[ Page 1275 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Filming in House for technical test. Mr. Speaker — 1275

Routine proceedings

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

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1275

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

Mr. Phillips — 1275

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the National Film Board, as you recall, on Friday did a tape of part of the debates of this House and it apparently included the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) on the land bill. They were going to reproduce this, and I felt it was wrong that it should only show part of the bill without discussion from the Opposition side. That means that if you consent we could have the lights on. It's very difficult; we don't like those lights but with your consent it could be done.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking for your permission to have them proceed to complete that tonight.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) starts again?

MR. SPEAKER: A terrible question to answer — yes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope he doesn't start over again.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Withdraw the bill if he doesn't stop.

MR. SPEAKER: Well it is up to you whether you consent. I ask your leave to let them proceed as they were doing Friday, so that at least they get a fair presentation from at least two sides of the House, and I hope more.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE
(continued)

Vote 87; Accounting Division, $339,042 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 42.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River, adjourned the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It is a pleasure to discuss the business of the province in this Legislature. I feel, Mr. Speaker, before I start that I should advise the House of what I discussed this afternoon. It is like Walt Disney; if they have a continuing programme from Sunday night to Sunday night, at the beginning of the next Sunday night they say what has happened. So a very short summary, Mr. Speaker.

I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) this afternoon that there was feedback. I also pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture that there was no shortage of food in British Columbia or in the world now or in the immediate, foreseeable future.

I also pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Members of this Legislature that the same thing was happening in British Columbia today that happened one hundred years ago or many more years ago than that. The same thing was happening in British Columbia that was happening — or parallel situations were happening in the United States. Parallel situations were happening in Australia…

[ Page 1276 ]

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): And Wounded Knee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Wounded Knee, yes. I started to point out before I adjourned the debate of what had been done in British Columbia to preserve agricultural land. Now this evening I intend to discuss for just a short while food shortages in the world, food production in British Columbia, land planning and what I hope will be some concrete solutions to the problems that have been caused by the introduction of Bill 42 in this Legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't, Mr. Attorney General — I'm not running the…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He doesn't know what's in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not running the Government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Before I start, before I go too far, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House, to point out to the House, a statement regarding Bill 42 that was in this evening's Vancouver Sun. The headlines — and I am sure the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in his chair — but the headlines shocked me, Mr. Speaker.

As I said this afternoon, I've always admired…there he is. I've always admired the intelligence, to a point — I don't agree with his philosophy — but I've always admired the intelligence of the Hon. Minister of Highways.

I said that I was disappointed that he had allowed Bill 42 to go as far as it had gone. However I was further shocked and greatly disenchanted with the Minister this evening. I was reading the headlines in this article in tonight's Vancouver Sun. "Strachan…."

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll take another hour to get his speech ready.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Strachan defends the Land Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. PHILLIPS: But that's not what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, about this article. What really concerns me is that this Member, who has sat many, many years longer in this House than I have…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS:…sat many, many years longer than I have. A man of intelligence, a man who holds a very responsible portfolio in this Government says, "that hysteria whipped up by the big mouths…."

AN HON. MEMBER: Big what?

MR. PHILLIPS: "Big mouths."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I guess, Mr. Speaker, because the snow job that was created to let Bill 42 pass under without people knowing what it was all about…

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that an "Arch Snow" job? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: It didn't happen because through what you call the big mouths, people of this province have become informed of what is in Bill 42 and the far-reaching effects of Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had a seat by the exit too.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said he defended government insurance and at the same time he forced insurance agents with a lecture on the New Democratic Party's land commission legislation. "Opposition to the Land Act," Strachan said, "is primarily the result of the hysteria whipped up by some hotline big mouths who are getting hysterical about their ratings…"

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think he is attacking the right of individuals in British Columbia to speak about Bill 42 as they desire.

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly.

MR. PHILLIPS: He goes on to say it's these hotline big mouths who are getting hysterical about their ratings. They certainly have chosen a good subject, because it is on the tongue of every person in British Columbia — your Bill 42.

You created the hysteria — your Government created the hysteria, Mr. Speaker, on February 22, when you introduced this bill. You created the hysteria.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Also, he criticized politicians who were still mad because they didn't win the last election. Well, it is pertaining to the bill, sure it is.

[ Page 1277 ]

Well, it disappointed me that the Minister of Highways would attack open-line radio commentators by calling them "big mouths."

The Minister of Agriculture not only called the radio hot liners "big mouths," but he said…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think it was the hotlines that really whipped up the hysteria. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

I read an editorial this afternoon from the Vancouver Province. Here's an editorial two days after the bill was introduced in the House. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't agree with the hysteria anyway, but certainly it hasn't been "whipped up." What is happening is that the people of this province are beginning to realize, not necessarily all by hotlines, but by articles in the paper and by editorials — here is another editorial out of the Vancouver Province, "Dictatorship Down on the Farm." Would that be called whipping up hysteria?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Completely false.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has said that the statement is completely false. Let's examine the statement in a little more detail. I wasn't going to, but now I'm forced to.

"The provincial government's proposed new land use legislation is like one of those good news-bad news jokes."

I'm quoting from this editorial.

"The basic objective is sound but the methods to achieve it are bad, bad, bad."

That's what the editorial says.

To that editorial I'd like to add my own comment and say I think that the methods are bad, very bad, very, very bad, extremely bad. Yes, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That's a bit repetitious. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The editorial says:

"To save farmland from rapacious developers and urban sprawl, the Government will set up a commission to oversee the use to which land is put."

To save the land from the developers. I thought we were preserving farmland here.

"That is all land. That's good, because it's unlikely that the overview needed for a total land use policy could be achieved any other way."

The Minister of Highways says that's not true about the editorial.

AN HON. MEMBER: The heading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the heading. I see. Well, we'll carry on for just a moment:

"The Government has tripped over its good intentions."

Do you agree with that, Mr. Minister?

"It proposes to give the commission authority that would put it above the constraint of moral justice and break the bounds of common sense. Its powers would be so sweeping that it would be impossible, almost, to draw a line in a blueprint without the commission's say-so."

That's not me saying this, Mr. Speaker. I've said some quite strong things about this bill. But I didn't say that you couldn't draw a line across a blueprint. That's the editors of the Vancouver Province. When they say something like that, I think maybe the people do get the idea that they should take a look at Bill 42. That's what the news media is all about. That's the purpose of editorials — to make people think. Not to tell them how to think but to make them think.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) may not agree with that. He would like to think that some of the papers try to tell people how to think. But when governments have control, Mr. Speaker, of the news media — my gracious, we might as well move out.

"It would wipe out the function of municipalities in regional districts…."

I've said that before.

"…. in deciding how best to use the land in their areas. The implication is that centralized provincial government knows better than local people what is best for their districts."

This I'm going to talk about a little later, Mr. Speaker, because we're talking about centralized control of land. I think this editorial puts it very well.

"While it's true that some municipalities have zoned land to produce higher tax return rather than to promote good land use, the Government seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water."

I didn't say that. That's the Vancouver Province. Certainly I think that some municipalities have made the odd mistake in zoning land, but should everybody in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, be punished? Should every landowner in British Columbia be punished because of this? It's pretty harsh punishment.

It's questionable that Victoria could ever do the detailed planning implied in the legislation with the facilities we have here; certainly a five-man commission couldn't.

[ Page 1278 ]

I quote from this editorial again:

"The bill would give the commission arbitrary and even confiscatory authority. It could purchase or otherwise acquire land on such terms and conditions as the commission may consider advisable. It could make up its own rules that would make it a game the Government would always win. But worse still, nobody else would really know how to play it."

Yet the Minister says that politicians who lost the election have been whipping up hysteria.

Certainly when an editorial in a daily newspaper which has the circulation that the Vancouver Province has comes up with a strong editorial like this, I don't think they're trying to whip up hysteria. I think they're trying to point out to the people what we've been saying all along about this bill — that it's vicious, dictatorial and undemocratic.

The commission would also have the complete authority over the use of land for other than farm purposes. This is something that I've questioned ever since the bill came out. If we're trying to preserve farmland, why does this all-powerful commission have to have the say over every other square inch of British Columbia whether it be farmland or not?

"Its decisions would be final and would not be subject to appeal."

This is another pretty strong statement, Mr. Speaker, about a pretty strong bill. Yet the Minister of Highways says hysteria is whipped up by "big-mouths."

I've said a couple of things in this Legislature in discussing this bill that leaves me flabbergasted from thinking about the intelligence of some of the statements that have been made. Certainly I want to discuss this bill with a lot of common sense. I want to point out to the Government, Mr. Speaker, exactly what could happen in British Columbia by pointing out what has happened in other jurisdictions. I think we should be sane and sensible in discussing this bill.

"That would be dictatorial and contrary to common as well as moral justice."

I didn't say that. I'm still quoting from one of these editorials that told the people of British Columbia exactly what was in the bill. I hope that some of the Government backbench read some of these articles as well.

The article goes on to say, and I quote again:

"The Government is right in adopting the principle that farmers aren't entitled to compensation now for loss of possible future gain from the change in land use. The farmers have been arguing they would suffer loss if they haven't the right to sell their land to developers and retire on the proceeds."

Well, there's two lines of thoughts there.

Back in England, at the time of the socialist government there, they agreed that the farmer should be compensated at all cost. And they agree that legislation like this, the labour takeover of land, would be irreversible. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what I was talking about in this Legislature this afternoon when I said that possibly, if this bill passes, in later years there would be uprisings and confrontations — the same as there is now in the United States of America by the native Indians. We would be having to go, like our own native Indians are, maybe to The Hague to get justice, to get our lands back. What I'm pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is why, while this is going on in other areas and people are trying to get their land back, why do we take their land away in the first place? Why not just withdraw the bill?

Going into compensation, which the province doesn't necessarily agree with, but Wilson in England, when he was Prime Minister of Great Britain, he agreed with it. He favoured the widest possible acquisition of land for public use with the exemption of public land owners and working farmers. He would not be inhibited by the alleged inflationary consequences of the compensation involved.

Yet we have in many areas deflated the price of farmland when the farmland freeze was brought in in December. Yet no one wants to compensate the farmer. The province says, "Well we're not sure that we should."

But Mr. Wilson made it clear in a speech that nationalization of land would be the main plank in Labour's platform for the next general election. One of the reasons that he gives, which this government hasn't come out and said, but I think is behind this bill, Mr. Speaker — he told party supporters in Edinburgh that Labour's policy for land must be, and would be comprehensive, socialist and irreversible — it would make easier the provision of housing, schools, roads, parks and access to the countryside.

Mr. Speaker, in that last statement that it would make it easier for the provision of housing, schools, roads, parks and access to the countryside — nothing about agriculture. That makes me wonder, what is the real principle, what is the real idea behind Bill 42?

The real idea, Mr. Speaker, is control, complete takeover. Complete takeover of every square inch of land in British Columbia under the guise, Mr. Speaker, of the preservation of farmland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Making you sick, Mr. Minister?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I propose, Mr. Speaker, to back up this statement with some more facts, because, as I said, I want to deal with this very, very important matter. If you agree with me that you're taking over all land in British Columbia for another reason than to preserve farmland — why, stand up and say so, and

[ Page 1279 ]

withdraw the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it now, don't wait for spring.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, we've had a commitment from that government that they're not going to withdraw the bill. I'll discuss that a little later.

The Minister of Agriculture says he's going to ram it through.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'll find it later, and if I don't find it before I sit down, it's in here. If I don't find it, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'll be quite happy to withdraw it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's in there because I just went through some of this material before I came in here, and if I don't find it, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'll withdraw. You remind me before I am through speaking, and I'll withdraw the statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometime tomorrow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to finish this editorial because it makes some more good points that I feel are very important to the debate on Bill 42, so I'll just continue.

"But the government has gone further. The bill says that land shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by its designation as an agricultural greenbelt, land bank, or park reserve."

That could reduce the present value of land, and has no bearing on the preservation of farmland, Mr. Speaker, no bearing whatsoever on the preservation of farmland.

The editorial continues, "Farmland will always keep its value as farmland. But there's unlikely to be any market for property in an area reserved for future use as greenbelt, land bank or park. Yet the government doesn't propose to provide compensation for that kind of loss."

The next point in this editorial is very important, Mr. Speaker. It says, "The government need not have resorted to overkill in its quest for more rational land use." That's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm going to go through some of the things that we were doing, that is, what the previous government was doing. This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker — "The government need not have resorted to overkill." But what did I say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker? Overacted, overacted, over reacted. "The Government need not have resorted to overkill in its quest for rational land use." That's what makes me think again, Mr. Speaker, that there's got to be some sinister reason behind Bill 42, because we don't need Bill 42 to preserve farmland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: We don't, we don't. You just listen and I'll explain why.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON, MEMBER: Turn him off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure rubbish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial says, "All it needed to do was establish a broad policy framework within which municipalities and regional districts could work. It could include a provision that all land now designated for farm use would remain so unless changed with the consent of the commission."

There, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, is a good suggestion. You said, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that you would listen. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Minister of Agriculture, that I hope he does listen. "It could include a provision that all land now designated for farm use would remain so unless changed with the consent of the commission." That's a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. And it's an out. It's an out for the Minister of Agriculture who has backed himself in to an impossible position, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What did you say, Mr. Member for Cariboo?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Farmland would be preserved. The haphazard use of other land would be subject to rational development serving the interest of the province as a whole. Ultimate responsibility for land use would remain with the government." There is a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. You'd still have the control, but you wouldn't have the dictatorial five-man commission exercising its control over every square inch of land in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: A quorum of three — down from five to three.

MR. PHILLIPS: The government's farm plan reads like George Orwell's Animal Farm.

[ Page 1280 ]

"As democracy," and I'm quoting the article, "As democracy, it's a scandal." Bill 42 is a scandal in a democracy. I said it was dictatorial and undemocratic. The Vancouver Province says it's a scandal. I'll have some more words for it later.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to these words very, very closely. I want the whole House to listen to these words, very, very closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, these are new words, Mr. Speaker. What does the Vancouver Province say? It says, "It must be fought." "It must be fought." Mr. Speaker, I ask you if that is hysteria whipped up by big mouths.

The Vancouver Province is our second largest daily newspaper in British Columbia. Up in the great northern part of the province, the western part of the province, Mr. Speaker, the eastern part of the province, it's their daily paper because of the logistics of when it's printed and when it can get there. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, I didn't say — nor do I think any member of this Opposition has gone out, or been at any meeting I've ever been to, or any hotline that I've been on, and said it must be fought. That is what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) maintains to be a hotliner whipping up hysteria.

What does it go on to say, Mr. Speaker? It says: "It must be fought by everyone." Not only, as the Minister would allude, by politicians who lost the election or by the Members of the Opposition. But this bill must be fought by everyone in the province.

I wouldn't call it hysteria; I'd call it the concerned public, Mr. Speaker.

It goes on to say — and there's a lot of strength in this statement, Mr. Speaker. It goes on to say: "With all the strength society can muster."

Those are very, very strong words indeed, Mr. Speaker. You know living in a democracy, Mr. Speaker, that a democracy can muster more power than any other form of government, than any other people in the world. We proved that not too long ago, from 1939 to 1946. We proved that we could muster a lot of power in our democracies in the world.

Why, Mr. Speaker? To preserve our homeland and to protect our land. That's what it's about. When you get right down to it, that's what it's all about.

I'm sure that there are many Members in this House who had people travel overseas during the last war to fight for the freedom that we now enjoy. All of this freedom, Mr. Speaker, can be taken away by a government that really doesn't care about the rights of the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: By one stroke of the pen.

MR. PHILLIPS: The rights of the people, Mr. Speaker, who less than 8 months ago elected it to power.

I would say it's a very sad situation. I would say that probably the democratic rights of the people in this democracy will be upheld — at least I hope they will be upheld.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government opposite will realize before it's too late what it is doing and that it will withdraw the bill. Because there will be no peace in British Columbia until the rights of the individual are put foremost. This is our democratic right. This is what built this great nation of ours. This is what built this great province of ours. This is why we're here as legislators tonight. We're here to protect the rights of the individual, to see that democracy is carried out. That's what government is all about.

When the people exercise their rights, when they feel that their rights are being taken away from them, it sort of leaves me wondering why and how a Member of the Crown could make such a statement and could call it "hysteria."

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on for just a moment where I left off this afternoon when I was discussing what had been done in British Columbia to preserve land during the last 20 years. I stated in 1957 that all lakeshore property — I won't say it was frozen — shall remain in the name of the Crown forever.

You go to other provinces today, Mr. Speaker, and you will find that the best lakeshore property has been bought by people who could afford it many years ago. The ordinary man on the street could not afford to buy lakeshore property.

Mr. Speaker, by this great policy being enacted in British Columbia now there are many labourers, small farmers, people who haven't gone around and been able to gobble up all the land in British Columbia because of this policy, who now have the freedom to lease their little plot of lakeshore property from the government and to build their little cabin on it and to enjoy the heritage that is theirs by right.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because of the farsightedness of the last administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, our environmentalists, who are supposed to be looking after all of our nature in British Columbia and preserving our land, would lead you to believe that nothing has been done.

I think it's time that the people of British Columbia became aware of what has been done and what the laws in British Columbia are concerning the preservation of farmland, Mr. Speaker. Because it's been a good policy.

It hasn't always been 100 per cent. I don't think that you're going to have Utopia anywhere. There isn't Utopia in other provinces. But I certainly want to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 42 will never bring Utopia in the regulation of land in British Columbia either. As a matter of fact, it'll do just the opposite.

[ Page 1281 ]

I also pointed out that the majority of the land in British Columbia that is being used for mining, for forestry, wasn't given to these companies. They call some of the news media and some of the programmes that you hear today by the environmentalists, Mr. Speaker, would lead you to believe, if you didn't know otherwise, that all of this land in British Columbia had been given to these companies. They call them international companies and say that their head offices are in Chicago and New York and they call them rip-off artists — all of which I say, Mr. Speaker, is whipping up hysteria in the opposite direction because it's not factual.

I say again that these environmentalists who are supposed to be interested in protecting the land in British Columbia for future generations are doing a disservice. Because, as I pointed out this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, if they oversell…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I remind you of standing order 43 which says, "Mr. Speaker, after having called the attention of the House to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of arguments used by other Members in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech."

I don't want to have to ask you to do that, but you keep repeating this evening what you said all afternoon. I would request that if you have anything further to say that you press on quickly so that we will not have to exercise that standing order.

MR, PHILLIPS: Deliberately, but not quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: I think whether he did it deliberately or otherwise, he should press on to fresh arguments, if he has any. They may all expire and there'll be nothing left for anybody else. However, proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly proceed. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. I certainly didn't intend to — however, it is a very important point indeed.

I discussed a couple of policies with regard to controls on land in British Columbia. Now I would like to read from the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1970, Ch. 17. Part II: "Disposition of Crown Land, general provisions."

Before I read, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that approximately 95 per cent of all the land in British Columbia is owned by the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want the other 5 per cent too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ninety-five per cent, Mr. Speaker. There is no other jurisdiction in North America where the Crown owns 95 per cent of the land. So what we're talking about in Bill 42 is 5 per cent of the land in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and yet the panic for Bill 42.

I'm going to read to you from Part II, Ch. 17, "The Disposition of Crown Land, general provisions:"

"Crown land is not acquired by prescription or occupation.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law to the contrary, no person shall acquire by prescription or by occupation not lawfully authorized or by any colour of right any right, title or interest in or to any Crown land or in or to any lands as against the interests there of the Crown."

That is in the new Land Act that was brought in in 1970. I wonder if all the people of British Columbia realize this.

"No rights vested by filing of applications." This is the present Land Act that exists today, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). I don't know how many of the Members opposite are aware of this.

Section 7:

"No person shall acquire any right whatsoever, either vested or contingent, in or to Crown lands, or any priority in respect of such lands by reason of filing an application for Crown lands under this Act."

This Act is for the protection of land in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

Section 2:

"No disposition of Crown land is binding on the Crown until the certificate of purchase, grant, lease, licence of occupation, right-of-way or easement is executed by the Crown in accordance with this Act, and no negotiations or arrangements, whether in writing or otherwise preliminary or prior to the execution of the documents herein referred to, shall be binding on or commit the Crown to perform a complete disposition."

Mr. Speaker, if you want to check into the rules and regulations in the Lands department, you will find that it is very difficult to get Crown land, either to buy it or to lease it for agricultural purposes. Yet we would be led to believe that the province was disappearing, Mr. Speaker. Did you believe that? Well, you must have.

No. You didn't believe that. I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. But I'm sure that some of the backbench Members believed it. It's a very important point.

I'm going to bring up another point, Mr. Speaker. This refers to foreign ownership of land in British Columbia. This is very important. I would like all the Members in the backbench, some of whom said land ownership is not important, to pay very strict attention to this portion of our Land Act, which is

[ Page 1282 ]

not a statute that we whipped up here tonight. It's been in the book since 1970. Section (a) says:

"No person who is not a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Canadian Citizenship Act and whose application for disposition of Crown land has not been allowed prior to the coming into force of this Act, shall be entitled to a Crown grant."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, since 1970 no Crown land has passed to anybody other than a Canadian citizen. Now I would hope that some of the methods that have been used to create hysteria would be used to inform the people of what is going on in British Columbia, what the true situation is.

I sometimes get the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that it's a one-sided deal, because an organization in Vancouver sent a wire to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon — and it's headlined on "Hourglass" tonight — to preserve our land and our environment and all the rest that goes with it. I would suggest and I would hope that our television cameras would point to this Act in the book and to some of the other things that I'm bringing up here about how land is being preserved in British Columbia, and get away from this hysteria. Because they're doing themselves more damage than good.

I want to point out something else in this Land Act. It was completely revised, a complete new chapter, three years ago. It's not amendments to the Act; it's a complete new Act. As things arise there must be new regulations, but they must be orderly and they must be in the interests of the people, not necessarily in the interests of what the Government wants to impose on the people. This is a democratic right.

Section 11:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may for any purpose that he considers advisable in the public interest, by notice signed by the Minister and published in the Gazette, reserve Crown land from disposition under the provisions of this Act."

It already exists.

Now we run into a basic difference of opinion here, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Agriculture says that Bill 42 does not give the five-man commission any more power than the Government already has.

I think we should explore that statement, because I wouldn't want people to misunderstand it. I won't say I wouldn't want them to be misled, but I certainly don't want them to misunderstand it. Because the five-man commission may not have any more right of say over the 95 per cent of British Columbia by the province and by the Crown at the present time, but they certainly have more say over that other 5 per cent which is owned by the people.

Now this is the point — individual people, individual farmers. This is the point. I hope the Press gallery realizes and points out to the people of British Columbia that it is only 5 per cent of the land in British Columbia we're talking about — the other 95 per cent is very well covered by regulations at the present time.

There's just one more point that I wish to bring up on this Act, Mr. Speaker: the power of the Minister to withdraw Crown land from disposition. This is another attempt:

"The Minister may for any purpose that he considers advisable in the public interest temporarily withdraw Crown land from disposition under this Act and he may amend or cancel such withdrawal."

I was going to be able to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, large tracts of land in British Columbia that had been withdrawn, but as I said this afternoon, I didn't expect this bill to come up until tomorrow, so I haven't got it here. But I would like to have been able to show you, Mr. Speaker, that before August 30 there were very, very large tracts of land in British Columbia that were not even available to farmers. There was some that was farming land, but it was being treated in economic units to add to certain farms that were not large enough to make them economically viable units. This land was reserved. It was not being sold to farmers who were going to come in and take out what was considered not to be an economic unit.

Now these, Mr. Speaker, are some of the things that have been going on. That's why, as I said before, I can't understand all the panic.

Mr. Speaker, why was more research not done before this Act was brought down? Because had more research been done, Mr. Speaker, maybe the bill wouldn't have been brought down as fast as it was. I think we have to look into the events leading up to this disastrous day, February 22. The Minister of Agriculture had an idea — I don't know where he got it. Maybe he got it from the NDP convention. Maybe he got it from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I don't know where he got it, but he got it. Maybe it's his own idea. As a matter of fact, I think it is his own idea.

He said at the meeting — and I'm sorry I haven't got these articles here. I had them copied but I inadvertently left them in my office. But I'll give you the headlines, Mr. Speaker.

October 30, 1972, Victoria Times: "Land Controls Loom."

Ten or eleven days later, November 9, 1972, Vancouver Province: "Stupich Decries Farmland Loss."

Now did the Minister actually go out and see how many acres were being taken out, how many requests for subdivision were being made? I don't know, Mr. Speaker. Did he do his research?

Then, on November 30: "Farm Freeze Hinted by

[ Page 1283 ]

NDP." I think that stopped people in their tracks for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture was on a course from which he could not return. He was caught in the stream of his own rapid and hasty decisions. He was getting close, Mr. Speaker, to the falls, and he had to do something.

Unfortunately, on December 20, he went over the falls and put in that infamous order-in-council. Over the falls and down the drink. He was severely damaged in that fall on December 20.

There was so much reaction that on January 18, Mr. Speaker, it was amended to define farmland. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it was amended to define farmland to try and allude that the whole thing was to preserve farmland.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, the thought behind the order-in-council, and the thought behind Bill 42, is to freeze every square inch of land in British Columbia. Once the Minister of Agriculture headed on this course there was no return. That's why I say, when he spoke here the other day, he was on pretty shaky ground.

There was no consultation with the farmers. Mr. Speaker, no public hearings, no meetings such as we're having now. Too bad the damage had to be done then.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Mr. R.G. Williston) who wanted to make some changes in the preservation of farmland. He was going to, but he consulted and he withdrew certain things in this House that he was going to withdraw at one time. He said, "Give me some feed-in. Let me know how you feel this problem should be handled and together we can solve it."

There is no problem in the world, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be solved if good men with common sense sit down with the idea of solving it. It can be solved. But it takes a lot of logic. These problems are not solved overnight.

You look at a situation one day and it looks this way; tomorrow you look at it and you get another point of view and it looks a different way. You get all the feed-in and then you make an intelligent decision. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has not been done in this case.

Now, before I carry on I want to point out, before I lose this point, that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, said that he was decrying the loss of farmland. Now I want to point out that…

AN HON. MEMBER: I think that report's been repeated 50 times.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not repeating anything. This is an entirely different article. I'm going to quote a couple of things from an article. This is an article in the Vancouver Province on March 10 — that's last Saturday, the day after the Minister spoke. It's headlined "One Man's view of the Land Act." John B. Jeffrey is the author. It points out in here that while the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's all right. He's got a good idea. Just because a man happens to be in real estate, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should just toss everything he says out the window. Because I think if anybody knows anything about land dealings in British Columbia it would certainly be the men who deal in land. And to set all real estate people up in British Columbia as rip-off artists is not fair. It's unkind. I will not mention that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said this about real estate agents.

This man says:

"While the ordinary landowner has had a sketchy understanding that the Crown actually owned the land and that he had an estate in it, this has not undermined his faith in his ownership possession. Why, haven't governments over the years provided protective legislation for the property owner?"

In this article he says that the number of applications for subdivision actually decreased:

"Stupich contends that the action was necessary because of an extremely alarming rush of subdivision applications. This alleged rush, according to the Hon. Minister, was preceded by a speech he made in New Westminster of November 30, 1972, in which he said, 'I would not advise anyone to invest in farmland with any intention to develop it for industrial or residential purposes.' "

Mr. Speaker, the article continues:

"Logically one would expect the records of the municipalities in the lower mainland to provide ample proof of the Minister's claim. After all, this is an area in which that monstrous anti-socialite, the developer, lurks.

"The Municipalities of Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley, Matsqui and Maple Ridge, containing some 362,900 acres or nearly 570 square miles, were untouched by the rush to subdivide." So, Mr. Speaker, where was the rush?

The article continues:

"In fact, subdivision business took a drop in December. Each municipal planning department recorded business below the monthly average and the entire six corporations had an aggregate application record of 101, whereas they had been averaging 139 per month prior to the pre-freeze rush."

The decrease in these areas was more than a third — Mr. Stupich, where was the alarming rush?

[ Page 1284 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think if we're going to be credible in this very important matter, we certainly should keep our facts straight. I don't know where the Minister found the rush, but he certainly didn't find it in the lower Fraser Valley, according to this article. I would imagine that this man, since it's a printed article, would do his research.

Maybe it was in the Okanagan. Was it in the Okanagan, this big land rush? I'm bringing these points up, Mr. Speaker, because I think they're valid points. I would like the Minister, when he stands in the Legislature to close this debate, to answer some of these questions.

The Minister of Agriculture on Friday last, Mr. Speaker, said, "It is a bill which gives the Government control over all lands." Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the Government absolutely no power at all that the Government doesn't already have. This bill does give a commission some power.

At that time the Legislature erupted. As I said before, this five man commission does receive more power from Bill 42 than the Government ever had because the five-man commission has the power over private land. This is the point.

Chapter 17 gives the Government complete control over Crown lands. Certainly. The Crown owns them, in the right of the Queen.

There's another statement from the Hon. Minister of Agriculture that I can put absolutely no credibility in whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. That's why I say the Minister of Agriculture is in very deep water. His political career is on the wane.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture said on Friday last, from the beginning, and I'm quoting him: "We've said we'd listen. There's precious little of any value in this Act to listen to." Now that's his words. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Agriculture is going to listen, we should get together in one of the committee rooms, a few of us who have done some research on Bill 42, and tell him where it's at. Because, Mr. Speaker, unless there is some sinister movement behind this Bill 42, I have to take a real hard look at the intelligence displayed in bringing down the Act.

Now I've explained what controls there are under Chapter 17, Mr. Speaker. And I propose to tell you about another Act in the statutes of this province, which goes a long way towards preserving farmland and protecting greenbelts.

The Act I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, Chapter 24. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I wasn't in this Legislature in the last three years. And I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that this talk I am giving here today was completely researched by myself. I knew about the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can make all the comments you want to. I did my own research to discuss this bill. I wish that some of the other Members on that side would do more research, and I know they will before they finally vote on this Act.

I don't know what that's in there for? Oh yes I do. Yes.

The Green Belt Protection Fund Act, Mr. Speaker. Purpose. The purpose of the Act is to preserve all and any land in British Columbia, but at the same time protecting the rights of the individual, Mr. Speaker. I want to read from this Act, Mr. Speaker, because it's very important:

"Whereas it is deemed to be in the public interest to encourage the establishment and preservation in perpetuity of areas of land commonly known as greenbelts throughout the province; and whereas it is deemed necessary in furtherance of this purpose to acquire in the name of Her Majesty in the right of the province such lands throughout the province, and to establish a fund for this purpose…."

Similar in some respects to the tenets of Bill 42. I haven't got a copy of it handy. Has somebody got a copy? Would you find me a copy of Bill 42 please?

Similar to certain tenets — I'll just read it out of Bill 42 so that you can understand how close they are in this area. "Objects and powers." I'll just discuss the objects, because the powers I'll deal with later. "The object of the commission is to preserve agricultural land for farm use." I'm reading from section 7 of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot debate details….

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Speaker, then I'll refer to the objects of the bill — the principle of the bill.

The principle of the bill is to preserve agricultural land for farm use, and I'm talking about the principle of Bill 42 —

"to encourage the establishment and maintenance of family farms and land in an agricultural reserve for use compatible with the preservation of family farms and farm use. Preserve greenbelt land in and around urban areas and encourage the establishment and maintenance of land in the greenbelt land reserve compatible to the preservation of greenbelts."

Very, very similar. Mr. Speaker, the objects are running very close to each other. Why all the rush to bring in a new Act? If you want to preserve farmland, if you want to preserve greenbelt areas, the statute already exists, funded by $25 million. In the Act, it says that each day the Minister of Finance…. All right, I'll read it, "Appropriation for the fund — The

[ Page 1285 ]

Minister of Finance shall, on the 31st day of March, 1972, in addition to all other moneys to be expended under the authority of any other Act of the Legislature, pay from the Revenue Surplus Appropriation account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or partly from all these funds…." Anyway, what it says in essence is that it can pay more moneys into this. $25 million each year. Bill 42 says $25 million.

Now, from the time this Act was passed, Mr. Speaker, until the end of August, there was approximately $7 million expended from this fund, and many thousands of acres of farmland were purchased. Many thousands of acres of land for greenbelt was purchased. Yet the Minister of Agriculture would lead me to believe, and lead a lot of other people to believe, that we must rush into Bill 42. That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, there's got to be some sinister move behind Bill 42.

There is a question on the order paper which has not been answered — Question 108. Mr. Richter asked the Hon. Minister of… No that's not it, I'm sorry. There is a question on the order paper here — I'm sorry, but I thought I had it right here at my fingertips. I must have thrown out the wrong page. But there is a question on the order paper asking how much money has been expended out of this fund until September 30.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): By the time you find the answer, you won't even remember the question.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Sure refutes you guys who said we didn't do anything.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh here it is, I'm sorry. The question is asked by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and the question is here. It hasn't been answered yet, so I can't give you facts. But I can find the question. Don't worry Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). The question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The following question is with respect to the $25 million Green Belt Protection Fund Act introduced by the former government in February 1972. What is the total amount of money spent under this Act in the period prior to September 15, 1972? We haven't the answer to that question.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't answered anything.

MR. PHILLIPS: That question has been on the order paper for quite some time, Mr. Speaker. But I do know that to the end of August 30, Mr. Speaker, there was approximately $7 million expended. What is the total amount of money spent under the same Act in the period since September 16, 1972? In other words, in the last few months, how much money has been spent from the Green Belt Protection Fund Act fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Will the Minister be here for his estimates?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we can't ask the question in the House. I wanted the answer to this question before I went into debate on this Bill 42. We can't ask it on the floor of the Legislature, because it's on the order paper and we don't get the answers on the order paper. So I'm to think that there's been no money expended in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act since September 15.

Why, Mr. Speaker, all of this urgency to protect farmland and to establish greenbelts and all the urgency about land in British Columbia, when there's an Act already existing on the statutes funded by at least $18 million? That's approximately what was left in this fund.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up. If there were no statutes and no money, then you could get concerned and say maybe there is some urgency. There's no urgency here. The only urgency, Mr. Speaker, is to gain control of every square inch of land in British Columbia so that you control the people — so that you control the production of agricultural products.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why there was an urgency, Mr. Speaker. An urgency to execute the Communistic doctrine of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just about as low as you can get.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out, and the Minister of Agriculture can't stand to hear the truth. He can't stand to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's keep the debate at a high level. It's getting pretty low.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It's up to both sides.

[ Page 1286 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell the truth in this House, Mr. Speaker, and everybody gets all excited. Now if I'd issued a falsehood or something — well, all right, the bill is here and it's funded, and you're so almighty — in such a big rush to buy up farmland, and protect farmland. Why didn't you use the existing legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer. Answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: You sit over there and make light of it. How can I, Mr. Speaker, relax when this type of action is taking place here in British Columbia? And the man says, "Sit down and relax."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, don't relax. But make sense.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) you can make light of this. You can make light of this all you want to. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are not laughing. No, they're not laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll see them there. They'll be here standing on the lawn. You'll see them marching.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, what else do we have, Mr. Speaker? What other legislation now exists? Let's refer to chapter 1, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1972. What is this called, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what this statute is intituled? It is called the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act. I can forgive the Members of the backbench, because a lot of them are new and maybe they haven't been told about existing legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all new.

MR. PHILLIPS: I can see, Mr. Speaker, that very few Members of the Government backbench want to hear what Bill 42 is all about. Nor do they want to hear about the existing legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: We could outvote them right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker — a very, very serious matter. The people of the province are being stampeded; that is what is happening.

The Accelerated Park Development Fund Act says:

"Whereas it is deemed to be in the public interest to continue to create additional employment opportunity by the accelerated park development programme inaugurated in 1971 by the Accelerated Park Development Act now therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:…"

This bill was passed last year, Mr. Speaker, when you were sitting over here. So all the Members of the cabinet have no excuse for not knowing about it.

"The Minister of Finance, shall on the 31st day of March, 1972, in addition to all moneys to be expended under the authority of any other Act in the Legislature, pay from the revenue surplus appropriation account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or partly from the revenue surplus appropriation account and partly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such proportions as he may consider requisite or advisable, $10 million to establish a fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be called the Accelerated Park Development Fund."

There is $10 million more for the preservation of land in British Columbia.

"The Minister of Finance shall on the 31st day of March, 1972, in addition to the moneys authorized by subsection 1, pay from the revenue surplus appropriation account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or partly from the revenue surplus appropriation account and partly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such proportions as he may consider requisite or advisable, the unexpended balance at that date of the sum of $15 million authorized to be paid under the Accelerated Park Development Act, to be added to the Accelerated Park Development Fund established under subsection l."

The thing further in this Act, Mr. Speaker, is that expenditures from the fund are very important.

"The Minister of Finance may pay, at such times and in such amounts as he may consider requisite or advisable, out of the Accelerated Park Development Fund, upon certification by the Comptroller-General that the expenditure comes with the purposes of the Act, moneys for the purpose of creating…."

— and this is the key word in this, Mr. Speaker — "or improving parks in the province, including land acquired under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act."

So, why Bill 42? I would really like to know, Mr. Speaker. You want to preserve archaeological and historic sites. You go to chapter 4 — another Act which allows the Government to buy up sites in the province which are of historic value, to be set aside for future purposes to preserve our history. You name it.

So what have we got? Mr. Speaker, we have got a new land Act of 1970, which has good teeth in it. It prevents land in British Columbia from being sold to

[ Page 1287 ]

people who are not Canadian citizens. The land Act controls 95 per cent of the land in British Columbia, and doesn't take away the rights of anybody. It's good, solid legislation.

Last year, because of the need, three further Acts were passed in this Legislature. All the Members of the cabinet were here for the purpose of preserving our heritage and seeing that our land isn't taken from us, isn't wasted, is preserved. Why then, Mr. Speaker, with the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, the Land Act, the Historic Site Act and the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act, do we need Bill 42?

Well, I'll tell you why we need Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) knows that we don't need Bill 42 and I don't think the Member for Shuswap is going to vote for Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right, he's going to vote with us.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Shuswap knows that Bill 42 is not necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I discussed with the then Premier of British Columbia, (Hon. Mr. Bennett) because I was concerned about the protection of farmland, another method of preserving farmland in British Columbia. It was a way that wouldn't do away with the rights of anybody, but would truly preserve farmland — what I should say is that it would preserve farmland that is presently owned by farmers in the province. I haven't any cut-and-signed agreement, but I think if you want to check some of the statements I made during the election campaign, they're very close to this because it's had a lot of discussion — this would be that if people who are presently on farms and own farmland would like to dedicate that farmland to agriculture in perpetuity, taxes on that farmland would be relieved by the Crown.

It is good solid idea for preserving farmland. I had discussions and many good long debates with the then Premier over this and he certainly didn't agree with me right away. I'll say that. But in the end he did.

I have always been concerned. I have always said that one little thing here or one little thing there is not going to preserve our farming. I have said this ever since I have come down here. I have said in this House that you have got to have a broad plan. You just can't come up with one thing zeroing in on one segment of agriculture and say it is going to preserve agriculture. Or in one particular area. You have got to have a broad plan that is going to be equitable to all the farms in all of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR., PHILLIPS: No, this would not destroy the value because the person who dedicated his land to agriculture in perpetuity would be doing it of his own free will and accord. There would be no forced sales.

Another thing about the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. With land purchased in British Columbia under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, the person who sold the land didn't even know who he was selling it to.

AN HON. MEMBER: "No growth" out with the lights.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's too bad the lights wouldn't go out on Bill 42. (Laughter). Yes, if the lights don't go out on Bill 42, it'll be a dark day. I'm very interested in that statement by the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), because if there had been more words in British Columbia before this ill-conceived bill was brought down in this House, it wouldn't be here and there wouldn't be the problems in British Columbia that there are today, Mr. Attorney General.

There needs to be a lot more words about Bill 42 than I'll give you. There will be more, Mr. Speaker. Democracy will flex its muscles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when democracy flexes its muscles, the ripples will be heard in every corner of this Legislature…the whole world!

Mr. Speaker, you'd better believe that the whole world is looking at the British Columbia today. Because the whole world, Mr. Speaker, didn't realize that dictatorial legislation such as Bill 42 could be brought down in a free, democratic Legislature. That's why the eyes of all the provinces in Canada and any nation in the world are on British Columbia tonight, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They tried to say the waffle is the same as a pancake. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General says we're having too much…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We know that. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Your national leader doesn't

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to

[ Page 1288 ]

finalize this third way of preserving farmland. If the farmer would dedicate his land to agricultural perpetuity, it would be marked on the deed and recorded in the Land Registry Office. I'm not saying that all taxes would be removed, but there would be tax relief to that farmer as long as that land remained in.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that should there be a death in a family which created a succession problem, the Government could buy that farmland and either sell it back on reasonable terms to the heirs or lease it to them. No forced sales, Mr. Speaker, but an excellent idea of preserving farmland without being dictatorial. The price could be negotiated by an unbiased group of appraisers.

Mr. Speaker, this is not written in the statutes, but it was discussed in public. I made statements to this effect. The Premier announced it as being Government policy. You see, Mr. Speaker, if there had been some research done and there had been some exchange of ideas, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a mess

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in a mess.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is a mess, not only for the farmers but for every landowner in British Columbia. It's a mess for a large number of young people who would like to build a home. The price of existing home sites has gone out of all reason. You know that.

You talk about people ripping off profits on land. I'll tell you, anybody that had land cleared for subdivision prior to Bill 42, or prior to the "Land Freeze Act," just made a 50 per cent profit on December 20, or whenever the first order-in-council went in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What caused it?

MR. PHILLIPS: What caused it? I don't know what caused it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another thing that I have suggested in this House to preserve farmland is that if you don't want to buy the farms on the death of one of the original owners, do away with the succession duties. I discussed this in the House during the estimates of the Premier. I asked him to look into it Because there are many farms that have to be sold on the death of one of the owners to find enough money to pay the succession duties.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have outlined for you some very reasonable ways in which farmland could be preserved in British Columbia, methods which have no sinister reason behind them other than to preserve farmland. Urgency, yes. Panic, no. All we have heard in terms of farmland being gobbled up has been in general terms. It may be that farmland should be preserved. However, definite progressive steps were being made in that direction — without taking away the rights of the individual, without throwing the entire real estate industry in British Columbia into chaos, without shoving the price of lots already designated out of the reach of the common person, without depressing the price of farmland that was not designated.

And without causing grief, Mr. Speaker, and misery and heartache for the farmers in many areas of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the same end could have been accomplished without bringing about the bitterness that exists today in the Province of British Columbia, without bringing about the distress and without bringing about the sorrow that it has brought to many homes in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, men toiled the earth, picked the roots, picked the rocks, slaved long hours in the heat of the noonday sun. From early morning until late at night, they toiled, and then on that frightful afternoon Mr. Speaker, February 22, Bill 42 was tabled in this Legislature.

These people, Mr. Speaker, the salt of the earth, who knew the job of ownership, who knew the comfort of ownership, who knew the security of ownership, were cast into a period of hell on earth. Mr. Speaker, today these people are drawn by anguish. The pang and the agony and the torture and the torment of having their toils stripped from under them. That is the situation in British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker.

They suffer in this province today indeed as those persons suffered in war-ravaged countries who were driven off their land at the point of a bayonet.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers and the landowners in British Columbia today have fallen on evil days. It is our duty as Members of this Legislature to see that this mood of despondency passes, that the bill is withdrawn and that their security returns.

I have outlined in this Legislature this afternoon and this evening methods by which this can be done and methods by which it was being accomplished. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that during the 20 years of the previous government many hundreds of thousands of acres of land were brought under production under another Act of the Legislature known as the Land Clearing Act, an Act which assisted farmers to bring raw land into production, provided loans and assisted but didn't do the hard work. That the farmer had to do himself. No, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration was interested in preserving land in British Columbia. There was no panic; no panic button legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of every Member, every free-thinking Member, every clear-thinking Member, every Member who votes with his conscience,

[ Page 1289 ]

whether on this side of the House or on the backbenches of the Government — it is their responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to stand in this Legislature and to vote against Bill 42.

I want the backbench Members of the NDP to search their conscience before the vote on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker. I want them to have a knowledge, or a sense of right and wrong. I want them to be aware of the existing legislation. I want them to know…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what Member asked that question — foolish question. It's certainly a question of an immature legislator. If he doesn't know after me pointing out…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please get on with your point. I'd rather you address the chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Members to know, Mr. Speaker, that if they vote against Bill 42, they will carry the feelings of guilt for the rest of their days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on now to another point. Maybe before I do, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House some of the opposition to Bill 42. I'd like to read to the House, Mr. Speaker, some of the wires that I received this evening. I didn't solicit them.

People say there is no opposition to Bill 42 — if the Minister of Agriculture wasn't in the House for quite some time.

Now these aren't letters and, Mr. Speaker, they're not post cards. These are wires from CP-CN Telecommunications. They're all signed from concerned citizens and here's one from Vancouver. And it's addressed to:

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
ATTENTION: W.A.C. BENNETT
PLEASE DO YOUR BEST TO KILL BILL 42.

Now I don't know whether there would be anything against reading these names out if the Member wants to know who they're from. They're here for his inspection.

This one is addressed to another Member of the Opposition:

DON PHILLIPS, MLA,
PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
VICTORIA, B.C.
STOP BILL 42. RUSH.

No, I guess that's the man's name. S.A. Rush. (Laughter). Well, I imagine that he was in a rush all right or he wouldn't have sent a wire. And since the Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke) desires, the first wire was from a Mr. A. Zimmerman.

Here's another one, dateline Langley.

DON PHILLIPS
LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS
KILL BILL 42. EDWARD WISE.

Another one; all kinds of them. It says: STOP BILL 42.

This one says the following:

CARL LIDEN, MLA, NDP
AS MY MLA AND A HIGHLY PAID ELECTED CIVIL SERVANT I URGE YOU AND YOUR PARTY IN THE NAME OF TRUE DEMOCRACY AND MY FREEDOM OF RIGHT TO KILL BILL 42 NOW.
MR. O.H. DAVIS

If the Minister of Health would like to check these wires, I certainly didn't go around and have them typed up if that's what you're alluding to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. and Mrs. G.K. Petrie and Mr. and Mrs. T. Jongedijk. Another one to Don Phillips…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I read that one; I hope Mr. Liden got that one. I hope he pays attention to it.

That's why I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Members opposite are going to have a difficult time. They're going to have a difficult time when Bill 42 comes up for second reading.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier bring a conscience clause into the House to allow the Members of the NDP backbench to vote as conscience dictates. Let them be exempt from party rule. This is a critical situation; let's have a free vote on Bill 42.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, now. Sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is their duty, Mr. Speaker, and their moral obligation, when the constituents whom they represent are against the Bill, for them to vote for the Bill. The onus is on them to do what their constituents want them to do, Mr. Speaker. It was their constituents that elected them to this Legislature. It was their constituents who sent them here to represent them. And if their constituents feel that Bill 42 should be killed, it is a responsibility and the duty of the Government Members opposite to vote against Bill 42.

Another one here:

PAT JORDAN
KILL BILL 42
WALTER WALLACE RAY

That's dateline: Vancouver. Another one dateline: North Vancouver:

PAT JORDAN, PLEASE KILL BILL 42

[ Page 1290 ]

Another one too:

W.A.C. BENNETT
KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST BILL 42 AND
ALL OTHER BILLS THAT SMELL OF COMMU-
NISM.

Pretty strong words. When I said the feeling is running high in British Columbia today, I meant it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if their constituents desire them to vote against Bill 42, they should do it. If they have any sense of duty, they will vote against Bill 42. Let the still, small voice within them which is their conscience speak. Because if they kill it, the next time it tries to speak to them they won't be able to hear it, Mr. Speaker. Let their conscience be their guide.

When Bill 42 comes up for second reading in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, let them stand and vote against it. I realize they have an obligation to their Government, but they have a stronger obligation to the people who elected them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you have repeated that particular argument now, this afternoon and this evening. I would ask you to discontinue it, carry on or sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that on August 30, in their campaign, there was no mandate to confiscate all the land in British Columbia. No mandate was given to them on August 30. They had a mandate to do certain things, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't have a mandate to take all the land in British Columbia.

Another wire from Port Coquitlam: PLEASE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HAVE BILL 42 STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, why it is necessary that we point out to the people of British Columbia and the people of the Legislature exactly how those people out there feel about Bill 42. Another wire to W.A.C. Bennett from Port Coquitlam. STOP BILL 42 PLEASE.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those people hate their Member pretty bad.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vancouver. Surrey, B.C. W.A.C. BENNETT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, KILL BILL 42. Surrey, "KILL BILL 42." West Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42 AT ALL COSTS."

AN HON. MEMBER: At all costs?

MR. PHILLIPS: At all costs. West Vancouver.

I certainly don't want to lecture the House, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to point out that the people out there are concerned; they're very concerned. The responsibility of pointing out to the Government that they should stop, cease and desist with Bill 42 is the responsibility of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, here's another one. North Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42." From North Vancouver. You see, it isn't necessarily all farmers that are…

Here's another one from West Vancouver: "I CARE ABOUT B.C. DO YOUR BEST TO KILL BILL 42."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sure the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) knows more about law than that. The wires are here for your inspection if you would like to see them.

AN HON. MEMBER: File them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I said they were here. You can look at them. I'm not going to file them. They're personal wires. They came in from concerned people.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there was no advertisement, no manifesto, no contract contained in their election campaign material that gives them the right to confiscate all land in British Columbia. I find it hard to comprehend the moves that this Government has made since August 30; very difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker.

Why, with the outcry that is coming from the concerned people out there, don't you listen? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Government must understand what the people mean. Some of the people out there, Mr. Speaker, are hostile to Bill 42; some of them are unfriendly.

Many of the people out there, Mr. Speaker, are cross. But the majority of them are unfavourable toward Bill 42. If the Minister thinks he has a mandate from a few party supporters who have asked him to show their hand, the Minister is wrong. Because he doesn't have that mandate. The Minister is dead wrong.

No one gave the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, a mandate to punish communities for the excesses of a few in that community. No one gave the Minister of Agriculture the right to discipline the communities. No one gave the Minister of Agriculture the right to pass judgment on local communities. No one gave the Minister of Agriculture the right to pass retributive justice.

There are many forms of punishment in the world, Mr. Speaker. Today and in past years, people have been lashed, people have been sent to the scaffold, people have been thrown into prison. People have been banished from their lands, put to hard labour. But this Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, is mass punishment for every landowner in British Columbia.

One of the greatest exercises in belittling people, Mr. Speaker, is taking away their rights, taking away

[ Page 1291 ]

their security. This, Mr. Speaker, is a great exercise in belittling the landowners in British Columbia.

What else did the past government do to preserve land?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says "nothing."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right. That's nonsense and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when highways were built….

AN HON. MEMBER: Open your eyes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You open yours.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. I'll tell you the people that need to open their eyes, Mr. Speaker. You should have opened your eyes before you brought in Bill 42. You should have looked at the existing legislation. But you don't seem to even want to listen to reason, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite does not want to listen to common ordinary reason.

He tells me to open my eyes. I think I have already sufficiently pointed out that there's no panic in British Columbia. They would like to make people think there is a panic.

The reward of all the civic governments in British Columbia, all the regional districts, Mr. Speaker, is to become lackeys to a five-man commission, and that's exactly what they'll be. All of the planning, all of the thoughts that they have put into their own areas — thrown out the window.

All the people that have toiled many many years in the Lands Branch to see that our province went forward with an orderly development — they've been properly spanked now, Mr. Speaker. They're beaten. They've been thrashed. They've been trounced and lambasted after all their years of service in the Lands Branch.

The worst thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that their minds have been tortured. Because all the good legislation that exists today has been thrown out.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 takes their jobs from them. Their responsibility is dismissed. Indeed the great lyncher of this province, the Minister of Agriculture, has done a job on every civil servant in the lands commission. He's put the rope around their necks, Mr. Speaker, with Bill 42.

One hundred and forty municipalities and 28 regional planning boards plus thousands and thousands of independent landowners and thousands and thousands of farmers and thousands and thousands of retired people living on their land in British Columbia have been taken in by this Government, Mr. Speaker, and by Bill 42.

Their concern is before me in more wires that have been received to kill Bill 42. Here's another one, Vancouver — not a farmer, just a concerned citizen: "WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO BILL 42 WHICH WE CONSIDER DICTATORIAL AND UNDEMOCRATIC." I didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. That's in a wire.

Here's another one: "WE WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS BEING STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE LAND COMMISSION ACT. PLEASE DO ALL IN YOUR POWER TO OPPOSE BILL 42. GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR ROLE AS OPPOSITION LEADER." That's the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett.

Another one, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Burnaby, "I BEG IF YOU PLEASE ALL YOUR POWERS POSSIBLE TO STOP PASSING OF BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, "KILL BILL 42."

Another one from Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, "THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED. KILL BILL 42."

Another one, KILL BILL 42."

Here's one from Vancouver, it says, TAKE HEART. BARRETT FALLS FLAT ON FACE AGAIN. FLATTEN BILL 42."

"PLEASE, OH, PLEASE, KILL BILL 42." West Vancouver.

"PLEASE KILL VICIOUS BILL 42."

Mr. Speaker, the people are concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to say it again and again and again. And when you get the message maybe you'll understand. Maybe you'll open your heart and your mind. Maybe you'll act in a responsible manner. Maybe you'll bring to the people of British Columbia legislation that is good for all the province and good for them, not legislation that is your own idea — legislation that has been ill-conceived, rushed upon the people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the people are very concerned. They're concerned because the price of real estate has gone up. I know of a young fellow today who wanted to buy a house, Mr. Speaker. He wanted to build a house. He said, "I can't afford the lots at these prices. From the time I got married until this bill came in, the price of lots has gone up 50 per cent right here in Victoria." They have. You know they have. Some of them have gone up 100 per cent.

The Minister says, "We're listening and we're

[ Page 1292 ]

concerned." I'd like to remind the Minister that if he was really concerned about agriculture, he would take a look at what is being done in Saskatchewan. There's a province, Mr. Speaker, that is run by a socialist government. They didn't come in with a dictatorial bill like Bill 42. In Saskatchewan they are bringing in legislation to help the farmer. Don't tell me that you don't know how to do it. I spent quite some time in this House laying out a six-point programme to assist agriculture in British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to move on. But before I move off this subject, I want to say that if this bill is passed, all the retired people, all the little people, all the small landowners — their destiny will lie in the hands of a dictatorial five-man commission. It's the coup de grace, Mr. Speaker. It's the finishing stroke. All of this because the Minister of Agriculture made a speech shortly after being elected and being appointed to that position. There should be a freeze on all land in British Columbia. The Minister panicked. He had started an action; he had started a movement that uneventful evening. Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed to his new portfolio, he started speaking off the cuff, I presume. But he started a stampede, Mr. Speaker.

Then, instead of using good judgment; instead of acting in a normal way; instead of acting in a rational manner, he proceeded to bring in Bill 42 and punish all of British Columbia for the actions of a few. That's exactly what has happened, Mr. Speaker. On December 20 they passed that famous order-in council freezing all land in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: All land.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The whole of the City of Langley is frozen — industrial land, commercial land, all land.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, realizing that he had made an error, they amended that famous order-in-council No. 448372. It was amended to define farmland in an endeavour to take away from the fact that all land in British Columbia was indeed to be frozen. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker Why did the Minister not act in a reasonable manner and tighten up on the rules and regulations that presently exist? Why did he bring this havoc upon us? And we have havoc in British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, will go down in history as the man who broke the back of the NDP Government — the Government, with its large majority, which exercised its power with the agility of a tidal wave. The Minister has said, realizing his error, "Bring in amendments. Amend the bill." You all remember the story of Humpty Dumpty. Amending this bill would be like putting a raw egg back together again. That's a fact.

The bill is not really to save farmland. The bill is really to gain control over all land in British Columbia. The bill, Mr. Speaker, is to have a nameless, faceless five-man commission which will dance to the tune of the cabinet and which, by the very purpose of the bill, will have to be socialist in their thinking; to have them control all land in British Columbia; to have them start farming operations in British Columbia to produce food — not to help the farmer, Mr. Speaker, but maybe to put the farmers out of business. I'm going to mention that a little later.

This bill is so full of errors, so full of wrongdoing, so full of cracks that it is impossible to repair. It's impossible to amend it, Mr. Speaker, because it's an impossible bill. One of the communist theories, I guess, is to gain control of the land. Is that the sinister thought behind this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on now and discuss the deflated farmland, the farmland that is owned by the farmers and that has gone down in price. Maybe before I do that I should finish reading these wires. NANAIMO: PLEASE KILL BILL 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nanaimo — whose riding is that?

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): The same guy sent the whole works.

MR. PHILLIPS: TSAWWASSEN: PLEASE KILL BILL 42. And here's one from Cloverdale: HON. W.A.C. BENNETT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, VICTORIA. This wire, Mr. Speaker, says this: DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU HOME. A wire addressed to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. PLEASE KNOW the wire continues, Mr. Speaker, THAT WE STAND 101 PER CENT WITH YOU TO KILL BILL 42. COMMENDABLE FROM CLOVERDALE…

I'd like to finish reading the wire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the wire continues — this is the important part of this wire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah, sure. The wire continues, my friends in the backbench over there, AND HURRY A PROVINCIAL ELECTION.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1293 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: They won't hurry a provincial election because they know there wouldn't be enough of them left…

MR. WALLACE: Signed Bill Bennett.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly wasn't Scott Wallace.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not Bill Bennett. I'm surprised at the frivolity with which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) treats this very serious discussion. This wire is signed by the Rev. John L. York. The Member for Oak Bay sometimes amazes me.

Another one. North Vancouver KILL BILL 42. No, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to carry on because I have some further points that I'd like to make. I know that the Government of British Columbia and this five-man commission, Mr. Speaker, want to control all land in British Columbia. Maybe they want to buy all land in British Columbia and what is the easiest way to do it?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Divide and conquer.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Silly, silly, silly!

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the Minister of Health says it's all silly, silly, silly. Oh, silly, silly, silly. Then the Minister of Health thinks that everybody who is against Bill 42, I suppose, is silly, silly, silly. Is that what the Minister means?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health Service and Hospital Insurance just nodded his head and acknowledged in this Legislature that anybody who is against Bill 42 was silly, silly, silly. Well, I don't know how many psychiatrists there are in the Minister of Health's department but I would suggest that he make an appointment and go see one, Mr. Speaker.

Why all the holdouts on prime residential property? Do they want to buy them for themselves, Mr. Speaker? I don't know. These are questions that come to my mind when I look at what existed. They've added fuel to the fire of an already acute situation.

Home construction, Mr. Speaker, in this province today is practically stopped because of Bill 42. New construction is practically stopped. Mr. Speaker, we have a critical housing shortage in British Columbia because of our expanding population. Today new home construction, Mr. Speaker, has practically stopped and it has stopped because of Bill 42. And the Minister of Health Services says, "silly, silly, silly." I say, "shame, shame, shame" on the Minister.

The Minister has exercised some intelligence in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I'm astonished. Maybe it's because it's late at night, maybe Bill 42 is getting to the Minister, maybe he is finally realizing that he made a mistake, Mr. Speaker. I think that's the problem. We've heard, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out another very important fact. I heard in this Legislature not very long ago the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) talk about the acute apartment shortage in British Columbia. What has Bill 42 done to an already acute situation? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Members opposite. Are these some more silly telegrams?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, these are real telegrams at 10:28 tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn't alluding, Mr. Speaker, to silly telegrams. I was alluding to what the Minister of Health was saying. I meant telegrams from people whom the Minister of Health would consider silly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twist, twist, twist.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, we've talked about depressing farmland and we've talked about land. I'm bringing up another very valid point here. Does this Government, Mr. Speaker, want to own all the land and all the homes? Are they going to go out after Bill 42 comes into being and buy all the homesites…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not coming into being.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, after they try to get it into being. Is this their intention? — that's what I mean. Mr. Speaker, are they going to buy up all the land and build all the houses and own all the property? Are they going to build apartments, Mr. Speaker? Apartment construction at the present time is at an all-time low.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Would you like to adjourn the debate now until the next sitting of the House?

[ Page 1294 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: If you will accept a motion to adjourn…

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, you move the motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not through. I have…

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We realize that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.