell the Minister of Finance what he's to pay. There are no

checks and balances at all, no appeal.

In the Land Commission Act , Bill 42, it is the non-elected

commission, the five men taking over the Treasury of British

Columbia. And not only that, Mr. Speaker, of the five men they

only have to have three for a quorum of which two would be a

majority. Two men, appointed in the self-confessed "pork

barrel" system, not elected, appointed for political reasons — all stated by the Minister of Agriculture as recently as

yesterday — having control of the Treasury of British Columbia.

No wonder the people of British Columbia are disturbed.

The Minister of Highways seems to forget very completely

that in

section 3 of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act : "…to make recommendations respecting the acquisition of

such lands…." I'll go back to the first part, actually, so

you can understand it, Mr. Speaker.

"The Minister of Finance may appoint a person or persons to

advise," and that's the difference between Bill 42 and

the Green Belt Protection Fund Act . The Green Belt

Protection Fund Act advises; the Land Commission Act

establishes authority in the hands of advisers.

The Land Commission Act takes the authority of the

Treasury out of the hands of the Minister of Finance. There's

no limit on the expenditures. But there was in the Green

Belt Protection Fund Act . The appointed people were

advisers and they were all civil servants. There was a limit on

the money that could be spent, and there was the counterbalance

of the cabinet and the two forces in what was to be spent. A

fundamental difference, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Highways either doesn't know it or is

deliberately confusing the issue.

Mr. Speaker, $7 million of the Green Belt Protection Fund of

$25 million was spent by the Social Credit administration. Not

one nickel, not one five-cent piece of that money was spent

without a willing buyer and a willing seller — democracy and

individual rights. At no time was there any attempt to take

away….

I would say that the Minister's statements are nothing short

of absolute garbage. To say that the principles of these two

bills, the Land Commission Act and the Green Belt

Protection Fund Act , parallel each other is absolute

garbage. I say "garbage", Mr. Speaker, because I saw you

getting angry. I know you were going to rule me out of order if

I said it was an untruth. Garbage goes down the chute and that

Minister's statements should go down the chute.

What's the kicker in the whole thing? Again in

section (

i) the kicker in this Land Commission Act is "under such

Green Belt Protection Fund Act had a willing seller and

a willing buyer and fair compensation. There was no need for

appeal. If they didn't want to sell, they didn't have to. But

the principle of this Act gives the commission the right to

[ Page 1596 ]

land in British Columbia that's privately owned. They can say,

"I want that land for a park. You're going to accept this

price."

You have no appeal as an individual. You have no right to

negotiate that price. You have no right to say, "I don't want

to sell." You only have the right to stay alive if they kick

you out. Even that may be questionable.

Then the Land Commission Act can set other terms and

conditions and decide that they want to use that land for

something else. They have the power to take it out of the

greenbelt category or the agricultural category and put it into

the land bank. They can turn around and sell it if they want to

or lease it to somebody else; not at a profit to the individual

who made that land what it was and that home what it was or

that farm what it was, but at a profit to the all-powerful,

all-right state. No fair compensation to the individual at all.

It's the same with the devaluation of property.

Just imagine if you had a little home on Elk Lake out here,

or Kalamalka Lake in the north Okanagan, or Stewart Lake in the

northern central part of British Columbia. This Government, on

repeated occasions, has stated that they believe that there

should be no private ownership of waterfront property.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: "Hear, hear," the Member says. "Hear,

hear." That, Mr. Speaker, is the very reason why the people of

British Columbia will not accept this state control and they

will not accept the airy-fairy flim-flam explanations given by

this Government and these Members. They're hollow; they're not

true. There is the power in this Act — and this Government has

proven its naked hunger for power and its hell-bent-for-leather

attitude to bring about social revolution….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: They've said that they don't believe in private ownership

of waterfront land. It's just been confirmed again. This Act confers upon them

the power to go up to your summer home or your home on Kalamalka Lake, your

home or your summer home on Stewart Lake, or your tent, or your home at Elk

Lake, and say that the state — two men of this five-man commission; not answerable

— want that land. They can set the price for it. They can tell you when to get

out. They can use it for what they want. They can turn around and sell it at

a profit. You have no right of appeal and no right for compensation.

The Minister says that that is the same as the Green Belt

Protection Fund Act . I say that that's one of the kickers

in the Land Commission Act . I would say that never has

the Green Belt Protection Fund Act acquired one piece of

land through taking. Every square inch that has been obtained

has been obtained in a fair and equitable means by a fair and

equitable arrangement between a willing buyer and a willing

seller.

Just as the Premier tried to give the people of this

province a snow job that the Land Commission Act was the

same as the Municipal Act ; that they were really one in

the same — and he was proven wrong by the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — so does the Minister of Highways,

who was formerly a man of integrity and leadership, set out to

try and give this Legislature and the people of British

Columbia the same snow job; that the Land Commission Act

and the Green Belt Protection Fund Act are one in the

same and that they will operate in the same way.

Why the fuss on the part of the public, Mr. Speaker? Because

the people of British Columbia resent the snow job that they

are being given by this Minister and this Government.

Mr. Speaker, it simply is not responsible of the Government

to chastise so many — if I can use the term — ordinary citizens

in British Columbia because of their attitudes and reactions to

this bill and because of their attitudes and reactions to the

statements made by this socialist Government. What they're

trying to say, Mr. Speaker, and what they are really saying is

that this bill — this 42 philosophy — is simply not compatible

with their sense of fair play and equity. By "their" I mean the

people of British Columbia.

I would doubt if the Members opposite — and I say this quite

frankly — have received many letters from constituents that

didn't confirm that they wished to see farmland preserved.

Neither has a Member of the Opposition said this. I doubt if

they have received any letters that didn't say that they would

like to see greenbelts protected. I would suggest that they

haven't received any letters that didn't say that they wouldn't

like to see parklands preserved in British Columbia.

What the public is saying to these insensitive Members

opposite is that they do want to see equity and fair play in

British Columbia. What they are saying in their letters is that

they want to see farmlands; they want to see parklands and they

want

[ Page 1597 ]

to see greenbelts. But they do not want to see fair play and

equity disappear in British Columbia, You know, Mr. Speaker, it's astonishing that those Members

opposite are so insensitive that they try to suggest that the

official Opposition — the Social Crediters, the Liberal Party

and the little Conservative songsters down there — are opposing

this bill because they are against the preservation of

farmlands or against the preservation of greenbelts or against

the preservation of parklands. It's simply not true.

When the Members opposite had a great and honest leader in

the person of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), then they really understood what the legislative

process was all about. They understood what the debate was

about. Now, Mr. Speaker, they're like a ship without a rudder

in a wild and stormy socialist sea. Even with the earphones

that they're wearing turned up, they are so insensitive that

they think that this bill is being opposed in the name of greed

and in the name of speculators and the like.

But really, Mr. Speaker, if the Members opposite were

listening they would hear that the people of British Columbia,

that the Opposition of British Columbia opposed the bill in the

name of equity and fair play.

I'm not going to belabour you, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of

letters — although I have literally thousands — but I am going

to read you some and excerpts from some — just a few to try and

show through you, to those Members clearly what the ordinary

guy, the ordinary Joe, the people of British Columbia are

thinking and what they're concerned about. This one is very

interesting. It's from a young farmer and he says:

"I am a young farmer, 21 years of age, one of the young

farmers you pretend you try to help into farming and build a

future. I was planning on buying a farm last fall if all went

well. And all didn't go well. The Government ordered a land

freeze to be struck on all farmlands in British Columbia.

Fortunately I had not purchased a farm, and I thank my lucky

stars for that. Instead, I decided to rent an orchard. The

logistics of cheap farmland and a viable agricultural area are

incompatible with reason.

"In January, as a delegate to the B.C. Fruit Growers annual

convention, I sat through Mr. Stupich's speech and wrote down

the highlights. As he came to the end of his speech I realized

there were no highlights. I quickly tried to remember anything

he said that might be a highlight. Oh yes, he said that he

would give us a cut in crop insurance premiums — a small crumb.

He also said he would give us a study if we wanted it. We don't

need to be studied, or examined, we need to be paid for our

farm produce."

What did the farmers say outside this Legislature the other day?

"In principle, we as farmers adamantly agree with the

concept of farmland preservation. But the only acceptable way

to preserve farmland is to have the products of one's labours,

and investments secure and viable. The labour population is

protected by immigration laws prohibiting the employer from

importing foreign labour, thereby protecting the Canadian

workers."

That should interest the Members in this House who represent

various labour organizations.

"The manufacturing facet of Canadian business is protected

by tariffs duties, and surtaxes. We, the farming community, are

bound to compete with imported fruits and vegetables, be it

bananas, oranges, potatoes, or others. This has become an

untenable situation. But the land freeze and the inception of

Bill 42 has in effect given the farmer no hope, for the future and no option for recourse."

Remember that the farmer, in saying this, is speaking for

all people in British Columbia who have lost lands.

"We as farmers are facing a situation where we have lost our

rights as citizens, lost our futures — as the only hope for the

future was our land and our freedom to work it. We have no

options or recourse, no compensation and according to Bill 42,

no appeal."

You know, Mr. Speaker, farmers are very unsophisticated

people. They're very sincere people, and they probably work

harder than any other segment of our society. They're very

independent people. He very simply says what he's concerned

about and what his problem is. But does the Government listen?

No. A wire, as recently as yesterday:

"WE NEED YOUR HELP TO KILL BILL 42. THE FOOD INDUSTRY MUST

BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND BEFORE THE LAND IS LOCKED INTO

AGRICULTURE. WE APPRECIATE ALL OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL."

That's signed by a number of independent farmers. What does

another farmer say? This one lives in the Okanagan.

"We consider the land legislation bill to be the worst form

of encroachment on personal freedom. Keep up the fight."

What are the young people in British Columbia saying? From

Vancouver:

"As presently a student of agriculture at UBC, I would

like to let you know that I am not in favour of Bill 42 as it presently

stands. I think that probably most people will agree that it is poor

management of our resources to subdivide our best farmland. However,

what alternatives does the farmer have?

"I am a son of a farmer and I know that our farm and most of

the orchards in our area were not economical. There are very

few farmers

[ Page 1598 ]

making the minimum wage plus a decent interest on their

capital investment. But we enjoyed this type of life, and we

were free."

Then he goes on to talk about his family, where his father

is in his 60's and wishes to retire; how he wants to farm and

he's taking agriculture to do it. But, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't

want to farm with Bill 42 as it's constituted if the principle

which we are debating is in effect because he wants to be a

farmer in a democratic society, not in Russia.

Another one, Burnaby:

"My husband and I do want to register that we want Bill 42

stopped. It is very wrong for our province that we have fought

for years to bring about the rights that this would

destroy."

There are two letters here: "Please stop Bill 42."

"Democracy is threatened." That's not from a farmer, that's

from Vancouver. Another one from another part of the province,

"Stop Bill 42, democracy is threatened." Another excerpt that

might interest you, Mr. Speaker, in knowing what the people of

British Columbia are thinking. After all, isn't that what

government's all about, people? And they say:

"I would hate to think that one day my house and land could

be taken over by the government. And I could be told that it

may only be worth a few thousand dollars for a park or whatever

when I know it is worth more. Worse still, the commission which

would make that decision would be appointed, and not elected by

the people.

"The bill states that the decision is final with no appeal

allowed. Even when a person is found guilty of murder, he's

allowed the right to appeal. And I think owning a house and a

lot in town is much lesser an offence."

He's got a point there Mr. Speaker.

The Member says that you can't appeal a hanging, and he's

right. But, Mr. Member let's hope that the people of British

Columbia's voices will be heard and that the Members of this

Legislature will be heard and that there will not be this

dreadful hanging of democratic rights in British Columbia.

What does another person say? This is from a farmer:

"We as farmers only want to farm. We want to farm our ranch

as such and hope that it will never be sold for subdivision. We

have a cattle ranch and our whole family worked very hard and

long hours because it is our ranch. And it is going to stay

ours as long as we can get a fair price for our cattle and can

continue to improve the ranch.

"I have logged for 20 years to finally be able to ranch with

my family."

And he says:

"I'm not letting anyone take this away. I think there is

enough against agriculture without government starting to hinder and devalue

it. I don't know what the whole answer is? But dictatorship certainly is not

and it never will be."

That is from a farmer.

"Concerning forthcoming Bill 42: I definitely am against it.

I cannot understand why a Canadian citizen as you call yourself….

This letter is to Mr. Stupich:

"Would you put other Canadians' personal rights in jeopardy?

This country is not founded on your party's principles, nor was

it fought for in the last two world wars — to keep it as free

as any democracy can be — on your principles.

"Those men left their homes. A hell of a lot of them died in

some damned stinking hole to keep us a free nation. Now your

party and you are trying to take a big part of that freedom

from us.

"Myself, along with many thousands of other citizens, can

see nothing but chaos coming from Bill 42 if it is passed.

Farmers and ranchers have had to fight low prices, bad weather,

poor crops for years to hold onto their land. Now we can add

one more thing to fight on our list — the government.

"I cannot see where there is one blankety-blank thing in

Bill 42 that's going to help the farmer. So far, all it's done

is knock our borrowing power on the head.

"Since your party took office, I have heard it said that

farmers were land speculators, which is untrue. You put Bill 42

through and it will be the biggest land speculation deal in the

history of North America. I can assure you that farmers will

not be sitting in the shade,"

and I won't quote what he says while you're doing it.

That's from a farmer — that's from a farmer that this

Government says that they are out to save. That's from a farmer

writing about a bill that we're debating now. That's what he

says to those who want to save him. I think he knows what he's talking

about. He was in the last war. He knows what it's all about. He's not a

sophisticated man. He's just speaking from

the heart. He's typical of thousands of British Columbians

today who, for the first time in history, are experiencing fear

of their government and fear for their democratic rights.

Another one, Mr. Speaker, I quote just a section. This is

from a woman. This is very interesting, actually. She says:

"I'm writing to you in regard to Bill 42. This bill should

definitely be withdrawn as it does nothing whatsoever for us

farmers. I also think that it is a very vicious and dictatorial

piece of legislation.

"My husband and I have worked very hard in building up our

orchard and it is one of the best looking orchards in our area. This is due

to long hours of hard work and all our life savings being put into it.

[ Page

1599 ]

"Do you honestly think that this is fair, that we should not

get any more for our property now after putting in nearly every

cent we made back into the orchard for nothing — as our land

value will be next to nothing."

She brings up an interesting point here:

"If my husband should become disabled or die, I would be

left with nothing. I probably wouldn't get enough to buy

another house. I think this is a disgrace after my husband put

every bit of his energy and life savings into our farm. Is this

the way he's rewarded for his hard work? I think it is very

wrong and unjust. We are shocked that something like this is

happening in our great country of Canada."

She goes on to speak a lot more about having heard the

Minister of Agriculture speak and her concern that his speeches

create in their minds and their family and their neighbours.

Why doesn't the Government listen, Mr. Speaker? This is a

simple statement of genuine interest and genuine concern from a

genuine British Columbian. What do they get from this

government? The three-way monkey: see no truth, hear no truth

and — after looking at the Minister of Agriculture's statements

and, listening to the Premier — speak no truth. It's

shocking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would presume that the Hon. Member

didn't imply by her remark that the Hon. Minister was not telling the truth.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh no, Mr. Speaker. You're quite right. I would

like to go on with another statement. This is written on

February 12. He's talking about the Hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke), actually — he names him and that's why I

pointed it out — who spoke on Channel 12 the evening of

February 10, 1973.

"It is true most of us can remember, if we were old enough,

when the people from the city went for a drive in the country

on a Sunday afternoon and gazed at the farmers working in the

fields picking strawberries, raspberries, and later beans.

It must indeed have been a pleasant sight.

"They could stop here and there and haggle over the price of

a flat of berries or whatever was being harvested, usually with

the buyer paying as little as possible. Or they could stop at a

poultry farm and haggle over the price of a few dozen cracked

eggs.

"For the most part, they were really unwilling to pay

producer's prices — not wholesale or retail, but producer's

prices — and so make the trip out to the country a paying

proposition, as well as a pleasant one.

"However, these farmers have become extinct. Most farmers

by now have heard of the $4.50 per hour that the man in the large chain store

gets for putting groceries on the shelves for the shopper's convenience. He

doesn't have to worry about bugs or blights, plant disease, animal disease,

poultry disease, frostbite, drought, so that the 25 cents per hour that he might

make doesn't sound very exciting.

"A farmer today must have a large unit. He uses machinery

wherever possible, so he can no longer afford to hire people to

work in the berry fields or the hay fields, leaving a void for

those Sunday drivers.

"In those days, Mr. Cocke and Mr. Stupich, a man who milked

five cows was a dairy farmer. Now a farmer who milks 25 cows is

considered a small farmer. This is a loss of four farmers. In

many cases, a farmer milks 100 or more cows, which is a loss of

20 farmers.

"In poultry, you find the same thing," and he goes on

to explain. He says again:

"Now, Mr. Cocke and Mr. Stupich, a piece of land does not

make a farm. It takes a very determined individual and a

hardworking wife and family to make a farm."

He's right — land doesn't make a farm. It's the farmer that

makes the land produce. It's the farmer that makes the land

valuable. It's the farmer that feeds us, the consumer, who

wants to drive out in the country, even today, Mr. Speaker, and

haggle over the price — not at the supermarket, but at the

source of supply. The producer's level.

Mr. Speaker, another letter says:

"I recognize the problem of the disappearing farmland.

However, Bill 42 is no solution to any problem, but gives rise

to many. I'm totally opposed to it being passed."

Another letter describes this as a monstrous Act — from a

lady. Not a vicious letter, no real hostility in the letter.

She says:

"Please do what you can to stop this monstrous Act. I

disagree with the powers within the bill."

A letter from the constituency of Shuswap:

"May this letter serve to register with you"

— and this is to the Minister —

"our objection and disagreement with Bill 42, the Land

Commission Act ."

Extraordinary, isn't it, how the farmers that the bill is

designed to save are the people writing the letters opposing

the bill?

"As a lifelong farmer and British Columbia born Canadian

citizen, it is my strong feeling that the bill, if enforced,

would be most detrimental to the people of this province."

He goes on to say some more points about return for his

labours, but he points out that if this bill is passed and the

farmers and the working people of British Columbia, who are

union members, who are teachers, who are clerks, who are

mechanics, and who

[ Page 1600 ]

are all affected by the principle of this bill….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from the farmer in the corner?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, this is from the farmer in the corner's

constituency, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful!

MRS. JORDAN: He says that when these rights are taken away,

the pride of ownership will be gone in British Columbia and we

will be left with nothing but dilapidation and dissatisfaction

in its residents. And he's right. What is there to live for if

you don't have something to do, to put yourself into, and if

you don't receive a return for your efforts?

That return doesn't always have to be money. We know that.

If you're a senior citizen you want a return in being needed,

you want a return in being accepted, and you want a return in

feeling useful and that your life is worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, if you're a farmer in British Columbia you have

farmed because you wanted to farm. You have farmed because you

found an emotional return for your effort. And you have farmed

because you were independent. When that's taken away, what is

there left for you, for that Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis),

for the clerk, for the mechanic, for the farmer?

Mr. Speaker, that's what life is all about. That's what the

principle of this bill is all about — taking away from people

what life is all about.

"This is to let you know that I'm against Bill 42 because it

infringes on the rights and freedoms of the individual….

Don't forget your friends have to pay a high price for the

exodus out of Moscow to freedom."

That was to the Premier.

It's not a crank letter. It's a letter expressing intestinal

concern and fear that's been created by this very Premier.

Another letter, oddly enough from the Member for Shuswap's

constituency. I wonder if he reads his mail, Mr. Speaker? He

says:

"Surely greed for power as exemplified in Bill 42 is

dangerous and destructive. There is absolutely no guarantee to

the people of this province that this Act will be wisely used

for the good of the people, as there is nothing in it but

dictatorial powers with no recourse for the common people."

This lady goes on to say.

"I would urge that this incredible piece of legislation be

completely scrapped and that common sense…" — that's not a very

complicated question — "…be used in the composition of

regulations regarding land use. Please assure us that we are

still living in a free country."

Mr. Speaker, you're a very fair man. You know people. The

position you hold this afternoon is to protect the rights of

people, to protect the democratic process.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That is a letter from a farmer's wife. They are

dairy farmers in Enderby, B.C. Do you want the letter? Does

that seem an unreasonable letter? Does that seem a letter from

somebody that's panicked or hysterical?

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if you could say something, that

you'd say to me: "Member for North Okanagan, that is a very

reasonable letter. It is a very reasonable request from a very

reasonable citizen in British Columbia who has a very real

reason for being concerned about this legislation."

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if you could have your way — and I

hope you get your way, Mr. Speaker, as I hope the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), who should stand up in this House and

attack this legislation, will have his way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, now, the Member for Shuswap says, "I'll

stand up for the farmers." Who do you think these letters are

from? The farmers, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Speaker — the

farmers in your own riding, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, a farmer, the Member of the riding

from which I've quoted letters from farmers, himself has a

hang-up that all farmers are subdividers. I dare that Member,

Mr. Speaker, to get on his little tricycle and tricycle up the

Hope-Princeton Highway and through the Okanagan Valley and say

that; to go into his own constituency, Mr. Speaker, and say

that and accuse those farmers whom you've heard from this

afternoon and before this afternoon, through you, Mr. Speaker;

to accuse those farmers of being greedy landgrabbers,

subdividers. I dare that Member, Mr. Speaker. I'll ride up

there myself on a two-seater bicycle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please return to

the substance of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: The substance of the debate, Mr. Speaker! That

is the substance of the debate, that a Member of this

Government who is himself a farmer is trying to peddle to the

people of British Columbia that this bill is designed to save

farmers. The farmers

[ Page 1601 ]

that it's designed to save, as he says, are the very people

who are writing these letters, the very people who spent their

hard-earned money to come to Victoria to speak to this

Government, to tell them that they wanted farmland, that they

wanted to be farmers, that they wanted greenbelts, that they

wanted parks as much as anybody else in society. All they want

is equity and fair play and their democratic rights.

That Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) should hang his head in

shame, that he should even in the beginning possess such a

hang-up as to accuse these farmers of greed. They're no more

greedy than anyone else. The principle of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is not to preserve farmland and farmers. It is nothing

more than a camouflaged socialist claw, land-takeover in the

Province of British Columbia and an erosion of the democratic

rights of the people of this province.

Withdraw the bill, Mr. Speaker. Have them withdraw the bill.

Take that bill. If they're so confident, if that Member for

Shuswap is so sure that he is right and that he is representing

the farmers, then let him take the bill out to them for six

months and let them have their say. Then we'll see who is

right. Because the people who are right, Mr. Speaker, are the

people of British Columbia. That's what counts. And their

rights are being imposed on.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Hon. little cherub, the First Member

for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) has finally come back into

the House. He giggles and he laughs about the plight of the

farmer. His giggle and laugh comes from a comfortable chair and

a good diet and a good income and a good pension plan and good

holiday time, and it comes without an intelligent thought into

what this bill is doing and without a thought bred by too much

security as to what is happening to other people.

I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that if that Member really knew

what he was doing, he would be the first to stand up in this

Legislature and say to the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture, "Be fair. Bring back equity to British

Columbia."

There's no way that that Member would advise his pals and

his fellow workers to sign a contract that this Government has

asked the farmers and the people of British Columbia to sign.

Isn't that right, Mr. Speaker? Ask the Member, Mr. Speaker.

That Member is getting all embarrassed and blushing. And I

don't blame him. I would be embarrassed and I would blush too

if I were trying to defend the principle of this bill — especially if I were comfortable and secure, and especially if

I were creating an image of self-satisfaction and lack of

concern.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that you are becoming

somewhat repetitious.

MRS. JORDAN: I've got another letter from the Member from

Shuswap's constituency.

"My husband and I are young farmers who have worked hard to obtain clear title to our land."

Mr. Speaker, have you any idea what a clear title means to

people who have come from other countries or to many

hard-working British Columbians? If you'd come with me, Mr.

Speaker, around this province, I would introduce you to people

who have given up everything that you or I might enjoy — picture

shows, a beer, maybe a steak once in a while, maybe a new shirt — in order to put every cent they earn into getting a clear

title.

Well now, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says

that's what they've got. This bill provides for a caveat on

their title in the land registry office. The Minister of Health

shakes his head. Obviously, that's why they made him the

Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, this bill leaves the individual farmer and the

individual landowner with a marked title. This is what the

young people say: "We worked hard to obtain clear title to our

land. We feel the Land Commission Act is a direct threat

to our personal freedom and worth."

Mr. Speaker, you would think that the Government Members

would listen; if not to us, to the people who are writing these

thoughts, to the people who are concerned. Another letter; this

is from Kamloops. Kamloops. You know where Kamloops is, Mr.

Member. Kamloops has a Member who is standing up in this House

and, I'm sure, is going to defend the bill loudly. Although I

think if I really knew him well, Mr. Speaker, he would attack

the bill as viciously as we are and as thoroughly as we are, if

he were free to do so.

Let's not deceive ourselves, Mr. Speaker. If the people of

British Columbia are under the thumb and claw of the ambition

of this naked-power-hungry triumvirate that sits in here, then

there's no question that the Members of that party are under

the same dictatorial powers. They just don't have an

opportunity to speak freely. The Premier himself said, "No way

would we have a free vote on this, because we know that all our

Members would support it." He knows a lot of things, Mr.

Speaker, but he doesn't dare test them. He doesn't dare put

them to the public for question and support. He doesn't dare

even trust his own Members to this support.

The Minister of Agriculture doesn't dare trust his own

statements out with the public. When he wants to talk about

this bill, he runs into the university; into the hallowed

grounds of the sacred NDP, where he's sure of getting at least

some form of support.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he runs into the sanctuary. The problem

is, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia are

concerned that there will be no sanctuary for them. All they

ask is equity and fair

[ Page 1602 ]

play. Is that so much, Mr. Speaker?

Let's hear what some more of them say. This is from

Kamloops. You know where that is, Mr. Member.

"I wish to register my protest to pending Bill 42, which is

currently under discussion in the House. It is our hope that

the Government will come to see the folly of this violent piece

of legislation and modify it, if not completely drop it."

That's all they're asking, Mr. Speaker: equity and fair

play; that the Government withdraw this bill, send it to public

hearing and bring in a fair and reasonable method of protecting

farmland in British Columbia. Is that too much, Mr.

Speaker?

I see the Premier is answering lots of letters. I'm sure

they're full of apologies and his usual willy-nilly snow job on

his bill. It really hurts, doesn't it, through you Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of Health. It hurts because that Minister of

Health knows that his Government is wrong and that he is a

partner in one of the most shameless land grabs in the history

of North America, and that he's part of a self-confessed

radical government — a government that the Premier of this

province has said, as recently as three weeks ago in this

House, is the most radical government in North America. That's

why the Minister of Health reacts.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that inside him there's a warm

human being that knows that what he is part of is wrong.

Through you Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Health,

"Listen to the inner man." I would say the same to the Premier:

"Listen to the inner man. Listen to your conscience." Withdraw

this bill and bring about equity and fair play to British

Columbia. Take your hand off the lands of British Columbia,

through you Mr. Speaker. Return independence and freedom to

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a list a mile long and these are just

a few. If I read them all, I'd be here for four months. I

personally have got thousands of letters.

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

address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when

we talk about letters, what the Members of this Government are

doing. I've got so many letters on my desk, which I'm sure

you'd like to know, that I cannot get them opened. These are

all related to one thing: the principle of this bill that we're

debating; a simple request from people to be listened to, to be

fair. They know that life is not always fair and equal but

they're asking this Government to do their best; to restore

their rights.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, maybe the problem with the Members is that they've got

so many letters on their desks from just people in British Columbia that they

don't read them. Maybe that's what divides this House. We read our mail and

we listen to the people. They don't read their mail and they don't listen to

the people.

That Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gabelmann) is a classic

example of the type of arrogance…. I would rather name what

that Member said, than names. The Member is from North

Vancouver – Seymour. I wonder if that Member would dare stand up

in this House and repeat what he said to a group of very

average, normal, unexcited, concerned citizens.

That's the Member who accused a conscientious council in

this House of being the greatest rip-off artists in North

Vancouver. But he didn't have the courage of his convictions

outside, Mr. Speaker. In debating the principle of this bill, I

would suggest that he wouldn't have the courage to stand up in

this House and repeat what he said to those farmers.

Would that be too much to ask, Mr. Speaker? Surely it's the

truth we're trying to get at. I'll tell you one thing, Mr.

Speaker. If those farmers had been on their farms and not in

this Legislature, they would have given him back better than he

could dish out. He's looking embarrassed and he has every

reason to look embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, last night I took several examples of several

different countries. This is the changing face of democracy at

the moment. Welcome back, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Last night I took several countries — those who had their

farmers under state control; those where the state controlled

the lands; and those countries that had free farmers, with a

free float of agricultural land among agricultural interests — and pointed out that no matter how altruistic it might have

been, the state control of land and the state control of

farmers simply had not worked. In that area, the substructure

of free enterprise that was slowly being allowed to creep in in

the farming industry was where the product was being

produced.

I pointed out that in Japan, where the farmer is relatively

free, where his land floats freely, that agricultural land is

worth $7,000 an acre to farmers and that apple land is worth

$3,000 to $4,000 an acre and it floats on an agricultural

market and that they were making a living.

You know, Mr. Speaker, some of the Members laughed. I

certainly don't deny them their right to laugh. I question what

they laugh at. For their interest, and I hope to stimulate

their thinking, I would like to tell you about an

article that

appeared as recently as March 21, 1973.

It's not something that I found in the library, Mr. Speaker,

and not something that came from another country, but an

article that was printed right here in

[ Page 1603 ]

Victoria by none other than the Victoria Times . It

re-affirms and confirms what I was trying to tell this House

last night. It is headed: "Farm Failures Reach Kremlin."

"The Soviet Union agricultural crisis has finally spilled

over into the political arena for the first time since the current Kremlin leadership

came to power nearly a decade ago. The poor 1972 grain harvest, which was 22

million tons below target, was at first blamed on freak weather conditions."

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the

article goes on to say after

saying 22 million below target harvest was at first blamed on freak conditions?

It says:

"But mismanagement and apathy can be seen to have caused

even more havoc."

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor land laws.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right, Mr. Member. You shackle the

farmer to the land and you shackle his initiative and you

shackle your production. You make a serf out of him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I think you are right, Mr. Member; Russia is a

regional district of British Columbia. When you read the

principle of this bill you are debating you wonder if that's

not true.

"Transport….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member who is interrupting

please go back to his seat if he wishes to interrupt — and only

on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be interested

in the rest of this article.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Member, that you are being

interrupted.

MRS. JORDAN: That's all right, I appreciate your concern. It

went on to talk about the harvest and it said.

"But mismanagement and apathy seem to have caused even more havoc. Transportation

bottlenecks, bungling farm managers, shortages of fertilizer and other failings

now are being singled out in the Press."

Mr. Speaker, in Russia all transportation is nationalized. The state controls

every form of transportation; the state controls the land and the state controls

the farmer and the state controls the manager. The state controls the production

of fertilizer. The state controls equipment, farm equipment. The state tells

you how to fertilize, when to fertilize, how to plow and when to plow, how to

cultivate and when to cultivate — and what has been the cause of their problem

in Russia? Not weather, but transportation bottlenecks — and the state tells

the trains when to run and when not to run and it tells the workers when to

work and when not to work.

Transportation bottlenecks are a great danger, Mr. Speaker,

that we face here in British Columbia. You will recall — and I

am sure that in this debate Hon. Members would like to know — that we have asked this Government in its negotiations with

union leaders to guarantee and bring back to this House next

year a guarantee to the producer in British Columbia that when

his produce gets to the docks of British Columbia for export,

or when his produce gets into a terminal centre for

transportation, that it will not be he who suffers if there are

management-labour problems.

We ask that there will be an insurance plan for the cost of

his produce or there will be a guarantee from management and

from labour that his produce will go to market because, Mr.

Speaker, the farmer has been caught in this squeeze for far too

long. Now he is caught in the squeeze of the principle of this

bill.

This Government must not only withdraw the bill but they

must give this guarantee to the producer.

In our own Okanagan area producers have planted a crop,

cultivated it, tendered for it, fertilized it, they have paid

to have it harvested, either through their own labours or

others, they have paid for packing boxes, for down time and up

time of workers — and then their produce has got to the point

of transportation to go to the market area and there has been

disagreement between two parties.

Nobody has cared about them and their produce has sat there

and rotted. Any profit that they might have made or any return

for their labours that they might have made has gone down in

that rot. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr.

Lauk) last night said. "What about Bill 33". Bill 33 would have

helped protect the farmer in this situation because the action

of two parties would have destroyed someone else and it would

have helped destroy the economy of this province. Bill 33 had

50,000 more elements of fairness in it than this Bill 42 that

we are debating now.

What is the Government of British Columbia going to do about

the transportation bottlenecks? In Russia it is transportation

bottlenecks that are controlled by the Government and bungling

farm managers and shortages of the state-controlled fertilizer

that are being singled out as the problem.

Let's read on. It says:

"Top man takes over. The job of filling the grain

elevators now has gone to one of the most powerful men in the Kremlin.

In his new job Polyansky has day-to-day executive control over a highly

centralized empire of 15,000 state farms and 32,000 collective farms."

Mr. Speaker, is that what we want in British Columbia; a

Polyansky who will be authorized by the

[ Page 1604 ]

principle of this bill to have day-to-day executive control

over a highly centralized land empire? You bet your boots we

don't. Neither do the farmers in British Columbia and neither

do the small landowners in British Columbia and neither do the

homeowners in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, if you

could say so yourself, you wouldn't want that either. It goes

on to say that:

"Polyansky's short-term worries must also extend to other

crops. Harvest last year under this perfect state-controlled

system of sugar beets, sunflower seeds, potatoes and vegetables

were below the levels of the 60's. With good luck, good weather

and the ability to keep his subordinates on their toes, he has

a reasonable chance of producing better results and avoiding

the need to dig deeply into scarce reserves of foreign

exchange.

"The Soviet Union can afford to sell off gold where they

have control of land, control of money, where they have

control of farmers and centralized power. They can afford to

sell off platinum and other precious natural resources once in

a while to keep its population fed."

Isn't it extraordinary that this theoretically perfect

system that has been in effect for how many years now — 20, 30

years, 40 years, still can't feed itself? They have 500 million

acres of land under cultivation in Russia today under this

controlled cultivation and they have 240 million people and

with the serf system they can't even feed their own people.

In the United States of America, that has that terrible free

enterprise capitalist system, they have 210 million people,

approximately, and 300 million acres in cultivation and they're

over-producing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I told you that last night and I expected

you to listen to it. It's quite obvious, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that that Member doesn't listen.

MR. SPEAKER: If you've said it already, then you don't need

to say. It again, whether you like repetition or not. It's

certainly not in accordance with standing order 43.

MRS. JORDAN: It's the whole problem with the principle of

the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not appropriate to standing order 43;

that's what it's not appropriate to.

MRS. JORDAN: We're discussing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And we're talking about rule 43.

MRS. JORDAN: Rule 43, Bill 42.

We're back to the fact that they can't even, with 500

million acres of land, feed themselves, and they have no more

people really than the United States of America, with its

dreaded independence system. The result is a cut in buying

desperately needed technology, such as computers, from the

capitalist world. Isn't it interesting that it's not only in

farming that this Utopian situation hasn't brought the people

happiness or productivity?

The principle of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, reaches right into

the heart of our lands and our businesses and our homes in

British Columbia. And the system over there has to come to us

to buy because we're independent and we have initiative and we

have drive.

"Almost all Polyanski's headaches date from the days of

Joseph Stalin. After the liberal New Economic Policy in the

1920's, when the peasants prospered and production returned

almost to the levels of 1913, Stalin's…"

listen to this, Mr. Speaker,

"…Stalin's breakneck industrialization policies

produced a swift about-face."

What have we got here in British Columbia? A government that

says it is the most radical government in North America. A