[ Page 163 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 21 intituled the Guaranteed Income Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 21 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading, at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled Companies Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, dated at Government House, February 1, 1973.

HON. MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 16.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 16 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.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY FIRST AID ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading Of Bill No. 22 intituled Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 22 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT REGULATING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AND DISCLOSURE

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 23 intituled Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 23 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

EMPLOYEES' TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 24 intituled Employees' Termination of Employment Protection Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 24 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(Continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, It is with a great sense of history, Mr. Speaker, that I take my place in this throne speech debate. It occurs to me that there is at least one Member of this of this house who was sitting in this Chamber some years before I was born. I find myself sometimes wondering where I really am when I'm in this place. It's difficult at times to understand the history, to understand the struggles that have gone on over the last 100 years in this province. It's difficult for some of us to understand that many Members of this House have been here for a great many years.

I think for that reason a lot of the "rookie Members," as we've been described in this debate before, stand at these microphones, stand at our

[ Page 164 ]

desks, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, quiver a little bit. I must say that I don't get too nervous speaking to a thousand people at an all-candidates' meeting in North Vancouver but, believe me, I sure get nervous speaking to 55 other Members in this House. I know that a lot of the rookie Members …

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-four.

MR. GABELMANN: Fifty-four? That's right, Mr. Member, and I'm sorry.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Fifty-three. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I listen too. (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: Some afternoons it's not more than 20 and that's a bit of a disgrace, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a short speech this afternoon but I want to talk about a couple of problems particularly relating to my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, and one in particular relating to the Indian Arm area which the Premier and I share jointly in terms of constituencies. But I'll do that at the end of my short speech.

It's only been 4 ½ or 5 months since we've been elected to this job and I've run up against a number of things that I find quite astounding. It seems to me that if we were ordinary employees working for an employer, that a union would have been formed in this House a long time ago because the working conditions are pretty intolerable.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Organizing!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Member, I just might do that. I found it very unusual — I've had a little bit of experience coming over to Victoria the last few years, so I've had some idea of the intolerable conditions — and I'm not saying that they are not being improved. They are, and, Mr. Speaker, you deserve a lot of credit for the improvements that have been made. But I just want to say that it seems to me we've got a long way to go.

I can't believe, for example, that interior Members don't automatically have an airline pass to get them from their constituency to this capital at least once a month.

We're provided with rail passes and with Greyhound Line passes. I suppose that was fine in the dirty thirties and may have been fine during the war, but most of us are too busy, we have too much activity, too many things to do, too many people to talk to, too many problems to solve to spend a day travelling, particularly from the north, on the Greyhound, the railway or however people are coming down. It seems sensible to me that airline passes be provided. That's one thing.

The second thing is that the way the job has hit me is that it appears to me that each of us in fact act as an ombudsman in our constituencies. In order to do that job properly, we need to be able to be full-time. In order to be full-time, we need to have pay that at least equals what most of us were earning prior to being elected. I'm quite sure that those changes will be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, let's hear the thumping.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, even more important in my view is the total lack of secretarial and research assistants. You know, it's funny. I suppose I spend 20 per cent of my time last fall being a file clerk, another 20 per cent of my time being a junior typist — because my typing isn't that good.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You should have seen what it was like four or five years ago. (Laughter)

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate, Mr. Member, that the conditions here were much worse in days gone by.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: We've got a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. I have to get members of my constituency association to take down my letters and get them to do my constituency. I guess every Member has a lot of that. I have to get volunteers to do that when they come home from work, or if it's housewives, in between the work they're doing. That's absolutely crazy and intolerable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it nobody is going to object to my estimates. (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that your estimates cover a 12 month period, not just the period that we're sitting here at the House. That's my point.

Another point about assistants, Mr. Speaker, is that all of us need the option of having someone do some research for us. I can't possibly keep up with the demands that are put on me — the amount of reading I have to do, the number of groups that I have to meet with, the number of people that have got ideas and there's some good ideas out there that we don't know about. I don't have time to go and listen to those people because I'm spending too much of my time doing routine work that assistants could do and should be doing so that I can get on with the

[ Page 165 ]

important work of talking to the people in my constituency.

We need secretarial assistants and we need research assistants. Now I don't know whether we are going to get away with having two assistants each. That would be my aim, but if we can only be allowed to have one person each, 12 months of the year, then I would argue that we be allowed to choose the type of person that we hire — some of us may want to hire a pure research person, others may want to hire just a secretary. That choice should be left to each individual Member.

O.K., that's the question of what happens when we're out in the constituency and when we get into the House, Mr. Speaker, we have to sit in offices. I don't know what it's like for the Members in the Opposition but for the Members in the Government, we have to share an office, which is fine. I have a good room-mate and I don't have any problems that way but unfortunately we have to share the same phone.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What does she say about it? (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure. We have to share the same phone so that makes it difficult if we're both trying to phone at the same time. We both have a lot of phone calls back to our constituencies and that's a poor system.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but two other Members and I have to share one secretary. That woman is doing a fantastic job as far as I'm concerned. She's done more work than I ever could have expected her to do. But it's not fair to her to have to do the work for three Members and it's not really fair to us because we're put in an impossible position about how much work we give to those secretaries because we think, "Well, we had better not give them any more work or we're going to drive them out of their minds." I think that situation has to be remedied as well.

O.K., that's enough on our problems because I think the major problems we should be talking about in this House are the problems that we find out in our constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to talk about it because I don't know how to deal with it, but you know the major problem out there is loneliness? I find that in the last 4 ½ months most of the work that I've done is similar to work that social workers would be doing. The phone calls and the letters I get often don't require a formal or a specific answer. They just require somebody to listen, somebody to talk to.

The alienation and the loneliness that is occurring in our society is pretty devastating. I was conscious of it in a kind of intellectual way in the past, Mr. Speaker, but I've become exceedingly conscious of that tremendous alienation that exists in all classes, in all social groupings in our society because of the kind of letters and phone calls that I've been receiving. Quite frankly, I'm not capable of dealing with that. I try to be a good listener and I try to talk to everyone who calls but I'm just not trained to do that kind of job. I hope that when we improve the social services in this province that we spend a good deal of attention to the question of alienation.

I want to talk about two issues in North Vancouver. I note the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) will be speaking this afternoon and it may be that we touch on some of the same issues. One of the major issues in North Van — and I guess it was a lower mainland issue recently — has been the third crossing which I want to thank the Government for killing because I think that we are on a dangerous path towards a freeway system in greater Vancouver that would have strangled the City of Vancouver if that third crossing had been completed.

If you live in North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose this is true if you live in any other suburb of Vancouver, you have to have two cars. That's a bad trend. There is no way that if you live in Deep Cove or if you live in the upper Lonsdale area, or if you live in the highlands area of the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano's riding, or if you live in Delta — as the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) pointed out the other day — there is no way that you can survive without having at least two cars.

That's an expensive way for this society to operate. The second biggest expense we face in our lives is usually the automobile. More and more now we're having to buy two of them. That's absolutely ridiculous because not only is it a cost to the individuals who have to buy those darn things, but it's a cost to society. Not just the bridges and the highways and the parking lots and all the pollution that's created, and the depletion of natural resources — not just the oil and gas that's being burned — but the need for more steel and more rubber and more of all of the materials that go into making these monstrosities. It creates not only those things but also urban sprawl.

You have an automobile, you build a road, and so people live further and further away from the city, which eats up more and more farmland, which creates more and more problems, more and more alienation and the problems go on and on and they're indefinite.

They lead to one other very important problem, too, in our society, Mr. Speaker, and that's the problem of tension. We all know what tension is. I started to talk about that at the beginning of this speech because of my tension in having to stand up in this House. But the tension that the automobile creates in our society is absolutely devastating. I don't know how people do it — fighting the rush hour for a 35 or 40 minute drive home from a hard day at

[ Page 166 ]

work. They have to fight that traffic; they have to breath that air. They have to drive that monster that in many cases is in control of the driver, not the other way around. They come home, and no wonder people come home from work bitchy. That's the kind of society we're creating in North America with the automobile.

I think we are going to have to think very carefully about that because there's no simple solution, Mr. Speaker. But the beginning of the solution is for whoever is going to run the Hydro bus system in Vancouver, whether it's the Greater Vancouver Regional District or B.C. Hydro — I don't much care about who runs it as long as it's run on the basis that it doesn't have to make money. What it has to do is provide service so that we can end the trend into automobiles, so that people can know they can move into an area and not have to buy a second car because there will be a bus in that area.

I want to read a letter that I got from the Deep Cove Old Age Pensioners' Association. I'll read part of the letter, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn't say anything new but it touches very humanly upon what the problem really is. This is from the association, and they say: "In order to go to Lions Gate Hospital for X-ray tests or physiotherapy, it is necessary to take the Deep Cove bus to the Vancouver bus terminal…. ." Now you'll appreciate that Lions Gate Hospital is in North Vancouver, "… and from there take a bus to Lonsdale and 13th Street, or take a Deep Cove bus and transfer to another bus on Main Street. This bus only goes once an hour. The present fare to go to Vancouver is 60 cents one way with no transfer on Vancouver buses" so when they get on a Vancouver bus they pay another 35 cents to get back onto the North Shore. "There is no Sunday or holiday bus and no evening bus and no bus into town after 4:20. To take a taxi from the Kootenay loop," which as you know is in the Vancouver East riding, "or 13th Street is costly — $3 or more."

If people in my riding want to take a taxi, which they often have to do if they want to go to the centre of any commerce or hospital or whatever, the taxi rates are anywhere from $3 to $5. There are a lot of pensioners living in that area. It's my point, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't matter if the buses make money or not that service that area, but it's social responsibility of society to serve that area. That's very important in my view.

O.K., I want to go from there into a couple of other things. I had to tear up part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, because when the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the other day made the announcement about Horseshoe Bay, he took …The only criticism I was — yes, a seagull — the only criticism I was going to make of the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, was that they weren't responding to our cries in North Vancouver that the Horseshoe Bay terminal be moved.

I want to thank the Minister of Highways for making that announcement and I want to add to something he said, Mr. Speaker, because it's very important. It's going to be increasingly a problem not just for those of us in the North Shore but people anywhere in B.C. who are going to use that ferry for the next three or four years. Those conditions are going to be intolerable at Horseshoe Bay because of the inadequate parking and inadequate ramp facilities. And as far as I'm concerned that's fine, but I don't want to hear from the other two Members in the North Shore any complaints about inadequate facilities at Horseshoe Bay in the next three our four years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not an engineer, Mr. Member, and I can't tell whether four years is too long or not. That's enough about Horseshoe Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and I wish he were here because I want to say something that I want him to do, but I've talked to him privately and he knows my feelings.

I want to commend him for the amalgamation of Kamloops and Kelowna. I think that was an important event for those cities. And I don't live there, Madam Member and that's why I want to say this. I live in North Vancouver, and I think it is urgent that the Minister of Municipal Affairs considers very quickly the amalgamation of the city and district of North Vancouver. And when he's completed doing that, Mr. Minister, which I hope is very soon because there is too much duplication of services — there's a new city hall going to be built in the city of North Vancouver which is pretty silly when they've already got one pretty good city hall facility in that area.

These kind of expenses in my view are pretty mindless. And that amalgamation is going to have to come sooner or later, I would prefer it to be sooner. And once he's done that, Mr. Speaker, I hope he takes a good look at West Vancouver because I think maybe we're going to have to merge the whole of the North Shore into one municipality. That's not an immediate priority but I think discussions should be going on about that question.

Moving on to the question of housing and land development, Mr. Speaker. There's been a lot of talk in the last few months because of the land freeze that we're going to have to move off the idea of building homes on the flat farm lands, and with that I concur 100 per cent. But that's going to create a responsibility on those of us who live on the slopes north of Burrard Inlet, and north of the Fraser River all the way down to Harrison, I guess. It's going to create a responsibility on us to be able to persuade

[ Page 167 ]

the people who lie in those areas already that they're not going to be able to continue to be able to live in the kind of isolated fashion they've been used to.

In my riding, Mr. Speaker, we have probably the largest chunk of undeveloped land next to the City of Vancouver. There are a number of plans that have been presented to create anywhere from a population which is now 13,000, a population up to 50,000, some estimates going as high as 120,000 people. And that's almost as many people as they have in the entire municipality of Burnaby. So we're talking about a large land development up in that area. I want the provincial Government to be involved in that programme because, frankly, it has ramifications that go beyond any considerations of just North Vancouver — they are lower mainland considerations. The problem in there is that we have the C.M.H.C. that owns a great chunk of land, we have the provincial Government that owns a great chunk of land, the district owns a great chunk of land, the National Harbours Board owns land, and nobody seems to be able to get together and come up with any plans. It's essential that that happens. And I suspect that the Member for Coquitlam and the Member for Dewdney will have to look very carefully at their northern slopes too, because that's where we should be building our future housing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to a subject very briefly that's very dear to my heart, and that is the "work ethic", if I could put it into two words. There has been a lot of discussion in the House in the last week or so about what work really is. Is work meaningful? Should people do work that is mindless and meaningless? Should we allow people to pick and choose what kind of jobs they take? Is it right for society to say to a person, "If you don't take the job that we offer you, whatever it is, you cannot have any kind of income supplement from society."? Those are the questions, Mr. Speaker, that we as a society are going to have to spend a great deal of time thinking about in the next few years because it's only now just beginning and I think the flood gates will soon open.

It's been my view for a long time, Mr. Speaker, that the more we can get rid of some kinds of jobs in our society, the better off we'll be. I can't believe the kind of lives people live who have to work in let's say an automobile factory on that mindless chain, doing one job day after day, hour after hour, for 40 years of their life. They come home from work, and I think I made this point in the October session, they come home from work and you know there is just no wonder at all in my mind why they come home, open a beer, sit down and watch the television and don't spend any time with their family, and don't spend any time particularly with their kids, and their wives. I don't blame these guys coming off the green chain after 8 hours slogging away on that mindless job, I don't blame those guys for coming home and not being very sociable. But it is a society that we're going to have to do something about, because it's creating all kinds of problems — sociological problems — that we're just not dealing with yet, Mr. Speaker.

We're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to move into some kind of guaranteed annual income for everyone. We're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to continue with welfare programmes, unemployment insurance, family allowances, workmen's compensation — all of the whole range of income supplement programmes that we have that are costing us millions and millions of dollars in this society just to maintain the bureaucracies. Why don't we just simplify the whole thing and say, "O.K. there's one scheme — if your income is below this set figure we'll bring it up to the above figure."?

There's a curious kind of alliance on that question between the right, as represented by a guy like Friedman in the United States, and the left. And I might say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that those of us on the left have been split on this issue. There are many socialists who feel that the guaranteed annual income is a poor approach. I've been toying with the idea for quite some time and I think I've come to the conclusion that any other alternatives are even worse. As much as I don't like what the guaranteed annual income implies, the other alternatives appear to me to be much worse. So I think we're going to have to move on that.

What we're doing, Mr. Speaker, in this society is coming to a realization that there's going to be a great deal more leisure time. We're not any longer going to be working 40 hours a week; we're not any longer going to be working 50 weeks a year; nor soon are we going to be working five days a week. We're going to have to decide how we deal with that leisure time. And it's a very important question. It's not just dealt with by creating more recreational facilities although that's a very important part of it. An important part is what the education system in this province does in terms of training people to deal with leisure time. Training people to be on their own, and to find some enjoyment — to find some enjoyment in being alone. And there's a great deal of difference between being alone and being lonely. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is an important area for educationalists to work on in the next while.

We're going to have to expand — and I'm glad to see the Minister moving quickly on this, the whole idea of the community use of schools. I don't particularly like the term "community schools". We like that short term sort of thing and I can't think of a nice crisp term. But the proper idea is the community use of schools — that's what's important. It's absurd to have those buildings empty most of the day, or part of the year, or all weekend. Why do we

[ Page 168 ]

build duplicate libraries, why do we build duplicate swimming pools, duplicate playing fields — all of those?

Mr. Speaker, I haven't worked this idea out entirely in my mind, and I'm not saying it because it's definitely my own final view. But I'm coming to the view that we should perhaps take the school — the physical plant, the physical facility — out of the hands of the school board, and put it in the hands of the community. So that there'll be some board or some agency — whether it's the city council or whether it's some new kind of agency that actually builds and operates the schools — and they rent those facilities. They are going to work in cooperation with the Department of Education, of course, to make sure that the facilities are well designed. But they then turn around and rent the schools to the community. Part of that rent would be for school use; part of it would be for community use; part of it would be for every group in society to get in there and do their thing.

Why do we say to kids you have to go to school between 9 and 4? Why can't we say to the kids, "O.K., this week you're coming to school from 8 until noon, and you've got the rest of the day to do your own thing. Next week we're going to have you come in the evenings, because we want to bring in people from the community, who have something to tell you." We use the school for them in the evenings.

This rigid structure is really pretty absurd. One of the ways to get around this is to get away from the idea that the school belongs to the school board. And I know that at first that sounds like a bit of a weird idea. But the more I think about that, Mr. Speaker, the more it makes sense to me that the physical facilities in a community — whether they be schools, libraries, swimming pools, classrooms, whatever — belong to that community and everybody makes use of it. Education, Mr. Speaker, can't stop at age 16 or at age 18. In this increasing age of leisure, education is going to have to be a life-long thing where we spend all our lives going to school. Perhaps the first 12 years we spend most of our time going to school and the rest of our lives we spend at least some of our time going to school. That's an important thing, an important philosophical change that I hope we can make in this province.

Going from there, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about a couple of issues that I will deal with briefly — but that doesn't mean they are small issues.

Burrard Inlet. The Hon. Member from the High Seas, (Mr. Bennett) before leaving on his journey, suggested that perhaps Burrard Inlet should be turned back to the people in Vancouver. Now I don't know. I don't have the technical expertise and I haven't done enough research on it. But I would like to see us discover whether or not we can move the major port handling activity out of that harbour and perhaps down to Roberts Bank, perhaps to some other place. I don't know. There are so many problems involved in this and I'm as conscious as anyone in this House is of the problems.

But it's absurd, Mr. Speaker, that on the east side of Burrard Inlet — both on the north shore and the Vancouver side — on the east side, where the working class people live, there's no access to the water. On the west side, where the Liberals live, there's plenty of access to the water. (Laughter). And that's not fair and it's not right and I think we're going to have to do something about it.

In North Vancouver we have a coal-loading facility at Neptune Terminals. The housing values above Neptune Terminals have just plummeted in the last few years. That's life, I guess. People understand where they're buying their homes and it's part of the marketplace kind of game we live in in this society. But there's threats of more and more industrialization - perhaps of shipbuilding — in that area. And I'm not sure that Burrard Inlet can stand any more of that.

We need in North Vancouver some access to the water. We don't have any direct public access to the water between Lions Gate Bridge and all the way out to Cates Park, which is at the far end of the Burrard Inlet on the north shore. And that's absurd. If I want to go down to the water I have to either go to Cates Park or way out to the West Vancouver area, which has ample access to the Pacific. And we've got to do something about that.

Whether we can or not, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the problems that the Premier and the cabinet have in determining where these facilities are going to go. I am quite prepared to live with decisions that are arrived at as long as we make all the studies required to see whether or not we can make some changes there.

We have one particular area in North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, in my riding, called the Mudflats, commonly referred to as the Mudflats — more specifically the Maplewood Mudflats. This is an area of tidal land — it's land when the tide's out and it's water when the tide's in. It is uniquely situated in that it is very easy to get to and it has some exceedingly rare features, Mr. Speaker. It's an area that is still in its natural state — and that's pretty rare in Burrard Inlet.

There are now plans by the District of North Vancouver to put a complex on top of those mudflats that would rival a combination Park Royal — Bayshore Inn. It would make the Park Royal, the Bayshore Inn complexes look like Mickey Mouse operations. And that's going to go onto an area that in my view should be preserved for future generations, because the natural cycle of life is still occurring in that area. That's a very important issue in my riding.

Mt. Seymour. We have I guess the most commonly

[ Page 169 ]

used provincial park in British Columbia in my riding. I'm a skier, Mr. Speaker, and I love skiing, you know, and you go to Mt. Seymour and there aren't enough facilities, there aren't enough chairs. But you can sure go up there now on a beautiful highway. For some reason, we have spent millions of dollars building a great, spanking-new road — to what? To a couple of chairs. That facility needs to be improved, as do most of the ski areas in British Columbia and I hope the Government can get involved in that. We need to be able to preserve low-cost skiing — if I can coin a term I haven't heard before — for those many working class kids who can't afford the $8 a day it is to ski at Whistler and some of the commercial resorts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: How did you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: I saw you there.

MR. GABELMANN: I spent a week skiing in Alberta, Mr. Speaker — because they have very good skiing over there …

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. GABELMANN: I might say that at the top of that ski run, at Sunshine Village, as you go up the top, it's into British Columbia. We cross the international border on that run.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a moment about the Whistler Mountain area from a couple of vantage points. One is as a ski area it's a terribly underdeveloped area because the cost of improving ski facilities is pretty immense. The capital costs involved are extraordinary. They're trying to fund it by gouging skiers at the rate of $7 and $8 a day, and they're still not picking up enough capital in order to properly develop that area as a ski resort, I would like to see the Government involved in those kind of activities, Mr. Speaker. There are at least a half a dozen areas in the Squamish to Pemberton region that could be developed as magnificent ski areas — better than any in the world — and they're sitting not being developed because there isn't any money, or our free enterprisers aren't prepared to take the gamble. I just don't like to see people deprived of that kind of recreation because some free enterprisers aren't prepared to take a gamble.

I would prefer that the Government got involved and set up a couple of parallel facilities in that area similar to the Whistler one.

There are some problems right at Whistler, Mr. Speaker. As many of you know, the Whistler area at the bottom around Alta Lake is situated on a solid rock foundation. There is very little soil, very little growth very little chance for pollution to be dealt with in any natural way. There are four or five lakes in that area, Mr. Speaker, and an unlimited number of housing or development sites. People are putting in their own sewage systems. One of the new aldermen in the City of Vancouver is involved in a scheme to set up a great big complex there.

The pollution in the Alta Lake area is going to be really obscene in the not-too-distant future unless we put an end to the kind of use of those lakes as the reservoir of the sewers from those cabins. We're going to have to get a sewage system into that area if we're going to …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: I've had my discussions and I'll continue to do that. I wanted to make that point in the House, Mr. Speaker, because it's absolutely urgent, if Whistler is going to develop any more, that something be done about those sewage problems.

As many of you know who have driven to Pemberton — that's probably the worst road in the world, the road from Squamish to at least the Whistler and beyond. The B.C. Railway runs up there, Mr. Speaker — I am really addressing these remarks to the Premier — and many of us who drive that treacherous road, on icy days, would very much love to see a ski train going from North Vancouver right into the Whistler area. All we require is about a 3 1/4 mile spur line off the main road, it brings you 100 feet to the bottom of the terminal. I think the thing could make a lot of money for this Government, Mr. Speaker, if we were to put in a special ski train to Whistler.

Now I want to talk about Indian Arm — and I'm near to being finished, Mr. Speaker, except this will take a few minutes because it's, I think, the major scandal that's happening in the lower mainland right now and it isn't very widely known. Indian Arm is a chunk of water that extends off Burrard Inlet. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it's shared by the Premier and I in terms of representation. It's probably the best recreational area in the lower mainland. The only area that comes anywhere near being its equal is parts of the Sechelt Peninsula. It's got good fishing, good boating, good water skiing, excellent hiking potential — I go sailing in there quite often. You can still swim in Indian Arm. The water's clean still, believe it or not.

There's crab hunting — what do you call it? You don't go crab fishing, you don't go crab hunting. I don't know what you call it. Crabbing? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GABELMANN: In any event, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 170 ]

this is an area that has been until now unspoiled and there is something going on in that arm that I want to tell you about.

I have down on these notes, Mr. Speaker, 10 different items about things that are happening in Indian Arm. And if those items are allowed to continue, we will lose forever the recreational value of that arm, The water in that inlet, Mr. Speaker — or in that fjord, as it properly should be called — is probably the deepest in the entire area. The water doesn't change very quickly, it's cold — because it's deep — and if it ever gets polluted it's going to be like Lake Eric. We are never going to be able to reverse it again because the water doesn't change. It stays the same.

Right now, in that area, the District of North Vancouver has made an application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to rip out great acres of gravel out of the Buntzen Bay area. Now the Buntzen Bay area is a beautiful location for a park, for swimming, for boating, for all kinds of activities. If that gravel exploitation is allowed to continue, it will be a terrible blow to any future recreational development in that area.

You all know about the Granite Falls resort that the ferries go up to when you want to go on a booze cruise. That place was just bought and funnily enough, just burned down after it was bought. Now we hear great plans to put in a huge commercial development in that area. Also in that Granite Falls area there are other gravel deposits which will scar that area if ever anyone makes an application to take that out.

Going north of Granite Falls and a place called Iron Bay it is filled with logging booms, and now we are beginning to see the stray logs and the junk that is coming out of those booms down into the arm, The water is slowly beginning to become dirtier from those booms, from that logging. You go up there in a boat, Mr. Speaker, and the mountainside is scarred. Now, I appreciate that if we are going to have a logging industry in this province we are going to have scarred mountains. I understand the economics of this whole thing.

But there are some values that are higher than the economic values we put on. In my view, the Indian Arm area has far more economic value to our society as a recreational area than it does as an area where we rip out the resources.

The Indian River estuary at the head of Indian Arm is like any other estuary — a very delicate area, a very beautiful area. There is an incredible recreational potential along the river at the head of that inlet. You can hike. We could put a hiking trail from there right over to Squamish, Mr. Speaker, that would be the envy of any hiking trail in North America. That area is being devastated. It is being devastated by a company we all know well — Weldwood of Canada.

They're logging Felix Mountain and just scarring that thing beyond belief. They've got the entire estuary area covered by log booms, which is going to, destroy any of that marine life. That has to end, in my view, Mr. Speaker.

Just around the corner from there is Wigwam Inn. We have all heard of Wigwam Inn over the last 60 years, I would guess. It has a fabled history. I was tempted, Mr. Speaker, to go into the library and dig up the history of that place and relate it to this House, because I think there are a number of quite funny and interesting stories about the gambling and other events that used to happen in that fabled place.

Mr. Speaker, that place has been, left. It is a shell. It is being destroyed by nature and by vandals and it's just been purchased by a developer. It is 150 acres, including one mile of very beautiful waterfront area — waterfront area that I have gone swimming in, Mr. Speaker. I knew I was on private property but it is so nice to go swimming up there that I did that.

That area is being bought and the developer — and I say this out of the House as well as in — that developer is planning to subdivide that area and take out a great profit. My concern isn't that he takes out a great profit. My concern is that he destroys that area forever as a recreational outlet for the people of Vancouver.

Coming down you've got that huge Crocker Island. Now, I don't know whether any of you remember about Crocker Island. But that sea island is where they got all those pieces of stone to build all those beautiful buildings in Vancouver. The Mount Pleasant school which has just been destroyed, unfortunately, in Vancouver — they ripped all the stone out of the bottom of that school — that stone came from Crocker Island, Mr. Speaker, 60 odd years ago. That island, 250 acres, has just been purchased for commercial development. That frightens me,. Mr. Speaker, because that's an area again that has prime recreational potential.

Coming further down the inlet … and I am only cataloguing all of these items because I think it is important for the public to know that this place is being savaged. It is being absolutely savaged, and if we do not do something about it very quickly it will be lost forever.

Coming down you've got the Bishop Creek area where a company called Bishop Aggregate is logging. Now, some few years ago they were logging across the other side of the arm at a place called Buntzen Bay. Their plan in their permit was that they were planning to take out gravel. They didn't do that at Buntzen Bay. They just ripped out the logs — a bit reminiscent of the Cypress Bowl incident where these companies go in and take the logs and don't fulfil the rest of their contract. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I don't want this company either to fulfil its contract about the gravel or rip out these logs, because it is

[ Page 171 ]

again a beautiful area. That Bishop Creek area is a prime location for hiking and other recreational facilities in the future.

Then coming further down we have one of the worst rip-off artists in this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's the district of North Vancouver. They act more like a land developer, more like a crooked outfit, than any other developer I can think of in this province; and that, believe it or not, is the district of North Vancouver.

Just to digress for a moment, the budget of North Vancouver, the annual municipal budget, is $10 million and $2 million of that budget is raised by land sales. Now, that's the kind of outfit we have there. They are now threatening to go logging in their part of Indian Arm. Now all these meetings have been in camera at council. But the obvious intent is to make some more money for the district of North Vancouver, and devastate that part of Indian Arm.

Then we've got B.C. Hydro who have taken more of a beating in this House than any other group, I guess. They've got great swaths like they've got all over the province, great swaths of power lines down through Indian Arm, and they are using herbicides to keep that growth down. I don't understand why they cannot send in teams of people to cut down the growth if it has to be cut down that badly. Why use herbicides in an area like that?

Finally, the worst thing of all is that there are indeed serious plans to build a causeway from Dollarton across to Belcarra. So the Premier and I, when he is back in his riding, will be able to get together a lot quicker than he can now having to drive all the way around.

But do you know what this causeway will do? This causeway will lock Indian Arm into a freshwater situation. It will end the tidal action. It will end the salmon fishing.

Now it's not a serious plan, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that it is not being pushed by a group or being advocated or being presented to any decision-making body. But the engineers out there are talking about it. The so-called planners are talking about the need to have some kind of transportation route, both rail and highway, going from the North Shore out the Fraser Valley. To do that, what are they going to do?

They are going to build a causeway across Indian Arm linking up Port Moody and North Vancouver. That can never be allowed to happen, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I guess I have said enough about Indian Arm. I feel pretty emotional about it. It is an area that I live fairly close to. I know it is an area that a lot of people have never been to because they don't know about it. My fear in raising this issue in the House is that it would get too much publicity and people would learn about Indian Arm and we would have more people there. But that is one of the things we are going to have to suffer with in the future, because our recreational facilities are so short.

What I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is that he get together with the National Harbours Board, with the federal environment Minister and figure out a way to make that whole Indian Arm area into a combination marine-land park.

I think that is a high priority for that department and I would urge that he do just that. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I have left out a lot of items near and dear to my heart but we are going to have ample opportunities in future debates in this House, particularly in estimates, and again in the budget debate. So, that is all I have to say now. Thank you very much.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I start the formal part of my speech I want to concur with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in his remarks at the beginning of his speech with regard to northern and interior members having at least an air pass so that they can get back and forth to their constituency.

Now I have a sheaf of passes about that thick — I don't even carry them with me — I will gladly trade all of those passes in for one little pass on CP Air.

With regard to telephones, Mr. Speaker, I said the first time that I stood in this House that I appreciated the changes that have been made in the Members' quarters. But I find it increasingly difficult to share a phone with somebody. I find that, with the province growing — and maybe it is because I am in a different role — but I find that a private telephone for each member would certainly be an asset. I have one in my office at home. I don't have to share it with anybody and I would appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. And I will certainly vote for your estimates if …

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you think we should take over B.C. Tel? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I am sure that as I live and breathe and stand in this Legislature that my thoughts are not going to make one iota of difference in what you eventually do with regard to British Columbia Telephone. Now I want to make one other remark and I want to make it in all sincerity. I appreciate the speech that was made yesterday afternoon in this Legislature by the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). It was probably one of the first speeches made in this Legislature by a member of the Government that dealt, without being political, with

[ Page 172 ]

the business of the day. I want to say that I appreciate it.

While I'm talking about speakers in the House, I want to say that I was most disappointed in the speech from the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who stood in the House and condemned the official Opposition for not having constructive criticism of the throne speech, while he spent about half an hour himself on a speech that had nothing to do with the throne speech whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. It sounded to me like a campaign speech for the Conservative Party. While all the time condemning the official Opposition, he was making a political speech himself that had nothing to do with the business of the throne speech. This disappointed me because I had, up until yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of regard for that Member for Saanich and the Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shouldn't make political statements.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he shouldn't. Not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say officially — because really this is the first time that I've made what you would call an official, full-fledged speech in this Legislature since returning after my three-year absence — that I am very pleased to represent that great riding of South Peace River. The people up there are no less than the salt of the earth and, indeed, the salt of British Columbia.

The first speech I made in this Legislature after returning, Mr. Speaker, was to second an amendment to a throne speech. I must say that I got caught off balance and didn't get the opportunity to make my full remarks in that throne speech debate. The other night when I was speaking I made another faux pas, you know, when I asked for adjournment of the speech because I didn't have the opportunity to give out my full remarks.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government — and I quote the Premier — he says that the Government is learning. I want the Premier to know, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for South Peace River is also learning his role as an Opposition Member.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood in the House the other day and he asked for a new attitude. My colleague, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), said that some speeches depended on the tone of voice and the loudness of the voice and how you could flail your arms, instead of the material. I want to advise the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that I am trying to turn over a new leaf … (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Turn down his mike.

MR. PHILLIPS: You must realize, though, that even when I was on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I used to get pretty excited about the things that were happening in the north. I'm not that much of an excitable person, Mr. Speaker, but I do get excited about the business of this province, and excited about the affairs of the people who sent me to this Legislature. However, if it's reform you want, Mr. Speaker, it's reform that the Member for South Peace River will try to give you.

I want you to bear this in mind though, Mr. Speaker, that when the adrenalin doesn't flow as freely, the tongue slows down. Therefore it might take me a little longer. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You're going to keep your voice down to a roar though. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. It might take me a little longer to say what I have to say.

In dealing with the throne speech itself, Mr. Speaker, it contains about as much of nothing as is physically possible to put into a speech. Of course I understand the Premier's idea behind this. It's to give a full two weeks of free-wheeling debate without giving all of the Government's intentions. This is accepted, Mr. Speaker, and I'll go along with that. But it gives no direction whatsoever of where the Government is going to go so we continue to debate.

However, the present Government when in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, criticized the previous Government — criticized the previous Premier — for doing this very same thing in previous years. Another example of the Government's past criticisms, when an Opposition party, being followed by an exact — almost to the letter — duplication of the Social Credit Government.

However, they say they are learning and the Premier is learning. He's learning that to be Minister of Finance is also the best way to go — to keep that portfolio with that of the Premier — because he realizes that he has control. I'll go along with this, Mr. Speaker, because he realizes that the previous Government was right in most of the things they did. He's learning that the Premier should be president of the railway so that he can know how the province is developing. I'll go along with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that's an excellent idea.

But, Mr. Speaker, what this Government hasn't learned is that things have changed in the province. When the past 20 throne speeches were read in this House, the people had a sense of direction. They knew how the Government felt about taxes. They knew how the Government felt about free enterprise. They knew how the Government felt. Now things have changed.

[ Page 173 ]

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that now a sense of direction is really needed. An explanation from this Government as to where it intends to go is not only desirable, but is essential if we are to provide jobs for the unemployed of this province. That is why, Mr. Speaker, through you to Mr. Premier, that I would have felt that something in the throne speech has to give not only business and industry but the unemployed a direction — something that they could grasp onto and say either "it's coming" or "it isn't coming." That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the throne speech is a very empty document. Regardless of what has happened in the past, Mr. Speaker, it should have given some direction. One hundred per cent of nothing is still absolutely nothing.

The Government had better wake up to the needs of this province and give some direction, Mr. Speaker. I think it is time that the Government realized that today is the tomorrow they were going to do so much about yesterday. That time of decision, Mr. Speaker, has arrived. It is time that the Premier of this province spoke out and gave out direction. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Premier that if he doesn't give some direction very shortly, he will lose his credibility. I know that the Premier does not want to lose his credibility. He has a lot of support over there and if he loses his credibility, he may not only lose the credibility of the voters but he may lose credibility in his own backbench. He must give them direction.

You have started your cabinet Ministers as they stand on the floor day by day, giving some bits of direction as to what your intentions are, what your philosophy is. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet Ministers who stand on the floor of this House giving these directions give conflicting statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Even the Premier himself — and I hate to say this, Mr. Speaker, I really hate to say this. It touches me from the bottom of my heart to say this (laughter) — that the Premier himself …

MR. CHABOT: The First Minister of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS:…the First Minister of this province, Mr. Speaker, has actually made conflicting statements since he became Premier. This really is shocking to me. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are shocked.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. (Laughter). Only when it's in the same speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it only heightens an already jittery situation. (Laughter).

On October 18, 1972, the Premier stood in this Legislature and said that there would be no hand-outs or no incentives. Mr. Speaker, do you remember — yes, I'm sure you do. It's in Hansard. (Laughter). Yes, we have a record now. It's fantastic sometimes what goes into this record.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but I remember the Premier wanted that Hansard. I sort of thank him for it now because I find it a great assistance the odd time.

Anyway, the Premier said there would be no hand-outs or incentives. On Monday last the Premier stood in his place in the Legislature during a very, very sincere effort on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to discuss the very timely subject of unemployment in this Legislature. The Premier stood in his place and what did he do, Mr. Speaker? The Premier stood in his place and he criticized the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, yes, he criticized the federal government. And what did he criticize the federal government for, Mr. Speaker? What did he criticize the federal government for? I remember what he criticized the federal government for, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Good boy!

MR. PHILLIPS: He criticized the federal government for not subsidizing shipbuilding in the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: And yet, not too long ago, he said his Government isn't going to have any subsidies. No way. Yet he goes and asks Ottawa for subsidies. Now what kind of an upside, flip-flopsy-dervy sort of a — put that in Hansard will you? (Laughter). What kind of a conflicting attitude is that, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier has? I'll tell you, it bothers me.

Don't lose your credibility, Mr. Premier. If incentives and subsidies are good enough for one government they're good enough for another government. I'm sure that you wouldn't want the federal government — you wouldn't condone anything our federal government does that you wouldn't do, Mr. Speaker, would he?

Oh boy, I'll tell you. But he didn't go on and say — the Liberals came out and said, "Well, sure, there's a subsidy." Didn't they, Mr. Premier? But they didn't tell how much subsidy there is to the shipbuilding industry in the Province of Quebec. And I didn't have time for research to do it. But I'll try and dig that up,

[ Page 174 ]

Mr. Speaker, before this House is over. Because I remember reading not too long ago about some very large subsidies — not 25 per cent, either. Far greater than that, my friends in the Liberal benches, far greater than that — to shipbuilding in La Belle Province.

Now, you stood in the House and …

HON. MR. BARRETT: He'd better look up what firm it was, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well now I'm glad you brought that up. And I'm not sure of my facts, but I do remember something about relations. Now I - was it relations? Now that could have been public relations, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter). I don't want you to lead me into anything that I am not prepared to say. But it was something about relations. Now that could be …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Skip that lecture. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: But what I was going to say, was that the Premier really tried to sidestep the main issue of the day and this is what I'm saying. Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier is going to stand up and give some direction, but I think it should happen now. Because the budget speech is a week away, a week today the Premier will stand in this House …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. Now we're both learning, Mr. Premier, we're both learning. My heart is full of goodwill today, too.

However, for that act in the Legislature on Monday, Mr. Premier, the Social Credit caucus — the entire caucus — has voted you the great actor of the week.

Now, then, we heard from the backbench, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — big man too, big man, good lawyer, good debater. He stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, and he said this growth policy has got to stop. There should be no further growth. Is that what the Hon. second Member for Vancouver Centre …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. All right, I stand corrected. But what he said really is not the most important thing to happen. And, Mr. Speaker, when I'm talking about conflicting statements I'm leading up to another conflicting statement. And that second conflicting statement was when the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who doubles as Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, stood on his feet Wednesday of this week. Mr. Speaker, now what did he say about growth and incentives? Well, I'm not going to tell everything he said, but I remember very specifically, Mr. Speaker, him saying that this Government will possibly build buildings that the government can own and that industry can use, Mr. Speaker, would that be considered an incentive to growth, an incentive to industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say you were against him?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't say I was against him, Mr. Speaker, no way did I say I was against him. What I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is the conflict of statements that we're having.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The farmers have the same thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about the farmers in a minute, Mr. Premier.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying this is a bad policy. I'm certainly not for no-growth policy because I know that if you're going to keep people happy, they've got to work. Because I believe firmly in the policy that if a person is working and doing something constructive that he's a happy person. But maybe that's just my old-fashioned upbringing or something. But it's with me and I haven't found any other policy that I'm willing to accept as being a better one at the present time.

But it's the conflicting statements that really, as I say, already have added to an already jittery situation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I agree. But what we want and the people want are clear-cut policies. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that somebody comes forth and gives some clear-cut policies — or at least be consistent. When your cabinet Ministers stand up next week, Mr. Speaker, in the debate as it carried on, let's have some clear-cut policies. Because I'll tell you every day that we don't get these people back to work, the people who are working have got pay for it. And it is a very urgent matter.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) anticipated capital investment in 1973 to be $3.6 billion, which is about the same as last year, so at least we're not going to go backwards. But I would

[ Page 175 ]

like to see an increase in the anticipated investment in 1973. Because as our work force grows, as our population grows, we must have an increase in investment to keep those jobs rolling.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), while on his feet, said that he was going to get rid of the dirty word "industry" in his department. I might agree with a change in the name of the department, but industrial growth is going to be something that this Government is going to have to face and they're going to have to make up their mind whether they're for or against industrial growth.

But I don't think that the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce is too sincere — or at least agrees with the rest of the cabinet when they talk about no-growth policy, because back in November he went to Ottawa and he lined up top economic and industrial experts from Ottawa to serve in a proposed B.C. Development Corporation. Yes. And we haven't heard a word on the floor of this House since this session opened about a B.C. Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Premier doesn't know that he went for one.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is out of the Vancouver Province dated November 10, 1972, "Industrial Development Minister Alex Macdonald has lined up top economic and industrial experts from Ottawa to serve in the proposed B.C. Development Corporation. On his return from an exploratory trip to Ottawa and Toronto, MacDonald said Thursday, he also looked into the Ontario Development Corporation and spoke with federal trade Minister Jean Luc Pepin and federal Justice Minister Otto Lang."

He also stated that he spoke to Eric Kierans, former Liberal cabinet Minister, over the telephone. Did you hire Mr. Kierans to head up this Industrial Development Corporation that we're going to set up here, Mr. Premier?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't hire him?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Walton's got the application. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about something that is very close to my constituency, very timely topic and very close to the Premier, also, and that is the development of the Sukunka coal. Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by comments in the Press and on the radio and television, made by politicians, regarding the development of Sukunka coal. These comments are being made mainly by politicians from the Liberal faith — both in this Legislature and in particular one Liberal Member from the federal government. I feel that a lot of these statements, Mr. Speaker, have been made without the politicians doing their proper research. These statements, Mr. Speaker, are being made by these politicians without consideration for the overall development and the overall good of the Province of British Columbia.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to look at some cold, hard facts regarding the development of the Sukunka coal. The development of the coal deposits are in an area south of Chetwynd known as the Sukunka Valley, and they will be financed by an all Canadian company, We've heard criticism in this House before of our resources being developed by outside money. This is an all Canadian company known basically as Brascan Limited, Toronto. The only other coal development of this size in British Columbia is being financed and run by an American company. That's Fact No. 1.

The second significant thing about the development of the Sukunka coal deposit is the fact that over 60 per cent of the coal will cap an entirely new market. This is a very important fact, Mr. Speaker, — an entirely new market. This new market is the European Common Market, which has a potential for future sales far greater than that of the Japanese market. That is a very, very important fact, Mr. Speaker. We must realize that although our exports to Japan, although very welcome, should not in any way dominate our export trade. This is a very, very important fact we must consider in the future. The reason of course is obvious. We don't want British Columbia to be so tied to the economy of one single country, namely Japan — that if Japan sneezes, British Columbia gets a cold, and I mean this. This is very serious. You should witness last year what happened when the United States closed the dollar and devaluated the yen. You know what happened.

MR. LAUK: What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Another very important fact to consider in the development of the Sukunka coal is the fact that the entire deposit is not pre-sold. This is a very important fact. It is not pre-sold, not the entire deposit. This means that this top quality coking coal can be developed and sold, portions of it, on an open market. In other words, you develop the coal, it's there, and you go out and you send salesmen out, and you say, "I've got a high grade quality coking coal, do you want to buy some?" Then you negotiate the price. That's a very important fact, because if you understand the coal markets of the world, you fully realize that there are many, many millions of tons of coal that will never be mined because they are pre-committed. What I mean to say by that is steel

[ Page 176 ]

companies throughout the world have gone, they've found coal deposits, and they've bought the entire deposit and sewed them up so they can be assured of a source of coal in perpetuity. This has happened. Consequently, millions and millions of tons of coal in the world will never be mined. The fact that the coal is not previously sold in its entirety means that the risk money that, goes into the development of this mine is truly risk capital.

When Porcupine Mines developed a project similar to this in the Smokey River of Alberta, the Canadian Bank of Commerce in Toronto demanded the entire coal deposit be sold before they would put up the risk capital. What does this mean? It's another very important fact, Mr. Speaker. This in effect means that there are no chances of getting a better price for the product should the market change, because they are sewed in, they are locked into a deal. I feel that the Canadian Bank of Commerce should have put some risk money into this and helped develop that mine. They should take a risk once in a while, that's what our banks are for. They want everything clear cut and dried before so that there's no risk to them, to the detriment of the development of some of this risk money.

It also means that the best cut price for the product cannot be bargained for. So far as I am concerned, and this is another very important fact — this Canadian company is very ecology minded, is very concerned about the environment of the area of where the mine will be developed. And further, the company, to my knowledge, has been very fair in all its dealings with the British Columbia Railway, the British Columbia Hydro and indeed, the British Columbia government. They have laid all their cards on the table, and all they ask in return is they be allowed to make a fair return on their investment.

The investors in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, are thousands and thousands of people who own shares in Brascan Limited. The shares are on the open market, and it will be the investors, the small investors, who will suffer should this project go ahead and not provide a proper return.

Now let, us look at the logistics of British Columbia and how the coal should be shipped to market.

Number one — Sukunka lies approximately 37 miles south of Chetwynd. Chetwynd is a divisional point on the British Columbia Railway with one line going to Dawson Creek and the other heading in a northerly direction to Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. The development of the mine will require a Hydro line to be built — a road and a natural gas pipeline in order to develop this mine. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the development will not require a new townsite which would require the expenditure and outlay by the province for townsite roads, water, sewer, hospitals, schools and all the other services necessary to develop a new townsite. The facilities in Chetwynd are large enough to cope with the fairly substantial increase in population without the outlay of additional funds. Now this is a very, very important point.

The company naturally realizes that on a dollar and cent basis it would be cheaper to have their employees at the mine site. And I certainly hope that no under the table deal — I know there is many under the tables deals, Mr. Premier — is being made to have a new townsite built in exchange for — no, Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier and I won't even entertain the thought. They're interested in the environment of the area. They're interested in the area economically. They know that for the good of the area they must use the existing town. It will be the best way for the area. That's the type of a company you are dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

Now let us explore the timely question of what port this coal is going to be shipped through. Before I discuss this in any great detail, I want to make it perfectly clear to all the Members of this Legislature, to all the people they represent, that the British Columbia Railway is owned by the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: That point, Mr. Speaker, must be made perfectly, unequivocally clear. British Columbia Railway is a railway that receives no subsidies from Ottawa. Nor has it received any subsidies from Ottawa for its extensions into the Peace River area in 1958, for its extensions in the Mackenzie, for its extensions to Fort St. James, for its extension to Fort Nelson, for its present extensions to Dease Lake. These are very, very, very important facts in the consideration of this particular deal.

Now let us look at some of the mileages involved. The rail miles over the British Columbia Railway from Chetwynd to Prince George is 196.6 miles. From Prince George to the port of Squamish over the British Columbia Railway it is 422.9 miles and from Prince George to Prince Rupert over the Canadian National line it's 466 miles. From this it is fairly easy to see that it is shorter from Prince George to Squamish than from Prince George to Prince Rupert by 45.1 miles. Not a great number of miles so far as railways are concerned, but it's also a very important fact.

The grades over the British Columbia Railway from Prince George to Squamish are far better than the grades over the C.N. Railway line to Prince Rupert. The rail bed itself on the British Columbia Railway Line is in much better shape than that of the C.N. Railway. Anyone who disputes this fact can check the amount of work done on upgrading the British Columbia line over the past ten years versus

[ Page 177 ]

the amount of work done on upgrading the Canadian National line in the last ten years. And how much work has been done upgrading the Canadian National line in the past ten years?

Mr. Speaker, I want to read you a very interesting article, at least it seemed very interesting to me. It's entitled "Grain cars, too heavy for tracks," and this outlines some of the engineering and thought that goes into that great Canadian National Railway line in Western Canada. "Ottawa Dateline — 2,000 big grain carrying hopper cars purchased last year by the Government for $48 million can travel on only half the railway tracks in Western Canada, the Commons Estimates Committee was told Wednesday."

Now, great, fantastic planning by this great railway that has been in operation — how many years? Well, longer than I've been around. "W.E. Jarvis, Coordinator of the Industries Department Grains Group said that something less than half the tracks can carry the cars once they are full of grain, and the other half cannot take the weight of a full car." They can't even put these grain cars on the line when it's empty. Now I want to tell you, that's great planning for a national railway eh? Mr. Speaker, and I mean this sincerely, it shocked me.

I want to say thank goodness those wonderful people who run the province's railway do a far better job of planning — and I'll be talking about that in just a moment — than our national railway. Or, I want to tell you, somebody would have to be subsidizing that railway — it would be broke. I promised to keep my voice down. I'm sorry. (Laughter).

Due to the fact that these lines must run both summer and winter, it would do for everyone interested in this project to check the number of down days on the CN line from Prince Rupert to Prince George, I think you will find that the line is out approximately 37 days per year or 3 days per month. The big factor, of course, about this is reliability and the fact that you are supplying an offshore market. You must give your customers service and deliver the goods when you say you will. Canada has had lots of bad experiences in the past by not supplying their hard-fought-for offshore markets, such as the delivery of wheat and, indeed, the first delivery of coal from the Kaiser project.

This, Mr. Speaker, is another very, very important fact in the decision of what is going to happen with this project. With an unreliable railway line, it would mean that thousands and thousands of extra tons of coal would have to be stored at the port through which the coal is going to be shipped. I want you to think of that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of ecology.

Another point in the logistics, of course, is as stated before — 60 per cent of this coal is going to be shipped to the European market, a market which, in the interests of all British Columbia, should be developed because of its potential. Another point which we must consider is the extra three shipping days from Prince Rupert to the Panama versus Squamish to the Panama. This may not seem like many days in terms of an ocean voyage but, when you are competing on a world market, every cent that increases the price of your ton of coal could either make or break the deal.

While I'm discussing costs, let me give you some thoughts on the 25-cents-a-ton versus an undisclosed royalty. We must realize of course, as I stated before, this coal has to be sold on the world market. It is competing against coal from Alberta, coal from Australia and coal from many other sources in the world. When we become too emotional about the royalty of 25 cents per ton versus $1 per ton, I think we have to take into consideration the amount of taxes derived from a development such as this, When you do, you will find that the taxes will far exceed the extra number of cents per ton. Certainly, if the development of Sukunka coal deposit was going to hinge on whether the Government got 25 cents a ton or $1 a ton royalty, I would say that the development should go ahead at 25 cents a ton royalty.

I can certainly appreciate the Premier trying to get the best deal on this coal that he can. I appreciate that he wants to get the best deal he can for the people of British Columbia. I have no argument with that. But I would like to caution him that, being an old salesman, I know that sometimes a deal is lost and there is no profit at all. I appreciate the Premier as a bargainer. I appreciate him as a businessman and I know that he has handled this project in all the sincerity that is due his high office. I appreciate that. But I caution the Premier, Mr. Speaker, through you, not to be penny rich and dollar poor.

We also get emotional about using up all our natural resources. But we must define one thing clearly and that is that a natural resource is only a natural resource when it is required for use by somebody. Technology in the world today is changing so rapidly that in 10 years or 20 years there could be an entirely new source of energy. A recent breakthrough in the development of atomic energy makes the present method seem cumbersome and archaic. I don't think that we should have to rely on new sources of energy being developed. But, by the same token, we must be realistic about new technology and new developments and entirely new sources of energy that we haven't even dreamed of. I refer to solar energy and the energy that lies beneath the surface of the world. You just had to see what happened in Iceland recently to realize that there's certainly lots of energy down there.

These are a few of the facts regarding the Sukunka coal project, Mr. Speaker. It frightens me to think that, because of bickering between uninformed Liberals in the House and strictly political statements of the Liberals in Ottawa, this project could be killed.

[ Page 178 ]

I must say that I appreciate the sincerity with which the Premier has been dealing with this project. I do, however, as I have said before, want to caution him from holding out for too good a deal. We must also look far into the future and realize - and I want to make this perfectly clear — we are going to need the development of the port of Prince Rupert in the very near future, whether the Sukunka coal goes through Prince Rupert or whether the Sukunka coal goes through some other port. We are going to need the development of the port of Prince Rupert. I want to make this perfectly clear. You have to look past tomorrow or next month. You have to look into the future. You have to know the potential of the north the realize this very important fact. Not only will we need Prince Rupert, Mr. Speaker, but we will also need the port of Stewart.

Why do I say this? Because when you realize that two-thirds of the land mass of British Columbia lies north of the 53rd parallel; when you realize that there are more known mineral deposits behind the Alaska Panhandle — which is the area that the railway is going into now, up through Dease Lake — than anywhere else in the free world; when you realize that over 50 per cent of the merchantable timber lies in this north country; when you realize that there are still millions of acres of agricultural land that have not been brought under production, I think then you can get some glimmer of the immensity of that land up there that has to be developed. That is why I say we'll need Prince Rupert and we'll need Stewart. If you've got enough vision to see this and if you've got enough faith in the Province of British Columbia and if you've got enough faith in the Government of the Province of British Columbia, you will realize that these ports must and will be developed.

So what we are arguing really are semantics. We're arguing them without any vision. We're arguing them on political, sometimes hysterical, statements.

The other thing that I want to point out and that probably a lot of people haven't even taken the time to realize, is that we're not only discussing Sukunka coal — that's one project. How many people realize and know that there are seven other deposits, some of them larger than the Sukunka deposit, in this Peace River coal field? So, we're not talking about one project. That's why I say we'll need the port of Prince Rupert. In that very vast area north of Prince Rupert no one has even catalogued the resources in that area. That land up there will support a population, without even trying, equal to the present population of Canada.

Now, let's just have a little talk about environment, ecology and pollution. I want to refer to an editorial in the Vancouver Sun dated January 31. They're discussing the Sukunka coal project. They are talking about the Squamish wind, which is something like the Chinook wind. It's a maverick wind that blows hard and strong and comes up in gusts and so forth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's a good point, Mr. Attorney General, But anyway, this article goes on to say that real second sight would see the Squamish, which is the wind I referred to, working on giant coal piles. Real second sight would see the inevitability of an oil spill. I don't know where the oil spill comes in when we're talking about coal. But what I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the composer of this particular editorial had taken the time to do a little research, he would have found that the coal is not going to be stored in open piles. The coal is going to be stored in covered silos, and all of the coal is going to be carried in covered hopper cars — completely covered.

This is what I'm talking about, when people are getting into the act. Why don't they do their research? Now a lot of people read the Sun editorial — I'm disappointed that they didn't do more research. I really am. Because I would have to call this…shall I use the term irresponsible Press? Mr. Speaker, instead of all the studies about the effect on environment I suggest that some study be put into how coal can be handled in a better method.

Why don't we do some studies on that? Is it necessary, when you're handling coal, to have coal dust blowing all over everywhere. Is that necessary? Why don't we recommend some studies where you can — you know, I can walk into some woman's kitchen and it's a mess. (Laughter). Now I am not naming any names (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're a long way from home.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right and my wife isn't here. And I can walk into another kitchen, my wife's (Laughter) … after the cleaning lady has been there (Laughter) … and it's spotless.

What I am saying is that there are different ways of handling merchandise (Laughter).

Alright, there are different ways of handling coal, I think, Mr. Speaker, you understand what I am trying to say this afternoon. You don't have to be sloppy when you are handling something, you know. Some people can carry a pail of water and not spill a drop and others spill it all over and get their pant cuffs wet. You understand what I am saying. So why not do some study about how we can handle this coal without having pollution. Wouldn't that be a much more intelligent way to look at this project? I am just asking you that, Mr. Speaker.

But let's say that maybe the real issue behind the blocking of the South Port versus the Prince Rupert

[ Page 179 ]

and the final handling by the CNR lies in this very point. Should the project go ahead as originally engineered by the British Columbia Railway and the environmentalists could see just how clean this coal project is going to be, how clean the operation can be, how cleanly coal can be handled, I am suggesting that somebody would have to take a second look at Roberts Bank. I am suggesting that when the environmentalists see how clean this operation is going to be, they will not only look at Roberts Bank, but they will also, Mr. Speaker, take a look at Neptune Terminals, which was mentioned earlier in this House today.

Now I have been in office buildings overlooking the harbour and what do I see there — open sulphur piles, open piles of other minerals, an open coal pile — right in downtown Vancouver.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this project goes ahead, they will find it is so well engineered that the environmentalists will then be causing somebody to clean up a festering mess in the inner Vancouver harbour. It is going to cost somebody a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. It will cost the CPR a lot of money. It will cost the Vancouver Harbour Board a lot of money to clean up the mess they have.

When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize one fact — that coal dust is practically pure carbon and never really polluted too much or killed anybody.

One last aspect to natural resource development in British Columbia so far as energy is concerned, Mr. Speaker, is that there is at the present time in the United States of America a major crisis in the shortage of hydrocarbons. But I want you, Mr. Speaker, to think of really what has caused this shortage of hydrocarbons in the United States.

I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the hydrocarbons from the northern slope of Alaska had a method of entering continental United States today, either by pipeline or by ship — I am not saying which it should be — what I am saying is, if they were available to the continental United States today, there would be no energy shortage.

Right now we see the United States dealing with Russia to obtain oil from natural gas, when they have lots of it on the north slope of Alaska. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think if you do your research and I do mine you will find that there is more oil — I will say more hydrocarbons on the north slope of Alaska — nearly, I will say — as there is in the Far East.

This is a very, very important point and is leading up to another point that I would like to make. We are being told by environmentalists and by preservationists to leave the ultimate fuel, namely coal, in the ground. Why? I say that future generations will be very capable of solving their energy problems if they ever arise. I am suggesting that they will never arise. I want to know where the logic is — why the prophets of doom have multiplied in the last few years. They say that the human race is in danger of suffocating itself by overbreeding, of overpoisoning itself with pollution and weakening the basic structure of society through too much prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I am just about to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D.D. Stupich) I am going to be moving into agriculture very shortly.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): At the rate you're going, I'll be back in plenty of time.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the Minister in that remark didn't certainly mean to squelch the Oppositions remarks. I know that he didn't want closure in this House — never.

Now I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't doubt the sincerity of these critics. I don't doubt their sincerity at all, but these doomsday prophets are misleading. About five years ago they prophesied that the world would be overpopulated and starving to death in the near future. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this was misleading. It is not so.

The world growth rate is declining as birth rates in underdeveloped countries decline and as agriculture in these same countries improve. Food production today, Mr. Speaker, is outstripping the demands placed upon food by the population of the world. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that natural disasters, over which we have no control, cause far more damage to the world than man could ever think of causing.

There is also a study, Mr. Speaker, that represents the world stock of non-renewable resources with a single number — overlooking a cardinal law of economics which holds that increasing scarcity…who has the floor here anyway? (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I think the Opposition has more Members in the House than the Government has.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The combined Opposition has more members in the House. Maybe the Opposition members are not interested in …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Members of the Government are not interested in getting my very timely remarks today about pollution and so forth. If they have less numbers in the House than we have, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that's bad. I am not going to do anything about it like bringing the Government down or

[ Page 180 ]

anything. I just want to make my speech. My heart is full of goodwill today, so I will just carry on without interruption…

MR.CHABOT: Move adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll move adjournment — wait till I finish (Laughter). When I get my say I will maybe move adjournment, Mr. Speaker. One example of this, Mr. Speaker — and I think my remarks are a little disjointed here because of the …

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): So what else is new?

MR. PHILLIPS: However, what I want to say is that a very few years ago, and not too many years ago, there was no such thing as Peace River coal, no such thing as Monkman Pass gas and oil. There was no such thing as northern slope oil. There was no such thing as Arctic oil. I can remember that a short six years ago, they just started developing, or started exploring, in the Arctic.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, here and now is that there are more resources in the world than we can ever imagine. When the time comes you will find them. That is why I don't get all uptight and all scared when these doomsday artists come along saying we are going to extinct ourselves. Some scare tactics used for the freezing of the land is a similar situation, Mr. Speaker.

We have a tradition of fear. At the end of the nineteenth century the head of the U.S. Forest Service stated that timber in the U.S. would be used up in 30 years; that anthracite coal would last only 50 years; that raw materials like iron and natural gas were being rapidly depleted.

Today, 70 years later, we hear the same complaints. Most of you know the story of the shepherd boy who cried "wolf" too often. I fear that this is happening today. We could face the real disaster by the fact that we are having the problems overstated by would-be environmentalists who are trying to scare us. And if we are scared too much, the general public will no longer listen. And that is why I refer to — and all of you know — the story of the shepherd boy and the wolf.

The Premier said in a recent interview in the Vancouver Province that "we're not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg." I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a proper analogy of the situation. There are more than geese. There are also chickens — and they are all contributing to the welfare of this province. And I would suggest that if things are the same today as they were when I was a little boy, that if you frighten the chickens they won't lay any eggs — whether they be golden eggs or other.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is let's not only say we're not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg; let's not even frighten the chickens. Or we will all suffer.

Reserves of metallurgical coking coal at present known in the Province of British Columbia, at their present rate of extraction, are enough to last us for 50 years. The market by that time could diminish and completely disappear. And while I'm just finishing up on the subject of coal, I want to point out that British Columbia — and this is from the present status of the Canadian coal industry — British Columbia presently holds 48.1 per cent of the coal reserves in Canada. And this article goes on to say, in summary, the problem is not one of finding coal seams of good quality, for there are plenty of these with thicknesses of up to 50 feet — the difficulty is to find those with mining conditions enabling them to be economically produced and marketed under today's conditions.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, this in essence sums up the whole subject, I don't think we have to get all uptight and all scared about giving our coal away. As I said before, we don't have to give it away. But let's not lose the market. Because the market may not be there in a few short years, and there is certainly more coal in British Columbia than this generation, or the next, or the next will ever use.

In this particular area alone, where the Sukunka coal is, there is also the Denison Mine, the Nickel Hill Mine, the McIntyre Mine, Denison Mines are in there, Bermeda Tech, Bay Fund Ltd., Pine Pass, Bermeda, Synabar Peak, Utah and Amex — 11 projects similar to the size of Sukunka and they will probably never all be developed. So I would like to alleviate for once and for all the fact that some people are scaring us to death that we're going to run out of coal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I get into agriculture there's one thing that I want to discuss which bothers me …

AN HON. MEMBER: You've had lots of time for this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I'm going to take my time. And that is one article in the throne speech that says we are going to create 1,000 new jobs in the civil service. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is hardly a credible statement. Our normal, annual increase in civil service during the past approximately 10 years has been about 2,000 jobs a year. So increasing it by 1,000 I don't think is a very credible statement.

The other amazing thing is that there are about 500 civil servants, as near as I can gather, that have been fired on January 31, 1973. So if you're going to fire 500 from the Department of Highways and only create 1,000 new, all you're really creating is 500 jobs. And if the normal increase is 2,000 jobs a year, I would say that you're going to cut back the civil service by 1,500 jobs. And if that's creating employ-

[ Page 181 ]

ment and expanding the civil service, well my arithmetic isn't very good.

Now what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is why this firing had to take place. Why did the firing of these men in the Department of Highways have to take place in the worst possible month of the year — January the 31st? Why did this firing have to take place at this particular time of the year, Mr. Speaker? I thought this Government was going to create jobs.

I don't think there's one single thing that this Government could have done in one fell swoop that would have hurt people worse, done more damage to families, than the laying off of these men from the Department of Highways — in the middle of the winter. And I don't agree with it and I think the Government should take immediate reconsideration to put these men back on staff.

I don't know about other constituencies, Mr. Speaker, but in my own constituency, on top of a disaster with our crops last fall, and a slow start in logging, even these 28 men that were fired constitutes a small disaster in itself.

I have a letter from a lady here, Mr. Speaker, who has been farming in the area for some time. They lost their crop in 1972; they lost their crop in 1971; they have had to sell off their livestock; the husband got sick and has to take expensive pills; and their son, who was working for the Department of Highways, was just laid off. I've asked the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to reconsider having this man put back on staff. And I know that there are many others that I don't know about.

And you know what really amazes me, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a British Columbia Government Employees' Union. It's supposed to be nonpolitical, it's supposed to be fair to all. The October issue, 1972. The article entitled: "In Victoria 'Big Daddies' no longer walk tall."

The article says, "Got a problem? A promotion you didn't get or a grievance about overtime? Think that maybe a phone call or a letter to an MLA will help? Not so long ago the answer to these questions was, 'Maybe.' But the recent election and new provincial government has changed all that."

And it goes on to say that now the civil servants didn't get anything that they couldn't have won without the indignity of the hand-kissing usually demanded by the "Big Daddies, " I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if I was one of those "Big Daddies," and the Social Credit Government was in power today, I'd be camped on the Premier's step until those men were rehired.

And what of the other Members from the north — where men in the Department of Highways are laid off — where are the "Big Daddies" there? Where's Mr. "Big Daddy" of all, Mr. Richards? What is he doing to put these men back on staff?

It really makes me stop and think, Mr. Speaker.

Just what is happening in our civil service? I'll say no more at this time because we will be debating it.

But I just want to mention this last little article. Mr. Fryer and the British Columbia Government Employees' Union president, Norman T. Richards, said that "the new Government's labour policies and its pledge to legislate free collective bargaining for provincial employees are bound to bring about a vast improvement in the relationship between the British Columbia government employees and the Government."

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these men who have just been laid off in the heart of a hard winter would not really agree with this statement in the September issue of the Provincial.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a moment to you about the Monkman Pass area. And the reason I'm bringing it up at this time instead of waiting until the Department of Highways estimates come up, is because yesterday, at 11 o'clock, I attended the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, in his office, and he issued a statement that said a total of $6,895,505 was added to the provincial coffers from sale of land and drilling rights.

The other reasons that this is so timely is the fact that two of the largest bids — one by Quasar Petroleums and the other by Texaco Exploration of Canada Limited — the highest amount of money per acre was paid by these two companies in an area 65 miles south of Dawson Creek, in the Monkman Pass area.

Early in November of last year I forwarded a brief complete with maps and all the details to the Premier. And in this brief I stated that the Monkman Pass area at the present time had five oil wells drilling down there and that 90 per cent of the spinoff revenue employment provision of services was going to Alberta, and this concerned me.

I also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in that same letter, that we could alleviate this problem very easily by having the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources snowplow the road for the winter. They don't have to worry about base because it's frozen hard. At the present time it's a forestry road and it has restrictions on it.

I also pointed out to the Premier that any of the civil servants who wanted to go into this area had to write to Victoria to get permission to take their car in through Alberta or hop a plane which is flying into the area, because Quasar Petroleum built a very nice landing site out there. And then when I was in Victoria approximately a month later I phoned the Premier's office and I asked him is he — well, I didn't ask him. I couldn't even get to speak to him. But that's understandable, I understand that. So I got to speak to his executive assistant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

[ Page 182 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: And this gentleman informed me that he couldn't find the letter. But however, after a while, he did find the letter. The gentleman also informed me that the Premier was no longer running the province, that the Ministers were running the province. However, I doubt if anybody's running the province. (Laughter).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Good point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now the point is, when you've got two or three Ministers to deal with you used to be able to have somebody that you could get to get the Ministers together. Now I wonder if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is afeared of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

AN HON. MEMBER: They all are.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm not going to go through all the letters and phone calls that I have here, but I don't know yet whether the Minister of Highways has ever talked to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources about this road. He promised me he would, but he told me after a month that he hadn't had the opportunity. Now I'm sure they must have cabinet meetings or they must get together. But maybe they're not on speaking terms.

AN HON. MEMBER: They pass in the hall once in a while.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's just plain, ordinary good business.

Now, it's in February. If you plow the road pretty soon spring's going to come and we could have used the road all winter — all we'd had to do was snowplow it. But we have this insurmountable barrier in front of the use of this road, and that insurmountable barrier, if we can get together, is to have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) say to one another, "Why don't we take this road over and plow it and be done with it?" It seems to me oh, so simple. And yet it's been made into such a monstrous problem. And all the time the cash keeps flowing out, payroll and everything else keeps flowing out to Alberta.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It has for the past 20 years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) says this problem has been there for 20 years. Well, sure.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Since 1959.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Minister, and we've argued this over the phone — I'll inform the House as I informed you, that six months ago — now I've got to be careful of my logistics here, let's go back to when I started this — six months from when I originally asked.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've got to be careful of a lot of things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will. I'll be very cautious. Six months ago from when I started asking that something be done about this road there were not five wells drilling in there. And yet you go back and say, "Oh, it's been there," and condemn the previous Government. My heavens! You're in Government now, and you must realize that when you are in the business of running this province that the decisions have to be made now. You're a businessman now. You can't go back and say, "I didn't do it 20 years ago so I'm not going to do it today." What kind of a way is that to run the province?

Well, I'll tell you. It's enough to get your adrenalin running when a stupid little thing like this can't be resolved without becoming a major issue. It's enough to make somebody's adrenalin run.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are you going to be another 15 minutes before you get to me?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm going into the Department of Agriculture right now. (Laughter).

Well, now, I want to talk lastly but by far no means least important — as a matter of fact it's the most important — and that is agriculture. Agriculture in my riding firstly, and agriculture in the province.

Mr. Speaker, agriculture in the Peace has suffered through several disasters since August of last year. The first disaster was the hail to the market gardens at Taylor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have something more to say about that, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in just a few moments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst disaster was the recount. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the recount. Oh, yes. That wasn't any disaster. That was the greatest thing that ever happened to the people in the Peace River area, my friend. And I see that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) certainly agrees with that.

[ Page 183 ]

(Laughter).

The second disaster — and this is a very serious matter — was the early snow in September which covered the grains and the legumes in our area and also the hay, because due to the wet August the hay was still out in the field.

The third disaster, Mr., Speaker, was the way Victoria handled the whole matter — the way the Government handled the whole matter. That was the third disaster, Mr. Speaker, and that was almost a complete disaster.

Payments were not made out of the disaster fund until January, despite my repeated pleas to the Hon Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) that if he waited for Ottawa he probably wouldn't get any more than he did if he didn't pay it, so these people had to wait, not knowing what they were going to get.

I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that the payments be made back in October, November — and I can appreciate, I'll have to say, the dilemma that the Minister of Agriculture was in. However, he is the Minister of Agriculture, he holds that reponsibility and he has a responsibility to listen to people who may know what they are talking about. And he should take their advice.

Now I'd like to deal with each one. And I want to say that when the payments did come, Mr. Speaker, they were too small to do much. And when the payments came too late they only came for a segment of the disastered farmers.

Let's deal with each one separately. First of all, the first one that happened was the Taylor root crop and market gardens. This, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, through you, Mr. Speaker, is the beginning of a very viable agricultural enterprise in that area and, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, could be a very important and fast-growing one. To deny them the assistance that they should get maybe leads me to believe that because they're a very small group and because they're just starting, that they're a minority group, that we're going to pay no attention to them — whatsoever.

I find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would take that attitude. I'd like to ask the Hon Minister of Agriculture — why no assistance for these market gardeners?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You can sit down now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why no assistance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you want an answer now?

MR. PHILLIPS: They're every bit as entitled to relief as a grain farmer who lost his crop due to a flood.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now I think you should sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're every bit as entitled to assistance as a grain farmer who lost his crop by a flood. And there were many farmers in the area who did lose their crops due to a flood and that were paid.

No hail insurance was available to these people.

Then we got snow in September — and it was a wet snow and it really never went away, even though the snow went away the fields were so wet that the farmers could not get on them to get their crop off. Aid was too long in coming and it was too little when it did come. And although it covered all the grain farmers it covered absolutely no one for the loss of a hay crop.

Now many of the livestock producers in the area were not growing grain but were growing hay. And they got no relief at all, despite repeated promises from Victoria that the relief was coming and despite the promise from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to take a second look, immediate aid was coming.

Mr. Speaker, this disaster will ruin forever many of the small farmers in the Peace River area. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the aid that has been given and to renegotiate with Ottawa. I've been talking to our MP in Ottawa and he has informed me that the Hon. Mr. Whelan, Minister of Agriculture for the federal government, will take a second look providing the Ministers of Agriculture for the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia are willing to sit down and ask for more assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking that the Minister of Agriculture do just that. We have got to do something, Mr. Speaker. We help people with social welfare. We have helped other people through the disaster fund and I see no reason why we're not going to do more for these people. I will be quite happy, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, to show you some of the letters that I have here on file outlining some of the very real problems that some of these people are having. We either have to give them more assistance or we have to do something.

I guess I'm not allowed to discuss the bill that I have in the House. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a very real necessity and a very real urgency that we do something. Please, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, come to the assistance of those people who need your help, who so very sincerely need your help now. I know that the Premier has a big heart and I know that if the Premier, Mr. Speaker, were to go and talk to some of these farmers who have very real problems, he would say to the Minister of Agriculture, "Sure, we've spent

[ Page 184 ]

a lot of money in crop disaster in the Peace River area but we've got to do something more."

Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that if something isn't done and when these problems develop into very real problems, this Government will regret the day that it didn't do something. I'm not trying to threaten the Government, Mr. Speaker. All I'm trying to say is that when you find out the very real problems of these very real small farmers and if you don't do something really constructive in the way of help for them, you will be very disappointed in yourselves in future years. These people, a lot of them, are going to get by all right for the winter but they have no way of raising money to put their crop in in the fall. They are going to lose their implements. Many of them are going to have their farms foreclosed. They're going to lose their land.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this a real disaster and a very vital one — one that if something isn't done on, it will be on the conscience of the cabinet as long as they are in power. The Minister of Agriculture says, "Go to social welfare." I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, when he says "Go to social welfare," why he doesn't get together with the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr., Levi) and say, "Help these farmers"? Because they go to the social welfare and the social welfare says, "Sell your cattle."

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you name anyone that's had that answer?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly will. I'd like to put that in the record here and now that the Minister … Yes, I'll give him the name but what are you going to do with it?

I've had farmers phone me and say, "Look, I've got enough stuff in the cellar that I can get by the winter. I've got enough wood in the woodshed and I've got enough clothes and I can send my kids to school, but can I get social welfare to feed my cattle?"

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's not what you said. You said "told to sell their cattle."

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I shall make a Press announcement that I want the names of everybody who has gone to the social welfare department and asked for assistance and have been told to sell their cattle.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Give me the names. You haven't got one yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get you a list.

Now, there are a lot of very, very well-to-do farmers in the Peace River area. I want to dispel this deal that every time you start talking about a farmer, everybody gets their back up and says, "Oh, the farmer's spending his winters in Hawaii."

Sure, there are a few farmers spending their winters in Hawaii and they're entitled to it. But how many? Thirty-seven per cent of northern farmers earn less than $2,500 a year. Statistics Canada, 1970. About ¼ earn between $5,000 and $10,000 and only 17 per cent made more than $10,000. Nine per cent or 808 operations made less than $250. This Government is dedicated, in statements made by it, to preserve farming as a way of life, Mr. Speaker. I ask them what they are going to do about it.

I have some suggestions, Mr. Speaker, as we get into the further debate in this session. I'm speaking for over 70 per cent of the farmers who can't make it on this small amount of help, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. Over 70 per cent. A large majority of these will be wiped out.

I ask the Government's help in bringing in their own bill, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Premier, I ask your help in bringing in your own bill that will assist these farmers with their credit problems.

In mid-July there was a rainstorm in the Fraser Valley, in the Vancouver-North Shore area. A statement came out in the paper that 100 per cent of the damage, as independently assessed, will be paid by the provincial government — all claims to be assessed by the members of the Canadian Independent Adjusters Conference. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to know why vegetable farmers in the Fraser Valley and in the North Shore area received payment from the disaster fund because of a torrential rainstorm, when vegetable farmers in the Taylor area could not receive one single cent because of their crops being ruined by a hailstorm.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had a change of government in between.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I haven't got the date of that announcement because it was a general announcement and appeared in several papers. "One hundred per cent of the damage as independently assessed will be paid by the provincial …" — and it was paid, Mr. Premier, and I appreciate you asking me that. I think that we should do something for these vegetable farmers in the Taylor area. Because I'm sure, Mr. Premier, Mr. Speaker, through you, that you would not want it on your conscience that there was discrimination against the north. I'll have to go on and say that hay farmers are just as hungry as vegetable farmers. A vegetable grower at Taylor is just as entitled to help as a vegetable farmer in Surrey. Where is the policy of fair treatment for all?

Mr. Speaker, on top of this disaster in the Peace

[ Page 185 ]

River area and the way it was handled, this Government …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Former Government"? The former Government wasn't in power in September.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The hailstorm happened just before the election.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right and we sent a team in to look at it. If the Government had stayed in power they would have done the same thing they did to the Surrey farmers.

But then on top of this, there was an order-in-council passed on January 18, 1973 to freeze all land in British Columbia. Not only farmland but all land — whether it's city land, village land, town land — all land. I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not against preserving farmland. As a matter of fact, I'm for preserving farmland. I'm for preserving farmland. I want that written perfectly well into the record.

But this decision was made without consultation to the farming community — I should say this arbitrary, dictatorial decision. And was this decision made, Mr. Speaker, by urging from scary environmentalists?

I want to tell you the other evening I sat and watched Hourglass — Wednesday night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. PHILLIPS: And if you've ever seen a good example, Mr. Speaker, of how the public can be misled by that one-eyed monster, that I might add the people of Canada are subsidizing to the tune of many millions of dollars a year, you should have seen the programme Hourglass. You should have seen it.

The programme told only one side of the story, but it was certainly complete, with the guitar and the crooning and all of that, you know, to get the proper effect so that you just think that every acre of farmland in the Province of British Columbia was going to be used up by big monstrous housing developments. Cut down orchards. I almost wept. However, not once during that programme, Mr. Speaker, did it mention the actual number of acres in the Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan Valley that had been taken from farmland production and put in subdivisions or what have you.

And then I heard the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) stand in the House the other day and talk about incentives to industry. What started all this in the Okanagan Valley? What brought all this industry into the Okanagan Valley? Federal government incentive — that horrible word "incentive" again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crazy guidelines, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who ordered that in the Okanagan Valley in the first place?

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. PHILLIPS: The thing that really bothered me about this Hourglass programme is that the news media is supposed to present both sides of the story. That certainly didn't present both sides of any story. It presented a biased, one-sided …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker … one-sided view of what was happening.

Now I'll tell you, I made a speech once in this House about the CBC — I wish I still had my notes. I guess I'll have to do some more research. Shocked the people of this province into realizing how many millions of dollars it's costing them for this CBC. There's some good people in the CBC (Laughter). But, oh, they mustn't become one … because they'll lose their credibility, Mr. Speaker. And we don't want the CBC to lose its credibility. (Laughter).

Because after all, we, the people, the poor taxpayers, are paying the shot for the CBC. It's a good news medium, Mr. Speaker, but oh, let's not have them become one-sided and biased …

AN HON. MEMBER: Archie's okay, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Archie's a good man, yes. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He does a Snow job. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Now something else that the Minister said on this Hourglass programme was his support for the freeze on all land in British Columbia; his support in the letters he was receiving — and he didn't say how many letters either, Mr. Speaker, he didn't say how many letters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it was four to one. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons for the support of this land freeze in British Columbia is because nobody in the Province of British Columbia has realized the full impact of the dictatorial order-in-council that was passed on January 18. That's the reason, Mr. Speaker. Nobody knows about it. And I want to tell you that I didn't know about it.

The Press phoned me and said, "What about this land freeze?" I said, "So what! So what! It won't

[ Page 186 ]

bother us. We've got lots of farmland up here." I didn't know it until I read it, Mr. Speaker. And then my eyes were opened. Oh, were they ever opened. Oh, man!

Now I want to ask the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) why this legislation hasn't been brought in. And he's going to do it. He's in a position; he can't back away.

Why is this bill in fifth draft? Why are they drafting it for the fifth time, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker. They can't even satisfy themselves. They know, Mr. Speaker, they've committed a blunder. Oh, what a horrible blunder it is. And I would suggest that when the people of British Columbia find out what a horrible blunder this is, oh, Mr. Speaker, oh, that Government's going to be in real trouble. And the letters won't be four to one in favour; oh, no, Mr. Speaker, they'll be 100 to one against.

No, the people don't understand. The people don't understand. Here it is, that horrible order-in-council. You can't even build a building on your land any more. You've taken away the rights of the people.

And I want to tell you, Mr. Premier, it's serious. And you know it's serious, too. You know it's serious. Serious for you, serious for me, serious for every citizen in British Columbia.

My colleague from Langley (Mr. McClelland) pointed out the other day some of the deadly ramifications of this order-in-council No. 157-73. And let me remind you of your party's criticism of orders-in-council, Mr. Premier. Yet just seven days before this Legislature was convened you chose to alter the whole concept of land use, the whole philosophy of land use, the whole idea of pride of ownership in this province by one foul swoop of the pen by order-in-council, Mr. Speaker. This order, Mr. Speaker, affects every Premier, every farmer, every orchardist, every property owner, every homeowner in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this insidious document strikes at the very heart of democracy. This so-called "new and open Government" just seven days before the House opened, when an opportunity to debate this legislation was a possibility, rammed through an order-in-council which will shake the very foundations of our economy.

Under this Act, Mr. Speaker, whose farm is inviolate from the heavy hand of socialism — whose, Mr. Speaker?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The heavy hand of state socialism. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: And tell us, Mr. Speaker — this is no laughing matter, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. He takes it as a laughing matter. I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, this is no laughing matter.

And tell us, Mr. Speaker, why has this order-in-council been specifically referred to by the Government as affecting only the farmers? In the public statements made by the Government since passing the order-in-council, the farmers are specifically singled out. Now how, Mr. Speaker, does that philosophy reconcile with this Government-stated policy to bring in human rights legislation? I can't see any similarity.

What human rights do the farmers have today, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it's a violation of the Canada Bill of Human Rights for it states in that bill: "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person" and, Mr. Speaker, "enjoyment of property." That's an existing bill of rights, Mr. Speaker, to you, Mr. Premier. And "enjoyment of property."

Let me warn the people of British Columbia today that this order-in-council gives opportunity to a radical, wild, socialist Government to put their grasping claws of power on each and every home in this province. Who is safe, Mr. Speaker? Will it be the NDP supporters whose future under this bureaucratic rule seems secure in terms of appointments to government positions? Will it be the Ministers or even the Premier of this province whose investment in homes since moving to Victoria can hardly be classed as modest? Will it be the Ministers of the Crown who have been able by virtue of cleaning stoves, woodwork and floors, been able to develop condominiums for resale? Will their homes be safe, Mr. Speaker? We wonder.

But we care more for the families of this province whose only security and hedge against inflation is their little plot of land, their home, their little piece of British Columbia, their little piece of Canada that, I might add, some of their forefathers fought for in two world wars to preserve. Let the people of British Columbia know that the only areas that cannot be touched under this Nazi-like authority are mountain tops and tidal waters. Let the people of British Columbia know, Mr. Speaker.

British Columbians want the security that comes from home ownership. British Columbians want the assurance that their little piece of British Columbia cannot be taken away from them - their family home. British Columbians know today, Mr. Speaker, that this NDP socialist Government cannot be trusted.

Because the Speech from the Throne failed to give opportunity to this House to thoroughly debate the ramifications of the change in Environment and Land Use Act; because the Speech from the Throne neglected to instill confidence in the people of British Columbia that they will continue to have security of home ownership, and because any implementation of the Land Use Act is an aberration of the human rights of the individual, I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Hon. Member for Boundary-

[ Page 187 ]

Similkameen (Mr. Richter), that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words, "but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any proposals for recognizing and declaring that in British Columbia, there has existed and shall continue to exist the fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property."

MR. SPEAKER: I have the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), seconded by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). It appears to be in order. Would the Hon. Member wish to speak?

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in seconding this motion, at the outset may I say that this side of the House, the official Opposition, are very, very concerned about the situation that has developed and that has been so eloquently expressed today by my colleague from South Peace River.

In rising to reply to probably the poorest apology for a throne speech that this House has ever been subjected to, the utter lack of content indicates that the NDP are truly of no discernible policy — or else this so-called speech is yet another indication of socialist arrogance and contempt for all who do not accept their theories or socialistic imperialism.

Mr. Speaker, I have searched this Speech from the Throne for a sign of real substance and find none. It starts with the accepted platitudes and then commences what one would excuse for believing would be a dynamic presentation of many of the antidotes expounded by the NDP when they were in the Opposition for those things which they believed were lacking in our society. The throne speech is not without its humour, Mr. Speaker. It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. I refer to the quotation, "to depart from the acquisitive North American values." That kind of rhetoric is a joke when one considers that it comes from a cabinet where at least one of its members acquires property and then turns the tenants out into the street so they can make a profit.

There is not one indication in this speech as to how the Government will deal with the real problem of unemployment. Enlarging the bureaucracy is no answer to increase the productivity of the province. You have increased the apprehension of industry, which employs the bulk of our population. You have made statements which have driven millions of dollars of investment away from our province. One can only assume that you have done this intentionally so that you can eventually implement your socialistic philosophy of state ownership of land, capital and the means of production.

In your public utterances you have made much of your concern for the ordinary man. I say to you that the services to the people can only be expanded on the foundation of a prosperous economy. It is obvious you have slowed down the economy. You have threatened industry with increased taxation. And your only answer to the resultant increase in unemployment is to increase the burden of the taxpayer by building up a political bureaucracy within the civil service.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to sound a strong note of warning concerning the philosophy of the cabinet opposite to administering one of the truly great pieces of legislation introduced by the previous Government. I refer to the Environment and Land Use Act. The two approaches taken by this Legislature when it was introduced here cannot be more clearly stated than in these two excerpts from Hansard of 1971, and I quote:

"WILLISTON: It is a vehicle for public participation and public involvement." p. 754 of Hansard.

"BARRETT: Hunkum-bunkum legislation." p. 759, Hansard.

That was the position taken in 1971, Mr. Speaker. The first was clear, direct and inviting the public to be partners with the Government in achieving an environment that would be a pride to British Columbia. The second was a part of the political vaudeville act for that day on the part of the now Premier of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House of the manner in which the previous Government used the Environment and Land Use Act. The first results of giving the public an opportunity to play a part in important land-use decisions were quick to appear. The first, the controversial decision required with respect to the Ocean Cement development at Metchosin, was put to a hearing and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs found that an order requesting several government departments to review the proposal was desirable. The original proposals were declared to be unacceptable as a result of a hearing.

Two, the Hydro transmission line question involving the Richmond municipality and the integrity of parkland in that municipality was the subject of hearings chaired by the former Minister of Agriculture. The result was an order to B.C. Hydro involving a re-routing of that line.

The third, the former Minister of Recreation and Conservation heard public reaction to the disposal of hog fuel in the vicinity of Somenos Lake and a decision was made which rejected the proposal for dumping.

The fourth, the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources heard representations at Kamloops with respect to the criteria to be established in the matter of a copper smelter for British Columbia. The subsequent decision was that no copper smelter would be established in British

[ Page 188 ]

Columbia unless reservations on environment impact could be overcome.

The point I am seeking to make, Mr. Speaker, is that all these activities were the result of a firm posture of seeking public reaction. The Environmental and Land Use Committee was well aware of the enormous powers conferred by the Legislature in section 6 of that Act. Exploitation by a ruthless or overreaching government could lead to dictatorial land use. Decisions of tremendous concern to individuals and the corporations in B.C.

Section 6 permits order-in-council administration of all resources in the province and essentially, could be used to nullify all the activities authorized under any other Act of this Legislature. The previous government indicated at the time that this section was placed there to underscore the catastrophic situation that might require immediate action.

It was by no means to be used as a day-to-day administrative tool to bypass either the Legislature itself or the public at large. That is why the previous Government moved very quickly to place the use of this session in the framework of public hearings.

Not so this Government, Mr. Speaker. When answering questions on television's channel 6, the present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) was very quick to emphasize his administrative powers rather than his legislative responsibility.

In forests, in hydro, in water management and land management he is often quoted as saying that this or that can be done administratively and legislation is not required. Do you know what he was talking about, Mr. Speaker? He was talking about the wholesale use of section 6 to achieve policy. That tactic is ominous for British Columbia because it demonstrates more clearly than anything else the direction of a socialist line which has several ways of expressing itself historically. The key words of socialism are: "administrative power, " not legislative power; "control", not concern; "state", not individual; "power", not people.

The socialist vocabulary, Mr. Speaker, is ominous. It has always been used, Mr. Speaker. The far-reaching decision on land freeze is a classic example of this misuse of the power of the Government. Now the Premier in the January 20 issue of the Vancouver Province promised piously to see widespread public discussion of the land freeze policy. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) could already advise the Premier that much widespread discussion has taken place. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has the integrity to see that these discussions will take place, that this matter will be fully discussed, and the whole question properly resolved in the interests of our society.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis the people of British Columbia should be warned that the use of section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act can be a real danger to everyone in B.C. It was designed to exist in a framework of public participation. It was designed to foster public partnership, not dampen it. We will keep a particular eye on the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) whose well-known ambition to be a super planner is a matter of record.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to make a few remarks about the effects on the economy of this province as a result of the ill-advised public statements of this Government in relation to the mining industry. For many years this has been an ever-expanding industry in our province and has both directly and indirectly resulted in the creation of thousands of jobs for the ordinary workingman. Hopefully, the impetus of past policy will continue this trend throughout the coming year.

However, since the present Government took office and as a direct result of public statements of socialist policy made by Members of this Government, millions of investment dollars of investment capital have already been diverted from this province and millions more have been held in abeyance. I can give examples in relation to the J.A. property development of the Bethlehem Copper Corporation where $140 million would be expended to expand that ore body to come into production after 1977 when the present ore body will run out and the new ore body has potentiality at the present rate of mining of running into the year 2000.

Valley Copper is another prime example. Placer Development — its investments in Australia, its investments in Spain, its investments in the Philippines. Noranda Mines Ltd., who started on a very active programme in this province and now are starting to back away for fear of the policies of the present Government.

Mining exploration has taken a downward curve and this can only result in a diminishing work force at a time when every effort should be made to increase the generation of resource capital to provide jobs for many of the thousands who are now out of work in this province.

The Government Members make daily and derogatory references in this House to the 20 year history of the Social Credit administration. Yet in just over 20 weeks the NDP socialist administration has destroyed business confidence, investors' confidence, individual confidence in our economy.

Although the throne speech made no reference to amendments to the Mineral Act vague rumours abound in the mining community that further increase the fear that the heavy hand of state-ism will rob the prospectors of their hard-earned dollars.

There are several hundred prospectors in this province — in fact, in the neighbourhood of a thousand — who have continuously striven to im-

[ Page 189 ]

prove their knowledge through winter courses in prospecting and mining, and many more are interested in getting into this particular field.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of these people and I am hopeful that the rumours I get that these will be the next sector of society to be robbed of their incentive are just that — just rumours.

The prospector in our province is a unique person. They are little people, they are pioneers, they are job creators. They need encouragement, not threats. The sad commentary is that the statements of the Premier and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) indicate a complete indifference to the state of the provincial economy. Their only concern is to implement socialistic popcorn philosophy even if it means the total destruction of the mining industry of this province.

Even after the claims have been discovered, the necessary technology that has to be applied, the necessary surveys, the necessary raising of capital all takes anywhere from five to eight years to bring a mine into production.

We haven't got that many mines, Mr. Speaker, in production today that we can callously drive out of this province the necessary investment capital to develop our resources in the mineral field.

I also relate that to the coal and the petroleum areas, even though we did have a sale the other day which had over 200 parcels, the actual average was not a commendable average, so interest is distinctly waning.

Vancouver Island gas — I think I heard something previously about that. I think it seems to me I had something to do with instigating studies in this relation. The strong desire on the part of the previous Government to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island is a matter of record. The motivation rested on a number of very specific considerations.

Vancouver Island was to be put in a position to receive gas at the same rate as that applicable to the lower mainland. A second fundamental position by the former Government of British Columbia was that no further exports of natural gas had been brought to Vancouver Island.

Thirdly, the strong commitment by the former Premier that Vancouver Island should be developed as essentially an area for recreation, enjoyment and light industry. The heavy industry already existing on Vancouver Island should be ordered, if necessary, to convert its existing operations to natural gas to improve the air quality.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, that all centres of the island should be served with any proposal for bringing gas to the island and therefore the specifications required of the province, by way of policy — required that the underwater pipe be in such a location as to satisfy all the requirements, not only for distribution on the island but, distribution problems in the Powell River-Sunshine Coast area.

The fifth: that because of studies made by the B.C. Hydro, Vancouver Island should not be left out of any opportunity to exploit the use of natural gas for the purposes of motive fuel.

Six: that the public hearing should be held in order that all parties interested in presenting a proposal including B.C. Hydro, could do so.

The hearings have subsequently been held and it is the view of this side of the House that a decision should be made which would permit Vancouver Island to enjoy the benefits of natural gas.

At the present time, British Columbia's gas reserves are in excess of 9.9 trillion cubic feet as of the end of 1971, which is enough to service the entire British Columbia market, including Vancouver Island, for the next 250 years.

Surely when we hear the concern by the Government about the inventories of our natural resources, and the basic commitment to fuzzy-wuzzy no growth, there can be no argument about the availability of supply in so far as natural gas is concerned. If we have priorities to service anywhere, surely Vancouver Island should rank high in those areas to be serviced.

Energy resources across the continent are being faced with the inflationary spiral of costs of materials, labour and equipment. The delay is unconscionable. We have the resources. We have the market. We simply need the commitment to get on with the job.

Perhaps there have been few projects in British Columbia which have been the subject of such public scrutiny as the question of bringing natural gas to Vancouver Island.

In terms of technology, the best internationally renowned engineering firms and contracting firms were involved with one or the other of the five applicants, namely; B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Centennial Natural Gas Pipelines Limited, Georgia Gulf Transmission Company Limited, Malaspina Gas Pipeline Limited, and Pacific Northern Gas Pipeline Limited. Certainly, if any one of these applicants can meet the basic criteria established by the previous Government, can there be any reason for the secrecy which now surrounds and perhaps places in limbo the very decision which the Public Utilities Commission was instructed to make.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in November 1971, before hearings by the P.U.C. got underway, the then leader of the Opposition, now our Hon. Premier, Mr. Barrett, insisted on open bidding and allowing the best people in the field to participate. This was done because the previous Government had nothing to hide on this issue, and a new call for tenders in fact, was made.

In December, 1971, the then Leader of the Opposition when questioned, declared that the deci-

[ Page 190 ]

sion of the Social Credit Government in inviting tenders aroused his pleasure. Apparently, his pleasure has taken on a different twist on tendering on Hydro buses.

I would say further, Mr. Speaker, if because of the philosophy of the present Government, the B.C. Hydro is to be given the green light to build the project — I would suggest in good faith the highly costly public hearings which were all concluded prior to the Government opposite taking office, should be reviewed in terms of compensating the unsuccessful private applicants for hearings which were endorsed by the now Premier in the first instance. However, it is the view of this side of the House, certainly the official Opposition, that the vast capital requirements for this entity could very well remain the responsibility of the private sector.

B.C. Hydro has enough to do with the transit and electrical business. Indeed, there is no good reason why Hydro could not be responsible for retail distribution on the island itself. The real issue is to bring Natural Gas to Vancouver Island with a high priority, and I call on the Government opposite to get on with the job, but I also call on the Government opposite to exercise their fair play.

Mr. Speaker, in summing up my speech at this time I can only say that the Speech from the Throne is void of substance; its rhetoric is pathetic, its implications are sinister and its potential is tragic. It is a document wholly unworthy of the Government of the Province of British Columbia in the interests of the people they represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government is clearly on the ropes on this issue. I'm speaking in support of the amendment, of course. I think that the Government is making a mistake, it should now admit it and take a second look. One of the problems has been enunciated by the mover of the amendment — and that is that the people of British Columbia don't get the implications of this order-in-council, mainly because the Press doesn't yet understand it. But the light is slowly getting brighter. The people are now beginning to realize that this is the sleeper issue of this session of the Legislature. This issue, Mr. Speaker, will be the single most important issue to be considered by this group of legislators.

When I spoke the other day, Mr. Speaker, I was in error when I said that this Government has failed to outline its policy directions, because the policy of this new socialist Government is clearly laid down, clearly laid down in its attack on private land ownership in British Columbia. Clearly laid down. I'd like to help maybe switch on a few more of the lights, Mr. Speaker, a little brighter. Let me tell you a little more of the order-in-council that led to the amendment that I rise to support.

The infamous order-in-council approved January 18: perhaps we'll discover by reading one passage of this order what it means — exactly what it means. First of all, it lays out a designation that any land in British Columbia over two acres in size which falls under four classifications of soil capability for agriculture developed as part of the Canada Land Inventory. 1, 2, 3 and 4 — those classifications may not be allowed to have a building permit issued authorizing the construction of any new building. It says "no municipality, regional district, or the city of Vancouver shall pass a zoning bylaw or enter into a land use contract authorizing farmland to be used for non-agricultural use." And that includes the city of Vancouver; and Victoria and every other area of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, as we support — or as I support — this amendment, I'd like to recall that we keep hearing of speculators from that side of the House and I wonder who these speculators are. The Government in its action so far seems to think that the farmers are the greedy, money-grabbing land speculators, and that, of course is nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe the odd town planner or two.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's possible. Ex-town planner perhaps, Mr. Member.

When will we understand, Mr. Speaker, that the real farmer isn't interested in land speculation, He's interested in the higher form of land use, namely the production of agricultural products, and that's all he's interested in, Mr. Speaker. Certainly he considers his land as a form of security, so do I and so do most of the Members of this House.

He has the right to consider his land as a form of basic security because it's mentioned, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), that that right is protected under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The dream of every Canadian is ownership of land and it always has been, whether it's a lot in the City of Vancouver or Victoria or 10 acres out in the suburbs somewhere, or a cattle ranch in the Cariboo.

It's a Canadian dream, Mr. Speaker, and a fundamental freedom. But this Government has adopted a policy that seems committed to the erosion and eradication of that basic freedom.

What about the matter of speculation itself? Is it getting worse, as the Members of the Government side of the House seem to indicate? The record doesn't show that. Municipal councils have smartened up considerably over the years, as one instance. They control the land developer to a much larger degree than every before, and that's thanks to a large degree to changes in the Municipal Act which allow them to do so.

[ Page 191 ]

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) referred to prices of land in my constituency as one instance of going for some $12,000 an acre. The Hon. Attorney General said, $12,000 an acre on one specific block of 2,000 acres. Well he was just a little high on his estimates, Mr. Speaker. The land in question actually changed hands for an average of $1,600 an acre, not $12,000 an acre — quite a difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quite a difference!

MR. McCLELLAND: That sale took place just before the freeze in October, the 2,000 acres that was in question, and I must admit that there was a variance in some of the land because of its location. There were differences of $400 to $500 an acre here and there in that sale. But the average price for that 2,000 acres was $1,600 an acre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out 800 per cent.

MR. McCLELLAND: And as a matter of fact the same company involved has plans for another 2,000-acre site which they have in my constituency, and it's a beautiful plan. It envisions a championship golf course, satellite town, and a fully planned community. None of that can go ahead now, Mr. Speaker, because the land has been frozen.

MR. PHILLIPS: It'll be a cold winter.

MR. McCLELLAND: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as I continue to support this amendment, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) commented, with what seemed to be a degree of pride, about land assembled by B.C. Hydro for industrial parks in urban areas, and he has a right to feel proud, for B.C. Hydro has done a fine job in assembling land for industrial parks. But the two projects that I spoke of the other day that have been effectively halted now in Langley city are right on a Hydro industrial park — right in the heart of Langley city. That's the shame of this land freeze, Mr. Speaker. It infringes on virtually all property throughout the province over 2 acres in British Columbia — all property.

What about profit from speculation? It's not as bad as it once was. I can recall in 1965 or so — less than 10 years ago — when a speculator would expect to receive about 35 per cent on his return of land because he could pick his land up for rock bottom prices. Quite often, I'll admit too, zoning practices by various municipalities helped him to increase that speculative profit and that's not good and I'm not for that, But he doesn't get 35 per cent on his land any longer. Today he's lucky to get 10 per cent.

In Surrey Municipality, for instance, residential lots are now see now selling for about $12,000 per lot, and out of that $12,000 per lot a minimum of $7,500 has to go just to pay for the services that the municipality demands. Add to that, in Surrey at least, another $500 for every lot, which the municipality demands for services, which may not be noticeably needed at this point but will be needed in the future, and you're up to $8,000 for that one lot just for services. And those are essential amenities and don't take into effect the amenities that may be added by the developer.

But certainly, Mr. Speaker, the idea of farmers as speculators is serving to drive a wedge between the urban and the rural community today. The farmer isn't a speculator, He's a farmer and he wants to farm. He wants to be allowed to farm and he also wants to be allowed to have the opportunity to get rid of his property — for a profit if necessary, he must have the unencumbered right to sell his property, however.

And who are the people, Mr. Speaker, who are being affected by this land freeze in British Columbia, this interference with the basic rights of British Columbians? Who are they if they are not speculators? I'd like to tell you briefly about just one of the families who rights have eroded.

In my constituency, once again, they are good farmers, a farm family, and I'm going to quote from a letter that I sent to the Hon. David Stupich, the Hon Minister of Agriculture.

This good farm family hoped that their sons would follow them into the business and eventually take over from their parents. They operate, incidentally, a 39-acre farm at the moment in the Municipality of Matsqui. Well, as it turned out, the sons decided to go into another business but later on decided they would like to get into farming — it was in their blood and they wanted to be a part of the family farming operation, But that 39-acre farm, Mr. Speaker, was too small to effectively be economic for two families — it was a fine farm for one family.

An ideal solution, however, seemed to present itself in that the family farm — which lies, I might say, in an already designated 5-acre-minimum area — is ideally suited for residential use because it's on high ground. It overlooks the beautiful Mission Valley, and it's ideally suited for rural residential development, and that ideal situation was recognized in the Lower Mainland Regional Plan which has been with us for some 20 years now.

A cash offer of $ 110,000 was given to this farm family by a developer who wanted to subdivide this property into 5-acre lots. The family found a larger farm of 88 acres which would be ideally suited for a two-family operation, and they were well on their way into that operation in which both families could be adequately compensated for their labours.

But then this "Government of the People" lowered the boom on two of its people. And here is the kind of situation that you've now forced this

[ Page 192 ]

particular family to face: They've arranged a sizeable loan at the bank — something like $65,000 to cover the purchase of the property and the milk quota which they had to buy, and they've already made arrangements for it. They've already put $1,000 down on the new farm and they don't know if they'll ever get that back.

Their son has already quit his job in preparation for joining that family operation, and they're now behind the 8-ball because of this Government's precipitous action. And we must also bear in mind that this land is in my opinion marginal for farmland purposes. I might say that under the Canada Land Inventory it is 70 per cent No. 3 category and 30 per cent No. 4, and I'd say that's marginal for farming purposes.

The Matsqui Council has completed the rezoning essentially at the time of this freeze. It's gone through all of the necessary arrangements which are very extensive, Mr. Speaker, because Matsqui Municipality is a progressive municipality, and it doesn't do rezoning lightly. And this is a reversal of the normal trend, Mr. Speaker, that sees succeeding generations moving away from the farm. This son wanted to join the farm family. Their case is still in limbo but their option on the new farm is rapidly running out. This Government has given them no answer.

What do the other people think of the actions of this Government? Despite the comments from some Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, the farmers with whom I have talked — and there are many of them, I must say, don't like this land freeze. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture certainly doesn't like the actions of the Government. Those farmers asked to be consulted — and they were told that they would be — but they weren't.

The official position of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is contained in a position statement which they delivered to the Government. In that it says, and I'll only read the first paragraph of it:

"The Provincial Government must lift the farmland freeze order of December 21, 1972 and replace it with legislation decreeing the future sales of farmland will take place unencumbered by Government regulations unless the land is to be converted to non-farm use. In instances where farmland would otherwise be sold for non-farm use, the Provincial Government would have the first right of refusal to be the purchaser at fair market value at the time of the sale."

And I might say we have a greenbelt protection fund that was set up for that very purpose.

It continues, and they represent the farmers of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker:

"Our membership has ordered us to receive your Government's commitment in fact on this method of preserving farmland. In the absence of your commitment any future discussions will be without value."

That sentence was hardly necessary, because there weren't any future discussions. The Government didn't want to talk to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

In another letter — which I believe was delivered to every MLA, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture also said that — you are aware of the order-in-counci — and they go on to say that:

"You may be less aware of the effect this order is having on the thousands of bona-fide producers currently farming in British Columbia. With this one regulation of Government has confiscated the farmer's pension plan, seriously impaired the farmer's ability to meet capital requirements, and destroyed the basic incentive to continue farming in this province."

I thought the idea was to provide incentives for farmers to continue to farm in the Province of British Columbia.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture will not allow the denial to farmers of the basic rights of land ownership. And neither will the official Opposition, Mr. Speaker. That's the reason that we have submitted this amendment, and that's the reason I rise in support of it.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture does not like the actions of this Government. Those farmers asked to be consulted, but you refused to consult with them.

I would like briefly to read a letter from a newspaper in the Member from Comox's (Ms. Sanford's) riding, from a British Columbia citizen who was concerned about the protection of his freedom. He says:

"The NDP game is a very simple one. They tax the old age pensioners and poor off their property. This results in only the wealthy being able to buy them out. The wealthy land up with a monopoly on most of the land. The NDP, in bright shining armour, rush in and tell the poor that the land speculators and the rich have gobbled up the land and have a monopoly on it. The next step is for the Government to take over all the land, the same way they're taking over everything else, and lease the land back to the poor again at whatever rent their monopoly position would bear."

Remember Ms. Karen Sanford's words: "All private property should be eliminated. Land being bought and sold for profit is not in the best interests of the people." Suddenly because of it people are being taxed off the property. Mr. Speaker, I could remind the House that the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) yesterday agreed that those statements were essentially correct.

"There is something you can do about this situation, " says the letter writer. "Take clippings

[ Page 193 ]

from this newspaper and from any other newspapers and send them with your letter to your favourite Opposition MLA in Victoria and express your concern. It is to his advantage to bring these letters to the attention of the public, through parliamentary procedure and the newspapers." And the radio and television too.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the CBC.

MR. McCLELLAND: And the CBC, right.

"A good MLA can make a splash on the front page," it says. "The ordinary citizen is usually lucky to make the editorial public forum. The payoff for you will be in the results of the next provincial election. Be patient, "

I say Amen to that.

What about the local governments, Mr. Speaker, whose rights to govern have also been overruled by this order-in-council? They don't like the actions either.

I've already told the House what happened to the City of Langley, and what is happening throughout my constituency, which is effectively frozen by this order-in-council. The Central Fraser Valley Regional District surely doesn't like the actions of this Government. For more than 20 years the local governments have been allowed to take part in the planning process of their areas. Now that opportunity to participate, Mr. Speaker, may be ended because of a hasty and ill-conceived order-in-council.

One local elected official in that area commented the other day: "If Big Brother is going to do it without us, well we might as well pack it up and go on home." 1984 would appear to be here today, Mr. Speaker, and Big Brother is watching over us right now.

I fully support the amendment to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver — Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver — Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to hear the official Opposition supporting this amendment of theirs in such strong terms.

I notice that the amendment deals with the fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property. I wonder if the Member who has just taken his place would have spoken in such terms if we were debating the freeze that was placed upon certain lands of this province by the previous administration. I admit that at that time it was all properties, I think, 10 acres in size, but it certainly was at that time interference with the enjoyment of property.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, the Hon. lady Member has all the reasons, but that's never been debated in this House. What I intended to suggest in my statements a few moments ago was how pleased I am that we are having the opportunity to debate it.

One of the Hon. Member's remarks was about a "hasty and ill-conceived order-in-council." If it were hasty and ill-conceived perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't mind. But my concern, in view of other comments which have been made in the course of this debate by Members of the Government, is that hastily it may have been done, and ill-conceived it certainly was, but nonetheless it is a clear and unmistakable statement of the policy of this administration. That's what concerns me.

We have, of course, two orders-in-council to concern ourselves with. If I may deal with the one which was approved on January 18, by which obviously the Executive Council attempted to undo some of the haste and overcome some of the errors that were in the earlier order-in-council — they defined farmland, and the Hon. Member who has just taken his place referred to that definition. However, the definition was not exclusive, and I am concerned that in the order-in-council which was approved on December 20, 1972, these words were used:

"… and to recommend that pursuant to section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act all subdivisions of farmland, including all lands deemed by the committee to be suitable for the cultivation of agricultural crops, until further order or provisions by statute to the contrary, be prohibited."

So while in the second order-in-council we have a specific definition of what farmlands may be, we still have those words, "including all lands deemed by the committee to be suitable for the cultivation of crops." Therefore the power of this Government under the two orders-in-council is not limited only to those items spelled out in the latter order-in-council, but really is as broad as the committee might wish it to be.

A lot of discussion has taken place both in and outside of this House about the activities of so-called land speculators. These are the people of course who engage themselves in the development of land, and the Government Members have been loud in their criticism of those activities. But I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that action of this kind, as indeed may be said about the action of the previous Government in freezing land, while it may serve to inhibit the actions of some developers, has just the opposite effect upon the developments which have already taken place. One of the logical and immediate consequences of actions such as this is to increase enormously the value of land already subdivided or available for development outside the purview of the

[ Page 194 ]

orders-in-council.

This was the experience, as I say, following the freeze imposed by the previous Government, and it is the experience as a consequence of the freeze imposed by the orders-in-council of this administration. Lands which heretofore had been of marginal, even minimal, value have now taken on in the eyes of the potential developers new values altogether. While, therefore, they may have attacked some of the opportunities that previously existed for the real property developer — the so-called speculator — it has played directly into the hands of those people who have already been in a position to carry out their development or who own lands which lie outside the freeze. It will be interesting in the months that follow, for Members of the Opposition I am sure, to ascertain the identity of those persons who may enjoy the benefits of this kind of order-in-council.

The motion speaks about enjoyment of property. It must be obvious to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that the enjoyment of property lies most in what one might wish to do or not to do with that property. Because the freeze has been made to apply specifically to farmlands, obviously it is an attack upon the specific freedom of people who are engaged in the farming business to enjoy their property. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers in this province — those people who are engaged in commercial farm operation — want nothing more than to enjoy their property through farming. This seems to be one of the aspects of the freeze that this Government has failed to recognize. Obviously it has failed to recognize it in any specific way because, although there were suggestions before this session that we would have legislation before us this session to deal with any extension of the order-in-council, the Speech from the Throne has made not one mention of that kind of legislation, legislation which I know the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has found in other jurisdictions.

But when we come to talk about the enjoyment of farm land by the farmer, the action which needs to be taken by the Government is action which will ensure that the farmer, his wife and his family can carry on in the farm business and enjoy the full fruits of their labour, making a contribution to our society and yet living rather than existing. Unfortunately for the farmers in this province, meagre existence is their lot.

It is interesting that in the 1971 census with regard to farmlands in British Columbia there are only 8,625 commercial farms. Commercial farms are deemed to be those which produce a gross farming income of $2,500 or more — gross farm income, all the income before any of the expenses.

It is also interesting to note that of that 8,600 odd number of commercial farms in this province, 4,100 of them produce a gross income of less than $10,000 a year. Almost 50 per cent of the commercial farms operated in this province operate with a gross income of less than $10,000 a year.

Out of that $10,000 a year the farmer is obliged to pay all of his expenses, meet all of his taxes and then, only then, does he begin to enjoy any return from his enterprise — an enterprise, Mr. Speaker, on which, I might point out, the farmer and his wife and his family work eight to 10 hours a day. Not five days a week, or six, but seven days a week. That's their lot, that's the lot of the people upon whom we in this province must depend for some of our foodstuffs; the people upon whom we must increasingly depend for foodstuffs, as in the years to come other jurisdictions find it increasingly difficult to supply us with the farm produce which heretofore we have imported.

It was popular at one time to talk about all the produce that came into British Columbia from California. Yet the evidence is now clear that because of the problems that they have encountered in that state, the produce available for export is dropping and we're now looking to Mexico. We'll soon find ourselves in a situation, Mr. Speaker, if the lot of the farmer in this province is not improved, if he is not able to enjoy his land through farming, when we will depend entirely for the food upon which we must survive on the producers in foreign jurisdictions. As a consequence we will lose any control whatsoever on the cost of the foodstuffs which come into this province.

We think that the cost of food is high now. I suggest to you when we reach the limit of the problem which this kind of order-in-council can produce that the cost to the consumer of the foodstuffs that we enjoy today will be looked upon with envy.

While the gross income from farms in British Columbia — almost half of them is less than $10,000 a year — it is startling to find that the net farm income in British Columbia from the year 1966 to 1971 has only increased 5 per cent. We cannot blame the farmer, the primary producer, for any high costs there may be. That, I suggest, indicates clearly that unless we keep the number of acres we have in farmland today and expand upon that acreage, the cost to the consumer of foodstuffs will rise until we look with envy upon the cost today.

In 1971, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture dealt with this problem and in the report submitted to this House by that committee there is an interesting paragraph and I will read it:

"On the basis of the evidence presented, the committee is able to conclude that the financial returns to the primary food producer are low and that, if this segment of the industry is to become viable, means must be found to increase net returns at the farm level. Failure to provide such upward adjustment in farm net revenue is likely to hasten the disappearance of farmers and farmland

[ Page 195 ]

resulting in diminishing control over food prices at the consumer level."

It is interesting to note that the members of that committee - and it was a unanimous report — were Messieurs Jefcoat, Lecours, Marshall, Smith, Wenman, Mrs. Kripps, Hon. W.N. Chant, Hon. F.X. Richter, Mrs. Dailly, Messieurs Hartley, Strachan, and L.A. Williams.

So that Members who sit on the Government benches today were part of the committee, heard these submissions and joined in the production of this report, a report that says, "Failure to provide such upward adjustment in farm net revenue is likely to hasten the disappearance of farmers and farmland resulting in diminishing control of food prices at the consumer level."

Now we have an order-in-council tending to freeze farmland. Yet the true answer, if farmers are selling their land and should not, is not to be found in orders-in-council such as this — taking away the inalienable rights of a farmer to do with his land what he deems best.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is for this Government clearly to provide means by which the farmer can realize from the farming operation which he carries on, on his land, a return which will encourage him to remain in farming, to pass that farm on to his children and to his children's children. That's the way we will overcome the difficulty which obviously this order-in-council was intended to correct.

Members who sit on the Government benches have been on the agriculture committee for many years. In my brief experience I know that they have always indicated the greatest concern for the farming community. Yet they say nothing about the right of the farmer to enjoy his land as a farm. There is nothing in this speech that we are debating indicating that they will cure any of the problems facing the farmer — problems which the previous administration year by year by year failed to rectify; nothing about releasing from the farm the burden of school taxation by accepting the home and home-site principle; nothing about stopping the bulldozer prospector who destroys grazing land; nothing about taking the family farm completely out of any question of succession duties or gift tax. None of these steps which would have had the immediate result of improving the economic prospects of the farmer, making the farm a business which would have its value in its production and not in its land. That's the problem.

The previous administration and now this administration has squeezed the farmer down until his business has no value. The only value rests in the land. Now, as a final blow, this government says: "You cannot use your land for anything except agriculture, a business which ensures your continued poverty." That is what this government is saying in this order-in-council that is taking away the fullest enjoyment that the farmer has in his land.

I would think that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will speak in this debate and will tell this House and the people of this province — the farmers of this province - the purpose of this order-in-council and how he will undo the harm which since December 20 has befallen the farm community.

I hope he will tell this House and the farmers in this province that this Government is going to take the steps to make farming economically viable and that it will restore to the farmer the value in his land that has been lost in the last six or seven weeks.

There is all kinds of evidence, Mr. Speaker. In Kamloops, farmland which had a value of $3,000 an acre before December 20 is now worth about $500 — land which was obviously capable of development, but which was in the farm sector and would have stayed in the farm sector if this Government could have shown the farmer that his business would be profitable. If it had ever held out the slightest glimmer of hope to the farmer that his business would become profitable — if not this crop year then the next one — then he could have enjoyed his land in the way in which he wishes, namely farming.

I know that there has been an attempt on the part of the Government — and particularly the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) — to suggest that the farmers are somehow or other greedy land speculators. Yet, I am advised by senior members of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture that overwhelming response to this order-in-council has been communicated to the federation and that the farmers indicate clearly that they do not wish to sell their land; that they support the retention of their land in agriculture; that they oppose the urban sprawl; that they would like to see returned to agriculture those lands which heretofore have been taken out of that area.

So, it is not possible for the Minister to suggest that the farmer is at fault in respect to urban sprawl, except to the extent that after reaching the age of 50 or more — and the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in her earlier remarks in this debate, indicated what the statistics were…that more than 50 per cent of the farmers in this province are over 50 years of age, all approaching the time when they would like to retire from active farming, from the labour and the drudgery that is involved in the production of farm products, to enjoy their declining years — yet they are not able to retire under the present situation unless they dispose of their land. That's the glimmer of hope. That's the hand that they're looking to have extended to them by this Government.

Let us enjoy the use of our land as farms. Let us be assured that we will be able to pass on our businesses, either to our families or to others who

[ Page 196 ]

would become engaged in agriculture, as a valuable business. Don't force us into the position of having to dispose of our lands in order to sustain ourselves in our retirement years.

Yes, the amendment is a good one. I suppose the greatest criticism that I can level against this Government in this respect is that in this action on their behalf they have taken away this freedom from one narrow section of our society — a section of our society which has always performed its responsibilities, which has suffered from vagaries of weather, which have endeavoured to fulfill their role, which have constantly asked Government for assistance which they must have but never more than they needed to have, and which have always been faced by Government with refusals.

It's been well known that over the years, under the previous administration, the budget for the Department of Agriculture was the lowest of any of the departments, or almost as low — in the neighbourhood of one half of one per cent of the total budgetary moneys expended by this province. The Department of Agriculture has always been hindered from performing its responsibilities to the farmers and to the people of British Columbia in the fullest possible way. As a result we have some strange anomalies.

In the Pemberton Valley, a part of my constituency, there is a fine farming area, it is a disease-free valley. As a consequence potato crops produced in that valley for seed purposes are renowned around the world. The Minister of Agriculture himself (Hon. Mr. Stupich) knows that the farmers in that community won six or seven major prizes at the Toronto Winter Fair.

The startling thing is that the Department of Agriculture and the Government have so badly treated the farmer that while seed potatoes are shipped from Pemberton Valley to Holland, to New Brunswick, to California and other areas throughout North America, the potatoes that are produced by those seed potatoes - in New Brunswick, for example — are processed in New Brunswick and sold back in this province. That's right. But nothing is done to indicate to the farmers in this area that this Government is prepared to extend its hand and say, "Look, as well as producing outstanding seed potatoes for distribution around the world, go ahead and produce the potatoes that the people in British Columbia want to eat. Expand your farming operation. Increase the economic return."

No assistance from the Government or from the department in that area. No changes with respect to the marketing facilities in British Columbia. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier, when he was sitting on the agricultural committee, spoke highly of our marketing board system.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the House to carry on the debate past the normal closing hour?

Leave granted.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the Department of Agriculture and this Government are going to improve the marketing facilities for farm products which would again increase the economic return to the farm and permit the farmer to enjoy better his own land.

Mr. Speaker, the examples are so many that I would suggest, whether this amendment is won or lost — and there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the same old thing will happen, that all of the private Members on the Government side will support the Government in the opposing of this amendment — but I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), who has now gone out in the hall … I would hope that he has gone out in the hall to draft another order-in-council to rectify the error that he has already made in the two previous orders-in-council, an error which I point out to him now and an error which can be rectified in only one way — by rescinding both of these orders.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak in support of this amendment, primarily because of the objection which I find in my constituency to the way in which the order was enacted. Without any consultation, Mr. Speaker, without bringing in any delegation, without any background, the council decided in short order to bring in an order-in-council which is devastating to the farming community — indeed, the greatest percentage of my constituency.

I suppose it would be in order to bring in as evidence this piece of literature here — which has your picture on it, Mr. Speaker … very nice. It has on it at the back here the picture of the legislative assembly which, by the look of it, looks like perhaps this picture was taken this afternoon about 3:20. The seats are all empty, Mr. Speaker.

But the reason I want to bring this particular piece of paper to your attention is that when I look at the members of the council, the Executive Council, Mr. Speaker, and I see their designation — that is their constituency designation, and I trust this is in order — I notice that they come from Vancouver-Burrard, Burnaby-Willingdon, Second Vancouver East, New Westminster, Revelstoke-Slocan — which is basically a mining-logging area — Atlin, Yale-Lillooet, Surrey, First Vancouver East, Coquitlam, Burnaby North,

[ Page 197 ]

Kootenay and Nanaimo. I wonder how that Executive Council, Mr. Speaker, could take it upon themselves to make this kind of a decision without any consultation.

I would have thought that they would have had the decency at least to call in perhaps the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. Their executives tell me they were not consulted. They were not even advised that a decision may be made in their area. Indeed, may I quote from the gentleman who came to speak to me. He said this: "I don't believe that the Government understands the subject." Indeed, he said, "I believe that they are incapable of finding an appropriate solution because they do not understand the subject."

I'd like to suggest that there should have been a public hearing, Mr. Speaker. I think that the farmers themselves could have perhaps shed a little light on this decision. I'm not here to say the decision shouldn't have been made. But I think that the people who could shed some light upon whether or not the decision should have been made are the farmers themselves.

Indeed, a public hearing would just give you a cross section of their opinion. But through their representative, the Federation of Agriculture, I think that we could have had at least an educated guess at what they wanted. I want to know, what do you suppose they would have found if they had had a public hearing? I think that they would have learned what apparently they are unaware of, and that is that the decision whether or not to stay on farmland right now is critical.

Farmers are having to decide on a daily basis — "is it possible for me to exist on an income that is below the average income of a man who is unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits? Can I stay on this farm or can I not stay on this farm?" I find in my research that 82 per cent of the farmers in British Columbia receive less than federal unemployment benefits. That's 82 per cent. Most of them are even below the current welfare rates. All of them are below $2 an hour.

I want you to know this is perhaps what could have been learned if we'd had a public hearing, Let's take a typical farm, not even a large farm, Mr. Speaker. Let's take one that's valued at perhaps $50,000, hardly bigger than some homes and not as big as some. Here's a little breakdown. I think that a reasonable return for investment perhaps could be assumed to be something on a parallel basis of what you would have to pay in order to get money to invest it. Let's say roughly 10 per cent.

On a $50,000 farm a farmer's return on his investment alone should be $5,000 a year. Now let's say the man is a farmer — and in the opinion of many, farmers are not worth very much by the hour. Let's say he should get at least the minimum wage — $2 an hour. At 8 hours a day, if he worked 8 hours a day, it's $16. But the truth is that the average farmer works 12 hours a day, from 6 in the morning till 8 in the evening and let's give him an hour for lunch and an hour for dinner. That means that he should be getting time and a half for the 4 hours. That gives him an extra $12. I'm not too smart but if you add those two together, that gives you $28 a day, Mr. Speaker.

He does that for 5 days a week — it should give him $140 a week, if it were that he only worked 5 days a week. But, Hon. Members, he works 7 days a week and for Saturday and Sunday, should he belong to a union, he would be getting double time, because, you see, his overtime has already been put in. So he gets double time for Saturday and Sunday and he should be getting $64 for those two days. You add the two together and here we are — we're at $204. That's if he worked at it by himself. Now you can't show me a farm, Mr. Speaker, that is valued at $50,000 that a man can run by himself. He usually runs it together with his wife.

I agree, in this instance, with the movement that talks about equal rights for women. I believe that she should earn exactly the same amount of money as the man does. I believe that if you add what she ought to earn to what he ought to earn, you get it all together and it looks to me that they should earn $10,000 a year apiece. Just giving them their return for their overtime.

Two of them plus their return for their investment — it's 2 times 10 plus 5 and you get 25 — I worked that out — it's actually $26,208 a year. If we could guarantee every farmer $26,208 a year, there's no way you could get him off of his land. No way. And if we'd had a public hearing, we could have learned some of these things and perhaps the decision that we made would have been an unnecessary decision. I'm just suggesting it.

If we'd had a public hearing we would have found out what are some of the repercussions of making a decision such as we have just made. We would have learned what the realtors are already saying to me. That is that the land valuation of the land that is non-agricultural — this is the land that does not come under the freeze — has already escalated in the few short days that have come between the order-in-council and the day of the information. It's getting to the place where you won't be able to afford to buy the land that is available. I want to know what really triggered this ill-fated order in the first place.

When I listen to the explanations that come from the Government side, I have to conclude that really what precipitated this whole decision was that there was fear that farmland would not be preserved at all. I hear another statement that says there's a fear that perhaps there would be blacktop on every square inch of land, starting with Vancouver and running up the Fraser Valley and the Cariboo and over the whole

[ Page 198 ]

province — blacktop. Ludicrous.

Some of the people say, "Well, the reason why we want to have this land preserved is because we want to stop urban spreading. We don't want to have every square inch of land eventually zoned residential, or even rural residential. We want to stop the development of housing. That's why we need this order."

I'm wondering if one of the reasons for this ill-fated order - surely not — is that they would want to halt the capitalization of the farmers. Surely they wouldn't want to stop the farmer from selling his land. That's not what they are really after. I don't believe that the reason why this decision was made was really to devaluate the land. Or was it? Could it be that in the acquisition, or at least the desire for acquisition of land, that the socialist mind could conceive a plan whereby you could devaluate the land so that it could be obtainable?

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do you suppose that the whole reason for the construction of this order-in-council was to force the farmer off of his land and do it all in the guise of trying to keep him on his land? Well, I'll leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I just want to know this — can the plan work? Can we stop urban spreading? I believe that it is the right of every individual to live where he wishes. I do not believe that we can create a fence high enough around the borders of British Columbia to keep them out of here.

The growth's phenomenal in this province. It has been quoted on both sides of the House in my hearing even in this session. It goes without saying that housing must be provided for those who wish to live here. What do you suppose is an answer? I have dedicated myself in these days that even though I shall sit in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, I shall seek to be constructive in every instance. In this instance, I would like to say this. Why don't we consider this as an answer — if development of land really is as lucrative as we have heard that it could be, then why don't we as a government get into the act? Why don't we become the land developers? Why don't we develop the land that we do not wish to have spread onto by urbanization. Let's conserve the land that we want to conserve for agriculture.

I don't know what it's like in everyone's constituency. I haven't had the opportunity to travel to all — most but not all. But in my constituency, we've got acres and acres and square miles and square miles of land that could never be used for agriculture. It's some of the most desirable land that you could wish to have for residential sites — make British Properties look like Mickey Mouse — desirable land sites. But I say this — why don't we as the Government say, "O.K. Let's go up into these areas where the desirable living sites are and why don't we put in the curbs and the gutters. Why don't we put in the streets and the lights and why don't we sell these lots to the people who wish to live in British Columbia for a price no higher than they would have to pay for a lot if they wanted to subdivide agricultural land? Provide an incentive for him to live on the slopes rather than on the flat lands. Not only that, but let's make it so that the taxes on that property would be no higher than they would be on the flat land."

I would suggest that when you put the whole plan together — I'll draw it up for you if you wish — you would have everyone living where they wish they could live, on a view lot. They could have lower taxes than they would have if they lived on the flat lands or agricultural land. You would end up with a happy solution, in my opinion. You wouldn't have to freeze agricultural land at all.

They'd all be living on property that looked like those British Properties and the farmer could have his land down below. Then the only thing that would be left to do is that we should guarantee to the farmer an increase to his income on an annual basis which is tantamount to the increase that the labour force receives — let's say roughly 6.5 per cent per year. I want you to know we'd have the happiest bunch of farmers in the world. We'd have more farmland in British Columbia than we have ever had before. They'd be chasing us off of our view lots, Mr. Speaker, and planting potatoes up there. Thank you.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, speaking to this amendment, I am definitely in favour of the amendment. True, it does not directly affect many of the people in my riding but I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the principle is wrong.

We do have a bill of rights for Canada which does guarantee the enjoyment of land. One of my friends who likes to play around with statistics — so perhaps we can get this matter down where it belongs — tells me that if we were to take the entire population of Canada and place it in Vancouver at the density of London, England, we would not extend as far as Abbotsford. It kind of makes you realize where we live and the size of the land in which we live.

But, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hour is late and that there are many MLA's who would like to go home tonight and that some of them live across the water and that we do not yet have a late night ferry and some of us do not have access to Government aircraft, I would like to move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that we can take the motion for adjournment. The House has granted leave to continue the debate. No,

[ Page 199 ]

we can't accept the adjournment. There wasn't a dissenting voice.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, there was. There was a dissenting voice and the Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: I dissented, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Was there a dissenting vote to sitting after 6 o'clock? I wish you had drawn it to my attention because I would have taken note of that. So you have the motion to adjourn. Hon. Members, there is a motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House. You can't say the next sitting of the House after today — you have to say the next sitting of the House. That's settled later. You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS-13

NAYS-28

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to detect a note of weariness in your voice.

MR. SPEAKER: More hunger than weariness.

MRS. JORDAN: We hope that you won't be too tired during this debate but it is so important.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll send out for a bartender.

MRS. JORDAN: We just had a comment from the other side of the House, the Government side of the House, in fact the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that we were a "Cadillac Opposition" because we wanted to talk about the concerns of the farmer. I would suggest that he look around and see that he has probably a Cadillac Cabinet where many of the Ministers such as the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. A.B. Macdonald), a Vancouver Member, who should be …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, would you confine yourself to the actual terms of the amendment proposed which deals with the fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property? I don't think it includes discussing the property of the Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: I wasn't discussing the property, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very significant that on this amendment to the Speech from the Throne, which is so glaring in its omission of what the fundamental philosophy of this Government is — the confiscation of lands by zoning and the expropriation of democratic rights — that the Ministers of the Cabinet are not here to indulge in the debate. And if not indulge in the debate, at least listen to it.

It's very significant that the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, under whose jurisdiction a good deal of this debate should be falling, is not here. I think it's very significant, as we are being criticized by the Premier and the Members of his Government, for debating and bringing to the attention of the public the concerns of the people of British Columbia for the preservation of democratic rights and the right conferred by the Canadian Bill of Rights, that there are so many of the Government Members absent. And it surprises me that the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who represents an agricultural area, is not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, this has nothing to do with the question before the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to stick to the question before the House or take her seat. "

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that in speaking to this amendment and in light of the absence of so many of the Government Members that it's very important that we make clear that the Social Credit Opposition — and I am sure the other Opposition Members as they have spoken — are fully for the preservation of greenbelts and the preservation of agricultural industry in British Columbia, and do not lose sight of that, Mr. Speaker, during this debate.

What we do debate is the manner in which it was

[ Page 200 ]

done and brought about. And I do find it very disturbing, and I can really only use the term "tragic", in describing the need for this amendment to the Speech from the Throne. It's tragic that the first document of philosophy of this — as described by the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the new Attorney General of a bright, shiny new Government, must be amended in order to make the public of British Columbia aware; in order to make the majority of the media aware; and indeed in order to make many of the Members of the New Democratic Party as they sit in this Government aware of what a drastic situation their own cabinet has created for many people in British Columbia.

The public and the media —

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It shows what confidence they have in me, Mr. Minister. I notice there weren't very many present when you were there. It's significant that there were only four Ministers present during the Minister of Health's speech (Hon. Mr. Cocke) yesterday.

The public, Mr. Speaker, the media and the private Members of the NDP must understand that the fundamental right as it has been by tradition, as it is under the democratic system, and as it was enshrined by the Canadian Bill of Rights to own reasonable property, private property in British Columbia and Canada — whether it's a 60 x 100 ft lot in the City of Vancouver, Fort St. John, Nanaimo, with a private home on it; whether it be a farm home in any part of this province, the Kootenays, northern Vancouver Island, or whether it's a small or even a large commercial property — this right is being eroded by this cabinet. And if you become part of that cabinet in your decision, to carry through with their intent that they have displayed by these two orders-in-council which are under discussion, then we will have an Act of confiscation of land and the confiscation of rights. This is an Act of confiscation of the Canadian Bill of Rights which was brought in by a democratic parliament by representatives, discussed, voted on and passed by representatives of the people of Canada, some from British Columbia, just as you and I are in this Legislature.

This right has been violated by these orders-in-council. Not even by an Act of this Legislature. Not even by discussion in this Legislature by we who should be able to convey to a large degree the feelings of the people of British Columbia on such a vital issue. But by a cabinet order-in-council by a few select Ministers of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, they used section 6 of the Environmental Act of British Columbia to justify this. When this Act was before this Legislature, those very Members said that there were no teeth in the Act, that it couldn't accomplish what should be done, and that it left the Government powerless, and yet those Members today in this House — and we see witness in orders-in-council of their action — used that section to destroy the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia, without an apology or as I said before without a discussion.

The point should be brought up. Mr. Speaker, that if they used that section with the power it conveys, they either as Cabinet Ministers did not understand the power that it has and what they were doing — and for this they should be standing up in this debate and apologizing to the people of British Columbia, I'm sure they would understand — or those people who did do it and do bear the responsibility for this Act did it knowingly. For that they should hang their heads in shame.

These are the same people who voted on this section, saying that it did not have any teeth. Did they not know then what they were voting on? Or were they playing political games? For this they should hang their heads in shame.

That section was put into that Act in order to give a wise government the necessary power that it has to have at times to make difficult decisions. But always, Mr. Speaker, only on an emergency basis and always after a public hearing.

The Hon. Liberal Member from West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) made oblique references to the fact that the Social Credit government had indeed put a freeze on the Gulf Islands. But only after consultation with the people on the islands and their direct elected representatives, who wanted the freeze in order to have time to assess the area and plan properly for their area. Certainly there were problems … we knew when we brought it in there would be problems. But they were problems that could be controlled in the future, not the complex problems that this government has unleashed by its freeze.

Always, the Social Credit government recognized that the Environmental and Land Use Act was designed, and Hansard records clearly that it was, to be the instrument through which public participation and debate could be fostered in terms of controlling the quality of our environment.

Section 6 was designed in order that catastrophic situations could be handled by the government immediately through order-in-council. But only catastrophic situations, and only in an extreme emergency.

In broader environmental planning terms, section 6 was never designed to be the instrument through which vicious regulatory authority could be exercised behind the closed doors of a cabinet chamber, with as we believe not all Cabinet Ministers present.

In every situation where section 6 was used by the Social Credit government, a public hearing was held prior to the introduction of any land use decision. I

[ Page 201 ]

would like to cite some examples.

Ocean Cement: there was a public hearing by the Department of Municipal Affairs, chaired by the then Minister (Hon. Mr. Campbell).

Richmond Hydro Line: a public hearing by the then Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford).

In the Somenos Lake Log fuel disposal, a public hearing was chaired by the then Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) — all public … area, and as it fits into the provincial picture, which of the public time and the opportunity to present their views, and then when the order was brought in, it was with general public consensus, and with fair warning to the people.

It must be brought home clearly to the public who don't understand and who haven't been too interested in politics. It must be made clear to the private NDP members who live in the cities, and who haven't been directly concerned with the impact of these orders-in-council. We don't blame you for that — you can't know everything — but we do ask you to listen and to be concerned. It must be brought home to the other members of the media that — as supported by the statements of various Ministers of the NDP Government, and as supported by many private Members of the NDP Government, as espoused at their NDP Convention, and as witnessed by these actions — the fundamental philosophy of the NDP Government in British Columbia today is to do away with private ownership of land.

We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that the Speech from the Throne was so bare of any philosophy, and needed amending, was because the Premier and the cabinet were deeply concerned that the public should not know the impact of their philosophy and they should not know where they were going. We would suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that there is strong evidence to support the thought that they were not overly concerned about whether their own Members in this Legislature fully realized the impact of their actions and where they were really going.

I assure you the Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has stated publicly — and if he's not here to speak perhaps I may just take the liberty of passing on this information — that he opposes the way that the Government has handled this situation and he opposes the dictatorial attitude that the cabinet has taken, and he opposes the erosion of the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.

It is a tragic day for British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I won't use a colour of any kind because it's too serious in nature. It is a tragic day for British Columbia when the official Opposition and the other Opposition must amend the Speech from the Throne in order to bring before this Legislature a debate of such vital nature as the preservation of democratic rights and the private ownership of land.

I would suggest that history will record that this glaring omission, be it intentional or accidental, by the NDP Government, will lead to its ultimate demise, because the people of British Columbia will not stand for the erosion of their democratic rights, and make no mistake about it. This is still a democracy, and it's our responsibility, and through you, Mr. Speaker, your responsibility and your responsibility to see that the rights of the people you represent are preserved in this Legislature.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Hear, hear!

MRS. JORDAN: I hope that the Member from Delta, who applauded my statement that the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia should be preserved will stand up and speak in this debate.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They've been silenced.

MRS. JORDAN: Another point that must be clearly pointed out to the media — those who have not yet understood the situation — and the public, and the private Members of the NDP, is that the use of section 6 and the use of the section of the Municipal Act, as exemplified by the order-in-council on January 18, has literally taken away the authority of municipal councils and the regional districts. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Premier have run around the length, width and breadth of British Columbia saying, "There's no way to control these lands, they're being gobbled up." Just like he's gobbling up that apple or whatever it is right now. I hope he enjoys it and I hope it's an Okanagan pear.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Creston!

MRS. JORDAN: We'll accept the Creston pear too. But the point is that all these bodies have been given statutory authority by this Legislature to encourage their people and to undertake zoning and planning as it reflected the wishes of people in that area, and as it fits into the provincial picture, which of necessity must meet society's requirements. These people are elected by the local areas. They have public meetings. They know what's going on and there have been some very, very successful plans brought in in British Columbia. Not by order-in-council, jack booted, steel heeled, non-knowing cabinet Ministers, but by the people themselves. I'll speak for the area that I represent.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not usual nor accepted in this House to refer to anyone in the House as jack booted if it is meant by that in a term

[ Page 202 ]

of insult.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant jack boot policies, steel heeled policies. I wouldn't want to hurt the Members of the cabinet, who incidentally are all absent except four. Ten cabinet Ministers absent while this very important issue is being debated —

HON. MR. BARRETT (Premier): Where's the Official Leader of the Opposition?

MRS. JORDAN: — the preservation of the people's rights. I guess we have a one man Government in the NDP. All the other cabinet Ministers go home because they are not going to have a say. Are you, through you Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier — the man responsible for those orders-in-council? Is this what we're finding out in this debate, Mr. Speaker? That, in fact, the cabinet didn't have anything to do with that order-in-council. It was the Premier of this province — The NDP Premier …

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the chair.

MRS. JORDAN: … Mr. Speaker, who usurped the rights of the people of British Columbia and the rights to private property.

I would speak about a zoning and development plan that we have in the North Okanagan, and it's been examined and acclaimed by many people much wiser in this area than I, and I might add the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who doesn't know the difference by his own confession between zoning and planning, as being one of the finest examples of not only people input and acceptance and participation, but of a zoning and planning programme for such a vital area. And it wasn't done by force.

There were all kinds of meetings, all kinds of advisory committees from people from all walks of life, of all interests and when it was finally put together, then people went out to public meetings in all districts, not just the regional districts as they were designated, but living rooms and small halls to discuss the plan. The planner was there at every one of them. He was there and they were there to answer the people's questions, to tell them what the complications would be, and there was no kidding about it. They knew, when they were zoned into 10 acres, or 20 acres, or 5 acres, or 2½ acres, that that was the ball game. We didn't even have to have a vote about it. Well, we didn't play up the flexibility aspect frankly, Mr. Speaker. Everyone recognized that times change.

But what we wanted to get across to the people, when they had given us their confidence, was that there weren't going to be exceptions to the zoning, as there have been exceptions to the orders-in-council passed by this Government. I think that this is extremely important and this is one of the very vital things that will keep democracy going — is that as we get into this highly complex area of zoning and planning, where we all know everyone is going to have to give, and probably everyone is going to take a financial loss on paper, if not in fact, that the public and we must have confidence in it, and it must be above board.

There can be no exceptions, because if you develop a programme where people must make individual sacrifices fairly and for the whole, I believe and we believe they'll do this, but if you cheat on that, and you destroy their confidence, then you'll destroy democracy. Then we will need the type of order-in-council that this Government brought in.

Reference has been made to the bill of rights, and the fact that this bill, this legislation, is in Canada and has been violated. I find this astonishing when many Members in previous debates in this session have spoken well and very emotionally, and I'm sure most sincerely, about what the bill of rights of the Province of British Columbia should contain, The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), as well as many Hon. Members from the Social Credit Opposition have talked in great detail about man's humanity to man. And they have talked in great detail about justice for all. They have all recognized, as we all recognize, that you can't legislate justice — that, in fact, it's the actions of people one to the other that will bring about what we all want which is true man's humanity to man.

We must recognize also — and it has been debated by these people — that it is the actions and priorities of government that will help foster a much more widespread people action of man's humanity to man. Yet at the very time, Mr. Speaker, that these discussions were taking place in this House, yet at the very time this Government in its Speech from the Throne is proposing a bill of rights, the Premier of this province and his Ministers have confiscated the Canadian Bill of Rights and have violated the rights to personal property and the democratic right to the vote.

I would suggest to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that he has just come back from the United States with great admiration for the Americans now — he says — that he examined their Bill of Rights. He will find that in the Bill of Rights of the United States it says it forbids the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law or the taking of private property for the public use without just compensation.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier went to the United States, he came back rather buoyant. They had discussions about matters concerning the coast and

[ Page 203 ]

oil spills. But what the farmers of this province want to know in the defence of their rights is, did the Premier have discussions about agriculture? It may come as news …

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it is very difficult to follow that line of debate on the amendment that is before the House. I think you are exceeding the bounds by discussing what happened in Washington.

MRS. JORDAN: I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that this is one of the problems that even you yourself don't understand — the problems of agriculture. Because one of the greatest problems for a farmer in getting a fair return for his produce is the erosion of the Canadian market by American produce, with particular reference to the apples from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier may think it's funny not to talk about agriculture and this marketing problem down there and he may think it's funny to tell the Americans that they have bad breath. But I have news for him, Mr. Speaker. They think he has bad manners and the farmers in this province think he took a bad trip.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the matter of the amendment before the House has nothing to do with what you are discussing. You want some proposals for recognizing and declaring that in British Columbia has existed and shall continue to exist the fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property, and you're talking about crops in Washington. Would you kindly come back to the question before the House.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem in agriculture and in making agriculture economically viable in British Columbia is, as I mentioned before, the erosion of the Canadian market by imports, including imports from Washington.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I have news for the Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster). Those imports are in our stores today.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): You guys sent them in.

MRS. JORDAN: There's been some concern in this Legislature and at meetings where the Minister of Agriculture has been, that this issue is becoming emotional. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it was a grave error and a grave erosion of their individual rights when the Minister of Agriculture, who had violated the bill of rights himself, accused those farmers whose rights had been violated, of being emotional when he, on a public platform, condemned them for being emotional.

Mr. Speaker, union leaders and union members become emotional when they feel that their rights have been violated and quite rightly so. That NDP has supported them at all times through their emotionalism and the Social Credit Opposition have supported them should their rights have been violated. Why then shouldn't the farmer become emotional?

Suddenly, under the NDP Government, it has become bad to show emotion. We have already experienced that the word "profit" is bad in the NDP mind. Now we're going to experience that the word "emotional" is wrong in the NDP mind when one's rights are violated.

The farmer's position today is that of a trade unionist of 50 years ago. Overnight, while they were believing in the principles of what the Government was trying to do — that they and the Government were working on together and trying to operate as one person with the other — they find that they are without their rights to possession, without their rights to a fair return for their labours and their work. All this happening without a guarantee for a market for their produce.

The NDP cabinet literally brought in a signed contract without any negotiation, without those who were affected by the contract having any idea what their hours of work would be, what their pension rights would be, what their benefits would be — if you want to talk about this in union terms. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't a union member in British Columbia or a union leader who would have accepted this type of a contract and who would accept this situation and who, while being called "emotional" by the very Minister involved and who, while at the same time that they've been imprisoned in this contract, find the Premier of the province telling the people to boycott their produce, would still extend that Premier and that Minister a courteous reception and a very informative reception when he visited with them.

MR. CHABOT: Where's the free collective bargaining?

MRS. JORDAN: Right. Where is the free collective bargaining for the farmers of British Columbia?

I think it is right to point out to those Members whom we are trying to get to understand, that even with these odds against them and even with the Premier boycotting their products, that when the Minister met with them, the farmers admitted that he had backed them into a corner and they admitted that they were down and he had asked them to bargain without faith, that they offered him a welcome — even to the point where there was a greeting at one of the meetings, an orderly greeting — but in that

[ Page 204 ]

meeting there were two signs which I don't think anyone would have liked to have seen there. They were personal and this is not a personal matter with the Minister. It's a matter with policy. At this very meeting one of the farmers got up and apologized to the Minister for those two signs — not for the farmers being there to greet him, not for the farmers making their point in an orderly way — but those two signs.

And these people listened to the Minister when he made his presentation and I listened. It was a very fine presentation. It was a very reasonable presentation. He said that he hadn't understood the complexities of what the orders were doing and he hadn't understood the complexities of the agricultural industry, not only in British Columbia but as the British Columbia agricultural industry related to Canada and international trade. This was fair enough. He said that he hadn't understood how deeply concerned they would be, that he was new, that he would need time. This was fair enough also. They were very fair to him. They listened and he ended his plea with the same "Trust me". This was fair enough too, I guess.

They did trust him. But as the day wore on, they wondered what type of policy they had put their trust in. Because they found out that the major announcements relating to the bill that we hope will come into this House — that it was in its fourth draft, as one example — was not made one day later at one of three agricultural meetings, but it was made before a group of 60 young New Democratic Party supporters.

In trying to trust the Minister, they wondered why he would make such an important agricultural announcement one day before meeting with them at a political meeting. They wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether he was using this very crucial bill as a means of bolstering the political fortunes of the party with these young non-taxpaying New Democrats — making them see how democratic it was to draft a bill four times. Or whether, in fact, he was reluctant to make this announcement before the concerned people who recognize that the re-drafting of this bill over and over again, rather than being a mark of democracy and public participation — because he would not see people related to the bill — was in fact an admission that the complexities of what they have done have completely baffled this Government.

Anyway, in accord with his willingness to listen at that time they thought, and his plea to trust him, they spent three full hours very reasonably explaining to him what their problems were — and in light of time I won't go into them — but they were trying to make the Government understand that you cannot just freeze agriculture, that the individual families not only have their liberties at stake but many financial obligations.

The solving of the agricultural problem in British Columbia and making it a viable, economically realistic industry is beyond the jurisdiction of the province. I don't mean to say that there aren't things the provincial Government has done and the new one can do — indeed there are. But essentially it is so wrapped up under the power of federal legislation and international trade problems, that this Government can't solve these problems overnight.

There have been no indications from the federal government that they are going to change their policy in this regard. Therefore it should have been obvious to the Premier and his Cabinet that they couldn't, no matter how much they wanted to, make agriculture a viable and economically sound industry overnight. But as these people got up to speak — some of them Portuguese people that had only been in Canada 8 or 10 years, some of them Italians, some of them German, there were even some English people there — they did their very best…I think there were some Frenchmen there too…they did their very best, Mr. Speaker, to say in their own way what their fears were and what their problems were.

And at 10:30 the Minister got up to speak and I must refer directly through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister at this time. Instead of having listened to their problems or even appeared to have been receptive to their problems, he literally went up one side of them and down the other — these very people who not eight hours before have heard this Government through their Minister say: "Trust me, give me time"…. . and he'd come out a winner from that speech — he literally shattered them. As for asking for their trust and confidence after some of the things that he said it is utterly incredible.

MR. CHABOT: A man you can trust, that was his election slogan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform this House that the Government, the Cabinet through its Ministers, replied after all their serious concerns that the only thing that came through to him was that the farmers in British Columbia, the tree fruit growers in the Okanagan, were land speculators.

What utter, utter nonsense, and how deaf this Government must be to their genuine concern. After they have made clear that they supported a greenbelt policy, they wanted to see a viable agricultural industry in British Columbia, that the last thing they wanted to do was leave their farms. Because if they had they would have sold them long ago. They wanted to stay on the land, and they wanted their children on the land.

The Minister called them subdividers. This Government, Mr. Speaker, through their Minister actually criticized the composition of their resolutions. What the Minister and what the Government don't understand is that the very policy, the foundation, of these

[ Page 205 ]

people which happened to be the B.C. Tree Fruits Growers Association, is that their resolution committee does not alter resolutions. They're a truly democratic organization who are there to serve the producers, the growers, nobody else.

No English teachers, no economic advisors, no bankers, no government people. It functions and exists solely to serve the producers. The very essence of democracy in this type of an organization is complete freedom of speech and expression. For the composition of their resolutions to be criticized I say was a tragedy at the politest. It was a very uncalled for and cruel putdown of many very sincere, frightened producers in this province.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Why do you look so tired?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not tired Mr. Minister of Labour.

I was just trying to decide if I would go back onto the subject of the right of the farmers as they would relate if they were a labour union. The fact that, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is taking this matter so lightly, makes me recall to mind the fact that at a public conference this Minister of Labour said "Unionize everybody, organize everybody." One can wonder, in light of this amendment to the Speech from the Throne, whether in fact the Minister of Labour's words for this steel-heeled Government are "organize everybody or we won't listen to you."

HON. MR. KING: He gets paid by the mile with a guarantee every month too.

MRS, JORDAN: Again the Minister of Labour seems to think this is a joke. And with the absence of one, two, three, four, five, six Cabinet Ministers at this serious debate, the Minister of Labour laughed after we questioned him about whether or not the policy of the NDP Government is: "Farmers, become a union then we will listen to you. Don't be individual. Don't be an organization because we won't listen to you then . …"

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would draw to your attention the standing order of this House that deals with repetition of debate. I wish you would get on. If you have any new points, get on with them. Otherwise, would you kindly take your seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I think I have introduced a number of new points into this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I have been ticking them off.

MRS. JORDAN: Am I detecting a note of annoyance from the Chair, Mr. Speaker'?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, when you go back to what you have already debated, it is taking advantage of the situation, is it not?

MRS. JORDAN: Are we to be subjected in this House to the stifling of debate? To go back to the union aspect I must say that I am amazed that under this crisis that we are facing in British Columbia …

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I try to be patient on this, but I remind you of standing order 40 and the paragraph 2 that says: "No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of the House nor shall he speak beside the question in debate." I have drawn you to order several times on that point and I don't want to continue having to do that. I have my remedy if you will not stay by the question … that is to ask you to take your seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if you would listen I am trying to develop a viewpoint to this avenue. My point is, if you had given me time to come to it, that I am amazed that some of the union leaders in British Columbia have not spoken out on this issue, this erosion of individual rights in British Columbia. While the farmers, it must be recognized, are not a union and are not union members I should think that the union leaders who wish to preserve democracy and the democratic rights would come to their aid without suggesting that they should be a union — and that they would speak out to the NDP Government and to express their concern for the injustices that have been done in this province.

They wouldn't be contrary to policy. They have spoken out on many issues such as pollution and recreation. I am confident if they fully understood the impact and the erosion within these orders-in-council and the hardships that are being caused by the actions of this Government that they would indeed — and I would think particularly Mr. Lawson — would indeed come out and come forward and speak on this subject, and that they would indeed speak out and make clear to the people of British Columbia what in fact is going to be done if this Government is not rolled back as witness the evidence of their actions.

Mr. Speaker, in summing up …

Well, the Hon. Member for Dewdney, the minister who pleaded for human rights yesterday, finds it very humorous at 10 after seven on Friday night.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you kindly be seated?

The Hon. Member has drawn the attention of the Speaker to the clock, and therefore I have no other course open but to adjourn the House until 8 o'clock, which I now do.

The House took recess at 7: 11 p.m.

[ Page 206 ]

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(Continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan was on her feet when we adjourned.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I was about to sum up what we would like to see result from this debate when the House was adjourned. I would like to continue in that vein and through you, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Premier of this province and his cabinet and ask them to stop right now, at this very moment, their policy of erosion of private lands and democratic rights by order-in-council in British Columbia.

We would like to ask them to withdraw their policy of abolishing private ownership of land …

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Aw, come on!

MRS. JORDAN: … either from homes or small businesses, recreational or agricultural lands, and for this Government to bring in on Monday, the next possible sitting of this House, greenbelt agricultural legislation as they have promised before and not done.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they should sit down and negotiate in good faith with the farmers. If the Government does not have that legislation, then take the current greenbelt legislation brought in by the Social Credit Government last year and expand it and amend it. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that that legislation has already spent, before August 30, 1972, $6 million in British Columbia to buy farmlands and other desirable lands for public use on a voluntary basis …

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): From friends of Social Credit.

MRS. JORDAN: … and with fair remuneration to the farmers. That comment, Mr. Speaker, from the Hon. Member for Richmond is hardly worth noticing.

We would like to ask the Government and we insist the Government abolish estate taxes and inheritance taxes and gift taxes.

When the legislation is in and passed, lift the freeze and give compensation for any losses incurred by the farmers through the Government's actions and order-in-council actions. Regarding the legislation we ask — in fact, demand — that they bring in an order to clear up this terrible cloud hanging over the farmers, we insist that the legislation should contain first option of notification of agricultural land sales to the Government and that the Government should have the option to purchase this land at a fair market price.

We would like to see this legislation preserve the right for agricultural land to change hands from family to family or within a family for agricultural purposes without Government interference. That land should remain in the hands of those owners, whether they are sons and daughters or whether they are farmers on the farm, as long as that land is kept operating under acceptable farm practices.

We ask that any land which has been frozen and affected through this freeze that is removed from agricultural use, either by the Government or by a municipality, then that the farmer should receive fair market price for that land, Mr. Speaker, if it is the Government policy to continue a land freeze in agriculture or a freeze on any lands classed under the Canada Land Inventory Act as 1, 2, 3 or 4, that all lands and the families now frozen and affected by this freeze receive equal benefits in regard to marketing, income and tax benefits. If it is going to be the Government policy to interfere with any phase of income and democratic rights of the farmers, then we ask that all producers in British Columbia today receive a guarantee of production costs as it relates to British Columbia production costs.

We ask that all British Columbia farmers — if the Government is to continue a land freeze policy — receive a guaranteed minimum income plus overtime, holiday pay and other fringe benefits retroactive to January 18 and the order-in-council.

If it is the Government policy to freeze people on the farm or on the land, then we ask that all producers receive an annual return on their experience and job-training — and that would be on-the-job training on the farm. This annual return should be comparable to other sectors of society, such as teachers, hydro employees and other union workers. There should be an annual increase and this annual increase should be based on the average experienced wage index in other sectors of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the Government to do what we ask now and provide restitution for the damage that they have caused and fair and equal treatment to the people of British Columbia and the farmers.

The Opposition wish to make it very clear that in opposing the manner in which this Government has acted that we are steadfast in our belief, as we were before the election, that we want a viable agricultural industry in British Columbia. The farmers — and we are speaking for them tonight — want a live agricultural industry in British Columbia.

The Opposition — as they did before the election and proved it by their actions — are firmly convinced and steadfast in their belief and statement that they want greenbelts in British Columbia. And the farmers

[ Page 207 ]

want greenbelts in British Columbia. We want and the farmers want and I believe the people of British Columbia want this programme to be carried out in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. Speaker, we as legislators and members of society must respond to the farmer, as he is part of our society, and we must protect the individual under the Canadian Bill of Rights. With this in mind and in light of the actions taken by this Government and the concern that there is in British Columbia, we ask the Government and the Premier to publicly acknowledge the right to reasonable private ownership of land by British Columbians in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a myth to say that farmers are the only sufferers in this legislation. The fact is there and when you look at the classes of the Canada Land Inventory — 1, 2, 3, 4 — and see that it includes even the lands within the City of Vancouver, then you know that all the people and all the rights of the people in British Columbia are affected by their actions in a fundamental way.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You make it sound like a song title, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, while I'm not impressed with the spectacle of Friday-night power plays between the two major political groups in this House …

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Clean!

MR. CURTIS:…. . which reminds me of the '50's and the '60's, and while I'm also not satisfied …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: I was quiet, Mr. Speaker, while madam Member spoke.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: While I'm also not satisfied with the vagueness which has watered down the intent of a fairly good amendment which is being debated tonight, I do rise in support of it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CURTIS: I'll do so as briefly as possible, unlike some of the previous speakers, and I hope also without some of the oratorical fervour which we heard earlier in the afternoon.

At issue in this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is a vital and a basic philosophical difference between the socialist and the Progressive Conservative. In fact, it is the difference. We object, Mr. Speaker, to government by order-in-council. We would have objected when it was employed so often by the previous Government and there must be no doubt in this House that we object to it again tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: what was the hurry to rush this order-in-council into print just a few weeks prior to the spring session of this Legislature? How much better to have outlined the proposed policy of the need for control of farmland in the throne speech — which could have used a little padding, Mr. Speaker — and then to have referred it to a committee of the House.

Again, as I did yesterday, it's necessary to point out the very disturbing absence of consultation with the farmer in all parts of the province and with his Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, farmers are not British Columbia Telephone Company. They're not General Motors. They're not West Coast Transmission. They're not MacMillan-Bloedel. They are individual citizens of this Province of British Columbia referred to very sympathetically and effectively, I felt, in the remarks by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), as men and women who have worked hard, who have withstood adversity and have put up with more than 20 years of government callousness and indifference — put up with it for more years than they really want to remember.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the order-in-council which is being debated in this amendment is the first, and I would guess not the last, serious error in judgment to be made by this inexperienced Government. I have the very firm conviction that more than one person in the New Democratic benches tonight wishes that it were possible to turn back the clock to around December I last year, before this particular arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive order-in-council was ever committed to print. The vague promises and the soothing reassurances which have been offered since that date are simply not good enough and have done nothing to reassure the farmer, the rancher, the orchardist and his family.

The municipality which I represent in civic government, Mr. Speaker, is split fairly evenly into urban and rural portions and, as most Members would know, the riding which I represent is very largely rural. I met with a delegation of municipal representatives from Central Saanich Municipality this morning and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House tonight that those representatives are very concerned, deeply disturbed by this Government's hard-fisted and hurried moves against farmland.

I also agree with the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who told this House this afternoon about the awareness to be found, both in municipal councils and regional districts, with respect to the preservation of vital farmland. I fully endorse his

[ Page 208 ]

remarks.

I would also draw the attention of this House to the discussions which took place, particularly at the September, 1972, conference of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on the same topic. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this Government is not alone in its concern and its desire to identify the problem and find a solution. A number of municipalities in the province are acting to control the very same misuse of land which this Government had hoped to protect through this oppressive and all-encompassing piece of paper.

What an opportunity it was, Mr. Speaker. What a golden opportunity for this Government in its first few months in office to have done these things: to have identified the problem, to have consulted with those persons most directly involved, to have researched the question very thoroughly with municipalities and regional districts, and then to have presented to this assembly carefully considered, well reasoned regulations to achieve the desired effect. Instead, we see a Government which has moved, not in the assembly but through order-in-council, in a vicious manner against a group of men and women who deserve far better consideration and a greater appreciation of the problems, the many problems, that, they face.

The Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia calls upon the Government to reconsider its position in this matter and, as a result, I shall support the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be brief because, of course, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has spoken at some length outlining our party's position on this.

But I do feel that it is important that I also go on record pointing out why I feel that this amendment deserves support. Now I can quibble on wordings of it, but the intent is very clear. The intent is to criticize the Government, to bring a motion against the Government criticizing it for its handling of the land freeze question.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that Members on all sides of the House — certainly on the Opposition benches — all agree that there is a need to do something to make sure that farmland remains as farmland. This has been a stated policy of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. It's been the stated policy of my party and I'm sure other parties as well, including that of the Government. So I don't think that the principle of protection is in debate tonight. I see the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) finds it's very funny but it isn't funny, sir. It's a question of …

HON. MR. COCKE: It certainly isn't. Let's get on with it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Apparently it doesn't have the interest of the rest of your Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't know how many NDP Members have spoken, Mr. Premier, but I don't think it's a great number at this stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In any event, I don't think that there is much to dispute as to the objective of the two orders-in-council, but what is objected to is the manner that the Government has taken to try and preserve farmland by a ham-fisted, authoritarian and, we feel, a very unfair method.

The acres that are being taken out of farmland, variously described as 3,000 — some have said 1,500 — per year, but the fact of the matter is that there was no rapid increase in this. There was no reason for haste and, in this case, I feel the Government acted extremely hastily and without thought as to the consequences.

When it comes to changes in legislation dealing with labour, the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has informed this House that it was going to take a great deal longer than he had at first expected, and he has delayed his legislation because of the studies that are needed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, sir. Maybe I've misquoted you but I understood that the legislation on labour will not be coming forward as quickly as had previously been expected because of the delays that you had encountered.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well I understand there are other things. Perhaps you have further information which we didn't get in the throne speech, Mr. Premier. But I understand there are other amendments coming forward which we had expected earlier.

In any event, to return to this question, I feel that the same procedure might well here have been adopted. There's no question that you're dealing with a friendly group of people, a group of people who are willing to look for reasonable ways of protecting farmland. Instead, you have created a remarkable unanimity among their own organizations and their own organizations are opposing you very strongly on this, as are we. It is a question of principle. It's a

[ Page 209 ]

question of principles to whether the people, many of whom are elderly — the average age of farmers in British Columbia, I understand, is 50 — are being fairly treated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the average age is less than 50. I understand, and the Minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but at least 50 per cent of our farmers are 50 years of age or over. These people, in many cases, have been working their land at rates of return which are inadequate. I think that is, as outlined by the Member for Howe Sound, the basic problem that we're dealing with tonight — the problem of inadequate returns.

They have done this because they did expect that on selling their land to acquire a certain amount of capital gain which they could then use for their retirement years. These two orders-in-council have denied them this possibility. These orders-in-council are described as being a "positive approach" - I quote from the press release of the Department of Agriculture of December 22, 1972. Yet in my view, it's not positive but very regressive. Why were they not given the opportunity of discussing beforehand with the Government? Why was it not possible for them to have the option of bringing forward briefs to a committee of this House? Why was it not possible, in other words, to have open discussions with them?

Certainly, if it led to speculation it is quite easy to put in provisions dealing with that in the legislation itself. There's no difficulty there and people know it.

Instead of that, we have legislation — or at least I should say government by orders-in-council — which goes to the heart of the value of their land. The right that we feel should not have been taken away in this case, Mr. Speaker, was the right to sell their land for its fair value, for what it is worth. Obviously all farmland is not threatened. Obviously all farmland is not potential development land. But we do feel that where a man has land which he understands and has understood for many years and perhaps has purchased on the basis of holding for some future other use, perhaps he has taken mortgages out on the strength of a certain value of the land — to suddenly cut away the value of that land as has been done is highly unfair and is not a just way for a society to act toward a small group of its citizens.

We feel instead that the compensation provisions should have come out or at least there should have been indications of them at the same time. We know that it's a relatively short time since the orders-in-council came out, but we still have to see any sign of legislation from the Government side. A bill was brought in today, but not the one that we had hoped for. No details of the type of compensation that will be paid. The farmers, we feel, have cause for feeling concerned. There are statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (lion. Mr. Stupich) up at Osoyoos at the fruit growers' convention that worried them — where he denied that a man by the name of Claridge, one of their representatives and spokesman, actually represented them. This they disputed hotly with me when I was there. They said that their organizations and the leaders of their organizations indeed did have their confidence, and they felt that the Government's attempt to divide them up, to break them up, was something similar to the union-busting tactics which unions rightly criticize. They do feel that they have been mistreated in this way.

Mr. Speaker, if I could perhaps go into a couple of other aspects of this particular point raised by the amendment. What should be done, then, if the problem is really the fact that farming simply, does not bring in enough in the way of a return to justify land values which can compete with the speculator or others?

How can you raise the land value for agricultural purposes, so that legislation of this type simply isn't necessary? Well, there are a number of ways. First, I think that a great deal more work should be done by our own Department of Agriculture and no doubt, during the Budget Speech we'll hear more from the Minister on that. There is a great deal that can be done by this department in the way of promotion of B.C. products, agricultural products and research.

Perhaps the most important aspect, which I recommend to the House, is that we simply at this stage take off the land taxes from the farmer. This, in one fell swoop, will raise the value of his land and make it possible for him to compete in a more realistic way with the person who comes to buy his land for other purposes. It will make it possible for agriculture to have perhaps another opportunity while the details of the government scheme are worked out.

Basically the problem is that land is worth too much for development purposes, and too little for agricultural purposes. The hope is, of course, that legislation or a proposal such as this order-in-council will somehow or other reduce the price of farmland and prevent it from being used for other purposes, and thus force people into other areas. But why is the carrot not used instead of the stick?

Why, first of all, is there no attempt made to raise the value of the farmer's land by an abolition of land taxes. Secondly, why is there nothing here, and nothing stated by any government spokesman to date that I have heard, dealing with the problem of assisting communities, which are in areas not agricultural, to develop the subdivisions which otherwise would go into agricultural land? For example, we heard some very interesting words from the Member from North Vancouver (Mr. Gabelmann), who is not here at the moment. We heard some very interesting words from him about the difficulties of development in this area, which is not an agricultural

[ Page 210 ]

area.

Why is there nothing brought forward by the Government to indicate how they are going to assist such areas as North Vancouver to put in the sewers, the roads, the sidewalks, — everything that's needed in the areas of the hillside and along the shores which are much more expensive than of course, in the flat land of the Fraser Valley, which our friend over here describes as the flood plains of Langley? Why is there no effort made to use some encouragement …

AN HON. MEMBER: Chilliwack!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Chilliwack. My apologies to the Hon. Member. Why is there no effort made to use some encouragement instead of using this order-in-council approach, which deprives people of rights that they have? Why have we had no attempt made for a land use policy which makes sense, in terms of society, — and that means this Government assisting the municipalities? Not a word so far from the Government, and I trust that tonight some of the people who have sat so silently will come forward with ideas of this nature, because our basic problem is this: Farmland becomes development land because it's good for development.

If we can make the other land which isn't farmland worthwhile for development purposes, we can then create a situation in which perhaps such measures as this simply aren't necessary because farmland will be maintained. First, raise the value of the farmland by making farming a more viable and useful occupation — and I'm quite willing to admit that we have yet to hear the Minister's views on this. We haven't yet heard his other proposals to make farming a more viable profession to be in. That's one way.

Second, cut down on taxation, try and raise the value of land by that method as well — which can be done right away. We don't have to wait for lengthy periods of time to go by. Take off the land tax and you'll automatically raise the value of the land for farming purposes.

Then on the other side of the coin, lets go in to create the encouragement needed to put people where the Government and people on this side and planners and others, think perhaps might be a better place for them to live than on the flood plains of the Fraser Valley. In other words, let's go in with incentive programmes to assist the municipality of North Vancouver or any other municipality, that should be developed in this way to put in the subdivisions necessary or the roads and services necessary, so there can be some genuine carrot, some genuine incentive, for property development in those areas.

Sure, this is a plan that I put forward in very rough detail. I don't want to take up large amounts of time tonight in going into more detail on this. But I do feel that it does show a philosophical difference between the Government and, I trust, this party — and probably others on this side of the House. We do not feel that the way to deal with problems of this nature, is to deprive individual groups, small minority groups. I don't think farmers constitute more than a total of 11 per cent of the population if you add in all the people who are in the agricultural industry one way or another. We feel that it's unfair to go after those people as individuals and force them to bear the brunt of a cost which basically is something that all society should bear.

I said before in this House that if you are to expropriate land in this way, if it's too late for the carrot and we have to continue with what we've done before, well then at least make it so that the person, the' citizen, the individual involved doesn't lose money. Make it so that the Government itself buys out at full value the development rights which that man might have in his property.

We feel it's only fair that society as a whole, represented by all of us here elected by the people, do this. We feel that it's only fair that society itself bear the cost of this. The farmers, of course, pay their taxes and will be part of the taxpaying group as well. We feel that if that is done, if full compensation is given and furthermore that the value of the land be assessed fairly — not by Government inspectors coming on and in 20 minutes saying your land is only worth half what the poor farmer thinks it's worth, but by independent outside assessors — and if he has a right to appeal then perhaps he has some hope of getting justice despite the loss of freedom and rights that has come about as a result of these orders-in-council.

We certainly trust that this type of approach is not used when this Government is dealing with labour unions. We trust that it is not used when the Government is dealing with other groups in society. We feel that this type of procedure, if used by this Government or any government, with some other better organized groups of society, would lead to real trouble in this province.

We feel the farmers have unfortunately been picked upon because, perhaps, it is assumed that they are not vocal enough or they aren't organized enough, or they're not active enough, or they've suffered enough abuse in the past for them to take it lying down. But they don't intend to take it lying down. We on this side intend to stand up as much as we can for their rights.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us could be improved in wording. It could be improved a great deal, but that's a technicality as far as we're concerned. We support it. We support the intent. We feel that, until we get legislation that we can get our teeth into in this House on this matter, we appreciate the

[ Page 211 ]

fact it has been brought forward by the official Opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

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

I rise to speak against this amendment. As one who spent the first 26 years of my life in the lower mainland and grew to know it rather intimately; as one who has cycled just about every back road — the Ladner Trunk Road, the Dewdney Trunk Road, the Number Four Road, the River Road and almost every part of what was then the rural lower mainland; as one who hunted with his father on those lands from the time when he was four years old, knew the Savage farm, knew the George Grauer farm, I have a perspective in coming back here ten years later and seeing the vast change that has taken place. To me it has not taken place gradually. It has not crept up upon me. But it is a very real change.

It is a change that I just cannot believe. It's very apparent and it's very tragic. I now live in an area which can avoid that kind of a mistake. We are very fortunate that the Creston valley has seen little loss of its agricultural land to date. There is some urban sprawl in Creston. There are some fruit orchards being destroyed. There is some change in the thrust in that area. But there is a growing realization that the best and most meaningful future for Creston lies in a continued and more viable agricultural industry.

When the announcement of the order-in-council came, I might have been in transit to Creston. I was immediately informed of it at a meeting of the Beef Growers. And I don't, well I don't expect special privileges. I'm just an equal member to any other MLA in this House if …

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Better be careful what you say.

MR. NICOLSON:…at least I pretend to be. That night at the Beef Growers meeting which I attended and which, by the way, it was remarked upon that the previous Member had failed to attend in spite of 20 years of invitations…I talked to a Member of the Social Credit League and I've known him for four years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member get to his point?

MR. NICOLSON: There is a point here, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about this order-in-council, This Member and I finally reached an agreement. We agreed that something had to be done to save the farmlands.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the campaign, we campaigned for removal of school taxes on farmlands over a period of years — for progressive removal. We've talked about removing succession duties on farmlands passing within the family for farm purposes. We'd better do it. We've got to do it, not necessarily in this session. But this is part of a programme — there's four years — after all some people failed to do it for such a long time it does take a little while.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you want in the legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: O.K. We want to see some changes in market quotas, in the whole system of marketing, and that is a very difficult area. What we really want to do is make farming viable. We want to bring in processing, and there are moves to bring in processing into that valley in more ways than one. But what will be the point of doing it — in Creston, on the lower mainland, in the Peace River country, in the Okanagan, if there is no farm land left to do it for.

Mr. Speaker, that's all I have to say and I repeat — I'm voting against the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, you know I intended to start out my remarks this evening by congratulating you on being chosen Speaker since this is my first opportunity to speak since the election. It's the wrong man in the chair so I will just refrain from doing that at this moment at least. There's something else I do want to say though and I am concerned that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) may leave and I would like to make this point. I know she is here now and if I can get this in while she is here. It just appeared to me that during the course of her remarks, she took the opportunity twice to point out that one of the members who represents an agriculture community, the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was not here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I thought you would like to know where he is this evening. I wouldn't bother too much except that I think the Hon. Member for North Okanagan may know and I just believe that you should also be in the know.

There is a function on this evening where I should really be as well. It is an agricultural function. It is a function that is honouring a man who spent some 30 years working for this Department of Agriculture. It is a meeting on the mainland. I was invited. Fighting the flu this morning I declined to go, intended to get to bed about 7 o'clock this evening — I am here instead. But Mr. Lewis, the Hon. Member for Shus-

[ Page 212 ]

wap, who worked with that particular Mr. Harry Pope for many years in the poultry industry, is there this evening — participating in the honour to Harry Pope on the occasion of his retirement. And I thought, Mr. Speaker, you would be pleased to know that.

There are others here this evening though, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to mention some of them. The amendment — yes, I would like to speak to the amendment. I was curious that when people started speaking to the amendment, they spoke about the anticipated Agricultural Land Preservation Bill. I can't really see it in this amendment but since, Mr. Speaker, you do, I shall address my remarks to that anticipated bill.

The bill complains that the throne speech, the opening speech, in no way refers to this problem and I read the last few words of the amendment, "and shall continue to exist the fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property."

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate this evening and I have listened … While I was in Osoyoos there was a newspaper that came out a day or two later and it was headed "Stupich listens, listens, listens."

I have listened carefully this evening. I had two choices, one to speak very early in the debate in the hope that what I had to say would satisfy the Members opposite. The second, to listen to see whether they had anything to contribute. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, there has been very little contribution particularly from the members of the official Opposition, in my opinion.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental freedom to enjoyment of property, as least with respect to farm property, does not simply mean the fundamental freedom to sit on it — it means the economic freedom to enjoy it.

Mr. Speaker, they have been complaining all evening that has not been the case in the past. For 20 years they had the opportunity to do something about it and what they have been telling us all evening is that the previous administration in 20 years either was unable or did not care to do anything about this problem of the farmers fundamental freedom to enjoy farming. Now they complain about us not having done it in four to five months.

The throne speech doesn't neglect this problem, Mr. Speaker, and I quote directly from the throne speech; "the administrative and legislative programmes will be carefully designed and will be based on the clear necessity to plan our future so that we may live in harmony with our environment" — and certainly farming is a very important part of our environment — "and at peace with our fellow men, and to depart from the acquisitive North American values that have seen profligacy and waste on all sides". And one of the most serious wastes in our community has been the way in which we have wasted farmland. It is not the first time the Members opposite have heard of this waste, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Certainly I spoke about it in the 6 years I was a Member this Legislature and many others have. I would like to read a little bit from something that I wrote a year ago on this very subject. In 1964, I was not in the House then — in 1964 the then Minister of Agriculture answered me by saying that on this question of a farmland preservation, that we must first have an inventory. Nine years ago. But one year ago when I wrote this I was not in the House, Mr. Speaker. But in 1964 I was in the House and I complained about this and I was told that nothing could be done, because we need an inventory. Today the Minister of Agriculture is still in the House as the Hon. Member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Richter). Today in 1972 and I am talking about a year ago, now the Minister of Agriculture and again it was a member who is no longer in the House — the Minister of Agriculture in 1972 stood before a TV camera and told the people of British Columbia "we must first have an inventory." I went on to say what he is really saying is — "we have to talk about this problem because an election is coming soon." The opening speech did refer to this problem, Mr. Speaker.

There is something else I want to tell you that is different. The Lieutenant-Governor of course is not here in person, but, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government is here this evening. He has been here all through this debate with the odd few minutes he has had to step out and all of us have to go at one time or another. He has been here all through this debate listening carefully, not getting very much more than I did, and contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the conduct of previous leaders of government in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is extremely concerned about this problem of preserving farmland and about the farmers' rights to enjoy living on that farmland. The fact that the Premier has been sitting here all evening, I think is good evidence of that.

Mr. Speaker, when I wrote this document a year ago I recalled my remarks of 1964. I started out by saying that waste of renewable resource such as trees is serious. Even more serious however, is waste of non-renewable resource. And when you plant houses and industry on farmland you have wasted a nonrenewable resource.

Mr. Speaker, I have been getting letters from all over the province. I have files of them here this evening. All of them talking about this problem. Some of them with ideas. It was, in our programme in the election campaign. We said we were going to do something about the disappearing farmland. We said we were also going to try to do things to improve the economy of farming. But first in the programme was

[ Page 213 ]

to save the farmland. What can you do about tile economy it you don't have any land? What can you do about the economy of the farmers if there is no land for him to farm?

MR. PHILLIPS: How many acres?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Our first priority — how fast is it disappearing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The information I have from the Okanagan and from my own people who know the Okanagan, that is the people in the Department of Agriculture, if we didn't do something soon, in 10 years there would be no more problem in the Okanagan — there would be no more farming in the Okanagan; I believe that from the little I have seen of it in my own short term in office. In the Fraser Valley the same thing. I have maps showing what has happened in various parts of the province. I produced these at the meeting in Osoyoos and showed how in a relatively few years, subdivisions have encroached on the best of the farmland. If they were moving in on the worst of it, Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be so serious. But they are gobbling up the best of the farmland and this is what made the problem so serious and also, Mr. Speaker, what made it so urgent.

The most valid complaint I have had about what we have done so far has not come on the floor of the House here tonight. The most valid complaint that keeps coming up in this correspondence is that we are 20 years too late in trying to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in this House in 1964, I was asked to wait, and we have waited, and the land has kept on disappearing. Now I am asked again tonight why don't you wait until you can do something, about the economy of the farmer — and we could wait. We could fiddle, and there would be no more problem because there would be no more farming. It is not this Government's intention to wait until the problem disappears by having the land all disappear.

It is this Government's policy not to accept that as the final solution but to accept our responsibility to save farmland in this province. It was in our programme.

Now, I was a bit naive about these things. I spoke on the subject up in Rutland. I spoke on it in New Westminster at the RC. Federation of Agriculture convention and got quite a reaction. Honestly I couldn't understand the reaction. And I said, "Why are you surprised — it was point number 1 on our agricultural programme." They said, "But for 20 years we've had a government that paid no attention to its own election promises, we didn't think you meant it either."

Now that's what I was told by the officers of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They were amazed that we really intended to do something about it and that's why they were surprised — when I stood up and said, "Point number I in our programme is this and we're going to do something about it." And we are going to do something about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: You sure are.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I've been asked why didn't I bring the legislation in sooner. Now I can understand the Leader of the Liberal Party — he's new in this House and he might ask that question. I can understand the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asking that question — he's new in this House. It's just a bit more difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand why the Hon. — and there are times when I just kind of hesitate about using that word but I realize it's not a position, not the person — why the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asks why I didn't bring, the legislation in, in the very opening. You know, I was anxious, I wanted to bring it in early so the people would have the maximum time to look at it. I was persuaded by my fellows though — my colleagues — that if I brought it in early, I would not have an opportunity to listen to all of the contributions that were going to be made in this House, particularly by the Members of the Opposition and by the back bench Members here, because once I introduced that bill it would cut off debate until there was an opportunity for second reading.

Now, of course, as I said, some Members might not be aware of that, but certainly in her eleventh session the Hon. Member for North Okanagan should have been aware of it and in my opinion was …

MR. CHABOT: Seven.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Eight, there was one in October. Mr. Speaker, I've been questioned about this, I've said when I have been asked about this, that I've been getting support from all over the province. I'm going to read you a letter from one riding — just a bit of it. I've got so many here that I could take all night. I'm prepared, now that I've started — well, O.K. Here's one from Kelowna, you know, not an NDP riding — not yet.

"As a fruit grower for some 30 years, first in Summerland . . . "

Also not NDP.

"…. then in Lakeview Heights at the L.A. project, where I presently farm, I am greatly concerned about the legislation you are proposing to discontinue the subdivision of farmlands. First of all the preservation of farmlands is important."

He recognized the importance. Anyone who wants

[ Page 214 ]

to look — come to my office — can look at any of this correspondence they like. It's my personal correspondence, as Minister of Agriculture. I have no intention to file all these files but you have an open invitation to come to my office and read not only the letters but also the replies.

Here's one from Parksville.

"It is with interest that I have learned of the Government's plans to prohibit rezoning of farms for other than agricultural purposes. I commend this action completely and believe it cannot be passed too soon."

Here's one from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. You know, we've been accused of not listening to the farmers. Remember the headline that I told you about, "Stupich Listens, Listens, Listens". The Hon. Member for North Okanagan said I was there and said I listened and then went on to say some other things. As a matter of fact her conduct that evening was described by one of the officers of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who said that the Hon. Member — no he didn't say that — he said, "Pat Jordan stood up at that meeting and said, 'I'm not going to make a political speech." And then proceeded to." Mr. Speaker, I'll be in trouble if I repeat the rest of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, don't.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well then, I won't. It finished up with "from great height". But that was the reaction of one who was supporting her remarks but not her conduct.

Now here's a letter from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. A farmers' organization if ever there was one.

"The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association supports your Government's interest and efforts in preserving agricultural land and open spaces. We, as an agricultural organization, are more than aware that land is a non-renewable resource and that it must be used wisely and judicially to feed our population and provide open areas."

The environment that we speak of — that the Lieutenant-Governor spoke of in the opening speech. Not just farmers' organizations and there are others. The cattlemen for example submitted a brief — a couple of briefs. The Federation of Agriculture on different occasions has passed resolutions expressing concern and suggesting solutions. I listened to all of this, listened as the Member for North Okanagan spoke for three hours in Osoyoos and listened and made notes. Listened here today but heard nothing very much about trying to improve the economy. Just saying in effect, why don't you hurry up and get rid of the land so there's no more problem.

But apart from agricultural organizations — and I didn't have an opportunity to meet them myself, I was in a cabinet meeting but today my deputy met officials from the UBCM. And got whole-hearted support from that organization; thanking the Government for moving in this direction, telling us of the pressures that the municipalities and the regional districts are always under from people who want to subdivide.

I've heard this from other individuals, from councillors and from ex-councillors that while they have good zoning, there's always the danger that they are going to be put out of office and then subdivision will move in. They give me examples. I had a letter from one chap that I was trying to find today and I haven't found it yet who said that "we elected a mayor on a policy of preserving farmland and in four years, 88 subdivisions went through despite his best efforts."

This is the sort of thing that happens at the local level. The UBCM were fully behind what we are trying to do — in their expressions, in my deputy's office today.

You know, the only worthwhile solution — the worthwhile contribution at all that was made by the official Opposition party in this debate since 5:30 p.m. was from the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). The "socialist" Member from Chilliwack who suggested that the Government should get into the land development business. If it were not that he was here for the first time, I would say that he was listening to the previous Opposition who talked about this very proposal. But it's still a good proposal. I welcome that one. The only useful contribution made by the official Opposition party in the 3½ hours.

A letter from the city of Peterborough. Now this is not in B.C.

"My interest in this subject as a planning director of the city of Peterborough and with related planning interest for rural areas surrounding the city of Peterborough, such a policy as appears to have been brought about by the British Columbia Legislature . . . "

He was a little bit ahead of time,

" . . . would appear to merit consideration for the Province of Ontario."

This same problem exists throughout Canada to a greater or lesser degree. The same problem exists throughout the United States. There's no easy answer, Mr. Speaker. Jurisdictions all over the North American continent and in other continents have been trying to find an easy answer. Many of them have come up with answers, easy ones, and they haven't worked.

I have another letter …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

[ Page 215 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have another letter from Oliver.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, people want to see these letters. They can come over to my office. I have no intention of leaving my correspondence files here but they are welcome to come to my office, as I say, and look at the letters and the replies. If there are any letters in here that they would like to copy, I'm sure that the correspondents would not be the least bit upset about that.

One from Oliver:

"I was very pleased to read your statement shortly after you took office that you would be introducing legislation to prevent the indiscriminate subdivision of prime farmland particularly in the Okanagan and Fraser Valleys. I know a number of other growers who feel the same way."

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker.

"You are undoubtedly aware that a campaign is being whipped up in the central and northern parts of this Valley in opposition to your programme and this campaign is being led by certain industry officials who seem to have forgotten that they were elected to look after the interests of the fruit growers and not those of the land developers. The rhetoric that assails us almost daily on the radio and T.V. can only be described as demagogy. I hope you will not allow these tactics to deter you from proceeding with your programme."

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of allowing such tactics to deter me from this or any other programme. I would like to quote, while I'm at it, from an editorial in the Oliver Chronicle. It's a long editorial and says really — I don't want to impose upon the House that way, Mr. Speaker, but I will read briefly from it. The date is Thursday, January 25.

"But the controversial land-freeze legislation, instead of being the ruin of the industry … "

and they are talking about the fruit industry,

" … may well turn out to be its salvation by assuring the continued existence of enough fruit growing land in this valley to enable the industry to be a viable one. By discouraging the piecemeal gobbling up of orchard land for industry and residences."

Another letter from Armstrong — these letters aren't coming from Vancouver city, where you might expect a lot of correspondence, a few. But most of them are coming from the area where the Opposition has been whipped up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where the people are affected.

HON. MR. STUPICH:

"Many farmers in our area that I have contacted following your announcement were very disturbed, but after further thought have stated the hope that their lands at last will be protected for farming purposes for all time."

One of the things that I did say in Osoyoos, Mr. Speaker, was that some of these people for the first time are not afraid because we're going to zone land for agricultural purposes. They're afraid that for the first time, zoning will actually work.

Here's another one from the Oliver Chronicle and this one is the previous week. For all I know they may be a weekly. I don't know. Thursday, January 18:

"The threat of civil disobedience voiced by at least some growers to put pressure on the provincial government on so-called land freeze policies is irresponsible and dangerous."

Some of the remarks here this evening came awfully close to that, in my mind, Mr. Speaker. We have seen too many examples of what can happen when any individual or group takes the law into its own hands. We in the rural areas are often the first to condemn unions for occasional violence and we are uncompromising in our criticism of our young people when they make asses of themselves in their defiance of society. Yet, now when growers in the Valley and elsewhere in B.C. are faced with proposed legislation which is unpopular, at least with some of them, we have the not too carefully guarded threat that unless the y get their way, they'll take more extreme measures.

A letter from Oliver — I don't think I've read one from Oliver yet:

"My wife and I wish to express our full support for the courageous stand you and your Government are taking regarding the preservation of farmland in the province. We are well aware …"

MR. PHILLIPS: I know farms.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you kindly subside for a while. (Laughter).

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, why not ask the mountain to come to Mohammed? (Laughter).

" … We are well aware this policy will meet with vociferous objections from some quarters," — the official Opposition — "and doubtless we, as farmers, do stand to lose varying amounts of our investments due to loss of subdivision rights. Quite aside from this, we feel that the time has come where action had to be taken before we were caught up in an irreversible trend that could only end in catastrophe. The foreseeable end of unrestricted subdivision in this Valley is the bankruptcy of the fruit growing industry, with disastrous financial results to the economy of the

[ Page 216 ]

area."

And I might add, Mr. Speaker, the economy of the province, if we lose the fruit industry in this province.

"Permanent destruction of land is not the answer and could only leave us all in a far more distressing situation than we are now, without supplying any relief to the majority of the farmers."

Oliver again, Oliver — all in the same vein. Here's one from Westbank — certainly not NDP ridings: "We have long had the feeling that the sale of farmlands for subdivision amounts to social insanity."

This one is from out of the province — oh, but it's people that want to come into the province, into the Okanagan Valley. They've been visiting there. They like it. They want to buy land there.

"Our family was in the Okanagan Valley between Christmas and New Year's, looking at fruit farms. Discuss this whole policy . . ." and just to skip quickly down to one paragraph — " … One farmer strongly opposed to your freeze confessed that he paid only $250 an acre to buy his land and he now wants to make a killing."

MRS. JORDAN: When did he buy it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Doesn't say in the letter. Here's one from Vernon. Who's riding, Mr. Speaker, is Vernon in? My knowledge of the geography is sometimes not as extensive as the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). However, here's one from Vernon:

"I firmly support your Government's new greenbelt programme. I was especially impressed by your statements — not the formal kind — in the Vernon News January 18, the end of which was, 'I have the opportunity and the obligation to do something about it.' " — that is the waste of farmland.

One from Salmon Arm again:

"Thank God and the provincial government for having the courage and the forethought of halting the sale of farmland for subdivision purposes."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's some the other way. That's the order they gave it. Here's one that's quite violently opposed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Read it!

HON. MR. STUPICH: All right, I'll read it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No I haven't, Mr. Speaker. By any means. I have not read all the letters but I'll read the other way.

"I read the unbelievable and shocking words in the newspaper on December 28 that the new NDP Government passed an order stopping all subdivision of farmland in B.C. as of December 21. I have a 20-acre fruit farm in Creston Valley, of which I am presently subdividing 10 acres into half-acre lots," and then it goes on to say that they want to subdivide the other 10 acres, so they're violently opposed.

You asked for it — there it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the evening is wearing on. I'll just say this. I spoke — well, to the leader of the Liberal Party it's wearing. I find it a bit wearing myself. I'm really not all that well this evening.

However, Mr. Speaker, when I announced that it was our intention to live up to our promises during the election campaign, particularly with respect to this preservation of agricultural land, when it became public knowledge that we intended to do this, the next reaction was from the community — at least those in the community who are anxious to subdivide. The applications and the inquiries about subdivision, started pouring into regional offices all over the province. And that was immediately after I spoke at the Federation of Agriculture convention, November 30 in New Westminster.

I heard from Municipal Affairs within a week to say that they were alarmed at the increased number of applications and questions about subdivisions. A week later they told me that it was extremely alarming, what was happening, and they were worried as to just how much land would disappear if some action were not taken promptly.

It was this concern that prompted this Government to act on behalf of the people of the Province of British Columbia and the future people to say, "Stop and desist until we have an opportunity to back up what we're saying with concrete legislation." Mr. Speaker, we were obliged by the actions of irresponsible people in our total community to take the action that we did when we  introduced that first order-in-council. We found then, though, that even though an order-in-council was drafted — with apologies, Mr. Speaker, to a lawyer — lawyers can find ways of getting around it. So a lawyer started questioning the first order-in-council and said, "Well, you say 'farmland' but you don't define it. So we consider in our minds this particular piece of land is not farmland, so we don't have to go to anybody. We proceed to subdivide it because you haven't defined this particular piece of land as farmland."

So, Mr. Speaker, we consulted our lawyers again to try to find some way of beating their lawyers. And

[ Page 217 ]

the advice from our lawyers was to come up with a definition of farmland. So we did, in the second order-in-council, define specifically farmland within certain boundaries. We did more than that, Mr. Speaker, in the second order-in-council. We also said that if people feel that in their particular circumstance there is some reason for excluding their own piece of property, the one they're interested in, if because a tremendous amount of work has been done on it, if there is some peculiar circumstances associated with that particular piece of property that they feel they are being aggrieved and that it would be difficult for them to wait until the legislation itself was introduced and passed by this Legislature — then there was an appeal forum set up.

As I answered one of the questions on the order paper, I believe yesterday, there have been no formal appeals to this date. However, there have been inquiries about specific situations. Every one of these specific situations has been looked into except the one that was handed to me late this afternoon, or early this afternoon — I forget the time now.

They've all been looked into or are being looked into. In a number of cases we have said in our minds, "This is not agricultural land and you may proceed with what you are doing." In other cases the work of the subdivision had proceeded to the extent that it was quite impractical and not in the interests of the community as a whole to try to reverse that particular situation. So we have said in that case, "Go ahead." Without even a formal meeting of the Environment and Land Use Committee because these situations have been so clear-cut.

So we have, Mr. Speaker, acted responsibly — first, in introducing the orders-in-council; second, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with specific situations that have come to our attention.

I was asked earlier, Mr. Speaker, about a broadcast when I said that the correspondence is coming in at the rate of 4 to I in favour of this. I was asked how many. Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. On the floor of the House I will be accurate as I can in my statements, but it was an estimate in front of a TV camera. I didn't have the information I would liked to have had. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, because I can only assume for political reasons people decided that this debate should carry on on a Friday night, rather than earlier in the week, and rather than at a time when my office was open so that I could get more material from my staff, I'm limited to what I have available — just my own files.

MR. CHABOT: You can certainly do it on Monday.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It was not our decision, Mr. Speaker, to start a debate as important as this at 5:30 p.m. on a Friday. That was not our decision, Mr. Speaker. However, Mr. Speaker, I do have the information …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. If I misled people in the news media or people listening to that TV programme by saying that the letters in favour of this programme were 4 to 1. Because Mr. Speaker, the actual figures instead, are 6 to 1. The figures at the last count, and that isn't up to this date either I must confess, it was the middle of the month, are 97 letters in favour and 16 against. So that's one in excess of 6 to 1 in favour of the programme Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not very many letters.

MR. STUPICH: I would also suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that when a group has admittedly started a campaign to organize opposition against a programme, in the part of the community the area in the province where people are afraid it will hurt most, and in spite of that organized opposition, I have had a total of only 16 letters against the programme from the whole of the province, in spite of an organized programme that was put to some 1,500, 1,800 maybe 2,000 members of one organization Mr. Speaker. I think this speaks for itself. I think the people of B.C. are speaking through this correspondence. The fact that we're not getting the opposition to it Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that when the legislation is introduced, that even the Members of the Opposition will find it quite impossible to oppose the legislation.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'm rather appalled at the weak defence put forward by the Minister of Agriculture on the dictatorial order-in-council which was introduced by the cabinet not so long ago.

His only defence to justify the dictatorial action of that government was to read a series of letters sent to him by people throughout the province of British Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: 97 of them.

MR. CHABOT: 97 letters you say, and he talks about 6 to 1 in favour. I would say that this should be 1,000 to 1 in favour of support of the preservation of farmland in this province. And I want to assure you that I strongly support, and so do most other organizations in this province, support the preser-

[ Page 218 ]

vation of farmland. But, no one in this province supports the dictatorial method being used by that particular government. It has enchained not only the farmland in this province, but every piece of land in the width and breadth of this entire province. That's what people are opposed to, that's what people will not tolerate. Preservation of farmland is something that is strongly supported by everyone, strongly supported by this group, strongly supported I'm sure by the little Liberal group, strongly supported by the Conservative group which is no longer in this House, and it won't be too long and they'll be entirely out permanently.

No, he made a great defence tonight. I want to assure you he threw a great smoke screen over the issue. He never discussed the issue of the matter that was raised here so eloquently by the Members of the Official Opposition this afternoon. He had no criticism, he had no criticism to make on the points that they had raised, no criticism whatsoever. It was just a matter of enumerating a series of letters, saying that they are in support of preservation of farmland. I want to assure we all support. I would say, every Member of this House supports the preservation of farmland. But I'm sure that not every Member, and I'm saying including Members of the backbench, Mr. Speaker, do not support the way in which this government has instituted the freeze over the farmland, and all the land of this province.

You know, I remember not too many years ago when the now Premier used to be in the Opposition, used to talk about "banana republic" administration, that the previous government was a "banana republic" type of administration. I want to assure you that this legislation reminds me of "banana republic" type legislation. But they wouldn't dare use this type of confiscation in those South American republics. They'll use them against large corporations but they won't use them against every individual that is a land owner within those countries, which you're doing here with this order-in-council.

Now, the Premier not too long ago this afternoon said, "but you didn't do anything about the preservation of farmland." I want to assure you that the former government was the first government that signed an agreement with the national government under ARDA to carry out a land inventory of farmlands in this province. ARDA was originally established, if I remember correctly, in 1963. British Columbia signed for us in 1964 to carry out this inventory, which is still under review, is still being carried out in the province at this time. Because we believed in 1964, that it was necessary that you carry out an inventory in order that you can carry out some form of preservation policy relative to farmland.

We also established the greenbelt fund which was talked about by the Member from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), this afternoon. In her speech she indicated that $6 million had been spent as a first step really, for the preservation of farmland, a first step. A programme that would have been expanded as time goes on, a type of programme which is strongly supported by the agricultural community in this province. They strongly support that approach to the preservation of farmland.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture is not opposed to that — despite what might have been said to the contrary or inferred to the contrary — they support the preservation of farmland, they say so very clearly. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture will not allow the denial of the farmers of the basic rights of land ownership, and that's what they're concerned about, is the rights of land ownership. To do so would be unfair to farmers now, and to the future generation of British Columbians who will rely on this province as farmers for their food needs. The B.C.F.A. is in total agreement with the provincial government on the need to preserve this province's limited agricultural base.

We believe that if the industry is in a viable condition, the incentive to sell farmland, from non farm users, will be greatly diminished which itself will preserve farmland for farming. As this state of viability continues to elude our industry, the farmers continue to exist on substandard incomes, we are in total disagreement with any regulation that locks farm families into permanent poverty. It is surely society's responsibility to preserve greenbelts in open spaces, and the onus of financing this public policy should fall no more heavily on the farmer, than it does on anyone else. That particular policy statement, by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture I strongly support, and I'm sure many other people in this House support.

Mr. Claridge, the former president of B.C. Tree Fruit Grower's Association, had this to say at a meeting which was attended by the Minister of Agriculture at their annual convention earlier this month, or last month I should say. And I'm not going to read the entire text of his message here, because I'm sure you've been given evidence by my remarks on the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and they're pretty well included here. But he talks about emotionalism — he followed the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and he says, "I've noticed tonight that the tendency is to decry emotion. It's suddenly bad to show emotion. I'm as emotional tonight as a trade unionist without a contract." And I don't blame him for being emotional on a subject like this. Then he goes on and he talks about the philosophy and the election promises of the now Government. And he said this about one of your election promises: "and one of the other commitments of the NDP was to lift Bill 33, the Labour Bill. And co-incidental with that, the land

[ Page 219 ]

freeze was put on that made Bill 33 look like an act of charity to one in agriculture."

That's what the farming community thinks of your approach to land preservation in this province. There is a definite need for land preservation because people who have studied agriculture, people who have taken an interest in this matter, realize that in this province we have only about 2 to 3 per cent of our land that is considered arable. There is no other area in the world really, that has as small a base of arable land as the Province of British Columbia has. Certainly, you can compare Canada with any other country because when you look at our neighbouring province, and I don't have the exact figures, but these are fairly close. We find that in the Province of Alberta there's approximately 25 per cent of their land that is considered arable. We look at Saskatchewan, Manitoba, it runs in the vicinity of 16 per cent. Certainly there's justification for the preservation of farmland in this province, and that we're not opposed to. But it's the means which you have used by your order-in-council that we are so critical about. It's the art of communication.

You're a government that talks about open government. The lack of communication with the people that are being affected by this legislation which we oppose — you've enchained, you've enslaved those people that are on farms in the Province of British Columbia today. I've heard very little of what the Minister's intentions — very little defence, this evening, on the type of criticism which has been leveled toward this arbitrary, dictatorial order-in-council which was passed just three weeks ago.

You've put a deep freeze over this province, a deep freeze in what is a relatively mild winter in British Columbia. Really. The people feel this cold in British Columbia today as if it was 50 below because of the deep freeze put on by that particular order-in-council, Mr. Speaker. No, I think there are other ways and means of preserving farmland, which must be preserved. There is a different approach which should be taken. The former Government has taken the right approach, an approach which should be pursued by this particular Government.

I have notes here on the matter of economically viable farm operations but I think the matter has been fairly well canvassed by other Members who have spoken. It was reported to me that the programme that was initiated by the former Government relative to the promotion of sale and purchase of British Columbia agricultural products was a worthwhile one. It's one that encouraged the consumption of home-grown products. I hope that this Government will carry on the programme that was initiated. It was so beneficial to the agricultural community in this province. That's one programme that I hope will continue. I know they'll try to take the credit for its initiation, as they have on many other programmes.

Nevertheless, I'll allow them to take that credit providing it's beneficial to the agricultural community of this province.

I think that the Government has a responsibility to come clean with the people of British Columbia. I think they have a responsibility to tell us the real reason why this order-in-council was passed. They must realize that 95 per cent of British Columbia is Crown land. But the real problem here and the real issue is not one of denying the preservation of farmland but the preservation of farmland at the expense of a few for the benefit of the majority, I think that philosophy is wrong.

No, Mr. Speaker, it's really unfortunate that there hasn't been a clear explanation of the necessity of passing that type of order-in-council. And, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was passed is a broad one. It's an amendment that covers every aspect that was covered in the order-in-council and it's one that, I'm sure you'll agree, I will support.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've sat through this debate all this afternoon and this evening, and I was hopeful that when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) rose in his place to speak about the order-in-council and the amendment that we're debating this evening, that he would have something of a substantial nature to add to this debate.

I'm sure that if the farming population in the Province of British Columbia has listened to his dissertation about this particular matter, they would have been very, very unhappy and very, very disappointed. Because really, it's been said before by the Member who just took his place and it's fairly obvious, I think, and apparent that rather than justify what has been done by that order-in-council, we ran through a dissertation collected from a number of letters that really proved nothing. It would seem to me that when we talk about this amendment, which deals with fundamental freedom to the enjoyment of property, that really the farm population in the Province of British Columbia, through no fault of their own, have become unfortunate casualties in the whole process.

I do not know of one farmer — and I come from a farming area - who would willingly give up his farm for any other purpose. There are probably only three occasions when a farmer would consider selling his farm or parting with it or subdividing it in any great amount. The first is in the event of old age, and that's been mentioned by a number of people this evening, when he feels that physically he can no longer farm and he would like to get out, At that time, I'm sure, he would much prefer that his land stayed in

[ Page 220 ]

farmland provided he could get a fair price for it and turn it over for that price to another member of his family or someone else who wanted to get into the farming economy.

HON. MR. COCKE: Like $10,000 an acre.

MR. SMITH: Certainly we can in some way help take that man out if he wants to get out and retire in comfort and put somebody else on that farm in his place. Certainly that can be done.

There's another time when it becomes impossible for a farm owner to continue and that's in the event of ill health. That's something that he can't forecast or foresee. It would be with great reluctance that he would leave the land, but he might have to.

But there's another thing that's more imminent now than it has ever been in the history of British Columbia and that is the financial collapse of farmers. They see on one hand land which they have lived on for many, many years with a relatively high value per acre if it is turned into some other purpose than for farming. But the same land in agricultural production cannot return to that man a fair living. That's unfortunate, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that the produce that is raised on that farm, when it is delivered wherever it may go, is not today returning a fair investment in relation to the capital that they have to put into these farms.

In the Peace River country today the question is not a matter of that farmland disappearing into urban development. The question is today in the minds of every farmer up there, "How long are we going to be able to continue in the process of farming at the rate we receive and the return we receive for the products that we produce today?". This is the whole crux of the question.

The other thing is this and it's a philosophical argument between the socialists and those who do not believe in socialist philosophy. That is that we see and many, many people see that through this land freeze we have the first thin edge of the wedge in the eventual elimination of private property owners in the Province of British Columbia, including farmers. We have heard speeches on the floor of this House in this debate which indicate people think that way that are presently occupying seats in this House.

Now, what does that mean in terms of continuity and continuing farming for a man who's been on a farm for 30, 40 or 50 years? If he takes the things that have been said by the socialist Government at face value, no wonder he is considering taking a fair price for his land if he can get it and get out farming.

This is what you have forced him into — not because he wanted to get out of farming but because he thinks if he doesn't do it, he will be eliminated by one process or the other and end up with nothing for all his years.

This is the fundamental difference between the approach that the Socreds have and yourselves. We have said to those people through the greenbelt protection fund that over a period of time, as people want to take that land out of production or get out themselves because of age, ill health, infirmity, or whatever, then the fund would pick up the land and hopefully lease it back to another farmer. But you know, the problem today is that a young farmer cannot take over his father's farm unless he has a tremendous amount of capital. Because his father wants to get out and retire and it takes capital to retire. The young man can't get his hands on enough money to get that farm into production the way he would like, to make it a viable farm operation.

HON. MR. COCKE: He can't compete with the developer, that's his problem.

MR. SMITH: That's got nothing to do with it in our part of the country, my friend. Because I'll tell you another thing. All you have to do is get into the half of the province which lies above the 53rd degree, and you'll find that there's completely different circumstances up there as compared to what we have in the lower mainland and on the Island. There's not a lack of land up there. There's a lack of developed land in many places, but there are millions of acres that can still be developed. You tell a farmer in the Peace River country why he should have his land frozen today so he can't do anything with it, just because of an arbitrary decision in Victoria. You're going to have a hard time, Mr. Speaker, trying to convince him that it was a good idea, that your plan was sound.

All we wanted to hear from the Minister of Agriculture this evening and this afternoon — but particularly this evening when he spoke — was some indication of what steps he is preparing to take beyond freezing the land the way you have done by the order-in-council. Frankly, we've heard nothing.

Some of the people in this House scoffed at the greenbelt protection fund. The official Opposition, after abusing the principle for quite a while, voted in favour of it, because the record shows that. The Liberal Party didn't vote in favour of the greenbelt protection fund — the only party in the House, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that did not. But that fund could be the means of preserving farmland in the highly densely populated areas like we have, which are becoming more densely populated. It could mean the difference of preserving that land, retaining it as farmland, even though you had to subsidize the lease fees that you set up to allow a younger farmer to retain that land, and try to make a profitable income for himself and his family.

We've talked all afternoon about the disappearance of farmland. It would seem to me that the farmland

[ Page 221 ]

will not disappear, either in the lower mainland or in the northern part of the province, if we can solve the real gut issue of the farmer today — and that is how he can get a viable income out of the acres that he has under cultivation, regardless if that happens to be 200 or 2,000. That's the problem, and that's why a lot of farmers have looked at the real estate value of their property.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I do think there is a fundamental difference that is very apparent in this debate and in the entire debate that has taken place on the throne speech. That is the fundamental difference of whether the land in the Province of British Columbia, whether the industry in the province, should be taken over by the Government or whether we should have in this province, in Canada, something that we all hold very dear. That is the right to individual freedom, the right to individual enterprise, and above all, the right to own property.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have sat through all of the debate. I have listened with interest to the comments of all the Members. Of course, we'll have the opportunity of judging the effectiveness of the comments when the bell rings, as I imagine the official Opposition will call for a vote on this amendment.

You can't help, for those of us who have been in this House when we hear this kind of amendment, to almost feel as if the movie reels are being rerun backward on this kind of debate. I see that the amendment is concerned about the loss of farmland. I'm interested in the debate — at this stage, if we wound the reel all the way back, we'd get the tucked thumbs and the 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960 speech. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we find why the Opposition left it so late to bring this to the attention of the House, this very important matter. Because they are waiting to hear from their leader. It was only this afternoon that they received instructions from Plaza Hotel, Buenos Aires …

MR. PHILLIPS: That's representing the people. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for Buenos Aires in South America, by telephone, sent a telegram saying, "Fight on, gang! Fight on, gang, while I'm here." Although he represents a farm constituency, he knew when to leave town. For 20 years, he did nothing about the preservation of farmland and that Member there, a Member who I roomed with for six years, that I have had a proud association with all that time and is president of our party, never made me any more proud of the party and that man than his speech tonight.

You know, I enjoy the arguments. I want to discuss the arguments about the primacy of private property and the primacy of the state preserving the right to private property, and then the talk of greater good and, of course, the choice that a government must make, issue by issue and generally in philosophy, on the whole matter of private property.

We are socialists. We do think in terms of the common good and we do protect the individual's rights. It was in this House that I first saw this issue being debated — that is, the loss of farmland, that this amendment refers to — when the Deas Island tunnel was completed. During that time, this Government confiscated land. It expropriated land. Not that this order or this amendment deals with the confiscation of land, although the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was on television tonight misinforming the people of this province that we were confiscating land. That is not true.

HON. MR. COCKE: Absolutely false.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Deas Island tunnel was built by expropriation of land through this Government — farmland — and the pattern of farmland expropriation was set by this Opposition when they were Government, who said that they were opposed to the loss of farmland tonight — that they were opposed to the loss of the individual and his rights with farmland. When that farmland was expropriated, it went to arbitration. When the arbitration award was handed down, we were forced in this House, to witness the spectacle — and I thanked the Liberal Party that night, and I thanked my colleagues that we had the sense of decency, honour and rightness to stand up and fight this Government — because when the arbitration award came in, the Social Credit Government of the day brought in legislation wiping out what the arbitration board awarded those farmers.

The most infamous case of land expropriation from farmers in the history of this province was created by the Social Credit Government. Thank God they're gone. Thank God! Never again will we see legislation brought in — despite the cynicism of the amendment that we have tonight — we will never bring in legislation that takes away the rights of the individuals, even though an arbitration board awarded it. I don't think there's probably another jurisdiction in the whole British Commonwealth that had a black night like that night when the farmers had a demonstration of what a government of the day did in terms of expropriating land.

You talk about private property. I had to go through the irony, as a member of a socialist party, of

[ Page 222 ]

sitting in this House defending the rights of the shareholders of the B.C. Electric. If that wasn't irony, I don't know what is. (Laughter). Yet I participated in that debate, and what about the rights of the property owners of the B.C. Electric. Where were you then, gang? (Laughter).

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, we're talking here in this amendment about private rights. We're talking about access to what is right. It's not easy to make decisions, but the whole Government of the day at that time, when they were faced with these kinds of farmland decisions and the Columbia River, and when they were guiding Hydro's policies, time and time again Members of this House had to bring in individual cases and fight individual cases for individual farmers. The Member for Columbia River was noticeably absent in his fight for the farmers at that time.

It's a good debate and you have absolutely good reason. I give the Liberals and the Conservatives full credit for this. You have absolutely good reason to question the use of order-in-council in this manner. It is not a healthy pattern. It is not a good pattern. If used frequently and unwisely, it can damage the whole legislative process that we are committed to in this beautiful province of ours. The decision was not arrived at lightly. It wasn't a decision that was frivolously brought in. We agonized over it. I've sat in this House and I've debated in this House against orders-in-council in this manner. We were faced with a decision of a rush on land — not an emotional rush, a real rush. We had to make a move and we made a move and we stand to be judged on that move. If I may borrow something from your leader,, we will be judged at election time and on this issue, I'd love to see an election because people want to see …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People want to see whether or not we really mean what we say. This afternoon on a radio programme speaking on this very issue was a former candidate of the Liberal Party, the mayor of Surrey. Asked a question on the radio programme about this very issue he said, "No farmer can afford to pay the prices and stay on the farm. I'm not a socialist, but the Government has had guts to do this right thing."

Mr. Speaker, we have the order-in-council, we did not bring in the legislation because unlike the official Opposition, who has placed bills on the order paper that if pressed would limit a debate on this very subject — they have agriculture bills on the order paper, we have made no effort to limit the throne debate. We have no effort to limit the amendment. We are saying to this House and to the people of this province that we made a decision on the order-in-council. We will be judged on that decision, and we will be judged on the legislation that we intend to bring in.

But, Mr. Speaker, I've had a lot of very proud moments in the very short time that we've been Government. I've had a lot of heartache too. But if through this session of the Legislature and out of this order-in-council we can leave this session in the spring with a unique blueprint — and I say unique, I'm talking about North America — to save farmland and a family farm and a way of life, then it will be a major step forward regardless of what party has done it.

My colleague came into cabinet and he made the recommendation to cabinet. We accept his recommendation and we stand by his decision. I tell you this, that if any government in any jurisdiction doesn't understand the pressures on land in a rapidly developing urban society in North America and doesn't take decisive moves to stop the erosion of those lands, then that government is failing all of its people. We've made a decision. We intend to stand by it. I'm going to proudly stand up tonight and vote against what I consider to be an amendment that just doesn't grasp the very real problem that not only affects farmers, but affects all of us in every way in our life.

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 11

NAYS — 27

PAIRS

Hon. Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

[ Page 223 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall files the report of the Library Development Commission for the year ending March 31,1972.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:55 p.m.