[ Page 1523 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122) Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1523

Point of order

Adjournment of the House at 6 p.m., March 20. Mr. Chabot — 1523

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1524

Mr. Speaker — 1524

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Natural gas pipeline and exports. Mr. Morrison — 1524

Public hearings on coal export. Mr. Phillips — 1526

Ferry service to B.C. middle coast region. Mr. McClelland — 1527

Comptroller-General's report on B.C. Hydro finances. Mr. McGeer — 1527

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

Mr. Liden — 1527

Mr. Curtis — 1529

Ms. Young — 1536

Mr. McClelland. Order of debate — 1541

Mr. Gardom — 1542

Mr. McClelland — 1544

Erratum — 1559

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 122 intituled An Act to Amend the Health Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 122 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the proper place for this. You jumped a little quickly for me.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to have the House welcome to the galleries today a group of people from the old age pensioners of Langley. They are sitting over the House and we welcome them all here.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Yesterday while the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was on his feet, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) rose on a point of order. While on that point of order, he drew attention to the clock. The records clearly indicated to me that you did not make a ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for North Peace River, which indicates very clearly that the floor still belonged to the Member for South Peace River.

MR. SPEAKER: He couldn't very well have possession of the floor if the Member for North Peace River had possession.

MR. CHABOT: No, on a point of order — he was interrupted very briefly on the basis of a point of order. The floor was not yielded by the Member for South Peace River. In fact, the Speaker wilfully recognized the motion to adjourn by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was not recognized by the Speaker; there is no recognition in Hansard that he was recognized. He did not have the floor and the only Member who had the floor was the Member for South Peace River.

On page 291 of the eighteenth edition of May, it clearly states as follows: "…during the transaction of unopposed business no division can be taken, the Speaker has disregarded a challenge to the question put on a motion for the adjournment of the House, and" …here is the significant part of it… "treating the motion as a formal motion, has declared that the Ayes had it, and left the chair."

The official Opposition humbly suggests, Mr. Speaker, that you acted improperly in your edict on this situation. We dispute, in the name of democracy, when using May as a reference that the motion to adjourn clearly compels the Speaker to leave the chair after declaring the Ayes have it.

Also on January 30, there was a motion put before this assembly which says: "That…there will be two distinct sittings on each day." No construction other than formal vacation of the chair in retiring of the Speaker can be placed on these words. The Mace should leave the table, the Speaker should walk out, the Speaker should return and reconvene the House with the normal established and accepted warning procedures. Otherwise, the words "distinct sittings" can really have no meaning. Following the House reconvening, public bills and orders should have been called in the normal way.

We shouldn't have tolerated the type of facetious remarks we heard that, "should we go to prayers as well". I think those kind of remarks should have been avoided.

MR. SPEAKER: That is irrelevant to our consideration, is it not?

MR. CHABOT: O.K. But really the procedure was wrong, the Member had the floor, the procedure of two distinct sittings has been violated in the procedure that was established here last night.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you there is ample precedent for what happened last night. I wonder if Mr. Speaker would…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …would take the matter under advisement and perhaps bring down a written ruling. The Hon. Member who has spoken for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) can supply any precedents he has. I or the Premier will supply precedents

[ Page 1524 ]

too, and possible a written ruling should be made on this matter which is important if democracy is not to grind to a halt on some occasions and so that democracy can function in this chamber. I think there is ample precedent for it. Perhaps the decision should be reserved and considered carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with both Hon. Members that it is a very important matter. It has been a matter I have been considering with great concern — what the rule is, in view of the fact that we never had the position put to the Chair in the previous precedents in this House, although it is contained in May as a measure that may be used. I would like, therefore, to take the point of order in consideration and try to prepared with the assistance that I can get, some kind of a ruling on it that will satisfy the House. Usually a point of order is taken up at the time and argued at the time. We are doing retrospectively, in effect, something that we should perhaps have done last night with greater care.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On the point, Mr. Speaker. If I may, could I refer you while you are considering that, to Mr. Speaker Murray's decision recorded in theJournals on Monday, February 21, 1966 when a similar event occurred. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) might offer his explanation as to why that occurred at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I'll take the point of privilege that was raised into account and try to report back to what I can find on the point as expeditiously as possible.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, could I also make the point that the Members did in fact leave the House during this period?

MR. SPEAKER: I have taken that into account in considering the thing as well. I certainly will, because any bearing on the question in parliamentary law, I'll do all I can to research it. Now, may we proceed Hon. Members?

Oral questions.

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

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
AND EXPORTS

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Premier and President of the Council. Will the Premier advise the House if British Columbia will oppose the further export of natural gas to the United States which will result from the contract reached between El Paso and West Coast Transmission before the National Energy Board, and will he oppose it until such guaranteed supply can be provided for Vancouver Island?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, as you know, there will be a National Energy Board hearing very shortly. We will make our position clearer to that National Energy Board hearing. We are in principle — and I use these words carefully — we are in principle not opposed to further export.

However, we are opposed to the fact that previous contracts signed were signed at a very, very low price and were not returning adequate funds to the people of British Columbia out of a natural resource. Therefore, when we approach the energy board we will point out that our position is: although we are restricted by contracts signed by previous administrations, our point of view on our approval of further exports must be conditioned on the fact that we are not receiving sufficient revenue from those natural resources.

That is our position but we are restricted by the previous governments in adequate negotiations. We will do our best to see that if future exports are allowed, they will be contingent on the previous contracts being reopened.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the same Hon. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Will the Premier advise the House if the plans to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island have any priority with this Government and has the Premier a target date for pipeline construction to the Island to begin?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not made a final decision on the matter. However, it is also conditioned on the fact that we are hamstrung in terms of return of revenues because of inadequate negotiations in our opinion in previous contracts which allow British Columbia natural gas to sell at 35 cents per unit while at the same time the value is twice as much on the California market.

A previous administration has left us with those poor contracts. Until we get new pricing and make our position clear, we will not be in a position to make a final decision on natural gas to Vancouver Island.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria. On the same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A supple-

[ Page 1525 ]

mentary question, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like clarification from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that he has no objection in principle to the export of energy resources but only to the question of price and royalty obtained.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The export of natural gas is what I made clear, not natural resources per se. We are locked into long-term contracts on natural gas which we cannot alter by law. I am not happy with those long-term contracts. No one in North America today makes such long-term contracts. Perhaps the previous administration, in making those long-term contracts, was not aware of the energy demands that have taken place.

However, with that information, and where we are now in terms of the commitments we have to export natural gas, we must do two things: (1) protect the requirements of the Province of British Columbia; (2) make the point clear to the National Energy Board that if further natural gas exports are to take place and we have taken care of British Columbia's requirements, future exports of that natural gas should be at a price that is far more realistic than what has taken place to the present.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Leader of the Government to reconsider his position regarding allowance of export of natural gas from British Columbia at any time. At this time, because the Energy Board of British Columbia in their report said that there's a shortage of natural gas in British Columbia — and therefore we should oppose the export of any further natural gas from our province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I must say again, because there seems to be some misinterpretation from a former Premier who was responsible for making the decisions that now lock us in in some regard. Now the point that I am making — and if you listen carefully I'll repeat the remarks and then you can read them twice in Hansard — I said British Columbia's requirements first. First. And I said that in answer to the…well, we'll read it back in Hansard tonight. British Columbia requirements in terms of the information we have, not only the inadequate information we received, but our own studies.

Now if there are to be further exports — and I make that clear, as I said earlier — the conditions of those exports must be the price after British Columbia's needs are met first. I made that clear in the supplement.

If the energy board indicates there's a shortage for our long-term needs, the question of future exploration, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, should be considered, and I want to point this out.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not a separate question…in terms of proven reserves. Let's not fog the issue up so that the people of British Columbia understand exactly what it is. In terms of proven reserves further export is not a wise policy, but we are locked into long-term exports and contracts that this Government received as inherited.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a new application altogether.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, a new application; but on proven reserves and also the question of potential reserves. British Columbia is one of the last great areas in North America in terms of possible discoveries of natural gas. Let's make that clear. Another new discovery was made just within the last few months.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Prudhoe Bay is separate. It's outside of our jurisdiction. Within our jurisdiction the ratio of exploration at the present time in terms of potential natural gas sites is higher in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction. Comparative ratios are, to the United States for example — one drill per 8 square miles potential is left in the United States; the comparative ratio in British Columbia is one drilling per 116 square miles. So the obvious ratio is there.

Now in terms of those reserves we will…you point out that we will protect first of all British Columbia's needs if there are to be exports. We are not opposed to export if those reserves show that they're available.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well certainly you are, because you think you'd do it on the same terms you did it to this….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And won't at any terms. We say, after protecting British Columbia's interests, we will export but at a far higher price. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1526 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: You sold us out. You sold us out at 22 cents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to point out that when a question is asked which expresses opinions or arguments, it leads to this situation we've just listened to where both sides, in effect the questioner and the answerer, are expressing opinions and arguments and it takes up the question period. May forbids it, at p. 323, eighteenth edition.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the point raised by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), did the Premier state the reason why natural gas could not be brought over to Vancouver Island? Did he state it was because the price would not be high enough or because there were too few gas reserves in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said the decision has not been made yet; so you're presuming.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier. Is the Premier in favour of a two-price gas system for British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no opposition to a two-price gas system in British Columbia. But we are confined by the National Energy Board rules. There is a whole method that must be determined by Alberta's position as to whether or not a two-price system will be allowed by the National Energy Board. I'm not opposed to that approach. But there is the authority of the National Energy Board. Their authority must make a decision on Alberta's policy. But I'm not opposed to Alberta's policy.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the position of the British Columbia government in representations to the National Energy Board preserve the distinction made between export price and domestic price which was contained in the last decision of the energy board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not a matter before the board at this time.

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

MR. MORRISON: Does the Government approve of the additional request for 450 million cubic feet per day being exported?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not until we've made our position clear to the energy board on Tuesday.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
COAL EXPORT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Premier advise me when public hearings are going to be held with regard to the export of coal through Britannia Beach?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there won't be any export of coal until there's a deal. At the present time there are still negotiations going on for the deal. If there is a deal then there is a need for a port. If there is a need for a port and the need for the port indicates Britannia, then the public hearing. No decision will be made without following the proper stages.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. Would the Premier advise me how long Coalition have or Brascan have to exercise their option with the Government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have a two-year extension on their option with Brameda. We have made an offer to buy out Brameda's shares in a deal. Our offer is pending the completion of Brameda's sale to Brascan.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the negotiations that are going on are there any plans for a new townsite at the minesite rather than use the existing town of Chetwynd?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no alteration from our point of view in Brameda's negotiations and planning that took place between the two private interests, that is Brameda and Coalition. Now that's our position at this time. There's no alteration in terms of those conditions and those plans that were laid down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise me how much longer he expects these negotiations to continue and when the decision should be forthcoming? Any estimate of time, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There has been a change in the local management of Coalition and that has

[ Page 1527 ]

delayed the negotiations. We learned this morning that the new people named by Coalition wish to see the Government within the next week and we'll continue. Now I have no idea how long the negotiations will take. We've had the delay because they've had a change in personnel.

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

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the estimated cost of bringing the Sukunka coal operation into production and what will be the estimated cost of a coalport?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those questions have been asked before, Mr. Speaker. I've had to point out that those questions are prejudicial to the negotiations that are taking place at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

FERRY SERVICE TO B.C.
MIDDLE COAST REGION

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the answer to this question for about two weeks; I think since the first day the question period started. I'm going to try the Minister of Highways today and ask him: now the Ocean Falls purchase has been made public, Mr. Minister, is the Minister prepared to authorize the expenditure which was approved by the previous government for the ferry to service that middle coast area, which would call at Powell River, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Bella Coola and that whole area?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): There's no problem answering that question. It's a very simple question. It will depend on the future plans for Ocean Falls as they're developed by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There was a Treasury Board authorization made. Has that authorization been cancelled?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure there was a Treasury Board authorization — if there was, then it's still there. The authorization is still there. Nothing's been cancelled.

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

COMPTROLLER-GENERAL'S REPORT
ON B.C. HYDRO FINANCES

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, whether he has studied the report of the Comptroller-General regarding the state of finances of the B.C. Hydro and whether he'd be prepared to release this publicly at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have not completed the study. It's not a question of state of finances; it's a question of how the accounts are handled. I have not completed my own reading of the report.

MR. McGEER: Will you release it?

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Continued debate on second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta adjourned the debate.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and for a few days before that we heard quite a lot about the Land Commission Act. We witnessed a great waste of time, I think, in most of the 12 hours that were used by one Member, because that Member failed to really deal with the principle of saving the farmland. He failed to really deal with the principle of making the best use of all of the lands in this province.

We all know what's been happening in the past. We know that for over 20 years we've seen thousands of acres disappear — thousands and thousands of acres in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island as well. We know that nothing was done, and that the threat is still there.

The threat to the loss of farmland is even greater today than it was in the past. Many of us have looked at the situations in other countries. We said yesterday, and we say it again today, that the little countries of Europe with larger populations than ours have saved farmland. They have a lot of farmland. It's not by accident — it is as a result of very strict regulations that are supported by the farm people of those countries. Those people, many of whom are here today, tell us about those regulations and they support what's happened and they support what we're doing here.

Of course, there are many people in British Columbia, and particularly in the Fraser Valley near

[ Page 1528 ]

the urban areas who are sort of would-be farmers or own farmland and are masquerading as farmers in some of these meetings that we've been attending.

I know, and you know too, that the people that own that farm that used to grow all the corn on the outskirts of Ladner used to sell corn to the people passing by and to all of the outlets in the lower mainland. That farm is owned by Wall and Redekop.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. LIDEN: I've asked them, and we can all ask ourselves, whether it's their intention to farm that. Of course it isn't. We know, too, that there's 316.2 acres — the old Del Grauer farm on the outskirts of Tsawwassen — that are owned by Block Bros. I've asked them: is it their intention to farm? No, they say, it's their intention to subdivide. That's what they tell us.

Where I ran across a lot of these people was at the meeting up in Surrey that was supposed to be all farmers and concerned citizens. There were an awful lot of Block Bros. people there. They came and gave me their cards afterwards and spoke to me. They told me that it's not their intention to farm that land at all. Of course it isn't. They intend to subdivide. And when I told them, "Even the Delta council wouldn't allow you to do that today," they say, "That's today's Delta council, but we might be able to change that for tomorrow."

That's the sort of threat that we're faced with in the Fraser Valley. And that's the sort of thing that we have to deal with. There's a whole lot more land in the Fraser Valley that's in exactly the same kind of a position.

A number of parcels of land are owned by various investment companies in the vicinity of the Delta City Hall. Those people are not farmers. They have no intention of farming; they intend to use it for subdivision.

We see that the Dawson Development Companies own a great deal of land in the vicinity of Number 10 Highway — all in agricultural areas. What's their intention? Their intention, of course, is to take that land out of the farming community and destroy it as we've seen so much of the farmland destroyed.

There are other places in British Columbia where there are problems as well. Not too long ago on a Kamloops talk show there was a person who phoned in and stated that he owned land in that area. He had a message for the government. His message was: "Stick by your guns; don't back down on Bill 42." That same farmer had something else that he spoke about on that programme. He had a card in the Social Credit Party, and he said he had a message for them, too. That message was that he wasn't going to keep that card much longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a smart Socred!

MR. LIDEN: There's a great many people that are beginning to take a little different look at the situation than what they were doing a week ago. They told me that they had a couple of meetings up in the Peace River country — well-attended meetings. Many farmers were there, and they had lengthy meetings and discussed the bill and the principle of what's happening in great detail. They made some decisions, and their decisions were in favour. They said the count at those meetings was between 75 and 80 per cent of the people that were in favour of the principle of the Land Commission Act.

Besides that there are telegrams here from somebody in Delta:

BILL 42. STAND FAST BE STRONG DON'T CHANGE YOUR POSITION.

AN HON. MEMBER: What percentage of farmers…?

MR. LIDEN: I think there's quite a great percentage of them. I've talked to them and I know they're not all in there, but there's a lot of them in there. They're having discussions and they are making decisions — decisions that ought to be of some interest to you.

There is a growing number of people supporting the principle of saving the farmland. There are editorials in papers that are changing. I want to read just a little bit out of an editorial that I picked up here. It says:

"The sky is falling in, in Victoria. The Socreds, after being struck on the skull by the Land Commission Act, began imitating Chicken Little and his cry, 'Run and tell the king' and, in this case, Prime Minister Trudeau. Others similarly struck, and whose grasp for reality is equally questionable, are screaming: 'The revolution is at hand!' Before long someone will probably grasp his trumpet and announce the beginning of Armageddon….

"The Land Commission Act benefits the vast majority of farmers who want to farm. No longer will the real estate companies tantalize them with offers they can't refuse. When all has been said and done, and the hoots and hollers of those prophets of doom, red baiters and Chicken Littles will fade into much deserved obscurity."

I think it's high time that someone reminded them what happened to the little boy who cried "Wolf!" once too often,. That's the sort of thing that's beginning to appear in the newspapers.

I'm not going to take the time that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) took when he read a number of telegrams and so on, but I've got

[ Page 1529 ]

lots of letters. Following the meeting in Ladner that my friend attended, I received 147 letters — not signatures on a petition, not post cards that were addressed by someone else, but 147 letters. And they were complimentary — all of them — and I am going to read you just one little one here.

"This letter is to inform you of our full support of the measures you are introducing to save the farmlands of British Columbia. Having been brought up in England, we have firsthand experience of the controlled use of land and believe that it is absolutely necessary to take similar steps here if our environment is to be preserved and if B.C. is to continue to produce at least some of the goods required by a rapidly increasing population," and so on.

Today I received another letter that I think a lot of people received. It's from the United Church of Canada. It says:

"The following resolution was passed at the spring executive meeting of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada, on Thursday, March 15, with 49 persons present from all over the province. The resolution was to do with Bill 42, the Land Commission Act.

"The British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada supports the principle of integrated land use by the provincial government, as set out in the objectives of Bill 42, section 7(a) to 7(h) inclusively."

There are other things in the letter where they suggest amendments, and so on, that I am not going to deal with at this time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Read it all.

MR. LIDEN: I've got lots of telegrams and lots of letters that suggest various amendments and so on and they will be dealt with at a later date, a later time.

But I think that right now we have in British Columbia a real chance to do something for British Columbians; a real chance to do something for this generation and for future generations. It seems to me that we are right on target when we bring in a bill of this kind. It's a chance to support this generation and the next generation.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate on Bill 42. I wondered in fact if I would go on pension before the moment arrived.

First of all, I think it is appropriate to declare, although it is not required, but I willingly declare my personal property ownership — that is real estate property ownership: a home owned by my wife and myself in Saanich, joint tenancy; a half interest in a small lot cottage on Gabriola Island; fractional interest in a single lot with a residence on it in Victoria city. No member of my family is in the real estate business in any way, shape or form. To my almost certain knowledge, no member of my family has ever been in the real estate business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: Nothing is wrong with being m the real estate business, Mr. Speaker. Some people are a little nervous about being in the real estate business. I'm going to read a few letters a little later on because this does seem to be important, to present various points of view. But you know, Mr. Speaker, when one steps back from debate in this House and around the province and tries to absorb all that has been written and said about this since the Minister of Agriculture introduced his legislation just about three weeks ago, the problem of analysing the torrent of debate is in itself, I suggest, indicative of the number of faults to be found in the bill.

In my view as a layman, it is bad law. In spite of all the pleas that we have heard to "trust us, let us have your amendments, let's discuss the bill calmly and rationally"— it remains, as far as this House is concerned, bad law.

In its present form, it represents the worst kind of state interference and centralized control. Even if it is amended…and a number of us in opposition wonder how any major and meaningful revisions could be introduced to something which is so overwhelming and so all embracing. Even if it is amended, I doubt that any of us in opposition will find it possible to give our full endorsation. The measures proposed under this bill as it has been presented to us are extreme, and I suggest smack of the collectivization policies of totalitarian government. Surely…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CURTIS: I wrote this, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member carry on with his address.

MR. CURTIS: Surely if the genuine desire to control the misuse of land had been present among the architects of Bill 42, the Members of the present Government, then it would have been possible to devise an Act which would have effectively promoted the very worthwhile objectives of preserving open

[ Page 1530 ]

space, farm and wilderness lands and which would have guarded against the danger of pressures being exerted on some elected representatives but, at the same time, conferring on those elected representatives a greater say in the regulation of the reserved areas.

Instead, and this seems to be very basic to the issue before us, the people of this province have been presented with a document that has sent shock waves of surprise, of disappointment and, as we know, unrestrained outrage around British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is overkill. It represents something close to a serious error in judgment by this new and still inexperienced government. It carries with it also I suggest, Mr. Speaker, a distinct odour of sour grapes mixed in with a reasonably fair measure of revenge rather than positive action against those who have contributed to the carving up of valuable and attractive farm land.

If it bears the unmistakable marks already described, it also carries another mark and this one worries a number of us. It carries the mark of dissident planning purists — the "cloud niners" among us. But it goes much further than that in our view. Bill 42 says where land is concerned you, the individual citizen, may have no rights. The state will have to step in to exercise its full control because all of you are either (a) greedy, (b) dishonest, (c) incompetent, (d) stupid or (e) apathetic.

It's vindictive legislation, Mr. Speaker, because many of us suspect it has distressed at least two or three Members of the cabinet. In spite of their earnest protestations to the contrary, it's proving a source of worry and embarrassment to some of the more moderate members of the present Government. But as more than one newspaper editorial and commentator have observed in the last few weeks, why should any of us really be surprised? This is "big brother" government and in some respects, 1984 has just arrived about 11 years early.

However, in case there are still those in the province who believe that the NDP didn't really intend to go this far, and that somehow things got a little out of hand, let's examine a few excerpts from a newspaper column written by one Mark Rose, the socialist member of parliament for Fraser Valley West. I'm quoting from the newspaper, the Langley Advance of Thursday, March 8, and I quote in its entirety: Under the small heading "From Parliament Hill" there's the larger headline: "Is this land your land?"

How's that for a start, Mr. Speaker? Is your land my land? Here's what Mr. Rose says…. I'm sorry, I said I was going to quote in full but I will not, only in the interests of time. I hope I'm not altering the meaning of the article in just pulling out these excerpts.

"The present outcry against the legislation is largely because it offends the mythology of land ownership in North America. But of course, nobody really owns the land. What one owns usually is the surface rights and is granted a real estate or "royal estate".

Later in the same article:

"Although I have not studied the land bill in detail it seems to me that the proposed five-man commission will assume the land use powers of the municipalities. I can only presume that this commission is expected to better withstand pressure to rezone for subdivision, pressures formerly felt only by municipal councils. While I agree that farmland should be preserved, but because many constituents of mine are justifiably upset, I've recently written a letter to the Hon. David Stupich, copy to Premier Barrett, which asks a number of questions and suggests some alternatives."

Then, Mr. Speaker, there follows about four questions on the general topic, the last of which is most significant in terms of the strenuous opposition this bill has prompted. Here it is:

"Does the government intend to hold public hearings throughout the province, and have the benefit of public wisdom before implementing the legislation?"

Well that's a very good question, Mr. Speaker. "Does the government intend to hold public hearings and have the benefit of public wisdom before implementing the legislation?"

The question has been asked to this government by Mr. Mark Rose. How does the House like that earlier line, Mr. Speaker, "…the mythology of land ownership in North America."

Now there's an interesting challenge to the Minister of Agriculture and his cabinet colleagues; public hearings before implementation of the legislation. What about public hearings at any time before or after the legislation, Mr. Speaker? There's no mention of them in Bill 42. There is not one word before or after the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most annoying aspects of Bill 42 and the defence of it by the Hon. Minister and others on the Government side, both in this House and in talking to the media, is the continuing reference to farmland. The title of the bill is Land Commission Act. That, Mr. Speaker, means all land.

Why does the Minister persist in referring to it as a farmland preservation measure when he knows and the rest of us in this House know that the powers it carries would permit this super group of non-elected types, whoever they may be, to deal with any piece of land in this province. If they so chose, and if the cabinet agreed? Look at section 8, and read that insidious little word "designate". Again and again and again, Mr. Speaker, this is a land bill.

Section 8 confers on the Provincial Land Commis-

[ Page 1531 ]

sion the power to establish four types of reserves, agricultural land reserve, greenbelt land reserve, land-bank land reserve and parkland reserve.

Sections 10, 11 and 12 spell out in some considerable detail the regulations with respect to the agricultural land reserve, but there are no sections setting out any regulations concerning the other three categories. Are these, Mr. Speaker, going to be set up by more of those infamous regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — regulations which are beyond the reach of this Legislature after we all go home and which the present Government party found so terribly distasteful when it was in Opposition?

Why has this distinction been made between the agricultural land reserve and the other three? Tell us, through you Mr. Speaker, tell us. Tell the people of British Columbia, Members of the cabinet and the Government, just what you and your non-elected mandarins might have in mind under these other categories.

In our review of this bill — and I have had discussions with a number of people who are not necessarily in complete agreement with the policies of our particular party — we come back time and time again to the fact that this legislation, by accident or by design, and I have to suspect the latter, is designed to completely emasculate local and regional district government. The control of any land designated under the Act has been removed from the municipal councils and regional districts boards insofar as use or zoning of that land is concerned. I refer you then to section 10(4) and section 20(5). As we read it, and we have heard nothing to the contrary in this House, that control has been placed strictly and totally in the hands of the non-elected commission.

It would seem to us that it would be a far healthier situation if the commendable objective of preserving farm, park, greenbelt and open space land, could be achieved without denying to elected representatives at the local and regional level a major responsibility of determining how those lands are to be regulated. The present Government, much to my very great surprise and regret, obviously feels that municipal councils and regional district boards, or at least some of them, have succumbed to the pressure of developers and other special interest groups. So the Government, this fine provincial government, has therefore, in its best "big brother" form, decided, Mr. Speaker, to take the control out of the hands of the elected representatives and place it in the hands of a commission — civil servants.

I have already touched on the fact that they are not directly responsible to the citizen through the election process. Let's put the philosophy to one side for just a moment and also examine the sheer logistics of this five-person commission, located somewhere in Victoria or Vancouver trying to deal with all the requests, the inquiries, the misunderstandings, the appeals and the difficulties which will be encountered by the average citizen who must deal with the commission. These five persons, in addition to being completely removed from the electorate, are also far removed from and therefore, in our view, understandably ignorant of local conditions, and local or regional planning and land use policies.

So when he and his fervent band of helpers — overzealous helpers, I might add — realized the public outrage developing over Bill 42, the Minister of Agriculture suddenly decided to start inviting suggested amendments to get some "John Q. Public" input into this piece of philosophy. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just about time. Just about time. The Minister now invites constructive observations. That is not an easy request to fill but he has told us so often that he wants to hear observations, suggestions, proposals that will assist in getting them out of the Bill 42 box.

There are so many points in this bill which defy a sincere attempt to overcome their deficiencies, but we are going to try in any event.

First, in the case of an agricultural land reserve, any zoning bylaw of a municipality or regional district affecting land in the reserve, I suggest should not come into force until it has been approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet. Any approval of a subdivision of land in the reserve by an approving officer should not come into force until it is confirmed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, the designation must not be retroactive. In other words, zoning bylaws, subdivisions and particularly lawful uses in existence six months prior to December 21 of last year, should not be affected by the designation of any area as an agricultural reserve.

Secondly, in the case of the other reserves — the three which aren't really dealt with to any great extent, greenbelt, land bank and park — zoning bylaws of municipalities or regional districts affecting land in reserves should also be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, this is a possible consideration — these should be of a temporary nature, say for six months or a year, and the municipal council or the regional district board in whose territory the reserve is located should have the right during that period to apply for funds set aside under section 21 of the Act for the purchase of these properties as greenbelt, land bank or park reserve.

Councils and regional boards should also be in a position to request that additional lands are put in the reserve, or that certain lands should be removed from the reserve in accordance with local or regional plans, again in an attempt to inject this local, regional, knowledgeable input. Now, if the councils or regional boards fail to apply for funds to purchase these lands within the period of that reserve, that waiting period, then the Crown could either continue the reserve and purchase the land itself or it could lift

[ Page 1532 ]

the reserve. Of course, during the period of the reserve, the use of the land for any purpose except the legal use, which existed for those six months prior to December 21, or for greenbelt or park, would be unlawful.

Now, I have a few other points, Mr. Speaker. Where the Act gives this land commission — these five people — the power to permit or refuse to individuals the right to use, subdivide or build on their lands, the decision of the commission has to be subject to an appeal to an elected agency or to the court.

Secondly, the designation of all reserves and not just farm reserve, should be subject to the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Again, I refer to section 8.

Thirdly, it should be made clear that land in an agricultural reserve which passes from a deceased person to his or her beneficiaries does not lose the exemption given to agricultural land in section 11(2). The next subsection, as we read it, would result in such land losing that exemption.

Fourthly, it is vitally important that the Act make clear that when land is designated as a reserve, the lawful use to which that land was put for a certain period prior to December 21 should be allowed to continue. Otherwise, it could be argued that the existing use of the land is inconsistent with the designation of the land as, say, greenbelt or park reserve.

Again, Mr. Speaker, (the question of the year) where does this bill speak about public hearings? Where does this so-called "government for the people" show its willingness in Bill 42 to consult, to communicate with the people, with the citizen who may consider himself or herself affected?

This leads naturally to the very major point concerning prior consultation with properly elected local and regional governments. Where was the input, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 42 before the fact from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities? Where was the contact with cities and district municipalities? Where was an honest and straightforward attempt to hear what locally based, locally elected people had to say about this type of legislation?

Let's get one thing quite clearly on the record in this House today, with respect to this bill. Municipalities are people — they are not five or seven or nine persons who go to a meeting every couple of weeks. The whole fabric of local government, as I have understood it, and as it has been practised pretty well, is based on communication with the local citizen and careful consideration of that citizen's viewpoint before certain steps are taken. There is really, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, nothing more democratic than a typical, municipal council public hearing.

I was very sorry to read in the Vancouver Sun on March 14 a quote attributed to my seatmate hereon my left — I emphasize "on my left". The heading is: "Pressure Groups — MLA Hits Developers." The dateline is Burns Lake and the last paragraph, quoting the New Democratic MLA for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), I suggest is not worthy of him: "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."

Mr. Speaker, let's have some names. Let's have some names of people who have misused their position in local government in this province. Let's have some names of municipalities which have misused their rights, instead of vague references in this House and outside to local government which is "loaded with real estate types".

There was no local consultation. I wondered about the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and what his input was in the preparation of this bill. I'm sorry that he's left the House, but he may find it just a little cooler outside.

What about the Department of Municipal Affairs? Who really authored this proposed legislation? Was it one Minister, was it two? Did all interested Ministers of the Crown have an opportunity to review the several drafts? — and we've been told there were several drafts. Were these reviewed by the concerned Ministers in detail with their senior civil service people?

What about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his top advisers? Were they totally involved in the work leading to introduction of Bill 42? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs give his full and unreserved support to a bill which says in effect: "Sorry, local governments; you've all dropped the ball. In land matters you've failed miserably…."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, excuse me for interrupting. It's become a practice, in which I think we're in breach of the rules, to read long speeches. If you look at May, at pp.404-5, the reading of speeches is forbidden.

Now I see the Member probably has copious notes. I am just wondering if he could bring the written portions of his speech to a termination fairly soon. Would that be possible, do you think?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My notes are not that copious. We considered bringing down more public reaction to the bill which is now before the House. I have to admit to still having a certain amount of nervousness in this House and hence I have written my notes in greater detail than I would perhaps as a more experienced Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize it's a new session and there are lots of new Members. I have tried to restrain myself from commenting too much on it. But I do hope that Members will try to make their speeches fluid and without too much reference to notes.

[ Page 1533 ]

MR. CURTIS: I'll take the point, Mr. Speaker, and attempt to avoid the straightforward reading of the material.

We are concerned about the input of the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the preparation of this particular bill, and the suggestion that suddenly local government is not capable of coping with the problem which has developed in certain parts of British Columbia.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that if that is his opinion, if that is what in effect he is saying to us, then I'm extremely disappointed and disillusioned about his attitude towards local government which is put under his control in this House and in this government. It certainly is a vote of non-confidence, not only in the Union of B.C. Municipalities, but in every mayor and alderman, regional district chairman and regional district director who has offered himself for public office in British Columbia and has been successful in that offering.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the people saying about Bill 42? The reaction that we're getting is very strong. I'm sorry that this type of legislation has made it necessary for a number of our citizens to react in extreme anger and with demonstrations and threats of more protests.

However, it is a fact that drastic action by government frequently promotes drastic reaction. Extreme measures bring out the extreme. The few in our society who love to jump into any heated battle will appear at a time like this.

Mr. Speaker, this one, it seems to us, goes much further. The people of British Columbia with whom we have come into contact are both alarmed and angry. The leader of our provincial party, Derril Warren, has met hundreds of them all over British Columbia in the past three weeks and that's the message that he's brought back to us. That was the message I received in the Fraser Valley about 10 days ago.

Now it's very easy for some Members of the Government to speak in this House derisively about the Conservative leader without a seat. But let me assure the House of this, Mr. Speaker: legislative seat or not, Derril Warren carried a strong and an urgent message to the ordinary and concerned people of British Columbia in the past two or three weeks. They responded with enthusiasm and encouragement, with letters and with signatures.

They also know, and many others now know and have noted, that the Progressive Conservative Party in this House stood alone at the first available opportunity to express disapproval of the manner in which this Government was approaching matters concerning agriculture, farmers, citizens' rights and land. They watched and they listened as the other two Opposition parties let their pride get in the way of their common sense. Mr. Speaker, they're not going to forget that fact.

Bill 42 has united the ordinary people of this province in a way in which we feel few of us would have expected so early in the life of a new government. Bill 42 has brought us letters, coupons, signatures, and telephone calls by the thousands. At this point in our office just under 8,000 individual, separate pieces of mail received in the space of a very few days — and that is not counting signatures, either sent individually or on petitions.

Bill 42 has prompted response from every imaginable type of citizen. This I think is very significant — from the apartment tenant in Vancouver and Victoria, from the pensioner in Chilliwack who told me that he lived just around the corner on the second floor of a building, the homemaker in Fort St. John, the rancher in the Cariboo, and yes, Mr. Speaker, a number of men and women who admit to disappointment in the present Government and admit to having voted for this new Government last August 30. They are angry, Mr. Speaker. With or without amendments to Bill 42, we suggest it's going to take them a long time to get over that anger.

Now you've asked me, Mr. Speaker, to depart from the text and to carry on with the ad lib portion of my remarks. I feel compelled, therefore, to attempt to give the House, with your permission, the feeling of some of the letters which we have received. I want to make it very clear that I have automatically discarded those letters which are extreme in their tone or in their language, rude to the Government or to individual Members, because I really feel that serves no particular point. Rather, to give you letters which come from many parts of the province, some of them addressed to my colleague in front of me, addressed to our leader, addressed to the office itself and addressed to me.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CURTIS: Yes. As a matter of fact the pile I've brought in is representative of the ratio of all these letters. I believe there are two in here which indicate general approval of Bill 42 with some reservations.

"I was in full support of your speech against Bill 42. My husband and I both attended the meeting at Ladner yesterday. I was surprised at the lack of support for the NDP as the Member for Delta was elected not by one vote, but others. I had expected some support for them and I thank God there was so little. I wish to thank you for your efforts and travels to inform the people."

From Comox:

[ Page 1534 ]

"Thank you for the stand you have taken against Bill 42. This is a real service to the people of British Columbia who, like ourselves, usually sit back and say plenty but do nothing. With the present Government in power we can no longer afford to be quiet. The best of luck to you personally," et cetera.

From Vernon:

"I have been in Canada for 20 years now and I never thought to encounter a Government here which resembles the ones that drove us away from Europe in the first place. The land Act is outrageous."

I would digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to say that we have received and examined a number of letters from various parts of the province which carry that particular tone. That, I suggest, should be very distressing to all of us.

This one is from 8th Avenue, Vancouver:

"Keep in there fighting, Mr. Warren. We did not vote for your party but support your stand here."

Richmond:

"In our opinion, and we are obviously not alone, this bill is a direct infringement of our rights. We are not only protesting this bill as farmers, which we are, but also as Canadian citizens of a supposed democratic society. We find the entire concept of Bill 42 nightmareish. Still can't believe a B.C. government could ever consider such a barbaric piece of legislation. Thank you for your time and effort."

Seymour Street, Kamloops:

"This letter concerns Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, which is about to have second reading in the Legislature. We are opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

"The bill was originally intended to preserve farmland. As it now reads, one finds the bill concerns itself with all land in B.C. We feel the proposed five-man commission could not fairly legislate such an extent of land. Under a democratic government one is entitled to a system of appeal at a public hearing. We believe Canada and B.C. advocate democracy. The bill allows only for appeal by farmers. This appeal is closed to the public.

"In conclusion, we believe there is a need for legislation to preserve farmland. We do not believe in Bill 42. Please inform the Government of our opposition."

Casey Drive, Victoria:

"Please do all in your power to defeat Bill 42. It really scares us after being in power for such a short time that this Government would bring in such a bill."

This is a strong letter against, and I believe it has been read into the record by others, therefore I'll pass over it. It's addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and it appears to have been reproduced for all Members of the House, Mr. Chairman.

This one is from Kamloops, and I think this one is also very significant for the postscript.

"Dear Members of the Legislative Assembly.

We wish to register our protest to Bill 42, the Land Commission Act as it is a drastic and direct infringement on the personal freedom of every citizen of British Columbia. Yours very truly."

Signed by a husband and wife.

"P.S. the only land we own is 50 ft. by 120 ft."

From West 70th, Vancouver 14.

"For the first time in my life I am writing to a government official. I am all in favour of your government insurance Act covering cars, and the old age pension laws. I voted NDP along with my wife and mother in the last election, but it will be the last time as I refuse to consider your Bill 42 covering the Land Act. This is the Act of a dictator and I spent 3 years getting rid of the last one. I have about 4,000 customers per year, most of them workingclass men. Today a number have told me they feel the same way I do. You have four years, but there is no way your NDP Government will last."

This one is from Vancouver — a copy of the letter addressed to the Hon. Premier.

"I am writing with respect to Bill 42. While most of us agree that preservation of farmland is an admirable goal, a small commission with near dictatorial powers is offensive to my sense of democracy. I would like to point out that you were always highly critical of the Social Credit government, for governing by order-in-council. Yet the NDP are doing the same thing on an almost grander scale.

"Also, any Act where discretion is often left in the hands of one individual is not democratic or fair.

"Also, no avenues for appeal against the ruling of such a commission is not democratic. I thought the "D" in NDP, stood for Democratic."

From Surrey, 124th Street:

"Please stop Bill 42, I think it's ridiculous, and the worst piece of legislation we've ever had in the whole of Canada. We are former NDP and helped put this Government into power but we intend to vote them out next election."

Signed by a husband and wife.

From Victoria:

"With regard to Bill 42, which has to be the worst piece of legislation that has ever been handed down and which I feel infringes on my very rights as a citizen of the province. I also feel

[ Page 1535 ]

that the same bill saps the very initiative out of every working person in this province to ever own anything that he can really call his own.

"I served in the Second World War for the very freedoms which we have been able to enjoy since. And then a piece of legislation such as this bill can be handed down and take away these very freedoms which so many gave so much for. Excuse the spelling."

Now this one I thought would be interesting for the House. It's from Mr. Leslie H. Peterson:

"Dear Mr. Warren. I wish to join in opposing Bill 42. Please add my name to the list."

I don't know if it's "the" Leslie Peterson, Mr. Speaker. This one is from Haro Street, Vancouver:

"Please see that Bill 42 is stopped. I am appalled at the NDP over this bill and other things they are doing. I surely hope British Columbians will wake up, before it's too late.

This is suite 104 — West 16th Street, North Van: 

"Please stop Bill 42. I fought World War II against such legislation."

From West 3rd Avenue, Vancouver 9:

"I urge you, the Conservative party, to stop Bill 42. I am a senior citizen and landowner. We were mislead by the B.C. Government on this."

There's a reference to another Act as well, which I will not read into the record. Vancouver 15:

"Please do all in your power to protect our democratic rights and stop Bill 42."

And then this one signed by, I think, an older person quotes the first two lines of "Oh, Canada". Sechelt B.C. — this is addressed to an individual Member of the House on the Government side, Mr. Speaker.

"As an acquaintance of yours for many years — Texada Island — and as my MLA, please, for the sake of all British Columbians do what you can to stop Bill 42."

From Heffley Creek, B.C. RR 1:

"I have been a faithful voter for the NDP ever since the days of the CCF and Harold Winch, and was delighted when we finally made it. But now to my horror I find that we have elected a dictatorial monster. Yes, I am against Bill 42 as it stands, as any thinking person should be. We don't need you as a Godfather and you may count on one vote less next time around."

Galiano Island; attaching a petition which I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, would represent most of the residents of Galiano Island since it's one of the less populated Gulf Islands in the Capital Regional District. And in part:

"there were 150 people who signed the petition. There were 17 people who did not sign, of those I contacted.

"It is very, very evident by the response that party lines went by the wayside on this issue. It is a far too serious a matter to let pass. Strongly suggest you make this petition available to the official Opposition if you think they would be interested in it."

Here's another one — the only one I will quote from the newspaper advertisements which were placed by the Progressive Conservative party. I think this indicates the kind of fear that has been evident in British Columbia in the last three weeks. This is: "Afraid to sign, Langley ex-NDP." It's the only anonymous letter I intend to read.

"To whoever wants to put in Bill 42, please stop Bill 42. Never, never again will we vote like this."

This is from — I think, 84th Avenue in Surrey:

"Mr. Warren. Thank you for your fight against the NDP. Withdraw Bills 42…"

And then there's reference to other bills not before us at the moment.

"…and the whole NDP Party. We need a strong leader, keep it up."

An ex-NDP."

This is a copy of a letter addressed to several Members of the House.

"As a native of British Columbia who has farmed continuously since 1935, I am violently opposed to Bill 42. The whole concept of any Government voting themselves such control over all land has no place in British Columbia. Until much more thought has been given to the controlling of land use, Bill 42 should be withdrawn. Confiscation without proper compensation and without the right to appeal, I shall never accept. I appeal to you to consider my thoughts."

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have taken enough time of the House in reading letters. There's another one of support. This is from Central Saanich Road, in the greater Victoria area, addressed to me.

" I would like to express my support for Bill 42. We definitely need land zoning laws in all B.C. and not just in the organized communities. I would support the idea of there being an appeal board for those who own completely unarable land."

So, enough of the letters. Interestingly enough last night, Mr. Speaker, I had to attend a meeting of municipal council in Saanich, where we have been approached by a farmer who's been on this land with his family for a good number of years and who has approached the municipality with the view to selling the land. Not for development, not for speculative purposes, but in the hope that the municipality could buy the land and keep it for open space.

He commented very briefly on Bill 42. He also told us that one of the reasons he's given up is not economics but sheer exhaustion. He has had one day off since October of 1971, when he had four days off. As I recall the comment, he doesn't remember the time that he had off prior to that.

[ Page 1536 ]

These people are coming to local government, Mr. Speaker. And local government, in some areas at least, in British Columbia has responded and continues to respond to the desire on the part of many British Columbians to preserve open space and to keep parts of our province beautiful and attractive for this generation and for those to follow.

I have to refer the House, therefore, not to the horrible examples that are alluded to from time to time by Members on the Government side, but to what has taken place in the greater Victoria area.

The municipality of Saanich in the last several years has been embarked on a major and expensive programme of land acquisition for parks, for open space, to keep flood plains free of development and so on. Between 1962 and 1972, this one municipality has acquired 373 acres at an acquisition price of $2,080,000. The Capital Regional District with provincial Government help under the Regional Parks Act, has acquired since 1965 or 1966, Mr. Speaker, a total of 3,862 acres of park land and open space at a cost of perhaps in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million to $3 million.

Thirty eight hundred and sixty-two acres of land purchased by the same local government which has been subjected to so many hoots of derision, veiled references of conflict of interest and so on, inside this House and outside, since Bill 42 first came. Now if that is irresponsible local government, Mr. Speaker, then I have to say that I too am irresponsible.

I do not intend to engage in any kind of filibuster with respect to the debate on this bill. I hope that a few of the points I have made will be of some interest to the House. Bill 42 has given a number of us in British Columbia a very real shock. Again, it is bad law; it is an error upon an error, compounded upon an error, dating back to some time last fall when as I suspect the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) tipped his hand, when he really didn't intend to, with respect to pending legislation.

Bill 42, in its present form, should be tossed out completely. If that is not possible, it should be modified to a sufficient extent so as to be truly democratic and responsible. We feel ft's one of those unforeseen political circumstances which has captured the public's imagination and has aroused their anger. For the Opposition parties, and particularly for the party we represent in British Columbia, it has given us an issue of such magnitude that its effects will echo and re-echo around this province for longer than this Government and its somewhat embarrassed Members will care to remember.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As has been established in this particular debate, I will declare what real estate holdings I have. In joint tenancy with my mother I own a small home lot in the east end of Vancouver and a half-acre recreational lot on Gabriola Island. I have no stocks or shares in any real estate company and I have no other interest in the real estate industry.

To begin, I appreciate the remarks of the last speaker, as I believe he made a contribution in the area of municipal and regional districts having an input into the machinations of this Act. I appreciate that. I think it's well taken. I believe that that will be taken into consideration by the Government when the amendments are introduced into the House.

I'd like to draw the attention of the House to some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in one of his days of debate — I don't recall which one. He alluded to the native Indians at Wounded Knee and the Indian attitude toward dispossession. He alluded to the aborigines of Australia and how they were being dispossessed.

I would suggest to that Hon. Member that if he carried his analogy far enough in regards to loss of private ownership of land, his several lots in the South Peace River country rightfully belong to the Indians indiginous to that area.

He made another statement in which he remarked about the "prosperous Indians of the State of Oklahoma." They were very prosperous, they have rights, they have liberty and they have land that they can call their own. I'd like to tell the Hon. Member something about the Indians of Oklahoma. The Indians that he is referring to in Oklahoma are not native to Oklahoma. They are Cherokee. They are native to West Virginia and Virginia. They were driven out of Virginia, some of the most fertile land in the United States, and they were stuck on the worst land they could find in the United States, the barren plains of Oklahoma. They lived there in misery for years, dispossessed from the fertile valleys and hills of Virginia.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the Indians of Oklahoma are prosperous. But they're not prosperous because of their land. They are prosperous because of what is underneath it — oil. They're oil rich. Don't think that when oil was discovered in Oklahoma the white community didn't try to finagle them out of their rights to that land, but they didn't manage to do so.

Speaking of the Indian attitude toward land, I'd like to read some quotes from the Victoria Times, from the chairman of the executive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Philip Paul. He said:

"The demonstration Thursday against a proposed Land Commission Act was a shoddy display of non-Indian attitudes and values. 'You are years

[ Page 1537 ]

behind other nations in protecting your farmlands,' he said, 'and yet at this late date you have made land, vital for the survival of mankind, a political issue.'

"Paul observed that the land question had nothing to do with socialism, Social Credit, liberalism or conservatism. 'It's a sane man's approach. You're polluting your rivers, your oceans and streams, destroying your forest lands by malpractices and today you are debating whether you will do the same with your farmlands,' he said. Paul said every bona fide farmer is in favour of the bill because he knows land is not a commodity.

"Paul said he is appalled at some of the politicians who have made an issue of farmlands without any regard for the younger generations and the generations unborn. 'But the debate reflects the attitudes and values of the non-Indian,' he said. 'He will not hold a demonstration to protest the construction of the highest highrise in western Canada or the paving of miles of farmland. That doesn't interest him at all.'

"He said one of the main problems facing Indians today is the conflict over values attitudes. He is being pushed to accept the values of non-Indians which he knows are false. The Indian still instinctively believes in the attitudes of his forefathers who held that land was an extension of man, he said.

"'The non-Indian has removed himself so far from nature that he is afraid to walk alone on a trail for fear of what? Harmless animals,' he said. 'He has put his faith in the almighty dollar'."

I know that Chief Paul speaks for most of the Indians in British Columbia.

I had the privilege a few years ago of attending a series of workshops that involved the Indian and non-Indian community in which we really let our hair down. We talked to each other over a series of about eight weeks at Capilano College. It was one of the most constructive, rewarding experiences I've ever had — to find that the native Indian feels that he is a part of the universe; he is not lord of the universes, he is not lord of the land, he does not have dominion over the land; he is a part of land. That is why the Indian community recognizes as totems, seals, whales, ravens and wolves — because they feel they are brothers to the lakes and the forests and the skies of this province.

So I think that what we are doing here no very belatedly is adopting perhaps some Indian attitudes. It's about time.

Mr. Speaker, there's been some talk that this sort of thing has been going on in other parts of the world. I'd like to give an example of one area where this sort of thing is happening. I'm going to pass over the name of this place for effect.

It all began in this jurisdiction. The quiet revolution in land use control saw its first legislative success with the Legislature's passage of the land use law in 1961.

In the initial years after the passage, others typically brushed it aside as a strange phenomenon from a strange land. But now, as other jurisdictions begin reform of their land regulatory systems, it is increasingly apparent that this jurisdiction's 10 years of administering this system of state-wide controls offers a valuable source of practical experience.

The land use law gave agencies a degree of control over the use of the land resources that was far in excess of that enjoyed by any other jurisdiction. It created a land use commission and directed it to divide the entire jurisdiction into four districts — conservation, agriculture, rural and urban. The land use law authorized land in the urban districts to be used for whatever purpose is permitted under the local zoning regulations. Land in the agricultural and rural districts was to be used only in compliance with regulations of the land use commission, and lands in the conservation district were to comply with regulations of the Department of Lands and Natural Resources.

I'd like you to listen to the description of this place. This jurisdiction is a small place with a relatively small amount of land, much of which is mountainous and not suitable for cultivation. In addition, the climate is marked by great variations in rainfall from one part of the state to another. For example, parts of the northeastern plains receive about 75 inches of rain, while the mountains a few miles away receive 300 inches, and the plains on the southwestern side receive only 20 inches.

This combination of mountainous terrain and rainfall variability leaves only a relatively small percentage of land suitable for agriculture. About one and a half million of its four million acres are used or usable for agricultural purposes, but about three-quarters of this agricultural land is dry land used for grazing, with the result that out of the four million acres of land in the state, less than 400,000 are suitable for crops. Does that description sound familiar? It sounds like British Columbia.

The draftsmen of the land use law saw a threat in the economic boom that hit this jurisdiction as the 1960's began. The new jet planes were just beginning to make it accessible to tourists. Both of these factors were stimulating a boom economy in the state, which in turn created a concern that these development pressures must be kept under control.

The major city had been gradually expanding into the prime agricultural area of the central valley. That sounds just like Vancouver, going right straight up the Fraser Valley. The boom threatened to accelerate this growth rapidly. The primary motive of the law's sponsors was to preserve the central valley and the

[ Page 1538 ]

other prime agricultural land and to restrict the city within narrow urban limits to avoid the Los Angeles type urban sprawl that many foresaw.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what this jurisdiction's name is? — the "Marxist People's Socialist Republic" of Hawaii. The island of Hawaii has had this almost identical land commission Act in existence since 1961.

To mainlanders accustomed to land use control by local government, the surprising aspect of the land use law is not the extensive controls it contains, but the fact that public support was found for delegating these controls to a state land use commission rather than to local governments, which I think is very interesting.

It goes on to describe how the urban areas have been established and how they have a reserve of land sufficient to accommodate urban growth for the next 10 years. Rural districts have been mapped to include certain areas characterized by low density residential development of semi-rural nature on lots of at least one half acre, which is a large lot zoning by Hawaiian standards. No rural areas have been mapped on the island of Oahu and the classification has been used sparingly on the other islands. The agricultural districts include both crop and grazing-land plus the sugar mills and other industrial activities typically associated with Hawaiian agriculture.

The commission was given powers to modify and expand the boundaries of the conservation districts and subsequently added a substantial amount of private land, so that by 1969, at least a third of the land in the conservation districts was privately owned, much of it in mountainous areas of more than 20 per cent slope.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, about this land use law that was brought into existence in Hawaii were the people who did it. The people who urged the government to bring this legislation in were the agriculturalists, the farmers, who could see the land disappearing out from under them.

The general goals of conservation received strong support from the public. A recent public opinion survey shows 93 per cent support for the proposition that preservation of scenic and natural resources should receive strong emphasis in land use planning. More recently the emphasis has changed. Environmental groups have tended to focus on the basic issue of population growth. The same public opinion polls showed 69 per cent of the respondents taking the view that urban development should be limited, at least to some degree.

This is from a book called The Quiet Revolution in Land Use. I believe it's dated December, 1972, so it's a very recent study, Mr. Speaker.

Other jurisdictions such as Colorado have land use Acts. Washington State has a land planning commission.

The idea that land is a resource, as well as a commodity, may appear to be self-evident, as we come back to what Chief Paul says, but in the context of our traditions of land use regulation, it is a highly novel concept. Our existing systems of land use regulation were created by dealers in real estate, interested in maximizing the value of land as a commodity. Subdivision regulations were encouraged, which encouraged uniformed lot fronting on public streets, enabling land to be divided into tradeable units. The highest goal of the system was to enable barkers to sell Florida lots in Grand Central Station.

Numerous systems of local land use regulation are beginning to contain regulations that recognize land as a resource as well as a commodity. Exclusive agricultural and industrial zoning reserves land as a resource for those important uses. Regulations prohibiting topsoil removal or requiring common open space find a justification in the protection of land as a resource for recreation and beauty. Regulations which require that a specified percentage of dwelling units in each housing development be reserved for low income groups are recognizing the importance of land as an essential resource for housing all elements of society.

I would recommend this report to the Members of the assembly — they'd learn a lot from it.

Now we come to some other jurisdictions that are looking at land and land use control. In the Michigan Law Review, May, 1970, Representative Paul McClosky from California had a great deal to say. He wrote an article on "The Preservation of American Open Space: Proposal for a National Land Use Commission."

It has been discussed in this House that if we do not stem the takeover of our agricultural land, it doesn't matter anyway because we could import food from other jurisdictions — from California. Well according to Mr. McCloskey, California is on its way out as an agricultural producer.

"It is more difficult, however, to stem the accelerating loss of open space land. Long accepted which both permit and provide an incentive for the development of land, effectively block government action to conserve our most desirable open space.

"The difficulties caused by these principles and institutions are exemplified by the situations in four California valleys in various stages of development — San Gabriel, Santa Clara, Napa and Livermore. Each of these valleys were once known as an area of exceptional environmental quality with unique combinations of soil and climate for the production of citrus fruits, of prunes and of grapes for fine red and white wines.

"The mustard fields of San Gabriel Valley in Southern California are now almost wholly replaced by industry and housing; the Santa Clara

[ Page 1539 ]

Valley's fruit orchards are nearly gone, and the world famous vineyards of the Napa and Livermore Valleys are under very heavy pressure that it can be foreseen they will be completely developed within 20 years."

If anybody's had the privilege of being in the Napa Valley, it's a beautiful place.

He urges a national land use commission consisting of a chairman and four members appointed by the president and with the consent of the senate.

"The commission should have the power to designate areas for urban development to determine what areas will be dedicated to agricultural use, to set aside lands for conservation and for recreation and to set the terms and conditions for all of these uses. In determining whether privately owned lands might be developed by their owner or whether they should either be conserved as open spaces or become the site of an urban area, the commission should attempt to deal first with these lands which are both particularly valuable as open spaces and more heavily threatened by potential development.

"The commission should be granted the power to monitor all open space lands owned by the federal government and no development of or change in the use of these lands should be permitted without the prior approval of the commission."

There are several other recommendations. They follow the same line.

In another jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, in the recent speech to the Japanese parliament at the opening of that assembly, Prime Minister Tanaka stated:

"The land problem is the biggest political issue we face. Certainly land is property and the right to own or hold property is guaranteed by our constitution. However, the contents of such property rights are to be defined by law to conform with the public welfare, and private property must be used for public purpose so long as there is fair and proper compensation.

"I will endeavour to establish a public utility trust principle as far as possible within the constitutional framework and to see that land is widely and fairly used for the people.

"This is the basic principle of our land policy. It will require both long-term and urgent emergency power policies to remove the nationwide confusion,"

I'm sorry, this is a very bad photocopy.

"…of land use and to correct the suities brought about by the rising price of land. Accordingly we will increase the supply of land by an integral utilization of the whole nation's land, decide a basic programme of land utilization throughout Japan and also enforce various measures including a reporting system on any land transaction, issuance of recommendations to suspend transactions when necessary and regulatory controls over land development.

"We will also adopt such measures as would enable prefectural governors to freeze for a specified period any development activity to be made in areas they designate in order to prevent, in particular, speculative land transactions; and with the same eneral objectives to strengthen the reporting system on land transactions to set up a new system for priority purchase and to provide a new right for owners of land to request local public bodies to purchase their land in certain areas."

He goes on about that. It's a very interesting thing.

So we have seen that Holland, Great Britain, Hawaii, Japan are all thinking of this. They have either done it or are doing it. There are other "socialist states" that are beginning to consider land control.

Prince Edward Island has a preliminary report on land ownership. It suggests greater concern with land use than with non-resident ownership. The commission report says:

"The impact of the increase in recreational activity has been dramatic. It reports that within a few years it has led to a startling increase in non-resident ownership and threatens to seriously alter the aesthetic quality of the farmscape and shoreline upon which the agricultural industry is based. It is for this reason the commission finds that the general land use plan is needed to integrate the differing requirements of rural, urban and recreation land users."

That's Prince Edward Island.

Here's another "socialist" outfit that's doing the same thing — Newfoundland:

"A new programme has been introduced, a land consolidation programme designed to increase land available for higher crop and livestock production goals; a capital assistance programme which will enable larger, more efficient farms to be brought into production through financial assistance; a human resources programme to provide training and farm management assistance, including a relevant information flow to existing and new farmers; a marketing programme which will attempt to develop products that could be produced locally but are not at present; a farm support programme to improve farm productivity by making available special facilities and services that are not normally provided."

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of land use control is not revolutionary to British Columbia. It's being done all over the world. Everywhere.

It's high time that it can be done.

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) attempted twice to force the Government to take some kind of action to

[ Page 1540 ]

prevent or to rescind the sale of 320 acres to a non-Canadian. She attempted to force the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to do something about it. She tried to get the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to prevent the sale. And then, when they informed her that there was nothing they could do under existing legislation, she was extremely unhappy with them.

The following day she was out there on the steps screaming and yelling, "They're taking our land away from us." But she wanted to take that man's land away from him. She wanted the Government to do that.

There was an excellent article in the Vancouver Province on March 2, which I think puts some perspective on this idea of compensation — a word that's been kicked around here. It's by Bruce Yemen, a staff writer:

"Real estate is a risk just like the others. It's a pretty good bet the provincial government will tidy up its proposed Land Commission Act and make it clear it can't seize private property without paying fair compensation. But don't bet that this would quiet all the hysteria generated by the legislation since it was introduced last week.

"Reaffirming the sanctity of title to private land is something within the power of the provincial government. Curing the inability of many people to distinguish between the right to own land and the right to make money from owning land is probably beyond any government's reach. It is not surprising that owning land and profiting from it have got all mixed up in the same concept. Private ownership of property is a fundamental principle of a free enterprise system and profit motive is the dynamic force of the same system. More important, the experience of most people in the past 10 or 15 years has been that land is by far the best hedge against inflation. The idea that land increases in value, no matter what, has achieved a semi-sacred righteousness.

"By the same token, there is a widespread belief that the use of zoning powers is a means of increasing land values for the greater good of society. For many people it is impossible to imagine a case where society's greater good is furthered by rezoning land to less lucrative use."

The result: the Government can count on a lot of hysterical opposition to any move that will lower the market values of any land currently in the private sector, farmland or otherwise. The only question is whether such opposition will be presented in political rhetoric, that is, supposed defence of the right of land ownership or in simple economic terms as the demand for compensation.

Let's assume the Government does fix up the Land Commission Act to head off any argument that it is destroying the right to private land title — or does that leave the landowners demanding compensation for property values lost as a result of the Government's changing land-use rules.

Let's consider a non-land example of dollar values lost as a result of Government policy or threatened policy. West Coast Transmission Limited is a case in point. In early 1972, people wanting to buy shares in this company had to pay $30 or more per share. Before the provincial election the price had dropped back somewhat but still was strong in the upper twenties. Now, West Coast shares sell for $20 to $21 despite impressive increases in earnings. Much of that drop can be attributed to the provincial Government. A threat of nationalization, higher royalties and taxes and a general uncertain business climate for B.C. companies.

But how many shareholders of West Coast Transmission have demanded compensation for their losses? It would be be ridiculous, of course, to demand any such thing. Any investor with his eyes open would have known the risk of buying West Coast Transmission shares — the risk of an NDP Government taking power and putting the party's long-standing paranoia about the company into practice. Yes, we are a little paranoic about that.

As an investment, what would make land something special, something different from an equity investment in a gas transmission company? The social necessity of land? Not quite, because transmission of natural gas is pretty vital too. The demand for one can be projected as inevitably as the other in the medium term. Besides, an investor assessing risks should put a negative value on commodities that are so vital as to invite greater government regulations.

If the need for land isn't a guarantee of ever-increasing values, is there somehow a rule of economic justice that should prevent land values from being reduced by government action? It could be expressed as, "Business can have its ups and downs, but land should at least hold its own." Such a philosophy would be comforting to anyone considering a land purchase, but it overlooks the basis of the concept of value. It is a purely psychological thing, not an intrinsic part of the commodity being valued.

Furthermore, value is a heavily future-oriented concept. We'll pay $5,000 for an investment if it can be expected to sell for $10,000 in five years. That makes it good value even if the $5,000 price is outrageous by present standards.

The way markets operate, value is not only based on expectation of that value, but you end up paying the imagined value that would hold in, say, two years' time. Thus, highly regarded companies can sell for 30 to 40 times their current earnings per share, while companies with less exciting future prospects can sell for 8 or 10 times their earnings. When government actions damage exciting company prospects and the market values of the shares, then the same principle is

[ Page 1541 ]

at work as with land that has sold at high prices in expectation of future returns.

All this doesn't mean, for instance, that no farmers in B.C. would be entitled to compensation for damages suffered in the event the Government sticks to its aim of saving the farmland for the future. Some undoubtedly will be entitled. Neither does it mean that the owners of other types of land won't have a legitimate grievance if the government abuses the power to designate land reserves over existing private property. It must be prepared to pay a fair price for the property to those who wish to sell and who can't find a buyer because of the indefinite threat implied in the government reserve. But there should be no confusing issues of fairness with the supposed right to make a profit out of land just because it's land.

I have been very interested in some of the comments made by various Members thither and yon. "The Hon. Member for the galleries" (Mr. D. Warren) who flits about the province was asked in Fort St. John about his alternatives. Mr. Warren said he would continue the freeze on farmland subdivision and set up a five-man commission, "perhaps with the same five the NDP would have appointed to research the problems we are facing and the conflict between the necessity of land for housing and farmland."

There has been some talk that we should just stop cold, not move, don't do anything until we have an inventory of the land we have in the province. The land in British Columbia is currently being inventoried and it has been since 1965. About only one-quarter of the province has been mapped but it will not be completed, Mr. Speaker, until 1981. If we wait until 1981 to complete an inventory of the land in this province, there won't be any farmland left to inventory. It will be all gone. I might add that in Hawaii they have very detailed maps designating the various land areas. So we have to do something now and the sooner we do it the better.

The Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was quoted in the Press as saying at the demonstration that our party gave no warning that we were going to do these things. Nearly everybody in this province, Mr. Speaker, received a booklet, "A New Deal for People" and in that booklet it outlined precisely what we were going to do — "establish a land zoning programme to set aside areas for agricultural production and to prevent such land from being subdivided for industrial and residential uses; establish a land bank for purchase of existing and re-zoned agricultural land for lease to farmers on a long-term basis." That was in the hands of most of the people in this province.

It has been stated time and time again in this House for I don't know how many years. The Press has reported it time and time again, so there is no excuse that we brought it in without any forewarning, any foreknowledge. I think what is disturbing everybody is the fact that we are keeping our word. We are really doing what we said we were going to do. It is interesting to speak about support. There is a geographer here who says the land bill is not strong enough. He would like to see it toughened up. There are three groups here — the Vancouver Natural History Society, the B.C. Branch of the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists and the B.C. Environmental Council — all of them support the bill. In fact, the Environmental Council has gone out and done quite a good research job to inform the people of what we are attempting to do with this Act.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation — in fact I am proud to report that I will fully support his bill. Thank you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the next Hon. Member, I would just ask the two Members to be seated for a moment. I want to make a comment from May. That is this:

"In the Commons when two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls on the Member who, on rising in his place, is first observed by him. Formerly, if the Speaker's call was questioned by the House, a motion was made that one among the Members who had risen to speak be now heard or do now speak. This mode of proceedings is not supported by present usage. It is the Speaker's duty to watch Members as they rise to speak and the decision should be left with him."

Now, I read this section because a couple of Hon. Members have made approaches to the Speaker's desk requesting that they be allowed to speak. I just want to outline that the proper procedure is that they should only rise in their place and wait until they are recognized. It is the responsibility of the Speaker to try to maintain the balance of debate and to recognize Members as he observes them rise to speak.

Therefore, I will follow this policy. I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in your earlier remarks you mentioned that you had a duty to maintain the balance of debate. This afternoon already in the House you have recognized two Government Members. The official Opposition has not spoken in the House yet this afternoon. You've recognized one other Opposition Member and you are now about to recognize another Opposition Member.

Mr. Speaker, that hardly constitutes a maintenance of the balance of debate in the House.

[ Page 1542 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member there is no point of order. It is strictly the Speaker's prerogative to make this decision and I will so do.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, subject to standing order 37; a motion may be made by any Member that so-and-so be heard. That is in the orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member now proceed with his speech?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, very much. I'm delighted.

Mr. Speaker, I'd be most interested to hear now, following the debate that has been going on in this House for several days about this bill, what "Peace in our Time" Pattison, who's the head of the Neonex Company of Canada, would have to say.

You will perhaps remember, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't too long ago that he took a look at the socialistic budget that was handed down and he sort of nominated himself as the first state prophet for the business community and he felt that there was nothing in the province to be concerned about. But I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when he saw Bill 35….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: I wonder if we could have just a little more interest and decorum here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're demanding equal time.

MR. GARDOM: I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, when this individual saw Bill 35 carve into the insurance industry, why he said that that didn't concern him, because he only had one such operation. Well, I'm not going to comment upon his principle in that situation, but I would say, Mr. Speaker, that "Peace in our Time" Pattison has said nothing whatsoever about this particular bill. I'd be most interested to hear what he's got to say about Bill 42 as the sickle falls closer and closer to every individual enterprise in B.C. It's a very peculiar thing to me, Mr. Speaker, why so many people in the province who are so very deeply and genuinely concerned about Bill 42 are not equally disturbed about Bill 35. Because these are completely parallel situations.

Under Bill 42 you find the "Phantom Five" designating the use or non-use of land by the owners of land, and in Bill 35 this Government has designated — I'm using the past tense — that insurers may not carry on their lawful business and that they are without redress.

That is purely and simply confiscation without compensation — 100 per cent confiscation without compensation. I suppose Castro would indeed be proud of this kind of process. I would very much issue a caveat to the land people that they perhaps could learn a little from what happened and what has befallen the insurance people in the Province of B.C.

I'd like to say a few words about basic principles, basic ethics, basic standards for government citizen morality. Fifteen hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker, Justinian gave this definition of law: "To live honourably; to injure no other man; to render to every man his due." This bill fails that 1,500 year-old test.

It is, Mr. Speaker, a vehicle for injury. It certainly does not provide any means for rendering every man his due. You know, Mr. Speaker, laws are not obstacles to be crashed through or evaded. They're vital to the functioning of society. The only alternative to the rule of law and the democratic way of life is the tyranny of the strongest.

Laws have got to be fair; they've got to be certain; they've got to be clear; they have to be concise. This bill also fails those four tests. It substitutes something that indeed could amount to tyranny of the strongest.

If absolute power or totality of power is neither desired nor in the interests of society, or if absolute power is not going to be exercised, then in the name of Heaven, Mr. Speaker, don't grant the power in the first place.

If the power can be subject to abuse, the job is to rein it in, not unleash it. But this Government, Mr. Speaker, has moved diametrically opposite to those conventional wisdoms. And with this bill they would be creating the surest path to tyranny and the greatest opportunity for ruthless government oppression ever experienced in British Columbia.

No valid assurances or succour can be gained from what I would call "death bed repentance utterances" from the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier. Whether these repentances and utterances emanate from stockmen's dinners or college campuses or backroom interviews doesn't really amount to very much. Because when you hear these people very feebly incant that there may be a farmer in the five-man commission, there may be compensation for down-zoning, there may be a right of appeal, there may be fair hearings, everything may be open to public scrutiny, all right.

And the Premier — that great battler for parliamentary principle, Mr. Speaker, that blue ribbon champion for open government, and that unfaltering David slinging for the rights of the individual — said this: "Our P.R. was lousy." You know what he should have said, Mr. Speaker? He should have said,

[ Page 1543 ]

"Our bill is lousy."

The morality of this situation demands moral action and moral response, not puerile assessments of socialistic information services. What he's been doing is just trying to hand the Province of British Columbia a bunch of equivocations and Madison Avenue sophistry.

You know, it's a pretty funny thing when you've got to go ahead and suggest that the course of this bill has been influenced by the failure of some NDP information services. That in itself is tantamount to a 100 per cent admission that the bill is 100 per cent O.K. — no need for any amendments at all.

Had we only had a massive advertising campaign, is the Premier's premise, to back up this bill, everything would have been fine and dandy. There's nothing wrong with the bill. Well, if there's nothing wrong with the bill why do we hear these statements coming from the Minister of Agriculture and why do we hear them coming from the area from which they come rather than in this House? The easiest way for him to have them come into this House is for him to withdraw the bill, send it back to the drawing board and have the thing done properly.

Good grief! You're a government! You're supposed to be a responsible government and you're coming out with a piece of trash like this legislation. Trash, t-r-a-s-h, so there's no misunderstanding of the word.

To go ahead and indicate, as the Premier did, that the laws of this land have to be subject to the successes or failures of the public relations hirelings of this Government is an abdication of parliamentary responsibility. I say it's a pretty poor assessment for a democratic society.

Statutory viciousness, Mr. Speaker, whether by accident or design, once it's started is a very difficult thing to check and even much more difficult to remove. There's no clearer route to an abuse of governmental power than by an ad hoc incorporation of a raft of regulatory legislation without first determining if the legislation will pass the tests, which are six in number, for statutory, philosophical goodness:

(1) You've got to be sure that the nature and scope of the power is not too wide. Does it comply with the basic principles of the rules of law and of natural justice? The answer is "No" in this case.

(2) Are the persons who exercise the power qualified, trained, capable and subject to legislative control and withdrawal? The answer to that question, insofar as this bill is concerned, again is in the negative.

(3) Is the procedure by which the powers are exercised fair and just? Certainly not! There are not any procedures to find whatsoever. How can you say they're going to be fair? How can you say they're going to be just?

(4) Is there a proper right of appeal or opportunity for review? None! Absolutely none. And what the Hon. Minister of Agriculture may say at a stockmen's dinner, or he may say in a shower in the morning, has nothing to do with what this bill is going to end up looking like. And we haven't been told that.

(5) Do the courts retain control of the exercise of the power? Is there any simple and efficient access to the courts to rectify any failure to exercise the power or abuse of it? The answer is "No." Fails again.

(6) Does the statute provide the opportunity for adequate compensation for injury or loss resulting from the exercise or from the abuse of the power? "No." Flunks that one too.

Any statute, Mr. Speaker, that won't pass that six-point test will, in one way or another — any statute, not only this one — will in one way or another be infringing or encroaching upon individual rights with varying degrees of being unjust, oppressive, arbitrary or just plain vicious. And from what I have seen of Bill 42, it fits the latter category best.

There has to be a basic philosophy concerning the checks and balances; also a basic philosophy concerning what the modus operandi will be in a statute. We don't want to have in B.C. the establishment of statutory situations where you find conflicts of interest; where the expropriator and the payor are one and the same; where the judge and the prosecutor wear the same hat; where the ground rules are unclear; where the ground rules are not known, which is the situation here.

"Change the statute," they say. What a feeble way to govern. A new Government, coming in, bringing in the most important bill in their own assessment, and they frankly admit the thing's rotten from the start because it has to be amended. What a way to do business.

Who drew it? Asking for help from every side. Who drew this thing? Who made this great big fat decision? There's more than egg on chin, I'd say, Mr. Speaker. There's an awful lot of omelettes on an awful lot of chins over there.

To suggest amendment is nothing more than a pasteboard, hodgepodge approach. If a statute will not pass the six tests that I've mentioned, don't bring it in. This one without question flunks.

The hallmark of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is the rule of law and the recognition and the acceptance by society of order. I'd say that this mean bill transgresses both of those. It denies natural justice. It erodes the rights of the individual. It confiscates without compensation. It seizes without appeal. And it emasculates any right of access to the courts. This is rigidism, centralism and regulationism in the extreme.

Government by regulation. Rules and regulations decided behind the red door of cabinet. The House of the Province of British Columbia is here. This is the

[ Page 1544 ]

House of the people. Laws are made for the people by the people; not behind the red door of cabinet. This is the place where the regulations — which is the wrong word — should be decided. This is the place where the laws should be debated.

Not by a named cabinet. Who elected the cabinet? They were named. They were just named.

What about this commission, this "Phantom Five," or "Patronage Quintet?" They will have powers to make a 100 per cent decision, not only of property but of lifestyle for the whole of the breadbasket of B.C. — in fact just about all of the land in B.C. They will be a law unto themselves.

"Let the sunshine in," the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) used to say, when he was in Opposition. He got into Government and he pulled down the blind. That's what he did.

No checks; no balances. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this bill is a classic example of the absolute corruption of power.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, a landowner in the Province of B.C. would be so controlled he'd need an order-in-council to have a drink of water — or you could think of some other more appropriate analogy.

But this seems to be the unalterable and radicalized direction and the radicalization process of the NDP. New Democratic Party, the call themselves; insofar as this bill is concerned it's "Non-Democratic Party."

Once it's unleashed and in full swing, we'll see the second state in the stateism in B.C. For state property of farmland, agrarian socialism, state property of insurance, telephones, mines, lumbering, logging resources, all the resources, business, this seems to be their goal. As I said, bureaucratic stateism seems to be their label.

What will that produce? One great glob of omnipotent, stultifying, inflexible bureaucracy. Demise of the individual, Mr. Speaker, appears to be their purpose. Fortunately, that will be their end.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the best use that can be put to Bill 42 is this, and for the purpose of Hansard I hope they hear the "scrunch, scrunch, scrunch" as I tear it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several myths going around and being perpetrated by the Government about the bill that we're talking about today, Bill 42. The most serious of those myths is that this is a bill to protect farmland. It is nothing of the sort. It does nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make farming better for the farmer, absolutely nothing. There are no provisions in that bill to do that.

If this bill, Mr. Speaker, were for the protection of farmland, the question I ask is: why wasn't it called the "Farmland Protection Act," instead of the Land Commission Act. Nothing to do with the protection of farmland or the question of making farming a more viable operation for the farmers all over British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should have been called the "Dairyland Act," because rather than helping the farmer its purpose is to "milk" the farmer. It's a terrible piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like, in speaking about the principle of this bill, to talk a bit about what this Government has been doing to perpetrate some of the myths and Members of this Government in particular. I speak of the Premier on the radio the other day and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) on many occasions, on the radio and in the Press and in interviews with various members of the media.

The Premier said on the radio the other day, Mr. Speaker — and all of the Members of this Government that I've heard speak have talked about this mythical section in the Municipal Act that is the same as their dictatorial legislation in Bill 42. I'd like to set this Legislature and the people of British Columbia straight on what that section of the Municipal Act does say. It has nothing to do with the kind of thing that is in Bill 42.

The Premier refers to section 706. He says:

"May I refer you again to the section of the Municipal Act where in section 706 it says 'property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of zoning.' "

Well it doesn't quite say that to begin with. It says "by reason of the adoption of a zoning bylaw." If you'll check the rest of the Municipal Act as it relates to zoning, it also says that "first of all the council shall not adopt a zoning bylaw until it has held a public hearing." Where are the provisions for a public hearing in Bill 42? There are none.

The zoning section of the Municipal Act also says that "When a council has adopted a zoning bylaw there shall be established by bylaw a board of variance." Where is the provision in Bill 42 for a board of variance? There is none.

Section 707(a), Mr. Speaker, says:

"Where subsequent to the acquisition of land by a person, a zoning bylaw is adopted or amended so that no use of the land is permitted, that person may, if not granted relief by the board of variance, appeal to the Minister who may, by order binding on the municipality, grant such relief as he considers proper."

More checks and balances, Mr. Speaker. None of those in Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, section 709 of the Municipal Act also says:

"The board of variance shall hear and deter-

[ Page 1545 ]

mine any appeal by a person who is aggrieved by a decision of any official charged with the enforcement of a zoning bylaw or a bylaw under the subsection."

There is no provision like that in Bill 42. No provision for appeal of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, subsection 4 of that same section of the Municipal Act says:

"An appeal lies to a judge of the county court from a decision of the board."

That's the board of variance. More checks and balances, more avenues of appeal. All of those presently in the Municipal Act.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, the most damaging part of this whole question is that the people who have been appearing on television, on the radio and in the newspapers doing interviews, in quoting this section have left the most important part of the section out altogether. That is section 706(2), which says:

"Subsection I does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use."

As Bill 42 is almost exclusively dealing with land designated for public use, section 706 would not have any effect. What is it then?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going into the private use of land.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this Government and its Members have been misleading and perpetrating this myth all over the Province of British Columbia and it's about time they stopped.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood in his place and insisted that Bill 42 has no relation to any piece of property under two acres in size. What absolute nonsense. May I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) speaking on a radio programme not too long ago in which he was asked a specific question by a listener on an open-line show, "If a grocery store in downtown Vancouver wanted to expand its operation and the government, for instance, had plans to establish a co-op in that same neighborhood, could the government designate the property on which that other grocery store stood for urban use only and restrict its building permit?" The agricultural Minister said, "Yes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in downtown Vancouver.

MR. McCLELLAND: Under the provisions in Bill 42 for the designation of land for urban and industrial use, every square inch of property in British Columbia is affected and that's what it says in the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They say only two acres.

MR. McCLELLAND: Two acres is nonsense — every square inch of property in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of comment about the problem of not being taken or injuriously affected with regard to zoning. Everybody recognizes that that's a legitimate provision to be in any zoning bylaw for the protection not only of the people in the community, but of the municipality, because we all know that quite often when zoning bylaws are passed, the cry is heard throughout the community: "My property has been devalued" or "My property has been lowered." We all know that we need protection from that and we accept that as a legitimate part of the zoning bylaw.

However, Mr. Speaker, let me cite you one example alone. Suppose I bought, or you bought, or anybody else bought a piece of property yesterday that was zoned in a municipality for industrial use, we'll say, for $10,000 per acre. Suppose that property was two acres, you've paid $20,000 for it. But suppose that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the government comes along and says, "We're designating that land for parkland."

AN HON. MEMBER: Suppose, suppose, suppose.

MR. McCLELLAND: Suppose, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: It can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: The legislation allows it.

MR. McCLELLAND: The legislation allows it, Mr. Speaker, so let's continue with the supposition.

I'm citing a perfectly legitimate example, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to be able to continue with my example without the interruptions of the Member on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, suppose that that designation is given and now I have two acres of parkland. What on earth do I want with two acres of parkland? It's no good to me — so if I need to sell it, I must sell it as parkland. It may be worth $1,000 per acre. In that instance, Mr. Speaker, I've lost $18,000 right out of my pocket. Now the government cannot tell me that I haven't been injuriously affected, or my land hasn't been taken. I'm trying to say and I insist, there are cases when zoning does affect the value of land and this Government must compensate the owners in those cases.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also said on that same province-wide radio open-line show, "farmland prices for farmland." He said, "We are not interested in buying farmland. We are interested in ensuring that the land stays as farmland."

If he's not interested in buying farmland, Mr. Speaker, what does he need $60 million for? It must be to buy something. Why do they need the assurance

[ Page 1546 ]

in this Act, that they will have, that the Minister of Finance shall be ordered by this five-man commission….

AN HON. MEMBER: Not shall — may.

MR. McCLELLAND: "Shall be ordered," Mr. Member, shall be ordered to provide it with $25 million from time to time. What is from time to time? Twice a week? Once a month? Four times a year?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 says that the Minister of Finance "shall" pay at the order of this five-man commission. Who's taking over power in this province? The five-man commission. Exactly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say right now too, that I don't have anything to hide in this House, but I don't intend to join in the circus-like little game the people on the other side of the House have been playing about telling us about how much land they own, and how many lots they have in downtown Vancouver and what they're going to do with them. Mr. Speaker, I don't have anything to hide. I took my oath of office in all fair conscience and that's enough for the constituents in my area too.

Mr. Speaker….

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I hope Williams speaks on this one.

MR. McCLELLAND: We talked about appeal, and the government tells us, "We're going to make appeal procedures effective in the amendments." First of all we're told that we're going to get amendments after we went through the business of second reading. Now I notice by the paper this morning that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) says, "Well we might have to wait a little longer than that for some of the amendments. We'll make them this fall at the fall session. We have to live with this bill all summer and maybe we'll get some other amendments in the fall."

The Minister of Agriculture says that we're going to have — what was it — four or five major amendments. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says, "We may have 12 to 18 amendments." How many amendments are we going to have? If the bill is in that bad shape, what are we doing talking about it here at all?

Mr. Speaker, on this same radio programme, the Premier said, "I'm bursting to tell you what these amendments are, but I can't do it. I must bring it forward to the Legislature first." Well that's all we've asked — that you take this bill, get rid of it, withdraw it and put your amendments in it and then bring it back to us and then we'll talk about the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the bill's real meaning is very clear. I'm serious about this, Mr. Speaker. This bill is the first step toward total takeover of all private land in British Columbia. I believe the backbenchers because I think that they're an honourable bunch of people, so I've been listening very carefully, Mr. Speaker, to what the backbenchers have been saying. They've been telling me that the socialists do not believe in the private ownership of land.

Mr. Speaker, the socialists believe in the abolition of property in land. They believe in abolition of the right of inheritance. They believe in centralization. They believe in government monopoly. They believe in the confiscation of all private enterprise. They believe in collective farming and all of these philosophies are clearly detailed in Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do they collectively farm now?

AN HON. MEMBER: In Russia.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that right? I hadn't given that a thought. But you're right, that is right. They do have collective farms in Russia or China, I'd forgotten all about that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I want to…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to talk about a couple of other comments made by some of the previous speakers again. In fact, one of the previous speakers wasn't even a speaker, but he got up yesterday and made quite a point of order. I realize that my colleague from the great Peace River area was a little tired or he never would have let this go through. The Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) came roaring back into this House yesterday and said, "I demand that that speaker withdraw his comments about me attacking the law profession." Well of all the nonsense. The paper says, "Lauk attacks lawyers." It says, "They're playing politics, and I'm entitled to attack them on the same basis."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) withdraw that remark, if you don't mind.

[ Page 1547 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have no knowledge of the remarks made by the Hon. Minister. Would the Member continue his speech, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. McCLELLAND: You're sitting right in front of him. You heard what he said.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm continuing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, another comment that's been made over and over and over again by the Minister of Agriculture is that the land freeze that's in connection with Bill 42 right now is not effective to any piece of property that isn't taxed for agricultural land.

That's another myth because it's absolute nonsense. Every piece of land that falls under of any of the four soil classifications that are listed in the order-in-council delivered by this Government in December is effectively frozen right now. It has nothing whatsoever to do with agricultural land.

There are something like 300 applications now sitting in the municipality of Langley waiting for this government to do something. Now all of the City of Langley is essentially frozen. Many other urban areas throughout British Columbia are now frozen because of the idiotic land freeze that's in effect in this province right now, and will be in effect, Mr. Speaker, for all summer at least before this Government finds its way out of the mess that it is in.

Mr. Speaker, this Government and its spokesmen have attempted to hide the real meaning of Bill 42 and they have attempted to build up, as I have attempted to point out, in these radio programmes and television programmes an elaborate smokescreen about the preservation of farmland. One of the bad results of this smokescreen, Mr. Speaker, has been that the legitimate farmer in British Columbia, because of the actions of this Government, has been labelled as some kind of a greedy speculator.

The agriculture Minister in particular has done absolutely nothing to dispel that slur on British Columbia's farmers, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in many instances he seems to have encouraged it and the encouragement is coming from that side of the House day after day after day in which they portray farmers as real estate speculators. They portray farmers as anything but what they really are — and that is among the finest citizens in British Columbia. People who care about the ultimate use of the land of this province.

MR. CHABOT: Talk to the farmers.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the farmers are interested in protecting the value of their land. Why shouldn't they be interested in protecting the value of their land? They consider their land a form of insurance, too. So do we all consider the assets we have as a form of insurance or a pension fund. We balance all of our assets against our need. That is only normal in any society.

What else have we given the farmer? That is the question, Mr. Speaker — what else? Nothing.

Now the socialists want to take the only security they have away from them, and leave them with nothing. Some solution — save the land but kill the farmers in the process. Isn't that great, isn't that some solution? When, Mr. Speaker, will the socialists understand that you cannot save farming by force? You cannot put a gun to the farmer's head and say to the farmer: "O.K. Mr. Farmer, get out there and produce or we will take your land away from you." You cannot make the farmer produce.

MR. CHABOT: Let's see you try.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Hall) — a really good farming community — doesn't even know what the farmers are doing in Surrey, hasn't got any idea what is going on in the farm community and sits here and says: "Where does it say that in the bill?" Well, it says that in the bill, Mr. Speaker — it says it allows the government to go into state farming. All that is doing, Mr. Speaker, is competing with the farmers. You are farming the farmers, for crying out loud!

You are supposed to be helping the farmers. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if you can make sure that the farmer can make a living on his land, you will never chase him off that land because he won't want to leave. Let me tell you, too, Mr. Speaker, that the good farmers and the good farmers in our constituency, Mr. Member for Surrey, don't want to do anything else but farm. They are content to be farmers but they would like your help to make them a living.

MR. CHABOT: They want your help.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the farmer is

[ Page 1548 ]

even today interested in farming, despite the moves against him by this kind of a bill. There is still time to withdraw that bill and do something a little more sensible to make it possible for the farmer to make a living on his land. You don't have to do anything else.

I would appeal once again, as we have done before, to the backbenchers in this Government to really sit down and think what you are doing to the farmer with this bill. Because it is shameful.

MR. CHABOT: Think what you are doing to yourselves.

MR. McCLELLAND: For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, lets stop this nonsense of tagging the farmer as a speculator. What do you hope to gain by that?

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't say that.

MR. McCLELLAND: They are saying that every day, Mr. Speaker — the Members of this Government. No wonder the farmers are up in arms. No wonder, when their own agriculture Minister accuses them of being land speculators. The agriculture Minister should resign in shame. The Minister has said he'd listen, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a heck of a good idea.

MR. CHABOT: You can't ask him. He isn't here.

MR. McCLELLAND: You can't ask him, he's not here. He is out listening again. The Minister says he'll listen and he will consider amendments but, in moving second reading in this House, he sounded like anything but a man who wanted to listen or to consider amendments. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture Minister stood in his place and indicated to us that this was a perfect piece of legislation that needed no help and that was going to save us all from disaster in British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Said he was listening but couldn't hear.

MR. McCLELLAND: Did the Minister listen to the farmers, Mr. Speaker? Not on your life did he listen to the farmers. He wouldn't even consult with the farmers.

I would like to say right now that the references to the National Farmers' Union in this debate don't really make very much sense and don't have very much impact because the National Farmers' Union doesn't even represent 5 per cent of the farmers in British Columbia. They don't represent any farmers in the lower mainland of British Columbia. They are just a nonentity as far as the farmers of British Columbia are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this bill is overwhelming and the agriculture Minister, despite his protestations, is not listening even though he is saying: "I expect there will be amendments." What does he say here? In the Vancouver Province, March 8: "Mr. Stupich said he himself doesn't recognize the need for a tribunal on how land is designated, but will have to find a way to have the community understand and accept the legislation." He is going to convince us about the legislation. We don't need any appeals, no tribunals — "Just listen to me and I'll explain it all to you."

MR. CHABOT: You don't need a tribunal with tribal laws.

MR. McCLELLAND: "He says he hopes to clear up the misunderstanding about the bill during the debate on second reading." I say again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister didn't sound like a man who wanted to do anything but convince us and didn't sound like a man who was ready to accept amendments to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Farmers from Vanderhoof were upset too.

MR. McCLELLAND: "Trust me, we're listening." He says in this story in the Vancouver Sun: "I ask you to give me a year to prove to you that we can be trusted." Give us a year and then…. Sure, trust us for a year. "Later, Mr. Stupich said he considers the right to appeal to be already in the bill."

Well, Mr. Speaker, how could he possibly say that? I might say that you could hear the Attorney General (Hon Mr. Macdonald) when he was on the Jack Webster programme, flicking the bill in the microphone. "Well, it must be in here somewhere," he said. "It's got to be in here somewhere."

Mr. Speaker, it says clearly in this bill that the decision of the commission is final and no appeal lies from that decision. Now, how can the Minister of Agriculture and the Attorney General tell us that there surely must be some measures of appeal in that bill? As to the comments about compensation in this bill, Mr. Speaker — it says there is no right to compensation. When the Attorney General was pointed out that designation in the bill, the chief law officer of this province on that same radio programme said: "Where does it say that? Where does it say that?" That is the chief law officer of British Columbia who said that.

Mr. Speaker, probably one of the first things that the Government Members should have done was read the bill. Why don't they read the bill? They will find

[ Page 1549 ]

out what's in it. Find out what's in it before you go around to your people and mislead them and spread myths. Read the Municipal Act and read all the other provisions that are already entrenched in this province for checks and balances. Do that before anybody goes around spreading myths.

AN HON. MEMBER: You read it, and you don't know anything about it.

MR. CHABOT: Shuswap will be the first one down the drain.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said: "Trust me." The Minister of Agriculture said: "Trust me." But neither of them, and especially the Minister of Agriculture, has levelled with the people on one single aspect of this bill. Not once. In every instance, Mr. Speaker, the name of this game has been, blame the farmers and draw the attention to the farmers and off the problems that are contained in this bill. Draw attention away from the real aim, which is to totally take over every piece of private property in British Columbia and put it into the hands of an omnipotent five-man, faceless land commission.

MR. CHABOT: Dictated to by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I really find it very difficult to understand the agriculture Minister in all of the debates so far. Most of it outside the House, incidentally. He says again….

MR. PHILLIPS: You had a chance to talk last night and you explained nothing.

MR. McCLELLAND: He said, Mr. Speaker, again: "I assume that the right to appeal was already in the bill." The lawyers were responsible for the legalese.

The Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) read a newspaper story somewhere in his 12 hour talk that had to do with the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi), who also said that the whole problem with the bill was not its contents but its legalese.

The Minister says that he assumes that the farmer could go to his municipal council or regional district to put his case. The regional districts and the municipal councils have been cut right out. No room for them any longer in this bill. They've been destroyed as far as the planning process goes.

Mr. Speaker, it's been asked in this House on a couple of other occasions, who is responsible for this bill? Who really wrote Bill 42? It sure seems pretty evident from the comments that we've had on other occasions that the Attorney General didn't write it because he doesn't know what's in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't blame him for not wanting him to admit it.

MR. McCLELLAND: He wasn't even allowed to study the bill, or didn't have the time, one of the two. So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it's reasonably fair to assume that somebody else wrote the bill. Maybe some of the other Members of the cabinet and the rest of the Government side weren't allowed to even look at the drafts of this bill. How many were there, Mr. Minister of Highways, 11 was it at last count — 12, 15, 18? Still didn't get it right. Should have kept practising, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is legislation by exploration. (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: I have a notion…. We must get that line in Hansard Mr. Speaker, "legislation by exploration." Fantastic.

I have a notion this bill is being forced on them. Not only the cabinet, but the rest of the backbenchers as well. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was at least a co-author of the bill. I've no doubt, because he even claimed on another of these famous open-line shows — and the Minister of Agriculture's been on lots of them — he even claimed on one of those shows that he wished the bill was stronger. He'd have liked to have seen it much stronger.

He said in this House on one other occasion that he's been dreaming of something like this for 20 years — ever since he was a boy. Mr. Speaker, he obviously must at least be a co-author of the bill.

But I also find that the bill bears the Machiavellian traces of input by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — and Pacific National Exhibition and recreation and high life and wild life and low life — (Hon. Mr. Williams). The odds are pretty good, Mr. Speaker, that the East End kid's in there pulling a few strings too I think. (Laughter).

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Norman Pearson had some input to this bill, and that probably Mr. Victor Parker had some input to this bill — all of the old members of the planning fraternity in the days several years ago before the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was in this House. All of them now working for the Government in Victoria and certainly putting their input into this bill.

[ Page 1550 ]

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why they didn't bring some of the other Members of cabinet and some of the other Members of the backbench in on the planning of this bill. We agree, Mr. Speaker, that the agriculture Minister was obviously to be the front man for the bill, the man to take all the flak.

The flak is certainly evident in the community. The people on the other side of this House will not listen to what the people are saying about this bill that purports to be a bill to save farmland in British Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that we can't go through this bill section by section at this time, but I would like to say that there are 22 good reasons why this bill should be thrown right out of this House. And there just happens to be 22 sections in the bill. Every one of them, Mr. Speaker, add up to what is the most vicious and devious piece of legislation that's ever been introduced in an Legislature in Canada for sure, and probably anywhere in North America. If anyone in this House still thinks that this is a bill to preserve agriculture, you've all got your ears and your eyes closed tightly.

Mr. Speaker, this bill delivers a knockout blow to the rights and responsibilities of local and regional government all over British Columbia. It delivers a knockout blow to all of the hopes and dreams of our entire agricultural community. This bill delivers a knockout blow to the rights of every individual in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the question of course has to do with saving the farmland. I notice that the chirps are increasing in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. What do we save it from? What do we save it for? Those questions have to be answered before we can embark on any crusade to save land.

We must, first of all, study the impact on the farming community, because if we don't there isn't any sense in passing any kind of land use legislation. We must, first of all, understand what is happening in the farming community.

Obviously there has been no reference to any of the changes in technology; the technology advances which have changed drastically over the past few years as they pertain to farming. Particularly, Mr. Speaker, in a relatively short period of the last 30 years.

If I may quote from Agriculture Canada: "The percentage of people living on farms has dropped in the last 30 years from 27 per cent to 6.9 per cent." We're all aware of that. It's part of the population influx to the urban centres. We know about it and we're desperately concerned about it. We know that some way, if there is any way — and that's a good question as well, Mr. Speaker — there must be something done about it.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, according to Agriculture Canada, the amount of money invested in farms rose from $4.2 billion in 1942 to $23.7 billion in 1971. That's an increase, Mr. Speaker, of 458 per cent — the amount of money invested in farms. Although the number of occupied farms decreased by some 50 per cent in Canada over those same 30 years, the average size of farms almost doubled. Farm cash receipts rose from an average of $624 million in the period of 1935 to 1939 to $4.5 billion in 1971. Mr. Speaker, from $624 million over those whole years to $4.5 billion in 1971.

Mr. Speaker, over the years from both improved farming methods and new technology, which we all must recognize, and also increased efficiency…

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked in this House some days ago of the Agriculture Minister, if he felt that our British Columbia farmers were as efficient as they should be. He gave a very waffling answer and once again, put down the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this tendency of this Minister of Agriculture to put down the farmers in this province has gone just about far enough because in British Columbia the techniques for farming have increased tremendously — the efficiency has improved tremendously. Agriculture has steadily improved it's ability to feed an ever-growing number of people as our population expands. Mr. Speaker, although there are fewer farms, the industry has kept far ahead of the population expansion. The farming industry has proved that it can feed the people regardless of how fast the population expands.

Mr. Speaker, if I could comment on just a few of the statements that the Minister made in the House on March 9, with regard to this same question about production versus population. He said, "Between 1945 and 1950, despite the best efforts of farmers with advanced technology at their disposal, food production could not keep pace with the population increase in the world." And that was 25 years ago. He added, "To bring this situation into focus for this continent, it can be noted that in the U.S. today there are 6,000 more mouths to feed each morning." May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, he said that these figures are 25 years old. That's exactly correct, the figures are 25 years old and mean absolutely nothing with relation to today's farming needs or farming output.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the Government is going to quote figures, they at least get up-to-date and quote some figures from today.

I'd like to quote from a short newspaper article too, with regard to a new environmental organization

[ Page 1551 ]

formed in Victoria called CASE, of which Mr. Derek Mallard is the president. I seem to remember that he had something to do with another organization at one time, but they found that they couldn't get along so he went and formed his own organization over here in Victoria. They were supporting the controversial Bill 42, and he says, "Most improved tremendously. Agriculture has steadily improved its ability to feed an facts he said, "was that according to the World Food Organization estimates, each person in North America needs 2.1 acres of food producing land to support them."

According to those figures, B.C. can support only 800,000 people. We're in real trouble because we now have well over 2 million people here. Some of them are going to have to go. Where are you going to send them? It's those kind of statements that don't lend to any kind of credence, Mr. Speaker, to the support for this bill, Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, here is the Minister again putting down the farmers. He says, "We're not hurting the farmers who want to carry on farming." He doesn't know what the farmers want to do. I repeat again, the good farmers don't have any intention of doing anything else but farming.

Mr. Speaker, he refers to a land use programme in New York which he says is "lacking in permanence. Every five years you can take a new look at it and re-zone it. We have had too much of that, Mr. Speaker," said the Minister of Agriculture. That, Mr. Speaker, is a totally inflexible response to a serious problem. No recognition, Mr. Speaker, of any changing needs — and that is another of the problems that we find with this approach from this Government.

Mr. Speaker, he says, "Bill 42 is not an expropriation statute." I must agree with the other speakers who have been in this debate. It sure isn't. It doesn't provide any method for expropriation, but it should. I'll talk about that a little later. Mr. Speaker, here he goes again. "The complaints that we have been getting are that it really is going to preserve agricultural land and the farmers don't want that."

Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Agriculture has been doing a terrible disservice to the farmers of British Columbia and he should apologize to those farmers. He should resign but at least he should apologize to the farmers. It is on page 727-4 in Hansard in the blues if you are looking it up and keeping notes. Do you want me to go a little slower so you can catch up?

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll never catch up.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says, "This bill gives the Government absolutely no power at all that the Government doesn't already have. The bill does give the commission some powers." Some powers. Mr. Speaker, it gives the commission the widest possible powers that anyone in British Columbia could ever imagine. Some powers. No commission in the history of any jurisdiction in North America has ever had powers like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they meet the demand of the Government?

MR. McCLELLAND: He says, Mr. Speaker, "There's nothing in this bill that says it's a patronage bill." Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was on that same radio programme the other day and said…the moderator asked him if they would have to be a socialist to be a member of this five-or nine-or ten-man commission or whatever it is going to be? And he said, "Well yes, I think you would have to be of like philosophical mind." I guess that means you would have to be a supporter of the New Democratic Party before you even get a chance to serve on this commission.

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say: "The only time that Bill 42 mentions municipalities is when it talks about cooperation with municipalities, and it says the commission is going to work with municipalities." Mr. Speaker, I searched that bill from front to back and I can't find anything like that in the bill.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is only a vague reference that the commission may work with some of the various jurisdictions . throughout Canada from the Government of Canada on down. The Minister says it only mentions municipalities when it talks about cooperation.

I wonder about this cooperation: "A bylaw or regulation of a municipality or regional district or any provision thereof that is in any manner in conflict with, inconsistent with, or repungant to this Act or the regulations or the commission, is suspended and of no effect." That's cooperation, Mr. Speaker? This bill takes away all of the zoning and planning rights of the local municipalities and the regional districts.

Mr. Speaker, he says: "We're going to listen. From the beginning we said we'd listen." But they don't hear. It's no good if you listen unless you hear as well, Mr. Speaker. How about the thousands and thousands of people all over British Columbia who are demanding withdrawal of this bill? You are not listening to them. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Government are not listening to the people in their constituencies.

Let me read you a telegram from the Hon. Member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Hall), the Provincial Secretary, on the occasion of his invitation to a public meeting in Surrey to discuss the points about Bill 42. The Minister wires:

"REGRET I CANNOT ATTEND YOUR MEETING AS I WILL BE EN ROUTE TO WASHINGTON, DC AND OTTAWA IN CONNECTION WITH THE PREMIER'S

[ Page 1552 ]

FORTHCOMING VISIT."

That's fair enough; that's important public business and he was unable to attend the meeting and we accept that. We would have loved to have had him at the meeting however. But he goes on in the wire, Mr. Speaker, to say:

"I DO SUGGEST THAT UNTIL SECOND READING OF BILL 42 COMMENCES, MEETINGS ARE PREMATURE AND WILL ONLY DO A DISSERVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT FARMLAND IN OUR PROVINCE. WHY NOT WAIT AND LISTEN TO THE FULL DEBATE IN THE HOUSE FIRST WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANS AND THE REFUTATION OF INCORRECT INFORMATION WILL TAKE PLACE."

Mr. Speaker, this Minister and Member for that constituency is saying to the people of his constituency: "Don't have any public meetings. You're not allowed to talk about the bill; wait until we explain it to you and convince you that it is all sweetness and light."

He is saying you don't listen to the ravings of his own constituents then who are sitting and waiting for him to show up at one of their public meetings.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: This is a public meeting called by the constituents of his constituency and several other public meetings which have been held….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please return to the principle of the bill?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the principle of Bill 42 and it has to do with the principle of this bill. It has to do with all the actions of this Government in support of the bill, and in attempting to promulgate those myths about Bill 42 and mislead the people of British Columbia about its real intention.

Its real intention, Mr. Speaker, is what the principle of the bill is all about. The Minister says he has been getting letters. Well I'd say we're all getting letters, thousands and thousands of letters, about Bill 42.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Provincial Secretary is saying that they are all signed by one family in Surrey. The letters are coming from concerned people of British Columbia of all political faiths.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) a little while ago, said that he heard from one Social Credit member who was going to tear up his card. There are hundreds of them coming right in to our office. They are signing up — the hordes are moving and we can hardly handle the demand.

Mr. Speaker, so have I been getting letters, all kinds of letters. The comment has been made about this land bill raising the cost of residential and other lands….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's trepidation in the flood plains of Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you ask the Provincial Secretary to take his seat, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his discussion of the principle of the bill, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you ask the Provincial Secretary to…. 

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members on both sides of the House please observe standing order No. 17, part 2, and allow the Hon. Member to proceed with his speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: We said on a number of occasions that Bill 42 and its attendant land freeze, which is now in effect around British Columbia, has had the effect of raising prices of land; and the Government in effect is helping the speculators in British Columbia. They are hurting the very people who they say they want to help.

Let me tell you about residential lots of one quarter acre in size in the Brookswood area of Langley — it's a relatively new area — which were selling in December for $7,500 to $7,800 per lot and are now selling for $9,500. That's in six months and they are still going up. I can relate to you that it is the effect of Bill 42 and only the effect of Bill 42 that is causing this situation; the effect of Bill 42 and its attendant land freeze which must be considered with Bill 42 because it is part and parcel. I am saying that the principle of Bill 42 is driving land prices up in British Columbia and it will allow in its ultimate use for the Government itself to get into the business

[ Page 1553 ]

of speculation.

This moratorium, according to realtors in the valley area, has created a tight land market and forced up prices for raw residential land, leaving no alternative but to jack up the consumer cost. Hit the little guy that you say you want to help.

Mr. Speaker, in the Abbotsford area — and I quote from the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News — "lots have jumped about 25 per cent in the past two weeks."

That was the two weeks immediately following the introduction of Bill 42. In Chilliwack the lots that were available the day the freeze took place have suddenly become much more valuable. The Government, Mr. Speaker, is contributing to speculation in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And inflation.

MR. McCLELLAND: And inflation, of course. The very thing that all of us are pledged to fight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unemployment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Unemployment, inflation, consumer costs — all of the things that we're pledged to fight in British Columbia this Government is contributing to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Housing starts down 25 per cent.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from one person who says he offers an appeal for a realistic look. And he points out a couple of examples of what's happening to land in British Columbia right now. He says:

"An actual piece of 37 acres of land has a soil capability as follows: front 30 acres, No. 5W; next 4 acres, No. 05W; back 3 acres, No. 4W. The present zoning under the municipal people is 5-acre parcels. Now can only the front 34 acres that are No. 5 be subdivided?"

And No. 5, Mr. Speaker, is very marginal farmland.

"Must the back 3 acres stay landlocked as No. 4 without access to any roads."

Because you can't put any roads in if you can't subdivide the land.

"Since No. 4 land is not considered profitable for farm use, does this mean this land is lost to everyone for any use since it is designated as No. 4 and your Act does not allow No. 4 for any other than farm use?"

And No. 4 land, Mr. Speaker, is very, very marginal farmland.

Mr. Speaker, No. 4 is classified as having severe limitations that restrict the choice of crops, if you can grow anything. That is, the owner cannot reasonably expect to farm 3 acres of land which is landlocked and expect to show a profit. But you're locking him into a farming operation, Mr. Speaker.

I'd suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the people on the other side of the House, that they should go out and profitably use….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have a little more quiet in the House, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: I beg your pardon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just asking the Hon. Members to be a little quieter.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was speaking, so I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more examples there. Perhaps I'll read another one.

"An older couple owns 15 acres of land, soil capability as follows: 10 acres are No.2X with some minor adverse soil characteristics, 5 acres are No. 4 solid with excess water and poor permeability."

Mr. Speaker, these people's means are too limited to cultivate a crop on this land. They live in a small, old house. They broke and cleared this land themselves. But another purchaser buying for farm purposes may want to live in a newer home. If this land is only allowed for farmland, the present owners may realize on $1,000 to $1,200 an acre for a total of maybe $15,000 to $18,000 for the whole 15-acre parcel. That's all they're going to get out of it. They can't possibly buy another home for that price, anywhere in town particularly.

Also, should one ask for a building permit to build a new home on the presently subdivided five acres, the Act, as it presently stands, would not allow this. Yet the soil here is No. 4, too poor to grow a good crop. Would it not be wiser to release the land for its best use, especially in connection with the poor capabilities of that land, so that someone would then pay perhaps up to $28,000 an acre if he can build a house on it, rather than to penalize the present owner of that land? That is exactly what's happening Mr. Speaker.

A government that professes to have a strong social conscience surely can't be against these older people obtaining a realistic price for their land so that they can go and retire in town and save some of their hard-earned money.

Mr. Speaker, I've got letters from real farmers, good dairy farmers whose sons intend to follow them

[ Page 1554 ]

into farming, who don't like Bill 42. Real farmers.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I've got some ranchers. They like it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Speaking of ranchers, Mr. Speaker, what do the British Columbia cattlemen say about this? Members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, after thorough study of the Land Commission Act, find it "unacceptable in its present form. "Unacceptable," Mr. Speaker.

O.K., we'll read some more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure. Read the whole letter.

MR. McCLELLAND:

"After meeting with 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."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: "In its present form."

MR. McCLELLAND: There is only its present form, Mr. Speaker. We don't have any other form. Bill 42 as it stands before us, despite all the promises from the Minister of Agriculture of four amendments, of all the promises of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) of 12 to 18 amendments, despite the promises that some of the amendments are going to come now, some of the amendments are going to come in the fall, we only have Bill 42 in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) knows what all the amendments are going to be. Why doesn't he tell us what all of the amendments are going to be and why don't you withdraw this bill and make the amendments and bring it back in some kind of acceptable form?

Mr. Speaker, do you think the people aren't upset out there? You bet they're upset. Here's a telegram, Mr. Speaker, addressed to me:

"WE PLEAD FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASK YOU TO DO ALL IN YOUR POWER .TO HELP PRESERVE OUR BASIC FREEDOMS. BILL 42 DESTROYS HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF OUR HISTORY CONNECTED SO DIRECTLY WITH THE STRUGGLE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM TO THE ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY."

The very words which were quoted by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) which come directly from the Bill of Rights of Canada and which this Government doesn't listen to. That telegram, Mr. Speaker, was sent not only to me but to His Excellency the Governor-General of Canada, the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia and the Queen.

Now I agree that that's probably a drastic measure to take. But the people are so upset, Mr. Speaker, they don't know where to turn. And they're not getting any help from their government and the Government isn't listening to these people.

I won't read a lot of these letters, Mr. Speaker, but I have a couple that I feel that are important that this House hear about. I've got hundreds of them and they're available to any Member who wants to see them. I have one in support of Bill 42.

This letter comes from a Mr. Dick in Matsqui, who says:

"Stop Bill 42. 'It couldn't happen here' is a phrase of the past."

AN HON. MEMBER: You have only one in favour of it?

MR. McCLELLAND: I have only one in support, Mr. Speaker. One in support, and literally hundreds in opposition. I didn't expect to have, Mr. Speaker, any more than one in support, because the letters of support I would hope would go to the Minister of Agriculture. And even the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, has admitted that his letters are running well in opposition to Bill 42. And yet he says he's listening.

"It couldn't happen here" is a phrase of the past. It has. And now it's time we do something about it before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stupich stood in this House and read a number of letters some time ago before he introduced Bill 42. Most of those letters he said were in support. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture read a letter from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. He said in this House that the Fraser Valley milk producers support our land freeze.

The Minister of Agriculture is guilty of reading only part of a letter, because the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture says that's not what he said. Well it is what he said, Mr. Speaker. And the next day the headlines in the Vancouver Sun said: "Fraser Valley Milk Producers Come Out in Support of the Land Freeze."

Mr. Speaker, he should have read all of that letter as well. The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association also said that "we also feel that there is a potential danger in freezing farmland without carefully considering what economic effects this will have on the farmer."

It's quite obviously unfair, Mr. Speaker, to virtually eliminate one source of revenue, that of real estate,

[ Page 1555 ]

without providing compensation or market stimulus to ensure an adequate farm income. We cannot expect the 5 per cent to feed and maintain equality of life for the 95 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing that ensures that there will be an adequate income for the farmers in Bill 42. In fact, to the contrary, it ensures that they may go into a life of state farms and slavery.

Mr. Speaker, the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association and its many dairymen said they support the idea of proper land use and the preservation of land. Everybody supports that contention, Mr. Speaker. We all believe in the preservation of land.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Then make constructive suggestions. Do you have any?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and I'll give you some in just a minute if you'll wait. You bet they'll be constructive.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Abbotsford Growers cooperative Union says: "It was unanimously agreed by our association that Bill 42 be withdrawn in its entirety."

Mr. Speaker,

"We are farming a dairy farm that's been in our family for 62 years. We are in favour of preserving the farmable land but because Bill 42 can take away all individual rights of the people of B.C., we ask you to kindly withdraw Bill 42."

Sixty-two years farming operation on Barnston Island, Mr. Speaker, if you know where that is.

Mr. Speaker, the major farm on Barnston Island is not for sale, has never been for sale and isn't about to be for sale. Don't let anybody fall for that kind of stuff.

Another Matsqui farmer comments, Mr. Speaker, about the Minister of Health's — apparently the Minister of Health was on a radio show or a TV show or something. This farmer says:

"You, Mr. Cocke, are talking of an era when most property owners in the city had a vegetable garden in the back part of the lot. Quite a few of these city dwellers had a chicken coop in the back with 10 to 12 chickens.

"Mr. Cocke, in the year of our Lord, 1973, bylaws in the city…no more chickens, no more cows, perhaps due to a lack of organic fertilizer formerly supplied by the horsepower that used to foretell the bread wagons, and the milk wagons. The fertilizer supplied by our politicians doesn't make the grass grow green."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, take a look at Richmond and Delta.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Cariboo Regional District is strongly opposed to the Government's recent approach.

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Egg Producers Association — farmers, Mr. Speaker — are totally opposed. All of their members signed a petition, with their addresses, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did it go to?

MR. McCLELLAND: It went to: "Hon. D. Stupich, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C." — the man who listens, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Association of British Columbia Grape Growers sent a petition to Ms. Karen Sanford, MLA, and Members of the New Democratic caucus.

Opposition, total opposition to Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like once again to say in this House that not only have the Members of this Government embarked on a serious programme to put down the farmer, but they also have embarked on what are near slanderous statements on an entire profession. I don't propose to stand up for that profession, but I'd like to say that real estate is no less an honourable career than social work, or teaching, or union organizing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Used car salesmen?

MR. McCLELLAND: Or used car salesmen, Mr. Speaker. There's nothing wrong with real estate, and for the Members of this Government to equate real estate with speculation of the worst kind in every instance is pure balder-dash. That's what this Government has been doing.

Mr. Speaker, here's a realtor who lives in the Fraser Valley, but who cares about the Fraser Valley. He's written two thoughtful full-page articles in the Vancouver Province in recent days. He has some very important thoughts. The Minister might read them and listen a little bit. He points out that the majority of the province's 80,000 milk cows are right now in the Fraser Valley and they'll probably stay there.

He also points out that according to Mr. Wood, the UBC poultry commissioner, there is no good reason why 80 per cent of the poultry industry should be in the Fraser Valley, but it is right now. But he says that it could be centred in any other part of the province. It doesn't have to stay in the Fraser Valley, transportation particularly being what it is today.

This writer goes on to say that what is generally ignored, apparently, is the incalculable irrigation policies attendent with any dam construction on the Fraser River, for instance:

[ Page 1556 ]

"The dry lands of the interior and the upper country could blossom beyond comprehension with proper irrigation. A huge food belt or bread basket for field crops, fruits and vegetables lies sleeping at the lower mainland's elbow. The truth of the matter is that the Fraser Valley hasn't even scratched its own food production capabilities."

I'd like all of the Members to come out and fly over the Fraser Valley and carefully look at it some day. Get out and drive around the countryside and take a look at what is actually there. This writer points out quite clearly that:

"There is a great myth abroad that the valley comprises a continuous network of fully producing farms, fence to fence, barn to barn, and field to field, each pouring out a plethora of foodstuffs for the plates and palates of adjacent hungry urbanites. This illusion has been carefully nurtured over the years for the consumption by city dwellers."

Then he goes on to point out a letter that was actually sent to me, as an MLA, from another farmer in the Fraser Valley. He says:

"I live on 248th St., a half mile from the U.S. border, and about four miles south of the Fraser Highway. In that four and one half miles there are now three farmers who are trying to make a living on the farm. The rest are either just living there, or they have a job on the side, or they're running the farm as a hobby."

Much of that farmland that he talks about, Mr. Speaker, isn't even in cultivation — it's in bush. It hadn't been needed, and the farmers of those communities haven't found it economically feasible to clear that land. It would be a fair estimate that about 80 per cent of the land in the Fraser Valley which is considered arable right now, is not even cleared — not even cleared, Mr. Speaker.

A little later this same man wrote another article in the Vancouver Province, a full-page article. It contained some very important points. I don't want to take the time of the House to list them all, Mr. Speaker, but I'd really like to commend these articles to all the Government Members, and certainly to those people who are interested in looking at Bill 42 from a sensible and logical position rather than a socialistic position, entirely.

"'The Agriculture Minister was warned that if the present reduction in farmland continues, the people of B.C. will find import sources drying up and nothing to fall back.' an environmentalist group was recently told by its leader. 'Since 1951 B.C. has had an increase of $1 million agricultural acres mainly in the Peace River and Cariboo regions. But during the same time it has lost a million acres in other areas.'"

Well, this writer goes on to say:

"If one wants to believe this then the other areas lost would be approximately equal to three complete Fraser Valleys. This is of course simply not so. If one wants to believe Canadian census information our province's farm acreage increased by some 531,000 acres from 1966 to 1971. What is more revealing, is that every province in Canada, except Alberta and Newfoundland, showed a farm acreage decline in the same time period. B.C. actually is recording a reversal of the Canadian trend of shrinking acreage of farmland."

"We must acknowledge that there is not a surfeit of farmland. We must use the emerging farm technology to its nth degree. Let us have leadership from our provincial government. Let us open up the Victoria treasury to really aid agriculture that poor relation of all industries. Let us help the farmers design farms so they need only a fraction of the land now required. Let; us have our agriculture where possible on a farm factory basis — clean, efficient, modern, profitable.

"Most of all, let us have that social inevitability — the co-existence of our farms, homes and industries in those areas of the province where such destiny has been arranged by God's hands in creation."

Mr. Speaker, that writer took a lot of thought to prepare those articles and there's some very important points in them. That's why I wanted to bring them to the attention of this House. Far more thought, I would expect, than the Member for Vancouver South, who wants to save land for a government game farm where, for a $100 or $200 fee hunters would virtually guarantee an animal. Is it worth saving farmland so people can go out and track down tame pheasants to shoot? Is that what Bill 42 is all about? That's what this Member seems to think, Mr. Speaker.

I contend that land is not really the issue in the debate on Bill 42. I say that people are the issue. Land is not the issue, but the use of land is — there's the key. What we should be talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the sensible, logical and moral use of land, not the steady and methodical erosion of all of our rights, including the right to privately hold property in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I've said before and I'll say again that we are for planning. We are for zoning. We are for orderly development. We are for the preservation of farmland. We are for the preservation of parkland. We're also for people, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and apple pie too, Mr. Attorney General.

People, Mr. Speaker, need places to live. That, Mr. Speaker, means housing and that, Mr. Speaker, means development. It has nothing to do with speculation,

[ Page 1557 ]

just because you want to put people in houses, and they need somewhere to live. For this Government to stick its head in the sand and hide from those real needs, Mr. Speaker, is to ignore the real problems of. looking after the needs of people.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has asked if we have any alternatives, any positive proposals. I think that's fair enough. I think we should be asked if we have any positive proposals.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the lower mainland of British Columbia right now, where the crunch is the greatest, the alternative has been here since the late 1960s — the official lower mainland regional plan, Mr. Speaker. The document controls virtually all land use in the whole of the lower mainland from Vancouver to Hope, but does it with the full consultation of the local elected officials. It's their baby and that's the way it should be.

The local elected officials — those same people, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has cut out and told to lay off their own business.

Mr. Speaker, Premier Barrett did a grave disservice to the municipal….

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to that planning board?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you what happened to that planning board in just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did a grave disservice to the municipal and regional people in this province when he stood in this House posturing about the lower mainland regional plan, inferring in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the plan was dead and inoperative, twisting the facts to suit his own purposes. The plan is far from dead, Mr. Speaker. It is still the official plan of the lower mainland of British Columbia from Vancouver to Hope.

Mr. Speaker, the official planning board is defunct, not the plan. The board itself left us, Mr. Speaker, with a mass of data about our region that still stands good today. We use it every day. The board laid the foundation for sensible and logical land use in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when this plan was first introduced — and I'm reading from a Vancouver Sun article in 1966 — the board said:

"Five major steps would have to be taken to implement it. The Greater Vancouver Water Drainage and Sewage District should be extended to serve the region."

That was done.

"A regional parks authority should be set up to acquire and develop regional parks."

That was done and is being done.

"Potential industrial and city centre sites should be acquired and held for future development."

It's been done and is being done, Mr. Speaker.

"The Fraser River Authority should be set up to coordinate the work of the other agencies, 20-odd of them now involved."

That's being done.

"Regional planning should be improved, both financial and organizationally."

And that has been done, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is the planning board? The chairman of the planning board at the time of the board's demise was a current alderman from West Vancouver, Mr. Don Lanskail, who's quoted in the Vancouver Sun edition of November, 1968. He says:

"I don't think the Minister's thinking is that much different from my own. Once we achieve agreement on the overview of the lower mainland as a planning unit, then the rest is mechanics."

He's talking about the future for the planning board. "As long as we retain the basic integrity of the regional plan, breaking it up into four regions is simply an administrative device."

The committee that was looking into the future of the planning board at that time was chaired by a present Richmond alderman named R.A. McMahon. who is still sitting on Richmond council. He says that the lower mainland board should fold up and the planning function should be turned over to the regional districts. It should be their major function.

The planning board itself suggested its own demise. Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Lanskail again on April 1, 1969: "The board's greatest achievement, of course, was the development and adoption by the 28 member municipalities and the provincial government in 1966 of the official lower mainland regional plan."

"The board's greatest achievement." The plan is far from dead, Mr. Speaker, far from dead.

The plan still stands today and is the official plan for all of the area. The plan was brought in in 1966, Mr. Speaker, and it had some important concepts, all laid out in an excellent document that was issued at that time called "Chance and Challenge."

It recognizes first of all that people are as important as land. And then it goes on to state about five important concepts: "Regional towns through staged subdivision servicing programmes, recreation areas, industrial areas, agricultural land to be preserved." Those were the concepts laid down in "Chance and Challenge."

If we go on to the official plan itself, Mr. Speaker, and I'll quote from that as to its objectives. "An environment that provides for the health, safety, convenience and satisfaction of the people living, working, visiting and playing in this region." One of its important concepts, Mr. Speaker, is the preservation of land values — something that Bill 42 forgets all about. Most important, the plan recognizes that

[ Page 1558 ]

development was necessary in the lower mainland of British Columbia, but that it must be orderly. It also recognizes our investment in our land and it states so in the official regional plan and once again in the document "Chance and Challenge."

Its exact words, Mr. Speaker, are that one of its working principles is to "conserve existing community values."

Mr. Speaker, the plan allows for urban areas, greenbelt areas, regional park areas. If we can consider a couple of these; the former government, Mr. Speaker, embarked on a vigorous programme with regard to greenbelt areas, negotiating with people, Mr. Speaker, at all times — with the individuals concerned for their property.

Flood plains, Mr. Speaker. The former government had already moved to prohibit any kind of development on flood plains.

As to regional parks, Mr. Speaker, thousands of acres of parks in the lower mainland of British Columbia have been preserved under the Regional Parks Act, which was a direct result of the lower mainland regional planning board. Thousands of acres have been purchased, Mr. Speaker, through fair negotiation.

I can say with pride that I served, first, on the Vancouver-Fraser Parks District and then the parks division of the Greater Vancouver Regional District for a number of years. I'm very happy about my role in that district, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to tell you that despite hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of negotiated purchases for parks purposes, there hasn't been one single case of expropriation.

However, Mr. Speaker, the right to expropriate is inherent in the Act that set up the Vancouver-Fraser Parks District. That is for the protection not only of the public purse but individual rights as well. The right to expropriation or some form of legal examination of a purchase must be put into Bill 42 as well, instead of just confiscation by lowered land values.

Mr. Speaker, I say that plenty was being done, and at all times local input was maintained. The lower mainland regional planning board was dissolved. There isn't any doubt about that. But it was dissolved for many of the same reasons that we are now in opposition to Bill 42. The planning board had got completely outside the control and advice of the municipal jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker. And that is one of the major reasons that the planning board was dissolved. This level of government cannot be cut out of local decisions and should not be cut out of local decisions by the simple chop, chop, chop of this kind of dictatorial and insidious legislation.

I say again that the plan is still there. I say too that there have been changes in the plan, Mr. Speaker. There must be flexibility in order for any plan to survive. You can't look into the future, into some kind of crystal ball and say….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: …forever and a day, Mr. Speaker, that this is the way it shall be and it shall never change. There has to be flexibility.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this plan cannot be altered lightly, certainly at the whim of any local council. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it must go through a series of technical committees, planning committees, back to the regional district and that takes it outside the control of the local councils.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd just ask the Hon: Members to extend the courtesy to the Hon. Member who is speaking. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Despite the changes, Mr. Speaker, and most of them have been minor and there haven't been that many — you could refer to a recent article in the Vancouver Sun, as a matter of fact.

It pointed out quite clearly how many changes there have been in the lower mainland regional planning board, and there may have been a couple of mistakes. Basically the changes have been sound, logical good planning programmes. Most of the damage, of course, was done before 1966 when the lower mainland regional plan was adopted — most of the damage was done. The plan is still basically intact and it's still the catalyst which is going to provide or which could provide for the orderly growth of all the lower mainland for many years to come. It also allows us to retain all of our freedoms as well, without taking away any of those choices that we already have.

If the backbenchers don't know about this plan, I'd suggest they go to the library and find out about it. More recently, in 1972, the Greater Vancouver Regional District put out a report called "A report on Liveability" and it too should be read by every backbencher and every Member of this Government. I commend it to everybody to read because it is not only an interesting document but an exciting document.

What do they say about the proposed policies for the preservation of agricultural land? The Greater Vancouver Regional District says:

"A positive strategy for farmland protection is needed. One of the first steps could be to learn more about the position of the farmers themselves. Involve them in defining their needs and then work on the conflicts."

In case anyone missed that, the line was to involve

[ Page 1559 ]

the farmers.

"Involve them in defining their needs and then work on the conflicts, potentials and gaps in the existing programme of local and senior governments.

"However, as much farmland as possible is to be preserved and kept in production in the region by the existing policies of the official regional plan."

"The official policies of the existing regional plan" — not some far-reaching and ill-conceived socialist Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Government already had the vehicle necessary to ensure the orderly and planned development of the lower mainland — not only the planned development of park areas and other reserve areas, but the preservation of farmland as well, in the most populous, fastest growing area of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, about 20 of our 28 regional districts in the province right now already have either official or unofficial regional plans and it would have been a simple step for this Government to have stepped out into those regional districts and said to them, "Develop your own official regional plan. Make some amendments if necessary to the regional plan which is already in effect in the lower mainland." And you would have had vehicles throughout the whole of the province for which to provide that orderly planning and you would still have accepted the input of the local governments, both regional and municipally.

You can't shove aside the people who have the biggest stake in the whole question of land use. Mr. Speaker, the Government is shoving aside not only the local and regional people, but the farmers as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You sure switched your position.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to sum up, the people of this province will not and cannot fall for this stuff about "trust me" or "we'll listen to your suggestions" because, once again, there is no sense listening if nobody hears.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

AN HON. MEMBER: The amended bill is going to have that in it. It's going to say "trust me."

MR. McCLELLAND: …or "we will consider amendments" — whether it be four amendments by the Minister of Agriculture or 18 amendments by the Attorney General or 22 amendments…. 

MR. CHABOT: By the Minister of Highways.

MR. McCLELLAND: …or "some amendments coming up in this session, some amendments coming up in the fall." Can't accept that, Mr. Speaker, and the people of British Columbia won't accept that. What they will accept is the contention that Bill 42 is unamendable. It's unamendable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it back.

MR. McCLELLAND: It must be withdrawn forthwith. Nothing less can be acceptable to any fairminded individual in British Columbia except the complete withdrawal of Bill 42.

Mrs. Jordan moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

ERRATUM

The following should be corrected to read as shown:

P. 1194, col. 2, paragraph 2

Prison and corrections: again at only 50 per cent of the total cost, $25 million. The total cost to the economy of British Columbia for heroin addiction is a conservative $248.6 million annually. Not bad for organized crime — business as usual.