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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1483 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Point of order

Reconvening of the House. Mr. Chabot — 1483

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Phillips

— 1483

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1504

Mr. Williams — 1511

Amendment — 1519

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1520

Mr. Liden — 1521

The House met at 6:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: We have now taken a motion for an adjournment

and the House is now reconvened.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You didn't say what

day.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Interjection by an Hon Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want prayers again? You'll need

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do you have a point of

order?

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

suggest that this is an adjournment of the House, that we're

now back following that adjournment and that the Hon. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), if he wishes to continue,

has the floor. That's the business before us.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out, Hon. Members, that the House meets

and adjourns at specific times. If you don't notice the time of

adjournment, the House then adjourns when attention is brought

to the clock. A dilatory motion or a formal motion for

interruption of business can be made and was made. The House

adjourned and because you took the time to have a formal count

of the vote, the time elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. SPEAKER: It did — obviously from 6:10 until 6:13

p.m. Therefore, the time taken in the division is not counted

so far as the business of the House is concerned.

We are back in session again, as I see it, and I have seen

no authority to guide me differently than that. I left the

chair and I returned to the chair as I am bound to do. I am

still a servant of the House and I do what the House decides

they want to do.

They have now come back to the session and I ring the bell

three times to warn all the Members that the House is in

session. But the House is in session. I therefore have to call

upon the Member who was interrupted by the clock to continue

the debate. I therefore call upon him to continue the

debate.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears

there have been a lot of different precedents established here tonight. One

that I do want to draw to your attention is the fact that you have established

a new order of attracting attention to the Members of when the House will convene.

You have consistently in the last several days….

MR. SPEAKER: If you want me to ring the bell. I have rung

the bell.

MR. CHABOT: You rang the bell once five minutes before the

House convenes and then three times at the time the House

assembled. I am wondering why?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a courtesy.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering why, Mr. Speaker, tonight there

is a difference to the procedure which you established several

days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: I will tell you why; because the House is here

assembled and nobody has left the room. And because we waited

on a division for every Member to come who could come, so from

a practical point of view, everyone was in the Chamber.

Now are we prepared to go ahead with business of the House

with the proper motions and order of business?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order. Two

Members did leave the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, all right. I'll accept that. If they did,

I didn't see them. But at any rate, I rang the bell and there

is no obligation to wait a set time for Members to come into

the House. We start the business at the time appointed. What is

the next routine of business, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the

second reading if the Hon. Member is not going to do it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it would be nice if somebody else

had a chance to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for

South Peace River.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What I was saying

before I was interrupted by the House adjournment was that

there are ways to assist the

[ Page 1484 ]

farmer to maintain his farmland and that is to see that he

receives a return from his investment and to see that he makes

sufficient from his agriculture to sustain him on the

farm.

Another one that I recommended, Mr. Speaker, was low

interest or no interest loans. Not to go out and take his land

away from him. That way all he will be doing is using somebody

else's land, somebody else's buildings, somebody else's

equipment in an endeavour to raise his food stuffs.

In Saskatchewan they call it "farm start" and they have not

brought in Bill 42. I recommend that taxes be taken off

agricultural land. This would keep one of the high costs of

agriculture and food production down. I suggest we get on with

farm-owned processing plants and the numerous other ways

there are in this province of assisting to keep agriculture as

a viable enterprise.

Everybody is concerned, including the farmers themselves,

but the concern of this Government for agriculture has not been

related into actions. The only thing this Government has done

so far to assist agriculture has been to bring in a bill to

remove the tax from farm gasoline. That is the only single

solitary step that has been made so far.

Bill 42 is not going to help the farmer at all. It is not

going to help the farmer one little bit. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Speaker, it is going to hinder the farmer; it is

going to hurt him.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) wants to know

what the people are thinking. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to

tell the Minister of Agriculture what the people are thinking

and what a lot of other people out there in British Columbia

are thinking. I don't know whether he will like to or not and I

don't know whether he will listen, but the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities is very concerned about Bill 42. They

recently submitted a statement to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs on Bill 42.

I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) read this letter or did he throw it in the wastepaper

basket like the other reports?

"The executive members of the UBCM, most of whom are

here today, have travelled from all parts of British Columbia to

Victoria at very short notice to discuss what we consider to be the

most dramatic and far reaching piece of legislation ever introduced

into the laws of this province, perhaps the most significant

legislation ever introduced in Canada"

This is what I have been saying. This is what the Union of

British Columbia Municipalities is saying.

"…Perhaps the most significant legislation ever introduced

in Canada. The proposals and provisions of Bill 42 are so wide in their application

and of such great effect on the lives and the property rights of all citizens

of B.C. that we feel we must state our reaction to them in the most forthright

terms.

"For many years the UBCM constantly urged consultation in

advance of the introduction of legislation affecting local

governments to be carried out. We therefore deplore the action

of the provincial government in seeking to pass Bill 42 without

prior consultation with the UBCM when that bill so clearly

strikes at the basic function of local government to control

the use of land within their boundaries."

Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs read this? Did he

listen to it? Did he absorb it?

"While the principle of preserving good agricultural land

for farming purposes can surely find little opposition, most

aspects and provinces of the bill affect us all.

"Our first suggestion to you, therefore, is that the bill's

formal passage through the Legislature be delayed until its

impact can be thoroughly revealed by all sections of the

community through public hearings held in all parts of the

province.

"We believe it is our duty as representatives of virtually

all municipal councils and regional district boards in British

Columbia to urge you to consider this first and most important

proposal of ours to give full and complete disclosure of the

effects of this bill; to give full and complete disclosure of

the effects this bill will have on every citizen who owned land

and to take the necessary time to do so in the fullest

degree."

Here is another group, Mr. Speaker, that is asking that

before Bill 42 is passed that we go out in the province.

"In addition to this public approach, we also urge you to

give full consideration to the following particular

aspects.

1. That existing municipal and regional district planning, zoning

and expenditures which have already been approved, following public hearings,

and which are contained in community and regional plans be allowed to stand.

For this purpose many have received cabinet approval and such earlier approvals

should indicate their continuing validity.

2. The municipal and regional district planning for future land

use, through the medium of community and regional plans encouraged and subject

to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, be recognized as expressing

the knowledge and more important, the wishes of the community or area concerned.

"That the proposed legislation contained provisions for

the commission to be required to hold public hearings prior to decisions being

made which designate land use under one of the several objects set forth in

the legislation and that there be right of appeal from the decisions of

the

[ Page

1485 ]

commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the very same things

that I have been stating and asking for in this House.

"That the bill should not be debated in the Legislature until the proposed Environmental Protection

Act referred to in

section 20 has been introduced."

These are the elected bodies, heads of all the civic

governments in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker which are bringing

in these proposals.

"That the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

required by

section 8(

a) prior to the designation of agricultural lands should

be made applicable to all categories of that designation referred to in the

section.

"That compensation should be paid when land is designated as park land and compensation should be

considered in all other cases where new designators adversely

affect value.

"That any person disqualified with the designation of his

land should be entitled to require that it be purchased by the commission at

its fair value."

At its fair value, Mr. Speaker.

"That is where lands are purchased or acquired by the commission,

but such lands are unoccupied or leased where the leasee does not pay taxes,

a grant in lieu of such taxes shall be made by the commission to the municipality

or regional district concerned.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Government going to do by way of paying

taxes to municipalities when they buy up large tracts of land within

that municipality? Is it going to be a grant in lieu of tax, Mr.

Speaker? Is it going to be on some basis other than it is now? Because

now, Mr. Speaker, if it's a Crown corporation or government-owned land

there is a grant in lieu of taxes. But it's going to be abundantly

different.

It's going to be a great change, Mr. Speaker, if the

government is going to be the big landowner. How are the

municipalities going to tax that land? What right are they

going to have to bargain with the government, Mr. Speaker? You

see, Mr. Speaker, as I have been pointing out, this is just one

other aspect of Bill 42 that many people would never think

about.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, by Bill 42 the land within the

communities can be zoned for whatever the five-man

commission wishes to zone it. And when the values are depressed

the government will go in and buy the land.

What is going to happen to the tax structure in local

communities, Mr. Speaker? The effects of Bill 42, are going to

be very far-reaching indeed. There are going to be many

side effects, Mr. Speaker, that, even with the amount of

research I have done on it, there is no way I can even think

about.

Bill 42 is in essence going to undermine the whole economy, the whole tax structure,

and our whole way of life in British Columbia. It's a very disturbing thought,

Mr. Speaker, and I try and keep it out of my mind, but it does worry me. It's

going to change the entire structure of British Columbia.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, the UBCM are asking that Bill 42

go to committee and go out into the province so that we can

have further input — that's why they're asking us. It's a

very legitimate request, Mr. Speaker, a very legitimate

request.

I am sure that out there there are people that know what's

going on. There are planners, there are environmentalists,

there are people who study land use, there are professors in

our colleges — we should have some input. Because what

really disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that in many areas, and I

say, that I have not even thought about — in many areas

in our economy, in many areas in our present way of life, and

in future generations — it is going to show up, Mr.

Speaker, after the bill is passed. And then it's going to be

too late. It's too late already, Mr. Speaker, but it's going to

be much later when the bill is out there and has done its

damage.

I wish I could look, Mr. Speaker, in a crystal ball so that

I could predict more so than I have already. There are certain

things that I know, Mr. Speaker, that are going to happen. And

they're not good predictions. The things that I predicted are

not good, Mr. Speaker. But it's the things that I can't predict

that really worry me. And, Mr. Speaker, it does really worry

me, because there have been less, far less controversial bills

introduced in this Legislature that have had far-reaching

effects. But this changes the whole concept of our basis of

agriculture, of land use, of industry, of taxation —

there is no one in the Province of British Columbia that Bill

42, does not affect.

There could be effects, Mr. Speaker, from Bill 42 that might

change our dealings with other jurisdictions in other

provinces. It could be that it will have an effect on the

united Canada that we love, Mr. Speaker. Because nowhere has

legislation like this been introduced — in no other

jurisdiction. It's never been tried except in communist

countries, where the government controls all the land. It

hasn't been tried anywhere else. Not in the free world, Mr.

Speaker.

They say: "We further wish to state our objections to

certain particular provisions contained in the Bill.

"The commission is an appointed body which, although responsible

to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the Legislature, is still not elected

by the determination of the people."

There is why I said they are insulated, Mr. Speaker. This

five-man commission is going to be insulated from the

input of the general public because they are not an elected

body. I can't see how an insulated five-man nameless,

faceless commission is going to have the wisdom, Mr. Speaker,

to judge what

[ Page 1486 ]

land in British Columbia shall be used for what purpose.

They're going to have to have input, Mr. Speaker.

"The commission is empowered to make, place or construct, et

cetera, such capital improvements as it wishes on any

commission land, presumably without reference to any local

building or other bylaws which are in effect."

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely true, because when the

five-man commission says something it becomes the law. No

right of appeal, no nothing.

"The commission is empowered to purchase or otherwise

deem advisable. In our opinion this provision is tantamount to

a power of expropriation."

That's where I disagree with the UBCM, because it's not a

tantamount to expropriation — it's actual confiscation.

They don't need the power of expropriations, because they can

take without the power of expropriation.

"For reasons stated throughout this short and unavoidably

limited brief and particularly because of the great impact that

Bill 42 will have on the lives of every person in this

province, we urgently request that you delay its implementation

until its effects can be fully understood, not only by local

government, but by all the citizens of British Columbia."

I'm not the only one making the request, Mr. Speaker. No, I

am not the only one making the request. Here's a letter from

Vancouver which was sent, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Norman Levi

and Ms. Rosemary Brown, who are the MLA's representing the

Vancouver-Burrard constituency. People in Vancouver are

also concerned, Mr. Speaker. The letter is:

"Re Bill 42.

"This letter comes to you from one of your constituents in

the provincial riding of Vancouver-Burrard.

"It is my understanding that as one of the MLA's of the

riding where I live, you are supposed to represent me in the

provincial Legislature. Therefore I am writing to you regarding

the above caption to the bill introduced by your government. I

would like to make clear to you that I am opposed to this bill,

and I hereby request your Government to withdraw it.

"I want to say also that I think the Government should make

a thorough study of the entire question of zoning and land use

in co-operation with civic and municipal authorities

throughout the province before introducing legislation

regarding this important matter.

"I also feel that in order to provide for the continuation

of farming as a way of life in British Columbia, the government should provide

appropriate incentives for farmers rather than restrict their freedom to deal

with their property."

This letter comes from a lady in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

"As my representative I request you to do everything

possible to have Bill 42 withdrawn, to have a thorough study

made of this entire subject and to have a new and more

appropriate bill introduced at a later time."

That's what all the people are asking, Mr. Speaker. That's

what all the people are asking — to have some study, to

check into the thing. Is that an unreasonable request, Mr.

Speaker? No, it's not an unreasonable request — to have

some study.

I have already pointed out in the House that there isn't

that urgency — we're not going to starve to death. The

predictions for agriculture before Bill 42 was brought in are

good up until 1982. Farmland is not being gobbled up at a mile

a minute. It would save the Government a lot of trouble, Mr.

Speaker, if they would back down from their untenable position.

This lady says,

"As my representative I request you do everything possible

to have Bill 42 withdrawn, to have a thorough study made of the

entire subject, and to have a new and more appropriate bill

introduced at a later time — a bill that will give the

required protection for the personal rights of our

province.

"I would like you to know that if you vote for this bill

I will not only not vote for you in the next provincial election in B.C. but I

will campaign actively to defeat you as an MLA."

That's from a member of the Vancouver-Burrard

Constituency Association.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, from the British Columbia

cattlemen. Not only did they send in two briefs, but this is a

letter mailed on March 14. It's to the Hon. David Stupich,

Minister of Agriculture:

"Dear Mr. Stupich:

"A member of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, after thorough

study of the Land Commission Act — Bill 42 — found it unacceptable in its present

form. This association was concerned about preservation of agricultural land

for some years now, and presented proposals to this effect.

"After meeting you on January 10, 1973 our delegation felt

that you were developing an understanding of our problems and

that there were grounds to feel optimistic. Bill 42 in its

present form makes us wonder if we were talking the same

language."

And yet the Minister on March 9 stood in this Legislature

and said, "We don't hear anything." The Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I think has lost his touch with the

farmers.

"The Land Commission Act is undemocratic and does not provide

assurances to ranchers on the

[ Page

1487 ]

use of Crown reserves such as range

and water. The bill is undemocratic because it does not provide for the

following: majority members of the commission to be appointed from

nominees provided by agricultural interests…."

Why in the name of heaven, Mr. Speaker, if we're bringing in

a bill to preserve agricultural land should there not be

something in the bill that says there should be a farmer on the

commission?

"Public hearings before designation of land use." Why can't

we have public hearings, Mr. Speaker? Why can't there be input?

Why do we have to have Bill 42 in its present form?

"Appeals from commission decisions to the court." That's

what they want. Many of the Government backbenchers didn't even

realize that that wasn't in the bill.

"Compensation for loss of land value at time of sale."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the man says: "The land belongs to

somebody." And if the value is lost, well that doesn't matter.

That's just somebody's rights, somebody's assets, that doesn't

matter — it's his personal property. What matters? Why

worry about it? It's let go. It might have been passed down for

centuries — that same farm. It's going to be devalued now

and the family is going to go broke. That doesn't matter. The

forefathers fought for it and they cleared it. The Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) says: "Oh, that

doesn't matter." Compensation for lost land values at the time

of sale.

Maybe if the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

understood what he was saying he would not say it. I can

forgive him, because he knows not what he laughs about. He

knows not the sorrow and the hardship that has been caused by

Bill 42.

They asked for a notice to landowners about designation of

land use. A simple request — wouldn't you say so, Mr.

Member? A simple request.

"Recording of designation changes in land registry records." All of these,

Mr. Speaker, are legitimate, sincere, worthwhile requests. I ask, Mr. Speaker,

why they are not being heeded.

"Continuation of agricultural operations when land

designated for other uses." The letter continues, Mr.

Speaker.

"As was explained to you at our meeting on January 10,

guarantees of continued use of Crown land for grazing and water

for domestic and irrigation purposes are vitally important to

every ranch in our province and must be provided for. Beef

production requires long term planning and therefore grazing

and water needs have to be assured on long term basis —

not with annual permits, as at present.

"Our association fully supports the amendments to the Land

Commission Act presented to the B.C. Government by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

These amendments must be implemented in toto to make it acceptable to members

of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association."

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is

listening. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is

hearing.

Another request, Mr. Speaker, from the Urban Development

Institute. This letter bypasses the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich), bypasses the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and it bypasses the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). It goes right

to the Premier of our province.

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"After careful consideration of Bill 42, members of this

Institute find themselves very much concerned with certain

aspects which seem to go beyond the stated purpose of the

Act.

"Members are particularly concerned with the powers which

may be exercised by the commission, apparently without recourse

and the effect that this might have on the development and

house building industries in trying to satisfy the urgent need

for shelter, particularly for those people in the lower income

brackets."

Particularly for those people in the lower income brackets.

The man on the street, Mr. Speaker. The little man.

"The members of the Institute do not oppose the principle of

preserving these categories of land which by general consensus

of opinion should be retained in their present use in the best

interests of present and future generations. However, since

society as a whole will benefit, then it would only seem

reasonable that the burden of carrying out such a programme

should also be borne by society as a whole.

"We also believe that in considering the requirements of the

present and future generations, the need to provide proper

shelter deserves at least an equal priority with the need to

preserve agricultural land and open spaces.

"We're afraid that the land freeze order-in-council

and the proposed Bill 42 will aggravate an already very serious

situation in the house building industry in British Columbia,

and in the lower mainland in particular."

This, Mr. Speaker, is what I have been saying.

"Costs, and consequently selling prices, have been rising at

a very rapid rate in both the land and the structure increment

of the total housing package.

"The price of the house itself has gone up very considerably

as a result of extraordinary increases in the cost of lumber.

The price of the lot on

[ Page 1488 ]

which it is built has also increased very significantly, first

as a result of servicing costs which presently stand anywhere between $6,000

to $10,000 per single family lot, dependent upon the municipal requirements,

and finally as a result of the cost of the raw land, which is now anywhere between

$2,500 to $6,000 for a single family lot on the average subdivision."

This letter was written on March 8. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that prices of lots have gone up considerably since

then.

"There is presently an artificial shortage of land for

urban purposes mainly created by unnecessary restraints.

Sensible legislation is required to free land so that the ready

supply of serviced lots may be made available to builders.

This, in itself, will go a long way to curb speculation which

only thrives where there is a serious imbalance between supply

and demand."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is the type of input that we

should have had into Bill 42 before it was brought into this

House.

"Because of the present uncertainty and disruption in the

house building industry members of the institute believe it is

now urgent that:

"(

a) The land freeze order-in-council be revised

to the extent that development may proceed on any project where

the development processes had started prior to the order.

"(

b) The Land Commission Act be amended to include

provision for: 1. Proper appeal procedures, in respect to

rulings made by the commission. 2. Compensation for losses that

will be suffered due to the enactment of the bill, where such

losses can be reasonably demonstrated. 3. Access to the court

should be granted to those who deem themselves injuriously

affected by the bill."

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that whether it's

from the cattlemen, whether it's from an interested citizen in

Vancouver or whether it's from the Urban Development Institute, all of the requests being made with regard to Bill

42 follow a very close line. So all of these people, Mr.

Speaker, cannot be wrong.

"…the amended bill with the proposed regulations be

given full public hearing before being introduced. We believe that the combined

efforts of the government and the private sector can do a great deal to overcome

the problem of providing housing for the man on the street at a price he can

afford if the grass roots problems are properly identified.

"With this in mind, we wrote to the Hon. James Lorimer,

Minister of Municipal Affairs, December 6, and a copy of the

letter is attached herewith for ease of reference.

"We again offer our assistance to your government in the

hope that we may improve the provisions on housing in this province."

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

are listening, but we're hearing precious little. Well I think

this is opposition to the bill. Anyone who has sent you

suggestions is in opposition to the bill.

In a letter to Mr. Lorimer, on December 6, which evidently

wasn't heeded because he…the order- in-council was

brought in on December 20, I believe it was.

"I'm writing to you on behalf of the Urban Development

Institute of British Columbia, a division of the Urban

Development Institute of Canada.

"The Institute is a non-profit organization of people

and companies engaged in land and property development. Its

stated objectives are: to promote well-planned

communities by encouraging the reasonable, unselfish use of

land, resources and buildings for recreational, public,

commercial, industrial and recreational purposes; to promote

high standards of competence and conduct in the practice of

land and property development."

These are the aims of this non-profit society, Mr.

Speaker.

"To promote co-operation and efficient relationship

between all persons, firms, corporations, regulatory and

government bodies and other agencies involved in and associated

with land assembly and development; to promote standards of

land and property development consistent with full regard for

the environment, for people, and with regard to economies for

the development of available private and public resources; to

familiarize the public and government agencies with problems

and objectives of the development industry, and to this end, to

establish properly supervised educational programmes and

counteract, where required, pressures which would unduly harm

the public interests relating to land use and development."

These are very worthwhile objectives, Mr. Speaker.

"The members of the Institute are becoming increasingly

concerned with the ever-spiralling costs of building

shelter, and in particular with the cost of producing serviced

land on which to build the structure.

"Much has been said and written about the reasons for the

present situation, and all too often the blame has been placed

with the private sector.

"We believe that a frank discussion between reasonable

representatives of the industry and representatives of the

provincial government can only be to the better understanding

of the basic problems, and thence hopefully, of finding a way

to deal with them.

"The Members respectfully request an opportu-

[ Page 1489 ]

nity for the Institute's legislative

committee to meet with you and discuss these matters at your earliest

convenience. Subject of course, to your evaluation of the initial

meeting, the Institute would welcome an on-going process of liaison to

deal with those areas of concern where the expertise and experience of

its members may be put to beneficial use by your government."

December 6, 1972 — approximately 14 days before the

famous land freeze order-in-council was passed.

This is a letter from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) about the bill. It says:

"This will acknowledge your recent letter and comments on

Bill 42, the Land Commission Act . I'm afraid that you have been misled about

the intent and proposals contained in the legislation. As the Premier said after

it was introduced, we will listen to what people say and accept constructive

amendments. Almost everyone I have spoken to agrees that something must be done

to protect the future of our province and our farmland, but those who are so

vitriolic in their opposition really don't want anything to be done."

That, Mr. Speaker, is not so. Because we do want something

done. We do want something to be done, Mr. Speaker.

"The government had two choices: do nothing and see British

Columbia as we have known it, destroyed; or take some action to

preserve it."

That's what the Minister of Highways says.

Well they could have done something by going to the people,

by taking their time. Now what they in essence have done by

taking some action to preserve it, they are actually ruining

it.

"We took the second course — he says — "I ask you to

remember that under the terms of the legislation, the Act will

not apply to areas of less than two acres."

Nothing in Bill 42 about two acres. Not one thing, Mr.

Speaker, is in Bill 42 about two acres, I've read it from cover

to cover. It says "all land, any land."

It also says in other sections, Mr. Minister of Agriculture,

that "any land, all land can be set aside for parkland or any

other use." So it refers to all land in British Columbia. You

can't take one

section out of context.

"I ask you to remember that under the terms of the

legislation the Act will not apply to areas less than two

acres. It will not apply to any land that is not farmland."

An amazing revelation by the Minister of Highways. "Will

apply only to those areas that are in danger of being destroyed

completely." It doesn't say that in the Act, Mr. Speaker.

"Farmers are still free to sell the land to someone else for

farm purposes. There will be no confiscation."

Well then we should change the Act.

"There is a total of almost $60 million provided to pay for

any land acquired. There will still be land available for

cities and towns to expand as required. There will be an end to

the high cost to the taxpayers of indiscriminate and urban

development."

It's quite a letter from the Minister of Highways indeed,

and his

interpretation of Bill 42.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, to myself.

"I would like to draw your attention to several important

points regarding the Land Act."

This is a very important letter. It comes to me from

Vancouver.

"I would like to draw your attention to several important

points regarding the Land Act. Though in the paragraph of

interpretation, that

is paragraph 1, many words are defined — the word "acquire" is not mentioned.

Its significance in paragraph 7, articles (i), (1) and (

m) is enormous.

In the Oxford dictionary, "acquire" means to take possession

of, Again, in Oxford, "expropriate" means to dispossess. I

would therefore say that the bill makes nefarious provision for

expropriation. With this in mind I can readily understand the

farmers being so incensed by the bill, especially paragraph 7,

articles (i), (

l) and (m).

"This same

section will scare away any potential investment

in the province, be it in agriculture, fishing, ranching or the

food processing industry. It may not be the intention of the

Government of British Columbia to take land or personal

property unethically, but Bill 42 would create the possibility

within the law. To this I make the strongest possible protest."

Again, if you're not going to do it, why do you need Bill

42? If you're not going to do the things that Bill 42 says you

can do, why do you want the bill? I've heard this continually:

"Oh, but we're not going to do this; we're not going to do

that." Well if you're not going to do any of the things that

Bill 42 allows you to do, why do you need the bill?

Paragraph 7 article (1) states: "The commission has the

power and capacity to acquire and hold personal property and

dispose of personal property so acquired." I'm reading a

letter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading a letter to me from a concerned

citizen in Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, on the point of order….

MR. PHILLIPS: There's been no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I see a point of order has just

[ Page 1490 ]

been raised. The point of order appears to be that you are

reading from a letter that deals with sections of the bill.

Well, that is doing indirectly what you would be forbidden to

do directly. It seems to me therefore you should bring it to a

close and get back to the principle of the bill. Otherwise,

Members could be reading from letters all night dealing with

separate clauses and never dealing with the principle of the

bill, but would be debating the clauses of the bill by way of

letters.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened to some of those Ministers read 15

letters all the same.

MR, SPEAKER: It's not a question of reading, Hon. Member.

It's a question of trying, in effect, to debate sections of the

bill when we should be discussing the principle of the

bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of the bill is to acquire and hold personal

property and dispose of personal property. To me this means my car, my savings

and my personal effects could become the property of the commission with no

appeal, Mr. Speaker. I'm still reading from the letter:

"Did you hear this current story about the Okanagan farmer

who had his orchard assessed by the banks because he wanted to borrow against

it? The bank valued the property at $75,000. The farmer borrowed $35,000 against

it. The provincial government valued it at $25,000. The bank took the farmer's

land, leaving him with a debt of $10,000 and absolutely no means of livelihood."

Whether the story is fact or fiction is beside the point. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'd rather deal in fiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: What matters in that Bill 42 makes such a

personally disastrous situation possible. What this lady is

pointing out is that Bill 42 makes this situation possible, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name names.

MR. PHILLIPS: It could be true, too. Last year produced

little harvest in the Okanagan. In view of this, how can the

Government believe that the proposed legislation will not have

a detrimental effect on the real farmer? To enact legislation

whereby the dispossessed have no recourse is to make a travesty

of justice.

Who is to determine what is speculative? Has increase in land value since we

took it from the Indians been recognized? Has the government considered how

the many carpenters, plumbers and electricians whose incomes have been dependent

on continued development are to buy groceries?

"Channel led growth is desirable, but one cannot move from

an era of unprecedented development to zero growth without wide

consultation with every segment of our society in a climate of

co-operation and trust. Bill 42 has created a climate of

fear and antagonism. Before steps are taken to limit

development, provision must be made for those whose income is

to be affected by the measure."

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the

indulgence of the House to allow the Member a recess of five

minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order. I can't have one

Member interrupting the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order there's no

interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: Well it isn't a point of order. It seems to be

an indulgence that's being asked, not a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I would ask your ruling on the

opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Well surely it's up to the Member. I don't

quite know how you can intercede for another Member who has the

floor. If the Hon. Member who has the floor wishes to ask

something of the House, that's a different matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you take his pulse as well?

MRS. JORDAN: Har-de-har, har, har. You'd better

get your pulse checked, or your blood pressure.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got a headache.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for North Okanagan's (Mrs.

Jordan) point is very well taken. (Laughter).

"Before steps are taken to limit development, provision must

be made for those whose incomes will be affected by the

measure. I am in favour of the bill in principle and with the

rest of the province would like an abundance of farmland. But

these riches are not to be plucked out of the sky, nor to be

enacted by legislation. Rather they will be the fruit of

careful administration of justice and of a responsible

government.

"The bill has been introduced without adequate preparation.

In the cause of justice it would have

[ Page 1491 ]

to be amended to a point of confusion. Its passage would cause

chaos. I ask you to speak against it in the House and do all in your favour

to defeat Bill 42."

That letter is dated March 14; a very, very interesting

letter.

I'd like this lady to know that I'm doing what she asked.

I'm speaking against it in the House and I will certainly do

all in my power to see that the bill is defeated, Mr.

Speaker.

I have another petition here:

"We, the undersigned, protest the enactment of the Land Commission

Act , being Bill 42, now before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British

Columbia and demand its withdrawal forthwith."

More concerned citizens. They're all concerned out there.

Even the ones that were for it are concerned now.

Here's an interesting letter to the Hon. David Stupich,

dated March 14:

"In late January we wrote to you expressing some views on

agriculture in this area. Since that time you have tabled your

Bill 42 which has caused such an upheaval in this province. We

will state again that we are for the preservation of farmlands

but only those lands that can honestly be called viable.

"If you fail to answer our question and that letter as to

what the large irrigated areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and

Alberta are going to do with their produce as they come into

greater production; they will be here providing damn stiff

competition to our province. Make no mistake.

"More specifically, to discuss Bill 42, if your greatest

concern since being elected has been to stop the subdivision of

farmlands then you must admit your action has done this.

However, we did not realize that your intention was also to

push up the price of already subdivided lands. We fear that

your control measures would obtain perhaps a tenfold overkill.

Sir, in all honesty, just what size of a problem existed that

this dictatorial and fear-provoking piece of proposed

legislation was seen as necessary?"

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. This isn't to me but

it's some of the language that I have been using.

"Let me say again that I am a native of this province and

municipality, I am 40 years old, so have seen approximately the same picture

of growth as you have in my life as regards B.C. As one who likes to hunt and

travel, I have covered not all but most of this province and I've a fair idea

of the agricultural capabilities of B.C.

"You will agree that perhaps only 5 per cent of our province

is farmland — not rangeland — farmland. This

presents two interesting points.

"The first is that this is a small area to be able to devote

to any one purpose; hence it is understandable that some regulation and control

should be necessary.

"Secondly, if there is as much of an emergency as your

actions would imply that one would be led to believe that this

5 per cent would be producing right up to its maximum and that

we are simply bulging at the boundaries of this 5 per cent and

scouring the province for more available farmlands to put into

production as quickly as possible."

Mr. Speaker, this is not the case because, as I have pointed

out, there are many hundreds of thousands of acres of land. In

the Fort Nelson area alone over a million acres of land could

be brought under production. So there's no great urgency.

"If this available farmland was put into production as

quickly as possible, then one could assume farm products would

command higher prices in the marketplace than they do now. You

know and we know that this is simply not the case; in fact the

situation is opposite. You can drive down any road in the farm

valleys of this province and see farms that produce perhaps 5

to 10 per cent of the produce they could ultimately produce if

it were profitable for them to do so.

"I seriously suggest B.C. farmlands can produce 10 times the

dollar value of produce they now do if there was a market for it.

"Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with this? If he

does, then there should be no urgency with Bill 42. If he

doesn't agree with this, then there should be some urgency to

bring under cultivation the many millions of acres of arable

land in British Columbia that are presently not under

cultivation.

"Consequently, we are not impressed with your arguments as

to the necessity of this heavy-handed Act, we are puzzled as to

why you would take the risk of antagonizing as many people as

you have, thereby doing harm to your own cause with the

severity of this bill. Especially, you have antagonized the

farming community — the very people you purport to

help.

"Mr. Stupich, if we are correct, shortly after you took the

position of agriculture Minister you made the statement that

not only were you going to bring in legislation to control

lands but you went on to say that society in general was going

to have to pay to help retain those lands with interested

farmers on them. We see nowhere in your proposals that anybody

is going to pay anything except the very people on the land,

and they are going to lose value they are entitled to feel they

had.

"We do not buy your statement to Jack Webster, that you will

not be taking five per cent value off the land frozen under your

proposals."

I didn't even know that the Minister had said that

[ Page 1492 ]

Jack Webster. But if he did say it to Jack Webster then the

Premier, when he was talking to Jack Webster on Saturday,

recognized that there was going to be a devaluation of

farmlands. Maybe under this important bill, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier should talk to the Minister of Agriculture and they

should get together and talk to one another and reassess the

situation, because it's evident that they are not together

now.

"Our main criticism is this: you could get control to the

extent that is required for the protection of farmland with far

less encompassing Acts than Bill 42."

Now this isn't me saying this, Mr. Speaker, this is an

interested farmer.

"Among the many points in this bill that concern us two

important ones: (1) no appeal lies from the commission decision."

as I've been saying all afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

"What the commission says is the law, with no right of

appeal."

I don't imagine this man misinterpreted the bill — as

a matter of fact I know he didn't. And I don't imagine this

letter was scared up by any open-line show. He had been

in correspondence with the Minister before; he says so at the

beginning of the letter. I think this man understands the

terminology of the bill very well. Yes, and so do a lot of

other citizens interpret it the same way.

"No appeal lies from the commission's decision. This is hard

to swallow. We are not lawyers, but we do not think this

follows in line with British law, which I believe is a basis

for all law in the western world.

"You may argue that this is an irrelevant comparison but

imagine for a moment what would happen if this concept were

ever enacted in criminal law."

That's a very interesting point —

"But imagine for a moment what would happen if this concept

were enacted in criminal law."

Isn't this, Mr. Speaker, just what I said a few moments ago?

There will be repercussions from Bill 42 that we haven't even

dreamed of yet. No wonder the people are asking for input. No

wonder the Premier said, "Let's go to the people," two

years ago when the Land Act was being passed.

"If this were a true bill to aid agriculture it would have

to include protective measures for agricultural products grown

in B.C. As it is nothing more than a dictatorial land control

bill it misses the main point."

That's not me saying that Mr. Speaker. That's what I have

been saying, I will admit that, but that's not me. That's a

concerned citizen who took the time to type up three pages.

It's very well worded and it's a very good letter.

"Why did you not withhold your land control legislation

until you could come up at the same time with controls on imported food products?

Then farmers could have seen financially in their operation to offset the brunt

of this land legislation.

"In our letter to you in January, we asked that you send a

circular to all bona fide farmers in the province and ask their

view on how the industry could be advanced."

Was this done, Mr. Speaker?

"In your reply of February 1, you gave no answer as to why

this was not done. Had this been done farmers could have at least felt they

were part of the decision-making process in legislation affecting them. Indeed,

the chance for greater compatibility between government and the people was lost.

You claim this action will be taken later to upgrade the returns to the farmers.

One wonders how much enthusiasm you will have for this, if your Bill 42 is passed.

"Higher returns for farmers' products will result in higher

costs for consumers. With the great consciousness of rising

food costs, this would seem like an even worse political

suicide than the one you are already indulging in."

I'd never thought, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 42 as political

suicide of the Government, but that's probably what it is

— political suicide, now that I think of it. The Premier

knows it too — he's concerned or he wouldn't have

arranged this big open-line programme all over the

province to tell the people about the Municipal Act .

You know it's very interesting, very interesting indeed,

that the lawyers in the province, who are supposed to be the

people who interpret the law, come out and they tear Bill 42

apart. They're the lawyers in the province — there's more

lawyers than the Attorney General.

What does the man from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who wants to get in the

cabinet do? He's trying to protect Bill 42 and he raps the lawyers. He goes

after the lawyers because they're messing up the bill — they're putting words

in it and they're not interpreting it right. Now that's an amazing twist because

the Member for Vancouver Centre has tried to tell me in the House many times

now that he knows everything. He knows all the laws and I don't know nothing

about interpreting them. I didn't interpret the bill — the lawyers did!

The Member from Vancouver Centre says you don't know what

you're talking about — "this isn't in the bill, I can't

do that." The Premier says that. Everybody says that. So the

lawyers — the Law Society of British Columbia —

they go after this bill a little bit. It says here "Lauk

Attacks the Lawyers. NDP backbencher Gary Lauk, of Vancouver

Centre, criticized the provincial council of the Canadian Bar

Association Monday for political partisanship in discussing the

proposed Land Commission Act."

[ Page 1493 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: His own fraternity.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, that's right. But the thing is that if

anybody attacks the bill, well, we're in opposition, they know

that…but anybody else around the province it seems they've

got to have some axe to grind. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, can

criticize this government without having some ulterior motive

or something. In other words, there is nobody out there that

has any common sense except the man from Vancouver Centre.

Lauk, a lawyer, approached reporters to comment on the

council's call for compensation for land values, lowered by the

proposed land commission actions in designating land for

specific uses. The reason he did that is because the Premier

said very clearly on the Jack Webster show, "No, sir, we'll pay

them what we want to pay them and that's it." Bingo. End of

deal. This is the law.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were you talking about the B.C. Electric shareholder?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the law. This is the law.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No recourse….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You always like to bring that up. The Premier

likes to bring that up. I'm not discussing that right at this

red hot moment but if you stick around, Mr. Premier, I could

bring it into my dissertation here this evening if you'd like

to discuss it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Every lawyer knows that you do not compensate

for down-zoning. This is a completely objectionable

approach for lawyers to take. Where is that Municipal Act ?

You do not compensate for down-zoning. Every lawyer

knows that. I don't know whether lawyers are supposed to know

the Municipal Act or not.

But it's clearly the duty of municipality to make

compensation for property taken or injured in arbitration

— arbitration to determine amount. Compensation for

property expropriated or injured.

Section 478 of the

Municipal Act very clearly states that…but Mr.

Member from Vancouver Centre says no. Lauk says the provincial

Municipal Act had had a

section in it since 1910

providing that compensation shall not be given because of loss

of value due to rezoning. Well, maybe. Maybe it's how you

interpret the law.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's how you interpret the law. I see. No, I

can't buy that because the law is the law, and justice shall

not only be done and shall not only seem to be done, but

justice shall indeed be done. Justice shall indeed be done. But

not under Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, because that is the law. Bill

42 will be the law. The five-man commission will be the

law.

When they represent the Canadian Bar Association and make statements like that,

they're wrong legally and they're indicating a political partisanship that might

split the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association in two or three different

ways.

There's another effect of Bill 42 that I never even thought

of — the whole Bar Association is going to be broken up

over it. You're breaking up the farmers, breaking up industry,

now you're breaking up the Bar Association. You see, Mr.

Speaker, that's what I was mentioning a few moments ago.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I mentioned a few moments ago.

Bill 42 is going to get its tentacles into every facet of life

in this great province of ours — every single, solitary

facet of life.

"The NDP Member also criticized as partisan a part of a

preamble to the branch's resolution which says that Bill 42 puts effective control

on all lands within the hands of a commission appointed by the cabinet. They're

playing politics he says."

The Member for Vancouver Centre says they're playing politics and I'm entitled

to attack them on the same basis, Mr. Speaker.

A very important point there, Mr. Speaker, a very important

point. In other words, if somebody does something wrong or

allegedly does something wrong which the Member from Vancouver

says — they've done something wrong, then that allows me

to go ahead and do something wrong? Is that what the Member for

Vancouver Centre…well, that's exactly what he says right

here, Mr. Speaker.

That's a rare twist of events — and for a lawyer to

say that — and this is all caused by Bill 42. "They're

playing politics, which I consider is wrong," he says.

"Then I'm entitled to attack them on the same basis." What did

they do? Did they do something wrong? Then I'll go ahead and do

something wrong too. Two "wongs" don't make a "wite".

(Laughter). No, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Two wrongs don't make a right, for a variety

of reasons — for a variety of reasons. I'm going to quote

to you, Mr. Speaker, from an

article that says "Land Bill

Debate is Thoroughly Muddled"

[ Page

1494 ]

"For a variety of reasons, among them the government's

attempt to stem the mounting attacks, Agricultural Minister

Dave Stupich has outlined a handful of amendments to be

presented at the third reading stage. In general terms, these

would allow municipalities and regional districts to hold

public hearings when people would protest the commission's

designation of parcels of land, a

section making it clear that

the commission won't be able to expropriate.

"Land will also be included and the designation powers

themselves will be further clarified. However, last Friday,

Barrett said he couldn't disclose what the amendments would be

until they had been brought into the House. This raises two

questions: Was Stupich outlining amendments or wasn't he? And

doesn't the inevitability of amendments radically alter the

principle of the bill according to the criticisms that have

already been mentioned?"

Who's in charge over there? I think it's the Member for

Vancouver Centre.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. Was the Minister of Agriculture

leaking amendments at the bull sale in Kamloops last week? Was

he leaking amendments? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe that was why he had to soft shoe through

the bull sale. That's because he was leaking amendments. Well,

Mr. Speaker, the promise of amendments in the words of a

government backbencher designed to make Bill 42 more

politically palatable is a face-saving move even if the

amendment creates a better bill. But, what I have to ask, Mr.

Speaker, is are these amendments being made for political

reasons only? And I would like to ask the Government once again

to withdraw the bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll get on…. I

want to finish this letter.

And go to the public and get some input. This man

continues:

"Bill 42 must be changed to include appeal, not so much in

the matter of designation as we feel some overall plan must be

followed throughout the province, but on the matter of

compensation. No individual or commission who is either the

buyer or acting on behalf of the buyer should ever be allowed

to have final say as to the compensation. In passing the type

of legislation that is proposed, the government could

conceivably become the only interested party in buying certain

types of land an owner might wish to sell."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: In conclusion two items…this is the

conclusion of the letter:

"In conclusion two items seem to come forth in one's mind

when observing your government in action lately. On your

approach to agriculture as well as other subjects you are

dealing with in this province, there seems to be a great rush

to enact dictatorial regulatory legislation. This belies the

lack of appreciation for the subtle forces at work in the law

of supply and demand."

I will add to his letter and say, "in the law of checks and

balances, no recognition of the present checks and balances

that exist."

"This belies the lack of appreciation for the subtle forces

at work in the law of supply and demand. Also the sensitive

approach that is necessary to instil initiative in anybody,

whether it be a child or the total population, seems to be

lacking. To us and others we have spoken to…." Evidently

this man talks to his neighbours and evidently he listens to

them — too bad the Government wouldn't listen.

"To us and others we have spoken to, there appears to be

either in your cabinet or in the party at large, some

individual or group of a very radical and demanding nature that

is exerting a force out of all proportion to their numbers."

This man can see that, Mr. Speaker, from Delta — across

the ocean — all the way over here, he can see that.

"…that is exerting a force out of all proportion to

their numbers. Wiser heads must prevail, and in words of your

Premier: 'Tell them to cool it.' You are taking away from your

cause in this 'bull by the horns' approach. A short time ago in

an interview, you called for trust. I'm sure you would rather

gain trust by some other means than calling for it."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says, "Trust me, trust us.

" As this man says, "I am sure you would rather gain

trust by some other means than calling for it." In other words,

gain trust by showing that you can be trusted. Gain trust, gain

appreciation and gain support by backing down from the stubborn

position, Mr. Speaker.

Another letter here, sent to me on March 16:

"I have today sent the attached letter to the Hon. David

Stupich outlining certain principles which I feel very strongly

should be applied to the redrafting of Bill No. 42. Would you

please do me the courtesy of reading it?

"It is my considered opinion that unless the bill as it

now stands is modified in a major way as suggested herein, it will be viewed

as plainly unjust by a large segment of the population of B.C. and will precipitate

a running sore of discontent in much of the population as long as certain parts

[ Page

1495 ]

it are not redressed."

Yes, pour the salve on the wound to heal the running sore. This letter from

Aldergrove. It is addressed to the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture,

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

"Regarding Bill 42. I am writing an open letter in the hope

that you will read it thoroughly inasmuch as it deals with principles and concepts,

the application of which is important for the future well-being of all British

Columbians and to the reputation of the B.C. Government.

"I am writing as the owner of 37 acres of land in South

Aldergrove, Langley area of B.C., currently employed in a beef operation. The

land is good for dairy or beef production but too small to produce an adequate

income on a full-time farming basis. Most of my income is, as must be, derived

from an unrelated job so the property can be maintained as a farm.

"However, despite these poor economics and the land's higher

value if subdivided for other land use purposes, I have been

content to maximize its agricultural output and to preserve the

land for that kind of use."

This is the type of man who wants to preserve farmland.

"Consequently, I was glad to hear that your Government

intended to help preserve agricultural land through

legislation. Thus you might expect to receive my support for

Bill 42.

"However, while I agree with the intent of the bill in

regard to preserving agricultural land, I hope by this letter

to influence you and your associates to reconsider the methods

employed. This is because some of them will, in my opinion, be

considered by a large segment of the population to be plainly

unjust."

I would like to add my own words to that, Mr. Speaker, and

say that there is a large segment of the population who

consider that Bill 42 is unjust.

"Some of them will precipitate a running sore of discontent

in much of the population for as long as they are not

redressed.

"More specifically, I suggest that certain sections of the

bill be reworked, bearing in mind certain democratic principles

and traditions upon which our country was founded. I would view

some sections of the bill with considerable alarm and my

suggestions about them are given below….

"No right to compensation in respect of reserve land."

In the bill, this bothers everybody.

"Land will be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected

by reason of the designation of the commission."

This man goes on to say that since,

"anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the agriculture

economics of the Fraser Valley, which is that area from and including Surrey

to Hope… .I'm not familiar with the economics of Delta and Richmond, but the

contrast would be even more startling. The commission designation of land as

solely agricultural in use would reduce its economic value to roughly $100

to $400 per acre, from its present value of anywhere between $1,500 and $3,000

per acre. That is certainly more than a 50 per cent drop, depending upon the

individual characteristics of the land.

"The bill therefore is plainly enormously confiscatory of

existing property values from Surrey to Hope. Much the same

situation will apply to the Okanagan and to significant areas

of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo. Without exaggeration,

several hundreds of millions of dollars of property values are

involved.

"I appreciate that certain Members of the NDP Government

have criticized the activities of some land speculators.

However, I suggest very strongly that the whole Fraser Valley

for 100 miles from Surrey to Hope, the Okanagan, the Cariboo

and Vancouver Island are not owned by a few speculators or by a

few non-Canadian residents."

This is not what the Government would like everybody to

understand. They would like you to believe that the land is

being gobbled up, being bought out by rich Americans. Every

government that comes to power by putting panic in the hearts

of the citizenry does not stay in power. That is what is

happening with Bill 42 — an attempt to panic the public

and to say that passing of Bill 42 is eminently urgent.

You know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, that this is not the

case. Moreover, all these people have been good citizens for a

good many years, obeying all the laws of the land that have

been uniform in their application over many decades in British

Columbia and, in fact, across Canada.

Bill 42 slapped them in the face, just like you slapped many

other citizens in British Columbia; punished them because of

the actions of a few. Those who have been exercising good

citizenship in this manner, who have helped to bring about the

abundance that we generally enjoy currently and to have

lawfully invested their savings in land and buildings to ensure

that they will place no burden either on their families, or on

society, in their advanced years should suffer no penalty

through sudden and dramatic changes in our laws.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, we have to oppose Bill 42. This is

why, Mr. Speaker, as this man has outlined, it is an unjust

bill. I'll continue with the letter. He says:

"It is a widely held view surely, that in a democratic

society no new law should penalize, or victimize innocent law

abiding citizens."

[ Page 1496 ]

Isn't that a good rule in a democratic society, Mr. Speaker?

And yet Bill 42 clearly violates that view. Bill 42 does punish

individual, hard working, law abiding citizens. That is why,

Mr. Speaker, the people are concerned.

The Premier and other principal Members of your party have

said repeatedly that your party is a people's party. I submit

that the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who

currently own land in the Fraser Valley for 100 miles, in the

Okanagan, the Cariboo, and Vancouver Island, are ordinary

people too.

Yes, they're the salt of the earth, those people — law

abiding people, Mr. Speaker, who try to provide for themselves.

And they become old and try and keep their way of life going

— try and provide for their family. Law abiding citizens.

They're the ones, Mr. Speaker, that are being damaged and hurt

by Bill 42. The letter continues:

"In my view they are not a segment of society that have been

parasites on our society and our economy. Nor are they a

segment of society that has been pursuing ownership of land and

buildings for the purposes of some evil financial gain. Quite

the opposite.

"The Premier has also said repeatedly that the NDP

Government will seek ways to be fair in its legislation. If you

and others really and genuinely intend to conduct your

Government according to that principle, then I suggest that you

be sure that your legislation will be fair to everyone. And

maybe it's not possible to make legislation fair to everyone.

But certainly you can make legislation fair to as many as

possible."

And this legislation, Mr. Speaker, harms as many people as

possible. Solid citizens in this province, the backbone of the

province, those are the people that are harmed by Bill 42.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that this part of the

Act be changed to provide for the rights of compensation rather

than no rights at all. Specifically, I suggest that a possible

means by which this end might be achieved is for the bill to

provide a valuation day, selected from some time between the

election of your party and the end of the year 1972."

This is very well thought out, and a very well written

letter, Mr. Speaker. Good suggestions.

"Properties would be valued based upon professional

appraisers' fair market value of the properties as of the

selected valuation day, from valuation day to some future time

period when the Government might actually acquire title to the

property.

"Provisions would be made for escalation in value, at least

equal to the rate of interest on long term Government bonds. Such valuations

would form the underlying values applying to transfers of property between individual

citizens, in spite of the fact that the properties might have been, or might

in the future be designated as agricultural land by the commission.

"If and when the province were to acquire the land on behalf

of the population as a whole, then these values would apply at

the time of the purchase by the Government. After all, if the

whole province is to benefit, why should the whole province not

pay fair market price, rather than riding free on a segment of

our population. It's exactly what Bill 42 purports to do."

It's exactly what I've said in this House before, Mr.

Speaker. It depresses the land values…and then go in and

buy up the land and that is not fair. It is not fair, it is not

democratic and it is not just. And it's not honourable.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the wording of the

Act be changed." and I won't read that because I guess it's not

allowable.

The man continues to point out ways, very good ways, how the

bill could be amended; how sections of the Act could be

changed; how to provide for fair compensation. It's a very well

thought out letter. He says, "I have no objection to the word

'purchase' so long as the individual wishes to sell. But what

does 'otherwise acquire' mean?" And I've asked that same

question.

This could mean seizure by force or expropriation. The

commission should only be empowered to purchase land where an

individual wishes to sell or receive it as a gift. If this was

intended, why not say so specifically? I urge this to be

rewritten. It's too late. Do you say it's too late?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not too late — it's not too

late at all. It's not too late yet. If Bill 42 passes through

this House it will be too late; it will be too late for all of

us. It will be D-Day in British Columbia.

"When one considers the enormous powers conferred on the

commission by this bill, there will undoubtedly be excesses in

the future because the commission is completely protected if it

indulges in excesses. After all, its members are human and will

consequently sometimes act in an overzealous manner, or in

keeping with their personal views, or in keeping with the

orders from the Minister of Lands, or in keeping with the

orders of the Minister of Agriculture, or in keeping with

orders from the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who feels that

private land ownership in British Columbia is not in the best

interest of British Columbia.

"The body could be called 'Lands Appeal Board' and could

report separately to, for example, the Attorney General.

Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of appeal to

the

[ Page 1497 ]

judiciary should also be guaranteed in the Act, initially at

a level lower than the supreme court; not only in respect to the

interpretation

of the law, but also in respect to questions of equity providing the Lands Appeal

Board had first been involved."

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that further thought be

given as to how functions are actually to be carried out, both

as to policy decisions and day-to-day operating

decisions.

"Because at the moment the proposed organization appears to

create an excessive concentration of powers and duties in a

single board with a completely inadequate decentralization of

responsibilities. I suggest therefore that further

consideration be given to the organization should this

commission having such vast powers be confined to a membership

of only five, or instead should be enlarged in order to be

representative of a cross-section of British Columbia both

regionally and functionally."

This is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what the agriculturalists have

been asking for. They have been asking that they have some

input.

"If this principle were adopted the commission would perhaps

be doubled in size. Should this commission be responsible to the Minister of

Agriculture (with due respect to you, Mr. Stupich) it puzzles many people as

to what business of the Minister of Agriculture has to do with greenbelt land,

land bank land for urban and industrial development and parkland for recreational

use. One could understand the bill being introduced by you if it had solely

to do with agricultural land."

I asked the same questions in the House. I say that it isn't the Minister of

Agriculture's bill at all. It's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources'

(Hon. Mr. Williams) bill.

It's pretty easy to cloud and shadow the intent of the bill

if you bring it in under a "motherhood" clause like "preserving

farmland," so that the people don't really get the

drift.

But the people are getting the drift. The people are finding

out. The people know what is happening in British Columbia

today. They know what Bill 42 is all about.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) said in this House when the Land Act was being

passed, "Take it to the people."

AN HON. MEMBER: A public hearing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have public hearings. If you can't remember what you said,

Mr. Minister, it's all down in what we call Hansard . You go back and read it

and find out what you said. I think I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a lot

of other cabinet Ministers go back there, including the Premier, and read what

they said, because they have forgotten. Everything prior to August 30 was forgotten.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): What did you do on

September 1? You didn't even want to come here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you find a new theme? You're not

supposed to have repetition in the House. Why don't you find

something new?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the

Chair, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, have the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston address the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

"If, however, the provincial land commission is required for

overall co-ordination of all land use in the province

through the establishment of policy, then I suggest such a

commission report preferably to the House."

That's not the House of Commons. He's referring to the

Legislature.

"It puzzles many people as to what business the Minister of

Agriculture has to do with the greenbelt land. If, however, a

provincial land commission is required for overall coordination

of all land use in the province through the establishment of

policy, then I suggest such a commission report preferably to

the House by suitable means or, if it must be directed in

detail by the party in power, then to the cabinet as a whole.

Within the policy directives arrived at by the commission, then

the appropriate Ministers would subsequently deal with land

matters that would come within their own sphere of activity.

There are ample agricultural land matters dealt with by the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

"Otherwise it appears to me that there will be such an

excessive concentration of power that arbitrary actions and

inefficiencies will inevitably ensue. The bill makes no

mandatory provision for specific and decentralized actions but

can be taken by municipalities in respect of lands within their

jurisdictions in keeping with the guidelines established by the

land commission and those of individual Ministers as well.

Should provisions not be made in this regard so that these

actions would not be taken solely at the pleasure of the

commission, I ask that greater attention be paid to sound

principles and concepts as suggested in this letter and not to

slogans or unyielding adherence to past positions in the

redrafting of Bill 42. Otherwise, as mentioned at the outset,

the bill will be considered by a large segment of the

population to be unjust.

"Consequently I hope that the foregoing principles and

concepts will be applied to this bill and

[ Page 1498 ]

that the views expressed herein by an ordinary citizen will be

considered. Yours very truly."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's from Block Bros.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not from Block Bros. But the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would try and purport some evil

and sinister thought behind a man who has expressed his views

very well, very sincerely, and the view of many other concerned

citizens in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It's a very

well written letter and very well expressed. The Minister of

Highways has the indignation to say that there's got to be some

evil or sinister thought behind it, that it's got to be written

by some real estate company. Oh, Mr. Speaker, will they never

learn? Will they not listen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We can't hear you now. Speak up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will they never learn, Mr. Speaker? Will they

never never start to listen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk as if you meant that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. Speak up.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, when I'm dealing with a serious

matter….

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am serious. And all of your ruses to try and

make this debate a sham are not going to be swallowed by this

Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker,

fighting for the rights of British Columbia. Fighting for

rights that have been dearly won in a democratic society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member calls it "poppycock" and some of

the Members use a lot more far worse four-letter words

when they're talking to some of the concerned people in this

province, too. That's their reaction. But, Mr. Speaker, the

people will know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kill the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that all of the….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, do you think all of these letters

and wires are from real estate people? Mr. Speaker, do you

think that every man who deals in real estate in British

Columbia is a rip-off artist or some other kind of….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, just the car salesmen.

AN HON. MEMBER: H ow would you know?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the "king" back from his

sojourn. The man who attacked the law profession. The man from

Vancouver Centre.

No, these letters aren't from real estate people. They're

from concerned citizens.

When, Mr. Speaker, when, I ask you, is this Government going

to wake up? When is this Government going to listen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, he's got a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a point of

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

for a moment while you state your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to be seated for a moment.

(Laughter).

MR. LAUK: I would ask that the Member withdraw the charge

that I attacked the legal profession. I did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, sit down!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order I believe is well taken.

I would ask the Hon. Member, if he imputed this motive to the….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll certainly withdraw. I wouldn't want

the Member from Vancouver to be hurt. It's all right for him to

stand in this Legislature and call me a liar, to say that I'm

deliberately trying to mislead the House and not withdraw it,

or withdraw it under condition. But that's all right. I'll

withdraw it completely. I wouldn't want to hurt the Member's

feelings.

MR. LAUK: Just tell the truth, that's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: "We, the undersigned, protest Bill 42 on the grounds that it does not fit in with our democratic way of life. With legis-

[ Page 1499 ]

lation of this type we could become a socialist state."

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is from Chetwynd. I wonder if some of the

Members who are giggling on the opposite side of the House are

some of the Members that the man was referring to in his last

letter when he said "there must be a few people in that

Government that are exercising powers well beyond their

numbers.

Here is another letter, It is very simple:

"Kill the land bill. Save our democracy."

Here is another

one:

"I wish to register my protest to the pending Bill 42 which

is currently under discussion in the House. It is our hope that

the Government will come to see the folly of this violent piece

of legislation and modify it, if not completely drop it. Your

assistance in helping to put pressure in the right areas will

be greatly appreciated."

I want the person who wrote that letter to know that that is

what I am trying to do.

Another letter from the Cariboo Regional District —

one of those regional district governments that the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) said

were developing an expertise in the designation and the use of

land. That is what he said. They are developing an expertise.

This is from one of those regional districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn up your hearing aid.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have had your mind closed for so long that

you can no longer hear, my friend. You can no longer hear.

Closed mind, closed ears.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, there's the Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis). He's going to be walking somewhere pretty soon because

the people in his constituency don't want Bill 42 — I'll

tell you, he's going to be walking.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's on this side of the House now, all he is

going to have to do is move up a little. He knows he is in

trouble. His cabinet won't even save him. His Premier won't

even save him. All they would have to do is withdraw the

bill.

The Premier of this province is leading his backbench to

slaughter — to absolute and complete political

slaughter!

AN HON. MEMBER: No — to freedom.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now where is all the loyalty, Mr. Speaker? As

true as I am standing here, why do the backbench not plead with

their Premier to save them before it is too late?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're muzzled.

MR. PHILLIPS: Muzzled: They're more than muzzled. They are

going to be slaughtered. Led by the Minister of Agriculture to

the slaughterhouse. Led by the Minister of Agriculture and

pushed by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return

to the subject of the debate?

MR. PHILLIPS: You are one of them, Mr. Speaker.

"I am pleased to enclose for your information a copy of a

Press release from this regional district concerning the

proposed Land Commission Act, Bill 42. I trust you will

find the contents of the Press release interesting."

This is from the Cariboo Regional District.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the protector of the rights. I

wonder if he is going to go out and protect these backbench

MLA's when they are led to the political slaughterhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're being slaughtered right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Cariboo Regional District, Press release,

February 6, 1973: "Cariboo Regional Board Totally Rejects Bill

42."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I proceed now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"After thorough study and analysis…."

Maybe they should term this "from the Cariboo Regional

District real estate board" or something.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. No. You would want to put some sinister

idea….

[ Page 1500 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address the Chair and not engage in dialogue with Members

across the way?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll address you and I'm

going to continue with this very important thought from the

Cariboo Regional Board.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Chirp, chirp, chirp!

"After thorough study and analysis of the Land Commission

Act , Bill 42, the Cariboo Regional District Board is

opposed to the bill as it stands. Although the regional board

is sympathetic to the principle of preserving land for

agriculture, the terms of the bill as set out are to be totally

unacceptable for the following reasons:

"

(1) The proposed land commission is a body comprised of

non-elected individuals having extraordinary powers of

designation and acquisition….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading a letter!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You are

repeating.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am reading a letter from organized civil

servants who are elected as you are elected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for

South Peace River be seated? Would you state your point of

order please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This Member, in devious ways….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Withdraw that!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …in devious ways — not

straightforward…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member in one way or another is

repeating the same statements, time after time, hour after

hour, day after day. He has made a complete charade of this

House and the whole parliamentary system!

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will respond to the point of order. Would the Hon.

Member for Columbia River state his point, please?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is very clear. I don't think

the Hon. Minister has the right to impute the motives he has on

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — saying

that he was devious in his concern with the legislation that we

are discussing at this particular time. I think you have a

responsibility, in upholding the rights and privileges of

Members of this House, to have that Member withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Have that Member withdraw that statement

forthwith. We're not going to tolerate that kind of nonsense

with the Hon. Member and he knows better, too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) and the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) be seated, please? First of all, on the point of

order made by the Hon. Member for Columbia River, I would ask

the Hon. Minister of Highways to withdraw the imputation of

"devious."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made no imputation and I withdraw the

word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Unconditionally!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made no imputation, and I withdraw the

word. Unconditionally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We would assume that the Hon. Minister has

unconditionally withdrawn the imputation that there was

anything devious in the remark.

Now I would proceed to the point of order made by the Hon.

Minister of Highways. I would draw attention to standing order

43 again, which reads as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of

a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other

Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech,

and if the Member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall

name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to

the House."

I would now refer to May, page 466, 17th edition. I am

merely drawing this to the attention of the Hon. Members

section 6 on page 466:

"A Member who abuses the rules of the House

[ Page

1501 ]

by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the

House, that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any of the rules

of debate, uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business

of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forums

of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. It would seem,

therefore, that a Member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be

required under S.O. No. 23," — of the British rules — "to withdraw

from the House for the remainder of the sitting. He is, however, guilty of a

contempt of the House and may be named."

Now, I would merely draw the attention of the Members to this provision in

May. I am sure that the Hon. Member is not intending in any way to obstruct

the business of the House, but I would caution him that, inasmuch as he has

had a very lengthy speech, that this could very well lead to tedious repetition

and to obstruction of the business of the House. I would ask the Hon. Member

to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: When the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says

that a letter from a duly elected regional board, opposing legislation which

is presently before the Legislature, is out of order, particularly….

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair.]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is exactly what you said! I'm reading a letter from

an elected body and you say I'm being devious and repetitious. I am not! I am

reading a letter from an elected body. When those people elected out there can't

have their input into this Legislature, it will be a worse day than when Bill

42 was introduced. I intend to read the letter. I intend to read every word

of it.

"Cariboo Regional Board Totally Rejects Bill 42."

Now, as I told you before, if you'd open your mind, your ears would function.

Maybe the Speaker would realize the reason that it takes me so long to get through

is because I get continual interruption from the floor. I would suggest that

I could have finished my talk a short time ago. (Laughter).

AN. HON. MEMBER: However.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, "after thorough study of analysis of the

Land Commission Act , — Bill 42 — the Cariboo Regional District Board is opposed

to the bill as it stands. Although the regional board is sympathetic to the

principle of preserving land for agriculture, terms of the bill are set out

as to be totally unacceptable for the following reasons." I think that's

good input, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly pertains to Bill 42.

"The proposed land commission is a body comprised of non-elected

individuals having extraordinary powers of designation and acquisition of land

or property for farm use, greenbelt, land banks, and parklands.

"

(2) The bill does not allow specifically for compensation

to be paid for the acquisition of land or property and this could apply to any

land or property in British Columbia.

"

(3) Land designated as agricultural land must be farmed

and no other use is permitted. There is no right of appeal from any decision

of the commission regarding the designation or acquisition or use of farmland."

I'm still reading from this input from this duly-elected board in the great

Cariboo area. There is no right of appeal from any decision of the commission

regarding the designation or acquisition of farmland. The bill is not only a

preservation of agriculture lands bill, it is a bill which gives the government

control over all land in British Columbia as well as personal property.

"The bill visualizes completely centralized control of all

land in British Columbia by the land commission — bureaucratic nightmare for

any citizen affected by the legislation. The board is investigating the possibility

of arranging an emergency convention in Victoria of representatives of all regional

districts through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Failing this,

the regional board will endeavour to obtain an appointment with the Minister's

concerned to discuss the contentious contents of the bill and suggest more acceptable

alternatives."

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the board asks that "all electors in the

Cariboo Regional District read Bill 42 and forward their comments to the author

of the bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. David Stupich, Parliament Buildings,

Victoria."

That, Mr. Speaker, was a letter from a duly-elected regional board. I'm sorry

that the Minister of Highways has now left the House because he was the one

that was saying that any letter that we had was from some real estate firm.

Here's a letter from an individual:

"We wish to register our protest to Bill 42, the Land Commission

Act , as it is a disaster and a direct infringement on the personal freedom of

every citizen of British Columbia. The only land we own is 50 by 120 ft."

Another letter:

"Dear Don, Ron and I would like you to know that we are

opposed to Land Act, Bill 42. It is an infringement on our civil rights even

with amendments. We are confident that you will do the best you can in this

matter."

[ Page

1502 ]

Lots of input from the citizens, lots of input. Another letter:

"I would like to add my name to the list appearing opposing Bill 42, as

it presently reads. I ask that Land Bill 42 be recalled as being unconstitutional.

We are in complete disagreement with Bill 42. As a voice in our government we

expect you to do your utmost in rejecting this bill."

Well, I'd like the writer of that letter to know that I'm doing something.

"We would appreciate that Bill 42 would be withdrawn from

the Land Commission Act . We would like to see agricultural land used as agricultural

land and so on. We would like to have our free agency to sell our land to whom

we wish and buy land from whom we wish. Also, to use our land the way we feel

is right. The way we understand this bill, it will take away our freedom to

exercise our free agency. We do hope that our country will continue to be free.

We sincerely hope that all Members study this bill thoroughly, and that Bill

42 be withdrawn."

Another letter from the B.C. South Peace River Stockmen's Association. Yes, it's

from my own riding.

"Re Bill 42, the Land Commission Act .

On Saturday, March 4, 1973, the directors of the B.C. South Peace

River Stockmen's Association met to hear the report submitted by the five-man

committee reviewing Bill 42, the proposed Land Commission Act . Based on this

report and the resultant discussion, the following is the position of our association.

We concur in principle with the objectives of Bill 42 as outlined

section 7 (

a) through (h). But we find the methods of implementing these

principles as outlined in Bill 42 unacceptable and recommend that the bill be

withdrawn. In redrawing the bill we recommend that consideration be given to

the following points: The possible infringement on personal rights by a commission

with such a wide range of authority. We recommend that an appeal board or boards

be set up to hear grievances from affected landowners with a final right of

appeal to the Supreme Court.

Since a large portion of land involved in the reserves proposed

in the bill is agriculture land, we strongly recommend that at least a majority

of the commission members be highly experienced in agriculture. We recommend

that commission members be selected in such a manner that they are representative

of the different regional areas in British Columbia."

Lots of people, Mr. Speaker, are concerned. Here's one that even drew me a

map, drew me a picture. But the intent is still there, Mr. Speaker; the desire

is still there in all of the letters. The concerns are the same — the concerns

are for their rights, their rights as citizens; concerns that have been hard

fought for.

"Stop Bill 42, or at least adjust one out of it. I am a farmer."

Here's a letter going to the Premier:

"I am writing to tell you that I am personally displeased

with Bill 42 that you are trying to pass in the provincial government. I am

not against trying to save parkland, agriculture land, but I am against taking

away a person's free agency which this bill, if passed, will do. We, the people

of British Columbia, want our free agency and if you try to take it from us

you will not be re-elected next term, I can guarantee you that. I think you

have smart head on your shoulders and will realize we want and need our freedom

of choice."

That was a letter to the Premier, dated March 12.

MR. LAUK: Can't hear you. Stop mumbling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another letter to the Hon. David Stupich:

"I am writing concerning Bill 42, the Land Commission Act .

As a farmer, I would like to express that I am totally opposed to the approach

taken by the British Columbia government to preserve farmland. The legislation

proposed gives the commission sweeping powers with no guarantee that the farmland

will in fact be preserved. The Act give the commission the power of expropriation

of both real and personal property. I find it hard to believe that government

ownership of land is a prerequisite to controlling the development or use of

it."

This is a very good point, Mr. Speaker. To control land use, does the Government

have to own it?

"I realize that it is difficult to write

an Act that will

fit the needs of such a diverse province as British Columbia. I'm satisfied

that the Government is at least paying lip service to the preservation of the

family farm. However, I must point out that this designation of what land may

or may not be used for will not guarantee the economic viability of the farming

community.

"Much of the land that has been lost from agricultural use

in British Columbia has been lost simply because farming was and is a money

losing proposition. I would suggest that there now exists in B.C. the vehicle

through which unorganized land may be controlled."

He says, Mr. Speaker, that this agency is the regional districts.

"If these were given the latitude to enact bylaws that had

teeth in them, the respective regional districts could enact bylaws that would

be appropriate to their respective situations.

"The use of land can be effectively controlled by zoning

and the issuance or denial of building permits. The Municipal Act gives guarantee

[ Page

1503 ]

public hearing and recourse to higher authority — something your

Land Commission Act does not do."

This farmer knows more about it than some of the lawyers in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: The ones on the opposite side of the House — the one from

Vancouver Centre, yes.

"I personally am a firm believer in decentralized governments. I like

to be able to know those people whom I elect to govern my affairs. Residents

of the community in which they live are usually more in tune to the needs of

the community than someone in Victoria."

Isn't that exactly what I said earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker? It's exactly

what I said earlier this afternoon. Let the people of the community be masters

of their own destiny. Give them the power to effectively plan and control the

development of their area, including the preservation of farmland. Local people

controlling their own affairs.

"If you are really sincere about preserving the family farm,

I would suggest that your department examine what has really been happening

to agriculture in B.C. and find a way to give the farmer a reasonable financial

return for the food he produces, rather than leave him to their mercy of competition

from highly subsidized imports and fluctuations in the international marketplace."

This man, Mr. Speaker, understands why farming is not at the present time a

viable economic enterprise. The farmers all over Canada are concerned about

preserving farmland. Farming in Canada is in a position where it must compete,

without any help from Ottawa, against the US national trade. That, Mr. Speaker,

is why farming is not a viable enterprise. It's pretty hard for the farmers

in Canada to compete with the United States Treasury.

But if our Government and our Minister of Agriculture would proceed down to

Ottawa with the other Ministers of Agriculture and put as much effort into preserving

farming as a way of life, which is what they propose to do and what they want

to do, they would accomplish something. But with Bill 42 they have accomplished

nothing, Mr. Speaker, and they will accomplish nothing so far as the preservation

of farmland is concerned.

Another letter:

"Stop the advent of socialism. Stop Bill 42. Keep working

for the good of British Columbia. In the name of freedom of rights, stop Bill

42. Keep up the good work. Many thanks."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it's better to keep your mouth quiet and be

thought of as you are than to open it and remove all doubt. (Laughter).

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to sum up my thoughts on Bill 42. I'm going to

let the case go to the people. There are many, many more pieces of correspondence

that I probably should read. There are thousands of them, Mr. Speaker, more

than this. They're coming in every day. They're all from concerned people. I'm

not going to take the time of the House to read them all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I guess you'd be happy for that because there are

letters in here from all political parties. There's a lot of letters in here

from people of the NDP who won't be members of the NDP any longer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I just want to point it out to the Members. Mr.

Speaker, in my discussions here in the Legislature with regard to Bill 42, I

asked the Government to withdraw Bill 42 in the name of justice, in the name

of democracy, Mr. Speaker, in the name of all that is right and good and in

the name of all that is fair. During the course of my discussions on Bill 42,

I have endeavoured to point out that the bill is no good. It's no good for the

Government and it's no good for the people. It's no good for the province and

it's no good for the farmer. It's no good for the homebuyer; it's not good for

the young married couple; it's no good for the labourer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, have mercy on us. Yes, that's a good point. I'd like

to ask the Government to have mercy on us; to have mercy on everyone in British

Columbia.

The bill will turn those who are trying to preserve the province and its environment

— the environmentalists I'm referring to — against the farmer. I pointed out

that this was already happening. It will turn the landowner against the tenant

dweller. It is an undemocratic bill conceived in haste. I pointed out that it

will not save farmland, nor will it help the farmer. It will not increase the

production of food. It will not lower the price of food. All of these things,

Mr. Speaker, have been well pointed out and backed by research and facts.

I pointed out that there is no population explosion nor is there any shortage

of food.

I have pointed out and discussed and explained present legislation already

on the statutes of British Columbia that could be used and was being used and

could be expanded upon which would do more to

[ Page

1504 ]

preserve farmland than this dictatorial bill.

I also pointed out the feeling of some of the Members of the Government when

this legislation that is existing was being passed.

I pointed out that the policies that presently exist in the lands department

are aimed at preserving farmland in British Columbia. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker,

that all people of British Columbia should not be punished because of the actions

of a few. I think I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the very people that this

bill proposes to help are being hurt. I pointed out that this bill takes land

away from present landowners in British Columbia and those without land will

have no heart, no soul and no spirit.

If this bill passes, in a few years we will be going to the highest courts

in the land to get our rights back. All of these things have been pointed out,

Mr. Speaker.

If this bill passes, as I said before in the Legislature this evening, I can't

even in my wildest dreams think of all the effects of Bill 42. I can't in my

wildest dreams — and neither can other people — because it will get into every

segment of our well-run society.

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an uprising similar to those by

the American Indian. There will be unrest similar to that unrest which is now

being experienced by the Canadian Indian and the aborigines in Australia.

All this, Mr. Speaker, was well documented. I pointed out that the bill should

have further discussion and that Members of the cabinet, when in Opposition,

stated that anything as serious as land reform should be studied for at least

a year, with proper hearings throughout the province. I pointed out that this

bill has cast all British Columbians into a spell of despondency — into hell

on earth. Some of the correspondence here tonight backs that up.

I have asked the NDP backbenchers to judge this bill with their conscience

and not their politics.

Mr. Speaker, for a final time I request in the name of fair play that Bill

42 be withdrawn and I petition the government to be even-handed and to see that

everyone in British Columbia gets a fair deal.

Withdraw the bill now and go to the people, so that the damage can be halted.

What has been done can't be undone entirely. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, with

an honest and sincere effort by that Government they can endeavour to undo and

to put back and to make amends for some of the hardships that have been caused

to all the people of British Columbia.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my place now. I have pointed out

as well as I can for all the people of British Columbia, for all the good people

in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

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

Speaker. I promise first of all that I will not impose on the people of this

House the way the individual who has just taken his place has done. I promise

the Members of this House that I will deal with the issues involved in this

bill. I promise the Members of this House that I will not follow the lead that

was given by the Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who embarked on a deliberate

attempt to frustrate and destroy the democratic parliamentary system in British

Columbia.

We have listened to 12 hours of verbal meandering and yammering that took us

to Vietnam, Australia, Chile, Wounded Knee and a long list of places completely

irrelevant to this legislation, which I agree is important legislation.

It is not the first time that land bills have been before this House. It is

not the first time that they have been classified as utopian legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Is that the Doomsday Book?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, this is in the Victoria Daily Colonist of May

9, 1917.

"Land Bill is Utopian. 'Utopian legislation' was the way

W. J. Bowers, the Leader of the Opposition, dubbed the Land Settlement Act which

the Hon. John Oliver introduced in the Legislature."

And he goes on and he says:

"Well, doubtless the Minister was actuated by good motives,

but the measure as submitted was most impractical. It placed in the hands of

the Minister powers such as were never enjoyed by a Minister before…."

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What happened to 1918?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So there's nothing new under the sun except that

in one column that particular Opposition lead speaker said as much as my predecessor

on the floor tonight said in 12 hours — in 12 hours and 20 minutes.

I might have accepted a speech like that from a Member of some other party,

but I certainly will not accept that kind of speech from a Member of the party

that in this House, time after time, brought in legislation which denied everything

that Member pretended he was standing for when he was speaking here.

I won't go into the details of the B.C. Electric take-over. But I want to remind

that Member of the kind of legislation and the power inherent in that legislation

that was brought in by the previous administration.

Now I want you to remember every word he said about the meaning of certain

words that are con-

[ Page

1505 ]

tained in Bill 42, then I want you to ask yourselves — was that man putting

forth a shallow political charade, or was he actually examining the legislation

against a background of legislation that is the law of this province and which

he was a part of, and that group were a part of? Because that's how you determine

the meaning of words in legislation.

That Member asked this House and asked this Government to judge this bill with

their conscience and not their politics. To judge this bill with their conscience

and not their politics! That was a straight political examination of that bill

completely without conscience if ever I had heard one.

Let's look a the legislation that's already on the statue books; let's look

at the wording in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act which he talked so much

about. What does it say?

"The Minister of Finance may appoint a person or persons

to advise him with respect to expenditure of money from the Green Belt Protection

Fund established under this Act and to make recommendations respecting"

— this awful word — "the acquisition of land."

The acquisition of land! What a terrible thing that is. But Bill 42 talks about

"acquiring." The Green Belt Protection Fund Act uses exactly the same

phraseology. But it wasn't a commission; it wasn't five men. It was one man

— The Minister of Finance. Who was he? The Premier of the province. One man

— not five men.

I had these people across the way in regard to other legislation say: "Oh,

if you're going to have the government do something in this field, you shouldn't

have a Minister on the board. You should have a non-political commission of

some kind way off on its own. You shouldn't have any politician anywhere near

it." That's what they said. But under the legislation that they themselves

brought into power, one man — the Premier of the province and Minister of Finance

— "acquisition of such lands by Her Majesty in right to the province."

What could they do? "The establishment of those lands as areas to be used

for parklands…for lease for farming purposes or for any other purpose

designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

SOME. HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now where's the "powerhouse" legislation?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is that what you prefer? One man? Acquisition? The

money for certain things? Or "for any other purpose designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?"

I'll stack the democracy of Bill 42 up against that legislation any day. Any

day!

They want a separate commission, the say, about other legislation; there shouldn't

be any politician on it.

MR. GARDOM: You voted for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Next section: "The Lietenant-Governor-in-Council

may from…. . "

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. GARDOM: You did. You voted for it, not us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order, order, order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you check you'll find it in the 9th…. O.K.

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may from time to time

make such regulations not inconsistent with this Act as he may deem necessary

or advisable for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according

to their intent."

The accelerated reforestation fund….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's all right. I'm talking about the legislation.

I know what happened. But to hear these people talk about the wordings of legislation

when they brought in the same kind of legislation — worse. I know what the record

shows. I've already checked the record, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

"Moneys for the purpose of an accelerated forest improvement

programme in the province, including the land acquired…."

Get that word "acquired" again. Then:

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

to advise him with respect to the expenditure of moneys from the accelerated

reforestation fund and a person appointed under this section… "

What was he going to do?

"…have the duties prescribed by the Minister of Finance."

One man! One man was going to tell them what to do.

Now there's indignation about Bill 42 in the fact of that legislation that

they themselves brought in. It's a phony charade for political purposes; a phony

[ Page

1506 ]

charade, except that this time it's true. And this section….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Members should be accusing

each other of "phony charades." I think it's been ruled out before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, well, in that case I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I will not refer to it as "Pecksniffian cant" either. That was ruled

out of order in the House of Commons about 1863, I think.

"This Act comes into force on royal assent, but if the Act

does not receive royal assent until after the 31st day of March, 1972, it shall

be deemed to have come into force on that date and is retroactive to the extent

necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions on or after that date."

"Retroactive," "acquiring," "one man," going

on to tell his advisor what he could or could not do. Then you talk about the

power in Bill 42! Some of you in the backbench over there should remember that

there is a history in this province; that there has been legislation introduced.

And when you examine legislation you examine against the whole background and

the nominal wording of legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Why did you vote for it, Bob?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pointing out to them that this legislation they're

complaining about is not as bad as the legislation they themselves introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why did you vote for it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because I knew they were going to be defeated and

we were going to be the Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But they talk about the sanctity of the ownership

of the land and that Member pleaded with us to be fair to farmers, farmland;

withdraw the bill in the name of democracy, in the name of what's right and

what is fair.

In 1961 they brought in some legislation,

an Act Respecting Compensation for

Certain Lands . Here it is. This was a case where the Department of Highways

had expropriated a farmer's land, 100-odd acres of choice farmland in the Fraser

Valley. The owner was not satisfied with the price offered by the department,

so it went to arbitration under the laws of this province. And the farmer won

his case.

The Department of Highways appealed it to, I think it was the Supreme Court.

AN. HON. MEMBER: No, they obtained an order from the Supreme Court on

it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: O.K. They obtained an order from the Supreme Court

and it was ratified by the Supreme Court. The government of the day didn't like

the fact that this particular owner of the land had won his case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. You listen to me and you'll find that most of

what I say is correct. Sometimes I say you're a nice chap, but that's open to

debate.

What happened after that? In comes a bill, Bill 77, in 1961. In comes a bill

to reduce the payment being made to that farmer by $200,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The only known case.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only known case ever where they brought in legislation

to rob a landowner of $200,000 awarded to him by arbitration and ratified by

the courts.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Let the farmers beware.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is why they're afraid of any legislation affecting

land, because they know how they acted. They don't realize that there's a Government

in power that wouldn't act that way.

I'll tell you too, Mr. Speaker, why I say that act they've just gone through

is a charade. I want to remind you of what happened in this House a few weeks

ago. That Minister introduced Bill 42. A week later this House, including that

Member who just finished speaking and every Member of that official Opposition,

stood up on a vote of confidence in that Minister.

Every one of them stood up. There's the record in Hansard . When the Conservatives

made a motion of non-confidence in that Minister, you stood up and voted confidence

in that Minister one week after he brought the bill in. There's the record.

MR. CHABOT: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Shall I read the report of that vote?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Didn't you know what you were voting on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. There he is, right there. March 1, 1973, a week

after the bill was

[ Page

1507 ]

introduced, a motion of non-confidence in that Minister. And you and every

Member of your group voted confidence in the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read the names. Who voted Aye: Liden, Lea, Brown,

Williams, Kelly, Skelly, Anderson, Lewis, Lauk, Nunweiler, Anderson, Brousson,

Radford, Webster, Gabelmann, Stupich, McGeer, Nimsick, Smith, Morrison, King,

Barrett, Richter, Fraser, Lorimer, Gorst, Sanford, Hartley, Strachan, Jordan,

McClelland, Cocke, Macdonald, Cummings, Steves, Levi, Young, Schroeder, Calder,

Dailly, Chabot…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …Phillips.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: R.A. Williams, Hall, D'Arcy, Barnes.

MR. CHABOT: Is that on the Land Commission Act ?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Paired were Gardom and Nicolson; two against were

Curtis and Wallace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They voted confidence in the Minister a week after

he brought the bill in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not the way we've been getting it this last

little while.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how everyone says that they believe that something

has to be done to save farmland. Everybody says something has to be done to

save farmland. But the minute anybody wants to do something about it, then they

start up that road of reasons why, this, that and everything else.

You say, "Why don't you run around the province for another year or two

years?" You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a royal commission in 1958 on

the tree fruit industry of the Province of British Columbia. In 1958 — 15 years

ago. It was obvious what was happening to agriculture and agricultural land.

It was obvious in 1958 that what this province required were great programmes

to make agriculture an economic operation in the Province of British Colombia.

Fifteen years later they hadn't brought in a single programme to help the farmer

economically. Fifteen years! I pointed out in an earlier speech that this Minister

has set up the staff now to embark on the new programme — as a beginning.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's research, there's all the rest of it in those

estimates, you take a look at it.

Here's a quote from that royal commission.

"Over the last two decades there has been a continuous division

of property into smaller and smaller orchard units.

This is in '58.

"This has resulted in the creation of a large number of

orchards in which as illustrated in table 24, the average grower can at most

expect that his investment in the property will provide him with a house and

garden, and enough cash to pay the depreciation on the equipment that he needs

for his orchard operations. For his livelihood h