1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2877 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Conference re labour-management

relations. Mr. Nunweiler — 2877

Development officer's report re Peace River area. Mr. Smith — 2877

Project Quest expedition. Mr. Curtis — 2877

Ferry food finances. Mrs. Jordan — 2878

Maintenance and construction of roads to and on Indian

reserves. Mr. Dent — 2878

BCR boxcar shortage. Mr. Phillips — 2878

Contract with Boeing for computer time. Mr. Smith — 2878

Price of ferry meals. Mrs. Jordan — 2879

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2879

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2880

Mr. Phillips — 2880

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2880

Mr. Wallace — 2881

Mr. McClelland — 2881

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2881

Mrs. Jordan — 2881

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2882

Mr. Morrison — 2882

Mr. Wallace — 2882

Mr. McClelland — 2882

Mr. Phillips — 2883

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2883

Mr. McClelland — 2883

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2884

Mr. Phillips — 2884

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2884

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2884

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2885

Mr. Wallace — 2885

Mrs. Jordan — 2885

Mr. Gardom — 2885

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2886

Mr. Gardom — 2886

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2886

Mr. Gardom — 2887

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2887

Mr. Gardom — 2887

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2888

Mr. Gardom — 2888

Mr. McGeer — 2889

Mr. Gardom — 2889

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2890

Mr. McClelland — 2890

Mr. Phillips — 2891

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2891

Mr. McClelland — 2892

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2892

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2892

Mr. Gardom — 2893

Mr. Wallace — 2894

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2894

Mr. Gardom — 2894

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2894

Mr. Gardom — 2894

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2894

Mr. Phillips — 2894

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2895

Mrs. Jordan — 2895

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2895

Mrs. Jordan — 2895

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2895

Mr. McClelland — 2896

Mr. Phillips — 2896

Mr. McClelland — 2896

Mr. Wallace — 2896

Mr. McClelland — 2896

Mr. Wallace — 2897

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2897

Mr. Wallace — 2897

Mr. McClelland — 2897

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2897

Mr. Williams — 2897

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2897

Mr. Curtis — 2898

Mr. McClelland — 2898

Mr. Williams — 2898

Mr. McClelland — 2899

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2899

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2900

Mr. McGeer — 2901

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2902

Mr. Gardom — 2902

Mr. McClelland — 2903

Mr. Wallace — 2903

Mrs. Jordan — 2904

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2904

Mr. Williams — 2904

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2906

Mr. Williams — 2906

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2906

Mr. Phillips — 2906

Division on

section 16 — 2907

Mr. Williams — 2907

Mr. Wallace — 2907

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2907

Mr. McClelland — 2908

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2908

Mr. Williams — 2908

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2909

Report stage — 2909

An Act to Amend the Stock Brands Act (Bill No. 108).

Committee, report and third reading — 2909

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill No.

178).

Committee, report and third reading — 2909

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

CONFERENCE RE

LABOUR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Labour. In regard to

the conference he had last weekend, could he tell us whether

any definite conclusions were reached between labour and

management during the weekend? I'd also like to ask whether he

would consider giving the House a report on it.

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

conference was of an exploratory nature. It was not based on an

attempt to draw any definite conclusions or to achieve any

definite agreements. However, I think the conference was very

fruitful in terms of developing a good exchange of views

between the various labour groups in the province and

representatives of industry. Certainly there were the elements

of some new ideas in terms of industrial relations that

developed from those discussions.

But at this stage that's all that they are. They're simply

some new propositions that were put forward. Certainly there

was a good degree of receptivity on the part of both labour and

management to these new proposals. Further to that, perhaps the

main benefit of the conference was the opportunity afforded to

departmental people to participate in a discussion on what

policy should be and to listen to the exchange between labour

and management.

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

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER'S REPORT

RE PEACE RIVER AREA

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you. My question is addressed

to the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Some weeks

ago the Department of Industrial Development sent a development officer to the

Peace River country. Has the Minister received a report back from the development

officer since the visit to the Peace River country by this representative of

his department? If a report is received, will he make this report available

to the House?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, we've received the report of the industrial officer, who was Jack

McEwen. It was for the government. It will be reviewed by myself along with

some of my colleagues. I'm not prepared to say at this time whether or not it

will be made public. It may be, but basically it's a report by an industrial

officer to the government. Possibly it may be made public. I just don't want

to commit myself on that last point.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Minister: did the

report include any recommendations for specific assistance? If

so, is the Minister prepared to indicate what direction this

assistance will take?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are requests for suggestions of

assistance in that report to which we'll be giving

consideration.

MR. SMITH: At that time will the Minister release the

information regarding assistance to the Members of the

House?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, any requests or suggestions of

assistance in that report will be made public. Of course their

disposition will become known to the Members.

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

Islands.

PROJECT QUEST EXPEDITION

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

the Minister of Education: would the Hon. Minister indicate if

her department was approached at any time with respect to

Project Quest, which was the chartering of a passenger vessel

to travel British Columbia's coast early in May and which,

hopefully, would have involved 225 students. If the answer is

"yes" was there any request for financial assistance in any way

for this project?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Hon. Member, yes,

we were approached and a request was made for financial

assistance, which we were not able to give to them. The

departmental budget does not allow, in my estimates, for that

type of expenditure.

The whole matter of these kinds of trips, which are

beginning to grow across the province, is one which I would

like to discuss with my cabinet colleagues for the future.

[ Page 2878 ]

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

FERRY FOOD FINANCES

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

On this bright sunny day I'd like to address a question to the

charmer of highways — or rather, the Minister of

Highways: has the ferry system brought in a plan of portion

control in the food operations on the ferry system? Is the food

operation of the ferry system currently a profit picture, or is

the food system designed merely to break even?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The food system

is designed to provide food, basically. (Laughter).

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: May I ask a supplementary?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this part of the same diet? (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have him

answer my question. Is the Minister planning to institute a

system of portion control on the ferry system, and is the food

serving system designed to merely break even?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think every food provider has a system

of portion control. When you order two eggs, you get two eggs.

(Laughter). There are measured portions put out.

MRS. JORDAN: I have a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I think you've had your ration

today. (Laughter). The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MRS. JORDAN: This is another question in relation to the

same subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I rather think that that is not urgent and

important. We've had two on it. I'll return to you later if we

have time. The Hon. Member for Skeena next, followed by the

Member for Point Grey.

MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS

TO AND ON INDIAN RESERVES

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would direct a question to the Hon. Minister

of Highways: I understand that there are negotiations going on at the present

time between the Department of Highways and the Department of Indian Affairs

in regard to the maintenance and possible construction of roads to Indian reserves

and on Indian reserves. Could the Hon. Minister give us some indication of how

these negotiations are proceeding?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I formalized these meetings in a letter

to the Indian Affairs Branch, to which I have not yet received

a reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for Point Grey have a question?

The Member for South Peace River, then.

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to ask

the Hon. Premier if he is aware that one of the wood processing

plants in my area is closing down as of tomorrow because of a

shortage of boxcars. Is the Premier aware of that?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I will have a significant

announcement to make to the House tomorrow at 2 o'clock on that

matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Premier be prepared to give the same

instructions to the British Columbia Railway with regard to

Northwest Wood Preservers that you give to them with regard to

supplying boxcars for the Chetwynd forest industry, due to the

economy of the area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Everybody. I'll have a significant

announcement to make tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

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

CONTRACT WITH BOEING

FOR COMPUTER TIME

MR. SMITH: Thank you. My question is to the Hon. Minister of

Highways: has the Minister contracted with the Boeing

Corporation of Seattle for computer time with respect to the

introduction of the auto insurance plan in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to the best of my knowledge.

MRS. JORDAN: What does that mean?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It means that I know of no agreement with

the Boeing Company of Seattle to do any work for the automobile

insurance.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: has the

[ Page 2879 ]

Minister contracted with any corporation, Boeing or perhaps

IBM or anyone else, to supply computer time for the

installation of this programme?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: IBM are doing a specific job for us at

the present time.

MR– SMITH: A supplemental question: does the "specific

job" have anything to do with the introduction of an auto

insurance plan in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course. I took that for granted in my

answer. I thought you would understand that. Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan, I hope on

another subject besides food.

PRICE OF FERRY MEALS

MRS. JORDAN: It's a subject for the Minister of Highways,

Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you wouldn't want to upset our plans to

get some information from this Minister. Would the Minister please confirm whether he has, in fact,

the intention of increasing meal prices on the ferries in view

of the fact that the Minister has already indicated that there

would be no increase in prices on these ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said that there would be no increase in

fares. I stick by that.

MRS. JORDAN: Food prices, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have no statement to make at this

time.

MRS. JORDAN: We can assume then that food prices are going

up, in spite of the Minister's statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will you resign your seat if some of them

come down?

MRS. JORDAN: No. (Laughter). Why are you so anxious to get

rid of me all the time? I must bother you.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders and then committee on Bill 42.

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No. 42; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

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

Speaking to

section 2 as amended, I would just like to make a

brief statement with regard to this bill and with regard to the

attitude we intend to take throughout the rest of the third

reading of the bill, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

One of the first things that we think should happen with

regard to the method by which a commission would be appointed

is that elected officials be used rather than appointed

commissioners. We feel that then the people that are out in the

communities, the members of the regional districts and the

members of the municipal councils, can have a far greater input

to the planning process throughout British Columbia if that

procedure was followed.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say with regard to this

bill that it seems to us in the official opposition that this

is really a totally new bill from that which was debated in

second reading. Therefore, it makes quite a lot of difference

toward the way we approach this bill. The method by which the

amendments were brought in made it very difficult for the

opposition to develop a positive approach.

Mr. Chairman, we don't want to delay the proceedings in this

bill; we would like to see them go through as quickly as

possible so that we can all go home and so that the legislative

process can be speeded up as much as possible. With that in

mind, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the House that

the official opposition did propose a positive alternative to

some of the measures in this bill in the form of another bill,

Bill No. 184, which is not yet printed but which is on the

order paper.

We have to recognize that, regardless of the amendments to

this bill, there is no possible way in which we can agree with

the government on the principle of Bill 42. We recognize also

that we are going to be at loggerheads with regard to this

stand — one side of the House as it relates to the other.

For that reason I would like to ask the permission, Mr.

Chairman, of the government to spend half an hour or an hour

debating the principle of Bill No. 184 so that we could

recognize those loggerheads and allow the people to decide

which method they like best. Do they want to go the route of

Bill 42 or would they sooner go the route of the bill we have

proposed as an alternative? That bill we believe, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are dealing

[ Page 2880 ]

only with

section 2 as amended of Bill 42. Any other

proposal must come up at another time. I ask you to confine

your remarks to this section.

MR. McCLELLAND: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I am only

begging your indulgence for one moment to offer you an

alternative that could considerably expedite the business of

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is, Hon. Member, that the principle

of the bill has already been decided upon by the House and the

House has instructed the committee to consider the bill

section

by section, which we are now doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: That is exactly what I am saying to you

— that the principle of the bill has been decided by this

House. We now have a different bill before us than that which

was debated in second reading. We can't agree with the

principle of the House, and we are offering a different

method.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier indicates that he is not

prepared to listen to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

remarks to the

section before us. The House has clearly

instructed us to consider this bill

section by section, which

we must do. I would ask you to….

MR. McCLELLAND: I was asking that we back off from this for

a moment, debate the other bill and let the people decide which

is the best way to approach this whole problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A motion has been passed by the

House….

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. Speaking to

section 2, Mr.

Chairman, the point is that we cannot support Bill 42, nor can

many of the people in the community. We cannot support the

principle of an appointed, political commission. We would ask

the government, in the light of that argument, to consider the

possibility of using already-elected officials to run this

commission so that the local people can take

part in the

planning process throughout the Province of British Columbia

rather than a faceless and appointed and political

commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, on

section 2 in particular

and the bill in general, the point we would like to make is that we have put

an amendment forward on

section 2; and the reason we are putting forward amendments

on this Act is to make sure the Act comes out as good as this House can make

it. We lost on the point of principle in second reading and therefore we are

putting forward amendments, unlike the official opposition.

Our point is this: we can do nothing now about the

government's decision to press ahead with this bill and with

the many unfortunate aspects, as we see it, in this bill.

However, we will be putting forward amendments because,

regardless of the fact that we did not support this bill on

second reading, we have a responsibility to the public to make

this a better bill if we possibly can at third reading.

Therefore, I would like to point out that our putting forward

amendments will be to improve the bill, and I trust they will

be accepted by the government in that spirit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I want to add as

strongly as I can to the words of my colleague here from

Langley that this is one of the main principles of this bill

that we were definitely against. This land Act is still a poor

Act. You still are creating a bureaucracy here which will stay

in power at their pleasure and over which the elected people of

this province will have no say. What we are suggesting is that

the members of this land commission be elected officials so

that they will be responsible to the people of this

province.

The people you are going to appoint will become part of the

bureaucracy that you are building up during this legislative

session, and it all fits in together. I don't care how you

disguise it; we are against it and the people of British

Columbia are against it. We are not going to delay the House by

trying to point out the error of your ways. We are going to do

it as strongly as we can. You are bent on creating a

bureaucracy which will take years to unwind, when you are

defeated after the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

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

just on a couple of points. I think there is general acceptance

in the community now of this idea of preserving farmland, and

with respect….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I said in the community as a whole; I

wasn't thinking of the opposition party as such. With respect

to electing members as opposed to

[ Page 2881 ]

naming them: if the community accepts the idea that this has

to work for the good of the whole community, then obviously the

people named to the commission must be people who are dedicated

to the idea of making the whole programme work.

By leaving it open to election it is quite conceivable that

people might be elected who would not be in there trying to

make this programme work. The only way it can work is that it

has to be responsible — it has to be responsible to the

cabinet and in turn responsible to the Legislature.

On the matter of amendments: the government made it clear

right from the very beginning — right from day one

— that we would consider amendments; we would listen to

arguments. We made it clear during the whole debate that we

were listening. We said from the beginning that we would

welcome suggestions; we would even welcome amendments, but that

we were saving ours until there was the maximum opportunity for

input into these amendments. We are pleased that the second opposition party has reacted,

in that it has introduced amendments at this time. Certainly

these are being considered and will be discussed. We are

disappointed, of course, that the official opposition party did

not see fit to introduce any amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I think it is

appropriate that this party at the start of this afternoon's

debate also makes its position clear, although it is speaking

section 2. Our feeling also is that we need not go over a

lot of ground that was covered. We have no wish to

obstruct.

We feel however that the bill, however much it has been

improved — and we commend the government for these

amendments that have been made — is still not acceptable

to us. As we go through the committee reading I will try to

point out to the House the sections where our objections still lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of

Agriculture's statements are absolutely shocking as they relate

to the elected officials in our community.

He has said in effect…and nobody suggested that we have

separate elections for members of this commission. We said that

what we wanted to see on this commission were elected local

officials — not have separate elections because that

would be total nonsense.

But the agriculture Minister has as much as said that local officials in the

community don't have the interests of the preservation of farmland or good sound

planning at heart. Those are almost his exact words.

Mr. Chairman, from the point of view of the problem of

amendments, this party and the Liberal Party have said inside

and outside the House, time after time after time, that this

bill could not be amended. We meant it. Obviously the Liberals

didn't mean it. And that's why we proposed an alternate bill

rather than amendments. We think our bill is much better than

yours — we wish we had the chance to debate it here and

now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, Members are entitled to

correct misunderstandings or misapprehensions such as the one

expressed by the Hon. Member for Langley. We have said time after time that we don't think this is a

good bill. We have said that we oppose it. However, we are in

the situation now where we have no choice but to proceed with

this and try and make it — I don't say good; I simply say

better than bad.

It's a bad bill now; it may emerge somewhat better with the

amendments of the Minister and the amendments of this party. We

don't say it's going to wind up good. We don't even say that if

all amendments are accepted we will vote for it. We simply say,

as we have said consistently, that this is a bad bill to begin

with. The government was wrong in not bringing the amendments

forward earlier so that we could have an intelligent discussion

at second reading, but that's by the by. We in this party are not responsible for the government's

mistakes up to now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, the

Liberals have made an explanation. It's very weak and very

typical of their inconsistent stand during this session.

We stand opposed to the fundamental philosophy of this bill

that's trying to be amended now — state takeover of

private lands and centralized control of private lands in

British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering

section 2 as

amended.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm speaking to

section 2, Mr. Chairman. The

Minister said that he was going to make appointments dedicated

to the preservation of farmland in British Columbia. Everybody

in British

[ Page 2882 ]

Columbia is dedicated to the preservation of agricultural

areas and greenbelts. In this House today, and also outside

this House, with this amendment, the Minister is saying what

they want are people on that land commission who are dedicated

to the socialist philosophy. Not people dedicated to what is in

fact best for agriculture and the farmers in this province, and

best in the most democratic way for the preservation of private

land ownership in this province.

The Minister shouldn't try and hide this. This is just

another example of the conflicting statements that he's been

making consistently throughout this bill, and he's now made in

this

section 2.

We have put in an alternate bill. We believe in that. We

believe it is a much firmer foundation from which to build, and

we support it. But we must oppose this amendment because it

doesn't meet the criteria of democracy as it has been lived in

British Columbia and as it should be lived in British Columbia

in the future.

It does nothing to preserve the right and responsibility of

those elected people at all levels in British Columbia, and we

will oppose it, and we will stand firm in our position as we

have consistently through this session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 as amended pass?

Section 2 approved with amendment.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder why the commission may, on

behalf of the Crown, carry out its powers and duties under this

Act in its own name without specific reference to Her Majesty.

Is this to save Her Majesty from the embarrassment of being

involved in this bill, and thus save the Premier embarrassment

when he meets her later in the year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask

the indulgence of the House just for a moment. I would like to introduce a class

from Oak Bay Senior Secondary School which has just arrived in the galleries.

It is a socials class and their teacher, Mr. Woodley, is with them. I would

also like to advise you that my youngest son, who is part of that class and

no stranger to the gallery, is also in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 5 pass?

Section 5 approved.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are speaking to the amendment to

section 7,

standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay on

section 7 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, speaking to this section, I would

just say quickly in passing that part of our disappointment

with the bill is that in 7(b), for example, it talks about

encouraging the establishment and maintenance of farms. But, as

a comment and a criticism we've had all along, it really does

not include any specific policies in the bill as to how this is

going to be done. Furthermore, we feel that this particular

section in fact gives the commission a tremendous amount of

scope to make policy itself. We feel that the cabinet should be

the body that makes the basic policies with such far-reaching

effects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with regard to

section 7,

there has been a fair amount of confusion about this

section

ever since this bill was proposed, especially with regard to

the expropriation aspect. I am not sure whether anyone was

listening, but this side of the House never complained about

the expropriation aspect in that bill. What we were concerned

about, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, read Hansard , Mr. Chairman, and

you will find out exactly what

[ Page 2883 ]

happened. Mr. Chairman….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with regard to expropriation,

we recognized right from the beginning that expropriation

wasn't included in the bill but what we were concerned about

was confiscation…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McCLELLAND: …without compensation, Mr. Chairman.

Confiscation. I'd like to go on record again, Mr. Chairman, as

saying that expropriation is a perfectly legal device which is

for the protection of not only the Crown, but the protection of

the person involved as well.

It frightens me that this commission is going to have the

opportunity to negotiate at its own terms, without any recourse

to the courts at any time. And if by designation, this

commission can force down the price of that person's land, if

he has no right to expropriation proceedings — and that's

a pretty good if, Mr. Chairman — if he had no right to

legal proceedings, then that poor home owner or landowner is

going to be in very rough shape indeed.

I would also question, Mr. Chairman, if, as we are told over

and over again by the agriculture Minister, this is an

agricultural bill, a farmland bill — then why do we still

have so many references to the use of land for urban purposes,

industrial purposes, land bank reserve purposes and others?

I really think, Mr. Chairman, that we have considerable and

sufficient protection and methods by which those kinds of land

reserves can be established within the Municipal Act . At

the present time, Mr. Chairman, we are already using those

provisions within the Municipal Act to do exactly the

things that this Act says it is going to do.

I wonder why we need to bring this in if this is, in fact,

an agricultural bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this

section really hasn't changed that

much. The government has tried to dress it up, give it a little

bit of motherhood by saying "except by expropriation." And that

was not mentioned in the other bill because when you can

confiscate, you certainly don't need to have the power to

expropriate.

So the power is still in the bill, and there still is no clean, clear-cut definition

of farmland. It says "as referred to in

section 8" but there is still no….

If this nameless, faceless, bureaucratic commission decides that any piece of

land is suitable for farmland, it can so be designated. It can be so designated.

This hasn't changed in this Act at all. If you want to get

right down to it, all you've done in here is put in that you

can't expropriate. I'll repeat again that under the previous

bill you didn't need to expropriate because you could

confiscate, and you can still do it under this

section of this

bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. There was a

question raised as to just what does this long amendment do.

The first thing is the point just raised by the Hon. Member for

South Peace River: where it points out quite clearly in the

amendment that the commission will advise and assist

municipalities and regional districts in the preparation and

production of the land reserve plan.

Secondly, there is a change with respect to this phrase. And

while one or two of the Members in the official opposition may

not have complained about expropriation, this question of

"purchase or otherwise acquire," which has been widely

misunderstood, has now been changed by saying not only "other

than by expropriation," but also by adding the words,

to make it absolutely clear that the commission will be

negotiating with the people who are buying the land.

Apart from that, it does detail in this amendment that with

respect to designating land — while agricultural land may

be designated all at once or in many areas in the province

— with respect to the other reserves, there will not be a

wholesale designation in advance of acquisition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 7 as amended pass?

Section 7 approved with amendment.

section 8.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Hon. Minister of Agriculture pass? I recognize the Hon.

Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: A question, Mr. Chairman, of the agriculture

Minister if I may.

It may be a mistake — I'm not sure — but in subsection 2

of the

section it says, "…with its

[ Page 2884 ]

member municipalities, and every municipality that is not

within a regional district.” I don't know of any.

Secondly, I realize that after "90 days" you've said "or

such time as may be allowed by the commission." I wonder if the

end of the year wouldn't be more realistic, with regard to some

of those districts which do not now have regional plans. It

might set them at ease considerably if you allowed them that

extra time. On the other point, I don't think there is such a

thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to this business of "every

municipality that is not within a regional district,"

that was brought to my attention after this final draft was

prepared. Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps the best way of

handling this would be to move a sub amendment at this point,

deleting those words. As he says, there just isn't any

municipality that isn't within a regional district.

So I would move that sub amendment that would remove those

words from the bottom line on p. 15 of the orders of the day

that I have right now. That's orders of the day No. 92.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about extending the time while you're at

it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, first this one. "That is not within

a regional district" — removing those words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you read the exact words that we're

deleting?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. "And every municipality that is not

within a regional district."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that these words be deleted?

Sub amendment approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to the time limit, we're

anxious to get this rolling. Regional districts have had some

warnings already, in that these amendments were tabled some

time ago. They already know.

I think I did indicate to the House earlier that on the

basis of the Canada Land Inventory surveys and other work that

has been going on, the Department of Agriculture will be in a

position to have its gross boundaries ready for any regional

district that wants to use those. They're not being imposed on

any of them. They may advance their own plans if they like.

But for any of the regional districts that want this input

in an early stage or whatever stage they're in or whenever they

want it, within three weeks the Department of Agriculture will

be ready to have some gross boundaries to submit to the

commission so that the commission will have this information in

negotiating with the regional districts.

Beyond that, there is provision for extending the time, if

90 days does prove to be impossible in some instances. We're

anxious to get it going. Things have been held up so much in

the province, where everything has been left to approving

officers who have been reluctant to take responsibility to

approve even some situations which seem quite ridiculous. So we

prefer to stay with the 90-day limit at this time, recognizing

that the commission has the authority to extend this time limit

as required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River on the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister explain to me what

qualifications this commission is going to have to decide

whether land is suitable as agricultural land? Unless surveys

are done, there are many areas in the province that would be

designated. How do you get them out of designation? What basis

are you going to use for designating this land?

HON. MR. STUPICH: What criteria are the agriculture

department, for example, using or the regional districts?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the commission themselves.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I say, the commission will have the

input from the regional districts. The regional districts

presumably know the local land situation and know everything

that is involved with respect to the use of land for

agricultural purposes within their own regional district. They

should have quite an extensive knowledge of that.

Beyond that, the agricultural department has the Canada Land

Inventory surveys to go on, apart from the Department of

Agriculture's knowledge of local conditions from its experience

in the many years that there has been a Department of

Agriculture in B.C.

It's not going to be absolutely final. Nevertheless, this

amount of information is available right now. On the basis of

that information, boundaries will be drawn around the

agricultural land reserve. Maybe they won't be ideal, but they

will be a good start and something much better than we've had

heretofore.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, through you

[ Page 2885 ]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not clear in my mind as to the difference

between "agricultural land reserve" and "agricultural land."

Section 8 here gives me the impression that the creation of a

reserve is automatic upon designation.

Section 12 gives a

different impression. There may be some distinction between

agricultural land and agricultural land reserve — 12(

e) in particular.

I wonder if the Minister would like to clarify what is

agricultural land and what is agricultural land reserve.

If I could just trespass upon the kindness of the House and

mention 12(

e) at this stage, perhaps it will save time later.

Section 12(

e) goes on to encourage the dedication of

privately-owned agricultural land to permanent farm use. I

would think that were it a reserve, it would already be in

permanent farm use. This is why I have this difficulty in

putting

section 8 and

section 12 together.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there may very well be areas

of agricultural land that are not within the agricultural

reserve initially. As I say, we have these gross boundaries in

mind, or almost in mind, in the Department of Agriculture.

Working with the regional districts, the reserve boundaries

will be drawn. Beyond that, there may be pockets of

agricultural land.

Some of them may be rather small but extremely good for

intensive agricultural production. But they may be within, for

example, municipal boundaries and in areas where the

commission, in cooperation with the regional district and the

municipality involved, may feel that these are not large enough

or important enough to include in the gross reserve. Yet, by

definition, they're still agricultural land. They may still be

being farmed and the people farming them may actually want to

get into the agricultural land reserve and might appeal it at

that time.

So there could be a difference in isolated instances between

agricultural land and agricultural land within the reserve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want our party to be on

record as agreeing with the former speakers. We're uneasy about

the lack of specific definition of how you will decide what

agricultural land is. Although the Minister has verbally given

us explanations in relation to such categories as in the Canada

Land Inventory, we would have been happier to have something

more specific in the definition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In listening to the Minister's explanation,

this causes me and certainly the people involved in the Ellison

area of the new City of Kelowna considerable concern. There are

9,000 acres of agricultural land — farming, active, good

productive land. There are farms that are making money and yet

they're being included in a municipal boundary.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That doesn't mean they won't be in the

reserve, though.

MRS. JORDAN: But a reserve, to some intents and purposes, is

something that could be used for commercial or subdivision

purposes in the future, if there was enough population

pressure, I would assume. If this is the case, this would be

even more disturbing to these people to be included.

It might be better if the Minister met with his colleague

and suggested that a fully agricultural area that's on the edge

be left out. Then truly in its own definition, both by its use,

its profitability and the Canada Land Inventory Act , it

would be agricultural without any threat of being in a reserve,

which might well lead the people to think that at one time or

another the government is going to come along and buy it or the

municipality is going to take it, or whatever they're going to

do, and turn it into residential or commercial land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 8 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 8 approved with amendment.

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

as my amendments, I would like to move the amendments standing

in the order paper under the name of my colleague, the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

Before getting to them, I'd just like to make a couple of

very short remarks about the amendments and the purpose for

them. We view amendments to this legislation — in fact,

amendments to any legislation that may come through the House

— from the viewpoint that in second reading the decision

is made by the House as to the principle of a bill. We might

well oppose it but if the government vote holds, as it has done

with rather a monotonous regularity in this session, we

continue to view it as our continuing responsibility to do our

best to improve the legislation for the benefit of the public,

notwithstanding

[ Page 2886 ]

the fact that we may differ with it in principle.

I would like to refer to these amendments to

section 9.

They're rather technical and I'd like to take my time with

them. First of all, the suggestion is that the following be

added to subsection (2)(a):

"A municipality or regional district may apply to the

commission for the amendment of any land reserve plan approved

under

section 8 or to have any land, whether Crown or private

land, excluded from or included in an agricultural reserve

established pursuant to that section."

This gives a greater right than is presently under the

amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, by giving

the right to apply to the commission, to a municipality or

regional district.

Mr. Chairman, the next item is to delete the whole of

subsection 5. Subsection 5 deals with the retroactiveness of

the amendment of the Minister back to December of 1972. We wish

the Act to be in effect from the date the Act comes into effect

and not have this retroactive aspect to it. As a slight

mechanic, back in subsection 2 reference to subsection 5 is

obviously deleted because we have requested the deletion of

subsection 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

whether he wishes to have his sub amendment dealt with ad

seriatim or in toto.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think it would be easier if we dealt

with it

section by section. I think the Minister would prefer

that. That would be more satisfactory for the Clerks as

well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you then confine your remarks to

2(a)?

MR. GARDOM: Well very well, the first amendment is to

delete, in

section 2, the words "subject to subsection 5."

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the amendment to the amendment.

Those in favour of the sub amendment standing in the name of

the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey…. I

recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the government is of the opinion that

there is, in

section 9 now, provision enough for people to get land out of the

reserve. I think again, as I said in response perhaps to the amendment moved

by the same Hon. Member last Saturday, we'd like to, in this respect also, leave

it as it is, leaving open the possibility that, as we see how this works in

practice, at another session of the Legislature we might consider an amendment.

But at this time we feel that there is plenty of room for people to get land

out of the reserve. Really, within the first three or four months there shouldn't

be many instances where people would want to be trying to get things out of

the reserve.

MR. GARDOM: I think, with every respect, the Minister is

missing our point in the amendment here. You see, we're

proposing the deletion of this subsection 5, and this is the

reference to subsection 2, because under your existing….

HON. MR. STUPICH: I thought your first one was on the

municipalities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first one is at the top of page 19.

MR. GARDOM:

Section 9(2), Mr. Minister. We're starting at

the very beginning. You notice it starts off: "Subject to

subsection 5." Now, we're requesting the deletion of subsection

5, so obviously this would have to come out of subsection 2.

The reason we're requesting the deletion of subsection 5 is

because under your subsection 5 an owner is not entitled to

apply to the commission under subsection 2 unless authorized by

a resolution of a municipality or regional district. We say

that he should have the right to apply to the commission

without being authorized by a resolution of a municipality or

by the resolution of a regional district. It should be his

individual right. I therefore would move as the first one, that

the words "subject to subsection 5," in your existing

section 9(2), be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, on subsection 5 itself and this is

the retroactivity of it, we were trying to get into the

order-in-council date when we informed the community at large

that this is what we are going to do, and we do want to stay

with that date, so the government is not prepared to accept

that particular part of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the first part of the amendment standing

in the name of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

pass?

Sub amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: Now, carrying on to the next one. I move that

the whole of

section 9(5) be deleted for the reasons I've

advanced a few moments ago.

HON. MR. STUPICH: For the reasons I gave earlier, we will

not accept that.

Sub amendment negatived.

[ Page 2887 ]

MR. GARDOM: Now, I propose that existing subsection 6 of

section 9 be deleted and that there be substituted in its stead

the following: "The commission shall at the request of the

applicant, under subsection (2) or (2a)…." Well, since we've

already lost 2(a), I'll delete that, under subsection 2 —

I'll start again.

"The commission shall, at the request of the applicant,

under subsection 2,

(

a) deliver to the applicant its decision

in writing; and

(

b) allow the applicant to examine and provide

the applicant with copies of all relevant documents in the

custody of the commission pertaining to any such

application."

Now the substance of this is simply that you are utilizing

the word "owner" and we are utilizing the word "applicant"

because in a later stage in here you'll see that we're giving

municipalities and regional districts the right to be

applicants to the commission; hence the deletion of the word

"owner." That's the reason for the change.

One change is just to change your word "owner" to our word

"applicant." The second one is, in 9(6)(

b) you allow your owner

— we say applicant — to examine and make copies of

documents and we say it's the responsibility of the commission

to provide the applicant with documents. He doesn't have to

copy them himself. I would so move that amendment to the

amendment of the Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It was a conscious decision at this point

that it should be the owner himself who is making the

application rather than an applicant, who might have other

reasons for making the application and might conceivably even

do it without the owner's knowledge. So it was a conscious

decision that it should be "owner" rather than "applicant" in

that particular case.

There isn't, I suppose, a great deal involved in the

difference between copying and making the applicant copy, but

I'm convinced that the difference isn't enough that we should

change the amendment at this time. So we'll stay with the

amendment as is.

MR. GARDOM: Well you're happy, surely to goodness, to see

that he's provided with copies as opposed to making them

himself. You're prepared to be tolerant to that extent today,

aren't you, Mr. Minister? Don't expect the poor fellow to go in

and copy it out longhand all by himself.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think in practice that if

the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is

appearing on behalf of an owner we'll make copies

available.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm pretty sure then that your intention is to at

least support the amendment to the extent that copies will be provided. Let's

substitute the word "provide" for "and make." Come on, you're a reasonable man.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's a lovely afternoon and in the spirit

of good will and harmony, I'll accept that. Thanks. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if I could just make a suggestion as sort of a

counter-offer. I was very intrigued with the way we went

through the Companies Act , when we did it in bunches. I

suggest that it would be much more efficient if we dealt with

this Act in the same way. Let's do it in bunches of sections

rather than

section by section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have part of an amendment

accepted and I think that the part that was accepted was part

(

b) of that amendment. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw

part (

a) then and then we can just….

MR. GARDOM: I prefer not to withdraw it. It can be voted

down and then I'll substitute the (b).

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We're dealing with the whole thing

first. I think it would be better if we considered part (

a) first, and then part (b). Shall part (

a) pass?

Sub amendment, part (a), negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall part (

b) pass?

Sub amendment, part (b), approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry now, but in part (

b) it has to

be that the "owner" — "allow the owner to examine….

MR. GARDOM: We're not trying to put anything over on you,

Mr. Minister. Sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that it be "owner"?

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: O.K. Onward, Christian Soldiers. Here we go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The sub amendment to subsection 7.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, subsection 7 of

section 9. Now this

amendment reads this way:

"A person who is an applicant pursuant to subsection (2) and

the municipality and (or) the regional district in which such

applicant's land is situate, and a municipality or regional

district who

[ Page 2888 ]

is an applicant under subsection (2a), who is dissatisfied with

the decision of the commission may, within fourteen days of the delivery of

its written decision, appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee in a

manner prescribed in the regulations under the Environment and Land Use Act."

Now, this is the point that we have covered a little bit

earlier. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the

municipalities and the regional districts an opportunity such

that if they're dissatisfied with the finding of the

commission, they have the right to appeal. Because this is a

very important thing to them. In our view, they should

certainly be given exactly the same rights as the owner,

because maybe the plan that can be suggested by the commission

may in itself affect a municipality or may in itself affect the

planning of a regional district, apart from the wishes of the

owner and apart from the wishes here and there are other

interests who must have their positions protected. That's the

object of this amendment, and I so move it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, at this point we're not

dealing with setting up the original reserve. We're talking

about deletions from a reserve that has been established by

cooperation between the regional district and the commission.

If it were the matter of establishing, well then I could see

the merit in the argument, but at this point the reserve is

already established and the municipality or the regional

district has had its input. So we do not feel that the

municipality should get involved on its own in individual

applications for deletions from the reserve. Later on a case

may be made for that as well….

MR. GARDOM: I don't think that's right, Dave.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I say, it's one of the things that we

want to live with for this initial period and….

MR. GARDOM: Look at your

section 9(l). You give certain

specific powers under 9(

l) to the regional districts and to the

municipalities, but you don't give them the right to make an

appeal. You give an owner a right to appeal but you don't give

it to the regional districts or the municipalities, and I say

that they should have that right.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, as I say, you do make a point and

perhaps with a bit more experience, we'd go along with it. But

at this point the government wishes to leave it the way it

is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall subsection 7 of the amendment to the

amendment pass?

Subamendment negatived.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've made my decision. We'll

proceed with subsection 8 of the amendment to the amendment.

Would the Hon. Member proceed with subsection 8?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I shall. Your

section 9(8) reads this way:

"Subject to the procedure prescribed by the regulations, an

appeal under this

section shall be a hearing and review"

— which rights you've denied to municipalities and

regional districts, which I'm going to emphasize again because

I think you've done a disservice to them in that — "but

the Environment and Land Use Committee may accept written

submissions or any other form of evidence."

Now, we add to that: "provided any such submission or other

form of evidence is made available to the appellant." Now that

really and truly is just a principle of natural justice. We'd

like to see it put into the bill to see that the other

submission or evidence is made available to the person who is

doing the appealing. It's a perfectly practical and reasonable

suggestion. It's an accepted procedure and has considerable

merit.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Garde, if you're putting one over on

me, you've made your point.

MR. GARDOM: No. I'm not.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't see that you are in this case, so

I'm willing to accept that amendment on behalf of the

government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall subsection 8 of the amendment to the

amendment pass?

Subamendment approved.

MR. GARDOM: Subsection 9 reads this way:

"The Environment and Land Use Committee may, after a

as it may consider advisable, or refuse the appeal; and, in the

event the appeal is refused, may order that any costs of the

hearing be paid by the appellant."

So if the appeal is lost the appellant pays the costs. But

you didn't take care of the other side of the coin. The

amendment reads: "And in the event the appeal is allowed, shall

order that the reasonable costs incurred by the appellant be

paid by the commission." So this is just a little bit of

fairness. You shouldn't have a penalty one way and not an

opportunity to recover costs the other way. It's just the same

as any kind of a lawsuit you run into. A

[ Page 2889 ]

successful appellant should be entitled to his costs.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it's not agreed. The Attorney General

tells me that it's not quite as simple as you put it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The one with the glasses.

MR. GARDOM: Could you just let me argue a point about

it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Be my guest.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe the Attorney General could get into the

debate. It would be interesting to hear from him as to why he

feels that successful appellants should not be entitled to

their costs.

You have restricted this to owners applying. We can have the

situation of an owner having a perfectly legitimate appeal.

It's a costly experience for him to wage his appeal. He

succeeds in it. The commission might have made a serious error

in law or an error in fact. Why in the Lord's name shouldn't

this poor fellow be entitled to some degree of indemnity for

the expense that he's incurred as a result of taking this

appeal?

This is not talking about any loss that might result from

use of land or something like this. This is costs in the legal

sense. Costs as referred to in the amendment are the kinds of

costs that you would find in the supreme court tariffs. This

refers to court costs. It's all it refers to — they're

legal costs.

I can't see why the commission, which is an organ of the

government, has decided that if there is an appeal and the poor

appellant loses, the commission gets its pound of flesh at the

expense of the owner applicant. But if the owner applicant has

his day in court, presents his case very validly and it's

accepted, you're denying him costs. I can remember the Attorney General, in the days that he was

a real Scottish fighter, standing on this side of the House and

arguing the very point that I'm making now when we were talking

about the right to sue the Crown and the right to recover costs

against the government.

Now, if you go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia or

the court of appeal in a lawsuit against B.C. Hydro and you're

successful in your litigation against B.C. Hydro, or against

B.C. Rail, for that matter, fine and dandy. The court awards

the successful litigant costs on a party-party tariff.

We've certainly restricted the amount of costs because

you've got the word "reasonable" in there. The word

"reasonable" would be determined by the appellate body. You

can't tell me you're going to say "no" to this practical

request. It's amazing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, keep talking for a minute because I

want to ask him about the next one. I'm one ahead of you for a

change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): There was

squeaking of the wheels over there as the Attorney General and

the Minister of Agriculture were allowing their minds to get

into gear. It was just this morning, Mr. Chairman, that I heard

the Attorney General on one of our not-so-popular hotline radio

shows. He was better than the previous time that he appeared

before them because it wasn't a discussion of legislation

already on the books.

But there was a discussion this morning about the matter of

suing the Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to listen to the

arguments on the next part of the amendment. We'll accept that

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall subsection 9 of the amendment to the

amendment pass?

Subamendment approved.

On subsection 11.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Subsection 11 reads:

"Where land is excluded from a land reserve plan by order of

the commission…" and so forth. The amendment is to this

effect: "Where land is excluded from a land reserve plan"

— now the subamendment — "or from an agricultural

reserve established under

section 8."

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): That's the same

thing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's hear the argument.

MR. GARDOM: We think it better defines it. Your only

exclusion here is the land reserve plan. We say "an

agricultural reserve" under

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's in the definition section.

MR. GARDOM:

Section 8 concerns itself totally with land

reserves.

[ Page 2890 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: You've done very well. We don't feel that

adds anything to it. We're not going to support that amendment.

Quit while you're ahead. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall subsection…?

MR. GARDOM: No, no, no. I'm dancing around in mid-air here.

Just give me a minute, come on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: O.K. It's your turn to do a little

puzzling.

MR. GARDOM: I don't think it's included in the definition

section as you have indicated. "Land reserve plan" means "a

plan prepared pursuant to this Act in the manner prescribed by

the regulations" and "may be designated by the commission as an

agricultural land reserve." It's not a major point. Let it go,

O.K.?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you withdrawing that

section of the subamendment?

MR. GARDOM: I prefer to be voted against. I think he already

has said "no."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall subsection 11 of the amendment to the

amendment pass?

Subamendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments to

section 9 as amended

pass? I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, are we voting on

section 9 as

amended now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with

section 9 as amended.

Pardon me, the amendments to

section 9.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) is shaking his head and the two Clerks are nodding

theirs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the amendment as amended,

section 9. Shall the amendment as amended pass?

Amendment approved with amendment.

section 9 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Some of the subsections in this

section point out, at

least in our minds, the difficulty there is with amending this Act at all and

also the problem there is with the seeming inclusion of regional and municipal

input into this Act.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, subsection 5 takes and locks in

all agricultural land which was zoned for agricultural purposes

prior to December 21, when the order-in-council was delivered.

I don't understand how we can justify that, Mr. Chairman, and

at the same time ask the municipal areas and the regional

districts to submit official plans for scrutiny and possible

acceptance by the land commission. Already, by virtue of this

amended Act, we're saying to those regional districts that here

is perhaps 90 per cent of your municipality that you can't

include. I can think of several municipalities where that 90

per cent figure is justifiable.

So 90 per cent of the municipality, Mr. Chairman, cannot be

included in that plan that we're asking him to submit. If

that's the case — and in reading this Act that is the

case — then what on earth is the point of asking the

regional districts to submit anything? They don't have anything

to submit under the terms of this section.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just so the Hon. Member can keep up, we're

talking about

section 9, subsection 5, Mr. Member.

The other point that I'd like to make in relation to that

same problem, Mr. Chairman, is: what about areas within a

municipality which have already been excluded since December 21

from an agriculturally zoned area. As I read this Act …

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't have to appeal.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, it says that this land

is locked in.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it doesn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes it does say it's locked in, Mr.

Chairman, and there have been some areas already taken out. So

what happens to those areas? As I read it, they may still be

zoned agricultural and that municipality may want to appeal,

regardless of the fact they have been told by the Environment

and Land Use Committee that they may go ahead and develop,

because that zoning may not have changed yet. If that is the

case, they are locked in, regardless of what that Member

says.

Mr. Chairman, continuing with the same

section and moving on

to subsection 7 — I think that here is a case where the

appeal procedure has been made so clumsy that it is almost

useless. First of all, the

[ Page 2891 ]

person who is dissatisfied with any decision of the

commission not only has to get approval to appeal from his

municipality or regional district, but he also has to be

granted leave to appeal by any two members of the commission.

If that isn't stacking the deck against the appellant, I don't

know what it is. At least it could have been either/or, but in

this manner the government is saying the commission and the

municipality or regional district has to give the approval.

I would think that if the municipality or regional district

agreed to allow an appellant to come before either the

commission or the Environment and Land Use Committee, that

should be good enough because the commission has already made

the original decision to lock him into a certain situation. Why

are two members of that commission going to change their minds

and then agree to let him come before an appeal? I don't think

that is necessary and it just makes it so clumsy, as I have

said before, that it renders it useless. It in fact isn't an

appeal procedure at all.

In the Liberal amendment, Mr. Chairman, they made a

successful point about allowing costs to be paid by the Crown

if the appellant is successful, but I really don't understand

why we should ask the appellant to pay at all. This is an

individual owner we are talking about in most cases, and we are

talking not about the commission, not about a court but….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I believe that has already been dealt

with in the past.

MR. McCLELLAND: My point hasn't been dealt with, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

MR. McCLELLAND: We are talking, Mr. Chairman, not about a

court of law, not about the commission, as the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said, but about the

Environment and Land Use Committee, an arm of government which

is there to hear appeals for the most part. That is what the

Environment and Land Use Committee spends much of its time at

— hearing appeals — and that is what it should be

used for.

Its use as an ultimate appeal body is excellent, but to ask the appellant,

who may be an individual farmer, to pay the costs of that appeal if he should

lose it is ultimate folly — particularly after he has had to go through such

ludicrous procedures to get his appeal in the first place from an arm of government

and not a court of law. Why should that man have to pay for his own appeal to

a legitimate appeal board on behalf of the government? If he appeals to Workmen's

Compensation Board, I don't think he has to pay his costs. In fact, if he appeals

to almost any arm of government I don't think he has to pay his costs. So I

object strongly to that

section of the Act and subsection 5 and subsection 7,

which I believe are really stacking the deck completely against the owner, the

individual owner, of a piece of land which may be deemed to be agricultural

— or any other kind of land that falls within the land reserve plan.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to add my words to this

particular

section because, in essence, this land commission

still has dictatorial powers because it has the right to veto

any decision against it. If that isn't having dictatorial

powers, well I don't know what it is.

The other point I would like to make is that a small

landowner who is going to even think of an appeal against the

decision of this powerful commission is going to think twice

because the powerful commission can go back and say, "Well you

have to pay all the court costs." I don't think that's

justice.

I don't think this five-man commission is going to be very

just either. They are certainly going to put the affairs of the

state before the rights of the individual, otherwise these

sections wouldn't be in here. Why can't there be the same

rights of appeal as there are established under the

Municipal Act at the present time? Why do we have to go

this far in giving this commission so much power? I don't care

how you dress it up, they still have this power to veto any

appeal from any decision they make. It is there, it's plain and

it hasn't been changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, on subsection 1 think the

Hon. Member for Langley's (Mr. McClelland'

s) arguments sort of

fall flat on a couple of grounds. First, you will note that in

the fifth line: "authorized by a resolution of a municipality

or regional district…" — maybe he didn't read that

far, but in any case it has to be authorized by a resolution of

the municipality or a regional district. Beyond that, the land

may never be in the reserve in the first place.

You will recall that this

section is to deal with getting

out of the reserve once you are in. Now the fact that you were

zoned for agricultural use in December of 1972, or whatever,

doesn't necessarily mean that that land will be in the

agricultural land reserve. So in the first place, the land may

never be in. In the second place, there is this authorization

by a resolution of a municipality or a regional district to be

considered.

With respect to

section 7, the right of appeal: I think it

is perhaps even better than you have now …

[ Page 2892 ]

before a municipality. As I understand it, there is no

appealing a zoning decision of a municipality. At least here we

do provide….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, what do you do once your land has

been zoned as single residence? Can you appeal it?

MR. McCLELLAND: We have gone all through this a number of

times. First of all you have to have a public hearing to begin

with before you can zone anything, and then you can appeal….

HON. MR. STUPICH: Before you can zone in the first

place?

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, but we've done that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then you have at least four avenues of

appeal open — to the court of appeal, to the board of

revision, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the court

from thereon and right up to the supreme court after that. But

you have four levels of appeal laid down in the Municipal

Act… .

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, read your Municipal Act . I read it to you once

and you weren't listening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, on a

point on this particular section. The Member for Langley has

served on a municipal council — and the purpose of this

section is to protect the decisions of municipal councils prior

to December 21, 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: To protect your order-in council.

HON. MR. HALL: No, no. Any application that had to do with

rezoning from agricultural was made, and heard by a municipal

council and determined definitely prior to us putting in the

order-in-council — this is protected by this because if

you didn't have it in, I suggest to you, this could lead to a

whole series of applications for changing those zoning bylaws

made by the municipal council without going to the municipal

council first. That is the purpose of this

section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 9 pass?

Section 9 approved with amendments.

section 10.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some amendments I'll

put forward in a moment. The problem I see in

section 10 and I

might add that Mr. Tootill, a very respected….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are you offering subamendments

to the amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. The proposal I am putting forward

comes from a very respected former registrar in the land

registry system… .Good — the Minister is now listening

and the Attorney General is attentive as well.

The proposal is that the whole system of land registry in

the province depends upon the Torren's system where the

certificate of title is to be acceptable as a true definition

of the land. It affirms the definite legal ownership. We have

in this case, in

section 10(2) a situation where it is simply

not sure that the certificate of title will be endorsed with

the restrictions that this Land Commission Act might….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the amendment

standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture is for

subsection 4 and therefore your amendment would be prior to

subsection 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm on subsection 2. Well,

whichever you like. Take your pick. We can discuss the whole

section at once.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked you if it was the amendment to the

amendment, so unless there are amendments to the amendment, we

will dispose of the amendment in the name of the Minister and

then consider yours after.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. Any time you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

[ Page 2893 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, back to where we were. The fact is,

Mr. Chairman, that our system of land registry depends on the

certificate of title being a recognized and acceptable

indication of exactly what is and what is not the state of

ownership of a particular piece of land. If we start….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member please indicate

what subsection he is speaking to?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 2 and 3. I'm having great difficulty, Mr.

Chairman. I'm sorry, but if you will stop interrupting me, I'll

get it across.

Section 10(2) and 10(3) and my amendments I will

send up to you so you can look at them. My amendments are to

delete in subsection 3 where it says, "notwithstanding

subsection (2), the commission may…." I would like to change

that to "shall". On the next line, "In respect of any

agricultural land that is in agricultural land reserve,

register", I would like to change that word "register" to

"lodge".

HON. MR. STUPICH: What line were you in first?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sorry.

Section 10(3), line 1, switch

"may" to "shall".

Section 10(3), line 2, change "register" to

"lodge" O.K.? Got it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: They're all in subsection 3, then. I

thought there was something in 2. Just 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact of the matter is that subsection

2 is one that provides that it may be done but it is not

necessarily certain that it will happen. What's happening is

that we are changing the actual value of the land, we are

changing its nature, and yet the Torren's system, which we feel

should record in every instance such changes, will not

necessarily under your

section record this on the face of the

certificate.

The comments that I'm raising, as I said, were the results

of suggestions from a man with great experience in this field.

He points out that unless we have this type of restriction on

land put into the Torren's system and actually on the

certificate, we are creating a situation where the whole system

of land registry in the province becomes far less sure and

stable than it otherwise would be because of the fact that

people will not know from the certificate whether or not a

restriction has been placed on land which can materially affect

its value.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They don't know the zoning now. From the

Land Registry Office they go to city hall.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That may certainly be. But the proposal

we are putting in, Mr. Attorney General, is that instead of having this at the will of the

commission, we are making it mandatory. It may be that the

commission will, generally speaking, do this, but will not in

all instances. We may develop a system whereby people will

expect it to be done and yet the law does not require it to be

done. So I want to be consistent with your point of view, or if

you want to be consistent with the point of view you have just

expressed, Mr. Attorney General, you probably should have this

whole subsection deleted. And perhaps subsection 2 as well; I'm

not sure.

But my point is that if we make it mandatory to lodge such a

caveat, we will be improving the land registry system in the

province and assisting people who are engaged in the purchase

of land or sale of land. It would perhaps require a change as

well to the Land Registry Act ,

section 38(l), but that

is outside the scope of our particular debate at this time.

The amendment is a perfectly reasonable one because I don't

think it would be enormously difficult to do. It would remove

this air of uncertainty where some certificates will no doubt

have the restriction lodged and some certificates will no doubt

be left blank in this respect. It will create a better system

of land registry in the province and I would think that from

this point of view you would want to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I think the Member made a very strong case for

the suggestion. I am delighted to hear the recommendation of

Mr. Tootill who is a man of considerable experience in land law

as some of us in this House know. When you do have the

commission designate agricultural land as agricultural land

reserve, that is really a restrictive covenant of the strongest

sort. That is the object behind the bill. That being terribly

important, it would seem to me that it would be much more

practical and certainly more efficient that the designation as

an agricultural land reserve be filed in the Land Registry

Office not as a matter of discretion but as an absolute

necessity.

The Torren's system is the finest system of land

registration in the world. The finest — as long as it is

followed. A person should be able to go to the Land Registry

Office, which they can do today, and for the price of 50 cents

find out exactly what the status of a title is at any given

moment. It's a marvelous service. But don't go ahead and

detract from that doctrine of notice and this great service the

fact that you have designated something as an agricultural land

reserve and that the property can only be used as that.

Now you are not going to have agricultural land reserves

grow like Topsy all over the place; there is going to be a lot

of thought conceivably given to this. Certainly the suggestion

is not going to be any

[ Page 2894 ]

procedural or mechanical drag upon the commission. So the

amendment that is suggested is that it is mandatory that the

commission "shall" lodge a caveat. The reason for taking out

the permissive "may" and making it "shall", and changing

"register" to "lodge" is because under the provisions of the

Land Registry Act and the Torrens system, that is the

correct phrase.

You don't register caveats at the Land Registry Office. They

are not a registered instrument per se; they are an instrument

that is lodged, and it means, "Beware, you should not be

dealing with the title; the title may not pass while the caveat

is still on." And of course there is ample provision, as the

Attorney General knows, within the provisions of the Land

Registry Act for the removal of caveat at any time, at 21

days notice and so forth and so on.

I think that if you accept the amendment you are

complementing the Torren's system. If you accept the amendment

you are making the Torren's system do what it was intended to

do. If you don't accept it you are going outside of the

Torren's system, and that is certainly something that should

not be done as a government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay on the

amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.

While I don't understand all the legalities involved, the crux

of the matter is that this whole bill concerns us about the

degree to which the individual is dealing with a commission or

with the state. It would only seem sensible to us that the

maximum amount of assistance should be given to individuals who

are not well-versed in the whole system and to have the maximum

amount of information available on a certificate of title. We

strongly support the Liberal amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it would be an ideal

situation if everyone could go to the Land Registry Office and

get this kind of information immediately. We hope to be able to

work to that. As a matter of fact we considered the

relationship between this and the Land Registry Act in

other ways as well and felt that we would have to defer these

until the fall because it will mean changing the Land

Registry Act as well.

But for the present time, to require that these caveats have to be lodged or

registered before anything came into existence would hopelessly delay the institution

of these reserves. So for that reason we are staying with it as is and denying

the amendment advanced by the Hon. Member for Victoria.

MR. GARDOM: With respect, Mr. Minister, it wouldn't affect

that in the slightest. There is no delay. Once you've gone

ahead and the land commission has made its decision that you

have an agricultural land reserve, it goes into the Land

Registry Office. It doesn't become an agricultural land reserve

at the moment of registering or filing in the Land Registry

Office; it becomes an agricultural land reserve at the time the

decision is made.

But we are saying after the decision is made it's the

responsibility that you file. If you don't file, there wouldn't

be any really legal responsibility on the part of the

commission for not filing. That's why we say it is a good

thing. But there's no hold-up; the mechanics won't hold up

anything.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Can I just say that the maps will

certainly be widely available? All of the regional districts

will have participated so everyone can find out quite easily

whether they are in or out of a reserve. We'll look at this,

and possibly in the next session this is one of the areas where

there might be some changes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are voting on the amendment now, are

we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Victoria that is before the House.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of

Agriculture, I would like to see why it is necessary to have

section 10(

l) in there at all. When you are talking about

heavily-populated areas, maybe in the lower Fraser Valley where

there is farmland there for raising vegetables, you might want

to say to a person, "Well, you've got to use it for that." But

when you get into the northern and central parts of the

province there are farmers who own large tracts of land who at

the present time are not using it for the production of

agriculture. They might be doing other things with this and yet

still not ruining it so that it couldn't be used for the

intention of the Act.

You may be forcing some farmers and landowners to use this

for the intent the land commission feels it should be used,

which might not be an economically viable operation. Or, by the

same token, you might

[ Page 2895 ]

be….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, I believe that the Hon. Member

might more properly direct these remarks to the amendment to

section 11, as it will be coming up next. If you will just wait

until then.

MR. PHILLIPS: But we are talking on

section 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be more properly directed to the

amendment on

section 11, I think.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not really, because it says, "No person shall

occupy or use agricultural land designated as an agricultural

land reserve pursuant to this

section for any purpose other

than farm use." And that's what I'm talking about. Am I

not?

HON. MR. STUPICH: "Except by permission."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member read

section 11?

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't happen very often in this

session, but you're right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: The person who owns this land may also wish to

rent it out to make part of his farm viable. As I say, this may

be all right in the lower Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan.

But, when you get up in the Cariboo and the northern areas,

there are many areas of land whose owners this commission could

force to farm. And it might not be economically viable to do

so.

I'd like the Minister to give me some assurance that this

won't happen.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is provision in

here, as it plainly states, for the commission to consider

situations like that. Now it doesn't require the farmer to farm

it. It simply says that the person sitting on that land may not

use it for some other purpose unless the commission is

consulted about it and is able to evaluate whether or not that

is permanently removing it from agriculture.

We feel that

section 10(

l) is a necessary part of the

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

said that this does concern the Okanagan very much, Mr.

Minister. There's a good deal of land classed as agricultural

land which is in irrigation districts, but in fact is dry land.

It may be part of a farm. It may even be part of the title of

that farm. That would be classed under this section.

I'd like some words from the Minister as to what he intends

to do. Either these people must have more water to make that

land productive or else he's got to give them some assurance

that the title could be split and that dry land could be used

for something else.

In the meantime a lot of this land has changed hands since

it was categorized when the ARDA programme first came in.

People are sitting with major acreages of dry land for which

they can't get water — which they can't make productive.

Yet, other lands adjacent that were not included in the

irrigation districts originally are going to be classed as

subdivision land under this commission Act, and they'll get

water. You've got a legitimate farmer so he can't get water;

he's got use of his land and is zoned in. Then you're going to

use other land that didn't have water and give it water.

I wonder if the Minister would comment. This is a matter of

serious concern in the Okanagan.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the only comment I can

make at this time is that likely there will be representations

made on behalf of the owners of those particular land parcels

or by the owners themselves to the regional district for

exclusion of some of these areas from the initial agricultural

land reserve. However, once they're in, as the Act states, they

must go the commission before they're going to use it for some

purpose other than agriculture.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, one more question on this. Would

the commission be prepared, does he feel, to look at a

complementary use of that dry land which might be part of a

farm? As the Minister knows, some people have this type of land

and use it for summer camping areas or they develop some type

of summer commercial attraction to complement their farm

income. Does he feel the commission would be receptive to that

type of a program which, in fact, would help make the farm more

viable economically? This would not let it go for a subdivision

or leave it "dead" so to speak, because of the impracticality

of a subdivision in that area.

In considering this, the commission and the regional

district then, in fact, may well be in conflict with their own

zoning. But I think this is a very important part — that

there would have to be some avenue open to the use of that dry

land which was zoned in for a complementary economic program

which would help the farm.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the commission will be

charged with the responsibility of making this legislation

work. Certainly I can imagine situations where development such

as she has discussed might go on that would help make family

farms more productive and more economic. So, certainly

there

[ Page 2896 ]

are situations where the commission, I'm sure, would look at

such a situation. But that's a pretty hypothetical question.

There are all kinds of things we might ask in the same

sense.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

What the commission will actually do in respect to specific

situations has to be left to the recommendation of the

commission.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 10 pass?

Section 10 approved with amendment.

section 11.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, just a couple of comments or

questions on

section 11. Once again, it's the uncertainty we

have about how agricultural land is going to be designated. I

realize the Minister has been asked that question on a number

of occasions. Also, how much of that designated land is going

to be placed into an agricultural land reserve?

You can see some serious problems developing, particularly

with regard to 11(3) which could be, in effect, a zone-back of

property which may be used for any number of purposes, and yet

be agricultural land and be within an agricultural land

reserve. It could now be used for almost anything. But if it's

transferred or sold or leased or if the ownership or occupancy

changes in any manner, then it is, in effect, zoned back

— that original agricultural use.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Might be — but not necessarily.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I agree; if there were a shopping

centre or something on it, it would be simply impractical. But

there could be other nuances there that could cause a real

hardship to a family — you know, with respect to other

uses.

Without knowing exactly how we're going to determine what is

agricultural land or how much of that agricultural land is

going to be within a reserve, this particular

section bothers a

lot of people, and, I think, rightly so.

The other comment that I'd have is that regardless of where

the appeals have been let in other areas, there still is no

appeal here except, as you've pointed out in a number of other

occasions, an appeal by way of law. I understand, from

listening to my lawyer friends on my left, that that's very

difficult to prove and that there isn't a very adequate appeal

procedure.

So those two sections, Madam Chairman, bother the official opposition considerably.

I think that without adequate descriptions of how we arrive at the designation

of agricultural land, that is a very frightening

section —

section 3 particularly.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is nothing in this

section that gives a person transferring

his land, even to another person…the commission can have the right to say

what it is. In the Municipal Act ,

section 705, it's laid out what procedures

there are — "change of tenants, no effect." But here again, this commission

can make the decisions as to what use this land will be put — whether it changes.

Again, there are no rights of appeal. Supposing that

somebody wants to make an exemption once his land is locked

in.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to make one further point on this

same subject, Madam Chairman. I realize that the Minister has

said that if it wasn't practical it wouldn't happen. But the

power is there, nevertheless.

Even if there were a sawmill on the property that was being

used as a sawmill, the commission has the power. That's what

bothers us, this all-embracing power that this five-man

appointed commission has. And it can use it; it can use that

power in any way that it sees fit. That's the danger that we

see on this side of the House and that's the danger we want to

avoid.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, we just wish to record the fact

that we also feel the appeal mechanism is inadequate.

Section 11 approved with amendment.

section 12.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I wanted to comment on

section 12. We want to

be on record as saying that this extends too much power to the

government to enter the farming business. We don't think this

is desirable.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Same point. On

section 12(b), there has been

no change in that section. It still allows the commission to go

into state farming in competition with the farmers in the area.

We don't think that's desirable in our society.

[ Page 2897 ]

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE ; We just wish to ask a question, Madam Chairman, about that

phrase in line 5, "…or other land in the vicinity…." It seems a strange

phrase to be put in there. It doesn't define what the other land might be or

otherwise. I wonder if the Minister could explain what thought is behind that

particular phrase, "or other land in the vicinity."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister like to comment on

that?

MR. WALLACE: To truly explain it — or at least explain

our confusion. It infers in the way the sentence is written

that the other land in the vicinity is not commission land; it

comes after the words, "use of commission land or other land in

the vicinity." Does this mean that although it wasn't

agricultural land the commission might have powers or desires

on the land in the vicinity?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Madam Chairman, the phrase here is to

allow for the possibility that a farming operation might

actually be on the wrong side of the boundary and not within

the reserve. The reserve line might be drawn and yet someone

may be farming on the opposite side of the line. If he is

farming on land that is not reserve land and the commission has

land within the reserve, then the commission may do these

things adjacent to this land. It is just to allow for possible

situations that might exist like that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 13 pass?

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, just to explain our stand. On

section 14, if the commission is leasing to someone and taxes

are not being paid or there is some other agreement, we see no

reason why the commission should pay grants in lieu of taxes.

We think the commission should pay the taxes if it owns the

land just like anybody else.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: In relation to unoccupied land, I agree on that point

of view. A lessee would probably pay regular taxes. I think the commission should

pay a grant in the amount of the general mill rate that is established by either

the regional district or the municipality. As the Provincial Secretary pointed

out, as a former member of a council I have never appreciated grants in lieu

of taxes and I don't yet.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Some lessees may pay the taxes; in other

cases it may be the owner that pays the taxes — it could

be either way.

The real question is the amount of the grant in lieu of

taxes, isn't it? I agree with you that the amount should be the

same. But for legislative purposes this phrase is used and

sometimes abused.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

Chairman, with regard to the second set of circumstances in

which a grant may be paid in lieu of taxes, would the Hon.

Minister indicate on what basis there might be a lease of

commission land which does not oblige the lessee to pay taxes?

Are you contemplating leasing land for specific purposes where

the lease would not oblige the tenant to pay the taxes?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Madam Chairman, I'm not sure that I

even understand the question. You might have a lease agreement

wherein the operator pays the taxes separately from the monthly

or annual lease. You might have a situation wherein the lease

he pays is simply for the use of the land, and the owner, in

this case the commission, is paying the grant in lieu of taxes.

It seems to me the lease agreement can be drawn up either way,

can't it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, a lease can be drawn up any way you

want it. Could the Minister indicate under what circumstances

the land could be leased for some particular purposes and the

lessee would not be obliged to pay taxes — in other

words, a tax-free lease? You make specific provision for that

and I wonder why that might be.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Madam Chairman, the only thing I can

suggest is that we are leaving it open so that the lease can be

drawn up either way. Perhaps if the person is paying their

lease on a monthly basis as opposed to an annual lease then it

might make more sense for the commission to pay the grant. I

don't know. I think it is just a matter of leaving it open so

that it could be either way. I have no particular situation in

mind.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 14 pass?

[ Page 2898 ]

Section 14 approved.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Madam Chairman,

section 16 is the reason of all

why this party cannot support the amended Bill 42 or, as the

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

called it very soon after the amendments were produced, "the

son of 42," or "42A." There is no suggestion that an

owner should be compensated for an amount equal to the highest

and best use of his land. But he must, absolutely must, be

given compensation as a result of designation as agricultural

land reserve. This says it all and this is why we cannot

support the amended bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, certainly as with the rest

of this bill, the official opposition cannot support this

section. It's been very difficult to make the opposite side

understand the reasons for our opposition to this

section in

the bill. I would, if I may, just like to use a brief example

as the kind of thing that at least our party is talking

about.

It has to do with a piece of property which may have been

bought yesterday for $5,000 an acre and zoned commercial, but

may tomorrow be deemed agricultural land….

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are we not dealing with the amendment of the

Minister which is to delete certain words?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Deleting all of the third line except for

the first word.

MR. McCLELLAND: O.K., Madam Chairman, I will speak to the

amended motion.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: We will support the Minister's amendment which

deletes words which would indicate that the commission has any

power over greenbelt land, land-bank land reserve, or parkland

reserve. That is the effect of the amendment.

Amendment approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I have the pleasure to move

the amendment to

section 16 standing in my name on the order

paper. It appears about the middle of p. 18. Madam Chairman, this amendment will delete

section 16 as it

presently stands and substitute the following:

"16(1) The owner of any land designated by the commission as

an agricultural land reserve shall be compensated by the

commission for any loss of fair market value occasioned by such

designation.

"

(2) The owner of land claiming the right to compensation

may apply to the commission therefore in the manner prescribed

by the regulations.

"

(3) The commission, after a hearing held in such a manner

as is prescribed in the regulation, may allow the application

and fix the amount of compensation, or may refuse the

application, and such allowance or refusal shall be deemed to

be a decision of the commission.

"

(4) Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of

the commission, may, on notice to the commission, appeal to the

Supreme Court of British Columbia within 14 days of the date of

such decision, and the Court shall hear and determine the right

of the applicant to compensation and the amount thereof, de

novo."

Madam Chairman, from the outset we have objected to

section

16 as it appeared in the original bill introduced for first and

second readings.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I am afraid I must rule this

amendment out of order inasmuch as it calls for expenditures of

funds.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who's going to expend any funds?

(Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: It fixes the amount of compensation in

subsection 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is only if somebody establishes loss of

fair market value, Madam Chairman. (Laughter). I am glad to

see, Madam Chairman, that you are the only one of your party

who seems to have gotten the point of the entire amendment.

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

[ Page 2899 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: The government has consistently failed to

recognize that they have an obligation only to pay compensation

if there is demonstrable loss of fair market value. The Member

for Richmond (Mr. Steves) talked at great length about all the

millions of dollars that would be spent in compensating people

who own agricultural land throughout the province. The fact of

the matter is that there will only be compensation paid, and

therefore there can only be an impost upon the Treasury of the

province, if indeed a loss of fair market value was

established.

What I am urging in this amendment is to give the landowner

an opportunity to establish that he has lost fair market value.

This is completely lacking in the

section that we have before

us. I can tell by the expression on your face, Madam Chairman,

that you are now fully in accord with the position that I am

taking. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: But reluctantly, Hon. Member, I must rule it

out of order…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MS. CHAIRMAN: …as it does call for the expenditure of

funds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

MR. WILLIAMS: I trust, Madam Chairman, that this is not an

irrevocable ruling on your part and that if I encourage you to

very carefully consider what I have said you may see fit to

reconsider what is a hasty decision.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I am not in that position, Hon.

Member. The Clerks have advised me this is the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Madam Chairman, you must admit that it

was a very good try for all the people in the province who are

going to lose market value by reason of your decision. It will

all fall on your head, Madam Chairman (Laughter), not upon the

part of the government. You are going to bear the brunt of all

the criticism that there will be from those people who are

going to lose value under the action of the commission.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I feel very intimidated, Hon. Member. The Hon.

Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll go on with my story. But I think it's

important that the people on the other side of the House….

MS. CHAIRMAN: You are speaking to

section 16 as amended.

MR. McCLELLAND:

Section 16 as amended, Madam Chairman,

that's right. If I may, I'd just like to say that it has been

the practice of the people on the other side of the House to

simply discount that there is ever any loss from zoning and

therefore any need for compensation at any time.

Madam Chairman, if I could just relate the example that I

started out to relate, and that is of the person who buys a

piece of property — we'll call it one acre for the sake of easy

figuring — at $5,000 today, which is zoned commercial, and that

property is then zoned agricultural tomorrow and is then only

worth $2,000; that man has lost $3,000 out of his pocket. If

that happens, then that man has a right to compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not under this government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Not under this government, Madam Chairman.

But it's our contention that that man does have a right to

compensation, particularly if that land is being used for some

kind of public purpose after which there is no way that that

man can sell his property for anything other than public

purpose.

That's the reason, Madam Chairman, that the

section of the

Municipal Act that's quoted so often,

section 706, also

includes a subsection which says that that no-compensation

clause does not include public land. If we're going to zone

agricultural land reserves in this province, then that land in

effect, in our opinion, Madam Chairman, is as good as being

zoned for public use, because it can be used for no other

purpose.

For that reason and many others, Madam Chairman, we say that

that man who has an actual cash loss has every right to expect

this government…and as a matter of fact, the Minister of

Agriculture on an earlier occasion gave some indication that he

may consider that, when he was talking about the amendment in

his Press conference across the hall. Nevertheless, Madam

Chairman, that man who has demonstrated and can demonstrate by

the actual cash loss that he has lost money on the basis of a

zoning regulation by this commission, has every right to expect

some compensation because of that decision.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, we've had some

discussion about

section 706 of the Municipal Act and

whether there's a change in principle being introduced by the

government. I say there is not. In debate some people have said

that the Hon. Premier didn't quote subsection 2 of 706 when he

was on the hotline. He didn't do so because it's really

irrelevant. Our

section is exactly the same as

[ Page 2900 ]

706 of the Municipal Act . It does not include

subsection 2 of that

section of the Municipal Act , which

says it doesn't apply when land is zoned exclusively for public

use, because we're not zoning any land exclusively for public

use.

That's the expropriation situation, where it's been taken by

the Crown or a municipality or something like that, that's

referred to there. There's no taking in our Act.

I remember listening on another hotline to a Mr. Jarl Whist,

from Kamloops, on this point. It's right on this point. He

described…because what I'm saying is that what we're doing

is the traditional compensation law of B.C.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Whist said that he had bought land

in the Town of McBride. He was complaining about this long

before Bill 42. He said it was zoned commercially. He admitted

that there was a baseball diamond on it that the kids played

on. Then he said that after he had bought it commercially and

was going to put up a motel, the Town of McBride zoned it down

back to a baseball diamond. He said, "I had no compensation. I

was zoned down by the judgment of the municipal authorities and

there was nowhere I could go." He was very angry about

that.

But that's been the law of the Province of British Columbia

as enshrined in that

section of the Municipal Act .

Zoning down or zoning up by public authority has not been a

ground for compensation in this province. Now maybe it should

be under a totally different kind of land system. It may be

that if my house, which is a single private dwelling, were

zoned up to high-rise apartments along Kitsilano beach, and my

property automatically trebled or quadrupled in value, I

shouldn't have that increased value. I don't think I

should.

I think the community should be able to take the enhanced

values which come about in land appreciation as a result of

public action. Properly, on the other side there should be

compensation for those who lose as a result of zoning by public

action. That would happen in Stockholm, Sweden, but it hasn't

been the law of British Columbia. We have no means to bring

back to the public Treasury the very large appreciation in

values that occurs as a result of zoning action. Maybe we

should have. Maybe this is something that should be looked

at.

As I said, in Stockholm, where the land is owned by the city and what you're

paying is not taxes but leasehold revenue, it's easily adjusted. If you're zoned

up, your rent would go up. If you're zoned down, your rent would go down. But

we're not that civilized in our land laws. What we're doing in the Province

of British Columbia is following the traditional land use and compensation practice

and law that has been followed for years. Our

section is exactly along the same

principles as

section 706 of the Municipal Act .

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, the Attorney General gets

up and declares that this is uncivilized legislation. Alec,

please, come on now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he says our land laws are. It

includes this particular bill, which is uncivilized in this

respect. He talks about Stockholm. The same provisions exist in

Glasgow and at least 100 other European cities. He's quite

right. If the value of the property goes up because of zoning,

we feel that society as a whole should receive the benefit of

it. We agree with the point you made about your house. When it

is rezoned by the City of Vancouver, we will certainly make

sure you don't get a penny extra value out of it. We're all

going to be watching that.

Without getting too involved, the same principle is true

when it affects zoning down. Whatever happened to Jarl Whist

and however you occupy your mornings, listening to hotlines

instead of attending to reading bills and your duties as

Attorney General…time after time, apparently, you haven't

read bills. That was found out on hotlines.

We're intrigued by your proposition that this is uncivilized

legislation. The proposal….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you came so close to it that really

there's a paper-thin distinction between the two. It's only a

very fine distinction. Let's face it, that's essentially what

you said.

In this particular

section all we ask is that we try to

civilize the legislation of British Columbia; we try to

civilize the Land Commission Act , if that is possible,

to a degree. We don't think it's great. We would like to have a

few changes made to

section 16 which would allow the principle

of having people compensated for down zoning. If it hasn't happened before, I'm not responsible for that

and you're not. I'm not suggesting that you and I bear on our

shoulders the responsibility for all the faults of the past.

We're trying to change things for the good, for the future of

British Columbia. That's the purpose of getting elected to this

Legislature, regardless of whether you're on the government

side or in opposition.

section 16, the fact is that we come across one of the

most repugnant features of this legislation. If there are

repugnant features in the Municipal Act and

[ Page 2901 ]

other bits of legislation of this province or any other

jurisdiction, that's no excuse for leaving repugnant sections

in this particular bill, Bill 42, and in particular

section

We have put forward…and been ruled out of order, Madam

Chairman — no doubt entirely correctly — by

yourself. We're not questioning your decision. What we are

saying is that an amendment put forward, which is printed up

and before Hon. Members, is worthy of close consideration. I

can't put it forward myself. In fact, since you've ruled it out

of order because it's an impost on the Crown, none of us on

this side of the House can.

But the very principles that the Hon. Attorney General was

talking about are there, I think. It would be perfectly simple

for the Hon. Attorney General or the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture or even the jovial Minister of Mines to put that on

the floor now as his own amendment. Then we could civilize this

legislation, as the Attorney General implied it should be

civilized.

There's no way we can do it. You've ruled us out of order.

But we're quite willing, in a spirit of cooperation and fair

play, to give this particular amendment, which the Hon. Minister of Agriculture is looking at very closely at the

moment, to him so that he can pop up to his feet and say,

"Madam Chairman, I'd like to put the amendment standing in the

name of L.A. Williams on the floor" in his own name. If he does

that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Jeer all you like, Mr. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, who is reputed to be the author of

this particular bill; jeer all you like. All we're trying to do

is civilize the bill in accordance with the concepts of the

Hon. Attorney General.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, let's start here — a journey of 1,000 miles

starts with a single step. In civilizing the whole system that you talked about

let's start here with a single step by having these amendments put on by the

Minister of Agriculture or the Attorney General. We have heard great statements

by you, about your desire for reform in this province, but when we come right

down to it, apparently you lack the will or you lack the energy to go ahead

and civilize our legislation in the way that you yourself have indicated would

be a good idea.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, I have had very little

to say this past week. (Laughter). I would like to make a suggestion, Madam

Chairman, about the particular amendment which you so correctly ruled out of

order. It is simply this: that with unanimous consent of the House, of course,

this amendment could be accepted. The Minister could indicate an acceptance;

he could move it himself. So there are ways that we can deal with a question

that I suspect the government might be far more in sympathy with than they….

If I could just….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I am advised that the committee

cannot suspend the rules of the House.

MR. McGEER: The Minister can…Madam Chairman, may I speak

directly — I think your attention is being distracted

there.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I have a very good….

MR. McGEER: I can recognize that, but what I'm hoping is

that the will of the House can — not the will of the desk

— the will of the House can be seen somehow in the final

product of this hallmark piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, if I could just make a point to the Attorney

General who is, I hope, listening. It is simply this: there are

many injustices in the way values for land are appreciated. All

the Members of the House subscribe to that. The Attorney

General has suggested to us that he cannot act to deal with

simply one part — the whole question of profit and losses

as a result of land changes in zoning must be dealt with

together. What I would like to submit is that that isn't

necessarily so.

In order to start things on an appropriate basis, what

better way than to make the generous gesture regarding

down-zoning to being with? Then having thoroughly established

the principle that if a person's land is zoned down, he is

justified in getting compensation. Then it seems to me the

Crown is in a far stronger position later to come back and say

that a person whose land is zoned up is not entitled to all of

the profits that result there from.

And I know, Madam Chairman — perhaps you don't know

this — but I know that the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has long felt there should

be a capital gains tax on land appreciation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government is doing that

already.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but there is no reason why

[ Page 2902 ]

the provincial government too, if by changes in zoning it

artificially creates a profit in privately-held land …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: But, Madam Chairman, here, I am suggesting a

very acceptable means by which the Crown can introduce justice.

Madam Chairman, one of the objectionable features to this bill…. I have never seen the people of British Columbia as aroused

over a piece of legislation as they were over this one. The

principle objection to it was the fact that unfair devices, in

the public's mind, were being used to take away what they

deemed to be a fair return to them on their land, whatever

final use might be found for it.

Had the government been prepared in the first instance

— and I'm not talking about all the beneficial amendments

that have been brought forward — but in the first

instance, to recognize that it was just as appropriate to award

compensation as to take away value by arbitrary zoning on the

part of a land commission, I submit the people of British

Columbia would be far more prepared to accept the beneficial

aspects of this particular bill. Since we have many ills to

correct, it becomes a very weak defence of the government to

say we can't commence because there are other ills we can't

correct this afternoon.

Madam Chairman, there is one important ill that can be

corrected this afternoon by the simple device of your asking

unanimous leave of the House to accept the amendment of the

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

alternatively to invite the Minister to make that motion. That

being so, certainly the sentiments of the Minister and the

Attorney General can be translated into effective legislation

this afternoon.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Madam Chairman, I think I should make it

clear that the government has no intention of accepting this

amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I was just afraid that in seeing me sit here and listen,

people might take silence for consent. While the Attorney General may be speaking

philosophically about land, I would suggest to you that if the community as

a whole is going to start expropriating capital gains and making up capital

losses, in no way could we restrict this only to land. The principle in

section

16, as is in this bill, is one that is time-honoured as being accepted by the

community. And until we are prepared to accept some drastic change in everything,

then I can see no cause for making it in this one example. So the government

intends to stand with

section 16 as it has been amended.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Madam Chairman, I would like to speak against

section 16 as amended by the government because we are right

back here to two principles and two principles only. That is,

in our view, we should have fair compensation laws in the

Province of British Columbia, number one. Number two, we should

have the right to sue the Crown or access to the courts.

If we had those two freedoms, we wouldn't even be debating

this

section right now. But we had 28 methods of arbitrary

expropriation in the Province of B.C. before the New Democratic

Party came to power. Since they have come to power it is up to

35, excluding your confiscation of the