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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page

1613 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42) Second

reading Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Steves — 1625

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1973

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I move we proceed

to public bills and orders, with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 42, Mr.

Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

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

the debate.

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

Speaker.

In speaking to the principle of Bill 42, which is the

Land Commission Act , in examining the bill we have seen

the broad scope that it encompasses. We have seen how it

affects all the people in British Columbia, whether they're

small homeowners or small businesses or farmers.

But when we look at the powers that are going to be vested

in what virtually can break down to two men — or two people — in this province, who are appointed, and we look at the

complexity of administering the bill, I tried to think over the

supper hour of how I might help make more clear to the Members

of this House what these complexities are.

When one analyzes the whole problem in the preservation of

farmland and recognizes that this problem largely centres

around a reasonable return for the produce and the labour, I

feel that it's very important that we discuss the aspect of

marketing. Because the marketing of the fruit in British

Columbia is of major importance, not only to the fruitgrowers

but to the people of British Columbia and to agriculture — I'd

like to talk about that.

The agricultural industry in British Columbia sees a major

segment of its input and its economic generation through the

tree fruit industry in the Okanagan. Perhaps if the Member will

listen to this complex but, I think, very interesting and

historical part of marketing, it will help them see more

clearly, as I mentioned, the complexities of what this

commission is being asked to do, without in any way suggesting

again that its powers are far too great.

The growers in the Okanagan recognize that they are consumers and that we're

all consumers. When one speaks of the price of food or, in this case, fruit,

the natural tendency is to think about the retail or the consumer price of food.

Growers face these prices every day, Mr. Speaker. It's alarming for them, when

they read about food prices increasing 8.6 per cent in one year, as was the

case in 1972.

However, if we look beyond the per cent increase, we find

some other rather startling and certainly very significant

facts. In the food industry, while growers here in the Okanagan

and British Columbia and on the island are as concerned as any

consumer about food prices, they are also aware and alarmed by

the cost-price squeeze which they as producers are faced with.

From the grower to the packing house, the selling agency, from

all these standpoints the retail price of fruit is not high

enough to cover the cost of production.

The concern over prices and returns to the growers were

discussed at great length at the annual convention of the

British Columbia Fruitgrowers' Association. They wonder, Mr.

Speaker, why the Minister didn't listen. The growers at that

time had plenty to say and they had plenty of reason to say

it.

Perhaps more than anything I could say verbally I could pass

around the chart which would help the Members in this

Legislature understand their problem. With your permission I

shall do this, Mr. Speaker.

The Members will find two charts here which will be

self-explanatory when they study them, as I'm sure they

will.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: "Hah!" says the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance. It's quite obvious from the comments that

the Minister has been making today, Mr. Speaker, that he's one

of the people who needs to study these charts.

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

You haven't said anything yet.

MRS. JORDAN: In the front of this chart, Mr. Speaker is a

little diagram that shows the problems of administrative

bureaucracy. It shows what happens when in fact bureaucracy

tends to what people really want.

They'll examine the charts and they'll find that the trend

line shows the relationship between the prices paid to the

growers from a standard item of production — the fancy,

medium-sized McIntosh apple. The prices paid by the farmer for

labour, spray and fertilizers. This does not include their cost

of living. And also the average weekly earnings in

manufacturing in Canada today. These would be slightly higher

if it were done on a British Columbia

[ Page 1614 ]

basis.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, on examining the chart, you will see

on the trend line basis that the cost of production is rising

at an increasingly faster rate than are returns.

The next graph illustrates that while over the years the

price paid to the grower for a box of apples has increased, it

has failed to counterbalance the erosion of the buying power of

the dollar and the increased cost to the farmer.

The chart shows the actual dollars that are paid to growers

by a packing house over a period of 35 years for a box of fancy

medium McIntosh. It shows the increase in the consumer price

index and the farm price index rise.

The third graph, Mr. Speaker, shows just how the returns to

the grower have risen in comparison with the farmer's costs and

the average weekly earnings of those in Canadian manufacturing.

The values are expressed in constant dollars, for your

information, Mr. Speaker, so that a true comparison can be

made.

We all know that price is complex and is a very far-reaching

topic. It is the major reason for the existence of the present

organizational structure in the British Columbia tree fruit

industry. It, Mr. Speaker, was the need for adequate producer

prices that brought the industry of the Okanagan together. It's

that same need that keeps it together today.

Before going any further into the matter of fruit pricing,

perhaps a few words would interest the House on the tree fruit

industry and the organization. Fruit, Mr. Speaker — as I

mentioned before it might help the Members in making up their

minds about the problems and the complexities of the principle

of this bill, but just for a little history and a little

knowledge — fruit is grown throughout the Okanagan Valley of

British Columbia, from Kamloops to the United States border.

Most of it is grown on the valley floor or benches on the lower

slopes of the surrounding hills. It is also grown in the

adjoining Similkameen Valley and the Kootenays to the east of

us, Apples are the largest crop, the major varieties being

McIntosh, Red Delicious, Golden Delicious and Spartan. Apples

in fact, Mr. Speaker, account for about 75 per cent of the

total fruit grown in the Okanagan Valley.

Other fruits, such as pears, peaches, cherries, prunes,

apricots and plums are also grown, and they account for the

remaining 25 per cent.

These crops represent an average of $30 million in sales.

The Okanagan has some major and distinct advantages in that it

is the main area in Canada where the Red Delicious apple

variety is grown. Our area is noted world over for producing

some of the finest crops, It is also the only area in Canada

where the Spartan and Golden Delicious apples are grown.

To give you some idea of how significant the British Columbia tree fruit industry

is in relation to the Canadian tree fruit industry, it should be noted that

British Columbia produces approximately 70 per cent of Canada's sweet cherries,

100 per cent of the apricots, 20 per cent of the peaches, 50 per cent of the

pears and prunes and one-third of the apples.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill,

in spite of this production and this efficiency, it is only a

marginal profit. The operation in the valley really is somewhat

unique in that they are not close to a large population centre

and, therefore, they have had to develop markets further

afield.

Their situation is quite different from that of the fruit

growers and the tree fruit growers in Ontario, which produces

about the same quantity of tree fruits, but sells most of it

within its own province. In other words, they have a built-in

domestic market and we do not have this in British Columbia. We

do not have it in Western Canada.

There are five major elements to the fruit business in the

Okanagan Valley. They are the grower, the packing house, the

selling agency, the grower-owned processing companies and the

commercial canner. Taking each one of these elements

individually and expanding briefly, Mr. Speaker, on its role

will perhaps give you a greater understanding of the operation

of this industry in its five phases.

Prior to 1927, growers or their packing houses, many of them

then cooperatives, sold their fruit in competition with each

other. This arrangement was seldom satisfactory. The first man

to sell his fruit got the highest price and the buyers who were

not willing to pay one grower's price for fruit, could always

find other growers who were willing to sell for less.

This resulted in prices becoming so depressed that it became

hardly profitable for some growers to sell their fruit at all.

The need for some control was obvious and apparent, and the

cries of the farmer then — and, Mr. Speaker, my own grandfather

and own father walked with them — was "a cent a pound or on the

ground,"

In 1934, after many pleas from growers, the federal and

provincial governments of the day passed what was called a

Natural Marketing Products Act and the British Columbia

Fruit Broad was established to operate under this

federal-provincial Act. This development did not prove to be

satisfactory and in 1936 the federal act was declared

unconstitutional. But the B.C. Fruit Board continued to operate

under provincial legislation. Its operation was restricted at

that time to marketing within the province and it had no

control over the exports of the tree fruit product.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, may I point out that

the Member is out of order? This bill does' not deal with the

export of agricultural products, the growing of agricultural

products.

[ Page 1615 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order seems to be certainly

correct that, if the Member is talking about export of fruit

products and price, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the

principle of the bill which relates to the use of farmland, not

marketing, and not export of fruit or anything else. Would the

Hon. Member try to come back to the principle of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is: the principle

of this bill is for the preservation of farmland and the only

way, Mr. Speaker, is for agriculture, as they have said, to be

viable. It's important, Mr. Speaker, if the principle of the

bill establishes a five-man commission that is all-powerful in

British Columbia, they must know and they must be involved in

the viable sustainment of this agricultural industry, and the

tree fruit industry is part of it.

There is no way that they can function without knowing about

the marketing of the produce.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, you are discussing an

entirely different matter than the preservation of farmland.

You are discussing something that is not apparently in this

bill; that is the viability of marketing for farm products.

What is in this bill is some method of preserving farmland.

That is your statement and it seems to be true.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, how do you preserve farmland

if you don't market the produce? The whole problem is a

reasonable return to the producer for his product. That's the

principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: This is beyond the principle of the bill, and I

ask the Member to return to the question of farmland, not the

question of marketing of farm products.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): It's the whole principle of

the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it's not. With respect, I must differ.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the

Minister of Agriculture in bringing in this bill — and

representing the Government — which is the preservation and use

of farmland, is not in any way to allow any discussion on

manners and ways that will make agriculture more viable, as the

Minister himself has said? The whole sales pitch of this

government, on this bill, is to save the farmers.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order has been raised that you are going beyond

the scope of the principle of the bill, and that is correct. In other words,

it is not permitted at this stage to debate the things that are not in the bill.

You are debating, presumably, the concept and scope of the bill as it presently

stands and the principal within it. That does not include the marketing of products

or the general economic situation of marketing and export of products.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the export

of products; I'm talking about the products that are produced

on the land that is under the principle of this bill and which

is said to be the main reason for the bill. You cannot look at

today and tomorrow without having a look at the past. I'm just

trying to, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, talk about how

agriculture was viable in the past in the Okanagan, the lands

that are affected by this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I must respectfully draw the Member back to the

principles of the bill, which do not include the fields of

marketing or trade, but deal with the actual physical problem

of farmland and what you call the preservation of farmland.

That is, I think, the area in which the discussion should be

confined. I ask you therefore to confine yourself to that

discussion if you will, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well then can one assume, from the fact that

the Premier has asked that this be ruled out of order, that

there is some other miraculous way to ensure an income to the

farmer in the preservation of farmland without marketing his

products?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member be seated.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): If we were trying to

ensure that the rules of relevancy in debate be observed in the

last few days, we would have insisted long before now — we've

been very patient…but I think it's terribly sad to see the

democratic process submerged and grinding to a halt — and I

mean that very seriously — in this fashion by the Social Credit

Party which once meant something to the Province of British

Columbia. It is now engaged in a filibuster that's simply

destroying the democratic process. Now go ahead. If that's what

you want to do, go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has accused me

of not being fair. I have asked both Members to take their

seats. The Hon. Member who complained I was not being fair

would not take his seat so that I could take a point of order.

The point of order is this…

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): There was no point of

order raised.

[ Page 1616 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I heard the Hon. Member for Columbia River

asking that a point of order be raised. I want the Hon. Member,

as I've asked her, to confine herself to the principles of this

bill. The question is not what the Attorney General said. It's

the question of the point of order and that is well taken. The

point of order is that you must confine yourself to the

principles of this bill and not discuss marketing or export or

trade or anything else that has nothing to do with the question

of farmland in this debate.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you an

excerpt from a letter to a grower in British Columbia…to

a producer in British Columbia…to a man vitally affected

by this legislation in British Columbia, written by the

Minister of Agriculture, one David D. Stupich, on December 22,

1972. He says:

"We intend to bring forward a programme of farmland preservation that will be in the future best

interests of the people of British Columbia. We will include in

the programme recognition of the land value differential. I

have stated this fact at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

convention and on a number of subsequent occasions. I hope you

will take note of this and expect to receive fair treatment by

this new legislation when it comes into effect."

Mr. Speaker, you may not consider it relevant, and the

Premier may not consider it relevant and this House may not

consider it relevant how this produce is sold and whether it's

sold, but the man who received that letter does. He's sitting

in the Okanagan tonight worried, concerned and fearful.

HON. MR. COCKE: Misguided.

MRS. JORDAN: Misguided, my dear Minister? This man would be

no man to be misguided. He is a very strong, successful fruit

grower. He is very strong in the fruit industry and if he were

to enter into a debate with that Minister, Mr. Speaker, he

would be able to reveal the true character of that

Minister.

He is concerned and it is the concern of this House, when

passing this type of legislation, to know what its effects are

going to be and to know what is going to happen to the produce

of these lands.

Mr. Speaker, when this legislation came in, and following a

meeting with the Minister of Agriculture, one of the most

responsible fruitgrowers in this province, in a state of

frustration at the Minister's attitude and the Government's

attitude and their consistently conflicting statements, said:

"The farmers should not plant. The farmers should not produce.

The farmers and the fruitgrowers should not tend their

orchards."

Mr. Speaker, if the farmers are not to do this type of action, which in essence

would really only help them, then surely the debate of this and the knowledge

of how this fruit has grown and what the farmers have gone through and where

the potential use for this fruit is, is relevant.

It's incredible that the Premier should try to stifle debate

on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier doesn't stifle

debate. If he has a point of order, like any other Member he

can raise it. If the Chair agrees that the point of order is

well taken, I don't care where it comes from, I will deal with

the point of order.

I have dealt with the point of order. You are clearly out of

order if you wish to discuss marketing by farmers when the

subject happens to be Bill 42.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the farmers of British

Columbia — in bowing to your decision as I do — will be very

interested to know that this Legislature does not consider that

the produce of the land that they are trying to save, the

produce of their labours — they who are supposed to be being

paid by this Government — are of any concern of this

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That is not the point. The point is that

we discuss things in this House in the clearly-defined terms of

the rules and within the rules. There's a time and place to

discuss those matters you wish to discuss, and it's not in this

debate.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I bow to your ruling.

But I am sure the farmers of this province will not bow to this

bill. They will not bow to the stifling of their needs.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be in order to talk about the

capital investments that farmers make in their business today.

Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: So long as it relates to the bill in terms of

the farmland. I can certainly see nothing yet that I can

consider even ruling on.

MRS. JORDAN: If you are going to preserve land, Mr. Speaker,

you have to work land. One of the most serious complaints

against this bill is not only its peremptory attitude and its

erosion of democratic rights, but that in keeping with the

Minister's letter…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I've said it once, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Speaker,

and it should be said again and again until the Members on that side of the

House face the truth — until the Members on that

[ Page

1617 ]

side of the House will face the people of this province.

The Minister gave his assurance in this letter as to what

would be in the legislation. It wasn't there, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to just tell you what the farmers feel about this

legislation and the actions of this Government. They talk about

the greenbelt and the freezing of farmland and the implication

of the preservation of farmland. That's their word, Mr. Speaker — the "implication" of the preservation of farmland.

They suggest that these, in a very short time under this

Government, have become bywords in the farming community. But

should be recognized that it took some time for these terms to

be completely understood by the farmers of British

Columbia.

They agree with the Members of this House and with the

public and I'm sure with you, Mr. Speaker, that the

preservation of farmland implies the very highest of ideals to

service the future needs of this province.

It's an ideal easily shared by the rest of society. The one

difference is if it costs too much to the rest of society. And

to this date neither society nor this Government have given any

indication of how much they are willing to do for the farmer,

to be fair to him, as a sacrifice that this bill and this

Government are asking them to make.

When you examine this bill, Mr. Speaker, and the principles

of it, you look back into history to the old feudal system, the

system where the lords owned the land and the serfs leased them

and worked them and paid the taxes on them. That's what this

bill is, Mr. Speaker. The Government wants the control of the

land and it will demand that the farmers become the serfs to

work those lands and to pay the taxes on those lands. That's

right in that bill now.

In one stroke of the pen starting in December, following a

foolish remark by the Minister of Agriculture, the farmers in

British Columbia were made serfs on their own land. They pay

the taxes, which this Government was going to remove but never

quite got around to. They work the land, because there's nobody

else in British Columbia to do it.

The Government can sit there and say, "Well, let them not

plant," and "Let the tree fruit worker not work." Who is

the loser? Not the Government. And not the people of British

Columbia. It is the farmer, The man who has to pay the taxes,

the woman who has to pay the taxes, the family that has to pay

the taxes, and the family that has to work this now frozen land

with no compensation for anything There's no provision in that

bill at all for them.

You can't even discuss the disposition of their

products.

No, Mr. Speaker, how much is society willing to pay? How

much is this Government willing to pay them for their

labours?

Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the Minister's comments that

some day the day will arrive that farmland in its entirety will

be needed, they say that they can't particularly argue with

that, except what they do want to say, Mr. Speaker, and what

they do want to have heard, is that if the returns of the

farmers continue on the same downward trend and they are locked

into their land with the responsibilities of their land, the

day will arise when the land that has been set aside will have

no farmers to farm it.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of research

done into the tree fruit industry in British Columbia? The

Minister obviously didn't read any of this or discuss any of

this with his staff, because if he had he would never have been

a partner to this vicious and very cruel bill.

Mr. B.K. Action, who is an economist with the B.C. Regional

Office of the Department of Agriculture, made a detailed study

of the fruit industry of the Okanagan Valley. In the Period of

seven years and a study of 80 orchards, averaging 23 acres, he

found that the family farm income has dropped from $324 per

acre in 1972 to $40 per acre seven years later. Interest rates

have doubled in that time. The value of the land itself,

though, went from $1,196 per acre to $3,414 per acre in a mere

seven years, That was up until September of this year.

The action of freezing the farmland has reduced even the

farm-to-farm sales below the $1,196 value per acre of seven

years ago. Frustrated? Of course the farmer is frustrated. If

the farmer with his small voice has the audacity to speak up in

British Columbia today, or in this Legislature through his

representative, he's squelched, he's called a land subdivider,

a developer, a profiteer, and his representative is ruled out

of order. He's caught in an impossible situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw that imputation. I live by the rules and I try to ask

you to live by the rules. You are not squelched because of what

you say but only if you're out of order. Would you kindly

withdraw that remark?

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: Regardless, the farmer in British Columbia is

caught in an impossible economic squeeze and because of the

actions of this Government he is caught in an impossible

emotional squeeze. That's the preservation of farmland.

He wants it, but at the same time he knows that he's the

loser, All around the block he's the loser, He's the loser in

this Legislature, he's the loser in these buildings, he was the

loser the other day and he's the loser in this Government's

actions. He's the

[ Page 1618 ]

loser to society.

I talked about the consumer last night. He's got a

tremendous equity to overcome. How can he overcome his economic

equity and his emotional inequity? He's going to be the loser

in the future, Mr. Speaker, and he knows it, because of the

complexities of the solution to his problem.

If it weren't so complex, this Minister of Agriculture would

have brought in some of these instant simplistic solutions that

he has — or says he has — up his sleeve.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of British Columbia do a good job.

But they only represent 5.7 per cent of the population. So

their voice is lost and their voice is ridiculed by the demons

of this foreign philosophy. And yet just being 5.7 per cent of

our population, they guarantee the means or generate the means

whereupon hundreds of thousands of people make a very

comfortable living.

The farmer in this country has out-produced industry and

labour by 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker, this individualistic,

hard-slugging guy and his family. They have out-produced the

sophistication if labour and the sophistication of technology

by 30 per cent. And where does he stand today, next to labour,

next to teachers, next to doctors, lawyers and chiropractors,

every single one enjoying regular or reasonable hours and a

reasonable return? He's the loser. The farmer's the loser.

He's the one who's fighting the battle in this bill. He is

fighting for the rights of the individual cottage owner and

homeowner in British Columbia. He's fighting for the right of

the democratic right in land.

Mr. Speaker, in out-producing labour by 30 per cent, you

might like to know that, as an example, a basket of food that

takes five hours of work to purchase in Canada, and the same

basket which takes eight and one-half hours in England and 24

hours of work to buy in Italy, is produced by one hour by the

farmer. If the farmer's returns are adequate, such as they were

in the war period, Mr. Speaker, the preservation of farmland

would be automatic and you wouldn't be able to drive the farmer

from his land.

Mr. Speaker, you wonder what the farmer thinks when this

Government in relation to a welfare programme increased the

clothing allowance of children under care from $50 per year to

$156 per year, costing in excess of $2 million. He doesn't

begrudge that money for the children who are on welfare and

those families. And let's be honest, some of those families are

on welfare when they should be working.

But it bothers him when he is working his hours with his capital investment

and he can't spend that much on his children; when he gets less of an income

than a welfare recipient. And again, not that he begrudges helping those in

need. He certainly does not. But somewhere along the way he'd like somebody

to see that he has some needs. And if nothing else, not take away his independence

and his initiative.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not more than 5 per cent

of the farmers in British Columbia spend $156 a year on clothes

for their children. If a farm family does, then it's probably

because the kids are out working. Because certainly a viable

fruit farm in the Okanagan today is a family fruit farm.

The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) knows

as well as I do the number of families that work together where

the children work and the mothers work and the fathers work — and happily, Mr. Speaker, they don't consider it a great

burden. But they're working now after school; they're working

now on Saturdays and Sundays, and they'll work all through the

summer when a lot of people are boating and swimming and

literally enjoying the fruits of their labours.

Those kids won't be swimming, Mr. Speaker. They'll be out

picking and they'll be sweating in the sun. And while many of

us are having a summer vacation, swimming or doing the things

we like to do, their parents who are our age won't be

vacationing. They'll be sweating in the sun, picking and

selling, either through their own stands or through a marketing

agency.

Mr. Speaker, they're beginning to wonder what it's all

about. Maybe they would like to spend $156 a year on clothes

for their children.

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. I was involved with a

programme two years ago where some families went to the Cariboo

to live with farm families, and families here who needed help

financially and there was good reason. But the families with

whom they went to stay were no better off financially, except

that they had their land. They worked from dawn to dusk. It was

a good idea. It was an interchange of families.

But it was very interesting to note that when some of the

families came back to the lower mainland — people of the same

age, in their late 30's and early 40's — the attitude of those

who were receiving assistance was, "All they do up there is

work." That's all they do, Mr. Speaker, is work.

Now there's something wrong with a principle like that.

There's something wrong when the one who works is the one who

pays the piper.

What does it cost the farmer today? Just take an average

produce, which is the McIntosh apple, this is in the district

of Creston. These figures are as of March 6, 1972. This was an

expected yield from this land of 25,000 pounds, or 800 boxes of

apples. The horsepower is gasoline. The per-hour labour rate is

$2.50 for skilled and $1.50 for unskilled. The production data

here is for standing trees of 35 years of age with 48 trees per

acre.

The cultural costs: pruning, once per year — 50

[ Page 1619 ]

hours per acre to prune; labour, $125 per acre; fuel costs,

$576 per acre; implement repair, $12 per acre; and a Girette

for 48 hours, $142.76.

The next cultural cost is mowing, because you have to mow

the grounds of your orchard today — for rodent control and for

ease of moving equipment and because society likes it that way.

The Sunday driver doesn't like to drive by and see a fruit

orchard with long grass which looks higgledy-piggledy. They

like to see it well manicured. And so does the farmer. It makes

his work much easier for picking and moving his equipment. But

it all costs money.

The same acreage, with the same expected yield — they're

mowed four times a year at four hours per acre: labour costs, $10 per hour; fuel costs, $3.20 per hour; tractor repairs,

$1.60; implement repairs, $120; the materials for the tractor

and the mower, $16.00. Spraying: number of times — the same

orchard — nine times a year, Mr. Speaker. Nine times a fruit

grower growing McIntosh apples has to spray his orchard. It is

six hours per acre to do it; 54 hours per acre per year. Labour

costs him $16.87; fuel, $5.40; tractor repairs, $2.70;

implements, $1.75; the material and equipment $115.49.

Thinning: because when you thin apples, you have to have

ladders. They do this once a year and the labour costs $96 per

acre; the implements 64 cents and the materials at $2 per tree,

$96.64. Irrigation: land cannot be preserved nor productive

without irrigation. In this survey: irrigated three times at

7 1/2 hours per acre and a labour cost of $12.7 5 per acre;

fuel, $1.20 per acre, the repairs on the tractor, 60 cents per

acre; the implements, $2.31 per acre; and 1 1/2 hour of skilled

tractor and trailer with six hours unskilled, $16.80.

Propping: because when there is a good crop the branches

have to be propped up in order to keep them from breaking so

they will produce the next year. This has to be done twice a

year for McIntosh. The hours per acre; labour, $4 per acre;

fuel, 40 cents per acre; tractor and repairs, 60 cents and $2.3

1 per acre; and the rental on the equipment — tractor, half an

hour, $4.68.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

Fertilizing: because greenbelts cannot be green unless they

are fertilized and land cannot yield and cannot be productive

unless it is fertilized. This is done once a year at one hour's

time per acre: a labour cost of $2.50; fuel costs at 40 cents

per acre; tractor repairs and implement repairs, 20 cents and 4

cents respectively per acre; and implement cost at $8.60 per

acre.

Rodent control: because green areas and parklands and farms

have rodent problems. This doesn't enter our minds very much.

These rodent problems are compounded because a lot of people

don't like the kills that they use for them, the various sprays, and they

have been outlawed. So today in a fruit orchard to kill gophers

and moles, a farmer has to take carrots and cut them up into

little pieces three inches long and that wide, treat them, take

them out, dig a hole in the ground between every so many trees

and put the little piece of carrot in to kill his rodents.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) says, "Why don't he shoot 'em?" It

is a wonder that a farmer here doesn't shoot the Minister of

Mines — it's incredible, incredible, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very costly process and the thing about it is that

not only is it costly when you do it in your orchard once — or

your greenbelt or what ever you are providing — but, Madam

Speaker, you can't use the same treatment on a piece of carrot

for a gopher as you can for a mole. So he has to duplicate this

whole system twice.

It may make the Members laugh, but think how you would feel

if you were a producer and you had to run around your orchard — and it costs you time and money and energy — to dig little

holes to stick pieces of carrots in because society says that

you can't use other kills — and you had to do it twice. That

costs money, Madam Speaker.

It takes half an hour an acre and the labour costs $1.25 an

hour — and remember this was before the cost of the minimum

wage went up. The material costs $1 and it costs $2.25 an acre.

That adds up.

So he gets a total cultural cost per acre for our greenbelt

of $430.16. After he has done all this, he has got a product at

the end of it, so he has to harvest it. What is his preparation

and costs there?

He has to prepare his harvesting once and his hours per acre

are three hours; labour costs him $7.50; his fuel $2.46;

tractor repairs and implement repairs, 60 cents and 38 cents

respectively. The forklift, or his equipment, for one and a

half hours, $10.94. That is just the harvest preparation, Madam

Speaker — he has to pay pickers after that.

It is done once on the whole, except today they pick for

colour, for size, and they pick for quality, so in essence he

is going around his orchard three, four, maybe five times in

the picking season. He can't just go through and clean

off the trees one at a time.

His labour is $144 per acre, on the average, and his

implement repair costs, $2.61; his materials, a bin, $4.50;

with a total of 32 bins per acre of $146.61. You can see, Madam

Speaker, that his costs and his labour input are rising

rapidly.

Supervision of yarding bins: done once, number of hours per

acre, 11; labour costs, $27.50 per acre; fuel, $4; for the

supervision $2.31, for bringing in the bins; tractor repairs,

$2 per acre; implements, 74 cents per

[ Page 1620 ]

acre; and five hours of a tractor with 2 3/4 hours for a

truck, $36.55.

Fall clean up: again, a good farmer uses good farming

practices. Also we, as society, like to see a nice, tidy, clean

fruit orchard and so they clean them up in the fall. That is

done once at 2 hours per acre: labour, $5 per acre — just to

please us, that's expensive — just so we can have a nice Sunday

drive in a greenbelt. His fuel, 80 cents per acre; his tractor

repairs, 40 cents per acre; implements, 8 cents per acre;

materials, one hour of tractor and 2 hours of a trailer, $6.28

per acre.

A total harvest costs of $200.38 per acre. His cash overhead

with miscellaneous and office expenses, management at 5 per

cent — a total of $630.53 per acre.

Then he has to pay water. Madam Speaker, the average water

costs in the Okanagan Valley runs around $20 per acre per year,

whether the water is used or not. In the North Okanagan, the

area I represent, they pay $27 per acre. In the area that my

colleague represents, they pay $34 per acre, $34 per acre for

water. This puts their costs right up.

Taxes run on an average of $24 per acre and crop insurance

an average of $35 per acre and then they figure out a 5 per

cent management fee of gross income.

So, Madam Speaker, we see an investment in land of about

approximately $3,000 per acre, crop investment per acre of

approximately $430.16 per acre, buildings at $66 per acre and

equipment at $947 per acre. If you look at their annual costs,

they're allowed $3.30 depreciation on their buildings and

$84.60 depreciation on their equipment, for a total of $87.90.

The interest rate is $225 per acre on land, $32.26 per acre on

the crops.

You might ask, Madam Speaker why they are paying interest on

the crop. The reason is that the majority of farmers put their

capital into their nursery stock and their equipment — upgrading it, replenishing it and keeping it in repair. They

have to go to the bank every spring, as do our growers in the

Okanagan, and they borrow operating cash to operate through the

season — to buy any further nursery stock, to pay for their

fertilizers, to pay for their labour, to pay for their gas.

That level of operating capital that they borrow is arrived at

by the value of their land.

Madam Speaker, this is one and this Government put a freeze

on their land, as I mentioned before, the value of their land

has decreased from approximately $3,414 per acre to below

$1,196 per acre and that has decreased their borrowing power.

So it doesn't really matter if they have a boom year and get a

boom return. They cannot get operating capital now, because

their equity to borrow is their land. This government has

decreased the value of their land well over 300 per cent.

It is indeed a shame, Madam Member. It's a crying shame, and

the farmers of British Columbia know it. There are farmers

tonight, Madam Speaker, who are at home in the Okanagan — fruit

producers — who do not know how they're going to meet their

bills at the end of the month, because their borrowing power

has been so deflated by the actions of this government.

This runs, as I mentioned before, at $32.26 per acre. Their

building interest rates at $35.88 per acre — a total interest

charge at 71/2 per cent per year of $295.63 per acre.

Now, Madam Speaker, when you see that their expected returns

per acre run to about $1,280 and their total cost per acre is

$1,174.60 you begin to get the nature of the picture about

which they are so concerned. They get an expected return per

ton of $ 100 and the total cost of production per ton is

$91.77. Their per pound expected return is 5 cents per pound;

Their per pound production cost is 4.6 cents.

Madam Speaker, in the last 20 years wholesale food prices

have gone up 20 per cent, retail food prices have gone up 43

per cent and farm prices have gone up 6 per cent. The union

increases: for males the average wage increase has gone up 26

per cent, and 20 per cent for women.

The farmer today is getting $1.64 an hour and no return on

his capital. From what I've said, Madam Speaker, I hope you

will appreciate his plight. I would like to have told you the

nature of the complexities of the problems of why his return is

so low, because it is indeed complex.

One of the things that the Minister of Agriculture has

talked about is communal pooling of equipment. When that

Government was in opposition, the Hon. Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) used to say what a great thing it would be

to have communal pooling of equipment — state ownership, state

purchase of farm equipment. Madam Speaker, if you go and look

at the countries where this has been tried, you will see that

it is a great theory, but it just won't work.

You not only look at the equipment and the condition of the

equipment but you look at the farms. They're collective farms

with collective equipment. The farms, as I mentioned before and

told you about, do not produce. They cannot produce. The

equipment doesn't work, because farming for one thing requires

almost exact time for harvesting. I'm sure all Members of this

House have heard the great Green Giant slogan that they used to

have a few years ago, "Our peas are picked at night." And they

were. Because it was cool and the peas reached their proper

maturity at that time and they didn't over ripen in these cool

hours. That's how they got just the right flavour that the

consumer wanted.

That's true, Madam Speaker, of most produce, If you leave

tomatoes too long they get soft or hard or

[ Page 1621 ]

over-coloured and they won't transport or package. Apples

have to be picked for colour and size. Peaches have to be

picked at the right time so that they're not overripe, so that

they're beginning to colour, so that you can handle and pack

them. Cherries have to be picked at the right time. Apricots,

pears — Madam Speaker, when you've got to pick, you've got to

pick, as the saying goes. (Laughter).

If you don't and you don't have the equipment to do it, then

you don't have a crop and you don't have the return. If you

have a pooling of equipment, then everybody wants the equipment

at the same time. This is the same not just for fruit but for

hay and for vegetables. Not only is there a right time

scientifically, but the farmer has a right time. He knows from

experience. With cattle feed for example, when he feels that

crop should be harvested — because he knows he got a better

weight gain, there was no protein, more bulk or whatever else

he was looking for by harvesting that crop at that time — he's

got to have his equipment at that time. He can't be letting Joe

Blow down the street have it.

The first thing that's wrong with collective farm equipment

is that it's not available at the time that it's needed for the

crop at its proper maturity for harvesting.

The second thing is: if anyone's had anything to do with

farm equipment they know that it breaks down faster than any

other equipment in the world, including a watch. You get this

power takeoff equipment and there's always something going

wrong. A farmer today has to be not only an economist,

bookkeeper, horticulturalist, labourer, mother…

AN HON. MEMBER: A mother? (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he mothers his crops. There are many

people who believe that crops mature and grow better with a

loving approach. You can laugh at it but there's quite a lot in

the literature about it.

Madam Speaker, he's also got to be a mechanic. You may

recall that in an earlier debate under education I pointed out

the need for this type of training programme where we're

getting people and hopefully going to get more people onto

agricultural land who haven't grown up on a farm and who may

well not have mechanical experience.

He has to be a mechanic for two reasons. One is convenience — if you're out in the middle of the field in the middle of

your harvesting you just can't afford the time in relation to

your crop return to go all the way into wherever the repair

shop is. So they learn to do a lot of their own minor repairs

as well as a lot of their own major repairs. They frequently do

these repairs in the winter time. They know very well how long

their equipment's likely to last. They get it all in shape in

the winter so that it will work well through their season.

If you get 10 people using that equipment during that

season, then the chances of breakdown during the season are

magnified 10 times. They've found through experience in country

after country where this was tried that if it's a collective

piece of equipment the farmer tends to say, "Well, it's broken

down."

He phones them to come and get it, because you can't tow

farm equipment around, it has to be hauled around. That

equipment, instead of being tied up for maybe an hour or two

hours or being repaired in the evening by the farmer himself,

is in the repair shop 24 hours from the time they come out and

pick it up and haul it back — get through the bureaucracy of

who is going to repair it, and it gets back out.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you are beginning to realize

that collective farm equipment just doesn't work. It is not

going to be the answer to the agriculture problem in this

province. I would like to read to you, Madam Speaker, what a

group of farmers say.

"The grower members of British Columbia Fruit Growers

Association share the concern of all those interested in the

future of our beautiful valley. Indeed it can correctly be

stated that the concern of the grower is deeper than many

because not only is his home but his hard-won business

enterprise, his property, affected by the decisions of others

greater numerically, than primary producers, but often others

not contributing in equal proportions to the welfare of the

area.

"The tree fruit growers of the Okanagan have contributed in

a large measure to the finances required for development,

damming, transportation of and sensible utilization of large

quantities of irrigation water for over much more than half a

century.

"Fruit growing is going to create for many years to come in

this area and it is going to continue to for many years to come

in this area. But there will be realignments and flexibility

will be required in regulations in order to permit sufficient

scope for this change."

Flexibility, Madam Speaker.

"The opposition on some of the key points under

consideration are as follows:

1. Not all present day growers will want to stay farming and

they must be permitted the freedom of disposing of their properties to the most

reasonable financial advantage."

Madam Speaker, they don't say "to developers or

subdividers." They want a free-floating agricultural land

market. What could be fairer than that? What's fairer than

fair? They go on to say:

2. This is often their only monetary compensation for a working

lifetime of sub-standard wages. The growers who remain on the farm do

[ Page 1622 ]

not want their water sources controlled by those whose interest

may be of a conflict with agricultural utilization. They recognize, however,

that domestic water requirements must be accommodated."

I'll go into this a little later on in detail. It might

interest you, Madam Speaker, to know that much of the water in

the Okanagan was not put there by domestic users, it was put

there by agricultural people.

Farmers today in the Okanagan are locked in with dry land.

Some of that dry land is locked in to the new city of Kelowna,

a city created by edict. No water. How do you make that land

productive? Yet they are the ones who paid for the water. It is

their water production, not their water, but their water

production. Their efforts went to pay for that water — put in

the system and put it on the land for agriculture — that is now

going to be controlled by domestic users, by this Government — not by themselves. The third point they make is that primary

producers for our growers do not intend to carry on their land

the cost of recreational water facilities or other

domestic-orientated projects. They do not intend to carry on

their land undue tax burdens to defray the cost of facilities

demanded by the general public.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I fail to see the relevancy of

this bill to the bill under debate. You seem to be speaking of

another action of the Government rather than Bill 42. I would

ask you to confine your…

MRS. JORDAN: We are not to discuss farmland taxation under

this bill? And assessments?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I don't find…

MRS. JORDAN: The next point the growers wish to make — and

this is in relation to the principle of this bill, this whole

thing. They were just mentioning one point about taxation

because they do feel resentful that society and this Government

are asking them to bear this tremendous burden. Regardless of

what comes in the future they are bearing the burden now, as I

pointed out to you, with their borrowing problem. Their fear

for the future, their concern for their families has enhanced

the normal concerns that they have as producers and the normal

inequities that have been in the agricultural business for

years. They say:

4. The growers refuse to accept the burden of providing greenbelts

in the Okanagan. If it is in the municipal, provincial and federal interests

to preserve such greenbelt land, then it is their joint responsibility to assist

in providing it. The grower will do his share as a citizen, but he will not

carry everyone else on his back."

Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. It is only asking

for fairness and equity; that society that wants its land

should help look after its land and should help pay for its

land.

"5. It is not the right or privilege of the majority of

Okanagan population to decree that farmers must continue

farming regardless of the financial compensations. Nor is it

their right from zoning agricultural land in a such a manner as

to prevent the primary producer from participating in the

growth of the area.

"6. The help of all provincial citizens is needed to ensure

that our province and our valley will remain the beauty spot of

the west. Agricultural, and particularly orchards, assist this

image to an immeasurable degree. The growers cannot leave their

land in orchards if income is inadequate.

"7. Everyone is interested in clean industry to build local

payrolls, providing the local ecology is not jeopardized. Tree

fruit growing is a clean industry. The tree fruit industry

directly and indirectly employs several times the total number

of people of all the industries located here through the area

incentive grants.

"The people in the tree fruit industry generally speaking,

understand the desires to preserve our valley in an unspoiled

state. They wish to point out to all concerned that if each of

you" — that's us, Madam Speaker, every citizen in British

Columbia. "If each of you fails to do his utmost to ensure that

all levels of government understand our problems and move to

assist in alleviating them, then in spite of whatever

legislation you bring in, our industry will fade and the number

of new industries required to provide the employment currently

provided by our growers will almost certainly not be as

pleasing to the eye as the one long established industry this

Government, the NDP Government, seem to have forgotten — the

industry of agriculture."

That is what they say, Madam Speaker. They look around and

they hear the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) stand

up and talk about the fact that he had to bring on a land

freeze because all the land villains were moving in and

gobbling up the land, and all farmers had become

speculators.

You know, they are very interested to know who started the

panic. If you examine the figures, and one of my other

colleagues will bring these in later, you will find that a lot

of this fear tactic that has been raised about the loss of

farmland is simply not true.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

In the Okanagan we have put more land into agriculture than

we have taken out. We have potentially a lot more land that can

be made productive

[ Page 1623 ]

land if the incentive is there and if the need is there. As

I pointed out, nobody is going to bring land into production

unless they love the land and have the ability to pay to work

it, if there isn't a return for their produce.

The Minister of Agriculture made a statement at the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture convention in which he said that the

provincial government was going to preserve farmlands — and

numerous other statements. It was that statement, Mr. Speaker,

that precipitated this great rush that panicked farmers; that

panicked people into trying to get rid of land or trying to

subdivide land. I know of many farmers in the area I represent

who suddenly thought, "My gosh! I've got to get out now!"

The Minister of Agriculture said that it was greed and evil

subdividers that caused it. But you know, Madam Speaker,

there's a very interesting

article in the Vancouver

Province on Saturday, March 17…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, pardon me, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

What does this gentleman have to say, after a lot of

research about the farmland panic in British Columbia? He says

"threat to B.C. farmland only a straw man." I'm sure no one in

this House…and this person writing the

article certainly

wouldn't wish to say that there is not a concern to preserve

farmland, because there certainly is.

But the excuse that they use for the haste of the freeze and

the ill-thought-out legislation — the excuse that has been used

not to bring in programmes that are advantageous to the

farmers, but to put their hands on his lands first — has been

that there was no means to preserve farmland, no way of halting

erosion of land; there was chaos in planning in British

Columbia; that the previous government had done nothing.

What do they have to say? He 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 diversion 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 depredation

of land speculators has already been curbed. Some claim they

have even ended.

"Without exception they suggested that the worst of the

danger was well past before the Government stuck in its land

freeze and its Land Commission Act. They made points on

several occasions that the land bill represented overkill."

A lot of merit in that thought, Mr. Speaker. As I said

earlier, when you've got a headache you don't cut off your head

to find out why.

"In the name of motherhood, in the name of a philosophy

that's foreign to this country, they've over killed." They

built a straw man, they exaggerated it, and now the farmers of

British Columbia and all the landowners of British Columbia are

under the control of this straw man.

I'd like to read you about the area I represent:

"NORAD Supports Greenbelt Plan." That's the North Okanagan

Regional District. This is in October of 1972:

"The North Okanagan Regional District is to support a City

of Vernon application for the provincial government to acquire

five pieces of property for greenbelt zoning. Some of the

property is outside the city and if the regional board can

support the proposal, it would carry more weight with the

government."

The alderman, who happened to be a lady, explained:

"The

greenbelt fund was established under the previous Social Credit

administration whereby if the government accepted applications

it would purchase and set aside green areas which would not be

developed. Mrs. Gower, who is the alderman, explained there

would be no expropriation, nor would the government enter into

protracted negotiations. 'A fair market price would be

offered,' she said."

That's one example, Mr. Speaker.

If you go through the files you'll find example after

example all over British Columbia. If you drive down the

highways or you fly over British Columbia, you'll see example

after example where fair negotiation acquired greenbelt land or

agricultural land or parkland, between willing buyer and

seller.

What about the zoning and the bylaws? The Minister of

Agriculture said that no area was planning, no area meant it;

but he meant it and he was right.

"The long-awaited regional zoning bylaw in North Okanagan

Regional District has become law, giving it final adoption

following its approval by the provincial government Wednesday.

At a special meeting, the North Okanagan Regional Board agreed

to review any subdivisions which might have been approved by

the Department of Highways in the past six months."

They were going to review the provincial government's

acceptances. And that's a good thing.

They're on the ball. They have a paid planner and a paid

assistant and a paid staff. They've done aerial photography of

the area. We have topographical maps. We have the Canada land

inventory. And this is not unique in the area I represent, Mr.

Speaker. It's in many parts of the province. The controls were

there. The regional planner made many comments. One of the most

significant is, he said: "The region had produced the, document

with the support of the

[ Page 1624 ]

public because we were fair and they know we will be fair."

That's true, Mr. Speaker. Planners are not the most popular

people in the world, but they were fair. They went to the

public and the public had an input. They voluntarily accepted

the zoning and the planning that was well thought out. It was

of their own initiative.

What do they find under this bill, Mr. Speaker? They find

that the Premier thinks he knows better; that the Premier won't

accept their input and their plans that they worked so hard on;

that he and the supreme appointment and supreme beings know

better.

There is no evidence, as stated in the Minister of

Agriculture's letter to a farmer, or at any time in this House,

or at any time since the land freeze has there been anything to

suggest that this Government is concerned about being fair.

That's what the people of British Columbia want.

What else did we find out in this paper?

"Harold Thompson, of Penticton, planner for the

Okanagan-Similkameen area, said half his region has an approved

plan, two more areas are preparing plans and two electoral

areas will get theirs later. 'Zoning,' he said, 'has controlled

the use of land. And North Okanagan, which had a planning

scheme approved last October, has completed its zoning bylaw

that it believes will meet most of the situations that have

caused trouble there and elsewhere.'

"In general then, planners and officials feel that the land

bill is designed to coordinate planning and control because the

Government believes this is desirable; not because of any

present danger to the loss of farmland."

Mr. Speaker, it was a straw man that was built up by this

Government for one purpose and one purpose alone — and they

didn't have a mandate for this purpose — and that was the

foisting of a foreign philosophy on the people of British

Columbia; an emerging evidence of a naked hunger for power of a

few people in British Columbia.

I'm against a naked hunger for power.

MR. CHABOT: Foreign legislation.

MRS. JORDAN: Foreign legislation.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my presentation I have talked of the

dangers of what this Government is doing and what happens when

you whirl around in a vacuum of philosophy and intellectualism

and forget that life is about people. They have attacked the

farmer and draped this foreign flag of Fabian socialism around

his body and over his land.

I think perhaps better than anything, I could read you just a little story

that maybe the Members would understand. If you kill initiative and you kill

enterprise and you kill the very means for living; if you try to make a cradle-to-grave

security and Utopia…but man cannot live in this. In killing his initiative

and his drive, you will kill your society. I would like to read:

"Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about

and uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her barnyard neighbours and said,

'You know, if we work together and we plant this wheat, we will have some fine

bread to eat. Who will help me plant this wheat?"

'''Not I,' said the cow.

"'Not I,' said the duck.

"'Not I,' said the goose.

"'Then I will,' said the little red hen. And she did.

"After the wheat started growing and the ground turned dry

and there was no rain in sight, she said, 'Who will help me water the wheat?"

"'Not I,' said the cow.

"'Not I,' said the duck.

"'Not I,' said the pig.

"'Equal rights,' said the goose.

"'Then I will,' said the little red hen. And she did, "

in speaking to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker,

which is about equality and fair play.

"The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain, and

she said, 'Who will help me reap this wheat?"

"'Not I,' said the cow.

"'Not I,' said the duck.

"'Out of my classification,"' — Mr. Member from Vancouver — "said the pig.

"'I'd lose my ADC,' said the goose from Shuswap.

"'Then I will,' said the little red hen. And she did,"

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the principle of this bill and

asking for equity.

"When it came time to grind the flour —

"'Not I,' said the cow.

"'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the duck from Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

"When it came time to bake the bread —

"'That's overtime for me,' said the cow, from whatever constituency

you wish.

"'I'm a drop-out and never learned how,' said the duck from Omineca.

"'I'd lose my welfare benefit,' said the little pig.

"'If I'm the only one helping, that's discrimination,' said the goose from

second Vancouver-Burrard.

"'Then I will,' said the little red hen. And she did,"

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill.

"She baked five loaves of fine bread and held them up for her

neighbours to see.

"'Mmm, I want some,' said the cow.

"'Mmm, I want some,' said the duck.

"'I want one,' said the pig.

"'I'll demand my share,' said the goose.

"'No,' said the little red hen, I can rest for a while and eat the five loaves

myself.'

[ Page 1625 ]

"'Excessive profits,' cried the cow.

"'Capitalistic leech,' screamed the goose.

"'Company fink,' grunted the pig.

"'Equal rights,' screamed the duck,"

in speaking to the principle of this bill.

"They hurriedly painted and planted picket signs. They

marched around the little red hen singing, 'We shall overcome.'

And they did,"

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill

"When the farmer came to investigate the commotion, he said,

'You mustn't be greedy, little red hen. Look at that oppressed cow. Look at

that disadvantaged duck,"

in speaking to the principle of the bill.

"'Look at that underprivileged pig. Look at the less fortunate

goose. You are guilty,"

Mr. Speaker, and I'm not laughing at what I'm saying,

because I don't think it's funny. It's the principle of this

bill and this little red hen is saying better than anyone can

what is wrong with the principle of this bill.

This is the farmer speaking, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the

principle of the bill:

"He said, 'Look at the less fortunate goose. You are guilty

of making second-class citizens of them.'

"'But I earned the bread,' protested the little red hen.

"'Exactly,' said the wise, portly boy farmer. 'That is the

wonderful socialist system. Anybody in the barnyard can work if

he wants to. You should be happy to have this freedom. You

know, in other barnyards, the ones that are moving closer, you

would have to give all five loaves to the farmer,"'

in speaking to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker

"'Here, you give your loaves to your suffering neighbours."'

You know, Mr. Speaker, they lived happily ever after,

including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked and

clucked and clucked. She said as she clucked, "I am grateful.

Cluck, cluck. I am grateful." But you know, Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to the principle of this bill, they wondered why. Her

neighbours wondered why and the farmer wondered why she never

baked any bread any more.

Mr. Speaker, we ask again, in partnership with the people of

British Columbia — the little landowners of their homes or

small businesses or big businesses, the farmers. We stand side

by side with the people of British Columbia tonight to ask that

this bill be withdrawn; that this bill go to public hearing all

around the province; that we see, Mr. Speaker, a return of the

democratic rights of the people of British Columbia; that we

see this Legislature returned to a meaningful state; that we

see a return of equity and fair play to the people of British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, we seem to have reached a new

level in the heights of government tonight. To match fairytale with fairytale,

just in the last couple of seconds I penned my own.

You've all heard about Mary's little lamb. I wonder if you

know why it followed her to school.

Mary had a little lamb,

Its fleece was white as snow.

And when the farmland was all gone,

It had no place else to go.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest that if this bill does not

pass and we do witness a loss of farmland in British Columbia,

the only barnyard sounds that we'll likely hear will be the

cluck, clucks and the quack, quacks of Opposition Members.

Mr. Speaker, tonight marks a very important occasion. The

Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talked about

farmers sitting at home tonight, not knowing how they will pay

their bills. I'd like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this

was the same situation last year. Tonight, March 22, is the

one-year anniversary of an event occurred a year ago. I'd like

to read what the Hansard of that night said.

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

" MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I beg leave of this House to make a statement of

public interest.

"Leave granted.

"Mr. Speaker, I want to formally announce to you tonight,

and to Members of this House, my resignation from the Social

Credit Party, and to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be

sitting henceforth in this Legislature as a Member of the

Progressive Conservative Party."

Now listen to this Mr. Speaker, in regards to Bill 42, the

reasons that he left.

"I have done this with a great deal of consideration, and a

great deal of thought. It wasn't an easy decision for me to

make, and I by no means wish to disparage our government. But,

I have had concerns as I've sat in this legislature as it

concerns agriculture, and it is obvious to me, particularly in

my riding, that no resolves are forthcoming."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the present Members of

the Social Credit backbench to join that Member in walking

across the floor in support of this bill and support of

agriculture in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Member to relate his

comments to the principle of this bill.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, with regards to this bill, I

believe this bill will go down in history. This is

[ Page 1626 ]

the first government in North America that has had the guts

enough to protect our farming heritage; to protect our farmland

from the wanton destruction by greedy land speculators and

developers. The Member down here has said that this is not so.

I shall prove this later on this evening.

This Government has made the first steps in saving our

high-producing farmland for the production of food for the

present and future generations, Mr. Speaker. I predict that

this Act will be a model for other governments across Canada

and the United States and throughout North America to

follow.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

I could use a couple of good farm words, Mr. Speaker, for

the types of things that I've been hearing from some of the

Opposition Members over here tonight and in the last few weeks.

Suffice to say that the words I would like to use, but will not

use, are the words that explain a natural farm product I used

to spread on my own farmland.

What I would like to say is that what you've been hearing

from them has been the commercial product, and what you're

going to hear from me is the real thing.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan), I really thought last night that she was going

to try to go around the world in 80 days. She went to Russia,

to Holland, to Japan; then somehow she got to Edinburgh and got

lost. Then the next thing we heard, she was on the wall of the

cabinet room acting as a fly.

We found that Russia was becoming a capitalist country, that

Holland was becoming a communist country, that Japan had a free

market, and the people of Japan liked water-core. But we didn't

learn very much about British Columbia.

However, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) did

mention that poor farmers had given up some time from milking

their cows to come to the Legislature last Thursday, and I'll

have some more to say about that a little later.

The Member's speech today, I would suggest to you, has been

a complete and utter distortion of the truth. The Member for

North Okanagan talked of the power of Bill 42 to take homes of

people and their summer cottages on Elk Lake and places of such

nature. I believe that she somewhat strayed from the facts as

presented in that bill.

She said today that the bill called for social revolution,

monopoly, control without compensation; that it was a Marxian

and Fabian Act. She said it included state control of land,

state control of the farmers. I would suggest to you that the

Act has none of these possibilities, none of these powers, and

is a complete distortion.

I would like to ask that Member, who is she trying to scare? Are you trying

to create a state of fear in this province? Are you trying to create the same

type of fear that you used to create to get yourself re-elected time add time

again? These are the people in this province, Mr. Speaker, who recognized in

the last election what these campaigns of fear were all about.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the last election made the

decision. No longer were they going to listen to these

campaigns of fear; instead they were going to listen to reason.

I'd like to present some of that reason tonight. Perhaps it

will be the first reason that has been presented this evening — or this afternoon and this evening, for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, earlier in this

debate, suggested that we should signify our interests in

agricultural land and some of our background; how much land we

own and so on. I'd like to ask the previous speaker, who has

now left the chamber, how much agricultural land she has and

what her interests are, but she did not tell us.

I will reveal my own interests. I do own one lot that I live

on — that my house is on. I do not have 50 head of cattle as

has been mentioned; I have five head of cattle. But I have

lived most of my life on my parents' farm and, like the speaker

for North Okanagan, I have worked in the middle of the night

putting up fences. I've worked in the middle of the night

bailing hay and hauling hay in, and still got up at 5 o'clock

in the morning to milk the cows.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STEVES: And when I was in school, Mr. Speaker, I used to

milk 15 head of cattle before and after school everyday.

MR. SMITH: Oh, you're a hero.

MR. STEVES: All right, I'm glad you appreciate it. I was

also involved in the calf clubs in my riding; leader of the

calf club for a number of years; showed cattle at the PNE, and

took my degree in agriculture.

I have farmed myself and, as I mentioned, I still have five

head of cattle. But to understand the plight of farmers in this

province, specifically for the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) and Members of the Opposition, I would like to explain

some of the family history of the farm that I was born and

brought up on.

In 1877, Mr. Speaker — that's how long my background goes,

and of course it was before I was born — my great-grandfather

started the farm that I was raised on, and for a little while

he was the first farmer there. It was new land. He found that

he wanted to get away from the pressures of society in eastern

Canada. He tried the United States and then finally came up to

Lulu Island.

He brought in the first herd of Holstein Cattle to British Columbia. They found

they were able to grow fantastic agricultural crops.

[ Page

1627 ]

Since that time however, over the past 100 years, our family

has seen a lot of things happen to agriculture. They've seen

agriculture gradually being degraded and destroyed in British

Columbia. Not just by the Social Credit Government but by

consecutive Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit

Governments. And, Mr. Speaker, the "Lib-Con-Socs" are showing

their true colours here in this debate.

I'm not going to go too much into the early history of our

farm. When the dykes were first built half the farm ended up

outside the dyke. That's the way it was in those days.

They bought their land from a real estate salesman by the

name of A.E. Sharpe. He was the first one in our area, and he

was really sharp. He sold them land that was below water level.

So they ended up with half the farm outside the dyke.

In the late 1930's, most of the farm was lost at a little

more than tax sale, $3 an acre. I wonder where the

"Lib-Con-Socs" were then with their claims for development

rights, and speculative costs that should go to the farmers?

Where were their development rights in the 1930's when they

lost most of their farm? And if you want to go back far enough,

where are the development rights that actually should go to the

Indians who owned the land in the first place?

In the 1940's, they had 49 acres left after the depression — they had started with 500 acres — and it was all heavily

mortgaged. Around 1954 they sold off 20 acres of that land for

$400 an acre to pay off the mortgage on the other half of the

farm.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: They sold it to another farmer. In 1956 — and

we're talking about subdivision — the farm was rezoned against

their wishes, in fact against their knowledge. Another farmer,

who happened to have about 1,000 acres of land and wanted to be

a land speculator, was able to convince the local council that

his land should be rezoned. They rezoned a few thousand other

acres along with it and never bothered to tell anybody. How we

found out about it? We tried to build a new barn and a new

dairy in 1958 and found we could not do so, because the farm

was zoned for residential.

In 1956, I might add, the land was selling for $1,000 per acre. In 1958 and

1959 I tried farming the land myself and I was the one who tried to get a permit

to build a new dairy and a new barn. We had to build a new dairy and a new barn

to meet the new dairy regulations which were brought in by the Social Credit

government.

The new dairy regulations said that barns had to have 8 ft.

ceilings instead of 7 ft. They had to have 6 ft. alleyways

behind the cattle, instead of 5 ft. We found that our barns did

not meet those requirements. They had to have a larger dairy

than we had.

Because we could not get a permit to build a new barn and a

dairy we lost our milk quota and had to sell manufacturing

milk.

Consequently we were put out of business by that particular

piece of legislation. That's right, the enterprise was brought

in by Social Credit Government.

After that, shipping non-quota milk, myself and my family

lived on an income of about $100 a month, out of which we fed

our family and cattle as well — and the cattle got fed better

than we did. So we switched to raising beef cattle.

Then about 8 to 10 years ago the crunch really started to

come. Taxes soared due to the fact that sprawling subdivisions

in the neighbourhood brought increasing costs to the

municipality. This raised the land tax on the farms that were

left because the subdivisions were spreading all over Richmond,

helter, skelter.

We ended up finding that farmers who had sold land to land

speculators, in effect, increased the assessments for farms

that were in the residential zone. Actually, it increased the

assessments for farms in the agricultural zone as well. So what

happened? The farmers called protest meetings and I went myself

to protest the assessments, and we got some relief.

However, a very interesting thing happened at that protest

meeting. We had a couple of hundred farmers out. The

farmer-speculator who had started it all and caused the

increased assessments, announced that he wasn't able to help

the farmers. We wanted to come over to Victoria to speak to the

Government; to say, "Look, these assessments are too much.

You've caused us a lot of problems." What did the

farmer-speculator say? He couldn't come. He was going to

Phoenix for his holidays. That was the farmer that started it

all.

Then our own farm: because of the encroachment of the nearby

subdivision, the school board needed land for school and park

sites. So they took eight acres to service the new subdivision

with a school. The farm was now too small to be economically

feasible. As a matter of fact, there was hardly enough income

to even pay the taxes. Kids from the subdivision roamed through

fields. They burnt haystacks the night after we had baled the

hay and piled it up, They stole potatoes by the sack full at

night. They cut the fences and the cattle roamed through the

subdivision. In fact, we even had them impounded one time and

it cost us $85 to get them back. It was rather interesting that

as subdivisions encroached upon the farmland, the farmer began

to be found liable for things like this.

Then five years ago, the municipality decided that they

needed land to widen the dikes in our area. What did we find?

In 1969 the Social Credit government had enacted an amendment

to the Municipalities

[ Page 1628 ]

Enabling and Validating Act . I understand this Act

was used to help steal land, I would suggest, from Richmond

farmers to get land for the Deas Island tunnel. Under

section

43 of this Act five acres of my parents' land was confiscated.

I could quite well say "stolen" because no remuneration was

paid.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame, shame!

MR. STEVES: This was done by Social Credit. This was done by

the Social Credit government, along with the Richmond municipal

council. These people talk to us about dictatorship.

I'd like to read to you from this Act.

section 43 of the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act .

"I. In order that title to those lands occupied by the diking

and drainage system protecting the land mass of the municipality may be vested

solely in the corporation, and in order that necessary easements, rights-of-way,

et cetera, be given to the corporation reasonable access thereto, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

upon the application of the corporation may appoint a commissioner" — one commissioner — "whose duties and powers shall be:

(

a) to determine the location and extent, as of January, 1959,

of those lands in the municipality occupied by diking and drainage systems and

of those other adjacent lands reasonably required by the corporation to the

support and maintenance of such a system.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One-man rule.

MR. STEVES: One man.

"Also, to determine and define the location and extent as

at January I of those lands in the municipality required by the corporation

for reasonable and necessary access to such systems."

For the information of the Opposition Members, Mr. Speaker, the

dike in our area was about 40 feet wide, including the dike itself, which was

about 20 feet wide, and the drainage ditch was about another 20 feet. Under

this Act, they took 180 feet, which totaled to about five acres of property

because it was a very long

section of land.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much did Social Credit pay for the

land?

MR. STEVES: Not a cent. Listen to this. Wait till we get to

the good part.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STEVES: No appeal.

Section 43, Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act ,

chapter 261, Revised Statutes

of British Columbia, 1960. It's right here; it's all here.

"Nothing herein contained shall be construed as imposing

any obligation upon the corporation to pay the costs or any expenses of persons

presenting grievances to the commissioner."

So no costs if you present a grievance. Listen to this,

section

45:

"The corporation shall not be required to pay compensation for any right, title or interest acquired under

sections 33 to 44 inclusive."

No compensation. It says so right

here. A Social Credit Act.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this is the type of Act,

when they talk about no compensation — it's written right here

and they wrote it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you suggesting they're hypocrites?

MR. STEVES: Hypocrites? Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't suggest such

a nasty thing. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You just proved it.

MR. STEVES: I've proven it — right on.

Mr. Speaker, this that I've read you here is an air-tight

Act. It was adjudicated upon by one man — a one-man commission

appointed by the government. There was no appeal under the Act.

The municipality did not take compassion — they were dealing

with poor farmers. They went against the

section of the Act,

clause 4, which said that they should not pay anything for the

people who make a presentation. Because they are dealing with

poor farmers, they decided to help them pay the legal fees. So

they paid the lawyer $500 legal fees, But they did not pay the

farmers any value for their land.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, the lawyer got $500. They then used this as

an example to take the land from other farmers in our area. Of

course, because it had gone through the proper channels, the

lawyers had met, and the adjudicator had said, "No way can you

get any grievances under this Act and there's no appeal." Other

farmers did not go through the same channels that we had,

because we found that it was completely a lost cause.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the farm itself, a

year or so after that, in the long battle to remain in farming,

the assessor found that some parcels of lands making up the

farm were less than five acres. It was a large farm but they

had been registered at the turn of the century and some

were

[ Page 1629 ]

less than five-acre parcels. They found that they could

squeeze the farmers out by giving residential taxes to those

five-acre parcels, so they slapped residential taxes on the

farmland.

In this case, my parents appealed that. They still wanted to

farm. That's how much they wanted to farm. They appealed it and

they lost. The farm was put on the market the next week. It was

sold a couple of weeks later. They do still have 55 acres of

land, Mr. Speaker, the land that was left outside the dike when

they had got taken by that original land speculator. The tide

washes in and so on. This land comes under the aspects of this

Act. My parents own it jointly with four other aunts and

uncles. They stand to lose several hundred dollars of paper

profits under Bill 42.

Well, Mr. Speaker, after the lobby on Thursday, where the

Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mentioned that I

would not listen to the people — after that lobby — and it was

reported in the press —— my parents phoned me up. They had

heard that I had been outside talking to the farmers who came

over. Do you know what they said? They said they were proud of

me. Even though they could lose thousands of dollars of

play-money profits — monopoly profits, because that's all it is — they supported this bill. They know that this Government is

really trying to help the farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I've used this personal example to show how

farmers have been adversely affected in the past; how farmers

have been adversely affected by encroachment of subdivisions on

the farmlands; and how municipal and provincial government like

the Liberals, Conservatives and Social Credit of the past

hundred years have shown little regard for the preservation of

farmlands in B.C. Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, will make the

difference.

Bona fide farmers have nothing to fear and for the first

time, bona fide farmers will be able to develop their land; put

money into their lands for barns, equipment, cattle and so on

and know that their investment is worthwhile and will be

protected.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan said that

over 2,500 farmers gave up their time from milking cows and

other farm duties and many other hardships to come here for the

demonstration last Thursday. I'd like to read to you from an

editorial in the local Richmond newspaper that dealt with this

demonstration. Here's what the editor of a weekly newspaper

said. Stu Clugston, it's under his byline:

"The violent backlash yesterday, in my own humble opinion,

was not entirely of the farmers' doing. The farmers have become the pliable

tool of the Opposition parties through old-fashioned muckraking.

"There's Derril Warren — anxious, it seems to serve us —

touring the land, planting the seed of doom in the fertile minds of B.C. produce

growers and orchardists. There's the ex-Premier, Bennett, doing his level best

to spread the scare of communism with strong undertones of takeovers."

And the editorial goes on:

"If there are any plots being organized in this province, I

am convinced by yesterday's show that they are not coming from

the left of centre. The exasperation on Harold Steves face, as

he repeated over and over and over again the simple guidelines

of the bill, told me the story. Few, if any, of those militant

farmers demanding justice were interested in hearing the true

story. Steves attempt to explain fell on deaf ears and he

patiently ignored threats that were befitting of a high school

fight.

"Why these people came to Victoria can be best answered by

Darrel Warren and W.A.C. Bennett. And as they addressed the

crowd pressing the steps of the Legislature, the motive was

clear: if you don't have an audience, you don't have a chance

on the political stage. And Premier Dave, the people's friend

and the farmers' foe, gave a perfunctory address that he knew

would not be heard anyway. Maybe he knows as well as anyone

that the destiny of the farmer probably unfolds more often in

the Union Club or the Bengal Room than it ever does in the back

rooms of the Legislature."

Now the interesting thing about this editorial, Mr. Speaker,

is that only a couple of weeks earlier the same newspaper wrote

another editorial saying, "Don't spoil the hope,"

attacking Bill 42. The same editor, the same man. No, it's not

one of our Members down here who wrote the editorial. It's not.

The same person wrote, "Don't spoil the hope," two weeks

earlier.

They said,

"The NDP Government in Victoria has taken the boldest step

along the path of socialism with the introduction of a land

takeover bill, and it may now find itself out of step with

public support. Unfortunately, the move is sadly confirming the

doom-filled predictions of government critics that warned of

such takeovers. And while we earnestly support the Government

in its goals for social democracy, it is alarming to see such

repressive legislation put forward."

The same newspaper, two weeks earlier, had called us down

for this bill. However, they had done some investigation in the

ensuing weeks and are now supporting the bill because they know

that the people who have been making the noise do not represent

the farmers of this province or the people of this

province.

I'd like to mention something as well, along the same line

that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mentioned

last evening. She said that one Member who spent two hours with

them — that's

[ Page 1630 ]

the people out on the steps — threw in their face that he

had 50 head of cattle and he was a hobby farmer, which I've

just said that I'm not and I do not have 50 cattle. She said,

Mr. Speaker, "Anyone who could sit in this House with 50 head

of cattle at home or on a hobby farm is certainly not in the

category of the people who have been most deeply hurt by this

bill. They were concerned that the Member, while he paraded as

a hobby farmer, wouldn't listen."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say here and now I did

listen when I was out talking to the farmers who came last

Thursday. And I have been sitting here listening all through

this debate. In fact, I haven't left this room today or

yesterday for more than a couple of minutes at a time. I

haven't yet heard anything new or anything constructive being

offered on this bill from the Opposition and nothing

constructive have they offered that will actually work.

I wonder, however, if the Hon. Member for North Okanagan and

the other Members of the Opposition themselves bothered to find

out and to listen to the people who were out there on the steps

last Thursday. I wonder if they tried to find out, for example,

how much land the people out there own and what they are

intending to do with it.

I happen to know most of the people who came from my riding,

Richmond, who were there. I would suggest to you that about 90

per cent — in fact I would say nearly all of them but I didn't

get to see everybody there — were major landowners in Richmond.

Nearly all of them have been trying to get their land rezoned

in Richmond for years under municipal zoning and have been

turned down by Richmond council. Nearly all of them are in this

category in the agricultural zone — this rigidly controlled

agricultural zone.

I'd like to give you some examples of the people who were

there. One of them was Alderman Gil Blair and former Alderman

Archie Blair, his father. As a matter of fact, Archie was here

in the House today sitting in on this debate. Alderman Blair

has been a strong booster for Woodward's and a major shopping

development in the Richmond are on the site of the Lansdowne

racetrack which is presently zoned for agriculture but does

happen to be near the central core of Richmond. He has a farm

on No. 3 Road in Richmond of 90 acres. It's zoned for

agriculture and has been for years.

Another farm family was present — I won't mention their

names. They live on No. 6 Road and have 114 acres of

agriculturally-zoned land.

Another farmer is from the McKim's berry farms, Steveston

Highway and No. 3 Road. I'd like to quote what one of the

persons said. He was defending himself in the paper because he

was there and he's quoted:

"McKim said he could build houses all over his property

as much as he wanted. When Steves said that was up to the municipality, McKim

told Steves, I'll defy anybody to tell me what I can do with my land."

Well, that particular piece of land, Mr. Speaker, has been

up for rezoning three times before Richmond council in the last

couple of years. Each time it has been turned down and the

farmers have been told that no way will Richmond council break

its resolve to keep that land in agriculture.

I don't know if the particular McKim who was quoted in the

paper owns any of that land or not because I couldn't find any

actually registered in his name. But the McKim farm did

constitute about 100 to 200 acres, some of which is still

registered under various family names and some of which has

either already been sold or optioned out on the market for

development.

The developer which has been trying to get the land

developed has been a British firm, Dunhill Investments, Ltd.

They've suggested they could put in a major shopping centre on

the site and 100 acres or 50 acres — whatever they could get

through — of apartment blocks on the farmland. We have told

them time and time again in Richmond, "No way."

Another farmer who was there, but not quite so active in the

debate — in fact he didn't really come out and speak against

the bill although he was there. I think the reason he stayed

clear of it was because he is actually serious about staying in

agriculture. This particular farmer was a former world potato

king, received a world record for growing over 30 tons of

potatoes per acre, Now that gives you some idea of how

productive this land is. His farm also is on No. 3 Road and he

has 66 acres of land.

Another person quoted in the newspaper, Mrs. Bissett,

campaigned for the Social Credit Party in the last election.

Listen to this. She's quoted in the Richmond Review on

the front page: "Mrs. C. Bissett, the owner of Bissett's dairy

farm, kept repeating to Steves, 'We don't want the bill,' and

warned Steves, 'There's going to come a time when we're not

going to be peaceful. We don't want to become militant, but we

will,' she added."

On the second page 1t says, "Mrs. Bissett told Steves she

couldn't take the chance that the land commission wouldn't take

away her property." Well, I checked the records in the Land

Registry Office and found that Mrs. Bissett is no longer a

property holder. She had a 70-acre blueberry farm which was

recently sold and subdivided. But there she was on the steps

saying that she couldn't take the chance that the land

commission wouldn't take away her property.

Another farm family that was there — and I've got a letter

from them — Cambie and No. 6 Road area in Richmond, has 10

major parcels of land in Richmond in the agriculturally — zoned

area. They have several hundred acres. I'll read their letter

in a minute.

Another farmer on No. 7 Road, also in the

[ Page 1631 ]

agricultural zone, 395 acres.

The total acreage of farmland, just from these people who

were there, from about half a dozen owners, totals about 1,000

acres of prime Richmond agricultural land. These aren't really

the little people who it is being suggested were really there

on the steps of the Legislature on Thursday.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about the rest of B.C.?

MR. STEVES: Right. Well I'm just going to leave the other

areas to other people. These are the people who came from

Richmond.

I mentioned I've had some letters. In all the letters you

got, there are three from bona fide farmers who actually wrote

letters. I had lots of people writing in to say "Stop Bill 42"

- 99 per cent of them weren't farmers. But I had three letters

from farmers who were opposed to the bill. I had some letters

in favour of it as well.

One of these farmers is one of the ones I just mentioned. He

has several hundred acres of land in the agricultural zone.

Actually the letter is addressed to Mr. Stupich. It says:

"This letter is to make known our strong protest of Bill 42,

the Land Commission Act. We find this bill to be the

most dictatorial form of legislation in the history of Canada.

We live in a free country where to own and dispose of land in

our own way is our basic right as Canadians.

"We are fifth-generation Canadians who have always been

farmers. Our grandparents have helped to open up this area. We

have enjoyed farming, even at welfare wages, because we always

felt we had a nest egg when we retired. Our land is our

lifetime asset. We believe we should have fair market price for

our land, the same as any other business has when it is sold.

If you pass this legislation you will drive farmers from the

land instead of preserving farming. We do not believe this is a

Government for the people. You have taken away all rights of

municipal councils which are elected representatives as you

are. This bill insinuates that the people on a municipal

council are not competent. I wonder (and it's addressed to Mr.

Stupich) what your colleague, Mr. Steves, thinks of this, as he

is both an MLA and a member of Richmond council."

Well, what I do think, Mr. Speaker, is that in the second paragraph, when they

talk about being fifth generation Canadians and how they've lived on their farms,

this is a very accurate description of the farmers in my area. However, in their

final paragraph, where they talk of some loss due to Bill 42, I disagree. This

farm has already been zoned for agriculture by the Municipality of Richmond.

Richmond has no intention of breaking down this resolve. Whether this bill passes

or not, this land would always be agricultural land and there is no loss of

development rights on this farm whatsoever.

Another letter, also from a farmer in the area says: "Before the farmland freeze

came into effect there was incentive to produce cheap food because we could

see a reward or compensation in the future even under strict zoning bylaws."

Now this may give you a clue to what I am going to talk about tonight. The Hon.

Member for North Okanagan said, in quoting somebody earlier, that with zoning

bylaws there was no longer any fear of loss of farmland in British Columbia.

Well, this letter here indicates that some of the farmers, even with strict

zoning bylaws, had some hopes that the council's resolve in their area in Richmond

would be changed.

I would like to ask why the farmers in our area got this

idea. I give you this thought: is there some kind of a plot

afoot to take over Richmond Council or other councils in

British Columbia? Was there some kind of a plot afoot to take

over the councils so that land speculators could get their land

rezoned?

I leave you with this thought. Mr. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Right. I think I'll wake a few more people up as

well.

I got a number of postcards in the mail. In fact I'm the

only MLA to receive personalized postcards from a machine. On

one side they say "Stop Bill 42" and give a place for a

signature, and on the other side, printed right on it, is my

name, "To Harold Steves, MLA, Legislative Buildings,

Victoria."

It's all very good, but it's very interesting where these

postcards came from. I didn't get that many; I got a couple of

hundred of them. When you consider we have a population of

65,000 to 70,000 people, a couple of hundred cards isn't very

much, I noted that the postcards had metered postage stamps on

them from company offices, and so I took the time to check some

of them out.

I found that 50 per cent of them didn't have metered postage

stamps on them so I left them aside. But where did the meters

come from? One bundle came from Canada Permanent Trust — great

friends of the farmers. (Laughter).

Another came from the meter of a condominium management

firm. In fact, a couple of the salesmen on it, Bruce Hood, one

of my fellow aldermen in Richmond and Don Pelling are the

principals, in that firm. This bundle came along with this.

Block Brothers. (Laughter). Rutherford Thompson McRae. These

are some of the employees of these companies, Hazel Pion from

Rutherford McRae. A.E. LePage, Bell-Irving, Art Parent, E.H.

Greczmiel of Greczmiel Subdivisions — he got a block of

agricultural land a couple of years ago rezoned,100 acres, and

he's building on it now, G.H. Hodgins,

[ Page 1632 ]

Rutherford McRae, Hart, Bell-Irving. Here's one I can hardly

pronounce, R. Karakochuk from Wall & Redekop. (Laughter).

Johann Bos, also from Wall & Redekop.

Actually I got them from the newspapers. I found out who the

different employees were from these different companies and the

only two people I could locate from Wall & Redekop in

Richmond both sent me a postcard. They're very interested in

farming, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, the most interesting one I found of the lot — I've

got 22 cards here from a very grand and wonderful friend of the

farmers of Richmond, a man who controls 20 to 25 per cent of

the land development in Richmond — David Dawson Agencies Ltd.

Before I tell you a little bit about them, I took out of the

telephone book their ad: "David Dawson Agencies Ltd., agents

for Centennial Construction Co. Ltd., Dawson Holdings Ltd.,

Montrose Gardens, Glenlivet Hobby Farms". These are the farmers

that are complaining about Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty-two cards with a date-stamp of 805374. Almost all of

these cards I have been able to trace are employees of the

company — Mike Weston, Lisa Keller, Dan Sheridan, P.S. Lewis,

Louise Sherwood, Shirley Sheridan, Vera Shaw, Sam Greba, E.C.

McPhee — these are the farmers that are complaining about Bill

42, employees of Dawson Agencies Ltd.

And then of course I got a number of other from businesses

that are in the house building business: paint companies,

Flecto Coatings — Metropolitan Trust; I missed them — Richmond

Sash & Door, Goodwin Electric.

Insurance companies, even. More real estate companies: Brian

MacDonald from MacDonald & Eedy. Norman MacDonald from

MacDonald & Eedy; G. Van Gelderen from Bell-Irving, Another bundle from another good citizen and friend of the

farmers, Mr. Tofin, who is a staunch Conservative in Richmond,

also an architect and also involved in development. A whole

bundle from the same address with the same meter number as his,

and a pile of others from various other businesses in

Richmond.

They made up about 50 per cent of the cards that I got. The

other 50 per cent do not have metered numbers and I was not

able to trace them, but I would suspect that probably half of

them were from like people.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder the farmers didn't know any of the

people who were down here.

MR. STEVES: Right. Then, of course, yesterday or the day before in the

mail I got a bundle with a government stamp on it and unaddressed from some MLA,

I suppose here in this Legislature. He sent me 11 cards and I would like to

thank the Member, whoever it was, who sent them to me. I'm sorry he didn't leave

a return address and his name. Maybe the fact that he has left no forwarding

address means that he expects that he shall have no forwarding address after

the next election. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I also got a petition. Actually

it's addressed to Mr. Barrett and it says: "This land is our land too, and we

demand our constitutional rights. As citizens of British Columbia we ask you

to withdraw at once Bill 42 and Bill 72" and so on. Who was it signed by? I

note down towards the bottom of the list, the Conservative candidate in Richmond

in the last election, who got about 2,000 votes and got badly defeated and who

has also been an employee at Block Bros. Realty. And along with his name: H.

Faulkner of Montreal Trust, Victor Dermard of Montreal Trust, Edith Dermard

of Montreal Trust and C. Russell of Montreal Trust.

These are the friends of the farmers, Mr. Speaker, and

friends of the Conservative Party too, I might add.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, this is not all. Mr. Speaker, I've

hardly touched the surface yet. Wait till you hear what comes

next. Mr. Speaker, many of these and other companies several

years ago instructed their employees to get into the

agricultural areas of Richmond; get into the agricultural

zones, they said. The result of this kind of activity gave the

land speculators virtual control of the agricultural areas of

Richmond.

It also raised the expectations of some bona fide farmers

who saw the speculators paying higher prices for the land than

they could get from agriculture. Many of the land speculators

came around then offered them exorbitantly high options if they

could get it rezoned — but only if they could get it rezoned.

So the farmers, because they thought somebody was offering them

$ 10,000 per acre on the basis that they could get the land

rezoned, thought that the land might be worth $10,000 an acre.

But in effect it wasn't. They were just offering options if

they got it rezoned.

They were hoping to sell the land generally for things like

apartments, which meant that the land would have been worth

about $50,000 per acre. So they weren't really offering the

farmer very much. It was just a chance they were taking to try

and get council to break its resolve and rezone the land.

However, the speculators were convinced, Mr. Speaker, that

they could get the land rezoned by convincing the local council

or by electing a council that would do their bidding.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, I have traced the ownership of a 2,000 acre area

in Richmond which is zoned agriculture. The Opposition Members who talk

[ Page

1633 ]

about nonsense can check it out if they want; it's the area

between No. 2 Road in Richmond and Shell Road in Richmond,

south of Steveston Highway. This area has been purchased, most

of it during the last two years since 1970, by the following

"farmers Pemberton Realty, 57 acres.

I could tell you a story about that. When that land was

originally sold to Pemberton, the farmer who owns it sold it

for $2,400 an acre. I myself was interested in staying in

farming because of the problems of our farm when we had to go

out of business; we wanted to go someplace where we could take

our cattle not too far away. I got there two weeks after it was

sold for $2,400 per acre and found that persons by the names of

Cooper and Murray had bought the land and now had it up for

sale for $15,000 an acre. I understand Mr. Cooper is a director

of Crown Zellerbach and lives in California. The interesting thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that when I

phoned up Mr. Burr of Pemberton Realty and told him I was

interested in buying the land for a farm, he said, "Well, you

wouldn't be interested because we want $15,000 an acre for the

land and we're going to sell it for industry."

I hadn't told him I was a member of the Richmond Council.

And so I said, "Look, I happen to know that that land is not

only zoned for agriculture, but it's slated on the regional

plan as a park. And he said, "Oh, don't worry about that, we'll

get it rezoned." That was about three or four years ago.

Another farmer in that area — a 2,000 acre farm area — Dunhill Developments, which I mentioned earlier has had control

of over 100 acres for some time. And they tried three times to

get it rezoned.

Another farmer, Neil Cook, from Rideaux Investments Ltd. has

150 acres south of Steveston Highway. He also has 100 acres of

agriculturally zoned land in another farm zone in Richmond, in

fact it's a very small zone, he owns about half of it.

Then we have European interests — Fromm, Werner &

Holgram. They own 318 acres of agricultural land — 156 acres of

it they bought from a long-time farmer who started it all off

in Richmond. The Gilmour farm has now gone to Fromm, Werner

& Holgram.

Another developer — 7 acres. Meteor Developments, 60 acres.

Shanne Properties, 21 acres. Melrich Investments, 103 acres. It

totals up to 816 acres out of 2,000 acres are controlled or

owned outright in the land registry by speculators and

investment companies.

Now, of course, there are other lands that are controlled by

these companies, but have not been bought outright. Some are

being negotiated, some are under option. And, of course, a lot

of speculators put them under their own names and don't tell us

what companies they belong to.

But out of 2,000 acres, 816 can be traced directly to these companies. That's

about 41 per cent of that land. And if we add in the land that is under option,

and other deals with speculators, we can see that in the agricultural zone in

Richmond, this one, and the other stories are the same in other areas as well

— that the developers control well over 50 per cent of the agricultural land

in Richmond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if these are the farmers

that the Opposition is trying to protect? Mr. Speaker, this

bill is based on the question of who should control the land in

British Columbia — the land speculators or the people through

their elected representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this Act comes down on

the side of the people.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) said tonight, and I repeat, "that the fear of the loss

of farmland is simply not true." She went on to give the excuse

that there was no means to preserve farmland in the past, and

that bad planning and so on…she said that she had a survey

done by planning officials which said that the danger of

exploitation of farmland by speculators had ended several years

ago. Well, I suggest to you the information I have presented

here tonight indicated that this is not true. I wish she was

here to listen to it tonight.

She said, from this report she was reading, "That

speculation has been curbed where proper zoning had been

brought in and the danger was well past." Does this suggest to

you, Mr. Speaker, that the danger is well past? I would like to

suggest to you that it is only just begun. This Act is going to

make it well past, because this Act will stop this from

happening.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a plot afoot in my riding on the

part of major developers to take control of the agricultural

land and, I suggest, also in the lower Fraser Valley and

perhaps through the rest of B.C.

The cards that I have shown you here tonight, which I've

been getting from developers, and the evidence of the land

registry office in the one area I gave, are only two examples.

I'd like to give you the third example.

I'd like to read to you excerpts from a report prepared by a

major real estate company in Richmond — a company which

operates throughout British Columbia. Now this company will

have to remain unnamed to protect the innocent person who gave

me the report — but perhaps you will find out from listening

to it,

"Richmond Land Acquisition 1972 to 1984." — and somebody talked about 1984 in our Land Act, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the real 1984 and I'm going to read it to you. This is an unsigned report

dated June, 1972 — just a couple of months before the election.

"Introduction: As specified by the official regional

plan, the Municipality of Richmond is divided into four main zoning

classifications, and are as

[ Page 1634 ]

follows:

(1) Residential

(2) Commercial

(3) Industrial

(4) Agricultural

And I quote from the report:

"Major control over the first three areas" — that's

residential, commercial and industrial — "lies in the hands of the

municipality with a final category being primarily within the

jurisdiction of the regional planning councils."

That is the agricultural land, it comes under both municipal

and regional planning.

"The assumption is made that the growth of any municipality

is a direct function…"

Listen to this — the growth of any municipality.

"…is a direct function of transportation modes,

available service, housing accommodations, and the composition

of the industrial base of the area."

us that if you want to go into land speculation; go where the

roads are going to go in next; go where the sewers are going to

go in; where there has been growth in the community that has

been brought about by development, that has been paid for by

the citizens of the communities, the government, the

municipality and so on. That's where to go for land if you want

to speculate — where you're quite close to the services.

"In the case of this municipality" — Richmond — "the variable

known as 'proximity to the central core' must also be considered.

"Although transportation modes for Vancouver to Richmond

have been highly restrictive the area has tended to grow at the

rate of approximately 4 per cent per year or twice as fast as

the City of Vancouver."

Another good reason to go to Richmond and speculate.

"Within

the next two or three years these restrictions should be

alleviated with a completion of two bridges from Vancouver to

the southern arm. The bridges to be known as the Knight and

Hudson Street Bridges, are located at Knight Street and

Granville and should adequately move transportation to and from

Richmond."

This makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, is the reason that the

Social Credit Government started building bridges in Richmond — the Knight Street Bridge — so we could have more development

and speculation on our agricultural land? It sounds like it in

this report. The report goes on:

"The population of Richmond should double in the next 20

years and will increase approximately 67,000 people in absolute

terms. Assuming an average of 4 persons per family, the market

will then have to provide 16,750 Single Family homes in this

time period.

"At four lots to the acre, 4,000 acres of land are to be

required in the next 20 years for Richmond Single Family

development."

Four thousand acres of land.

"If the municipal planning committee" — that's the Richmond

planning committee and Richmond council — "is to meet the expected demand for Single Family lots, it

must then make application to the Regional Board for re-zoning

of some 3,500 acres of presently zoned agricultural land."

Now of course, this is what this company is figuring when

they're going into buying up agricultural land. The council

would have to rezone for the increased population. Now, of

course their assumption is incorrect, but let's see where they

go from there.

The report then talks about present land acquisition:

"In the past 12 months, due to an increase in demand for

building lots, prices increased from $11,000 to $13,750 per

lot. The natural reaction of an increase in raw land prices

took place, as acreages that could be developed in a one or two

year period jumped in price from $10,000 to $,20,000 per

acre."

Now that's residentially zoned acreage.

"Fortunately, the increase in price of Single Family lots

has increased proportionately to the increase in average

prices, and the developer's profit has not tended to

suffer."

They're making me cry when I read this report — "The

developer's profit has not tended to suffer."

"Given this demand many of the remaining large tracts of

land in Richmond were purchased by developers."

These are residentially zoned lands. The transactions are

listed below:

(

a) Land has been zoned for residential.

1. At Francis and No. 2 Road, 50 acres, purchased by Rideaux

Investments i.e. Neil Cook — $925,000 or $18,500 per acre, purchased April 8,

1972, 2. Quilchena Golf Course property — No. I Road: 50 acres, Dawson Developments,

February 1972."

Now these are OK, they're in residential land.

"3. Francis & Railway: 50 acres. Sawarne Lumber Co. 4.

No. 2 Road and Steveston Highway: 76 acres. 5. No. 5 Steveston

Highway and Railway: 10 acres, by Greczmiel Construction."

Now, these are the ones that would look after the normal

growth in Richmond, land that has been zoned for the purpose.

However, the report then goes on to unzoned land at comparable

prices.

1. The Tait farm located at No. 1 Road and Westminster Highway:

approximately 50 acres."

Agriculturally zoned land. Purchased by Rideaux

[ Page 1635 ]

Investments, Neil Cook.

2. Steveston Highway and Gilbert: 7 acres, located on the south

side of Steveston Highway. Terms: unknown.

3. The Holt Farm on McCallum Road: 26 acres, purchaser unknown,

for $12,000 an acre."

The above illustrates that land sales range between $12,000

and $20,000 per acre.

"If we are to assume the mortgage funds are going to be made

available and the demand for single-family lots is to remain

constant or increase from the 800 units per year estimation,

this company's" — listen to this — "this company's

participation should range in the neighbourhood of

approximately 100 acres per year for attainment of the 50 per

cent of the market."

They are trying to get 50 per cent of the building market in

Richmond and they're talking about buying 100 acres of

agricultural land per year.

"In concluding this section, the writer wishes to emphasize

that few large tracts of land remain within the presently zoned

residential areas. That which does remain will be absorbed in

the near future and directions will then turn to the

agricultural land which surrounds these present areas."

The suggestion is then made that investigation be made into

the possibility of purchasing relatively large tracts of land

in the agricultural belt based on information which will give

the developer insight into the probable area to be next

developed.

They go on to say what areas in the agricultural zone they

should have their salesmen go in and try to buy farmland from

the farmer.

"The purchase of presently zoned residential land tends to

be much, much less risky with the ultimate return being based

There's less risk to buying residential land and a lot more

profit to buy agricultural land.

"However, as noted, the major emphasis should be placed on

purchasing unzoned agricultural land in the next two years,

Now, when they're talking about "unzoned" they're meaning

it's not zoned for residential because all Richmond land is

zoned.

"Assuming a 50 per cent participation rate in total lot

sales in Richmond, we must then purchase approximately 1,200

acres to satisfy our goals between 1972 and 1984."

1,200 acres of agricultural land.

Then they provide maps to show the areas, the two most

likely areas for expansion. Both areas have reasonable

transportation facilities and lie in areas where soil

conditions would be acceptable, also where the best

agricultural soil is. Area number one, the area I was mentioned

earlier, is south of Steveston Highway.

"Area number one, "

and this also is one of the best farming areas,

"is presently designated as green belt but as it already can

be served by existing force mains it may then be most likely to

be rezoned. Seventy acres was recently purchased in this area

by Rideau Investments Ltd. The second area, which is in the

middle of the agricultural zone in east Richmond, has an area

that is close to services, of about 3,000 acres. Some of this

land was recently dezoned back to agricultural from industrial

land.

"In conclusion, the presently zoned residential properties

should adeq