1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1241 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 (Bill No. 133)

Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 1241

The Fair Sales Practices Act (Bill No. 123) Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1241

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, — 1961 (Bill No. 128)

Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1241

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, — 1961 (Bill No. 129) Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1241

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill No. 117) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 1241

Oral Questions

Use of freight equipment on petroleum shipments. Mr. Chabot

— 1241

Voiding of land title of C.A. Youngstrom. Mrs. Jordan — 1242

Ruled out of order — 1242

Steveston-Yellow Point ferry study. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1243

Release of studies on rising housing costs. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1243

Delivery of new buses. Mr. McGeer — 1244

Possible purchase of electro-buses. Mr. Wallace — 1244

Possible enlargement of Hudson Street bridge. Mr. McGeer — 1245

Curtailment of operations by exploration companies. Mr.

Chabot

Committee of supply: Department of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 1245

Chairman's ruling on admissible debate sustained — 1246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1249

Mrs. Jordan — 1250

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1251

Mrs. Jordan — 1251

Mr. Richter — 1252

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1252

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

Mr. Phillips

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South,

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my

honour and privilege today, on behalf of the First Member for Vancouver South

(Mr. Radford) and myself, to introduce a large delegation from the NDP women's

organization in Vancouver South, some of whom have brought their husbands along.

Half of them are in the galleries now; the other half will be coming at 3 o'clock.

I would ask the rest of this assembly to welcome them.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We have in the Speaker's

gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Anderson from that great

constituency of Columbia River. I would like the Members to bid

them welcome today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege

I don't get very often but I would like the House to join me in

welcoming a group of students from the Brocklehurst Junior

Secondary School who are in the galleries with their

instructor. They have come a long way to attend this

assembly.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GASOLINE

TAX ACT, 1958

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

133 intituled

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act,

Motion approved.

Bill No. 133 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

THE FAIR SALES PRACTICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 123 intituled The Fair Sales Practices Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 123 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CONDITIONAL SALES ACT, 1961

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 128 intituled

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales

Act, 1961 .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 128 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS

OF SALE ACT, 1961

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 129 intituled

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale

Act, 1961 .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 129 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND

REGISTRY ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 117 intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 117 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Oral questions.

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

USE OF FREIGHT EQUIPMENT ON

PETROLEUM SHIPMENTS

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Commercial Transport (Hon. Mr. Lorimer): what specific

recommendation has the Minister made to his department for the

utilization of freight equipment on the return trip to the

Alaska slope, on the proposal made in Washington for the

transportation of petroleum from Alaska to the

[ Page 1242 ]

Washington State border?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Commercial

Transport): The recommendation that was made by the Premier in Washington

today, which I presume you are discussing, was only made a few hours ago. I

haven't any recommendation regarding the return trip.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question: As the Minister has not

made any recommendations to his department, has the British

Columbia Government invited any proposals from anywhere which

seek freight capacity for the returning cars before the

presentation being made in Washington?

HON. MR. LORIMER: What you are suggesting is being

considered. I am not at liberty at the moment to make any

remarks on that.

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

VOIDING OF LAND TITLE

OF C.A. YOUNGSTROM

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

question to the acting Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: is the Minister aware that

section 3 of the Green

Belt Protection Fund Act, 1972 , does in fact give the

Minister or any other Minister the authority to enter into

negotiations with involved parties, and that this could

effectively reduce the problem we are involved in regarding the

320 acres of agricultural land in the North Okanagan which has

been sold to one Carleton Andre Youngstrom, a reported member

of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Hon. Member. In May , page

327, it says that you should not be asking the opinion on a

question that really is a question of law. I would therefore

have to rule that question out of order.

Any further questions? The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

address this question, as well, to the acting Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources…

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know who that is…

MR. McCLELLAND: Neither do I, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I find that if the Minister is absent from his seat, you

are not really supposed to be asking questions to the seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you allowed those questions

yesterday and you allowed the acting Minister to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The fact that I happen to allow someone to

stand up who said he was acting for the Minister doesn't mean

that that is a common practice of the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly show me the rule and I would

be glad to be guided by your advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rule is clear that an absent Minister

must have an acting Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: What page? What page are we referring to, Hon.

Members? Would you kindly give me that advice? I would

appreciate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could all be out of the House and there

would be no question period. Is that what you are

suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest that we get back to the question

period. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been

wanting to ask this question for three days. If you made the

ruling yesterday, obviously that an acting Minister can answer

questions, why won't you allow that to happen today again?

MR. SPEAKER: I made no ruling and if you are going to take

it every time I permit a question… Just a minute, Hon.

Members. This is a very serious matter. If, every time I permit

a question, you are going to take that as a precedent, you are

going to make it even more inflexible than ever. I don't want

to see that; I want to see a free play of question and answer.

Therefore, please do not take the position, because I permit

some Member on this side to answer for a Minister who is

absent, that it is a precedent.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I then ask if you are

ruling that an acting Minister cannot answer on a point of

urgency? That he cannot direct questions…

MR. SPEAKER: That depends on the responsibility for the

Minister. If he wishes to assume that responsibility for an

absent Minister, he's entitled to

[ Page 1243 ]

do so.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think we ran into the same problem

yesterday. At the time I stated that I would bring this forward

to the cabinet, and then inform the Speaker and the House if

the cabinet will have some suggestions how to cope with this.

After all, this is new. This is a new oral question period for

the whole Legislature. We're inclined to run into these

difficulties until the cabinet can deal with it. Then we'll

discuss it with the Speaker, and the House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the rule has always been,

in every House and from the history of question periods since

1721, in the British House of Commons, that you put a question

on notice; and if the Minister isn't there, and you want to ask

the question, put it on notice and hope that he gets that

notice and comes to the House and answers it if he is

available. This is the usual rule. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

STEVESTON–YELLOW POINT

FERRY STUDY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could

repeat a question which I asked to an acting Minister

yesterday. Today I'll ask it to the Minister of Highways, who

seems otherwise occupied. I wonder whether he would indicate to

the House whether his department is studying the possibility of

a new ferry route between Steveston and Yellow Point on

Vancouver Island?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The answer to

that is no. We are not studying a route to Yellow Point. I've

been asked that question by a number of people. We're not

studying that at all.

In answer to a question that was referred to me from

yesterday regarding the Mill Bay ferry, I suggest to the Member

who asked the question that he do what I learned years ago:

before you make a statement, you check the fact.

The Mill Bay ferry has not been off for two weeks. It's been

off for one week. There was public notice. There were notices

posted on the docks. There were notices posted in the Victoria

papers and the Duncan papers.

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

RELEASE OF STUDIES ON

RISING HOUSING COSTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs — in the light of recent reports that

prices for houses in Vancouver have increased more than any other metropolitan centre in

Canada. I wonder if he would release to the House any studies

that he has got which would indicate why the provincial

government in the budget increased the Home Owners Grant by $50

million. In addition, if this information is new to him, would

he indicate what his department intends to do perhaps to

increase the amount of money available so that price increases

in houses can be brought back to a reasonable level.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, I'm

aware that the costs of land, especially have increased

tremendously in the lower mainland and elsewhere in the

province. The steps that we are taking is to purchase land to

put out for either sale or lease throughout the area. We're

hoping to purchase large stocks of land — which I mentioned in

my throne speech address. I said that we were presently

negotiating throughout the lower mainland in Moody, Coquitlam,

Burnaby, and Vancouver. I'm quite aware of the increase in

costs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

I've heard the Minister mention government purchase of land. I

wonder whether he could tell us whether under these various

schemes there have been any re-sales. Because it appears to me

that if the government keeps on purchasing land it'll just help

drive the price up further.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, the lands that have been purchased so

far have been municipal lands, generally. There have been no

re-sales at the moment. I have announced to the Press that

lands will be available shortly on lease basis at considerably

reduced prices. So, people that are desirous of purchasing

property in the lower mainland should wait for a short time,

because lots will be on the market at a considerably reduced

rate to what they are at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley. On the same

question?

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to

ask the Minister of Municipal, Affairs if the Government has

made any purchases as a result of the letters that the Minister

sent to all of; the municipalities asking them to make land

available,; or to notify his department of land that may be;

available for sale. I just want to know if the department has

bought any land under that programme?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't believe so. Not to my

knowledge.

[ Page 1244 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On the same question was it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was wondering whether or not in the

purchase of these lands, and in the sale, will it be by tender or

will there be sales unreported, and unadvertised.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, on the question of some of the sales

or some of the leases or some of the rentals, it will be a

varied situation. Some of them will be going to subsidized

people, others will be going into the open market. So,

certainly the ones that are going into the open market will be

by tender or bid or some other such method of public sale.

There will be room in the scheme certainly for looking after

people with minimum incomes so that there won't be a bidding up

of the land prices at the sale place. There will have to be

provisions made for those of limited incomes to be able to take

part in the exercise.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same question? Are they all on the same

question? The Hon. Member for Langley, followed by the Hon.

Member for Columbia River.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject: I'd

like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if all of the

land that is going up for sale will be serviced land, fully

serviced, and will the government be servicing that land — paying for those services?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, there's no yes or no answer to that

one. In some areas the government will be servicing. In other

areas the government will not be servicing. It will be serviced

land when it gets to sale, but some of the lands are already

serviced. Some lands that have not been serviced will have to

be serviced before they go up for lease or sale.

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

MR. CHABOT: Question: I'm wondering whether the Minister can

tell us whether he intends to continue paying $82,000 an acre

or higher for low cost housing?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, whatever the market is; it's

difficult to get housing or land at less than the market value.

As a result costs are going up. However, in every case there's

been no land purchased without an evaluator taking part to

advise as to values of land.

MR. CHABOT: Bought on a unit basis.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's correct. The valuations have all been made in…

MR. CHABOT: Based on units?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, whatever type of housing is intended

to be placed there. The idea of low cost housing is something

in the past. The housing that is being built is not low cost

housing. It is normal housing throughout. The idea of building

what has been done in the past — cheap sort of areas for the

so-called "poor" — has come to an end. The housing we're

building now is all good housing.

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

Grey.

DELIVERY OF NEW BUSES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the buses

ordered from Flyer Industries in Manitoba be delivered in

British Columbia as scheduled?

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as I know that is still on

schedule. I think the end of April is the first delivery. I

understand that to be correct.

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

POSSIBLE PURCHASE

OF ELECTRO-BUSES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I want to ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, on the same question, whether negotiations

have been entered into in any way regarding the purchase of the

pollution free electro-buses?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm glad I'm so popular. Yesterday I

was examining electric buses — battery-driven buses — that were

on demonstration in Vancouver at the Hydro. I think the trend

is good. The bus was quiet; it was at top speed at 35 miles per

hour; it could operate for six hours without charging the

batteries.

It will be on test in the university area I think either

today or tomorrow, and will be used in the "Park and Ride" from

Hastings Park to Vancouver another day just on a trial basis to

see whether it can be a useful vehicle in the transit in the

lower mainland. We're certainly interested in it. It's another

feature — we're looking at all of the new features coming out

in transit. The electric one, of course, is very interesting to

us.

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

Grey.

[ Page 1245 ]

POSSIBLE ENLARGEMENT OF

HUDSON STREET BRIDGE

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Highways, Mr.

Speaker. Are there any plans to enlarge the Hudson Street

Bridge to accommodate rapid transit to the new ferry

terminal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are no plans for the Hudson Street

Bridge related to the new ferry terminal. Because we don't know

where the new ferry terminal is going to be.

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

CURTAILMENT OF OPERATIONS

BY EXPLORATION COMPANIES

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Is the Minister of Mines able to advise

the House is he has been advised of the number of exploration

firms that are curtailing operations in British Columbia?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've

got no information that any of them are curtailing exploration in British Columbia.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH SERVICES AND

HOSPITAL INSURANCE

(continued)

On vote 86: Department of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance, $66,400.

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

Okanagan.

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

I am, of course, addressing myself to the Minister of Health. I

had wanted to discuss this with him on Friday last under his

salary vote but we weren't able to accomplish it. I think the

matter is now much more a matter of public concern and health

concern than it was even then, in light of some of the facts

that are coming to the fore. It does, again, refer to the

situation of one Mr. Youngstrom, who has purchased land in the

North Okanagan.

Just to bring the Minister up to date, I think he should

know a few of the facts. Mr. Youngstrom,

Carleton Andre Youngstrom himself, is a member of the drug

cult founded by Timothy Leary. He is listed by several United

States narcotic agencies and police enforcement agencies as a

member of this brotherhood officially, as well as being a man

who has a charge against him for the use of marijuana. He has

served three months in prison and is on three years' probation.

What is interesting is this…

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

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the

point of order is made, please?

HON. MR. COCKE: As Minister of Health Services, I'm not in

charge of the sale of land in the province. I understand that

the Attorney General indicated yesterday that land sales are

even out of his purview and that you can sell land. I honestly

don't understand why, as Minister of Health, I'm being

questioned about the sale of land, whether it be to a brigand

or otherwise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the point is well made and

that the comments you made are, in fact, out of order inasmuch

as they do not apply to the estimates before us.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister had been content

to sit down and listen, he would realize that I'm trying to

make the point that this is a matter of serious health concern

in British Columbia. If you examine your vote, you'll find that

for the Narcotics Foundation alone there is $100,000. Your

total vote is $433,584,296 for the health care of people in

British Columbia. A large portion of that will go into public

health services. There is a grant of $16,000 …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule, Hon. Member, that

you may discuss the general matter of drugs and so on in

general relation to his estimates, but not to discuss this

specific sale of land, which is not relevant to his

estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: My concern is what is going to happen to this

land when it's purchased, in relation to health. I will

certainly lead into that. Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

for a moment. I just want to pursue the point. In regard to

this sale of land, there is no evidence before this House or

before the Minister of Health or the Attorney General that

there is any matter of health involved in this sale of land at

this time. Therefore, I would rule that you may discuss drugs

in general under the estimates, but not

[ Page 1246 ]

this specific sale of land.

MRS. JORDAN : …your guidance, and I hope you will

understand the scope of this problem. The land in itself is a

matter of concern because it will have to be inspected by

public health inspectors. The practices of this man, as we

understand them….

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

be seated. I am ruling that this specific situation involving

this person and this sale of land is not relevant to the

estimates that are before us. The matter of the abuse of drugs

and so forth is a matter which can be considered, but not in

relation to this specific situation. Therefore, I would ask the

Member not to discuss further this particular situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not discussing the sale of

the land. I'm discussing the desirability of this man, who has

a conviction against him, a drug history, and is a member of a

cult of brotherhood love in which the leader is under charges

now in the United States for the use of LSD and drug usage…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member disagrees

with my ruling, you may ask for the ruling to be challenged.

Otherwise, I would ask the Member to be seated. Order, please.

I have made a ruling and I expect the ruling to be obeyed. I

rule that you are not to discuss further this particular

situation concerning this particular sale of land or this

person involved in the sale of land in relation to the

estimates that are before us under the administrative

responsibility of the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I don't like to

do this. I feel that it's an important matter for the people of

British Columbia in relation to health. I'll have to challenge

your ruling unless you can give me more guidance as to how I

may bring this to the Minister's attention. It's quite obvious

that this is a point that the Government does not wish to

discuss, which lends more…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated. We'll respect

your right to appeal….

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This

total package was discussed last Friday. I gave information on

it yesterday. The fact of the matter is that sale went through…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon Member be seated.

You've asked for an appeal of my ruling. That will be done.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated. It was my opinion that the Hon. Member had appealed my

ruling. We have summoned the Speaker of the House so that your

ruling may be appealed.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee

reports that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan appealed a

ruling by me in which I stated that she may not discuss a

specific sale of land in the Okanagan.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It involved the discussion of a sale of land

to a person who is alleged to be a member of a cult called — what was it? — the cult of the divine love or something like

that. I ruled that it was not something that could be

considered under the estimates of the Department of Health. She

has challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the only question before the

House on the report from the Chairman is shall the Chairman's

ruling be sustained? If there was any point of order that took

place in Committee of the Whole House, that should be argued at

that point, not before the Speaker on this type of

procedure.

Therefore, I have to ask the question of the House: Shall

the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?

Ruling sustained.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

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

Okanagan.

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

last, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) stated

some very pertinent facts about drug usage in the Province of

British Columbia. He outlined the seriousness of this problem

and very well, I think, brought to mind the concern that must

be expressed by the Minister of Health in relation to people

who use drugs in British Columbia.

He stated, and I would quote:

"Some people estimate that we have, as I say, about

10,000 to 15,000 addicts in British Columbia The addiction problem is

epidemic. It is

[ Page 1247 ]

contagious. In the past it was a small group of addicts who,

in most cases, before addiction indicated anti-social and delinquent behavior.

Now the insidious disease is reaching its ugly fingers into every part of society.

It is no longer just the poor families that are susceptible but every family.

The disease is walking hand in hand with the general moral decline in our community."

He went on to say:

"It is clear that we can see that the old interrelation is

no longer pertinent. The addict is becoming younger and

younger. We are told that in North America we are only on the

threshold of a massive drug dependency and drug use problem.

I'm talking about an emergency. But I must emphasize that the

days when we can get away with sensationalizing the problem in

the Press and in this House and ignoring our duty as

legislators is past and must be over."

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with that statement more. I

think it is a very sound statement and I think that the

Minister must be prepared to listen to it.

He went on to outline the cost of drug usage in British

Columbia. Here's the cost, and I again quote:

"I estimate $20 million is the added share. $40 million is

the general cost. I'd say 50 per cent of our criminal

involvement in the courts and jails is drug-related in British

Columbia — that's $20 million. Courts and lawyers, 50 per cent

of the total, would be a conservative $2 million. Prisons and

corrections, again at only 50 per cent of the total, cost $25

million.

"The total cost to the economy of British Columbia for

heroin addiction is a conservative $248.6 million annually. Not

bad for organized crime — business as usual."

I think the statement that we should be concerned about here

is the fact that the usage of drugs is not spread necessarily

and solely by hard-core pushers, but it is spread by

infiltration of a community of young people by people who are

on this habit themselves for kicks, or because they enjoy it,

or because they want to experiment with it — they encourage

other young people or other citizens in the community to use it

for these various reasons.

We have had one case in the North Okanagan, in the

Monashee-Lumby area, where young people were convicted of

growing marijuana. We are finding in this area that there are a

number of communes developing, and the usage of marijuana and

other drugs appears to be prevalent among them. We're concerned

in this area and the people are concerned that this should not

increase.

I'm sure the Minister realizes the great difficulty there is in trying to pin

down where these drugs are in the cities, let alone in a rural area where you

have acres and acres of wild country, of agricultural country, that can be used

as a cache. Also, these habits take place at various times of the day. These

people live in relatively primitive circumstances. So often they'll be using

the drugs, whatever you want to define them as — marijuana, LSD — at night or

early in the morning. They also use them in various parts of their land areas,

which are under lease to them, or which they have purchased.

This is an adventuresome experience for many of the young

people in our area. I think it's easy to imagine how they want

to be part of it. These people are often very friendly, they're

relatively young themselves, and it's very difficult for

parents to take a strong stand in this position.

I would ask the Minister of Health:

1) Is he going to look into these practices in this

area?

2) Is he having his health inspectors purview these

communes, with a view to the health standards that are being

maintained there, and will he look into the influx of this type

of person into the North Okanagan?

We are in danger in this area of having someone else come in

because he wants to live in the North Okanagan and he wants to

live in British Columbia. He, as I understand it, is a very

nice young man. But his practices are less than desirable in

relation to the community practices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that you were doing

extremely well, Hon. Member, and I would ask you to continue in

the same vein rather than referring to a specific case. The

House has ruled that you should not discuss a particular case,

rather you should speak in general terms.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless the matter which you are discussing

comes within the administrative purview of the Minister it

would be wiser if you didn't discuss that particular case. I so

rule.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I fail to follow your

concern in light of the fact that this individual — and he is

an individual — and the people are concerned. He does pose a

health threat to the lives of our children in this area and

British Columbia. He has a conviction for an indictable offence

in the United States.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that you have made your

point very well in saying that you would ask the Minister of

Health to look into this matter. I think you should give him an

opportunity to answer in this vein, rather than pursuing the

matter on the specific case. I so ruled, and the House

sustained that ruling, that you not discuss this particular

case, but rather speak in general terms.

[ Page 1248 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I believe it was the issue of land purchase

that you ruled out of order and the House sustained that

ruling. I won't discuss the land. I'm not interested in the

land. I'm interested in representing the people of North

Okanagan.

The Minister, on the recommendation of one of his own

backbenchers, is going to have to take a more active role in

this drug epidemic that we have in British Columbia. Surely,

Mr. Chairman, this has to be the case, because it's the health

of our people that is concerned, and their right to have a

degree of protection against outside influences in this area,

especially from outside Canada. The money of the department of

the Minister whose salary we're debating is going to be spent

in drug education, in treating drug addicts, in the public

health service.

In the North Okanagan alone we had $16,000 grant last year.

We hired a special person, well trained, to undertake a

community and school drug, alcohol and tobacco education

programme. Surely this is a conflict of spending.

Surely it's a conflict of the Minister's interests if he's

only interested in a curative point of view instead of a

preventive point of view. If we look through Hansard

this year we'll see that the Minister has stressed very

strongly — and we fully support him on this — that he and his

department will be putting more and more emphasis on

prevention. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the prevention of

undesirable aliens coming into British Columbia and acquiring

part of British Columbia and legal status is a matter in which

he should be concerned.

In light of what the Attorney General said yesterday, if I

may quote from Hansard , "If there comes to be a law

enforcement problem," and I use this term from

Hansard , "not referring directly to the land itself, but

property or any other, I expect Members of this Legislature and

other people to draw it to my attention."

But he also indicated that his jurisdiction lay in relation

to one specific area — justice. I suggest to the Minister of

Health that if the Attorney General's attitude is not to

protect the justice of the people of British Columbia, which is

at stake in this case in an area where the people of British

Columbia are having outside drug abusers and convicted drug

users foisted on their society, the Minister must make this one

of his top priorities in light of the concern for health for

the people of British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you have precedents and you

have the authority under the statutes of British Columbia now

to step in and protect the health of the people of British

Columbia, by introducing

an Act, if you want to do it under

this thing, making it impossible for aliens who have an

indictable offence area of drug usage, which is detrimental to

health…

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

that you cannot propose legislation or suggest to the Minister

that he should introduce legislation.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll rephrase it. Will the Minister, in light

of the concern in this broad picture of drug prevention,

bringing it down to a specific case that we have that is

proving to be of a very detrimental health nature to the people

in this area, consider bringing in legislation which would make

it impossible for aliens who are under a drug charge…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just pointed out to the Hon.

Member that you may not discuss legislation, propose

legislation or suggest to the Minister that he introduce

legislation. You're to discuss only the administrative aspects

of the estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll have to go and

read through Hansard where these similar proposals have

been made before. I didn't realize you were going to try and

rule on this so stringently. As I mentioned before, I suggest

that it's a matter of extreme concern that the Government

doesn't seem to wish this matter to be discussed.

Will the Minister take this under advisement, with a view to

seeing that this cannot happen again and that there will be

steps taken to see that people of this nature, the Youngstrorn

nature, with absolute legal evidence against them, are not

permitted to become established citizens in British

Columbia?

I think you have to recognize, Mr. Minister, that in this

case this young man was convicted on a lesser offence, which

was marijuana use, although there was a great deal of suspicion

that he was involved in the use of hard drugs, only after six

American agencies were involved. I would quote:

"The main California investigation was conducted by: U.S.

justice department's Organized Crime and Criminal Intelligence Branch, Sacramento;

Orange County's Narcotics Task Force; Laguna Beach police force; Bureau of Narcotics,

Santa Ana; federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Los Angeles; U.S.

Customs, Los Angeles."

Mr. Minister, we don't have that type of a hard-core

narcotic force in British Columbia. You certainly don't,

through you, Mr. Chairman, have the people with the time or the

intent within your department to carry out this type of

investigation. It seems only reasonable that in your preventive

programme you should be concerned that we don't have to develop

this type of force to deal with people that we could deal with

in the initial stages, and that you have the responsibility as

Minister to see, through your colleagues and through your own

department,

[ Page 1249 ]

that this type of alien person can't come to British

Columbia and become part of our community by way of property

acquisition.

I point out to you the living circumstances of these people.

They generally have commune styles, there are not proper

plumbing facilities, they're spread out over a large area, and

it's impossible, or almost impossible for the law enforcement

forces in British Columbia to get concrete evidence that would

allow for the eviction of this man from our province if he did

come in.

Again I would point out to you on the matter of prevention,

and would urge you and ask you: will you please take steps so

that this type of case cannot arise again in British Columbia,

that this particular case will be made null and void and that

there'll be no loss to the individuals involved.

I've made it very clear on other occasions that this is not

a matter of concern against this young man individually, nor am

I concerned with the vendor who involved him in British

Columbia. It's not an agent's duty to investigate the past

habits of his clients. But it is the responsibility of the

Minister of Health to see that there is legislation to protect

the health of the people of British Columbia.

I would ask the Minister in closing what he intends to

do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance.

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

Mr. Chairman, that was an extremely fine presentation.

I'd like to ask a question first. What's this microphone

behind me, or does anybody in the House know?

MRS. JORDAN: It's for interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: I see.

Mr. Chairman, we are very much interested in the whole

question of preventive work with respect to the whole addiction

problem. My colleague, the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and I have set up

conferences. We've had meetings with any number of groups on

this question. We have people actually working for us, people

with new ideas and the kind of motivation that we feel will do

a lot for this province in helping to reduce the consequence

and also reduce the numbers of those people involved in the

dependency areas.

Mr. Chairman, the growing of marijuana in Monashee near Lumby is a question

that of course we view seriously. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, we don't

view it as seriously as we view the incredible number of hard drug users within

a few blocks of this building and the hundreds and the thousands of them in

the lower mainland area, and for that matter, scattering all over the province.

My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that to stop one sale of one

piece of property isn't even close — and Mr. Chairman, let me

say right now, right off the bat…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: The "Order, please" was exactly what that

Member was talking about all through her presentation …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: …nothing more, nothing less.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. COCKE: O.K., Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) be seated, please. I just want to make the point that I

allowed her to continue as long as she considered the general

health aspects without considering the property aspects.

I would recognize again the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are looking at the whole

question of prevention, as I said.

Let me say this. One of the areas that we've moved into is

to increase our health inspector staff. You ask that we inspect

every commune in the province, Mr. Chairman, through you to

that Member. There are a great number of places that should be

inspected. But one of the things that you must remember is that

if a health inspector is to walk into a home — and that's what

it is — and if they can walk into a group home, I presume that

they can walk into your home or your home or your home or

anybody else's home without a warrant. That's not the kind of

freedom that this country is made of.

Therefore, the kind of approach to this question has to be

the kind of approach that people involved in the whole freedom

system of Canada — the democratic process — must remember.

As far as my bringing out a new immigration policy for the

Province of British Columbia, I think that the federal

government would frown on the Department of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance in B.C. taking a course that can only be

done by a national Act — indicating that people cannot come or

go from this province. That's about where it stands. Mr.

Chairman, we just can't possibly make

[ Page 1250 ]

this kind of commitment to any kind of new policy that

involves us in a jurisdiction that isn't ours in the first

place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that that pretty well sums up,

other than to say that we are most interested in any kind of

constructive, responsible approaches to this problem. We want

to cut down the incidence of drug use in the province. As I

said, we've got people working on it and we will continue in

that way.

I felt that the work the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) did the other day in this House when he gave a fine paper

on the whole question of hard drug abuse particularly, is the

kind of constructive presentation that should be made here with

respect to the whole question of drug dependency.

We recognize also, when we're talking about drug dependency,

that it's not only what we consider to be drugs but also

alcohol dependency because that's just as crippling in my

view.

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

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's

comments. I think he slithered around a bit. I don't think he

should be doing it on this particular issue.

When I listened to your words, you said you are "more

concerned," if I am quoting you correctly, "about the

hard drug users around Victoria, around the metropolitan area."

You pointed out that inspectors shouldn't have the right to go

into people's homes without a warrant…

HON. MR. COCKE: We don't have.

MRS. JORDAN: …and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. COCKE: We don't have.

MRS. JORDAN: O.K., I'm not asking for this. But in my way of

thinking, the very words that you've just finished saying point

out the need for your intervention in this whole situation

before it gets started.

Why wait until five years from now when I'm standing in this

Legislature asking you to send in inspectors, telling you about

the number of children that have become involved in this case

and are now using marijuana or maybe on LSD? That's looking at

the camel backwards, if I can put it politely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I think that your own Members' comments,

your own comments, through you, Mr. Chairman…

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

again that you may discuss the administrative aspects, but when

you begin to propose solutions or suggestions for legislations,

this is out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd borrow from that phrase that

was used in Ottawa and say, "There, but for the Minister of

Health, goes the health of the people of British Columbia." His

administration and his administrative reaction in this case is

just not acceptable.

You talk out of one side of your mouth about prevention and

what you want to do in prevention. You're setting up all these

committees, and you've got Dr. Foulkes running all over the

province. That's fine, if that's the way you want to do it. But

stop leaving the decisions to the committees.

You're the Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, and you've got

a problem. You're skating this way and that way and every way

you can because you want to avoid this problem. If I have to

stay in this House till doomsday, you'll not avoid that

problem.

You have a responsibility, through you, Mr. Chairman, to

prevent what we know is going to happen. If you listen to your

own Member, if you talk to the narcotic foundation, if you talk

to the health people, they'll say to you, Mr. Minister, "Start

your action now before it goes beyond repair."

You talk about justice, Mr. Minister, and freedom in Canada.

I agree with you. But the justice belongs to the people of

British Columbia in this case, to the people in that area whose

children and whose brothers and sisters are going to be or are

in danger of being affected by this man's habit. That, Mr.

Chairman, is where that Minister's responsibility lies.

I tried to present it to you. I'd like to have had a free

and open debate on this. I tried to talk to you, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, on Friday. The Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) doesn't want to discuss it. No one wants

to discuss it except the people of British Columbia.

Why don't you open up the debate, Mr. Chairman, so we can

talk about it rationally? Why doesn't….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, I'm not satisfied with your

answer…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that you do have a recourse through the

introduction of a private Member's bill on this matter.

[ Page 1251 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm suggesting… Order, please.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. My responsibility is to observe the

rules of this House, I am suggesting to you that the proper

procedure, if you wish to air this matter, is to introduce it

in the form of a private Member's bill. I would ask you,

therefore, to confine your remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

MRS. JORDAN: I won't introduce a private Member's bill at

this time, because it will stifle debate. I want to ask the

Minister, under his estimates: are you going to take action of

a preventative nature in this particular case in your role as

Minister of Health in light of statements you've made in this

House and outside ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, first I want to assure the

House that I will take action on any health matter in this

province within my jurisdiction — the kind of action that I

feel, as Minister of Health, can best serve the purposes of

health in this province.

Let me say that I cannot, as Minister of Health, undo

something that another government has done. That's in the first

place. That Member brought this case before the former Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Peterson), which was the right place to bring

it, some many months ago and had no satisfaction at that time.

I didn't want to bring this up at this point but, Mr. Chairman,

I am forced to. She got no satisfaction from the former

government, so she takes on the Health Minister now to reverse

a sale that is already made to some person who is accused of

being a drug addict from the United States.

Mr. Chairman, how I can possibly defend that kind of

situation? We have been working on it for the last hour in this

House. That kind of situation is really untenable. I can't

defend it because it's not my purview, in the first place.

Secondly, unless this individual does something that is

opposed to the better health practices in this province, I have

no jurisdiction. However, I assure you that when he does, and

it's brought to my attention or we find out about it, he will

certainly know that just doesn't go on in this province. That's

it. That goes for anybody else who we catch moving in counter-productive areas in the better health system in this

province. That is about the size of it.

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

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In regard to the last Attorney General, if you

wish to bring that up, through you, Mr. Chairman, I did get

satisfaction. The Attorney General at that time, the Hon.

Leslie Peterson, advised that all possible legal action would

be taken in relation to this case. I have checked with him

since, and you do have authority, Mr. Minister. When you stand

in this House and say that you are prepared to take any action

which will best serve the health of the people of British

Columbia, and then make it clear that you have an open door

policy for drug addicts to come to British Columbia, then I

suggest that that Minister does not have…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? I

would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark. There was an

implication of a motive which I think is not worthy of this

House, Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the

statement imputing this motive to the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw the statement but I will say very

factually and very clearly on behalf of the people of British

Columbia that they are not satisfied with a Health Minister who

sidesteps an issue on every possible excuse he can. He is a

Minister who stands in this House and says that he will take

positive action to protect the health of people in British

Columbia and do everything he can to correct the hard-core drug

addict and the epidemic of drug usage that we have in British

Columbia, and then turns around and slides out from his

responsibilities by refusing to take any action that will

constructively prevent the influx of these people to British

Columbia in one particular instance.

Mr. Minister, are you concerned with health? The environment

in this area is more conducive to winter grazing of deer. There

is a report in one of your colleagues' departments to this

effect. There is public opinion to this effect. The previous

administration set aside some Crown land under a reservation

for winter grazing of deer. That is what the land should be

used for; that is what the health environment is…. .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is out of order

in this matter. Order, please.

We are considering the estimates of the Minister of Health

and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to that

matter and not to discuss matters of land.

[ Page 1252 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Under the Green Belt Protection Act the

Minister of Finance or any Minister designated by

order-in-council. That Minister does have the authority to stop

this now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, that's right. There is a precedent in…

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

be seated if she is not going to move to another subject.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my responsibility to enforce the rules

of this House and I intend to do that. I recognize the Hon.

Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I have just a few odd

questions to the Minister. I know the Minister is vitally

concerned with the matter of the mentally handicapped. In fact

I believe he has received an invitation to speak at one of the

branches on April 10, and I hope he sees his way clear to do

this My point in relation to the various branches of the British

Columbia Association for the Mentally Handicapped is the fact

that through the Minister's department they do have certain

grants of assistance. Now, the point that has been giving me

some concern is: has the Minister a more realistic kind of

funding to provide staff and operational expenses?

Secondly, I'm concerned with the fact in this day of more

emphasis on leisure and statutory holidays and so on that where

an earning of an amount, let's say $1,100, for a particular

month, say December, has been designated, because of Christmas

and so on, an amount of $200 is deducted for statutory

holidays. This gives some concern because of the difficulty in

obtaining operational revenues from other than Government for

these mentally handicapped people.

My point here is: will this be looked at within the coming

fiscal year or within the estimates presently set up?

Another question I have is in relation to the district

health nurse. I want to support the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) who spoke on this. There are areas in this

province that are particularly well served by district health

nurses. I come from a district — it's just too many years back

to mention. In fact the golden jubilee was celebrated in my

home town of the original health nurse arriving in that area.

They do a terrific job. Presently we are short of staff. The

demands for attention to the public schools and so on is just

more than the average body can cover.

As far as area, distances are probably the greatest problem — having to drive from "X" to "Y" 20 or 30 miles and examine

the school children in a particular school.

Is there some possibility of reducing the size of these

areas or adding even part-time staff to two areas where one

particular body is now doing the work of maybe a body and a

half, so that it could be shared over a couple of

districts?

My next question is in relation to diagnostic centres. Only

yesterday, while I didn't see the particular TV programme, one

of the regional district representatives was on it, and it was

in relation to an application made by a regional district for a

diagnostic centre where they have not had a doctor for many,

many years.

Without the facilities it is very hard to get a doctor to

locate in the area. Apparently some doctors have shown interest

in establishing themselves, providing facilities were there to

do diagnostic work. Naturally they would get the privileges of

hospital in the surrounding regional hospital district.

As I understand from this programme, it was denied that this

matter was brought either to the Minister's attention or to the

department's attention. This gives me some concern because I

brought it both to the attention of the department and also to

the Minister. In fact I discussed it briefly with the Minister

in the hallway here last October, when the mini-session was on.

I wonder if the Minister can just give me some information on

that. It may be difficult right at this time, but perhaps he

could follow through with a letter or something if he doesn't

have it at his fingertips now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to deal with first things

first, we are certainly working in the area of the mentally

handicapped. I'm not too sure of the April 10 conference. I

know that I have conflicting dates around April 10. I would

hope that this is the one that won out. I know that I'm very

hard pressed for time — could you recall just offhand where

that conference is?

Penticton. As a matter of fact we had to make that hard,

crunchy decision this morning and unfortunately, because I have

about four or five on the lower mainland, it is going to make

it very difficult for me to get up there. But there is a

possibility that I can get up there.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as the funding and the operational

expenses of sheltered workshops and other facilities for the

handicapped, I presume that is what you mean, that comes under

the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in that

they do the funding. We do some of the diagnostic work,

[ Page 1253 ]

and that kind of thing. But they actually are the funders of

the programme. So that I know that they'll be interested in

listening to your remarks, and you can bring that up under his

estimates.

As far as district health nurses are concerned. We are

making 22 additions this year, in the estimates. I hope that we

can hire them all right away, as soon as the House rises and

we're into the new year. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are there?

HON. MR. COCKE: We'll be adding 22, yes. How many across the

province? A great number, I can't tell you off hand. But there

are 200 odd — you know, 210 or 220, something in that area. So

we're going up some 10 per cent. And that isn't the end of the

road by any stretch of the imagination. We're looking at this

whole question of the extended role of a nurse, right now — as

to how nurses should be utilized. I'm one of those who feel

that there should be a real good look at the extended role of

the nurse — as to moving into areas where she can do more work

on her own and provide a great deal more care, because most

nurses are very highly competent people.

As far as reducing areas of adding staff, at the present

time the structures are going to stay pretty well the same. But

we want to add staff and bring up our complement to a place

where people are getting proper service.

On the Keremeos situation — I assume that's the one on the

diagnostic and treatment centre. Because of the fact that we

are working at the present time on trying to design our concept

of a community health centre — now that doesn't say that it

doesn't complement the diagnostic centre — we do feel that we

have to have some kind of a blueprint, or method of financing

or whatever. So we are moving very carefully.

In some of the more remote areas we've moved in already, as

I've indicated. But in the Keremeos area, and I know that they

need direct service right there, we just are not moving for the

moment.

The first hint that I had of a plebiscite — I understand

there was a plebiscite — the first hint that I had of that was

today. It hasn't reached my office at this point — any

plebiscite, at least the news of a plebiscite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Petition.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, petition, plebiscite. I beg your

pardon, petition is what I mean. O.K.? I think that pretty well

sums it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 86 pass?

Vote 86 approved.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

move that the committee rise and report resolutions and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

move the House proceed to public bills and orders, adjourned

debate on second reading of Bill 42.

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

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I propose this afternoon to point out to the Members

of this House that Bill No. 42 is not going to in any way

increase food production in this province. It's not going to in

any way assist the farmer in this province. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, I intend to point out that it will increase

food costs in this province. I think that this is at the very

least, a sinister bill.

I hope the House will just stay with me a moment while I get

organized. I didn't expect this to come up so fast.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are dealing with probably the

most controversial piece of legislation that will come before

this Legislature for some time.

To start out my remarks I would like to go back over some of

the comments that were made by the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) during the introduction of this bill, on

Friday last.

The Minister, when he opened second reading, stated that he

has 15 acres of land, and he said that people who were going to

discuss Bill No. 42 in this Legislature should also state what

land they have. He said,

"I want to assure you that I have absolutely no intention

of subdividing or allowing that land to be subdivided. I say this, in part,

to put my own position clearly before the Members of this House so they know

something about it before they speak. If anyone else feels that they wish to

say the same thing, they can do it.

"If they wish to make similar statements about their

own holdings or what they wish to do with this land that they have,

then they too should have that

[ Page 1254 ]

what they're doing now, not what they did 10 years ago, 20 years

— ago, or some other time."

I wouldn't mind telling the House what land in British

Columbia I have an interest in if that is what the Minister of

Agriculture wishes me to do. In that way every one in this

Legislature will certainly know that I have no axe to grind and

nothing to gain either from subdividing my own personal land or

any land that I have any interest in or that any of my family

have any interest in.

My main interest in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to see that

everybody who owns land in British Columbia gets a fair deal

and that that land is not stolen from them, which this bill

purports to do.

Now, I have a 50 per cent interest in about 20 acres of land

at a place known as Moberly Lake, presently covered by swamp

bushes. My children used to play out there when they were

younger — they built tree houses.

I acquired this interest by assisting another friend of the

two who now own it to get a lot at the lake so that he could

have a cabin. After a while his wife no longer had the desire

to go to this lake, so we bought out the other third interest

and I really don't know what I'm going to do with it. I

certainly don't intend to subdivide it. I guess now I won't be

able to sell it. But it was good for the children while they

were growing up. They had a great time out there. I thought

maybe I might put some sheep on it, clean it up and maybe

donate it …

AN HON. MEMBER: What about grandchildren?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, grandchildren, sure. This is not

lakeshore property either, Mr. Speaker, it's about 500 feet

back from the lake.

Across the road from this piece of property, I have another

lot, about 500 by 135 feet, on which I have my summer home. And

this is deeded property. It was purchased back in 1958.

This is what myself and my family refer to as our little

piece of British Columbia because it's owned entirely by us.

It's deeded and big enough that someday if things get that bad

maybe we could go out there and raise a few chickens or a few

cows and help to support ourselves. That's if things continue

at the present trend, Mr. Speaker. It may get so that we have

to go out there and kill a moose in the winter time and maybe

get some fish out of the lake, although there aren't that many

fish in the lake. But this could happen. So this is, as I say,

what we call our little bit of British Columbia.

Then we have a lot in town, in Dawson Creek. I'm sorry I don't know what the

size of it is. It's a corner lot on 114th Avenue. On this we have our home in

which we live. And that home I might say, has been a home for four fine growing

sons who are going out to take up their

part in this great life of Canada, and

in British Columbia and I hope that they prove to be good citizens.

I hope that while I'm standing in this House this afternoon

I have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to support some of their

rights. Many people have fought and died for those rights.

Although I don't intend to let any of my blood flow this

afternoon, I would say that I would take my place here in this

House trying to protect their rights.

Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, I have an interest in

several business lots in Dawson Creek. I didn't figure out just

how many. None of them are subdivisible for agricultural land.

They're commercial property. I don't think that they would grow

much because they're mostly covered with buildings and

hardtop.

Then I have another lot down at the far end of town which is

commercial property. It's about an acre and a third. I have no

intention of subdividing it at the present time — it's

commercial property. I know that because this lot of land is

there, I will probably be told what I can or can't do with it.

We're using it for a storage lot and I'll continue to use it

for that for quite some time, unless of course…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's about an acre and a third. If you say for

me to raise potatoes on it, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'll

be quite happy to raise potatoes on it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, there

are lots of land in this province that are over two acres that

you couldn't grow anything on, because it's rocks and it's

hilly. You couldn't grow anything on it. But, Mr. Speaker, that

land is frozen at the present time. It's frozen harder than the

rocks that are on it.

Then there's another little piece of property in Taylor.

It's commercial property. I have an interest in that. I don't

know how many acres it is but I think it's under two acres.

It's commercial property at the present time. So I think that

about sums up what I consider to be my interest in the good old

terra firma of British Columbia.

The Government probably won't pass this bill; they'll

withdraw it. But as the bill presently stands, Mr. Speaker, I

could be told what I can and can't do with it. I think this is

the message. If it affects me, it affects every other person

who owns any property anywhere in British Columbia. If the bill

passes, no piece of land in British Columbia will be safe from

the paws and the intentions of this five-man committee.

I'd like to move on now to some other of the Minister's

remarks. He spoke about a British Colum-

[ Page

1255 ]

bia natural resource conference, the sixth such conference.

If I can read briefly from it: "From the World Food and

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations comes the

disturbing statement that between 1945 and 1950, despite the

best efforts of farmers with available technology at their

disposal, food production could not keep pace with

population."

I don't think anybody is going to dispute that statement.

However, there are other people who have made other statements

about where we're going in food production in the world. I'm

not going to take what the Minister said for gospel. This

natural resource conference, they've probably done a fair

amount of research.

However, I'd like to quote to you from a gentleman who has

recently written a book. This book is called The Doomsday

Syndrome . It's written by John Maddox.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Have you got that

too?

MR. PHILLIPS: How do you mean, have I got it? The book? Do

you want me to read you the whole book? I just want to quote

from it. It's very important. If we're going to quote one group

of people from a resource conference; if we're going to quote

those who have brought up this doomsday, starvation, pollution,

ecology thing — that we're going to ruin ourselves — certainly

I think there should be a rebuttal here. Isn't that what the

Legislature is for — to have discussion? I think you should

listen to this man.

He's the editor of a prestigious British scientific journal

Nature . I think that anyone who's been to the continent

or been to England and Great Britain knows what a fantastic job

they've done over there in preserving their land. They don't

have too much of it and they've done a beautiful job of

preserving it. They've done a beautiful job of creating

greenbelts around the cities. The parks in London are

beautiful. They've done a fantastic job of it.

Mr. Speaker, he says that the prophets of doom have

multiplied remarkably in the past few years. I would say that

that's probably right. It's very difficult to turn on your

television now, or pick up a paper or read an

article where you

can't read something about the fact that the world is going to

come to an end.

We're going to starve ourselves out or we're going to

pollute ourselves out or we're going to kill off all the wild

animals or we're going to pollute the ocean or we're not going

to be able to feed ourselves. I think we'll have to agree with

that statement, Mr. Speaker, that prophets of doom have

multiplied remarkably in the past few years.

"The once commonplace men with the sandwich boards proclaiming

'The end of the world is at hand' have been replaced by a throng of sober scientists,

philosophers and politicians claiming that there are more subtle calamities

just around the corner." I can remember when I was a boy growing up that there were prophets around

saying that the world was going to come to an end. I remember not being able

to sleep some nights because I thought the world might come to an end in the

morning. I was quite feared as a little boy. I feared that I might wake up in

the morning and there would be no world.

I wonder what the children of today think. These were mostly

evangelistic types that were around, Mr. Speaker. But now — my

gracious, they have the media, the television and the papers

and teachers in the school and so forth, all saying that the

population of the world is going to…

I think it has everybody concerned. That's one thing I like

about human nature. Once somebody thinks they've got a problem,

they can usually solve it. I have a great faith in mankind,

that they are going to be able to solve their problems. I can

remember when they introduced the gun. I wasn't there at that

time but I remember the prophets of doom of that day saying

that all of mankind was going to shoot himself; he's going to

eliminate himself. Then they brought in the automobile and they

said that they were going to run over people in the street. Do

you remember that, Mr. Speaker?

We've always had our prophets of doom. I suppose that some

of them aren't that bad. They make us aware of our problems.

However, I think today we have too many prophets of doom.

The human race, they say, is in danger of suffocating itself

by over breeding, of poisoning itself with pollution, and of

weakening the basic structure of society through too much

prosperity.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm discussing the bill right now. When you

bring in a bill like Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, it has very

wide-ranging ramifications. It touches on agriculture; it

touches on pollution; it touches right to the very roots of the

human race.

Nobody doubts the sincerity of those critics who would

disagree that we are confronted with the urgent task. Urban

life surely leaves much room for improvement. In less developed

societies there are the basic needs of people for adequate

food, adequate housing, medical care and schooling. These

problems are capable of solution in the foreseeable future, if

enough time and money are spent on them. There again, I think

that society will certainly be able to solve its own

problems.

This is the important thing that I've been leading up to:

The risk is that the doomsday syndrome — too much preoccupation

with the threat of distant

[ Page 1256 ]

calamity — will accomplish the opposite in its intention. I

think this is exactly what Bill 42 has done. Somebody has

become frightened, hasn't done their research, has panicked and

brought in this. sinister bill. This is the problem. This is

the very root of the problem right here.

I propose to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Legislature this

afternoon that this bill is ill-conceived, was brought in in

haste and that somebody stampeded the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich). I don't know whether, Mr. Speaker, it was

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

Williams) who stampeded the Minister of Agriculture, or whether

it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), or

maybe even the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many times was it drafted?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come to order.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many times was it drafted?

MR. PHILLIPS: I propose a little later to discuss that

subject in some greater detail, with your permission, Mr.

Speaker.

The risk is that the doomsday syndrome, too much

preoccupation with the threat of distant calamity…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly see that

the Members of this Legislature are concerned. I know they're

concerned. And they should be concerned.

Too much preoccupation with the distant threat of calamity

will accomplish the opposite of its intention. I propose to

prove that this is what has happened here.

Right now our society is being divided — farmer against city

dweller, ecologists against the farmer. This bill was divided

the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. When the two

groups should be working together to come up with reasonable

ways of preserving farmland with reasonable ways of helping

each other live in co-existence, this bill, Mr. Speaker, has

divided brother against brother, father against father, son

against father, neighbour against neighbour, labourer against

farmer, fisherman against farmer, farmer against fisherman.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Socreds against NDP. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: They'll be sorry, Mr. Speaker, they'll be

sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better believe it. Amen.

MR. PHILLIPS: They have created calamity here in the

Province of British Columbia. It's not "land by legislation"

but "land by confiscation," Mr. Speaker. "The doomsday

cause would be more telling if it were more securely grounded

in facts and had an awareness of economics and history. Some

doomsayers fear that the burning of fuel on the scale to which…" Now that doesn't pertain to agriculture so I'll just

leave it.

"Others fear that pesticides will irrevocably damage the

human race." I was just reading somewhere yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, where in the United States they've invented another

pesticide which is going to replace DDT and help improve food

production.

"Last spring a computer simulation of the world purporting

to show that many of the more gloomy prophecies of the

environmentalists can be upheld by mathematical calculations

was published entitled, 'The Limits to Growth.' " I'm sure

there are many ecologists and many Members on the opposite side

of the House, Mr. Speaker, who are probably aware of this

book.

"The controversial study was carried out at MIT under the

leadership of Professor Dennis L. Meadows" — meadows; that's farmland —"and attempted to figure how such interrelated variables of population,

capital food, non-renewable natural resources and pollution will change in the

course of time.

"Conclusion: If there is no major change in the physical,

economic and social relationships that have historically

governed the development of the world system, there will come a

point in the next century when the diminishing stock of natural

resources brings about a decrease in industrial growth and a

consequent decrease in per capita food availability.

"In due course we will return to the 'bad old days' when the

death rate rose rapidly because of starvation, and even an

increasing birth rate will be unable to prevent a population

decline.

"In my opinion," Mr. Mattick says, "the conclusion is

pretentious nonsense."

He's a fairly well educated man. He's had to do with land preservation in England.

He's certainly been around ecologists, and he says that it's "nonsense."

[ Page

1257 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: "Pretentious nonsense."

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll say that too, "pretentious

nonsense." We're not necessarily going to ruin all the land in

the world. "The most serious error involves," and this

is why he says that it's nonsense, "aggregation, a combining of

things that ought not to be considered."

As one, for example:

"Meadows and his colleagues represented the totality of

pollution on the earth by a single number based on world industrial production.

They thus cannot take into consideration the obvious fact that modern technology

can control pollution without affecting production at all."

It's happening right here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker,

where in some cases we have increased our production and

eliminated pollution entirely. But "The Limits to Growth" says

that with the continued growing pollution problem we're going

to pollute the entire earth.

This presents a very dangerous state of affairs, Mr.

Speaker, because a lot of the ecologists have the opportunity

to do a great service to mankind. When they start coming up

with statements that do not truly represent the future and what

is going to happen, then there is a fear, Mr. Speaker, that

people will stop listening to them. This would be very drastic

indeed, We should listen to our ecologists. They have a lot to tell

us.

"The study also represents the world's stock of

non-renewable resources with a single number, overlooking a

cardinal law of economics which holds that increasing scarcity

and consequently higher prices would stimulate exploration for

new materials."

He calls it "rabid rhetoric."

"The first environmentalists were probably the scientists

who, towards the end of World War II, sensed that the

development of nuclear weapons posed a great danger to the

human race."

Mr. Speaker, do we hear any talk today about the atomic bomb

going to eliminate mankind? I haven't heard it for quite some

time. You used to hear it all the time. You used to hear it all

the time. In the United States, Mr. Speaker, they were building

bomb shelters and they were stocking them with foods so that

they could remain there. There were people writing books about

"I was the Last Man on Earth After the Civilization

Disappeared."

These things passed, Mr. Speaker. I guess probably in the

history of mankind these people serve some useful purpose,

although I have to really search my mind for some of the

purposes that they perform That's why I really have to search

my mind, Mr. Speaker, to understand what is the real purpose of

Bill 42,

It's a sinister bill. I really have to search my mind to

find the thinking behind it. I know that the bill was not

developed from proper research, was not developed from proper

consultation with the farmers.

I don't know where the bill came from, do you, Mr. Speaker?

I think somebody had a bad dream one night and woke up the next

morning and there was Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: A nightmare.

MR. PHILLIPS: A nightmare.

Well, I'd like to go on just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and

point out that all of this deal about the world going to starve

itself to death and not enough food production…I'd like to

point out what this man has to say about it.

And so that I don't lose my train of thought, he was talking

about "rabid rhetoric." So we have to realize that there was

some "rabid rhetoric" behind Bill 42, Mr. Speaker. Somebody was…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …off base. In short, the weakness of

today's disaster prophecies is that they are exaggerations,

many of them frighteningly irresponsible. Frightenan — frightening; gracious…! frightenenainly… (Laughter)

irresponsible. I'll get it yet. Anyway it frightens everyone — and they're irresponsible. Frighteneningly!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you want that in

Hansard ?

MR. PHILLIPS: Frighteneningly. (Laughter). They're scary

irresponsible statements. Their flavour is well illustrated by

the work of biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose book, The

Population Bomb , startled a good many people five years

ago. I think this is where we're getting to the crux of the

matter, Mr. Speaker. "The battle to feed all of humanity is

over," he wrote. "In the 1970s, the world will undergo

famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to

death in spite of any crash programme." That is a quote from

the book entitled, The Population Bomb .

I wonder how many people actually believe that. How many

people actually believe that? No wonder they say it's

frightening, Mr. Speaker, because there again, when there is a

need, an earnest need…as I pointed out on the floor of this

Legislature not too many weeks ago, there is an earnest need

for all countries in the world to get together and find out

what the world food situation is all about; to form a group to

work together; to get some computers and

[ Page 1258 ]

put it all on and attack the food problem. But for this man

to come out…why bother? He says we're going to starve

ourselves out in the 70s, and this is 1973. We've only got

seven years to go.

Now, here is another man who is intelligent. He says, "The

truth is that the earth's total production of food is now

increasing faster than the population." So, who do you

believe?

I would say that whoever conceived this fantastic piece of

legislation known as Bill 42 must have believed the first man.

I prefer to look at things with reason and understanding and

say that, sure, we've got to take a look at the situation." I

think all good legislators should use reason.

Well I'm going to discuss that too, Mr. Minister of Labour.

I'm going to discuss something about what happened in the last

20 years, but I want to leave this thought with you first

because, as I develop my case, Mr. Speaker, I want to firmly

establish a few facts. I will discuss what went on in the last

20 years and I will discuss some outlooks for the next 20

years. As my case develops the legislators in this House will

know both sides of the story. Then I know that when it comes up

that they'll vote against it, because they will realize that

Bill 42 was based on scary statements. Frightening statements.

Yes, wild statements.

So, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the earth's total

production of food is now increasing faster than the

population, thanks largely to the new strains of wheat and

rice. Nor is there any reason to believe the green revolution

will slow down in the coming years.

We have helped underdeveloped nations improve their

agriculture. We have supplied them with new methods. There is

still a great deal of work to be done in that area.

These are the types of things that we should be thinking

about: using common sense — looking at the total picture; not

being concerned about one or two promoters in British Columbia

who happen to make a fantastic profit on developing a piece of

land. It scared the daylights out of you and brought in this

ill-conceived piece of legislation known as Bill 42. I ask the

Minister to stand on the floor of the House right now and

withdraw it. Withdraw that bad bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Watch your language.

MR. PHILLIPS: Go back to the people that own the land. Have

social intercourse with them. Discuss their problems. Sit down

and in a reasonable manner find out what the situation is.

Right now, you've gone off half…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they haven't really taken time to study

all the facts, Mr. Speaker. They only wanted to see one side of the

situation. They realize there's a problem. Farmland should be

preserved. I realize that problem, Mr. Speaker. I think everybody

realizes that problem. But by this vicious bill… I intend to point

out that you're not going to preserve farmland; that you're not going

to help food production; that you're not going to help the farmer. As a

matter of fact, you will shove the price of food higher and production

will decline. That's what I predict, Mr. Speaker, if this idiotic bill

passes in this Legislature.

In the meantime, you've really done nothing to, you know,

what you wanted to set out and accomplish and, as I said

before, you have turned the citizens of British Columbia

against one another.

You have further corralled the farmer as being a man who

wants to sell his land and make a fantastic profit. This is

what people who live in the city now think of the farmer. This

is what this bill has done. That is not the case in farming at

all.

True farmers want to preserve their land. All they want to

be able to do is run an economically viable unit to produce

food. There are many ways that this can be done. But the

viciousness of Bill 42 does just the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Implicit in the dire warnings of the consequences of

population growth is a misleading method of prediction that

gives more credit to simple arithmetic than it deserves. If the

population of the world at present is doubling every 35 years,

does it necessarily follow that the population will multiply

fourfold in the next 70 years so as to reach 14.5 billion by

the year 2042? I say no. He says no.

In reality, there are already signs that fertility is

declining in developing countries, exactly as it declined in

western Europe between 50 and 100 years ago. So, he said we're

going to starve ourselves out, didn't take into consideration

that food production is increasing, didn't take into

consideration that population could be on the down-climb.

This is why I say that these people who purport to know what

the world should do to save itself are really causing more

panic in the world than they are doing good. That is exactly

what Bill 42 is doing. It's causing more panic in British

Columbia than the good that it sets out to do. This is the

problem of Bill 42. This will be the problem with an

ill-conceived piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Famine is only one of several hypothetical catastrophes that

are said to flow from population growth. Many doomsdayers argue

that the high population density produces individual

disorientation and increased social tension, citing experiments

with laboratory animals, principally rats.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that human beings and rats do not

necessarily perform the same. That has been proved in many

clinics and many scientific laboratories in North America; that

mice they ran certain tests on did not perform the same. So in

other

[ Page 1259 ]

words, I don't think we can really put too much faith in the

book, The Population Bomb . I think we have to accept it

for what it is.

But there seems to be a tradition of fear. Many people would

like to excite the population so that they panic, and that is

what's happened here. Somebody has really made the Minister of

Agriculture panic.

In much the same way, environmentalists decry the effects of

population growth on natural resources. Like I said in this

House not too long ago, the facts do not stand up. One should

take a trip to England and over to the continent. Take a look

at how they have preserved agriculture. They utilize their land

to the maximum.

I would say that in most areas of British Columbia we

haven't really got down to scientific use of the land we have.

So I can't see why all the great urgency, why all the necessity

for bringing in such a drastic bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to close this particular theme with this

thought:

The political consequences of the tactlessness by people

from industrialized societies are serious. Their intellectual

sins are more serious still. The common justification of the

environmentalist's technique of deliberate exaggeration is the

claim that it is necessary to stir people up to get things

done.

Aesop knew what happened to the shepherd boy who cried

"wolf' too often. People are easily anaesthetized; anasthised…

AN HON. MEMBER: Put to sleep. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: People are easily put to sleep by

overstatement.

I'm sorry that that had to be comical, because it's a very

serious statement. There is a danger that the environmental

movement will fall flat on its face when it is most needed,

simply because it has pitched its tale too strongly. This is

exactly what could be the result of Bill 42.

The land freeze had to be brought in because of

irresponsible statements, Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of

Agriculture last fall. People panicked and now we have

pandemonium. It's too bad. He used the same scare tactics when

in his speech last Friday he said "so we recognize, I think,

"…"I think," he says, "that world population

is increasing rapidly and is still increasing rapidly." These

are the Minister of Agriculture's words in this Legislature,

Mr. Speaker, last Friday afternoon.

"So we recognize, I think," … he doesn't even know. He says "I think that

world population is increasing rapidly and is still increasing rapidly. We recognize

and we agree, I am sure," this time he is a little more sure of himself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still quoting?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm still quoting the Minister of Agriculture,

what he said last Friday afternoon when he introduced this bill

for second reading in this Legislature. I quote the Minister:

"I'm sure that the land suitable for agricultural production is

limited."

I think that everything is limited, but how high is "high?"

These are the points that we have to take into consideration.

How high is "high," how drastic do we have to get to

treat this situation?

He says, "We are not making any more of it." Well, we're not

maybe making any more of the earth but we're certainly making

more agricultural land. I will prove that to you at a later

time this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Agriculture did a

disservice to this Legislature when he used these same tactics

that had been used by some of the people in The Doomsday

Syndrome . He's reading from a report by a Dr. Warren, one

of the panelists from UBC, and Dr. Warren said:

"Public interests, human welfare and good management require that all landowners or lessees of land

and water, public and private, care for sail and water under

their control in a manner which will ensure that future

generations may derive from them full enjoyment and

benefit."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I don't think you will

find any farmer in British Columbia who would knowingly misuse

his land. If you know some of the farmers, Mr. Speaker, who

have gone out to pick roots in the noonday sun, from early

morning until late at night, pick roots, work by the sweat of

their own brow to develop this land, you would understand the

farmer's love for his land. You would understand how he feels

when he plants the seeds in the spring and watches Mother

Nature produce from the land he loves. I think anyone who knows

anything about farming or farmers knows that they love the land

on which they work.

They love to till the soil and they love to see it produce.

It's one of the greatest things that we have on earth. That's

why it's said that farmers are the salt of the earth.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 gives the five-man commission the power

to tell that farmer what he can plant on his soil. It in

essence gives this five-man commission the right to tell the

farmer how much fertilizer he should use. I can't really see a

nameless, faceless, five-man commission, unless they are

completely trained in agriculture, telling a man who has tilled

his own soil, who has brought it under production, what he

should plant.

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, goes on to

state:

"Further on in the same report we refer to the control

of subdivision planning with a view to assuring that the parcels of

land are such sizes and

[ Page 1260 ]

shapes not just to save them for agriculture, but they should

be of such sizes and shapes that their greatest agricultural value is preserved

and their desirability in some cases as residential sites is enhanced."

Well there again, it's pretty hard to say that this isn't a

good ideal. But Mr. Warren does not, in his report, subscribe

to giving a five-man commission the power to designate every

square inch of land in British Columbia.

The Minister goes on to refer to some clippings out of the

paper with regard to Surrey municipality. I'm not going to go

into that portion of his talk at the present time, Mr. Speaker,

because I will be referring to it later.

He says that we must all understand that it must be accepted

as a basic principle. "Twenty-two years ago," he says,

"it was argued that this must be accepted as a basic principle,

and today I am asking you to accept that basic principle for

the future." The basic principle he is referring to, of course,

is the preservation of farmland. I think probably, as I said

Friday, that we agree that farmland should be preserved. But I

also said that we do not agree with the method that Bill 42

uses to preserve farmland, because it doesn't really preserve

farmland at all.

The Minister referred to a book that was written 4000 years

ago and said that they had a problem then and we've still got

the same problem; that we should handle it in a manner that

calm and wise men do when they sit down and discuss their

problems.

"Bill 42," the Minister says, "has 20 provisions which grant the commission

or the cabinet complete and total authority." Twenty. "I've gone through them,

" he says, "Mr. Speaker," — and I am quoting the Minister of Agriculture: "One

of them is

definitions; one of them establishes a commission; one of them says

how it's going to name the chairman; another says how it's going to provide

bylaws," — and there are only 20 of these sections in total.

He says: "Only six of them say something about the powers

and the authority of the commission. Bill 42 denies the basic

tenets of natural justice. There is a

section in here that need

not have been in the bill." However, Mr. Speaker, I think that

we should move on to discussing the bill.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is back in

the House now. It appeared to me on Friday afternoon that he

was fairly nervous about protecting his position on Bill 42.

The last words he said, Mr. Speaker, and I'll quote them for

the House, were, "We're listening, and we're hearing precious

little." Well, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how long it's been

since the Minister of Agriculture has had his ears examined but

I would suggest that for him to stand and say that he is

listening but that he is hearing precious little, would be the

understatement of the year.

If he doesn't hear what the people in British Columbia are

saying about Bill 42, it's not because he's deaf, but because

he doesn't want to hear, Mr. Speaker. If he can't hear what the

people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42, it's

because the Minister has a completely closed mind and doesn't

want to hear what the people of British Columbia are saying

about Bill 42.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about some real estate men. If the

Minister of Agriculture doesn't hear what the people are saying — he says he's hearing "precious little" — maybe he should try

reading. Because if he's deaf, I'm sure he's not blind. If he

doesn't see in the newspapers what the people are saying about

Bill 42, I won't question that.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker. I will say that the Minister

has to see and has to hear. He who has ears to hear, let him

hear. He who has eyes to see, let him see. He who has a tongue

to speak, should speak. That's exactly what the people of

British Columbia are doing today. It's very difficult. I'm not

going to go through all of the clippings. I want to point out a

few to the Minister because if the man can't read them for

himself or can't hear them, maybe he'll listen to me.

Here's an

article from the Vancouver Province , March

9, 1973. " 'NDP has to go,' says lawyer." — that's the headline.

I'll just point out one little

section of this

article to the

Minister of Agriculture so that he shall hear. I'd be quite

happy to send the

article over so that he can see what the

people of British Columbia are saying. This is written by a

Burnaby lawyer, Mr. Speaker, right in your home constituency. I

hate to say this, with you up there, Mr. Speaker, keeping such

great control in this Legislature in this afternoon. I hate to

say that some member in your constituency has got a headline in

the Province that the NDP has to go. However, maybe you

know this man. Maybe he knows what's good for you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to send it over to the Minister so he can read

it.

This man says — I'll first identify him. He's Arnold F.C.

Heen, a Burnaby lawyer and businessman.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think he owns any land at all. What is

the matter with the chamber of commerce? Are you against the

chamber of commerce? Are you going to bring in a bill to do

away with the chamber of commerce?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell the

[ Page 1261 ]

Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance that

there are many farmers who belong to the chamber of commerce.

The chamber of commerce has worked hard and long for the

business community of British Columbia. Some of the great

things that the Minister of Health enjoys today are due

partially to some of the work by the chamber of commerce. Now,

Mr. Speaker, like everybody else, this Government wants to turn

their back on the chamber of commerce.

Why, Mr. Speaker? They're opposed to the free enterprise

system and they're opposed to the farmer and they're opposed to

the production of food, as they've clearly spelled out here in

Bill 42.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: If the Minister of Health Services would just allow me to continue, I'd be quite happy to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, as long as you'll address the Chair. It

keeps me awake. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now, I've identified this

man, and he's not speaking for the chamber of commerce, Mr.

Speaker. No, he's not speaking for the chamber of commerce.

He's speaking to another great organization in British Columbia — the Kiwanis Club. Did you understand that, Mr. Speaker? He

wasn't talking to the chamber of commerce. He was speaking to

the Kiwanis Club — a great organization. They do a lot of good.

As a matter of fact, they do a lot of good for the Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance's department.

This man was speaking, Mr. Speaker, to an organization that

does a lot of work for his department. This man said, and I'm

quoting this Mr. Heen: "The NDP land bill sets out on the

course which I have always understood to be the first principle

of communist philosophy — gain control of the land." There's an

intelligent man, Mr. Speaker. He's from your constituency.

That's a pretty strong statement for an educated man like Mr. Heen to make. Would you take that over to the Minister of

Agriculture so he can read it? Because if he can't hear, maybe

he can read.

Here's another

article and it's datelined the Victoria

Colonist , Tuesday, March 9, 1973. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

quote from this briefly so that the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) will be able to hear and will be able to see

what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42.

I'm going to say what a lot of people in this Legislature think

is a dirty word because of Bill 42. It says: "Land act

retailoring urged."

There was some advice that came in on Bill 42. I'm surprised that the Minister

of Agriculture couldn't hear. "The Real Estate Institute of British Columbia

has called on the Government to scuttle its Land Commission Act because it is

an infringement of many human rights, including the right of an individual to

the enjoyment of property." I'm not going to read the whole

article but it goes

on to say: "It has not solved the most important problem: compensation. Ross

added that Bill 42 would create a short supply of land for development and increase

the price of currently available lots."

This is the important thing, Mr. Speaker, about this

article: "He offered the services of the Institute members, who

could give sound advice to the Government, presumably in the

drafting of an amended Act." I would think, Mr. Speaker, that

it would be just ordinary simple good politics to discuss with

the people of British Columbia who have been selling land for

quite some time, and with the people who own it, some of the

ramifications of what this bill would do before you bring it

into the Legislature.

Then came that astounding statement by the Minister of

Agriculture that he couldn't hear. Really, I can't understand

it. In another development Monday, the Prince George Chamber of

Commerce asked the Government to exempt the city and immediate

surroundings from the land freeze in order to stave off an

impending housing shortage.

Now what does the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)

feel about that? I hope he's offered sage advice in his caucus

room, and I hope he listened, Mr. Speaker, to the members in

his constituency who sent him down here to work for them in

this Legislature. I hope he listens.

I hope that he somehow, Mr. Speaker, gets through to the

Minister of Agriculture because the Minister of Agriculture is

evidently deaf. He says that the people of British Columbia are

not speaking to him. He can't hear them.

I hope that the Member for Fort George, who I have a feeling

is going to vote against the bill anyway, will read that

article. He should know what's going on in his area.

Mr. Speaker, what I said a few moments ago about this

ill-conceived bill, that even before it's brought in, what has

it done? It's created shortages of good building lots.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, thinks

a lot of Paddy Sherman, the publisher of the Vancouver Province

and Robert McConnell, the editor. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Agriculture did not read this editorial on

March 10 because it gives the Minister some advice. I think

it's some of the advice that he was seeking when he said, "We

are listening but our great concern is that we hear previous

little."

Well, here's an editorial in the Province that maybe he

considers us precious little:

"When a Government's own backbenchers start

[ Page 1262 ]

pushing to change a proposed new law, then it is clear that the

law was either fundamentally flawed or at minimum, prepared with indecent haste

and lack of thought."

Now that's a pretty strong statement in an editorial.

Now on the same day, I'm surprised that our Minister of

Agriculture….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't interrupt you during your estimates,

Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), did I? I didn't

interrupt you. Why don't you offer me the common courtesy to be

quiet?

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing one of the most serious pieces

of legislation that's ever been brought in in British

Columbia.

I'm not the only one that says there's a panic. It says:

"Now, in what seems like panic reaction, Government MLA's are

being given a long weekend to do research back home." This was

on Friday. This editorial came out the same day, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and said

he wasn't hearing anything. I want to know if he wasn't hearing

anything, why the Premier of this province sent his MLA's back

to their constituencies to talk about Bill 42, to do some

research.

What I think he was saying, Mr. Speaker, was that the

Minister of Agriculture said, "I'm not hearing anything." But

the Premier was hearing, even if the Minister of Agriculture

was not. I would suggest that the Premier has probably got his

ear closer to the ground and knows more about the damaging

effect of Bill 42 on British Columbia than the Minister of

Agriculture does.

The Minister of Agriculture doesn't want to hear. It's his

bill. He says he's going to shove it through at any cost. It

doesn't matter if all of British Columbia and his own

backbenchers and the Premier don't like this bill. The Minister

of Agriculture is going to force it through.

The reason he's going to force it through is because he

backed himself into a corner, and I would suggest that the

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

Williams) did a little pushing to get him back in that

corner.

That's how the Barrett Government's proposed Land

Commission Act sits at the moment — the backbenchers are

working to repair it; a cabinet committee is also finding ways

to patch it up.

I wonder why they're doing all this, Ms. Speaker, if they're

not hearing anything. The whole thing just doesn't add up

somehow. There's something sinister behind this, Ms.

Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture says one thing, the Premier does something else.

They've got a committee in the cabinet to patch up the bill. Why are they patching

it up if they don't hear anything? I'm at a loss to understand, and I'm a very

understanding person.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm an understanding person. But I have to

inform the House that I sure don't understand this.

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture will hear this:

"That's

simply not good enough. The bill was badly conceived in the

first place, as the present scurry to improve it makes clear.

But it is probable that the changes now being considered are of

the brand you might call political cosmetics…."

I'm quoting from the Vancouver Province in the same

editorial. This is the thing that the Minister of Agriculture

couldn't hear, couldn't see. Those are pretty strong

statements. "That's simply not good enough," the

editorial says, referring to Bill 42, and it's being

repaired.

The editorial goes on to say:

"The bill was badly conceived in the first place, as the

present scurry to improve it makes clear. But it is probable

that the changes now being considered are of the brand you

might call 'political cosmetics' designed to hide some of the

bruises that disfigure the political face of Mr. Barrett and

his colleagues."

Well, I don't know what kind of cosmetics they've got over

there. I know they're pretty good at smokescreens. I'll tell

you it's going to take a lot of smoke, Ms. Speaker, to cover up

what's happening here under Bill 42. And it's going to take a

lot to put out the fires that you've created to build up that

smokescreen. I don't think you're going to be through with it

for quite some time.

"In our view" — and it's also my own view. I have to agree

with the man who wrote this editorial and I don't always agree

with him — "…it isn't good enough to bring in a few such

changes and then say with a sigh of relief that, "everybody can

now see what good boys the Government Members really are.

Something more basic is involved. In these days of people's

government…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to shout at you this

afternoon, because this is a very serious bill we're discussing

here. I want you to understand every word I say. It's a very

serious bill indeed.

The editorial goes on to say:

"In these days of people's government, something the NDP

has always vigorously championed, it is a little short of hypocrisy for the

NDP to bring in such sweeping changes without even a gesture of consulting the

levels of government most

[ Page

1263 ]

directly involved."

That doesn't really astonish me because this Government has

done that so many times since August 30 — has brought in things

without consultation with the people who are involved in it,

has brought in legislation without consulting with the people

the bill is going to affect. That doesn't surprise me at

all.

I've sort of given up on this great "people's Government."

They're not the people's Government at all. I think I'm going

to coin a new phrase; they're "against the people."

"Mr. Barrett should withdraw the bill…." and again I'm

quoting from the editorial, "altogether for this session."

I might add, Ms. Speaker, the reason that I am taking the

time of the House this afternoon to point out what people are

saying is because the Minister of Agriculture said last Friday

that he wasn't hearing anything.

That's the reason that I have taken time of the House to do

the Minister's reading for him and to point out to him what the

people of British Columbia are saying. I don't want to get off

that track. That's what I'm endeavouring to do and I've sent

him over the articles.

"Surely somewhere" — I'm quoting the editorial again, and I hope the Minister

of Agriculture is listening — "Surely somewhere, among those who have lived

with and been frustrated by the problem for years, there is someone with ideas

of how the provincial government can fairly achieve its objective," Would you

take that over to the Minister of Agriculture so that he can see, so that he

can hear what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42.

Now I've got to quote the Vancouver Province again. This is

on Thursday. This is the day before the Minister of Agriculture

stood in this House and said that he wasn't hearing anything — his concern was that he was hearing "precious little." This is

right off the front page. Right on the front page and the

Minister couldn't see it. "Government to amend land act. NDP

backbenchers push for changes."

What does this

article say? It's written by one of our men

in the Press gallery. I'm quoting the article: Vancouver

Province March 8, 1973. "Government to amend the land act" — that's the headline. I'm reading from the

article now.

"Province Victoria Bureau." Dateline Victoria. "Agriculture

Minister Dave Stupich said, after meeting a group of concerned

Government backbenchers Wednesday, that there will be

amendments to the proposed Land Commission Act."

Madam Speaker, this is the day before that same Minister of Agriculture stood

in this House and said he hears precious little. He must have been hearing his

backbenchers because he sent them off to the ridings to find out what was going

on. So he must have listened to them. He sent them out to try and put out the

fire. I don't know, Madam Speaker, if the Government can send out their Members,

why we weren't given the same opportunity to go out and find out what was going

on so we could do our research.

"He said backbenchers and the Government's Environment and Land Use Committee

both are considering changes to the legislation and will present them when drafted."

Yet he doesn't hear. I'll mark that so that when the

article goes over, he'll

know exactly where to read it. This

article goes on to say: "About half a dozen

members of the NDP caucus met Stupich Wednesday morning…" Oh, they met him

Wednesday morning. It wasn't a normal caucus meeting. "…. To discuss the extent

of controls proposed in the bill."

"About half a dozen members," Madam Speaker, "of the NDP caucus met Stupich

Wednesday morning to discuss the extent of controls in the bill, the addition

of more appeal procedures and compensation." Well, maybe he lost his hearing

between Wednesday morning and Friday noon. It goes on to say: "The legislation

would create a Government commission to designate land as farm, greenbelt, recreational,

park — and prevent it from being used. Questioned Wednesday night about the

meeting, Stupich said, 'll expect there will be amendments.' "

I wonder why he expected that there would be amendments,

when he couldn't hear on Friday afternoon? Why, if he's not

getting any feedback, would he expect amendments? "He would

not, however, indicate what the amendments would be." I think

it's going to be very difficult, Madam Chairman, to… Madam

Speaker, I'm sorry. Now we'll get that straight. Madam Speaker.

Now you've thrown me off my course of thought. Oh, yes. The

Minister was questioned by this member of our Press gallery

Wednesday night about the meeting. "Stupich said, 'I expect

there will be amendments.' " Oh, yes, I read that. Sorry.

My thought was that it's going to be very difficult for the

Minister of Agriculture to amend this bill. The Minister of

Agriculture feels that when you pay taxes, Madam Speaker, you

are really only renting land from the Government. If that's his

philosophy — and that is the Minister's philosophy. The first

time we discussed this bill, I had sat down with the Minister

to go on a CBC programme to discuss this bill. Before we went

on, he said very clearly at that time, "Really, you don't own

the land anyway. You're just sort of renting it. You're just

paying taxes." That's the philosophy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you filibuster if you've got good

points to make?

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I've got good points to make and I'm going to

take my time making them, Mr. Attorney General. I'm not

filibustering. What gives you the idea I'm filibustering?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, if I stood on the floor of this

Legislature day in and day out for the next six months, no one

on that side of the House should say I was filibustering. Bill

42 is the bill that is going to be the ruination of the

socialist Government in British Columbia. You mark my

words.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know you're in trouble. Madam Speaker,

they know they're in trouble. That's why they don't want me to

take my time and bring out the points against this bill. Well,

Madam Speaker, I'm going to take my time, because I was elected

to this Legislation to serve the people of British Columbia.

I'm enjoying serving the people of British Columbia. But I'm

disappointed when the Government, to whom I have the

responsibility of pointing out things as they go wrong so that

they can correct them — I'm disappointed that they take this

attitude that they don't want to listen to me, Madam Speaker.

It's very difficult to understand indeed.

They're the ones who brought in the cliché, "open

Government." They're the ones, Madam Speaker, who said "no more

closure." They're the ones who said that everybody is going to

know what they're doing — "We're going to discuss things with

people." That is the Government over there, Madam Speaker, that

said all of this. Now they want me to sit down. They don't want

me to discuss this legislation.

"The only appeal for designation of land," the

article continues, "now

included in the bill is appeal to the courts. Jerry Anderson of Kamloops, one

of those who met Stupich, said he is concerned that there be an easier and cheaper

route of appeal directly to the Government." The Members in the Government backbench

certainly know full well, Madam Speaker, the dictatorial powers of Bill 42 They

know full well that the only right of recourse is to the Legislature itself.

Now will you take this over, in order that the Minister of Agriculture shall

see and he shall hear.

It says, "The Minister seeks feedback. Premier Dave Barrett has told Government

backbenchers to attend constituency meetings on the controversial land commission

bill whenever they can. He said in an interview Thursday that meetings both

to support and oppose the legislation entitled Bill 42 were being organized

in many ridings." I attended one of those meetings on Sunday afternoon last.

Had the Minister of Agriculture, Madam Speaker, been at this

meeting, he would have heard the people in that hall shout for

their rights. He would have heard the feedback from the farmers

in the Delta area who realize what a damaging piece of

legislation Bill 42 is. He would have heard.

He said in an interview, and this is the Premier speaking — he said in an interview Thursday: "Meetings both to support and

oppose the legislation entitled Bill 42 were being organized in

many ridings. The backbenchers asked my opinion on whether they

should go to these meetings."

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the reason the

backbenchers asked the Premier whether they should go to these

meetings or not is because they were afraid of what some of the

farmers at these meetings might do to them. "And I told them

that I believe that it is essential for an MLA to attend these

important meetings. We want a reasoned, intelligent debate on

this bill and this is one way to get it."

The Premier goes on to say, "I find it very exciting after

12 years as an MLA, that we've got a chance to govern, and we

are listening." I suggest, Madam Speaker, that if the

Government is listening, they will withdraw Bill 42 now. Will

you withdraw Bill 42, Mr. Minister of Agriculture?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you withdraw the bill now? You can tell

me while I'm standing on my feet, because if you're not going

to withdraw it I have to keep on pointing out, Madam Speaker — I have to keep on pointing out to the Minister of Agriculture

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) wants to know why I have to. Well, Madam

Speaker, I'll tell the Minister of Public Works why I have to

point out to this Government that has closed ears and closed

eyes; why I have to point out the damaging effects of Bill 42

on all people in British Columbia, whether they be farmers or

city dwellers or cliff dwellers.

My conscience, Madam Speaker, tells me that I have to point

out to that deaf and dumb Government over there, if they can't

recognize, Madam Speaker, the damage Bill 42 is going to do — and evidently they can't recognize it because they've

said that they won't.

Madam Speaker, I don't know why the Minister of Agriculture

was unable to hear on the radio last week that an ex–Prime

Minister of Canada was demanding that the bill be delayed. I

wouldn't call that precious little — hearing precious little. I

would say that that's

[ Page 1265 ]

a pretty loud noise — pretty sound advice coming from a

great politician, from a person that has always been interested

in justice, from a person who has always been interested in

people's rights.

The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, former Prime Minister,

pressed the government on Thursday, Madam Speaker; that's the

day before the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this House — the day before he said that his concern was that they were

hearing precious little.

If he can't hear the Hon. John Diefenbaker speak from

Ottawa, with all the radios and televisions that must be

available to him, I will send this

article over to him, so that

he can read it. But before I do… Diefenbaker's question

indicated that he had changed his mind on the bill. He was

questioned before