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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 1637 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962. (Bill No. 145)

Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act (Bill No. 150) Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act

(Bill No. 144) Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill

No. 149)

Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill No. 154) Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 1638

The Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill No. 155) Mr. Richter. Introduction

and first reading — 1638

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act (Bill No. 141) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 1638

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

Mr. Steves — 1638

Mr. Wallace — 1651

Mr. Lewis — 1659

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome a group of school children from Armstrong in

the Shuswap riding. They have along with them four chaperons — Cathy Heel, Mary Clopinburg, Dick Lonsdale and Bob Johnston. I

would also like to thank Crown Zellerbach for helping to make

it possible for these students to come to Victoria to see this

beautiful city.

Introduction of bills.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of

messages — nothing to do with abolishing the Opposition.

(Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will it be a five-man board or a seven-man

board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you applying for a job?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your diploma?

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be "above-board". (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to sit down and start all over

again.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Income Tax

Act, 1962 and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly. Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 145 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

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

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LOGGING TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Logging Tax

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 150 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

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

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the British

Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government

House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 144 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the very great honour

to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of

special importance to the native Indian people of the Province

of British Columbia.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL HOME

ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial

Home Acquisition Act and recommends the same to the

Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 149 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

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

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I

[ Page 1638 ]

guess he's not all bad by virtue of the last one, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COUNTY COURTS ACT

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

154 intituled

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 154 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

THE CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD

COMPENSATION ACT

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

155 intituled The Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 155 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CREDIT UNIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 141 intituled

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 141 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move that we proceed to public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was

sorry to see that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

is not with us this morning. I would like to have told that

Member a few of the things that I was suggesting last night and

inform her of some more of the mail I got this morning.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I have had four cards come in opposing Bill 42,

three of those cards, Mr. Speaker, date marked 805374 from the same date stamp

as those ones I told you about last night coming from Dawson Agencies Limited

— those wonderful friends of the farmers in Richmond who deal in hobby farms,

real estate, construction and so on. This is the kind of mail I am getting —

I'm getting more of it every day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on and discuss with you some

of the material I have collected up over the last couple of

years dealing with this particular Act. I have some clippings

that go back a few years, actually just a couple of years, to

November 1971.

The first one I would like to read to you is a quote from

Mr. H.P. Bell-Irving, president of the city-based Bell-Irving

Realty Company. I would like to address this quote particularly

to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who was

speaking about the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board just

the other night. Here is what it says. The headline in the

journal, The Commerce Weekly, November 17, 1971, says

"Strict Zoning Essential to Beat Urban Sprawl.":

"Better ways must be found for the development of the lower

mainland if full potential of this key area is to be achieved

and the provincial government must play a key role. This became

apparent in an interview with H.B. Bell-Irving.

" 'We are spreading into a town all the way from Vancouver

to Langley, then to Chilliwack, then to Hope. That may be

inevitable but it's something we should avoid as long as

possible. Land that is not suitable for agriculture should be

developed first, wherever practicable,' Bell-Irving

proposed."

He went on to say:

"One can hardly blame farmers for accepting high prices for

their land to retire in comfort, but Bell-Irving favours

re-introduction and strict enforcement of the zoning concept

developed by the former Lower Mainland Regional Planning

Board."

Mr. Speaker, this is a planning board that the previous

Social Credit administration did away with.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Nonsense.

MR. STEVES: Contrary to what the Hon. Member for Langley

says — and he's saying "nonsense" — the plan may still be

around but it is not being enacted. "This plan called for the

development of satellite towns with greenbelts between them" — listen to this — "and retention of prime agricultural land to

eliminate or minimize urban sprawl." This is what Bill 42 is

all about.

This is what Bell-Irving said: " 'That to me would be a great

improvement over what we are doing now — spreading in all

directions,' he said. 'Zoning to accomplish this should go

beyond the Greater Vancouver Regional District, although the

regional dis-

[ Page 1639 ]

trict concept is a good one,' he said." That's what Mr.

Bell-Irving said — and I mentioned last night that some of his

real estate salesmen were opposing this bill.

I'd like to go a little further on the Lower Mainland

Regional Planning Board. Mr. Speaker, several years ago the

planning board, which is now defunct as I mentioned, proposed a

long-range plan that the Social Credit government accepted by

order-in-council. It zoned nearly 60 per cent of the arable

land in the Fraser Valley for agriculture. But the government

paid little attention to it. In Delta it ran a railway right

through the middle of the farmland to Roberts Bank.

When the planners working for the Lower Mainland Regional

Planning Board objected, the Socreds abolished the board — fired them. And they transferred the power of the Lower

Mainland Regional Planning Board to four regional districts.

They split them up, Mr. Speaker. They may be where they belong,

but the way they did it was to break up the authority as to who

would control farmland in the Fraser Valley and to allow one

regional district to be played off against the other by the

land speculators and developers in the Fraser Valley.

The regional districts — I told you about it last night and

I can prove something further, as I will in a few minutes — controlled by the local politicians have all proven sensitive

to pressures from development hungry speculators. They've

proven sensitive to the pressures that the developers and

speculators are able to exert on the councils and the regional

districts. Due to this, suburbia has been encroaching on the

farmland of the Fraser Valley ever since.

In 1962, Mr. Speaker, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning

Board prepared a report: "Land for Farming," March,

1962. I'd like to discuss with you some of the points they

outlined in that report.

Under the heading "The Significance of Agriculture, "

they say:

"First, agriculture is a major source of employment in the

Lower Mainland. It supports farmers, who support food

processing workers, and both of these support suppliers and

people in service activities. It is estimated that perhaps 20

per cent of all the jobs in the Lower Mainland are dependent,

directly or indirectly, on agriculture."

Twenty per cent of the

jobs, Mr. Speaker, dependent upon agriculture in the Lower

Mainland.

"Second, agriculture supplies all of our fluid milk and

poultry" — this is in the lower mainland area — "most of our eggs and much of

our other dairy products, vegetables and small fruits. It does this with minimum

transportation costs and frees us from dependence on other agricultural regions.

"Third, it gives us open space — space for relaxation, even in driving; space

for hunting and stream fishing; space where children can see a cow without having

to go to a zoo; and pleasant approaches to our major cities — a matter of some

consequence for a tourist centre."

Mr. Speaker, the crude and lasting effect of breaking up the

agricultural land in our community has been three-fold: it

increases the costs to municipal services by extending

semi-residential development into previous rural areas; it

destroys forever the greenbelt potential of large lot

farmlands; and it removes agricultural land from productive

use. This, of course, has the effect of raising the price of

agricultural products.

The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board report went on to

say: "Many of our farms, especially in fruit and vegetables,

are too small to be economic and do not yield adequate

returns." They suggested that to be adequate to support an

adequate type of farming activity, farms of about 40 acres were

required, and that the absolute minimum was 10 acres, but you

couldn't make a very good living on it unless you were dealing

with small fruits, such as strawberries or greenhouses and so

on. Ones that had gone into five acres couldn't afford to farm

that at all.

What we find, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about Dawson

Agencies and Glenlivet Hobby Farms, is that not only has the

Fraser Valley been under threat of land development in housing

but also in breaking up the farmlands into small plots for

hobby farmers. We found thousands of acres being broken up and

fields within the agricultural zones being classed as farmlands

but actually they are hobby farms which are owned and lived on

by people who live in the cities, who have the money to be able

to buy five acres of land, to keep a couple of horses. They're

able to afford a very nice way of life but they take the land

out of agricultural production. This is one of the areas where

the regional district concept, since the Lower Mainland

Regional Planning Board was dissolved, has failed.

It is very simple, Mr. Speaker, to cut up land — I but it is

very difficult to reassemble it after it has been cut up. The

smaller the unit, the fewer the alternatives that are open to

the farmer.

The Lower Mainland Regional Planning report asks: "Is

agriculture worth conserving?" I'd like the Members of the

Opposition to consider this very carefully: "Is farmland to be

regarded as real estate to be sold off as quickly and

profitably as possible, or as a productive resource which

should not be squandered?" I'd like them to think about

that.

I'd like to have them think as well about the fact pointed

out by the regional planning board about jobs. They talked

earlier in this session about jobs and unemployment.

I'd like them to think about the fact that for every five

acres of farming land that is lost there is one job lost to the

Greater Vancouver Regional District area

[ Page 1640 ]

— one job for every five acres taken out of productive

farming.

Now this is an oversimplification, but basically it's

correct. This is basically what happens — take the land out of

farming, we have our population depending upon it for food and

for jobs. And they are saying, "Let it go. Let the jobs go."

One job for every five acres. A thousand acres goes out — well,

you figure it out. It's quite a few jobs.

I'm taking some quotes from the planning board report.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I don't even know Vic Parker.

"Agricultural zoning policy," the report goes on. It

says:

"Zoning is the main tool by which a municipality guides its

land development. It is, of course, restrictive in that it

limits the range of action open to the landholder. However, two

fundamental principles should be recognized. First, zoning

should benefit the whole community, on the grounds that the

community has the right to protect its overall interests

against-the actions of individuals. In the Lower Mainland, with

its mild climate, mobile population and limited land resources,

most rural communities as well as the region as a whole stand

to benefit from zoning primarily by avoiding the costs of

premature land subdivision and scattered building development.

For sprawl is the municipal locust, the great devourer of both

money and land, and producer of only grief — even more for the

future than for the present."

Then the report goes on. It says that there's another aspect

of the problem:

"There are limits to the effective demand for residential

land at any time, set by the growth of the whole community and

the demand for housing. This means that in any period only a

few farmers can hope to sell their land for subdivision. But if

this is done in a haphazard fashion resulting in urban sprawl,

everybody's costs go up, including the remaining farmers."

I mentioned from my own personal experience, last night,

that this is exactly what happened in our community. As soon as

sprawl was allowed to happen in the agricultural lands, taxes and all costs of servicing the community, and so on, went up.

The costs in the rural areas went up. The costs in the urban

areas went up.

One last and very important aspect of the problem must be

recognized. I'm quoting again from the report.

"In this valley, and especially at the metropolitan end,

there is a widespread feeling that agriculture, if not finished, has only a

few more years to live."

This report was written in 1962. It says:

"In the meantime, this feeling of impermanence has a

deadening effect on many things."

Impermanence. This is what the farmers have felt — because

they were not protected, that they were not there permanently.

They felt that they were not able to stay on their land, that

something was going to happen and they no longer would be

farming. "Impermanence" they call it in this report.

"Impermanence prevents full development of land for agriculture.

Much of our land could produce much more than it does now if it were better

drained, and also irrigated. But this cannot be done economically on a short-term

basis. Under the present conditions" — that's the 1962 conditions and the last year's conditions — "of uncertainty, it is likely not to be done at all."

Well, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 changes all this. There's no

longer impermanence. There no longer will be uncertainty as to

whether the farmers will be able to put their money into their

land or not. Second point — it says:

"Similarly food manufacturers hesitate to install or expand

processing plants where they suspect that the farms that supply

them today may not be in operation tomorrow."

Bill 42 guarantees, Mr. Speaker, that the farms will be in

operation tomorrow. So the food manufacturers will be able to

put in new equipment, will be able to expand, will be able to

hire more people and provide jobs.

Third point:

"In the meantime, municipalities cannot be sure that the

services for which they are primarily responsible, such as

water supply, are being adequately or economically

provided."

Now they will be assured of this as well. They will be able

to put in the services required by the urban communities to the

urban communities, and services to the agricultural communities

required by the agricultural communities.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows how uncertainty stifles the

business world. All but the few have recognized how uncertainty

also stifles the agricultural world, and actually, hence the

business world, for in British Columbia a good portion of the

business world does depend upon agriculture. It's for this

reason, Mr. Speaker — and not just this reason — but this is

one of the reasons I would suggest to you that we must set our

own house in order in agriculture in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm still getting mail. Yesterday, I received

another unmarked envelope from the Legislative Assembly and

inside it was a clipping. I'd like to thank the Hon. Member who

had so much thought to send this to me. It's council news from

the New Westminster The Columbian of this Tuesday.

The

[ Page 1641 ]

headline says: "Wenman drafts alternative to NDP land

control bill" It says:

"Surrey alderman Bob Wenman has drafted an alternative to

the Land Commission Act entitled "An Act for the

Establishment of Agricultural Parkland." The unofficial bill

was presented to council Monday."

"An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Parkland,

" very interesting. I'd like to compliment Mr. Wenman on

his thought for re-introducing this bill, because he introduced

this bill "An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural

Parkland" two years ago in this House, and here it is.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Right, he was a Member of this government two

years ago; of this party over here that's opposing this bill

that we're presenting now. And his own government wouldn't

support it. Bill No. 84, 1971, Mr. Wenman. His own government

wouldn't support it.

I'd like to read you some of the Press clippings from that

day:

The Victoria Times, October 14, 1971:

"Save the farms drive pressed. Social Credit M.L.A., Robert

Wenman of Delta, Wednesday, urged the government to save

remaining farmland in the Fraser Valley. Wenman appeared before

the land use committee and urged it to initiate a system which

would allow farmers to dedicate their land in perpetuity as

farmland. In return, Wenman said, farmers will be reprieved

from most property taxation. 'Farmers pay higher taxes on the

assumption that they were holding it for speculative purposes.'

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, Mr. Wenman said that. Higher taxes on

farmers who would not dedicate their land to such a commission

because they were holding it for speculative purposes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: "Wenman's proposals are outlined in his private

Member's bill, which failed to win approval in the last session

of the Legislature." His own government Members wouldn't

support it. They didn't want to save farmland. They didn't want

to do it then; they don't want to do it now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: The Vancouver Sun , October 14, 1971, the

same day. The headline: "Williston doubts power. Fraser Valley

Greenbelt Pleaded.

"A delegation of lower mainland farmers and municipal

politicians met with the provincial government's land use

committee Wednesday, to plead for government action to keep the

Fraser Valley green. At the end of the hour-long presentation,

the committee chairman, resources Minister Ray Williston,

expressed doubts that his group of Ministers has the power to

save the Fraser Valley from destruction by industry and

creeping urbanization."

Their own Minister said they didn't have the power, were not

willing to try and find the means to save agricultural

land.

"Williston, and the other Ministers on the committee,

Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell…."

— the same person I think that is writing some of the

speeches from the other side of the House —

"Mines Minister Frank Richter, "

— Where's the Mines Minister now? He's not here to listen to

this —

"and Agriculture Minister Cyril Shelford, heard a

69-year-old Surrey farmer and alderman, Ted Coombe, plead to be

allowed to continue to work his own land."

It all went in deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. In the same

article,

"Social Credit MLA Wenman told the committee that the

ultimate responsibility for zoning…" listen to this — "The

ultimate responsibility for zoning and other means of

controlling land development interests rests with the

provincial government under the British North America

Act ." He went on — "We, have now reached the turning point

whereby in many densely populated areas, purposeful growth is

changing to purposeless expansion."

Right on, Mr. Wenman. Wenman said that: "Action is needed as

the hunger for more public open land becomes acute."

November 18, 1971: "Tax changes, government curbs suggested

as remedies. Farmers want action on disappearing government

land."

Delta: "The Vancouver Branch of the B.C., Institute of

Agriculturists has decided it's time to get involved in the

problem of disappearing lower Fraser Valley farmland."

They had a number of speakers. They also had He pointed out

the population growth estimates and said, "There is a need not

only to preserve farmland for agriculture, but also to provide

open space and recreational land for the future." These are

things that we're also including in Bill 42.

"The proponent of a private member's bill 'The Agricultural

Park Land Act', Mr. Wenman said that his bill will be presented

again this year to the Legislature as it was last year. This

would allow

[ Page 1642 ]

the province to designate a land parcel as agricultural land

in perpetuity."

Designate a land parcel as agricultural land in perpetuity — "Designate", this is the type of terminology we're using. We

can designate it, that's what Mr. Wenman suggested that they

should do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Same as preserving farmland, right.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really glad to see that the Member for

North Okanagan is now here, because I think Mr. Wenman's words

would help her to change her mind about what she was saying for

the last couple of days.

"Mr. Wenman, the MLA said that one of the bill's attributes is that it would separate the farmers from

real estate speculation. It could only be sold for agricultural

use."

Well, that's what we're talking about in Bill 42.

I'd like to thank Mr. Wenman. That's what Bill 42 is all

about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Well, he seems to have changed his tune a little

bit now, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, he's a marching farmer now.

The New Westminster Columbian, October 23, 1971. The

heading:

"Developer's greed, like time, waits for no man."

It's an editorial:

"If developers know that land is not going to be available for speculation, then that land speculation value

evaporates. It is absolutely imperative that some action be

taken to freeze zoning particularly on large tracts now because

farmland is disappearing so quickly (and in such large hunks)

like the Spenifore Farm in Delta. The greed of the developer,

like time, waits for no man, least of all for Cyril Shelford,

the Minister of Agriculture."

This is what the Columbian said about Cyril — "Cyril

Shelford had a plan to establish a land fund to buy development

rights from the farmers" — and it mentions this in the

editorial.

I've heard other people, recently, stating that we should

buy development rights from the farmers.

To bring it up to date, in more recent times, July 1972:

"Anderson pledges to preserve farms."

Not our Anderson. No, not our Anderson. It could be Liberal,

yes, a Victoria farmer. It's a good quote: "Provincial Liberal

leader, David Anderson, proposed Monday a government programme

of purchasing development rights."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: All right, just listen to this, "…purchasing development rights from farmers and removing

education taxes from farms so-owners could afford to retain the

land for agricultural purposes". I understand that Mr. Anderson

still agrees with the statement.

Mr. Shelford also had the same proposal — October 30, 1971,

Vancouver Province "Shelford farm plan rejected." Rejected.

Social Credit's been talking about development rights, Liberal

Party's talking about development rights, Conservatives talk

about development rights — rejected by the farmers.

"Victoria. The executive board of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture has rejected agriculture Minister Cyril Shelford's

latest proposal for preserving B.C. farmland. Shelford last

week suggested a programme under which the government would pay

farmers the difference between what their land is worth for

farming and what it would be worth for real estate or

industrial development." Development rights — the farmers

themselves rejected it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: October 30, 1971, Vancouver Province

Victoria bureau.

"Once such payment had been made, farmers would only be able

to sell their land only for farming." This was the Shelford

report.

"At a meeting on Friday, the Federation's board," — that's the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — "decided that the

plan would be too costly and would benefit only the farmers in

certain areas."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House in what areas

would the farmers benefit from development rights? Would they

be the farmers of the Peace River district, Mr. Speaker? Would

they be the farmers in the interior of British Columbia, or

would they be the farmers that I outlined last night who own

the land of Richmond? — 50 per cent owned by private developers

who have only interest of a speculative value in the land.

These are the farmers that will achieve the benefits of

development rights, Mr. Speaker. These are the farmers that Mr.

Anderson is trying to protect. They are the farmers that I

talked about last night: Dawson Realty, Canada Permanent Trust,

Bell-Irving, Rutherford McRae, MacDonald- & Eedy. These are

the farmers they are trying to defend.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you address the Members of the House

by their consti-

[ Page 1643 ]

tuency, please.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, the item goes on: " 'In a municipality like Delta' " — this is what the farmers

said — " 'the programme to pay for development rights would

cost between $30 and $40 million' said Federation

secretary-treasurer Jack Wessell. Wessell said the plan would

benefit farmers near urban areas but not those areas where the

land had no current development value." The urban areas — the

land that is now owned and controlled by the land speculators.

Mr. Wessell went on," 'It would mean nothing to the rancher in

the Chilcotin, for example, because you can't ask him to sell

development rights that he doesn't have.' "

Well, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned last night that I have not

only been a farmer but have made some studies in agriculture.

Actually one of the areas I studied was economics, and so I sat

down last night and figured out what the development rights

would be for the entire province if we gave equity to the

farmers of their development rights. I would suggest to you

that in October, 1971, when the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

rejected the plea for development rights, they had the people's

business at heart; they were actually concerned about the

people of this province. They could have insisted on the same

development values for farmers throughout the province, but

they didn't.

Let's took at what buying up these development rights would

cost. In Delta, at $30 to $40 million development rights of

1971 for 21,000 acres, this would be a substantial cost.

Richmond has 12,000 acres. However, the going prices at the

present time for land in Richmond and in Delta for land that is

developed for housing, for apartments and industry is a lot

higher than what that 1971 figure indicates.

If we used today's prices, say, of $10,000 per acre — in my

riding $10,000 per acre is a rock-bottom price to pay for

development land — development rights for the 21,000 acres of

Delta would cost $210 million. If we paid $20,000 an acre

development rights for it, it would be doubled to $420 million.

If we paid $25,000 an acre, which is the price that speculators

are buying up residentially-zoned farmland in Richmond for

right now, that would come to $525 million for development

rights in Delta.

Closer to my own riding, Richmond, we have 12,000 acres of

agriculturally-zoned land. If we paid $10,000 an acre, that

would come to $121 million; $20,000 per acre, $240 million; and

$25,000 — $300 million to buy the development rights of the

land speculator farmers in Richmond.

We have 1.6 million acres of arable farmland in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker,

and if we gave equal development rights to all farmers in B.C. — and I don't

think we should do anything less than treat the farmers equally — the cost would

be in the neighbourhood of $200,000 million to $300,000 million.

Or on the other hand, if we used the costs of the 1971

values and, further, if we depreciated the values, or if we

spread the values out and said that farmers in other areas of

B.C. did not deserve the same equity as farmers down in the

lower mainland, it would still cost between $80,000 million and

$100,000 million.

These figures speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker, and I

wonder if this is what the Opposition is proposing. When they

talk of development rights, maybe they'll be able to tell us

how much it is going to cost; maybe they'll be able to tell us

what they are proposing. Are they going to treat farmers

equally or are they going to put the money in the hands of the

land speculators?

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is here. I was saving part of my speech

until she got here. I'd like to go over a few of the farmers

that I mentioned last night for her benefit. Some of the

farmers have been writing in, like Canada Permanent Trust, who

sent me, a bundle…

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a new story in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. SPEAKER: I've been fair, I might say.

MR.STEVES: …opposing Bill 42. Last night it was 22 cards;

today I've got three more with the same date stamp of Dawson

Developments Ltd. That makes 25 cards now with that one date

stamp — most of them these and other companies several years

ago instructed their employees to get into 42" — Rutherford

McRae, Metropolitan Trust, Wall & Redekop, Bell-Irving

Realty. All fine friends of the farmers. Rutherford McRae,

Block Bros.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: You read your letters; I'm going to tell you

about my postcards.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mine were letters, not

postcards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STEVES: Well, your people sent them to me. If they can't

write letters, that's not my fault.

The Hon. Member wasn't even here last night. Some of them

came in an unmarked envelope, for her benefit, Mr. Speaker,

from some Member of the Legislature who did not wish to put

their name on it or tell who they were from. They sent me some

of these cards from some MLA in Victoria, and I'm sure

[ Page 1644 ]

it isn't an MLA from the Government side of the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: E.H. Greczmiel Ltd., major land speculator and

developer in Richmond.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got any from Japan?

MR. STEVES: Well, actually we have some people from Hong

Kong that are in the business in Richmond, some Conservatives,

some condominium management consultants that were building a

lot of condominiums, apartments and multiple developments in

Richmond — they've got an interest in stopping Bill 42. And of

course a number of other companies.

As I mentioned, an anonymous petition came in with 20 names

on it and one of the names, of course, was the name of Bill

Wright, one of our own colleagues who ran in the last election

and got badly defeated, who is also an employee of Block Bros.

The names on the petition right around his name, in fact,

included a half-dozen people from Montreal Trust.

These are the friends of the Opposition Members, Mr.

Speaker. These are the farmers that Member was talking about

last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they all farmers?

MR. STEVES: Oh, they're all farmers, Mr. Premier. They've

all got an interest in the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they farm the people, or what?

MR. STEVES: They're farming the people, that's right. The

Opposition Members are trying to milk the people of British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to farm the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they deal in fertilizers?

MR. STEVES: They deal in the chemical kind, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the chair.

MR. STEVES: Yes, but it's not very good fertilizer. Mr.

Speaker, a lot has been said about the land costs and the high

costs of housing. Between 1950 and 1972, the value of lots

increased from about $300 a lot to $12,000 a lot.

Between 1950 and 1960 building material prices increased about 24 per cent,

wages 60 per cent and land prices anywhere from 1,500 per cent to 3,000 per

cent over a ten year period, due to land speculation and land inflation.

I mentioned last night references to land banking mentioned

in the Land Commission Act, which would play a major

part in stabilizing the costs of land. I made mention last

night of Richmond's industrial land bank and one of the

developers trying to take over the land in Richmond who says,

"Leave industrial land in Richmond alone, because Richmond has

a land bank and we can't compete with it." Mr. Speaker, land

banks take the speculation out of development, and development

is able to proceed in a reasonable and orderly manner.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, I also indicated that speculators

already had 50 per cent control of one of Richmond's major

agricultural areas, and that a major company had designs on

picking up 100 acres per year of Richmond's agricultural land

in order to pick up 50 per cent of the housing market.

For the benefit of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan), who was not present last night, I've saved the next

report from the same land developer for today. This report

deals with Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan talked about

Holland and Russia and Japan and Edinburgh and flies on the

wall in the cabinet Minister's office. I'm going to talk to you

today about Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Chilliwack — and I hope

the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) will come back

in — and the Okanagan.

"Surrey Land Acquisition, 1972 to 1984" — that Big Brother

year when the land speculators expect to take over complete

control of agricultural land in the Fraser Valley and possibly

throughout the entire province. 1984 — that's when this is

aimed at. I quote the introduction:

"With the implementation of the land use contract, the Municipality of Surrey is presently undergoing

a major change in policies related to development. Unlike

Richmond, this municipality has a detailed sewer plan

forecasting services to be provided to the year 1975. Because

of extreme fragmentation in existing developed areas, the

municipality has combined this sewer plant together with

existing road facilities to produce an Urban Growth Area,

sometimes called 'Development Area.' " The report goes on:

"Only approximately 10 per cent of all Surrey land is zoned either residential, industrial or commercial,

with the remaining 90 per cent zoned RS or suburban

Residential."

This means that they are to have one acre

minimums in the zoning bylaws — small holdings. A large portion

of this land is agricultural land.

I quote further from the land developers' report:

"…the

Municipality of Surrey should triple

[ Page 1645 ]

its population in the next 20 years with an increase of

approximately 177,000 people. Assuming an average of four

persons per family, the market will then have to provide

approximately 44,000 single family homes over the next 20

years. At four lots per acre, approximately 11,000 acres will

be required in this time period, or 550 acres per year. These

figures may tend to vary according to the restrictions other

municipalities place on development of single family

housing."

One of the Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, said that the regional

district concept was working, and that I should give

indications that it was not. This report, Mr. Speaker, proves

that it is not.

This land developer I'm quoting from had designs upon

Richmond. They're buying up land in Richmond, but if Richmond

council does not break its resolve not to rezone, if Richmond

council does not let them take the agricultural land out of

production — then they're hedging their bet. And they've

brought up land in Surrey, in the hopes that Surrey council

will break down its resolve. And they're buying up land in

other municipalities as well, Mr. Speaker.

The report goes on:

"Between. 1971 and 1976 the population of Surrey is

predicted to increase by 27,849 people."

They've got pretty

accurate statistics.

"Development of approximately 7,000 single family lots will

be needed to meet this demand. This will mean some 1,700 acres

must be made available for development, or approximately 340

acres per year."

Listen to this part:

"Assuming once again that our company's participation will

be approximately 50 per cent of the market…"

They want to have 50 per cent of the house-selling market in

the lower Fraser Valley, Mr. Speaker —

"…the company must then purchase 170 acres of land per

year for five years, or a total of 850 acres by 1976."

Now, just think of what it would be like if every one of the

development companies I've listed were able to pick up 50 per

cent of the development market. They are all trying. But it

certainly indicates to me, and I think it should to this House,

that with this type of land speculation — this rampant land

speculation — going on in the Fraser Valley, the Fraser Valley

lands were in dire need for the type of legislation that we

have been bringing in.

This report deals with specifies — "Northern Hills":

"Northern Hills consists of approximately 3,000 acres lying both north

and south of the 401 freeway. Its proximity to Guildford Shopping Centre and

Services are available — services provided by the

municipalities, not by the land speculators.

"Services are available, however, at the far west boundary

of this area, and pressure groups may be able to convince the

municipality (of Surrey) that the area should be considered for

development prior to long range plans."

Who are these pressure groups, Mr. Speaker? I suggest to you

that they are the same pressure groups that are being heard

here in this House. The same pressure groups that are being

heard in Richmond and Surrey and Delta are coming forth here in

this House to save agricultural land in the Fraser Valley for

the land speculators. Certainly no citizens' group, Mr.

Speaker, is going to come out in favour of rezoning the

agricultural land in these areas. I've been on the municipal

council in Richmond for five years. Every time we have a public

hearing we have sometimes hundreds of people — the last time we

had 300 people over Laurel Properties — coming out to oppose

such rezoning of the land. Because the citizens and those

pressure groups know that agricultural land is valuable and

should be preserved for agriculture and greenbelt.

The only pressure groups that are in favour of rezoning such

land, Mr. Speaker, are pressure groups such as the ones that

have written this report.

"Newton: geographically restricted by the mud flats and the

flood control plain, this area of a few thousand acres seems to

be a favourite of the (Surrey) municipality. Located at the

centre of Surrey, Newton lacks the appeal of being within close

proximity to freeway or shopping centre. The municipality,

however, may be obligated to promote this region…"

— "obligated" to promote this region —

"…in that expenditures for services were most heavily

concentrated in this area…Wall and Redekop…"

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Farmers?

MR. STEVES:

"…recently have purchased a 20 acre parcel at 76th

Ave. and 140th Street at a price of $335,000 or $17,750 per

acre…."

Maybe these are the figures I should use for figuring out

development rights — $17,750 per acre.

Now, this land is presently zoned residential suburban. This

is an example of what the lands are selling for.

"Expectations at the time of purchase were for multiple

zoning…."

They bought it so that they could get it zoned upwards. Just

like the land speculators are trying to zone the farmland

upwards, they bought it to get residential land zoned upwards — for high-rises, and so on.

[ Page 1646 ]

"…but information indicates that the municipality will only

consider single family zoning."

Too bad, Wall and Redekop.

The report gives other examples. Fifteen acres at 88th

avenue, purchased by Link Construction in February, 1972 — $15,000 per acre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What's the name of that

again?

MR. STEVES: Link Construction. That name seems to ring a

bell. Link Construction — a good friend of Social Credit.

Thirty-nine acres located at 88th avenue — $12,100 per acre.

4.7 acres and 4.83 acres in November, 1971 — $12,000 and

$11,000 per acre.

Scottsdale area, an area restricted for development because

of "urban growth area, phase one" restrictions. 4.3 acres sold

in August, 1971 and 5 acres in October, 1971 — $11,162 and

$10,180 per acre — that's two years ago; 4.5 acres at $11,111

per acre; 60 acres at 16th avenue and Scott Road, purchased May

24, 1972….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Search is underway — they haven't figured out

who bought it yet — at $6,500 per acre. "The municipality

indicates that development will not be considered in this area

until the early 1990's" — that's how long ahead these land

speculators are looking; they're buying it up now.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if they're going to put money into

that farmland to develop it for farming during the next 20

years? Are they going to buy equipment and machinery and plows

and harrows and stuff to cultivate the land and do a good job

of farming? Are they going to put in the natural fertilizers to

make it productive land and do a good job of farming that land?

Or are they going to let the land sit and just pay agricultural

taxes but take a minimum of agricultural production off the

land? This is what I am wondering, Mr. Speaker. What are these

speculators going to do while they wait for 20 years?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Certainly, they are going to try and get it

rezoned.

"South Surrey: Since the completion of the Leach report and

the presentation to the municipality and the public, little

activity has taken place in the south Surrey area. Most

prospective land sales are being held up pending indications as

to whether the municipality will proceed with the proposed plan

or whether the south Surrey area will amalgamate with the City

of White Rock and continue under a totally different

programme."

Now they have a plan and they are waiting to see whether

Surrey is going to proceed with that plan or not. Well they

aren't waiting very much: 12.7 acres, $13,000 per acre, March,

1972; 48 acres, asking price $950,000; 22 acres, asking price

$11,000 per acre. The report goes on:

"Until such time as the municipality either accepts or rejects the Leach report and the south Surrey

plan, it is expected that little activity will take place. It

should be noted at this time that if the south Surrey plan is

defeated, large land holdings other than that owned by the

municipality should increase in value."

Who owns these large land holdings other than those lands

owned by the municipality? Well, I'll tell you who is trying to

own them. Block Brothers, Wall and Redekop, the companies I

have named; they are the ones that are trying to get land like

this.

MR. McCLELLAND: Who wrote that report?

MR. STEVES: Ask some of the realtors who wrote this

report.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're asking you; who wrote that report?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quote your source.

MR. STEVES: That's the way it is done, Mr. Speaker. You pick

up the land, you defeat the zoning plans in the municipalities

that are involved and then you make a fortune. That is land

speculation.

I have only read to you today and last night from two

reports but it is my understanding that the same company that

prepared these two reports have reports prepared for almost the

entire province. They have been developing land throughout

British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who wrote the report?

MR. STEVES: I would like to give another example of what is

happening in Richmond specifically.

MR. McCLELLAND: An anonymous report.

MR. STEVES: When Richmond's sewer bylaws were enacted…now this isn't rezoning, it's strictly sewer bylaws — and this

is how these developers operate. Land speculators and

developers attend the local council meetings all the time

without fail. In fact they are generally there every council

meeting, every planning meeting when you drop in, especially

people from Dawson Agencies in Richmond, who I said earlier had

about 25 to 30 per cent of the

[ Page 1647 ]

development market. You see them in there almost every day.

I see more of them in the municipal hall than I see the

citizens of the community.

They attend the council meetings, the planning commissions;

they're always around municipal hall and they know what is

going on but the citizens don't. The only time that the

citizens know what is going on is after it is almost an

accomplished fact and a piece of land has been rezoned. Then

they get to go to a public hearing and give the citizen's views

on the matter. Of course, the citizens quite often will oppose

these rezonings and quite often, because the developers have

done their homework and have already convinced the local

councils, the citizens' wishes are turned down and the

rezonings go ahead.

These are the appeal procedures; these are the ways that the

existing zoning bylaws are used in my community and in many

others throughout British Columbia and we have some of the

strongest zoning bylaws in the province. I should say these are

the ways they are misused. The report that I have been reading

from on Surrey, I would suggest, has been written in this

manner by the information of the developers attending the

Surrey council meetings having access to the development

programmes of the municipality. I think this is indicated in

the conclusion of the report. It states:

"The rate of growth of residential subdivisions in the

Municipality of Surrey will remain a function of the urban

growth development area and its restrictions. The writer feels

that, because of the municipality's obligations to existing

sewer patterns, the central core of Newton together with the

central core of Whalley will be the prime areas in the next

three to five years.

"Once these areas have started to fill out, the writer fully

believes that the municipality will not be allowed to ignore

Northern Hills any longer and will then extend its development

boundaries, that the municipality will go beyond its present

boundaries and extend them. It will no longer be able to ignore

the pressures and it will then extend these development

boundaries to encompass the property both north and south of

Highway 41."

Of course, Mr. Speaker, what they are suggesting is that

that is the land that they should go and purchase. Bring the

pressures on, purchase the land, get the land rezoned, forget

about the people. They've got public hearings. They'll come up

and oppose it and if they have their work well done — if the

people over here, the land speculators, have got their work

well done — so much for the public hearing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Bill 42 will correct this, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned Richmond's

sewer bylaws. The same thing happened there. Block Bros., using knowledge that

the general citizens did not have, information which was available to the general

public but not in widespread knowledge…because the general public does not

have to be at every council meeting and every planning committee generally there

is a developer of some sort there.

Using the knowledge of the sewer forecasts — of where the

sewers were going to go — they went into the areas that were

going to get sewers next. I should explain that, as far as

sewers are concerned in the lower Fraser Valley, the Social

Credit Government a few years ago brought in a ruling that

development cannot occur in high water-table areas such as

Richmond which are below sea level or just above sea level like

much of the Fraser Valley — could not have any further

subdivision of land unless sewers were put in. The land had to

be developed in an orderly manner because you can't develop

houses without sewers — so wherever the sewers go the houses

go.

Anyway, these companies had prior knowledge to what the

citizens had of where the sewers were going to go. In my

community in Steveston where I live, Block Bros. agents went

door-to-door before the sewers were introduced into my area;

door-to-door throughout the community, asking people if they would sell their houses or if they had any vacant lots or

any farmland to sell.

They offered them prices which were far beyond what some of

the people expected the land was worth. We thought we lived in

a depressed area at that time. They offered them slightly

better prices than what they thought it was worth and got

options from some of these lands, listed, and then the people

found out.

In fact a number of them started phoning me about that time

and saying, "What's going on? Block Bros. is knocking at my

door. They want to buy my land. I don't want to sell my house

but they offered me more money for my house. I have a lot next

door here, what is it worth?"

I told them Block Bros. knows that they are going to have

sewers in here in a couple of years and they want to buy the

land now, because that is the next piece of land that can be

developed. Some people did give them options. An option, of

course, means that they give you $100 down and you wait for a

couple of years until they can get the land rezoned or

developed. Then they sell it for twice as much as they are

going to pay you for it. You get the option but they get the

profit.

Well, that's what happened in my area. Bill 42, Mr. Speaker,

will stop this. Chilliwack. I would like to read you a letter

from a farmer from Chilliwack, and I hope the Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is listening. This indicates the

same thing that is happening in Richmond and Delta and Surrey

is also happening in Chilliwack. Notice the letter, Mr.

[ Page 1648 ]

Speaker….

MR. McCLELLAND: Anonymous?

MR. STEVES: No, it's not anonymous, but you people didn't

name the names of the people who wrote your letters. I'll name

this person, I don't think he would mind.

"Hang in there with the Land Commission Act. No doubt

the going will be rough. I feel you are on the right track.

When a resource is in short supply as farmland is in B.C., it

appears the free market system permits too much opportunity for

misuse and some type of legislative control is exerted by

society.

"For instance, I understand in the Egyptian desert, water at

an oasis is free. But if it has to be transported, custom

permits a charge for hauling only. In B.C. we see 366,000

square miles of province but fail to see that we can only farm

10,000 or 15,000 square miles of that land.

"When the municipal plan was outlined here in Chilliwack I

noticed that there was no definite boundary beyond which

residential land would be forbidden to encroach on farmland. I

feel the stage was set for gradual erosion and eventual loss of

farmland belts between communities.

"Although never mentioned openly much, the apparent drift of

events indicates an urban belt running from Cultus Lake to

Fairfield Island is being permitted to develop and when that is

full, I suppose it will move east and west."

That's Chilliwack.

MR. McCLELLAND: Have you ever been to Chilliwack?

"I hope there is provision for a flow of information and

joint planning between municipal governments and the

commission's planning agency — a two-way street. At this stage,

it is the only thing I can fault the legislation on. I don't

notice this aspect of the proposed legislation spelled out in

the news reports, but perhaps it is provided for.

"Ever since I attended UBC in Agriculture in 1955, I noticed

how the Valley how the area from Whalley to Aldergrove area has

declined agriculturally and become a sort of rural slum. It was

inevitable where stable environment for farming was lacking. I

hope the legislation will provide that stability in the most

heavily threatened farming areas where the serious farmer

cannot match the resources of the realtor.

"If this legislation proves unworkable outside of the Peace

River block, farming in British Columbia is doomed."

That's what a farmer said from Chilliwack.

Mr. Speaker, I've received a lot of letters. Most of them — the cards I mentioned, around 200 of them — came from the urban

areas; against the Act. Among my letters from the farm area,

they're at least two to one in favour of the Act. I'm not

going to read them at this time. I've been talking for an hour

now and I talked for an hour and a half last night. I don't

intend to have a "Stevesbuster." We've had a lot of other

busters around here.

If, however, you want to read about compensation, I would

suggest that you might read the Vancouver Sun editorial of

March 17, where they suggest that there can be no

compensation; that the Act is right. I have a number of

farmers here that are favouring it, and other people in the

agricultural zone in Richmond favouring it. One person has

offered to work one night a week to help me out because he's so

enthused with the Act that he wants to help me out in any

activities I have in the riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: No, he's a person I've never heard of before.

His name is Neil Stevens. I don't know who he is. I've never

heard of him.

interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: No, Stevens. I have no idea. Well, Mr. Speaker,

I think that people should not pass such remarks against,

citizens whom we know nothing about. Do you know this person?

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is trying to

say by inference that this citizen is guilty of something; I'm

not sure what.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I didn't say anything was wrong with him. You

were just giving me this kind of flak….

I would, however, like to refer to one other letter also

dealing with the land Act. This letter is from a Conservative.

His name is Gerry Pirie, R.R. 2, Sardis, B.C.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I'm sorry they're not here to hear the act. In a

covering letter he says, "Please tell Scott Wallace I'm still a

Conservative but I support Bill 42." It's a long letter and I'm

not going to read it. It's one of the best letters that I've

had. He says that the Act is right on; that it's very difficult

to get into agricultural production; that he himself was

seriously considering planting an orchard of dwarf apples that

would take five to seven years to bear fruit. He says:

"By planting this year, if I'm lucky, I could be

[ Page 1649 ]

in production by 1980. Whether or not I should plant is in

the hands of the municipal planner.

"A stable agricultural community has a complex web of

interactions and many years are needed to develop them:

interactions between different farmers; between farmers and

outlets or processors; their sources of supply with

transportation facilities; with the professional and business

community; with a host of Government representatives.

"Throw in a single de-stabling situation and the web will

take the strain, but as instability becomes — progressive, as in

real estate speculation, the entire network becomes

progressively snarled, with a mounting crisis of

confidence.

"Some farmers will adapt and may even improve their economic

situation. But the bulk of the farming community will be forced

by economics either out of the industry or to another

location."

I'm not going to read any further from that, but this is one

farmer who is trying to farm in the Sardis area who finds that,

due to the uncertainty in the area, he cannot go on. Under this

Act, he will be able to go on.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude my remarks by a couple of

quotes. One is from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture at their

convention last year, November 28 and 29, 1972; their 39th

annual convention. It's dealing with removal of education tax

and succession duties from land. I'd like to remind you that

these are some of the people who helped organize the

demonstration last Thursday. I don't want to take away from

what they've done because I think they are sincere in their

request for help for the farmers. They state their resolutions

in this report:

"Resolution 10: Request the provincial government to amend

its legislation regarding the inheritance and gift tax Acts

with a view to removing taxes or penalties from farms and

ranches. Resolution 11: That all such taxes, including school

taxes, be removed from farmland and that the home and the home

side principle be implemented."

Some farmers and some Members of the Opposition have said

that removing land tax and giving succession duties were small

potatoes to the farmers. But this was what the Federation of

Agriculture said last summer, 1972, at their convention. These

are the things they thought could help the farmers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Some of the farmers out there on Thursday said

it, as a matter of fact.

But also at that convention was a report from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

President, Mr. Charles Bernhardt. I'd like to read a couple of quotes. The first

one is on p. 5 of the report: "The public realization of the need to preserve

farmland is our opportunity to insist on equity for the farmers." I agree. That's

what they've been doing and I don't blame them. He goes on: "We must not fail

to exploit this opportunity."

In order to get the resolutions that they said before, Mr.

Speaker, the farmers are organizing — some of the farmers

anyway — against Bill 42. But what they're really after, as is

spelled out in this report from their convention, is equity for

farmers. Not development rights, as I mentioned earlier in

their own quotations from a couple of years ago; not

development rights but equity for farmers to help them produce

more economically — removal of some taxation and succession

duties and so on.

Mr. Bernhardt's report also says: "There is one factor very much lacking and

that is equity for farmers. This must be changed and only we, the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture, can supply the compulsion for that change." That's what the

farmers' representatives think. That's what they're doing. They're providing

the compulsion for that change. They have come and met with us. They would like

to see some changes in agriculture. We will be bringing in legislation to bring

equity to the farmers.

Once this bill has passed and once we have brought in

companion legislation in this House that deals with equity for

farmers, I think that the farmers will be very happy with the

situation of agriculture in this province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some people have criticized us for

bringing this Act upon them without telling them that we were

going to do it. I'd like to say that we told people in the

election campaign exactly what we were going to do. We

published this campaign book, "A New Deal for People." It's

right in here, three sections, p. 8.

"A New Deal for Farmers; Land Use. First promise for agriculture: We will establish a land zoning

programme to set aside areas for agricultural production and to

prevent such land from being subdivided for industrial and

residential uses." We said we'd do it; we're doing it.

The second point under agriculture:

"We will establish a land bank to purchase existing and rezoned agricultural land for lease to farmers

on a long-term bases."

We said we were going to do it; we're

doing it.

Page 18 — this is dealing with urban affairs and urban areas

such as my own riding.

"Land reforms: Land is a basic natural resource to be

preserved, not a commodity to be bought and sold. An NDP Government

will: (1) establish an aggressive land bank programme around urban

centres financed by senior governments in con junction with a policy of

leasehold only for Crown

[ Page 1650 ]

lands."

We said we were going to do it and we're doing

it.

"

(2) Confine new urban areas to those lands unsuited for economic agriculture recreation and

conservation; preserve and extend greenbelts." We said we were

going to do it, Mr. Speaker, and this bill is what is going to

do it for us. We are preserving land, Mr. Speaker. We are

setting aside land banks for urban use, for industrial use, for

greenbelt and for parks. Page 19:

"We will set up a department of quality planning and control which will designate areas for urban,

industrial, agricultural, forestry and recreational uses

according to environmental quality criteria." This was our

programme. This is what we said. This was our promise and we

are keeping our promise.

This is the last quote that I would like to give you today.

The Hon. Member for North Peace, I believe it was; or South

Peace — the one who talked for so long. He talked for so long

that I've forgotten his name and where he came from. He brought

in a file of newspapers. I have about a dozen items that I

would like to read but I'm just going to show you one, in

conclusion, just for those who think that we didn't tell people

what our policy was; that we just kept it in that little book

and hid it in the cupboard someplace. I'll deal with a

couple.

The first one: The Richmond Review in Richmond had a

series of questions that they asked the candidates. They had

seven questions and two of the questions dealt with

agricultural land. One of the questions asked about opening up

east Richmond land for residential development.

The Social Credit MLA of the day, Ernie LeCours, said — here's his picture right in the article; 'good old Ern' — "I

find this question rather fatuous," he said. "The people

who clamour for more roads, bridges and sewers are the same

ones who complain when you provide them for them. You cannot

provide these services without taking up land. The first

principle of Social Credit is freedom of the individual and I

believe that landowners should be free to dispose of their

property as they see fit."

Do you still believe that, Members of the Opposition? The

former MLA for Richmond said that, Mr. Speaker — Mr. LeCours.

That's why he's the former MLA.

In the same

article I was quoted: "Richmond's residential

and industrial growth must be contained within the boundaries

now zoned for those purposes . Our agricultural land must be

preserved for agricultural production and greenbelts." That's

what I said. These were direct articles we wrote. They printed

word for word what we said. These were printed. Mr. LeCours

wrote his; I wrote mine.

The other

article asks, "What about the agricultural zone? What about industrial

growth in the agricultural area? Would there be any limits to growth?"

Mr. LeCours said: "It is evident that many people are anxious to partake of

the good life which we enjoy in B.C. As long as we continue to enjoy that freedom

which democracy offers, we need have no fear of being told where we can or cannot

live. I welcome continued growth," he said, "and population increase along

with their attendant problems."

My comment: "Population growth in Richmond must be confined

within existing areas zoned for that purpose. At present there

is enough land in Richmond already zoned residential for more

than twice our present population."

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural area in

Richmond could provide an increase in population if it were

rezoned from the present 65,000 population of Richmond to a

population of anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people. If

it were zoned for single-family development and for multiple

developments, such as apartments and condominiums, Richmond

alone could contain a population of one million people.

This is what Mr. LeCours was suggesting. He said, "I welcome

continued growth and population increase along with their

attendant problems the loss of the agricultural land.

If we extrapolate this a little further, in the lower Fraser

Valley–Greater Vancouver area, if the land that is presently

zoned for residential use were developed for residential use — and we have 3,500 acres of land in Richmond zoned for

residential use which could be built on now without touching

any agricultural land — this could double our population. If

the land in the greater Vancouver area that is already upland,

non farming land, were used for residential use, single family

homes, we would have a population of 3.5 million people in the

Vancouver area. If it were used for multiple use and

single-family together, there would be room for a population of

13.6 million people — and not one single acre of agricultural

land would have to be used to handle that population.

There is no need, Mr. Speaker, to use our agricultural land

for expanding population. The only reason that the land

speculators want to use that land is because they can buy

cheaper from the farmers and they can make tremendous,

exorbitant profits when they get it rezoned. These are the

people, Mr. Speaker, whom the Opposition Members are trying to

protect Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last quote. If you think that I

was the only one who was saying it, Mr. Barrett, the Premier,

was also saying it. July 28, 1972: "Save Fish, Farms — Barrett,

Steves Pledge Greenbelt Protection " — front-page headlines in

the local paper in my riding.

"Voters got a stout pledge of environmental protection from

the New Democratic Party Thursday

[ Page 1651 ]

night. Before a houseful of supporters at Ukrainian Hall,

NDP leader Dave Barrett promised that preserving farmland in

the Fraser Valley was an integral part of protecting B.C.'s

environment. 'A New Democratic government would require an

evaluation of the environmental impact of such developments as

the conversion of farmland into residential land,' Barrett told

the rally. 'New Democratic Party MLAs will work hard to

introduce a land-zoning programme that will protect

agricultural land and prevent it from being subdivided for

industrial and residential use,' he said."

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Member of this House and to

stand here today and be able to congratulate Mr. Premier for

keeping that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we fought the election; this was

one of the issues that we fought the election on in my riding.

People over here say, "We should have an election tomorrow,

" and "Take it to the people." The people decided.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): 22 per cent.

MR. STEVES: "22 per cent," he says. In my riding, Mr.

Speaker, this was the number one election campaign issue. Out

of the seven major questions that was presented by the local

paper, two of them dealt with this problem — the first two; the

major campaign issue.

Mr. Speaker, I got elected and I got 49 per cent of the vote

in my riding — on this issue, Mr. Speaker — 49 per cent. That's

how strongly the people feel about this land Act. That's how

strongly the people feel that we should preserve this

farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: The Liberals got wiped out. The Conservatives

got wiped out. The former Social Credit MLA, who had beaten me

in the previous election by 1,500 votes, lost by 5,000

votes.

Mr. Speaker, we had an election. The people decided. They

decided on August 30. They decided that they wanted to preserve

agricultural land. They elected the New Democratic Party to

bring in this bill that we have brought in. They decided.

We made a promise. We kept our promise. We brought in the

bill. I challenge you to vote against it.

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

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

a comment across the floor saying, "I wonder who has the guts

to follow this speaker?"

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I was talking to the

Liberals.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's

a question of guts. I think we meet in this chamber to present

conflicting points of view to the people of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Maybe we'll hear from the Member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) sometime — except when he's sitting

in his seat.

MR. WALLACE: We're not in this House necessarily to be

right, or to prove ourselves right, or to persuade people in

any deceitful way to support us. We are here in good faith and

with the best of intentions to present the policies and the

philosophies which we believe to be in the best interests of

all the citizens of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. WALLACE: I agree, Mr. Premier. That's exactly why we're

here. The two sides of the House present their philosophy; we

give our reasons and our conviction. While we may on some

things be diametrically opposed, I would hope that it is never

suggested that it takes "guts" to stand up in this House and

present our point of view.

I would just start my remarks as the other speakers have

done, Mr. Speaker, by saying that my personal situation

regarding land is very simple. My wife and I own our home — or

at least we own the home plus a large mortgage. I own my

medical office — and that is also with a mortgage. Beyond that,

neither myself, my wife nor any of my children own any land in

this province and I have no relatives in Canada, so my position

in regard to my personal involvement in land is very clear.

This issue has been clouded, I am afraid, as every

contentious issue inevitably is in the political world; clouded

not by the intent of this legislation but unmistakably by the

particular manner in which the bill has been written. If there

is any one central aspect of this very lengthy and contentious

debate from our point of view, we simply feel that it is not

the intent of the legislation which is being debated, it is the

bill itself and the mechanisms which are being suggested.

I think that we start, Mr. Speaker, in any important debate

or any public issue by expressing our philosophy. Our

philosophy — if the Member will care to listen — is to preserve

farmland. But it is also the duty of any legislator to preserve

the rights of any individual or minority group of individuals

in the face of a majority decision. While we agree with the

principle and the intent and the philosophy of preserving

farmland, in all sincerity we feel that it could be done in a

better, more considered, more rational and fairer manner. That

is all we're trying to say. I hope that my remarks will enlarge

on why we

[ Page 1652 ]

believe that this is so.

We think that basic to our system of living in harmony as a

democratic, civilized society is the fact that sometimes the

interests of the community at large override the interests of a

minority. Sometimes priority has to be given to the

consideration of the greater majority of people.

But we equally strongly believe that the rights and the

interest of individuals affected by this considered decision of

the majority should be respected. And we do not feel that this

is what is about to happen under Bill 42.

It is presented as a bill to preserve farmland and on that

basis I would have personally felt it wiser to restrict the

bill to that goal and to have called it the "Farmland

Preservation Act" — perhaps involving greenbelts and farmland.

Certainly I question whether it was wise to try and encompass

the great scope of land use in this one bill.

Furthermore, while the former speaker has explained very

clearly the problem in areas such as Richmond, again I think

the blanket nature of the legislation affecting the whole of

the province could have been better considered and restricted

somewhat at this time.

We do not dispute the facts and figures relating to the

value of farmland, the need to preserve it. I stated in the

debate on agriculture that it would be disastrous if we ever reached a point of being totally

dependent on food sources from outside our province. No one who

is the least bit objective could argue with that danger or the

fact that we must avoid that danger.

One point that I feel most important, and I know it has been

discussed already, Mr. Speaker, but it is the fact that the

Minister and many others have explained that this is not an

expropriation statute. By definition that is correct. The word

"expropriation" is never used in the bill. But if you study the

history about expropriation a little bit, and certainly if you

study the report of the Law Reform Commission…. The Law

Reform Commission, Mr. Speaker defined expropriation as the

"lawful acquisition by one party of another party's property

without the latter's consent."

It involves a compulsory transfer of property rights. I am

quoting directly from the report. It also says: "It is

fundamental justice that there should be adequate procedural

safeguards to protect the individual citizens from the exercise

of expropriation powers."

As a matter of digressing for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The Law Reform Commission

also stated that there was much need for study of land use legislation and that

it recognized that this was not within the terms of reference in this particular

report. But it points out that while the needs of the society as a whole frequently

involves expropriation against an individual that there must be this fundamental

protection to the individual concern. In addition, he should be entitled to

receive compensation for the losses resulting from expropriation.

It also, as the Minister pointed out, stated that the mere

granting of a power to purchase or otherwise acquire land

cannot be regarded as conferring a power to expropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to make is that this

Bill 42 — and I would mention this as one of the very

fundamental reasons I oppose the bill, because of the means

that it is trying to reach the goal of preserving farmland — the bill seems to want it both ways. It is not a power of

expropriation, in which the individual would have the

safeguards of expropriation, namely public hearing, appeal, and

compensation regardless of the decision.

That's right, it is not a statute with expropriation which

would give safeguards. In fact it goes beyond that and gives

the Government, through the commission, the power under

section

7, which surely must be the absolutely central part of the bill

to which the opposition is so bitterly opposed.

Section 7, as we all know, states: "The commission may

acquire or otherwise purchase land under conditions it deems

advisable." And the preceding sentence, which I omitted to

quote, states very clearly that the commission has the power

and capacity by itself, There are two words in

section 7 which I think are the heart

and soul of our worry and opposition. It makes it very clear

that the subsequent powers spelled out in the second half of

section 7 give the commission the power and capacity "by

itself" to do these various things. The particular section, as

I say, gives it that much power without any of the protection

which would normally be afforded in a statute which did include

expropriation powers.

Furthermore, the bill gives the power of designation. And

while the designation of agricultural land requires cabinet

approval, it's very clear in

section 8 that designation of

other classes of land do not require cabinet approval.

It is our feeling that if you designate land….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No. I'm saying that we believe that the present

power of designation is really a means of expropriating the

land without the safeguards which an expropriation statute

would afford. In other words, if the commission designates a

piece of land, let us say, as parkland or recreation land, it's

very unlikely the owner of that land is faced with any other

purchaser or in future other than the state. We all know that

if you have to sell something and there is only one purchaser,

then it is a most restrictive situation.

[ Page 1653 ]

I take this specific example: if I owned a piece of land and

they designate it parkland, what other purchaser, beside the

state, wants to buy parkland?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, two wrongs never made a right, my friend.

This is something that I think is terribly important to this

whole debate, I've sat in this House and listened to many — and I say

this with respect, it's come from both sides of the House and

we all share in the guilt that things in legislation have been

passed in this House, to some of which I've been a party — but

because it was wrong and it was based on wrong principles, is

no excuse for us to go ahead on Bill 42 and pass some more

legislation which we think is wrong.

But returning to the question of designation. We are very

concerned that the person who has land that can be designated

by the commission is left with no choice but to sell to the

commission. Why we are concerned is that the commission appears

to have this power to acquire, to designate, to purchase, under

conditions I've described and yet there would appear to be no

avenue whereby the person affected can contest what has been

done — either in terms of acquisition of the land or

designation in one of three categories.

To return a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the Law Reform

Commission. It made the point very clearly that statutes

should, indeed, if they imply anything resembling

expropriation, be clearly expressed. I'll read you the exact

quotation from the recommendations of the commission:

"Statutory provisions which create…"

And this is an

important phrase, the next phrase.

"…or might appear to create expropriating powers,

should be reviewed and revised where necessary to ensure that the

statutory language creating these powers clearly and expressly demonstrates the intention to confer these powers."

In other words, it is making the commission — I'm talking

about the Law Reform Commission. I must be careful how to

distinguish between that and the land commission. But it's

pointing out that any bill or legislation which might appear to

create expropriating powers should, in fact, say so. And on the

contrary, they state that no enactment which does not use the

word "expropriate" shall be deemed to confer a power to

expropriate. And wherever the power to expropriate is intended,

the word should be used.

Now, the fact that it is not used, I suggest, leaves this

Government, through the provisions of Bill 42, with getting the

best of both worlds at the expense of the individual landowner

affected.

We believe — and perhaps the Minister will comment on this when he winds up

the debate as to whether our

interpretation is valid — that in fact it does

not mention expropriation but it gives very much similar power without the safeguards

which would be present in a bill mentioning expropriation. This certainly surprises

me personally, because the Premier, when he was in Opposition, frequently railed

against the Social Credit government for its lack of respect and protection

and concern for individual rights.

I well remember the long night of March 5, 1971, when we sat

in this House and heard the present Premier ask a certain

question 67 times. I'm glad that the Premier has returned.

There's a little personal anecdote involved.

Mr. Speaker, I'll bring back the memory of that night,

because what was the Leader of the Opposition of that day

asking? He was pursuing the interests and the rights of a young

widow who was not apparently receiving justice at the hands of

an insurance company. The Leader of the Opposition was asking

for the government, at least, to show concern for this woman's

rights and her protection against some overriding authority

which she couldn't fight on her own.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

I find it's very strange that after a relatively short time

in office the Premier should show the disregard — or lack of

regard — for assuring justice for the individual landowner in

this province.

This in no way, Madam Speaker, is intended to disagree with

what the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said about land

speculation. I'm not standing here to defend any speculator. I

would favour legislation which would control the

speculator.

But what I'm not prepared to do is to stand by and allow

individual landowners, because they happen to own farmland, to

have their individual rights penalized and for them to be used

as some kind of sacrifice in the total community concerned for

the preservation of farmland.

As I've said already, the bill has many faults. But the one

outstanding feature which makes it unacceptable to use lies in

section 7; that the power in

section 7 should be given in a way

which provides for the better safeguard for the individuals

affected.

I feel that the bill could have with better effect

restricted itself to farmland preservation. The whole question

of land banks for urban and industrial development could well

merit a separate bill where some of the misunderstanding and

confusion which is arising in this debate would have been

avoided.

Farmland, goodness knows, is a big enough problem in itself

that it would justify that kind of separate attention.

If in fact this bill does not confer the power of

expropriation, I think this is one of the few questions which

has not been asked in this debate so far,

[ Page 1654 ]

Madam Speaker — but if this bill does not give the power of

expropriation but it does state very clearly in

section 7 that

the commission has power and capacity by itself to purchase or

otherwise….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you cannot refer to sections.

We're dealing with the principle of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: The principle of the bill, Madam Speaker, gives

tremendous land. I think that's very inherent to the principle

of the bill. We've already established that this is not an

expropriation power. Therefore, I would like, and I would hope

that the Minister in winding up the debate will tell us what

avenue of power is to be applied.

If you come and tell me that you want to buy my land, and I

say, "But I don't want to sell my land," for maybe very

valid reasons, and I tell you and remind you that you can't

expropriate my land, because you've said in the House and I've

agreed with you and everybody's agreed that this is not an

expropriation statue — I'm just a little puzzled to know what

mechanism is to be employed by the commission to purchase or

acquire my land. If you insist that you want it and I am not

interested in selling, regardless of price, and you can't

expropriate it, perhaps the Government will tell us what

particular avenue is to be used. Because I think this also is

one of the crucial questions left hanging in the air, if one

reads this bill.

We also object to the tremendous scope of power — not just

in the

section that was mentioned but the tremendous scope of

power conferred upon five persons, particularly in the absence

of the safeguards we've mentioned, of no public hearing and no

appeal mechanism and no compensation.

It's a small point, but if you read the bill accurately, any

one member of the commission — I'm sure it's simply a mistake

in the way the bill is written, and I won't refer to the

section specifically — it states that any one member of the

commission present at a meeting constitutes a quorum. I'm sure

this is just a mistake, but it's a point, Mr. Minister, you

might be interested in reading. If you read it literally

from a meeting, the other person that is present constitutes a

quorum. Anyway, that's a small point.

I don't want to belabour points that have been made in former debate. The Member

for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made reference, I thought very well,

to the whole question of concern that the regional and municipal levels of government

are the closest level to the people and that the way in which they have been

ignored and overruled and in which the bill is made superior to — or if there's

any conflict between the provisions of this bill and the municipal bill or regional

legislation, that then this bill is superior.

It has always been my experience on municipal government

that the citizens in municipalities appreciate very much the

ease with which they can get to their municipal

representatives. I don't mean that in the rather subtle sense

that they influence them unfairly or deceitfully. I am saying I

mean physical access to the municipal representatives.

When one considers that we have a commission of five people

in a centralized role functioning in regard to this bill, I

think anyone of us can rather shudder at the difficulties that

might be involved in communicating with and getting access to a

commission which has this responsibility extending over the

whole of the province.

I would also like to make comment, Madam Speaker, on the

whole question of haste which was described as a reason given

for, first of all, the order-in-council and then the

legislation. The Minister has stated publicly, and I quote from

a speech of November 30, 1972, in which he said, "I would not

advise anyone to invest in farmland with any intention to

develop it for industrial or residential purposes."

The Minister is quoted in the Press as having said that this

speech led to — and the phrase quoted in the Vancouver

Province was — "an alarming rush of applications to

subdivide." Now I wonder if the Minister could perhaps, in

winding up the debate, give us some description of the actual

statistics of this alarming rush, Because I've read another

quotation in the same newspaper relating to areas of 363,000

acres in the Delta-Surrey-Langley municipalities which actually

showed that subsequent to the speech of November 30,

applications to subdivide in December diminished below the

usual average.

Yet the order-in-council was passed on December 21

prohibiting all subdivision of farmland. And, of course, the

subsequent order-in-council was passed on January 18 extending

the scope of the prohibition.

The other disturbing thing about Bill 42, Madam Speaker, is

that when there was…well, first of all, the picture has

been painted — certainly by the previous speaker for Richmond — that really the only people that are concerned are the land

developers and the speculators. I think that is quite an

inaccurate assessment of the degree of public response to this

legislation and to the orders-in-council.

There was very considerable concern as to the impact of the orders-in-council,

particularly by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who certainly contacted all

MLA's and made several public statements. The Minister responded by saying,

"Well, if you just have patience. We had to do this in a hurry." I've already

asked if the Minister could explain the need for hurry. But even if there was

such haste, he said "Give us time and we will bring in formal legislation

[ Page

1655 ]

which will meet much of the criticism which has arisen from

the orders-in-council." Of course, Madam Speaker, we now have

the formal legislation and in some ways it is worse than the

orders-in-council.

Let me explain what I mean by that. The orders-in-council at

least gave clear

definitions of agricultural land. The second

order-in-council, particularly, defined the very extensive work

that has been done to produce the Canada Land Inventory under

ARDA and used classes 1 to 4 as defining agricultural land. But

nowhere in Bill 42 is there any definition or description of

what agricultural land is, Contrary to what the Member for

Richmond said, there are many, many people deeply concerned who

could no more be classified as land speculators as the man in

the moon — to use an old expression.

The fact is that the bill, which we had assumed would

formalize the effect of the orders-in-council, would include

all the safeguards we expect of any legislation where the total

weight of a government commission can inflict a decision on a

single individual.

It is very distressing to us to find that, after the

reassurances which followed the orders-in-council that the

formal legislation would straighten out all the concern of the

landowner, in fact there are many of these serious deficiencies — particularly the ones that have been repeated ad nauseum by

every speaker in the House, the whole question of right of

appeal and compensation, I know that we can all change our mind — I but I have a

newspaper, the Colonist from December 1972 here, where

the Minister spoke at Osoyoos. Oh, everybody can change their

mind. I don't do this out of malice, Madam Speaker, to put the

Minister on the spot. But it shows that at one time in the

development of this legislation the Minister did favour

compensation. The quotation says, and I'm quoting from Osoyoos,

a speech that was made there:

"Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich said Wednesday some

farmers should be given compensation amounting to the

difference between what their land is worth as farmland and

what the farmers would get if they sold it for

subdivision."

Now I'm not saying that that is the mechanism that should be

followed necessarily, to give them the difference, because who

would decide what it was worth for subdivision? But I certainly

think, Madam Speaker, that our position is very clear. You have

to do one thing or another. You either do give compensation or

you make it attractive for the farmer to stay on the farm.

We've heard many speakers state that the farmers, many of

the farmers are bona fide farmers. They wish to farm and they

wish to pass their farm onto their sons but that faced with

this invidious choice between living on a very low income or in

fact capitalizing on the inflated value of their land for some

other use, many of them really have very little choice and

succumb to the selling of the land for subdivision.

But for the bona fide farmer who wishes to stay on the land,

then I feel that this Government, as it has professed, Madam

Speaker, to be planning to help the farmer, should have brought

in companion legislation with Bill 42. After all, we're having

a great flow of legislation this session. It would seem to me

that it would be a lot easier for the Opposition to feel

confident that the farmer is going to be helped in the various

methods that have been hinted.

But I don't think anyone can debate a bill very

intelligently when much of the evidence is by implication. I

think it's a whole debate in itself. Some of the points I

raised when we debated the Minister's estimates revolved around

the question of the removal of taxes from the land; the

question of succession duties; trying to give the farmer better

facilities, and so on.

It is certainly our opinion that it would have made the

debate on Bill 42 a little easier if the kind of companion

legislation which we have been told will be forthcoming had

been in fact introduced at the same time.

In another respect, the bill refers to the Environment

and Land Use Act and states that this bill is subject to

that. But if you read the Environment and Land Use Act

it makes very general recommendations,

whereas Bill 42 makes

very specific recommendations. The Minister, when he winds up

the debate, perhaps can correct me if I'm wrong; but my

reading of the two bills is that in principle the whole

existence and power and method of functioning of the commission

is not subject to the land use committee.

Now this is maybe getting too technical — but there is no

way that I can see how the power is provided in the

Environment and Land Use Act to have any control over

the decisions of the commission under the Land Commission

Act. And yet this is the implication. In principle this

Bill 42 suggests, or it could be read into Bill 42, that the

commission is subject to control of the Land Use Committee.

If this were the case, if it were subject to the Land Use

Committee, in principle we would find it a little

[ Page 1656 ]

easier to accept Bill 42. It is one thing for four cabinet

Ministers to carry this kind of authority — that's what they're

accustomed to doing — but we feel it is a far cry from that to giving such power and

authority to five appointed individuals, So if the claim is being made that the power in Bill 42 is

no different from power which already exists, I would have to

disagree very strongly. Power in the hands of a Land Use

Committee constituted of cabinet Ministers is one thing, but

power in the hands of five appointed individuals is something

else again.

I would have to take issue with the Premier on the fact that

he stated he couldn't understand why the Opposition were

getting so upset about Bill 42; that it did not create any

power which didn't already exist in the Municipal

Act.

Now, Madam Speaker, I think anyone who is remotely connected

with municipal affairs knows that there are numerous sections

from about

section 702 to

section 711 in the Municipal

Act which go into great detail regarding the whole question

of zoning land or property. They of course incorporate all the

mechanisms we've mentioned whereby there must be notification

of a hearing, there is a public hearing, there is a decision

and there is an appeal mechanism.

I think for the Premier to suggest that that is just exactly

what is in Bill 42 is hardly accurate. Even on the question of

compensation, Madam Speaker,

section 706 of the Municipal

Act states quite clearly that when land is zoned for public

use, compensation shall be paid or can be paid.

Since Bill 42 deals in large measure with parkland and

recreation land, I cannot imagine any piece of land which is

more clearly destined to be used by the public. So this

statement by the Premier that the Municipal Act and Bill

42 grant similar powers, again I would have to refute.

To return for a moment, Madam Speaker, to this other

question of the degree of public reaction and response and the

implication that it is only the land developer who is really

worried about this legislation; with respect, I would have to

say that this has certainly not been our experience. I'm not

going to read letters today, Madam Speaker, because I think it

becomes tedious after several Members have done this.

I have the facts and the figures in regard to our office. In terms of individual

communications — and this includes the whole works: letters, clippings, signatures,

et cetera, anything which was an expression of opposition to Bill 42 — we have

a total of about 18,400-odd. I don't know what it is with today's mail but it

was 18,400. I have a list of signatures from the Coquitlam area. I just wondered

if maybe the Premier recognized some of his friends on the list of names.

I'm not arguing or disputing what the Member for Richmond

(Mr. Steves) said in what his experience has been. The fact is

that he is in one of the hottest areas in the whole contentious

debate. I'm not questioning in any way the communications he

quoted. Nevertheless I think it should go on the record as to

what we have received.

Many of those who did take the trouble to write are no

different from what I am. They don't own a farm either. They

don't own any land other than the land which their home sits

upon. I just brought one laundry basket down full of bundles.

There are two others like this upstairs. If anybody wants this

filed or opened to inspection, that's fine.

While some of the communications are simply signatures, we

have had somewhere in the region of 6,000 to 8,000 actual

communications — people who make comment, write a letter or

write some expression of their opinion across the newspaper

clipping and so on.

On that point, Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister could

comment when he winds up the debate on a report in the

Vancouver Province newspaper on Saturday, March 10. This was

just about a week ago. I quote from the newspaper: "Asked if he

would consider withdrawing the legislation, Mr. Stupich said he

would consider putting it off pending further discussion if he

were satisfied that there was substantial public

opposition."

Madam Speaker, I'm just asking the question that if we've

received in excess of 18,000 communications, does the Minister

not consider that this represents substantial public

opposition? Maybe not. It's very difficult to draw a figure and

say whether it does or does not represent substantial

opposition.

In the few years that I've been here, I can't recall any

issue that evoked this kind of response or any situation where

citizens who really had no direct interest in the immediate

effect of the legislation became so angry and upset and took

the trouble to write or phone or come to the office and see the

MLA. Maybe I haven't been around long enough. Maybe some of the

Members who have been here many years have had such an

experience.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, perhaps the Member is right. I've read the

history books and the hospital insurance issue was a hot one.

But this one, since it

[ Page 1657 ]

affects land and since there is a deep philosophical

difference between the Government's attitude to ownership of

land and the traditional attitude, then this is affecting every

single citizen, particularly every persons who owns a home or

plans to own a home.

The philosophical difference is very clear. Certain Members

of the Government have said that you only have a lease to the

surface rights. You don't actually own the land.

As I said when I started my remarks, Madam Speaker, this is

what we're in this House to do. That is to try and explain very

clearly what our philosophy is and listen to the Government

philosophy. Then at the next election the public, in a truly

free and democratic fashion, can make their choice based on

each side of the House having outlined its philosophy and tried

to give its reasons; not because we feel we're right and you're

all wrong or vice versa, but simply to say what we think is a

fair and just way to look after the interests of all the

citizens of British Columbia.

On that basis, I think the reason why we've had such an

outcry and why so many people who don't own land have written

in on this issue, is simply because they feel that a minority — in this case, the farmer — will be penalized without

compensation and without an avenue of appeal. Who might it be

tomorrow? I think this is the increasing sentiment that people

express to me when they're concerned about Bill 42.

If Government can take this attitude to the farmer and tell

him exactly what will be done, at what price and under what

conditions, and that he cannot appeal, then the average citizen

quite naturally worries considerably that possibly the same

kind of edict and dictatorial legislation could quite readily

tomorrow be applied to him or her.

I won't read the letters concerned. Other Members have read

this kind of letter from people like myself who were not born

in Canada but who came from other countries where this action

was taken by governments against the land, It is a real note of

alarm which is sounded in these letters.

It has been said that while the Opposition parties have

criticized Bill 42, they have come up with precious few

positive suggestions. I would like to make a few suggestions. I

would preface that, Madam Speaker, by saying that we feel that

the bill has too many things about it that need to be changed.

It would make more sense to leave the land freeze as it is,

follow some of the positive suggestions I'm about to make, and

then bring in a better bill at a later date, presumably in the

fall. Above all, we feel that there should have been more time

and consideration given to actually getting an accurate land

inventory.

If there's one point that keeps coming up at public meetings and in contacts

with concerned farmers, it is that they often have, let us say, a 100 acres

of land and perhaps five or 10 acres are just rocks and stubble and tree roots

and so on. But it is all zoned as agricultural land. The question has been asked

of me quite frequently, "What do I do? Why can't I subdivide the 10 acres and

keep the other 90 acres as farmland?" which they would be quite happy to do.

It would appear to me that the most important positive

proposal that we can put forward would be that a detailed

effort be made, through cooperation with the municipalities

and the regions, first of all, to establish an accurate land

inventory of what land we have and just exactly how accurately

it is presently classified. Maybe we could take another look at

the Canada Land Inventory classifications. Classification — I

haven't got it right available — but I remember reading it and

thinking, "Well, it sounds like it's pretty tough to grow

anything on that kind of classified land." So maybe even the

original attempt to classify agricultural land in the second

order-in-council could be reviewed.

Apart from the concept of getting a land inventory, we would

like to think that in so doing we would re-establish in a very

positive and progressive way, communication and consultation

with the regions and with the municipalities. Sound government

in any federated nation obviously involves — and I know this

sounds like motherhood — we can get better total government if

federal, provincial, regional and municipal levels can feel

that at least each has the ear of the other and that not any

one of these levels has to take either a belligerent or

obstinate attitude because they feel that the upper or lower

level is ignoring them.

While the land inventory seems a real need in itself, I

think that in going through the process of defining the land

and being better informed about the various classifications.

This would do a great deal to heal the breach which inevitably

has been brought about between regional and municipal

governments, and this Government.

One other positive proposal that we would like to suggest is

not new; several other speakers have mentioned other countries

and other provinces. It's very interesting, Madam Speaker, that

they keep picking on the Tory provinces, Alberta and Ontario.

On this occasion at least, I'd like to just mention that some

of the positive ideas in these provinces might not be such a

bad idea for British Columbia.

For example, I'll just read the motion that was introduced

in the Alberta Legislature on March 15 of this year.

"Be it resolved that the Legislature require the government to set up an Alberta Land Use Forum, consisting

of three Albertans and appropriate staff to hold public

hearings and report to the government and make recommendations

regarding land use.

Further, that the forum consider, but not be limited to, the

following matters:

[ Page 1658 ]

1. The family farm.

2. Multi-use of agricultural land.

3. The use of agricultural land for recreational purposes.

4. The use of agricultural land for urban expansion.

5. Future land needs of Alberta agriculture.

6. Corporate farms, foreign ownership of land, absentee ownership

and communal farming.

7. The common ownership of land, agricultural processing and

marketing facilities.

8. Land use as it influences population distribution.

9. The extent, if any, to which the historical right of the landowner

to determine the use and disposition of agricultural property ought to be restricted."

I think that last term of reference is worth repeating,

Madam Speaker.

"The extent, if any, to which the historical right of the

landowner to determine the use and disposition of agricultural

property ought to be restricted."

This again is the area of philosophy somewhat, whereby the

ever-increasing value of farmland is making us review and

re-assess this historical tradition: if you owned a piece of

land, your home was your castle and nobody — government, man,

woman or child — could interfere with your right as a

landowner.

Well, with this tremendous interest to the community and

society as a whole about the wise use and preservation of

farmland, this may well have to be reassessed. We certainly

feel very strongly in this party that if there is to be any

interference with the traditional acceptance of a person's

ownership of land and if he is to be penalized or restricted,

then that society as a whole is obligated to see that he does

not suffer unreasonable economic penalty.

I don't mean that he should necessarily get all he would get

financially if it were subdivided. But I think that if the

situation suggested in the principle of this bill is applied,

he must inevitably suffer.

In Ontario, as no doubt the Members have read in the Press

on Tuesday, the throne speech doesn't spell things out in

detail. I gather nobody's throne speech ever does that. But at

least it includes enough in a Press release in the Globe and

Mail on Wednesday, March 21, The Ontario government makes

it very clear that it is moving to preserve I million acres

along the Niagara Escarpment which will come under the control

of a new commission charged with preserving prime land from

Queenston to the tip of the Bruce Peninsula.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, we've talked to the Ontario people and I just made

a few notes as to how they want to go about this. They are setting up a commission

all right. But the integral mechanism that the commission will follow is local

cooperation and planning with the local municipalities involved in these areas.

They are planning to specifically relate the application of any legislation

to the specific area concerned. Again, this legislation in Bill 42 is blanket

legislation, not in any way trying to identify the problems in the province

which are the most serious, namely the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and so

on.

So the Ontario Government is about to set up a commission,

but it will work with the municipalities and it will tend to

restrict the application to the areas where it is most

important. They are also setting up greenbelts, Madam Speaker,

but this will be through separate legislation, They are also

carrying out a great deal of research on the whole question of

preservation of farmland. I feel that it has not been proven to

this House that it was such an urgent situation that a bill

with such sweeping effects and powers had to be introduced at

this time.

Regarding the naming of the commission, the Press release I

have doesn't specifically state whether it will be appointed,

but I presume from the general tone of the….

My friend on my right says, "Never presume." I guess I

should know by this time that it's wrong. But anyway, I can't

see how it's going to be appointed — but they are going to have

a commission.

Interestingly enough, Madam Speaker, when we all start off

our little speech disclosing our land holdings, without ever

attempting to anticipate debate on another bill, I hope that

the Members of the land commission will be subject to the

Disclosure Act as to what they hold.

Anyway time is flying. I just would like to make a few more

remarks and then just sit down. I do feel that this bill has

been prepared with some haste and without full consideration of

some of the far-reaching ramifications. I think it is not just

a land developer who, is very worried, it's the individual

citizen who fears that this kind of legislation, while at the

present time seems to be directed only to landowners, may well

come to be applied in a similar way to every individual in

regard to property, for example.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

We've heard some mention of the Bill of Rights, and while

legally I am told there's no question that property and civil

rights are in the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Nevertheless, the Canadian Bill of Rights does spell out the

general concepts that our kind of society has regarding

individual's rights. Whether we want to be very specific and

divide it up between provincial and federal, I think

sentimentally

[ Page 1659 ]

we would agree that the ideas incorporated in the Canadian

Bill of Rights attempt to ensure that a person has enjoyment of

his property rights.

We also can't leave the subject without repeating that a

person who is being acted upon by an agent of government should

be guaranteed natural justice. I was rather interested that the

Attorney General is quoted in the newspaper today in regard to

another matter. He says, "These are permissive powers, "

and goes on to say that, "The rules of natural justice and law

make hearings mandatory."

I can't anticipate another bill, but here is a principle

which the Attorney General himself has been alleged to have

stated: when you're given permissive powers of a fairly wide

degree, the corollary to all that is that you must make natural

justice available to the people concerned and that involves

public hearings.

Now how come if that's going to be so important in one other

commission, that we don't have it with the Land Commission

Act? That's the sort of a thing that we're all asking.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Would some of the

lawyers leave the room. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, one of the lawyers took your

advice.

Mr. Speaker, that particular principle which is lacking from

the bill, that, combined with the power to appointed

individuals and the lack of any real appeal mechanism, seems to

us to deny what again is a traditional basic concept that if

government is taking some action against an individual, and the

individual is opposed to resents it, or feels that he is not

being given justice, there has to be some realistic avenue.

I'm not able or informed enough to know what avenue the

appeal should take. I'm not suggesting that we have all the

answers either. But there has to be the mechanism.

We feel that the bill deals specifically with the rights of

land ownership and while the intent is well motivated, that it

does indeed infringe on individual's rights. We are very afraid

that if it can be done in this area, it can be done in many

other areas.

We've talked about the positive measures and we are,

ourselves, preparing a bill which we feel would represent the

best of what exists in Bill 42 and provides additional

mechanisms which we think are presently lacking.

In closing, I would just ask one or two questions which, again, I hope the

Minister would answer when he winds up the debate. Will the regulations give

us the definition of agricultural land? Why does the bill cover personal property?

Why is cabinet approval required for designation of farmland, but not required

for designation of other categories?

That may be a mistake in the bill too. I notice the Minister

frowning, Mr. Speaker, and it may be like the clause about the

quorum.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Designate —

section 8, I'm sure it may well

turn out to be just another mistake in the way in which the

words are put and it may be that approval of the cabinet may be…. We can't get into the sections, Mr. Speaker — I've already

been reprimanded for that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, we're wasting time. Why does it cover

personal property? Why is cabinet approval required for

designation of farmland and not for other categories? In that

regard, what does "designation" imply? What are the

consequences of designation, relating to some of the points I

raised earlier? Why does it have to be retroactive? Why is the

commission allowed to give grants in lieu of taxes? If it

acquires a property, why shouldn't the commission simply pay

taxes like anyone else? I would like the clarification, which

might just be a mistake in writing, on the question I mentioned — that the majority of Members present may constitute a quorum.

If there is only one present, is he a quorum?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway these are some of the questions that I

would like the Minister to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

certainly welcome the chance to stand in this House and take

part in this debate — especially seeing I'm one of those

animals that everybody's been talking about and using as a

political ploy in trying to get their point across to make

political gain.

I would first like to make a confession of the amount of

land that I own and I would also like to say that I'm not a

hobby farmer. I'm a full-time farmer. I've been that way for

seven years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: Maybe I was. I'd like to say I have 60 head of

beef cattle, 12,000 chickens and two tired roosters.

(Laughter). I find it of particular interest to me, the concern

shown by the Socred Party. They're

[ Page 1660 ]

crying about the poor farmer and how he's darn near

dead.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's a rooster.

(Laughter).

MR. LEWIS: They forgot that that party was in power until

just this last fall and if the farmer is in such poor

straights, they're responsible. The way this legislation has

been misread throughout the province by almost every political

party in opposition — two of these parties really going all out

to make all the gains they could.

I've had many letters too. I've had a considerable number of

letters opposing the bill, but this is from a very

well-organized campaign throughout my riding. Just about every

one of these letters that oppose the bill is very brief. They

say: "Vote against Bill 42. Copy of the letter to the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). Copy of the letter to

Derril Warren." I would suggest that these people have been

lobbied; they've had half-truths told to them.

The legislation has been used as a political weapon for

their own good, not for the good of the farmer. I would like to

see these parties, after this bill is in action, stand up in

this House to speak up for the farmer as often as they have in

the last three weeks here. I hardly heard any voices from that

Socred Party while they were in power, worrying about the poor

old farmer.

I would like to remind the House of a little bit of an

anniversary that we had yesterday, but kind of failed to get it

on the floor. That was the Member of the Socred Party who

crossed the floor a year ago yesterday because that party

wouldn't do anything for the farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I would suggest that he's back in that

riding and with any good luck, we may have a farmer back here

in the next election.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. LEWIS: You know the type of thing that's been going on

with the politicians with this piece of legislation reminds me

of a little story about the politician who was around trying to

sell his point of view to the farmers.

While he was talking to the farmer, flies kept swarming around his head. Finally

he turned to the farmer and he complained, "The flies are around my head all

the time. How come they don't bother you?" The farmer said, "You know, that's

strange, I have a horse, and I find that the flies are continually swarming

around the back end of that horse." So the politician got a little perturbed

and he said, "Are you insinuating that I'm the back end of a horse?" The farmer

said, "Gosh, in no way, but you sure can't fool the flies." (Laughter).

I would like to tell you that the letters from farmers in my

riding have been running four to one in favour of this

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bah, humbug!

MR. LEWIS: It's not humbug. I'll admit that many of them say

that they would like to