[ Page 1483 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Point of order

Reconvening of the House. Mr. Chabot — 1483

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Phillips — 1483

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1504

Mr. Williams — 1511

Amendment — 1519

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1520

Mr. Liden — 1521

The House met at 6:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: We have now taken a motion for an adjournment and the House is now reconvened.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You didn't say what day.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Interjection by an Hon Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want prayers again? You'll need them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is an adjournment of the House, that we're now back following that adjournment and that the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), if he wishes to continue, has the floor. That's the business before us.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out, Hon. Members, that the House meets and adjourns at specific times. If you don't notice the time of adjournment, the House then adjourns when attention is brought to the clock. A dilatory motion or a formal motion for interruption of business can be made and was made. The House adjourned and because you took the time to have a formal count of the vote, the time elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. SPEAKER: It did — obviously from 6:10 until 6:13 p.m. Therefore, the time taken in the division is not counted so far as the business of the House is concerned.

We are back in session again, as I see it, and I have seen no authority to guide me differently than that. I left the chair and I returned to the chair as I am bound to do. I am still a servant of the House and I do what the House decides they want to do.

They have now come back to the session and I ring the bell three times to warn all the Members that the House is in session. But the House is in session. I therefore have to call upon the Member who was interrupted by the clock to continue the debate. I therefore call upon him to continue the debate.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears there have been a lot of different precedents established here tonight. One that I do want to draw to your attention is the fact that you have established a new order of attracting attention to the Members of when the House will convene. You have consistently in the last several days….

MR. SPEAKER: If you want me to ring the bell. I have rung the bell.

MR. CHABOT: You rang the bell once five minutes before the House convenes and then three times at the time the House assembled. I am wondering why?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a courtesy.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering why, Mr. Speaker, tonight there is a difference to the procedure which you established several days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: I will tell you why; because the House is here assembled and nobody has left the room. And because we waited on a division for every Member to come who could come, so from a practical point of view, everyone was in the Chamber.

Now are we prepared to go ahead with business of the House with the proper motions and order of business?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order. Two Members did leave the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, all right. I'll accept that. If they did, I didn't see them. But at any rate, I rang the bell and there is no obligation to wait a set time for Members to come into the House. We start the business at the time appointed. What is the next routine of business, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the second reading if the Hon. Member is not going to do it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it would be nice if somebody else had a chance to speak.

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

LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What I was saying before I was interrupted by the House adjournment was that there are ways to assist the

[ Page 1484 ]

farmer to maintain his farmland and that is to see that he receives a return from his investment and to see that he makes sufficient from his agriculture to sustain him on the farm.

Another one that I recommended, Mr. Speaker, was low interest or no interest loans. Not to go out and take his land away from him. That way all he will be doing is using somebody else's land, somebody else's buildings, somebody else's equipment in an endeavour to raise his food stuffs.

In Saskatchewan they call it "farm start" and they have not brought in Bill 42. I recommend that taxes be taken off agricultural land. This would keep one of the high costs of agriculture and food production down. I suggest we get on with farm-owned processing plants and the numerous other ways there are in this province of assisting to keep agriculture as a viable enterprise.

Everybody is concerned, including the farmers themselves, but the concern of this Government for agriculture has not been related into actions. The only thing this Government has done so far to assist agriculture has been to bring in a bill to remove the tax from farm gasoline. That is the only single solitary step that has been made so far.

Bill 42 is not going to help the farmer at all. It is not going to help the farmer one little bit. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is going to hinder the farmer; it is going to hurt him.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) wants to know what the people are thinking. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell the Minister of Agriculture what the people are thinking and what a lot of other people out there in British Columbia are thinking. I don't know whether he will like to or not and I don't know whether he will listen, but the Union of British Columbia Municipalities is very concerned about Bill 42. They recently submitted a statement to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on Bill 42.

I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) read this letter or did he throw it in the wastepaper basket like the other reports?

"The executive members of the UBCM, most of whom are here today, have travelled from all parts of British Columbia to Victoria at very short notice to discuss what we consider to be the most dramatic and far reaching piece of legislation ever introduced into the laws of this province, perhaps the most significant legislation ever introduced in Canada"

This is what I have been saying. This is what the Union of British Columbia Municipalities is saying.

"…Perhaps the most significant legislation ever introduced in Canada. The proposals and provisions of Bill 42 are so wide in their application and of such great effect on the lives and the property rights of all citizens of B.C. that we feel we must state our reaction to them in the most forthright terms.

"For many years the UBCM constantly urged consultation in advance of the introduction of legislation affecting local governments to be carried out. We therefore deplore the action of the provincial government in seeking to pass Bill 42 without prior consultation with the UBCM when that bill so clearly strikes at the basic function of local government to control the use of land within their boundaries."

Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs read this? Did he listen to it? Did he absorb it?

"While the principle of preserving good agricultural land for farming purposes can surely find little opposition, most aspects and provinces of the bill affect us all.

"Our first suggestion to you, therefore, is that the bill's formal passage through the Legislature be delayed until its impact can be thoroughly revealed by all sections of the community through public hearings held in all parts of the province.

"We believe it is our duty as representatives of virtually all municipal councils and regional district boards in British Columbia to urge you to consider this first and most important proposal of ours to give full and complete disclosure of the effects of this bill; to give full and complete disclosure of the effects this bill will have on every citizen who owned land and to take the necessary time to do so in the fullest degree."

Here is another group, Mr. Speaker, that is asking that before Bill 42 is passed that we go out in the province.

"In addition to this public approach, we also urge you to give full consideration to the following particular aspects.

1. That existing municipal and regional district planning, zoning and expenditures which have already been approved, following public hearings, and which are contained in community and regional plans be allowed to stand. For this purpose many have received cabinet approval and such earlier approvals should indicate their continuing validity.

2. The municipal and regional district planning for future land use, through the medium of community and regional plans encouraged and subject to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, be recognized as expressing the knowledge and more important, the wishes of the community or area concerned.

"That the proposed legislation contained provisions for the commission to be required to hold public hearings prior to decisions being made which designate land use under one of the several objects set forth in the legislation and that there be right of appeal from the decisions of the

[ Page 1485 ]

commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the very same things that I have been stating and asking for in this House.

"That the bill should not be debated in the Legislature until the proposed Environmental Protection Act referred to in section 20 has been introduced."

These are the elected bodies, heads of all the civic governments in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker which are bringing in these proposals.

"That the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council required by section 8(a) prior to the designation of agricultural lands should be made applicable to all categories of that designation referred to in the section.

"That compensation should be paid when land is designated as park land and compensation should be considered in all other cases where new designators adversely affect value.

"That any person disqualified with the designation of his land should be entitled to require that it be purchased by the commission at its fair value."

At its fair value, Mr. Speaker.

"That is where lands are purchased or acquired by the commission, but such lands are unoccupied or leased where the leasee does not pay taxes, a grant in lieu of such taxes shall be made by the commission to the municipality or regional district concerned.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Government going to do by way of paying taxes to municipalities when they buy up large tracts of land within that municipality? Is it going to be a grant in lieu of tax, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be on some basis other than it is now? Because now, Mr. Speaker, if it's a Crown corporation or government-owned land there is a grant in lieu of taxes. But it's going to be abundantly different.

It's going to be a great change, Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to be the big landowner. How are the municipalities going to tax that land? What right are they going to have to bargain with the government, Mr. Speaker? You see, Mr. Speaker, as I have been pointing out, this is just one other aspect of Bill 42 that many people would never think about.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, by Bill 42 the land within the communities can be zoned for whatever the five-man commission wishes to zone it. And when the values are depressed the government will go in and buy the land.

What is going to happen to the tax structure in local communities, Mr. Speaker? The effects of Bill 42, are going to be very far-reaching indeed. There are going to be many side effects, Mr. Speaker, that, even with the amount of research I have done on it, there is no way I can even think about.

Bill 42 is in essence going to undermine the whole economy, the whole tax structure, and our whole way of life in British Columbia. It's a very disturbing thought, Mr. Speaker, and I try and keep it out of my mind, but it does worry me. It's going to change the entire structure of British Columbia.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, the UBCM are asking that Bill 42 go to committee and go out into the province so that we can have further input — that's why they're asking us. It's a very legitimate request, Mr. Speaker, a very legitimate request.

I am sure that out there there are people that know what's going on. There are planners, there are environmentalists, there are people who study land use, there are professors in our colleges — we should have some input. Because what really disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that in many areas, and I say, that I have not even thought about — in many areas in our economy, in many areas in our present way of life, and in future generations — it is going to show up, Mr. Speaker, after the bill is passed. And then it's going to be too late. It's too late already, Mr. Speaker, but it's going to be much later when the bill is out there and has done its damage.

I wish I could look, Mr. Speaker, in a crystal ball so that I could predict more so than I have already. There are certain things that I know, Mr. Speaker, that are going to happen. And they're not good predictions. The things that I predicted are not good, Mr. Speaker. But it's the things that I can't predict that really worry me. And, Mr. Speaker, it does really worry me, because there have been less, far less controversial bills introduced in this Legislature that have had far-reaching effects. But this changes the whole concept of our basis of agriculture, of land use, of industry, of taxation — there is no one in the Province of British Columbia that Bill 42, does not affect.

There could be effects, Mr. Speaker, from Bill 42 that might change our dealings with other jurisdictions in other provinces. It could be that it will have an effect on the united Canada that we love, Mr. Speaker. Because nowhere has legislation like this been introduced — in no other jurisdiction. It's never been tried except in communist countries, where the government controls all the land. It hasn't been tried anywhere else. Not in the free world, Mr. Speaker.

They say: "We further wish to state our objections to certain particular provisions contained in the Bill.

"The commission is an appointed body which, although responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the Legislature, is still not elected by the determination of the people."

There is why I said they are insulated, Mr. Speaker. This five-man commission is going to be insulated from the input of the general public because they are not an elected body. I can't see how an insulated five-man nameless, faceless commission is going to have the wisdom, Mr. Speaker, to judge what

[ Page 1486 ]

land in British Columbia shall be used for what purpose. They're going to have to have input, Mr. Speaker.

"The commission is empowered to make, place or construct, et cetera, such capital improvements as it wishes on any commission land, presumably without reference to any local building or other bylaws which are in effect."

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely true, because when the five-man commission says something it becomes the law. No right of appeal, no nothing.

"The commission is empowered to purchase or otherwise acquire land on such terms and conditions as the commission may deem advisable. In our opinion this provision is tantamount to a power of expropriation."

That's where I disagree with the UBCM, because it's not a tantamount to expropriation — it's actual confiscation. They don't need the power of expropriations, because they can take without the power of expropriation.

"For reasons stated throughout this short and unavoidably limited brief and particularly because of the great impact that Bill 42 will have on the lives of every person in this province, we urgently request that you delay its implementation until its effects can be fully understood, not only by local government, but by all the citizens of British Columbia."

I'm not the only one making the request, Mr. Speaker. No, I am not the only one making the request. Here's a letter from Vancouver which was sent, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Norman Levi and Ms. Rosemary Brown, who are the MLA's representing the Vancouver-Burrard constituency. People in Vancouver are also concerned, Mr. Speaker. The letter is:

"Re Bill 42.

"This letter comes to you from one of your constituents in the provincial riding of Vancouver-Burrard.

"It is my understanding that as one of the MLA's of the riding where I live, you are supposed to represent me in the provincial Legislature. Therefore I am writing to you regarding the above caption to the bill introduced by your government. I would like to make clear to you that I am opposed to this bill, and I hereby request your Government to withdraw it.

"I want to say also that I think the Government should make a thorough study of the entire question of zoning and land use in co-operation with civic and municipal authorities throughout the province before introducing legislation regarding this important matter.

"I also feel that in order to provide for the continuation of farming as a way of life in British Columbia, the government should provide appropriate incentives for farmers rather than restrict their freedom to deal with their property."

This letter comes from a lady in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

"As my representative I request you to do everything possible to have Bill 42 withdrawn, to have a thorough study made of this entire subject and to have a new and more appropriate bill introduced at a later time."

That's what all the people are asking, Mr. Speaker. That's what all the people are asking — to have some study, to check into the thing. Is that an unreasonable request, Mr. Speaker? No, it's not an unreasonable request — to have some study.

I have already pointed out in the House that there isn't that urgency — we're not going to starve to death. The predictions for agriculture before Bill 42 was brought in are good up until 1982. Farmland is not being gobbled up at a mile a minute. It would save the Government a lot of trouble, Mr. Speaker, if they would back down from their untenable position. This lady says,

"As my representative I request you do everything possible to have Bill 42 withdrawn, to have a thorough study made of the entire subject, and to have a new and more appropriate bill introduced at a later time — a bill that will give the required protection for the personal rights of our province.

"I would like you to know that if you vote for this bill I will not only not vote for you in the next provincial election in B.C. but I will campaign actively to defeat you as an MLA."

That's from a member of the Vancouver-Burrard Constituency Association.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, from the British Columbia cattlemen. Not only did they send in two briefs, but this is a letter mailed on March 14. It's to the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture:

"Dear Mr. Stupich:

"A member of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, after thorough study of the Land Commission Act — Bill 42 — found it unacceptable in its present form. This association was concerned about preservation of agricultural land for some years now, and presented proposals to this effect.

"After meeting you on January 10, 1973 our delegation felt that you were developing an understanding of our problems and that there were grounds to feel optimistic. Bill 42 in its present form makes us wonder if we were talking the same language."

And yet the Minister on March 9 stood in this Legislature and said, "We don't hear anything." The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I think has lost his touch with the farmers.

"The Land Commission Act is undemocratic and does not provide assurances to ranchers on the

[ Page 1487 ]

use of Crown reserves such as range and water. The bill is undemocratic because it does not provide for the following: majority members of the commission to be appointed from nominees provided by agricultural interests…."

Why in the name of heaven, Mr. Speaker, if we're bringing in a bill to preserve agricultural land should there not be something in the bill that says there should be a farmer on the commission?

"Public hearings before designation of land use." Why can't we have public hearings, Mr. Speaker? Why can't there be input? Why do we have to have Bill 42 in its present form?

"Appeals from commission decisions to the court." That's what they want. Many of the Government backbenchers didn't even realize that that wasn't in the bill.

"Compensation for loss of land value at time of sale."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the man says: "The land belongs to somebody." And if the value is lost, well that doesn't matter. That's just somebody's rights, somebody's assets, that doesn't matter — it's his personal property. What matters? Why worry about it? It's let go. It might have been passed down for centuries — that same farm. It's going to be devalued now and the family is going to go broke. That doesn't matter. The forefathers fought for it and they cleared it. The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) says: "Oh, that doesn't matter." Compensation for lost land values at the time of sale.

Maybe if the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain understood what he was saying he would not say it. I can forgive him, because he knows not what he laughs about. He knows not the sorrow and the hardship that has been caused by Bill 42.

They asked for a notice to landowners about designation of land use. A simple request — wouldn't you say so, Mr. Member? A simple request.

"Recording of designation changes in land registry records." All of these, Mr. Speaker, are legitimate, sincere, worthwhile requests. I ask, Mr. Speaker, why they are not being heeded.

"Continuation of agricultural operations when land designated for other uses." The letter continues, Mr. Speaker.

"As was explained to you at our meeting on January 10, guarantees of continued use of Crown land for grazing and water for domestic and irrigation purposes are vitally important to every ranch in our province and must be provided for. Beef production requires long term planning and therefore grazing and water needs have to be assured on long term basis — not with annual permits, as at present.

"Our association fully supports the amendments to the Land Commission Act presented to the B.C. Government by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. These amendments must be implemented in toto to make it acceptable to members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association."

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is listening. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is hearing.

Another request, Mr. Speaker, from the Urban Development Institute. This letter bypasses the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), bypasses the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and it bypasses the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). It goes right to the Premier of our province.

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"After careful consideration of Bill 42, members of this Institute find themselves very much concerned with certain aspects which seem to go beyond the stated purpose of the Act.

"Members are particularly concerned with the powers which may be exercised by the commission, apparently without recourse and the effect that this might have on the development and house building industries in trying to satisfy the urgent need for shelter, particularly for those people in the lower income brackets."

Particularly for those people in the lower income brackets. The man on the street, Mr. Speaker. The little man.

"The members of the Institute do not oppose the principle of preserving these categories of land which by general consensus of opinion should be retained in their present use in the best interests of present and future generations. However, since society as a whole will benefit, then it would only seem reasonable that the burden of carrying out such a programme should also be borne by society as a whole.

"We also believe that in considering the requirements of the present and future generations, the need to provide proper shelter deserves at least an equal priority with the need to preserve agricultural land and open spaces.

"We're afraid that the land freeze order-in-council and the proposed Bill 42 will aggravate an already very serious situation in the house building industry in British Columbia, and in the lower mainland in particular."

This, Mr. Speaker, is what I have been saying.

"Costs, and consequently selling prices, have been rising at a very rapid rate in both the land and the structure increment of the total housing package.

"The price of the house itself has gone up very considerably as a result of extraordinary increases in the cost of lumber. The price of the lot on

[ Page 1488 ]

which it is built has also increased very significantly, first as a result of servicing costs which presently stand anywhere between $6,000 to $10,000 per single family lot, dependent upon the municipal requirements, and finally as a result of the cost of the raw land, which is now anywhere between $2,500 to $6,000 for a single family lot on the average subdivision."

This letter was written on March 8. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that prices of lots have gone up considerably since then.

"There is presently an artificial shortage of land for urban purposes mainly created by unnecessary restraints. Sensible legislation is required to free land so that the ready supply of serviced lots may be made available to builders. This, in itself, will go a long way to curb speculation which only thrives where there is a serious imbalance between supply and demand."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is the type of input that we should have had into Bill 42 before it was brought into this House.

"Because of the present uncertainty and disruption in the house building industry members of the institute believe it is now urgent that:

"(a) The land freeze order-in-council be revised to the extent that development may proceed on any project where the development processes had started prior to the order.

"(b) The Land Commission Act be amended to include provision for: 1. Proper appeal procedures, in respect to rulings made by the commission. 2. Compensation for losses that will be suffered due to the enactment of the bill, where such losses can be reasonably demonstrated. 3. Access to the court should be granted to those who deem themselves injuriously affected by the bill."

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that whether it's from the cattlemen, whether it's from an interested citizen in Vancouver or whether it's from the Urban Development Institute, all of the requests being made with regard to Bill 42 follow a very close line. So all of these people, Mr. Speaker, cannot be wrong.

"…the amended bill with the proposed regulations be given full public hearing before being introduced. We believe that the combined efforts of the government and the private sector can do a great deal to overcome the problem of providing housing for the man on the street at a price he can afford if the grass roots problems are properly identified.

"With this in mind, we wrote to the Hon. James Lorimer, Minister of Municipal Affairs, December 6, and a copy of the letter is attached herewith for ease of reference.

"We again offer our assistance to your government in the hope that we may improve the provisions on housing in this province."

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) says that we are listening, but we're hearing precious little. Well I think this is opposition to the bill. Anyone who has sent you suggestions is in opposition to the bill.

In a letter to Mr. Lorimer, on December 6, which evidently wasn't heeded because he…the order- in-council was brought in on December 20, I believe it was.

"I'm writing to you on behalf of the Urban Development Institute of British Columbia, a division of the Urban Development Institute of Canada.

"The Institute is a non-profit organization of people and companies engaged in land and property development. Its stated objectives are: to promote well-planned communities by encouraging the reasonable, unselfish use of land, resources and buildings for recreational, public, commercial, industrial and recreational purposes; to promote high standards of competence and conduct in the practice of land and property development."

These are the aims of this non-profit society, Mr. Speaker.

"To promote co-operation and efficient relationship between all persons, firms, corporations, regulatory and government bodies and other agencies involved in and associated with land assembly and development; to promote standards of land and property development consistent with full regard for the environment, for people, and with regard to economies for the development of available private and public resources; to familiarize the public and government agencies with problems and objectives of the development industry, and to this end, to establish properly supervised educational programmes and counteract, where required, pressures which would unduly harm the public interests relating to land use and development."

These are very worthwhile objectives, Mr. Speaker.

"The members of the Institute are becoming increasingly concerned with the ever-spiralling costs of building shelter, and in particular with the cost of producing serviced land on which to build the structure.

"Much has been said and written about the reasons for the present situation, and all too often the blame has been placed with the private sector.

"We believe that a frank discussion between reasonable representatives of the industry and representatives of the provincial government can only be to the better understanding of the basic problems, and thence hopefully, of finding a way to deal with them.

"The Members respectfully request an opportu-

[ Page 1489 ]

nity for the Institute's legislative committee to meet with you and discuss these matters at your earliest convenience. Subject of course, to your evaluation of the initial meeting, the Institute would welcome an on-going process of liaison to deal with those areas of concern where the expertise and experience of its members may be put to beneficial use by your government."

December 6, 1972 — approximately 14 days before the famous land freeze order-in-council was passed.

This is a letter from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) about the bill. It says:

"This will acknowledge your recent letter and comments on Bill 42, the Land Commission Act. I'm afraid that you have been misled about the intent and proposals contained in the legislation. As the Premier said after it was introduced, we will listen to what people say and accept constructive amendments. Almost everyone I have spoken to agrees that something must be done to protect the future of our province and our farmland, but those who are so vitriolic in their opposition really don't want anything to be done."

That, Mr. Speaker, is not so. Because we do want something done. We do want something to be done, Mr. Speaker.

"The government had two choices: do nothing and see British Columbia as we have known it, destroyed; or take some action to preserve it."

That's what the Minister of Highways says.

Well they could have done something by going to the people, by taking their time. Now what they in essence have done by taking some action to preserve it, they are actually ruining it.

"We took the second course — he says — "I ask you to remember that under the terms of the legislation, the Act will not apply to areas of less than two acres."

Nothing in Bill 42 about two acres. Not one thing, Mr. Speaker, is in Bill 42 about two acres, I've read it from cover to cover. It says "all land, any land."

It also says in other sections, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that "any land, all land can be set aside for parkland or any other use." So it refers to all land in British Columbia. You can't take one section out of context.

"I ask you to remember that under the terms of the legislation the Act will not apply to areas less than two acres. It will not apply to any land that is not farmland."

An amazing revelation by the Minister of Highways. "Will apply only to those areas that are in danger of being destroyed completely." It doesn't say that in the Act, Mr. Speaker.

"Farmers are still free to sell the land to someone else for farm purposes. There will be no confiscation."

Well then we should change the Act.

"There is a total of almost $60 million provided to pay for any land acquired. There will still be land available for cities and towns to expand as required. There will be an end to the high cost to the taxpayers of indiscriminate and urban development."

It's quite a letter from the Minister of Highways indeed, and his interpretation of Bill 42.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, to myself.

"I would like to draw your attention to several important points regarding the Land Act."

This is a very important letter. It comes to me from Vancouver.

"I would like to draw your attention to several important points regarding the Land Act. Though in the paragraph of interpretation, that is paragraph 1, many words are defined — the word "acquire" is not mentioned.

Its significance in paragraph 7, articles (i), (1) and (m) is enormous.

In the Oxford dictionary, "acquire" means to take possession of, Again, in Oxford, "expropriate" means to dispossess. I would therefore say that the bill makes nefarious provision for expropriation. With this in mind I can readily understand the farmers being so incensed by the bill, especially paragraph 7, articles (i), (l) and (m).

"This same section will scare away any potential investment in the province, be it in agriculture, fishing, ranching or the food processing industry. It may not be the intention of the Government of British Columbia to take land or personal property unethically, but Bill 42 would create the possibility within the law. To this I make the strongest possible protest."

Again, if you're not going to do it, why do you need Bill 42? If you're not going to do the things that Bill 42 says you can do, why do you want the bill? I've heard this continually: "Oh, but we're not going to do this; we're not going to do that." Well if you're not going to do any of the things that Bill 42 allows you to do, why do you need the bill?

Paragraph 7 article (1) states: "The commission has the power and capacity to acquire and hold personal property and dispose of personal property so acquired." I'm reading a letter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading a letter to me from a concerned citizen in Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, on the point of order….

MR. PHILLIPS: There's been no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I see a point of order has just

[ Page 1490 ]

been raised. The point of order appears to be that you are reading from a letter that deals with sections of the bill. Well, that is doing indirectly what you would be forbidden to do directly. It seems to me therefore you should bring it to a close and get back to the principle of the bill. Otherwise, Members could be reading from letters all night dealing with separate clauses and never dealing with the principle of the bill, but would be debating the clauses of the bill by way of letters.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened to some of those Ministers read 15 letters all the same.

MR, SPEAKER: It's not a question of reading, Hon. Member. It's a question of trying, in effect, to debate sections of the bill when we should be discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of the bill is to acquire and hold personal property and dispose of personal property. To me this means my car, my savings and my personal effects could become the property of the commission with no appeal, Mr. Speaker. I'm still reading from the letter:

"Did you hear this current story about the Okanagan farmer who had his orchard assessed by the banks because he wanted to borrow against it? The bank valued the property at $75,000. The farmer borrowed $35,000 against it. The provincial government valued it at $25,000. The bank took the farmer's land, leaving him with a debt of $10,000 and absolutely no means of livelihood."

Whether the story is fact or fiction is beside the point. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'd rather deal in fiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: What matters in that Bill 42 makes such a personally disastrous situation possible. What this lady is pointing out is that Bill 42 makes this situation possible, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name names.

MR. PHILLIPS: It could be true, too. Last year produced little harvest in the Okanagan. In view of this, how can the Government believe that the proposed legislation will not have a detrimental effect on the real farmer? To enact legislation whereby the dispossessed have no recourse is to make a travesty of justice.

Who is to determine what is speculative? Has increase in land value since we took it from the Indians been recognized? Has the government considered how the many carpenters, plumbers and electricians whose incomes have been dependent on continued development are to buy groceries?

"Channel led growth is desirable, but one cannot move from an era of unprecedented development to zero growth without wide consultation with every segment of our society in a climate of co-operation and trust. Bill 42 has created a climate of fear and antagonism. Before steps are taken to limit development, provision must be made for those whose income is to be affected by the measure."

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the House to allow the Member a recess of five minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order. I can't have one Member interrupting the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order there's no interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: Well it isn't a point of order. It seems to be an indulgence that's being asked, not a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I would ask your ruling on the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Well surely it's up to the Member. I don't quite know how you can intercede for another Member who has the floor. If the Hon. Member who has the floor wishes to ask something of the House, that's a different matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you take his pulse as well?

MRS. JORDAN: Har-de-har, har, har. You'd better get your pulse checked, or your blood pressure.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got a headache.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for North Okanagan's (Mrs. Jordan) point is very well taken. (Laughter).

"Before steps are taken to limit development, provision must be made for those whose incomes will be affected by the measure. I am in favour of the bill in principle and with the rest of the province would like an abundance of farmland. But these riches are not to be plucked out of the sky, nor to be enacted by legislation. Rather they will be the fruit of careful administration of justice and of a responsible government.

"The bill has been introduced without adequate preparation. In the cause of justice it would have

[ Page 1491 ]

to be amended to a point of confusion. Its passage would cause chaos. I ask you to speak against it in the House and do all in your favour to defeat Bill 42."

That letter is dated March 14; a very, very interesting letter.

I'd like this lady to know that I'm doing what she asked. I'm speaking against it in the House and I will certainly do all in my power to see that the bill is defeated, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition here:

"We, the undersigned, protest the enactment of the Land Commission Act, being Bill 42, now before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia and demand its withdrawal forthwith."

More concerned citizens. They're all concerned out there. Even the ones that were for it are concerned now.

Here's an interesting letter to the Hon. David Stupich, dated March 14:

"In late January we wrote to you expressing some views on agriculture in this area. Since that time you have tabled your Bill 42 which has caused such an upheaval in this province. We will state again that we are for the preservation of farmlands but only those lands that can honestly be called viable.

"If you fail to answer our question and that letter as to what the large irrigated areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to do with their produce as they come into greater production; they will be here providing damn stiff competition to our province. Make no mistake.

"More specifically, to discuss Bill 42, if your greatest concern since being elected has been to stop the subdivision of farmlands then you must admit your action has done this. However, we did not realize that your intention was also to push up the price of already subdivided lands. We fear that your control measures would obtain perhaps a tenfold overkill. Sir, in all honesty, just what size of a problem existed that this dictatorial and fear-provoking piece of proposed legislation was seen as necessary?"

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. This isn't to me but it's some of the language that I have been using.

"Let me say again that I am a native of this province and municipality, I am 40 years old, so have seen approximately the same picture of growth as you have in my life as regards B.C. As one who likes to hunt and travel, I have covered not all but most of this province and I've a fair idea of the agricultural capabilities of B.C.

"You will agree that perhaps only 5 per cent of our province is farmland — not rangeland — farmland. This presents two interesting points.

"The first is that this is a small area to be able to devote to any one purpose; hence it is understandable that some regulation and control should be necessary.

"Secondly, if there is as much of an emergency as your actions would imply that one would be led to believe that this 5 per cent would be producing right up to its maximum and that we are simply bulging at the boundaries of this 5 per cent and scouring the province for more available farmlands to put into production as quickly as possible."

Mr. Speaker, this is not the case because, as I have pointed out, there are many hundreds of thousands of acres of land. In the Fort Nelson area alone over a million acres of land could be brought under production. So there's no great urgency.

"If this available farmland was put into production as quickly as possible, then one could assume farm products would command higher prices in the marketplace than they do now. You know and we know that this is simply not the case; in fact the situation is opposite. You can drive down any road in the farm valleys of this province and see farms that produce perhaps 5 to 10 per cent of the produce they could ultimately produce if it were profitable for them to do so.

"I seriously suggest B.C. farmlands can produce 10 times the dollar value of produce they now do if there was a market for it.

"Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with this? If he does, then there should be no urgency with Bill 42. If he doesn't agree with this, then there should be some urgency to bring under cultivation the many millions of acres of arable land in British Columbia that are presently not under cultivation.

"Consequently, we are not impressed with your arguments as to the necessity of this heavy-handed Act, we are puzzled as to why you would take the risk of antagonizing as many people as you have, thereby doing harm to your own cause with the severity of this bill. Especially, you have antagonized the farming community — the very people you purport to help.

"Mr. Stupich, if we are correct, shortly after you took the position of agriculture Minister you made the statement that not only were you going to bring in legislation to control lands but you went on to say that society in general was going to have to pay to help retain those lands with interested farmers on them. We see nowhere in your proposals that anybody is going to pay anything except the very people on the land, and they are going to lose value they are entitled to feel they had.

"We do not buy your statement to Jack Webster, that you will not be taking five per cent value off the land frozen under your proposals."

I didn't even know that the Minister had said that to

[ Page 1492 ]

Jack Webster. But if he did say it to Jack Webster then the Premier, when he was talking to Jack Webster on Saturday, recognized that there was going to be a devaluation of farmlands. Maybe under this important bill, Mr. Speaker, the Premier should talk to the Minister of Agriculture and they should get together and talk to one another and reassess the situation, because it's evident that they are not together now.

"Our main criticism is this: you could get control to the extent that is required for the protection of farmland with far less encompassing Acts than Bill 42."

Now this isn't me saying this, Mr. Speaker, this is an interested farmer.

"Among the many points in this bill that concern us two important ones: (1) no appeal lies from the commission decision."

as I've been saying all afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

"What the commission says is the law, with no right of appeal."

I don't imagine this man misinterpreted the bill — as a matter of fact I know he didn't. And I don't imagine this letter was scared up by any open-line show. He had been in correspondence with the Minister before; he says so at the beginning of the letter. I think this man understands the terminology of the bill very well. Yes, and so do a lot of other citizens interpret it the same way.

"No appeal lies from the commission's decision. This is hard to swallow. We are not lawyers, but we do not think this follows in line with British law, which I believe is a basis for all law in the western world.

"You may argue that this is an irrelevant comparison but imagine for a moment what would happen if this concept were ever enacted in criminal law."

That's a very interesting point —

"But imagine for a moment what would happen if this concept were enacted in criminal law."

Isn't this, Mr. Speaker, just what I said a few moments ago? There will be repercussions from Bill 42 that we haven't even dreamed of yet. No wonder the people are asking for input. No wonder the Premier said, "Let's go to the people," two years ago when the Land Act was being passed.

"If this were a true bill to aid agriculture it would have to include protective measures for agricultural products grown in B.C. As it is nothing more than a dictatorial land control bill it misses the main point."

That's not me saying that Mr. Speaker. That's what I have been saying, I will admit that, but that's not me. That's a concerned citizen who took the time to type up three pages. It's very well worded and it's a very good letter.

"Why did you not withhold your land control legislation until you could come up at the same time with controls on imported food products? Then farmers could have seen financially in their operation to offset the brunt of this land legislation.

"In our letter to you in January, we asked that you send a circular to all bona fide farmers in the province and ask their view on how the industry could be advanced."

Was this done, Mr. Speaker?

"In your reply of February 1, you gave no answer as to why this was not done. Had this been done farmers could have at least felt they were part of the decision-making process in legislation affecting them. Indeed, the chance for greater compatibility between government and the people was lost. You claim this action will be taken later to upgrade the returns to the farmers. One wonders how much enthusiasm you will have for this, if your Bill 42 is passed.

"Higher returns for farmers' products will result in higher costs for consumers. With the great consciousness of rising food costs, this would seem like an even worse political suicide than the one you are already indulging in."

I'd never thought, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 42 as political suicide of the Government, but that's probably what it is — political suicide, now that I think of it. The Premier knows it too — he's concerned or he wouldn't have arranged this big open-line programme all over the province to tell the people about the Municipal Act.

You know it's very interesting, very interesting indeed, that the lawyers in the province, who are supposed to be the people who interpret the law, come out and they tear Bill 42 apart. They're the lawyers in the province — there's more lawyers than the Attorney General.

What does the man from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who wants to get in the cabinet do? He's trying to protect Bill 42 and he raps the lawyers. He goes after the lawyers because they're messing up the bill — they're putting words in it and they're not interpreting it right. Now that's an amazing twist because the Member for Vancouver Centre has tried to tell me in the House many times now that he knows everything. He knows all the laws and I don't know nothing about interpreting them. I didn't interpret the bill — the lawyers did!

The Member from Vancouver Centre says you don't know what you're talking about — "this isn't in the bill, I can't do that." The Premier says that. Everybody says that. So the lawyers — the Law Society of British Columbia — they go after this bill a little bit. It says here "Lauk Attacks the Lawyers. NDP backbencher Gary Lauk, of Vancouver Centre, criticized the provincial council of the Canadian Bar Association Monday for political partisanship in discussing the proposed Land Commission Act."

[ Page 1493 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: His own fraternity.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, that's right. But the thing is that if anybody attacks the bill, well, we're in opposition, they know that…but anybody else around the province it seems they've got to have some axe to grind. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, can criticize this government without having some ulterior motive or something. In other words, there is nobody out there that has any common sense except the man from Vancouver Centre.

Lauk, a lawyer, approached reporters to comment on the council's call for compensation for land values, lowered by the proposed land commission actions in designating land for specific uses. The reason he did that is because the Premier said very clearly on the Jack Webster show, "No, sir, we'll pay them what we want to pay them and that's it." Bingo. End of deal. This is the law.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were you talking about the B.C. Electric shareholder?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the law. This is the law.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No recourse….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You always like to bring that up. The Premier likes to bring that up. I'm not discussing that right at this red hot moment but if you stick around, Mr. Premier, I could bring it into my dissertation here this evening if you'd like to discuss it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Every lawyer knows that you do not compensate for down-zoning. This is a completely objectionable approach for lawyers to take. Where is that Municipal Act? You do not compensate for down-zoning. Every lawyer knows that. I don't know whether lawyers are supposed to know the Municipal Act or not.

But it's clearly the duty of municipality to make compensation for property taken or injured in arbitration — arbitration to determine amount. Compensation for property expropriated or injured. Section 478 of the Municipal Act very clearly states that…but Mr. Member from Vancouver Centre says no. Lauk says the provincial Municipal Act had had a section in it since 1910 providing that compensation shall not be given because of loss of value due to rezoning. Well, maybe. Maybe it's how you interpret the law.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's how you interpret the law. I see. No, I can't buy that because the law is the law, and justice shall not only be done and shall not only seem to be done, but justice shall indeed be done. Justice shall indeed be done. But not under Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, because that is the law. Bill 42 will be the law. The five-man commission will be the law.

When they represent the Canadian Bar Association and make statements like that, they're wrong legally and they're indicating a political partisanship that might split the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association in two or three different ways.

There's another effect of Bill 42 that I never even thought of — the whole Bar Association is going to be broken up over it. You're breaking up the farmers, breaking up industry, now you're breaking up the Bar Association. You see, Mr. Speaker, that's what I was mentioning a few moments ago.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I mentioned a few moments ago. Bill 42 is going to get its tentacles into every facet of life in this great province of ours — every single, solitary facet of life.

"The NDP Member also criticized as partisan a part of a preamble to the branch's resolution which says that Bill 42 puts effective control on all lands within the hands of a commission appointed by the cabinet. They're playing politics he says."

The Member for Vancouver Centre says they're playing politics and I'm entitled to attack them on the same basis, Mr. Speaker.

A very important point there, Mr. Speaker, a very important point. In other words, if somebody does something wrong or allegedly does something wrong which the Member from Vancouver says — they've done something wrong, then that allows me to go ahead and do something wrong? Is that what the Member for Vancouver Centre…well, that's exactly what he says right here, Mr. Speaker.

That's a rare twist of events — and for a lawyer to say that — and this is all caused by Bill 42. "They're playing politics, which I consider is wrong," he says. "Then I'm entitled to attack them on the same basis." What did they do? Did they do something wrong? Then I'll go ahead and do something wrong too. Two "wongs" don't make a "wite". (Laughter). No, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Two wrongs don't make a right, for a variety of reasons — for a variety of reasons. I'm going to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, from an article that says "Land Bill Debate is Thoroughly Muddled"

[ Page 1494 ]

"For a variety of reasons, among them the government's attempt to stem the mounting attacks, Agricultural Minister Dave Stupich has outlined a handful of amendments to be presented at the third reading stage. In general terms, these would allow municipalities and regional districts to hold public hearings when people would protest the commission's designation of parcels of land, a section making it clear that the commission won't be able to expropriate.

"Land will also be included and the designation powers themselves will be further clarified. However, last Friday, Barrett said he couldn't disclose what the amendments would be until they had been brought into the House. This raises two questions: Was Stupich outlining amendments or wasn't he? And doesn't the inevitability of amendments radically alter the principle of the bill according to the criticisms that have already been mentioned?"

Who's in charge over there? I think it's the Member for Vancouver Centre.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. Was the Minister of Agriculture leaking amendments at the bull sale in Kamloops last week? Was he leaking amendments? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe that was why he had to soft shoe through the bull sale. That's because he was leaking amendments. Well, Mr. Speaker, the promise of amendments in the words of a government backbencher designed to make Bill 42 more politically palatable is a face-saving move even if the amendment creates a better bill. But, what I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is are these amendments being made for political reasons only? And I would like to ask the Government once again to withdraw the bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll get on…. I want to finish this letter.

And go to the public and get some input. This man continues:

"Bill 42 must be changed to include appeal, not so much in the matter of designation as we feel some overall plan must be followed throughout the province, but on the matter of compensation. No individual or commission who is either the buyer or acting on behalf of the buyer should ever be allowed to have final say as to the compensation. In passing the type of legislation that is proposed, the government could conceivably become the only interested party in buying certain types of land an owner might wish to sell."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: In conclusion two items…this is the conclusion of the letter:

"In conclusion two items seem to come forth in one's mind when observing your government in action lately. On your approach to agriculture as well as other subjects you are dealing with in this province, there seems to be a great rush to enact dictatorial regulatory legislation. This belies the lack of appreciation for the subtle forces at work in the law of supply and demand."

I will add to his letter and say, "in the law of checks and balances, no recognition of the present checks and balances that exist."

"This belies the lack of appreciation for the subtle forces at work in the law of supply and demand. Also the sensitive approach that is necessary to instil initiative in anybody, whether it be a child or the total population, seems to be lacking. To us and others we have spoken to…." Evidently this man talks to his neighbours and evidently he listens to them — too bad the Government wouldn't listen.

"To us and others we have spoken to, there appears to be either in your cabinet or in the party at large, some individual or group of a very radical and demanding nature that is exerting a force out of all proportion to their numbers." This man can see that, Mr. Speaker, from Delta — across the ocean — all the way over here, he can see that.

"…that is exerting a force out of all proportion to their numbers. Wiser heads must prevail, and in words of your Premier: 'Tell them to cool it.' You are taking away from your cause in this 'bull by the horns' approach. A short time ago in an interview, you called for trust. I'm sure you would rather gain trust by some other means than calling for it."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says, "Trust me, trust us. " As this man says, "I am sure you would rather gain trust by some other means than calling for it." In other words, gain trust by showing that you can be trusted. Gain trust, gain appreciation and gain support by backing down from the stubborn position, Mr. Speaker.

Another letter here, sent to me on March 16:

"I have today sent the attached letter to the Hon. David Stupich outlining certain principles which I feel very strongly should be applied to the redrafting of Bill No. 42. Would you please do me the courtesy of reading it?

"It is my considered opinion that unless the bill as it now stands is modified in a major way as suggested herein, it will be viewed as plainly unjust by a large segment of the population of B.C. and will precipitate a running sore of discontent in much of the population as long as certain parts of

[ Page 1495 ]

it are not redressed."

Yes, pour the salve on the wound to heal the running sore. This letter from Aldergrove. It is addressed to the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

"Regarding Bill 42. I am writing an open letter in the hope that you will read it thoroughly inasmuch as it deals with principles and concepts, the application of which is important for the future well-being of all British Columbians and to the reputation of the B.C. Government.

"I am writing as the owner of 37 acres of land in South Aldergrove, Langley area of B.C., currently employed in a beef operation. The land is good for dairy or beef production but too small to produce an adequate income on a full-time farming basis. Most of my income is, as must be, derived from an unrelated job so the property can be maintained as a farm.

"However, despite these poor economics and the land's higher value if subdivided for other land use purposes, I have been content to maximize its agricultural output and to preserve the land for that kind of use."

This is the type of man who wants to preserve farmland.

"Consequently, I was glad to hear that your Government intended to help preserve agricultural land through legislation. Thus you might expect to receive my support for Bill 42.

"However, while I agree with the intent of the bill in regard to preserving agricultural land, I hope by this letter to influence you and your associates to reconsider the methods employed. This is because some of them will, in my opinion, be considered by a large segment of the population to be plainly unjust."

I would like to add my own words to that, Mr. Speaker, and say that there is a large segment of the population who consider that Bill 42 is unjust.

"Some of them will precipitate a running sore of discontent in much of the population for as long as they are not redressed.

"More specifically, I suggest that certain sections of the bill be reworked, bearing in mind certain democratic principles and traditions upon which our country was founded. I would view some sections of the bill with considerable alarm and my suggestions about them are given below….

"No right to compensation in respect of reserve land."

In the bill, this bothers everybody.

"Land will be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the designation of the commission."

This man goes on to say that since,

"anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the agriculture economics of the Fraser Valley, which is that area from and including Surrey to Hope… .I'm not familiar with the economics of Delta and Richmond, but the contrast would be even more startling. The commission designation of land as solely agricultural in use would reduce its economic value to roughly $100 to $400 per acre, from its present value of anywhere between $1,500 and $3,000 per acre. That is certainly more than a 50 per cent drop, depending upon the individual characteristics of the land.

"The bill therefore is plainly enormously confiscatory of existing property values from Surrey to Hope. Much the same situation will apply to the Okanagan and to significant areas of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo. Without exaggeration, several hundreds of millions of dollars of property values are involved.

"I appreciate that certain Members of the NDP Government have criticized the activities of some land speculators. However, I suggest very strongly that the whole Fraser Valley for 100 miles from Surrey to Hope, the Okanagan, the Cariboo and Vancouver Island are not owned by a few speculators or by a few non-Canadian residents."

This is not what the Government would like everybody to understand. They would like you to believe that the land is being gobbled up, being bought out by rich Americans. Every government that comes to power by putting panic in the hearts of the citizenry does not stay in power. That is what is happening with Bill 42 — an attempt to panic the public and to say that passing of Bill 42 is eminently urgent.

You know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, that this is not the case. Moreover, all these people have been good citizens for a good many years, obeying all the laws of the land that have been uniform in their application over many decades in British Columbia and, in fact, across Canada.

Bill 42 slapped them in the face, just like you slapped many other citizens in British Columbia; punished them because of the actions of a few. Those who have been exercising good citizenship in this manner, who have helped to bring about the abundance that we generally enjoy currently and to have lawfully invested their savings in land and buildings to ensure that they will place no burden either on their families, or on society, in their advanced years should suffer no penalty through sudden and dramatic changes in our laws.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, we have to oppose Bill 42. This is why, Mr. Speaker, as this man has outlined, it is an unjust bill. I'll continue with the letter. He says:

"It is a widely held view surely, that in a democratic society no new law should penalize, or victimize innocent law abiding citizens."

[ Page 1496 ]

Isn't that a good rule in a democratic society, Mr. Speaker? And yet Bill 42 clearly violates that view. Bill 42 does punish individual, hard working, law abiding citizens. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the people are concerned.

The Premier and other principal Members of your party have said repeatedly that your party is a people's party. I submit that the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who currently own land in the Fraser Valley for 100 miles, in the Okanagan, the Cariboo, and Vancouver Island, are ordinary people too.

Yes, they're the salt of the earth, those people — law abiding people, Mr. Speaker, who try to provide for themselves. And they become old and try and keep their way of life going — try and provide for their family. Law abiding citizens. They're the ones, Mr. Speaker, that are being damaged and hurt by Bill 42. The letter continues:

"In my view they are not a segment of society that have been parasites on our society and our economy. Nor are they a segment of society that has been pursuing ownership of land and buildings for the purposes of some evil financial gain. Quite the opposite.

"The Premier has also said repeatedly that the NDP Government will seek ways to be fair in its legislation. If you and others really and genuinely intend to conduct your Government according to that principle, then I suggest that you be sure that your legislation will be fair to everyone. And maybe it's not possible to make legislation fair to everyone. But certainly you can make legislation fair to as many as possible."

And this legislation, Mr. Speaker, harms as many people as possible. Solid citizens in this province, the backbone of the province, those are the people that are harmed by Bill 42.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that this part of the Act be changed to provide for the rights of compensation rather than no rights at all. Specifically, I suggest that a possible means by which this end might be achieved is for the bill to provide a valuation day, selected from some time between the election of your party and the end of the year 1972."

This is very well thought out, and a very well written letter, Mr. Speaker. Good suggestions.

"Properties would be valued based upon professional appraisers' fair market value of the properties as of the selected valuation day, from valuation day to some future time period when the Government might actually acquire title to the property.

"Provisions would be made for escalation in value, at least equal to the rate of interest on long term Government bonds. Such valuations would form the underlying values applying to transfers of property between individual citizens, in spite of the fact that the properties might have been, or might in the future be designated as agricultural land by the commission.

"If and when the province were to acquire the land on behalf of the population as a whole, then these values would apply at the time of the purchase by the Government. After all, if the whole province is to benefit, why should the whole province not pay fair market price, rather than riding free on a segment of our population. It's exactly what Bill 42 purports to do."

It's exactly what I've said in this House before, Mr. Speaker. It depresses the land values…and then go in and buy up the land and that is not fair. It is not fair, it is not democratic and it is not just. And it's not honourable. "Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the wording of the Act be changed." and I won't read that because I guess it's not allowable.

The man continues to point out ways, very good ways, how the bill could be amended; how sections of the Act could be changed; how to provide for fair compensation. It's a very well thought out letter. He says, "I have no objection to the word 'purchase' so long as the individual wishes to sell. But what does 'otherwise acquire' mean?" And I've asked that same question.

This could mean seizure by force or expropriation. The commission should only be empowered to purchase land where an individual wishes to sell or receive it as a gift. If this was intended, why not say so specifically? I urge this to be rewritten. It's too late. Do you say it's too late?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not too late — it's not too late at all. It's not too late yet. If Bill 42 passes through this House it will be too late; it will be too late for all of us. It will be D-Day in British Columbia.

"When one considers the enormous powers conferred on the commission by this bill, there will undoubtedly be excesses in the future because the commission is completely protected if it indulges in excesses. After all, its members are human and will consequently sometimes act in an overzealous manner, or in keeping with their personal views, or in keeping with the orders from the Minister of Lands, or in keeping with the orders of the Minister of Agriculture, or in keeping with orders from the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who feels that private land ownership in British Columbia is not in the best interest of British Columbia.

"The body could be called 'Lands Appeal Board' and could report separately to, for example, the Attorney General. Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of appeal to the

[ Page 1497 ]

judiciary should also be guaranteed in the Act, initially at a level lower than the supreme court; not only in respect to the interpretation of the law, but also in respect to questions of equity providing the Lands Appeal Board had first been involved."

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that further thought be given as to how functions are actually to be carried out, both as to policy decisions and day-to-day operating decisions.

"Because at the moment the proposed organization appears to create an excessive concentration of powers and duties in a single board with a completely inadequate decentralization of responsibilities. I suggest therefore that further consideration be given to the organization should this commission having such vast powers be confined to a membership of only five, or instead should be enlarged in order to be representative of a cross-section of British Columbia both regionally and functionally."

This is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what the agriculturalists have been asking for. They have been asking that they have some input.

"If this principle were adopted the commission would perhaps be doubled in size. Should this commission be responsible to the Minister of Agriculture (with due respect to you, Mr. Stupich) it puzzles many people as to what business of the Minister of Agriculture has to do with greenbelt land, land bank land for urban and industrial development and parkland for recreational use. One could understand the bill being introduced by you if it had solely to do with agricultural land."

I asked the same questions in the House. I say that it isn't the Minister of Agriculture's bill at all. It's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' (Hon. Mr. Williams) bill.

It's pretty easy to cloud and shadow the intent of the bill if you bring it in under a "motherhood" clause like "preserving farmland," so that the people don't really get the drift.

But the people are getting the drift. The people are finding out. The people know what is happening in British Columbia today. They know what Bill 42 is all about.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) said in this House when the Land Act was being passed, "Take it to the people."

AN HON. MEMBER: A public hearing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have public hearings. If you can't remember what you said, Mr. Minister, it's all down in what we call Hansard. You go back and read it and find out what you said. I think I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of other cabinet Ministers go back there, including the Premier, and read what they said, because they have forgotten. Everything prior to August 30 was forgotten.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): What did you do on September 1? You didn't even want to come here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you find a new theme? You're not supposed to have repetition in the House. Why don't you find something new?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, have the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston address the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

"If, however, the provincial land commission is required for overall co-ordination of all land use in the province through the establishment of policy, then I suggest such a commission report preferably to the House."

That's not the House of Commons. He's referring to the Legislature.

"It puzzles many people as to what business the Minister of Agriculture has to do with the greenbelt land. If, however, a provincial land commission is required for overall coordination of all land use in the province through the establishment of policy, then I suggest such a commission report preferably to the House by suitable means or, if it must be directed in detail by the party in power, then to the cabinet as a whole. Within the policy directives arrived at by the commission, then the appropriate Ministers would subsequently deal with land matters that would come within their own sphere of activity. There are ample agricultural land matters dealt with by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

"Otherwise it appears to me that there will be such an excessive concentration of power that arbitrary actions and inefficiencies will inevitably ensue. The bill makes no mandatory provision for specific and decentralized actions but can be taken by municipalities in respect of lands within their jurisdictions in keeping with the guidelines established by the land commission and those of individual Ministers as well. Should provisions not be made in this regard so that these actions would not be taken solely at the pleasure of the commission, I ask that greater attention be paid to sound principles and concepts as suggested in this letter and not to slogans or unyielding adherence to past positions in the redrafting of Bill 42. Otherwise, as mentioned at the outset, the bill will be considered by a large segment of the population to be unjust.

"Consequently I hope that the foregoing principles and concepts will be applied to this bill and

[ Page 1498 ]

that the views expressed herein by an ordinary citizen will be considered. Yours very truly."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's from Block Bros.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not from Block Bros. But the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would try and purport some evil and sinister thought behind a man who has expressed his views very well, very sincerely, and the view of many other concerned citizens in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It's a very well written letter and very well expressed. The Minister of Highways has the indignation to say that there's got to be some evil or sinister thought behind it, that it's got to be written by some real estate company. Oh, Mr. Speaker, will they never learn? Will they not listen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We can't hear you now. Speak up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will they never learn, Mr. Speaker? Will they never never start to listen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk as if you meant that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. Speak up.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, when I'm dealing with a serious matter….

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am serious. And all of your ruses to try and make this debate a sham are not going to be swallowed by this Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, fighting for the rights of British Columbia. Fighting for rights that have been dearly won in a democratic society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member calls it "poppycock" and some of the Members use a lot more far worse four-letter words when they're talking to some of the concerned people in this province, too. That's their reaction. But, Mr. Speaker, the people will know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kill the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that all of the….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, do you think all of these letters and wires are from real estate people? Mr. Speaker, do you think that every man who deals in real estate in British Columbia is a rip-off artist or some other kind of….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, just the car salesmen.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the "king" back from his sojourn. The man who attacked the law profession. The man from Vancouver Centre.

No, these letters aren't from real estate people. They're from concerned citizens.

When, Mr. Speaker, when, I ask you, is this Government going to wake up? When is this Government going to listen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, he's got a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order? Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated for a moment while you state your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to be seated for a moment. (Laughter).

MR. LAUK: I would ask that the Member withdraw the charge that I attacked the legal profession. I did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, sit down!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order I believe is well taken. I would ask the Hon. Member, if he imputed this motive to the….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll certainly withdraw. I wouldn't want the Member from Vancouver to be hurt. It's all right for him to stand in this Legislature and call me a liar, to say that I'm deliberately trying to mislead the House and not withdraw it, or withdraw it under condition. But that's all right. I'll withdraw it completely. I wouldn't want to hurt the Member's feelings.

MR. LAUK: Just tell the truth, that's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: "We, the undersigned, protest Bill 42 on the grounds that it does not fit in with our democratic way of life. With legis-

[ Page 1499 ]

lation of this type we could become a socialist state."

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is from Chetwynd. I wonder if some of the Members who are giggling on the opposite side of the House are some of the Members that the man was referring to in his last letter when he said "there must be a few people in that Government that are exercising powers well beyond their numbers.

Here is another letter, It is very simple:

"Kill the land bill. Save our democracy."

Here is another one:

"I wish to register my protest to the pending Bill 42 which is currently under discussion in the House. It is our hope that the Government will come to see the folly of this violent piece of legislation and modify it, if not completely drop it. Your assistance in helping to put pressure in the right areas will be greatly appreciated."

I want the person who wrote that letter to know that that is what I am trying to do.

Another letter from the Cariboo Regional District — one of those regional district governments that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) said were developing an expertise in the designation and the use of land. That is what he said. They are developing an expertise. This is from one of those regional districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn up your hearing aid.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have had your mind closed for so long that you can no longer hear, my friend. You can no longer hear. Closed mind, closed ears.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, there's the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He's going to be walking somewhere pretty soon because the people in his constituency don't want Bill 42 — I'll tell you, he's going to be walking.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's on this side of the House now, all he is going to have to do is move up a little. He knows he is in trouble. His cabinet won't even save him. His Premier won't even save him. All they would have to do is withdraw the bill.

The Premier of this province is leading his backbench to slaughter — to absolute and complete political slaughter!

AN HON. MEMBER: No — to freedom.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now where is all the loyalty, Mr. Speaker? As true as I am standing here, why do the backbench not plead with their Premier to save them before it is too late?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're muzzled.

MR. PHILLIPS: Muzzled: They're more than muzzled. They are going to be slaughtered. Led by the Minister of Agriculture to the slaughterhouse. Led by the Minister of Agriculture and pushed by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return to the subject of the debate?

MR. PHILLIPS: You are one of them, Mr. Speaker.

"I am pleased to enclose for your information a copy of a Press release from this regional district concerning the proposed Land Commission Act, Bill 42. I trust you will find the contents of the Press release interesting."

This is from the Cariboo Regional District.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the protector of the rights. I wonder if he is going to go out and protect these backbench MLA's when they are led to the political slaughterhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're being slaughtered right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Cariboo Regional District, Press release, February 6, 1973: "Cariboo Regional Board Totally Rejects Bill 42."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I proceed now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"After thorough study and analysis…."

Maybe they should term this "from the Cariboo Regional District real estate board" or something.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. No. You would want to put some sinister idea….

[ Page 1500 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair and not engage in dialogue with Members across the way?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll address you and I'm going to continue with this very important thought from the Cariboo Regional Board.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Chirp, chirp, chirp!

"After thorough study and analysis of the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, the Cariboo Regional District Board is opposed to the bill as it stands. Although the regional board is sympathetic to the principle of preserving land for agriculture, the terms of the bill as set out are to be totally unacceptable for the following reasons:

"(1) The proposed land commission is a body comprised of non-elected individuals having extraordinary powers of designation and acquisition….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading a letter!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You are repeating.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am reading a letter from organized civil servants who are elected as you are elected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated? Would you state your point of order please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This Member, in devious ways….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Withdraw that!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …in devious ways — not straightforward…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member in one way or another is repeating the same statements, time after time, hour after hour, day after day. He has made a complete charade of this House and the whole parliamentary system!

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will respond to the point of order. Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River state his point, please?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is very clear. I don't think the Hon. Minister has the right to impute the motives he has on the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — saying that he was devious in his concern with the legislation that we are discussing at this particular time. I think you have a responsibility, in upholding the rights and privileges of Members of this House, to have that Member withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Have that Member withdraw that statement forthwith. We're not going to tolerate that kind of nonsense with the Hon. Member and he knows better, too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) be seated, please? First of all, on the point of order made by the Hon. Member for Columbia River, I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways to withdraw the imputation of "devious."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made no imputation and I withdraw the word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Unconditionally!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made no imputation, and I withdraw the word. Unconditionally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We would assume that the Hon. Minister has unconditionally withdrawn the imputation that there was anything devious in the remark.

Now I would proceed to the point of order made by the Hon. Minister of Highways. I would draw attention to standing order 43 again, which reads as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the Member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

I would now refer to May, page 466, 17th edition. I am merely drawing this to the attention of the Hon. Members — section 6 on page 466:

"A Member who abuses the rules of the House

[ Page 1501 ]

by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forums of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. It would seem, therefore, that a Member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be required under S.O. No. 23," — of the British rules — "to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting. He is, however, guilty of a contempt of the House and may be named."

Now, I would merely draw the attention of the Members to this provision in May. I am sure that the Hon. Member is not intending in any way to obstruct the business of the House, but I would caution him that, inasmuch as he has had a very lengthy speech, that this could very well lead to tedious repetition and to obstruction of the business of the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: When the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says that a letter from a duly elected regional board, opposing legislation which is presently before the Legislature, is out of order, particularly….

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair.]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is exactly what you said! I'm reading a letter from an elected body and you say I'm being devious and repetitious. I am not! I am reading a letter from an elected body. When those people elected out there can't have their input into this Legislature, it will be a worse day than when Bill 42 was introduced. I intend to read the letter. I intend to read every word of it.

"Cariboo Regional Board Totally Rejects Bill 42."

Now, as I told you before, if you'd open your mind, your ears would function. Maybe the Speaker would realize the reason that it takes me so long to get through is because I get continual interruption from the floor. I would suggest that I could have finished my talk a short time ago. (Laughter).

AN. HON. MEMBER: However.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, "after thorough study of analysis of the Land Commission Act, — Bill 42 — the Cariboo Regional District Board is opposed to the bill as it stands. Although the regional board is sympathetic to the principle of preserving land for agriculture, terms of the bill are set out as to be totally unacceptable for the following reasons." I think that's good input, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly pertains to Bill 42.

"The proposed land commission is a body comprised of non-elected individuals having extraordinary powers of designation and acquisition of land or property for farm use, greenbelt, land banks, and parklands.

"(2) The bill does not allow specifically for compensation to be paid for the acquisition of land or property and this could apply to any land or property in British Columbia.

"(3) Land designated as agricultural land must be farmed and no other use is permitted. There is no right of appeal from any decision of the commission regarding the designation or acquisition or use of farmland."

I'm still reading from this input from this duly-elected board in the great Cariboo area. There is no right of appeal from any decision of the commission regarding the designation or acquisition of farmland. The bill is not only a preservation of agriculture lands bill, it is a bill which gives the government control over all land in British Columbia as well as personal property.

"The bill visualizes completely centralized control of all land in British Columbia by the land commission — bureaucratic nightmare for any citizen affected by the legislation. The board is investigating the possibility of arranging an emergency convention in Victoria of representatives of all regional districts through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Failing this, the regional board will endeavour to obtain an appointment with the Minister's concerned to discuss the contentious contents of the bill and suggest more acceptable alternatives."

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the board asks that "all electors in the Cariboo Regional District read Bill 42 and forward their comments to the author of the bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. David Stupich, Parliament Buildings, Victoria."

That, Mr. Speaker, was a letter from a duly-elected regional board. I'm sorry that the Minister of Highways has now left the House because he was the one that was saying that any letter that we had was from some real estate firm. Here's a letter from an individual:

"We wish to register our protest to Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, as it is a disaster and a direct infringement on the personal freedom of every citizen of British Columbia. The only land we own is 50 by 120 ft."

Another letter:

"Dear Don, Ron and I would like you to know that we are opposed to Land Act, Bill 42. It is an infringement on our civil rights even with amendments. We are confident that you will do the best you can in this matter."

[ Page 1502 ]

Lots of input from the citizens, lots of input. Another letter:

"I would like to add my name to the list appearing opposing Bill 42, as it presently reads. I ask that Land Bill 42 be recalled as being unconstitutional. We are in complete disagreement with Bill 42. As a voice in our government we expect you to do your utmost in rejecting this bill."

Well, I'd like the writer of that letter to know that I'm doing something.

"We would appreciate that Bill 42 would be withdrawn from the Land Commission Act. We would like to see agricultural land used as agricultural land and so on. We would like to have our free agency to sell our land to whom we wish and buy land from whom we wish. Also, to use our land the way we feel is right. The way we understand this bill, it will take away our freedom to exercise our free agency. We do hope that our country will continue to be free. We sincerely hope that all Members study this bill thoroughly, and that Bill 42 be withdrawn."

Another letter from the B.C. South Peace River Stockmen's Association. Yes, it's from my own riding.

"Re Bill 42, the Land Commission Act.

On Saturday, March 4, 1973, the directors of the B.C. South Peace River Stockmen's Association met to hear the report submitted by the five-man committee reviewing Bill 42, the proposed Land Commission Act. Based on this report and the resultant discussion, the following is the position of our association.

We concur in principle with the objectives of Bill 42 as outlined in section 7 (a) through (h). But we find the methods of implementing these principles as outlined in Bill 42 unacceptable and recommend that the bill be withdrawn. In redrawing the bill we recommend that consideration be given to the following points: The possible infringement on personal rights by a commission with such a wide range of authority. We recommend that an appeal board or boards be set up to hear grievances from affected landowners with a final right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Since a large portion of land involved in the reserves proposed in the bill is agriculture land, we strongly recommend that at least a majority of the commission members be highly experienced in agriculture. We recommend that commission members be selected in such a manner that they are representative of the different regional areas in British Columbia."

Lots of people, Mr. Speaker, are concerned. Here's one that even drew me a map, drew me a picture. But the intent is still there, Mr. Speaker; the desire is still there in all of the letters. The concerns are the same — the concerns are for their rights, their rights as citizens; concerns that have been hard fought for.

"Stop Bill 42, or at least adjust one out of it. I am a farmer." Here's a letter going to the Premier:

"I am writing to tell you that I am personally displeased with Bill 42 that you are trying to pass in the provincial government. I am not against trying to save parkland, agriculture land, but I am against taking away a person's free agency which this bill, if passed, will do. We, the people of British Columbia, want our free agency and if you try to take it from us you will not be re-elected next term, I can guarantee you that. I think you have smart head on your shoulders and will realize we want and need our freedom of choice."

That was a letter to the Premier, dated March 12.

MR. LAUK: Can't hear you. Stop mumbling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another letter to the Hon. David Stupich:

"I am writing concerning Bill 42, the Land Commission Act. As a farmer, I would like to express that I am totally opposed to the approach taken by the British Columbia government to preserve farmland. The legislation proposed gives the commission sweeping powers with no guarantee that the farmland will in fact be preserved. The Act give the commission the power of expropriation of both real and personal property. I find it hard to believe that government ownership of land is a prerequisite to controlling the development or use of it."

This is a very good point, Mr. Speaker. To control land use, does the Government have to own it?

"I realize that it is difficult to write an Act that will fit the needs of such a diverse province as British Columbia. I'm satisfied that the Government is at least paying lip service to the preservation of the family farm. However, I must point out that this designation of what land may or may not be used for will not guarantee the economic viability of the farming community.

"Much of the land that has been lost from agricultural use in British Columbia has been lost simply because farming was and is a money losing proposition. I would suggest that there now exists in B.C. the vehicle through which unorganized land may be controlled."

He says, Mr. Speaker, that this agency is the regional districts.

"If these were given the latitude to enact bylaws that had teeth in them, the respective regional districts could enact bylaws that would be appropriate to their respective situations.

"The use of land can be effectively controlled by zoning and the issuance or denial of building permits. The Municipal Act gives guarantee of

[ Page 1503 ]

public hearing and recourse to higher authority — something your Land Commission Act does not do."

This farmer knows more about it than some of the lawyers in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: The ones on the opposite side of the House — the one from Vancouver Centre, yes.

"I personally am a firm believer in decentralized governments. I like to be able to know those people whom I elect to govern my affairs. Residents of the community in which they live are usually more in tune to the needs of the community than someone in Victoria."

Isn't that exactly what I said earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker? It's exactly what I said earlier this afternoon. Let the people of the community be masters of their own destiny. Give them the power to effectively plan and control the development of their area, including the preservation of farmland. Local people controlling their own affairs.

"If you are really sincere about preserving the family farm, I would suggest that your department examine what has really been happening to agriculture in B.C. and find a way to give the farmer a reasonable financial return for the food he produces, rather than leave him to their mercy of competition from highly subsidized imports and fluctuations in the international marketplace."

This man, Mr. Speaker, understands why farming is not at the present time a viable economic enterprise. The farmers all over Canada are concerned about preserving farmland. Farming in Canada is in a position where it must compete, without any help from Ottawa, against the US national trade. That, Mr. Speaker, is why farming is not a viable enterprise. It's pretty hard for the farmers in Canada to compete with the United States Treasury.

But if our Government and our Minister of Agriculture would proceed down to Ottawa with the other Ministers of Agriculture and put as much effort into preserving farming as a way of life, which is what they propose to do and what they want to do, they would accomplish something. But with Bill 42 they have accomplished nothing, Mr. Speaker, and they will accomplish nothing so far as the preservation of farmland is concerned.

Another letter:

"Stop the advent of socialism. Stop Bill 42. Keep working for the good of British Columbia. In the name of freedom of rights, stop Bill 42. Keep up the good work. Many thanks."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it's better to keep your mouth quiet and be thought of as you are than to open it and remove all doubt. (Laughter).

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to sum up my thoughts on Bill 42. I'm going to let the case go to the people. There are many, many more pieces of correspondence that I probably should read. There are thousands of them, Mr. Speaker, more than this. They're coming in every day. They're all from concerned people. I'm not going to take the time of the House to read them all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I guess you'd be happy for that because there are letters in here from all political parties. There's a lot of letters in here from people of the NDP who won't be members of the NDP any longer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I just want to point it out to the Members. Mr. Speaker, in my discussions here in the Legislature with regard to Bill 42, I asked the Government to withdraw Bill 42 in the name of justice, in the name of democracy, Mr. Speaker, in the name of all that is right and good and in the name of all that is fair. During the course of my discussions on Bill 42, I have endeavoured to point out that the bill is no good. It's no good for the Government and it's no good for the people. It's no good for the province and it's no good for the farmer. It's no good for the homebuyer; it's not good for the young married couple; it's no good for the labourer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, have mercy on us. Yes, that's a good point. I'd like to ask the Government to have mercy on us; to have mercy on everyone in British Columbia.

The bill will turn those who are trying to preserve the province and its environment — the environmentalists I'm referring to — against the farmer. I pointed out that this was already happening. It will turn the landowner against the tenant dweller. It is an undemocratic bill conceived in haste. I pointed out that it will not save farmland, nor will it help the farmer. It will not increase the production of food. It will not lower the price of food. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, have been well pointed out and backed by research and facts.

I pointed out that there is no population explosion nor is there any shortage of food.

I have pointed out and discussed and explained present legislation already on the statutes of British Columbia that could be used and was being used and could be expanded upon which would do more to

[ Page 1504 ]

preserve farmland than this dictatorial bill.

I also pointed out the feeling of some of the Members of the Government when this legislation that is existing was being passed.

I pointed out that the policies that presently exist in the lands department are aimed at preserving farmland in British Columbia. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that all people of British Columbia should not be punished because of the actions of a few. I think I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the very people that this bill proposes to help are being hurt. I pointed out that this bill takes land away from present landowners in British Columbia and those without land will have no heart, no soul and no spirit.

If this bill passes, in a few years we will be going to the highest courts in the land to get our rights back. All of these things have been pointed out, Mr. Speaker.

If this bill passes, as I said before in the Legislature this evening, I can't even in my wildest dreams think of all the effects of Bill 42. I can't in my wildest dreams — and neither can other people — because it will get into every segment of our well-run society.

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an uprising similar to those by the American Indian. There will be unrest similar to that unrest which is now being experienced by the Canadian Indian and the aborigines in Australia.

All this, Mr. Speaker, was well documented. I pointed out that the bill should have further discussion and that Members of the cabinet, when in Opposition, stated that anything as serious as land reform should be studied for at least a year, with proper hearings throughout the province. I pointed out that this bill has cast all British Columbians into a spell of despondency — into hell on earth. Some of the correspondence here tonight backs that up.

I have asked the NDP backbenchers to judge this bill with their conscience and not their politics.

Mr. Speaker, for a final time I request in the name of fair play that Bill 42 be withdrawn and I petition the government to be even-handed and to see that everyone in British Columbia gets a fair deal.

Withdraw the bill now and go to the people, so that the damage can be halted. What has been done can't be undone entirely. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, with an honest and sincere effort by that Government they can endeavour to undo and to put back and to make amends for some of the hardships that have been caused to all the people of British Columbia.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my place now. I have pointed out as well as I can for all the people of British Columbia, for all the good people in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I promise first of all that I will not impose on the people of this House the way the individual who has just taken his place has done. I promise the Members of this House that I will deal with the issues involved in this bill. I promise the Members of this House that I will not follow the lead that was given by the Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who embarked on a deliberate attempt to frustrate and destroy the democratic parliamentary system in British Columbia.

We have listened to 12 hours of verbal meandering and yammering that took us to Vietnam, Australia, Chile, Wounded Knee and a long list of places completely irrelevant to this legislation, which I agree is important legislation.

It is not the first time that land bills have been before this House. It is not the first time that they have been classified as utopian legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Is that the Doomsday Book?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, this is in the Victoria Daily Colonist of May 9, 1917.

"Land Bill is Utopian. 'Utopian legislation' was the way W. J. Bowers, the Leader of the Opposition, dubbed the Land Settlement Act which the Hon. John Oliver introduced in the Legislature."

And he goes on and he says:

"Well, doubtless the Minister was actuated by good motives, but the measure as submitted was most impractical. It placed in the hands of the Minister powers such as were never enjoyed by a Minister before…."

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What happened to 1918?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So there's nothing new under the sun except that in one column that particular Opposition lead speaker said as much as my predecessor on the floor tonight said in 12 hours — in 12 hours and 20 minutes.

I might have accepted a speech like that from a Member of some other party, but I certainly will not accept that kind of speech from a Member of the party that in this House, time after time, brought in legislation which denied everything that Member pretended he was standing for when he was speaking here.

I won't go into the details of the B.C. Electric take-over. But I want to remind that Member of the kind of legislation and the power inherent in that legislation that was brought in by the previous administration.

Now I want you to remember every word he said about the meaning of certain words that are con-

[ Page 1505 ]

tained in Bill 42, then I want you to ask yourselves — was that man putting forth a shallow political charade, or was he actually examining the legislation against a background of legislation that is the law of this province and which he was a part of, and that group were a part of? Because that's how you determine the meaning of words in legislation.

That Member asked this House and asked this Government to judge this bill with their conscience and not their politics. To judge this bill with their conscience and not their politics! That was a straight political examination of that bill completely without conscience if ever I had heard one.

Let's look a the legislation that's already on the statue books; let's look at the wording in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act which he talked so much about. What does it say?

"The Minister of Finance may appoint a person or persons to advise him with respect to expenditure of money from the Green Belt Protection Fund established under this Act and to make recommendations respecting" — this awful word — "the acquisition of land."

The acquisition of land! What a terrible thing that is. But Bill 42 talks about "acquiring." The Green Belt Protection Fund Act uses exactly the same phraseology. But it wasn't a commission; it wasn't five men. It was one man — The Minister of Finance. Who was he? The Premier of the province. One man — not five men.

I had these people across the way in regard to other legislation say: "Oh, if you're going to have the government do something in this field, you shouldn't have a Minister on the board. You should have a non-political commission of some kind way off on its own. You shouldn't have any politician anywhere near it." That's what they said. But under the legislation that they themselves brought into power, one man — the Premier of the province and Minister of Finance — "acquisition of such lands by Her Majesty in right to the province."

What could they do? "The establishment of those lands as areas to be used for parklands…for lease for farming purposes or for any other purpose designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

SOME. HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now where's the "powerhouse" legislation?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is that what you prefer? One man? Acquisition? The money for certain things? Or "for any other purpose designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?" I'll stack the democracy of Bill 42 up against that legislation any day. Any day!

They want a separate commission, the say, about other legislation; there shouldn't be any politician on it.

MR. GARDOM: You voted for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Next section: "The Lietenant-Governor-in-Council may from…. . "

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. GARDOM: You did. You voted for it, not us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order, order, order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you check you'll find it in the 9th…. O.K.

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may from time to time make such regulations not inconsistent with this Act as he may deem necessary or advisable for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according to their intent."

The accelerated reforestation fund….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's all right. I'm talking about the legislation. I know what happened. But to hear these people talk about the wordings of legislation when they brought in the same kind of legislation — worse. I know what the record shows. I've already checked the record, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

"Moneys for the purpose of an accelerated forest improvement programme in the province, including the land acquired…."

Get that word "acquired" again. Then:

"The Minister of Finance again may appoint a person or persons to advise him with respect to the expenditure of moneys from the accelerated reforestation fund and a person appointed under this section… "

What was he going to do?

"…have the duties prescribed by the Minister of Finance."

One man! One man was going to tell them what to do.

Now there's indignation about Bill 42 in the fact of that legislation that they themselves brought in. It's a phony charade for political purposes; a phony

[ Page 1506 ]

charade, except that this time it's true. And this section….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Members should be accusing each other of "phony charades." I think it's been ruled out before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, well, in that case I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I will not refer to it as "Pecksniffian cant" either. That was ruled out of order in the House of Commons about 1863, I think.

"This Act comes into force on royal assent, but if the Act does not receive royal assent until after the 31st day of March, 1972, it shall be deemed to have come into force on that date and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions on or after that date."

"Retroactive," "acquiring," "one man," going on to tell his advisor what he could or could not do. Then you talk about the power in Bill 42! Some of you in the backbench over there should remember that there is a history in this province; that there has been legislation introduced. And when you examine legislation you examine against the whole background and the nominal wording of legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Why did you vote for it, Bob?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pointing out to them that this legislation they're complaining about is not as bad as the legislation they themselves introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then why did you vote for it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because I knew they were going to be defeated and we were going to be the Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But they talk about the sanctity of the ownership of the land and that Member pleaded with us to be fair to farmers, farmland; withdraw the bill in the name of democracy, in the name of what's right and what is fair.

In 1961 they brought in some legislation, an Act Respecting Compensation for Certain Lands. Here it is. This was a case where the Department of Highways had expropriated a farmer's land, 100-odd acres of choice farmland in the Fraser Valley. The owner was not satisfied with the price offered by the department, so it went to arbitration under the laws of this province. And the farmer won his case.

The Department of Highways appealed it to, I think it was the Supreme Court.

AN. HON. MEMBER: No, they obtained an order from the Supreme Court on it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: O.K. They obtained an order from the Supreme Court and it was ratified by the Supreme Court. The government of the day didn't like the fact that this particular owner of the land had won his case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. You listen to me and you'll find that most of what I say is correct. Sometimes I say you're a nice chap, but that's open to debate.

What happened after that? In comes a bill, Bill 77, in 1961. In comes a bill to reduce the payment being made to that farmer by $200,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The only known case.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only known case ever where they brought in legislation to rob a landowner of $200,000 awarded to him by arbitration and ratified by the courts.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Let the farmers beware.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is why they're afraid of any legislation affecting land, because they know how they acted. They don't realize that there's a Government in power that wouldn't act that way.

I'll tell you too, Mr. Speaker, why I say that act they've just gone through is a charade. I want to remind you of what happened in this House a few weeks ago. That Minister introduced Bill 42. A week later this House, including that Member who just finished speaking and every Member of that official Opposition, stood up on a vote of confidence in that Minister.

Every one of them stood up. There's the record in Hansard. When the Conservatives made a motion of non-confidence in that Minister, you stood up and voted confidence in that Minister one week after he brought the bill in. There's the record.

MR. CHABOT: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Shall I read the report of that vote?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Didn't you know what you were voting on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. There he is, right there. March 1, 1973, a week after the bill was

[ Page 1507 ]

introduced, a motion of non-confidence in that Minister. And you and every Member of your group voted confidence in the Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read the names. Who voted Aye: Liden, Lea, Brown, Williams, Kelly, Skelly, Anderson, Lewis, Lauk, Nunweiler, Anderson, Brousson, Radford, Webster, Gabelmann, Stupich, McGeer, Nimsick, Smith, Morrison, King, Barrett, Richter, Fraser, Lorimer, Gorst, Sanford, Hartley, Strachan, Jordan, McClelland, Cocke, Macdonald, Cummings, Steves, Levi, Young, Schroeder, Calder, Dailly, Chabot…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …Phillips.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: R.A. Williams, Hall, D'Arcy, Barnes.

MR. CHABOT: Is that on the Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Paired were Gardom and Nicolson; two against were Curtis and Wallace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They voted confidence in the Minister a week after he brought the bill in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not the way we've been getting it this last little while.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how everyone says that they believe that something has to be done to save farmland. Everybody says something has to be done to save farmland. But the minute anybody wants to do something about it, then they start up that road of reasons why, this, that and everything else.

You say, "Why don't you run around the province for another year or two years?" You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a royal commission in 1958 on the tree fruit industry of the Province of British Columbia. In 1958 — 15 years ago. It was obvious what was happening to agriculture and agricultural land.

It was obvious in 1958 that what this province required were great programmes to make agriculture an economic operation in the Province of British Colombia. Fifteen years later they hadn't brought in a single programme to help the farmer economically. Fifteen years! I pointed out in an earlier speech that this Minister has set up the staff now to embark on the new programme — as a beginning.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's research, there's all the rest of it in those estimates, you take a look at it.

Here's a quote from that royal commission.

"Over the last two decades there has been a continuous division of property into smaller and smaller orchard units.

This is in '58.

"This has resulted in the creation of a large number of orchards in which as illustrated in table 24, the average grower can at most expect that his investment in the property will provide him with a house and garden, and enough cash to pay the depreciation on the equipment that he needs for his orchard operations. For his livelihood he must look outside the farm. Table 22. The finding being that an average indicates that there will be some growers who will make a small income, but there will equally be growers who are subsidizing their orchards from their earnings off the farm."

The same royal commission, on page 799, talks about the financial assistance:

"Despite the long history of the withdrawal of farmers in other areas of British Columbia from fruit growing, I am convinced that it is in the interest of the province and the Dominion to keep this industry alive in at least parts of the Okanagan, the Similkameen, and in the Creston Valley."

Fifteen years ago the commissioner gave a resume of his opinion after that exhaustive study and said, "It's in the interest of the province and the Dominion to keep agriculture alive in the Province of British Columbia."

These are people in this province who are prepared to write agriculture off in the Province of British Columbia. There are people in this province, and sitting in this House, who obviously don't want to preserve agriculture as a way of life in the Province of British Columbia. But not this Government. Not this Government! There are people in this province, there are people in this House who are prepared to abandon agriculture to the exploiters and the land grabbers, but not this Government. Not this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) keeps saying "tell the truth" which is an inference that someone is not telling the truth. And I ask him to refrain hereafter.

[ Page 1508 ]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: It is very serious allegation and inference on the part of that Minister when he's speaking, that Members of this assembly are unconcerned about the preservation of agriculture in this province….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. There is a rule of order….

MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to take any nonsense from him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! On a point of order, if you have…. Silence, please! If any Member offends against the rules in this House, you stand on a point of order. You did not stand on a point order. If you objected to what that Member was saying then you stand on a point of order, and you make your point of order. But you don't continue to, in effect, accuse another Member of not telling the truth. My objection is your constant doing that, despite my request that you refrain.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order. I would like to ask the Member who was speaking just a few moments ago to withdraw and retract the inference that he left that individual Members of this assembly are not concerned with the preservation of agriculture in this province. You passed the reflection against Members of this assembly and you have no right to do that. You should withdraw that. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you have that Member withdraw that inference.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you are both subject to the same rule. I want both of you to stop any inference against the other, or against other Members of the House. Would you please proceed with the speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would withdraw any inference that has upset the Members. I am happy he voted confidence in the Minister. I will judge that Member's attitude toward agriculture in British Columbia on whether he votes for or against this bill. And anyone who votes against this bill is selling agriculture in B.C. down the river, down the river!

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that affects every person in British Columbia. Not in the way these Members have misled the people; not in the way these Members have misled the people; not in the way people have been misled. This bill first of all makes it very clear it doesn't apply to anything less than two acres. That's right in there — two, two. This bill does not allow for expropriation.

MR. PHILLIPS: No it doesn't — it is confiscation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't talk utter rot for any longer than you have already done so, my friend.

My friend mentioned something about the Bar association. Tonight's paper gives some pointers on Bill 42. I know you didn't have time to read it, you were otherwise engaged.

"Bill 42, the proposed Land Commission Act has the objective of bringing development in rural and undeveloped areas under control, an objective that is very important for the future of this province. Unfortunately erroneous information about the legal effects of this bill is obscuring the real issues. We would like to correct some of the erroneous information…."

It's signed by two law professors.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't you like law professors? You were quoting the law society my friend. These are the people who teach the members of the law society. It says:

"The language is not sufficient to give the Government the right to expropriate land. Powers to expropriate may be conferred only by clear and explicit statutory language."

Clear and explicit statutory language is the only way that expropriation powers can be conferred.

My friend, it doesn't allow confiscation; it doesn't allow expropriation; it does allow for compensation because there is approximately $60 million in there for that purpose. People have been misled with statements by Members outside of this House into believing that it wasn't going to be that kind of compensation.

But I want to point, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out….

MR. GARDOM: Read the rest of the paragraph.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've read the last paragraph.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'd be getting into the field of amendments. That's right — the last paragraph.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What is intended and what should be the consequences of such a designation. That's right, no questions about it.

Interjections by an Hon. Member

[ Page 1509 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. No. You're frozen solid, my friend. You fell through the ice. You fell right through the ice. And you're looking for somebody to give you a ladder to get out of that hole you're in right now, my friend.

This bill does affect every citizen in this province. Every citizen in this province has a vested interest in the land of British Columbia. Every citizen in this province over the years has been contributing financially to the protection of farmland in the Province of British Columbia.

Look at the answer to the question on the order paper — I think it was today, or yesterday — where it indicates very clearly that between the province and the federal government $25 million, Mr. Speaker, for what purpose? For what purpose? There's the map of the Fraser Valley. $25 million of public funds to protect the farmland of the Fraser Valley.

Now I'm asking the people of British Columbia: do they want us to spend $25 million dollars on top of the hundreds of millions we have spent to protect the farmlands of the Fraser Valley so that it could be subdivided by some exploiter? Is that what we're spending that money for?

Every citizen is contributing dollars to protect farmland. This bill is designed to protect that farmland as farmland. The Member for Similkameen (Mr. Richter) — right now there is a highways crew in his constituency spending public money on the banks of a river to protect farmland.

Are we going to spend public money protecting farmland so some exploiter-promoter can grab it up and build a shopping center on it? Is that what we are spending public funds for — to protect farmland so it can be used right up and blacktopped over?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not on your life! Not on your life we're not. We believe in agriculture in the Province of British Columbia and we'll fight to save agriculture in the Province of British Columbia.

We will not destroy British Columbia as you were letting it be destroyed, my friend.

All over North American today people realize that the quality of life, the quality of life, Mr. Speaker, depends on the ability to preserve an aesthetic surrounding. I want to quote to you from….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about preserving farmland, my friend. And keeping the….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Look, look. If you think….

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): That's river protection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not so it can be blacktopped. This bill is to prevent it from being blacktopped. If you vote against the bill you're voting for the blacktop of every farm of the Fraser Valley, Cawston, Keremeos — and the whole thing.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All over North America, Mr. Speaker, people are beginning to realize that if they want to preserve a quality to life, want to preserve surroundings worth living in, want to preserve the kind of country where people can have the release from the tensions of a mass humanity.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh for God's sake! I want to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, from a message to the 57th Legislative Assembly by the Governor of Oregon, Tom McCall. Four paragraphs and he's talking about land and he's talking about the quality of life too. He said:

"But there is a shameless threat to environment under the whole quality of life. Unfettered despoiling of the land — sagebrush subdivisions, coastal condominiums and the ravenous rampage of suburbia in the Williamette valley all threatened to mock Oregon's status as the environmental model of the nation.

"We are dismayed that we have not stopped misuse of the land, our most valuable finite natural resource. Umbrage at blatant disrespect for sound planning is not taken only at Salem. Less than a month ago the Jefferson County commissioners appealed to me for a moratorium on subdivisions because the speculators had outrun local capacity for rational control."

That's part of the problem we face in British Columbia — especially in the Okanagan. The speculators had outrun local capacity for rational control.

"We are in dire need of a State land use policy, new subdivision laws and new standards for planning and zoning by cities and counties. The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected from grasping wastrels of the land."

[ Page 1510 ]

The same Governor gave a speech just recently which indicated too, even more forcibly, what we face in the Province of British Columbia.

In this speech he said:

"The issue this year is whether we can morally justify forcing the next generation to pay the price of a failure of this generation to properly respect the land. Can we ask the next generation to pay the price of this generation failing to respect the land? State-wide land use planning will come eventually.

"Three states are in the league with the future. Vermont, Hawaii and Florida have adopted State land use plans."

Then he says that the phrase "land use planning" is well understood by speculators and that's why they don't want any of it. Then he says that there is a bill before the Oregon Senate right now, Bill No. 100 — which does specifically what this bill proposes to do — set aside, designate critical areas. He says, "I believe Oregonians will join me in support of Senator McPherson's bill."

All over North America they're facing the same problem. He says:

"Urban growth and the abuse of farmland is barely less than rampant. The states need to take some heat off of local officials who too often find themselves forced to crumble to economic interests. The states also need to retrieve control so that adequate supplies of land for large site development can continue to be available and so that some of our land can be permanent reserve for open space and recreation.

"We must recognize that we have increasing limited supplies of land and we must regard it as more than a commodity.

"I think it is fair to ask whether we are too late. Perhaps we're in the eleventh inning of a game that lasted only for 9."

In this province I think we still have time.

This Government had two choices. Do nothing, and see British Columbia destroyed or bring in legislation as we did in an effort to preserve the kind of British Columbia we want to preserve.

The Minister and Premier made it very clear. At no time did we claim perfection for this legislation because it is pathfinder legislation. We ask for input; we ask for suggestions; we ask for help; we ask for amendments.

Anyone in this province who agrees with us that British Columbia is worth saving as a place with some quality of life will accept our request for help rather than embark on the kind of maundering diatribe, name-calling misinformation that we've been subjected to in this House.

Everybody says that something must be done, but nobody wants anybody to do anything about it. That's what you're saying. "Withdraw the bill." "Throw it away." "Come back in a while." "Kill the bill; kill the land; destroy the province." We are not going to allow that to happen to British Columbia.

My friends across the way got a message from the Nanaimo Liberal group. They said to the leader of the Liberal party, "Don't be stupid, support the bill." "Read your own policy," they said. They said. "Stand up for British Columbia and its future."

Mr. Speaker, we decided to take some action. They say, "It can't be amended, withdraw the bill." Mr. Speaker, anyone who says "withdraw the bill, it can't be amended" wants to abandon B.C.'s future.

The whole parliamentary democratic system is composed of bringing in legislation, listening to the debate, accepting suggestions that come out of debate and bringing in amendments. That's the function of second reading of the bill.

We certainly didn't get any recommendations or suggestions from across the way. Mr. Speaker, zoning as we have had it until now hasn't really worked. If you go out into this province you would see that land was never developed because that was the place to have it developed.

Land was developed because there happened to be a piece of land for sale there. The developer bought it and then went to the local council, put the pressure on them to have it rezoned. It was rezoned. Here was a shopping centre or whatever it happened to be which then created problems to the community, school, sewer, water — the whole bit. This bill does give an opportunity to get some rationale into the development in the Province of British Columbia.

This does not take away anyone's right of ownership to the land. It doesn't take away any farmer's right to own and work his farm. But out there some of the Members have led the farmers to believe that this bill does that. It does nothing of the kind and anyone who has read the bill knows that.

This bill only applies to land that's designated. It allows for lands to be undesignated as is required for other purposes. The wording, as was pointed out, has been in legislation for years. The intent of this bill is to preserve the land of British Columbia. Other jurisdictions recognize the urgency and the lateness of the hour. This is a bill that will, in my opinion, be the turning point in the history of British Columbia.

This is a bill that says to the people of this province, "We are determined to keep British Columbia beautiful." This bill does none of the dire things that others have been saying for political reasons. I suggest to the Members across the way that they get on the side of British Columbia and British Columbia's future.

This is a serious attempt by a responsible government to do the right thing for the future of British Columbia and it's prepared to stand or fall on this bill. We want your help. We've asked for your suggestions. You have given nothing except condem-

[ Page 1511 ]

nation and diatribe. I suggest to you that when the time comes that we face the people of this province in an election and they realize how you misled them, you will be down the tube for sure and British Columbia will survive.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. "Alas, poor Robert. I knew him." He's a pale shadow of what he once was. (Laughter).

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a turning point for British Columbia. That's why it should be very carefully and seriously debated. Having heard from two Ministers of the Crown, two Members of the cabinet rank, I regret that we have scarcely heard one favourable comment about the principle of Bill 42. I listened very carefully to what the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) had to say. It comes down to this: "We're in trouble; we need help."

Well, Mr. Speaker, they certainly are. I do not see why, throughout the course of these past few weeks, when they have had the opportunity, the Government has not clearly indicated to this Legislature and to the people of this province that they really sincerely do want help. The Hon. Minister of Highways and the Premier know exactly how that help can come best from this Legislature. That is to indicate now that following the second reading of this bill, it will be sent to committee for the purpose of careful consideration — a special committee and public hearings, if need be, around this province — so that all Members of this Legislature on a non-partisan basis, on which committees function, can consider all the aspects of this legislation, receive responsible submissions as to its improvement, and bring the bill back with amendments.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to hear these backbenchers who sit in their seats and gabble. They talk about, "Come to Mission tomorrow night and we'll tell you what the amendments are." But, Mr. Speaker, it is only when the amendments are brought onto the orders of this House and are debated in this assembly that we can deal with the matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There'll be lots of hearings.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Lots of hearings" — no hearing by any properly constituted committee of this Legislature.

The Members who sit on the Government side — the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows that significant legislation passed in previous years in the department which is now his responsibility came into this House in bad shape and came back to this House from committee far better than when it was first introduced. He was an active participant in the committees which studied both of the mining Acts. They came back improved as a result of the contribution which he and other Members made sitting in committee. Yet we're not to have this opportunity.

OK, you want help. Well, if you want help on the floor of the House, then perhaps we can get on with the debate in principle and provide you with some. But first, however, I would like to respond to an invitation that the Minister of Agriculture made when he opened the debate. He wanted Members to disclose their land holdings, not 10 or 20 years ago but right now.

OK, I own some land. My house is on it. It's 90 foot frontage and it's about 144 feet deep. It's got a lawn and some shrubs and a house and a carport and a patio and that's it. So that's my land holdings, Mr. Speaker. I just hope that all Members who rise in this debate will tell us what lands they own. All of the cabinet Ministers, all of the senior civil servants, all of the senior officers of the Crown corporations right now should let us know what lands they hold, what implications this legislation may have for them and what advantage it might be if this bill is passed into law, as a result of the lands that they hold.

And right now, Mr. Speaker, before this debate proceeds any further, I think that while it hasn't passed, the public disclosure bill that was introduced by the Hon. Attorney General in respect of land should be made applicable to this debate. Let's have public declaration right now of all the senior officials and the lands that they hold, and particularly of the cabinet Ministers. I think we're entitled to know.

When he opened this debate, the Minister clearly indicated to me that he didn't know what was in the bill. Of course, within the first three or four days following the introduction of this bill, the Attorney General was caught on radio — maybe off guard — but he didn't know what was in the bill either. Now we have the Hon. Minister of Highways rising in this debate….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It turned out I did know and Webster didn't.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no, you didn't know. Almost the exact quote was, when the question was raised about no right of appeal, the Hon. Attorney General was, "Well, that must be in there."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it is.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it isn't in there. There's no

[ Page 1512 ]

right of appeal in that bill and you know it. There's no right of appeal at all — none whatsoever.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read between the lines. (Laughter)

Interjections by some Hon. Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture — it's unbelievable — said that it was the intention and objective of this commission that they were to establish to maintain and establish economically sound small farms. He admitted that there were some problems in the bill. He said, Mr. Speaker — and I'm quoting from Hansard — "From the beginning we said we'd listen." Then he said the most revealing thing: "There's precious little of any value in this Act to listen to." And he's right. There really is precious little of any value in this Act to listen to.

But they've continued to suggest to the people in this province that they were anxious to listen. Some of the Members of their own party don't seem to have got the message. The Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) spoke in his constituency and said: "This bill has been made more controversial by certain people. We will not listen to arguments put forward by the Union of B.C. Municipalities because that group is loaded with real estate types who are only interested in their own welfare."

So they're not going to listen to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. His reason for that is because it's "loaded with real estate types who are only interested in their own welfare." That's all that he said.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's the full Press report of what the Member said. So, while saying they wouldn't listen to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities as to any concern they had about this legislation, at the same time he committed a mass slander upon all of the members of the Union of British Colombia Municipalities — elected officials throughout this entire province. That's the way this Government proposes to listen.

We saw how they listened last Thursday, when the Federation of Agriculture came to present their brief. The Minister of Agriculture and the Premier hastily met them on the steps and took their brief and away they went. And that's listening, I suppose. Well, it's just not quite good enough for a bill which the Minister of Highways says is a "turning point in the Province of British Columbia."

It's a matter of big concern to me that we should be debating the legislation in this atmosphere because, so far as land use is concerned, for five years of debate in this House I urged the former administration to adopt some sensible policies for land use. And they refused. Year after year, I spoke in debates urging the establishment of a land use commission which could stop some of the wasteful practices that have gone on for the use of land in British Columbia.

It's strange, you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Minister of Highways saw fit to pick up the one word out of Bill 42, dealing with acquiring, and criticized the Member for South Peach (Mr. Phillips) who spoke in debate because he found something wrong with the phrase "acquire by any means whatsoever." The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) pointed out that the word "acquire" was in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act.

I would just point out to the Members that when it came to a vote on the Green Belt Protection Fund Act there was a division, and the Minister and the Hon. Premier don't seem to remember how the division went. But on second reading of that bill to adopt a Green Belt Protection Fund Act which the Minister was criticizing, it is noteworthy that all of the Members of the House voted in favour of the bill, including Williams, R.A., Cocke, Hartley, Lorimer, Barrett, Dailly, Dowding, Macdonald — everybody except for five. There were five who voted against that bill — Brousson, Clark, McGeer, Williams, L.A. and Gardom.

The Minister also mentioned the Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act. And you know the same thing happened. When it came to a vote there was a division. Everybody voted in favour of that Act, with all of those terrible powers that were in it. Everybody except four — Brousson, Gardom, McGeer and Williams, L.A.

So you see, it is obvious that the government of the day is prepared to copy the kind of legislative activity that we had from the government of the previous day — the kind of legislation which the government of the day, when they were in Opposition, saw fit to criticize.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of British Columbia, that it's no longer good enough to say that what we're doing in this bill was what was done by the previous administration. The people of this province, the farmers of this province — those who are concerned about the wasteful use of the land

[ Page 1513 ]

resource — want something better than we had before.

All you're giving them is the same old thing — the same heavy-handed governmental action. They're disappointed, and you should do something better, and you can. You can, however, only if you are prepared to set aside what I think is the basic problem, and that is the socialist philosophy that you hold, which stands in the way of clear understanding of what is needed in order to resolve this problem of the use of land.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just glad that the Hon. Member who insists on speaking from his seat asked me what the proposal is, because if the Government is seriously interested in hearing proposals, seriously put forward, without any concern at all except to improve this legislation, then perhaps they would listen.

I have some proposed changes to this bill. They are not in the form of amendments, but they will be and they can be.

I suggest, first of all, that the commission to be established should be independent from cabinet control.

I urge the Members to look at another significant commission established under the legislation of this province — the Purchasing Commission. It has its own Act. The Purchasing Commission is in a very sensitive role and I ask you all to consider how the Purchasing Commission is appointed, and the term of its appointment. It is appointed not at the pleasure of the cabinet — it is appointed on good behaviour, and is removable only upon address by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the Legislative Assembly.

This independent commission which is to concern itself with land use in this province should be free from the controls of this or any other cabinet. If it is truly to do a job in the Province of British Columbia, then let it be responsible to this assembly. Let us not create any more Crown corporations that are kept away from this assembly. Let us determine how its actions shall be governed.

Let it report to this assembly annually, within a fixed time after the end of its fiscal year or within a fixed time after the beginning of the next Legislative Assembly following the end of that fiscal year.

Let it come to us for their budget, too. Let them tell us how much money they wish to spend in the succeeding year, and for what purpose. Let them justify the millions of dollars that are already in this Bill 42, in the same way that each one of the cabinet Ministers must, in this committee, justify the money which they expect to spend. That's a start.

Let's have an independent commission. Let's not have one like the one in this bill, which makes its own rules and regulations and establishes its own bylaws.

Let us spell out in the legislation precisely how it will conduct its business. Let us spell out if there will be public meetings of that commission. Let us be sure that they cannot do their business in secret.

So far as membership is concerned, let us have five members, appointed by and responsible to this assembly, and let us have another five appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council out of a group nominated by the regional districts of this province. Then we have not only an active working commission which we appoint responsible to us, but we have members of that commission who reach out into all regions of this province and who bring the kind of knowledge and experience necessary for this commission to do its job.

Now, what is this commission going to do? I say, take away the power that's in this Bill 42 for that commission to designate land on its own for any purpose. Instead, I suggest that it embark upon the most worthwhile of exercises — first of all, to make an accurate inventory, and it will be of great assistance. But let us have an assessment of land capability in British Columbia.

Is all the land that we look as we drive through this lower part of the island really farmland? Does anybody really know? Is it the case in Surrey? Is it the case in Delta? Let's have an assessment made of land capability. Let us have, at the same time an accurate programme for land use requirements today, and over the next 10 and 20 years in British Columbia. How much land do we require for farming purposes? How much land do we require for industrial purposes? For roads, for railroads, for transmission lines? How do we apply, how do we take this land use and make adequate provision for the expansion of our communities? How do we envelop them with greenbelts? What lands do we need for parkland? Those are the kind of assessments that I want this commission to make.

Having made such assessment of capability and use forecasts, then I ask this commission — and I would empower such a commission to prepare for each geographical region in this province a land use plan, based upon their experience, their examination, and with that plan then to consult all of the municipalities and regional districts in that geographical region, to hold public hearings so that any person who wishes to see what is proposed can see and can be heard.

Following those examinations that plan should be recommended by the commission to the Legislative Assembly for adoption as an official plan.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) hasn't read the bill — unless he knows something that we don't know. But

[ Page 1514 ]

certainly what I am proposing is not in the legislation. The power that this legislation gives to this commission is for it to designate, and that, Mr. Speaker, is counter-democratic and should not be allowed in this province.

Let them function as a planning body. Let them bring expertise to bear upon what the land use requirements may be. Let them consult and hold public hearings. But let this assembly finally determine whether the results of their labours should be adopted as an official plan.

Once having been adopted as an official plan, the commission would continue its exercise, because it's obvious that from time to time changes in this plan will be required. But let us be certain, Mr. Speaker, that if changes are to be made they are also made on recommendation from the commission to this assembly, where debate can be held and we may determine the manner in which the commission has performed its responsibility.

Now having produced such a plan, and with the assembly having adopted it as an official plan, there are two things obvious. At the outset some people will suffer loss of value for their land by reason of the designations contained in the official plan. I suggest that those people who lose value should be compensated. It must be demonstrable loss; but they are entitled to be compensated. Because if for the general good we are to take this kind of action and we are to direct for the future the way in which the land resource is to be used for the general good of the people of this province, then no single individual should be obliged to pay the cost of that general benefit.

But there is the other side of the coin. Again because of the adoption of an official plan, there are some owners of land who will find that their land has been enhanced in value because of that plan, because of the use which is permitted for that land. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this commission must also be empowered to require the owners of land whose value is increased to pay a portion of that increment into a fund under the control of the commission to be used to defray the costs that they pay for those property owners who suffer loss of value.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture says, "How can you do it?"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's being done in the City of Vancouver today and it's being done in the Municipality of West Vancouver as well where, Mr. Speaker, if I may have an aside to the Minister of Agriculture, developers are going to the councils of these two areas and saying, "We want to have special zoning rights."

The councils are saying to them, "If you want us to give you rights which enhance the value of your property, then we want to share with you in the benefits of that enhanced value." And steps are being taken to carry it out.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I am not spelling out the precise words of the amendments. I am only indicating the direction which the Government should take in order to improve this legislation.

With respect to the matter of value, I say that there should be no expropriation powers in the hands of the commission. There's been a lot of debate as to what words in this Act mean. It's been suggested by various people, Mr. Speaker, that the words used in the Act don't give any right of expropriation. Well, I've looked very carefully though the report on expropriation produced by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, 1971. True, as you read what they say it would seem to indicate that the words "otherwise acquire" don't perhaps confer a power of expropriation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't. I'll read the words: "The mere granting of a power to purchase or otherwise acquire cannot be regarded as conferring a power to expropriate." Those are the words. That's right.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you can't be much clearer than that.

I pose you a riddle, Mr. Speaker: Why does the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) always speak from a sitting position?

Answer: That's the way he makes the most scents. He never rises in this House unless he's making a point of odour. It would be interesting to hear him speak in debate, just once, before the session is over.

MR. LAUK: All right. You sit down.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would also point out to you that the report of the Law Reform Commission says, with regards to these words: "The effect of the words used in conferring a power to acquire land may have to be determined by examining the context in which they are used in order to discover whether a power to expropriate has been conferred."

Therefore, the decision — the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, that if there is to be a power of expropriation it should be set forth clearly, results from the concern they have that while the

[ Page 1515 ]

words "otherwise acquire" — and I bend to the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — cannot be regarded as giving the right of expropriation. Nevertheless, when you consider the whole statute, the doubt is nonetheless left. In order to assure that there is no doubt over such an important aspect, it should be clearly spelled out in the Act. There should be no debate upon such a matter as that.

It's also interesting, when you look at the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission as far as compensation is concerned, that they indicated that once an expropriating authority reveals its intentions it may become difficult or virtually impossible for an owner to sell his property. The owner may be "locked in" his property. That's exactly what this commission as proposed in Bill 42 does. By exercising the powers of designation, it "locks" people in their property

The Law Reform Commission suggested that in such circumstances compensation should be granted.

You know, the Law Reform Commission's report on expropriation has had an interesting history. I remember in the first parliament in which I sat the then First Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. T. Berger), who later unfortunately became leader of the New Democratic Party, and later fortunately became a Member of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, spoke in this House about the expropriation laws of this province. He talked about the fact that we have some 22-odd bills giving expropriating powers.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. WILLIAMS: He spoke movingly about the need for expropriation reform. Yet, when we finally got a Law Reform Commission established and they brought in a report on expropriation, it went to committee. Understandably, it was approached with some sensitivity by Members of the Government, particularly in the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even Williams.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

But surprisingly enough, it was not acceptable to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). It went too far.

Now, when we read Bill 42, we see why that Member, when he was in Opposition, was not prepared to accept the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on expropriation two years ago, in 1971; because if he had we wouldn't have been able to have this kind of legislation in Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WILLIAMS: In addition to those suggestions that I make with regard to the improvement of Bill 42, may I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that before we take this major change of direction so far as land use in British Columbia is concerned, there is certain other companion legislation which this government must present.

First and foremost we must stop talking about Bill 42 being a bill to help the farmer. It doesn't do anything for the farmer except to lock him into his land. Clear and simple. That's all it does. Bill 42 is a land commission act. Bill 42 deals with land and it ignores human beings and it ignores farmers.

You can preserve every square inch of farmland in British Columbia, whether it is highly productive or marginally productive. You can freeze it as farmland from now until the end of time, but it's now worth one plugged nickel unless you put a farmer on the land. Therefore if we're taking this direction for land use you must bring in companion legislation which will improve the economic conditions of the farmer of this province — which will enable the farmers of this province to carry on their particular farming choice economically and to receive the proper return from their labours.

Now I listened to this gaggle from the backbench of the Government party saying "Right on", and I say, as other speakers have said where is the legislation from this Government which is going to improve the economic position of the farmer?

You are going to change the coloured gasoline tax. Is this his relief? Not one piece of legislation to accompany this, to show the farmers of this province that the Government is serious when it says that it's going to improve the economic conditions of the farmer. Promises, promises, promises. That's all that we've had. That's all that the farmers have had from the previous administration, too.

But there's no point of arguing, as I said before, about whether the previous government didn't do it — that's not the argument that helps the farmer. Let's see the legislation that's really going to enable to farmer to turn his labours to productive use.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it might not even be necessary to go as far as we are going in Bill 42. If the government would just bring in its legislation which would show the farmer that he can farm and get some return for his efforts. Because if there's one thing certain, of all the people in agriculture to whom I have spoken in previous sessions and certainly since Bill 42 was introduced, I have not met one farmer who has said to me "I want to sell my land and subdivide it." There may be some, but I have not seen one who wanted to sell his land. They all say and they all agree with the government, we've got to preserve agricultural land for agricultural use.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the situation in which they find themselves is this — you can work as hard and as long as a farmer must work, 70 hours a week,

[ Page 1516 ]

and you don't make enough money for you and your wife to retire on, and you're left with only the value of your land. If you're lucky enough to be owning land in a position right in the path of advancing urban development, if you're not in that position even your land is not worth anything. By improving the economic viability of farming as an industry you give them something that they have to pass on to their children or to sell to other farmers which does not depend soley on the value of the land base.

But there's other legislation that must also accompany Bill 42 once it has been amended, because there are other aspects of the life in this province besides just agriculture which are affected by this land.

We need to have new legislation to preserve the position of our local governments, of our municipalities and our towns and cities and villages, because their revenue source under the laws of this province depends soley upon the assessment base of land. When we bring in Bill 42, when we begin to meddle with the uses of land for the benefit of the public good, we interfere with the value of land. When we interfere with the value of land we affect the assessment. When we affect the assessment we affect the tax revenue of the municipality. Then they will not be able to provide the services to their residents which is their obligation and responsibility to provide. And therefore…. .

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm asking, Mr. Speaker — that as companion legislation we have legislation which will preserve and prevent the municipalities from suffering loss of revenue.

Because this is the one thing that will occur. As certain lands in a municipality are depressed in value, and the assessment goes down, the same number of dollars will need to be raised by the municipality in order to carry out their responsibilities and that means a heavier tax burden will fall on other taxpayers in the municipality, and we already have enough now of disparities as far as taxation is concerned in our municipal government.

Yes, I agree that this bill deals with agricultural land and also deals with all the other land in the province, but the thing that concerns me most about this legislation is the clear indication that this government is prepared to establish a commission with dictatorial powers, and that's contrary to natural justice.

It's interesting that when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) introduced this bill a week ago Friday, he was criticizing the terms of Bill 42. It's been suggested by the leader of the Conservative Party that Bill 42 denies the basic tenets of natural justice and the Minister disagreed and said that was an untruth. The Minister went on to say, and I quote: "There is a selection in here that need not have been in the bill legally because everybody has that right. Everybody has the right to go to court."

MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

MR. WILLIAMS: This government is the government that is going to spell that out in legislation, that people have the right to sue the Crown. The previous government never would do that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we had in the opening speech of this session an indication from the government, if I remember, that they were going to produce a Bill of Rights for British Columbians and it was spoken of in glowing terms by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). She's been highly commended for the things that she said in her speech about the Bill of Rights and about this government that would bring it forward.

Well where is the Bill of Rights now? When are we going to see the Bill of Rights? I would have thought that before we embarked on a bill such as 42 which is establishing this commission, empowering it to set itself rules, empowering it to designate land in British Columbia without the necessity of holding any public hearings or having any prior consultation with anybody, empowering it to dictate uses, empowering it to make decisions which are final and binding, empowering it to do anything it wishes to do, subject only to minor, very minor cases of review by the courts on a question of law or excess of jurisdiction. It's ludicrous — excess of jurisdiction. How could a commission with these kind of powers ever exceed its jurisdiction?

Anyway, where's the Bill of Rights? Where's the British Columbia Bill of Rights that's going to protect all the citizens of the province from the ravages of a commission such as this?

Yes, Bill 42 is a Bill of Rights? — A Bill of Wrongs is what it is.

But you know, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture went on and said, and I quote again: "People already have certain rights that the government can't take away from them". That's what the Minister of Agriculture said: "People already have certain rights that the government can't take away from them. There's a Canadian Bill of Rights. People have rights. But we felt it should be spelled out in this legislation that there really is the access to the courts if people want to go that route." Now that point should be spelled out in this legislation.

Yes, there's the Canadian Bill of Rights. You know, I read the Hansard debates on the Canadian Bill of Rights. That was passed unanimously by the federal parliament in 1960.

[ Page 1517 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada at that time. Yes, he was a good Conservative. There's no question about that. I admit all those things.

It's rather startling that an outstanding Canadian who would make sure that the federal government brought the Canadian Bill of Rights through, an outstanding Conservative, would have been dealt with so badly by that party — destroyed on the convention floor. I always say to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)…

MR. WALLACE: So what else is new?

MR. WILLIAMS: …if that happened to John Diefenbaker, what's going to happen to him? (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: I'll survive.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we have a Canadian Bill of Rights. The Minister of Agriculture said that there are certain rights the government can't take away, that there's a Canadian Bill of Rights. Everybody knows that the Canadian Bill of Rights doesn't have an effect on provincial legislation but it's interesting to read it.

It says:

"It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms; namely: the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law."

That's a fine-sounding right that's enshrined, so far as our federal government is concerned. It's interesting that the Minister of Agriculture should refer to it in his remarks. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that during the throne speech debate, the Members of the official Opposition proposed an amendment to the motion in the throne speech debate. They used these words: "Recognizing and declaring that in British Columbia there has existed and will continue to exist the fundamental right to the enjoyment of property…" — taken right out of the Canadian Bill of Rights. What happened to that? It was opposed unanimously by all these Government Members, including the Minister of Agriculture. Every one of them voted against the words which appear in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

That's why I was kind of anxious to see the British Columbia Bill of Rights introduced in this House before we got to debate Bill 42. It would be remarkable to see a bill of rights which would allow Bill 42 and the commission established under it to function.

What were those words again? "The right of…security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." Well, it will be interesting to see, and we will wait with great anticipation for the British Columbia Bill of Rights. I assume that the British Columbia Bill of Rights will do what Bill 42 does.

There's one thing that some people have overlooked. We've talked about this commission and all the power it's going to have. But even this Government, establishing this commission, was not prepared to let it go all the way. There is one provision in Bill 42 which says that the whole bill if subject to the Environment and Land Use Act.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That one's in the book, the Environment and Land Use Act. That's in the book.

Do you know what the Environment and Land Use Act does to this land commission? It places it soley, completely, absolutely and irrevocably under the control of the cabinet committee. The real proof as to how far this Government is prepared to go, in independence to the commission, is found in section 20. In the final analysis, the committee under the Environment and Land Use Act has overriding powers over the commission under the Land Commission Act.

But strangely enough, it's also subject to the provisions of another Act, the Environment Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to assist the Members of this House in finding a copy of the Environmental Protection Act. It's not in any of the statues. Yet Bill 42 is subject to that statute. Not only is it not in any of the statutes, it isn't even on the orders for first reading or for second reading.

I just don't see how we can possibly be debating this legislation to establish a commission which is subject to the Environmental Protection Act when we haven't seen it. No one has seen it. So I think we should see that legislation, as well as the Bill of Rights, before we proceed much further with this Bill 42.

I wonder what's happened to this Government. When I read the stirring speeches made by members of the CCF who were in the House of Commons in 1960 when the Canadian Bill of Rights was passed, I thought what fine things they were saying. I couldn't see what kind of a change could have taken place in that party. Then I happened to get a copy of a document which is called the "NDP Waffle Manifesto." It's quite obvious that a great change has taken place in this party since 1960. I think it's

[ Page 1518 ]

because of the unholy marriage that took place when the once proud CCF became the NDP.

What does the "NDP Waffle Manifesto" say?

"Our aim as democratic socialists is to build an independent socialist Canada. Our aim as supporters of the New Democratic Party is to make it a truly socialist party. The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists in factories and offices, on farms and campuses."

When you look at this legislation and you see what they're going to do with the powers to acquire farmland and, having acquired it, to lease it out to tenant farmers, you see how they intend to accomplish the achievement of socialism so far as farms are concerned.

The Manifesto also says:

Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production, in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole."

"Public ownership of the means of production," and that includes farmland — that vital source of all of life, food. The land that produces that food is the fundamental means of production which permits us to survive. It is the desire of the Waffle group that there should be public ownership of the means of production. We all know that the Hon. Premier signed the Waffle Manifesto. That's what happened to that once proud party, the CCF.

I know that the legislative powers of this government of this province are sufficient to support Bill 42. But when you look at the British North America Act it's interesting to note that provinces can legislate for property and civil rights. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in "property and civil rights." I suggest that it is morally wrong for the Government to use property legislation to destroy civil rights. This is what Bill 42 does. It is that principle to which I object.

We're having a raging debate in this province about Bill 42. Strangely enough, similar debate is raging in other provinces of Canada. In the Province of Saskatchewan, one of the major agricultural areas in Canada and with an NDP government, the government there is criticized — and I'm reading from the March 2 issue of the Regina Leader-Post. Questions are raised about four things that the government in that province is doing.

"First of all, there's the government's insistence on keeping a tight cloak of secrecy around information about land bank transactions, and most particularly with respect to the renting and selling of land." They have a land bank bill where the government indicates that it will rent farmland to farmers. It's offering them the possibility of purchase. But no one can find out what the terms of purchase are.

Secondly, Agricultural Minister Messer's advocacy of multi-operator or collective farms.

Thirdly, the Government's decision to buy 45 percent of the share capital of Inter-continental Packers, a substantial Saskatchewan meat processing company, with the Government holding an option to buy the whole firm, and run it as a state enterprise.

Fourthly, the somewhat heavy-handed and peremptory tactics in ramming through compulsory hog marketing commission regulations. Regulations, Mr. Speaker, which enable the Government to tell the farmer who is a hog producer and what he will produce, and when he is going to sell it, and where he's going to sell it, and how much he's going to be paid.

And the editorial goes on to say:

"It would be easy to say these things are rather random building blocks in on-going agricultural policy. There are those who will argue that evidence of a planned coordinated pattern-like beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder.

"Surely, the Government doesn't really intend to buy up large blocks of farmland through its Land Bank Commission and turn these blocks into collective farms with tenant farmers contributing to the collective effort according to their abilities, and drawing returns according to their need?"

I ask the same of this Government. Is this your intention in Bill 42? To buy up large blocks of farmland and to rent them back to tenant farmers?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what the bill says.

MR. WILLIAMS: Surely not. Because this editorial goes on to say:

"That smacks too much of the Marxist philosophy. And surely the Government has no intention of forging a link between the Commission dominated hog producers, and the packing plant in which it is now a partner and which it may shortly own outright.

"Can we be sure of these conclusions? Is the pattern merely an illusion? Saskatchewan citizens, whether farmers or not, should do some pondering."

I think that the people of British Columbia, whether farmers are not, should do some pondering.

"…and those with an historical sense will hark back to the Regina manifesto of the old CCF. In that document no devices of oratory and juggling with words disguised the fact that the eradication of capitalism, and the state acquisition, and control among other things such as Saskatchewan's agricultural industry in all its producing and processing facets were primary policy objectives. As ideological heirs of the manifesto's original authors the Blakeney Government would only be following the fundamental tenets of true, agrarian

[ Page 1519 ]

socialism if it picked up the ball again in 1973."

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that with Bill 42 the Government in British Columbia has received a forward pass from Mr. Blakeney in Saskatchewan.

Obviously, the Government with this bill proposes the same all-powerful control — control which will not enhance agriculture or the farmers.

As I indicated, you can preserve the land in its present state. As I said earlier this doesn't improve its quality or diminish its quantity.

We must have farmers on the land. And this Government has brought no legislation which will ensure that the farmer stays on the land, will replenish its productive capability and will produce those things which we need in this province.

And there's nothing in this bill that encourages the farmer to stay on the land. On the contrary, once you've locked the farmer into the land, you can only leave him in a position where he is constantly under the fear of domination from government — completely and utterly under the control of the economic condition which he finds himself in today. Locked in with his land, and locked out of the profits, which should come to him from this production from that land.

I suppose this is what also makes this legislation unacceptable. Because it's a direct, planned and unmistakable attack upon individuals in this province, and their rights and their freedoms. It's an attempt, a thinly disguised attempt, to dominate the individual. Surprisingly enough it takes rights away from the citizen and returns them to the Crown.

Those who have been in this House recognize that the process which we go through each year, each session, is to grant supply to the Crown in exchange for rights which the Crown extends to the citizen. And yet with this bill we are reversing that trend. And this Legislature is being asked to pass legislation which takes away rights from the individual and returns them to the Crown without compensation.

This bill subjects us to increasing centralized control by the Government. Control that the previous administration never even dreamed of. I suggest that with Bill 42 we are taking steps towards a government which is counter-democratic.

I trust we aren't reaching the position where in Canada we are saying as we pass bills of this kind, that the provincial governments can, through property legislation, abolish rights and establish some particular kinds of "-ism" with the possible result that we may have in Canada 10 separate provincial governments, each with their own separate philosophy, and separate from the Government of Canada. Is this where we're heading with this kind of legislation? I suggest that we are.

We are seeing the use of the democratic institution to deny the power of the people, and to foster the aims of those who are dedicated to the establishment of the independent socialist Canada. That's what we see with this bill. It's as simple as that.

You know, it's interesting to study some of the background of this party. In the library there's some interesting books. And there is one which is a primer for understanding the CCF. The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) contributed to one of these booklets. A series of questions and answers. There's one which says: "There is no place in the CCF philosophy for any form of totalitarianism, or dictatorship of any kind." Right, you admit it?

AN. HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you accept the next sentence, Hon. Member? "The vicious and immoral doctrine that the end justifies the means, is the very antithesis of the spirit of the CCF." Do you agree with that? Do you suggest that the ends that you are approaching with Bill 42, justifies the means you are prepared to adopt? The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) shakes his head. We'll see how far you're prepared to go to make the ends justify the means when you come to vote on Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned in this House in these remarks my concern that the action of this legislation has been taken without proper consultation. It has been suggested to us that representations have been made from all over this province. And yet as the Hon. Member for South Peach (Mr. Phillips) so clearly pointed out in his remarks — remarks which, Mr. Speaker, were severely castigated and unjustly so, by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who should be ashamed — the Member for South Peace, pointed out that in spite of representations made by every segment interested in this legislation that the Government has not listened.

We are told that there are to be amendments, which we cannot see. We're given the broad outlines of them in the Press. That's not good enough. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I move, seconded by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson): That this bill be not now read a second time. But be it resolved that this House is of the opinion that formal consultation should first take place, with regional districts and municipal governments, by means of public hearings to ascertain whether effective government at the local level will be impaired and the individual rights infringed. An amendment to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one minute while we check the words….

MR. WILLIAMS: May I be seated?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, would you mind being seated? It doesn't mean you lose your place.

[ Page 1520 ]

There's been a change in the use of reasoned amendments, I note, in May. This is what's causing the delay. I'm sorry, Hon. Members.

The point of order would not be well taken under standing order 83, because the question before the House that we're considering has not to do with amendment of the bill, but amendment of the motion that the bill be now read a second time, and the motion before the House that we have to consider as a reasoned amendment is:

That this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that this House is of the opinion that formal consultation should first take place with regional districts and municipal governments, by means of public hearings, to ascertain whether effective government at the local level will be impaired and individual rights infringed.

It does amount, in effect, to committal of the bill to some other purpose and presumably for formal consultation. It doesn't say with whom or by what particular authorized body of this House that that take place.

Have you a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Just to add to the points that have been made, Mr. Speaker, I would ask: is an amendment in order where it negates the original motion entirely? If the motion says that the bill should be read a second time, can there be an amendment saying that it will not be read a second time?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the point we're considering, as to whether a reasoned amendment prevails as it has in the past. There have been changes in the procedure indicated in May, 17th ed. I am studying it, if I may have the time to do so.

I point to p. 526 of May, 17th ed., halfway down the page:

"Formerly, reasoned amendments were allowed on the question, that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, on going into committee, or on the question that the bill be now taken into consideration…. "

Now that is what we are, in effect, doing. We are in the stage of a motion that the bill be read a second time now.

"…and many of the illustrations given below are amendments moved on those stages, though some would be permissible in a practically similar form on second and third reading.

"When the committee and consideration stages of a bill are described it will be seen that no opportunity now exists for moving such amendments, though it is still possible, in the case of a private bill, to move an amendment, that it be taken into consideration upon this day six (or three) months."

And then it describes a six or three month amendment. But the motion that we have before us does not really…. All it says, in effect, is that it negates the motion. It says "That this bill be not now read a second time," and gives a reason why it should not be now read a second time.

The effect of it is this, that it's simply the same as voting "no" on the motion that it be now read a second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Now I will read also p. 530 of the 16th ed., where it deals with the same point, talking of reasoned amendment:

"It is also competent for a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to second reading of a bill to move what is known as a 'reasoned amendment.' This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word 'that,' and to add other words.

"The question proposed upon the amendment is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories:

"(1) it may be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions from the bill;

"(2) it may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill or otherwise opposed to its progress;

"(3) it may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.

"Such amendments have tended in modern times to become rather stereotyped and are confined generally to the first two categories.

"An amendment urging the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill might be moved and carried if the House were averse from giving the bill itself a second reading, so conceding its principle; but where further information is desired in direct relation to the terms of the bill before the House, the advantage of referring the bill to a select committee could be explained in a second reading debate, and it would be open to a Member, after the bill had been read a second time, to move that it be committed to a select committee under the provisions of standing order No. 38,"

which is their rule.

I cannot, in view of that, see that the motion in its present form would be in order. There is a time and place, after you've urged upon the House in debate after second reading, to move how the bill be committed and to what committee. Indeed, the

[ Page 1521 ]

motion, as I see it, is vague. It doesn't tell us who would be charged with this duty. It doesn't say whom would be consulted, as "some body of this House," and what public hearings and so on. And most important, and this is one of the rules usually in reasoned amendments, there's no indication of a time.

In the circumstances I must rule the motion out of order at its present stage.

Would you want to proceed further?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I try to take opposite points of view, if I can find them in the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I've already recognized the Hon. Member for Delta. I will try to recognize each party in turn.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, it was said earlier — I'm not sure if it was today or a few days ago — by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that the backbenchers weren't speaking up on this matter. I think that he's well aware that some of us have been attending meetings.

I attended a meeting where he was on the same platform not too very long ago. It was a very interesting meeting. We had about 10 or 12 minutes at that meeting. It seems to me that that same Member made more sense in those 10 or 12 minutes than he did in the 10 or 12 hours that he spent here.

It has been said that we should point out where we stand individually on the question of the amount of land we have and so on in this debate. Like the most recent speaker, I have one lot and I live on it. I have not been involved in any sort of subdivision at any time.

I think we're dealing with a very valuable resource. We're dealing with a resource that everyone really wants to save. Everyone says that they're in favour of the principle of saving farmland. But who's prepared to do anything about it?

We've watched and we've heard this sort of thing going on for years. Those of us who have participated in the municipal field know what that's all about. But for 20 years the previous government didn't do anything in the way of saving farmland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LIDEN: During those 20 years — and we've seen it happen; it's been said here before — 57,000 acres of farmland in the Fraser Valley disappeared; 15,000 acres in the Okanagan; 65,000 acres on Vancouver Island. You know it's true. We watched it happen.

The farmers in Delta have been telling me that under the previous government there was really no hope for agriculture in the Fraser Valley. They've told me that they were assured that the Fraser Valley would be totally covered with industry and that the farmlands would be all gone in 20 years. That's what they said; that's what they were told by the previous government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LIDEN: We've said that we're going to save the farmlands. We said during our election campaign that we were going to save the farmlands. Now we're carrying out the promises that we made. It's certainly not like the previous government. They didn't say anything about the labour bill during the election campaign before they introduced it. They didn't say anything about the takeover of the B.C. Electric during the election campaign before they did it. That's the sort of thing that we've been going through.

It seems to me it's very easy to do nothing in this situation. But it's very seldom that the easy way is the correct way. That surely won't solve the problem. We've got a problem to solve and we're on the right track to solve it. That problem doesn't exist only in British Columbia. I think the Members are well aware that the Ontario government is saying the same sort of thing.

Premier Davis has said that the province is moving toward tough controls on Ontario land that will prevent farmers from using their property for anything but agriculture. I've heard it said in the last few days that their legislation may make ours look mild. I don't know what kind of socialist government we have in Ontario but the same sort of thing is going on in Alberta.

If you look at the Financial Times of March 12, we have the same sort of thing being said there by the Minister of Agriculture; that they're going to restrict the use of agricultural land, the same sort of thing that's going on here. But those aren't the only places. There are other places as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Russia, China, Chile….

MR. LIDEN: Oh, I think you went through all

[ Page 1522 ]

those places. Try United States, where — it was spoken of earlier — in New York, in Long Island, they talk about buying up the farmland and leasing it back to the farmers. That's what they're talking about doing.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LIDEN: There's nothing in the bill that provides for expropriation or confiscation or that sort of thing. We've been through that so many times.

It's been said — and I see it on a pamphlet that's put out by one Derril Warren where he says, "This Land is Not Your Land." There's another article in the weekend Vancouver Sun where it says, "This Land is Their Land." I wonder if the two go together. This article is worth reading. It talks about an awful lot of land ownership that's disappearing. We see that sort of thing all over the place.

Recently I heard of a situation in Penticton where the largest apricot farm in this country has been sold to Hong Kong money. The farm has been abandoned. The owners are saying, "Why don't you let us subdivide the thing. It's been abandoned in any case." From what I understand, the mayor and the regional district planner in that area are under pressure to allow that farm to be subdivided. They're satisfied now that they can save the farm. They'd like to save the farm. With this legislation, it can be done.

It's no accident that small countries in Europe like Belgium, Holland and Denmark have farmland. It's no accident. It's the result of very strict regulations. I believe that the situation in B.C. today is a tough one. We're running into some problems in trying to save the farmland. Twenty years ago it would have been easy. But 20 years from now, if nothing were done, you'd have large meetings demanding that something be done and that it be done right away. We'd have a whole lot bigger problem than we've got today.

In Delta we have the greatest example of some of the problems that we're faced with. The Hayward farm on the outskirts of Ladner — right on the edge of the residential district — is 242.2 acres. It's owned by Wall & Redekop. Right on the outskirts of the Tsawwassen residential district we have the Grauer farm. It's 316.2 acres and is owned by Block Bros. Are they going to farm that land?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LIDEN: I've only got a little bit to go.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

Mr. Liden moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:00 p.m.