1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill No. 152)

Hon. Mr. King. Introduction and first reading — 1665

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153) Hon. Mr.

King.

Introduction and first reading — 1665

Oral Questions

Northern extension of Island Highway. Mr. Chabot — 1665

Negotiations with Columbia Cellulose re purchase of Celgar. Mr. McClelland

— 1665

Responsibility of Bureau of Transit Services. Mr. Brousson — 1665

Student summer employment. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1666

New responsibilities of Minister of Public Works. Mr. Fraser — 1666

Pyramid selling programmes on a political level. Mr.

D.A.

Anderson — 1666

Financial help for Peace River farmers. Mr. Smith — 1667

Possible purchase of Vancouver Sun . Mr. Brousson — 1667

Rental programme in Victoria. Mr. Chabot — 1668

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1668

Mr. Schroeder — 1675

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1680

Mr. Morrison — 1681

Mr. Richter — 1686

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1695

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

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

honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Payment of

Wages Act and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly, Government House, March 23, 1973.

Bill No. 152 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

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

message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Public Works Fair Employment

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, March 23, 1973.

Bill No. 153 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

NORTHERN EXTENSION OF

ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Highways: has the Government decided to take the Island

Highway north, running it between Gold River and Woss Camp,

instead of swinging south through Sayward from Woss Camp?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): No decision has been made yet. As you know, there are

several choices open up there but no decision has been made

yet.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question: have there been

discussions on the proposed route with the Mount Waddington

Regional District?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There have been discussions with a number

of groups and individuals. I would have to check to see whether

or not there have been discussions with that particular group.

Our engineers travel extensively and talk with a variety of

people about every topic relating to highways, so I am not

going to say there have been no discussions on this at any time

but I will check into it.

MR. CHABOT: Just a short supplementary question: has the

Minister suggested to his top ranking civil servants that they

might discuss the matter with the Mount Waddington Regional

District?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have discussed the whole north end of

Vancouver Island and every other

section of the province with

my officials. We are looking at the whole province of British

Columbia, with regard to its road requirements and laying out

plans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

RE PURCHASE OF CELGAR

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is addressed to

the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Now

that the Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has confirmed

that negotiations are going on with Columbia Cellulose, for the

purchase of Celgar, can the Minister now confirm that the

negotiations have been underway for some time, contrary to

previous statements to the House by the Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Minister

of Recreation and Conservation): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF

BUREAU OF TRANSIT SERVICES

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

this question is for the Hon.

[ Page 1666 ]

Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister announced on

January 20, approximately, the appointment of Victor J. Parker

as head of the new Bureau of Transit Services. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister would inform the House what are the

terms of reference of Mr. Parker and what this Bureau of

Transit Services will be doing.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The

bureau is directly responsible to the Minister in its advisory

capacity. Their responsibilities are initially to deal with the

Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional

District in an effort to beef up and add to the present public

transit systems in those two particular areas. In addition to

that, they are also charged with the responsibility of looking

through the whole province to determine the transit needs in

all the towns and cities in the interior as well as on

Vancouver Island. They will be reporting directly to myself.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, supplemental to that. I take it

then that the responsibility of this bureau is going to be

entirely with that of buses and rapid transit.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not necessarily, but basically that is

correct.

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

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of Press

reports dealing with the high level of unemployment among

students in the province for this summer, may I ask the

Premier, in the absence of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall), what special programmes the Government has underway or

might be planning for student employment this summer?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That is a matter that has already been

discussed with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Provincial

Secretary and I am awaiting a report from the Minister of Highways. As I said

during the budget debate, if there were surpluses — and it appears we are heading

for some surpluses — they would be directed to employment projects throughout

the year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Specifically, Mr. Speaker, on the

question of student employment, would there be a programme

specifically designed which will be announced in the near

future on student employment?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The forest service will be hiring and the

funds are already available to the forest service.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

NEW RESPONSIBILITIES OF

MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Public Works: what new functions have been assigned

to the Minister of Public Works now that the Speaker's office

carries all the responsibilities for telephone facilities in

the building?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Is that an

announcement or a question? (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: A question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Is that an answer or a waffle?

(Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: to what extent has

the Speaker's office taken over any other functions previously

handled by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), and

has the Minister entered any protest on this matter?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The same answer. (Laughter).

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

PYRAMID SELLING PROGRAMMES

ON A POLITICAL LEVEL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney General. In view of the lawsuit in the United States

on a pyramid selling programme called "Dare to Be Great," on

behalf of the Social Credit leadership hopefuls may I ask

whether or not he has taken steps to have this decision

extended to Canada so there can be refunds also in Canada as

well as in the United States? (Laughter).

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): We can't keep games

like this "Dare to Be Great" really alive until after the time

of the November convention. Because so many people are being

incidentally hurt by that kind of a game. But as much as we'd

like to make it available to the Opposition party, I'm afraid

not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wrote the question,

[ Page 1667 ]

Pat McGeer?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A more serious question to the Minister

of Social Rehabilitation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a different question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not a supplementary. No, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you hold it? I'll ask the Member for

North Peace River.

FINANCIAL HELP FOR

PEACE RIVER FARMERS

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

A question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Because of the completely inadequate compensation provided

to the farmers of the Peace River country, what further

financial help is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to

recommend for the farmers?

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

are considering a further programme. At the present time we are

negotiating with Ottawa to try and get them to co-operate on

it. I'd rather not talk about the details at this time until we

have some…I would say this though, that we are also talking

to Alberta with a view to making a joint presentation to the

federal government.

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question to the Minister.

Will further help from the Province of British Columbia be

contingent upon some participation by Ottawa in whatever plan

that you may come up with?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not necessarily so, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

Mr. Speaker, as we were promised last fall, in the fall

session, that Mincome would be a scheme based on income and not

on means test, may I ask whether there has been a policy change

of the Government in the light of the form that is being sent

to senior citizens at this time — a form asking them to list

all their stocks, cash on hand, bonds, bank accounts,

properties, trust accounts, debentures, insurance, and other

assets?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, attached to that blue form which I gave to the Members last week was

an explanation as to why that form has been sent out. It is at the specific

request and insistence of the federal government. As you know we are going by

way of the Social Assistance Act and in order for us to get some sharing we

have to be able to establish need. And this is in fact a needs test. The important

thing about the form is that at the top it says it will make no difference at

all to people's Mincome payments. It's purely for accounting and statistical

purposes only. But it is at the insistence of the federal government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as the federal Act has not

been changed since last fall in this regard, I wonder whether

there has been any realization of error on the part of the

Government, to what it said last fall or whether there has been

a policy change relating to last fall. Because the facts with

respect to the Canada Assistance Plan are identical — last fall

as well as now.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think that, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member

knows that when we introduced the bill last time that we said

that we would be going via the Social Assistance Act and not by

the CAP. We have had some success in our negotiations with

Ottawa in respect to upward revision of the asset levels. When

the estimates are up I will be making a statement about that.

This is not inconsistent with what we said last fall.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

POSSIBLE PURCHASE OR TAKEOVER

OF Vancouver SUN .

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Hon. Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Referring to the recent

purchase by the Government of the Ocean Falls and the

paper-making plant there: should the market for the output of

that plant, paper and newsprint and so on, become very tight,

very competitive and difficult in the next year or two,

particularly following 1975 when Crown Zellerbach will no

longer have responsibility for marketing — would the Government,

or is the Government considering the possible purchase or

takeover of the Vancouver Sun to ensure itself of a future

captive market for the output of that mill?

MR. SPEAKER: That's known as a rhetorical question. But

nobody seems to want to stop the question. (Laughter).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, this Government has

[ Page 1668 ]

some standards, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say regarding

Ocean Falls, however, that we will be in production April 3. I

think that shows what public enterprise can do in British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

RENTAL PROGRAMME IN VICTORIA

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Public Works. Is

the Government undertaking a major rental programme throughout

the Victoria area?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The answer is no.

MR. CHABOT: The Department of Public Works is not in the

process of renting office space in Victoria? That's what you're

saying. Do they have a programme of any description then?

Would the Minister care to elaborate on the type of

programme which the Government has relative to renting office

space in the City of Victoria? Or is he unwilling to do so?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That is correct. Yes and no.

(Laughter).

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I wish to direct a

question to the Premier. Would the Premier advise me what

department is in charge of security here at the Parliament

Buildings?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Public Works.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then has the Premier given the Speaker any

instructions with regard to his going out during the recent

demonstration and with regard to his recent announcement in the

paper that he was in charge of security during that

demonstration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Member,

Public Works is responsible for the security of the building.

The Speaker, as I understand it — because I don't give the

Speaker any instructions — as I understand it, the Speaker is

responsible to consult with those security staff. On one

occasion we did have an unruly group come into the House in

support of a cabinet Minister who was deposed, and the Speaker

had to clear the galleries. In clearing the galleries, he had

to consult later with the attendants and security people.

There's been no change since the previous administration, when

they had to clear the galleries, on one occasion.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then the Premier hasn't given the Speaker any

instructions in that regard?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. The Speaker was a Member, as I

understand, before he became Speaker and had experience under

the previous Speaker and is following his lead.

Orders of the day.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 42 — the second Member for Victoria

adjourned the debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the bill under discussion is entitled the Land

Commission Act — a fact forgotten, I believe, by many

Members in this debate, and also by the two cabinet Ministers

who have spoken so far.

It has as objectives protection of farmland in British

Columbia and yet the bill itself is not entitled as that. It's

simply entitled "Land Commission Act". I think it's important

to remember the distinction.

The object of the bill is not necessarily the principle of

the bill. And we've had far too much careless talk and waffling

by Government Ministers, as well as others, on the distinction

between an objective and the principles involved in getting

towards that objective.

We in this party have stated previously, and will state

again — we're quite willing to state again — that we would

welcome legislation designed to protect agricultural land from

blacktopping or carless subdivision. We stated this when the

previous government was in power; we state it again now.

But just because this objective may be desirable — an

objective I believe that all Members share. And I would just

like, with his permission, to refer to the first two paragraphs

of the Hon. Member for South Peace River's (Mr. Phillips)

comments. He stated, Mr. Speaker, in his first two paragraphs

that — if he'd stopped there, he would have been well ahead, I

think — that he did not object to the objectives of the Act, it

was the principles involved in the Act as well.

So I think that the Hon. Member, as well as Members in this

party and the Conservative Party have made it very clear to

this Government that there is a distinction between objective

and principle. And

[ Page 1669 ]

while we do not take exception to the objectives of this

Act, we certainly take strong exception to many of the

principles involved in attempting to achieve this

objective.

The Minister himself, in his speech of March 9, p. 1201 of

Hansard said this:

"Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that it says right in

the legislation that it is the intention and the objective of this

commission to maintain and establish economically-sound small farms, to

save agricultural land and to make it possible for farmers to farm

economically. That is the objective of the legislation."

With that objective we don't quarrel. But we do quarrel — and I think rightly so, as our colleagues on our left, the

Progressive Conservative Members of this House have indicated — we do quarrel with the principles being used to achieve that

objective.

What are the principles, then, that we find so regrettable

in this legislation? First of all, there's the denial of

natural justice.

There's the absence of due process of law. There's a lack of

appeal. There's the question of compensation. Now, Ministers

say "rubbish." But I wonder where they've been for the last

month, if they really feel that these points are not real

points of principle that we should be discussing in this

Legislature.

The Government itself, with its amendments — or its proposed

amendments — made outside this House or hinted at outside this

House, has indicated that it also realizes that this is a badly

drafted bill with areas that are in need of revision. The

Attorney General has, I think, made it pretty clear on a

hot-line that he really didn't know what was in the bill when

he happily talked about appeal provisions which were

non-existent in the bill and expressed surprise that they

weren't there.

It's easy now in retrospect to say, "Ah well, appeals, of

course, are always possible," but in this bill they are

not possible. This is question of principle and we should have

any amendments that the Government intends to bring forward

brought forward now, so that at this stage we can discuss these

questions at the second reading of a bill on this land

commission.

The various special interest groups, which have been rather

scathingly attacked by the Minister and also by other speakers

of the NDP side — the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in

particular — have brought forward proposals and suggestions for

improving this bill which they think should be brought in. We

agree with much of what they say. We agree also with much of

what the British Columbia Cattlemen say in their brief.

I'll just list them as quickly as I can. The cattlemen believe that the majority

of the members of the commission should be appointed by nominees provided by

agricultural interests. Well, I think that some should be. I don't know whether

a majority should be. They talk about public hearings before designation of

land use. They talk about appeals from commission decisions to the courts. They

talk about compensation for lost land values at time of sale. They talk of notice

to landowners about designation of land use. They go on to two other points

of less significance. All those, which are by far the majority of their points,

deal with questions of principle in this Act which we feel it behooves the Government

to pay close attention to.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture presented a brief also.

The federation has been criticized by Government Members for

not putting forward reasonable proposals and not putting

forward their views. It was most badly treated by the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in his speech in

this House on March 9, where he simply assured us that the real

concern of the executive of that organization was their

personal interest in subdivision of their individual holdings.

I feel this was really a most unfair attack upon this body by

the Minister of the Crown responsible for that industry.

They are interested in agriculture in this province. They

are interested in the welfare of their members. They don't have

among their members the big landowners or the speculative real

estate companies which were referred to by the Member for

Richmond (Mr. Steves). They are a farmers' organization and

they are, I think, acting very responsibly in putting forward

their objections to this bill.

Their objections: First, "Bill 42 gives the commission the

power to confiscate our property at whatever price it sees

fit." We can quibble about whether "or otherwise acquire" means

expropriation or whether it doesn't. But there is there enough

concern to indicate, in my mind, that they have had again a

question of principle and not of mere detail of the bill.

Their second objection states that "Bill 42 devalues our

assets and denies all right of compensation." Well, it denies

all right of compensation. Compensation may come at the

pleasure of the commission. But they are perfectly correct in

saying that they have no right to compensation under this bill.

It's another question of principle which we feel is

critical.

Should compensation for loss of this nature be in the hands

of a five-man politically-appointed commission, or should it be

a question of right that citizens of this province, by right of

their ownership in their land, can take advantage of? We think,

once again, that it's a question of right and it's a question

of principle which simply cannot be ignored by the

Government.

They go on. They state that "Bill 42 denies our right to a

public hearing with notification." That again is true. It may

happen that there is such a

[ Page 1670 ]

public hearing. It may happen that there is notification.

But there is no right, no legal requirement, for this to

happen. There is no requirement for these people to be treated

fairly and in accordance with natural justice.

They go on to appeal. Well, we've argued that point back and

forward about what appeal is true appeal. Basically, if a

Government inspector can come and say, "You know, Mr. Farmer,

that hillside on which you can't support a thing, is

agricultural land. You can't sell it off for any other

purpose;" if that is the case, then there's no opportunity for

him to have an appeal on whether or not that is the true state

of affairs. Then, I think, they don't have a proper appeal. Of

course, they have appeal on excessive jurisdiction, if it were

possible to exceed jurisdiction on such a widely written bill.

Of course they have that. That is there, everywhere.

For example, if this commission passes orders on energy

questions or something of that nature, it would be outside its

jurisdiction. But within it there is no appeal. That is a real

point which we feel the Government is going to have to face up

to.

Other objections: They talk about the political nature of

the land commission. I refer you again to the speech of my

colleague from West Vancouver (Mr. Williams), where he

indicated in the House how we would handle this question and

how we would deal with the problem of a political land

commission. I only refer you again to the parallel with the

purchasing commission, which is a non-political commission. May

I refer you to the need for such non-political commissions when

we see the purchase by B.C. Hydro of buses from a Manitoba

corporation — for political reasons, we think — which took

place outside the commission's jurisdiction.

Another objection is that "Bill 42 extends the powers of the commission to

all lands." We've had the arguments back and forward as to whether the two-acre

limitation constitutes all land or whether anything below that would be exempt

from the commission. May I point out that that two-acre reference in the bill

is only on one section, a

section we can't deal with at this stage of reading

of this bill. But it does indicate that there is a possibility of even more than

land parcels over two acres being involved There are other provisions put in

here by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I won't read every one of them. A

couple more are important, I think, because they also go to these questions

of principle that I'm talking of.

Objection 13: "Bill 42 allows the commission to make

decisions without publication" — secret decisions, in other

words. This is, I think, a real question of principle which the

Government has yet to face up to.

There is the question of expropriation without compensation. We don't know

exactly what the Government has in mind on amendment. Certainly the way it reads

now, it could be that expropriation could take place without compensation.

The final point of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's

brief which I'd like to refer to is that in its definition

section, the bill has many areas which are unclear. That,

perhaps, is something we could take up at third reading.

What I'm suggesting is that we're not alone in pointing out

that there have been real questions of principle on this bill

which the Government has yet to really deal with. We think that

the comments of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C.

Cattlemen and other groups that we could have quoted, indicate

that this bill goes a lot further than simply the objective of

preserving farmland. These principles that are involved affect

very much the livelihood of many citizens in British

Columbia.

We feel that without some sort of clarification, without

some sort of amendments at this stage — in other words,

amending the bill at second reading, which can be done by

withdrawal and reintroduction — we feel that there is no way

that this party, or indeed any Member of this House, can vote

for this bill.

Well, the speeches have been made by the two cabinet

Ministers who have spoken, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). What basically was their view? Well, the Minister of

Highways talked about the previous government doing worse. That

essentially was the criticism of his colleague as well.

Sure, we're quite willing to admit that the previous

government wasn't doing a great job. We wouldn't have been in

politics in this province over the last 20 years had we thought

the Social Credit party was doing so brilliantly.

We don't dispute the fact that there was much to be done. We

don't dispute the fact that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

has many problems on his plate which are larger than they

should be because of the inadequacies of the previous

administration. We're sympathetic to this problem that he has,

not only in this field but in many fields. We're attempting to

be as constructive as we can on this. We're in no way saying

that things were good before.

But what about the Green Belt Protection Fund Act and

the Accelerated Reforestation Act , which were referred

to so disparagingly by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan)? First of all, both of these Acts were voted for by

NDP Members. It's curious that these are now singled out as

examples of how terrible the previous administration was. The

only party that voted against these two bills was, of course,

the Liberal Party, as was mentioned before. On the strength of

that consistent opposition to bad principle in bad bills, we

think that we have a right to

[ Page 1671 ]

comment upon this one in the same vein.

It raises a larger question. What sort of society does this

Government really feel we're in, when the only test of their

legislation that they're really willing to use is not whether

it's good or bad or whether it can be improved or otherwise,

but simply whether or not it's worse than the legislation of

the previous government? It strikes me that we're accepting a

very, very low standard if we are simply to have the previous

government as the only indication of the standard for present

legislation.

I really don't think that on August 30 of last year — not

from the time I spent campaigning in this province, speaking

everywhere in this province, I really don't think that the

people who voted in the new Government voted them in simply to

do no worse than their predecessor. They were voting in, they

hoped, something better; this came up time and time again.

I think that throughout the last six months the Government

must be aware that people are expecting a higher standard.

Speeches such as those of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) simply aren't good enough in this province at this

stage to justify what is so bad about this present piece of

legislation.

The statement has been made that, "Well, there are going to

be lots of changes." These statements have come up from many

Government Members. The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) stated, and is quoted in the

Victoria Times of March 14: "What we're going to have to do is

rewrite sections of the Act. The purpose of the Act is simply

to zone farmland," and so on.

Well, she admits, and she's not alone in so doing, that the

Act is going to have to be rewritten. She talks of certain

sections. But others have also indicated that there is a need

for a change as well.

In the Victoria Daily Colonist of March 17 there is a story,

"Hearings Hinted on Land Ruling." There's talk about the

Minister and his statements. It goes on to suggest that there

will be some sort of appeal by way of the regional board

ultimately to the cabinet "only for formal approval." So we are

in a situation where there are hints about appeal and

changes.

But we really don't know. We can't examine the principle of

these appeal proposals here because we don't have them formally

in front of us.

The Minister goes on to say, "This has always been the

Government's intention, but it hasn't been clearly spelled out

in the legislation." What are we discussing here, Mr. Speaker — his intentions or legislation?

Time after time we've had the same sort of talking around the subject and a

failure to really consider the subject itself. We were hoping that the bill

would be clarified when the Minister got up to speak. We were hoping, indeed,

that the bill would be withdrawn, amended and re-submitted, which would have

saved us all a great deal of time on both sides of the House. Government pride,

perhaps, was the reason for this not taking place.

The Minister stated on March 8 that he hopes to "clear up

the misunderstanding about the bill," during the debate

on principle. Well, we haven't had that. We haven't had these

questions cleared up by him in his debate. We just don't

precisely know what he has in mind in the way of amendments on

these questions of principle.

So we are really trying to deal with what the Government

admits to be a grubby piece of legislation which is inadequate

already, which has failures in it on questions of principle as

well as on detail;

an Act which they admit they are going to have to deal with later on by way of amendment. Yet they really

haven't faced up to the fact that so many of these amendments

they are proposing deal essentially with principle. When the

Speaker rules on these amendments, he will be forced to

indicate to this House that they are of major importance, they

deal with questions of principle and they cannot then be

accepted at third reading.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier groans at this but it is a

true principle. If he'll check the authorities he'll find this

out.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're talking about amendments which

might possibly come up in the future, Mr. Premier.

The Premier, despite what he has said previously about

listening to comments of others and Opposition parties in

particular…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've offered no amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you had listened to the speech

of another Liberal, Mr. Premier, you would have heard proposals

there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We often have that trouble with you and

your Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) too, Mr. Premier.

In any event, to quote the Premier's own words on February

24, as reported in the Vancouver Sun :

"At a Press conference, Barrett criticized the critics

for attacking the bill before knowing what it entails. 'I expect more

responsibility from the Opposition,' he said, accusing them of

'screaming

[ Page 1672 ]

about

an Act they haven't had a chance to read'."

What I'm telling you right now, Mr. Premier, is that we haven't seen the amendments.

You first come out and criticize Members of the Opposition

for remarks they have made about this bill but you keep things

back. We are in exactly the same position now. We don't know

what you have in mind. You criticize us on the one hand for not

reading the Act closely and later you say the bill is going to

change anyway. Then you come back and say, "Well, it doesn't

really matter what happens in second reading because it's in

third reading we're putting in amendments."

We took you at your word when you said that you wanted a

close look. Since then we've been pretty surprised to find that

despite your own words that the only way to criticize

intelligently is to read the words of the bill itself, you're

willing to bring in amendments. We're in this shell game where

we don't know what you have in mind and it makes it

extraordinarily difficult to discuss this bill intelligently in

principle.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): We've noticed that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you've been noticing it for some

time. This party does not embark upon filibusters to try to

deal with this bill. We think though that if anything could

encourage a filibuster it would be the attitude of the

Government which has been thoroughly and consistently

irresponsible in trying to suggest that second reading means

nothing in such a bill, that it's the amendments which come up

in third reading which count.

It's a question of fact that you can't amend matters of

principle on third reading. If we vote for some of these rotten

principles which are embedded in this bill, we will be unable

to change them later on.

We're in a situation, Mr. Speaker, on all points dealing

with this bill of really not knowing what the Government has in

store.

I'd like to indicate some of the confusion which I have on one item which I

am glad the Minister of Agriculture is here to discuss. We have here a March

17 quotation from the Vancouver Province newspaper dealing with the Premier's

"hot-line link-up around the province." It goes on to say, "But he," that presumably

is the Premier, "said that the Government has no intention of paying compensation

for losses of potential land sale above market price of farmland that might

have been made by owners had they been allowed to sell to developers." That's

the statement of principle in my mind on compensation by the Premier. I took

it as Government policy. I guess you have to. There's a repeat of it. The Vancouver

Sun refers to Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture: "Stupich rejected the

association's appeal for compensation for devalued land."

And yet we are in a quandary because, despite the Minister's

statement and despite the Premier's statement, I have in my

hand a copy of another letter, signed by David D. Stupich,

Minister of Agriculture, dated December 20, 1972, and I'd just

like to read it.

"This is written in further reference to your letter of

November 21, 1972, in which you asked pertinent questions about

our proposal to implement a policy for the preservation of

farmland in British Columbia.

"In reply I can advise that we are presently working on this

policy and the required legislation but do not have all of the

details finalized.

"The objectives of course are to preserve farmland for

agricultural use now and in the future and that society as a

whole should share with you the responsibilities of doing

so."

It goes on — a specific paragraph on this gentleman's own

land. There's no need to read that.

The next paragraph says:

"It is presently envisaged that there will be two

alternatives for a landowner in your position: either the

outright sale of it at a reasonable market price to a

government agency, or the sale only of the 'development value'

in return for a covenant registered against the title

restricting the land's use to agriculture. In this situation

the 'development value' is ascribed as the difference between

the value of the land for all uses and its value as

farmland.

"In some areas of the province the market value of the

property and its farm value will be the same, but in other

areas, where the pressure on farmland for other uses is great,

the development value will be higher.

"I trust the foregoing insight into the intent of our

farmland reform policy will provide you with the information

requested and assure you that no discrimination is

intended."

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister's letter I felt was a good

one and a fair one. It dealt with the subject; and yet we've

had a substantial departure from that policy — an unannounced

departure. And now we have both the Premier and the Minister

stating that compensation on the basis of development value

simply won't take place.

These are the types of things that really do make it

extraordinarily difficult for us to discuss this bill. We are

dealing with questions of principle. We have contradictory,

proposals coming forward from the same Minister. We really

don't know what the Government has in mind.

The speech of the Minister in Kamloops, which I heard, dealt

with four areas in which there would be changes. One was appeal…

[ Page 1673 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry. Evidently I didn't get the

fine meaning of the words. Apparently these are not changes to

be made but simply where changes are being considered. So once

more the statement in Kamloops can be abandoned as soon as

we've given this bill second reading and he can go back and

say, "Well, we considered and rejected those proposals that I

made in Kamloops."

That's the type of confusion, Mr. Minister, that surrounds

this bill. In all innocence, I thought you had promised

amendments at third reading on these four points. You now state

in this House that you didn't. You merely promised to consider

amendments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is the difficulty we're faced

with. The Act, in questions of principle, simply isn't clear.

The Act, in questions of principle, isn't fair. The Act has

troubles enough, I feel, in its present form. It made me think

that perhaps you got a good bill, Mr. Minister, from the

department, but by the time the Hon. Minister of Lands and

Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) got hold of it and your backbench

got hold of it, they ripped it to shreds. Then you simply put

the pieces together and threw it into the House in that form,

in the hope that perhaps later on you'd be able to make some

coherent sense out of it.

Well, that just isn't good enough — this approach to

legislation of this Government. The statement that I made

regarding amendments, Mr. Speaker, which I made on a point of

order was instantly criticized by the Premier who said, "Well,

there was no way of knowing at that stage whether amendments

would be coming forward to the House."

I take that statement that he made in the House as being a

factual one; we still don't have any idea of what amendments

are coming in. But in my view, if the amendments on this

subject, which have been the basic guts of the bill…the

basic discussion on this bill has not been about the

preservation of farmland. It's been about the denial of natural

justice. It's been about compensation; it's been about due

process. Those are the real things that people have been

concerned about and those are the real things that we have

discussed in this House.

Now, it's those things, Mr. Speaker, that are of such concern that the farmers

are willing to leave their farms in the interior and come down and demonstrate

on the steps of the Parliament Buildings. If these things are of such concern,

why is it the Government does not pay attention to the voices of the people,

as well as the Opposition, as well as of the media in the Province, and come

in with amendments so that we can actually know what we're dealing with? We

just don't know at this stage.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the speakers from the Liberal Party who

spoke prior to me…the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) listed a number of areas where he feels the

government should make changes. He suggested that the

commission itself not be a political commission; that it be

appointed just as the Purchasing Commission is and that

furthermore, there should be appointments from a list of people

proposed by the special interest groups such as the Federation

of Agriculture and the Cattlemen.

He proposed that we give this whole thing a hoist for enough

time so that the Agriculture Committee of the House can travel

around the province and can find out what people really think

would be the best way of handling this. He's proposed as well

that this be done on a regional basis; that you don't try for a

commission to handle the whole province at once; you try and

deal with it on an area-by-area basis.

There have been sensible and useful proposals put forward by

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who is our party's

critic in this area, and yet we still hear the comments from

the Government that of course they've heard nothing from the

Opposition.

You have heard something from the Opposition and you've

heard quite a bit. I think the time has come for the Government

to try and analyze what has been put forward and come up with

some criticism, if they have any, of why it's not being

done.

Mr. Speaker, we're in the funny position where a bill has

been brought in — a poor bill — amendments have been proposed

or have been brought up for consideration by the government,

changes have been proposed by the special interest groups — the

Federation of Agriculture and the Cattlemen — changes have been

proposed from this side of the House, and yet we still have the

Premier crying that he's not heard of any changes proposed by

others.

Well obviously, at this stage, formal amendments to second

reading of a bill can't be done. That's why the Government says

it can't bring in its amendments even though…I believe the

words that the Premier used was that he's "bursting to do

so."

What the government can do and we can't do on this side of

the House is to withdraw that bill, put in the amendments that

deal with these matters of principle, reintroduce it, and then

perhaps we can have a rational debate on what actually is in

the bill itself. We cannot have a really good rational debate

on a bill such as this when the Government Members and the

opposition Members and the public at large are not aware of

what is going to finally wind up in the bill, or they're not

aware of what the Government finally intends to put in the

bill.

There's one other aspect of the bill which is very

frightening. That is the power to write regulations.

[ Page 1674 ]

The Minister has made statements previously in the Press as

well as in the House dealing with regulations, and he's stated

that he's sure there are lots of things to change. But he said,

"It's very easy to change. We can put an order-in-council in

and have the thing changed overnight, or less time than

that."

So, we're in a situation where we still don't know the

Government's intentions. We still don't know whether the

amendments they put in will be realistically done. We have no

real idea of how he intends to use that enormous amount of

residual power dealing with orders-in-council thereafter. We

think that in a subject of this importance it would be possible

for the Government to bring in a proper bill, a bill which we

could discuss at second reading in terms of principle.

We think that it would be quite possible for the Government

Ministers, instead of spending their time denouncing the

previous government — which they are quite entitled to do, but

it's not relevant to this bill in question — we think that it

would be quite possible for them to really analyze, or attempt

to analyze as best they can, what are the principles involved;

what denials there will be of natural justice, of appeal, of

compensation, of due process of law.

Mr. Speaker, any commission that has an entirely political

character where the members of it can be taken off at a

moment's notice by a stroke of the pen; where there is no

tenure of office as a commissioner; any commission which is

empowered to make all its own rules; any commission which is

empowered to make decisions without appeal; any commission

which has this enormous amount of power should be discussed in

the Legislature on the basis of what the Government intends and

not on the basis of some ideas the Government may have had at

one time but have since abandoned.

We simply cannot deal intelligently with Bill 42 in this

way. I once more, Mr. Speaker, urge the Government to pay some

attention to this point. It is simple for the Government party

to withdraw a bill. It is simple for the Government party to

make changes in that bill and reintroduce it. At that stage,

perhaps we can have a realistic discussion of what is involved.

But if we continue in this way, where we're going to go sailing

into third reading with the Speaker bearing the entire onus of

deciding whether or not amendments are in order or not — because he'll have to decide whether they're on questions of

principle or otherwise — I suggest we're simply abusing the

rights of this Legislature.

After all, a Legislature has really only two fundamental jobs. One is to grant

money sparingly so that the people are not excessively taxed. The other is to

grant powers to the Crown sparingly so that the people are not excessively ill-treated

without recourse to the courts, This is the type of legislation which allows

enormous changes to take place in human rights in this province. It is a bill

which is not subject, despite the statements made by the Minister in this House

on second reading, to the Canadian Bill of Rights; which probably will not be

subject, according to the actual words of this Act itself, to any provisions

of a B.C. Bill of Rights which may be later brought in.

It's a bill which is wide ranging, a bill which for certain

individuals could be extraordinarily destructive. It's the type

of bill which, if the Legislature has any real function and if

the Government party has any real respect for this Legislature,

they will amend and bring in again. That is the only way, Mr.

Speaker, that we can deal with true points of principle.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length dealing with

suggestions that this party has made regarding alteration of

this bill, regarding changes that we think should be brought

in. These have been listed by the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). I could go on and deal at

some length with the way that this bill violates the natural

justice or due process. I refer you on that, Mr. Speaker, to

the six-point test put forward by my Hon. friend, the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson).

But what I would like to do at this stage is simply repeat

to the Minister: we're here dealing with a bill which has up to

now been extremely badly handled. We are dealing with a bill

that affects large numbers of people. We are dealing with a

bill which I think, only reason and fair play suggests should

be treated very differently than it has up to now.

The argument has been put forward that the only reason the

Government doesn't do this is the pride of the Premier — that

he doesn't want to withdraw a bill which he feels he is

committed to in this way. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a new

Government; in my view, the people of the province are fairly

generous and would be quite reasonable if the Government did

withdraw the bill.

If the Government frankly admitted a mistake; if they

withdrew the bill, amended its provisions which affect these

matters of principle that I have referred to and resubmitted it

to the Legislature, in my mind it would not be a loss of

credibility of the Government. It would be enhanced.

The suggestion is that we on this side would give consent

for any such withdrawal. Of course that's true. If the bill

came in which achieved the objectives we've all talked about,

yet nevertheless managed to handle the questions of principle

which are so serious, we think that there may well be a greater

chance of this bill being more widely accepted not only in this

House, but throughout the province.

The Liberal Party will support any bill which has the

objectives of protecting farmland, provided it at the same time

handles these questions of principle that we have talked about

in an adequate and fair and reasonable way. We are not going to

support a bill,

[ Page 1675 ]

Mr. Speaker, which, although its objectives may be great,

nevertheless is so full of rotten points of principle that it

itself just cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, every bit of legislation that has ever been put

in, whether it be put in by the National Socialist Party in

Germany in the 30s or whether it be put in elsewhere, always

talks in glowing terms about what the principle will be or what

the objective might be. It is the job of a legislature to

ignore these statements of an executive and start probing for

what the real principles affected are.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is deliberately

denying this Legislature the opportunity of doing this. It's

deliberately denying the people of British Columbia an

opportunity to really find out what its intentions are. It is

using a large and up to now servile majority, which apparently

sees nothing wrong in the question of principles I have talked

about, simply to force in legislation which I am quite sure two

or three years from now very few of these backbenchers would

support. Very few would support it because by then they would

have understood what the true function of this Legislature is

and the type of analysis we should be giving bills.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister: consider this bill again, withdraw it, amend

it and bring it back in the House and re-submit it in the House. I am sure if

that is the case that filibusters from Social Crediters will quickly disappear.

I am sure if that is the case that the concern of the Liberals and Tories in

this House will be a great deal lessened, and I am quite sure that concern among

your own backbenchers will be lessened.

For us to be left in the position of having to buy a

pig-in-a-poke, not knowing what they intend to do with the

bill, and asked to approve questions of principle when we don't

know whether the principles are going to be later amended, is

simply an unfair process for us individually and an

undemocratic process as far as this Legislature is concerned.

In the view of our party, it is something we can simply not

tolerate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We

have had indications again in the House today as to the reason

why we in the Opposition, and the Liberal Members and

Conservatives as well, have had to look very, very carefully at

the text of this bill.

Although this has nothing to do with the bill, I would like to pass along this

observation — I think the question period today was a farce, as it has been

on many other occasions in this House, when those who are to be the informers,

those who are on the Treasury benches of this Government, when asked specific

questions, will not give specific answers. This is another reason, Mr. Speaker,

why we have had to look very scrutinizingly at the wording of Bill 42.

I agree with the Member who has just spoken that we in the

Opposition have no other instrument by which we can judge the

intent of the Government in this bill or any other. We have

only the written bill as we have had it placed in our hands and

the only conclusion we can come to, as regards the intent of

the Government, is the actual wording of that bill. Mr.

Speaker, as we have reviewed the bill now for these many days — yea, weeks by now — lo and behold, the intent of the bill as

it is written does not occur with the intent of the bill as we

hear it verbalized by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) and those who seek to support him, yea, defend

him.

There are several areas that I would like to draw to the

attention of the House today. Let me preface the rest of my

remarks with this — I would like to commend the Minister of

Agriculture for at least trying to do something to preserve

agricultural land. It was likely overdue, there had likely been

steps taken toward it — none as daring as this — but, Hon.

Minister, I would like to commend you for having the courage to

do what you intend to do. However, in my private discussion

with you the intention of this bill does not concur at all with

what you would like us to believe. Nonetheless, agricultural

land must be preserved.

It is not nearly as serious as we have heard some speakers

say. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has

suggested, Mr. Speaker, that unless we do something now that by

the day after tomorrow, at 4 p.m., we will already have

blacktop over the entire Fraser Valley. I think this is an

exaggeration that we cannot condone in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should know, he's a blacktopper.

MR. SCHROEDER: I think that…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: Are you the Minister of Highways, sir? You

switched portfolios.

I think that we must face the issues that are at hand. One

of the issues is this. The population of the Fraser Valley will

continue to increase, perhaps, at least at the rate of its

previous increase. We can anticipate that by 1995, just a

little more than 20 years from now, we are going to have 5

million people in the province. The greatest proportion of them

will be in the Fraser Valley. We are going to have to house

them somewhere unless we are intending to embark on communal

living. We are going to have to provide a family home for every

family.

There is no way we can control this, unless we are

[ Page 1676 ]

going to do some other things which have a distinct

socialistic flavour and which I would not like to suggest as

being the kind of thing we want to do in the Province of

British Columbia. We are either going to have to sterilize the

people, or we are going to have to close our borders, because

unless we do one of those three things we are going to have the

increase I have just suggested.

I would frown on any of the three previous suggestions

because, again, it is an infringement upon the rights of an

individual to choose where it is that he wishes to live and

when he wishes to live there. Housing must be provided,

population will grow and when the population grows we will have

to have streets and shopping centres. They are not an ugly

word, Mr. Minister of Highways — I am sure you are aware of

it.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: Not ugly, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He admits that.

MR. SCHROEDER: If we were to believe some of the speeches I

have listened to in the House in the past few days, we would

think the land has been completely ravaged, that we have been

building just for the sake of building, that there has been

building beyond the scope of need, Mr. Speaker, and that as you

look across the Valley you would see hundreds and hundreds of

homes that have just been built and have been the dream of some

developer or some real estate agent for the sake of a

profit.

As I go back and forth through the Valley, I find that this

is not the truth at all. There are very few empty houses; they

have all been built because of need, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, there

is a shortage of housing, particularly in the rental division.

Therefore, to say that we have just allowed the ravaging of the

Valley is to speak an untruth. a22, some steerage in this

regard. It is going to have to be made desirable to live on

other

In my first notation to the Government, I would like to say

this: housing must be provided for, and just to freeze the land

and to say no agricultural land will be used for development at

all is to say that you have not looked at the future at all.

There are areas in the Valley that could be used for building

sites and are not agricultural land. Up at the other end of the

Fraser Valley, which I represent, we have hillsides and hill

sites enough to provide for perhaps 500,000 to 600,000

population. However, that is only a portion of the growth that

we anticipate in these next few years.

I would like to say also that to have the hillside building site made to be

an economic building site, the government would have to take a portion, or perhaps

all, of the $25 million that has been provided in Bill 42 and go into the land

development business on the hillsides, put in the streets and the curbs and

the gutters and the underground services, and make those building lots available

on the hillsides at no greater expense than would be building sites on the flat

land. If this were possible and the Government would embark on this programme,

which I think is a good programme, people would more readily live on the hillsides

than they would on the floodplains. At least out where I live, this is true.

The way the taxation structure exists at the present moment,

if you build a house on a hillside site in order to help to

preserve farmlands, such as I have just completed, the taxation

on that hillside lot is anywhere from 60 to 120 per cent above

the taxation on a flatland lot. The Government is going to have

to take a new look at the taxation structure and make some

recommendation to the municipal councils to give them some

steerage in this regard. It is going to have to be made

desirable to live on other than the flatland if we are going to

indeed preserve that flatland.

There is a second area for discussion, an area for concern

which comes out of Bill 42. It has nothing to do with housing

and nothing to do with population. It's p. 2.

Mr. Speaker, patronage is going to have to be guarded

against in the carrying out of the various sections of Bill 42.

There are too many loop-holes provided in the words and in the

paragraphs as we now have them. This is what is possible — and

I want to draw these to your attention, Mr. Speaker, without

referring to individual clauses.

Patronage is possible in this business of freezing at the

discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the

commission. It means that they can designate land at will, and

they may exempt from designation any land. By the way, this is

always. When I'm talking in terms of land I wish to speak in

terms of land in the same terms as the bill talks about it, and

it's in terms other than, and also including, agricultural

land. They can designate at will or refrain from

designation.

This means that if I'm a good supporter of the government,

and I happen to have a desirable piece of property for

development, all I need to do is smile very sweetly at the

commission or the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, promise a few

dollars at the next election, and I could be exempted. I'm not

saying I would be — I'm saying I could be.

Mr. Speaker, this is what we'll have to guard against. I don't see anything

in the bill that guarantees the population that there will be these guards established.

All we can do again is trust the Government. They say, "Trust us." I want to

talk a little later on about this business of trusting the Government.

[ Page

1677 ]

The thing that bothers me is not so much the fact that the

freeze exists, because indeed it is the prerogative of the

government to control land. What scares me is the exclusions

that can exist under Bill 42.

Worse than that, I understand from the bill that the

government is going to go into the competitive farming

business, whereby they're going to "purchase or otherwise

acquire" farm property. Then they will have the strength and

ability — at least they will have the authority by Bill 42 — to

go into the farming business. They can establish a farm right

next to a farmer whom they would like squeeze out of business,

and provide public funds for the operation of a farm that would

be competing with a public interest — a private interest farm — and run him out of business. This is a possibility under Bill

42. Now, I'm not saying that this is the intent, Mr. Speaker;

what I am saying is that this is a distinct possibility.

Worse than that, the farmland which they acquire by any

means will also not only have the possibility of being farmed

by the commission itself, but they can lease it to someone else

to farm it for them — again, a fantastic opportunity for

patronage, because the bill distinctly says that the

eligibility of applicants to lease this property is going to be

determined by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council.

This means that if we have a gentleman who has perhaps been

outspoken against the policies of the existing government, if

he would apply for a lease of farm property he would have no

more a chance of leasing that property than did the gentleman

who has just been released, for political reasons, by the

Department of Highways from his appointment in the information

bureau on the flood plains of Chilliwack — given no other

reason for his release, Mr. Speaker, than the fact that it was

a political decision.

I'm sorry that I have to say that in this House. But if

that's possible in the area of part-time employment then it's

possible in this area of eligibility for application for the

leasing of farmland. I see no indication anywhere in Bill 42

that there will be any safeguards set up against this.

I've talked about the freeze, I've talked about the

exclusions, I've talked about the eligibility and I've talked

about the competitiveness of commission farming. Every one of

the areas provides an area for patronage.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would stand with me in

advising the Government against any form of patronage.

I've been interested in this campaign against Bill 42 that

has basically been sponsored by the grassroots people.

AN HON. MEMBER: By Social Credit.

MR. SCHROEDER: Somebody said "by Social Credit." I wouldn't believe that. Mr. Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), I wouldn't sit there and take that if I were

you. They say that you haven't been in on the fight at all.

Now, you know that's not true.

I was particularly interested, being a bit of a humourist,

in some of the slogans that came out of one of the early

breakfast meetings protesting against Bill 42. There was a

rather innovative-minded fellow at one of these breakfasts, and

he had reconstructed some of the phrases. You know the phrase,

Mr. Speaker, "There's a rotten apple in every barrel." I'm sure

that you've heard it. Here he had inscribed beautifully on a

placard, "There's a rotten Barrett in every apple."

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm just reporting, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Member that you

can't call other Members names in that fashion by quoting from

anyone. If you want the source on that it will be readily at

hand. But it is strictly an attack on a Member, whether you

quote a poem, or what somebody has said outside, or anything

else. It's just as reprehensible as if you said it from your

own mouth with your own thoughts. I would ask you to withdraw

it.

MR. SCHROEDER: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you don't

see the humour in it. It certainly wasn't intended to be an

accusation. It was an observation, and I thought you would be

interested in it.

MR. SPEAKER: I would defend you the same way.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, I appreciate it.

Now then, another slogan: this one says, "Capital

punishment, or punishment from the capital — which is worse?" I

thought that one was rather humourous.

There's another one here that talks about Stupich and I am

afraid that I will not be able to use this now, since the

ruling you've just made, Sir. But it says, "He is not bad — he

is just stupid, that's what he is."

Another one said, "Don't you dare think only the commissar

can do that."

Another said, "Orchardists, don't argue. Obey your commissar — he knows best."

There were others, but you've spoiled even my enjoyment of

them, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Government if they are aware that

there is a great deal of fear out there on the flood plains. If

they're aware that the fear is there, I'm wondering if they

know what it is that has engendered it.

There are a great number of people who live out

[ Page 1678 ]

on the flood plains who have had previous experience with

takeover legislation that has been sponsored by a socialist

government. I've had the opportunity to sit down with them and to let them bare their

conscience and their hearts about what happened the last time

that it took place, and what were the first indicating signs,

and what was the response and what were the eventualities?

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that they have reason to be

afraid, because they say that the very same smiles that we see

on the faces of the socialist government in British Columbia

today are the smiles that remind them of the smiles that they

have seen before in takeover legislation. Not only the smiles

but the jeers. And the attitude that says, "You can trust us."

They say they have heard it all before. They rehearsed for me

step 2, step 3 and step 4. I won't take time to bore you with

it — I just want you to know that those people are afraid out

there.

They have reason to be afraid. They have experienced it

before. And any of the facade that the Government may wish to

wear behind which they would like to hide the eventual intent

of legislation such as we see in Bill 42 — they cannot hide it

behind a nice suit or clothes, or behind a smile, Mr.

Speaker.

The intent is evident in the language of Bill 42. The people

detest it; I detest it. Mr. Speaker, I know you detest it. And

it engenders fear.

Is it any wonder that not individuals alone but groups of

people have let us know about their protests? The B.C. Chamber

of Commerce speaks as a group. The Association of B.C. Grape

Growers speaks as a group. The Union of B.C. Municipalities

speaks as a group. The Real Estate Institute of British

Columbia speaks as a group.

By the way, I've noticed too that the words "real estate"

seem to be bad words in this House. I don't understand that for

a moment. The word "developer" seems to be a bad word in this

House. I can't understand that for one moment. Where would we

be if it hadn't been for the developers? We'd still be living

in tents.

Now there's another thing that seems to be a bad word — "profit." That has got to be the worst word in the dictionary

in the glossary of a socialist. "Profit" has got to be an ugly

word.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: What kind of a word did you say? A swear

word?

I was amazed to think that the Conservative Party would speak as a group —

a group of two — in protest of the bill. The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver,

the Cariboo Regional District, the Abbotsford Growers' Co-Op Union speak as

a group The B.C. Egg Producers, the B.C. Fruitgrowers' Association, the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture — why are all these people afraid? Because the only

thing that they have is the bill and the vocabulary, the wordage and the structure

of the bill. They have no way to interpret the intent of this Government.

The intent is clearly written in Bill 42. The smiles and the

jeers and the "trust me's" are never going to cover up that

intent which is clearly written.

The Minister of Agriculture may say, "I have no intention of

doing what the bill says I am able to do." But what about the

next Minister of Agriculture who might not be so minded?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the commission?

MR. SCHROEDER: And what about the commission? Yes. Very

good.

I've heard a lot of letters read today and I don't plan to

read. I had never heard the word "filibuster" until I got in

here and I still don't know how to spell it. Therefore, I don't

want to have too much a part of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It starts with "ph."

MR. SCHROEDER: It starts with "ph," does it? I have

just the one letter that I want to read, and it's interesting.

I talked to the man first of all by telephone. He asked me what

he should do. I said, "Why don't you write me a letter and tell

me what you told me by phone and I'll tell the House about it?"

Here's a man who spoke to me on the phone in broken language

but very good vocabulary and I couldn't understand. I shan't

read the first part of the letter which has to do with

clippings that he sent me and some illustrations out of a

magazine that he brought with him from the Slavic countries

where he spent his boyhood days.

Here's what the letter says:

"Concluding, a few words to introduce myself. I am 'farming'

40 acres — " and he's got it in quotation marks. "Yes, I do. We

keep this scrubby land on Mt. Lehman up to 40 head of cattle — heifers — raising them. Our net profit is so small that I had

to take a job as an interpreter in the Mountain Prison when the

Doukhobors were here, to pay for the place. We cleared it and

we built a barn and a house on it. Now when I am old,

and he puts in parentheses "58 years old," lest we

think he's entirely decrepit.

"I wanted to sell it. But now Commissar Barrett has

confiscated everything. We are" — listen to this, don't miss

it — "exactly in the same situation we were 30 years ago when

Stalin annexed Carpathian Russia. We fled. I was a lawyer then.

Lost everything."

Then I could understand the vocabulary. Then I

[ Page 1679 ]

could understand the deep thinking. But then I could also

understand the deep-seated fear that this gentleman

communicated to me, both by phone and in this letter. "We fled…I was a lawyer then." Now what does he do? He tries to farm

40 acres with a few heifers, trying to gain enough net profit

to pay for a house and a little barn.

He's got some interesting clippings here. He writes some

unkind things on the bottom because of his distasteful

experience with socialism in the past. But I wanted to say

these things because I wanted you people to understand, and for

you, Mr. Speaker, to understand why fear exists out there on

the flood plains.

I could go on to say a number of things, But I want to talk

about the phrase "trust me." It's a bad phrase for a new

Government to use. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, the new

Government has no track record. They have no confidence

established. They have no reason to say "trust me" because they

have no trust established in the past.

I'm going to draw a parallel here and certainly I want you

to accept this in the good mood in which it's intended, Mr.

Speaker. You can give a shotgun to a hunter and you can trust

that hunter to likely bring game so that you have food for your

table. But, Mr. Speaker, if you put a shotgun in the hands of a

raving maniac, you can't depend on anything that the man may

do.

Therefore, I would like to say that unless you have a record

of trust, don't say "trust me." Whatever you do, don't violate

whatever little bit of trust you may already have established.

Those are just a few words which I might entitle "wisdom" to

the Government as they're seated today.

It seems to me as I try to draw some conclusions out of the

entire intent of Bill 42, that the Government has looked at the

disappearing land — the disappearance of which they have

exaggerated — and they have said, "We're going to do something

to conserve it." So rather than look after the areas where a

problem really exists, they have placed over the entire

province a freeze of land subject to future designation by a

commission, and everyone has been placed under a restriction

that would have been far better had it been designated to the

area where the problem exists.

It seems to me that we have slapped everybody just to try to

get at a few.

I want you to know that in my constituency I checked with

the mayors to find out how much land we've lost. In the

Municipality of Sumas, over the past four years, not one acre

has been lost.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Aw, come off it!

MR. SCHROEDER: Not one! I checked with the mayor of the Municipality

of Chilliwack. He went back the same length of time — four years. In four years

90 acres out of 40,000 acres.

In Sumas there are 33,000 acres, so in my entire

constituency we have 73,000 acres of farmland and 90 acres is

all that we've lost in four years. Now I'm not too smart, but

that looks like 22 1/2 acres a year. If you can take 22 1/2

acres per year and divide it into 73,000, you'll see, we've got

a long time to go, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), until we've got hardtop on every square inch of the

valley, until we've got nothing but shopping centres and

schools and parking lots, as he said just a few days ago in

this House.

I'd like to commend the Government for doing something to

preserve farmland. There isn't a soul within the sound of my

voice that wouldn't want to preserve farmland. But I think that

there is a better way of preserving farmland than Bill 42.

I would say: let's make farming a desirable vocation. Let's

make it a viable vocation. Let's guarantee that the farmer can

gain a fair return for his labours. I want you to know I've

talked to enough farmers to know that there's no way you can

drag them off their land.

Let's do this: let the Government, instead of freezing every

square inch of land, take the first option to purchase on every

acre of agricultural land. Let the farmer decide if he ever

wishes to sell it or if he wants to keep it or if he wants to

develop it. Let him decide, know this, that when he makes his

eventual decision to rid himself of that land, the Government

would have the first option to purchase it.

Let the Government at that moment pay a fair price for that

acreage; the fair price not to be determined in 1973 but the

fair price to be determined at the time of acquiring. Let the

Government pay that farmer fair return for his land. Then they

will have acquired that property with a clear conscience. They

would be able to lease it to the lowest bidder. They would even

be able to farm it themselves if they wanted to carry out the

stubborn intentions of a socialistic government.

At least the individual farmer wouldn't have had to pay out

of his pocket the cost of preserving agricultural land for the

entire province. I think if we're going to preserve it for the

entire province, let the entire province pay for that

preservation, not the farmer who has already taken out of his

savings account — if he ever had one — the few shekels that he

did have to lay it into the capital investment of his property,

only to lose it to some ludicrous piece of legislation that for

lack of a better word has been called Bill 42. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

[ Page 1680 ]

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to just say a brief word or two in reply to what was

said in "trust me."

There is no group in Canada — and certainly in this province — that can ask to be trusted more than the CCF, the New

Democrats, the social democrats. We ask you to trust us to our

record. We have a record to be proud of, a record that is

filled with trust.

The first election, Mr. Speaker, that I was personally

involved in was an election when we were at war — 1945; the war

nearing an end. The groups that are represented across there — the Liberals and the Conservatives that joined together to make

the Social Credit — pulled one of the most contemptible

political acts that was ever pulled. They said, "If the social

democrats are elected, they will give everyone the vote. They

will give the Japanese the vote." We were at war with Japan.

The people that you belong to, the party that you are

representing was part of that. The old coalition broke up and

helped form you.

Brother, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) wants to

study the political history of this province before he starts

to lecture us.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate his

remarks to Bill 42, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The three parties stood out in front of

the Legislature. I stood out there and heard the Member for

South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) as Leader of the Official

Opposition; I heard the leader of the Liberal Party and the

leader of the Conservatives, who doesn't sit in this House,

stand before that group of farmers and say, "A complete

withdrawal of the bill." They didn't say, "Look, let us be

reasonable. Let us attempt to amend this legislation." No, they

said they wanted a complete withdrawal of the bill.

This Mr. Speaker, shows that (1) they do not understand the

bill; and (2) they are not sincere in attempting to improve

that legislation. Mr. Speaker, all that they were trying to do

was rouse the rabble. Cheap rabble rousing — this is what is

going on with this bill.

When the friend who has just spoken (Mr. Schroeder) spoke

about trust, he little knows — as do many of the Members — that

this party, the New Democratic Party, that has inherited a

great tradition and a great trust through the social democratic

movement of the world, has never gone out on campaigns of cheap

political chicanery.

We have stood by the policies formulated in our provincial and national conventions.

We haven't stood by them simply because they were policies that would go out

to catch votes. We didn't say, "Well, look. If the people would like this, we

will do it." What were some of the first things that we did? As I mentioned,

in 1945 when they said, "You will give the Japanese the vote…"

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member reserve his remarks for

this bill.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: These remarks do refer to the debate of

this bill. I'm speaking on trust. You did not call the Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) up when he challenged our trust.

I'm merely replying to the trust as demonstrated in the

previous Member's comments.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you can be trusted, why do you have to

defend it?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's been latitude on both sides in

this question. I think that you've now answered the Hon.

Member's remarks. He didn't spend his whole time talking about

that subject. I hope the Hon. Member will press on with the

bill.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: With respect to the limit of 22 acres that

was lost, Mr. Speaker, in the previous five years, and no acres

lost in another area in five years, I would like to mention

that in the time of the group that were in government sitting

across from us, now in the Opposition, some 10,000 acres have

gone down the tube in the Fraser Valley.

Such rights-of-way as the CNR and CPR, hydro rights-of-way,

telephone rights-of-way, gas pipeline rights-of-way, oil

rights-of-way have just mishmashed that whole Fraser Valley up — rather than having a proper corridor to carry these

rights-of-way in one lane from the mountains to the coast.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill of principle and it is a

bill of trust. If you people were really serious, you'd come

forth with some basic, simple amendments. We've asked for this

— the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Premier,

anyone who has spoken on this. The fact that you people have

not come forward with basic amendments…

MR. PHILLIPS: What have you come forward with?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …indicates, as my friend from Shuswap

(Mr. Lewis) said, that the farmers that you represent, the

farmer from Mt. Lehman — that was a completely bogus story.

There's nothing in the bill that says that farmer cannot sell

his farm to another farmer. He can sell it tomorrow. He can

sell that 40-acre farm that he hewed out of the wilderness to

any other farmer or any other person who would like to farm

it.

What it does say is that the real estate promoters

[ Page 1681 ]

and the profiteers are not going to continue to gobble up

good, arable land in a province where less than 2 per cent of

our land is arable. We're not going to allow them to gobble

this up and see future generations starve. Just as back in 1945

we stood up and took a courageous stand, a forthright stand, a

trustworthy stand, a stand of principle, we're standing up now

on behalf of all the people of this province and for future

generations of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, last week around

this House it seemed to be true confession week. I'd like to

confess that I'm a city boy. I've never lived on a farm. I've

been deprived of that privilege.

I also want to say that as far as I know, there are no farms

in the riding which I represent. There are a lot of people who

are still farming. There are a lot of people who have lived on

the farms. I've been getting many letters and many, many phone

calls from these people who have farm experience. They're not

any happier about the bill than I am.

I also want to say that in my riding there are a number of

commercial and industrial land areas, some of which have not

been developed — are vacant land — and do exceed two acres in

size. As far as I'm concerned, this bill has been very poorly

drawn. It's very poor legislation. I'm convinced that when the

speakers in opposition to this bill have spoken and the

question is called — and the decision will probably come down

as 17 to 37 — we will be faced with bad law.

Even the title tells you that this is a land commission Act.

The smokescreen that has been growing around it on the premise

that it is primarily designed to protect farmland is simply to

confuse the issue. They want you to believe that it is designed

to preserve farmland. I believe that it is designed to control

all land.

The NDP talk about developers, land speculators and the word

"profit" as though they were all dirty words. However, in my

opinion, they see nothing wrong with a five-man commission

appointed to do all these things. It's a rather strange way to

present a bill. Yet they continue to deride people who write to

complain about the principle of Bill 42. They simply try to

confuse the issue that this is a land control bill. Never

forget it. This is the prime purpose of this bill — to control

land.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

I believe that never before in the history of the British

parliamentary system has a bill like Bill 42 been so badly

mishandled by a government party. The Premier, as quoted in a column by Mr. Fotheringham,

states that the real problem is one of bad public relations.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the former

distinguished, credible Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, calls the problem one of hysteria and blames most

of the problems on what he likes to call "big-mouth radio

hotlines" and, he likes to say, "defeated politicians."

Well, I'm not a defeated politician and I agree that the

land bill is wrong. The Attorney General's problem is that he

has been quoted as saying that the appeal procedures are

faulty. One can only presume that his problem is that he hadn't

read the bill.

The Minister of Agriculture deliberately hides behind the

idea of farm preservation, which is something which we all

support, in order to hide the real deficiencies of the bill

and, in fact, to hide the true socialist intent, which is

rampant throughout every clause of the bill except

section 22

(3), which still leaves the bill subject to Royal Assent.

Private Members on the other side of the House have

expressed views on this bill which range all the way from the

Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who says that we must re-examine

our whole approach to the private ownership of land…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MORRISON: They say, "Hear, hear," to the remarks

by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), who suggests that the

bill is a device to stop foreign interests, ranging all the way

from Hong Kong to Florida, from taking over the farmlands of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder, in the face of these way-out

statements, that the people of this province are upset and are

alarmed by the contents of this bill?

I'd like to quote from the Victorian of March 21, by

Maury Gwynne, who I really don't think is a Social Crediter.

He says:

"The present Land Commission Act , rather ironically numbered Bill 42, is shaping up to be too much,

too soon. Its all-encompassing regulations, which will give an

appointed five-man board almost dictatorial powers over the

disposition of land designated for agriculture and recreational

purposes, is ill-conceived, to say the least.

"It is difficult not to be sympathetic to the Government's avowed intent of preventing destruction of

agricultural and recreational lands. Indeed, many farmers agree

with the intent of the bill. What they object to, and rightly

so, is the extent to which it would go, and the degree of

control it puts into the hands of a few people who are in no

way responsible to the people.

"Mr. Stupich has made it quite clear that the Government is not backing down. No matter what

[ Page 1682 ]

form the legislation takes by the time it is passed, it is

still going to remove from landowners the control of their own

affairs."

He further goes on to say:

"Attempts to save the land from the ruthless exploitation by

irresponsible developers is commendable, but total control over

the lives and lifestyles of landowners is a dangerous first

step. It is outright dictatorship or communism, or whatever

other totalitarian label you want to attach to it. Those who

express fear that this is the thin edge of the totalitarian

wedge are justified.

"In the western world, we pride ourselves on being free

people with no fear of losing any of our freedoms. The Land

Commission Act does nothing to reinforce that belief. It

should be withdrawn and re-written with the help of all

concerned, in a much cooler and less hysterical

atmosphere."

And that is Maury Gwynne.

Furthermore, probably never before in the history of British

Columbia has a Government put a bill before the Legislature to

be debated in principle while attempting, through the lips of

Ministers in charge of the bill, to show that the bill has

major deficiencies which will require amendments, which will

remain sight unseen until the steam-roller opposite puts the

bill through second reading.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister, in speaking to

a Victoria University NDP-sponsored rally, states that not only

could the bill be amended in this session, but there will be

further amendments in the fall session.

The Victoria Times of March 21 has the heading,

"Stupich Pledges More Changes to Controversial Land Act."

" 'The amendments,' he said, 'are being prepared and will be

announced in the Legislature only after Bill 42's second

reading, even if it isn't until next June.' "

Today, he's changed his mind.

It's little wonder, Mr. Speaker, in the light of this

parliamentary performance, that the people of British Columbia

are alarmed and they are upset. Mr. Speaker, it is not

difficult to understand why our democratic political processes

in the minds of young people are so suspect, in the light of

the performance carried on by the Minister in charge of this

bill.

More devastating to the parliamentary processes however, Mr.

Speaker, is the studied attempt on the part of the Government

opposite to cover up its socialist tracks — the unprecedented

mythology which they have created around this bill.

The Vancouver Province of March 20, 1973, in the

Victoria Comment by Peter McNelly:

"By designed inadvertence or incompetence, the provincial

government has hopelessly muddied the forthcoming debate on the principle of

its Land Commission Act . At one level the uproar turns on the question of what,

in fact, is the principle behind the legislation. Extreme critics say that the

bill is the first step toward an NDP takeover of private land ownership in British

Columbia."

He goes on further to say:

"The NDP knows that the Socreds and Conservatives have

already taken the position that Bill 42 cannot be amended. It

is doubtful that they seriously expect the Opposition to

clarify the Government's thinking. The promise of amendments,

in the words of a Government backbencher, designated to make

Bill 42 more politically palatable, is a face-saving move, even

if the amendments create a better bill.

"You'd think if the bill had to be amended, they'd have

thought about it before they brought it in."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): That's

what the debating was all about.

MR. MORRISON: If it's that bad, it should be taken out.

Myth Number One: The previous administration did nothing to

preserve farmland. The answer to that one: The land clearing

procedures which saw 900,000 acres of farmland in production in

1955 and saw 1,800,000 acres in production in 1972. Also, the

Green Belt Protection Fund, which saw approximately $7 million

spent in the first few months of its operation, and not one

five-cent piece committed to the six months that that

Government opposite has been in business. Not a nickel.

Myth Number Two: Municipalities and regional districts were

not only incapable but lacked the will to preserve farmland.

One only has to look at the area covered by the Minister of

Highways' (Hon. Mr. Strachan) riding to see that amendments

taking farmland out of the picture in that area have been

remarkably few. In North Cowichan, as close as I can find out,

there are something over 50,000 acres of farmland. In the past

five years, according to the municipal records, less than 50

acres of farmland have gone into development. I also checked on

the Saanich peninsula and, as close as I can find out, every

farm which was being farmed on the Saanich peninsula area prior

to World War II is being farmed today, with the exception of

two.

Myth Number Three: The farm community in general is in the hands of greedy

speculators, who seek to cover all farmland with real estate subdivisions. I

doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture has any letters from any

recognized farm organizations which do not come down heavily on the need to

protect farmland in a fair and equitable way, but I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that

the Government opposite has even considered that the vast majority of the people

in this province want to preserve farmland in a fair and equitable way. I doubt

that they want to see that they are not paid on a fair market basis for the

land which they have to give up. They're prepared to share in the cost of doing

such preservation in a

[ Page

1683 ]

very fair and very equitable way. But the insidious way

which this bill has been presented, simply as

an Act to

preserve farmland, in the first place is a myth that is even

more reprehensible.

I'd like also to quote from the Vancouver Province of

Saturday, March 17: "A Threat to B.C. Farmland Only a Straw

Man."

It says:

"The Barrett Government's two-fisted move to preserve farms

and control the use of all kinds of land has been predicated on

an overwhelming need to stop the division of farmland to other

development.

"A survey of public officials and planning experts during

the past week, however, indicates that the real danger from

this sort of exploitation ended in most parts of the province

several years ago. Regional and municipal planners were quick

to point out that where an accepted plan has been in force, the

land speculators have already been curbed and some claim they

have even been ended."

The Government opposite seems not to recognize the meaning

example, the bill in presentation talks about the principle of

preserving farmland, but in context talks about preserving and

acquiring land having desirable qualities for urban or

industrial development or redevelopment. The principle involved

here, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that land which has seen no

cows for over 100 years, in downtown Victoria, could be covered

by such a section. Rather hard to believe, isn't it.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture would argue

that that is not the intent of the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, if

it is not the intent of the bill, why do we have to have that

section before us for argument in the first place? If, Mr.

Speaker, it is truly a farm preservation bill, then why do we

not have a bill before us which simply addresses itself to the

preservation of farmland, so that we can discuss that bill

intelligently within the framework of the debate and the desire

of all British Columbians to preserve farmland in a fair and

equitable way?

For example, the Government opposite seems not to recognize

that having designated land for any of the four purposes

outlined in the bill, it has also conferred on the faceless

five-man commission the right to dispose of by sale or lease or

otherwise the very land which it has taken in the name of

motherhood, brotherhood, environmenthood in the very first

place.

How sinister are the implications of

section 7(j), Mr. Speaker, when the politically-appointed

commission designed opposite can, in fact, in the language of the bill, take

the land for park purposes and then at some later date place a neighbourhood

pub on it. This power, Mr. Speaker, inherent in the Act is just a plain stupid

power to confer on a politically-appointed commission. Can't you imagine the

hue and cry that would develop in any community in British Columbia if a community

park reserve were to be suddenly envied as a site for a McDonald's hamburger

stand? But, Mr. Speaker, the right to do exactly that is possible under the

words of this statute.

Mr. Speaker, it is totally unconscionable that land which is

so important to be taken into agricultural reserve, greenbelt

reserve or parkland reserve in the very first place, can

subsequently be removed from that reserve for any purpose at

by this five-man commission — politically-oriented land

commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Members opposite do not understand

the language of this bill before they vote, they should read it

again because there's more to come. For example, the Government

opposite seems unable to recognize the principle inherent in

section 20 of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I'm only talking about the

principle of the bill and not the section.

It is that in the matters of land use, the faceless

commission in effect overrides all provincial statutes having

to do with land use regulation. Further, Mr. Speaker, the

Government seems to be unable to understand that the language

used in this statute destroys the whole concept of local

government.

On the editorial page of March 17 the Vancouver Sun

suggests that "although the provincial government's retreat is

almost obscured by a bedlam of its own making, it is clearly

backing down from the more outrageous provisions of the

proposed Land Commission Act . Farther down it goes on to

say: "Why does the Government persist in proceeding with a bill

that even Mr. Stupich, who might charitably be called 'biased,'

agrees is certainly confusing in part?"

Then they say: "The clean way to handle what is now a

thoroughly messy affair would be to withdraw the bill, not to

embark upon a time-killing showcase of review, as some

opponents have suggested, but to fix it so what the

Legislatures sees is what it actually gets. Surely this would

be no more an admission of hasty amateurism than is already on

the record."

In the light of these examples, Mr. Speaker, is it any

wonder that the people of British Columbia are upset and

alarmed? They resent the implications from the Members opposite

that they are simply hysterical. Mr. Speaker, as Members of the

official Opposition, we consider it our duty to tell the people

of British Columbia what Members opposite are really up to.

It has nothing to do with farm preservation, greenbelt

preservation, parkland preservation, landbank preservation. The

Members opposite have already shown the people of this

province, in using

section 6 of the Environment and Land Use

Act , that once they see a power conferred in the statutes

they will use that power, regardless of its stated or original

intent before this Legislature.

Section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act was

designed to permit the government to move in on catastrophic

environmental problems which faced the

[ Page 1684 ]

community. Yet in two successive orders-in-council the

Members opposite have chosen to use it for a freeze order,

which even the Premier admits is undesirable and which has, in

fact, as the Minister of Agriculture knows very well, created

more problems than it has solved.

The Government, Mr. Speaker, cannot be trusted with

executive powers conferred in this statute. They whine that the

people of British Columbia should trust them. With

an Act such

as Bill 42, it would be like putting a cat in a cage with a

canary. Their intent is far too evident throughout all of the

bills before this Legislature to trust them with any widespread

power. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Opposition

will stand proudly, not against the preservation of farmland or

the preservation of greenbelts; not against the preservation of

parkland; but against the most reprehensible, admittedly

ill-conceived, badly structured, subject to amendment, smoke-screened, camouflaged, badly-handled legislative proposal ever

presented to a free Canadian parliament.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, when we stand in opposition to this

bill, we will express amazement on the part of tens of

thousands of people in this province who have watched the

passage of this bill through this House with growing concern at

the absolute lack of sensitivity on the part of the Members

opposite. They have abused people who have voiced their

opinions on the shortcomings of this bill in an unprecedented

manner. They have said that they were listening, but they have

done nothing to merit any confidence that they were.

Never before in the history of our British Columbia

Legislature has a government been so insensitive to public

opinion. Hung up as they are in the rigidity of the socialist

doctrine, they simply are incapable of understanding that the

only place in British Columbia that they now have a majority is

in this Legislature.

Before I sit down I want to state very clearly that I

believe in free enterprise. I do not believe in socialism. I

believe in free enterprise, with all its faults; that it is far

superior to the system which is being proposed now.

If Bill 42 were the only bill, perhaps we could forgive the

Government for its lack of experience. But this legislation on

the floor of this House today is further proof of the real

intent of this Government. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next speaker, I'd just draw to

the attention of the Hon. Member — I didn't want to interrupt your speech — but

it has been drawn to the attention of the Hon. Members already that they have

been requested not to read speeches nor to read major extracts necessarily.

I'll just quote you the words from May: "A Member is not

permitted to read his speech, but may afresh his memory by

reference to notes. The reading of speeches, which has been

allowed in other deliberative assemblies, has never been

recognized in either House of Parliament." This is concerning

the British House of Parliament.

So it is requested that, insofar as is possible, Members

speak extemporaneously, using notes rather than reading

speeches.

I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

must say that I find this kind of debate somewhat objectionable

and not to my taste. In my personal experience as a businessman

and an engineer, I don't think that the kind of filibustering

debate that this House has gone through these many, many hours

and days really is accomplishing very Much.

Mr. Speaker, I find that the principles concerned here are

so important that I must participate personally, however

briefly that may be. I can assure you that it will be very

brief.

I've tried to summarize for myself what I consider are the

major objections to Bill 42 from the comments that have been

given to me in correspondence and the comments that I've heard

in this House. I want to boil these down very quickly. They've

all been mentioned before, but I think they have to be

specified concisely again; at least for my own personal

satisfaction in this case.

I find six of these, Mr. Speaker. First is the matter of the

commission itself. It has no term of office except at pleasure,

or no specified number of terms. Where is it to be appointed?

Clearly it's going to be a very political organization and

very, very close to the political cabinet of this province.

Second, Mr. Speaker, the commission is empowered to issue

orders without public notice or public hearing.

Third, there is no appeal from those orders, except on a

"question of law" or "excess of jurisdiction only," to

quote the bill.

Fourth, there is no compensation for loss of value,

regardless of any act of this commission. The leader of the

Liberal Party this afternoon read the letter of the Minister in

which he made it clear that originally he had intended to

provide some compensation for loss of value but had been

overruled by someone — whom, we don't know. The caucus? The

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams)? The Premier? I don't know. But clearly, from an

original intent that was good where he said that the Government

envisaged the sale of the development value or a reasonable

market price, the

[ Page 1685 ]

Government has changed its mind and there is no compensation

whatsoever for loss of value.

Fifth, Mr. Speaker, I find that there is absolutely no

contact, no co-operation, no coordination with local levels of

government. Certainly I think there are many people in this

House who have been on various local boards — trustees,

aldermen, councils, that sort of thing. There is no level of

government that is closer to the people. No commission in

Victoria can ever be as close to the people as the local level

of government. Yet there is no provision for any local

association.

Sixth, Mr. Speaker, this bill, despite the protestations of

various Members of the cabinet, does give complete power over

any land anywhere in this Province of British Columbia. That is

clearly true. If you don't believe it, read the bill

carefully.

Those are the six points, Mr. Speaker, that I consider

important. But those six reasons are not my only — in fact

they're not my major concern. I think my major concern can best

be exemplified by paragraphs from a couple of letters. There's

one paragraph here from a letter that I think every MLA has

received, but I think that paragraph is worthwhile reading

because it comes from a gentleman who has written a good deal

criticizing various governments:

"Some Members will recall I opposed some of the actions of

the former administration for a similar reason. I will not

condone the police-state tactics of socialism. There is

absolutely nothing you can do to me that has not been tried

before, from September, 1939 through to early 1945. I am not a

person that willfully breaks laws; in fact quite to the

contrary. But I will not tolerate the injustice of a minority

dictating to a majority. What this Government is proposing by

way of legislation is not the considered acts of people

concerned with the future of this province but in my opinion

the paltry acts of power-hungry politicians."

Now that was a public letter, Mr. Speaker.

I've got a letter here from which I'd like to read a

paragraph. This was a private letter from a constituent in

North Vancouver. A copy was sent to the Premier:

"I have worked steadily for the last 25 years as a manufacturer's

agent, paid my taxes and, along with my wife, done what we feel is a respectable

job of raising three children. Yesterday was quite a momentous day in the life

of my family. (I won't use the gentlemen's name). I went to the Land Registry

Office in Vancouver and registered a discharge of mortgage on our home. This

was something that I, and I'm sure every working citizen, considers a big moment

in their lives. No one gave us what we have. We worked for the position we're

in today, being able to say that we own that particular house on that particular

piece of property. I always thought that this was one of our basic rights in

a free society, to be able to reach the position of owning your own home and

property. Am I incorrect in this? Under the Canadian Bill of Rights I think

I am correct in assuming I have that right.

"As I understand the proposed Bill 42, there will now be a

board set up which would have the right to designate my

property as a greenbelt, part of a land bank or whatever. And

should they do this I would not have any recourse should I

disagree with their ruling.

"I heard Mr. Macdonald, the Attorney General of British

Columbia, on the radio the other day and this was a real

shocker. First of all it was obvious that he himself was not

properly enough acquainted with the proposed bill to discuss it

fully with Mr. Jack Webster who was interviewing."

And I was in the studio that morning, Mr. Speaker. I heard

what the Attorney General had to say.

"This is not only disturbing, it's frightening to think that

any Member of the Government in power, let alone the Attorney

General, is not fully aware of the proposed legislation.

"A hypothetical case was presented to him on this basis

during the radio interview: 'It is not true, Mr. Macdonald,

that in theory the as yet to be appointed board could,

according to the proposed bill, designate a piece of private

property in the City of Vancouver with a home on it in any way

that they saw fit; and having done that the owner of that

property and home would have no recourse?'

"His answer was, 'Well, yes, that could happen. But it's absurd to think it would. Trust us, please.'

"Why should I trust the present Government or any future Government on the matter of my own hard-earned

ownership of my property? This is a completely unfair and

dictatorial attitude on the part of the Government."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: These are the exact words in this letter, Mr.

Speaker.

I think this is my real concern. I sat for four years in

this Legislature on the same side with all of the present

Members of the cabinet. I stood and fought with them against

the arrogance and the dictatorship. I heard them talk about

one-man government; I stood with them on that. I stood with

them when they criticized and attacked

"government-by-order-incouncil." Now, Mr. Speaker, I am

saddened by the spectacle of those same people in Government

grabbing for all and complete power; a Government that says

"trust us," "trust us."

[ Page 1686 ]

It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the old phrase is true:

"Power corrupts." And I think one must be concerned about the

rest of that same saying, Mr. Speaker, that: "Absolute power

corrupts absolutely."

I find this a very sad spectacle: The idealistic champions

of the people from 1972 grabbing cynically for power in

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. In the last few days we have had the baring of souls

and confessions as to who owns what and how much they owned of

it. And a little historical background of how their

acquisitions were made by their parents. As one Member in this

House and a person who has been involved in agriculture from

the time I was born and still very much involved in it in a

personal way, yes, I own agricultural land. In fact I own two

pieces of agricultural land. I am not going to tell you how

many acres there are. I am assuming that I will have to do that

under another piece of legislation in due course because I

don't intend to run from such types of socialistic legislation

as we have in the Land Commission Act .

I am going to say this: we have been talking about a

farmland Act, we have been talking in various terms, but let's

recognize the Act for what it is. It is a Land Commission

Act .

When my parents came to this province back in 1864 and

acquired property, there was little or no white population in

the area in which they settled. My father pushed his way across

the mountains, through the rivers and over the deserts to

arrive here. He brought his worldly wealth with him on a pack

horse and drove what few head of cattle he was able to acquire

ahead of him by himself with no help.

This was the plight of the pioneer. He started out until he

found land which he felt was suitable on which to settle. At

that point he struck roots, developed land to feed his animals

on, worked in whatever capacity he could to earn the dollars

that he may have required either by trade or kind to exist

on.

In due course, with development of the country, markets were

developed, miners came in and so on — and this is the history of

the beginning of agriculture in the Province of British

Columbia. I know Vancouver Island was some years earlier.

Certainly from the area which I represent, which is an

agricultural area — no mistaking about that — many, many people

suffered the hardships to acquire the land in their names,

under indefeasible title, in fee simple.

This is what the people of this province, and when I say under the Land Commission

Act , I mean all people whether they have two acres or below two acres or above

two acres — it makes no difference, it's land. That is what the Land Commission

Act is all about.

It has, I believe, four categories: the greenbelt, the land

bank reserve, the agricultural reserve, the parkland reserve.

There is no question about what the intent and principle of the

bill is. It is there plain and clear; no one has to have any

mystical explanation of the spirit and intent of the Act. It is

regret sincerely that so much emphasis is being indicated that

it is a farmland Act. It is not a farmland Act; it covers all

these other categories. The farmer is taking the brunt of it

today and I think it is most regrettable that this is

happening.

In speaking to the principle of this bill, I don't think

anyone wants to see farmland broken up. I think that is

understandable because over the course of years that I have

been in government and connected with agricultural operation, I

don't think at any time anyone has shown an indication that

they want to subdivide land on a wholesale basis for other

purposes than agriculture.

The present legislation that we have, if properly applied — and I think in most cases it has been properly applied — can do

the very thing for agriculture which is being set up in the

Land Commission Act as we see it and as it is written,

amendments or no- amendments. I think that this could be done.

However, there is a controversy that develops here between

various planners, various authorities, regional districts,

municipalities, cities and so on, as to the best use. Now I

don't think there is any one principle that can be applied in

every case. A lot depends on the area, the conditions, the

climatic effects, and certainly these have a bearing on a

decision that any authority would make.

I think in most cases the local authorities have used good

judgment. I know there are cases where we sometimes question

this and probably we question it because we don't know the

particular merits. I pointed out when I spoke in the throne and

budget debates, the responsibility that must be shown in

relation to the administration of powers that are written into

legislation and possibly beyond the intent and spirit of that

legislation when it was written.

I refer to one particular

section of

an Act in which the

orders-in-council…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a little more quiet, please.

MR. RICHTER: …were predicated. This authority was never

intended to be used on an everyday administrative basis. It was

to be used in

[ Page 1687 ]

particular cases. I feel that we are seeing now the evidence

of the use of this particular authority, whether it is by

order-in-council or otherwise. Orders-in-council are only

predicated on existing statute authority. They are not

predicated on matters of fictitious nature. They must have an

authority, or they can be challenged. I don't think there is

any thought that orders-in-council are all that bad when they

are written in their proper form and with the proper

legislative authority.

This new Act, this Land Commission Act , which has

hurt so many people, has concerned people gravely because they

feel they are losing that which they hold most dear — the right

to own land, the right to deal with that land as they see

fit.

Now who in this House is opposing the preservation of good

farmland. If this were the question, the vote would be

unanimously in favour. The question is obvious — the method

being employed is the real problem. This is completely foreign

to anyone's previous knowledge. It is a true revelation of the

socialist philosophy by legislation rather than by setting out

their philosophy in a policy form — which didn't occur in the

throne debate nor did it occur in the budget debate where it

said, "Wait for the legislation."

I think the people of this province were more shocked by the

revelation of the socialist philosophy by legislation than

anything that has happened in their time excepting those people

who have lived under that philosophy in other countries and

have chosen British Columbia as their new and adopted land.

They have spoken out vehemently in this respect — particularly people who have come in recent years who have seen

the devastation that occurred in the countries from which they

emigrated. I would fervently hope that they will not and I

would certainly encourage them not to take any violent actions.

This is not required. There is a democratic process.

I hope the Government recognizes the fact that the

democratic process is the method in which we can bring about an

acceptable policy, acceptable legislation for the preservation

of farmland.

The other matters that are dealt with in this Act — the

greenbelt, the land bank, the parks requirements — I don't

think they should be in an agricultural farmland bill. I think

they should be dealt with in their own particular way, because

you're talking about land that is not farmland in these other

categories. I feel that the agricultural land of this province

is important enough to be dealt with by a separate

provision.

We are given to understand by the Hon. Minister Agriculture that this is only

the beginning and that it's not tough enough. We know that there are provisions

within the bill which will certainly deflate the value of farmland. We know

that there are provisions within the bill that will not compensate for that

devaluation. That is obvious. There is no question about that. I don't think

that is denied.

The Land Commission Act in no way confines its powers

to farmland. Only this morning, while I was on my way into the

buildings, a gentleman said to me, "What can we do? My wife has

never been politically inclined. She has never interested

herself to any depth in the legislative process." They own 2 1/2

acres. But he said, "My wife is so upset over this legislation

that she can't sleep at nights."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well who upset her?

MR. RICHTER: Who upset her? The terms of the Act, my friend.

If you haven't read the Act I would suggest that the Hon.

Minister do it right away.

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

the Chair?

MR. RICHTER: I'd be very happy to, Mr. Chairman. I would

hope that the Members from the other side of the House would

equally do so. I intend to observe the rules of this House, but

if the Members wish to harp across the floor at me, then that's

their prerogative. I judge them on the basis of their

utterances.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's your leader?

MR. RICHTER: Well now, I'll tell you, we're really not

dealing with the leadership today. We're dealing with Bill 42 — just the same place as a little while ago when there was only

five Members on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. RICHTER: There are only five Members on that side of the

House. You're very fortunate you've been able to retrench and

bring your people in.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're all listening to you are they,

Frank?

MR. RICHTER: I would hope you would be. If you aren't I am

just talking to hear myself chatter.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, because there's nobody on your

side.

MR. RICHTER: I don't have to convince this side of the

House, Mr. Premier. I have to convince that side of the House. And a lot of you have been convinced by

your constituents, excepting you don't want to