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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1725 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 156). Hon.

Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 1725

Oral Questions

Le Dain Commission recommendation re heroin. Mr. Wallace — 1725

Negotiations on Sukunka coal. Mr. Gardom — 1726

Land use study of Gulf Islands. Mr. Morrison — 1726

Nature of work of James Rhodes. Mr. McClelland — 1726

Mincome payments to senior citizens. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1726

Financial report on B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 1727

Hiring of John Young. Mr. Schroeder — 1727

Premier's lawsuit. Mr. Gardom — 1727

Kelowna amalgamation terms. Mr. Fraser — 1727

Leader of Opposition's potential lawsuit. Mr. Gardom — 1727

Intervention in appeal of "Wild Honey". Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1728

Appeal of longshoremen's union to Peking. Mr. McGeer — 1728

Elevator constructors' strike. Mr. Wallace — 1728

Government disclosure of information. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1728

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

Mr. Fraser — 1729

Hon. Mr. King — 1732

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1734

Mr. Dent — 1737

Mr. Rolston — 1738

Mr. Chabot — 1742

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1755

Mr. Kelly — 1756

Mr. Nicolson — 1758

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome a guest who is seated with us on the floor of

the House today. He is a federal Member of parliament, a man

who has had an outstanding career in public life in Canada and

has just returned from Vietnam — Andrew Brewin, the federal MP

from Toronto-Greenwood.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome another federal MP who is in the Speaker's

gallery, Mr. Mike Forrestall from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to welcome, paying us an informal visit, the

Hon. A.L. Kramer the Secretary of State for Washington State

and Mrs. Kramer, seated in the galleries.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a

group of students from the Delview Junior Secondary School in

North Delta, along with their teachers, Mr. Richter and Mrs.

Lemn. I hope you will join me in making them welcome here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I would like the House to welcome my sister and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Spring

from Cranbrook.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome a

group of students from Centennial High School in the District

of Coquitlam.

MR. SPEAKER: And following right behind them, students from

McPherson Park in my constituency.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I just wonder who is

in school today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: But they have learned a lot here.

MR. GARDOM: I would very much like to welcome some students from Prince

of Wales High School. Included in the group is my youngest daughter who I want

to see before she goes home tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: They call this the message centre.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

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

have the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Schools

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, March 26, 1973.

Bill No. 156 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send in your old straps.

Oral questions.

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

LE DAIN COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION RE HEROIN

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Human

Resources: in light of the Le Dain report on heroin, is the

Government giving any consideration to two possibilities —

(1) speeding up their meeting with the federal government on this

subject, and (2) sending someone from the department to London

or to England to learn what they can from the experience in

that country?

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

Speaker, the Government at the moment is preparing a bill to bring in to establish

a drug dependency commission. I think that anything that will be done in respect

to the drug problem will naturally have to flow from the people who will be

working with that commission.

[ Page 1726 ]

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

Grey.

NEGOTIATIONS RE ACQUISITION

OF INTEREST IN SUKUNKA COAL

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of

the president of the B.C. Railway or the Premier, as the case

may be: at what stage are the Government or the B.C. Railway's

negotiations for the acquisition of the 40 per cent interest in

the Sukunka coal project?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are still continuing.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Premier if the Government or B.C. Railway have engaged any

outside experts to assist them with their negotiations with

Brascan or its operating company, Coalition Mining?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Who?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two lawyers are involved, Mr. Jack Edwards

and Mr. John Bouck. I think there are other people who we have

called in from time to time to assist us but we are in

negotiations, Mr. Member, and it is impossible for me, because

we are in negotiations, to go any further on that.

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

LAND USE STUDY

RE GULF ISLANDS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would like to address my

question to the Minister of Highways. In view of the fact the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has undertaken

a study of the land use of the Gulf Islands through the

municipal matters committee, is the Minister of Highways

prepared to await the report from that committee before moving

further with his survey crews on Gabriola Island?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): They are two

entirely related and unrelated subjects and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and I are working very closely on both.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's answer No. 6, eh?

MR. MORRISON: A supplementary. Would the Minister of Highways be prepared

to consider alternatives to the byway bridge proposal on Gabriola Island if

the municipal matters committee brings forth a report that is in conflict with

the Government's stated policy for Gabriola?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hypothetical questions are not

permitted or ones that ask what the Government's opinion on

some policy in the future is.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

NATURE OF WORK

OF JAMES RHODES

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

the Premier and the President of the Council. Could the Premier

clarify the position that James Rhodes, the former MLA for

Delta, now holds with the Government?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this urgent and important?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, or I wouldn't have asked

the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question's on the order paper, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question's already on the paper and

doubtless will be answered in due course.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, it isn't. This is a

specific question. The question on the order paper asks if Mr.

Rhodes is going to be employed. We understand he has been

employed, and we would like to know what position he has with

the Government. It's a different question altogether.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in any way indicated as

being urgent or important. This is reserved for urgent and

important matters.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as

notice.

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

MINCOME PAYMENTS

TO SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Hon.

Minister of Human Resources on the blue Mincome form that

senior citizens are now receiving. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering

whether he can indicate to the House whether or not Mincome

payments will be continued regardless of whether this form is

completed by the senior citizens concerned.

[ Page 1727 ]

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To repeat the question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether

the Minister could indicate to the House whether or not Mincome payments will

be continued to senior citizens regardless of whether or not they complete the

blue form which his department sent around recently.

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

hope they would complete it; we don't intend to stop payment. We expect that

the programme will take three or four months. I am sure by then we will have

all the forms back.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary: if in three or

four months a recipient has not returned the blue form properly

filled in, will the payments then be continued?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll be prepared to answer that in three or

four months. I don't want to be put in a position of saying, as

I think the Member wants me to say, that somehow we're going to

be punitive. We're not. We're seeking information. I am quite

sure that in view of all the cooperation we've had from senior

citizens that it'll be forthcoming.

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

Grey.

FINANCIAL REPORT ON

B.C. HYDRO

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask the Premier if he's had an opportunity to study the

report of the Comptroller General regarding the financial

operations of the B.C. Hydro, and would he be prepared to

release it to the House at this time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've not completed my study of that report, but I

am continuing my study. If we had more time I am sure we could get through.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

HIRING OF JOHN YOUNG

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): A question for the Minister

of Education. Is the department considering John Young for any

position in the Department of Education?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I believe that was asked on

the order paper. The answer is "no."

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

PREMIER'S LAWSUIT

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, at

what stage his libel lawsuit against the ex-Premier is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You may only ask questions in

relation to the administrative responsibility of a Member of

the House in his capacity in the House.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

KELOWNA AMALGAMATION TERMS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of

Municipal affairs. Has the Minister offered in any way to give

the residents of the Kelowna area any of the terms and

conditions of the amalgamation? If so, is he offering any

special considerations to them?

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

are in communication with the advisory committee of Kelowna. We

have sent them a letter, I think last week, setting out

decisions that had already been made regarding some of the

questions that they were asking. I explained to them that as a

lot of their questions concerned departments other than the one

in which I have jurisdiction, there may be some delays in some

of the answers. I think by and large most of the answers have

been sent up to the committee.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Minister given any assurance that the letters patent of the new

municipality will be available before the Minister's order

takes effect?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I haven't given any commitment of that

kind. We're in communication though, and I am sure that the

committee will be quite clear on what will be in the letters

patent before they are prepared.

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

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION'S

POTENTIAL LAWSUIT

MR. GARDOM: I have a question to the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask him if he intends to

initiate libel proceedings against the Premier for stating that

he was preaching anarchy across the province.

[ Page 1728 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Anything in this House is

privileged, as the Members know. Therefore question is simply

rhetorical.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, because

he wouldn't dare to say it outside the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debates are also not permitted

in question period.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said it last night outside the

House.

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

INTERVENTION IN APPEAL

OF "WILD HONEY"

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a

question of the Attorney General. In the light of the criticism

of the B.C. film classification director's office coming out of

the Victoria lawsuit on the 'skin-flick,' "Wild Honey,"

can I ask him whether his department intends to intervene in

the appeal of this case or whether or not he intends to change

the terms of reference the B.C. film classification

director.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Is this matter still before the

courts?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am asking whether or not the Attorney

General intends to intervene in the case on appeal in light of

the fact that we voted more than $108,000 for this office this

year and apparently the job doesn't seem to be properly

fulfilled.

MR. SPEAKER: If the matter is before the courts, I don't

think we should be talking about it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The matter is before

the courts. I'm waiting to read the book. (Laughter). I haven't

seen the film.

The Crown of course is participating in the appeal

proceedings. They participated at the trial level. The matter

is being appealed and the Crown will be participating in the

appeal proceedings.

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

Grey.

APPEAL OF LONGSHOREMEN'S

UNION TO PEKING

MR. McGEER: I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour if he's

prepared to lend his very, very good offices to the appeal of

the longshoremen's union to the Peking government to have more

of the Chinese shipping moved through the Port of Vancouver

rather than out of other west coast ports.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a permitted question but

it seems innocuous.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'm not familiar with

any such request. No formal request has been made to my office

by the longshoremen's union in this regard. If and when they

do, it will certainly be taken under advisement.

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

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I also ask

the Minister of Labour if he has any information to give us on

the elevator constructors' strike?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a mediator with my department is

meeting with the parties in British Columbia now. They met

yesterday and meetings are planned again for today. So I'm

hopeful that some resolution will be forthcoming very soon.

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

GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE OF

INFORMATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I

wonder whether the Premier would indicate whether the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was expressing Government

policy when he stated in Harrison Hot Springs that the

Government has a responsibility to inform the public and that

there should be full disclosure of information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I agree. That's why we've had an

Opposition Member as chairman of public accounts. That's why

public accounts has been able to bring the corporation heads to

public accounts. It's a new era. We continue to expand the

opportunity for that information which we have been starved of

for so long.

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

the Premier again. Could I ask the Premier when he intends to

inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) of

Government policy and ask him when he intends to

[ Page 1729 ]

answer queries governing the Flyer bus contract.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The question is rhetorical and

ironical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's in court. You wouldn't want us to

discuss that while he's in court. You're a lawyer. You know

that.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders, with leave of the

House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo adjourned the

debate.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I read

just a few letters last night that I'd had from citizens

throughout the province on this Bill 42. I now want to read a

few more in for the record here.

This letter is from Mr. David Cummings, a cattle rancher in

the Cariboo, copy of the letter sent to the Hon. David Stupich,

Minister of Agriculture:

"Dear Sir:

"It is now very apparent that you and your Government are not

only good socialists but would-be dictators also. You have completely ignored

agriculture suggestions as to farmland preservation and are infringing upon

our basic rights with Bill 42.

"You also appear to be uninformed and naive or, at the

least, unconcerned about the beef industry. Your Bill 42 is

intolerable in a country which supposedly permits free

enterprise and enjoyment of property. The bill should be

scrapped and replaced with democratic legislation patterned

after the brief presented to you by the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

"It is very discouraging to see the commencement of the know-it-all

socialist takeovers and ever-expanding and inefficient government. I can only

hope you will soon return to chicken farming.

Sincerely,

David Cummings"

I suppose another remark, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, that

his chickens are coming home to roost.

Another letter here from a professional person in the Cariboo that deals with how this Bill 42 overrides

all other statutes on the books:

"I am appalled and extremely concerned after studying your

proposed Bill 42 and listening to your ridiculous statements

via the news media. Bill 42 would give three men, a quorum,

complete and total dictatorial powers over every landowner in

British Columbia and it's completely contrary to our democratic

way of life.

"A new report quotes you as saying that compensation would

be paid to affected landowners. If this is the case, Bill 42

had better be revised to delete the several sections which give

three men the right to take any land they choose or deem

advisable by any method they choose buy or otherwise

acquire.

"You say your lawyers have advised that the bill is quite

clear regarding appeal procedure. You're darn right it's clear.

The bill very specifically states there is no appeal except on

a point of law or excess of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction

covers the whole of British Columbia and you could change the

law to suit your case. Therefore, there is absolutely no

appeal.

"The bill would in effect repeal

section 38 (1) of the

Land Registry Act on which our entire land ownership is

based and be one more step in the progressive government

takeover of all land and human rights.

"Some of the points in your proposed bill may be valid.

However, the dictatorial methods by which you intend to

implement your grandiose ideas are nothing short of an

invitation to a civil, armed or otherwise, uprising and a

demand from the people for a new government.

"Your proposals are so diametrically opposed to our way of

life and our basic rights and freedoms as Canadians that I for

one will support any movement to demand a new government prior

to expiration of your term of office.

"You advocate the preservation of vital and productive

farmland which if done properly may be a completely valid and

idealistic goal. However, behind this smokescreen you also

throw in the power to take any land anywhere in British

Columbia for any purpose.

"Greenbelts, et cetera, could conceivably cover the whole of

British Columbia except for the homes of the five land

commissioners and those who appointed them. You may be

completely sincere and dedicated to the people and the Province

of British Columbia. However, if this is proposed Bill 42 is

enacted and then you step

[ Page 1730 ]

down, the next man to take your place may be an uneducated,

power-hungry dictator, ready to exercise every power authorized

under this Act.

"You ask the people to trust your integrity. You will enact

a bill which says one thing, but you tell the people it doesn't

really mean it. To me, this sounds like the used car salesman

who says, 'Why put it in writing, trust me. Just bring the car

back and I'll look after everything.' "

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Are you against used car

salesmen?

MR. FRASER:

"I'm sure you must be an intelligent human being who can

recognize that the bill as it is written is so ridiculous that

it hardly warrants comment and could not possibly be enacted in

this form. I pray you and the Government will do some serious

soul-searching regarding your proposed legislation and come up

with something that is within the terms of reference of a

democratic country.

Gary

E. Dawson."

And nothing to do with Dawson Developments.

Mr. Speaker, I have another letter here about how this land

freeze and Bill 42 affects individual citizens. This letter was

written to the Minister, Mr. Stupich, dated March 1.

"We are writing in protest of the sneaky, underhanded way

Dave Stupich froze and reclassified farmland in our

province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've criticized others who have

used expressions in letters or rhetorically against the other

Members of the House. You're doing it by means of a letter and

you know, from what I said yesterday, that I called Members on

this side to order on the same point. Would you kindly withdraw

that statement.

MR. FRASER: I withdraw. I was only quoting from a letter,

though.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to you, you can't quote from

letters and use somebody else as a means of making statements

attacking Members of the House.

MR. FRASER:

"We are mature, middle-aged people with two children so, not

like his public statement, we feel we are capable of making our

own decisions as we have in the past before we even knew he

existed.

"Due to an industrial accident in 1967, the husband broke

both heels. With the aid of frequent medical aid and a brace on his left foot,

he is able to walk on his feet almost four hours a day now, sometimes. So the

WCB consider him able to do some type of work; therefore he has been cut off

compensation in 1970.

"Since that time they have been building and selling small

rural homes that the working man can afford. Last year we

bought 40 acres of land 11 miles west of Quesnel in the

Millburn Mountain area. At the time it was classified as

improved land; now it has been reclassified as farmland, No. 4.

But what can a person grow at this elevation when you can

expect frost 12 months of the year?"

They go on to say to contact Ottawa or the United Nations to

help keep our civil rights.

"Without the right to subdivide we are forced to take a

heavy loss on our investment in the property, and no one will want to purchase

it as farmland. Then we'll have to look to the present government for welfare

or other public assistance, and become one of the unfortunate many.

Yours

truly,

Mr. & Mrs. Cochrane."

I want to deal for a minute with the land freeze that is

still in effect and what actually is taking place out in the

province. I refer to a letter written to the Cariboo Regional

District Administrator, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of

Agriculture on February 22. It deals with the appeal procedure

at the environment and land use level.

"With respect to an applicant appealing a decision taken

under authority of Order No. 15773, he may appeal to the

Environment and Land Use Committee. The appeal should set out

relevant details, enclose any plans and documents the applicant

deems necessary. If, in the opinion of the Regional District

Board, the application conforms with regional zoning by-laws

and has its support, then the board in writing can provide a

document to applicants supporting the appeal.

"There is no reason why a regional district board cannot

support, or for that matter object to, an appeal to the

Environment and Land Use Committee. The Canada Land Inventory

maps are generally adequate to assess the agricultural ratings.

There may be instances where a parcel is located within an area

having a complex rating.

"Unless the district agriculturalist has personal knowledge

of the site or has access to aerial photographs he will, on

rare occasions, have to make an on-site inspection. I do not

anticipate that this will occur very often. I trust this

answers points raised in your letter. If, after studying my

circular letter of February 16, 1973, you have further

questions, please get in touch with me.

Yours

truly

David Stupich."

The reason that I bring that letter up, Mr. Speaker, is the fact of the situation

now with land. It's frozen

[ Page 1731 ]

in the province, the agricultural land, and a lot of the

municipal councils and the regional boards don't seem to be

clear on how they can appeal — in other words, to get out of

the land freeze.

It is my understanding that this can be done by appealing to

the Environment and Land Use Committee. But I would like to say

to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Government should

do a little more publicity to notify the ordinary citizen who

the Environment and Land Use Committee is. We know in this

House who they are, who the chairman is, who the coordinator of

the committee is and what their mailing address is." It

certainly isn't known by the general public. As I say, the

legislators know, but the ordinary citizen doesn't.

I would, Mr. Speaker, appeal to the chairman of the

Environment and Land Use Committee, who I understand is the

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

Williams), to make a Press release throughout the province so

these people, if they want to, can appeal and be informed of

where to make this appeal.

The information is not readily available in the Province of

British Columbia. Maybe I could even appeal to the Press to see

if they could dig it out and run it. The ordinary citizen

hasn't got a clue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nowhere to go to get cut off.

MR. FRASER: Right. I would just like to now make a short

review of what has happened in the province in the immediate

past, and the controls we have had on land. I say this, Mr.

Speaker, because a lot of statements have been made that

everything is completely out of control. We didn't have any

proper Acts and there's the destruction of our environment

going on…and illegally polluting everything, and so on.

I would just like to review quickly what has been going on,

the changes in the last few years. The first one I would say is

the Land Act . We had a brand new Land Act in

1970; and in that Land Act , dealing with Crown lands,

particularly in dealing with Crown lands, this Legislature

passed the Act with the now Members of the cabinet in

Opposition agreeing to it; that only Canadian citizens could

acquire Crown land on a lease and then to a purchase basis.

Any citizen from any nation can still lease land in this

province, but only a Canadian citizen can take it from the

point of lease to purchase. Again here there has been a lot of

misinformation go out throughout the province. It started last

year when the then Minister of Lands made a suggestion that

maybe the government should change its policy of disposal of

Crown lands from lease-purchase to straight lease.

Now a lot of the citizens of the interior of the province particularly, where

Crown land disposal is always a big item, think the policy has been changed

to straight lease and, Mr. Speaker, this House knows that the policy still exists.

I'm referring to agricultural land — that it can still go lease-purchase. It

is not on a straight lease basis.

While industrial land and commercial land is definitely on a

straight lease basis, this does not apply to Crown agricultural

land. I'd like to make that clear in the case of the Land

Act — it's a fairly current Act, and things were being done

to try and keep up with the pace of the time.

The Municipal Act I referred to last evening, Mr.

Speaker. The Municipal Act we're working with now was

originally brought in in 1957 and amendments are made to it

every year at the Legislature for dealing with land, zoning and

so on. There are checks and balances there that allow for

public hearings and appeals. I feel that certainly there were a

lot of advancements there in keeping up with the changing

times.

Another Act that was fairly new that passed, that affected

land in this province, the Ecological Reserves Act . This

was

an Act passed in 1970 or 1971 and a lot of our citizens

took full advantage of that. As a matter of fact, in my riding,

we had an application from professors at the University of B.C.

to put the whole Cariboo riding in an ecological reserve. But

in any case, the legislation's there and if approved by the

Department of Lands, the reserves can be set up.

Of course we have, Mr. Speaker, the Environment and Land

Use Act which this Government used to put the land freeze

on that started the discussion on the land freeze and then

proceeding to Bill 42 to take its place.

We have the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act

which provided large sums of money to increase the development

of parks in the province and certainly that can be seen. I

believe that we're also looking at further money for that. But

this Act I believe was

an Act passed in 1971 by this

Legislature.

We have the Regional Parks Act . That has been a very

satisfying and good Act that has allowed the regional districts

of the province to acquire further parklands with participation

from the provincial Treasury. So a lot of advance was made in

that.

We of course have got the Green Belt Protection Fund of $25

millions, established in 1972. Some moneys have been spent out

of it, but I think that we should be speeding those things

up.

We have the "Mine Reclamation" Act which brings in new

regulations for mining — and to tighten up there.

Last but not least — and I am referring to fairly new Acts

affecting land, Mr. Speaker — the accelerated forest planning

which has been going on now for three or four years.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Premier's

remarks of last night. The misuse and abuse

[ Page 1732 ]

by the Premier of the Municipal Act has never before

been duplicated in this House. The hysterical way in which the

Premier of B.C. saw fit to inject himself into the debate on

Bill 42 is a disgrace to himself and to this party. The

suggestion that he has left that Bill 42 parallels the

Municipal Act will come back to haunt him in future

discussions with municipal leaders where the discussions are

based on trust. If trust is to be part of our system here in

British Columbia, the Premier certainly blew it last night.

With reference to the boundary commission legislation, which

clearly came about as the record shows, as a result of a

request by the municipalities themselves. It was unbelievable

to the municipal leaders of British Columbia listening to what

was going on in this House last night. The boundary commission

he referred to, and their powers, was at the request of the

municipalities.

The sections the Premier quoted were from the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act and had to do

with the peculiar boundary problems connected with a meandering

river which threw survey lines into dispute. A single

commissioner, at the sole request of the municipalities

involved, was established by this Legislature and the Premier

himself voted for it. In no way is the action of Bill 42

describable in the terms the Premier used last night. He has

lost the trust of municipal government in British Columbia and

he will never regain it.

I would just like now, Mr. Speaker, to have a final say here

that certainly I'm voting against Bill 42 on second reading for

the reasons that I have stated. I will just summarize those: I

am of course incensed at how it invades the individual

landowner, but I am particularly incensed at how it takes away

the powers of all locally elected people at the municipal and

regional level. Really some of them, I think, feel like

resigning. I don't suggest they do that, but in the final

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Government to

withdraw this badly written piece of legislation.

Certainly we are in favour of preserving farmland but not on

this basis. Bring us back a new bill after some input has been

put in by the municipal councils. The regional districts and all

the good citizens of British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can hardly let this debate on second reading of Bill 42 go

by without offering my comments. My comments are not based on

letters and quotations from papers, Mr. Speaker. I've had my

share of them and I think in the main the people of my riding,

which is largely rural, have indicated support for the

principle of Bill 42.

However, rather than devote my speech to the reading of

letters that I have received, I wanted to comment on the

posture which has been adopted by the Social Credit Party. It's

one that's very interesting. They strike a pose as the defender

of individual rights. They're very acutely concerned about the

rights of ownership of farmers in British Columbia.

They don't seem to acknowledge, despite the evidence placed

before them, that this bill in no way empowers the Government

to arbitrarily expropriate land from farmers. It is not that at

all. But, despite the evidence, they insist and persist in

trying to obscure the real intent of the legislation, Mr.

Speaker.

I think to really analyze the position that they have taken,

one has to go back a number of years. Someone mentioned my

predecessor in this House for the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan,

the Member who now represents the federal riding of Kootenay

West, Randolph Harding. He was the Member of this particular

riding at the time the Columbia River Treaty was signed and

ratified.

He made representation on numerous occasions to the former

government in British Columbia, the Social Credit

administration, on behalf of farmers all up and down the Arrow

Lakes and the Duncan area and indeed in the Revelstoke area — the 30-mile stretch south of Revelstoke which at one time was a

flourishing farm area. He fought for a fair system of

arbitration for those farmers who were going to be dislocated

by the flooding of that valley.

Let's just go back for a moment and analyze the position

taken by the Social Credit Party at that time. I might point

out, Mr. Speaker, that when I was first elected in 1968, I

acted for literally hundreds of people in the same area who

were being expropriated due to the flooding of the Arrow and

the Columbia reservoirs.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, making representation on behalf

of a man who lived at East Arrow Park in the Arrow Lakes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that

we're not discussing the Columbia River Treaty. We're

discussing the Land Commission Act .

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we've travelled all around the world. I

suppose we might as well get to the Columbia River.

I point out that if it has to do with process of

expropriation it may be relevant. I don't know. I haven't heard

far enough through his subject.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is related to

[ Page 1733 ]

the relative position that those people in that Social

Credit Party took on land expropriation issues as it referred

to the Columbia River Treaty and the position that they're

taking on a bill before this House today which in fact does not

provide for expropriation of farmland. I think it's a relative

position. It bears on the veracity of statements which they

have made. I think it bears significance to the sincerity of

the approach they have taken to this whole debate.

I was referring — before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker — to

a man who was expropriated at East Arrow Park in the Arrow

Lakes area, south of Nakusp. He had a store and a number of

tourist cabins in that area. He had about 80 acres of land,

stretching from the lakeshore back to the mountainside on a

gentle rise. He received as compensation from the former

administration some $17,000 for that property.

It's true he was guaranteed access to the courts if he

wished to take that route. But one can appreciate, with the

resources that Hydro had at their disposal — the soil engineers,

the lawyers and the legal people — that he was stacked against

pretty tough opposition. Were he required to avail himself of

the legal assistance and the necessary expertise to make a

valid case in court against a tribunal such as B.C. Hydro, that

the cost of that action would in all probability offset any

increased compensation that he might expect as a result of the

court action.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You can't get to

court against your commission.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that that

former Social Credit government did after expropriating this

land from this man, they built a brand new highway right across

the middle of this property. And the Journals of the House for

1969 indicate that a question was placed on the order

paper.

I asked at that time, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any

section of that highway between Nakusp and Needles had been

built on an area of the reservoir that was below the safe line.

The response of the then Minister, the Hon. W.D. Black, was as

follows: "Yes — 3.3 miles of that new highway were built below

the safe line of the reservoir."

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What's that got to do

with Bill 42?

HON. MR. KING: Now here we have a situation, Mr. Speaker,

where the former government expropriated farmland from an

individual on the basis that it was unsafe for occupancy and

then built a brand new public highway right in the middle of

it.

Mr. Speaker, when this Member approached the Minister to ask if he would reinstate the ownership of that

property to the individual who had had it wrongfully

expropriated from him, the response of the then Premier was to

turn his back and altogether ignore the plight of this

individual. And this happened hundreds and hundreds of times up

and down that valley.

Now these people who sat there and refused to fight for

individual rights would portray themselves as the defenders of

the farmer's interest today. It's a pretty cynical performance,

Mr. Speaker.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), the champion of

the farmer's rights, the champion of individual rights — what a

shame, Mr. Speaker.

I can recall attending to pleas for help from people…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What's your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is that the Hon. Minister of

Labour just said that we on this side of the House were making

a sham. Now we have not been allowed to use "sham" or "farce"

in this House. Just because the Premier used it last night, I

don't know why the Minister of Labour should be allowed to use

it this afternoon. I'd like him to withdraw that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly withdraw. I wasn't

aware that the Premier had used that term last night. It's one

which readily came to mind, but I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall attending in response to pleas for

help from individuals — not only farmers but small landholders

in the Revelstoke area, who complained that the former

administration had turned bulldozers loose on their buildings,

bulldozed them down and set fire to them before any

expropriation agreement was arrived at. Now these are the

people who pillaged the private property of people all up and

down that reservoir, who would now portray themselves as the

defenders of individual liberty. I think it's a pretty

shockingly inconsistent position for them to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I think, Mr. Speaker, that many people all

throughout British Columbia can remember the arbitrary,

high-handed approach that the former administration took to

individual rights to ownership all over this province with

respect to hydro transmission lines, with respect to highway

access needs, with respect to the Libby Dam, the Duncan Dam,

the Arrow Dam and so on. I think that it's just incredible that

they would pose now as people genuinely

[ Page 1734 ]

concerned about farmers' rights.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that a recent editorial in

the Revelstoke Review by none other than a former Member

of that government, who sat in this House for a number of years — he is one of the departed because he had the temerity to

criticize the then Premier and he subsequently lost the

nomination for that temerity — Mr. Arvid Lundell, a longtime

resident of Revelstoke, formerly mayor of the town, editor and

publisher of the newspaper, had this to say about the Land

Commission Act that's presently before this House, Mr.

Speaker. He said: "It's of small impact on Revelstoke and area

now, because of the arbitrary actions taken by the former

administration in flooding miles and miles of valuable farmland

in that area." But he said he "found nothing contentious in

Bill 42, nothing untoward, no departure from the positions

which had been taken by the former administration which they

object to so strenuously now."

Mr. Speaker, we've had everything from the Little Red

Rooster and the Little White Hen story here to a world

travelogue around China and Russia. When the Opposition starts

to get some of the flak back they stand up and they cry points

of order. Well, I don't think we could have had a more

irrelevant performance from the total Opposition than what

we've had on this land bill. Pretty ineffective, pretty

shocking, pretty lacking in any penetrating understanding of

the intent of this bill that's before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that within the next

few months, when the people of the province come to fully

understand the provisions of the bill, when they have had an

opportunity to sift the wheat from the chaff and to really

analyze the irresponsible and wild statements made by the

leader of the Conservative Party, the pro tem or temporary or

whatever type of leader it is of the Social Credit Party, that

they will understand that this is a bill which will have

far-reaching and long-term effects for the benefit of all the

people of this province and not a capitulation to the special

interests of the real estate promoters of the province, Mr.

Speaker.

All the Opposition parties pay lip service. No one will argue with the desire

to preserve farmland. You show me one administration that has had the fortitude

to come forward with effective legislation to do the job. You show me one alternative

that's been offered by the Opposition or any element of it in this House, Mr.

Speaker. Not one alternative, not one amendment, not one worthwhile suggestion

— simply criticism, hysteria and calls to something perhaps short of anarchy

but not very short of it in this province. I think it's a disgraceful point

for the Opposition to have sunk to in this province, Mr. Speaker.

Now I simply wanted to expose particularly the Social Credit

Party for the inconsistency of their position. I think that

everyone can recall without dealing with letters and so on the

action that they took in the areas that I have pointed to. I

never heard the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

get up in this House, when she sat as a front bench Minister

without Portfolio, and plead for the farmers. I never heard her

criticize the arbitrary powers of expropriation that existed

under Social Credit.

So when we look at motivation, when we look at sincerity, I

think the position that's being taken now by that party has to

be tempered by the inconsistency of the position they're taking

now with that of the past. I think that the public of British

Columbia is becoming more and more aware that their real

concern is with the political kudos that may accrue from

generating an inflammatory situation on this legislation rather

than through any genuine desire to assist the farmers of the

province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to comment further on it except

to say that it's good legislation; it's needed, it's an action

which no other jurisdiction in Canada thus far has been

prepared to tread. I think that this Government and that

Minister of Agriculture are to be commended for the fortitude

and forthrightness and the desire to get into this area and

once and for all preserve farmland for its highest priority.

That is the issue — not the phony issues of expropriation and

infringement of personal rights which some Members of this

House would have you believe, Mr. Speaker.

Now that's all I have to say on the subject. I thank you for

being so attentive, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's

certainly a pleasure to stand here today, more so than last

week, to take

part in this debate, since, with all apologies to

the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), to paraphrase what

he said, I no longer represent the "floodplains" of Kamloops

but simply the "plains" of Kamloops.

For the information of the Members in the Official

Opposition, who might not have had a chance to read the

newspapers over the weekend — they were rather busy I

understand running around and arranging for delegates' votes

for the November convention — the decision has been made and

"Soak" Hills is going to return to being Oak Hills, even though

there are no hills there and even though they haven't yet

planted the oaks.

This was a piece of agricultural land, Mr. Speaker. It was a

place where they used to winter cattle. In the spring when it

flooded it made no difference because the cattle had been moved

up into the hills and the

[ Page 1735 ]

ground was saturated with a growth from some hay that was

cut and stored for winter. This was a piece of agricultural

land that every resident in the area fought against seeing

developed as a housing project — to no avail. As a result last

spring, with the little heap of dirt that was piled up, the

dike broke. If it had broken at 4 o'clock in the morning

instead of 4 o'clock in the afternoon I'm sure, Mr. Speaker,

there would have been lives lost and it would have been a much

greater tragedy than it was.

Over $1 million has been paid out in reparations to the

victims of that flood absolutely unnecessarily because it never

should have been developed. Over a million dollars is going to

be paid from taxpayers' money to build a new dike to protect

the people that live there. This is the kind of a price we pay

for the former administration's treatment of what is

agricultural land.

If you ask any of the older residents up there, Kamloops has

always been considered, climate-wise, to be a paradise to live

in — but for 16 years this has been the subdivider's paradise.

If it had not been for this legislation that is being

introduced into the House now, and we're debating second

reading, it was rapidly becoming paradise lost.

We also had the decision last weekend on the area known as

Cinnamon Ridge — once again, there is no ridge. Half a dozen of

the lots would have been 17 feet below the 1972 flood level. It

seems that the lower the project is below water, the more names

it gets with ridges, hills and mountains in it. All of this

money spent.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in the Kamloops area alone

3,000 acres of agricultural land has been lost in the past 20

years. The valleys are very narrow. There isn't much land to

raise winter feed for the cattlemen in the area. We have had a

leap-frogging situation of one community over another on every

wide bench of land up the North Thompson River and the South

Thompson River until, if it had continued and incorporations

had continued, instead of 22 aldermen and four mayors, we

probably would have ended up with 100 aldermen and 25

mayors.

This debate reminds me a little, Mr. Speaker, the way it's

been going, of some of the shows we've watched on television

depicting wagon trains and their struggles as they come west.

After a long and difficult time, we manage to cross the Peace,

and after a long and difficult time we manage to cross the

Jordan. And my goodness, we've still got the Columbia ahead of

us to cross yet. (Laughter)

Now, there's been many letters read into the House, and I have to confess,

Mr. Speaker, that I haven't got many, even though I represent a large ranching

community. But some of the letters I have did come from ranchers — not from

apartment dwellers in West Vancouver, but people who are interested in preserving

the land for agriculture. I would like to read a little of one, and it's on

a letterhead — not a real estate letterhead, but a ranch letterhead. It's dated

December 22, addressed to myself:

"Dear Sir:

"I would like to ask you to do what you can to stop the

proposed subdivision of about 300 acres of land, 10 miles north

of Kamloops and adjoining the Indian Reserve. The application

to subdivide into small lots was turned down by the regional

board along with the recommendation that no subdivision of any

kind be allowed. But I understand that they have now applied

for zoning into 20-acre lots, and this does not have to come

before the regional board.

"This is prime agricultural land and is completely

surrounded by some of the best grazing land in British

Columbia. I own the ranch to the east. Thus it would mean with

three ranches around that this

section would be an island

completely surrounded by grazing land. As everyone knows, if

possibly 30 to 50 families move in along with dogs, snowmobiles

and motorcycles, our property would become almost valueless as

ranchland.

"I'd also like to point out that there is no visible water

supply at present, and it would mean reconstruction of about

four miles of highway and the present road is next to

impossible at certain times of the year. As well, the school

district would have to supply bus service. The entire project

does not lend itself to orderly planning."

He ends, and this is

an operating, working rancher, Mr. Speaker,

"Hoping you can do something to keep this property from

subdivision and retain it as agricultural land, and thanking

you in advance for any effort on your part."

I too have been quite surprised, particularly as a new

Member in the House, at some of the directions this debate has

taken. I think, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could assist the

Liberal party in finding a new name, seeing you had a trip to

India a while ago. I understand that there is an organization

there — as part of their ceremony they jump from one hot rock

to another until they find somewhere where they can take a

position. (Laughter). Perhaps you could assist them in that

way.

The Conservative and official Opposition, of course, has

been pretty well covered and I don't think there's much point

adding to it.

At the time of the bull sale in Kamloops, we were honoured

by a visit from the leader of the Liberal Party, who I think

was really there to try to hold that branch of his organization

together, because there were a few problems — such as the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned that were

coming in from Nanaimo.

[ Page 1736 ]

He was partially successful, but one of their oldest time

organizers of many years and an ex-federal candidate has left

the party, denouncing the provincial wing completely, and has

formed a new group called SOS. Perhaps you read about it in the

paper. Knowing some of the people involved, I would suggest

that they simply remove the O from the centre, and it would be

much more descriptive of the political leanings. I do have a

letter from someone in the agricultural community who mentioned

this organization, and he keeps all the letters and refers to

them as "Same Old Skunks." I don't know whether that is

appropriate or not, but it doesn't refer to any Members in this

House, fortunately.

The Conservative Party, of course, has been pretty well

covered, so I won't refer to their leader's travelling around

the province as an agent provocateur, really, instead of a

responsible supposed-to-be politician. But it seems that in

this age of technomation, automation, calibration, that quite a

surprising thing happened in the House, because when Geppetto

left his seat in the gallery, Pinocchio kept moving, even

though there was no one there.

I've had other letters, and one I'd like to quote from, also

from the agricultural community. It will be self-explanatory — his place in the agricultural community. Before some of the

employment that he writes about, he was for many years a

rancher in the Cariboo. He said:

"Dear Sir:

"I understand that letters about Bill 42 are not unwelcome,

even from private individuals. I am therefore writing to add my

mite of praise to you and the present Government of British

Columbia for your wisdom and courage in taking this necessary

step.

"I was for 21 years, before 1966, secretary of the Beef

Cattle Growers Association, and it became evident even then,

though much more so since, that this province was allowing its

birthright to be sold for a mess of pottage — a mess which must

have inevitably turned sour in the mouths of our children and

grandchildren.

"Observing the hysterical behaviour of some members of farm

organizations, I have to be thankful that I cannot now be involved in their

actions, which I sincerely hope and believe are not representative of their

more thoughtful members."

He goes on to mention the attempted sabotage of the Bull Sale

Banquet in Kamloops — the provincial Bull Sale Banquet and Fat Stock Show, Madam

Speaker, which is one of the biggest events that the cattlemen have, and they

certainly didn't want it disrupted as the plans were laid down. I'll just read

the last

chapter of this, where the writer says:

"In conclusion, I should like to say that the performance

to date of the government of which you are a Member, has been most heartening

to all those who have become disillusioned and cynical about the possibility

of democracy in this province ever rising above the petty base which kept the

previous administration in office for oh so long."

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I'd like to add, Madam Speaker, that this is not a Member of

our party and, as far as I know, he has never been a

supporter.

There have been many references made to the Municipal Act ,

but there's one

section that was left out, I think. I'd like to

quote

section 791 — "Expropriation":

"In addition to any other powers to acquire property which

the Regional Board may exercise, the Regional Board, by its

servants, may enter upon, break up, take or enter into

possession of, and use any real or personal property within the

regional district not publicly owned where necessary or

convenient for any of the purposes of the regional district

without the consent of the owners of the real and personal

property, but subject to Division (4) of

Part XII."

Now this refers, of course, to the compensation section. But

we're all familiar with the long court battles where owners are

dissatisfied with what has been offered in the past by B.C.

Hydro and the Department of Highways. There's a lot of people

that feel that the appeal

section or the expropriation

section

of this particular

part is useless as far as they are

concerned, and it's been on the books for the last six

years.

This one I thought was rather amusing. It's from Kamloops,

and I can't tell whether this is someone from the agricultural

community or not:

"Dear Sir:

"We've done a lot of complaining in the past because the

government wasn't protecting our agricultural greenbelt areas.

Now we finally have a party in power wishing earnestly to

correct the situation. Let us not let a few people who made

lots of noise deter us from that goal.

"I didn't vote NDP in the last election, but I sure as 'beep

beep' will in the next. All the best towards Bill 42."

There are other letters, Madam Speaker. There's one from an

agricultural area that's about half gone now under housing.

There's still some agricultural people left up there, and they

write:

"Dear Mr. Anderson:

"There's so much to be said for you and the NDP policies,

but this is just to say I'm behind you 100 per cent with Bill

42. It's something that should have been done 30 years ago.

Good luck and keep at it."

I haven't had many letters, Madam Speaker. When I mentioned

this fact when I was home in Kamloops

[ Page 1737 ]

last weekend I was informed that, "Well, for 20 years the

previous Member never answered his mail and people got out of

the habit." I don't know whether that's true or not since I

wasn't doing any letter writing to the previous Member.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

We also, as was brought up by the Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser) we all got letters in this House from the

Cattlemen's Association. I also received a brief from them and

I talked to them for 7 hours last March 14 at the bull sale and

fat stock show. They were concerned. There were a couple of

sections of the bill that they were concerned about.

At the banquet that night the Minister of Agriculture spoke

to them — which was well reported in the Press — I'm sure

everyone has read it — and he spoke of some of the fears and

the feed-in he'd been getting and referred to the brief as,

"one of the best we had received with sensible suggestions for

amendments" — something that we don't seem to be hearing

anything about in this House.

Their fears were allayed in many ways. Some that I knew and

some that I didn't know spoke to me afterwards and said, "We're

still a little concerned because the bill isn't actually

passed. But we'll wait and see and make our judgment on that."

Mr. Speaker, if we had that kind of reaction from the rest of

British Columbia, I'm sure we wouldn't have had this long and

tortuous debate on this bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I just want to make a few comments,

Madam Speaker. I didn't intend to speak on this bill. However,

there was a comment made by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) that stuck in my craw and I feel that I've got to

respond to it.

I would just begin by saying that I think this is an

excellent bill. I fully support the principle of it and I'm

sure that the people in the Province of British Columbia

generally support it as well. Certainly from my constituency

I've got very little in the way of negative mail. I've got

some, that's true, from people who are opposed to the bill. But

I've also received many letters in favour of the bill.

Then, of course, I've got the usual number of circular

letters that have gone around from the different organizations.

But generally speaking, the feeling in Skeena constituency, I

believe, is either in support of the bill or a "wait and see"

approach to see how it will work out.

The point that I am raising is one that I think is a very serious one that's

been mentioned not only by the official Opposition but has been alluded or referred

to by the Liberal Party and by the Conservative Party as well.

I'll just quote a

section of a letter that was read to this

House by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in

the course of her speech on the afternoon of March 22. This is

what she quoted from this letter. It's a letter addressed to

Mr. Stupich, and it says as she read it:

"Would you put other Canadians' personal rights in jeopardy? This country is not founded on your

party's principles, nor was it fought for in the last two wars

to keep it as free as any democracy can be on your

principles.

"Those men left their homes. A hell of a lot of them died in some damned stinking hole to keep us a free

nation. Now your party and you are trying to take a big part of

that freedom away from us."

Now those were words that she quoted from a letter.

Obviously she agreed with them, because further down she said:

"I think he knows what he's talking about. He was in the last

war."

I just want to draw to the attention of this House a couple

of facts when it comes to service in the Second World War that

I think are relevant in terms of fighting for rights. First of

all sitting opposite me is the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson) who served 5 1/2 years in the Royal Canadian

Navy during the Second World War. Behind him is the Hon. Member

for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) who served 6 years in the Seaforth

Highlanders in the Second World War and fought in battles in

Italy and northwest Europe. Sitting behind me is the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) who served in the Royal Canadian Air

Force, just barely making it in because he was so young.

The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

was also a member of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada during

the Second World War. The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) was a tank driver in the

British army in the Second World War.

I haven't interviewed many of the others. I don't know

whether there are any other veterans, but I think that I'll

just mention myself. I served in the Royal Canadian Armoured

Corps during the Second World War and I was discharged

honourably by reason of being underage.

The point is this: the Hon. Member for North Okanagan — and

this has been re-echoed by other people in the Social Credit

Party and also in the Liberals and Conservatives — implies that

somehow this party on this side of the House is not concerned

about individual rights and doesn't care about individual

rights. I resent that and I'm sure that the Hon. Members on

this side of the House resent that suggestion. I'll take my

stand any time, and I'm sure that any of the Members in our

caucus would, against any other Member of this House in terms

[ Page 1738 ]

defending and fighting for the individual rights of the

people of British Columbia and of this country of Canada.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Withdraw the bill.

MR. DENT: I believe that this bill is a well thought out

bill in terms of the rights of people. It's not a denial of

rights; on the contrary, I believe it's a bill that's strongly

in favour of the individual rights of people.

The analogy has been made many times, but I'll just conclude

by making this analogy. There were some elephants in a chicken

yard. The chickens were a little concerned because they were

getting stepped on.

The elephants said, "Freedom is what we need. We need

nothing but freedom. Trust us and we'll…."

MR. PHILLIPS: That's Tommy Douglas's line.

MR. DENT: I know it's Tommy Douglas's. It doesn't matter who

said it. The fact is that it's relevant.

Now the thing is that it is the responsibility of government

to ensure that the small person's rights are protected. I

believe that this is the first step in ensuring that a new deal

is reached for the farmers of British Columbia. Therefore, I

support wholeheartedly the principle of this bill. I'll take my

stand along with any other Member of our caucus in terms of

supporting the individual rights and the personal rights of the

people of British Columbia and of Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Ms. Speaker, I just want to add

to this discussion very briefly. You know in homiletics we were

encouraged to be to the point, say our thing in 18 minutes with

three illustrations and sit down. After I don't know how many

hours we've been into this, I feel a little guilty adding

anything to the endurance test that many of the MLAs have had

to experience.

I first of all want to divulge that I have no ownership in

property. I live in a rent-free manse owned by the United

Church of Canada and will be until the end of June. At that

time I hope, if I'm lucky, to be able to purchase a small piece

of property. Nobody in our family has been in the developing or

in the real estate industry — not that that's all that bad

anyway.

Ms. Speaker, first of all I think that part of the intention of the Government

right now is simply to use some of the very best information that we have available.

I was very impressed to hear the Primate of the Anglican Church two weeks ago

in the Vancouver Hotel at a luncheon that was put on by the Vancouver Board

of Trade plus the five largest churches in Canada — the United Church, the Roman

Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian and the Lutheran Churches. They heard

Ted Scott speak on the whole business of developing nations. And we are a developing

nation. We're not really part of the third world but we are a developing nation.

As I remember, the archbishop really reached me when he said

that there is a real responsibility for all of us to use the

very best information that we have available, and that it's

immoral for us to blunder on, often in a very arbitrary way,

whether it is in developing the economy of Zambia, whether it

is developing some other country, whether it is extracting

something out of the ground or taking the trees from our hills

or whether it is, Ms. Speaker, in the science of land use and

of planning. It is essential, it's an ethical question today,

especially with the finiteness, even in this large province, of

habitable land and arable land, that we use the very best

information that we have.

I would assume when I first read this legislation that this

simply is an attempt — which is not a new attempt. It is

certainly a new attempt as far as the legislation, but a great

deal of work has been done over the last 25 years by planners,

especially in the area that I represent, the lower mainland.

Twenty-five years ago my father used to leave after dinner and

go off to town-planning committee meetings. He was one of the

architects of the original Lower Mainland Official Regional

Plan. That's 25 years ago.

I simply see this in a further step, that we are with the

very best planning and engineering and soil knowledge and urban

growth knowledge, trying to see that there is a set of plans

throughout all of British Columbia, especially in what will

obviously be more populated parts of British Columbia.

In my particular home town, and I'm sure every place could

hold up a map like this, my point is simply to illustrate that

this is the District of Mission land-use map which we have

been adhering to as much as we can, with some violations. I

hope that in a sense we won't need to worry about violations

because we will establish throughout the whole province a set

of community plans. This is what I certainly interpret from the

bottom of page 2,

section 7, halfway through

section 7; it's

simply that it will have the power and the capacity as a

jurisdiction to work with the municipalities and the districts

and other technical people.

Obviously technical people have put that plan together; that

wasn't put together by aldermen in Mission, it was put together

by planning people so that we can see in a very orderly,

rational responsible way we are going to use the finite arable

and

[ Page 1739 ]

habitable land that is left in British Columbia. Now if that

isn't motherhood, Ms. Speaker, if that isn't responsibility, I

really ask what is.

During the election, I echoed the words of the psalmist who

said that "The earth is the Lord's." It's not ours. It's

something that was as stewards are using as we pass through,

whether we are 90 years old, like the Clerk, and some of us

might hope to reach that age or whether we'll be much younger;

it's simply that we are stewards and that we're given

responsibility in a very sensible way to oversee development,

oversee food production. And I remind you, Ms. Speaker, that in

food production, you know, we are very dependent on other parts

of the world. We import into B.C. 70 per cent of our beef, 85

per cent of our hogs, 40 per cent of our vegetables, 40 per

cent of our potatoes, 34 per cent of our fruit, 90 per cent of

our butter, 75 per cent of our grains, 98 per cent of our

sugar, 90 per cent of our cooking oils. We are very dependent

on other parts of the world for food. My children would like to

think that some of that food was still grown in their

neighbourhood, that 1984 is not as gloomy a picture as the

Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) painted last Friday.

My children would like to think in 20 years' time that we

still grow broccoli and Brussels sprouts on those great hills

around St. Mary's Indian Residence and the Westminster Abbey

complex in Mission — which incidentally the Members should

realize is not owned by the farmer at all. It's owned by in

this case the Roman Catholic Church and it's been leased for

decades to one of the largest farmers in the Fraser Valley, Mr.

Ted Horsting, who wrote me a very complimentary letter on this

Act; a man who for years has been a very successful

businessman, and who has been leasing I don't know how many

hundreds and hundreds of acres of land, which of course he's

responsible to keep in good cropping condition, from the Roman

Catholic Church. I would like to think that we could continue

to do this.

So it's in this sense that I see us using land wisely. I

live in fear that that land that Mr. Horsting is now leasing

and preparing for his crops could very, very easily go into

subdivisions; that it's very easy to run a front-end loader

right through there and put in sewers and storm drains and

pavement.

It's not very easy to grow broccoli through pavement in 25,

30 years' time. So it's in that sense that I stand in a riding

which I think obviously is very, very affected; the riding of

Dewdney is a riding where I think there still is a real chance

to be most responsible with land use.

So I give this every bit of encouragement. I was delighted to hear from one

of the real grandfathers of the Conservative Party in British Columbia, a former

chief justice and a member of my constituency, Mr. Norris, who wrote me a long

letter and sent that telegram supporting the legislation to the Premier. We

have had other similar letters in support from people — and we certainly have

had negative letters. Let's not be dishonest. But it's the people in the farming

business who largely support this.

I'd like to remind you that one of the things that has

always concerned me is that in my riding, and maybe in other

parts, there have been very ancient subdivisions. If you just

go across the Pitt River bridge — let me be very specific. Just

below the CPR bridge, along the Pitt River in 1914 the CPR

subdivided a very large amount of very good dairy land into

tiny little 33-foot by 120-foot lots. They sold off these

little paper lots, and the certificates are probably all over

the world. And there's been a hope on my part and on the part

of the people of Maple Ridge, especially the council and the

dairy people, to assemble this land.

But this has been difficult. We've gone through the

Municipal Affairs, the Environment and Land Use Committee. I

was hoping that maybe under this legislation it would be

possible to very quickly assemble these little paper lots and

put them back into dairy production.

We have a farmer who's eager to buy that land and put it

into production.

Now I could describe many other places throughout the riding

where there are these anomalies of paper hobby-farms, some of

them subdivided 15 years ago. For instance in Agassiz, just

below the bypass, if you come over the Agassiz bridge and you

take the bypass across the south of Agassiz to the Haig

Highway here there are two 55-foot dairy farms — and Agassiz I

would like to boast has the best of all the soil in the Fraser

Valley, but I could be challenged on that — but here is this

excellent soil subdivided now into 5-acre hobby farms, all set

to go.

I met with the mayor of Agassiz on Thursday and it's our

hope that we can control that situation, just as I'd hope the

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is concerned. Two very

successful dairy farms were sold just before Christmas time,

subdivided into three and five acre hobby farms outside

Clearbrook and we are afraid that these once very successful

milk producing enterprises have gone into the little,

euphemistically termed "hobby farm". I don't think that's

responsible. I personally don't think that's moral, that we're

taking out of production very valuable dairy producing

areas. People have said that only 1.6 million acres is under

production. That's not very much. That's less than 1 per cent

of the province really under production and cultivation. More

of that is under other forms of agriculture. But under real

detailed cropping conditions there is barely one per cent. It's

not very much.

Our population is growing. The West End of Vancouver, the

Member for Vancouver Centre said, is growing faster than any

other place in Canada.

[ Page 1740 ]

Where's this food coming from? What type of variety are we

offering our people that if this gloomy picture of 1984, of

most of the Fraser Valley being controlled by the large real

estate developing people, is that imminent.

I would like to say that we have had many meetings in my

riding — seven meetings plus two radio programmes. I was

thrilled with the little editorial on March 14 in the Maple

Ridge Gazette . It's called "Participatory Democracy," where a leading Member of the Liberal Party chaired a

meeting at which I spoke. We went actually clause by clause

through this Act — I share this with the leader of the Liberal

Party, because it even amazed him that we could actually go

through this Act with about 500 or 600 people in a hall in

Maple Ridge. I think that's participation.

Not all of them agree with the Act. There needs to be

clarification. We concede that that's obvious. That

clarification will be coming. I suspect we're going to nearly

"motherhood" the bill to death with amendments by the time

we're finished.

But I really think that this is a responsible thing. I think

my children and grandchildren will remember 1973 as the time

when we kind of took stock at what's happening to land use in

British Columbia.

I have a six page précis — it's only a précis. It was sent

to me by Mr. Justice Norris on what the Hon. J.V. Clyne said in

1955 about land use in the Fraser Valley. The Members will

remember that the Hon. J.V. Clyne was asked to study the dairy

industry in the Fraser Valley. In this précis he pointed

out the seriousness of the loss of top dairy producing areas in

the Fraser Valley and that was nearly 20 years ago.

Of course, the figures of 60,000 acres being lost in the

last 10 years in the Fraser Valley has been quoted. I am

personally concerned about places like one bulb farm out near

Mission, one of the best known bulb farms in the Fraser Valley,

where the farm is threatened by subdivisions around it. Even

the mayor of Mission is afraid that this could go.

Sometimes people by resignation say, "Oh well, we'll have to

let this well-known bulb farm, 50 years of producing some of

the best gladiolas and dahlias in British Columbia, we'll have

to let it go." I would hope that wouldn't be true. And I don't

want to resign myself to that fate.

If I were a developer, if I were part of this commission

developing land banks, I'd like to see land banks all the way

around the bottom of some of the hills — and Mission is mostly

hills — so that you could look down over those beautiful bulb

farms, just as in the United Kingdom, with their very wise land

use legislation which came since the second World War. You can

look over the bulb farms and over the beautiful greenbelts — economically viable greenbelts. This is both a beautiful thing

to look at and it's also economically viable.

We have hog farmers in my riding who desperately need land

now. They need land for expansion. They need land for their

manure to be spread. I think these are things that could be

expedited under the commission.

I hope we can see that this is only the very beginning to

making farming economically strong. It's bare bones. Even

taking educational tax off of the family farm is just barely

scratching the surface. Our party is committed to that.

Personally, I would like to think that we could take all land

tax off the farm. I wish the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) were here. I think we've

got to ask whether we should not take the actual construction

costs of diking and ditching off producing farms in all of

British Columbia. The farmers seem to be quite willing to pay

the actual maintenance and pumping costs for the six weeks of

pumping.

I really think that these are some of the things that we

must see are done immediately to take this load off the farmer.

Of course we've got to look at other tax incentives. The

legislation does talk about tax incentives — and we'll be

dealing with that in the committee stage — to induce people to

be more successful and more aggressive in their farming.

In my riding, where dairying is a very big industry, I think

that we have to look at the whole marketing of milk. I'm

concerned about the milk quota system. I'm concerned that many

farmers are dumping, at half the revenue per hundredweight,

nearly half of their production of milk onto other forms, such

as cottage cheese. They're just not getting the return they

should be getting. I'm concerned about all other forms of

marketing, which surely is the most basic and probably chronic

problem that farmers have had.

I would like to think that this is at least accepting the

problem. If you look back at the Assyrian and Babylonian

civilizations, marketing of farm production was a problem 4,000

years ago. We're not going to resolve it in this session or

even this year, but we're going to start. I would like to think

that this is just a slow and responsible start at making

farming far more lucrative. There's no reason why they

shouldn't be given every inducement to make a very worthwhile

living. They certainly work hard enough. There's a great deal

of money tied up in it. They often have difficulty, Ms.

Speaker, in getting farm credit — at least getting enough

credit at the right interest rate.

As I say, this is just bare bones. There will definitely be

tax incentives, even in the Act.

I want to say, Ms. Speaker, that there has been consultation. I can't think

of an alderman in my riding who, in the last two weeks, has not had discussion

with me — and certainly prior to this. There is a democratic process; there

have been meetings. I have always interpreted this legislation to

[ Page

1741 ]

mean that there will be consultation. There are two places

in the Act where it talks about sharing.

I think we should make it very clear that we will be

assisting and advising and working with the planners, the

agriculture people, the regional district people and the

municipal people to see that there is this network of plans.

Later on in the legislation, in

section 17, it refers to

consultation and "working with." Maybe I have too much

confidence in human nature, but we're working with them now. We

will continue to work with them.

I can't think of a major zoning thing in my riding, in my

eight months of being an MLA, on which we haven't had a lot of

though, Ms. Speaker? I find that it takes a great deal of time

to get a major amendment change through the Environment and

Land Use Committee. There are two right now. In fact, I hope

this committee is meeting right now as I speak. We're hoping to

get a sawmill to move into the Whonnock area — a half million

dollar sawmill. I'm hoping on that. It's called Bestwood

Industries. We've had letters back and forth.

We passed Water; then we passed Agriculture; then we passed

Highways. I'm hoping that this will expedite these things. It

couldn't be any slower than it is now, Ms. Speaker, as far as

the process of getting through these regional plan changes. I

am hoping that this will be a management committee. There will

be people under it. Most of the detailed planning — and it's

usually very detailed — will still come from the regional

areas, such as in my riding.

Again, it says that in two places. In committee we'll

certainly look at that. I'll fight for that, if that is

concerning you all that much — that the input will come from

the regional people.

But, Ms. Speaker, I think time is running out. Remember it

was 20 years ago that Mr. Clyne reminded us of the seriousness

of the depleting dairy industry in the Fraser Valley. It was

many years ago that people were concerned about these strange

subdivisions. I would really like to think that we are taking

our blinkers off in British Columbia. We're facing the real

issues of urbanization, of the tremendous growth of people, of

the restlessness of people to move. We want to get on with the

job.

I personally cannot understand why Members would be asking

for compensation to what I would think to be unrealistically

escalated land values, especially around my riding and in

Richmond, Delta and Surrey. I personally reject this idea, that

through a pretty detailed and deliberate pressure approach — and

often changing of regional plans — we, the taxpayers, including

the Members in this House who work very hard, must compensate

for an escalated, book value of property. I don't think that's

in the interests of the majority of the people that we have a

mandate to represent.

I must make it very clear, Ms. Speaker. I had 15,000 cards printed in my name.

Three of the five items on that card had to do with land use, with responsible

planning for people. I would gladly table these or send them around to all the

Members. To me there was no doubt that we asked for responsible use of land.

The other thing I want to say, in facing the times we live

in, is that this is an old problem — a theological problem.

Most of the history of Israel is a struggle over land use. It

might interest the Members that the actual Hebrew word for

heaven is actually a land, a place of water. It's called

hamayeem in Hebrew, which simply suggests a place of continual

water. Of course, water and an oasis was crucial to the nomadic

Jewish people.

In the sixth

chapter of the prophet Micah there's a pretty

descriptive picture of the final judgment of the people of

Israel. Israel could be us. Israel could be the Fraser Valley.

There's this picture of a courtroom scene. Like yourself, there

is the great lord up in his high seat. He is looking down on

Israel. Around the chamber…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member — "She." (Laughter).

MR. ROLSTON: She. She is looking down onto Israel. The 12

members of the jury are the mountains. They look down and they

witness what Israel has not done by omission. I think that's

where many of us really are right now. Israel, in a sense, is

put to the test. What have you really done? How responsible

have you been? What kind of stewards have you been?

Of course, the mountains are looking down at this courtroom

scene. So the Israelites kind of placate the Lord and say,

"Well, look, we thought you'd be very happy if we had a great

celebration." So they have a great celebration. That doesn't

please the Lord.

"Would you be happy with great rivers of oil?" They come out

with a great stewardship programme, a big PR thing. Bring out

all the advertising people and explain what we're doing. That

doesn't please the Lord.

"Would the Lord be happy if we gave the best oil — our best

possession?" That doesn't please the Lord. Finally, the Lord

was asked, "Would you like our first children? Could we give

our first child?" No, that doesn't please the Lord.

Finally, the State of Israel is pretty anxious about this.

It hasn't been able to be recognized, just as some of us are

somewhat anxious that we have really been very responsible with

land use in this province and throughout the world. Finally,

there is this comment. The Lord says, "You know what is

required: to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly."

I would hope that is where all of us are. Long after this

sitting of the House, people are going to go on to

[ Page 1742 ]

use land. Land is a most essential product. It's going to

far outlive any of the Members, even the beloved Clerk of this

House. I would hope that there is a sense of justice.

I think the appeal process, both as a sense of fact and also

on a point of law — appeal on the sense of sharing. I think the

best justice is the kind of work that we've done here; the kind

of input that we've already got is very worthwhile and very

fair. Therefore, appeal will not be necessary.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. ROLSTON: No way. Well, we'll get to that in committee.

It may be that there really is a sense of mercy, that we are in

a sense a community; you know, seeing the total justice of the

community, not just a few people that have hoarded land or have

been lucky to own land or misused land.

Finally, I think it is incumbent on all of us, not just the

commission, but all of us as legislators, in humility to

administer this Act wisely — not concerned about political

gain, because land is far more valuable and a treasure. It's a

trust. I ask all of us responsibly support this Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

My predecessor who just took his place, the Member for

Dewdney, talked about communication with the Lord relative to

this Act. As he was talking I had a little meeting with the

Lord, and He said, "Advocate public hearings. There should be

some public input into this legislation. There should not be

this dictatorial overpowering five-man commission over the

rights of individuals in this province." And He said, "The

Member for Columbia River, when you stand, speak on that

principle." And that is what I'll do.

Now, the Member for Dewdney talks out of both sides of his

mouth at once. He is extremely inconsistent. He comes here and

he pleads for the preservation of agricultural land. He says

there is a genuine need for this. Then in the second breath he

says, "I'm pressuring the Land Use Committee for some

amendments so we can get a sawmill in the Mission area." So we

can get a sawmill! Let's designate just a little bit of this

agricultural land — so we can get a sawmill!

Why don't you be consistent in what you say. You know, the Minister suggested,

and I don't really think he has a right to suggest it, that there should be

a public confession relative to land ownership. He went on to divulge what he

owns and controls, and suggested that every Member should reveal themselves

as to what kind of land they own.

Yes I will — and I'll tell you why; because I don't trust

him if I don't. So I am going to say what kind of a land baron

I am of the Province of British Columbia. I control 1 1/4 acres

of land in British Columbia. I happen to have my home on that

land. But also, in case he wants to know, I have a wife and six

children, which really financially are a liability, but I

consider them a credit.

Then we listened to the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Hon.

Mr. King) who, in his usual cynical way, indicated to us that

he pleaded the case of the landowners who were being disrupted

along the Arrow Lake. At least they had the right of appeal to

the courts, which this legislation does not tolerate or allow.

They have that right, and in many, many instances when it was

appealed they did get a different decision.

But we find now that there are still cases outstanding

behind the Libby Dam in which farmers feel they have not been

fairly compensated, that the government appraisers there felt

are unfair. They are appealing to the courts.

I used to listen to the Member who is now the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) plead very

valiantly on the floor of this House for those people, those

farmers, whose land is being taken away for the purpose of the

Libby Dam and the pondage. But what is he doing now? He is not

doing very much pleading on their behalf now that he is

Minister. Now he certainly isn't.

He used to blame the former government for the way they

treated those people. There are still some outstanding claims

on land in the Libby pondage. Why don't you stand up and speak

on behalf of those farmers? You and the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) have completely forgotten the rights of

those farmers that are being affected by the Libby pondage. You

are nothing but a tool of the state, Mr. Minister. You've lost

your cause.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, address the Chair please.

MR. CHABOT: No, you certainly are not as eloquent as you

used to be for individual rights.

We listened to the Premier last night talk about a

demonstration which took place outside this hall a few days

ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Madam

Speaker, the Hon. Member, on a point of order, the Hon. Member said I was a

tool of the state. I would like to inform him that I am a servant of the state.

[ Page 1743 ]

MR. CHABOT: I could use another word too, but I had best

not.

I'll never forget seeing the peaceful demonstration that

took place in front of this assembly just a few days ago. The

people who were concerned with their rights being taken away

from them by this very bill and the principle of the bill which

we are discussing right now — peacefully demonstrating in a

demonstration sponsored by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

Don't you think people should have a right to demonstrate; to

express their feelings in a peaceful way?

They reminded me of the former demonstration, the last one

previous to the one last week, in 1971 when the B.C.

Federation of Labour sponsored the demonstration out in front

of the Buildings. That was not a peaceful demonstration. You

didn't see in the demonstration of the farmers out here just a

week ago any banners promoting Social Credit out there. But you

saw them in that ruthless, destructive demonstration of the

B.C. Federation of Labour.

The NDP had their banners there. You had better believe they

were. Attendants were injured in the galleries, windows were

broken, and the Premier has the gall to bring the subject of

the peaceful demonstration up and saying that it was Social

Credit sponsored.

You know people all over British Columbia are extremely

concerned with what is happening to their individual rights. In

fact they are sending in their membership cards to us in bits

and pieces. One that I was able to salvage — and I talk about

membership cards, NDP British Columbia membership cards, and

I've never seen one before…but I am amused by what it

said on the back of this card. It says, "The holder of this who

has undertaken in writing that he accepts and will abide by the

democratic principles, programmes and constitution of the

party, and that he is not a member or supporter of any other

political party."

Democratic principles! Why don't you bring back democratic

principles to the people of British Columbia by withdrawing

Bill 42 which is a direct attack against the rights of the

people of this province. Then we hear the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) who attended a conference at Harrison Hot

Springs — it was the British Columbia Association of

Broadcasters — and he pleaded with them, "Come and meet with

the cabinet. We think you are putting the wrong twist on our

legislation."

The Provincial Secretary said there is a need for more

responsibility in the newsroom. He suggested that news is not

being interpreted to suit the cabinet, and "Come and meet us;

we'll tell you how to interpret Bill 42 and other pieces of

legislation which the Government feels are controversial."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, I hope the day never comes that you will

control the media. You are certainly suggesting that the

interpretation they put on Bill 42 is not to your liking. Maybe

there should be changes…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would like to remind you to please address

your remarks to the Chair.

MR. CHABOT: I am always speaking to the Chair. I might be

looking over there…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might try a "through you, Madam Speaker", once in

a while. It would help.

MR. CHABOT: Through you, Madam Speaker (Laughter)…I

listened to the Premier, Madam Speaker, just last night talk

about

section 706, subsection 1 and 2, of the Municipal

Act . That is the same

section about which he misled the

people of British Columbia on an open-line show that was pushed

out on about 14 different radio stations out across the

province; indicating that the powers that exist in Bill 42 are

no greater than those in

section 706 of the Municipal

Act .

But he failed while he was speaking on the hot-line, he

failed to spell out the significant part of that particular

section. It's a very short section. He didn't talk about

subsection 2, but he did last night mention it. But he never

did mention it when he was speaking out on the airwaves; and

subsection 2 is a very significant one to the main

section of

the Act.

It says subsection 1 does not apply when land is zoned

exclusively for public use, Madam Speaker, which is a very

significant thing to the whole principle of

section 706,

because there will be times when the Government will zone land

for land bank purposes, park purposes and greenbelt. This is

for public use.

That is the significant

part in that there is no room for

compensation for the land which they zone into these various

public categories. He also brought out a copy of a letter — a

very speedy delivery we see on this — from Block Bros.

Industries Limited, Henry J. Block, president. Special

delivery, arrived by plane from Vancouver just in time for the

Premier to stand, Madam Speaker, in this House and to say that

they have support for this legislation, providing there are

certain amendments, mind you, from one of the largest land

speculators in the Province of British Columbia.

I am wondering, when I see the great haste in which this

letter came to the chambers here — by plane if you please, from

Vancouver, in time for the

[ Page 1744 ]

Premier to use in his speech, because it was void of other

material — whether there was pressure by that Government to

solicit this type of a letter from one of the large real estate

firms, one of the ten largest real estate firms in this

province.

Was there pressure by that Government against Block Bros. to

write this type of a letter? Was this a solicited letter by

that Government by one of the largest land pushers in this

province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, what is your point of order?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Simply this: that the Opposition has done

such a poor job, the real estate promoters had to come to help

them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that is a point of order. Continue.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I remember when they used to sit on

this side of the House and attack the real estate interests;

now they are in bed with the real estate interests. New found

friends. They're looking for support; support which they no

doubt have pressured out of these people, pressured out of

them, to give them credibility with this legislation.

This is the same firm, I am sure you realize, that had ads

in California that said, "British Columbia — for sale." You used

to be critical of that and now you quote them as your friends.

And they write a letter to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich). The letter is, "Yours very truly, Block Bros.

Industries Limited, Henry J. Block, president — and it is

signed "Henry."

Oh, my long lost buddy. From Henry to Dave. Oh, they've got

buddies now in the real estate business. They have certainly

changed their tune. They'll go to almost any length to get

support for this legislation or invoke any types of pressure as

well.

No, I think the principle of this bill is clear enough to me

and it is clear enough to the people of this province as well.

It is clearly spelled out that it has absolute, overbearing,

overpowering control over Crown land and all private land,

every square inch of land in the Province of British

Columbia.

It is centralization and bureaucracy at its very worst. Very worst. It is "closed-door"

legislation. Ask us no questions because you will get no answers. That is the

message you are giving the people of British Columbia today. Don't call us —

we'll call you. That is the attitude of that Government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Now, when the people knock on the door, Mr. Speaker, they

find the door is closed, the phone is off the hook and the mail

slot is blocked. Don't approach us — " Big Brother" Government — we know best. Then they have the temerity and the gall and

audacity to talk about open government. Open government — "trust us — trust us."

You know, anyone who has tried to have communication about

this legislation with the Government has been excommunicated.

There is no communication with that Government, Mr. Speaker,

none whatsoever. That Government will not hear; that Government

will not listen; it will not listen to the farmers who express

their concerns and anxiety to that Government — and they're not

listening. If they were listening, they would have withdrawn

this bill and brought in a bill which dealt specifically with

the preservation of agricultural land.

They don't listen to farmers, they don't listen to people,

they don't even listen to their own party Members, Mr. Speaker.

When they were in convention just last fall, the 1972

convention, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia;

summary of policy resolutions — they had a resolution on the

question of agriculture.

It was resolution No. 4 and what did they say? What did the

people who used to support you say? They said that the

Government, on the question of land, should hold public

hearings on land use policies. Why are you going against the

wishes, Mr. Speaker, of the people who have put their first

trust in you; who have said there is a need for public input, a

need for public hearing?

These are not the words of the farmers, the general public

of British Columbia; these are the words of people who have

put their money on the line to support the New Democratic Party

by taking out membership.

Those are some of the memberships, I am sure, that we are

receiving today, torn up in bits and pieces. Those people are

appalled by the lack of democracy that exists in that very

Government in view of the approach they have taken to Bill

Oh, we remember, Mr. Speaker, very well during the last

election when the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture were

speaking on Vancouver Island and in the Nanaimo area; when they

talked very highly of

[ Page 1745 ]

the land on the Gulf Islands — about the preservation of the

Gulf Islands. Oh, the jewels. These islands were little jewels

and had to be preserved.

Now what do we see: the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) arbitrarily saying this is going to be a land bridge.

There are going to be ferry docks; there is going to be a

four-lane highway across your islands, as it links between the

mainland and Vancouver Island.

Where is your concern for the landowners and the residents

of Gabriola Island? You have told them arbitrarily, this is

what will take place. What an arrogant Government. What an

arrogant Minister, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder the people on that island are asking for your

resignation, Mr. Minister of Highways.

Now, we listened to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who

believes that no one should have ownership of land and this is

relative to Bill 42:

" 'The provincial government should have acted 10 years ago

to protect valuable farmland from subdivision,' Comox MLA Karen

Sanford said Monday. 'Farmland is very important to British

Columbia and to the world,' Mrs. Sanford said in a telephone

interview from Victoria. 'It will become even more important in

the years to come.'

"The MLA was commenting on her Government's recently

announced legislation to place rigid controls on the use of

farmland in the province. That legislation, tabled Thursday in

the Legislature, was introduced by the Agricultural Minister.

Stupich froze most farmland in the province December 21 with an

order-in-council prohibiting subdivision, rezoning or other

development.

"The owner of the land so frozen will now have to wait

another two months to find out if restrictions on their

particular tract will be lifted. The legislation introduced by

Stupich last week will establish a new land commission with

authority to establish agricultural land reserves. The

commission will have an initial budget of $25 million with

authority to buy any farmland which becomes available for

sale."

Just on that point, the Premier said last night there was no

intention of the commission to buy farmland. Yet the Member for

Comox says that the intention of the commission is to buy

farmland with the original $25 million.

"Land thus acquired may be leased back to the farmers, may

be re-sold as agricultural land or may even be farmed by the commission itself."

So we are going to have collective farming in British

Columbia now. Collective farming — I'll tell you what

collective farming has done in some other countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. CHABOT: In Chile…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Stop being so facetious will you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want you to be serious.

MR. CHABOT: I am being serious.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're not.

MR. CHABOT: I am so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all Members address the Chair.

MR. CHABOT: In Chile, a Doctor of Agriculture was visiting

and he studied what was taking place in the agricultural

community in that country. He had this to say about collective

farming and the land use policies of that country:

"Land reform programmes expropriated farms of more than 176

acres with the apparent aim of ultimately taking over all

private land. There is little doubt that this reform has had

disastrous consequences on production. Much land is idle. Beef

is not obtainable; bread is now black and not appealing; butter

and margarine are almost unavailable. The swine and poultry

industries are suffering because of lack of feed."

That is what the expropriation of farmland has meant to

Chile. That is what collective farming is bringing to that

great Marxist nation of Chile. In view of the fact that the

Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has suggested that the five-man

commission might go into collective farming I thought it only

fair that I come in, in a constructive way, and point out to

that Government which is promoting collective farming in

British Columbia that collective farming has been failure

where it has been tried.

I did not take any isolated volume dealing with the matter,

I picked up three different volumes and each volume, I think,

is worthy of quoting very briefly on what collective farming

has done. This is primarily in Russia where it has been tried

for the last 40-some-

[ Page 1746 ]

odd years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Quote it, quote it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I know we have been around, many times

around, the world in this debate but I fail to see the

connection between collective farming and Bill 42.

MR. CHABOT: You fail to see a lot of things, Mr.

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think it is going a bit far to suggest

that because the commission…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. I think it is going far

beyond the debate and principle on the bill to talk about

collective farming unless you can indicate where, other than

what you have said already…

MR. CHABOT: I come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that, in

all due deference — it says in

section 12(

b) that the

commission can carry on farming operations on commission land…

MR. SPEAKER: That is not collective farming. If it said

collective farming, I suppose it would be in order but that is

going beyond what he says it says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Comox is probably, through

caucus, aware of information which is not available…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I want to explain to Members, once and

for all, that the debate has ranged on this matter — the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and others have discussed areas of

confiscation that do not appear in the bill, but I have allowed

it because it is your impression of what the bill is about. I

have tried to be as free as possible in this debate, in the

extent of the debate and even the repetition in the interest of

free speech. But, it should also mean that there are some

limits — and it certainly doesn't go as far as the Hon. Member

is trying to push it now.

MR. CHABOT: I beg to differ with that point of view because

it states very clearly in the Act the commission can go into

the business of farming. It says that in the Act. That is one

of the principles of the Act.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Comox is probably aware, Mr.

Speaker, through caucus, of information which is not available

to the Members of this party. And when she said that the

commission can go into the business of farming, it has to be

collective farming.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonsense.

MR. CHABOT: Because she says, "The land thus acquired may be

leased back to the farmer." — that is one way it can be handled — "It may be re-sold as agricultural land" — that is two ways

it can be handled — "or it may even be farmed by the commission

itself." That is three ways it can be handled.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member, for example, were

describing the several demonstration farms this government has

or the federal government has — which are experimental farms — I

don't suggest that experimental farms could be described as

collective farming. That is presumably what the Act is talking

about. If you are saying the Act goes beyond that to collective

farming, I would ask the Hon. Member to point out where in the

Act, so we can get down to the relevance of this debate.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't know what words you are using. You

are interpreting the Act as you see the Act yourself, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know if you are privy to information in caucus

which is not available to me, but I want to say you are

pointing to an

interpretation which is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Not actually, because my duty is to deal with

the Act as it is.

MR. CHABOT: You are saying that it is for the purpose of experimental

farms and that is not an

interpretation that you should put on the Act. It is

an

interpretation the Minister of Agriculture, when he speaks, if he feels that

is what should take place, he should state it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member please be seated a minute.

I want to point out to him that I used an example that if

the government owned an experimental farm, you would not

thereby classify that as collective

[ Page 1747 ]

farming. I am suggesting to the Hon. Member if it says that

a commission should own or operate a farm, that does not go so

far as collective farming unless the Act or the bill says so

somewhere in it. Now, your

interpretation of words may, in all

fairness to debate, go that far. If you want to put that

proposal, put it in terms that makes sense to the relevancy of

this debate.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I

suggest we allow the Member to…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. I am interested in

the good order of this House. I suggest in order to preserve

the good order of this House, the Member be allowed to continue

the drivel he has been spouting this afternoon.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no. Order.

If the Hon. Member can relate the ownership of land by the

commission to collective farming, I presume in the interest of

freedom of speech, he should be allowed to do so. But, I think

it is extending the debate quite a ways beyond the meaning of

the Act.

MR. CHABOT: I don't have to take those facetious remarks

from that arrogant, dictatorial Minister of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. CHABOT: I do want to say that when I was speaking about

land usage…

MR. SPEAKER: "Arrogant" and "dictatorial" should not be used

in this House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): He has no

point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree. I pointed that out, that he

didn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he be

allowed to continue the drivel as he has all afternoon.

MR. CHABOT: I don't have to take those facetious remarks

from that arrogant, dictatorial Minister of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw the

words "arrogant and dictatorial Minister."

MR. CHABOT: Well, have that Minister withdraw those

statements about my speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think both of you should withdraw your

statements to each other. I ask both of you to do so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I accept the Member's offer to stop

talking drivel in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I apologize to the Member if I have

upset him.

MR. SPEAKER: Now would the Hon. Member be as gracious?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that isn't gracious at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, he has withdrawn it and apologized, that

is something. Would the Hon. Member also withdraw his remarks

about "arrogant and dictatorial Minister."

MR. CHABOT: I won't call him arrogant and dictatorial. He's

too stupid to be that.

MR. SPEAKER: Now wait a minute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for your charity.

MR. CHABOT: Really, Mr. Speaker, you introduced some…a

new term in my talk which I hadn't…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You tell them, you tell them.

MR. CHABOT: …new ideas, really. Because until you said

so, I never even considered the possibility of the provincial

government going into experimental farms. I have seen the

national government in the field of experimental farms — now,

is the provincial government going to go into competition with

the national government? Is there going to be coordination

between the provincial government and the federal government on

testing of soil, testing of various products, testing of

cattle? Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I don't suggest anything.

MR. CHABOT: Is it going to be a co-operative…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you get back to the debate

on Bill 42?

MR. CHABOT: You introduced it. Really, the bill very

specifically states, Mr. Speaker, that the Government can go

into the business of farming. If the Government does operate

more than one farm, which they have the right to do by this

legislation, then I have to term that type of farming as

collective farming. If you get two things together, it is a

collective association — so that is collective farming. I want

to point out that collective farming has proven to be a

failure. I am not going to be selective in my information. I'm

not going to be parochial by going to only one source. I am

going to go to three volumes. I'm not going to read the entire

volumes, Mr. Speaker, I assure you of that. But, they are books

that are studied — that I am sure have been read by the Premier

in his days in the Jesuit College down in the United States.

These are some of their reference books down there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's "A Soviet Dictatorship." It's

the title.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you attacking the Jesuit College

now?

MR. CHABOT: It says in this one here:

"Intensive collectivization of agriculture, for which the

15th Congress had given authority, entered into its full

compulsive phase in 1929 and virtually achieved the complete

extinction of the private farmer at the end of 1930. Stalin

halted it as a product of official excess of zeal. This, in

part, it probably was but Stalin's magnanimity did not extend

to the reversal of its achievements. From 3.8 per cent of the

total crop area in 1928, the share of socialized agriculture

apparently rose to 98.4 per cent in 1936.

"Here results in terms of production were less favourable,

peasant embitterment and resistance and government reprisals

kept output down and cost the country some half of its

livestock, but the land for the first time was made

substantially amenable to the will of Moscow and Stalin. It

could hope to make good by mechanization what has been

lost."

That's Russian Political Institutions , by Derek J. R.

Scott.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do any Russians read our Hansard ?

MR. CHABOT: The next one is dealing with the Soviet economy.

It's by Mr. Schaeffer, in Collection of Western and Soviet

Views .

It says,

"Soviet agriculture indeed is marking time. The Liberal

post-Stalin policies did produce quick results. But since 1958,

the growth rate has been negligible for a number of

inter-connected reasons, which I've endeavoured to analyze

here.

"Clearly, it does not follow that growth cannot be resumed.

If more investment funds can be made available for the

fertilizer and farm machinery industries, for instance, then

the very low crop yield in natural and fertile lands of the

centre, north and west of European Russia can be increased.

"Success in agriculture tends to reinforce itself. Higher

yields of fodder grains, more livestock, more manure. Higher

yields, higher productivity, increased incomes, more incentives — therefore still higher productivity.

"None of this is impossible, despite the adverse natural

conditions under which Soviet agriculture operates. Yet it

remains true that the huge farms of the Soviet Union have been

inefficient in the use of resources and have shown a deplorable

lack of flexibility and a failure to mobilize necessary human

ingenuity.

"It is also significant that the only country in the

Communist block which fulfills its agricultural plan is Poland,

where most farms are privately owned and privately run. One

reason for this is that the Polish plans are reasonable. Had

Gomulka been so foolish as to promise to treble meat production

in five years, he too would have failed.

"Polish farming has its own weaknesses and it's surely

impossible on practical as well as ideological grounds to apply

the Polish model to the Soviet Union. Yet Polish experience

underlines a fact too often overlooked — that with all the

familiar inadequacies of small peasant agriculture, it

possesses advantages which Marxist theory has failed to

recognize and Soviet practice has yet to find a way of

emulating.

"Khrushchev is making an all-out effort to seek efficiencies

within the basic institutional and political framework of the

Soviet system, and has mobilized the Communist Party machine

for that purpose."

Now, it's quote evident that Russia is moving away from the

field of collective farming, because they found that over the

last 44 years, really, that it has failed — that private

enterprise, individual farming, individual production is by far

the most efficient way to produce agricultural products.

So collective farming has failed, and I hope that

[ Page 1749 ]

that term in the Act which gives the commission the right to

enter into the field of collective farming — that they refrain

from doing so. Because I don't think that collective farming

has worked anywhere else, and it will fail miserably in British

Columbia as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says that they have not allowed

rezoning since coming to office. I don't know where he gets his

authority to overrule the municipalities, but nevertheless he

has effectively stopped rezoning through the land freeze which

he brought on, which is still on. But one of the statements

that I find rather appalling from the Minister is the point

that he made when he introduced the bill on second reading that

there would be no agricultural land left in the Okanagan in 10

years unless this legislation was introduced.

You did mention the number of acres that had been lost in

the lower mainland — agricultural land that has been lost to

urban sprawl or residential complexes — but the statements that

you made are not really in conformity with the statements of

some of the planners on the lower mainland. I think it's

important that we take into consideration the statements that

have been made relative to the type of stringent policies that

they have pursued over the years.

We find that Mr. Gillam, planner for Chilliwack county, said

there has been no alienation of farmland for development in the

Chilliwack area for nearly three years. Not since the zoning

and development plan was introduced.

"In the rich and heavily populated Greater Vancouver

Regional District, planner Rich Hankin insists that in 1966

plans approved by the provincial government for the lower

mainland before regional districts were introduced, has been

followed with only modest changes and no major exceptions. This

contemplates the eventual use of lands currently zoned and

taxed as agricultural for other purposes. The grab for land by

speculators has been within these limits, and the eventual loss

of the farmlands involved has been known, understood and

approved for years."

To go to the Abbotsford area:

"In Abbotsford m