1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 1781 ]

CONTENTS

Motion to adjourn

Denial of union certification vote. Mr. McGeer

— 1781

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1781

Hon. Mr. King — 1782

Mr. Speaker — 1782

Mr. Gardom — 1782

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1782

Hon. Mr. King — 1783

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1783

Routine proceedings

The Labour Relations Act (Bill No. 157) Mr. McGeer. Introduction

and first reading — 1783

Land Commission Act Bill No. 42. Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 1783

Amendment on second reading. Mr. Smith — 1788

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1788

Mr. Morrison — 1788

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1788

Mr. McClelland — 1789

Mr. Chabot — 1789

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1790

Mr. Wallace — 1790

Mr. Gardom — 1791

Mr. Dent — 1792

Mr. Curtis — 1792

Mr. Williams — 1792

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1793

Mr. Phillips — 1793

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1799

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1799

Mr. Lea — 1799

Mr. McGeer — 1800

Mr. Richter — 1800

Mrs. Jordan — 1801

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1803

Mr. Schroeder — 1804

Mr. Fraser — 1805

Division on the amendment — 1805

Privilege

Mr. Steves — 1806

Mr. Smith — 1806

Mrs. Jordan — 1806

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Gorst — 1807

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1811

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1811

Division on second reading — 1815

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

The House met at 10:00 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, two major national television

networks have asked permission to film the first 15 minutes of

the proceedings which I presume is the question period. I have

turned the lights on to that end in the hopes that you will

agree to that being done. Is that agreed upon?

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

order, Mr. Speaker. We have a committee of this House which is

concerning itself, or I understand concerning itself, with the

matter of televising these proceedings and also the radio

broadcasting of debates. We have had no report from them as to

what the current situation is and until we have such a report I

don't see why this House should from day to day continue to

amend its rules and its procedures in order to suit the

convenience of anyone who may come along.

MR. SPEAKER: Then in that event, I will have to order the

lights turned off and…

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

I would hope that you would reconsider. I think they are here

and I am sure the people would like to see it. The official

Opposition would be in favour of having the television, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I feel that the

committee, which I am the Chairman of, is considering the ways

and means and orders of this House of putting coverage in the

House and I would like to say that I would not like to see the

rules changed today.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the television people please remove

themselves from the chamber.

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

under standing order 35 (1) the adjournment of the House to

discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely

the action taken by the Labour Relations Board in denying a

certification vote to two Canadian unions, the CWU at Trail and the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union

of Terrace.

Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to this motion, on a point of

order, there was a newspaper report this morning in which the

president of the Canadian Workers' Union at Trail stated that

he felt he could not take responsibility for the actions of the

workers up there, and it becomes a matter…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. I have to be guided

first, before any statement of the matter beyond what you have

already indicated in your written submission, by whether the

action of the Labour Relations Board in denying a certification

vote is urgent and important and sufficiently so to disturb the

regime of the House each day; and whether, indeed, it also

falls within the jurisdiction of the House at the present

time.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may assist you in your

deliberations, may I say that any matter affecting labour peace

in the province definitely is a matter of urgent public

importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't need any assistance about the details;

what I need assistance in is in regard to the question in May

that deals with such a motion to adjourn the proceedings of the

House.

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

is no statute of this House that would enable the Legislature

to intervene in a decision made by the Labour Relations Board,

so how can there be urgency of debate in this House with

respect to what would essentially be interference in the

decision of an inferior tribunal when we have no authority as a

Legislature to intervene in such a decision. There's no urgency

of debate.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is now no statute of this

Legislature which enables us to intervene in the decision of

the Labour Relations Board. Maybe the Hon. Member thinks there

should be. But that's another question.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the situation now.

[ Page 1782 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I would hate to have you take the case to court

on behalf of…

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't take your…

MR. McGEER: That's the most specious point of order raised

in this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't take your case under any

circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The issue before the House that

has to be determined by the Speaker under the rules is whether

this is a matter failing within the jurisdiction of the

Government or whether they have, by statute, transferred this

matter to a board appointed to deal with these problems, and

what the process is from that board. Is there a method of

appeal from the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, for

example?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that under the

Labour Relations Act the Government has the power to

appoint the members of the Labour Relations Board. It would be

a very simple thing, on resolution of the House or the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to take action under the

present legislation. Perhaps it would be an appropriate matter

of urgent consideration to change the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, does the Hon. Minister of

Labour have something to contribute?

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

Labour Relations Act does provide the ability to appeal

the decision of the board to the Labour Relations Board. They

have the right of appeal contained in the legislation now.

There is no such right of appeal contained in the Labour

Relations Act with reference to this Legislature or any

tribunal other than the Labour Relations Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I thank you for that information because

the Speaker has to decide on the basis of what the law is in

terms of administration of the law. At p. 372 of May in the

sixteenth edition, it deals with this question of what…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: P. 372 of the sixteenth:

"Matters must be of public importance; matters must involve

more than the ordinary administration of the law. Motions have been disallowed

because the matters raised by them involve no more than the ordinary administration

of the law."

Then it gives examples. For example, in nine: "exercise of

discretion under statutory powers." For example, where there

was a refusal to appoint a court of inquiry in a marine

wireless dispute; loans to boards of guardians or the appeal

from their decision.

These are administrative duties conferred upon boards and it

is not, therefore, a matter that is other than the ordinary

administration of the law by a board appointed under the law.

How then could we interfere in a matter of that kind when it

has obviously been delegated to a board and there are processes

of law and administration of law which deal with the outcome of

the decisions of boards?

It would be wrong, in effect, for this House to take upon

itself what amounts to short-circuiting the processes that have

already been laid out for the law to take its course. It would

be as if this assembly started to debate in the middle of a

court case what the judge was doing, what the litigants were

doing, which had long been forbidden to this House.

Does the Hon. Member have something to contribute on this

point?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the

context of your remarks is to the general effect that there is

totality of administrative power unto the Labour Relations

Board and that is not the case. I draw your attention to the

statute, the Labour Relations Act , and particularly

section 80 of the Act which says this: "The Minister is charged

with the administration of the Act."

So this is certainly a matter within the competence of the

Minister, and the point that has been raised by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is indeed in

order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order. If we wish

to carry that argument further for those great defenders of

freedom, it then means that we're to accept the point offered

by the Opposition that the Attorney General, who is responsible

for the administration of the courts, has within his authority

the power to tell the judge what decision should be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have that power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the same administrative power, Mr. Speaker,

wherein the Attorney General appoints…

[ Page

1783 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …the Attorney General appoints

provincial court judges. They are suggesting that because of

that administrative power, the Attorney General would tell a

judge what the decision should be. Where is their respect for

the law and freedom that they're always fighting about?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: In response to the proposition put forward by

the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom),

section 80 of

the Labour Relations Act refers to questions on points

of law. Indeed, if anyone wishes to indicate that the Labour

Relations Board has acted in less than conformity with the

statues, then I would be very glad to receive any submission on

that basis. To this date I've received no such indication from

Members of this House, or indeed any other area.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the Members for their various

submissions on this point. I don't want a debate on the merits

of the case.

MR. McGEER: That is what the debate is to be about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I'm trying to find out what the

jurisdiction is of the board. I think that the contributions

from all sides have been useful in determining whether or not

this House should adjourn its debate on the basis of urgency

where the matter must involve more than the ordinary

administration of the law. There's nothing from the statement

of the matter to indicate that it is either urgent or of public

importance, in light of the fact that there is a method that is

indicated for the administration of the law under the Labour

Relations Act . This does not involve more than the ordinary

administration of law and is just one more example of cases

where the litigants or parties may be feeling aggrieved, but it

does not thereby take it out of the rule in May at page

I therefore must rule that the matter is not one which would

fall within the motion proposed by the Hon. Member. The Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this

is the first time since I've been in the House that I've had the pleasure and

privilege of introducing to the assembly a group of students from the great

constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon. I wish to ask the assembly to join with

me in welcoming students from the Moscrop Secondary School, along with their

teachers, Mr. Waters, Mr. Grant, Mr. Orr and Mr. Wasnick.

I might also say that later on in the day there's a group of

students coming from Windsor school, which is across the street

from my constituency and in Mr. Speaker's constituency. Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, in view of the wording of our

present orders on questions period, it will have to take place

in the afternoon. It says "afternoon sessions." So there will

be no question period at this time. "Agreed?" I don't think

it's a matter of agreement. I think it's a matter of

interpretation. The Hon. Premier.

Introduction of bills.

THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

157 intituled

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 157 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.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River adjourned

the debate.

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

Last evening at the hour of adjournment I was reading from a

letter that I received from a lady in Fort St. John.

Much has been said about the need for this Land

Commission Act . Much has been said about rip-offs, about

real estate speculation, about people who are in the business

to do nothing but rip off individuals who wish to buy land or

obtain a lot for a new home. So I'd like to continue with the

letter that I started reading last evening. Then I want to

refer to another matter which I think does, in many respects,

constitute a rip-off.

I'd like to bring it to the attention of the House, Mr.

Speaker, that this letter comes from a lady who, with her

family, has spent her lifetime in the Peace

[ Page 1784 ]

River country of British Columbia. Her husband was a pioneer

rancher in that country and lost his life through a serious

accident. Her husband's father was one of the earliest

telegraphers in northern British Columbia. The family is an old

and respected family with a history of residence in that part

of the country going back to the early 1900s. This lady is

writing to me about the land freeze, as it was called at the

time this letter was written.

She indicates in the letter that she owns a half-section of

land in the Peace River area.

"I have been a resident here since 1932" — 40 years. "Since

my husband's fatal accident in 1957 I kept this piece of land,

selling acreages and farming the rest. I have now four

registered plans. I did this to supplement my income, but some

years it only barely paid the taxes on it.

"I went back to teaching in 1960 but had to retire last year

due to ill health. My superannuation after 18 years' teaching,

including two years given because of the shortage of teachers

at the request of the government during the war, amounts to

$110.97 per month. This income, I think you will agree, is

insufficient to live on. I am not yet eligible for old age

pension.

"I understand by your pre-election campaign platform that

the elderly people would probably be looked after under your

leadership, if elected. But this land freeze renders that

conclusion to be a false one, in my thinking.

"I also concluded that you would never favour the policy of

dictating to the people what they could do or not do with their

property which some of us have worked so hard to retain for the

above-mentioned purpose; that is to sell acreages to people who

do not desire to live in town and to supplement our income.

"Trusting you will give this new legislation further thought

and realize the hardships it would bring to people like myself and disallow

or exempt this law for the betterment of retired people, whom I am sure you

have not meant to bring a hardship on. Will you reconsider your position?"

This is a letter, Mr. Speaker, from a woman who, through no fault

of her own, ended up with a fairly substantial amount of land but without the

skill to farm it herself; a woman who is reaching retirement age without adequate

income, again through no fault of her own, and has found that as a means of

supplementing a small pension, she could subdivide part of this property as

it was required and sell it to individuals who wanted to live on a small acreage.

Now let's look at the other side of the issue, the side which all of us may

question, the side that is pointed out by the Government side of the House,

the side which I want to bring to the attention of the chambers this morning.

That is the side that is represented by one Henry Block, when he gets up publicly

on television and supports Bill 42.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reason Mr. Henry Block

supports Bill 42 is that as a land developer and a land

speculator he knows very well that the price of every lot and

piece of property presently under his control has appreciated

in value anywhere from 30 to 100 per cent by bringing this Act

into being in the Province of British Columbia. If he says the

right things to the right people, to the commission that's

appointed, hopefully he'll be able to continue development of in the neighbourhood of 40,000 acres at 108

Mile Ranch which is presently a part of an old, old ranch

settlement. This man has already done very well at 108 Mile

Ranch by subdividing that property.

I would say that what we have seen and the posture that he

has taken is a smoke-screen intended to provide him with some

edge with this Government in order that he may continue to

speculate and rip off the people of British Columbia.

What he is saying and what is being said by the salesmen

that work for him is completely opposite. They're concerned

people. Their head salesman has issued a comment this morning

in the Vancouver Province newspaper dated Wednesday,

March 28. He's certainly not in favour of Bill 42. As a matter

of fact he indicates that he, along with 20 more of the

salesmen who work for this company, will be meeting with the

president and will ask him to retract the things that he has

said because they do not agree with what he is saying.

They are concerned about the preservation of land and they

are also concerned about the impact that this bill has had on

forcing inflationary pressures on subdivided land.

After all, people who are legitimately in the real estate

business are there to do a service for people. Certainly they

are entitled to be paid for that service. But if through the

actions of Bill 42 no one in this country can afford to buy a

lot on which to build a new home, they're out of business and

they know it very well.

It may be O.K. for Henry Block to come out in support of

Bill 42, but I'll tell you one thing — the people who work for

him do not support it because they are ordinary citizens in the

province of British Columbia just like the rest of us.

Reading from the article: "The salesman also said nothing

has been done to stop the sudden rise in land value due to the

freeze. He said most increases are from 30 to 40 per cent and

in one case 100 per cent over the December prices. He called

the prices 'desperate'."

He indicates that any support for the bill must be very

qualified. The bill does not contain the checks and balances

that are very necessary. The bill should provide for adequate

and fair compensation procedures to anyone suffering loss. The

power of designation must be limited in area. The

commission

[ Page 1785 ]

should be increased to at least 10 persons from the proposed

five with a broad non-political representation from all

sections of society. There should be no restrictions as to

building a personal residence on land regardless of area.

This salesman, who asked not to be named, said that,

"Between 20 and 30 salesmen of the industrial-commercial

division would be meeting with the president today. He said the

main objection is that the company statement is 'misleading.'

He said the salesmen strongly feel the bill leaves too much

discretion in the hands of a few commissioners and the

'reserves' of land are not defined clearly enough. 'It's too

vague. It could lead to tremendous abuse…'"

That is why we, as members of the official Opposition in

this House have stood in our places as long as we have done: to

bring before the people of this province the fact that this

bill, this Land Commission Act , Bill 42, does not

protect the farmers of British Columbia.

If anything, it heaps a little heavier load than they are

presently carrying on their shoulders. It was never intended,

Mr. Speaker, to protect the farmers of British Columbia.

I have a telegram before me received from the Mayor of Fort

St. John:

"RE LAND COMMISSION ACT, BILL 42. THE COUNCIL OF TOWN OF

FORT ST. JOHN STRONGLY URGE YOU TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO

PREVENT THE BILL FROM PASSING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE'

SIGNED:

MAYOR PETER FRANKIW, TOWN OF FORT ST. JOHN."

Living in a rural area such as Fort St. John, knowing the

problems of the farmers as well as he does, knowing that this

bill will not support or protect their interests, he's asked me

to do everything that I can to prevent the bill from passing

through this Legislature. Certainly I know that he is echoing

the sentiments of not hundreds, but thousands of people who

reside presently in the Peace River area of British

Columbia.

I have a letter from a resident of Fort Nelson:

"I urgently request that you do all in your power to oppose

the forthcoming takeover of privately-owned land by the

provincial government. We have spent the last 20 years

developing a small acreage for a homesite for our family. At

much personal sacrifice, we secured room to have a garden and

to keep some livestock for recreational purposes for our own

use. At no time has our land been farmed nor is it suitable for

farming, but we subsidized it because we wished to enjoy this

type of life.

"Now it appears we may no longer be allowed ownership of

this private property which is our home. We feel very threatened, indeed, to

feel that we may not be able to retire there and pass it on to our children.

We chose this rather than other securities, and loss of it will leave us destitute

after so long as contributing and tax-paying citizens of this province."

That letter is signed by a Mr. Stan.

A very worthwhile objective; one that he's worked 20 years

to accomplish, and he sees in this bill as we see — the ability

to wipe out everything that he has worked so hard for.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we oppose Bill 42. That is why I

am standing in my place in this House this morning, bringing

before the Minister of Agriculture in the best terms that I

know how and the way that I know how, the matters that have

been brought to me by letters, by telegrams, by petitions.

I have a petition from the farming community of Goodlow

signed by 37 people, all farmers in that area: "We the

undersigned wish to state that we are against any bill being

passed by government bringing in a foreign-ownership Act or any

such Act concerning our land".

In other words, even in that community they consider Bill 42

a foreign piece of legislation — foreign to a way of life in

British Columbia. They're not speculators. While I don't know

all of these people personally, Mr. Speaker, I do know a number

of them and I know them to be what they are: dedicated,

sincere, hardworking farmers trying to get a foothold in a

newly-developing area in British Columbia.

Other letters from Fort Nelson:

"I urgently request that you do all in your power to oppose

the forthcoming takeover of privately-owned land by the

provincial government. We feel very threatened indeed, to think

that the right of private ownership of our homesites and

farmland is about to be taken away."

A letter from a lady in Fort St. John. She's asked, and

gives consent to have this letter read, mimeographed, copied,

or printed in any newspaper in Canada:

"Dear Sir,

"I most certainly do not approve of or wish to see any land

freeze, land grab, or any changes in land laws or land

inheritance laws, or for that matter, any further Balkanization

of Canada by petty, non-resident owner laws of any degree or

kind in any province.

"Also, I would suggest that any otherwise qualified American

citizen who agrees to become a Canadian citizen be allowed to

begin purchase of land and to receive deed for same when he

becomes a Canadian citizen and has paid for his land.

[ Page 1786 ]

"Any Canadian citizen should be able to buy and hold land in

any province. I believe that landowners, be it farm, acreage or

city lot — and all who ever hope to own land — should now, at

once organize to combat any of the mooted law changes which

plan to take land away from families or people and place it

under government ownership and/or administration.

"Membership fees in such an organization would be used to

engage legal counsel and to fight in the supreme court, if

necessary, the illegality and unconstitutionality of any ideas,

law, or order-in-council along such lines as this NDP or any

future government has schemed or may scheme up.

"Farm organizations may already have plans and departments

dedicated to these ends, but small holders and lot owners could

and should contribute voice and funds to the cause, as should

those who hope to own land.

"Proposed legislation is a proposed return to feudalism —

world overthrew governments and nobility to get rid of

feudalism; let's not stand around teeth in pocket and let them

foist it back upon us.

"NDP land law schemes, as mooted, are a form of the old cry, 'Take from the rich and give to the poor.' And as ever and

always the poor will not in the long run have more than

presently, and no opportunity to acquire more. Wake up, B.C.!

Wake up Canada!

Yours

truly, Mrs. Annie E. Romide."

I think that I have indicated to the Government and to the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) by communication — correspondence and wires that I have received

— the sentiments that are widespread throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I ask the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the

bill. Withdraw the bill now and reconsider your position on it.

Allow the people that you have been silent to come forward.

Allow these people to have an input into the drafting of a land

Act, not a "land commission" Act that confiscates property in

its present form. Withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister, through you

Mr. Speaker.

The legislation is ill-conceived, it's poorly thought out.

It will not protect farmland; it will not give the farmers a

more viable income. In fact, it will do none of the things that

you have said it will do, either publicly or in the Press.

Everyone in British Columbia knows that this type of

legislation removes an individual right and a basic freedom to own land in their own name in Canada. They're not

deceived into thinking that this is being done for the

protection of the farmers. Every communication that I have

received from all parts of the province indicate that people

are concerned about the preservation of farmland, but they're

concerned about the preservation of a farmer as a viable part

of our economy as well. They don't like the legislation, they

know it will not do what it was intended to do. Even the Urban

Development Institute, who has written to the Hon. Premier

quite a lengthy document, indicates many faults and errors in

Bill 42. They suggested amendments:

"Included should be the proper appeal procedure with respect

to rulings made by the commission. It should include

compensation for losses that will be suffered due to the

enactment of a bill where such losses can be reasonably

demonstrated. It should include access to the courts to be

granted to those that deem themselves injuriously affected by

the bill. It should include that the bill with the proposed

regulations be given full public hearings before being

introduced."

Mr. Minister, it has been introduced, through you, Mr.

Speaker. If the concern of the Government of this province is

to preserve farmland and keep the farmer in a viable position

in British Columbia, then I recommend that the Minister

withdraw the bill. Go throughout this province and hear what

people have to say about it. Isn't that the democratic process?

Isn't that the means by which we've built a strong viable

nation in not only British Columbia, but all of Canada?

A letter from Vanderhoof:

"Dear Mr. Smith: I am very much concerned about the

legislation unveiled by the NDP government. I am against a bill

to create the Development Corporation of B.C., which will have

the powers to purchase 51 per cent of any and all business

operating in B.C. I am also opposed to the amendments to the

Mineral Act which give the NDP more dictatorial powers.

But above all, I am opposed to Bill 42. Stop Bill 42. It is a

violation of our fundamental rights. Don't let them abolish our

right of private ownership.

Yours

truly, Mr. G. Hogglandt."

The Federation of Agriculture, when presenting a brief in January, indicated

that the present legislation would provide the Government with the means of

confiscating the farmers' pension plan; that it would seriously impair the farmers

ability to meet capital requirements; and it would destroy the basic incentive

to continue farming in this province.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture will not allow the denial

to farmers of the basic rights of land ownership. To do so

would be unfair to farmers now

[ Page 1787 ]

and to the future generations of British Columbians who will

rely on this province's farmers for their food needs. The B.C.

Federation is in agreement with provincial government on the

need to preserve this province's limited agricultural base.

"We believe that if the industry is in a viable condition,

the incentive to sell farm land for non-farm uses will be

greatly diminished, which in itself will preserve farmland for

farming. As this state of viability continues to elude our

industry, and farmers continue to exist on substandard incomes,

we are in total disagreement with any regulation that locks

farm families into permanent poverty. It is surely society's

responsibility to preserve greenbelts and open spaces, and the

onus on financing this public policy should fall no more

heavily on the farmer than it does on anyone else."

[Mr. Dent in the Chair]

I'd like to repeat that statement. "It is surely society's

responsibility to preserve greenbelts and open spaces, and the

onus of financing this public policy should fall no more

heavily on the farmer than it does on anyone else."

That is the principle that we're fighting for this morning —

at a session called four hours earlier than usual — the right

of a farmer to be viable in his farm. The right for him to own

land in the Province of British Columbia; the right of people

to expect the government to provide open space and greenbelts,

but also the responsibility of the government to point out to

the people that that responsibility should fall no more heavily

on the farmers than it does on anyone else in the province.

If we agree that we need greenbelts and open spaces in the

province — that it's a good thing — then the responsibility for

finding the finance falls equally, on all shoulders and all

people within the province. Certainly this was the intent of

the Green Belt Protection Fund Act . It took consolidated

revenue that was generated throughout the province and used it

to purchase back at fair market value areas which should be

preserved for greenbelt purposes.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture I

say, withdraw the bill. Do it now, before the Government loses

complete credibility with the people of this province.

What other action can a responsible government take in view

of the position that people have taken on this bill? What other

action can a government take if they do feel they have a

responsibility not only to farmers but to every person in the

Province of British Columbia? The bill should be withdrawn and

it should be withdrawn now.

Mr. Speaker, I can go through another half-dozen briefs that I have received

indicating the position of organizations, both farm organizations and other

interested citizens in the province, concerning Bill 42. I can summarize it

by saying not one of these organizations that have forwarded briefs are against

the preservation of farmland.

Every one of them indicates that Bill 42 is unacceptable in

its present form; that it will not accomplish what the bill —

pardon me. I should say that it will probably accomplish what

you desire to have accomplished through the bill, but it will

not preserve farmland. It was not created to preserve farmland.

It was created to take the 5 per cent of the land presently in

fee simple out of the hands of individuals in the province and

return it to the Crown

An all-powerful government, for reasons best known to

themselves, develop a land Act, they call it the Land

Commission Act and then go throughout the province trying

to indicate to people that this bill will somehow protect

farmers and their land. Mr. Speaker, the farmers know that the

bill will not accomplish that purpose. They're against it. The

average person on the street knows the bill will not accomplish

that purpose. They're against it. The people in universities

who have written many articles on it know it will not

accomplish that purpose. And they're against it.

What would happen if this bill passes is that we would be

setting up in British Columbia a situation very similar to what

is presently happening in Hong Kong. I'd like to refer to an

article that is headed, "Millionaire Unable to Afford House in

Hong Kong." The

article goes on to say:

"Hong Kong has beyond doubt just established the world

record for real estate prices. An undistinguished house with

small grounds that might well cost $80,000 to $100,000 in North

America, was sold recently for $1.5 million. A somewhat larger

house with smaller grounds has been offered for rent at $12,000 a month."

They go on to point out what has happened to real estate in

Hong Kong.

But I think the interesting part of the whole

article is

an analysis that comes very close to the end of it:

"Behind the boom which the Hong Kong government officially

deplores lies the government's policy — all land belongs to the

government, which leases it for extended periods to

individuals. Auctions dribble out new plots of land at

irregular intervals. And insiders have the inside track."

That is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker, that

insiders — and we could well classify Block Bros. in that

category from the statements that Mr. Block has made — that

insiders will have the inside track with regard to land

ownership in the province and land leases with regard to land

in the Province of British Columbia under Bill 42.

[ Page 1788 ]

That is why we oppose it in the strongest terms, Mr.

Speaker. I ask once more, through you to the Minister of

Agriculture, withdraw the bill. Bring in a new document that

will preserve land after you have held hearings throughout all

of the Province of British Columbia. Get input from the people

who are concerned today. Use the democratic process before you

ram through a bill that is not designed to protect farmers,

that will not give them a better income, that will put the

government, through a five-man appointed commission, in an

all-powerful, all embracing position. Withdraw the bill, Mr.

Minister, before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the Minister who has listened

to all of the comment in this debate has no intentions of

withdrawing the bill. It leaves me no alternative therefore,

Mr. Speaker, but to move an amendment to the motion which was

moved by the Minister in second reading when he said, "I move

that this bill be read a second time now."

I move that the motion be amended to delete the word "now"

and substitute therefore the words "in six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I would like to speak

to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. This is the time honoured way in

which the Opposition seeks to prevent the bill going forward.

It's mentioned in many of our statutes. I don't think we need

much of a debate. The Government will not accept this

amendment. I think it's safe to say that we should simply call

the question and again get on with the people's business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, during this

debate in and out of this House, many times they have discussed

the fact that people want input. I think if we adjourn this

debate for a six-month period, allow the people to have

hearings, allow those who are affected to state their cases…

HON. MR. HALL: A point of order, if I may. Mr. Speaker, will

you rule for the benefit of the House the extent to which

debate can take place on a motion, which is really a six-month

hoist motion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order I will consult with authorities

and then I will give a decision.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that I am

permitted…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated for a moment,

please.

I would rule that the amendment is in order. However, I

would caution the Members that their remarks must be relevant

to the reasons why the bill should not be now read a second

time but rather should be adjourned for a six-month period. It

must be strictly relevant to the reason why.

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre on a

point of order.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, was there a

seconder to the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no seconder required on an amendment of this

kind. I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has carried that point

entirely through the period, that the input from the public who are affected

is not being listened to by the other side. They want the opportunity to present

their case so that they may be heard, so that people who are directly and indirectly

affected have the opportunity before this bill becomes law. This is the reason

why I support this amendment,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. In speaking strictly to the proposal that this be

hoisted for six months, I suggest to you that to delay this

urgent matter for six months would be contrary to the interests

of the people of the Province of British Columbia.

In the debate that has ensued so far, time and again Members

of the Opposition have said that damage is being done because

of the freeze, order. To maintain the present position for six

months would continue and enlarge on any problems that may now

exist.

There has been input from the public. For two weeks now we

have heard hundreds of letters read to the Members of this

House from both sides of the House. All of us have received

hundreds of letters about the situation from the various

members of the public.

This suggestion merely means that the people across the way,

the people who moved this amendment, really don't want to do

anything. It's a further attempt to delay action in a very

important problem. I suggest this amendment be defeated, as it

deserves to be defeated, so we can get on with the people's

business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1789 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

very reasons for delaying this bill for six months have been

made very evident in this House. First of all, the Members of

the Government — the Premier, the agriculture Minister and

others — have indicated on open-line radio programmes and in the

newspapers and on television interviews that there would be a

varying number of amendments put forward to this bill.

It's mentioned that there may be four amendments or there

may be 12 amendments or there may be 18 amendments; they may

come in on third reading or they may come in in the fall or

they may not come in at all. After saying on a number of

occasions that there would be amendments to this bill, the

Minister said yesterday that he would "consider" amendments to

this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the urgency of up to 18 amendments is there,

then the urgency to delay this bill is much more recognizable.

If the bill is as badly drawn as that, it must be taken back

and another look taken at it. Mr. Speaker, if the Government

admits that the bill is badly drawn, then it should be

withdrawn and reviewed and rewritten.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we haven't had any input from the public

at all. Despite the fact that we've been told that the

Government will listen, there has been no listening, despite

the fact that many interested and public-spirited people have

submitted their ideas about the preservation of land,

particularly agriculture land, in British Columbia. We should

allow those people to be heard. We should allow those people to

have that input, which will directly affect the bill.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture has complained, Mr.

Speaker, that they have not been consulted on this bill,

although they were told that they would be. We should give them

now the opportunity to come in and make their suggestions. The

British Columbia Cattlemen's Association has said that they

want to be consulted as well. Let's now give them that

opportunity over the next six months to be consulted.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has said, "Ask us. We've

got some ideas." Let's give them the opportunity to share those

ideas with the Government. Let's ask them to come in over the

next six months and meet with Members of the Government and an

active travelling committee to give their input to this bill as

well.

People like the Urban Development Institute that was just mentioned a few moments

ago, Mr. Speaker — let's give them the opportunity over the next six months

to meet with us, to meet with a committee of this Government, which would travel

to every hamlet and community in the province and talk to the people and listen

to the people, make the amendments that are necessary and bring in a real agricultural

preservation bill — not a land Act that gives dictatorial powers to some kind

of an unnamed and, to this point, unnumbered commission.

Let's lift the freeze, Mr. Speaker, and get back to the

official plans that are already in effect in the Province of

British Columbia. Let's take this next six months to find out

what the people want in this province and what is necessary for

the orderly development of the land in British Columbia. Let's

withdraw it for six months, Mr. Speaker, so we know what we're

doing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to the amendment,

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it is quite obvious not only to the

Members of this assembly but to everyone in British Columbia

that this is ill-prepared legislation. The Minister has

admitted himself that he's gone through at least six drafts on

this legislation. He's had to rethink the input into the

legislation at least six times.

What would be wrong with one more time? It's quite obvious

that he has not studied the broad implications this legislation

will have on every landowner in the Province of British

Columbia. Now that he has had a certain degree of input and to

allow further input, I think it is appropriate that he withdraw

the bill for six months so that it can be properly brought back

into the House.

I've listened very attentively to the Members of the

Government…

HON. MR. HALL: On a point of order. The amendment clearly says that

the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want a point of order to be

made quite clearly now. We're not talking about withdrawing

this bill. Your amendment clearly says that it not be given

second reading now but be given second reading in six months.

Therefore, how on earth can you talk about withdrawing it or

amending it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. Stick to the order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken in this instance.

MR. CHABOT: We've listened to the suggestions from the

cabinet benches for the Opposition to propose amendments to the

bill. They've suggested that there's a need for amendments;

that the bill is

[ Page 1790 ]

ill-conceived and ill-prepared.

There are reasons for this six-month delay in passage of the

second reading of this bill, so that the amendments — which

they have suggested should be put into the bill — can really be

thought out. I think that before passing the second reading of

this bill, which is the principle of this bill, that cabinet

should have an opportunity to rethink what they're doing to the

people of British Columbia.

I listened to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

talk about the urgency of passing second reading of this bill.

He seems to forget that there's a freeze over the land in

British Columbia. The urgency for passage of second reading of

this bill is not apparent to me, not apparent to other Members

of this Legislative Assembly, and is only apparent to the

Minister of Highways — only him.

I think there are many people in this assembly who support

the six-month delay in the passage of second reading of this

bill. Members of the backbench of the Government, I'm sure,

have had an opportunity in the last several. days to realize

that this legislation is ill-prepared and that there is a need

for rethinking on the principle of this bill.

I'm sure that if they're listening to the constituents they

represent, the backbenchers will stand up and support this

amendment. If they believe in fair play for the people of

British Columbia, they'll help. delay this bill for six months

so that fair play can take place in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through a lengthy debate we

have witnessed a lack of substance in terms of positive input

into this bill. Then we've heard the temporary House Leader,

deputy leader and second to I don't know who, announce that the

official Opposition's position on this bill is that there's no

apparent reason for the urgency.

Mr. Speaker, that's the problem. For 20 years they didn't

understand the urgency of preserving farmland in this

province. We were elected, Mr. Speaker, to govern. To delay the

passage of this bill is an attempt to thwart the responsibility of this

Government to govern.

We have a different philosophy and we have a responsibility in

terms of preserving arable land in this province. When a Member

suggests that a six-month hoist on this bill would lift the freeze, it

means, "Let the subdividers go at it again." That's exactly what they

mean.

We reject this amendment, we say the farmland must be saved,

we say there must be rational planning of that land in this

province. We have said there would be amendments, we have asked

you to participate in those amendments. You have not at all

participated on the order paper on those amendments and now all you

have to offer is the six months' hoist.

But the most damaging argument of all was the last one made

by that Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). It is the first

public admission of it. He said, and I quote: "We have to

rethink the principle."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, that's what divides us from

the official Opposition. The principle of this bill is to have

some rational planning in land use in this province. If they

want irrational use of the land, let that be on their

conscience. But we will not back down on this bill and we

intend to proceed with the legislation.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I

tried to point out when I spoke on the principle of the bill

earlier, we feel in this party that there should have been

greater thought shown in some of the aims and goals.

I will make it very plain, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Premier, we do support the idea of preserving farmland. Never

let that be in any doubt. What we do express concern about is

some of the mechanisms in the bill which we don't like and some

of the things that are missing from the bill which should, be

there.

Some of the media have chosen to sneer at our idea that

there should be a land inventory, but I don't make any

apologies. I can't understand how anyone in private or public

life would want to take some very far-reaching step without

knowing exactly what the pattern of the material is that you

are dealing with. I think it makes a great deal of sense to

suggest that there should be greater cooperation at the

regional and municipal level to define exactly what we are

talking about. We have had examples of individuals coming to us

and speaking at meetings saying that their land is classified

as farmland and they could no more grow crops on it than

fly.

In our support of the amendment — and I reiterate that we

believe in the preservation of farmland — there can be greater

study done in a period of six months to make the bill more

rational, more readily understood and less open to all the

bitter acrimony. Why do you think there has been so much bitter

debate on this bill? It is because the

interpretation by the

two sides of the House has been so different.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather presumptuous of the

Government to feel that right is always on their side. Are we

not entitled to have some of the thoughts we have had about the

bill? You sit and scowl at me as though I am some dummy that

essence of legislation is to try and bring what you feel is a

fair and honest appraisal to the

interpretation of the bill put

before us.

This is the basis on which I have acted as a representative

of the people in Oak Bay. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in

this kind of situation, we already

[ Page 1791 ]

have safeguards. The freeze can be maintained; what will we

lose in six months? Mr. Speaker, what will we lose if the land

continues to be frozen?

The suggestion made by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, a few

minutes ago that we would be letting the developers run free in

the next six months just is not so. The fact is that nothing

can change in terms of losing land but a great deal could be

gained in improving the legislation and in carrying out further

inventory, further study of the land that is to be involved,

and to attempt through regional and local communications and

cooperation- to develop an accurate and rational land

inventory. So the freeze can continue; we would lose nothing

and we would gain a great deal.

I think it is really unfair of the Premier to suggest that

by supporting this amendment or the idea of a six months'

delay, that this is simply a delay which would give land

developers and speculators the chance to run free. That is not

so; it is not a delaying tactic, Mr. Speaker.

I did not suggest not lift the freeze. Let me make it very

plain again, Mr. Speaker; I am in favour of two things. I am in

favour of preserving farmland and I am in favour of preserving

the freeze until we have a better bill.

I mentioned earlier in the debate that the urgency with

which the Government said this bill had to be introduced was

not actually proven in fact — certainly not in the

municipalities that I quoted where the actual applications for

subdivisions in December were below the average.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bill with such

far-reaching implications that we have nothing to lose by

maintaining the freeze for six months and showing respect for

the rights of individuals in the whole province and a more

moderate and more considerate appraisal of exactly what this

bill might do. On these grounds, if we have nothing to lose and

a great deal to gain, then a six months' delay for further

study only makes good sense.

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

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in this

bill we find there is no right to compensation, there is no

right for appeal, there is no right for a fair hearing, there

is no right to go to court, there is no assurance, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member confine himself

solely to the question before the House and not debate.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed I am. Indeed I am, and there is no assurance that

this bill or the matters that it contains will ever be open to public scrutiny.

This is the object and this is the reason behind this man's amendment. There

has been no consultation. There has been no consultation with the general public,

there have been no hearings, there has been no participation with the side of

society that is opposing this measure.

The official Opposition, by their amendment, is just asking

this: they are asking that the public of British Columbia be

entitled to have a hearing before the highest court in the

province of British Columbia and that is this Legislature.

You are denying them that democratic right. The Premier is

denying them that democratic right — denying them the right to

approach the Legislature, denying them the right to go ahead

and advance their own postures, their own ideas. You people

talk about participatory democracy. What you do is practice

closure, make no mistake of that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Boy oh boy. He says we're going to have

amendments. You know, I get so blankety-blank fed up of hearing

that man come into this House and talk about amendments. What

are they going to be? What are they going to be? Where are

they?

If we were governing this province, we wouldn't bring in a

lousy bill like this. No way. We'd bring in a bill that would

do the job. Furthermore, we would consult with the general

public. We would consult. That is the object of democracy and

this is what you are denying these people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Go ahead, you say; you say you don't support the

motion for one single, solitary reason. I suppose we are going

to get back to the words that we have heard so often from the

official Opposition that your posture is "trust us". I would

like to see it in writing, under seal, preferably under oath.

That's what I would like to see.

We don't know what your amendments are. It might be to…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The amendments come

in committee, you know that.

MR. GARDOM: Oh well, we have got to remember, Mr. Attorney

General, that this bill without the right of appeal, without

any opportunity for compensation, without access to the courts,

without any opportunity for public scrutiny, this darkness bill

passed through your whole caucus and it seems to have three

lawyers in it — how did you fellows miss it?

I totally support the amendment.

[ Page 1792 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition

to this amendment and I would just draw to the attention of the

Hon. Members of the House what the significance of this

amendment is. I think it should be done.

I would just quote from May. A traditional way of opposing

the second reading of a bill, "is to move an amendment to the

question, by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words

"upon this day six months hence". Then further along it says.

"The acceptance by the House of such an amendment being

tantamount to the rejection of the bill, if the session extends

beyond the period of postponement, a bill which has been

ordered to be read a second time upon that day 'six months' is

not replaced upon the order paper of the House."

This is simply, as May has pointed, a means of defeating the

bill and I would submit the proper procedure is to vote against

the bill on the vote on second reading.

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

Islands.

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

certainly concur with the remarks made by Members of the

Opposition with respect to the amendment before us. A bill

which was rushed into this House deserves six months' careful

consideration. The repeated references by leaders of the

Government to "there are amendments coming…we are bringing

amendments…we are going to change it…trust us" are

really quite tiresome, Mr. Speaker.

If it was such a good piece of legislation just a few weeks

ago, why would it need all these amendments just a few weeks

later?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River. I'm

sorry. I had recognized the Member. Is he wishing to speak? He

wishes to defer to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for South Peace for

allowing me to rise at this time.

I support this amendment to hoist the bill for six months. The indications

are quite clear that from the moment that this legislation was brought upon

the floor it has been filled with imperfections. Indeed, Members of the Government

when speaking in the debate in principle, such as the Hon. Minister of Highways,

said "Help us." They're asking for help from the House and they're asking for

help from the people of the province. The opportunity has not been presented

to the people of the province to give you the help that you need.

The Hon. Premier has spoken twice in the last few days on

this bill and has criticized the Opposition for not putting

forward its ideas. He is trying to put forth the suggestion in

this province that the Opposition have not seriously presented

alternatives to this Government. It's not true. If you want me

to go through the items that I raised in this debate, I will do

so now. But they are in Hansard for the Government to

see.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Take three hours.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take as many hours as I need to do it. An

inventory of land — the availability of land in this province;

a forecast of land use needs; the establishment of a plan — the

presentation of that plan to be made throughout this whole

province so that the people can see what is to be done for land

control in British Columbia, and the recommendation of that

plan to this Legislature for final consideration and adoption —

those are the steps that need to be taken.

The establishment, first of all, of a commission completely

independent of government is the number one step.

We've had a debate earlier this afternoon on the actions

taken by another administrative tribunal in this province, and

we were told this afternoon by the Attorney General that this

Legislature had no power over what that administrative tribunal

did. Here we are tackling a bill which has a commission

established with no obligation to hold public hearings, no

right of appeal, no control by anybody — least of all by this

Assembly.

Is this what we're to have a year from now when this

commission takes actions which we, in this Assembly, consider

to be wrong? We stand on a matter of urgent public business and

are told by the government that you can't do anything because

they've already been given the complete and unfettered

authority? Is this what we're to be told a year from now about

this commission?

The people of the Province of British Columbia should have a

right to assess whether or not this kind of legislation, to

establish this kind of commission, is the kind that they want

passed.

The Premier said today, "We have to have planning." Mr.

Speaker, the significant thing and the reason for the delay is

that there is not one mention of planning in this whole bill.

Not one mention of planning. It was suggested that agricultural

land is the problem; control of use of many other aspects of

land use in this province besides agriculture is what is

required.

[ Page 1793 ]

There are greater problems in areas outside the agricultural

areas in this province regarding land waste that need to be

considered. But this commission is given no specific

responsibilities for planning. You look at the powers. After

stating the objects the very first power given to this

commission is to acquire land, all by itself — not in the name

of the Crown.

There has been lengthy debate in this House, and there has

been widespread and sometimes emotional debate outside this

House. The legislation is imperfect. Additional time is

required in order to calm the emotional debate taken outside

this House, to give the Members and the people of the province

opportunity to rationally consider this new direction that this

government is taking with regard to land control. We cannot do

that until the government does more than just deal with the

bill as it is presently before us.

Let's see the amendments that they say will improve this

bill and remove its imperfections, because if you are to

improve this bill and remove its imperfections in any way

acceptable to the people of British Columbia, you destroy the

principle of this bill.

For the Hon. Member from Skeena (Mr. Dent) to stand up and

read May is just a shocking situation. And for the Attorney

General to suggest that they can bring in these amendments

which would change the principle of the bill indicates that he

doesn't know what takes place during the committee stage when

the principle of the bill is affected.

The chief law officer of the Crown didn't read the bill

before it was introduced, didn't know there was no public

hearing, didn't know there was no right of appeal — he still

doesn't know that if you amend the bill in committee to change

the principle, it can't be read a third time. And that's why we

need six months to give that Attorney General and the rest of

the Members of the Government side the opportunity of really

understanding what the bill is all about, and really

considering the implications that it has for other than

agricultural land, the implications that there will be year

after year when we set loose this all-powerful commission,

without control of this House, upon the Province of British

Columbia.

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

I didn't intend to enter this debate. Everybody knows that I

intend to retire from public life and so I haven't pushed

myself in the debate, but our caucus has done a splendid job on

this bill and other legislation.

I couldn't let this situation go by, Mr. Speaker, without raising my voice,

having been in the Legislature since 1941. In 20 years as a Premier, at no

time, Mr. Speaker, in all that period have I ever seen the public so aroused

about one bill as they are about Bill 42, and that is the reason why it should

not be read a second time for six months.

In public life such as ours, in a democracy such as ours,

where people are supposed to govern themselves, Mr. Speaker,

you know so well that they all can't come to the Legislature,

so they delegate that power to certain duly elected

representatives, but when those duly elected representatives

hear the people who have the real power speak out so clearly

that they are all confused about this bill, the best you can

say about it is that thousands and thousands are against it,

but nearly every person is confused about the bill.

Now it is ridiculous, indeed, for the Government to say, Mr.

Speaker, that they couldn't put their amendments on the order

paper before second reading was adopted. You know that's not a

principle; you know very well in the orders of the day today

the Government has amendments for many bills.

What is the government trying to hide now that they won't

put the amendments on this bill before the people? Why are the

rules of the House being broken today, Mr. Speaker, when the

Premier advised on the radio this morning that they have

committee meetings at the same time as the Legislature was in

session, when you know so well that you must have consent of

the House for these committees to meet, Mr. Speaker?

It is because, Mr. Speaker, this Government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly you need some order. You need

some law and order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member confine himself to the

question, which is whether the bill is to be read now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, and I'm advocating that it be read in

six months instead of now, Mr. Speaker. That should be very

clear. I am sure the people of the province nearly all want it

to be read not now, but in six months.

I would ask the Premier that this new government do not make

this mistake, do not shove this down the people's throats so

quickly. It is not easy — I found it was not easy to take a

second look. Take a second look and you will go down in history

as a great Premier, Mr. Speaker, but if he forces it through

this day, even his own Members throughout this province will

know that he is a dictator and they will remove him from

office.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well,

[ Page 1794 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have taken my

part in

this debate on the amendment to this motion to have this bill

set aside for six months. I think that by bringing in this

amendment the Opposition has given the Government a chance

which, if they are smart, they will take, Mr. Speaker. If they

are wise, and if they are truly interested in the rights of

British Columbians, they will take a second look.

We have not had, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to have input

from all segments of the community. As witnessed by the debate,

Mr. Speaker, that has taken place in this Legislature over the

past three weeks on Bill 42 the people themselves are confused

and want to have some input into this very important bill.

All segments of the community, Mr. Speaker, should have the

opportunity to have a say and to give the Government some

input.

We've heard from the farming community but they were not

listened to, Mr. Speaker. We have heard from the real estate

people but they were not listened to, Mr. Speaker. Because they

haven't had the opportunity to come into this Legislature or to

come to any, public hearings where Government representation

was there with the idea of listening and changing Bill 42.

The meetings that we have heard, Mr. Speaker, have been

public meetings, but there has been no official Government

representation there to listen to what the people are

saying.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there has been no

intelligent debate on Bill 42. Well, the people who have said

that there is no intelligent debate on Bill 42 should have the

opportunity to enter into this debate themselves. The only way

that they can have the opportunity to enter into the debate on

Bill 42 is through public hearings. If this amendment is passed

and Bill 42 is not read for six months, this will give those

very people the opportunity to have a say in this debate. That

is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for asking that this bill be set

back for six months.

British Columbia has got to have a place to grow. That

growth must be planned. By not allowing the people who take a

part in growth — the business community, the real estate people

and the other industries who need land for the development of

this province, and municipalities — to have the opportunity to

have some input into this bill, we are in essence, Mr. Speaker,

denying them their rights as citizens of British Columbia.

We should have a committee set up while we're waiting for this six months to

go to thoroughly study this entire land use in British Columbia, a committee,

Mr. Speaker, similar to the committee recommended by the now Premier of this

province in 1970 when the Land Act was being changed. Then, Mr. Speaker, by

his very own words, he said that this is such an important subject that it should

go to the committee, that the committee should sit in all parts of the province,

and that the committee should sit for at least a year. That is what the Premier

of this province said in 1970, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're at a loss to understand

now why the urgency to press this bill through.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lack of substantial input into

Bill 42 by the community. There is at the present time

legislation which will look after the protection of our

greenbelt. If it's not doing the job we should revise the Act

and we should have more input. To say that there is nothing

being done, Mr. Speaker, is to mislead the people of this

province.

To say that there is no legislation on the books at this

time — this will come out in the six months while the bill is

being debated. The people of the province will know what

legislation is on the books.

We all have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to preserve

farmland. We all recognize that responsibility. But we in the

official Opposition also have the responsibility to preserve

the rights of the citizens of this province. Bill 42 clearly

erodes those rights.

No one, Mr. Speaker, on the Government benches has stood in

this Legislature and said that Bill 42 does not take away the

rights of the individual. By going to the people and by having

a six-month delay and by allowing people to have some input,

then we can find out exactly what is going on behind Bill

The principle is not only to preserve farmland, Mr. Speaker.

By a six-month delay and by holding public hearings, maybe the

Government will tell us exactly what the principle behind the

bill is, because they have not clearly brought it out.

The Government gets nervous and excited. Maybe the six-month

delay, Mr. Speaker, will give them a chance to simmer down,

take a look and realize what the people of this province are

thinking about Bill 42. Give the people of this province a

chance to speak. Give the people of this province a chance to

have their say. Let the individuals who are interested in the

preservation of farmland have their say.

Mr. Speaker, this is poor legislation. A six-month delay

will give the Government the opportunity to revise its

thinking. to take a second look at this bill. By delaying for

six months the second reading of Bill 42, it will give the

Government the opportunity to say — which by the way they

haven't said in this Legislature — that the Government still

truly agrees with the principle of ownership of land. Not one

Member on the Government bench or one member of the Council

have stood on the floor of this Legislature and said that they

agree with private ownership of land.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would you confine your remarks to the

amendment, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what I'm doing,

[ Page 1795 ]

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you're not. You are also, I might add,

repeating the arguments others have already made on this

particular amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think anyone has said, Mr. Speaker,

that the Government would have the opportunity to tell us

whether they agree with the private ownership of land or not.

This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition bringing in

the amendment to delay the reading for six months. It is

because no one has said that they agree with the private

ownership of land. Not one person on the Government side of the

House has said that they agree with that in principle. No one

has defended it. This is why we want the bill delayed, so that

that Government can go to the people and they can defend their

actions. We're giving them an out. Because if they put it

through now without going to the people, Mr. Speaker, they will

be forever branded dictators. They will be forever branded as

the Government that took the right of the individual to hold

land away from them.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has told us that we are away off

base on the principle of Bill 42, that we don't know what we're

talking about, Mr. Speaker. By delaying the reading of Bill 42,

maybe the Government will take the opportunity in that six

months to tell us and to tell the people of British Columbia

exactly what they are trying to do with Bill 42; because they,

have not, on the floor of this Legislature during this debate,

told us that, Mr. Speaker. They have said that they want to

preserve farmland but the bill clearly does not outline how

they're going to preserve farmland. The bill clearly outlines

that they're going to take control of all the land in British

Columbia. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this six-month delay

will give them…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a false statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's not a false statement. You haven't

explained this legislation. You've tabled the bill and what's

in the bill is all we have to see. If you stand up and say that

we're reading things into the bill that aren't there, I defy

you to stand up and tell us exactly what you intend to do. You

haven't done it! No, you haven't done it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now you're going to have six months to do it.

If you don't take that opportunity you know what's going to

happen to you. If you've got something to say, stand up and

say it when I'm finished. Otherwise, let me speak.

MR. CHABOT: Fat boy. Fat boy,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal insults are not acceptable in this

House. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that and apologize? The Hon. Member

for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw what?

MR. SPEAKER: The statement that you have just made.

MR. CHABOT: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: I heard it. You heard it. It's defiance of the

Chair not to withdraw it.

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated.

Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River please withdraw the

statement.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, that's right. That's not his name.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you apologize to the House.

MR. CHABOT: I humbly apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CHABOT: That's not his name. Not his name.

MR. PHILLIPS: So, Mr. Speaker, what I say in essence is the

reason for asking that this bill be delayed is that the

Government has not given good leadership, either in the debate

on Bill 42 or in bringing in this poorly-constructed bill.

We've heard some harangues from the Premier and from some of

the other Members telling us we don't understand the bill. Mr.

Speaker, the only thing we can see in Bill 42 is the bill as it

is written. They have talked about amendments and then they've

said there won't be amendments. We have nothing to go by but

exactly what we see.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, has had the opportunity to stand

in this Legislature and tell us, to straighten us out if we're

wrong, but he hasn't seen fit to do so. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, the people out there are confused and if the official

Opposition is confused, we would like the Government to take

the opportunity of this six months coming up to unconfuse us —

to explain exactly what they intend to do.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's

impossible.

[ Page 1796 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess it might be impossible; when you're

leading us into the confusion and you're confused yourself,

that might be impossible. But the confused Minister of Public

Works knows whether he's confused or not. He doesn't understand

the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad subject as you

know.

MR. SPEAKER: But it's a very narrow amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad

subject and the amendment, I realize, is very…but what I'm

saying is that you know yourself, by the amount of debate that

has taken place in this Legislature, that this is a very, very

broad subject. I think that the Government owes it to the

people and owes it to the official Opposition to postpone the

second reading of this bill until everybody has had the

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to learn exactly what the Government

intends to do.

If the Government had given leadership, if the Government

had backed down from their stubborn position, withdrawn the

bill and brought in the amendments, maybe all of this debate

would not have been necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is not only land involved in this

bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is the reason that we have to take

this stand. It's not only the preservation of farmland; there

is a complete way of life involved, Mr. Speaker. I think that

six months debate with the people who are involved, with the

input from the people who are involved, is very little to ask,

Mr. Speaker, when a complete way of life is involved.

No one in this Legislature, either on the Government side or

on the Opposition side, will deny, nor have they denied during

this debate, that there is a way of life involved. It's not

only the preservation of farmland, Mr. Speaker; it's not only

the preservation of all land. It is a way of life, Mr.

Speaker.

When a way of life, Mr. Speaker, is involved, six months is

a very short time to have more input. Mr. Speaker, by the

results of the debate, you know and the Government knows that

everybody in this province is concerned and confused about Bill

42. They're not only concerned and confused, Mr. Speaker,

because of the preservation of farmland, but they are concerned

and confused because their whole way of life rides or falls on

Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Premier of this province, who is supposed to

be a man for the people; I plead with the Government that was elected because

they are a Government of the people, who are supposed to have been elected by

the people — not by business and industry. If that Government and that Premier

are truly concerned about the way of life which brought them to power, the way

of life which gives them the life that they are able to enjoy in British Columbia,

the life of freedom…they exercise their freedom, Mr. Speaker, by owning

land prior to coming to office.

They exercise their freedom in a democracy by having the

right to run for election. This is the way of life, Mr.

Speaker, that is involved in Bill 42. It is the very roots of

our democracy. As I said before, no one on that Government side

of the bench has denied that the whole way of life is involved.

No one has denied that we are not going to have the right of

private ownership of land — not the Premier or any of the

cabinet Ministers who have spoken on Bill 42.

No one, no one has stood and said that Bill 42 is not going

to take away the right of the individual to private property.

We have heard from some of the Members, Mr. Speaker, in the

backbench that the private ownership of property is not

necessary in the public interest. That's the only thing we have

to go by.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member again standing order 43, which says that

where "…the conduct of a Member who persists in

irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments" — and

you have been doing that consistently in the last while —"or of the

arguments of other members in debate…" — you've done that as well. In

such a case, the Speaker "may

direct him to discontinue his speech…"

I don't like doing a thing like that. I'd like the Hon.

Member to appreciate that all these arguments have been made

before and he's becoming tedious in repeating them. Would the

Hon. Member please pay respect to that rule?

MR. PHILLIPS: I will, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry that I have

repeated myself. But when our complete democratic way of life

is at stake, I feel it very necessary to plead with the

Government.

No one, Mr. Speaker, in this debate this morning has talked

about our way of life. This is what is at stake, Mr. Speaker.

I'll move on and I'll say this, Mr. Speaker: I'll ask the

Government again to accept this amendment, and I'll point out

to the Government that, by accepting this amendment, they will

be accepting their responsibility that they were elected to

fulfil last August 30.

They were not given a mandate last August 30 to take away

our democratic right of life, Mr. Speaker, our democratic way

of life. They were not given that mandate last August 30.

Mr. Speaker, the Government owes it to the people of this

province to show their concern for what is happening. The

people have showed their concern. Now if the Government is

truly a

[ Page 1797 ]

democratic Government it will respond by accepting this

amendment, going to the people, allowing the people to have

input and taking a second look.

Mr. Speaker, the facts prove and it has been proven during

this debate, that more than the preservation of farmland is

behind Bill 42. This passing of this motion will allow the

Government, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To save the farmland of this

Province.

MR. PHILLIPS: To save the people of this province and their

democratic way of life. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long

debate, and it's about time the people of this province who

have some regard for maintaining this province as a decent

place for children and grandchildren after them to live in,

stood up to be counted.

Never in the history of this province has there been more

misinformation and misrepresentation about any piece of

legislation…

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is that when the Hon. Member

for South Peace River is asked to cease shouting, that he do

so. You were listened to by the other side. You should have at

least the courtesy to extend the same courtesy to them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt

outside of this House to mislead the people of this province,

and to spread some of the worst legal hokum that's ever been

addressed to the people of this province by all of the parties

opposite and their people. They have tried to claim one after

the other, that this is an expropriation bill. That is pure

hokum and they know it. It never was.

They have tried to say it's confiscation. That is pure legal hokum. There is

no change whatsoever in the traditional laws with respect to compensation on

questions of zoning that have existed in this province for the last 20 or 30

years — none whatsoever. That is pure legal hokum, spread by people who ought

to know better — who do know better.

They have said and the Liberal Party has said this, that the

commission could hold secret hearings, that they could make

their decisions in secret without notice to anybody, and that

is pure legal hokum. Hokum! Is now and always was.

There is a provision in that bill, and there always has

been, whereby the courts have superintendence over it; and if

there is a denial to anybody of fair notice, or natural

justice, or a fair open hearing, the decision of that

commission would be set aside in the courts.

People like Mr. Derril Warren and other people who are

lawyers in this House, going out and peddling that kind of

hokum about secret meetings to the people of this province, is

a disgrace. Believe me, the hour of truth, Mr. Speaker, is here

when they say, "Hoist this bill for six months." Those who

believe in saving this province, instead of having it turned

into one vast wasteland like Greater Chicago, had better stand

up right now and recognize where the opposition to this bill

comes from and who they stand for — and vote against this

amendment.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

previous speaker has made a number of claims and charges which

we feel are most unjust and unfair. (Laughter).

He is claiming that misinformation on the bill has been

spread inside and outside this House. If he admits that, Mr.

Speaker, I think he'll have to admit that a good deal of this

has been peddled by the person sitting on his right, namely the

Premier of the province himself.

Constantly we have been told that there have been no

suggestions from anyone as far as improvement of this bill

goes. We've heard in this House, from the Hon. Member on my

left, concrete useful suggestions about amending this bill and

improving it. Outside this House, we've heard from the B.C.

Cattlemen and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture offer concrete

useful suggestions for amendment.

Sure, we don't have the legal draftsmen that the Government

has, which apparently they're unable to use on this bill. But

there have been suggestions for improvement. There are

proposals which have been put forward. They're in

Hansard if the Premier will look in that. I think that

it's about time that they decided to defend their own bill or

else withdraw it and put in a proper bill properly done which

has the guarantees that we insist upon.

As I mentioned, we don't have the draftsmen and the reserve

of legal talent that apparently the Government thinks it has.

Indeed, we're not sure that

[ Page 1798 ]

what they do have is all that good. I think it's time that

if there are amendments to be put forward, they be put forward

as other amendments have been put forward to other bills in

this House. The legal hokum which the Attorney General was

talking about applies completely to the Premier's statement

that he can make no amendments to this bill.

The Attorney General knows well, Mr. Speaker, that this bill

can be withdrawn, amended and brought back in the House and

that that can probably be done in 48 hours. Had it been done

when it was first suggested, we'd probably have the bill dealt

with already. The Attorney General knows well that in addition

there are other amendments on the order paper. Yet he comes

here and gives us what can only be described as: legal hokum

from his own mouth, as to what this bill has or has not got. In

it. The need for a six-month hoist is this, Mr. Speaker: in

that period of six months the agriculture committee of this

House can tour the province and can listen to the briefs of

interested groups, apart from the few that have been able to

put things together in the last few weeks. They will be able to

do this in a dispassionate, realistic way, without the heat of

debate that has been generated, in the last six weeks.

We feel that if this is done there will be an opportunity

for plans to be put forward — realistic plans for the

preservation of farmland and plans which can be based on

legislation that does not deny natural justice, right of

appeal, right of compensation or due process of law.

A moment ago we were accused of incorrectly stating that

decisions can be made in secret. Well, where in. the bill is it

that these decisions have to be made public?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Nowhere.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nowhere in this bill have the things that we have

talked about been dealt with. The Attorney General knows that, as does the Premier.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's appeal there on a point of law

and, that includes the matter of natural justice. Lawyers in

this House who say otherwise simply don't know what they're

talking about, or they're deliberately attempting to mislead as

they have been deliberately attempting to mislead throughout

the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General knows that natural

justice rules only apply if there's a hearing. They don't have to have a hearing.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is actually a matter for debate at

a later stage in the bill. Would the Hon. Member please proceed

on the amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is for a

six-month hoist. May I take the example of this dispute between

lawyers as an indication of why we need a few weeks or months

to sort out this type of problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing but negative criticism.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney General gets up on a hotline

and doesn't know that the appeal provisions in this Act simply

don't cover the points that were being made by the interviewer.

The Premier gets up last night before a television interviewer

and states that he didn't think the thing had been handled very

well.

Well, we do have an opportunity to correct mistakes. We have

a simple, reasonable course of action to follow. This

Government has deliberately denied it in their efforts to stir

up their official Opposition to polarize the people of the

province on this issue. It is an important issue. There are

issues of principle at stake. There's no reason for Ministers

of the Crown or the Premier to simply make facetious comments

about what went on before and use bad legislation in the past

to justify bad legislation in the present.

We in this party have opposed the legislation that they

referred to as examples of how bad the previous administration

was. Yet they at that time supported it. We have a consistent

policy, on the NDP part, of supporting bad legislation of this

type. That is why we want to see a six-month hoist, so there

can be an opportunity for reasonable debate, so there can be an

opportunity for reasonable hearings, so there can be

presentations from the public, so there can be an opportunity

to look at the land inventory of the province and find out what

needs to be done to correct it and find out how we can bring in

a bill which could deal with the problem of preserving farmland

and of preserving land for other uses, and at the same time not

destroy various principles of natural justice — which I've gone

into before — which we feel cannot be accepted by this House in

principle now, because to do so would prevent us from amending

that later on.

Mr. Speaker, on March 20 my Hon. friend on my left from West

Vancouver (Mr. Williams) put a motion to this House that the

bill not be read now a second time, suggesting that there

should be formal

[ Page 1799 ]

consultation with regional districts and municipal

governments by means of public hearings to ascertain whether

effective government at the local level would be impaired and

individual rights infringed. Since that time debate has pointed

out that there are plenty of individual rights being infringed

and that there are plenty of people who would like to be

consulted.

Accept this amendment. Give this bill a six-month hoist. It

could have been done a great deal better, had the Government

been reasonable enough to accept our suggestions earlier. At

this stage the only thing we have is the six-month hoist. We

think that if this were done, it would be possible for a bill

to come forward dealing with the preservation of farmland, and

yet at the same time excluding most of the very objectionable —

indeed reprehensible — provisions which the Government wished

to include in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I speak obviously in favour of this amendment.

I speak with a great deal of feeling. We tried hard in this

House to be reasonable. We tried hard to put forward reasonable

proposals. Yet consistently this has been rejected by the

Government, as they go wailing away at the former

administration for sins going back to 1960 or 1959 or even

beyond.

That is not good enough at this time. What we want and what

we think the people of the province want is something better.

The opportunity of getting something better is pulling bad

legislation at this stage, accepting this amendment and

bringing in something which is reasonable in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you force him down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Force him down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member deferring to

this Member or what? Are you speaking next?

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

Member for Prince Rupert…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'd be glad to defer to the Member for Prince

Rupert.

MR. SPEAKER: I started to recognize the Hon. Member for

Prince Rupert. This Member has risen. Do you defer to this

Member?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll speak, thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Talk about getting smoked out!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

with his remarks? We're on the amendment, I assume.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment. For

the first time in this House since this debate started, we have

a consensus. Everyone in this House knows now that the people

out there want this bill to pass. That's why those groups over

there want to have six months — not to get input, but to go out

and give more baloney to the people of this province. They want

six months; they need it. But it wouldn't do them any good

anyway, Mr. Speaker.

You know, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and listen to people like

the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) talk about

democracy — when he was Premier of this province, he said, "We

were voted in to govern. If the people have a say between

elections, that's anarchy." He was quoted as saying that. Now

he wants to listen to the people. Now he does? Baloney.

They want another six months to have meetings like they had

in Ladner. Let me tell you about that meeting in Ladner. They

warmed it up with a red-necked western orchestra. The only

things missing were the burning crosses and the sheets.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Right on!

MR. LEA: They say politics makes strange bedfellows — the

three Opposition parties on the stage with the Canadian

Intelligence Service, better known as the John Birch Society.

You squirmed a little but you stayed there, didn't you? I could

see you squirming.

You want six months to go out there. Why? Because you know

the people of this province want this bill now. You're

frightened! It's your political life!

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in just a few moments we'll come to

the question on this particular amendment and then the main

question.

I want to speak very, very briefly to compliment the Leader

of the Opposition. I suppose no one has been a more consistent

critic than I have of the positions that he's taken in the

past. He's been accused of many things, not too often

complimented and seldom have people said he was eloquent.

But,

[ Page 1800 ]

Mr. Speaker, he was eloquent today.

He gave the Premier advice. He could have lashed back,

because he was given ample cause to do so. He was accused of

things that, had they been said outside the House, would

clearly have been actionable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that

any person who has sat in this House for as many years as the

Leader of the Opposition has some wisdom. When in good faith he

offers that wisdom to the leader of a new Government, and in a

sense pleads with the new Premier not to make some of the

mistakes that he would admit himself he's made in the past, the

least that Premier could do is to gain enough wisdom I've been in the House for a far briefer period than the

Leader of the Opposition, but I do agree that in my time in

this House never have the people been as upset by a bill as

this one. Whether you want to contend that the bill is

misunderstood or whether it's wrong, there can be little doubt

that the people are upset and that it is our duty to listen to

them, If we've gone this long in our history without land

controls, six more months will not spell the ruination of

British Columbia. But when the people are upset, there should

be a mechanism of hearing what they say, and that mechanism has

been offered today in good faith by the Opposition.

I've been accused of many angry speeches to the Leader of

the Opposition. But when he's eloquent, when he makes common

sense, when he offers advice to the leader of a Government and

to the people, then I think everyone including myself should

stand up and praise that effort. The Leader of the Opposition,

in speaking for five minutes in this House, has made the best

speech I have ever heard him make. I say to the Leader of the

Government: accept his advice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking in support of the amendment at this eleventh hour — a

fervent appeal to the Government and the Premier to reconsider

their position in the interests of all the electorate who have

shown great concern. If they have not understood the

legislation as the Government intends it, six months is not too

long to give them to have this one day in court. The land

freeze can continue on. Nothing can be done in that time.

You have the orders-in-council; there is no termination date of those orders-in-council

so there is no real reason why anything undue could occur in a matter of six

months.

It's generally understood that the Government intends to

have another session in the fall. Bring back your bill in the

fall after you have had some input. Send a committee or a

commission or whatever you want to send out across the

province. Have some hearings.

We have had royal commissions before. I don't think you need

a royal commission. I think a sound committee could go out and

receive the input from the people and maybe all this contention

will disappear. At the same time your committee should be fully

conversant with the intent and spirit that the Government will

bring about through this legislation. Then I don't think there

is any question in anyone's mind but that we can come up with

an intelligent, acceptable piece of legislation.

Certainly the angry words of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald)…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll fight to the last ditch so we

might as well face up to it right now.

MR. RICHTER: So! The Attorney General in his angry words —

and he's repeating his same position again right now — doesn't

want to listen to the people. Who put you there? Forty per cent

of the people put you there; 60 per cent opposed you. What's

the matter with you anyway? Don't you understand people for

goodness sake? It's about time you understood.

AN HON. MEMBER: You took over B.C. Electric, didn't

you'!

MR. RICHTER: And you supported it too. You supported it.

We're not supporting this legislation until you explain to the

people what it is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHTER: I will vote against it.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'll refrain from speaking

in the debate on this amendment if we can have a commitment from the Premier

of this province that he will accept this motion and that he will hoist the

bill for six months;

[ Page

1801 ]

that he will go to public hearings and that he will listen to the people of

British Columbia.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier will he listen?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's too high a price not to listen to you. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, that's very typical of the facetious, irresponsible,

acting, joking remarks from this jokester Premier of this province. The people,

Mr. Speaker, in this province, are afraid for the first time in the history

of their government. They are concerned…

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They were afraid for 20 years.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Premier, Mr. Speaker, actually think that all

of the Members of the Opposition and the people outside of this Legislature

have nothing better to do with their time than to play games? Is that what he

thinks, Mr. Speaker?

How could that Premier be so cynical as to take this joking posture and to

literally ridicule the concerns of the people of British Columbia, and to ridicule

the g enuine concerns of the Members of this Opposition on all sides?

Mr. Speaker, we've tried to make it clear over and over and

over again that we support, we favour and will do everything

that is fair and just to preserve agriculture in British

Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, we become concerned and the people

of this province become concerned when we see such an action as

we have seen in this Legislature this morning; when we've seen

the chief justice officer of this province, the law enforcement

officer of this province, the one man, Mr. Speaker, in this

province who must not only speak to justice but must be

prepared to lay down his life to preserve justice, stand up in

this House — after on the television he said, "I didn't know

there wasn't room for compensation on this Act" — and

then ridicule the concerns of the people of British Columbia.

One shudders, Mr. Speaker, not only for our democratic rights

but the sanity of that man; the responsibility of that man.

Mr. Speaker, over and over again the public and the Members

of this Opposition have questioned the Attorney General, the

Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and all Members on the

Government side of this House: do they believe in the private

ownership of land in British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, they will

not answer, and that is a very important issue.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) just now quacked out and said, "That's nothing to do

with the principle of this bill." Mr. Speaker, what does he

think this debate is about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. We're on the amendment now, dealing with

the six months.

MRS. JORDAN: In asking the Government to hoist the bill for

six months, we are asking the question to be clarified: does

the Government believe in the private ownership of land? The

Attorney General, in speaking to this amendment…

MR. CHABOT: They won't answer.

MRS. JORDAN: …said that he is fighting for the

preservation of agricultural land for his children and his

grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, what do you think that the people

are fighting for? It is for the democratic rights of our

children and our grandchildren.

This Government, in speaking to this amendment, Mr. Speaker,

is wrapping the erosion of democratic rights up in a flag of

emotionalism. They have said to the farmers of this province — and there's a letter right here from the Minister of

Agriculture — "You will take note of this and expect to receive

fair treatment by this new legislation." That's what they're

saying to the farmers of this province. And yet the legislation

is in here and there is nothing in this legislation to help the

farmer of British Columbia.

In wrapping, in camouflaging the principle of non-ownership

of private land in British Columbia, this Government, the

"Minister of Justice" — in speaking to this amendment, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier and those Members are willing to bury the

farmers in a pauper's grave today in the name of the state and

in the camouflaged name of the erosion of the democratic rights

of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when we asked them about private ownership —

the Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture

and all those Members — all we get from the chief justice

officer, the law enforcement officer of this province, is that

it is hokum. The hokum, Mr. Speaker, is on the lips of that

Member and that Government because they will not answer the

question. If it is disguised in the principle of the bill that

we are trying to amend now, Mr. Speaker, what do we ask them to

hoist it for six months? Because this is a government that has

gone the width and breadth of this province saying, "trust

us."

After this legislation has come in they have said "trust us," and yet every group in British Columbia that is

concerned with this legislation has met with this government,

has met with its caucus, has met with this Minister of

Agriculture before the bill came in, to put in their input.

That Minister of Agriculture gave them the assurance that it

would be fair and equitable. And yet the Bill lies here today

an absolute

[ Page 1802 ]

disgrace to the democratic process and the rights of

people.

The actions of this Government during the debate of the

principle of the bill that we are now amending has been an

absolute disgrace to the democratic rights of the people of

British Columbia.

We've seen closure; we've seen forcing of Members; we've

seen ridicule. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they will maintain, "trust

us." There is nothing in this bill which indicates that the

people they met with before have any reason to trust them.

We're asking them to reinstate their image, if you want to call

it that. Let them prove to the people that they can be trusted,

that they are concerned, and that they understand the

complexity of this problem of 'preservation of farmland and

that they are not trying to foist the non-ownership of private

lands on the people without telling them.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that one can conclude in

listening to this debate and seeing the response of the Premier

in not being willing to take this bill to the public is that

they are afraid. They know they're wrong. They know they've

made a mistake and they're afraid. And, Mr. Speaker, a

government that is afraid has no right to govern.

Government is a responsibility not just to one pressure

group or another pressure group — but in British Columbia and

Canada it is the right to represent all people and the

responsibility to take care of all people, and to see that

their input, whether organized or unorganized, carries its

weight in the decisions being made by that government.

That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we are asking

for the hoisting of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we've asked this Government — every Member of

the Opposition has used every approach, trying to be kind, to

appeal to reason and to common sense, and they still refuse. We

get the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) standing up and quoting

May, after the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

has said that their caucus went through this bill clause by

clause by clause before it ever came to this Legislature — a

breach of parliamentary ethics. "Trust us," and a breach

of parliamentary ethics.

Mr. Speaker, the concern about this bill is as it lies on

the order paper of this House, and that Member for Vancouver

Centre said, "We have been through it clause by clause and we

support it."

MR. CHABOT: Somebody should resign.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, that is what the public is

concerned about — that that side has stated over and over again

that it fully supports the principle of this bill and every

word that's in this bill as it lies in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier of this province and that government, with its

wall of steel between it and the people of British Columbia, bludgeons the second

reading of this bill through this House, then there is no question that never

before in the history of a democratic parliament have the rights of the people

been so trampled as they are being and will be trampled into the carpets of

this Legislature today.

Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, have they given one good reason for

not withdrawing this bill and laying it over for six months.

And, Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that if not withdrawn it

is downright arrogance or ignorance, or there is a hidden

meaning which is the confiscation of lands in British Columbia

and the doing away with private ownership of lands in British

Columbia and a complete erosion of the democratic rights of the

people of British Columbia, or that it is a matter of false

pride on the part of the Premier of this province.

As I said to him once before, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to

this amendment and asking him to withdraw, to err is human, and

we will accept that. And the same goes for, "To forgive is

divine." But we would suggest that to understand is the mark

of a man and the mark of a leader, and that it would be a mark

of the fact that this Government has confidence in its

programme and that it has confidence in the people of British

Columbia, and that it's not hung-up on a fantasy that it cannot

tell the people what the truth is and that it is in fact out to

erode the democratic rights of the people of British

Columbia.

I would ask again, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier of this

province to listen. Take this bill out; lay it over. What is

wrong? What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the farmers in this

province having an opportunity on their own ground to put some

input in, to reaffirm the input that they've already put in and

which was ignored?

What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the people in the northern

part of this province, the small homeowners, senior citizens,

having the opportunity ?

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

Williams) sits there and says, "Bwea-a-agh!" — and that's

exactly the problem of this government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Arrogant! That Minister professes to be a

socialist. He has destroyed names in this House and he himself

epitomizes the worst of any free enterprise system in his own

actions.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. If one gets a little excited, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure you will understand that one who knows the

history of that Minister and hears him make these remarks and

knows that that Minister's hunger for power is behind this

bill, then I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment;

that you will understand why one gets a little emotional. We

feel that by withdrawing this bill for six months the

[ Page 1803 ]

rights of the people would prevail over the naked hunger of

that Minister. That's what must happen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we ask again, for whatever reason the Premier

would choose to say — withdraw this bill for six months, prove

to the people in hoisting the bill that this Government is

concerned, that this Government believes in the private

ownership of land, that this Government most of all listens

and, most of all, Mr. Speaker, believes in the democratic

rights of the individual person — man, woman, or child — in the

Province of British Columbia, that it is a responsible

government worthy of trust, and worthy, Mr. Speaker, of

respect, and that the Premier himself is a man to lead, a man

to protect the weak and a man to be trusted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

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

How long have we in this House, Mr. Speaker, listened to the shallow dramatics

of the Member for North Okanagan? How long? First it's the quiet, dramatic voice

pleading for reason; then it's the loud yelling and nonsense items, as we've

had again this morning, talking about closure. Talking about closure! Twelve

days of debate, and the Opposition tries to sell the story about closure. Closure

— after 12 days of debate on this one bill? And the Opposition tries to talk

about bludgeoning a bill through this House after 12 days of debate. That rump

group over there was not content to try to destroy parliament when they were

in the government — they are trying to do it when they are in Opposition!

I'd like the Hon. Leader of the Opposition going out to the

towns, preaching anarchy outside of this House, urging the

farmers not…

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He wants another six months, Mr. Speaker,

that's what he wants, another six months to preach…

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: The rules, of the House, Mr. Speaker, should be obeyed

by all sides of the House. When I was speaking just a few moments ago I strayed

very narrowly from the principle of the amendment…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: …and I was immediately read the laws of

the House. That Member has not mentioned the amendment yet and

no one has brought him to order. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that

in this House you should be just. You are a servant of the

House and the rules should apply to both sides of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you. May I also add that I tried

several times to stop the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) from attacking the Minister? Now I presume he's not to

be given the opportunity to reply to any extent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Now the rules must apply on each side. I try

desperately to keep the Members within the relevance of debate.

But they will go beyond the area of debate into personalities

and then they expect to get away with it when the next Member

is called. If you will each obey the rules, we'll have no

problem.

I would ask the Minister to stay within the relevance of the

motion of the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your point and I

accept it. If the Minister has nothing better to do with his

time than to attack me, let him go ahead.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: After 12 days of debate in this House,

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition's asking for another six months of

political vilification, the likes of which we've never seen in

this province; vilification with respect to a statute that is

little more than a provincial zoning bylaw; little different

from the zoning bylaws in hundreds of towns and villages across

the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stick to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: It's on the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The one thing that has become clear in

this particular debate in the recent hours, Mr. Speaker, is how

comfortable they all are together — the red-neck right, the

radical right and the middle right — comfortable in bed

together. As

[ Page 1804 ]

the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) so eloquently stated,

you're quite right to sit together with these who would destroy

democracy on a platform outside this House. No wonder there's

some concern over there right now, because you're all in bed

together. Your position is abundantly clear. Really we've got a

coalition over there — the radical right, the red-neck. right

and the middle right, all happy to live with the destruction of

a simple statute that has one simple goal.

MR. CHABOT: All a bunch of Commies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is one simple goal in this statute:

the preservation of farmland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the kind of vilification, Mr.

Speaker. We had it just a few minutes ago from the Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that we want to destroy private

ownership. That's what they're all saying.

We're simply preserving farmland in British Columbia. And

you take it down to that level, the way you're always wont to

do, that we're ready to take over the corner grocery, that your

toothbrush won't be safe in the morning. This proposal is no

different from what every municipality in British Columbia

itself is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And you know that!

Then we get the quiet voice of the Member for North

Okanagan, pleading, after all the vilification, to listen. I

say, Mr. Speaker, this is a group that did listen and that's

why we were elected in August.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, even if I had

been opposed to this amendment an hour ago, I would be forced

to be in favour of the amendment now. After having listened to

the irresponsible statements and watched the irresponsible

actions in this House, Mr. Speaker, there's no way but that we

have to ask for six months.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that what we have seen in

this House this morning is multiplied a thousand times outside

this House. What makes us believe that eloquence is limited to

these four walls? If eloquence is not limited to these four

walls, what makes us believe that vehemence is limited to these

four walls?

Over here we have the advantage of these. barriers. We have the influence of

the Mace on the table. We have the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of a referee who

sits behind that desk. But out there on the streets there is neither of those.

I fear that unless we do something to let the public

understand the intent of this bill, give the Government six

months to explain their position, there will be bloodshed on

the streets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: I've watched it here in the House today. If I

might quote from the greatest of all authority: "Anger is the

basic ingredient of murder." And don't you make any mistake

about it. Mr. Premier, you know the truth as well as I do.

Don't make funny faces in the face of the greatest truth…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked at your words.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. You'd be awful glad I said them if blood

was shed.

All I'm interested in is law and order in the streets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: I want you to know that the kind of ramrod

legislation that we are seeking as a government to push down

the throats of gullible citizens out there is exactly the kind

of legislation that serves to inflame and incite rebellion.

We've seen it in other lands. Why would we be different here?

Do you think that because we live in British Columbia that the

human nature of the people who are resident here is different

from the human nature of those folk who live, for instance, in

Hungary? And let me ask you, was there bloodshed in Hungary?

You're cotton pickin' right there was.

Now I want you to know that the people will respond to

imposed legislation just like they did over there, because the

people are used to democracy. They are not used to

dictatorship. We've got to give them at least six months, Mr.

Speaker, to acclimatize to the new kind of legislation that

seems to be coming from this House.

I think we're doing this Government a favour in allowing

them six months.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: I have had to smile, Mr. Speaker — if I might interrupt

the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) for just a moment — at the Government

benches who have said, "We don't have one piece of amendment from over there."

The only way they can interpret an amendment is by a piece of paper apparently

lying on that table.

They have had suggestion after suggestion. I can

[ Page 1805 ]

point to Members all across here who have been giving

suggestion after suggestion, Now may I tell you for just a moment what response we have

received from the Government side? I quote the Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke):

whenever we said, "Would you like to see some