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 27, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1763 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Privilege Disclosure of amendments to Bill No. 42. Mr. Chabot

— 1763

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1763

Mr. Speaker — 1763

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Nicolson — 1764

Mr. Smith — 1765

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I rise on a point of

privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last night in this House the Premier

read a letter from Block Bros. which was delivered to him by

special delivery. Subsequently, this same correspondence has

been delivered to Members of this House by special delivery,

reached the Members the following day from the day this

information was available to the Premier. The Premier used the

information contained in this special delivery letter, using

selective parts of the information in that letter to make his

point There has been widespread feedback on the letter …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, what it the point of

privilege?

MR. CHABOT: My point of privilege is that the

article in the

newspaper says that Block Bros indicated that they were

informed that the final form of Bill 42 will include a number

of amendments to be introduced by the Minister of Agriculture.

Now I want to know why Block Bros. Is aware of these amendments

and why the information is not available to Members of the

Legislative Assembly as well. Why should Block Bros. be party

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member be seated.

MR. CHABOT: …to information which is not available to

Members of this House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I think it is important that I

respond if the Member feels that there has been an offence.

That Member seems to go out of his way to be incorrect. There

were two letters, Mr. Speaker. Had he taken the trouble or the

courtesy of inquiring with me, he would have had the

information he needs.

There are two letters. One was a letter to me from Mr. Block

which I read yesterday, which had an instruction to his staff.

The second letter came to all Members today, and arrived at the

same time for all Members.

In terms of knowledge of amendments, the public has

knowledge of amendments forthcoming because the Minister has

made statements time and time again that there will be

amendments forthcoming and has given indication of what these

amendments will be

He said that they are considering amendments, and anybody

who wants to comment on the consideration of amendments is

doing far more service than the Opposition which to this date

has not placed an amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. With respect to the Hon.

Members, it appears that the whole of this is out of order. A

point of privilege has not been discussed before in this House — and I could cite authorities to deal with a point of

privilege. It is not a point of privilege, and I cannot see it…

Order, please, would the Hon. Members be seated. Will the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey be seated. I see no point

of order, and that leaves nothing upon which the Members can

rise.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): …while I agree with the point

you made, Mr. Speaker, really the statements of the Premier raised more questions

than they answered. Why has Block Bros. been consulted about the amendments?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Absolute nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Even if that were true, this matter has been

disposed of on the question of privilege, and I cited all the

authorities on it. Surely if the Hon. Member had an authority

that disapproved of the ones that I have cited, he would have

the courtesy to furnish me with it. In the circumstances, there

is no point of order and there is no point of privilege.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, continued debate on the

second reading of Bill No. 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-

[ Page 1764 ]

Creston adjourned the debate.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before the dinner hour, I was talking about the forms in which…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: …compensation should take place, and to

whom it should go.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Member be seated. Will you withdraw

that remark?

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. NICOLSON: I say it is very important to consider which

farmers should be compensated, and I am making the point that

all farmers, I believe, in this province deserve compensation

in terms of an input. If there is to be capital input into the

agriculture industry, that input should be in a manner to make

all farming viable in this province.

There is an

article printed in the Creston Advance ,

Monday, March 5, 1973, and it's headlined "Spend only 19.3 per

cent of income on foods." And it starts:

"Many consumers believe that the cost of food has risen too

quickly, and that farmers are getting an unfair share of the

consumer's dollar. Farmers, on the other hand, feel that prices

they receive for their products have not increased in

proportion to the prices they must pay for goods and services

which they buy.

"Fifty years ago, about 80 per cent of man's income went

into basics: food, clothing and shelter. Today less than 65 per

cent. At least 35 per cent of a family's take-home pay goes for

travel, recreation, education, health and other items adding to

life's quality. Today Canadians spend only 19.3 per cent of

their earnings on food, the second lowest country in the

world."

And it goes on to show how farmers have contributed to the prosperity which

we enjoy today, and yet in terms of returns, it points out that farm labour

wages average $1.64 an hour compared with $4.77 for construction workers, $3.28

for factory workers and $1.96 for general work in hotels and restaurants. It

also points out here what an hour's work in a factory bought in 1971 and 1961.

In 1971 it bought 2.4 pounds of sirloin steak, as compared with only 1.9 pounds

in 1961. Pork chops, 3.7 pounds in 1971, 2.5 in 1961. And milk — 9.6 quarts

and 7.8 quarts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm reading something here. I must say I

wasn't here for the entire speech of yours, but as I say, I've

been here for a good 60 per cent, and probably been here more

in the debate than you have, the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. But

the point that I am making here is that people have been asking

for compensation for farmers and some of these farms are — well

we might say corporate farms, being held in abeyance by real

estate interests, and being leased out to tenant farmers by

real estate interests. They are saying that compensation should

be made for loss of potential paper resale values, for

potential use as residential land. And I find this hard to

accept, because I know people that have orchards right in the

area of Creston which is being encroached upon by the growth of

that city, and these people support the bill. These people want

to continue farming. These people don't want to see their

orchards cut down and go under the plough. They've seen it,

they've seen it around them. Some have been subdivided, but

they do want the industry to become viable. And you know it is

rather interesting too that the former Minister of Agriculture,

speaking earlier in the debate, talked about having to feed

potatoes to livestock. Well, that just ain't so. Potatoes are

very viable today…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Where have you

been?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, in the Creston Valley the marketing of

potatoes is something that the people are expanding into, they

are filling out their production. It is very viable, and I

could refer you to people like Bill Piper who's investing

thousands and thousands of dollars, expanding in this industry

and doing very well at it. It depends of course — you have to

be ready to put in a little bit of market research and such,

and if you had read the market research forecasts that I have

read, there is a market for vegetables, which maybe you aren't

aware of.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: The dairy industry has picked up somewhat in

the Creston area, and although rising feed prices are a

problem, it has been fairly strong in the last couple of years.

There are extreme problems of viability though, and the fruit

industry is certainly one of them. Another difficulty of course

is the series

[ Page 1765 ]

of bad crop losses which have been suffered in the Peace

River country. But one can wonder just how should we spend

money in this province, As I pointed out earlier, these real

estate values have been created by public expenditures, by

expenditures of the Crown.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if you want to hear, such as the Deas

Island Tunnel, the Port Mann Bridge, the Freeway.

How valuable would that land be if instead they had laid a

six lane road from New Westminster or Burnaby out to Agassiz?

Where would the development be there if all you had was, say,

the Pattullo Bridge and the old Mission Bridge and the Ladner

ferry to get over to Delta? What would be the value, what would

be the potential of residential development over in Delta if

you hadn't built those bridges?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: What I am saying and what I said earlier is

that expenditure of Crown money creates wealth and it could be

created in other areas. It could have been created north of the

river instead of south of the river, if the Crown chose to

plough the money in that way. It has been a fairly even

development on both sides of the river. I would have thought

these people who purport to be experts in finance and

understand the intricacies of such things would…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What grade did you

teach?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Too high for

you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal.

MR. NICOLSON: If this were to be done — just take the

instance of the small amount of farmland left in Richmond,

12,000 acres. Now, what are you going to compensate people for

that? $10,000 an acre, $3,000 an acre? You start talking about

millions and hundreds of millions of dollars when you start to

talk about this type of compensation. I say that is the kind of

money we should be thinking of spending, but it should be spent

on all the farmers, not just the ones contiguous to the big

metropolitan areas — just the areas contiguous to cities that

have been developed and have grown because of capital inflow

from both provincial and federal governments.

I say that where this money should be spent and the wisest

thing we can do for the farmer, for the person who lives in the

city, for everybody in British Columbia — the wisest way to spend this money is to make

farming viable and that is what we are going to do.

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

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

Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you the last one?

MR. SMITH: I don't know, there are a few more on the

Government side of the House whom we haven't heard from. I rise

to my feet to join the rest of the Members of the Opposition

who have spoken prior to this time.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House a statement

that was made by the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) — a statement that I believe, if it is true, requires not

only the cabinet but every Member on the Government side of the

House to resign forthwith. This is the statement and it is

recorded in Hansard .

"I'll tell you about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell

you about the backbench, my friend. That bill was before caucus

and we went over it stage by stage before it hit the floor of

this House. We support it 100 per cent."

MRS. JORDAN: Who said that?

MR. SMITH: The Second Member for Vancouver Centre. If that

is a true statement Mr. Speaker, it means that a message bill

went before the caucus of the Government Members before it was

introduced into this House. It is a breach of the legislative

process in this province or any other jurisdiction and every

one of your people that sit in the cabinet and the backbenchers

that sit- with them should resign forthwith.

MRS. JORDAN: Resign! Resign! Resign!

MR. SMITH: If this is the type of thing that we have in this

House…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you should wait until the end of the

Hon. Member's speech if you have any point that you wish to

correct him on. Normally.

MR. LAUK: Very good.

[ Page 1766 ]

MR. SMITH: Refer to the rules of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): If you have a point,

put the motion down on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: We have a point — we are waiting for you to

resign. If this is what is happening in this Legislature, then

all the rules of the Legislature have gone out the window.

Amendments are being introduced and discussed in the hallways,

in the caucus, everywhere but on the floor of this House and

message bills before they are introduced in this House.

Everyone knows that that is a breach of parliamentary

privilege, Mr. Speaker, and the Government should resign on

that basis alone, let alone anything else.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald),

are you admitting that this bill was discussed in caucus before

it came before this House as a message bill? Is that what you

are saying?

MRS. JORDAN: Resign!

MR. SMITH: Is that what you are saying? That that bill was

discussed in caucus before it came before this House? If that

is what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, then the Attorney General

should resign.

MRS. JORDAN: Resign!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate is on the second

reading of the bill.

MR. SMITH: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Let's get one thing straight. We'll debate bills

and we'll debate message bills in the House before they are

debated in the caucus of the party in power today.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Probably saw the

budget too.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has a point of order.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Is the Hon. Member discussing

a point of order or is he discussing Bill 42?

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, for goodness sake.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: Discussing your Member's statements made in

this House about a breach of parliamentary procedure.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Shouldn't be tolerated.

You would agree Barrett's a dictator. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, the matter has

been raised in this debate about where or when a bill was

discussed. That is not, however, the subject of second reading

of the bill which is being discussed in principle. If there is

some matter that you consider a matter of privilege, it should

be looked into. I would certainly appreciate your discussing it

with me or raising it at some appropriate time. In the meantime

I wish we could get on with the debate on second reading.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll get back to the

principle of the bill that we are debating this evening. But I

suggest to you that there is a breach of privilege there and I

will be discussing it with you at some other appropriate

time.

There are a number of people who have suggested in this

debate that there is a rip-off of some sort of this thing, that

thing or the other thing. Even the Hon. Premier was talking

about rip-offs when he spoke in the debate last evening. I

would like to suggest to the Members of this House that there

has been a rip-off by no one else than a federal MP. He has

ripped off the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia.

In dealing with Bill 42 and the principles of that bill, a

Member of the federal House sent out throughout this province a

copy of a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun . It

so happens that the letter is signed by a Mr. Alastair R.

Lucas, Associate Professor of Law and Mr. Robert T. Franson,

Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia.

I am not suggesting that any federal Member is not within

his rights to send out letters to whomever he may desire in the

province but this happens to be a letter, or a copy of a

letter, to the editor of the Vancouver Sun sent out with

the compliments of Mr. C. P. Neil, the NDP MP for Vancouver

East. In using and sending out this mail he used the franking

privileges of Canada to send out the mail.

[ Page 1767 ]

Now, the man is interfering in provincial rights. It is a

provincial matter, it has nothing to do with the Legislature or

suggest to the Hon. Speaker that that is a misuse of his

privileges in the House of Commons in Ottawa and that, in

effect, is a rip-off of the taxpayers of Canada because they

paid for this propaganda that came out under his signature to

the provinces, throughout the provinces, on a provincial

matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I certainly do. I certainly do.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't listen anyway.

MR. CHABOT: You keep signing the same letter.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope you learn something, because we gave you

a lot of information.

MR. SMITH: Another matter that was brought before this House

and referred to was the position of the United Church of Canada

concerning Bill 42. It was suggested to this House by inference

that the United Church of Canada were in favour of Bill 42. But

there was a twist involved there because only part of the

letter was read or referred to. I think that's despicable that

anyone would use a church organization in debate without

telling or revealing to the Members of this Legislature the

entire letter that was written, I say in good faith, by members

of the United Church. So let's read the letter that was sent to

Members of the Legislature and other people in the province —

and I'll read the whole letter, not just part of it.

"The following resolution was passed at the spring executive

meeting by the B.C. Conference, the United Church of Canada, Thursday, March

15, with 49 persons present from all over the province. Resolution: Bill 42,

Land Commission Act . The British Columbia Conference of the United Church of

Canada supports the principle of integrated land use by the provincial government

as set out in the objectives of Bill 42,

section 7 (

a) to (

h) inclusive.

"As Christians, we believe that all land is held in trust as

God's gift, and that individual rights to the use of land must

be balanced more equitably by the present and future need of

all than has been the case in the past.

"Out of our concern for individuals, particularly those on

family farms affected by implementation of the objects of Bill

42, we encourage the Legislative Assembly to review the

succeeding parts of this bill in order to ensure that:

It clearly excludes the right of expropriation under this bill.

(

b) It is altered to include adequate appeal procedures.

(

c) It includes the possibility of compensation in cases of hardship."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'm quoting from a letter that was written by a

responsible body, the United Church of Canada — the British

Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'll read the rest of the letter too.

"We recommend to your attention the fact sheet and

observations and recommendations as compiled by the B.C.

Environmental Council, the Vancouver Natural History Society

and the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, B.C.

Chapter. And we encourage such efforts towards an atmosphere of

constructive discussion."

The fact sheet that they refer to is in favour of the bill,

but it's a qualified statement that they make in the fact

sheet. In other words, the United Church of Canada is just as

concerned as the rest of us are in this House that whatever is

put before this House in the way of a bill protects the rights

of the farmer, does not subject him or any part of his family

to abuse by law.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member speak.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We heard a great deal in this debate from the Member for

Richmond (Mr. Steves). He talked about the real estate firms in

the Province of British Columbia lobbying because it was in

their best interests to lobby the Members of the Legislative

Assembly. He suggested that even the staff of the particular

firms that he referred to had all been instructed by someone or

other to send letters to the Members of the Legislative

Assembly. And I'd like to quote from an

article in the

Vancouver Sun dated March 24, 1973:

"Steves' charges of an organized mail-in campaign against

Bill 42 by real estate interests intrigues at least one of the

firms whose employees mailed in the cards. Peter McWilliams,

general manager of Rutherford McRae, one of the firms named by

Steves, said, "Any of the firm's employees who mailed in the

cards did so on their own. We know nothing about it."

What does intrigue his firm was a break-in at the head

office at 1774 West Broadway, in the early

[ Page 1768 ]

morning of March 15. He said that there were signs the

firm's postage meter had been handled. The only missing item,

he said, was a small calculator. He said," …and it was

apparent the break-in was a search for something other than

usual items a burglar would take, but so far a check has not

disclosed any missing files."

In other words, the gentleman who is speaking on behalf of

this firm, while he admits that perhaps his employees could

have sent in cards, also brings to the attention of the public

the fact that their office was mysteriously broken into and

that, according to his own statement, it looked as if their

postage meter had been tampered with.

Is it not reasonable to believe, Mr. Speaker, that someone

who wanted to give the real estate industry in the Province of

British Columbia a black eye could have arranged to stamp a

large number of letters with the postage meter belonging to any

real estate company in the province, including the one that was

broken into on that particular night?

I wouldn't want to suggest to anyone that people would stoop

to that. But, I'd like to tell you this, and this is a fact

that no one can dispute.

When the farm organizations of the province got together to

demonstrate on the steps of the Parliament Buildings in an

orderly demonstration — and those farmers came from all parts

of the province, particularly the Okanagan, the lower mainland

area and the island — and held a demonstration in an orderly

manner and tried to impress upon the Government their point of

view, one of the people who was most vocal — not only during

the demonstration but prior to the demonstration in his own

area — was a farmer from the Surrey area — a Mr. Matt

Kennedy.

Now I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it was just coincidence that

while Mr. Matt Kennedy took time off from his duties as a

farmer to be in Victoria, to argue their point of view, his

barn burned down — a barn that was locked up, unoccupied, had

not been in use by himself for some time. Yet, just by

coincidence, Mr. Speaker, at the very time that he was over

here speaking on behalf of himself and farm people who he

represented, his barn burns down. Now, isn't that

coincidence?

The fire department that attended the blaze say that they

can see no reason why the barn burned down and it looks to them

very much like arson. So, these things happen when a person who

wants to protect his rights and bring to the attention of the

seat of government his point of view takes time off to make a

trip to Victoria.

Is this the type of action that we are about to condone in a democracy? Against

a man who just wants to fight for his own individual rights and come here and

make his point known — not by crashing through the doors of the public gallery

— but by standing out on the steps of the building in an orderly manner, in

a peaceful way, saying to the Members who would listen to him, "I protest. I

protest Bill 42." No anarchy involved. No malicious statements to overthrow

the government. Just a man concerned in his own way about the effects of Bill

42 on his particular farm.

Well, he certainly has a report that indicates the barn was

lost as a result of arson. Now why that happened, I don't know.

I'm not suggesting and I'm not blaming anyone. But I am saying

this, Mr. Speaker, that it's just a little too much of a

coincidence that a barn which is not being used, which has

stood in his particular farmyard for years, burns down on the

very day that he's in Victoria on an orderly demonstration.

That's a little too much.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: It seems queer to me, Mr. Speaker, that when we

bring to the attention of the House a matter that has been

reported publicly all through the lower mainland on the radio,

that we should be accused of trying to incite someone in some

way. No such suggestion.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would have

reason to believe, I think, that there's too much of a

coincidence involved when a man who's involved in a peaceful

demonstration loses his barn by arson at the same time that

he's over here. The fire marshal I understand is looking into

it.

This is not the type of thing that any of us in this House

should stand for.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member finish his

speech.

MR. SMITH: When we have order, Mr. Speaker, I'll

continue.

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture, when speaking about this

bill, said, and I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, I do invite the Members opposite to participate constructively in debate to bring forth

reasonable suggestions that will accomplish the goals of this

legislation. I think if they do that, if they're prepared to

work with the Government, not only in the Legislature but after

the Legislature rises; if they'll work in the community and

talk to the farmers, they can help the farmers, help them save

their land and help them farm economically."

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House or in the Opposition

disagrees with or opposes the principle of conserving farmland

to the best of our ability. Our opposition to this bill is

based upon the absolute fact that the bill that is before us

will not nor was it ever

[ Page 1769 ]

intended to accomplish that purpose.

There are clauses in this bill which, used by the commission

which is to be set up, will lead to the confiscation of private

property, including farm units. This will happen in the name of

an all-powerful, all-embracing, five-man commission appointed

by the cabinet through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, a

commission that the people of this province will be subservient

to from the time the bill is passed until it is thrown in the

garbage can by another administration after the next

election.

We've heard the Members on the Government side of the House

suggest to us that they're not hearing the same things that we

hear; they're not receiving the same type of communication that

we receive. Their letters in the main are those that support

the legislation and approve of it. Well, if that's the case,

the duty of the Opposition is even more clearly defined because

we are hearing from the people of the province. We are being

told in no uncertain terms that people oppose Bill 42 in its

present form, that they do not agree with the all-powerful,

all-embracing power included in this bill.

They're not saying it by the tens or dozens or hundreds.

They're saying it by the thousands and the tens of thousands

throughout this province. They have asked us on their behalf to

make their point of view known because it would seem to them

that whatever they say is not being listened to by the

Government.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for standing

on our feet in this House and bringing to the attention of the

Government in the most forceful manner that we can muster,

arguments which have been suggested to us and ideas which have

been suggested to us by people throughout the length and

breadth of British Columbia.

During the opening of second reading on this bill, the

Minister's defense of the bill in my opinion and the opinion, I

think, of many British Columbians was weak, ineffective,

certainly lacking in conviction — almost as if the Minister of

Agriculture was being faced with the fact that he had to defend

a bill drafted by someone else in the Government of this

province other than himself, forced through cabinet by some

other cabinet Minister and then tossed into his lap to pilot

through the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Even the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

indicated not long after the bill was introduced into the House

that certain sections of the bill were unfamiliar to him — he

was not familiar with them. He didn't even know what they

contained. It almost makes one wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the

Minister of Agriculture himself really knew what was in the

bill when it came before this House.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister really does not

have any confidence in the Act as it is prepared and is before

us; and that is why not once, not twice but many times the

Minister has pleaded with the Opposition to take him off the

hook. He's suggested that he will listen to any amendments that

we have to propose.

Well, I suggest to the Minister that there is only one

solution that is acceptable to the official Opposition and the

other Opposition Members in this House — although I don't speak

for them — and that is the complete withdrawal of the bill now.

Lay this document over until such time as you've had an

opportunity — if you'll be guided by public opinion — to listen

to what people have to say to you throughout this province.

Take your own good advice which you seemed to be so free with

before the election, and go throughout the Province of British

Columbia and listen to what people are saying about Bill

Put the whole matter of farmland preservation into the hands

of a committee and allow them to travel throughout the province

and get suggestions, ideas and recommendations. The first thing

that must be apparent to all of us is the fact that if you wish

to bring in a bill which will preserve farmland, then you must

bring in a bill which will allow certain flexibility in one

part of the province as compared to another.

There's no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the need

for the conservation of farmland is much greater, much more

critical in certain areas of the province than in others. That

by bringing in a bill that conserves farmland you really will

have done nothing to preserve the farmer in a viable situation

in this province.

This is why farmers collectively throughout the whole of the

Province of British Columbia have been so violently opposed to

Bill 42, because most of them have worked a lifetime — if you

take the average age of a farmer today — to acquire a farm

unit, be it 100 acres or 1,000. They find that even on the farm

unit, regardless of the size, under present circumstances and

conditions they cannot make a viable income.

They have looked upon their farmland as an asset that

appreciated in value, the same as all other land in the

Province of British Columbia has appreciated in value. While

they didn't particularly like the idea of some day parting with

their land, they knew that there was an asset that backed up

their desire to some day retire.

That retirement could come about in one of two ways: it

could come about as a result of selling the property that they

had to another farmer or to the Green Belt Fund, and the

capital that they received would allow them to retire in

comfort, they would hope, in much the same manner as other

people in the province; or they hopefully could turn that farm

unit over to another member of their family. But

[ Page 1770 ]

what young man raised in a farming community today, looking

at all the trials and tribulations that his father faces,

realizing that he can go out and work at almost any job,

including manual labour, and receive far greater return than

his father has ever received as a farmer, will enter the

farming business?

Disregard the price of the land. If his father was prepared

to turn the farm over to him just for the value of the assets

and the machinery that was there, under today's economics it's

not a viable operation. No banker, no financial institution, no

father that has a real desire to see his son prosper would

advise him to take over his farming unit under the economic

situation that they face in British Columbia today. This is the

reason that farmers so violently oppose Bill 42.

Not only will this bill lock farmers in, but it will place

them in a position where their farm unit itself will be

devalued. Certainly a bill that does that and will do this the

day that it passes — it's already done it, as a matter of fact — is one that farmers should violently oppose with all their

strength.

Farm people are not the type of individuals who are easily

aroused, but they do have a love for the land. Perhaps it's

certainly been good fortune for the rest of us that they do

have that love for the land. Because, Mr. Speaker, farming in

British Columbia, as in many parts of the world, in the last

few years has been a labour of love, not one that returned to

them an income comparable to what they would have received in

any other job in any other vocation, regardless of what one you

would like to name.

Later on this evening I'm going to refer to some letters and

correspondence that I have from people in the farming

communities. I think it's important that their point of view is

known to the Minister of Agriculture and to the people of this

province.

It seems queer to me, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when we

did have a Green Belt Act in operation that a farm preservation

bill which was compatible with that Act was not introduced by

the new Government. Certainly it would have been a better way

to approach the preservation of farmland. The bill that is

before us does not and will not preserve farmland. It was never

intended to do that and the only people who will lose and lose

heavily will be the farmers themselves.

The second class of citizens who will be affected by this

bill are those people who wish to build a home for themselves

on presently subdivided property. Because whether the

Government realized it or not, Mr. Speaker, the minute that

bill came into the House the price of subdivided property

escalated throughout the island, the lower mainland and many

other parts of British Columbia.

We have reliable reports that indicate in the Okanagan, even up through the

Cariboo and into my area, the price of a lot, an ordinary lot probably 75 feet

or less in frontage, suitable for an individual to build a home on, has accelerated

anywhere from 30 to 100 per cent.

Now why did that happen? Was there a situation that we had

less land the day after the bill came in than the day before?

Was there the situation that we had less subdivided property

the day after the bill came in than the day before? No. We had

the same amount of subdivided land and the same number of lots

still available. But because of an artificial situation created

by Bill 42, the market value suddenly inflated by anywhere from

30 to 100 per cent.

This, Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Government have on

their heads and their heads alone. Because if this matter of

the preservation of farmland, which they say is included in the

principles of Bill 42, had been approached in a proper manner,

then that would not have happened in the Province of British

Columbia at this particular time.

It would not have happened in that manner. We would not have

had the tremendous increase overnight in the price of

subdivided land within the province.

No wonder a man who owns a farm became upset. No wonder he

suddenly began to wonder what in the world was in Bill 42 and

why a Government that says they care for people was attacking

the very salt of the earth, the people who live and earn their

living by the sweat of their brows.

The farming industry is just that type of profession. If

people in other vocations today had the same dedication as a

farmer, if they were prepared to work the same sort of hours,

the income that they receive on an average would be at least

double what it is today.

True, a lot of that would probably go to the federal

government in income tax, but I suggest to you that anyone who

is working for an average salary today — and take whatever rate

you like, that is payable for a comparable job — if he worked

the same number of hours and with the same dedication, his

paycheque at the end of the month would be twice what it is

when he works a normal 35 or 40-hour week. No wonder the

farmers in the province are uneasy about this bill.

This bill is certainly the type that is unacceptable to the

people who represent us at the municipal and regional level of

government. They have said in no uncertain terms that the bill

is not compatible with the type of legislation that they

presently have, or the development plans that may be and are in

effect in many regional and municipal authorities throughout

the province.

There is no requirement for a Big Brother government to

scuttle the rights and the responsibilities of local government

with Bill 42. It came about, in my opinion, because, to be

charitable, I would have to

[ Page 1771 ]

say you panicked. You made a wrong decision when you

introduced the land freeze by order-in-council. You made a

second wrong decision when you introduced Bill 42. But even a

socialist government must realize that two wrongs do not

constitute a right, and that you have, through your panic,

created a situation within this province that has allowed the

price of real estate to escalate beyond belief without doing

anything to protect the farmer and his land.

Surely the Minister of Agriculture by this time must know

that this bill will not preserve farmland. If anything, in the

eyes of a farmer, it only makes it possible for a Big Brother

government to take control of his land and — what's most

humiliating of all, after having worked a lifetime to establish

a farm — to take control of his land at bargain basement

prices.

What makes it most unfair, Mr. Speaker, to an average farmer

sitting out on his farm, regardless of whether that farm

happens to be on the island, the lower mainland, the Fraser

Valley, the Okanagan or the Peace River Country — what makes it

most unfair to the farmer is the fact that he reads newspapers

as well as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, and he sees where the

Government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) has paid, and is willing to pay, up to $82,000 an acre

for a parcel of land in Victoria, supposedly for the

development of low cost housing. Then a farmer tries to equate

that to the suggestion that his land is only worth $250 to $400

an acre as farmland, and that under Bill 42, his land may be

acquired by the Government at $250 to $400 an acre purchase

price, as part of a greenbelt or parkland reserve, or whatever

might be the reason for taking the property at those

prices.

I know this, Mr. Speaker, that any farmer in the Peace River

country offered not $82,000 an acre, but offered $82,000 a

section — for the uninformed, a

section is 640 acres — would

gladly take that price today, because I don't know of farmland

up there that's selling — even good farmland — at more than

$20,000 a quarter-section at the present time. So how does a

farmer in that particular situation at this particular time

have any sympathy or support for a government who sees fit to

pay $82,000 an acre for land in Victoria and then turn around

to the farmer and say, "Because you are a farmer, your land is

worth, as farmland, $250 to $400 per acre." Where is the

equality? Where is the fair treatment?

Do you believe, Mr. Minister, that it is fair for your

government to step out and pay $82,000 an acre to assemble land

in Victoria for so-called low-cost housing units, and then

suggest to farmers that their land in the lower mainland and on

the island is worth somewhere between $250 to $400 per acre,

depending on where you are? Is that fair?

I don't think it's very fair, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're dedicated to standing

in our place in this House and saying, loud and clear: that we do not accept

Bill 42, that it should be withdrawn forthwith; that the bill is poorly conceived,

poorly thought out; that it will not solve the problem that you say it will

solve; that it has already created an artificially inflated market for subdivided

property.

It is a bill that has no place in a democratic country

because it artificially depressed the price of farmland and

inflated the price of other land, without providing one

concrete or one specific advantage to the one group of people

who it says it protects — the farmers of the province, the

people who are already as financially distressed as any group

of citizens in the Province of British Columbia.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker — how can any Government who says,

"Trust me, we believe in people," ever face the public

again after refusing to withdraw this legislation? Tell me —

how can any farmer, regardless of where he lives in this

province, ever have any faith in a government who perpetrated

this hoax and foisted it upon them against their will?

Mr. Speaker, 2,500 people demonstrated on the steps of this

building to show their displeasure in a peaceful manner — 2,500

people. To the discredit of the Department of Public Works,

even the loudspeaker system that was provided for them to use

suddenly and mysteriously went dead about two minutes before

the speeches should have started on the steps of the buildings.

Somebody, Mr. Speaker, pulled the plug so that the farmers and

the people who wished to speak to the farmers could not be

heard.

I suppose that's as much a coincidence as the poor farmer's

barn that burned down in Surrey on the same day.

I'm sure that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, had they

been informed that they required loudspeaker systems, would

have provided that service themselves. One thing they must have

learned and learned the hard way that afternoon in Victoria,

was that they could not trust the Government who provided them

with a loudspeaker system but didn't check it out to see if it

worked before it was to be used; the same Government that

agreed with those farmers that there would be a special ferry

laid on and then suddenly withdrew the ferry and said that it

was not possible to have that facility available for them that

morning.

No wonder that people in the Province of British Columbia

and those who are dedicated to preserving land and who live on

farms are very, very upset this evening.

[ Page 1772 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Who is that squeaking from the back row here? Oh,

that's the farmer from Richmond (Mr. Steves) speaking — the

ex-farmer from Richmond, I understand. Something happened to

the property.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sold the farm, didn't he?

MR. SMITH: He sold most of the property at a profit. He

found out that selling farmland was more profitable than trying

to raise a crop on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about telling the truth?

MR. SMITH: Well, my friend, I am telling the truth. I'm

telling it in the only way I know how on the floor of this

House, representing I think a community which is rural in

content and has more dedicated farmers in the area per capita

than any other part of the Province of British Columbia.

They're full time farmers, Mr. Speaker, if they're permitted to

do that, and when they can make a living on it.

I'll tell you something else. The only reason they are not

full-time farmers is because they have found it financially

necessary, in order to support their wives and families, to

take jobs off the farm. That's not an unusual situation

today.

Certainly they are thankful that jobs have been available to

them. But the whole process of farming in the last few years by

many, many people has been a process of subsidizing, out of

another type of vocation, the operating costs of the farms.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: They believe in farming and they wish to build

their land up to get to a position someday where they will have

a viable unit, one which they can be proud of and one which

they can retain and farm without the requirement of looking for

a part-time job for several months of the year.

This bill for all practical purposes destroys the Lands Branch of the province.

Mr. Speaker, it bypasses those professional people and dedicated civil servants

who have been in the Department of Lands for years. It circumvents their authority

and goes completely around them and places broad dictatorial powers in the hands

of an appointed five-man commission. Yet the Department of Lands of this province

is recognized not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada as one of the

best departments of lands anywhere to be found; people who have a knowledge

gained through experience and training and a dedication to the service not found

in many other jurisdictions; people who have dealt continuously on behalf of

the people of this province for many, many years.

What have we done? We've completely circumvented the Lands

Branch. We've destroyed it with all its checks and balances by

the introduction of Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, I want no part of that type of legislation. The

responsibility for that Act is on the shoulders of the cabinet.

That's just one more reason why we will not support the bill,

why we have suggested and pleaded with the Government benches

all through the debate upon this bill to withdraw it.

Let the public tell you what they think about the bill. Hold

hearings throughout the province. I am sure that you will find

as we have the people do have something to say, that they do

have ideas about the preservation of farmland. I think perhaps

at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to

the House the comments of one particular person who has a

number of ideas about the preservation of farmland in the

province and Bill 42. He has asked myself as a Member of the

Legislature, and I presume that he has asked other Members, to

do him the courtesy of reading his brief concerning farmland

and Bill 42, I intend to do that right now, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman lives in Aldergrove, B.C. His name is Mr. T.P.

Boyle. He took the trouble to put together a well thought out

brief and he sent the brief to the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Stupich, as well as to other Members of this

House. I think it's fitting that if the Minister does not wish

to reveal the fact that he has received this type of input from

people, then one of the Member of the Opposition should read

into the record what this man has to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. SMITH: I'm going to do that right now, my friend.

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

that you will read it thoughtfully, inasmuch as it deals with

principles and concepts, the application of which is important

to the future well-being of all British Columbians and to the

reputation of the B.C. Government.

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

Aldergrove (Langley) area of B.C., currently employed in a beef

operation. The land is good for dairy or beef production but

too small to produce an adequate income on a full-time farming

basis.

"Most of my income is, as must be, derived

[ Page 1773 ]

from an unrelated job so that the property can be maintained

as a farm.

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

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

content to maximize its agricultural output and to preserve the

land for that kind of use. Consequently I was glad to hear that

your Government intended to help preserve agricultural land

through legislation. Thus, you might expect to receive my

support for Bill No. 42.

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

regard to preserving agricultural land, I hope by this letter

to influence you and your associates to reconsider the methods

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

considered by a large segment of the population to be plainly

unjust. Some of them will precipitate a running sore of

discontent in much of the population for as long as they are

not redressed.

"More specifically I suggest that certain sections of the

bill be reworded, bearing in mind certain democratic principles

and traditions upon which our country was founded. The specific

sections which I review with considerable alarm and my

suggestions about them are given below."

Speaking to the principle of the bill he talks about no

right to compensation in respect of reserve land.

"The bill says the following under a caption, as you know:

Land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by

reason by the designation of that land by the Crown as an

agricultural land reserve, greenbelt land reserve, landbank

land reserve or parkland reserve. Since anyone with rudimentary

knowledge of the agricultural economics of the Fraser Valley

will advise you the commission's designation of land as solely

agricultural in use would reduce its economic value to roughly

$100 to $400 per acre from its recent value of anywhere between

$1,500 and $3,000 per acre."

Below he has a note, an addendum attached and says:

"I am talking about the land included from Surrey to Hope. I

am not familiar with the economics of Delta and Richmond, but

the contrast would be even more startling."

So he suggests that the value is anywhere between $1,500 and

$3,000 per acre, depending upon the individual characteristics

of the land.

"The bill therefore is plainly, enormously confiscatory of

existing property values from Surrey to Hope. Much the same

situation will apply to the Okanagan and to the significant

areas of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo. Without exaggeration

several hundreds of millions of dollars of property values are

involved.

"I appreciate that certain Members of the NDP Government

have criticized the activities of some land speculators.

However, I suggest very strongly that the whole Fraser Valley

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

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

few non-Canadian residents, but by thousands and thousands of

British Columbians who have invested their life savings and

their life's efforts in these properties. "Moreover, all these

people have been good citizens for a great many years, obeying

all the laws of the land. They have been uniform in their

application for many decades in British Columbia and in fact

across Canada.

"Those who have been exercising good citizenship in this

manner, who have been helping bring about the abundance that we

generally enjoy currently and who have lawfully invested their

savings in land and buildings to ensure that they will place no

burden, either on their families or on society in advanced

years, should suffer no penalty through sudden and dramatic

changes in our laws.

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

society no new laws should penalize or victimize innocent,

law-abiding citizens. The Premier and other principal Members

of your party have said repeatedly that your party is a

'people's party.' I submit that the thousands and thousands of

British Columbians who currently own land in the Fraser Valley

for 100 miles, in the Okanagan, the Cariboo and in Vancouver

Island, are ordinary people too. In my view they are not a

segment of society that have been parasites on our society and

economy nor are they a segment of society that has been

pursuing ownership of land and buildings for the purposes of

some evil financial gain. Quite the opposite in fact.

"The Premier has also said repeatedly that the NDP

Government will seek always to be fair in its legislation. If

you and the others really and genuinely intend to conduct your

Government according to that principle, then I suggest that you

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

repeat, be fair to everyone.

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

Act be changed to provide for the right of compensation rather

than no right at all.

[ Page 1774 ]

Specifically I suggest that a possible means by which this

end might be achieved is for the bill to provide for a

valuation day, selected from some time between the election of

your party and the end of the year 1972. Properties would be

valued based upon professional appraisals at fair market value

of properties as of the selected valuation day. From valuation

day to some future time period when the Government might

actually acquire title to the property, provisions would be

made for escalation in value, at least equal to the rate of

interest on long-term Government bonds.

"Such valuation would form the underlying values applying to

transfers of property between individual citizens in spite of

the fact that the properties might have been or might in the

future be designated as agricultural land by the

commission.

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

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

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

province is to benefit why should the whole province not pay

fair market prices rather than riding free on a segment of the

population?

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the wording of

the Act be changed as follows:

"Right of compensation in respect of reserve land. Land

shall be deemed to have a fair market value as of valuation day

November 15, 1972. Valuation will be based upon the principles

of valuation normally applied by professional land appraisers;

an average fair market value determined as of valuation day.

Future land values would be based upon valuation day value plus

an allowance for escalation in land values at least equal to

the rate of interest on long term government bonds. Where land

is acquired by the commission on behalf of the province the

commission will recompense owners of land in accordance with

the foregoing valuation principles.

"In respect of the commission's powers to acquire land on

behalf of the province as follows:

Purchase or otherwise acquire land on such terms and

conditions as the commission may consider advisable and hold

such land for the purpose of this Act — I have no objection to

the word "purchase" so long as an individual wishes to sell,

but what does "otherwise acquire land" mean?

"This could mean seizure by force of expropriation. The

commission should only be empowered to purchase land where an

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

intended why not say so specifically?

I urge this be written to be more specific.

may consider advisable' confer powers which clearly can be dictatorially misused.

Surely no agent of a democratically-elected government should have any such

powers. They should in my opinion be eliminated and words indicating fair market

value substituted.

"Section 11 of the bill says an owner of land aggrieved may

appeal on a question of law or access of jurisdiction only by

way of stated case to the supreme court. This part of the Act

makes no provision for an appeal from possible iniquitous

decisions by the commission on property values and in fact

gives the commission dictatorial powers in that regard with

complete immunity.

"When one considers the enormous powers conferred on the

commission by this bill, there will undoubtedly be excesses in

the future because the commission is completely protected if it

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

consequently sometimes act in an overzealous manner, or in

keeping with their personal views.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the right of

appeal on questions of equity also be granted. First a separate

and independent appeal board should be established to which an

appeal by any landowner could be made in respect of any act of

the commission and its employees — either in the application of

the law or in questions of equity.

"This body could be called a Land Appeal Board and it could

report separately to, for example, the Attorney General.

Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of appeal to

the judiciary should also be guaranteed in the Act, initially

at a level lower than a supreme court not only in respect of

interpretation of the law but also in respect of questions of

equity, provided the land appeal board had first been

involved.

"I suggest that further thought be given as to how functions

are to actually be carried out both as to policy decisions and

day-to-day operating decisions. At the moment the proposed

organization appears to create an excessive concentration of

powers and duties in a single board with completely inadequate

decentralization of responsibilities. I suggest, therefore,

that further consideration be given to the organization

contemplated as follows:

"Should this commission, having such vast powers be confined

to a membership of five only or, instead should it be enlarged

in order to be representative of a cross-section of British

Columbians both regionally and functionally? If this principle

was adopted, the commission would perhaps be doubled in

size.

"Should this commission be responsible to the Minister of

Agriculture? With due respect to you,

[ Page 1775 ]

Mr. Stupich, it puzzles many people as to what business the

Minister of Agriculture has to do with greenbelt land, land

bank land, or urban and industrial development and parkland for

recreational use. One could understand the bill being

introduced by you if it had solely to do with agricultural

land.

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

overall consideration of all land use in the province through

the establishment of policy, then I suggest that such a

commission report preferably to the House by suitable means —

if it must be directed and detailed by the party in power, then

to the cabinet as a whole within the policy directives arrived

at by the commission. Then the appropriate Ministers would

subsequently deal with matters that would come within their own

sphere of activity. For example, agricultural land matters

dealt with by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Otherwise, it

appears to me there will be such excessive concentration of

powers that arbitrary actions and inefficiencies will

inevitably ensue.

"The bill makes no mandatory provisions for specific and

decentralized actions which can be taken by municipalities in

respect of lands within their jurisdictions in keeping with

guidelines established by the land commission and goals of

individual Ministers as well. Should provisions not be made in

this regard so that these actions could not be taken solely at

the pleasure of the commission?,

"I ask that greater attention be paid to sound principles

and concepts as suggested in this letter and none to slogans or

unyielding adherence to past positions in the redrafting of

Bill No. 42. Otherwise as mentioned at the outset, the bill

will be considered by large segments of the population to be

unjust. Consequently I hope that the foregoing principles and

concepts will be applied to this bill and that the views

expressed herein by an ordinary citizen will be

considered."

One man's opinion, Mr. Speaker, but obviously a well thought

out opinion expressed, I think, in very concise terms,

addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, so I am sure he must

have received this communication as well as the rest of the

Members of this Legislative Assembly. Yet through Press

releases and through the words of the Minister himself, he has

indicated that he is really not getting any input concerning

changes in Bill 42.

Well, there is one man's opinion and I think a very good one — something that certainly is diametrically opposite to what we

have heard the Minister of Agriculture say.

Even the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has received letters concerning

Bill 42. So has the Hon. lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard because I happen to have a copy

of that particular communication, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"Bill 42. This letter comes to you from one of your

constituents in the provincial riding of Vancouver-Burrard. It

is my understanding that as one of the MLAs of the riding where

I live you are supposed to represent me in the provincial

Legislature. Therefore I am writing to you regarding the above

captioned bill introduced by your Government. I would like to

make clear to you that I am opposed to this bill and I hereby

request your Government to withdraw this bill."

She goes on to say:

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

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

land in cooperation with civic and municipal authorities

throughout the province before introducing legislation

regarding this important matter.

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

of farming as a way of life in British Columbia, the Government

should provide appropriate incentives for farmers rather than

restrict their freedom to deal with their property."

Even the Hon. Attorney General, I notice from an

article I

read, believes the economy of the farming group must be

improved.

"As my representative, I request you to do everything

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

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

appropriate bill introduced at a later time — a bill which will

give the required protection to personal rights in our

province.

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

will not only not vote for you at the next provincial election

in B.C. but I will campaign actively for your defeat as an

MLA."

Certainly that was one of the letters that the Members on

the opposite side of the House and the Government benches

didn't refer to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: You'll have an opportunity.

You know, Mr. Speaker, not everyone is opposed to Bill 42.

Certainly it would indicate that there are some people in

favour and one of the organizations that seems to be in favour

it is an organization called SPEC. That is a little curious

because we have been accused of over-reaction on this bill by

Government Members. In my experience, I know of no organization

in this province which over-reacts more frequently to any given

situation than this organization called SPEC. Certainly I have

never seen an organization, however well-intentioned it might

be, over-react on almost any situation as quickly as the

[ Page 1776 ]

organization called SPEC does with great frequency in this

province.

According to an

article in the Wednesday, March 14 issue of

the Vancouver Province , SPEC's decision to support the bill was

made at a meeting of nine representatives of the organization's

B.C. regions. Micky Rockwell, SPEC executive president said:

"He is confident the policy has the support of SPEC's 5,000

members. 'We don't believe the legislation threatens

confiscation or expropriation of land without proper

compensation,' Rockwell said, 'but," — and this is a

quote apparently — " 'we are confused by the wording of, 'on

advisable' in the land acquisition section. If this is intended

to give the proposed commission too much advantage, we would

oppose it.' "

So a meeting of nine people, called hurriedly by the

director, can speak for 5,000. It seems that even the person

who gave this news release has many doubts in his own mind as

to what the actual meaning of some of the clauses in the bill

are and how they would be interpreted, and also how they would

really be applied with that bill in force.

In all charity I must say that that organization, in my

opinion, was founded on over-reaction. In fact, over-reaction

has been the lifeblood of that organization and, really, the

way in which it survives today. I think that in many respects

they destroy their own credibility by making those types of

statements.

During the discussions we have heard the Minister talk

repeatedly about the loss of farmland. It's true — we have lost

some farmland. It hasn't really been lost physically. The land

has been changed as far as the actual use of it is concerned,

but in all the things that we have heard the Minister and the

Members of the Government say we've never heard, them even

mention the half million acres of land that came into

production in the Peace River country during the past 20

years.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): How many crops of peas do

you get in one year in the Peace River country?

MR. SMITH: If you want to grow peas, there's areas of that

country that will produce it very adequately.

MR. NICOLSON: Two crops a year?

MR. SMITH: Very adequately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: So if that is the type of crop that the farmer

chose to grow, he could grow it. But I suggest to the Hon.

Member across the hall that the production of peas in the Peace River country is not the type of

crop that most farmers would be interested in when they're

about 500 miles from a cannery. So the type of crop they will

grow might not end up to be that type of a marketing garden

product. But I'll also tell you this: there's no other part of

the province that can produce carrots, turnips…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Would the Hon. Member please return to

the substance of the debate?

MR. SMITH: I thought the substance of the debate, Mr.

Speaker, was to preserve farmland to grow farm products. Now,

if the Member opposite wants to engage in a little debate about

whether we can grow certain farm products in the Peace River

country, I'm sure the Chair will indulge me for one moment in

giving him a brief education in what we can grow in the way of

crops.

After all, we've heard everyone in this House tell us about

crops and farming methods and conditions — not only throughout

all British Columbia and Canada but almost every part of the

world. And it's been acceptable as a matter of debate.

The types of crops that we'll grow, Mr. Speaker, in the

Peace River country will be predicated on the types of crops

that grow best and for which we have a market. For the Member

to suggest to me that we should be growing peas in the Peace

River country when there is no cannery within 500 miles is

ludicrous.

MR. NICOLSON: Where are we going to grow peas if we can't in

the Fraser Valley?

MR. SMITH: You still can grow peas in the Fraser Valley, Mr.

Member, in many parts of it.

As a matter of fact I suggest to the Members of this House

that there is a fair percentage of farmland that is arable,

that is agricultural land, not only in the Fraser Valley but on

Vancouver Island, on other islands surrounding Vancouver

Island, in the Cariboo, in the Okanagan, that hasn't even been

tapped yet. Some of it requires irrigation in order to make it

viable.

A lot of it is just a matter of the people who own the land

finding the finance to put heavily-wooded land into

agricultural production, because at the rate of return today,

there is really no incentive for a person who has a small farm

of 50 or 100 acres in the Fraser Valley, to put the total

farmland that he owns into agricultural production at today's

prices. If a third or a quarter of that property today is

woodlot, with a lot of trees on it, that's fine. Perhaps that's

what we should retain. But on the other hand, if we are so

concerned about agricultural products, then we should look at

what that land can produce, and

[ Page 1777 ]

perhaps assist the farmer in removing the heavy underbrush

and the growth that prevents him from farming in an economic

manner today.

So there has been no mention by the Members of the

government about the half a million acres that came into

production in the Peace River country during the same 20 years

referred to by the Minister of Agriculture. There has been no

mention of the million acres of land that reports show us is

agriculturally suitable in the Fort Nelson plains area.

As a matter of fact, a former Minister of Agriculture was

all set to find out just how and what type of crops we could

grow in the Fort Nelson plains by setting up an experimental

farm there — clearing the land and putting it into production

under controlled circumstances to give us an idea of what can

be grown.

This we do know: in the Fort Nelson plains there are over

1,000,000 acres of potential agricultural land; the hours of

sunshine are greater than any other agricultural area in the

Province of British Columbia; the climate is comparable to the

Peace River area around Dawson Creek and Fort St. John; the

elevation is 1,000 feet lower. As a matter of fact they have,

on the average, in the Fort Nelson area more frost-free days

than we enjoy in either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek areas,

where we have been farming since the turn of the century, but

in a large-scale manner since the 1940's and early 1950's.

One of the things that we should consider when we are

talking about this loss of land is how it came about and what

made us get into this position where farmland had to be turned

over to some other type of endeavour, whether it was a

subdivision or whatever. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

very fact that British Columbia became a preferred part of

Canada for many people to live in has contributed greatly to

the reduction in the number of arable agricultural acres

available for us in the Fraser Valley, particularly that part

of the area from Hope to the sea.

What have we been doing for the last 20 years? Forming large

urban communities. Towns and cities that a few years ago were a

few thousand in population have now reached 20,000, 30,000,

40,000. The City of Vancouver — I don't know the exact figures — has probably doubled in size over 20 years ago.

With all of this influx and growth has come a need for better highways, for

wider highways, for more freeway construction, for traffic circles, for overpasses

and underpasses and interchanges, for utility corridors to carry the highline

wires that provide us with electrical current, for rail lines and for pipeline

compressor stations, for hydro transmission lines and hydro substations, for

public buildings, for maintenance buildings and yards to be used by the Department

of Highways and the Department of Public Works — all of this to service people,

and all has taken a toll on the available agricultural land within that specified

area.

I'd just like to refer briefly to the latest report from the

Department of Highways. It's the report for the year

1971-1972. I'm referring to page C-10 to the report of the

chief property negotiator.

"In 1971-72 fiscal year 753 settlements were completed and a

further 547 claims were in the process of negotiation.

"Five claims were settled by arbitration and steps were

taken to refer a further 10 claims for settlement by

arbitration,

"A total of $5,515,190.74 was expended on acquisition of

highway rights-of-way and other properties required by the

department.

"Land assembly on behalf of British Columbia Harbours Board

for the port area and the adjacent corridor requires an

expenditure of $2,066,710. Land acquisition for the Libby

Reservoir project carried out by this branch requires an

expenditure of $652,000.

"At the same time 8 sales by public auction and 25 sales by

public tender were held covering surplus land and buildings to

be cleared from rights of way; recovery from these sales

amounted to $45,000,099.02.

"During the fiscal year 93 buildings and parcels of land

were under short-term lease or rental agreements."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, part of the loss of

agricultural land must be borne by every one of us who

pressures government for increased services to people.

Every time we demand a wider right-of-way for highways,

every time we demand that the road be increased in width

because of the tremendous traffic congestion that we have, we

place a burden upon the elected authorities to purchase land —

land which is then converted to another use. No one in this

House should forget the fact that all us have a share in the

responsibility in any loss of farmland that has occurred in

this province, because we have demanded of government services

for people and in the process we have taken land out of

agricultural production in order to accommodate those

demands.

Let's return now to the Report of the British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority. Page 16 refers to their construction

programme. Yes, it's a very nice picture. As a matter of fact

it's of the Gordon M. Shrum generating station on the Peace

River at Portage Mouth.

But in this particular report they refer to major electric

transmission lines and the cost of them. Nelway to Cranbrook,

to Natal, to Alberta border — a 230,000 volt line — cost

$4,959,000. Mica to Ingledow and Meridian — a 500,000 kilowatt

line — cost $3,525,000. Nicola to Princeton to Newmont — the line

cost $2,422,000. Jordan River to Goward — a

[ Page 1778 ]

138,000 kilowatt line — cost $1,802,000. Kelly Lake to 100

Mile House, $1,785,000. Other transmission lines — $8,390,000.

Substations, associated distribution facilities and local

transmission systems — $29,000,000. Electrical extensions to

serve new customers — $17,678,000.

The point that I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this: to

provide services to people including electric energy there has

been a requirement on government to use land.

Now it's true that some of that land on Hydro rights-of-way

is being put to a further use by the planting of grass and

trees so that the public can use it almost as a parkway and

people can graze cattle on it, so there is a secondary purpose

and utility value involved. But the fact that British Columbia

must cater to the people who live here and provide them with

the services that they demand, that we have had a tremendous

pressure from urban growth, and that this increased pressure

has resulted in larger highways, better freeways, more

transmission lines for electric utilities, has all resulted in

losing some of the agricultural land of the province.

If one takes a look at the map in the back of the Hydro

report you can easily see the transmission lines that are all

scattered throughout the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's a suggestion by one of the Hon. Ministers

to go back to coal oil lamps. Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker,

that if that Hon. Minister wishes to go campaigning throughout

the province on the basis that everyone return to the use of

coal oil lamps, he'd better not come into my riding. I would

think, Mr. Speaker, that he would be in real trouble even with

his colleagues if he suggested to them that they should come

with him throughout the Province of British Columbia

campaigning on the basis that everyone should revert to coal

oil lamps.

Even coal oil is a form of energy, Mr. Minister, made from

petroleum products, as I recall, and that in itself is a

requirement upon some source of energy in the province.

So, Mr. Speaker, this matter of the loss of farmland —

certainly we have lost land to agricultural production and we

all must assume part of that responsibility, but the land has

been reallocated to other uses, and that reallocation has come

about as a result of people demanding services throughout the

Province of British Columbia.

I, for one, am certainly not going to suggest to the people

in the Peace River country that they should go back to coal oil

lamps after they fought so long and so hard to receive Hydro

services.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: That's right, Mr. Minister, a few people are

still using coal oil lamps, but the majority are not. The

reason that they have Hydro today is because there was a policy

available to them that would allow the extension of electricity

throughout the rural areas of British Columbia at a price the

people could afford to pay.

I would think, Mr. Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Hartley)

that your area reflects the benefit of that policy just as much

as my own does. I would think, Mr. Minister, that the policy

that they use a postage stamp grade for electrical energy

throughout the Province of British Columbia has been a benefit

to your area of the province as much as it has been to

mine.

So don't knock development and progress, particularly when

all of our areas in the rural parts of British Columbia have

benefited by it. If the cost has been the loss of some

farmland, that is a cost that we have had to pay. How are we

going to get it back? I don't think there is an answer to

that.

There is a way of bringing into production land which has

agricultural potential and which is presently not being used,

and that is to make it possible for a farmer to make a better

income from his farm. If he can see some benefit — even a very

small pot of gold at the end of the rainbow — he'll work for

it. But the picture has been anything but encouraging the last

few years.

In speaking to second reading of this bill, the Minister

said this, in stating to the Vancouver Province on March

10:

"Asked if he would consider withdrawing the

legislation, Stupich said he would consider putting it off, pending

further discussion, if he were satisfied there was substantial public

opposition.

"However, he said response he has received at public meetings and through the mail shows that once people

understood the legislation, they favoured it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times and in how

many ways we have to bring to your attention, Mr. Minister,

through you Mr. Speaker, the fact that people do not approve of

this legislation. I don't know how many times and in how many

ways we have to stand in our place and read letters to you from

people who have a genuine concern about the matter before you

withdraw the legislation.

I suggest to the Minister that we have certainly received an

abundance of correspondence indicating that the bill should be

withdrawn. I'd like to refer to some of that correspondence

that I have in front of me. Since it comes from all parts of

the province, I'm sure the Minister will be interested in it,

This is a letter from…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1779 ]

MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Speaker, it seems queer that when

one of the Members of the Opposition gets on his feet to speak

in this debate, he's filibustering. But the Premier himself has

spoken in the debate at length. Other Members of the cabinet

benches and the backbenches have spoken at length in this

debate. But when we get up to say our bit in this debate, we're

filibustering. What kind of democracy is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have not barred you from

speaking. If anyone tries to stop you speaking, you could

certainly appeal to the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll remember that. I

thank you for your kind concern.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You still

have the right of appeal. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Are you appealing my ruling? (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: This letter is from a big game guide and

outfitter who lives at Mile 428 on the Alaska Highway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Yes, a big game guide. He also happens to have a

bit of land, where he runs his livestock and his horses so that

he can retain the type of business that he has. What's wrong

with that, Mr. Member? Is there anything wrong with that? It

says:

"Dear Mr. Smith:

This looks like a bad and dangerous move and naturally I am

strictly opposed to such a move. I would certainly be willing

to do anything up this way that is possible. If you could give

me more information, I would certainly do anything I could and,

if nothing else, get a petition going against this land

freeze."

A short letter from a busy man, but it certainly explains

how he feels about it. I received, as many people did, all

kinds of very short letters saying, "I protest Bill 42." Here's

one from Fort St. John; another one from Fort St. John. That

one's from Hudson Hope. Here's one from a man at

Vanderhoof:

"We need to stop the land freeze and commission Act before

it's too late. Please help keep government out of business,

too. For the sake of B.C. and humanity, help keep us free."

It's signed by a Mr. Gary Blattner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SMITH: Gary Blattner, of Vanderhoof. A letter from Kamloops, 19

Mile Ranch:

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

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

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

of legislation and modify if not completely drop it.

"Your assistance in helping to put pressure in the right

area will be greatly appreciated."

A letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Cleo McGhghy, 101, British

Columbia. It happens to be north of Fort St. John.

"When we became citizens of Canada last year, one of

the rights we were trying to enjoy was that of owning property.

We are against Bill 42, Land Commission Act, because we

feel it is a real threat to our rights.

"Being a little green on politics, we voted NDP in the last

election. You can be sure they won't get our vote again.

"P.S. We are trying to get a ranch going in virgin country

but wonder if it is going to be worth all the work and worry by

the time the NDP takes over everything."

They're just a concerned man and his wife, who are trying to

get a foothold in a relatively sparse and unpopulated part of

the Province of British Columbia. Should they be denied that

right by legislative process? I think not.

Those are the people who have gone into these out-of-the-way

places and because of their persistence we have development

there today that we wouldn't otherwise have. We have places in

the province for people who get fed up with the urban life to

go, if they so desire. What is wrong with those people desiring

to own a piece of land in their right and their own name?

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if that's the type of encouragement

which we require and need to enhance new areas that can and

should be developed, if that's the type of encouragement we

need to get people out of the heavily-populated urban areas of

the province into these new areas — then I think we should

provide policies that will allow them to go into these areas

and become landowners with a title in fee simple for their own

benefit.

Here's a letter from a farmer who farms in the Cecil Lake

area of British Columbia, my own area:

"I disagree very much with the NDP with their land freeze. I

feel this is a free country and when we buy or homestead a

piece of land and pay our share of taxes on it when due, we

should be able to do what we want with this land.

"If we want to sell it, subdivide it or give it away, this

we should be free to do. If we can't do this, Russia might as

well have Canada too."

I'm quoting from a letter, Mr. Minister, from a farmer and,

as a matter of fact, a very concerned farmer.

[ Page 1780 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you read all your letters, we'll be

here till…

MR. SMITH: Two or three days, would you believe, if I read

all of them. But I'll read enough to give you an indication of

the type of correspondence I'm receiving.

I picked that letter, Mr. Speaker, out of the many that I

have received for a specific reason. This is a second

generation farmer in the Peace River country. His father came

into the Peace as a veteran from the First World War and

settled there. He's now retired — a man well up in years but

well respected in that part of the country. His son, C.F.

Burtons, Jr. — a Dutch family, as a matter of fact, by

background — farms not only the land that his father used to

own, but he's added to that farming unit since he became an

adult. He's concerned about what's going on in the farming area

that he represents.

Here's a letter from people who live in Fort St. John:

"We are quite disturbed that the NDP should even have considered

such a move as to introduce a bill that would abolish private ownership of land.

What are they trying to do to us? We have enough trouble with economic conditions

and natural disasters against us. Now, instead of helping us, the Government

is trying to strangle us.

"We don't want that bill to be passed in parliament at

all."

A very pointed letter, I think, and very much to the point, Mr. Speaker, indicating

how those people feel. Many people in this Legislature have pointed out what

they call "land speculators." They pointed to anyone who subdivided property

and said that person was a land speculator. Anybody who had land who decided

to subdivide it must be a land speculator. I'd like to read to you a letter

from a lady in Fort St. John. She's not a land speculator but she does have

land. She's been subdividing it. I'd like you to hear what she has to say.

"I am writing you about the so-called land freeze which has

been deemed necessary to levy on the farmers of this province.

"I own the north half-section of 108419 went of the sixth

in the North Peace area. I have been a resident here since 1932."

That's 40 years, Mr. Speaker.

"Since my husband's fatal accident in 1957, I kept this

piece of land, selling acreages and farming the rest. I have

now four registered plans, I did this to supplement my income

but some years it only barely paid the taxes on it."

Will you accept an adjournment to the next sitting of the

House? Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're using the word "debate" loosely.

(Laughter).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its

rising do stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada