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)

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1973

Night Sitting

MARCH 26, 1973

[ Page

1701 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1701

Mr. McGeer — 1708

Mr. Lauk — 1711

Mr. Fraser — 1714

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off

where I was rudely interrupted, but I'm being interrupted now

by animal noises from the Social Credit side of the House. They

are reminiscent noises because I heard one of the Members going

"baa baa." That's what they used to do when they were in the

backbench when they were the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't you hear the "baas" now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. I hear the exciting, challenging

voices of dynamic Government backbenchers who are supporting

this bill.

They're not saying, "out" or "now". They're taking

part in

the debate here in the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Official Leader of the

Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) has continued to maintain his

position in this House — that is, one of absence. We have noted

that his participation in the debate has been absolutely zero.

On the other hand we know that he has been driven out of the

House by his own party's filibuster.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't really need you

to defend me, but I do think that some silence might be

appropriate from the Opposition, The kind of yelling they are

doing now is reminiscent of the rehearsal they had when they

led the demonstration outside this Chamber.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's very interesting to see their

response to this debate, because we can check some of the

statements their party Members have made on the question of

preserving land for agriculture in the past — also some of

their legislative positions in the past on this issue.

The Social Credit Party had the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Cyril Shelford

and he in the throne debate and the budget debate speeches in Hansard said not

once in 1970, 1971, or 1972 in those speeches — Mr. Shelford mentioned everything

about what was wrong with agriculture, but he never once spoke on the need to

protect agricultural land that we can find in those Hansards. He did get very

close during the throne speech debate in 1972 when on page 237 in Hansard he

said when he got up to speak in that debate, "Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to

speak on the Department of Agriculture today."

There was never a position announced by the Social Credit

Party on this problem other than to make personal attacks on

the people who were in the profession of trying to preserve

some farmland. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr.

Dan Campbell, knew the land speculators were the root of the

problem, but he also knew the land speculators were great

supporters of the Social Credit Party. The Vancouver Sun

of February 9, 1972, just a little over a year ago he said:

"Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell accused municipal

councils and their airy, fairy plans Tuesday of permitting

engaging in land speculation."

Did he do anything about it? Did he name any municipalities?

And where did he land up? He got a job with the Government — or

that is, with the Opposition but the Government is paying his

salary. "He urged in the Legislature that municipalities freeze

the resale price of land with land use contracts and stop real

estate companies from creating an artificial scarcity of land

suitable for housing." That is what he said. Is that what he

said at the weekend convention of the Social Credit Party?

No.

" 'There can be no question that there is a great deal of

land speculation in British Columbia today,' Campbell said,

'and there can be no question either that there is an

artificial scarcity of building lots. Zoning often confers

financial benefits which are not passed on to purchasers of

land who wish to build their own horns.' He noted that the

Legislature last year passed legislation to permit

municipalities to enter with developers land use contracts

which may be used to keep cost down, to provide for parks and

recreation land and development and ensure public housing needs

are met. But 'some airy, fairy planners are unwilling to use

the tools the Legislature has given them.' "

That is what the former Minister of Municipal Affairs said

and the Minister reported that a piece of land in Delta with a

book value of $279,000 can earn land speculators a total of

$1.3 million because the land use contract system is not being

followed. But what did they do about it? Other than make these

vague attacks on airy, fairy planners, the former government

did nothing to stop the kind of speculation that the former

Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about.

Oh, they did have legislation for the municipalities, true.

What kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker? Oh,

[ Page 1702 ]

they talk about dictatorship; they talk about commissions;

they talk about restrictions within the legislation, but

examine what those Members voted for when they sat on this side

of the House. I refer you to

chapter 261 of the revised

statues,

section 5. "Each

section of this Act is retroactive to

the extent necessary to give force and effect to its

provisions."

You all voted for that. Not one of you stood up in the

backbench then and said it's dictatorship or it's wrong. It was

Social Credit then. Then we go to the same bill,

section 7 (e)

(2) — the Boundary Commission Act not a group of

commissioners, not five commissars — as the Official Opposition

likes to refer to it — but one commissar.

Who was it that set up the commissar, as they like to

describe it in their hysterical attacks? The Social Credit

Party. And what did they say about his powers?

This is what they said: "Notwithstanding the Municipal

Act or any other Act, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council

may by order appoint a commissioner" — one commissioner — "and

re-define the boundaries of any municipality deemed by such

order to be uncertain and upon such determination being

approved by the Minister, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may by supplement letters patent re-define the boundaries of

the municipality accordingly."

Did you get up at the Social Credit convention and confess

that? Did you get up at the Social Credit convention and

announce that you had sinned in the past?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You sound like

vintage Bennett.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vintage Bennett. What we have been getting

is vintage garbage from the Opposition on this bill.

Section 2 (B). This is what Social Credit passed under the

Municipal Act,

section 2(b).

"For the purpose of the aforesaid and general of

providing these services, the municipality may expropriate, take, enter

into possession and use of any leasehold interest in any or right title

or other interest in and to real property and any easement or right

appurtenant to such real property and any easement and over or upon the

same, and

(c) "Shall direct such taking, entering upon and into possession

and use of such real property or leasehold interest therein or right title or

interest therein or easement or right appurtenant hereto over and or upon, the

same forthwith bylaw shall have come into effect." Mr. Speaker, Members of the

Social Credit group have been municipal councilors in this province and they

have used authority under the Municipal Act of this province that is far more

dictatorial in their terms of definition than anything in Bill 42.

Interjections

by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Oh, rubbish" they say. They are not on

record, Mr. Speaker. There it is, Mr. Speaker, they don't like

to read their own legislation. They make a great big show of

the analogy I made of a

section from the Municipal Act.

Even the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wrote a letter to the

editor and in it he said: "Well, he didn't really quote the

whole section." So tonight I'll quote the whole

section and

then he can justify the difference between that paragraph and

what exists in Bill 42. There is no difference and the Member

knows it.

Section 706 of the Municipal Act.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can yell all you want but these are

your statutes. You voted on them. You have operated on them as

municipal members. You were a municipal member too; so was the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). They

had dictatorial powers in the municipalities and you have

operated at the municipal level under these sections and you

have come in here on this bill for no other purpose than cheap

politics to twist, twist, twist for the sole purpose …

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have watched you overrule

many of the Members of this House when they have imputed

motives to other Members of the House and I think that that

Member of the House should not be allowed to impute cheap

politics to any other Member of this House. I believe he should

be asked to withdraw it. He's done it twice in this debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the imputation

that they've been involved in cheap politics. But I will say

that they've been involved in inexpensive politics.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I may point out that Hon, Members on

both sides of the House have offended equally in this regard.

In fact, the phrase "twist, twist, twist" has been on this side

of the House just as much as on this. I would ask both sides of

the House to refrain from imputations against the other. No

more twisting.

[ Page 1703 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not allege any misinterpretation by the Opposition Members but I

will read the statute as it stands.

Section 706 of the

Municipal Act:

"

(1) Property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of a

zoning bylaw under this Division, or by reason of the amendment

or repeal of a zoning by-law.

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use."

Which is when the public takes it over. But this bill has

nothing to do with the public taking over land. This bill is

governing the zoning of land that sells between private

people.

There has been an impression left abroad that every piece of

farmland that comes up for sale is going to be bought by the

Crown, and that is absolutely false.

What does the Land Commission Act say in its own

section? "Land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously

affected by reason of the designation by the commission of that

land as an agricultural land reserve, green belt land reserve,

land bank land reserve, or park land reserve."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, this bill cannot even

expropriate land. There's been deliberate misinterpretation by

the leader of the Conservative Party and by the official

Opposition of the Social Credit Party and they know better.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're talking legal hokum.

HON. MR. BARRETT: At least the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker,

has a far more pure rhetoric when it comes to this point

because they are on record as voting against the green belt

bill and the other Act that we passed the session before.

They've been consistent. You've been consistent on it and I

grant you that.

But you must admit that some of your Members, through you

Mr. Speaker, have worked on municipal councils under the same

legislation with the same wording. Never once have I heard

those Members get up in the House suggesting that the

amendments be made to the Municipal Act on that

principle. Not once, not once was that an issue. Not once did I

hear from the Liberal Party that this

section of the

Municipal Act was a travesty of justice.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the council is right. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let us deal with a couple more of the positions of the

Social Credit Party.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party has been absolutely

hypocritical in this debate. I didn't accuse a Member; I said

the party. I said the party, not you, Mr. Member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a point of

order. You've allowed a lot of latitude to that Member when

he's speaking in the House. I think that you should warn him of

the way he's misleading …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …using these misleading statements by

accusing the members of this party of deliberately

misinterpreting the Act. I don't think the Chair should

tolerate that type of a charge from that Member over there. I'd

like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask that Member to withdraw that

statement and to withdraw it without qualification and to

withdraw it forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point of order made, I indicate

to the Members that to impute that to any Member of the House

should be withdrawn. The words "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite" or

"hypocritical" are all not parliamentary expressions and are so

indicated in May.

But I point out to the Members that both sides have also on

occasion — I think it's wrong myself — nonetheless attributed

this to a party, not to the individual Members. I think it's

wrong. I think that we obviously must debate with each other in

this House. If that's so, we should confine our remarks to

parliamentary debate.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order. I ask you to have the Premier

withdraw the statement that members of this party are

deliberately misinterpreting this Act. Unless you're doing to

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: He said "members." I'm not talking about his

latest statement — the one just about 30 seconds before. I

think he should withdraw that. He knows he made that statement.

Unless you're going to have that Member withdraw that

statement, you'll find a lot more of those types of statements

in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to see Members attributing that to

either side. I ask the Hon. Premier if he indicates that that

is intended to apply to the Members of this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my words

[ Page 1704 ]

were that the Social Credit Party has been hypocritical.

Those were my words. If the Member is concerned, then I will

withdraw my remarks with no condition attached.

I will make no comment whatsoever on the three-hour personal

vilification we got from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan), who reduced herself to a level of debate that has not

been equaled in this House in my particular memory.

Then we'll go to the statements of the former Premier of

this province as reported in the Vancouver Sun about

this bill. This is what the former Premier said in his attempt

to provide leadership to the official Opposition. I quote from

the Vancouver Sun , March 16, 1973:

"The Barrett-Stupich government is a big-stick government, You can see they're hungry for power, but the

socialist menace is not yet triumphant. A rescue party is on

the way — the Socreds."

That's all right for a politician.

That's fair game.

But then he made the following statements as a consequence

of this bill. I don't think these statements are worthy of any

political leader in the Province of British Columbia. He said,

"I tell all the farmers, businessmen, not to sign anything with

the government." He's preaching anarchy, Mr. Speaker. But he

has not made that speech in the House. He's made it outside in

inflammatory conditions, deliberately scaled to inflame

people's feelings against this Government, without having the

nerve and the decency to make these charges in this House in

front of the Members of this House.

What else does he go on to say? " 'We'll free you. We'll

force an election with meetings like this.' Bennett warned the

crowd not to accept any amendment to Bill 42, 'because the

Government will just change it back after things have quieted

down.' " The most disgraceful statement I have read in the

paper from the man who was once Premier of this great province,

telling people to ignore the law of the province because the

politicians are too cynical and they'll change it anyway.

He's not once participated in this debate. He's been back

here for weeks. He has yet to stand in his place as a duly

elected Member of this House and state his party's position.

But he has deliberately gone from village to village and town

to town in an attempt to inflame people for negative political

purposes. He hasn't had the sense of responsibility to come to

this House where he's been elected and state his opposition in

this House.

This is what he was counselling. This is what the former

Premier was counselling on this bill.

" 'This bill must be withdrawn completely,' he said. Don't

accept amendments. Have parades in Nanaimo. Have parades in Duncan. Demand an

election immediately. There's no room for this foreign philosophy in Duncan.

You must not allow the socialist menace to destroy freedom.' "

And while making that speech, his inflammatory remarks are a

threat to our way of life in terms of parliamentary

democracy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a

primitive pattern of politics by the former Premier who is on

an ego trip because he is bitter, bitter, bitter over his

electoral defeat last year.

Mr. Speaker, they've gone from hamlet to hamlet …

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They've had signs calling me Hitler.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the speaker

is staying to the principle of Bill 42. It's a deliberate

attack on another political party; nothing to do with the

principle of Bill 42. I'd like the Speaker to bring that Member

to order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the debate on Bill 42 has to do with

the attitudes of each party and each spokesman of each party in

this House. I can't restrain the present speaker from that

course because every Member is supposed to comment on what

every other Member says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Are you meaning to imply by that "Oh"

that what you say is not amenable to any discussion in this

House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have heard attacks; we have heard

attacks on the Government as being the socialist menace. We

have heard personal attacks on the physical appearances of the

Members. That's a matter of record — under this debate, we've

heard that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I want to thank you, but that's got

nothing to do with the debate. But, we have heard that kind of

debate in this House. We have had a slanging match. We have had

names hurled across the floor. We have not retaliated. And the

first

[ Page 1705 ]

night we stand up and expose them for their phoney politics

in this province, they get nervous, Mr. Speaker. They get

nervous.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Point of order. Mr.

Speaker, before, you've ruled out the word "phony." We hear it

again.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the word "phony,

" please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word

"phony." But we certainly have had evidence of their…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I saw the television speeches

of the Members of the Opposition on this bill. I saw their

performances — yet to see the performance of the duly elected

official Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) state his

party's position in this House. Why isn't he here in this

debate? Why isn't he here if he thinks this bill is such a

menace to the people of British Columbia. Why hasn't he been

here through the hours of the debate on this bill?

I won't use the word "phony," Mr. Speaker, let the

record speak for itself. But let me tell you this; I have in my

13 years never witnessed anything as disgraceful as the attempt

to whip up emotion, hostility and fear by the official

Opposition in the last few weeks.

The Conservative leader has done nothing more than be a "me

too" gang kid.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not so.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, what is their respect for the Crown

and for the parliamentary system when it comes to this bill?

Look at the material that has come out of the official Leader

of the Opposition's office with the seal of the Province of

British Columbia on it.

You talk about knowing what responsibility is around the

debate of a bill. You talk about knowing what tradition is. You

talk about knowing what's in our own Constitution Act when it

comes to using this seal, Mr. Speaker, and you have to wonder,

Mr. Speaker — because right on this letter from W.A.C. Bennett,

the official Leader of the Opposition, is an attack on the bill — that's fair enough, but at the bottom is "Join the Social

Credit Party now" — on government stationery. Right on

government stationery, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They think it's all right. They think it's

all right to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money

writing on government stationery — flacking for a political

party on government stationery. You haven't learned a thing.

You did it when you were in government and now you are doing it

when you are in Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we come down to some of the statements made by

other Members and we begin to witness this whole fabric come

together — this whole maneuver that we thought was a great

spontaneous rising of the ordinary citizens of British

Columbia.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) got up in the House and

read about Richmond, the letters he received. And where did

they come from? From real estate offices. I tell you where I

got some from…They didn't come from there, Mr. Member? You

must fasten your seat belt for a moment, and I'll show you

where they came from.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there were two firms that

mimeographed these letters and mailed them to my office, and we

checked the postage meter. The postage meter was out of

Clearbrook Realty, 32082 South Fraser Way, Clearbrook, B.C. And

then hundreds of letters were mailed out of Paris Realty, of

Aldergrove. That's their postage meter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to say that here's the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I've had these letters

and these are the ones that I am referring to. If the Members

want to deny, then you just wait a moment.

Here's a letter here; it says:

"I wish to see this land freeze lifted immediately.

This step taken by you and your government is an infringement on our

freedom. If you are concerned about the future of British Columbia

residents, you will have this freeze removed completely."

From a name and the address which I'm prepared to table in

this House, and there is a photostat.

My office phoned the woman who signed this letter. This is a

husband and wife who work for the same company — they both

signed the letter. She said that two women came to their office

and asked them to sign the letter, indicating it was to assist

the farmers. The wife said she agreed with our policy and would

not sign. The husband signed. The wife was amazed when we told

her the letter was mailed out by a real estate company. She

said that for sure if her husband had known it was mailed by a

real estate company, he would not have mailed it. They didn't

know who was behind it.

Now, when these names were being drawn up was anybody told?

My friend, the Member for Richmond

[ Page 1706 ]

(Mr. Steves), did make these allegations.

I received this letter on my desk this morning. I say it's

an honourable letter and I appreciate receiving it. But, if you

don't believe that this campaign was going on, Mr. Speaker,

then just listen to this letter. March 23, 1973:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

Dear Sir:

I am obliged to forward this apology to you for the actions that

some of our employees have taken in using company facilities to let their feelings

be known to you. I have given instructions that no further action of this nature

be allowed in our offices and that our company does not approve of such behaviour.

We will take a public stand on government bills which affect

the well-being of our province but only after we fully understand the amendments

now being considered.

I therefore apologize to you and the Hon. David Stupich. We shall

seek to understand your policies, and support such policies which will benefit

the majority of the people of our province.

Sincerely yours,

Block Bros. Realty,

Henry Block, President."

The president of this company has seen fit to send this memo

to his employees. He said to them:

"It has come to my attention that some of our sales people

are sending protest letters to the government on Bill 42, and

using company facilities in mailing such letters or petitions

to Victoria. I request that such actions be stopped

immediately."

The he goes on to say what he said in the letter.

I think that the most significant thing of all in this

letter in relation to this bill, Mr. Speaker, is this sentence:

"We will take a public stand on government bills which affect

the well-being of our province, but only after we fully

understand the amendments now being considered."

I'm going to write him back and tell him that the Opposition

has offered no amendments to this point, Mr. Speaker. Have you

any input at all into this problem?

I must say that I appreciate receiving this from Block Bros.

Realty Company because it was this advertisement, first shown

in the House by a Liberal Member and placed by the Block

company some years ago, that accelerated the problem we're

trying to cope with under Bill 42.

Here is an ad that they ran in California newspapers. This one appeared in

the San Francisco Examiner in June, 1969. "British Columbia For Sale." The land

promotion and the land sale industry was what put the pressure on our valuable

farmland. What do other people say about this move made by this Government?

Well of course, the planning institute is in favour of it. But after all, they're

only the "airy fairy" planners, Mr. Speaker, that the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs attacked. The Sierra Club — well, after all, they're only sentimental

environmentalists. The United Church — well, after all, religion is one thing

but business is business.

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole catalogue of people who have

endorsed this bill and asked this Government to be thoughtful

in listening to the Opposition and to provide some alternatives

or amendments. The Opposition to this day, let it be recorded,

has not placed one word on the order paper in terms of an

amendment to this bill. All they want to do with it is play

politics; not save the farmland of the Province of British

Columbia.

They call it socialist — yell all you want — they call it

socialist, Mr. Speaker. Oh, dangerous Marxian socialists! Oh

yes, Mr. Speaker, they are somehow going to usurp the

democratic responsibility that the people gave them to govern

the province.

Let me read to you what has just been introduced in the past

few weeks, Senate Bill 100 in the State of Oregon — led by a

Republican senator. Republican — that's further right than the

Liberal Party. That's pretty far right in itself.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Premier is

always exaggerating.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it all depends on which Liberal I

listen to. (Laughter). But when I listen to that Liberal from

Point Grey they're almost Republicans, Mr. Speaker.

What does this Republican say in his bill?

"This Act creates a Department of Land Conservation and

Development, composed of a land conservation and development commission."

Some Republicans are going to have a commission. Even the

Republicans have sold out to the commissars, Mr. Speaker. Yes,

we now know the insidious plot uncovered by the Canadian

Intelligence Service has found its way into the American body

politic. There are the people who say, "Bring back Douglas

MacArthur for president." (Laughter).

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and listen to what it does, this bill,

this Republican bill. It designates areas and activities as

critical state concerns and provides additional designations.

It says it requires a commission subject to the approval of the

Legislative Assembly to promulgate and implement statewide

objectives and regulations for such areas and activities and

statewide planning guidelines for all land use planning in the

state.

This is a Legislative Assembly. We have been elected to

govern, and if we pass a law, the way to defeat the law is not

to go out on the streets and rabble rouse or rip up

legislation, but to take political

[ Page 1707 ]

activity and build up your party to defeat this government.

But you haven't done that because you are still crying over the

fact that you lost, and one of the reasons you lost was because

you didn't do anything about this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the farmers.

Well, I make a speech…What, my friend?

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you make your commission subject to the

control of this Legislature?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Every single law passed in this province

is subject to the control of the people of this province in a

democratic election. And you know it, mister.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh yes. You don't like it, eh? I trust the

people; and come next election, he'll be on the platform

defending this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, you can do all right. You'll

stand up, but I'll bet you right now, Mr. Member, that come the

next election when they put that question to the candidate in

West Vancouver–Howe Sound, "If you are elected will you do away

with the land commission?" you know what his answer will be:

"Well, I don't know; we've got that under consideration."

Come the next election there will be not one leader of one

political party who will stand up and say, "Vote for me and

we'll eliminate the land commission." Not one.

Interjections from some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Once should be enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ch, Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting to

see those defenders of free enterprisers wile away and work

away at what they want to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to your attention a

submission made to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture

on March 7, 1969. Now this is a submission made to the

agriculture committee. Page 13 of this submission says as

follows:

"Land Use Planning. We are becoming increasingly aware of

the need for sophisticated methods of land use management. The Province of British

Columbia is blessed with an abundance of resources other than farmland. Estimates

of B.C. arable land range from 2 to 3 per cent of our total surface area. Some

of this land is being alienated from farm use for indefinite periods of time

without thorough inquiries as to alternate uses or alternate available land.

Since such good farmland is in such short supply, it appears only reasonable

that every effort should be made to save it for farm use.

"There are areas throughout the province that are of

marginal benefit to farming and where possible non

-agricultural needs characterized by highways and railway

buildings and forestry requirements should be located."

Mr. Speaker, this is what they say:

"It is our suggestion that an agency or a commission be

established to determine optimum land use and be authorized to

enforce their recommendations."

"A commission be established and authorized to enforce their

recommendations." And do you know who brought this in, Mr.

Speaker? It wasn't the Liberal Party; it wasn't the Socreds; it

wasn't even the Tories. Guess who wanted a land commission with

teeth and with guts? Why, bless my soul, as the Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) might say and take off his shoe and

wave it around — this was submitted by the British Columbia

Federation of Agriculture in 1969.

The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture asked for a

land commission to be authorized to enforce their

recommendations. But they knew the Socreds were in and it would

never happen.

Mr. Speaker, what is it that this debate really started all

about? It started, in my opinion, because a desperate group of

politicians were looking for an issue to slander this

government in every possible way, by name-calling the

individual Ministers and then by stressing or trying to say

that we brought in a foreign ideology. It is the lowest form of

politics that I have witnessed and the party that stands

condemned most, other than the Conservative leader, for their

behaviour against the whole parliamentary system, is the Social

Credit Party and its leader, the Member for South Okanagan

(Hon. Mr. Bennett).

We had cries of "dictatorship" from that Leader of the

Opposition when we went through hour after hour and no closing

hour at night. We had cries of "dictatorship" from that Leader

of the Opposition when we had no daily Hansard .

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We had cries of "dictatorship" from that

Member when he governed and we had no question period. Every

single attack he's made on this government, every single remark

he's made on this government and this bill is a distortion of

his own behaviour when he was Premier in this House and he

isn't even here tonight to face the music for his

behaviour.

[ Page 1708 ]

I have been charitable to that leader. On election night I

paid him the respect that was due to him, but, oh, how the

mighty have fallen and how he has taken that party down with

him.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of this bill. I'm proud

of its intent. We asked openly and honestly for people to help

us and they have. And we were listening to their suggestions.

But all we've had from the Opposition is cry, cry, cry. They're

not really offering any solution to this problem. They are just

continuing to be part of the problem and that's why we were

elected because the people know you for what you are.

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I can tell from

the address of the Premier that he and his cabinet enjoyed

their dinner there over at the Union Club. He came back in great

form. Listening to the Premier this evening, why it reminded me

of the days when he was the Leader of the Opposition because in

those days he used to talk a lot about cheap politics. He was

always witty then and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that his

speeches at that time had no more substance than they had

tonight.

Mr. Speaker, he did attack the Members of the Opposition as

though the Members of the Opposition had been the architects of

this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: In no way.

MR. McGEER: He attacked the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) over the Skagit Valley, Mr.

Speaker. Now how we could bring that into the land Act, I don't

know. But, Mr. Speaker, I do remember this. I remember when the

International Joint Commission came to British Columbia and I

remember when people of goodwill in this province prepared

their briefs for presentation to that International Joint

Commission because this was the way, the mechanism which had

been created for us to make our case and to have that Skagit

Valley saved.

Mr. Speaker, there was only one politician with a

responsible position in British Columbia who failed to appear

before that commission, who boycotted it, and who had contempt

for the law and for that commission, and that was the present

Premier.

And for him having sold out the people of British Columbia

when he was in Opposition and failed to appear on their behalf

before the International Joint Commission, and to attack the

one person who has led the battle to save the Skagit Valley is

nothing less than an utter disgrace and he's shamed himself.

He's shamed himself this evening, Mr. Speaker. He's shamed

himself.

And I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: there are some Members of this House who

have respect for the law and the courts and due process and know how to pursue

the case in the courts when that's the vehicle that is open to them. And, Mr.

Speaker, no one understands that better than the leader of the Liberal Party,

who also was attacked by the present Premier.

When it came to protecting the shores of British Columbia,

the leader of the Liberal Party had no way-out proposal — no

way-out schemes. He went down to the courts of the United

States and won his points in law. No one can stand in this

House, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Liberal Party has no

respect for the law or the courts or the proper

responsibilities of this Legislature in regard to the law and

the courts.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he spent a lot of time attacking a man

who isn't even in this House, the leader of the Conservative

Party. Mr. Speaker, is the Premier frightened of that man, that

he attacks him? He isn't voting on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's frightened of everybody.

MR. McGEER: And you know, attacking the Leader of the

official Opposition — well, Mr. Speaker, he's retiring from

politics.

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

He should!

MR. McGEER: He said so. Why attack him? But I will say this,

Mr. Speaker …

HON. MR. BARRETT: All you former leaders have the same

syndrome. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Ah, Mr. Speaker, I'll be in this House when the

Premier has left.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: when a Member of this House can deliver a

12-hour speech and be a hero, there's got to be something wrong with the legislation.

The Premier talked about cheap politics. Well, I can only

say that it takes a thief to know a thief. If someone here is

guilty of cheap politics, perhaps the man who talks about it

more than any single individual in British Columbia would

recognize it when it came along.

What other description could you give for the speech that

was made this evening? Not a single defence of the substance of

that bill; no reason or excuses given to those of you in the

backbenches — and I'm going to say a little more this evening

about your role — as to why you should stand and support the

errors that the cabinet makes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Always lecturing.

[ Page 1709 ]

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, no lecture. I can give

those at the University of British Columbia. What we're here to

do is to defend the rights of individuals in British Columbia — the little men.

How often I heard those who sat in the Treasury benches

defend the rights of the little man.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): All the little men in

Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: "All the little men in Point Grey" — sure.

They're just as good as everybody else in British Columbia.

What we're supposed to do in this Legislature is defend the

rights of individuals, whether they come from Coquitlam, Point

Grey, Atlin or wherever else.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) nods.

I know that he feels that deeply as an individual. He stood up,

Mr. Speaker, and how he defended the rights of those on the

land in the area that was to be flooded for the Libby Dam. You

stood up for the rights of those people to be compensated. And

the former Member for Kaslo-Slocan — how he stood up for the

rights of the individuals along the Arrow Lakes to receive just

compensation for their land. So did the Member for Atlin (Hon.

Mr. Calder) and the Members for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald and Hon. Mr. Williams) when they were in Opposition,

Mr. Speaker. How they defended the rights of the individual to

the worth of his land.

If it was going to be flooded for a dam; if it was taken

away by the white men who never signed a treaty; no matter what

way that man's land was taken — expropriation by the B.C. Hydro

(it was never what the B.C. Hydro said the land was worth), or

by those who were negotiating on behalf of the Columbia River

Treaty, or by the white men who were expropriating the land for

a railroad right-of-way. No. It was the right of the individual

to claim the true market value of his land in the courts. Not

by commissars, but in the courts — the real value of that

land.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can understand the disbelief of

those of us who shared Opposition benches and who admired those

speeches. Mr. Speaker, we really did admire them. We thought

they came from the heart and we thought the people who made

those speeches would be the last ones in British Columbia to

snuff out those rights with new and dictatorial laws. So, Mr.

Speaker, we say, "Say it isn't so." We wish…

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General laughs his cynical laugh. I judge it

is a cynical laugh. He sounded sincere before he became the chief law officer

for the Crown, before he became the architect of bills that would have embarrassed

your predecessors in that office. So they would. The former Attorney General

never brought in Acts like this. They did bring in Acts.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: "Hear, hear," says the Attorney General.

Well I can't share his enthusiasm for taking away the rights of

the individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or his cynicism.

MR. McGEER: Or his cynicism. Mr. Speaker, there's the story

about the young groom who, it was suspected, hadn't been too

faithful to his bride. The time came for the toast at the

wedding and he said he wished he were an octopus. Someone said,

"Well, why is that?"

He said he wished he were an octopus so he could have a

thousand arms to embrace his bride. At this point she broke in

and said she didn't think he needed a thousand arms because he

wasn't using the two he already had.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government has two arms that it isn't

using. The first of these was the legislation brought in in

1971 — the Environmental and Land Use Act. That's one

arm to achieve the objective that the Government Members say is

so important and which we on the Opposition side agree is

important. The other arm, Mr. Speaker, is the Green Belt

Protection Fund — cash on the barrel head. Pay the man what his

land is worth. The dough is there and it's been set aside.

Those are the two arms, Mr. Speaker. It isn't necessary,

with those two arms, to have 1,000 more with the Land

Commission Act that denies a public hearing, that denies

access to the courts, that denies fair compensation.

How proud the Premier was to say that he was going to visit

the Queen at Buckingham Palace and to tell her all about the

legislation in British Columbia. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that

the legislation in British Columbia, denying British justice as

it does, is an embarrassment to the Crown. It's all very well

for the Premier to lay the clever suggestion that all the

letters that all of us have received have somehow been

engineered by Block Bros. salesmen and other real estate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: "Right on," says the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden). Both his letters were from Prince Rupert.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I've made any

public statements on Bill 42. I've given no speeches for or

against. But I'll tell you this: the mail that I have received

has been 96 per cent against Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, Point Grey

is not a farming

[ Page 1710 ]

community. The overwhelming percentage of people who are

there own single-family residential property or live in

apartments. Yet over 96 per cent of those who take pen in hand

to write their MLA, who has not taken a public position one way

or another on this Act, have condemned it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many letters?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'll make my complete file. They're

there.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the letters that the Attorney

General and the Premier have received are many more than my

own, But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that like mine, they're more

than 96 per cent against this bill. If the Minister of

Agriculture and you backbenchers here tonight are really

honest, you'll stand up and admit that your mail too, is

overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Because Mr. Speaker, this bill is a turkey if

there ever was one. So, Mr. Speaker, the question comes: what

do you do? What do you do when a bill is brought forward that

is really bad? How do you handle it? It's difficult, Mr.

Speaker, very difficult for a Government to say that the

Opposition is right and we're wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government's popularity has

gone from 40 per cent to 22 per cent in the last two or three

months. And part of that is this 96 per cent of people who are

against the bill. Sure, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is panicky

tonight because he doesn't know how to handle it either. He's

brought a bill down…

MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR, McGEER: That's wrong. It's wrong, completely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, there's a difference between being Leader of

the Opposition and leader of a Government. When you're Leader

of the Opposition, you can stand up and make these entertaining

speeches and make the fine political points. I'll give the

Premier credit, when he was Leader of the Opposition no one did

it better. But, Mr. Speaker, it's a different story when you

have to run a government, because decisions need to be made;

legislation needs to be brought down; a position has to be

defended — one, two, three, four, five.

When that position can't be defended, it isn't good enough to stand up and

attack the Opposition and get off a few good lines. It isn't comedy hour for

television; it's serious business to the thousands of people of British Columbia

who are hurting right now because of the prospect of this Act. The arguments

have been presented many, many times in this House that farmers can no longer

raise the credit to plant their crops.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name one bank that's refusing credit.

MR. McGEER: Well, they've been named in the House, and I

don't propose…

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have not.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier again is deliberately

trying to draw a fog over situations that everyone in this

House knows have occurred.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. McGEER: They know the individuals. No bank is going to

say that they've stopped giving credit for land. That's not the

point. It's the individuals who need to borrow on the basis of

the value of their land, when those values have

disappeared.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: We're not here, Mr. Speaker, to defend the Royal

Bank of Canada or any other bank. We're here to defend

individuals and their property. Somehow that becomes

unimportant here in British Columbia. The little man doesn't

matter any more that those opposition people have become great

big powerful Government cabinet Ministers. Drunk with power,

you forgot the little people of British Columbia and there's a

heavy penalty for that.

This, Mr. Speaker, is why I want to talk particularly to the

backbenchers. Good, they're listening. This is one of those

times, and there aren't too many, when the backbenchers become

important because in a sense, you're the little people of the

House.

I haven't been here this long, Mr. Speaker, not nearly as

long as the Leader of the Opposition or some who sit with them,

or indeed some of the NDP. But I've been here 10 years — perhaps too long, Mr. Speaker, and the public will certainly

decide that when the next election comes along. But even in

that brief period, many people have come and gone. There have

been 68 of them.

Mr. Speaker, during that 10 years, the average lifetime of a

Member of this House, backbencher, Opposition or cabinet

Minister, has been less than four years. Believe it or not. So

Mr. Speaker, time is fleeting for everyone in the House. The

ones who have turned over the fastest, Mr. Speaker, have

not

[ Page 1711 ]

been the cabinet Ministers. They haven't been the Opposition

Members — though many of those have come and gone — the ones

that have turned over fastest have been the Government

backbenchers. You know, Mr. Speaker, the people who pay first

for the mistakes of the cabinet are the backbenchers.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes. You know, Mr. Speaker, he did survive.

He survived, and the Leader of the Opposition knows this, by

trying backbench muscle. He had a riding created and he was on

his way out. So if you want living proof of how to stay in this

House, it's to use your power as a backbencher — and the Member

for Columbia (Mr. Chabot) can give you advice on that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Don't be a yes-man.

MR. SPEAKER: You'll get back to the bill fairly soon, I

hope.

MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely

fascinating — redistribution always is. I'm certain, I'm really

certain that if the individual Member for Columbia had been an

NDP, he wouldn't have got to the Premier about redistribution

in quite that way. But nevertheless, it does demonstrate that

at critical times, the backbenchers, by using the great power

that they have, can do themselves good. Perhaps too, along the

way — and I'm not sure in the case of the Member for Columbia

River that this applied — but to do the people of British

Columbia good as well.

Why, Mr. Speaker, should these backbenchers become the

victims for the mistakes of the Premier and the cabinet?

Because when your popularity slips from 40 to 22 per cent, when

96 per cent of the mail is against the stand that the cabinet

has taken, then it becomes time for you to have a very serious

discussion in caucus. A very serious discussion in caucus.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that why they changed you as

leader?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I've said, the…

Oh, certainly, and they'll be changing him again soon. I'll

tell you this, Mr. Speaker, they're either going to be changing

leaders or they're going to be changing backbenchers.

There isn't any way the public of British Columbia is going to stand behind

the Government and its supporters when the kind of legislation which denies

the right of the little man is being brought into this House. And if there's

one thing that stands supreme government after government, policy after policy,

it's the rights of the little man.

When a Government is so big and so confident and so arrogant

that it forgets that principle, the little man reminds that

Government at the next election. How many backbenchers have

been sacrificed, Mr. Speaker, on that cross?

So the time, Mr. Speaker, is now. I appreciate that before

very long this evening, we'll come to a vote on this bill.

Perhaps by now, some of you will be aware that I will be

voting, with my colleagues in the Liberal Party, against the

bill. But that doesn't mean that those who have no choice in

the Government backbenches tonight, in their view, but to

support this legislation — why they can't go to caucus tomorrow

and give the cabinet the tanning of their lives and make them

take this bill back and straighten it up. I say this, Mr.

Speaker, that if you in the backbench don't take the cane to

the cabinet, the public will take the cane to you.

There is no way the public of British Columbia will stand

for dictation, whether it comes from the cabinet, a five-man

commission or a seven-man commission. Their rights must stay

supreme. And when all is said and done, what this bill boils

down to is one thing: do we believe in the rights of the

individual citizen in British Columbia or don't we believe in

their rights?

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the rights of the individual

British Columbian and that's why we'll be opposing this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's most appropriate that

I rise at this particular stage in the debate, after receiving

my lecture from the good doctor from Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer).

I will deal briefly with a few of the points that the good

doctor has raised.

Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. LAUK: Alan's such a kidder. He says, "Why don't you deal

with the bill?"

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

it yet?

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and

I'll tell you about the backbench, my friend. That bill was

before caucus and we went over it stage by stage before it hit

the floor of this House. We support it 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

[ Page 1712 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Resign! Resign! Resign!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: You'll never get into cabinet now, Gary. You

blew it. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: You won't even get Deputy Speaker.

MR. LAUK: All right, Neither will you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mt. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Are you finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are. (Laughter),

MR. LAUK: The lion. First Member for Point Grey stood up and talked

about the Liberal leader and how terrible the attack was by the Premier on the

Liberal leader, because this man defends our shores. The Liberal leader happens

to be a member of a special committee of this House on oil spills and he hasn't

attended one of their meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've only had one.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. LAUK: Two or three, I think. I was told by the

Chairman.

The former Liberal leader has asked us to be honest in the

backbench. He's asked us to tell about the letters we've

received. Well I will be. I will admit that 40 per cent of the

letters that I received were against the bill. I will say that

30 per cent were for the bill and that another 30 per cent were

for the bill as long as it came with some amendments.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LAUK: I have provided that information to other Members

of the caucus and that has been discussed. I should tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that our caucus reviews all policy. We don't in

any way dictate to the cabinet, because…

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We caucus on all policy. Unlike the previous

administration, which was a one-man government — and everybody

knows about it — our caucus is involved in policy debate all

the time.

Now I want to speak on the principle of this bill, Mr.

Speaker. I will emphasize I will speak on the principle of the

bill…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order. (Laughter).

MR. LAUK: …although the Hon. Liberal leader this

afternoon suggested that he wasn't opposed to the objectives of

the bill but he was opposed to the principle of the bill. Well

I think the Liberal leader is suffering from semantic

stuttering. Because in my view there's no difference between

the "principle" of the bill and the "objectives" of the bill.

This form of mental gymnastics is the process that the Liberal

Party is now going through to shift position.

If reminds me of the poor fellow on an ice floe. Eventually

it melts and he sinks into the sea.

With respect to the principle of this bill, which is also

the objective of the bill, I'll just read a little quotation

from The Quiet Crisis by Stewart Udall of the United

States. It's available in the library. He's quoting somebody

else, Aldo Leopold, who says:

"We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity

belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we

may begin to use it with love and respect, "

California has about 8 million acres of arable land. 2

million of that arable land is now urbanized. We are told by

the scientists in California that another I million acres of

that arable land will be urbanized by 1980, making a total of 3

million, We also know that productivity in California and arable land

or agricultural land in British Columbia is increased by the

use of pesticides and fertilizers and other technology on the

farm. We are told, recently — in the last 10 years — that these

pesticides are polluting our land and sea, that soon we will

not be able to use these methods to farm and produce fruits and

vegetables for our population.

I'm not an eco-freak; I'm not a Chicken Little — I'm not

going to tell you the sky is falling. But we are told that we

have to abandon those practices in farming technology. But I'm

not planning to ignore the facts of that and be a fool. I may

choose to be a fool later on but at this time I do not, We are facing an ecological imbalance — on the one hand the

encroachment of our agricultural land and on the other the

pollution of our land and sea through pesticides. The

productivity must slow down if we stop using pesticides; yet we

must do so. Therefore the demand on agricultural land

increases. It is another aspect of that spectre of a sad age

that we're living in today.

We're told also that cities will continue to grow,

[ Page 1713 ]

and there's no evidence that they've ceased to grow — a

collision course, as I say. An answer must be found.

There are four types of land: wet lands that have a great

deal to do with our water systems; prime farmland; steep land,

as they call it; and forest.

There's a fifth land that includes the other four really,

and that's called space. It's a sort of new resource that

people are paying a great deal of attention to.

One of the only things that I agreed about with the Hon.

Member for South Peace River's (Mr. Phillips) lengthy speech

was his reference to a computer to programme the kind of land

use control and planning that we should have in this country of

ours and in North America. We are faced with the possibility of

solving these land use programmes in the face of pollution and

demand on agricultural land through the use of computer

planning. For example, one government wishes to build a

highway. They can place in the computer information about how

much wet land, forests, steep land and so on there is, and also

the cost factors of building a highway from A to B and come out

with the best possible route for the highway.

Space has become involved. With the use of satellites around

the country we can determine what kind of land is better used

in a particular way as opposed to another kind. Through

infra-red photograph and spectrograph photography we can find

out the nature of the land.

Let's stop the rhetoric about this bill and get to the issue

itself, the nitty-gritty of it — the substance of it, I should

say. If we can join together to solve this problem we'll be

doing a service. The rhetoric and the polarization that's

taking place is a disservice.

Survival is the issue, It's a theme that I use often in any

speech that I give to this House. We must come down to a total

land use plan. Further, we must change our attitude towards the

future. If not I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be making the

worst betrayal of a public trust in the history of our

democracy.

We must look to new values in North America as well with

respect to land. We must reach a new global equilibrium with

respect to land use control, with respect to pollution and food

production or growth will stop by disaster rather than by plan.

In other words extinction.

The United States has 6 per cent of the world's population and they use 50

per cent of the world's resources. This is why they want a continental resources

plan — not just an energy plan, a continental resources plan — and it is up

to us to resist any continental domination by the United States. The more planned

we are, the more able we will be able to resist that attempt at continental

domination. That does not mean that we will resist cooperation — only domination.

This debate in the House is a little debate, sort of a "Mad Hatter's tea party"

compared to the question of our entire future.

With specific reference to the bill I can save that I am in

favour of no compensation for up-zoning. The Hon. and learned

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) must know

through his experience that it is a far-reaching principle

indeed to suggest that governments should provide compensation

for a decrease in value — up-zoning or down zoning, the same

thing.

For example, in the City of Vancouver there are some

aldermen who are suggesting that the city should receive 50 per

cent to 75 per cent of the increased value in up-zoned

property. My suggestion is that that is a big mistake. That is

a big mistake because then they will be responsible for the

recent down-zoning of the West End of Vancouver where they are

planning to down-zone from high-rise to low rise — the amount

of compensation paid there will be phenomenal. If you could

work it out, be my guest; it is practically impossible. Other

jurisdictions have tried it in the United States, and it has

failed. You can't give compensation at those kinds of rates.

The taxpayer can't afford it and the principle is wrong.

Briefly before concluding, I can't help but comment on the

role of the official Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. The

role he has played, refusing to debate this bill in the House

himself, personally …

MR. McCLELLAND: The debate's not over yet.

MR, LAUK: Is he going to speak? I won't continue with that .

. .

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LAUK: Is he going to speak? If he doesn't speak in this

House, it will be really a shame, Mr. Speaker, because he has

gone all over this province polarizing the people of this

province against this bill on the wrong issues. He has sort of

become B.C.'s Jean Shrimpton. He has led the Chicken Little

parade all over the province, expecting people to follow him — they soon get wise to that kind of activity, Mr. Speaker. I

more or less expected it from the former Premier, because that

has been his tactic for some time, but the biggest

disappointment I had was in the Progressive Conservative

leadership. I could not believe the display I have seen in the

past few weeks on his part. I know the two Hon. Members in this

House who represent that party must be embarrassed at his

activities, pretending to be the protector of human rights.

Let me tell you about another Tory. The Premier read the

telegram in this House, but I have known the Hon. T.G. Norris

for many years. He has been a Tory

[ Page 1714 ]

for as long as I can remember. I'll tell you something else

- the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

and the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) know full well that his reputation in this country

for protecting civil and individual rights is beyond question.

He is a leader in the protection of those rights and he said in

that telegram that he unqualifiedly supported the Land

Commission Act. What kind of credence does the leader of

the Progressive Conservative Party glean from that?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: This Alberta lawyer. The Tory who I want to listen

to, Mr. Speaker, is T.G. Norris, who has been in this province

most of his life, and not to that Alberta lawyer who is

advising people not to invest in this province and running

around with the Leader of the Opposition's Chicken Little

parade.

Getting back to the principle of the bill…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much. I'll just close my remarks by

reading the last paragraph in The Quiet Crisis. It is

really a good book. I recommend it to everyone. He said:

"We can have abundance and an unspoiled environment if we

are willing to pay the price. We must develop a land conscience

that will inspire those daily acts of stewardship which will

make America a more pleasant and more productive land.

"If enough people care enough about their continent to join

in the fight for a balanced conservation programme, this

generation can proudly put its signature on the land. But this

signature will not be meaningful unless we develop a land

ethic. Only an ever-widening concept and higher ideal of

conservation will enlist our finest impulses and move us to

make the earth a better home both for ourselves and for those

as yet unborn."

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would

just like to start off by saying that I enjoyed the Premier of

the province's remarks earlier this evening. I would remind him

that it was a great performance but the Academy Awards are

tomorrow night and he is too late to qualify to get one of them

for tomorrow night. He did put on quite

an act but he can't get

in to qualify on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he had qualified he would have gotten

one.

MR. FRASER: I would like also to say that I was certainly in

the House to face the music, as the Premier said, about his

attack on us. I am pleased I was here. I would like to say for

our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, that he has been here

for 31 years and he is now one of the most respected citizens

in this province, and I don't like for one minute the attacks

from the present Premier on him. He has, no doubt, done more

for this province than the present Premier will ever do if he

lives to be 150 years old.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Positively or

negatively?

MR. FRASER: The other thing that the Premier mentioned in

his attack on us, was to accuse particularly our party of the

demonstration that was here, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,

this is not the case. That was concerned citizens here from all

walks of life. How in the world could one party ever entice a

group like that here? They were a very organized and civilized

group, only trying to get a message across and input to the

Minister of Agriculture about Bill 42. You people well know

that, too.

I want now to talk about a few things about the

Municipal Act that have been mixed up with Bill 42 and

their relationship to it. In particular, tonight the Premier

again referred to the Municipal Act and particularly

section 7 (

e) of the Municipal Act. He quoted that, but

he didn't say that that only applied to the lower Fraser

Valley. The reason for

section 7 (

e) in the Municipal

Act was the expressed wishes of the municipalities involved

along the Fraser because of changes in the river itself which

made boundary determination difficult. He didn't say that but

he tried to infer — I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, when

he spoke earlier.

In all his hysteria, I wish he would tell the whole story

rather than just part of it. I don't like to hear him referring

to the Municipal Act and only just the sections that he

feels like as it pertains to Bill 42. It is quite interesting

to watch the Hon. Premier before supper and since supper; he

seems to be in a state of hysteria now over Bill 42 and the

criticism coming from all sides of the Opposition.

He talks about amendments always coming after second

reading. In the British parliamentary system this isn't the way

it works — we know that. Probably if you would tell us now and

before it goes into committee stage, why, we would take another

position. But in effect all we are doing now is signing a blank

cheque, in voting for the principle of the bill, the way it

is.

I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that in my riding

of Cariboo there are 40,000 square miles of land and in the

riding of Cariboo there are less than 40,000 people. In other

words, there is less than one

[ Page 1715 ]

person per square mile. While we are certainly interested

in all land, we haven't got a particular problem that you have

in the lower mainland — I realize that. But they are certainly

concerned about all aspects of land there. I might say that

nobody, I think, in British Columbia is opposed to the

preservation of farmland, but we are certainly opposed to the

method of approach that is shown here in Bill 42.

I had something told to me today that I think is quite

applicable here and that is the definition of a citizen, in the

dictionary. I will read it to you:

"A citizen is a member of a state; a person, native or naturalized,

of either sex who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to reciprocal

protection from it. A citizen, as such, is entitled to the protection of life,

liberty and property."

That's right in Webster's dictionary, Mr. Speaker. This Bill

42 takes the rights of citizens away from them and they could well become serfs

of the state. I think this is one of the big principles in the bill that is

causing so many problems.

My particular interest in this bill is the municipal side of

it and what it does to municipal and regional districts and the

local authorities. For your information, Mr. Speaker, I was the

mayor of a community in British Columbia for 20 years. I was in

on the rewrite of the Municipal Act that we're looking

at in 1957. The government of that day rewrote the Municipal

Act and got input from all the elected people at the

elected level at that time. Being in on the rewrite of the

Municipal Act there's definitely been many amendments

since I think I state with some knowledge what is in that Act

as it pertains to Bill 42, The Minister of Agriculture talks about amendments. Well, I

say to him through you Mr. Speaker, where are the amendments?

He's saying that he's had no input from us, but he certainly

has, We've had 10 days of it here. I hope that he's listening,

through you Mr. Speaker. There's definitely been lots of

input.

I now want to proceed to the part of the Municipal

Act as it pertains to Bill 42. The reason I'm doing this is

because the Hon. Premier has referred to it. Mr. Speaker,

anyone familiar with the checks and balances of the

Municipal Act and has any experience in working with

it, which I have had, can testify to the fact that the checks

and balances of the Municipal Act are quite different

from those presented by the Premier to the thousands of

residents in British Columbia when talking on a hotline

programme recently.

Of all the people in British Columbia, the Premier of this

province should know what's in the Municipal Act. Since

he was elected, there have been no — and, Mr. Speaker, I

repeat, no — divisions on the reading of the Municipal

Act in this Legislature on its principles. Mr. Speaker,

what are the principles involved with the zoning procedures in

the Municipal Act as it exists today?

Number one: the checks and balances of public hearings,

which don't appear in Bill 42. Two: the checks and balances of

appeal procedures, Mr. Speaker, which don't show up in Bill 42.

Number three: the checks and balances that compensation must be

paid when land is sought for public use. This exists in the

Municipal Act today but it is not in the proposed Bill

42, Mr. Speaker. Four: the checks and balances would strictly

require advertising procedure for zoning. Nowhere in Bill 42

are any of these provisions provided for that already are the

law of this province through the Municipal Act.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Municipal Act was

designed to represent fair play and equity. It is also clear,

Mr. Speaker, that the Premier opposite — perhaps deliberately

but, more charitably, through a lack of understanding — presented quite a different view of the Municipal Act

and suggested that really, the powers contained in the land

commission bill were no different from those contained in the

Municipal Act, and therefore should be swallowed without

question by the public of this province.

Let's examine, Mr. Speaker, the first deviation of the

Premier from the principles of the Municipal Act, which

he suggests are the same as those contained in the land

commission bill. Presumably, he read

section 706, which clearly

says, "Property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously

affected by reason of the adoption of a zoning by-law under

this Division…."

What he tried to say to the people of the Province of

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, was the right conferred on the

land commissioners to designate land was the same power of

zoning which is contained in the Municipal Act. Mr.

Speaker, he was 100 per cent correct. Let us not kid the people

of this province. Designation by the land commission and zoning

by a local government are, in fact, exactly the same power.

However, Mr. Speaker, willfully or otherwise, the Premier

language that subsection (1), which he quoted, does not permit

the municipality to take or zone land if the use is a public

one, What does the subsection say, Mr. Speaker? It says:

"Subsection (1) does not apply when land is zoned exclusively

for public use." How important that

section is in relation to

the Land Commission Act becomes even more credible when

the land commission proposes to act not only in the public

interest by preserving certain classes of land, but only

presumes to operate in the private sector by having the sole

discretion to subsequently sell, lease or otherwise dispose of

land designated or, if you like, zoned.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this legislation with no checks

and balances permits zoning power to be exercised without

reservation, without checks and

[ Page 1716 ]

balances and without the principle of compensation being

applicable. Mr. Speaker, nobody can read the Municipal

Act and come to the conclusion that the Premier came to on

the hotline programme a week ago Friday, I believe it was.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: Yes, and again in this House tonight.

No wonder, Mr. Speaker, we think this bill is sinister.

Let's go further in the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker. It's

difficult to believe that the Premier of this province read

section 706 and can only see subsection (1), without having

read the preceding sections having to do with the zoning power

or, if you like, the power to designate.

Section 702, subsection (2) clearly states the ground rules

for the actions on municipal councils. It says very clearly

that before any exercise of the zoning power, a municipal

council shall — not "may", Mr. Speaker, "shall" — have due

regard to a principle of very specific checks and balances.

The council must have due regard for, "The value of the land and the nature

of its present and prospective use and occupancy:"

The council must have due regard for, "The conservation of property values:"

Now, Mr. Speaker, read these checks and balances in the

context of the power which Bill 42 seeks to confer on the

faceless five-man commission:

They can zone or designate if you must use the quibbling language of the

bill without public hearing.

owner the protection of the expropriation laws of this province.

They can zone it, take it and dispose of it on their own terms.

They can do all these things without advertising.

They can zone for one use and immediately put the land zone

commission may determine.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier really want the people of

British Columbia to believe that the Municipal Act of

this province is really the land commission bill dressed up in

another suit? I don't think so. It's pure camouflage, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go to the disposal powers conferred

by the land commission bill and relate these to the provisions

of the Municipal Act. Does the Government opposite

really want the people of this province to believe that a

municipal council could literally take land for park purposes

and subsequently sell it without any checks and balances? Does

the Government opposite really believe that the Municipal

Act permits that now?

Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Act certainly does not. It

requires again the whole system of checks and balances involved

with public hearings, tender call procedures, advertising

procedures and the very real impact that local opinion can have

on any government which is as close to the people as a

municipal government is. For your information, Mr. Speaker, in

20 years I have chaired probably 500 public zoning hearings. I

can tell you that the local people can really get to you.

That's the way it should be.

First, second and third readings of municipal bylaws are

part of the checks and balances system. But, Mr. Speaker, if

you read the division of the Municipal Act concerned

with the acquisition and disposal of property, you will find

that a council may, subject to the restrictions in this Act,

acquire property. What are the restrictions, Mr. Speaker? The

restrictions are that fair compensation must be paid.

Under the Municipal Act a council may dispose of

property, But when the council has reserved land for a public

purpose, what does

section 467 (2) say? In the clear language

been placed upon land pursuant to subsection (1) may be removed

by a bylaw adopted by an affirmative vote of at least

two-thirds of all the members of the Council." Furthermore, it

states that the Lieutenant-Governor may direct that the

owner-electors of the municipality affected shall have a

vote.

When in the past has the Lieutenant-Governor always asked

for a vote on a question of disposal of land? He asked all this

when a petition of the local residents shows him that even with

the two-thirds vote of the council the residents themselves

don't like the deal and want to have the opportunity to vote on

it.

Compare, Mr. Speaker, those provisions with the Land

Commission Act. Anyone

who tries to tell the people of

British Columbia to "cool it," "don't be hysterical," "it is really

something that we have always done," is simply not telling the facts,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, even when council seeks to lease land there are

severe restrictions under

section 477. For example, under this

section there can be no lease offered which does not permit

renegotiation after the expiration of a 10-year period and

every 5 years thereafter. There can be no subletting. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Act does not permit

the willy-nilly leasing of land with a restriction as does the

Land Commission Act.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in instance after instance the Government

has tried to belabour the point that the powers of the

Municipal Act and the powers of this non-elected

five-man commission are one and the same.

Mr. Speaker, this is simply untrue.

Mr. Speaker, on February 16…

[ Page 1717 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: The man doesn't even know the

Municipal Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know where to find it.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on February 16 the Minister of

Agriculture sent a directive to all municipal clerks, regional

district secretary-treasurers, approving officers in all

municipalities and regional districts of this province, with

reference as to how to carry out and work with the land freeze

that had been put in. Because believe me, Mr. Speaker, this was

put in in December and all the regional districts, and their

officers and servants — the same as the municipalities — even

since December, don't know what to do about zoning

applications. The whole province is almost at a standstill now.

But they made it quite clear in this February 16 bulletin from

the Minister of Agriculture that the Minister well knew that

there was certainly confusion at the local level, with the

local people having no further say.

The bulletin was put out and paragraph "E" of that bulletin

said this, Mr. Speaker: "Where, without these orders-in-council

a subdivision will not have been approved, the approving

officer's explanation" — and they're now hearing this, the

Minister's saying this in this information directive — "for

rejecting or not approving a subdivision should include every

reason for taking the action and not give undue stress to the

order-in-council."

What they're saying, Mr. Speaker, there is, "Pass the buck

on the local people, but don't pass the buck on the Minister of

Agriculture," who actually ordered this

order-in-council.

Big deal for local control. Open government. People's

government — and writing local elected officials things like

that.

I would now like to read into the record a few things from

an

article that I thought was very pertinent to Bill 42 and

deals with all Bill 42, actually. With your permission, Mr.

Speaker, I'll quote a few things from the article:

"Why for a start does the government apparently assume that

nobody else can be trusted to manage the land? People close to

the situation ask where the government obtained the mandate for

invasion into private land ownership, local zoning, local

planning and control of land use.

"No such mandate was sought during last summer's election

campaign, but in spite of an outcry since Bill 42 was

introduced in the Legislature February 23, the Minister of

Agriculture continues to insist on ramming it through to see

how it works for a few months.

"Only after incredible damage is done does the Minister

contemplate the possibility of entertaining amendments.

"Why does the Minister demand these immediate and strict

powers without providing checks, balances and adequate appeals?

Why would the cabinet appoint an insulated landlord commission

answerable only to the cabinet, which can override local and

regional planners and elected officials who are sensitive and

responsive to the needs and the peculiarities of their

communities?

"Where is the mandate to punish communities for the excesses

of a few? If the cabinet's sole purpose is to preserve

farmland, why did municipal affairs Minister Jim Lorimer launch

a provincial programme of residential land acquisition behind

the smokescreen of Stupich's Land Commission Act T'

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you can't say stupid.

MR. FRASER: I didn't say "stupid" — I said "Stupich."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You said "stupid."

MR. FRASER: You said "stupid." (Laughter).

"Two days before the Act was introduced, why did Lorimer

write to all the mayors of the B.C. municipalities asking them

to sell municipally-owned residential land to the provincial

government? Lorimer even asked the mayors to suggest land not

owned by the municipality 'which you consider we should

purchase for the provincial land acquisition programme."'

And he is, Mr. Speaker, probably looking for more land at

$82,000 an acre — I don't know.

"Why are class 4 soils included in the freeze when many

properties with class 4 soil are small upland acreages that

have never been farmed and would be impossible to farm

economically? Why does the government give a windfall of profit

to the subdivisions already approved and under construction

before the freeze, while undermining the values of all farm and

potential subdivision lands? Why is the government allowing

holdouts and windfall profits on prime residential land and

even trying to buy in on the deal itself, while refusing

compensation to the rural victims of this policy who suddenly

lost their profit expectations?

"Why does Stupich claim that bright young farmers will rush

in and take over these depressed lands with no profit outlook

as soon as the tired old crocks can be swept off the land?

"Can he turn B.C. Into China? State-controlled farming

works in some communist countries where 90 per cent of the

population is rural and has nowhere else to go. "But, Mr.

Stupich, how are

[ Page 1718 ]

you going to keep them down on the farm in B.C.? "In other

western countries centralized control over agriculture has

resulted in higher consumer prices and poorer returns to

producers. This existing gap will be further aggravated if the

Land Commission Act becomes law in its present form."

Mr. Speaker, I now go back to other remarks of the Premier

earlier in the evening, where he asked what banks have refused

credit. Well, I have no proof of that, but I'll read from this

article again about credit:

" Financial credit experts point out that a farmer holding

an agreement for sale of his property is certainly holding much reduced security

against the payment that has been promised by the purchaser. Anyone with a large

participation of farmland mortgage loan that is otherwise unsecured is also

holding doubtful security against the loan.

"Purchasers with small equities in frozen properties could

just walk out and leave the lenders holding the bag.

Unfortunately, it is mostly small lenders, not banks and trust

companies, that are jeopardized by the loss of mortgage

security. This is because the big financial lending

institutions have traditionally avoided loans that count on

repayment from land speculation but have always looked for

their return from the productivity of the farm."

"By shutting the door on developers and speculators, the

government is hurting the man in the street and the man on the

farm, while making a few people very rich. Among those who will

become very rich is the government itself, if it buys land for

development."

I want to go back again, Mr. Speaker, to my opinion as one

MLA in this province of Bill 42 as it relates to the local

level of government. I'm quite incensed about the taking of all

the power of control of land away from municipal councils and

also regional districts, who really had control of everything

throughout the province — every square inch of land. Whether or

not this government, Mr. Speaker, thinks they're an

irresponsible group — and they've said this, in effect — I

don't agree with that for one minute.

We have around 140 municipal councils in this province and

we have 28 regional districts. As in anything else in this

world, Mr. Speaker, you have good and bad. But in my opinion,

the majority of these dedicated local elected people have done

a good job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under Bill 42 the government comes along and says that five

unnamed, faceless men can do a better job than the 140 municipal councils and

28 regional districts which comprise around 1,000 responsible citizens in this

province. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't add up; it doesn't make sense. It never will

to me and I don't buy it for one minute.

We sure had problems in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, prior

to the regional districts coming into this province in 1965. We

had municipal councils and we had the provincial government in

Victoria looking after all the rest of the land from their big

high offices in Victoria. With the regionalization of this

province, it took the rural land back into the hands of the

local elected people through the regional districts.

Mr. Speaker, those NDPers over there get up all the time and

decry the regionalization of this province in 1965. I would

like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that that passed this

Legislature in 1965 by a vote of 55 to nothing. They campaigned

last year that regionalization was a bunch of garbage but they

didn't tell the people that they voted to regionalize this

province in 1965. Just check the record and you'll find that

yourself.

As far as the 140 municipal councils and the 28 regional

districts are concerned, I will say that over 75 per cent of

them have regional plans now. Where are they? Well, I've been

trying to tell them to burn them — out the window. They spent

millions of dollars in developing them. Now the land

commissioners can tell them, "We're not interested in

listening." And they will tell them. Their regional plans are

out the window; their local zoning plans are out the window

under Bill 42. You all know it over there, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to read a letter into the record, Mr. Speaker, from

one of the more responsible groups in this province. It's dated

March 14, from the British Columbia Cattlemen. It's a copy of a

letter sent to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich). It says as follows:

"Members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, after

thorough study of the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, found it

unacceptable in its present form."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: And they're not a bunch of real estate people.

These are the solid people of this province. Every cattleman in

this province belongs to this organization, whether he's got

two tired roosters or 5,000 head of Herefords.

AN HON. MEMBER: Roosters aren't cattle.

MR. FRASER: Well, one of your Members got up yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, and said he was a farmer because he owned two tired

roosters. Oh yes, and 12,000 hens. Pardon me.

Anyway, back to the B.C. Cattlemen:

"This association was concerned about preservation of agricultural

land for some years now and presented proposals to this effect."

This is quite correct, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

1719 ]

"After meeting with the Minister on January 10, 1973, our

delegation felt that you were developing an understanding of

our problems and there were grounds to feel optimistic. Bill 42

in its present form makes us wonder if we were talking the same

language."

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Minister again was not

listening.

"The Land Commission Act is undemocratic and does not

provide assurances to ranchers on the use of Crown resources

such as range and water. The bill is undemocratic because it

does not provide for the following: 1. Majority members of the

commission to be appointed from nominees provided by

agricultural interests. 2. Public hearings before designation

of land use. 3. Appeals from commission decisions to the

courts. 4. Compensation for lost land values at the time of

sale. 5. Notice to landowners about designation of land use. 6.

Recording of designated changes in land registry records. 7.

Continuation of agricultural operations when land is designated

for other uses.

"As was explained" and this is the secretary writing to the

Minister "to you at our meeting of January 10, guarantees of

continued use of Crown range for grazing and water for domestic

and irrigation purposes is vitally important to every ranch in

our province and must be provided for. Beef production requires

long-term planning. Therefore, grazing and water needs have to

be assured on a long-term basis, not with annual permits as it

is at present.

"Our association fully supports the amendments to the

Land Commission Act presented to the B.C. Government by

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. These amendments must be

implemented in total to make it acceptable to the members of

the B.C. Cattlemen's Association."

It's signed, "Yours truly, Henry Blazowski,

Secretary-Manager." You all got a copy of that letter.

It leads me to another subject, Mr. Speaker, on land. I

refer to Crown land. Approximately 94 or 95 per cent of this

great province's land is already owned by the Crown and 5 or 6

per cent — they argue back and forth — is in private hands. In

the case of Crown lands, the government of the day, whoever

they might be, already have a lot of ways to effectively

control the land.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, through you Mr. Speaker, and preferably

to the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Williams), who never spends any time in this

House, what is going to happen to the Lands Branch in this province under this

land commission bill? They're gone; they're out of business. I say they've done

a good job and still are doing a good job. I would also like to know if the

Lands Branch of this Government was consulted on the writing of this Act. Before

you answer me, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they weren't asked.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people concerned about this.

That is the reason the Premier got in his hysteria tonight. He

knows; he's getting the message through. We've got to keep

reminding him and maybe he'll do something about withdrawing

this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Here's another letter that comes from the Cariboo Regional

District. It's headed up, "Constructive Criticism of Bill 42

and Action Proposed." Yes, I'm going to read most of it.

"The Cariboo Regional District board of directors have in

previous statements expressed strong opposition to the proposed

Land Commission Act. The board of directors agree with

the principle of preservation of agricultural…. ."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on, right on.

MR. FRASER: Call those noisy Members to order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to. Order, please.

MR.FRASER:

"…However, careful study of the Land Commission

Act finds that the manner in which the provincial

government intends to deal with the matter is completely

unacceptable for the following reasons:

"The proposed land commission is a body comprised of

non-elected individuals having extraordinary powers of

designation and acquisition of any land or private property for

farm use, green belt, land banks and parkland.

"The board of directors feel that if there is to be a

commission, such should be comprised of members of local

government, somewhat along the lines of a board of variance

whereby two representatives are appointed by the local

government, two appointed by the provincial government and one

other appointed by the other four appointees."

That's a real sane approach to this problem.

"Such a commission should only be advisory to the provincial

government and, prior to making any recommendation, should be

required to consult with and receive input from the appropriate

local government agency."

In other words, any municipality or regional district. "The

bill does not allow specifically for compensation to be paid for the

acquisition of land or property, and this could apply to any land or property in

British Columbia. We feel that it is enough to say that whenever an

individual's basic right of ownership of land is tampered with,

compensation should be his expected right.

[ Page 1720 ]

"Here it is suggested that where agricultural land is

proposed to be sold by the owner for non-farm use, the

provincial government should have the first right of refusal to

be the purchaser at a fair market price. Such could also apply

to all other lands which may be of interest for park reserve,

green belt reserve or land bank reserve. This alone would give

the provincial government sufficient control to preserve lands

felt to be of sufficient value to preserve for agriculture or

other uses.

"Land designated as agricultural land must be farmed and no

other uses permitted. Here the regional board can see no reason

why the present practice of the farmer-rancher supplementing

his income through development of low-density tourist

accommodation, campsites, et cetera, or forestry endeavours

such as post plants, should not be allowed. We are sure it is a

well-known fact that other individuals are able to supplement

their income through home occupations which are allowable in

certain zoning classifications.

"There is no right of appeal for any decision of the

commission regarding the designation, acquisition or use of

land. The regional board very strongly agrees that there must

be individual rights to have provision for an appeal."

And so they go on.

In all the local papers up country, Mr. Speaker, there are

all kinds of suggestions. I know that the Government is looking

at that. I'd like to read one from the Cariboo Observer,

my home town paper; it's dated March 21. These are the comments

of a citizen on this:

"The proposed Land Commission Act will take

precedence over the Land Act and the Land Registry

Act, which have generally been regarded as senior

legislation in the statutes of British Columbia.

"The Act places an enormous and unwarranted power in the

hands of a few men."

Here we go again.

"It removes the rights of municipalities and regional

districts to plan and administer lands within their

jurisdiction. The Act also gives this commission the right to

grant tax incentives or the freedom not to pay taxes, which is

really the right of the legislative body only.

"Last but not least, the Act arbitrarily removes the

democratic rights of private owners in their land and property

and gives them no recourse of appeal. Not only can it remove

the rights of owners; it can also arbitrarily remove any

investment which they might have realized in their

property.

"The exercise of personal initiative and the energy resulting

from the activity of free enterprise constitute the life force of any dynamic

society. These unique qualities are deeply rooted in the personal ownership

of land and property. If you remove the roots, you will kill the blossom.

"So, from my analysis, I can only conclude that you must

totally withdraw Bill 42 from the Legislature."

Then he goes on to give ideas about withdrawing it and

rewriting it.

Now I'd like to move on to another party of British

Columbia. It quite amazes me to see rural MLAs here not

standing up and saying something.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: You sure have had lots of chance and you'll have

lots more chance as this week goes on.

There is so much criticism of this Act; in my 24 continuous

years in public life, I've never seen as much mail and

controversy over any one subject, Apparently the Member for

Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is either not reading his mail or what, I

don't know, but the other day 1, the Member for Cariboo, got in

the mail — and I appreciate this — a copy of a petition signed

by 270 farmers in the riding of Omineca urging the Minister of

Agriculture to stop Bill 42. I have them all here, Mr. Speaker — their names, their addresses and everything. There are 270

signatures. They sent it to me and asked me if I would bring it

to the attention of the House because they're pretty sure their

own Member wouldn't do it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: If the Member wants to know who it is, I'll tell

him. It came from the Sun kut Mountain Cattlemen's Association

at Vanderhoof. They're all solid citizens of the riding of

Omineca. Why isn't that Member up here pitching for them and

their opposition to the bill?

They don't support Bill 42 for these reasons. They want:

nominees for commission board appointments; the right to appeal

commission decisions; compensation for confiscated lands;

public hearings for designating land use; independent

appraisals. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, there it is with

their names and addresses. There's nothing to hide. They aren't

real estate rip-offers. They're all citizens of that great part

of our province.

I want to bring out another point that I don't think has

been brought out here before. In one

section of Bill 42 the

bill is so poorly written that it refers to a bill that doesn't

even exist in the statutes of this province, Mr. Speaker. I

refer to

section 20 of Bill 42, subsection (1), where it says:

"This Act is subject to the Environment and Land Use Act and

the Pollution Control Act, 1967 and the Environmental

Protection Act," Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1721 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's that?

MR. FRASER: It doesn't exist in this province but this Act

refers to it. I think if we've got a real honest reliable

lawyer anywhere, even if this bill were passed, I think it

would be ultra vires anyway, or whatever you call

it.

Mr. Speaker, I've referred to the municipal leaders of this

province before but I will again. They are represented by a

provincial organization called the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities. I was a member of that organization for 10 or

12 years and I know they usually act responsibly. Again, they

represent 140 municipalities and the 28 regional districts.

They've gone to no end to try and get a message to this

Government, Mr. Speaker — right directly to the Premier and

also to his Minister of Agriculture. They've had meetings here

and the present president of it has come down here on his own

to see the Premier after those meetings. I want to read into

the record what they suggest, because I regard them as a highly

responsible group who represent roughly 1,000 duly elected

people at the local level of this province. This is what they

say:

"(1). That existing municipal and regional district

planning, zoning and expenses which have already been approved"

- and I mentioned this earlier — "following public hearings and

which are contained in community and regional plans, be allowed

to stand. For this purpose, many have received cabinet approval

and such earlier approval should indicate their continuing

validity.

"(2). That municipal and regional district planning for

future land use, through the media of community and regional

plans, be encouraged and, subject to approval by the

Lieutenant-Governor — in-Council, be recognized as expressing

the knowledge and, more important, the wishes of the community

or area concerned.

"(3). That the proposed legislation contain provisions for

the commission to be required to hold public hearings prior to

decisions being made which designate land.

"(4). That the bill should not be debated in the Legislature

until the proposed Environmental Protection Act referred to in

section 20 has

been introduced."

Just what I said earlier; it doesn't even exist. I don't

know who drafted this bill but I've got a rough idea.

"(5). That the approval of the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council required by

section 8 (

a) prior to the

designation of agricultural land should be made applicable to

all categories of designation referred to in this section.

"(6). That compensation should be paid when land is

designated as parkland and compensation should be considered in

all other cases where the

new designations adversely affect value.

"(7). That any person dissatisfied with the designation of

this land should be entitled to require that it be purchased by

the commission at its fair value.

"(8). That where lands are purchased or acquired by the

commission but such lands are unoccupied or leased, where the

lessees do not pay taxes, a grant in lieu of such taxes are

hoping that it won't go through. I'd just like to read an

excerpt now from regional district concerned."

They further wish to state their objections to certain

particular provisions contained in the bill:

"(

A) The commission is an appointed body which, although

responsible to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and the

Legislature, is still not elected by the determination of the

people of British Columbia.

"(B). The commission is empowered to make, place or

construct, et cetera, such capital improvements as it wishes on

any commission land, presumably without reference to any local

building or other bylaw which is in effect.

"(C). The commission is empowered to purchase or otherwise

deem advisable. In our opinion, this provision is tantamount to

a power of expropriation.

"For the reasons stated throughout this unavoidably limited

brief, and particularly because of the great impact that Bill

42 will have on the lives of every person in this province, we

urgently request that you delay its implementation until its

effects can be fully understood, not only by local government

but by all the citizens of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, I've had hundreds of letters myself as an MLA

from my own riding and other parts of the province on this

bill, as I said earlier. They still keep pouring in because the

bill is still here. The citizens are hoping that it won't go

through. I'd just like to read excerpt now from a paper from

the lower mainland. It's not one of the large Vancouver

dailies, but I think it is certainly applicable in this

situation:

"The present Bill 42 does nothing really to keep land in

farming. Perhaps the provincial government has a companion

piece of legislation which it has not unveiled indenturing the

farmer to the soil. Down through the centuries that has been

the solution of all types of government when face with this

same problem.

"In modern times nothing as crude as a system of serfs could

be set up, but the same political result can be achieved by

establishing the state as holder of nearly all land and

bringing economic pressure on the independent farmer. Then you

end up establishing the state as holder of nearly all land and

bringing economic pressure on the

[ Page 1722 ]

independent farmer. Then you end up with state collective

farms with the farming community as non-owner labourers and

technicians.

"These powers are included in Bill 42. As for economic

pressure on the individual farm owner, there are strong

indications that our present provincial government is

determined to kill off independent commercial farming by this

Bill 42." I now would like to read a few letters. But I'll read

first from an

article from another small paper in the lower

mainland. This goes back a little, Mr. Speaker:

"Premier Dave Barrett today promised province-wide public

hearings to discuss and put forward amendments to the

controversial Land Commission Act. He said there would

be an appeal procedure written into the Act, but refused to

elaborate. In an interview in Victoria on the CJOR open-line

radio show the Premier said: 'It would be unfair and

unparliamentary for me to tell you the exact nature of the

appeals without the House hearing them first.' "

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, we're listening.

Where are they? We haven't heard them yet, either. You're in

the House. You spoke earlier. Why didn't you say something

about it?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: I imagine we're to hear them from outside.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a letter from a

resident of my riding who has had the fortune or misfortune to

come from Holland to this country a few years ago and establish

himself in the great Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a free province then.

MR. FRASER: And he came here and he took out his Canadian

citizenship papers. He says here:

"Dear Alec:

Thank you very much for your letter received. These two Acts

remind me so much of what happened in Europe just before and during the last

World War for which thousands of young Canadians left their lives on those battlefields.

The free world wanted to get rid of everything that ended with 'isms' — like

'Nazism', 'Fascism', et cetera.

Now, lo and behold, young and old Canadians voted for a new kind

of 'ism' — socialism. The Insurance Act as well as the land Act are things I

have seen happen before. I still feel sick when I think back to those years,

and now again, but I am afraid that only an outright revolution will do away

with it.

"Soon we will not be allowed to own firearms either. I have

experienced that, too. Wait and see.

Only a new election may help us to keep a small amount of freedom."

I want to read a letter from a young person in my riding

that I think the Premier and you, Mr. Speaker, should listen

to. This young lady wrote a letter to the Hon. Premier, Mr.

Speaker, and sent a copy to me. Written March 8:

"I am a young person of British Columbia who intended making

her home in B.C. and I feel compelled to comment on your recent

dictatorial action regarding the land of this province."

And get this, Mr. Speaker:

"I did not vote Social Credit in the past election simply

because of their actions to attempt to change B.C.'s land

policy from lease with option to purchase to lease only…. .

And I will just say at this junction of the letter that this

has not happened — the young lady was quite misinformed…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER:

"…to which I am unalterably opposed as I believe in

private ownership and personal endeavour. I am afraid I made a

very serious error in judgment. With the past government I

could at least negotiate, and with your government there is not

even room for appeal to the superior court of law for this

tax-paying citizen.

"I wish to point out that I did not vote NDP as I did not

believe in absolute socialism, but my vote helped you win"

this is addressed to Premier Barrett —

"and to this day I am ashamed of my nearsightedness.

"I feel your red-herring approach to farmland is only the

beginning to entire state control of all lands and private

property. I shall not be party to this action and shall never

work as a lackey to any bureaucratic civil servant system.

"I appeal to you now to reconsider your land Bill. Your

announcement to amend this Act is not good enough. I do not

want this Act at all. I want a new Act, written with specific

policies dealing solely with the preservation of farmland, this

Act to include the same rights to the farmers as any other B.C.

citizen owning private property.

"If the land commission or the like is necessary, allow the

tax-paying citizens of this province to elect the people to

represent them on this very basic right that this country and

this province was built on."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you much to go or would you like an

adjournment?

MR. FRASER: I've got lots more to go.

[ Page 1723 ]

Mr. Fraser moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly and the Hon. Mr. Barrett file answers to

questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

ERRATA

The following corrections were received after Hansard

went to press. Lines should be corrected to read as shown:

Page 1616, col. 1, lines 56 and 57.

Mr. Speaker, if the farmers are not to take this type of

action, which in essence would really only hurt

Page 1644, col. 1, line 10.

management consultants. We're building a lot of

Page 1661, col. 2, line 21.

who took their cases to arbitration lost $50 to $150 per

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada