[ Page 1445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill No. 101) Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1445

An Act to Amend the Strata Titles Act (Bill No. 124) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1445

An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act (Bill No. 143) Mr. Brousson. Introduction and first reading — 1445

Oral Questions

Per capita grant increase to municipalities. Mr. Curtis — 1445

Minister's views on UCB administration. Mr. Chabot — 1446

Tax grants to Ocean Falls regional district. Mr. Williams — 1447

Discussions on Columbia Cellulose at Prince Rupert, Mr. Smith. — 144

Plebiscite re amalgamation of Kamloops. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1448

Action to end elevator strike. Mr. Wallace — 1448

Merger of Dairyland and Noca Dairies. Mrs. Jordan — 1448

Ferries to service middle coast area. Mr. McClelland — 1449

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

Point of order. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1449

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1452

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1452

Mr. Phillips — 1453

Motion to adjourn. Division — 1482

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members to join me in welcoming 50 students from Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver, together with their teachers, Mrs. Bent and Mr. Wall.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome students from Arbutus Junior Secondary School.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 101 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
STRATA TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 124 intituled An Act to Amend the Strata Titles Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 124 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
MOTIVE FUEL USE TAX ACT

Mr. Brousson moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 143 intituled An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 143 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 Saanich and the Islands.

REQUESTED PER CAPITA GRANT
INCREASE TO MUNICIPALITIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as municipal councils throughout British Columbia will be giving final consideration to their annual budgets within the next two weeks in most cases, can the Minister give the House any information with respect to the request which has been made in various forms concerning an increase in the per capita grant to municipalities for the year?

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): I gave that information in the budget speech.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, just one minute, please. If the information is available at some other source, then question period is not the proper place to elicit it. Does the Hon. Member know whether the information he asked is already available in the budget speech?

MR. CURTIS: The matter has been raised subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason for the question today.

MR. SPEAKER: Then you are asking for something that would be in effect be a different change in policy and questioning the Minister on advice that may be given to the Crown and not yet had been given.

MR. CURTIS: Is that a rhetorical question?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be all I'm asking, if that is what you are doing… (Laughter). If that is what you are doing, then you are out of order.

I would like to know what the Member is asking, because if he is asking for advice to be given to the Crown…

[ Page 1446 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You're fishing.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm certainly fishing. Nothing on the hook though, I can see. (Laughter).

MR. CURTIS: That's "i — n — g", Mr. Speaker.

The matter has been raised in the House since the delivery of the budget speech — in fact, by Members of the Government backbench. I tried to indicate there was a matter of some urgency in view of the fact that municipal councils early in April are preparing their final budgets for the year. Are we going to have a further increase in the per capita grant or are we not?

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking if there has been a change in Government policy.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not proper under the question period.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MINISTER'S VIEWS ON
WCB ADMINISTRATION

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). Could the Minister of Labour tell me or tell the House whether he is satisfied with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Board?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there again. I'm advised in Beauchesne the question is too broad. It would require, probably half a day to answer. Consequently…

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: …if you expect an answer other than yes or no. Do you want that? It is too broad according to Beauchesne.

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to utilize the rest of the question period in discussing the matter of administration if the Member so wishes.

MR. CHABOT: Yes or no?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly there are changes I think which could be brought about to improve the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Board, in general terms within the confines of the rather ineffective legislation which was established to provide for the workmen of the province under the former administration. I think the board has done a reasonably good job in applying that legislation.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says the board has done a relatively good job.

HON. MR. KING: Reasonably.

MR. CHABOT: A reasonably good job. His executive assistant, in an interview with the Revelstoke Herald not too long ago, disagrees with the point of view as stated by the Minister today.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. On the point of order which has been raised. You can't enter into a debate; if you had a supplementary question would you kindly get to your question.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not entering into a debate. It's a supplementary. My supplementary question is: the executive assistant to the Minister of Labour states that the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act leaves something to be desired. That is a completely different reply than what the Minister has given us. I'm wondering whether he is announcing whether the executive assistant to the Minister of Labour announces Government policy, Government attitudes, Government position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can state unequivocally that the administrative assistant from my office does not enunciate Government policy. I might add that neither do I emasculate him in his freedom to make comments on views that he may have. That is a democratic right of anyone.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Recently in an announcement made — which has to do, I consider, with Government policy — by an executive assistant in which the executive assistant to the Minister of Labour had this to say: "Government insurance agencies may eventually be administered by one bureaucracy rather than by existing system of several separate departments, according to Dale Compton administrative assistant to Labour Minister Bill King."

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Are you asking whether a statement in a newspaper is correct?

[ Page 1447 ]

MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: What are you doing?

MR. CHABOT: I'm asking whether the executive assistant to the Minister of Labour is announcing Government policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, ask that.

MR. CHABOT: I must preface it with the remarks he made. It says:

"During a weekend interview with the Herald, with governmental insurance departments that might be included under a single department include car insurance, hospital insurance, social welfare, workmen's compensation…"

MR. SPEAKER: I refer the Hon. Member to page 147 of Beauchesne…

MR. CHABOT: "…they said I suggest this is another one of…"

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

MR. CHABOT: Well, I just wanted to…

MR. SPEAKER: Page 147 of Beauchesne; it clearly states in the notes under that heading on questions, that it is not permitted to ask questions which are framed in the manner that the Member did, using a newspaper statement as a basis for his question. This practice is not to be encouraged in this House, and the Hon. Member knows that.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious to me by the remarks in the newspaper that executive political appointees are announcing government policy in British Columbia today.

MR. SPEAKER: Once again you're entering into debate.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may just respond. I have no knowledge of the newspaper article to which the Member refers. With respect to political appointments, I would advise that my administrative assistant is a member of no political party whatsoever. I do have some views about the political affiliations of the Herald to which the Member refers.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that the announcement of policy was reserved for the administrative assistants of the official Opposition. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Party policy.

TAX GRANTS TO
OCEAN FALLS REGIONAL DISTRICT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Finance. With respect to the Government's proposed operation of Ocean Falls, will the regional district in that area be given grants in lieu of taxes which might otherwise be paid by the private operator of that company?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The whole matter is under review. It's a brand new experience for the Government. We hope to include the regional district in planning of the area. We're concerned about the development of the whole area, and there will be meetings taking place hopefully in the near future as we decide other business with the regional district on this matter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? Then the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

DISCUSSIONS WITH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE
RE PRINCE RUPERT OPERATIONS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Would the Minister kindly inform the House the results of any discussions with Columbia Cellulose concerning the takeover of the Prince Rupert operations?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; Minister of Recreation and Conservation): There are no results.

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bait him a little more.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, go ahead.

MR. SMITH: Is the Minister suggesting by the terse reply that there are no pending negotiations with Columbia Cellulose on any of their holdings in the Province of British Columbia?

[ Page 1448 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You're not listening! You're not very bright.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think I made the point abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker.

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

PLEBISCITE RE
AMALGAMATION OF KAMLOOPS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On municipal affairs, Mr. Speaker: in light of the judicial decision regarding the amalgamation of the City of Kamloops and the court order requiting the Minister to hold a plebiscite or vote on the feelings of the residents of the area, may I ask him whether or not steps have been taken to date to fulfil the wishes of the court and have such a vote taken?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I refer to Beauchesne again. Anything which might prejudice a pending trial in a court of law should not be asked.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm under the impression that the decision had been rendered, requiring the Minister to….

MR. SPEAKER: There is at present, I understand from advice given in this House in a previous time, an appeal taken and therefore it's still before the courts. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

ACTION TO END
ELEVATOR STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any information to give the House regarding steps he has taken in the elevator strike?

HON. MR. KING: I'm in a position to report that my department is in constant touch with the Ontario Department of Labour and indeed with every other Department of Labour in the provinces across Canada. I do anticipate being able to make an announcement either today or tomorrow.

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

MERGER OF DAIRYLAND
AND NOCA DAIRIES

MRS., P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Agriculture: have the Minister or any Members of his department had discussions or correspondence with any personnel of Dairyland Ltd. regarding the proposed merger between Dairyland and Noca Dairies?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'm not sure that I got the import of that question, Mr. Speaker. I have met with…

MR. SPEAKER: I think the only question I have at the moment in dealing with the question put before me is whether there is any jurisdiction under this Minister as to whether two private organizations have a merger or not. Does it, Hon. Member?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it pertains to the Minister of Agriculture and the Milk Board. I would like to know if your department or yourself or any Members have had discussions with Dairyland, with relation to the proposed merger between Dairyland and Noca.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it is a proposed merger at this point. I have met with representatives of Dairyland and that topic may have come up in the conversation — I'm not sure. It has come up in conversation with different individuals. Whether it came up with Dairyland I just can't say at this point.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Minister. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to give us the dates of these meetings and file the correspondence with the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There has been no correspondence on this subject, Mr. Speaker. Do you want the dates of any meetings that I had with any representatives of Dairyland on any subject? Is that it?

MRS. JORDAN: With regard to the possible merger of Dairyland and Noca Dairies.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it has never been a topic of formal discussion at any of these meetings. I'm just not sure what meetings, if any, it came up at, but I can give you the dates of all the meetings.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this is occupying a great deal of time to no purpose. I would suggest…

MRS. JORDAN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, this is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: I know it is, but I am suggesting another method…

[ Page 1449 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister, and he has been very kind…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You'll just take up the time of the question period if you keep up. I'm trying to suggest to the Hon. Member that the Minister can file the information when he gets it or take this question as notice. He's obviously answered that he can't give you the dates.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you'd stop talking and let the Minister talk then we…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister would be so kind to review his notes and…

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

AN HON. MEMBER: She's succeeded in taking up most of the time for the question period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

FERRIES TO SERVICE
MIDDLE COAST AREA

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question once again to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Now that the Ocean Falls purchase has been made public, will the Minister now be prepared to tell the House whether he is prepared to authorize the expenditures approved by the previous government for the new ferry in the middle coast area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the jurisdiction with respect to ferries is with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When I was addressing this question before to the House, I was told to address myself to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I'm going exactly where I was told to address the question, and if that Minister refuses to answer the question, then the question period is of no value whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time limit is up, unfortunately. But we can always renew the question tomorrow if you think you haven't been dealt with properly.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders, with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise on a point of order concerning Bill 42 and the Government's proposed amendments to that Act. My point of order is in two parts.

First, I request that you, Mr. Speaker, examine rule 75 of our standing orders which reads: "No bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape." Mr. Speaker, I have consulted the authorities on this section, I have talked with those who have considerable experience in the rules of this House, and I find that as the words in this section are not restricted by previous decisions, we can take the words as they are written.

The question then becomes, Mr. Speaker: what constitutes "blank or imperfect shape"? What bills fall under such a heading? Mr. Speaker, I submit that a bill which the Government intends to amend substantially on matters of principle, dealing with appeal and due process…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I point out to the Hon. Member that the question before the House that you've raised on a point of order is whether this bill is in "imperfect shape." So the first question that has to be answered by the Speaker is whether it is in imperfect shape.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To assist the Speaker in your deliberations, Sir, I…

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am very grateful to the Hon. Member for giving me a brief of his argument, which I studied. I intend to deal with it in detail later. But in the meantime, I point out to the Hon. Member that nowhere does he point out where at the present time this bill is in any sense imperfect in its shape.

It has all the necessary sections in it to complete a bill. There is not at this stage anything that we have in the way of knowledge before the House, on the order paper or otherwise, in fact, that would indicate

[ Page 1450 ]

that it is not in perfect shape. I might point out that what is called a "dummy bill" is one which is put in with blank pages in it.

This is complete in its form, and the Hon. Member is anticipating something that has not yet happened. If he says that there are going to be any changes in the bill, then his point of order is in advance of the actual situation that he contemplates. I have no knowledge of any amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the reason I proposed the question to the Premier about four or five days ago on the question of whether amendments would be coming forward on this bill, and whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) speaking in Kamloops was government policy, was to indicate that there are cases, Mr. Speaker, where this bill may well be in imperfect shape, simply because it has been accepted as government policy by the Premier that there will be amendments to this bill — amendments of which we in this House, as you correctly state, know nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: My point is that you're anticipating a matter that is not before the House. I point to Beauchesne on page 60, section 71. The Speaker in this case said: "I must deprecate the practice of putting questions of this kind to the Speaker. It's the Speaker's duty merely to answer questions of order and procedure as they arise."

Now the question has not arisen yet of any amendments. It is an invariable rule in this House, and in May, that amendments to bills do not come in during second reading. We are now embarked on second reading and the debate on the motion that the bill has second reading is now in progress.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely my point.

MR. SPEAKER Well this is no time then to raise the question, anticipating possible amendments that are not before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Government's announced intention is that parts of this bill are redundant and blank. They're of no value to us…

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point before the House at this time. What they intend to do in the future is still to be unwrapped by the future. Therefore, I have nothing before me in law or the law of parliament that I can look at. Therefore, you're anticipating a question that may or may not arise. You can't ask me to rule on theoretical things in the future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Premier in this House four days ago is a statement in which, I think, some reliance can be placed.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, I've made my ruling. I'd be pleased to deal with it in greater detail in more time available and give you my written reasons for this decision.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a two-part point of order, as I said. You have ruled on one. I believe you've ruled more on the substance of the material I gave you, rather than what I've said in this House, which I believe is unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: You were making statements about something that hasn't happened yet and you don't know if it will or will not happen.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we are correctly following the rules in discussing this bill at this time, when the Government has made statements concerning amendment. The statement of Beauchesne on page 277 is, I believe, applicable, Mr. Speaker. He says: "It may become necessary, before the second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes to its provisions, which can only be accomplished at this stage by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill."

You'll find similar statements, Mr. Speaker, in May at page 950 to 951. Also, you can find them in the authorities of the Speaker's Decisions elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that I've studied those points with detail. I've examined them and consulted on them.

Where it says, "It may become necessary, before second reading of a bill, to make considerable changes in its provisions, which can only be accomplished at this stage by discharging the order for the second reading and withdrawing the bill," that is a permissive thing that has been done in this House on many occasions by permission of the House, by leave of the House. It's merely a method that can be used if the House wishes to do so. It is not mandatory.

We're dealing with the principle of a bill. The principle of the bill, in broad outline, has to do with the control of farmland.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That point I would dispute…

MR. SPEAKER: And when you look at the details of each section of the bill, as it exists…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1451 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're discussing the principle, in broad outline, of a bill that has to do with farmland, if you want me to put it that way. There are sections to the bill that deal with specific matters in relation thereto. But as you all know, you are not to discuss the specific clauses of a bill in second reading. You're supposed to discuss the thing in broad detail. That is what I'm saying you can only do at this stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, Mr. Speaker, and we've heard seven hours of broad detail. This is why I'm attempting to assist the House by putting forward sensible suggestions…

MR. SPEAKER: It can only be done with leave of the whole House and I doubt if you'll get it. You might ask.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you have commented upon — I will not say dealt with — you have commented upon the first of the two points which I wish to raise. I gave both points to you in a prepared statement beforehand so you would have the opportunity of following my arguments on this. The second point is also important.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point you have indicated is from Beauchesne…

AN HON. MEMBER: I haven't heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were quoting from 383 of Beauchesne.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the second point, which you are ruling out of order on the strength of having read my comments beforehand, has not yet been placed before the Members of this House. If, in the absurd situation — the extreme situation — that the House wished to overrule you on such a ruling, Mr. Speaker, how would they be able to do it unless you allow them now to hear the point?

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right. Proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. The second point is this, Mr. Speaker. The point has been made that amendments are acceptable at third reading. This, of course, is only partially true because it is not true for all amendments. There is a time and a place for amendments which affect the principles of a bill. I'll discuss that point later on, Mr. Speaker — whether or not the principles of the bill are such things as denial of natural justice, rights of appeal, due process and things of that nature.

The point of fact is that there is a time and a place for minor amendments — which is third reading — and substantial amendments dealing with matters of policy cannot be placed before the House at third reading. So I raise this for your honoured consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: It's done in committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's right. The function of the…

MR. SPEAKER: At third reading, at that stage, then it's recommended back to the House for amendment — individual clauses — otherwise not.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You, Mr. Speaker, are going to be placed in a most invidious position in third reading.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we are predicting it on the strength of what the Premier himself has said in this House.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: You haven't made a point of order at all. You're in an argumentative debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You haven't even heard it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member proceed because I don't want anyone to suggest that I would not want to hear his argument in detail. (Laughter). Why are you laughing at that? I have asked him to proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the rules of admissibility of amendments are explained in detail in May and Beauchesne. I would quote a couple of the rules. "A committee is bound by the decision of this House given on second reading in favour of the principle of a bill and should not, therefore, amend the bill in any manner destructive of this principle."

I have, Mr. Speaker, in addition, in the notes that I gave you, quotes from two decisions of British Speakers and further quotes from May. If you wish, you can find them in Beauchesne, page 285, paragraphs 406 and 408.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you will accept those quotations as read or at least as commented upon, I'm pointing out the pitfalls we face in this debate after second reading, at third reading, even if we give this bill second reading. Statements have been made by Ministers and the Premier regarding amendments

[ Page 1452 ]

on third reading which affect the principle of the bill and which cannot properly be entertained by you or the Chairman of the committee in future discussions in this chamber.

So you're going to be placed, Mr. Speaker, in the most unenviable position of ruling out of order amendments which the Government apparently wishes to bring in, in defiance of our rules and British parliamentary practices, at this stage. I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you or any other Speaker in a British common law jurisdiction would rule that amendments dealing with the denial of natural justice, amendments dealing with the right of appeal, amendments dealing with due process, are anything other than matters of high principle in a jurisdiction which has British common law.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the third point I raise — and it's important to mention — is that if this bill does pass second reading at this stage, and if the precedents of May, Bourinot, and Beauchesne as well as the previous rulings of British and Canadian Speakers are not followed, then the Government will be unable to propose substantive amendments at third reading.

Then the Government has a choice: either withdrawing the bill at third reading and re-introducing a new bill, which may waste every hour we have presently spent in this House on this bill; or else passing the bill and then introducing a bill to amend the bill which has already been passed, which is a perfectly legal way of proceeding, which will once again mean a brand new debate from first to third reading on a new bill. Either way, it appears that we're in for a whole new debate on this subject and that the time and energy that we are devoting to Bill 42 — in particular, that our friend from South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is devoting to Bill 42 — will be for nought.

So I believe it's important, Mr. Speaker, for your Honour to rule on the two questions of order which I have raised: whether it's proper for an imperfect bill to proceed and whether the Government's proposed amendments will be receivable on third reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I may speak to the points of order presented by the Member. First of all, the first point is based on a procedure for amendments. It's clearly spelled out in our standing orders section 80 bills may be amended in committee; section 85 all the amendments of committee. So there is procedure there — and we must deal with the procedure, not with the content of the bill. We deal with the procedure; unlike my friend, I'll deal with the procedure, not the content.

The second point is that he's surmising — he's surmising contents of amendments. He's spent the last 15 minutes taking up the time of this House surmising what may be in those amendments and trying to make a point of order out of surmise. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we continue that route, this House will dissolve into no action at all. I suggest that we stick to the standing rules. If the Member doesn't like the standing rules, he can either stomp out in petulance or find some other means.

Interjections by some Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've heard fully on the two points of order raised by the Hon. Member. I'd already dealt with the first point of order, which was that we could not anticipate the kind of amendments that may or may not be before the House at a later time. Therefore, it would be premature, according to May or to Beauchesne, to proceed at this time to surmise, as has already been indicated.

The second point of order dealt with the question of Beauchesne, clause 383, where it says, "it may become necessary, before the second reading, to make considerable changes in the provisions of a bill." That can only be accomplished, according to Beauchesne, at that stage by discharging the order for second reading and withdrawing the bill. In every case, invariably, that is done with the leave of the House. The bill is the property of the House once it's introduced, and can only be removed from the House or changed or withdrawn with leave of the whole House. Therefore, I cannot see how that section of Beauchesne is anything else but permissive. It is not mandatory.

Therefore, you're speculating at this stage when you suggest that there is anything imperfect in the form of the bill as it's presently before the House. It reads as a bill. It has separate sections that are all complete in it, as it stands on the order paper. I cannot see that your first argument about it being imperfect, therefore, stems from anything else but statements that have been made somewhere that the bill is subject to some amendment when it gets to committee after second reading. But that is customary that you deal with the bill in general principle at this stage, and do not relate it to specific clauses of the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot deal with amendments that are not here and therefore I must rule your point of order as not tenable. I would call upon the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 1453 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased that during your recent discourse with the learned leader of the Liberals that you told us the true intent of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: I've been listening to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well you told us, I think, the real intent when you said that the purpose of Bill 42 is to control farmland. Control, and that's the key word and I'm certainly glad that you informed the House.

I'm certainly glad that the Hon. leader of the Liberals now has told his Liberal Constituency Association in Nanaimo why he hasn't brought in amendments and I'm sure that they'll be pleased with their leader because of the explanation given in the House here this afternoon.

So now that everybody's happy, and now that everybody's had their say, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to continue where I left off last evening when I was discussing…I'm certainly getting lots of support, not only in this House but outside. Mr. Speaker, I was discussing…

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): If you submit it to the country you'll find the supporters.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was discussing the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker, and statements made by the Premier about the Municipal Act. Before I got started on discussing this Act, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I was called a liar by the Member for Vancouver…

MR. SPEAKER: I think you've been through that, Hon. Member. I don't think we should go back to something…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I don't want to go back. But I do want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think you think and I think that some of the other Members of the House think that I am being repetitious. I want to point out to the Speaker that this speech was prepared by me prior to Bill 42, and I have not brought back, gone over or rehashed one single bit of my speech. I have points left that I left off when I finished speaking a week ago Tuesday night. I want to bring this to the Speaker's attention, because I am not trying to be tedious, and I am not trying to be repetitious.

If I still wanted to do so, I would read the entire Municipal Act. I would read the entire Land Act and I would read lots of other things that the laws of the Legislature permit me to do. I just want to get this one point cleared up with you, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed. This material here is material that I have brought into this House several times. So now that we understand each other…

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that reading speeches is not desirable in the House. In fact I'd like to see us all get away from reading speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think that the Speaker would accuse me of reading speeches. I can think on my feet. There are certain sections that I would read because I don't want to be misquoted. This is a very important element. There will be certain excerpts that I would read but other than that…

So now I'll carry on, Mr. Speaker. I was going to inform the House of the points that I have brought up in previous talks on this floor, but if you…

MR. SPEAKER: I think they all have Hansard.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll just carry on.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Read section 791.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to read some sections out of the Municipal Act. And I know that you've been reading them my friend. I know you're on pretty shaky ground and I appreciate the situation you're in.

Now, we were discussing comments that the Premier made on an open-line show on Saturday which was rebroadcast twice so that everybody would have the opportunity…

I'll just read this back and then I'll go into the Municipal Act. He said, "May I refer you again to the section of the Municipal Act where in 706 of the existing Municipal Act, where it says" — I'm quoting the Premier's own words on the Jack Webster show — "property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of zoning." Now my point, Mr. Speaker, was and still is that the Premier was not telling all of the story on zoning to the citizens of British Columbia —  was not giving all of the sections which are applicable to zoning; was not telling the entire story. I am going to read the section on zoning from the Municipal Act so that this House will be aware of the checks and balances, as they presently exist, in the Municipal Act.

I'm going to start by reading from the Municipal Act, which is chapter 255 of the statutes, division 3, Mr. Speaker, and it's entitled, Zoning, section 702:

"The Council may by bylaw, hereinafter referred to as a zoning bylaw,

(a) Divide the whole, or a portion of the area of the municipality into zones and define each zone either by map, plan or description, or any combination thereof,

(b) Regulate the use of land, buildings and

[ Page 1454 ]

structures including the surface of water within such zones, and the regulation may be different for different zones and for different uses within a zone. For purposes of this clause, the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit any particular use or uses in any specified zone or zones.

(c) Regulate the size, shape and siting of structures within such zones, and the regulations may be different for different zones, and with respect to different uses within a zone."

There's nothing like this in Bill 42.

"Without limiting the generality of clause B., require the owners or occupiers of any building in any zone to provide off-street parking and loading space for such building, and may classify buildings and differentiate and discriminate between classes with respect to the amount of space to be provided, and may exempt any class of building, or any building existing at the time of adoption of the bylaw from any of the requirements of this clause. "

Now this is part and parcel of zoning, and that is section 702, clause 1. Nothing was said by the Premier about further clauses. Further regulations concerning the public is in section 2. This is where we get into the meat of it a little more.

"In making regulations under this section, the council shall have due regard for the following considerations…."

This is where people in municipal offices and elected civic governments have to take into consideration the land that they are going to zone. They have to take into consideration the use of the land, and the fact that it belongs to persons other than the Crown. I'd like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what considerations must be made. "The promotion of health, safety, convenience and welfare of the public." — and I'm quoting this from the Municipal Act — "The prevention of the overcrowding of land and the preservation of the amenities peculiar to any zone. The securing of adequate light, air and access." Section (d) says:

"The value of the land and the nature of its present and prospective use and occupancy."

So by giving only one section of the Municipal Act under zoning, the Premier did not tell the entire story. If all of the power, as he says, or would infer, is in the Act, why does he pass Bill 42? So there's a bit of double talk here, Mr. Speaker, a bit of double talk which leaves the ordinary person in a difficult position, because he can't understand it.

One time we say one thing and the next time we disagree with what we've already said.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back and say that the principle of Bill 42 is, as you've ably put it, to control farmland. But I'll go a little further and say it's to control all land. And why?

We must also take into consideration, when zoning, the character of each zone, the character of the buildings already erected and the peculiar suitability of the zone for particular uses. The conservation of property values is written right in the Municipal Act. There is absolutely nothing in Bill 42 about the conservation of property values, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the order-in-council changed all land values. It skyrocketed present land immediately and depressed other land values. Already, without even passing a bill, this Government has ruined land values in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

I say again, the Municipal Act clearly states, in section (f) of section 2 of section 702, the conservation of property values. The Premier says again, in referring to section 706, which is the only section he read: "We recognize that we have gone further and said that society owes an obligation to those farmers who are bona fide farmers; not the weekend farmers."

Well, maybe we don't have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to the weekend farmers as far as making their farming an economically viable unit. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have a great obligation to the weekend farmers when it comes to protecting their assets. I think it should be the right of an individual, if he so desires, to go out in the country and buy a few acres and raise a few horses or ponies for his children, or maybe a cow or some chickens. I think that he should have that right. Bill 42 in essence is going to take that right away from him.

We talk about farming and we talk about preserving farming as a way of life. I would like to say that we should also in Bill 42 give some consideration to preserving the family as a way of life. In what better way could you bring up a small family than to have them on a small acreage outside of town somewhere where they can have some space to flex their muscles, where they can maybe learn to drive a tractor and learn how to plant seeds in the garden? I think we owe these people an obligation as well. As I say, I don't think it has to be a viable operation but…The Premier laughs. I don't think it's a laughing matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not laughing at you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm sorry. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier wouldn't be laughing at me, because I know that boys that come from a farm seem to have a great sense of responsibility and I think they make good citizens. Now I am not saying that people raised in the city don't but I am saying that by and large the farm boy is a pretty wellrounded individual who makes a good citizen. So I would say that families who desire to move to a little acreage outside of town should certainly be given the

[ Page 1455 ]

opportunity to do so.

Now the Premier again defeats his own words, because he says: "To accomplish that," and he's referring to this obligation, "we have gone beyond the idea of gimmickry and said, 'Yes, we'll take the tax off the land and do other things."' And I presume that when he was saying that, Mr. Speaker, he was referring to taking the taxes off the land as "gimmickry," or maybe some of the other things to preserve farming as "gimmickry." Now I don't think that's a very intelligent statement coming from our Premier when we're talking about preserving farmers — referring to certain things which have been asked for by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and by the Farmers' Union of British Columbia as "gimmickry."

Well, I guess he can interpret things the way he wants. But I certainly don't think it's very intelligent to refer to these things as "gimmickry."

"Yes, we'll take the tax off the land," he says, "and do other things. We proposed to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to come to us by this fall with recommendations in these areas: (1) in terms of pension security; (2) in terms of economic viability of small fruit farms; and (3) brand new marketing concepts." Is this some of the "gimmickry" that the Premier was referring to, Mr. Speaker? I would like to think not.

But here he's asked the Federation of Agriculture for input after the damage is already done. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before we pass damaging Bill 42 we should have input. This is what I've been asking for.

The Premier has asked for input. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he wants input.

However, I will continue with another point, Mr. Speaker. I will quote the Premier again when he says, "There is no way he could expect urban value for his land by rezoning before this Act came in."

I'm going to refer to another section of the Municipal Act — a very important section, Mr. Speaker. It's section 478, and this, Mr. Speaker, outlines the duty of the municipality to make compensation for property taken or injured, and arbitrations to determine amounts. It's clearly spelled out in the Municipal Act. I can hardly believe that the Premier is not aware of these sections of the Municipal Act because I think he discussed sections of the Municipal Act before going on this radio programme with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). So I'm sure that the Attorney General would be aware of this section of the Municipal Act and I'm sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) would be aware of this section. It says:

"The council shall make to owners, occupiers or other persons interested in real property entered upon, taken, expropriated or used by the municipality in the exercise of its powers, or injuriously affected by the exercise of any of its powers, due compensation for any damages…"

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What section is that?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's section 478 of the Municipal Act.

"…Including interest upon the compensation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and from the time the real property was entered upon, taken, or used necessarily resulting from the exercise of such powers beyond any advantage which the claimant may derive from the completed work."

MR. LAUK: Do you know what that means?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"And the claim of compensation, if not mutually agreed upon, shall be decided by three arbitrators, to be appointed as hereinafter mentioned; namely, the municipality shall appoint one, the owner or tenant or other person making the claim or his agent shall appoint another, and such two arbitrators shall appoint a third arbitrator within 10 days after their appointment."

So there are sections in the Municipal Act which clearly protect the rights of the individual. And there are no sections in Bill 42 to protect anybody from anything, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what it means.

MR. PHILLIPS: "But in the event of such two arbitrators not appointing a third arbitrator within the time, one of the judges of the Supreme Court shall on application of either party by summons in chambers of which due notice shall be given to the other party appoint such third arbitrator."

Well, now the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is coming to the Premier's rescue again.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The Premier's shadow.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's coming to the Premier's rescue again and telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, maybe all those thousands of people out there in British Columbia don't know what they're talking about either, according to somebody's interpretation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're the only one.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll just read another section, which is "The power to acquire land for sites other than municipal purposes." We'll see what's in that section of the Act, under section…

[ Page 1456 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to be quiet.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know the Act so well you should know the sections off by heart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell him. Let him find it.

MR. PHILLIPS: "The council may develop property owned by the municipality for use as a residential, commercial or industrial area, or any combination of such uses and provide such works and services as are deemed necessary or beneficial to the development."

This is another power that a municipal council has.

"For the purposes of subsection 1, the council of a city or district municipality may, by resolution or bylaw, acquire property other than expropriation, or by bylaw and with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, acquire property by expropriation."

MR. LAUK: What's wrong with that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's already in the Act. That's the point that I am saying. It's already in the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker. It's there and there certainly is a right of appeal; but there's nothing in Bill 42 with any right of appeal.

MR. LAUK: There's no expropriation in Bill 42 either.

MR. PHILLIPS: There doesn't have to be expropriation. It's confiscation. You don't need to expropriate when you have the powers of a dictatorial five-man commission to go in and do anything they want. You don't need expropriation laws. No, certainly not. You don't need any of the checks and balances that exist in the Municipal Act. You don't need them, Mr. Speaker, because you have a dictatorial five-man commission in this little bill. No checks and balances whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. But there is in the Municipal Act. It gives the people the right to appeal. There's nothing in Bill 42 that gives anybody the right of appeal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, there isn't. You can "hem" and "haw". If there is, why does the Minister of Agriculture run up to the farmers and say, "We're going to change the section and put in some right of appeal "? Tell me that.

MR. LAUK: You're talking about expropriation.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You don't know what you're talking about either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. Order. Would the Hon. Member proceed despite the objections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was a caller on this line who brought up this very point. Webster says something to the effect that he should get a fair market value. The man is complaining that he isn't getting a fair market value for his land. The Premier says, "Zoning changes have no cause for compensation under law." Well now, Mr. Speaker, don't you agree that that's misleading?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's totally incorrect, not misleading.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a good word. Thank you very much. The Premier was totally incorrect in making that statement on the open-line show. What do you do, with a Premier like that, Mr. Speaker? You can't spank him like a baby. You have to tell the people that he's made a totally incorrect statement. I guess that's what I'm doing here this afternoon — advising the House that the Premier made a totally incorrect statement.

Webster says, "They'll get the value of the changed zoning. Is that right?"

"Not of the changed zoning," the Premier says; "they'll get the value, not of what could be or should be or may be, but get the value at the time when it is zoned at the time." Now he is talking about property values when the five-man commission zones the land.

But what has happened already, Mr. Speaker, is that farmland values have been deflated to the point where anybody could go out and buy them because of the reaction to Bill 42. So now that the value of farmland has been deflated, this commission can go in and buy up the land at 1952 prices and zone it as farmland and, five years down the road, resell it at a fantastic profit. That's what this five-man commission can do, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure that that is not what this five-man commission has in mind. Once they zone a piece of property next to a piece of property they can deflate the value without any compensation. There are certainly no checks and balances there.

The Premier says, "Farmland prices for farmland. We are not interested in buying farmland. We are interested in assuring that the land stays as farmland." Not interested in buying farmland. I want the House to note that, because in a few moments I'm going to bring up a contradictory statement.

I think those are the main points of this much publicized open-line programme on Saturday. I was very disappointed in some of the things the Premier

[ Page 1457 ]

said.

There's another point here, Mr. Speaker, and I'm quoting the Premier again on this radio show:

"Because I think that one of the reasons is that people who attack the bill didn't do their research or were deliberately misleading people because under, and I keep referring to section 706 and the terms of compensation, they must have known surely that the section is already in the Municipal Act and we are only including the section in the new Act. See, Jack, you didn't do your homework."

That's what the Premier says, again emphasizing section 706 — but only section 706.

He says, "There never was before for rezoning and there isn't now. We are carrying on the existing policy." And he's talking about compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No change at all.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is certainly nothing whatsoever in Bill 42, and now the Attorney General goes along…I am sure it was the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, who must have been advising the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER; He's wrong too.

MR. PHILLIPS: "…no change in the law," he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better go back and tell him too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you been in here this afternoon? Do I have to go back and read you the Municipal Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to read it to him, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is astounding, Mr. Speaker, absolutely astounding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: …absolutely astounding that the Attorney General would attempt to mislead me here in the House this afternoon.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): It's astounding that I should know more about it than you do, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think you should know more about it. You're the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the demonstration here last Thursday by a group of concerned farmers, the Premier says: "The meeting the other day was nothing more than a political manoeuvre." A political manoeuvre. Concerned farmers. Concerned over Bill 42, who took all the time and the cost of coming to Victoria to show their concern over Bill 42 and the Premier says, "The meeting the other day was nothing more than a political manoeuvre."

I guess that this, Mr. Speaker, shows the contempt of both the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture for the people of this province. I guess this is why, Mr. Speaker, they didn't take the opportunity the other day, when they had all of these people here, to explain Bill 42 to them. Maybe they know that if they explained the Municipal Act to these farmers, and only half-explained it to them, the farmers would be intelligent enough to know what the exercise was all about.

The Premier says, talking about Bill 42, "I don't agree that it was sloppily drafted. This is brand new ground we're breaking but we have done a very poor public relations job in preparing ourselves and the community for this bill." Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it isn't a case of a poor public relations job in bringing in Bill 42 at all. It's a case of the people understanding Bill 42. That's what the concern is all about.

It's pretty hard to sell something that isn't right. I don't care, Mr. Speaker, how extensive a public relations job the Premier wanted to do on Bill 42, or the Minister of Agriculture wanted to do on Bill 42. He's had lots of opportunity since Bill 42 was introduced to do a good public relations job, because there's certainly been lots of input.

The Minister of Agriculture was on "Hourglass" last night and he had half an hour to do a public relations job on Bill 42. He didn't do a very good job, Mr. Speaker, because he will not retreat from the ground which he holds which in essence is that if you now own land and pay taxes, you don't really own the land. You're just really renting it. That is the ground that the Minister of Agriculture stands on. It's pretty hard to do a public relations job on that, Mr. Speaker, because you're never going to sell that to the people of this province.

I don't think public relations jobs are going to cram this Bill 42 down their throats. I don't care how glossy the print is or how expensive the ad is or who writes the speeches. You're not going to shove Bill 42 down the throats of the people of British Columbia.

The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is because the truth will out eventually.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If he's right, why doesn't he sit down?

MR. PHILLIPS: When the truth is suppressed, Mr. Speaker, then this won't be the kind of country that I want to live in. When there is no room for the truth

[ Page 1458 ]

to surface; when people's rights are denied, and when legislation is introduced that doesn't have the time for proper hearing, and the Premier says that "we did a poor public relations job." I would think, Mr. Speaker, that it wouldn't be necessary for this Government — and I hope it wouldn't be a policy of this Government — for every piece of legislation that comes in for them to go out and do a public relations job on it; to try and sell it and shove it down people's throats.

People are intelligent. Sometimes I think they're insulated from these chambers. There are things that go on here that maybe they don't hear about. But eventually, Mr. Speaker, they do find out about them. If they're not happy with what the Government does, then they — as the Government says — they "turf them out."

Then Mr. Webster says — and I'm glad the Attorney General is in the House — "In my previous interview, I nearly fell over backwards when the Attorney General told me he wasn't aware that there was no right of appeal in your bill."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, any time you can make Jack Webster fall over backwards, it's got to be a pretty astounding statement, I would think. He doesn't fall over backwards very easily. He's heard a lot of pretty rough statements but I guess the Attorney General really got to him that day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometimes he falls on his face.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you said that. I didn't.

No right of appeal in the bill, and the Premier goes right ahead and says, "Well, there is a right of appeal in the bill." Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no right of appeal in Bill 42 but there certainly is in the Municipal Act.

Then the Attorney General turned around 180 degrees. The Attorney General's response to that, when we got him in the comer and talked to him a little more, is what he had intended to say. He said that under this bill there is the exact kind of appeal procedure that exists under the Municipal Act. So there's some more double talk.

This was quite a radio programme. I didn't get all of it taped but I think that I have pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's a poor kind of public relations. It's a poor policy of the Premier and it's a poor policy of the Government to go out on an open-line programme and not tell the whole story — to try to tell people that the Municipal Act is similar to Bill 42. You, Mr. Speaker, and I know that this is not the case.

If the powers of expropriation are not needed, which has been said before — and the Premier said it again here — I would like to ask the House, Mr. Speaker, why is it in the bill? section after section gives the Government the power to do things that you say you are not going to do. Have you recognized that, Mr. Speaker? They want the power in the bill to do things that they're not going to do. They say, "Oh, we're not going to do that."

The Minister of Agriculture said last night, "Oh, we're not going to take your house." He was telling another political man there last night on "Hourglass", "We're not going to touch your house." Well, if they're not going to take the house and they're not going to take the barn and the chickens, why do they need the power? Why do they want the Act passed? It's a very interesting point, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? If they're not going to do it, why do they need all the power?

There are sections in the Act that give them power to zone. There's another section in the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, that gives them the power to rezone. What I'm pointing out there is that this is very difficult in the Municipal Act but very easy in Bill 42. So the five-man commission can zone land as a park and then turn right around six months later and rezone it as an industrial site, without any compensation for zoning it in the first place or any compensation for rezoning it in the second place. That power is in Bill 42.

The power in the Municipal Act — and this is why there hasn't been that much problem with zoning under the Municipal Act — is that land is usually zoned up. Once land is zoned by the Municipal Act, a municipal council has to go through a lot of meetings and a great many procedural wrangles to rezone it again. Under Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, our five-man commission can zone it as it sees fit and a year later it can be rezoned. That's a very interesting point. Having used the designation once, they can turn around and redesignate under Bill 42. Under the Municipal Act, no. You can't do that.

The word "designation" is used in Bill 42 instead of "zoning." That's the deliberate use of a word that conjures up use of farmland to misguide the public. In constructing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, why didn't they use the word that's always been used and stick to the term "zoning"? Because that's exactly what it means. But people are seeing through the word "designation" and they know that it's zoning.

Having designated, Mr. Speaker, they can lift the designation at will under Bill 42. Under the Municipal Act, it's practically impossible. Does the Hon. Attorney General recognize this fact? Is somebody going to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go on an open-line programme across this province and explain this section of Bill 42 versus the existing sections of the Municipal Act?

The Premier should know this very well, Mr.

[ Page 1459 ]

Speaker, because right in his own riding of Coquitlam there was a big kerfuffle which came out of city council's decision to use a small sliver of parkland to widen a road. So I know that the Premier is not speaking from ignorance of the Municipal Act Because in his riding of Coquitlam this land was designated as parkland. The city council wanted to widen a road. Before they could widen the road, Mr. Speaker, they had to rezone part of this parkland. Immediately after the decision was made, city council in Coquitlam was in trouble.

There are the checks and balances, Mr. Speaker, that I'm talking about, that presently exist in the Municipal Act. People are checks and balances. Elected people are checks and balances. They're there; they're on the scene. Public opinion, public hearings — they're all there. But under Bill 42, this five-man commission, Mr. Speaker, is going to be insulated from the public. A very disastrous and dangerous move indeed.

This instance, Mr. Speaker, happened right in the Premier's own riding — right in Coquitlam. There was certainly lots of input by the people to take just a small sliver of parkland and rezone it. In many instances in municipal affairs, Mr. Speaker — I think you'll agree with me — they even go to a vote. They hold a plebiscite to rezone land. They even go to the point of having a plebiscite.

Bill 42 says that this five-man commission can "designate and redesignate" — that's what it says, Mr. Speaker — zone and rezone, insulated from the public. Put that situation there in Coquitlam, for instance. Had this five-man commission been there, it would have just taken the sliver off of the parkland and said, "It's now highway," without any problem whatsoever. There would have been no public hearings, no elections, no plebiscites. Maybe that's the way the Government wants it, Mr. Speaker. I'm almost inclined to believe that, because of Bill 42. They will do whatever they want to.

As a matter of fact, even in many parks, Mr. Speaker, city councils have had trouble getting the authority to put in comfort stations. Maybe we want to do away with these problems.

Somebody will say it's certainly a very efficient form of government. A five-man commission goes around the province and says, "This is the law." The big stamp, Mr. Speaker. No right of appeal. Not all of the clauses are checks and balances as are in the Municipal Act. They just go around with a big stamp. Declaration: "I now declare this parkland as highway " — and the five-man commission puts their big stamp on it, Mr. Speaker, and it's law. I'd say it's a very efficient form of government, but not running true to our democratic process. A process that has been won by blood, sweat and tears.

Mr. Speaker, in the city of Hope, the council wanted to put their city hall on parkland. The people of Hope, in a democratic way, flexed their muscles and said, "There's no way that you're going to put that city hall on our parkland. This is parkland, and it's zoned as parkland and it shall remain as parkland."

Now there again, take that situation and put your five-man commission in under Bill 42, and the big stamp comes out again and says, "You shall be allowed to put this city hall on this parkland," and the stamp comes down. This is the law.

I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, this five-man commission is going to have to have the judgment of a Solomon.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pointing these out because they are all relevant to Bill 42. In Terrace, the local government was going to put an arena — which is recreation, and parkland is recreation — they were going to put an arena on parkland of Terrace. What did the local government do? What did the local people do? They said, "There is no way. No way, even though it is recreation and this is parkland." There'd be cars to park in the park. There's be kids in the arena playing hockey. It's recreation, that's what parkland is for, but putting this building and all the pavement, and all the things that go with it to create a parking lot — the people said, "No way."

I'm not sure in this case — did they go ahead and do it or not? No. Well, if they did, certainly the people had the chance to put their input into it. They had a chance to thoroughly discuss it and look for other sites.

You see, if the five-man commission had been in there, they'd get out their big stamp again. They'd say, "This arena shall go on this parkland." Then bang, down with the big stamp and it automatically becomes law.

I think that's a very important point I'm making here, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture is listening. They can under this bill, having taken land from one thing, can use it for another. Or, Mr. Speaker, once they've zoned land they can rezone it for a thousand other uses.

They can take and put mines in the middle of our parks if they so desire, Mr. Speaker. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? If there's a park Garibaldi Park or even up on Whistler Mountain this five-man commission can come down with that big stamp and say, "This shall be mining territory" — and a big mine can go up there. They can use all those lovely ski tows and the gondolas and everything to get the mining supplies up to the top of the hill to dig the mine if they so desire. That's just the five-man commission. Now that's dreadful, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely dreadful.

The thing that really bothers me about this too, Mr. Speaker, is that I would hate to think what could happen. Could we build a hypothetical case here. Under Bill 42, if it comes into being, we'll take a

[ Page 1460 ]

hypothetical case.

Here's a nice dairy farm beside a nice little village in the lower Fraser Valley. Everybody's happy and everything is prosperous. Along comes this five-man commission and they say, "We're going to put a highway through there. We don't want these smelly old cows on either side of the highway so we're going to designate each side of the highway, where this farm was, as parkland.

The farmer doesn't have one single thing that he can say about it, Mr. Speaker. You know, they can put him right out of business; run the road right through the middle of his barn if they desire. That's under the principle of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing they can do is put certain enterprises beside a farm. They can designate it for industrial purposes from farmland. They can designate farmland into other than farmland uses, Mr. Speaker. And that's a very important point. They can take all our good farmland, this five-man commission can, and under the Act, they can designate it out of agricultural use. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) realizes that this is in the Act, Mr. Speaker.

They can actually take farmland in the lower Fraser Valley and they can designate it for housing. They can designate it for industry, light and heavy. They can designate it for storage yards. They can designate it for highways. They can designate it for parkland. They can designate it or zone it, as the word zoning is used in the Municipal Act, for a thousand and one different things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Centralized bureaucratic nightmare.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I really don't know what it would be. I suppose you could call it a centralized bureaucratic nightmare. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, you have to make no mistake about it, it's going to be centralized control of all land in British Columbia. This sort of thing is not permissible, Mr. Speaker, under the Municipal Act. It is just not permissible. As a matter of fact, it's practically impossible.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: But which?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a what?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under Bill 42 Gloccamorra might be designated industrial land because the power is there. I'm glad that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) came in because I know that if our Minister of Highways were the Premier of this Province…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't think they'd get the whole story? I believe that if he were explaining the Municipal Act, he would give people the whole story. I really do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think he would.

I'm sorry that the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who has had so much input into my speech is not here, because I'm going to talk about his constituency for just a moment. Vancouver Centre, and the people of Vancouver Centre, seem to think, Mr. Speaker, that they are insulated from Bill 42. Some of them have been misguided and they feel that Bill 42 is strictly for the farmer. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in Vancouver Centre the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia were trying to take over some land which was to be assembled for low-income housing. They assembled…Are you getting ready to speak on Bill 42?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They took over some land to be assembled for low-income housing. Now this was the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. They put this land in the hands of a developer who was going to develop low-rental housing. When they put the whole package together they found at this particular point in history — at this red hot point in history — that this was not a feasible operation right now.

So the developer was going to sell some of this land to the City of Vancouver for a firehall. What happened? Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The people in Strathcona Park flexed their muscles — democracy exercised its rights — and they said, "No way are you going to put that firehall there. No way." They didn't have to go to an election, they just flexed their muscles.

Take that versus a five-man commission who would have the power over this assembled land to say, "Yes, you can put this firehall here; you shall put this firehall here." And down comes that big stamp of the dictatorial five-man commission. It comes crashing down and says, "This is the law."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Even in

[ Page 1461 ]

Terrace.

MR. PHILLIPS: "This is the law." That's the way it'll be, Mr. Speaker, under Bill 42. It affects your area and my area and it affects Vancouver Centre, because here is an instance right here, Mr. Speaker. That's the way Bill 42 is written. They will put their big stamp on it and say, "That's it." And there will be no input and no output.

AN HON. MEMBER: There isn't any right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the Minister of Health would listen to me. I just got through giving you an instance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): I heard the instance.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't believe that we should have all of these people flexing their muscles and saying, "We don't want this or we don't want that." As I said before you were in the House, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, this five-man dictatorial commission is going to be efficient. You're not going to have to hold hearings; you're not going to have to listen to the local citizens; you're just going to bring that big five-man commission stamp down and say, "This is the law." That's the way it'll be. No matter how you [illegible] it in any way you want to, that's it.

These are what we call checks and balances in a democratic system. The people can have their input. If they don't like something, they say so. Maybe they don't always win and maybe as we progress things have to go ahead.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You're not winning now, that's for sure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about you in just a moment. I'm glad you spoke up and I'm glad you're in the House, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

There are checks and balances now. There are none under Bill 42. I'd like to ask the Members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk and Mr. Barnes) if they're going to vote for this bill, because it's going to affect them. This bill will allow the sort of thing to happen that I have just spoken about.

I've got another instance which is apropos to Bill 42, and again it's in Vancouver where the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) comes from. The Vancouver School Board wants to go into the land development in the West End. They want to lease school property to a developer for an apartment building, Mr. Speaker. The land is presently designated as an open-space school site, so the building will be low and it'll be in open space.

Now you say there are no checks and balances in the Municipal Act. What do the people say? The people of that area say that it is a criminal act to take this land which was for school purposes and use it for anything else.

So the school board, under pressure through our democratic system, is evidently going to back down and they're not going to allow a developer to put an apartment building in there. That is law working in the true process. That is our democratic right.

Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to visualize this same situation after Bill 42, should that day ever come in British Columbia — which I hope never does — when Bill 42 would be passed. Supposing it were passed. Go to this situation, Mr. Speaker: the school board that wants to do this would go to the five-man commission and they would say: "Mr. five-man commission, we want you to designate this area from an open-space site to apartment land."

The five-man commission says, "It shall be done." And when they say it, it is the law, because the five-man commission is insulated from input. There is no right of appeal. This is what we are talking about, This is why we don't want Bill 42 to pass. We don't want to return to those days. We don't want a dictator in British Columbia, We didn't elect a dictator in British Columbia.

I'll take the Municipal Act, which was supposed to have been brought in by the Social Credit government, my friend, any day, to Bill 42. You tell me that was dictatorship, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Aw, come on," is right. Come on!

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we didn't elect a dictator on August 30. And that's exactly what will happen if Bill 42…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I could say a few things about you, but I'm not going to. I'll keep on with my talk here.

So the school board had to back down. This is democracy. Checks and balances. Bill 42 gives the power with no right to appeal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take you back in history a little farther. I'd like you to go back in history with me to when Stanley Park in that great City of Vancouver had no road through it. Somebody decided that they had to get across the harbour so they were going to build a bridge. In order to build this bridge they must have a road to it, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1462 ]

otherwise traffic wouldn't be able to get to it.

At that time there was no main highway through Stanley Park. Do you remember the tremendous uproar when the people of Vancouver spoke and said, "We do not want the road through the park?" The people who said they didn't want the road through the park didn't win, did they, Mr. Speaker? No, the road went through the park.

The point I am trying to make here is that in their democratic way the people of Vancouver had their say, and the people of British Columbia spoke about what you're talking about too. That's the democratic way. But had Bill 42 been in power at that time, all the five-man commission would have to do is say, "We're going to designate this parkland into a roadway," and that would have been the law. Nobody would have had any right of appeal; there would have been no meetings, no checks and no balances. This again is the dictatorship that I'm talking about, the dictatorship part of Bill 42.

When the five-man commission says, "This is the law," there is no right of appeal, because that is the law. Under Bill 42 there is no right of appeal, no compensation, no right to anything. Dictatorship.

This is the last example — Jericho Hill — parkland, owned by the federal government and sought by the city council for a park. The city decided that they wanted to put an arterial highway through this land, and they have the right to zone it under the Municipal Act.

What happened? It became a very major issue on the platform of the TEAM organization in Vancouver before the last civic election. This TEAM group was against it; and the people spoke and they elected this group to power.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, all of that is not written in the Municipal Act. But what I am saying is that under the Municipal Act people have the right to voice their opinions. If they are endangered or their property values are taken, there's a right to compensation, there's a right to hearings. None of this is in Bill 42.

It's very interesting when you get into all of the ramifications of Bill 42, isn't it? It's very interesting indeed. Checks and balances.

Had Bill 42 been law the city council could go to the five-man commission and, with a little pressure applied here in the right spot on some of the men in the commission, with a little pressure there, a little push here and a little pull there, they could have talked the five-man commission into zoning this land that they wanted for the highway through Jericho, Hill Park. The five-man commission would bring down their big stamp and say, "This is the law," and it would be the law. The people could shout all they wanted to but the five-man commission would have spoken.

All they would have to do is run their decisions up a flagpole and let the wind blow them clean, because their decisions would be out of the reach of the ordinary man, Mr. Speaker. Their decisions would be insulated from any input. Their ears would be plugged by power. Their minds would be clouded by the instructions from the cabinet. They will not have to listen because they are not elected. Their term is secure. No one, Mr. Speaker, would be able to talk to this commission.

I'm going to move on to another portion, Mr. Speaker. There's been lots of input from the farmers, which the Minister of Agriculture asked for. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture has come up with nine recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the farmers' union in your area?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm glad you brought that up. You know, Mr. Speaker, when you're trying to get legislation pushed through the House to make the farmers' union the bargaining agent, you're not going to tramp on the toes of the Minister who is going to have to bring in this legislation. Certainly, the farmers' union is in the unenviable position of having to support Bill 42 whether they like it or not, because they want their own bill brought into the Legislature to make them the bargaining agent for all the farmers of British Columbia.

I honestly think that the farmers' union are scared out of their pants to come out and say what they truly believe about Bill 42. They're in a very unenviable position. So they have taken the easy way out and they've joined with a lot of other people. They do not represent the majority of farmers in my area, I'd like to inform the Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, bring the Member to order.

I'm going to read these recommendations from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture into the record because I want it down in black and white so that when we see the amendments that the Minister of Agriculture brings in, we can see them. I'm going to read them one by one. I'm quoting the recommendations by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They are:

1. The requirement that the five-member land commission be appointed for a specified term of office and that the majority be farmers. 2. The elimination of the right of the commission to farmland itself. (They want section 12 (b) of Bill 42 eliminated.) 3. The elimination of the commission's authority to designate land banks or park- 

[ Page 1463 ]

land. 4. The elimination of its authority to acquire or sell personal property. (Now, the Minister of Agriculture said, "We're not going to touch your personal property." Well, if he's not going to touch the personal property, get it out of the Act.)

5. Inclusion of a requirement that any changes in the title to property be recorded and prior notice given the landlord. (A very reasonable request.) 6. Inclusion of a requirement that all decisions of the commission be published and circulated. (Now we're getting around to what I was talking about sooner, Mr. Speaker, when I say "input." Some of the insulation is coming away from this five-man commission now. I don't think that's what the Government want. I don't think that they'll put, that in their amendments.) 7. Inclusion of a section spelling out the guarantees of the right of farmers to carry on normal farming operations on agricultural land. (It's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that a bill that purports to preserve farmland and preserve the farmer doesn't even have that as a tenet in the Act. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker. It's supposed to preserve farmland. Why isn't it written in the Act?)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't you realize you're making a farce of property…?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making a farce of anything, Mr. Attorney General.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole bill is a farce.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll carry on. 8. Incorporation of the right to have all agricultural land and agricultural reserves considered as farmland for assessment purposes. (That's not in the bill — a bill that is to preserve farmland.) 9. Drafting of new definitions for the terms "bona fide farmer," "family farm." "agricultural land, " "agricultural land reserve" and "commission land."

We'll just see how many of these amendments get into the bill when it's reworked.

In other areas there is concern about preserving farmland. The ecologists are interested in preserving land. I was interested in an article — "Support a Good Idea. Don't Let Bill 42 be Killed." It's sponsored by the Sierra Club of British Columbia, Box 385, West Vancouver. They've got some good clauses in their ad: "Farmland in British Columbia scarce — only 2 per cent of the total area." Well, it's only 4 per cent of the land in British Columbia, not 2 per cent.

"Farmland is being urbanized at the rate of 10,000 acres per year. This has been the fate of 195,000 acres in the past 20 years."

Let's turn the paper over. From the information I can gather from my research, there has always been more acreage brought under cultivation in British Columbia in the last 20 years than there has been taken out. So if we have taken out 195,000 acres, we have put in over 200,000 acres. I would say there is no stretch of any imagination there. I haven't been able to get the exact acreage in the research I was doing, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't able to come up with it.

I know that hundreds of thousands of acres of land have been turned into good farmland since 1952 by the previous government. In many areas in the north there are many millions of acres yet to be brought under production.

But I'm not disputing their ad. I think that they're concerned. The thing that bothers me is that down at the bottom of this ad it says: "The restrictions and power of Bill 42 are less onerous than those that already govern an urban landowner. Contrary to propaganda, the bill does not give the right to expropriate any property." Certainly Bill 42 doesn't give the right to expropriate because Bill 42 doesn't need the right to expropriate. When you have a five-man commission that can confiscate your property, you don't need the power to expropriate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "By designation," you say, "by zoning." So the thing that bothers me about this — and I think the Sierra Club have done a lot of good in British Columbia. But they should — the same as the Premier should, and the same as everybody who talks about Bill 42 should — get their facts straight and tell the facts to the people. This is not being done.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know the reason that the Attorney General is so concerned. The message is getting to the people and this concerns the Attorney General very much. He's very concerned because the people are getting the message about Bill 42. When he says that I'm standing up here and making a farce of the House and all of this, that really doesn't bother me because the people are getting the message about Bill 42. As I said before, if I have to go into every hamlet in British Columbia and tell the people at little meetings…I may not have the opportunity to go on a province-wide open-line but I will do it, because the people are going to be informed about Bill 42.

Not all groups in British Columbia support Bill 42.

[ Page 1464 ]

Not all people in British Columbia support Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read you a wire from another group in British Columbia. It's from the Kelowna and District Fish and Game Club.

They're interested in preserving our ecology and so forth, but they're not supporting Bill 42. This wire is sent to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, MLA for South Okanagan. It's dated March 14, 1973:

"THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS PASSED AT AN EXECUTIVE MEETING OF THE KELOWNA AND DISTRICT FISH AND GAME CLUB HELD ON MARCH 14, 1973.

And I quote from the wire:

"THE KELOWNA AND DISTRICT FISH AND GAME CLUB IS A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND HAS A MEMBERSHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 900 MEMBERS. PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE CLUB IS 40 ACRES OF RECREATION LAND ON WHICH THE CLUBHOUSE NOW STANDS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE MAY LOSE THIS VALUABLE PROPERTY. WE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN TURNED DOWN ON A SECOND TRACT OF LAND WHICH A FARSIGHTED GROUP OF MEMBERS HAVE ENDEAVOURED TO OBTAIN. WE ARE ALL CONCERNED WITH BILL 42, AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED. WE PROPOSE A MOTION THAT BILL 42 BE REJECTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

J.S. TREADGOLD, SECRETARY."

There is a group of wildlife fish and gum people who are interested in preserving our country. They are against Bill 42 for the simple reason that it is a dictatorial bill and will not necessarily accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.

I discussed briefly at one time the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. I said that it was doing the job that it was set out to do. I want to read from Hansard, dated February 29, 1972. The speaker is now the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), at that time the land critic for the official Opposition. He says this, and I quote, This was just last session, a year ago now.

He said, "…you could probably buy $ 100 million worth of green belt rather than $25 million worth of green belt. Well, the Premier says that's right. It is right. But what I want to know is why aren't you doing something about it?" I presume that the Member was urging the government at that time, at the passing of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, not to back it up with $25 million but to back it up with $100 million. It would certainly take that. The intent of the bill was to put $25 million a year and pay as you go.

Now we won't need all that money. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because on the land that you were going to buy under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, the values have been deflated. Now you can buy land for which you used to pay, say, $3,000 an acre for probably $1,500 an acre. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that's the reason that our question paper saying, "How much money has been spent since August 30?" has not been answered, because I don't think any has been spent. One of the sinister ideas behind Bill 42 is to depress the. value of the land and then go out and buy it. Point made.

I just want to read some other comments that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources made during the reading of this bill. I'm quoting the Hon. Robert Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, during the passing of Bill — I don't know what the bill was, but it's chapter 24 of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act:

"Now, there's a case for it for many reasons. These are probably the most productive farmlands in the province. They are close to the metropolitan heartland, and the great population and in the case of some parts of them in terms of developing them for their full agricultural potential there will probably be major capital works necessary. In the case of Serpentine and the Nicomekl in particular there's a genuine flood control problems water table problems and so on. They should be dealt with so that this area is developed into a major food basket that is producing more and more all the time. Simply because there are these problems of major capital expenditures that the individual farmers in those areas might well not be able to carry, there is a case for using the green belt fund to preserve those key agricultural lands.

"It's also a unique opportunity," he says, "Mr. Speaker, for making it feasible for more young people to go into farming in British Columbia. I would note that the Government of Saskatchewan is presently planning on going into a land bank programme on a significant scale in order to overcome this capital problem — that is the capitalized value of the land is preventing people from becoming farmers and producers on the land today. A programme such as this which would allow a tremendous amount of leasehold farming to take place, and those key areas would be great in terms of allowing that possibility."

Now, the point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. The Member pointed out what is being done in Saskatchewan which has a socialist government. They have a land bank something similar to our Green Belt Protection Fund Act. But they didn't go to the steps that Bill 42 goes to, in being completely dictatorial and taking over all land. This, Mr. Speaker, is the point that I'm making.

The Member goes on to say, "Now, I know that the government is usually reticent to allow the development of any bureaucracy…" and he's referring to a committee which would be our Environment and Land Use Committee. He says that the Social Credit government doesn't like building bureau-

[ Page 1465 ]

cracies. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government does like building bureaucracies because this five-man commission is a bureaucracy of the first part.

"I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the ideal situation would be to have this administered not by the Minister of Finance but by a Minister of the Environment for British Columbia."

Well, I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 42 should not have been brought in by the Minister of Agriculture but should have been brought in by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I think it's his ideas that are behind the bill. The ruse that it's going to be used to save farmland is sometimes very debatable, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to talk for a few moments on what other jurisdictions are doing with regard to conserving farmland. Before I go, I should say that anybody who is interested can look in the statutes of British Columbia and study the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, chapter 24, which was, prior to August 30, doing a fantastically tremendous job of preserving farmland. But now the book is closed. The Act is there but it's not being used. A chapter in our history has gone by and a new one has evolved. The Green Belt Protection Fund Act can never function properly again until land values get back to the same position they were before the land freeze order-in-council was brought in on December 30. So it's a closed chapter. A very sad case, Mr. Speaker, because it was working; it was doing a good job. Another one of our democratic phases passed out the window.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago I said that I thought the Act should have been brought in by the Minister of Lands and not the Minister of Agriculture. I have several reason for saying that. One of them is — and I'd like to ask you this question — why has class 4 soils been included in the freeze? It has nothing to do with farmland. Many are small acreages with boulders and shrub trees and unlevel — suitable for housing, not for farming. But Bill 42 wants control of these too, Mr. Speaker.

The bill must have been conceived by an imbecile, Mr. Speaker, because it shows a want of intelligence. I can't conceive that a reasonable man could bring in Bill 42. The cabinet's sole purpose, it says, is to preserve farmland. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, why did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) launch a provincial programme of residential land acquisition if the bill is to preserve farmland. Why? The Minister of Municipal Affairs together with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr Stupich), the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) have a three-way thing going here for them.

Two days before the Act was introduced, why did the Minister of Municipal Affairs write to all mayors of all B.C. municipalities asking them to sell municipally-owned land to the provincial government? A very good point, Mr. Speaker. A very good point. I wonder it maybe the Premier would answer that point in some of his open-line shows sometime.

There has to be a sinister plot behind Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it would be hard to say the point you mentioned is relevant to the particular matter under consideration. Could you return to the consideration of Bill 42?

MR. PHILLIPS: I say it is relevant to Bill 42 because it has to do with the government buying land, and if that isn't what Bill 42 is all about, well then, correct me if I am wrong.

He also asked the mayors — this is another important point and it is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to you. It is very relevant. It is all around Bill 42. He also asked the mayors to suggest land not owned by the municipality which we should purchase: "What land do you consider good for provincial land acquisition programme?" Under the smokescreen of Bill 42, this was going on.

Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? I didn't until I researched it. Now the clouds are gathering, Mr. Speaker, and they grow greyer every day. The more research I do on Bill 42, the more informed I become of a sinister plot to gain control of all land in British Columbia. I must thank the Government for giving me the opportunity to do this research. I thank the Government for giving me this opportunity to do this research. I thank the Government for giving the people of British Columbia the opportunity to study Bill 42 because they said they would listen and I am sure they are hearing lots.

We used to sing in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, "Happy days are here again." No one is singing that today. Now they are singing, "Rainy days are here again." Rainy days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frosty days.

MR. PHILLIPS: Frosty, freezy days. They are here. What a catastrophe. Can this Minister of Agriculture turn British Columbia into China? On March 14, Mr. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm certainly glad that the Premier is listening to my remarks this afternoon. He is practically alone in the House — no, there is one other cabinet Minister with him.

[ Page 1466 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader just came back.

MR. PHILLIPS: Our leader is sitting right in front of me here. Sitting right in front of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Both of them.

MR. PHILLIPS: People already are not obeying Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, they're not obeying the land freeze Act.

"Fraser Valley municipalities are granting construction permits for buildings to be erected on frozen farmland, it was learned today, apparently as a result of a hint from the B.C. Department of Agriculture to go ahead."

Now, we have legislation by hinting. A very important point. As the result of a hint. First they bring in the order-in-council and they freeze all lands, then they go around the province on open-lines and now they are hinting to people that it is O.K. to do something. They are hinting.

"Joe Antalack, assessor of the Pitt River municipality, said permission has been obtained verbally from Victoria to issue building permits on some property subdivided years ago and about which there is no real dispute as to its ultimate use."

Is this, Mr. Speaker, going to be the policy throughout all of British Columbia? That is the question here. It is a revelation — it certainly is a revelation. Certainly it's a revelation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the people out there are finding out what it is all about too. The people out there are finding out what it is all about. "Some of the lots involved," he said, "were sold recently, others have been held for years." This is after the freeze. Are all municipalities going to have the right to do this?

That's a very important point, Mr. Premier. What is good for one should be good for everybody else. This is on farmland. On farmland. Read it. "Buildings O.K.'d! on Farmland."

AN HON. MEMBER: They're frozen all right — they are frozen all over the province.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We won seven, my friend — a record in this province — and we'll win the next one!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you care for the Province of British Columbia or your own ego?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please respect standing order number 17, to allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about him over there?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"'In each case,' Antalack added, 'the applicant is required to furnish a letter of intention to use the property as farmland.'"

So you send in the letter of intention and it just depends on what mood the government is in. Is that the way it is going to be? Verbal approval?

I mentioned just a moment ago about the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and Bill 42. The Minister of Municipal Affairs the other day in the House as a result of a question from the leader of the Liberals (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — this is very appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because it is to do with Bill 42, certainly. The question was:

"In light of the recent reports that prices for housing 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 homeowners 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?"

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister answered: "Yes, I am aware the costs of land, especially, have increased tremendously."

What he should have gone on to say is "as a result of Bill 42."

"I am aware that the costs of land, especially, have increased tremendously in the lower mainland and elsewhere in the province. The step that we are taking is to purchase land to put out for either sale or lease throughout the area."

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe we are getting to the heart of the plot behind Bill 42. "The step that we are taking is to purchase land to put out for either sale or lease throughout the province." — in other words the Government wants to own all the land in British Columbia. That is what I have been saying, and here is the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs writes to all the mayors and all the city councils and says: "I want to

[ Page 1467 ]

buy up all your land that you have." Furthermore he says: "Do you recommend any other land around that we can gobble up?"

There is a lot more to Bill 42 than meets the eye, Mr. Speaker — a lot more to Bill 42 than meets the eye.

"We are hoping to purchase large stocks of land which I mentioned in my throne speech address. I said we were presently negotiating throughout the lower mainland in Moody, Coquitlam, Burnaby and Vancouver. I am quite aware of the increase in costs."

Yet, Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, and say you are against Bill 42 and it is to preserve farmland. What has what the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about got to do with that? What has that got to do with farmland? That isn't going to help preserve farmland, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with farmland.

Mr. Anderson asked a supplementary question. He said, "Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I've heard the Minister mention government purchase of land. I wonder if he could tell us whether under these various schemes that there have been any resales. Because it appears to me that if the government keeps on buying land, it will just help to drive the price up further."

What did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) answer to that? "No, lands that have been purchased so far have been municipal lands generally. There have been no resales at the moment. I have announced to the Press that lands will be available shortly on a 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 price to what they are at the present time."

Now my point is, Mr. Speaker, are they going to lease the land or are they going to sell it? At one time he says they're going to lease it, the next time he says they're going to sell it at considerably reduced prices. So the government and the Department of Municipal Affairs is really getting into the land business and playing with the prices. Not only does Bill 42 shove the prices sky high, then the government goes in and tries to buy at these sky high prices and shoves the price up further while the poor little man-on-the street who wants to buy a piece of property to build himself a house is just out of luck.

A question by the leader of the Liberals — "I was wondering whether or not in the purchase of these lands is the sale by tender or will there be sales unreported and unadvertised?" This is very important because I want to point out the answer to you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll give the answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs: "On the question of some of the sales or some of the leases or some of the rentals" — now we're going into the rental business as well as leases, that's short-term; rental is considered short-term, less than six months — "it will be a varied situation. Some of them will be going to subsidized people, others will be going onto the open market so that 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 for certainly looking after people with minimum incomes." — nothing wrong with that — "So that there won't be a bidding up of land prices at the sale price, there will have to be provisions made for those of limited income to be able to take part in the exercise."

So my understanding of what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is really getting at is that the whole of Bill 42, the idea behind it, is to get all of the land in British Columbia. Under section B-12 they can farm it — now they're going to build houses, and they're going to rent it or they're going to lease the land. Now if that isn't, Mr. Speaker, what I've been saying all along, and that is why there is something behind Bill 42 more than the preservation of farmland.

The Government MLAs have been going out to their constituencies to tell the people the good news. But they're out there, Mr. Speaker, not telling all the good news. They're not telling the bad news, about Bill 42 either.

It's the legal use of the Member… It's the legal… Gosh, I can't understand that. Anyway, the Member for Vancouver Burrard…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I wrote this speech quite a while ago you will have to remember.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: What I am saying is that the MLAs from the Government are going out and they're talking at public meetings. Some meetings they're not talking at because sometimes they don't show up. I want to say what the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said to 35 students from the University of Victoria the weekend before last, or was it this weekend? She said, "Really a lot of the complaints about the Act have to do with the language it's written in."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's "legalese".

MR. PHILLIPS: "It's legalese," the Member said. Many people aren't used to the language that the legislation is written in. Well I should say that people

[ Page 1468 ]

are not used to this type of language because they've never seen it before, Mr. Speaker. Never in the annals of a democratic society has a bill such as Bill 42 been brought down. That's why people can't understand it. I think the Member's right. They're not used to Marxist theory thinking in this province, Mr. Speaker.

"The purpose of the Act is simply to zone farmland," she says. And yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't feel that way, he wants all land. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, Mr. Speaker,

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Remember that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Bill 42 is an attempt to fool all of the people. Fortunately, our democratic rights:are still intact and Bill 42 hasn't really fooled anybody. The people know and the people who support it know, because, Mr. Speaker, the people who support it want to get their hands on every square inch of land in British Columbia. And if the Members on the Government side support this bill, they're supporting the acquisition of all land in British Columbia be it private or otherwise.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) — glad he's in the House — used the same lines as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) up in his area. He says that the bill has been made controversial by some people. Ah, but the Minister of Highways, he just didn't use "just some people." He said that the bill has been made controversial by the big mouth hot-liners. Why didn't you come right out and say that when you were up in your riding?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): It's a misquote. Politicians are still angry because they lost the last election.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the people out there might be angry because they lost the last election. And I'll tell you, that's a very good point, Mr. Speaker, because that's what Bill 42 is all about. The people out there are angry. They didn't elect a dictator. Now they find they've got one, Mr. Speaker. That's what's making them angry, Mr. Minister of Highways, and you know it, Mr. Minister of Highways, because you can read the public. You know they're mad. You know they're angry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You come and run against me in the next election.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, well you come up and run in my riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and it's also warmer. Also warmer my friend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member return to his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have you know the Member for South Peace, Mr. Speaker, is out in the hinterland developing this great province. He doesn't live here on the island where the sun shines 365 days a year. Those are good people up there. They fight the mud. They fight the snow. They don't live down here…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech please and not engage in a conversation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, would you ask the Minister of Highways to…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I would ask the Hon. Members to observe Standing Order 17-2 and not interrupt the Hon. Member while he's proceeding with his comments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) the "some people" who have made the bill controversial, are the people who drew up the bill. They are the people who are making it controversial. Not me, or not any hotliners, not the Minister of Social Welfare. No, the people who made Bill 42 controversial are the people who drew it up. Yes, the people who drew it up. They're the ones that made it controversial, Mr. Speaker. They're the ones that made it controversial. Yes, they redrafted it six times. They should have gone and redrafted it another six — 60 times.

No, Mr. Speaker, the plea from these controversial people that the Members are talking about — the plea from them is, "Give us back our farmlands and don't make serfs of us." That is the plea, Mr. Speaker, "Don't take away our rights."

In Arizona, Mr. Speaker, they are creating minifarms out of desert land. Unthought of. Unheard of. We don't know what the potential land use is in this province.

Take a trip down the Rhine. Where are the grapes grown? They're not grown on flat land.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've done the same thing in the Okanagan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure. What we need to study, before we go into this controversy, are ways to utilize land. That's why I recommended before that we do some travelling around.

[ Page 1469 ]

What they're finding in Arizona, Mr. Speaker, is that people are buying up these little mini-farms that were previously desert. They're going out there and they're finding that they want to farm. They are producing…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're trying to rush him.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are producing, Mr. Speaker, vegetables. They're finding that they're having to have schools for these people. These mini-farms are sprouting up by the thousands on land that was previously desert.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members on the Government side please be quiet so the Hon. Member may speak?

I would also ask the Hon. Member on the front bench on the Opposition side not to provoke them.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order'.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Peace River please be seated?

Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre state his point of order?

MR. LAUK: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: you do not chastise one side of the House without chastising the other when both are equally to blame. He started a cross comment and we're entitled to reply…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Do not chastise one side as opposed to the other. You're bought and sold by that Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I did comment to the Opposition side after I'd concluded with the Government side.

Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly thank the Member for Vancouver Centre for giving me that short break. This is a very important point that I'm bringing up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chirp, chirp.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are the problems of the House all solved, Mr. Speaker? May I continue? All right.

It's a very important point. We're talking, under Bill 42, about farmland and about land, period. I'm sure there are many areas in British Columbia that can be utilized as good farmland that we are overlooking today. That's why this article is very apropos. Also in the Peace River area today, with the use of new methods, new fertilizers, new plows and rotation, land that used to be considered moose pasture, Mr. Speaker, is now growing good crops. I am sure that in the area that you represent there is much land that could be used for agriculture if it were looked at in the proper perspective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty thousand acres in the Okanagan.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what we need to preserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty thousand acres in the Okanagan not considered…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I am recognizing only the Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The headline is "Arizona Mini-Farms Sprout but Irrigation a Maxi-Job." Sure, it's a big job.

"Mini-farms are luring people to Arizona from many states, but the new farmers are finding out there's more to irrigation than sprinkling a lawn. City folks and others anxious to enjoy outdoor life in this state's mild climate have set up 2,000 to 3,000 mini-farms of one to 10 acres in the state. But they have so many questions that Arizona has recently appointed its first mini-farm extension agent."

It's interesting. It really caught on.

"William Johnson advises that teaching about 2,000 families living on such mini-farms how to irrigate, plant fruit trees, raise vegetables or poultry or rabbits, feed a goat, and even in one case, curry a child's pony. So far as is known here he has a somewhat unique job."

What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I talked about this before, is the right of an individual to have his little plot of land and to raise his rabbits or his carrots. This is good. Bill 42 is not going to promote that; Bill 42 discourages that, Mr. Speaker.

They don't want to carve up the farmland so that a person can have his little mini-farm. This is what they're doing in Arizona.

All right, let's take a look at it. Why don't we take a look at some land? If the Government wants to do something to preserve farmland, there's lots of bushland that could be farmed. You could raise ponies or chickens on it. Every time we think of farmland, Mr. Speaker, we think in terms of utilizing

[ Page 1470 ]

it to grow, something. The Government has overlooked this, because they say: "No, you can't do that. You can't have these little mini-farms."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a very good point.

In the State of Arizona they have named a full-time agent just to look after mini-farms. They're teaching these farmers. what to do.

I have one more point to make, Mr. Speaker, on this before I move on. "The mood of America is a search for tranquillity" — so says this particular article.

"Tranquillity means many things. People here are searching for a quiet refuge from the storm, from wars abroad, from conflict and violence, both at home and abroad. But it is more than that. People find taxes beating on their heads and they are calling for an end to it, or at least a respite. And here in this heart of mid-America the people are seeking to bar their door on the intruding ways of the heavily inhabited areas of this country, particularly those in the east. They are striving mightily to save the feeling of openness of this largely rural state. And they are seeking to conserve their sense of community. There are hundreds of small towns in which people still know one another."

Now Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, wants to do away with that. All the land is going to be designated. The five-man commission is going to tell the people what to do.

I was browsing around in the library, Mr. Speaker, and I ran across the Magna Carta, dated 1215 A.D. I'm not going to read the whole thing…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, read it.

MR. PHILLIPS: …but at that point in history…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, everything you say is in Latin as far as I'm concerned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Back at that point in history, what was the Magna Carta all about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't you read it?

MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to have to have a Magna Carta in a few years. If Bill 42 passes, we'll have to get a Magna Carta in British Columbia to protect our rights and get them back again. That's what this Magna Carta was all about.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure. He mentions the native Indian. I mentioned the native Indian. You probably weren't in the House and I'm not at liberty to tell you what I said about the native Indian. But you're taking our land away from us here in British Columbia. We're going to be like the native Indian in a few years. We're going to have to ask to have it back again.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You took it away. Don't say I took it away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe this subject has been sufficiently canvassed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm moving on. One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 42 was brought into being was because of a purported world food shortage.

Just before I move off that, Mr. Speaker, I have one more point I want to make. In Saskatchewan, they didn't bring in a Bill 42, but they are bringing in loans to start farms. That is the way they are going to preserve farmland; something that I proposed right here in British Columbia — right here in this Legislature. They didn't bring in a dictatorial Bill 42.

"A Crown corporation to be called 'Farm Start' and which would make grants and loans available for establishing profitable farm units or expanding livestock operations would be formed under a bill introduced in the Legislature by the Agricultural Minister, Jack Messer."

Wouldn't that have been a better way to preserve farmland in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, than bringing in Bill 42?

"The bill sets out certain details of the programme previously announced in the throne and budget speech. The budget provides $2 million for grants to assist in developing viable farm units and also establishes a fund of $15 million for 'Farm Start' .

"Grants under this bill would range from $200 to $8,000 depending on the need and potential. It isn't specified in the bill, but the budget speech said loans under the programme would be a maximum of $60,000 to an individual with repayment terms, interest rates, security requirements specially designed to meet the needs of the livestock industry."

That is a definite, positive step to keep farming viable and economically feasible. If you keep farming

[ Page 1471 ]

viable and economically feasible through methods like this and others that I will suggest, then, Mr. Speaker, the farmland will become so valuable that it will be kept in the production of food.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today there is a serious food shortage developing in Chile and others would lead us to believe that there is a definite food shortage in other places in the world.

"Chile is on the verge of an agricultural crisis of major proportions. With lower production almost across the board and a declining import capability, this country's 10 million people, who are already feeling the pinch by the end of 1973 will face serious food shortages. The likelihood is growing that all-embracing rationing may be needed soon to ensure a somewhat equitable distribution of available food stuffs."

Very interesting. This is just in one country.

"For months now, Chileans have been getting used to shortages. They queue up in long lines to purchase everything from meat to soap. More of these lines can be expected in the months ahead. The full seriousness of the impending crisis in food stuffs, however, has yet to drawn on the average Chilean. For more than two months he has been deeply involved in a legislative election battle that culminated on March 4."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What's that got to do with Bill 42?

MR. PHILLIPS: It has a lot to do with Bill 42, if you would just let me get to the point.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It has a lot to do with Bill 42.

"For more than two months he has been deeply involved in a legislative election battle that culminated on March 4. Although the shortages were often discussed in the campaign, the imminent worsening of the situation already has escaped notice. Moreover, the government of President Allende has done what it can to keep the dimension of the impending crisis from public attention during the campaign."

AN HON. MEMBER: Just tell me — what's that got to do with Bill 42?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"By unloading much of its limited stock of foodstuffs and by massively stepping up food imports in the past month as the election battle climaxed, the Allende government tended to defuse the food shortage issue."

Food and the production of food has got a lot to do with Bill 42 and if it hasn't then you are misleading me and you are misleading the public by saying that it is to preserve farmland. What is farmland for but for the production of foodstuffs? So I would say it has a lot to do with Bill 42 and I'm going to tell you why in just a few moments.

"They say that the crisis is only temporary. The full impact of the agricultural crisis will become apparent, say competent Chilean and foreign observers, by mid winter here. This is by July and August in the southern hemisphere country. The reasons for the crisis are many."

This is where I get to the point, Mr. Speaker.

"The farm production declines in the last two growing seasons are awesome. Agricultural output was off 13.7 per cent in the 1971-1972 season and will be in Chile off an estimated 15 percent more in the current 1972-1973 harvest now being completed. Harvest declines are particularly evident in wheat, sugar, rice and potatoes.

"In certain of the provinces south of San Diego the 1972 wheat crop, now being harvested, is estimated at 48 per cent of the 1972 output, while the rice crop is only 35 per cent of that of the previous year. In Nuble further south, the government sugar plant, the country's largest, will produce this year about 60 per cent of what it did in 1972. In Cautin province, still further south, and area long noted as the bread basket of Chile, the 1972 output of other grain, seeds and dairy products is off significantly. Cooking oil production for example, is down 20 per cent while milk production will be 12 to 15 per cent lower despite plentiful rainfall and good hay yields.

"Causes outlined:"

This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, very important. It has to do a lot with Bill 42.

"Behind these production declines are the disruptions caused by the Allende government's land reform efforts and the illegal seizures of farms by landless peasants.

Now, are we to look forward in future years to declining food production in British Columbia; because of, not the Allende government, but because of the Barrett Government's food declines due to the disruption caused by the Barrett Government's land reform efforts, and the illegal seizure of land by that Barrett Government? Is this what we are to look forward to, Mr. Speaker?

In this province another broad land reform is about to be pushed on the farmers of British Columbia. Knowing that their land could be bought at any time for any price this Government desires to pay for it, will they be interested in upgrading their land for better production? Will the farmers of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, be interested in upgrading their land for better production knowing that this

[ Page 1472 ]

five-man commission can at any time walk in and take it over or tell them what to plant?

Inteijections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, this is the amazing part of Bill 42. The real amazing part of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government Members say, "We're not going to do that. We're not going to touch this and we're not going to do that and we're not going to do this and everything you mention against the bill." They say, "We're not going to do that. We're not going to do it."

Why have it in the legislation if you're not going to do it? That's the question. Say what you mean or mean what you say or don't say anything. My position, if the Speaker would allow me to say it, is to withdraw the bill and go to the people. That's my position, unalterably, unchanged.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter, a very serious situation. Will these farmers be interested in upgrading their land for better production? Will they be interested in working the soil that they toiled so hard to raise the crops on that they desired?

Will the orchardist in the Okanagan be interested in pruning his trees? Why should he be? It's not going to be his land. Why should he be interested in keeping the weeds down? Why should he be interested in increasing the productivity of the soil? This is what land is all about. This is what happened in Chile.

I can take a farm, Mr. Speaker, or I could take a farm and I could farm that for three years and I could get practically no production off it whatsoever. Another person could take that same piece of ground, Mr. Speaker, if he were interested in so doing and produce tremendous crops off that same piece of land. Now what is the difference?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): He wouldn't fertilize it as well as you do.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's one point. Fertilizer's got something to do with it. But the way the land is summer fallowed, the rotation of crops…this is why, Mr. Speaker, I say the Government shouldn't go into farming themselves.

Food production in China, under the commune idea, didn't work. It's not working in Russia today either. Russia today is experiencing a great wheat seed shortage.

"Will the orchardist in the Okanagan be interested in pruning his trees, in cultivating the land between his trees or will he let it grow up in hay? And in keeping his orchards in good condition when he knows that at any time the government can step in and take it away from him? This is the question we have to ask. Production of foodstuffs in British Columbia will decline.

"Will the vegetable farmer in the lower Fraser Valley be interested in keeping the soil in good condition to grow the best possible product when he knows that at any time the government can step in and take it away from him? Will farmers everywhere be interested in weed control? It won't be their property. It will merely be leased property."

When they are through with it they can say, "Mr. Government, it's your land. You take it. You know what to do with it. It's full of weeds. It no longer will produce. But it's your land. You take it."

Then. the five-man commission will step in and start their farming operations.

"One of the other reasons for the food shortage in British Columbia of British Columbia produced products is the traditionally low price of domestically produced food products. This is getting closer to the base of the problem. Farmers could find it more advantageous to use some of their wheat production to feed poultry and swine than to sell it. This situation is nothing new."

Oh, I beg your pardon —

"Farmers in Chile find it more advantageous to use some of their wheat production to feed poultry and swine than to sell it. This situation is nothing new. But Dr. Allende's Marxist- leaning government has sought to keep official food prices low in a time of hyper-inflation to benefit the lower income people from whom it draws the majority of its support.

"In the midst of the current foodstuffs shortage, Chileans are engaged in massive black market operations and hoarding. And that has contributed to worsening the situation."

Is this the type of a situation, is this the type of a tragedy that we want to develop in British Columbia all permeated by Bill 42 and a dictatorial five-man commission that is all-powerful? Will we in a few years, Mr. Speaker, be importing grapes from California to make our wines because the grape growers in the Okanagan Valley have given up because their land has been taken from them, land that they worked so hard to produce a good brand of grapes so that we could enjoy the product of those grapes?

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, this has happened in other jurisdictions. Will we in a few years be importing other foodstuffs from other jurisdictions where the landowner and the farmer is allowed to own his own land?

The battle to own land is an old one, Mr. Speaker. It's as old as the world itself. In Great Britain in the

[ Page 1473 ]

early days the princes and the kings owned all the land and the peasants bought and sharecropped and rented their lands from the landlords. Now this is the situation that we want to create here in British Columbia; except it won't be the king unless you're going to change the Premier's name. "King Barrett," the great landowner. And all the serfs and all the farmers will be renting their land from great "King Barrett," the largest landowner in North America, all 366,000 square miles of it.

He'll be the largest landowner. He'll be able to put a big sign over his office, "King Barrett, the Largest Landowner in the World." He owns the lakes and he owns the farms. He owns the apartment buildings and he owns the pulpmills. He owns all the land.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wouldn't buy any used cars from him.

MR. PHILLIPS: In Great Britain in the early days that's the way it was. Sharecroppers. I wonder if "King Barrett" is going to let us sharecrop some of his land or is he going to take it all?

Blood has been shed between countries fighting for land,

AN HON. MEMBER: You're inciting a riot.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm inciting a riot, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says. Well I've been accused of a lot of things But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the people who are inciting the riot are the people who brought in Bill 42. They are the people that are inciting a riot. They are the people that have caused all this problem in British Columbia. The people who brought in this ill-conceived, poorly written bill are the people who are inciting a riot.

The continuing crisis in the near east between Israel and Egypt is over what, Mr. Speaker? Over land! Not even agricultural land much of it. The Gaza Strip.

Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite say that I'm over-reacting.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're bored.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm over-reacting or I'm a bore because I don't sit down like a little sheep, like they want all people in British Columbia to be, and go "baa." No, Mr. Speaker, they want me to sit down and let Bill 42 pass by gently while I'm sleeping.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please observe standing order 17(2) and allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make him withdraw that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Make him withdraw what?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you think that you should make that Member withdraw that rude remark, Mr. Speaker? He said I "never said an honest word in the House."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want that Member to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of the comment that was made.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have no knowledge of it? Well I don't want to find it in Hansard then. I'll tell you the people of British Columbia out there are reading Hansard these days, because they want to know about Bill 42.

What I'm saying Mr. Speaker, and I'm very serious about this: what was the devastating war in Vietnam all about? It was about the control of land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, come on!

MR. PHILLIPS: It was about the control of land. Absolutely! What else? Lives lost. And yet they want to stand here in this Legislature…and they don't want us to go to war; they just want to bring in Bill 42 and let it pass right over our heads. And it's all over land. That's what Bill 42 is all about. Land and the economics of land have caused all the wars…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Member…

MR. PHILLIPS: …is land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? I will allow you to stand again when I've made my point.

I would just draw your attention to the point in standing order 43 where it says "…who persists in irrelevance…." I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his comments relevant to the principle of the bill rather than to discuss matters of the middle east and so forth.

Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

[ Page 1474 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I pointed out to the House some of the farreaching problems, problems that might not show up for two or three years if Bill 42 ever comes in in British Columbia. I am trying to take an objective look at Bill 42. Not tunnelvision, narrowed by my thoughts, but to do research and find out what could happen, and to visualize.

When you bring in legislation, Mr. Speaker, you should be able to visualize the result of that legislation down the road, five, 10, 20, maybe 100 years. They haven't done that, Mr. Speaker.

We're talking about food production and the shortage of food production. What is one of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that have caused food shortages? Things over which we have no control — drought, floods, inefficient farming methods, an unworkable land use policy.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Members on the Government side of the House who are making such a laughing matter of Bill 42 now, will laugh on the other side of their faces when they go to the people.

"Centralized control over agriculture in western countries has resulted in higher consumer prices and poor returns to producers." That's what Mr. Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture said. "And yet at the same time," he says, "we want control." This is what the Minister of Agriculture said. I'm quoting the Minister of Agriculture. The statement you're laughing at was made by the Minister of Agriculture.

Starvation in the world is due to distribution, Mr. Speaker, not the shortage of land. Food shortages are due to distribution not the shortage of land; not the shortage of farmland or the way it's farmed. I recommended, Mr. Speaker, right in this House that agriculture all over the world be backed by a world food bank. That would do something to alleviate the shortages of food in certain areas in the world, not Bill 42.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while I'm discussing food and the production of food in British Columbia, which is all relevant to Bill 42, I want to just for a few moments discuss a few points from a report on the 1971 agricultural forums and the district agricultural outlook papers for 1972.

My remarks…I wish the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would act like a lawyer when he's in the House and quit his chirping. If he's got some thing to say, stand up and say it. I'm sure that when you…you don't go chirping at the judge, you sit there and listen to what he has to say.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you get the Hon. Member for

[ Page 1475 ]

Vancouver Centre and tell him to shut up!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Providing that the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre quits his chirping. Just because he stood up, Mr. Speaker, and tore a strip off you a few minutes ago, you can still tell him to maintain his decorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well you don't like it. It's even bothering you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: I am going to proceed. I'm going to talk about food production, past and future. Because to appreciate my well chosen words that I'm going to give you, Mr. Speaker, you have got to realize that there is urgency — and the Government feels there is urgency — behind passing Bill 42. So let us take a look at food production, bearing in mind that there is great urgency.

I'm going to deal first of all with Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands district and the production and value of agricultural commodities for 1970 — the estimate for 1971 and 1972, and the outlook for 1982. I want you to grasp the urgency to get Bill 42 through the House so that we can preserve this farmland because we are going to be starving.

Milk: in 1970 the production was 85,500,000 pounds. The 1971 estimate was 89,284,000 pounds. The 1982 outlook — this is before Bill 42 was ever thought of — is for 100 million pounds of milk. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the urgency?

Broiler production: 1970 — 5,146,000 pounds. 1972 — 5,719,000 pounds. The 1982 outlook — 8,578,000 pounds.

That is the production outlook before Bill 42. That is from the Department of Agriculture. Yet the Minister of Agriculture would lead us to believe that there is a great urgency in passing Bill 42.

Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands district — Apples: 1972 estimate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No the Member doesn't want to listen, he might learn something. I'm not going to go through all the statistics here, Mr. Speaker. Those were from the Vancouver and Gulf Islands. That's the area right around here, Mr. Speaker.

Well all right, I'll give you cabbages, for instance, and then it's the same for all of the vegetables. I'm talking about pounds of production. 1972 estimate — 20 million pounds. 1982 outlook — 20 million pounds, no decrease. Cabbage: 1,800,000 in 1972 — 2 million in the 1982 outlook. It's the same with cauliflower, corn, lettuce and carrots. All the production estimates in this very populated area of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, all of the production estimates by the Department of Agriculture for 1982 are up.

There's another very controversial area in the Province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, these are estimates from the Department of Agriculture. It would pay you, from Vancouver Centre, to spend some time with the Department of Agriculture — see what research has been done.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

I just want to, Mr. Speaker, read for a few moments about the agricultural outlook. You want all the facts, so that I won't be accused of just picking certain facts out.

"Local markets will continue to be threatened by importations of agricultural products from less expensive areas of production." That's what it says about agriculture on the lower mainland. "In spite of these pressures, the inevitable increases in population will absorb sufficient agricultural products to maintain a healthy increase in production and most agricultural products. This increase will be achieved through more efficient uses of available land, more efficient use of available water for irrigation, greater use of commercial fertilizers and a general increase in productivity from all agricultural units."

So this is what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about the effective use of what we already have. The effective use of land that is not presently under production and there's lots of it around.

Very interesting. "It is anticipated that forage production" — in this area that I'm talking about — "will increase by 40 per cent by 1982. Most of this increased production will result from increased yields per acre with very little, if any, increase in acreage." This is what we're talking about. And having control of the land, Mr. Speaker, by the Land Commission Act is not going to do this because the land is not going to be privately owned.

"Silage corn acreage in yield should continue to increase and could well double in 10 years." Now they're talking about production on this Vancouver Island and in the Gulf Islands. Very interesting.

"Vegetable acreages are increasing slowly. The major problem is in marketing." The major problem is in marketing, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture… This is a book from his department. "Vegetable acreages are increasing slowly, the major problem is in marketing. A lack of storage facilities prevents holding surpluses over, hence periods of surpluses and deficiencies occur."

Mr. Speaker, what's that got to do with the urgency to bring in Bill 42?

"Continued increases in vegetable acreages will continue through 1982. Areas unsuited to subdivision and those not presently under urbanization pressure are suited to vegetable growing. New areas will open up surrounding new communities." This is a forecast for the agricultural outlook on Vancouver Island.

It's very interesting when you start thinking of the urgency behind Bill 42. In the lower mainland, which is supposed to be British Columbia's best producing area — or one of them — what is the outlook there?

Let's take a look at some of the berries. Blueberries — and I'm talking about pounds — 1972 estimate: 6,250,000 pounds. Value: $1.25 million.

1982 outlook: 10 million pounds. Value: $2 million. Now that is, Mr. Speaker, in the lower mainland district. Production and value of agricultural commodities for 1970, estimate for 1971 and 1972, and the outlook for 1982. This is the outlook in the lower Fraser Valley.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, you would think that farmland was being gobbled up and that farm production was going to be declining.

Again, so that you won't think that I'm taking one particular item that looks good, I won't go over all of them but I'll give you some other instances. Cabbage: 1972 estimate, 6 million pounds; 1982 outlook, 8 million pounds. Cauliflower: 1972 estimate, 8.5 million pounds; 1982 outlook, 10 million pounds. It's in the same proportions with cauliflower, celery, lettuce, onions. This, Mr. Speaker, is the outlook for the lower mainland district which is the lower and upper Fraser Valley. These are the agricultural predictions for 1982. 1 would think that if I were reading this book and all of the agricultural predictions in 1982 were going to show a great decline, Mr. Speaker, then I could see the urgency and I could see the theme behind Bill 42.

Another area is the Okanagan and Similkameen which has been discussed at great length in this House. Let's take a look at that area. Let's take a look at apples: 1972 estimate, 350 million pounds; 1982 outlook, 470 million pounds. Pears: 39 million pounds in 1972 estimate, down to 37.5 million in 1982. Peaches: 22 million estimated in 1972; 30 million in 1982. And as I look at all of the others — cherries, grapes, asparagus — grapes is a good one to look at: 1972 estimate, 24 million pounds; 1982 estimate, 40 million pounds. And so it goes with asparagus, cabbage, corn, cucumbers, et cetera.

Tomatoes are down — I don't know why — from 4

[ Page 1476 ]

million to 2 million; outlook for 1982 down to 2 million. This again is the Okanagan area.

I want to read just a couple of items from this report. This is the Okanagan-Similkameen district, and it's for the 1972 agricultural outlook.

"In the Okanagan-Similkameen, the value of the tree fruit crop greatly exceeds that of any agricultural product. Since the value of the apple crop alone exceeds the value of any other agricultural product in the district, factors affecting this crop affect the economy of the district. Huge increases in apple production in France and Italy have virtually eliminated the once-large United Kingdom market for apples from British Columbia and even depressed the domestic market for processed products."

What can we do to preserve farmland? Protect the Okanagan orchardists from the importation of fruits from these lands. Don't take their land away from them but do some of the other things that can be done, Mr. Speaker.

"While the growers' central selling agency strives to obtain more sales in North America and the Pacific area, growers struggle to reduce their cost of production, effect economies in packaging by amalgamating their co-operative packing houses, increase the local sales and meet their financial obligations."

The question, Mr. Speaker is: will Bill 42 help the orchardist in the Okanagan? That is the question.

"Monetary restraints and reduced borrowing power have caused growers to revise plans for modernizing their orchards, and in some cases selling part of their holdings to meet their financial obligations."

Isn't that getting closer to the root of the problem? What I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is: how is Bill 42 going to assist these farmers? They have had to "revise plans for modernizing their orchards, and in some cases selling part of their holdings to meet their financial obligations." And now the value of their land has been further depressed, Mr. Speaker.

"The Farm Credit Corporation in 1971 made provisions for the deferment of repayment of loans for planning, renovating orchards for the first five years."

I'm not going to dwell any longer in the Okanagan I've discussed with you the agricultural outlooks for the lower mainland, Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan.

I'm going to go to central British Columbia. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Speaker — I haven't got the chart here — but I just want to tell you this:

"The economy of the region is continuing to expand at a rapid pace. Agriculture has shown a modest growth chiefly in the area of livestock production. Forage crops, the base for a livestock industry, has shown increases in terms of acreage, yields and quality. Beef cattle production continues to be a major agricultural enterprise in the region, followed by dairying, sheep and poultry. Horticultural operations continue with a few producers."

There is lots of land in the Cariboo; there's lots of moose pasture at the present time that by proper growing methods could be brought into production.

Then I'll head up to the last area in the province that I'm going to discuss with regard to agriculture, Mr. Speaker — the Peace River area. Production has been increasing, and in the Fort Nelson area north of the Peace River there are at present, by a federal government survey, over one million arable acres of land that could be brought under production in that area.

If you want to look at the temperature and the geography of the Fort Nelson area, you will find that their growing period, although shorter, can be as productive as that of the Fraser Valley. Many vegetables in the Fort Nelson area can be grown faster and of equal quality because of the long day and the long growing period. But as has been said, why grow vegetables in the Fort Nelson area until there is sufficient demand that they can be marketed in the valley of the Peace River itself? With assistance from some of the suggestions that I have made here, this could be brought under production.

If we were to put the emphasis on agricultural production and not on owning the land; if we took all the effort that is being expended in this House to acquire the land so that "King Barrett" can be the biggest landowner in the world, then, Mr. Speaker, we could increase our….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll repeat it again if you like, but…

MR. PHILLIPS: I said I'll withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I said I'll withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't like any names being mentioned in the House. I think we should all abide by the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: O.K.

In a recent article, Mr. Speaker, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, "The demand is expected to test grain production," is the heading.

"'This is a key year that will test the productivity capacity of the grain industry in North

[ Page 1477 ]

America and the world,' according to the chief commissioner. 'This year the world requires not just average crops but really good crops in all major producing areas just to squeak by. The possibility of building back up any significant level of stocks in one year is very slim.'"

Why, Mr. Speaker, is there a grain shortage in the world in the first place? It all goes back to the control of land and the way land is used to produce food-stuffs. If you had been in the House a short time ago I would have pointed out to you that in countries where the government owns the land, food productions are off.

MR. SPEAKER: I've heard that before, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Here's another one: "Soviet seed grains in short supply." Why in Russia, a land that has lots of land? It's the fact that the farmer doesn't own the land. That's why there are food shortages: and Bill 42 is not going to solve that problem.

Farm prices in the United States — are they going to drop through the floor? Very important, because in the United States they subsidize their farmers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have covered that point with the exception of the outlook for Canada.

Total milk production in Canada is estimated at about 18.2 billion pounds, a rise of 450 million pounds or 2.5 per cent from the 1971 levels. This is in all of Canada and in no other jurisdiction in Canada did they bring in Bill 42, because they took a look.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's no way that Ontario will be bringing in a bill similar to Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is very disturbing about Bill 42 is that throughout the province there has been a great deal of planning done by regional districts about land use and how the area is going to develop. Here is one that passed the Peace River region — or the government; I don't know who made it up. "Study Commission by the Peace River Regional District Board," so I suppose the taxpayers of the area had it done. All of this planning is now out the window, Mr. Speaker. Who's going to do the planning now, Mr. Speaker? The five-man commission is going to do the planning.

Here's another one that was just recently done. Photostatic copy of "The Development of Northern British Columbia — Factors, Concepts and Issues," prepared for the Northern Development Council. It was mentioned not very long ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the Government was going to give all MLAs time to attend the meetings of the Northern Development Council.

But what happens to all the planning of the Northern Development Council now? As soon as Bill 42 comes in, all the planning goes out the window, Mr. Speaker. What the five-man commission says, what the five-man commission doesn't say, zoning of land, and what can be on the land, and how the land will be developed will be what the five-man commission dictates. And what the five-man commission dictates will be the law.

Another one: "Developing and Planning Concepts, Peace River–Liard Regional District." I would suggest that probably other districts throughout the province  have had similar studies done. And where do they go, Mr. Speaker? They go out the window. It's interesting to note that this report is about a year old, paid for by the Peace River — Liard Regional District — local government. It's talking about looking to the future and farm subdivisions.

"Bylaw No. 18, a holding bylaw, with its minimum lot requirement of ten acres, cannot serve as a tool to preserve valuable agricultural land. It is suggested to outline a special zone, 'agriculture,' for higher-rated farmland. Capability classes 1, 2 and 3, outlined in the Canada Land Inventory soil capability classification for agricultural areas, are considered in the context as high-rated farmland. In the future regional plan and in sub-regional plans, these classes are highly rated soils and they could be outlined generally as agricultural zones with the exemption of municipal fringe areas which could be considered as future expansion of the municipality."

Now this is from a study done by local people who are trying to control their local affairs, Mr. Speaker. What happens to this? It goes out the window.

Here's another one, Mr. Speaker: "Proposed Core Use Areas for Recreational Land" — this is from the Peace River–Liard Regional District. You would be led to believe that there was no planning of land use going on before Bill 42 came in. The Government would have you believe, Mr. Speaker, that they invented land use control. No, there's been lots of studying been going on.

"Proposal for Resource Planning Study," Mr. Speaker, another one. This proposal outlines practically the land use and the way that the resource planning will take place in this Monkman area. It's a good report. But there again, what will happen when Bill 42 comes in? All out the window.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Government said they didn't get any input. They were waiting — and the Minister of Agriculture said it — they were waiting for input. Long before we got into this mess, after the land freeze Act was passed in Canada, there was a programme for preservation of ranch land for agricultural use submitted to the Hon. Dave Stupich, B.C. Minister of, Agriculture, by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association on January 9.

[ Page 1478 ]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister says, "We're listening but we're not hearing." He would lead us to believe, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't getting any input; that the farmers in the province were not giving him any.

"British Columbia Cattlemen's Association recognizes the need for preservation and encouragement of agriculture in our province. Most ranch lands were cleared, developed, improved and maintained by family units since early settlement of British Columbia.

"On behalf of the ranching families who own and operate agricultural enterprises on these lands, we submit to you the following programme which was thoroughly discussed and agreed on by our organization. The intent of this programme is to maintain and preserve our lands for agricultural use and still operate economically viable beef production units, now and in the future."

Evidently, that went over the Minister of Agriculture's head or he didn't get it — one or the other. In this very well put together proposal they say the intention is to fully support and supplement the position taken on this issue by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. If I listened to the Minister of Agriculture, I wouldn't have even known that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture put in a report.

"Because of the freezing and rezoning of agricultural lands, we argue the following are essential: Provincial government must lift the farmland freeze order of December 21, 1972 and replace it with legislation decreeing that future sales of farmland will take place unencumbered by government regulations, unless the land is to be converted to non-farm use. In instances where farmland would otherwise be sold for non-farm use, the provincial government would have the first right of refusal to be the purchaser at fair market value at the time of the sale."

I think that's a reasonable request to the Minister of Agriculture — a very reasonable request.

They ask for, "immediate implementation of government policy for removal of succession and gift taxes for family ranches, unincorporated and corporated in partnerships when transferred within the family."

It's a reasonable request; one that I made myself right here on the floor of this Legislature but went over the head of the Minister of Agriculture because the Minister of Agriculture wants the government to own all the land. Got a hang-up — got a hang-up, a hang-up. "Immediate removal of all property taxes from ranches except for home and homesite, one half acre around the residence…directly related to land services such as school, hospital, regional district, library and others." The association requests one other one I made right here on the floor of this Legislature.

"Established use and priorities of Crown resources such as range rights, grazing leases and grazing permits and water rights, both domestic and irrigation, must be guaranteed for as long as the ranch remains in operation with unrestricted access at all times.

"Established Crown leases forming part of the ranching operation should be renewed automatically whenever renewal is due. Should agricultural land be rezoned at any time in the future, it must be compensated for at market value established for the new use of land."

That is a very, very, very important point that has gone over the head of the Minister of Agriculture. "Should agricultural land be rezoned at any time in the future, it must be compensated for at market value established for the new use of land. Further compensation will be paid for adverse affects on the balance of land remaining in agriculture use."

Point No. 6:

"To help supplement family farm income, the following other uses of land should be allowed such as outlined under CI (Low density tourist commercial) as well as AFI (Agricultural forestry) by zoning bylaws. A meaningful, consultive role in the planning and detailing of new agricultural legislation and regulations by ranchers."

"A meaningful, consultive role in the planning and detailing of new agricultural legislation and regulation by ranchers." I wonder if this five-man commission, Mr. Speaker, is going to give these ranchers a meaningful, consultive role. I would say no.

Point No. 8:

"Establishment of an independent board free from any influences, including financial and political, with a status similar to judicial commissions to adjudicate zoning decisions arrived at by regional districts which might cause injustice and suffering to familes affected and to deal with any future needs for rezoning of lands to other uses. This board should be representative of various agricultural interests."

These are things, Mr. Speaker, that would make agriculture in our province more viable. These are suggestions which if implemented, would in part make agricultural land so valuable to the man who owns it and to the man who uses it that he would never let it go for any other use.

They also ask for the guaranteed use of renewable Crown resources such as range and water in that they are vitally important to all ranching operations. They have anticipated, Mr. Speaker, the same as I have anticipated, the following consequences from the rezoning freeze and from Bill 42 — agricultural land values reduced considerably.

The borrowing power of ranchers, especially for long term capital such as provided by the farm credit corporation, decreased dramatically. These are the consequences of Bill 42. Small ranchers approaching

[ Page 1479 ]

the age when they can no longer work themselves and have no one to take over from them or any savings to fall back on, find themselves in financial distress. This, Mr. Speaker, is the result of Bill 42.

Owners of agricultural lands adjacent to towns, cities and subdivisions, find their crops often vandalized or stolen…who were only waiting for the right time to relocate, find themselves in an untenable position because of high taxes and high costs of operating. This, Mr. Speaker, is the result of Bill 42.

Generally reduced credit ratings for all ranching operations. Discussions of the proposed legislation for preservation of agricultural lands at cattlemen's meetings across the province reveal the fact that many families will be affected. But, Mr. Speaker, was the Minister of Agriculture interested? The answer is no. He was not interested. Nor is he interested today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Part-time ranchers working as loggers, sawmill workers and other jobs, hoping and desiring to develop operations big enough to devote their full time to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ranchers selling between $10,000 and $25,000 worth of products per year would have to be supported by welfare if grazing and water rights were denied to them because they could not operate within these, and proceeds from the sale of their assets in most cases would not provide for retirement.

This is what you have done to just one portion of the agricultural industry, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, and I hope you're proud of yourself. I really hope you're proud of yourself.

The Member for Cariboo — where the big ranches are. Go into his riding and find out how happy the people are. Larger ranch operations do not show a good return on capital investment usually under three per cent. Freezing land is not going to increase that percentage. The continuation of levying of succession duties on them when added to capital gains tax would result in forced sales to foreign or corporate buyers because members of the family could not afford to pay the taxes. And what are we going to do now, Mr. Speaker? No more land shall be sold, private or otherwise, to an American. And the man claps his hands. My gracious, how senile can you get?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess I'm talking for the Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point is, here these people are caught in the jaws of the vice that's squeezing — Bill 42. Now they can't sell, they can't buy; they're caught in an impossible position. The noose is tightening. The plan is coming forward. It's not going to help agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Bill 42 is not going to assist agriculture. Not in its present state.

There's just one last thing that I want to advise the House on: to increase food production in the world and to increase food use by starving nations, what we need is better distribution, not a land freeze. There is going to be freer trade in farm products this year even though they are not going to do away with the tariffs. If we're going to protect agriculture in British Columbia, we're going to have to go to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to have to get some steps taken in Ottawa.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Negotiate with them. You say…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are going to have to negotiate with them. This will help preserve the farmer and help preserve farmland — by putting some barriers up and keeping out some of those products that are coming in. You don't need Bill 42 to preserve farmland or to preserve farming as a way of life, Mr. Speaker.

Now only a few moments ago someone over there mentioned the farmers' union — what do they recommend to the government? This presentation took place the day that Bill 42 was introduced in the House; the very day that Bill 42 was introduced in the House — February 22. Input? Lots of it. "We appreciate the opportunity of meeting your government for the purpose of discussing general problems facing farmers and recommending solutions." Input to the Minister of Agriculture. Lots of it.

"While British Columbia is not primarily recognized as a major agricultural province, in 1971, the census of agriculture recorded 18,400 census farms of which over 11,000 reported sales of farm products over $1,200 per year.

"Although outside of the province British Columbia's agriculture is best known for its fruit and fruit products, in reality the production of livestock, poultry and dairy products accounted for over two-thirds of this province's 1971 farm income of $220 million."

I can go through the report, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to. But nowhere in

[ Page 1480 ]

this recommendation from the farmers' union is there anything that says you must control the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're socialists at heart.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, in this submission does it say that the British Columbia government must control the land. Input? Lots of it. But maybe…yes, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you care to have an adjournment or do you wish to continue speaking?

MR. PHILLIPS: Until 8:30?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I asked you do you wish an adjournment. Do you wish an adjournment now or not? That's all I'm asking you. Do you want an adjournment?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, do you speak for him? You don't speak for him.

Do you want an adjournment, Mr. Member?

MR. PHILLIPS: Are we going to sit tonight?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly we're going to sit tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: At what time? 8 o'clock? If you want to make a gentlemen's agreement to adjourn until 8:30…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want an adjournment or don't you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Until 8:30, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you accept an adjournment until 8:30?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you don't want an adjournment, just carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: What they ask for…

AN HON. MEMBER: We know what kind of games you're trying to play.

MR. PHILLIPS: What they ask for and what we ask for is a moratorium on farm debts. Nowhere in this whole proposal is there anything to do with land. "We recommend this important question also become a subject of study by your government."

They're referring to a royal commission in Prince Edward Island which completed hearings on the subject in December.

"Land use and expropriation. We welcome concern demonstrated by your government over increasing occupancy of farmland for agriculture and speculative uses. The whole area of land use policy requires an in-depth study and evaluation."

That's what they say, Mr. Speaker.

"Many provinces are now looking at this problem seriously from the aspect of non-resident ownership as well as land use. The Province of Alberta last year introduced legislation concerning non-Canadian ownership of farmlands. A Province of Saskatchewan legislative committee studied the questions through the holding of public hearings. Its report is expected soon."

The Province of Saskatchewan legislative committee studied the question of land use and expropriations at public hearings. That's in Saskatchewan, They didn't bring in any dictatorial Bill 42.

"The Manitoba government is delving into the question while the Province of Ontario has commissioned an Agricultural Institute of Canada study."

And the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) says that Ontario is going to bring in another Bill 42. No way. What do they do in Ontario? — "The Province of Ontario has commissioned an Agricultural Institute of Canada study."

Why didn't we wait until this study's done? What is the sinister reason behind rushing Bill 42 through this House? You'd love to rush it if you could get the opportunity.

"A royal commission in Prince Edward Island completed hearings on the subject in December and is expected to report soon."

And what do they recommend? What does the farmers' union recommend? And the Minister of Agriculture says "precious little" input — "We're hearing precious little."

A submission February 22 by the Farmers' Union: "We recommend that this important question also become the subject of study by your government." That is the recommendation by the Farmers' Union, that the subject be studied. Why wasn't the subject studied, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why wasn't it studied? Sure, there's a problem. We recognize that there's a problem, that farmland should be preserved. So does the Province of Alberta. So does the Province of Saskatchewan. So does the Province of Manitoba. So does the Province of Ontario. So does the Province of Prince Edward Island. And they're going to study the situation.

[ Page 1481 ]

But what does our government do? You bring in a dictatorial, confiscating bill, that's what you do. And you try and compare it with the present Municipal Act.

Another proposal to the Minister of Agriculture on January 30, the British Columbia cattle industry operation and returns. But he says: "We're hearing precious little…not getting any input." I think that the Minister had better take a look at some of the input. I know they're re-doing his office. Maybe he lost these.

This submission by the British Columbia cattlemen is a very important submission. It says how he's trying to preserve not only farmland but how he looks after the wildlife on his ranches. It's a very good submission. It outlines his methods of operation and costs and returns, right down to the detail. Not just in general terms but in detail.

Why were these submissions not listened to? Why were they not read? Why were they just heaved in the wastepaper basket?

Dr. Gordon McEachen, eminent Canadian agricultural economist, states:

"The Canadian agriculture and food industry is the largest aggregate of economic activity in the economy. The market opportunities facing Canada's food industry are very attractive now and appear to be even more so in the future. This is especially so for animal agriculture. If one is concerned with selecting the area of maximum economic and job-creating impact on the entire economy from a given level of investment in Canada and balanced regional growth, the area would be the processing of food, including meat production for domestic market and for export purposes."

Now the Government of the Province of British Columbia wants to control the food production in British Columbia, wants to control all of the production. What kind of a theory is that? And why? I predict that prices of food will go up and production will go down if you carry that through.

"Prospects for freer agricultural trade are poor to only moderately good as we look at the formal beginnings of the general trade negotiations in 1973. At the same time prospects for expansion of the volume of trade in agricultural products in the 1970's appear to be rather good."

No, Mr. Speaker, as I said in this House during the production is to go to this trade association, go to these meetings that are going to be taking place this year, put some input into freer world trade and restrictions and tariffs and so forth, talk about feeding the world with all of the producing countries of the world. That is the way to assist agriculture in the Province of British Columbia and in Canada — not to get all excited about land, so excited that you feel it is so important that you feel that you must control every square inch of land in British Columbia.

The way to assist agriculture in this province is to guarantee the farmer an income…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the clock.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! It's too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I want to point out to the Hon. Members that May, p.291, eighteenth edition, states that the Hon. Member doesn't lose his place, and this is not contested business — the motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House.

Now if you look at May pp. 290-1, this is an interruption of business. Exactly. It's 6 o'clock. When my attention is drawn to the clock, that's an interruption of business. It states that no opposed business can be taken.

But motions of this sort to adjourn the debate can be taken. And a number of other motions. You'll see at the top of page 291, "…he keeps his place. The Hon. Member who moved the adjournment does not thereby replace the Member who made the motion." I make that clear because I don't want anyone to think he's being deprived of his rights.

The question is that the debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Here we're breaking all the rules of the tradition of this province. All the rules. I want to protest . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Let me point out to the Hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, that our standing order, as adopted this session…

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He wasn't here.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing order 3(1) says:

"If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon then for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock."

What is now being done is that a motion to agree upon a time has been put to the House.

[ Page 1482 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just a motion to adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion to adjourn the debate, I should say. That is permitted according to May at p.290.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: I drew your attention to the clock, sir. It was past the hour of six. You should have left the chair according to the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't observe the clock unless you draw my attention to it. And if no motion is put to adjourn the debate, I just leave the chair. But a motion was put.

MR. SMITH: No. Not at the time I drew your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to p.325 in May: "Formal motions after interruptions of business."

The first paragraph:

"In the case of opposed business essential to the completion of the transaction on which the House is engaged at the moment of the interruption of business, the Speaker has overruled the objection to the taking of opposed business after that hour. Thus he has not permitted opposition to formal questions, such as the addition of words, "

and then examples. There is ample precedent for the placing of adjournment of debate within May as a practice. I ask you to so rule, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a new precedent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No new precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of a new precedent. We've not had any precedent against it. I've checked the authorities just now. I have the question before the House that the debate be adjourned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! Question!

MR. SPEAKER: I want to hear any objections…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the rules. You've never read them in you r life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion has been put.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 6:10 this evening.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the books. You never read them in your life!

MRS. JORDAN: Send him a book on democracy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By W.A.C.?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 14

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.