[ Page 1241 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 (Bill No. 133) Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 1241

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

Introduction and first reading — 1241

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

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1241

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, — 1961 (Bill No. 129) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1241

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill No. 117) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1241

Oral Questions

Use of freight equipment on petroleum shipments. Mr. Chabot — 1241

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

Ruled out of order — 1242

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

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

Delivery of new buses. Mr. McGeer — 1244

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

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

Curtailment of operations by exploration companies. Mr. Chabot

Committee of supply: Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 1245

Chairman's ruling on admissible debate sustained — 1246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1249

Mrs. Jordan — 1250

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1251

Mrs. Jordan — 1251

Mr. Richter — 1252

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1252

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

Mr. Phillips

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

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

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my honour and privilege today, on behalf of the First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) and myself, to introduce a large delegation from the NDP women's organization in Vancouver South, some of whom have brought their husbands along. Half of them are in the galleries now; the other half will be coming at 3 o'clock. I would ask the rest of this assembly to welcome them.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Anderson from that great constituency of Columbia River. I would like the Members to bid them welcome today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege I don't get very often but I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from the Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School who are in the galleries with their instructor. They have come a long way to attend this assembly.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GASOLINE
TAX ACT, 1958

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 133 intituled An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 133 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE FAIR SALES PRACTICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 123 intituled The Fair Sales Practices Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 123 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CONDITIONAL SALES ACT, 1961

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 128 intituled An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 128 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS
OF SALE ACT, 1961

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 129 intituled An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 129 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND
REGISTRY ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 117 intituled An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 117 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

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

USE OF FREIGHT EQUIPMENT ON
PETROLEUM SHIPMENTS

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Commercial Transport (Hon. Mr. Lorimer): what specific recommendation has the Minister made to his department for the utilization of freight equipment on the return trip to the Alaska slope, on the proposal made in Washington for the transportation of petroleum from Alaska to the

[ Page 1242 ]

Washington State border?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Commercial Transport): The recommendation that was made by the Premier in Washington today, which I presume you are discussing, was only made a few hours ago. I haven't any recommendation regarding the return trip.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question: As the Minister has not made any recommendations to his department, has the British Columbia Government invited any proposals from anywhere which seek freight capacity for the returning cars before the presentation being made in Washington?

HON. MR. LORIMER: What you are suggesting is being considered. I am not at liberty at the moment to make any remarks on that.

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

VOIDING OF LAND TITLE
OF C.A. YOUNGSTROM

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the acting Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: is the Minister aware that section 3 of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, 1972, does in fact give the Minister or any other Minister the authority to enter into negotiations with involved parties, and that this could effectively reduce the problem we are involved in regarding the 320 acres of agricultural land in the North Okanagan which has been sold to one Carleton Andre Youngstrom, a reported member of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Hon. Member. In May, page 327, it says that you should not be asking the opinion on a question that really is a question of law. I would therefore have to rule that question out of order.

Any further questions? The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question, as well, to the acting Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources…

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I find that if the Minister is absent from his seat, you are not really supposed to be asking questions to the seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you allowed those questions yesterday and you allowed the acting Minister to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The fact that I happen to allow someone to stand up who said he was acting for the Minister doesn't mean that that is a common practice of the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly show me the rule and I would be glad to be guided by your advice.

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

MR. SPEAKER: What page? What page are we referring to, Hon. Members? Would you kindly give me that advice? I would appreciate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could all be out of the House and there would be no question period. Is that what you are suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest that we get back to the question period. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been wanting to ask this question for three days. If you made the ruling yesterday, obviously that an acting Minister can answer questions, why won't you allow that to happen today again?

MR. SPEAKER: I made no ruling and if you are going to take it every time I permit a question… Just a minute, Hon. Members. This is a very serious matter. If, every time I permit a question, you are going to take that as a precedent, you are going to make it even more inflexible than ever. I don't want to see that; I want to see a free play of question and answer. Therefore, please do not take the position, because I permit some Member on this side to answer for a Minister who is absent, that it is a precedent.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I then ask if you are ruling that an acting Minister cannot answer on a point of urgency? That he cannot direct questions…

MR. SPEAKER: That depends on the responsibility for the Minister. If he wishes to assume that responsibility for an absent Minister, he's entitled to

[ Page 1243 ]

do so.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think we ran into the same problem yesterday. At the time I stated that I would bring this forward to the cabinet, and then inform the Speaker and the House if the cabinet will have some suggestions how to cope with this. After all, this is new. This is a new oral question period for the whole Legislature. We're inclined to run into these difficulties until the cabinet can deal with it. Then we'll discuss it with the Speaker, and the House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the rule has always been, in every House and from the history of question periods since 1721, in the British House of Commons, that you put a question on notice; and if the Minister isn't there, and you want to ask the question, put it on notice and hope that he gets that notice and comes to the House and answers it if he is available. This is the usual rule. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

STEVESTON–YELLOW POINT
FERRY STUDY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could repeat a question which I asked to an acting Minister yesterday. Today I'll ask it to the Minister of Highways, who seems otherwise occupied. I wonder whether he would indicate to the House whether his department is studying the possibility of a new ferry route between Steveston and Yellow Point on Vancouver Island?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The answer to that is no. We are not studying a route to Yellow Point. I've been asked that question by a number of people. We're not studying that at all.

In answer to a question that was referred to me from yesterday regarding the Mill Bay ferry, I suggest to the Member who asked the question that he do what I learned years ago: before you make a statement, you check the fact.

The Mill Bay ferry has not been off for two weeks. It's been off for one week. There was public notice. There were notices posted on the docks. There were notices posted in the Victoria papers and the Duncan papers.

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

RELEASE OF STUDIES ON
RISING HOUSING COSTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — in the light of recent reports that prices for houses in Vancouver have increased more than any other metropolitan centre in Canada. I wonder if he would release to the House any studies that he has got which would indicate why the provincial government in the budget increased the Home Owners Grant by $50 million. In addition, if this information is new to him, would he indicate what his department intends to do perhaps to increase the amount of money available so that price increases in houses can be brought back to a reasonable level.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, I'm aware that the costs of land, especially have increased tremendously in the lower mainland and elsewhere in the province. The steps that we are taking is to purchase land to put out for either sale or lease throughout the area. We're hoping to purchase large stocks of land — which I mentioned in my throne speech address. I said that we were presently negotiating throughout the lower mainland in Moody, Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Vancouver. I'm quite aware of the increase in costs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I've heard the Minister mention government purchase of land. I wonder whether he could tell us whether under these various schemes there have been any re-sales. Because it appears to me that if the government keeps on purchasing land it'll just help drive the price up further.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, the lands that have been purchased so far have been municipal lands, generally. There have been no re-sales at the moment. I have announced to the Press that lands will be available shortly on lease basis at considerably reduced prices. So, people that are desirous of purchasing property in the lower mainland should wait for a short time, because lots will be on the market at a considerably reduced rate to what they are at the present time.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal, Affairs if the Government has made any purchases as a result of the letters that the Minister sent to all of; the municipalities asking them to make land available,; or to notify his department of land that may be; available for sale. I just want to know if the department has bought any land under that programme?

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

[ Page 1244 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On the same question was it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was wondering whether or not in the purchase of these lands, and in the sale, will it be by tender or will there be sales unreported, and unadvertised.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, on the question of some of the sales or some of the leases or some of the rentals, it will be a varied situation. Some of them will be going to subsidized people, others will be going into the open market. So, certainly the ones that are going into the open market will be by tender or bid or some other such method of public sale.

There will be room in the scheme certainly for looking after people with minimum incomes so that there won't be a bidding up of the land prices at the sale place. There will have to be provisions made for those of limited incomes to be able to take part in the exercise.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same question? Are they all on the same question? The Hon. Member for Langley, followed by the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject: I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if all of the land that is going up for sale will be serviced land, fully serviced, and will the government be servicing that land — paying for those services?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, there's no yes or no answer to that one. In some areas the government will be servicing. In other areas the government will not be servicing. It will be serviced land when it gets to sale, but some of the lands are already serviced. Some lands that have not been serviced will have to be serviced before they go up for lease or sale.

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

MR. CHABOT: Question: I'm wondering whether the Minister can tell us whether he intends to continue paying $82,000 an acre or higher for low cost housing?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, whatever the market is; it's difficult to get housing or land at less than the market value. As a result costs are going up. However, in every case there's been no land purchased without an evaluator taking part to advise as to values of land.

MR. CHABOT: Bought on a unit basis.

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

MR. CHABOT: Based on units?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, whatever type of housing is intended to be placed there. The idea of low cost housing is something in the past. The housing that is being built is not low cost housing. It is normal housing throughout. The idea of building what has been done in the past — cheap sort of areas for the so-called "poor" — has come to an end. The housing we're building now is all good housing.

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

DELIVERY OF NEW BUSES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the buses ordered from Flyer Industries in Manitoba be delivered in British Columbia as scheduled?

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as I know that is still on schedule. I think the end of April is the first delivery. I understand that to be correct.

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

POSSIBLE PURCHASE
OF ELECTRO-BUSES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on the same question, whether negotiations have been entered into in any way regarding the purchase of the pollution free electro-buses?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm glad I'm so popular. Yesterday I was examining electric buses — battery-driven buses — that were on demonstration in Vancouver at the Hydro. I think the trend is good. The bus was quiet; it was at top speed at 35 miles per hour; it could operate for six hours without charging the batteries.

It will be on test in the university area I think either today or tomorrow, and will be used in the "Park and Ride" from Hastings Park to Vancouver another day just on a trial basis to see whether it can be a useful vehicle in the transit in the lower mainland. We're certainly interested in it. It's another feature — we're looking at all of the new features coming out in transit. The electric one, of course, is very interesting to us.

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

[ Page 1245 ]

POSSIBLE ENLARGEMENT OF
HUDSON STREET BRIDGE

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker. Are there any plans to enlarge the Hudson Street Bridge to accommodate rapid transit to the new ferry terminal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are no plans for the Hudson Street Bridge related to the new ferry terminal. Because we don't know where the new ferry terminal is going to be.

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

CURTAILMENT OF OPERATIONS
BY EXPLORATION COMPANIES

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Is the Minister of Mines able to advise the House is he has been advised of the number of exploration firms that are curtailing operations in British Columbia?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've got no information that any of them are curtailing exploration in British Columbia.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES AND
HOSPITAL INSURANCE

(continued)

On vote 86: Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, $66,400.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am, of course, addressing myself to the Minister of Health. I had wanted to discuss this with him on Friday last under his salary vote but we weren't able to accomplish it. I think the matter is now much more a matter of public concern and health concern than it was even then, in light of some of the facts that are coming to the fore. It does, again, refer to the situation of one Mr. Youngstrom, who has purchased land in the North Okanagan.

Just to bring the Minister up to date, I think he should know a few of the facts. Mr. Youngstrom,

Carleton Andre Youngstrom himself, is a member of the drug cult founded by Timothy Leary. He is listed by several United States narcotic agencies and police enforcement agencies as a member of this brotherhood officially, as well as being a man who has a charge against him for the use of marijuana. He has served three months in prison and is on three years' probation. What is interesting is this…

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the point of order is made, please?

HON. MR. COCKE: As Minister of Health Services, I'm not in charge of the sale of land in the province. I understand that the Attorney General indicated yesterday that land sales are even out of his purview and that you can sell land. I honestly don't understand why, as Minister of Health, I'm being questioned about the sale of land, whether it be to a brigand or otherwise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the point is well made and that the comments you made are, in fact, out of order inasmuch as they do not apply to the estimates before us.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister had been content to sit down and listen, he would realize that I'm trying to make the point that this is a matter of serious health concern in British Columbia. If you examine your vote, you'll find that for the Narcotics Foundation alone there is $100,000. Your total vote is $433,584,296 for the health care of people in British Columbia. A large portion of that will go into public health services. There is a grant of $16,000 …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule, Hon. Member, that you may discuss the general matter of drugs and so on in general relation to his estimates, but not to discuss this specific sale of land, which is not relevant to his estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: My concern is what is going to happen to this land when it's purchased, in relation to health. I will certainly lead into that. Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment. I just want to pursue the point. In regard to this sale of land, there is no evidence before this House or before the Minister of Health or the Attorney General that there is any matter of health involved in this sale of land at this time. Therefore, I would rule that you may discuss drugs in general under the estimates, but not

[ Page 1246 ]

this specific sale of land.

MRS. JORDAN : …your guidance, and I hope you will understand the scope of this problem. The land in itself is a matter of concern because it will have to be inspected by public health inspectors. The practices of this man, as we understand them….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated. I am ruling that this specific situation involving this person and this sale of land is not relevant to the estimates that are before us. The matter of the abuse of drugs and so forth is a matter which can be considered, but not in relation to this specific situation. Therefore, I would ask the Member not to discuss further this particular situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not discussing the sale of the land. I'm discussing the desirability of this man, who has a conviction against him, a drug history, and is a member of a cult of brotherhood love in which the leader is under charges now in the United States for the use of LSD and drug usage…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member disagrees with my ruling, you may ask for the ruling to be challenged. Otherwise, I would ask the Member to be seated. Order, please. I have made a ruling and I expect the ruling to be obeyed. I rule that you are not to discuss further this particular situation concerning this particular sale of land or this person involved in the sale of land in relation to the estimates that are before us under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I don't like to do this. I feel that it's an important matter for the people of British Columbia in relation to health. I'll have to challenge your ruling unless you can give me more guidance as to how I may bring this to the Minister's attention. It's quite obvious that this is a point that the Government does not wish to discuss, which lends more…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated. We'll respect your right to appeal….

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This total package was discussed last Friday. I gave information on it yesterday. The fact of the matter is that sale went through…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon Member be seated. You've asked for an appeal of my ruling. That will be done.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated. It was my opinion that the Hon. Member had appealed my ruling. We have summoned the Speaker of the House so that your ruling may be appealed.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee reports that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan appealed a ruling by me in which I stated that she may not discuss a specific sale of land in the Okanagan.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It involved the discussion of a sale of land to a person who is alleged to be a member of a cult called — what was it? — the cult of the divine love or something like that. I ruled that it was not something that could be considered under the estimates of the Department of Health. She has challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the only question before the House on the report from the Chairman is shall the Chairman's ruling be sustained? If there was any point of order that took place in Committee of the Whole House, that should be argued at that point, not before the Speaker on this type of procedure.

Therefore, I have to ask the question of the House: Shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?

Ruling sustained.

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

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, on Friday last, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) stated some very pertinent facts about drug usage in the Province of British Columbia. He outlined the seriousness of this problem and very well, I think, brought to mind the concern that must be expressed by the Minister of Health in relation to people who use drugs in British Columbia.

He stated, and I would quote:

"Some people estimate that we have, as I say, about 10,000 to 15,000 addicts in British Columbia The addiction problem is epidemic. It is

[ Page 1247 ]

contagious. In the past it was a small group of addicts who, in most cases, before addiction indicated anti-social and delinquent behavior. Now the insidious disease is reaching its ugly fingers into every part of society. It is no longer just the poor families that are susceptible but every family. The disease is walking hand in hand with the general moral decline in our community."

He went on to say:

"It is clear that we can see that the old interrelation is no longer pertinent. The addict is becoming younger and younger. We are told that in North America we are only on the threshold of a massive drug dependency and drug use problem. I'm talking about an emergency. But I must emphasize that the days when we can get away with sensationalizing the problem in the Press and in this House and ignoring our duty as legislators is past and must be over."

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with that statement more. I think it is a very sound statement and I think that the Minister must be prepared to listen to it.

He went on to outline the cost of drug usage in British Columbia. Here's the cost, and I again quote:

"I estimate $20 million is the added share. $40 million is the general cost. I'd say 50 per cent of our criminal involvement in the courts and jails is drug-related in British Columbia — that's $20 million. Courts and lawyers, 50 per cent of the total, would be a conservative $2 million. Prisons and corrections, again at only 50 per cent of the total, cost $25 million.

"The total cost to the economy of British Columbia for heroin addiction is a conservative $248.6 million annually. Not bad for organized crime — business as usual."

I think the statement that we should be concerned about here is the fact that the usage of drugs is not spread necessarily and solely by hard-core pushers, but it is spread by infiltration of a community of young people by people who are on this habit themselves for kicks, or because they enjoy it, or because they want to experiment with it — they encourage other young people or other citizens in the community to use it for these various reasons.

We have had one case in the North Okanagan, in the Monashee-Lumby area, where young people were convicted of growing marijuana. We are finding in this area that there are a number of communes developing, and the usage of marijuana and other drugs appears to be prevalent among them. We're concerned in this area and the people are concerned that this should not increase.

I'm sure the Minister realizes the great difficulty there is in trying to pin down where these drugs are in the cities, let alone in a rural area where you have acres and acres of wild country, of agricultural country, that can be used as a cache. Also, these habits take place at various times of the day. These people live in relatively primitive circumstances. So often they'll be using the drugs, whatever you want to define them as — marijuana, LSD — at night or early in the morning. They also use them in various parts of their land areas, which are under lease to them, or which they have purchased.

This is an adventuresome experience for many of the young people in our area. I think it's easy to imagine how they want to be part of it. These people are often very friendly, they're relatively young themselves, and it's very difficult for parents to take a strong stand in this position.

I would ask the Minister of Health:

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

2) Is he having his health inspectors purview these communes, with a view to the health standards that are being maintained there, and will he look into the influx of this type of person into the North Okanagan?

We are in danger in this area of having someone else come in because he wants to live in the North Okanagan and he wants to live in British Columbia. He, as I understand it, is a very nice young man. But his practices are less than desirable in relation to the community practices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that you were doing extremely well, Hon. Member, and I would ask you to continue in the same vein rather than referring to a specific case. The House has ruled that you should not discuss a particular case, rather you should speak in general terms.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless the matter which you are discussing comes within the administrative purview of the Minister it would be wiser if you didn't discuss that particular case. I so rule.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I fail to follow your concern in light of the fact that this individual — and he is an individual — and the people are concerned. He does pose a health threat to the lives of our children in this area and British Columbia. He has a conviction for an indictable offence in the United States.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that you have made your point very well in saying that you would ask the Minister of Health to look into this matter. I think you should give him an opportunity to answer in this vein, rather than pursuing the matter on the specific case. I so ruled, and the House sustained that ruling, that you not discuss this particular case, but rather speak in general terms.

[ Page 1248 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I believe it was the issue of land purchase that you ruled out of order and the House sustained that ruling. I won't discuss the land. I'm not interested in the land. I'm interested in representing the people of North Okanagan.

The Minister, on the recommendation of one of his own backbenchers, is going to have to take a more active role in this drug epidemic that we have in British Columbia. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this has to be the case, because it's the health of our people that is concerned, and their right to have a degree of protection against outside influences in this area, especially from outside Canada. The money of the department of the Minister whose salary we're debating is going to be spent in drug education, in treating drug addicts, in the public health service.

In the North Okanagan alone we had $16,000 grant last year. We hired a special person, well trained, to undertake a community and school drug, alcohol and tobacco education programme. Surely this is a conflict of spending.

Surely it's a conflict of the Minister's interests if he's only interested in a curative point of view instead of a preventive point of view. If we look through Hansard this year we'll see that the Minister has stressed very strongly — and we fully support him on this — that he and his department will be putting more and more emphasis on prevention. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the prevention of undesirable aliens coming into British Columbia and acquiring part of British Columbia and legal status is a matter in which he should be concerned.

In light of what the Attorney General said yesterday, if I may quote from Hansard, "If there comes to be a law enforcement problem," and I use this term from Hansard, "not referring directly to the land itself, but property or any other, I expect Members of this Legislature and other people to draw it to my attention."

But he also indicated that his jurisdiction lay in relation to one specific area — justice. I suggest to the Minister of Health that if the Attorney General's attitude is not to protect the justice of the people of British Columbia, which is at stake in this case in an area where the people of British Columbia are having outside drug abusers and convicted drug users foisted on their society, the Minister must make this one of his top priorities in light of the concern for health for the people of British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you have precedents and you have the authority under the statutes of British Columbia now to step in and protect the health of the people of British Columbia, by introducing an Act, if you want to do it under this thing, making it impossible for aliens who have an indictable offence area of drug usage, which is detrimental to health…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that you cannot propose legislation or suggest to the Minister that he should introduce legislation.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll rephrase it. Will the Minister, in light of the concern in this broad picture of drug prevention, bringing it down to a specific case that we have that is proving to be of a very detrimental health nature to the people in this area, consider bringing in legislation which would make it impossible for aliens who are under a drug charge…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just pointed out to the Hon. Member that you may not discuss legislation, propose legislation or suggest to the Minister that he introduce legislation. You're to discuss only the administrative aspects of the estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll have to go and read through Hansard where these similar proposals have been made before. I didn't realize you were going to try and rule on this so stringently. As I mentioned before, I suggest that it's a matter of extreme concern that the Government doesn't seem to wish this matter to be discussed.

Will the Minister take this under advisement, with a view to seeing that this cannot happen again and that there will be steps taken to see that people of this nature, the Youngstrorn nature, with absolute legal evidence against them, are not permitted to become established citizens in British Columbia?

I think you have to recognize, Mr. Minister, that in this case this young man was convicted on a lesser offence, which was marijuana use, although there was a great deal of suspicion that he was involved in the use of hard drugs, only after six American agencies were involved. I would quote:

"The main California investigation was conducted by: U.S. justice department's Organized Crime and Criminal Intelligence Branch, Sacramento; Orange County's Narcotics Task Force; Laguna Beach police force; Bureau of Narcotics, Santa Ana; federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Los Angeles; U.S. Customs, Los Angeles."

Mr. Minister, we don't have that type of a hard-core narcotic force in British Columbia. You certainly don't, through you, Mr. Chairman, have the people with the time or the intent within your department to carry out this type of investigation. It seems only reasonable that in your preventive programme you should be concerned that we don't have to develop this type of force to deal with people that we could deal with in the initial stages, and that you have the responsibility as Minister to see, through your colleagues and through your own department,

[ Page 1249 ]

that this type of alien person can't come to British Columbia and become part of our community by way of property acquisition.

I point out to you the living circumstances of these people. They generally have commune styles, there are not proper plumbing facilities, they're spread out over a large area, and it's impossible, or almost impossible for the law enforcement forces in British Columbia to get concrete evidence that would allow for the eviction of this man from our province if he did come in.

Again I would point out to you on the matter of prevention, and would urge you and ask you: will you please take steps so that this type of case cannot arise again in British Columbia, that this particular case will be made null and void and that there'll be no loss to the individuals involved.

I've made it very clear on other occasions that this is not a matter of concern against this young man individually, nor am I concerned with the vendor who involved him in British Columbia. It's not an agent's duty to investigate the past habits of his clients. But it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health to see that there is legislation to protect the health of the people of British Columbia.

I would ask the Minister in closing what he intends to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, that was an extremely fine presentation.

I'd like to ask a question first. What's this microphone behind me, or does anybody in the House know?

MRS. JORDAN: It's for interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: I see.

Mr. Chairman, we are very much interested in the whole question of preventive work with respect to the whole addiction problem. My colleague, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and I have set up conferences. We've had meetings with any number of groups on this question. We have people actually working for us, people with new ideas and the kind of motivation that we feel will do a lot for this province in helping to reduce the consequence and also reduce the numbers of those people involved in the dependency areas.

Mr. Chairman, the growing of marijuana in Monashee near Lumby is a question that of course we view seriously. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, we don't view it as seriously as we view the incredible number of hard drug users within a few blocks of this building and the hundreds and the thousands of them in the lower mainland area, and for that matter, scattering all over the province.

My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that to stop one sale of one piece of property isn't even close — and Mr. Chairman, let me say right now, right off the bat…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: The "Order, please" was exactly what that Member was talking about all through her presentation …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) be seated, please. I just want to make the point that I allowed her to continue as long as she considered the general health aspects without considering the property aspects.

I would recognize again the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are looking at the whole question of prevention, as I said.

Let me say this. One of the areas that we've moved into is to increase our health inspector staff. You ask that we inspect every commune in the province, Mr. Chairman, through you to that Member. There are a great number of places that should be inspected. But one of the things that you must remember is that if a health inspector is to walk into a home — and that's what it is — and if they can walk into a group home, I presume that they can walk into your home or your home or your home or anybody else's home without a warrant. That's not the kind of freedom that this country is made of.

Therefore, the kind of approach to this question has to be the kind of approach that people involved in the whole freedom system of Canada — the democratic process — must remember.

As far as my bringing out a new immigration policy for the Province of British Columbia, I think that the federal government would frown on the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance in B.C. taking a course that can only be done by a national Act — indicating that people cannot come or go from this province. That's about where it stands. Mr. Chairman, we just can't possibly make

[ Page 1250 ]

this kind of commitment to any kind of new policy that involves us in a jurisdiction that isn't ours in the first place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that that pretty well sums up, other than to say that we are most interested in any kind of constructive, responsible approaches to this problem. We want to cut down the incidence of drug use in the province. As I said, we've got people working on it and we will continue in that way.

I felt that the work the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) did the other day in this House when he gave a fine paper on the whole question of hard drug abuse particularly, is the kind of constructive presentation that should be made here with respect to the whole question of drug dependency.

We recognize also, when we're talking about drug dependency, that it's not only what we consider to be drugs but also alcohol dependency because that's just as crippling in my view.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's comments. I think he slithered around a bit. I don't think he should be doing it on this particular issue.

When I listened to your words, you said you are "more concerned," if I am quoting you correctly, "about the hard drug users around Victoria, around the metropolitan area." You pointed out that inspectors shouldn't have the right to go into people's homes without a warrant…

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

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

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

MRS. JORDAN: O.K., I'm not asking for this. But in my way of thinking, the very words that you've just finished saying point out the need for your intervention in this whole situation before it gets started.

Why wait until five years from now when I'm standing in this Legislature asking you to send in inspectors, telling you about the number of children that have become involved in this case and are now using marijuana or maybe on LSD? That's looking at the camel backwards, if I can put it politely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I think that your own Members' comments, your own comments, through you, Mr. Chairman…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member again that you may discuss the administrative aspects, but when you begin to propose solutions or suggestions for legislations, this is out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd borrow from that phrase that was used in Ottawa and say, "There, but for the Minister of Health, goes the health of the people of British Columbia." His administration and his administrative reaction in this case is just not acceptable.

You talk out of one side of your mouth about prevention and what you want to do in prevention. You're setting up all these committees, and you've got Dr. Foulkes running all over the province. That's fine, if that's the way you want to do it. But stop leaving the decisions to the committees.

You're the Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, and you've got a problem. You're skating this way and that way and every way you can because you want to avoid this problem. If I have to stay in this House till doomsday, you'll not avoid that problem.

You have a responsibility, through you, Mr. Chairman, to prevent what we know is going to happen. If you listen to your own Member, if you talk to the narcotic foundation, if you talk to the health people, they'll say to you, Mr. Minister, "Start your action now before it goes beyond repair."

You talk about justice, Mr. Minister, and freedom in Canada. I agree with you. But the justice belongs to the people of British Columbia in this case, to the people in that area whose children and whose brothers and sisters are going to be or are in danger of being affected by this man's habit. That, Mr. Chairman, is where that Minister's responsibility lies.

I tried to present it to you. I'd like to have had a free and open debate on this. I tried to talk to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on Friday. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) doesn't want to discuss it. No one wants to discuss it except the people of British Columbia.

Why don't you open up the debate, Mr. Chairman, so we can talk about it rationally? Why doesn't….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that you do have a recourse through the introduction of a private Member's bill on this matter.

[ Page 1251 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. My responsibility is to observe the rules of this House, I am suggesting to you that the proper procedure, if you wish to air this matter, is to introduce it in the form of a private Member's bill. I would ask you, therefore, to confine your remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

MRS. JORDAN: I won't introduce a private Member's bill at this time, because it will stifle debate. I want to ask the Minister, under his estimates: are you going to take action of a preventative nature in this particular case in your role as Minister of Health in light of statements you've made in this House and outside ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, first I want to assure the House that I will take action on any health matter in this province within my jurisdiction — the kind of action that I feel, as Minister of Health, can best serve the purposes of health in this province.

Let me say that I cannot, as Minister of Health, undo something that another government has done. That's in the first place. That Member brought this case before the former Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson), which was the right place to bring it, some many months ago and had no satisfaction at that time. I didn't want to bring this up at this point but, Mr. Chairman, I am forced to. She got no satisfaction from the former government, so she takes on the Health Minister now to reverse a sale that is already made to some person who is accused of being a drug addict from the United States.

Mr. Chairman, how I can possibly defend that kind of situation? We have been working on it for the last hour in this House. That kind of situation is really untenable. I can't defend it because it's not my purview, in the first place.

Secondly, unless this individual does something that is opposed to the better health practices in this province, I have no jurisdiction. However, I assure you that when he does, and it's brought to my attention or we find out about it, he will certainly know that just doesn't go on in this province. That's it. That goes for anybody else who we catch moving in counter-productive areas in the better health system in this province. That is about the size of it.

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

MRS. JORDAN: In regard to the last Attorney General, if you wish to bring that up, through you, Mr. Chairman, I did get satisfaction. The Attorney General at that time, the Hon. Leslie Peterson, advised that all possible legal action would be taken in relation to this case. I have checked with him since, and you do have authority, Mr. Minister. When you stand in this House and say that you are prepared to take any action which will best serve the health of the people of British Columbia, and then make it clear that you have an open door policy for drug addicts to come to British Columbia, then I suggest that that Minister does not have…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark. There was an implication of a motive which I think is not worthy of this House, Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the statement imputing this motive to the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw the statement but I will say very factually and very clearly on behalf of the people of British Columbia that they are not satisfied with a Health Minister who sidesteps an issue on every possible excuse he can. He is a Minister who stands in this House and says that he will take positive action to protect the health of people in British Columbia and do everything he can to correct the hard-core drug addict and the epidemic of drug usage that we have in British Columbia, and then turns around and slides out from his responsibilities by refusing to take any action that will constructively prevent the influx of these people to British Columbia in one particular instance.

Mr. Minister, are you concerned with health? The environment in this area is more conducive to winter grazing of deer. There is a report in one of your colleagues' departments to this effect. There is public opinion to this effect. The previous administration set aside some Crown land under a reservation for winter grazing of deer. That is what the land should be used for; that is what the health environment is…. .

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

We are considering the estimates of the Minister of Health and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to that matter and not to discuss matters of land.

[ Page 1252 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Under the Green Belt Protection Act the Minister of Finance or any Minister designated by order-in-council. That Minister does have the authority to stop this now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated if she is not going to move to another subject.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my responsibility to enforce the rules of this House and I intend to do that. I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I have just a few odd questions to the Minister. I know the Minister is vitally concerned with the matter of the mentally handicapped. In fact I believe he has received an invitation to speak at one of the branches on April 10, and I hope he sees his way clear to do this My point in relation to the various branches of the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Handicapped is the fact that through the Minister's department they do have certain grants of assistance. Now, the point that has been giving me some concern is: has the Minister a more realistic kind of funding to provide staff and operational expenses?

Secondly, I'm concerned with the fact in this day of more emphasis on leisure and statutory holidays and so on that where an earning of an amount, let's say $1,100, for a particular month, say December, has been designated, because of Christmas and so on, an amount of $200 is deducted for statutory holidays. This gives some concern because of the difficulty in obtaining operational revenues from other than Government for these mentally handicapped people.

My point here is: will this be looked at within the coming fiscal year or within the estimates presently set up?

Another question I have is in relation to the district health nurse. I want to support the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) who spoke on this. There are areas in this province that are particularly well served by district health nurses. I come from a district — it's just too many years back to mention. In fact the golden jubilee was celebrated in my home town of the original health nurse arriving in that area. They do a terrific job. Presently we are short of staff. The demands for attention to the public schools and so on is just more than the average body can cover.

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

Is there some possibility of reducing the size of these areas or adding even part-time staff to two areas where one particular body is now doing the work of maybe a body and a half, so that it could be shared over a couple of districts?

My next question is in relation to diagnostic centres. Only yesterday, while I didn't see the particular TV programme, one of the regional district representatives was on it, and it was in relation to an application made by a regional district for a diagnostic centre where they have not had a doctor for many, many years.

Without the facilities it is very hard to get a doctor to locate in the area. Apparently some doctors have shown interest in establishing themselves, providing facilities were there to do diagnostic work. Naturally they would get the privileges of hospital in the surrounding regional hospital district.

As I understand from this programme, it was denied that this matter was brought either to the Minister's attention or to the department's attention. This gives me some concern because I brought it both to the attention of the department and also to the Minister. In fact I discussed it briefly with the Minister in the hallway here last October, when the mini-session was on. I wonder if the Minister can just give me some information on that. It may be difficult right at this time, but perhaps he could follow through with a letter or something if he doesn't have it at his fingertips now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to deal with first things first, we are certainly working in the area of the mentally handicapped. I'm not too sure of the April 10 conference. I know that I have conflicting dates around April 10. I would hope that this is the one that won out. I know that I'm very hard pressed for time — could you recall just offhand where that conference is?

Penticton. As a matter of fact we had to make that hard, crunchy decision this morning and unfortunately, because I have about four or five on the lower mainland, it is going to make it very difficult for me to get up there. But there is a possibility that I can get up there.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as the funding and the operational expenses of sheltered workshops and other facilities for the handicapped, I presume that is what you mean, that comes under the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in that they do the funding. We do some of the diagnostic work,

[ Page 1253 ]

and that kind of thing. But they actually are the funders of the programme. So that I know that they'll be interested in listening to your remarks, and you can bring that up under his estimates.

As far as district health nurses are concerned. We are making 22 additions this year, in the estimates. I hope that we can hire them all right away, as soon as the House rises and we're into the new year. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are there?

HON. MR. COCKE: We'll be adding 22, yes. How many across the province? A great number, I can't tell you off hand. But there are 200 odd — you know, 210 or 220, something in that area. So we're going up some 10 per cent. And that isn't the end of the road by any stretch of the imagination. We're looking at this whole question of the extended role of a nurse, right now — as to how nurses should be utilized. I'm one of those who feel that there should be a real good look at the extended role of the nurse — as to moving into areas where she can do more work on her own and provide a great deal more care, because most nurses are very highly competent people.

As far as reducing areas of adding staff, at the present time the structures are going to stay pretty well the same. But we want to add staff and bring up our complement to a place where people are getting proper service.

On the Keremeos situation — I assume that's the one on the diagnostic and treatment centre. Because of the fact that we are working at the present time on trying to design our concept of a community health centre — now that doesn't say that it doesn't complement the diagnostic centre — we do feel that we have to have some kind of a blueprint, or method of financing or whatever. So we are moving very carefully.

In some of the more remote areas we've moved in already, as I've indicated. But in the Keremeos area, and I know that they need direct service right there, we just are not moving for the moment.

The first hint that I had of a plebiscite — I understand there was a plebiscite — the first hint that I had of that was today. It hasn't reached my office at this point — any plebiscite, at least the news of a plebiscite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Petition.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, petition, plebiscite. I beg your pardon, petition is what I mean. O.K.? I think that pretty well sums it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 86 pass?

Vote 86 approved.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I propose this afternoon to point out to the Members of this House that Bill No. 42 is not going to in any way increase food production in this province. It's not going to in any way assist the farmer in this province. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I intend to point out that it will increase food costs in this province. I think that this is at the very least, a sinister bill.

I hope the House will just stay with me a moment while I get organized. I didn't expect this to come up so fast.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are dealing with probably the most controversial piece of legislation that will come before this Legislature for some time.

To start out my remarks I would like to go back over some of the comments that were made by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) during the introduction of this bill, on Friday last.

The Minister, when he opened second reading, stated that he has 15 acres of land, and he said that people who were going to discuss Bill No. 42 in this Legislature should also state what land they have. He said,

"I want to assure you that I have absolutely no intention of subdividing or allowing that land to be subdivided. I say this, in part, to put my own position clearly before the Members of this House so they know something about it before they speak. If anyone else feels that they wish to say the same thing, they can do it.

"If they wish to make similar statements about their own holdings or what they wish to do with this land that they have, then they too should have that

[ Page 1254 ]

what they're doing now, not what they did 10 years ago, 20 years — ago, or some other time."

I wouldn't mind telling the House what land in British Columbia I have an interest in if that is what the Minister of Agriculture wishes me to do. In that way every one in this Legislature will certainly know that I have no axe to grind and nothing to gain either from subdividing my own personal land or any land that I have any interest in or that any of my family have any interest in.

My main interest in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to see that everybody who owns land in British Columbia gets a fair deal and that that land is not stolen from them, which this bill purports to do.

Now, I have a 50 per cent interest in about 20 acres of land at a place known as Moberly Lake, presently covered by swamp bushes. My children used to play out there when they were younger — they built tree houses.

I acquired this interest by assisting another friend of the two who now own it to get a lot at the lake so that he could have a cabin. After a while his wife no longer had the desire to go to this lake, so we bought out the other third interest and I really don't know what I'm going to do with it. I certainly don't intend to subdivide it. I guess now I won't be able to sell it. But it was good for the children while they were growing up. They had a great time out there. I thought maybe I might put some sheep on it, clean it up and maybe donate it …

AN HON. MEMBER: What about grandchildren?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, grandchildren, sure. This is not lakeshore property either, Mr. Speaker, it's about 500 feet back from the lake.

Across the road from this piece of property, I have another lot, about 500 by 135 feet, on which I have my summer home. And this is deeded property. It was purchased back in 1958.

This is what myself and my family refer to as our little piece of British Columbia because it's owned entirely by us. It's deeded and big enough that someday if things get that bad maybe we could go out there and raise a few chickens or a few cows and help to support ourselves. That's if things continue at the present trend, Mr. Speaker. It may get so that we have to go out there and kill a moose in the winter time and maybe get some fish out of the lake, although there aren't that many fish in the lake. But this could happen. So this is, as I say, what we call our little bit of British Columbia.

Then we have a lot in town, in Dawson Creek. I'm sorry I don't know what the size of it is. It's a corner lot on 114th Avenue. On this we have our home in which we live. And that home I might say, has been a home for four fine growing sons who are going out to take up their part in this great life of Canada, and in British Columbia and I hope that they prove to be good citizens.

I hope that while I'm standing in this House this afternoon I have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to support some of their rights. Many people have fought and died for those rights. Although I don't intend to let any of my blood flow this afternoon, I would say that I would take my place here in this House trying to protect their rights.

Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, I have an interest in several business lots in Dawson Creek. I didn't figure out just how many. None of them are subdivisible for agricultural land. They're commercial property. I don't think that they would grow much because they're mostly covered with buildings and hardtop.

Then I have another lot down at the far end of town which is commercial property. It's about an acre and a third. I have no intention of subdividing it at the present time — it's commercial property. I know that because this lot of land is there, I will probably be told what I can or can't do with it. We're using it for a storage lot and I'll continue to use it for that for quite some time, unless of course…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's about an acre and a third. If you say for me to raise potatoes on it, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'll be quite happy to raise potatoes on it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, there are lots of land in this province that are over two acres that you couldn't grow anything on, because it's rocks and it's hilly. You couldn't grow anything on it. But, Mr. Speaker, that land is frozen at the present time. It's frozen harder than the rocks that are on it.

Then there's another little piece of property in Taylor. It's commercial property. I have an interest in that. I don't know how many acres it is but I think it's under two acres. It's commercial property at the present time. So I think that about sums up what I consider to be my interest in the good old terra firma of British Columbia.

The Government probably won't pass this bill; they'll withdraw it. But as the bill presently stands, Mr. Speaker, I could be told what I can and can't do with it. I think this is the message. If it affects me, it affects every other person who owns any property anywhere in British Columbia. If the bill passes, no piece of land in British Columbia will be safe from the paws and the intentions of this five-man committee.

I'd like to move on now to some other of the Minister's remarks. He spoke about a British Colum-

[ Page 1255 ]

bia natural resource conference, the sixth such conference. If I can read briefly from it: "From the World Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations comes the disturbing statement that between 1945 and 1950, despite the best efforts of farmers with available technology at their disposal, food production could not keep pace with population."

I don't think anybody is going to dispute that statement. However, there are other people who have made other statements about where we're going in food production in the world. I'm not going to take what the Minister said for gospel. This natural resource conference, they've probably done a fair amount of research.

However, I'd like to quote to you from a gentleman who has recently written a book. This book is called The Doomsday Syndrome. It's written by John Maddox.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: How do you mean, have I got it? The book? Do you want me to read you the whole book? I just want to quote from it. It's very important. If we're going to quote one group of people from a resource conference; if we're going to quote those who have brought up this doomsday, starvation, pollution, ecology thing — that we're going to ruin ourselves — certainly I think there should be a rebuttal here. Isn't that what the Legislature is for — to have discussion? I think you should listen to this man.

He's the editor of a prestigious British scientific journal Nature. I think that anyone who's been to the continent or been to England and Great Britain knows what a fantastic job they've done over there in preserving their land. They don't have too much of it and they've done a beautiful job of preserving it. They've done a beautiful job of creating greenbelts around the cities. The parks in London are beautiful. They've done a fantastic job of it.

Mr. Speaker, he says that the prophets of doom have multiplied remarkably in the past few years. I would say that that's probably right. It's very difficult to turn on your television now, or pick up a paper or read an article where you can't read something about the fact that the world is going to come to an end.

We're going to starve ourselves out or we're going to pollute ourselves out or we're going to kill off all the wild animals or we're going to pollute the ocean or we're not going to be able to feed ourselves. I think we'll have to agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker, that prophets of doom have multiplied remarkably in the past few years.

"The once commonplace men with the sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world is at hand' have been replaced by a throng of sober scientists, philosophers and politicians claiming that there are more subtle calamities just around the corner." I can remember when I was a boy growing up that there were prophets around saying that the world was going to come to an end. I remember not being able to sleep some nights because I thought the world might come to an end in the morning. I was quite feared as a little boy. I feared that I might wake up in the morning and there would be no world.

I wonder what the children of today think. These were mostly evangelistic types that were around, Mr. Speaker. But now — my gracious, they have the media, the television and the papers and teachers in the school and so forth, all saying that the population of the world is going to…

I think it has everybody concerned. That's one thing I like about human nature. Once somebody thinks they've got a problem, they can usually solve it. I have a great faith in mankind, that they are going to be able to solve their problems. I can remember when they introduced the gun. I wasn't there at that time but I remember the prophets of doom of that day saying that all of mankind was going to shoot himself; he's going to eliminate himself. Then they brought in the automobile and they said that they were going to run over people in the street. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker?

We've always had our prophets of doom. I suppose that some of them aren't that bad. They make us aware of our problems. However, I think today we have too many prophets of doom.

The human race, they say, is in danger of suffocating itself by over breeding, of poisoning itself with pollution, and of weakening the basic structure of society through too much prosperity.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm discussing the bill right now. When you bring in a bill like Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, it has very wide-ranging ramifications. It touches on agriculture; it touches on pollution; it touches right to the very roots of the human race.

Nobody doubts the sincerity of those critics who would disagree that we are confronted with the urgent task. Urban life surely leaves much room for improvement. In less developed societies there are the basic needs of people for adequate food, adequate housing, medical care and schooling. These problems are capable of solution in the foreseeable future, if enough time and money are spent on them. There again, I think that society will certainly be able to solve its own problems.

This is the important thing that I've been leading up to: The risk is that the doomsday syndrome — too much preoccupation with the threat of distant

[ Page 1256 ]

calamity — will accomplish the opposite in its intention. I think this is exactly what Bill 42 has done. Somebody has become frightened, hasn't done their research, has panicked and brought in this. sinister bill. This is the problem. This is the very root of the problem right here.

I propose to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Legislature this afternoon that this bill is ill-conceived, was brought in in haste and that somebody stampeded the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). I don't know whether, Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) who stampeded the Minister of Agriculture, or whether it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), or maybe even the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come to order.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I propose a little later to discuss that subject in some greater detail, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

The risk is that the doomsday syndrome, too much preoccupation with the threat of distant calamity…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly see that the Members of this Legislature are concerned. I know they're concerned. And they should be concerned.

Too much preoccupation with the distant threat of calamity will accomplish the opposite of its intention. I propose to prove that this is what has happened here.

Right now our society is being divided — farmer against city dweller, ecologists against the farmer. This bill was divided the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. When the two groups should be working together to come up with reasonable ways of preserving farmland with reasonable ways of helping each other live in co-existence, this bill, Mr. Speaker, has divided brother against brother, father against father, son against father, neighbour against neighbour, labourer against farmer, fisherman against farmer, farmer against fisherman.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Socreds against NDP. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: They'll be sorry, Mr. Speaker, they'll be sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better believe it. Amen.

MR. PHILLIPS: They have created calamity here in the Province of British Columbia. It's not "land by legislation" but "land by confiscation," Mr. Speaker. "The doomsday cause would be more telling if it were more securely grounded in facts and had an awareness of economics and history. Some doomsayers fear that the burning of fuel on the scale to which…" Now that doesn't pertain to agriculture so I'll just leave it.

"Others fear that pesticides will irrevocably damage the human race." I was just reading somewhere yesterday, Mr. Speaker, where in the United States they've invented another pesticide which is going to replace DDT and help improve food production.

"Last spring a computer simulation of the world purporting to show that many of the more gloomy prophecies of the environmentalists can be upheld by mathematical calculations was published entitled, 'The Limits to Growth.' " I'm sure there are many ecologists and many Members on the opposite side of the House, Mr. Speaker, who are probably aware of this book.

"The controversial study was carried out at MIT under the leadership of Professor Dennis L. Meadows" — meadows; that's farmland —"and attempted to figure how such interrelated variables of population, capital food, non-renewable natural resources and pollution will change in the course of time.

"Conclusion: If there is no major change in the physical, economic and social relationships that have historically governed the development of the world system, there will come a point in the next century when the diminishing stock of natural resources brings about a decrease in industrial growth and a consequent decrease in per capita food availability.

"In due course we will return to the 'bad old days' when the death rate rose rapidly because of starvation, and even an increasing birth rate will be unable to prevent a population decline.

"In my opinion," Mr. Mattick says, "the conclusion is pretentious nonsense."

He's a fairly well educated man. He's had to do with land preservation in England. He's certainly been around ecologists, and he says that it's "nonsense."

[ Page 1257 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: "Pretentious nonsense."

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll say that too, "pretentious nonsense." We're not necessarily going to ruin all the land in the world. "The most serious error involves," and this is why he says that it's nonsense, "aggregation, a combining of things that ought not to be considered."

As one, for example:

"Meadows and his colleagues represented the totality of pollution on the earth by a single number based on world industrial production. They thus cannot take into consideration the obvious fact that modern technology can control pollution without affecting production at all."

It's happening right here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where in some cases we have increased our production and eliminated pollution entirely. But "The Limits to Growth" says that with the continued growing pollution problem we're going to pollute the entire earth.

This presents a very dangerous state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the ecologists have the opportunity to do a great service to mankind. When they start coming up with statements that do not truly represent the future and what is going to happen, then there is a fear, Mr. Speaker, that people will stop listening to them. This would be very drastic indeed, We should listen to our ecologists. They have a lot to tell us.

"The study also represents the world's stock of non-renewable resources with a single number, overlooking a cardinal law of economics which holds that increasing scarcity and consequently higher prices would stimulate exploration for new materials."

He calls it "rabid rhetoric."

"The first environmentalists were probably the scientists who, towards the end of World War II, sensed that the development of nuclear weapons posed a great danger to the human race."

Mr. Speaker, do we hear any talk today about the atomic bomb going to eliminate mankind? I haven't heard it for quite some time. You used to hear it all the time. You used to hear it all the time. In the United States, Mr. Speaker, they were building bomb shelters and they were stocking them with foods so that they could remain there. There were people writing books about "I was the Last Man on Earth After the Civilization Disappeared."

These things passed, Mr. Speaker. I guess probably in the history of mankind these people serve some useful purpose, although I have to really search my mind for some of the purposes that they perform That's why I really have to search my mind, Mr. Speaker, to understand what is the real purpose of Bill 42,

It's a sinister bill. I really have to search my mind to find the thinking behind it. I know that the bill was not developed from proper research, was not developed from proper consultation with the farmers.

I don't know where the bill came from, do you, Mr. Speaker? I think somebody had a bad dream one night and woke up the next morning and there was Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: A nightmare.

MR. PHILLIPS: A nightmare.

Well, I'd like to go on just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and point out that all of this deal about the world going to starve itself to death and not enough food production…I'd like to point out what this man has to say about it.

And so that I don't lose my train of thought, he was talking about "rabid rhetoric." So we have to realize that there was some "rabid rhetoric" behind Bill 42, Mr. Speaker. Somebody was…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …off base. In short, the weakness of today's disaster prophecies is that they are exaggerations, many of them frighteningly irresponsible. Frightenan — frightening; gracious…! frightenenainly… (Laughter) irresponsible. I'll get it yet. Anyway it frightens everyone — and they're irresponsible. Frighteneningly!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you want that in Hansard?

MR. PHILLIPS: Frighteneningly. (Laughter). They're scary irresponsible statements. Their flavour is well illustrated by the work of biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose book, The Population Bomb, startled a good many people five years ago. I think this is where we're getting to the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," he wrote. "In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programme." That is a quote from the book entitled, The Population Bomb.

I wonder how many people actually believe that. How many people actually believe that? No wonder they say it's frightening, Mr. Speaker, because there again, when there is a need, an earnest need…as I pointed out on the floor of this Legislature not too many weeks ago, there is an earnest need for all countries in the world to get together and find out what the world food situation is all about; to form a group to work together; to get some computers and

[ Page 1258 ]

put it all on and attack the food problem. But for this man to come out…why bother? He says we're going to starve ourselves out in the 70s, and this is 1973. We've only got seven years to go.

Now, here is another man who is intelligent. He says, "The truth is that the earth's total production of food is now increasing faster than the population." So, who do you believe?

I would say that whoever conceived this fantastic piece of legislation known as Bill 42 must have believed the first man. I prefer to look at things with reason and understanding and say that, sure, we've got to take a look at the situation." I think all good legislators should use reason.

Well I'm going to discuss that too, Mr. Minister of Labour. I'm going to discuss something about what happened in the last 20 years, but I want to leave this thought with you first because, as I develop my case, Mr. Speaker, I want to firmly establish a few facts. I will discuss what went on in the last 20 years and I will discuss some outlooks for the next 20 years. As my case develops the legislators in this House will know both sides of the story. Then I know that when it comes up that they'll vote against it, because they will realize that Bill 42 was based on scary statements. Frightening statements. Yes, wild statements.

So, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the earth's total production of food is now increasing faster than the population, thanks largely to the new strains of wheat and rice. Nor is there any reason to believe the green revolution will slow down in the coming years.

We have helped underdeveloped nations improve their agriculture. We have supplied them with new methods. There is still a great deal of work to be done in that area.

These are the types of things that we should be thinking about: using common sense — looking at the total picture; not being concerned about one or two promoters in British Columbia who happen to make a fantastic profit on developing a piece of land. It scared the daylights out of you and brought in this ill-conceived piece of legislation known as Bill 42. I ask the Minister to stand on the floor of the House right now and withdraw it. Withdraw that bad bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Watch your language.

MR. PHILLIPS: Go back to the people that own the land. Have social intercourse with them. Discuss their problems. Sit down and in a reasonable manner find out what the situation is. Right now, you've gone off half…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they haven't really taken time to study all the facts, Mr. Speaker. They only wanted to see one side of the situation. They realize there's a problem. Farmland should be preserved. I realize that problem, Mr. Speaker. I think everybody realizes that problem. But by this vicious bill… I intend to point out that you're not going to preserve farmland; that you're not going to help food production; that you're not going to help the farmer. As a matter of fact, you will shove the price of food higher and production will decline. That's what I predict, Mr. Speaker, if this idiotic bill passes in this Legislature.

In the meantime, you've really done nothing to, you know, what you wanted to set out and accomplish and, as I said before, you have turned the citizens of British Columbia against one another.

You have further corralled the farmer as being a man who wants to sell his land and make a fantastic profit. This is what people who live in the city now think of the farmer. This is what this bill has done. That is not the case in farming at all.

True farmers want to preserve their land. All they want to be able to do is run an economically viable unit to produce food. There are many ways that this can be done. But the viciousness of Bill 42 does just the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Implicit in the dire warnings of the consequences of population growth is a misleading method of prediction that gives more credit to simple arithmetic than it deserves. If the population of the world at present is doubling every 35 years, does it necessarily follow that the population will multiply fourfold in the next 70 years so as to reach 14.5 billion by the year 2042? I say no. He says no.

In reality, there are already signs that fertility is declining in developing countries, exactly as it declined in western Europe between 50 and 100 years ago. So, he said we're going to starve ourselves out, didn't take into consideration that food production is increasing, didn't take into consideration that population could be on the down-climb.

This is why I say that these people who purport to know what the world should do to save itself are really causing more panic in the world than they are doing good. That is exactly what Bill 42 is doing. It's causing more panic in British Columbia than the good that it sets out to do. This is the problem of Bill 42. This will be the problem with an ill-conceived piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Famine is only one of several hypothetical catastrophes that are said to flow from population growth. Many doomsdayers argue that the high population density produces individual disorientation and increased social tension, citing experiments with laboratory animals, principally rats.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that human beings and rats do not necessarily perform the same. That has been proved in many clinics and many scientific laboratories in North America; that mice they ran certain tests on did not perform the same. So in other

[ Page 1259 ]

words, I don't think we can really put too much faith in the book, The Population Bomb. I think we have to accept it for what it is.

But there seems to be a tradition of fear. Many people would like to excite the population so that they panic, and that is what's happened here. Somebody has really made the Minister of Agriculture panic.

In much the same way, environmentalists decry the effects of population growth on natural resources. Like I said in this House not too long ago, the facts do not stand up. One should take a trip to England and over to the continent. Take a look at how they have preserved agriculture. They utilize their land to the maximum.

I would say that in most areas of British Columbia we haven't really got down to scientific use of the land we have. So I can't see why all the great urgency, why all the necessity for bringing in such a drastic bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to close this particular theme with this thought:

The political consequences of the tactlessness by people from industrialized societies are serious. Their intellectual sins are more serious still. The common justification of the environmentalist's technique of deliberate exaggeration is the claim that it is necessary to stir people up to get things done.

Aesop knew what happened to the shepherd boy who cried "wolf' too often. People are easily anaesthetized; anasthised…

AN HON. MEMBER: Put to sleep. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: People are easily put to sleep by overstatement.

I'm sorry that that had to be comical, because it's a very serious statement. There is a danger that the environmental movement will fall flat on its face when it is most needed, simply because it has pitched its tale too strongly. This is exactly what could be the result of Bill 42.

The land freeze had to be brought in because of irresponsible statements, Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of Agriculture last fall. People panicked and now we have pandemonium. It's too bad. He used the same scare tactics when in his speech last Friday he said "so we recognize, I think, "…"I think," he says, "that world population is increasing rapidly and is still increasing rapidly." These are the Minister of Agriculture's words in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, last Friday afternoon.

"So we recognize, I think," … he doesn't even know. He says "I think that world population is increasing rapidly and is still increasing rapidly. We recognize and we agree, I am sure," this time he is a little more sure of himself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still quoting?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm still quoting the Minister of Agriculture, what he said last Friday afternoon when he introduced this bill for second reading in this Legislature. I quote the Minister: "I'm sure that the land suitable for agricultural production is limited."

I think that everything is limited, but how high is "high?" These are the points that we have to take into consideration. How high is "high," how drastic do we have to get to treat this situation?

He says, "We are not making any more of it." Well, we're not maybe making any more of the earth but we're certainly making more agricultural land. I will prove that to you at a later time this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Agriculture did a disservice to this Legislature when he used these same tactics that had been used by some of the people in The Doomsday Syndrome. He's reading from a report by a Dr. Warren, one of the panelists from UBC, and Dr. Warren said:

"Public interests, human welfare and good management require that all landowners or lessees of land and water, public and private, care for sail and water under their control in a manner which will ensure that future generations may derive from them full enjoyment and benefit."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I don't think you will find any farmer in British Columbia who would knowingly misuse his land. If you know some of the farmers, Mr. Speaker, who have gone out to pick roots in the noonday sun, from early morning until late at night, pick roots, work by the sweat of their own brow to develop this land, you would understand the farmer's love for his land. You would understand how he feels when he plants the seeds in the spring and watches Mother Nature produce from the land he loves. I think anyone who knows anything about farming or farmers knows that they love the land on which they work.

They love to till the soil and they love to see it produce. It's one of the greatest things that we have on earth. That's why it's said that farmers are the salt of the earth.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 gives the five-man commission the power to tell that farmer what he can plant on his soil. It in essence gives this five-man commission the right to tell the farmer how much fertilizer he should use. I can't really see a nameless, faceless, five-man commission, unless they are completely trained in agriculture, telling a man who has tilled his own soil, who has brought it under production, what he should plant.

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, goes on to state:

"Further on in the same report we refer to the control of subdivision planning with a view to assuring that the parcels of land are such sizes and

[ Page 1260 ]

shapes not just to save them for agriculture, but they should be of such sizes and shapes that their greatest agricultural value is preserved and their desirability in some cases as residential sites is enhanced."

Well there again, it's pretty hard to say that this isn't a good ideal. But Mr. Warren does not, in his report, subscribe to giving a five-man commission the power to designate every square inch of land in British Columbia.

The Minister goes on to refer to some clippings out of the paper with regard to Surrey municipality. I'm not going to go into that portion of his talk at the present time, Mr. Speaker, because I will be referring to it later.

He says that we must all understand that it must be accepted as a basic principle. "Twenty-two years ago," he says, "it was argued that this must be accepted as a basic principle, and today I am asking you to accept that basic principle for the future." The basic principle he is referring to, of course, is the preservation of farmland. I think probably, as I said Friday, that we agree that farmland should be preserved. But I also said that we do not agree with the method that Bill 42 uses to preserve farmland, because it doesn't really preserve farmland at all.

The Minister referred to a book that was written 4000 years ago and said that they had a problem then and we've still got the same problem; that we should handle it in a manner that calm and wise men do when they sit down and discuss their problems.

"Bill 42," the Minister says, "has 20 provisions which grant the commission or the cabinet complete and total authority." Twenty. "I've gone through them, " he says, "Mr. Speaker," — and I am quoting the Minister of Agriculture: "One of them is definitions; one of them establishes a commission; one of them says how it's going to name the chairman; another says how it's going to provide bylaws," — and there are only 20 of these sections in total.

He says: "Only six of them say something about the powers and the authority of the commission. Bill 42 denies the basic tenets of natural justice. There is a section in here that need not have been in the bill." However, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should move on to discussing the bill.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is back in the House now. It appeared to me on Friday afternoon that he was fairly nervous about protecting his position on Bill 42. The last words he said, Mr. Speaker, and I'll quote them for the House, were, "We're listening, and we're hearing precious little." Well, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how long it's been since the Minister of Agriculture has had his ears examined but I would suggest that for him to stand and say that he is listening but that he is hearing precious little, would be the understatement of the year.

If he doesn't hear what the people in British Columbia are saying about Bill 42, it's not because he's deaf, but because he doesn't want to hear, Mr. Speaker. If he can't hear what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42, it's because the Minister has a completely closed mind and doesn't want to hear what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about some real estate men. If the Minister of Agriculture doesn't hear what the people are saying — he says he's hearing "precious little" — maybe he should try reading. Because if he's deaf, I'm sure he's not blind. If he doesn't see in the newspapers what the people are saying about Bill 42, I won't question that.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker. I will say that the Minister has to see and has to hear. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. He who has eyes to see, let him see. He who has a tongue to speak, should speak. That's exactly what the people of British Columbia are doing today. It's very difficult. I'm not going to go through all of the clippings. I want to point out a few to the Minister because if the man can't read them for himself or can't hear them, maybe he'll listen to me.

Here's an article from the Vancouver Province, March 9, 1973. " 'NDP has to go,' says lawyer." — that's the headline. I'll just point out one little section of this article to the Minister of Agriculture so that he shall hear. I'd be quite happy to send the article over so that he can see what the people of British Columbia are saying. This is written by a Burnaby lawyer, Mr. Speaker, right in your home constituency. I hate to say this, with you up there, Mr. Speaker, keeping such great control in this Legislature in this afternoon. I hate to say that some member in your constituency has got a headline in the Province that the NDP has to go. However, maybe you know this man. Maybe he knows what's good for you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to send it over to the Minister so he can read it.

This man says — I'll first identify him. He's Arnold F.C. Heen, a Burnaby lawyer and businessman.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think he owns any land at all. What is the matter with the chamber of commerce? Are you against the chamber of commerce? Are you going to bring in a bill to do away with the chamber of commerce?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell the

[ Page 1261 ]

Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance that there are many farmers who belong to the chamber of commerce. The chamber of commerce has worked hard and long for the business community of British Columbia. Some of the great things that the Minister of Health enjoys today are due partially to some of the work by the chamber of commerce. Now, Mr. Speaker, like everybody else, this Government wants to turn their back on the chamber of commerce.

Why, Mr. Speaker? They're opposed to the free enterprise system and they're opposed to the farmer and they're opposed to the production of food, as they've clearly spelled out here in Bill 42.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: If the Minister of Health Services would just allow me to continue, I'd be quite happy to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, as long as you'll address the Chair. It keeps me awake. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now, I've identified this man, and he's not speaking for the chamber of commerce, Mr. Speaker. No, he's not speaking for the chamber of commerce. He's speaking to another great organization in British Columbia — the Kiwanis Club. Did you understand that, Mr. Speaker? He wasn't talking to the chamber of commerce. He was speaking to the Kiwanis Club — a great organization. They do a lot of good. As a matter of fact, they do a lot of good for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance's department.

This man was speaking, Mr. Speaker, to an organization that does a lot of work for his department. This man said, and I'm quoting this Mr. Heen: "The NDP land bill sets out on the course which I have always understood to be the first principle of communist philosophy — gain control of the land." There's an intelligent man, Mr. Speaker. He's from your constituency. That's a pretty strong statement for an educated man like Mr. Heen to make. Would you take that over to the Minister of Agriculture so he can read it? Because if he can't hear, maybe he can read.

Here's another article and it's datelined the Victoria Colonist, Tuesday, March 9, 1973. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to quote from this briefly so that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will be able to hear and will be able to see what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42. I'm going to say what a lot of people in this Legislature think is a dirty word because of Bill 42. It says: "Land act retailoring urged."

There was some advice that came in on Bill 42. I'm surprised that the Minister of Agriculture couldn't hear. "The Real Estate Institute of British Columbia has called on the Government to scuttle its Land Commission Act because it is an infringement of many human rights, including the right of an individual to the enjoyment of property." I'm not going to read the whole article but it goes on to say: "It has not solved the most important problem: compensation. Ross added that Bill 42 would create a short supply of land for development and increase the price of currently available lots."

This is the important thing, Mr. Speaker, about this article: "He offered the services of the Institute members, who could give sound advice to the Government, presumably in the drafting of an amended Act." I would think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be just ordinary simple good politics to discuss with the people of British Columbia who have been selling land for quite some time, and with the people who own it, some of the ramifications of what this bill would do before you bring it into the Legislature.

Then came that astounding statement by the Minister of Agriculture that he couldn't hear. Really, I can't understand it. In another development Monday, the Prince George Chamber of Commerce asked the Government to exempt the city and immediate surroundings from the land freeze in order to stave off an impending housing shortage.

Now what does the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) feel about that? I hope he's offered sage advice in his caucus room, and I hope he listened, Mr. Speaker, to the members in his constituency who sent him down here to work for them in this Legislature. I hope he listens.

I hope that he somehow, Mr. Speaker, gets through to the Minister of Agriculture because the Minister of Agriculture is evidently deaf. He says that the people of British Columbia are not speaking to him. He can't hear them.

I hope that the Member for Fort George, who I have a feeling is going to vote against the bill anyway, will read that article. He should know what's going on in his area.

Mr. Speaker, what I said a few moments ago about this ill-conceived bill, that even before it's brought in, what has it done? It's created shortages of good building lots.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, thinks a lot of Paddy Sherman, the publisher of the Vancouver Province and Robert McConnell, the editor. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture did not read this editorial on March 10 because it gives the Minister some advice. I think it's some of the advice that he was seeking when he said, "We are listening but our great concern is that we hear previous little."

Well, here's an editorial in the Province that maybe he considers us precious little:

"When a Government's own backbenchers start

[ Page 1262 ]

pushing to change a proposed new law, then it is clear that the law was either fundamentally flawed or at minimum, prepared with indecent haste and lack of thought."

Now that's a pretty strong statement in an editorial.

Now on the same day, I'm surprised that our Minister of Agriculture….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't interrupt you during your estimates, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), did I? I didn't interrupt you. Why don't you offer me the common courtesy to be quiet?

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing one of the most serious pieces of legislation that's ever been brought in in British Columbia.

I'm not the only one that says there's a panic. It says: "Now, in what seems like panic reaction, Government MLA's are being given a long weekend to do research back home." This was on Friday. This editorial came out the same day, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and said he wasn't hearing anything. I want to know if he wasn't hearing anything, why the Premier of this province sent his MLA's back to their constituencies to talk about Bill 42, to do some research.

What I think he was saying, Mr. Speaker, was that the Minister of Agriculture said, "I'm not hearing anything." But the Premier was hearing, even if the Minister of Agriculture was not. I would suggest that the Premier has probably got his ear closer to the ground and knows more about the damaging effect of Bill 42 on British Columbia than the Minister of Agriculture does.

The Minister of Agriculture doesn't want to hear. It's his bill. He says he's going to shove it through at any cost. It doesn't matter if all of British Columbia and his own backbenchers and the Premier don't like this bill. The Minister of Agriculture is going to force it through.

The reason he's going to force it through is because he backed himself into a corner, and I would suggest that the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) did a little pushing to get him back in that corner.

That's how the Barrett Government's proposed Land Commission Act sits at the moment — the backbenchers are working to repair it; a cabinet committee is also finding ways to patch it up.

I wonder why they're doing all this, Ms. Speaker, if they're not hearing anything. The whole thing just doesn't add up somehow. There's something sinister behind this, Ms. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture says one thing, the Premier does something else. They've got a committee in the cabinet to patch up the bill. Why are they patching it up if they don't hear anything? I'm at a loss to understand, and I'm a very understanding person.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm an understanding person. But I have to inform the House that I sure don't understand this.

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture will hear this:

"That's simply not good enough. The bill was badly conceived in the first place, as the present scurry to improve it makes clear. But it is probable that the changes now being considered are of the brand you might call political cosmetics…."

I'm quoting from the Vancouver Province in the same editorial. This is the thing that the Minister of Agriculture couldn't hear, couldn't see. Those are pretty strong statements. "That's simply not good enough," the editorial says, referring to Bill 42, and it's being repaired.

The editorial goes on to say:

"The bill was badly conceived in the first place, as the present scurry to improve it makes clear. But it is probable that the changes now being considered are of the brand you might call 'political cosmetics' designed to hide some of the bruises that disfigure the political face of Mr. Barrett and his colleagues."

Well, I don't know what kind of cosmetics they've got over there. I know they're pretty good at smokescreens. I'll tell you it's going to take a lot of smoke, Ms. Speaker, to cover up what's happening here under Bill 42. And it's going to take a lot to put out the fires that you've created to build up that smokescreen. I don't think you're going to be through with it for quite some time.

"In our view" — and it's also my own view. I have to agree with the man who wrote this editorial and I don't always agree with him — "…it isn't good enough to bring in a few such changes and then say with a sigh of relief that, "everybody can now see what good boys the Government Members really are. Something more basic is involved. In these days of people's government…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to shout at you this afternoon, because this is a very serious bill we're discussing here. I want you to understand every word I say. It's a very serious bill indeed.

The editorial goes on to say:

"In these days of people's government, something the NDP has always vigorously championed, it is a little short of hypocrisy for the NDP to bring in such sweeping changes without even a gesture of consulting the levels of government most

[ Page 1263 ]

directly involved."

That doesn't really astonish me because this Government has done that so many times since August 30 — has brought in things without consultation with the people who are involved in it, has brought in legislation without consulting with the people the bill is going to affect. That doesn't surprise me at all.

I've sort of given up on this great "people's Government." They're not the people's Government at all. I think I'm going to coin a new phrase; they're "against the people."

"Mr. Barrett should withdraw the bill…." and again I'm quoting from the editorial, "altogether for this session."

I might add, Ms. Speaker, the reason that I am taking the time of the House this afternoon to point out what people are saying is because the Minister of Agriculture said last Friday that he wasn't hearing anything.

That's the reason that I have taken time of the House to do the Minister's reading for him and to point out to him what the people of British Columbia are saying. I don't want to get off that track. That's what I'm endeavouring to do and I've sent him over the articles.

"Surely somewhere" — I'm quoting the editorial again, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture is listening — "Surely somewhere, among those who have lived with and been frustrated by the problem for years, there is someone with ideas of how the provincial government can fairly achieve its objective," Would you take that over to the Minister of Agriculture so that he can see, so that he can hear what the people of British Columbia are saying about Bill 42.

Now I've got to quote the Vancouver Province again. This is on Thursday. This is the day before the Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and said that he wasn't hearing anything — his concern was that he was hearing "precious little." This is right off the front page. Right on the front page and the Minister couldn't see it. "Government to amend land act. NDP backbenchers push for changes."

What does this article say? It's written by one of our men in the Press gallery. I'm quoting the article: Vancouver Province March 8, 1973. "Government to amend the land act" — that's the headline. I'm reading from the article now. "Province Victoria Bureau." Dateline Victoria. "Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich said, after meeting a group of concerned Government backbenchers Wednesday, that there will be amendments to the proposed Land Commission Act."

Madam Speaker, this is the day before that same Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and said he hears precious little. He must have been hearing his backbenchers because he sent them off to the ridings to find out what was going on. So he must have listened to them. He sent them out to try and put out the fire. I don't know, Madam Speaker, if the Government can send out their Members, why we weren't given the same opportunity to go out and find out what was going on so we could do our research.

"He said backbenchers and the Government's Environment and Land Use Committee both are considering changes to the legislation and will present them when drafted." Yet he doesn't hear. I'll mark that so that when the article goes over, he'll know exactly where to read it. This article goes on to say: "About half a dozen members of the NDP caucus met Stupich Wednesday morning…" Oh, they met him Wednesday morning. It wasn't a normal caucus meeting. "…. To discuss the extent of controls proposed in the bill."

"About half a dozen members," Madam Speaker, "of the NDP caucus met Stupich Wednesday morning to discuss the extent of controls in the bill, the addition of more appeal procedures and compensation." Well, maybe he lost his hearing between Wednesday morning and Friday noon. It goes on to say: "The legislation would create a Government commission to designate land as farm, greenbelt, recreational, park — and prevent it from being used. Questioned Wednesday night about the meeting, Stupich said, 'll expect there will be amendments.' "

I wonder why he expected that there would be amendments, when he couldn't hear on Friday afternoon? Why, if he's not getting any feedback, would he expect amendments? "He would not, however, indicate what the amendments would be." I think it's going to be very difficult, Madam Chairman, to… Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. Now we'll get that straight. Madam Speaker. Now you've thrown me off my course of thought. Oh, yes. The Minister was questioned by this member of our Press gallery Wednesday night about the meeting. "Stupich said, 'I expect there will be amendments.' " Oh, yes, I read that. Sorry.

My thought was that it's going to be very difficult for the Minister of Agriculture to amend this bill. The Minister of Agriculture feels that when you pay taxes, Madam Speaker, you are really only renting land from the Government. If that's his philosophy — and that is the Minister's philosophy. The first time we discussed this bill, I had sat down with the Minister to go on a CBC programme to discuss this bill. Before we went on, he said very clearly at that time, "Really, you don't own the land anyway. You're just sort of renting it. You're just paying taxes." That's the philosophy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you filibuster if you've got good points to make?

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I've got good points to make and I'm going to take my time making them, Mr. Attorney General. I'm not filibustering. What gives you the idea I'm filibustering?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, if I stood on the floor of this Legislature day in and day out for the next six months, no one on that side of the House should say I was filibustering. Bill 42 is the bill that is going to be the ruination of the socialist Government in British Columbia. You mark my words.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know you're in trouble. Madam Speaker, they know they're in trouble. That's why they don't want me to take my time and bring out the points against this bill. Well, Madam Speaker, I'm going to take my time, because I was elected to this Legislation to serve the people of British Columbia. I'm enjoying serving the people of British Columbia. But I'm disappointed when the Government, to whom I have the responsibility of pointing out things as they go wrong so that they can correct them — I'm disappointed that they take this attitude that they don't want to listen to me, Madam Speaker. It's very difficult to understand indeed.

They're the ones who brought in the cliché, "open Government." They're the ones, Madam Speaker, who said "no more closure." They're the ones who said that everybody is going to know what they're doing — "We're going to discuss things with people." That is the Government over there, Madam Speaker, that said all of this. Now they want me to sit down. They don't want me to discuss this legislation.

"The only appeal for designation of land," the article continues, "now included in the bill is appeal to the courts. Jerry Anderson of Kamloops, one of those who met Stupich, said he is concerned that there be an easier and cheaper route of appeal directly to the Government." The Members in the Government backbench certainly know full well, Madam Speaker, the dictatorial powers of Bill 42 They know full well that the only right of recourse is to the Legislature itself. Now will you take this over, in order that the Minister of Agriculture shall see and he shall hear.

It says, "The Minister seeks feedback. Premier Dave Barrett has told Government backbenchers to attend constituency meetings on the controversial land commission bill whenever they can. He said in an interview Thursday that meetings both to support and oppose the legislation entitled Bill 42 were being organized in many ridings." I attended one of those meetings on Sunday afternoon last.

Had the Minister of Agriculture, Madam Speaker, been at this meeting, he would have heard the people in that hall shout for their rights. He would have heard the feedback from the farmers in the Delta area who realize what a damaging piece of legislation Bill 42 is. He would have heard.

He said in an interview, and this is the Premier speaking — he said in an interview Thursday: "Meetings both to support and oppose the legislation entitled Bill 42 were being organized in many ridings. The backbenchers asked my opinion on whether they should go to these meetings."

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the reason the backbenchers asked the Premier whether they should go to these meetings or not is because they were afraid of what some of the farmers at these meetings might do to them. "And I told them that I believe that it is essential for an MLA to attend these important meetings. We want a reasoned, intelligent debate on this bill and this is one way to get it."

The Premier goes on to say, "I find it very exciting after 12 years as an MLA, that we've got a chance to govern, and we are listening." I suggest, Madam Speaker, that if the Government is listening, they will withdraw Bill 42 now. Will you withdraw Bill 42, Mr. Minister of Agriculture?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you withdraw the bill now? You can tell me while I'm standing on my feet, because if you're not going to withdraw it I have to keep on pointing out, Madam Speaker — I have to keep on pointing out to the Minister of Agriculture …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) wants to know why I have to. Well, Madam Speaker, I'll tell the Minister of Public Works why I have to point out to this Government that has closed ears and closed eyes; why I have to point out the damaging effects of Bill 42 on all people in British Columbia, whether they be farmers or city dwellers or cliff dwellers.

My conscience, Madam Speaker, tells me that I have to point out to that deaf and dumb Government over there, if they can't recognize, Madam Speaker, the damage Bill 42 is going to do — and evidently they can't recognize it because they've said that they won't.

Madam Speaker, I don't know why the Minister of Agriculture was unable to hear on the radio last week that an ex–Prime Minister of Canada was demanding that the bill be delayed. I wouldn't call that precious little — hearing precious little. I would say that that's

[ Page 1265 ]

a pretty loud noise — pretty sound advice coming from a great politician, from a person that has always been interested in justice, from a person who has always been interested in people's rights.

The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, former Prime Minister, pressed the government on Thursday, Madam Speaker; that's the day before the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this House — the day before he said that his concern was that they were hearing precious little.

If he can't hear the Hon. John Diefenbaker speak from Ottawa, with all the radios and televisions that must be available to him, I will send this article over to him, so that he can read it. But before I do… Diefenbaker's question indicated that he had changed his mind on the bill. He was questioned before this.

On Feb. 28 he told a Vancouver Province reporter, "The legislation does not violate the federal Bill of Rights I authorized as Prime Minister." He said the question of land ownership comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. He made the statement in response to pressures from the B.C. Conservatives who wanted him to say the NDP land commission bill was contrary to the Bill of Rights.

Justice Minister Otto Lang told Diefenbaker the usual procedure is to allow legislation to be tested in the courts. But if we allow this legislation to be tested in the courts it will be too late because all the rights of all the landowners in British Columbia will have been eroded away.

Would you take that over to the Minister of Agriculture, please?

Now, the Minister says that the provincial government has not exempted any farmland from the land freeze imposed December 21. Mr. Stupich denied a radio hotline report that a family in the Surrey area had been exempted from the provisions of land freeze contained in a cabinet order-in-council. He said that the department has dealt with all kinds of individual cases, but in no instance did it exempt any farmland from the freeze. That also is on March 9, but still the Minister stood in the Legislature and said, "We're hearing precious little."

March 8 — and I hope you realize that I've discussed only two days' newspapers, and most of it has been the Vancouver Province; I haven't got into the others yet. I've brought up many articles about the land freeze, and yet the Minister of Agriculture said in the legislature, "Our main concern, Madam Speaker, is that we hear precious little."

Another article: it says, "Farmers aim at land bill. Directors of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture will meet here today to draw up specific proposals for amendments to the government's proposed Land Commission Act."

I'm sure that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture wanted very much — I know some of the members in the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and, Madam Speaker, they sincerely wanted to work with the Minister of Agriculture to improve the production of food, to improve agriculture in the Province of British Columbia. The Minister of Agriculture promised to consult with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture before bringing in any legislation that would affect farmers.

Now all of that trust between our Minister of Agriculture on the one hand, and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on the other hand — all that trust, all that desire between these two parties to improve agriculture in British Columbia, has gone out the window — all because our Minister of Agriculture got stampeded into bringing in Bill 42; hastily conceived, ill-conceived, poorly written, Madam Speaker.

It says, "The Minister defends the land bill." March 10. Saturday's paper. "Stupich said that before the bill came down, when only last December's cabinet order freezing farmland sales existed, his mail ran in favour of the controls. But since the bill was introduced, he has received 201 letters in favour and 280 against, for a total of 412 against and 318 for controls."

But, Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister of Agriculture to tell me who he got the letters from. Who did he get the letters from? Were they farmers? Were they fishermen? Were they people who work in the forest industry?

The other thing I'd like to know…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we're discussing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll never accept the principle of Bill 42 to set up a five-man dictatorial commission to take away the rights of every person in British Columbia! I'll never accept that, not as long as there's blood running through my veins!

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder!

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, never, never, never will I accept the principle of taking away the right of an individual to the enjoyment of property. It is a right that has been fought for, that blood has been spilled for. Wars are still being fought about land and the ownership of land. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) wants me to accept that principle, Madam Speaker.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He asked you to discuss it.

MR. PHILLIPS: He asked me to accept it, Madam Speaker. A man who has been in this Legislature — correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Speaker — longer I think than any other person…

[ Page 1266 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Please speak a little more loudly. We're having difficulty hearing you.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Speak up, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: Louder than anybody else — I mean, longer than anybody else. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is trying to establish the fact that he's deaf. When he establishes that fact for himself, then he will endeavour to establish the case for the Minister of Agriculture so that he can indeed stand on the floor of this Legislature and say the Minister was deaf.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want you to speak up so I can hear every word you say. Stop mumbling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now, I'll tell you, that's a new twist, me being accused of mumbling, Madam Speaker. You haven't established your case, Mr. Minister of Highways. You are not deaf.

MS. SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that this problem of difficulty of hearing should be referred to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

"Following initial debate during second reading of the bill, Stocks, Federation of Agriculture manager said, 'the protest will be orderly.' " So we're going to have protests and we're going to have to listen.

"NDP Ready to Listen." Yes, I'll say they're ready to listen. That's a headline of the Victoria Colonist, Saturday, March 10. That is the day after the Minister of Agriculture said that he wasn't hearing very much, Madam Speaker. Now he's ready to listen. The Opposition is told to offer ideas.

Madam Speaker, I shall offer an idea right now.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It'll be the first one this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been listening again, Leo.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources hasn't been in the House very much this afternoon, and he comes in.

I propose to prove to you, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, how ghastly this bill is. It's so important that I want to build my case solidly as I go along. So if I take a few moments longer than usual, I hope you will bear with me, Madam Speaker, because I am building a very important case here.

Going to listen? Sure, they're going to listen. They're going to have to.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the reason the backbenchers asked the going to say, "Withdraw the bill," afraid of what some of the farmers at these meetings might do to them. "And iniquitous bill was introduced into the Legislature, there was a headline which shook me when I read it, to think that any bill introduced in this Legislature would require such drastic thought. It says: " 'Don't plant your crops,' farmers' leader urges."

Yet the Minister of Agriculture stood on the floor of this Legislature and said, "I don't hear, and what I am hearing is precious little." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty big statement, a far-reaching statement.

How can this Government say that they don't hear? As I said before, Mr. Speaker — I'll try not to say it too many times again — they don't want to hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've said that before.

MR. PHILLIPS: They don't want to hear.

Some of the ones that I'm talking about now, Mr. Speaker, have nothing to do with farming, not that the farmers want the bill changed — they are not unhappy. I hope the Minister of Agriculture understands that point.

The realtors have offered advice. They don't want the land frozen. They don't like this bill.

Municipal governments in many instances don't want the bill I would think, Mr. Speaker, that somewhere along the line somebody's got to be hearing something.

The Minister said on March 2 that "the land bill is backed by the public."

On March 9 the Premier sends the MLA's out to put out the fires.

The Minister spent a great deal of time discussing the ad that one of the Opposition parties put in the paper. He condemned it; he condemned some of the statements in it. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, in that little over half an hour that he spent in this Legislature last Friday, was not spent trying to convince the Members of this Legislature. He was precious little. I would say that that's a pretty loud noise — pretty sound advice coming from a great politician, from a person that has always been interested in justice, from a person who has always been interested

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it didn't take me very long to convince myself, Mr. Speaker. I saw Bill 42 on February 22. While the House was adjourned — I can't remember what the House was adjourned for that day; oh, you, Mr. Speaker, had to go out and make a ruling on something by the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker — I went to the Clerk's

[ Page 1267 ]

desk…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were out of the House, Mr. Speaker.

I went to the Clerk's desk. I took Bill 42 out of the little pigeon hole there. And although I had difficulty, Mr. Speaker, believing what I was reading, I did read it. And I went out of the House and I said that Bill 42 was a vicious, undemocratic, dictatorial Act.

Now if the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) thinks that it took me too long, it took me exactly as long to say and put in the record what I felt about Bill 42 as it took me to get from the Clerk's desk to the corridor outside of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, those were my impressions. I have some of the Press gallery that I talked to to give my impressions who will back it up.

I, unlike the Government, have not changed my mind. In no way have I deviated from those three adjectives describing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the Government Members who have waffled all over the place on Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of them are genuine wafflers.

MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if a lot of the tenets of Bill 42 came out of the Waffle manifesto, but I can't say that. I don't want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker, so I won't say that. But I'll say it could have happened.

Now, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, that's how long it took me to make up my mind on the bill. You haven't made yours up yet — have you, Mr. Minister?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give you the reasons. Just let me build my case. Don't panic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trust us.

MR. PHILLIPS: Trust us. That's it. Trust us, and ye shall hear the truth!

But, my friends, I want you to have open minds. I have a sneaking feeling, just a little bit of it, Mr. Speaker, that they haven't got open minds. I have a feeling that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) hasn't got an open mind on Bill 42. I have another little bit of a feeling that maybe the Minister who has been catcalling across the floor, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has got a closed mind and he's not going to listen to me.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he's going to close all the mines and the minds. He's going to close all the mines and he has all the minds of the cabinet closed.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Members opposite to this day really haven't made up their minds on Bill 42; yet they're accusing me of taking a long time to make up my mind. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the cabinet haven't completely made up their minds on Bill 42; otherwise they wouldn't have a committee of cabinet together trying to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. You haven't made up your minds yet, and you conceived it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, I've made up my mind. And I want to speak for Members of the Opposition. We've made up our minds. We're opposed, Mr. Speaker, to Bill 42 in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources ask his backbench, the Members of his Government, how many of them have made up their minds, and what they think about Bill 42. He doesn't have to tell me, Mr. Speaker. I shouldn't even be asking him. I know they don't know.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're scared to go home. They're scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't let them back home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 2? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Page 2. No, this is dateline Victoria Daily Colonist February 23. That's a few days before the bill was introduced in the House, Mr. Speaker: "Farms, greenbelts, parklands, sweeping land control powers for panel to buy, zone and freeze."

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up. We can't hear you over here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister of Health is sitting just kitty corner back there behind you, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I would suggest that you go back and have a talk with him.

MR. CHABOT: He looks after mental health,

MR. PHILLIPS: This headline explains all of Bill 42. The reason I'm discussing this particular ad, Mr. Speaker, is that if the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, did not take the time to explain Bill 42 to those poor backbenchers back there, who got the shock of their

[ Page 1268 ]

lives when it was introduced, I'm sure they read the full implication in the newspapers the day after it was introduced.

Mr. Speaker, thank God for a free Press. Because if the Government's backbench didn't know what was in the bill by reading it because it wasn't explained to them, they certainly through the media were able to gain the full implications of this dictatorial bill.

We hear a lot lately, Mr. Speaker, about "let's stay calm." I remember speaking in this House last October about the Premier then saying for people to "stay calm." I said he reminded me then of a grizzly bear in a group of cattle, saying to them, "Please remain calm. I'm just going to eat you one by one. Don't panic."

AN HON. MEMBER: Trust me.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Trust me. Remain calm." Part of the overall smokescreen plan is to shove Bill 42 under the guise of "trust me," "we're good guys " "we know what's best for you," "stay calm."

Quite a while before the Minister introduced Bill 42 for second reading, there was a headline in the Vancouver Sun: "Land Act Branded Dictatorial." I see the Minister of Agriculture has left the House again. I'll send this over to him, Mr. Speaker. Has he got it? Has he seen this article?" Farmers Threaten March on Victoria."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you think we're talking about it today?

MR. PHILLIPS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's a "railroad" tactic to bring up Bill 42 for discussion today…

MR. CHABOT: Ramrodded through.

MR. PHILLIPS: …when the Government knows full well that there are going to be thousands of farmers in the capital who would like to hear, Mr. Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll be talking on Thursday anyway.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better believe I just might be, too. This is another form, Mr. Speaker, of the great "open" government of the Members opposite. They know that farmers and ecologists are coming to the Legislature on Wednesday and Thursday. So what did they do in a political move? They slid in with Bill 42 in hopes, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 42 will pass second reading before the people whose lives Bill 42 affects have the opportunity to express their point of view and to hear the deliberations on Bill 42 in this Legislature.

That's your new form of "open" government.

"We're for the people," Mr. Speaker. "Don't panic." Yeah, that's a smart political move. I suppose they figured that the sooner they brought up Bill 42 the less time the Members would have to do their research.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Agriculture is now back in the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'd like you to stay and I'd like you to open your mind. I'd like you to open your ears. I'd like you to open your eyes, Mr. Minister of Agriculture.

Not only, Mr. Speaker, did they bring in this Legislation two days ahead of when it should have been brought in, so that the people are coming to the capital to find out what everybody has to say about this bill, but now they want to close the mouth of the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

AN HON. MEMBER: Utterly impossible!

MR. PHILLIPS: They want to stifle debate. They don't want the Member for South Peace River, who is from an agricultural riding, which contains several thousands of acres of land, to have his say, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member go on with the debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like me to ignore them completely, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Ignore them, please and get on with it. After all, standing order 43 says we must be relevant to the debate on the particular bill and not be tedious or repetitious.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think, Mr. Speaker, if you would care to get Hansard, I may have repeated a few very important sentences but I have not basically repeated myself nor do I intend to, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly abide by your ruling and if I do repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to draw it to my attention immediately because I certainly do not want to deviate from the rules of this great Legislature.

Maybe if I could get the attendant. Would you take this over to the Minister of Agriculture so that he can see it? This is the last piece of material, Mr. Speaker, that I have that leads me to wonder why the Minister of Agriculture couldn't hear. It's another headline and it is dated March 2, seven days before the Minister of Agriculture stood in this House and said he couldn't hear.

[ Page 1269 ]

"Call for Public Hearings, UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) Urges Delay of Land Bill."

Why, Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Agriculture not hear this plea from the elected servants of the civic governments in British Columbia? A plea that says, "UBCM Urges Delay of Land Bill." "Let stand existing municipal and regional planning and zoning that has been approved following public hearings and is included in community and regional plans," says the UBCM, requesting the Minister of Agriculture to delay the land bill. "The UBCM urges that the Legislature encourage municipal and regional planning and, subject to cabinet approval, recognize it is expressing the knowledge and wishes of local areas."

Oh, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture had ears to hear and eyes to see and that he listen to the elected bodies throughout British Columbia, the elected bodies that are responsible to the people in the various areas, the bodies that are the closest to the people in British Columbia.

Do we want to create in British Columbia a central, all-powerful government with no local autonomy whatsoever? Is that one of the purposes of Bill 42 — to centralize all power in British Columbia?

"The UBCM urges that the Legislature provide compensation when land is designated parkland and when other designations lower land value." Mr. Speaker, I think you will have to agree with me that this is no more than a reasonable request. If a person goes into a shoe store today and buys a pair of shoes, and after he wears them a day, they fall apart and the store won't do anything for him, he can go to protective associations. He can go to the Better Business Bureau and get compensation.

Here a bill is introduced into this Legislature which has taken many, many thousands of dollars from many individual people and all the UBCM is asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the Legislature provide some compensation when land is designated parkland and when other designations lower land value. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association should take a long look at what the UBCM is asking. I say that we offer compensation to people who are harmed far less in this province than having their land devalued by one fell swoop of an Act of the cabinet.

They further request, "to permit anyone unhappy with the designation of his land to make the commission buy it at fair value and require the commission to make grants to municipalities for unoccupied or leased land taken by the commission when no taxes are paid." I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture do hear this.

Now that I have established that the Minister of Agriculture, in my mind and I think probably in the minds of many other people who have listened intently this afternoon, could not have wanted to hear what the people in British Columbia thought about his infamous Bill 42, I would like to move on now, Mr. Speaker, to establishing that I am not really sure that I do not feel that farmland is going to be protected in British Columbia.

We have had a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I was just going to say that is a pretty weak effort, but when you are not really sold on what you are doing — a pretty weak effort.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to establish that Bill 42 is doing irreparable damage in British Columbia.

The very Government that is trying to help, Mr. Speaker, the Indian people get back some of their rights now is taking away the rights of all people in British Columbia. The Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) has fought a hard, long battle for his people to get them back some of their land rights. He is going to take it to the World Court at The Hague while we in British Columbia are having our rights taken away from us.

What will be the cry in a few years from the people who are today losing their land? The Indian people say, "Without land, Indian people have no soul, no life, no identity, no purpose." The Indian people say, "Give us back our land," while that Government over there, Mr. Speaker, tries to sell us on the idea that they are working for the native people of this province to get back their land rights. Out of the other side of their mouth they take away the land rights of every other citizen in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Haven't you read the bill either?

MR. PHILLIPS: I suggested, Mr. Speaker, to the Members opposite that if they haven't discussed the bill in cabinet, they should read the paper and find out what the bill does.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Health does not understand Bill 42, he should be invited to join the cabinet committee that is trying to re-do the bill, that is trying to patch it up. If the Minister of Health is deaf and blind himself, I don't know how he can help the rest of the cabinet over there. I had hoped that the Minister of Health might be able to help the rest of this cabinet but if he has a closed mind …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister of Health is trying to discuss the principle of the bill; he says he doesn't understand it. I'm just trying to say how he could get to understand it.

[ Page 1270 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand a few things.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want to.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, at least the Minister of Highways comes to light because I have hit a nerve here, Mr. Speaker. I have hit a nerve centre. I have hit right at the very care. While the Government opposite tries to make the people in the province believe that they're going to help them get back their land.

It's a sad case, because if Bill 42 goes through, Mr. Speaker, I predict that in a very few years the landowners of British Columbia — who will become serfs under Bill 42, make no mistake about it — will be lining up outside this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, saying to the Legislature, the same as the Indian people are saying together today, "Without land we have no soul, no life, no identity and no purpose."

Mr. Speaker, it seems ironic to me, and I say to the Government please do not take our lands away from us. Withdraw Bill 42 before it's too late, Mr. Speaker. Bill 42 has done irreparable damage already, but it's still not too late, Mr. Speaker. I plead with the Government on behalf of all British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, I beg the Government on behalf of all British Columbians to withdraw Bill 42 before it's too late.

In many areas, Mr. Speaker, the native people, the Indians in southern Alberta are prosperous. Many of them are good farmers and good ranchers. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they have land. They have become independent, good farmers. They have their land, they have their soul, they have their identity and they have a purpose in life, Mr. Speaker.

Indians in the State of Oklahoma in the United States are very prosperous. They have life and they have liberty. Behind all of this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that they have land, land that they can call their own.

Just recently through the news media, we read of an incident at Wounded Knee, in the United States, where native people had to rise up and become violent in an effort to make a government recognize their needs — needs that arose, Mr. Speaker, because these people had no rights to land. The uprising in Wounded Knee was not the first time in the United States of America that this has happened.

When nobody was paying much attention, the American Indians went militant again. They captured Alcatraz in the winter of 1969. They invaded the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington in the fall of 1972. They bivouacked at Custer, and they occupied Wounded Knee in the winter of 1973. Why all these uprisings, Mr. Speaker? They were uprisings over land. They want their land back, Mr. Speaker — while we're discussing a bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42, that proposes to take our land away from us.

The operations, Mr. Speaker, were ragtag. But however unorganized these uprisings were, they were trying to finish business that was left over from 100 years before. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the landowners and farmers in British Columbia will not wait 100 years after the passing of Bill 42. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they will only wait as long as they are made to wait by this administration before they will, in a peaceful manner, throw them out on their ear. That's what will happen, Mr. Speaker.

You know the irony of the Indian uprisings, Mr. Speaker, is that they are now making front page copy, the same as Bill 42 is making front page copy. I think there's a parallel here — a parallel on what is happening. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to point out to you that it is not just happening in North America. I propose to point out to you that it is happening elsewhere in the world.

It bothers me, Mr. Speaker, I can understand a person making a mistake, but I think people should learn from the mistakes of others. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this Government should pay attention to what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world where the government has control of the land.

A suggestion that I would like to put forward is that the Government withdraw Bill 42 at the present time; that they form a committee of cabinet or backbenchers or whoever they want and they go to various countries in the world and study what centralized land control has done to the people of those countries. Study what centralized land control has done to food production in those countries and study what centralized land control has done to food prices in those countries.

I'd like to draw another parallel with the Indian uprisings in the States, Mr. Speaker. That is that this Government came into power, said that they were going to be a people's government and they were going to be interested in the rights of people.

When the Nixon administration came in in the States, the Nixon administration said, "We're going to start from a whole cloth, a clean slate, We're going to try and solve the land problems of the Indians in the United States." What have they done, Mr. Speaker? I've already outlined the number of uprisings.

A parallel to what is happening here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? I say yes. A government who was going to get rights for the native people — get their land back for them. Then their next move is to take the land rights away from the people who put them in power. I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a parallel there. There's a parallel in the amount of publicity that is being given in both instances I think there's a parallel, Mr. Speaker, in the way both the Nixon administration and the way this administration are trying to have other things, other pieces of legislation, other happenings in the province throw a smoke screen over what they are not doing.

Here again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw another

[ Page 1271 ]

parallel. What is happening in the United States has split the Indian world. I'm quoting from an article here.

This article says that "One of the 'albatrosses' the American Indian bears is an inability to agree with himself." That's a quote from an article.

Mr. Speaker, there again is another parallel. The Indians now are fighting among themselves. Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, has started the people of British Columbia fighting among themselves; farmer against firmer, homeowner against homeowner, homeowner against farmer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've covered that point amply on several occasions.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought you were out of the House when I brought this point up.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I was here and I heard you and fortunately for the House I hear these things outside the House. So would you get on with the principles of the bill and avoid the problem of standing order 43.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that what is happening with centralized land control in other jurisdictions and what is happening here in British Columbia — there's a parallel between them, Mr. Speaker. And I think it's ironic, as I've said before. We should learn by others' mistakes.

MR. SPEAKER: That's the fourth time you've repeated that. Now would you get on with the principle of this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is not to split the Province of British Columbia. But it has been splitting the Province of British Columbia. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should pull Bill 42 before there are more problems. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr. Speaker.

I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that I would bring up another jurisdiction in the world where people — and this is all very relevant, Mr. Speaker — in Australia, the new government in Australia is taking steps to give the aborigines…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it all purports to Bill 42, because the aborigines are trying to get their land back.

MR. SPEAKER: We're not discussing the question of aboriginal rights in this debate on the principle of the bill. Would you kindly stick to the principle of the bill. I don't want to have to keep drawing you back to it, but you refuse to come back….

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a comparative statement, Mr. Speaker. I think if you call it an aboriginal right it's the right of people to — I call it an aboriginal right. What would you call the right to own land in British Columbia? What would you call it? I don't know what you call it but it's sure a right that I don't want taken from me. As I say, if we can't compare what has happened in other jurisdictions with the original people who settled the land — I say it's certainly relevant here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Now this new government says that if an abundance of dollars can solve Australia's aboriginal problems, then the Whitlam government is well on its way, But it's going to take a lot of money.

Are we going to be faced with that situation here in British Columbia in a few years, Mr. Speaker? There again the agitation grew rapidly, the same as the agitation here. That's why I can draw a parallel, Mr. Speaker. The agitation in Australia grew rapidly the same as the agitation here in British Columbia.

This attitude on the part of the country party became a major issue in Australian politics as the aborigines, with active help from student groups, began agitating for land rights. And that's what we're talking about here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker — land rights. If anyone would care to prove to me that we're not talking about land rights … no, it's all very relevant — what's happening here in British Columbia, what's happening in the United States of America and what is happening in Australia.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I would be drawing another parallel if you will see in other countries in the world where there is centralized government control of land today, I predict, Mr. Speaker, that before too many decades the people of those countries will be rising up and demanding their rights; the same, Mr. Speaker, as serfs, farmers, peasants all through history have done — demand their rights.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I said that Bill 42 was such an important bill is because land has been the subject, and the ownership of land has been the subject, of many arguments throughout history. The ownership of land has caused many of the major wars throughout history. And to pass over in this Legislature a bill that with just one fell swoop tends to take away all of these rights that people have been fighting for for years …

I'm astonished, Mr. Speaker, at the attitude of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) towards this bill. I've always had a great deal of respect for the Minister of Highways in the way he uses his intelligence.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the principle of the bill.

[ Page 1272 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now you asked that question. I'll tell you. You asked it and I'll answer it. Mr. Speaker, being a part of that cabinet, his intelligence and the principle of Bill 42 — it's not an intelligent bill. It's not a good bill. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, whose intelligence I said I admired, has allowed this bill to go this far.

I hope that the Minister of Highways will use his intelligence to have the bill withdrawn.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you'd like to sit down I'll answer right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Highways would use his intelligence and realize that I'm not going to sit down until I've had my say. I have a couple of more things that I would like to point out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been waiting for you to sit down all afternoon.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sometimes, Mr. Minister of Highways, we have to do things for one another. I've listened to you the odd time in this House speak for a long time and never said anything.

But I'm telling you something here this afternoon.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to go back over how I'm drawing a parallel? I am sure that the Speaker would rule me out of order, so I can't do that. But you'd better pick up Hansard tomorrow and read it.

The Australian government is moving — and it's going to cost them a lot of money and it has cost the aborigines in Australia a lot of hardships — but they're moving to give them back their land rights, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I think this is very relevant indeed.

The Minister of Agriculture has taken an inexorable position. I ask him, Mr. Speaker, to pull back the bill. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture was panicked into his present position. Why, Mr. Speaker, should the Minister of Agriculture punish everybody in British Columbia — both this generation and future generations — because of the acts of a few? Mr. Speaker, the acts of a few have panicked the Government.

There are restrictions presently in British Columbia on the sale of land, on the dividing of land; yet the present Government, Mr. Speaker, would lead people to believe that the past government was not interested in land. I think the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker, was in the Legislature in 1957 when the policy was established by the past government not to sell lakeshore and riverfront property. Because I remember the cry that went up.

That policy, Mr. Speaker, did not hurt anybody who presently owned land. The policy was a far-reaching policy and it was meant to protect future generations. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it has done a very good job of it. When we hear the people panic and say that all of our lake property is being bought up by Americans, it is untrue. It is not so. It is not factual. Mr. Speaker, no Crown land on lakeshore that was in the name of the Crown since 1957 has been sold. So let's once and for all get rid of the idea that the Americans are coming up and buying all our lakeshore property and all our river front property because it is just not so. It is just not so.

The most beautiful lakes in British Columbia, some of them yet to be opened up by a highway — who owns the property, who owns the lakeshore? The Crown. Make no mistake about it. It didn't take a dictatorial bill to establish that. It was established, thinking for the years to come. It was established thinking of future generations. It was a wise policy. People now can lease land from the Government and they can build their cabin on it, but it is not being sold to citizens or to people of other countries. A very wise policy. Let us dispel, Mr. Speaker, that nothing has been done.

Another policy that was established, Mr. Speaker, in the early fifties was the policy of the Crown retaining the title to mining claims, to petroleum claims, and to the forests of British Columbia. Very sound and a very wise policy. All the smoke in British Columbia will not cover up what has been done. Previous to that, and we don't have to go back too far, you can find in the records where Crown property was deeded to mining companies. Indeed, study the history of Kitimat — the give-away by the previous administration — by the Liberal government or the coalition government of the day.

There have been some wise policies in this province, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the policies haven't been perfect, but we must also realize that situations are created as time progresses. New situations are created and new policies have to be established. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the situation in British Columbia with regard to land was that urgent that a dictatorial bill like Bill 42 should be brought in. I think it was over-reaction. Certainly it was.

No, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration did not give away British Columbia. The Crown retains…

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You would like to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House, Mr. Member. Would you accept that?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you accept it?

[ Page 1273 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Certainly, that's why I'm asking.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because I have some other points that I would like to bring up.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Would you accept that? We will accept it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed with the motion.

Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion. approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.