[ Page 1561 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Mrs. Jordan — 1561

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

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

LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon, Member for North Okanagan adjourned the debate.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've been listening to this debate, along with I hope many other Members of this House, with great interest and needless to say, great concern. Great interest because it is a revolutionary Act and it can be described in no other terms. And great interest because it is an Act that was precipitated by an action which has shocked this province as it has never been shocked before.

The Act, which we are debating now, was to be brought in, in the Minister's own words "As a means of clarifying a situation" that he felt was crucial in the province. And as a means of allaying the fears that he himself, and his government, had created through an action which precipitated fear in this province.

We had hoped that when this bill came in, it wouldn't be necessary for the Members of the Opposition to take the position that they have. That is of course that upon examining the bill and its impact on the democratic rights of the people in British Columbia, and its impact on the fundamental philosophy of the people of British Columbia, and its impact on what has always been a fair province is such that we must take a strong position.

We examine the bill. We see it's very, very tightly interwoven with a philosophy that is not acceptable in this country. We ask again for the Minister to withdraw that bill in order that he might listen, as he has constantly said he would listen before the bill was brought in. But he showed when the bill came in that he hadn't been listening at all. If he had been listening, he was listening with deaf ears and is undoubtedly in need of a hearing aid if one examines that bill.

He still has the opportunity. Before continuing the debate, through you Mr. Speaker, I would ask again, would he take this bill that is unamendable, withdraw it; examine the presentations that have been made to him, even before the bill came in — redraft the legislation in the light of fairness and democracy and bring it into this House so that we can debate it. I see that the Minister's busy signing the same letter over and over again.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been doing that for weeks.

MRS. JORDAN: So I must continue, Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the debate that has been in the House and some of the speeches that are rather astonishing to me. Particularly the fact that Members have stated very clearly what the concern of the people of British Columbia is in regards to this bill. They have taken time, a good deal of time, to try and explain why people are concerned — why they and we feel that this is an erosion of democratic rights. Why they, the people in this province, and this Opposition feel that this is a bill that doesn't have any place in British Columbia.

We have come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, sadly to say, that not only is the Minister deaf, but it would appear that many Members of his party are deaf. People have come down here….

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Member for Kootenay is deaf.

MRS. JORDAN:…. . to express their concern to the Members of this party — Not only the cabinet, but the backbenchers. I will say to the credit of some of them, they tried to listen, but some of them can be said to have been no more than shockingly rude.

Not only are the people concerned about the principle of the bill, but the manner in which the Members of this Government handle the principle of the bill. And when they come as farmers and as people and as small landowners from all around this province — wage earners, some receiving wages, Mr. Speaker, far less than the Hon. Members of that Government, be they private Members or Cabinet Ministers — at the invitation of the Premier, which was, "Come to Victoria, and tell me what you think."

MR. CHABOT: We'll have a love feast.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes — pay your own way.

But even then, and he was wrong in this, Mr. Speaker, because they had been here, many of them before, and they had put input into this bill. But even then, he invited them and they accepted. What type of a reception did they receive, Mr. Speaker? Their transportation was seriously interrupted.

MR. CHABOT: They almost cancelled all the

[ Page 1562 ]

ferries.

MRS. JORDAN: The transportation of the people who came to discuss the principle of this bill was interrupted in a manner that to this date has not yet been answered satisfactorily.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) suggests that either he is not responding to their need for the truth, or in fact that in six short months he's taken a very efficient ferry service and put it into a state of sad disrepair and unreliability.

So they met with this question, and this question, Mr. Speaker, is still in their minds, and very much so. If the Hon. Members, in thinking about the principle of this bill don't believe it, then they should read their mail. Mr. Speaker, before the principle of this bill is finished in debate, that question must be answered. Did these people, who were affected so drastically by, the principle of this bill, face sabotage at the hands of that Minister of Highways when they came, at the invitation of the Premier of an open government, to express their views and at their own expense?

They came to talk to many of the Members. One Member, who spent two hours with them, not only threw in their face that he was a large Member of parliament in income receipts, but that he had 50 head of cattle and he was a hobby farmer. He had 50 head of cattle. Mr. Speaker, anyone who can sit in this House with 50 head of cattle at home on a hobby farm, is certainly not in the category of the people who've been most deeply hurt by this bill. And they know it, and they are concerned. They were concerned that that Member, while he paraded as a hobby farmer, wouldn't listen; just wouldn't….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well his chickens, Mr. Member, have been gobbled up by the ghouls of this government, and they are going to feast on the bones.

AN HON. MEMBER: The gnomes.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the gnomes aren't in Switzerland. The gnomes are in British Columbia. Or one might say that they're ghouls masquerading as gnomes.

But the point here, Mr. Speaker, is that a Member of this House, who in their own terms would be described by their federal leader as a fat cat, couldn't even take the time to listen….

MR. CHABOT: Where are the fat cats tonight?

MRS. JORDAN: … when these people had come. He took the time to talk — to tell them his views. Mr. Member, through you Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of Members of this House when legislation is under debate is to listen, not only to the other Members, but to the people of this province.

Then we had the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) and it's astonishing how he typified the actions and reactions that are being unravelled during this debate. Not only is it evident that they're not listening to the people outside, it's quite evident that the Members of that side of the House, all of them haven't read this bill. Then if they have read it. Yet they are trying to assume the role of leadership in this province.

I would offer some advice through you Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier. Keep your Members out of the tearoom and on the floor of this House where they can attend to business — where they might learn what is involved in this legislation and other pieces of legislation. And so that they might listen to what the debate is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: That's the first time in the last month you've had that number of Members in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is your leader?

MRS. JORDAN: Have the Members finished, Mr. Speaker? I was utterly astonished, Mr. Speaker, when on Tuesday evening at 10:45, after the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) had made a very informative and a long speech about the properties of the principle of this bill and the effect that they would have, and the Member for Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) spoke on the effects of this bill, that the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) got, up and read what could only charitably be described as a blind Odyssey by Homer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Homer who?

MRS. JORDAN: How he could blithely quote the Sunday supplement of the Vancouver Sun as being an authoritative source of information on land in Canada is certainly beyond us.

And how he could blithely say….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Welcome, Mr. Member. How the Member from Delta (Mr. Liden) could blithely say that this bill is designed to help the farmer in British Columbia is beyond human imagination. And it's quite evident, Mr. Speaker, from the actions in this House that there is a lot of imagination in this House. Why does the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, who is supporting the principle of this bill and his leader think that the farmers are concerned?

[ Page 1563 ]

Welcome, Mr. Member. It's nice to have the Liberals here, Mr. Speaker, because I will have something of interest for them later in my presentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Hon. Member for Delta seriously think that 2,500 farmers — and there were more people than that here that day — but that 2,500 farmers from all across the province, from the Peace River, from the Kootenays, from the northern islands, from the Okanagan would spend on an average….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, there are some farmers and people in this province that are beginning to think that perhaps Vietnam looks better than the type of government you're going to impose here.

These people who came spent well over an average of $200 each to get here. Many of them had pruning to do, dairy cattle to look after — and in case you don't know Mr. Speaker, although I think he would — cows have to be milked twice a day. These people had to hire someone to come in and look after their affairs at home. They trekked down to Victoria to make their views known because they are concerned and because they know they have reason to be concerned.

And yet that Member of that Government says that this bill is designed to help the farmer. Now, who's kidding who, Mr. Speaker; who's kidding who? Does that Member not know who the B.C. Federation of Agriculture represent?

MR. CHABOT: B.C. Fed-labour.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, he may have a point. He probably thinks the BCF is the B.C. Federation of Labour. Maybe that's indicative of that Member's thinking, and very much indicative of that Government's thinking and what they're trying to impose in British Columbia. And that is: if you want to be heard, you belong to the tough group, you belong to the tough guys. If you're an individual citizen in British Columbia you can't be heard even though you gather together.

These were citizens, through you, Mr. Speaker, to that Member and those Members. They put up a citizens' picket line, legitimate signs, expressing their feelings. They gave apples. There was nothing angry or vindictive about them — only deeply disturbed. And every single Member on that side of the House walked through that picket line as if it didn't exist.

MR. CHABOT: Some snuck in the back door too.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, how can a Member….

MR. CHABOT: And Strachan came through the tunnel.

MRS. JORDAN:…. . of a union that stands up in this House and champions the rights of that union, take such an attitude? How can that Member, with a clear conscience, say this bill helps the farmer. The farmers are down there expressing their views with their picket lines, and that Member walks through it. The only thing that Member understands, Mr. Speaker, is the whip-hand, the whip-hand of the boss. He doesn't even understand that this forum is here to reflect the feelings of people, not your boss.

You know, Mr. Speaker, after listening to that Member and watching his actions when the farmers and the people of British Columbia were here, I could be no more charitable than suggest there's a very strong similarity between he and a monkey that is determined to see no truth, hear no truth, and speak no truth. He's been a member of the boys of Homer for too long, and that's not his responsibility in this House. His responsibility, as is all our responsibility, is to try and defend democracy, individual rights and the people of this province whether they are members of an organization or whether, in fact, they just represent people and deep-rooted people's feelings.

I hear the Premier clearing his throat, getting a little uncomfortable. So he should; and so should the Minister of Agriculture. Without question, they have tried to introduce, Mr. Speaker, a power play in British Columbia, by smiling all the way and suggesting simplistic solutions to very complex problems. The Minister and this Government have shown no awareness that the real problem in this issue is in itself simple to say and in itself highly complex to achieve. And that is simply a fair return for the labours and the produce of the producers and farmers in British Columbia.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, income to the farmers is a very real part of the preservation of agricultural land not only in British Columbia, but in Canada. If there were incentives in farming, if there was money to be made in farming — as the people in the area that I represent say, "Pat, if you can make a buck in farming, we'll farm. Not only because we love it, but we'll stay there in spite of the difficulties because we do want a return for our labours."

How could it be more simple than that, Mr. Minister? And how could it have been so obviously avoided in this bill?

If that Minister and this Government had been realistically aware of the problem and concerned about the problem instead of this power play, instead of creating the havoc that they have, instead of creating the fear that they have around British

[ Page 1564 ]

Columbia, you would have dealt with the problem in this light. The foundation was there, Mr. Speaker. The foundation was there in the legislation of regional districts, in the legislation for municipalities, in the legislation of the Green Belt Protection Fund, in the legislation of the Park Acquisition Fund, in the legislation of pollution control, in the legislation in the Land Act where people could no longer buy Crown lands. The whole foundation was there, Mr. Speaker. The funds were there and growing. If there was serious intent to solve this problem they would have worked through these channels and expanded these channels as would have been their right. Instead, they're masquerading a philosophy behind this motherhood issue.

The Minister of Agriculture keeps saying that he wants input. He's had so much input, that he's output. And outplugged. Just a few of your own suggestions on your election platform, Mr. Minister, would have helped. This party campaigned in removing all taxes from agricultural land. Instead of removing all controls on inflation in British Columbia at the emergency session and increasing the problems of those this bill is supposedly designed to help, they could have removed the taxes from the agricultural land in British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: No way; that might help the farmers.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, one simple thing. It would not have solved the farmers' problems but it would have done more to make them feel that perhaps this Government was sincere in what it said it was doing rather than masquerading in what we know it's doing.

The Minister of Agriculture has said, and this Government through the Premier has said, "We can get along with Ottawa; we're buddies." Mind you, with buddies like they're showing up to have, I don't know what you need in the way of friends.

This whole problem of income to farmers is tied up in large part with the policies and the reaction of the federal government. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, if before enacting this "boyhood dream" that the Minister of Agriculture has talked about, with his eyes gazing off into the distance …. and he says, "For 24 years I've dreamt of preserving agricultural land."

Everybody needs a dream. The world is inspired by dreams. But instead of changing a boyhood dream into a man's nightmare, or a man's folly, one would wonder if the Minister of Agriculture shouldn't have taken off to Ottawa immediately to discuss with the federal Minister of Agriculture and with Mr. Turner, the federal Minister of Finance, and to discuss with Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of this country, these problems, and come back with a clearcut idea of how he, as Minister of Agriculture in the Province of British Columbia, was going to guarantee these markets at a profitable price and was going to overcome the serious trade problems that there are for the agricultural industry — and in fact was going to overcome the policy of the federal Liberal government, which is anything but compatible to the preservation of greenlands in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, this wouldn't have solved the farmers' problems, but it would have given them more hope. It would have given them more reason to trust this Minister and this Government.

One wonders if the Minister of Agriculture might not have been wiser to come out with a well-thoughtout and planned formula for a floor price under British Columbia produce, not based as the federal formula is on national production costs but based on production costs in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this would have given the farmers of British Columbia more hope. This would have given the farmers of British Columbia more reason to trust the sincerity of this Government; that they in fact are doing what they say they are doing in this bill — helping the farmers, instead of it being a power play of a philosophy, a flag of philosophy draped around the bodies of the farmers of British Columbia and strangling them with fear, strangling them with a concern for their democratic rights and strangling them economically.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), that great agricultural centre of British Columbia and Canada, asks a lot of silly questions. As I've said before, he's delightfully humorous outside this House. I would say again it's a good thing there's Valentine's Day.

But this is the point of concern: it doesn't matter whether I'm a farmer or not; I represent a lot of farming people. It might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I was home two weeks ago and I found it an incredible experience when I went out to see some of the people that I represent. Big, burly European farmers came out of their houses….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were they Canadians?

MRS., JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Premier, they were Canadian farmers, you're quite right — of European extraction. But it really doesn't matter whether they're Canadians or not. They're living in British Columbia, they're working for the betterment of our province and our people.

But they came out and threw their arms around me — and I'm but a lowly female….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN:…. who's been elected in this

[ Page 1565 ]

province to serve their interests Mr. Speaker, it may sound humourous here, but it wasn't humorous there. They had tears in their eyes, and they said….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I wish I could repeat to you in this chamber what you said to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: But that's beside the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: These people said — and if I'm hesitating it's not because I don't like to bring it up but I don't know how else these people are going to understand — " Thank goodness you've come. Don't let this happen to us again. It can't happen in British Columbia. Save us."

Mr. Speaker, they're not sharp tooties like the lawyer from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). They don't have a cushy job like the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden). They're just normal human beings that are deeply threatened by this bill that you say is designed to save them, Mr. Speaker, and who are frightened.

I wonder if it might not be more effective for these Members to hear what the Vancouver Province had to say in an editorial on March 17, 1973. These people are concerned because they fear the power play in this bill and if they try to rationalize that then they become concerned at how careless this Government is.

It says in the editorial:

"What the Government should ensure is that something it attempts is well done. To date it has not done well. It has been careless in handling the people's affairs out of haste. In so doing it has not only violated the principles of the people but some of its own principles.

"Perhaps one of the most important ideals that has been abused is the principle of full consultation with local government and the public generally. The proposed Land Commission Act,"

which, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not quoting now, by the Members of this House is said to be designed to help the people of British Columbia. It said in this article, and I quote:

"The proposed Land Commission Act is the saddest illustration of what can happen when sweeping policy changes are railroaded."

Railroaded, Mr. Speaker.

A matter of another concern, Mr. Speaker, and in this editorial I quote:

"The slowness of the government to recognize that the bill was badly written suggests two possibilities: (1) that this is an incredibly naive government that thinks legislation can confer any power it wants providing the government says it won't abuse them; and the other is that the government believed the public was ready to tolerate unacceptable means to attain unacceptable ends."

I won't elaborate on that point because the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) did that earlier in the debate.

This is what concerns these people, Mr. Speaker, because they know this Government is neither naive nor is it as careless as it would like the public to believe. They know, Mr. Speaker, because they've been through this before; that the philosophy that is becoming clearly evident of this Government, that is in its legislation and is in the statements of many Members of this House, is the philosophy under which they have suffered before and with which they want no part in British Columbia today, tomorrow or in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to be charitable tonight and suggest that this Government had in fact been careless or naive, then I would go on further to read a section of this editorial which will apply. And I quote:

"It can be said the public is nowhere near ready to accept either of these abuses of good democratic government. It would appear that lesson is being learned in Victoria. But there's more to it than just touching up individual pieces of legislation that confer excessive powers. There's the matter of the cumulative effect of Government action on the economic well-being of the province under which the farmers that this bill so-called is designed to help will suffer."

I'd quote further because this relates to the whole philosophy that's been stated by that Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) as recently as this afternoon — that this bill was designed to help the farmers. And the farmer is part of this. It says:

"Each taken separately: the proposed corporate income tax increase — and many family farms are incorporated — new capital utilization tax, higher oil royalties, extension of sales tax to railways which will result in higher freight costs for the farmer, tougher mining regulations, which will result in higher costs to the farmer, and new logging rules which well may preclude the farmer from his part-time logging to supplement his income might be explained by the Government as necessary for the good of British Columbia."

It says, Mr. Speaker, they might be explained, but the fact is they haven't been explained.

The wider than expected insurance bill affects the farmer very much. The proposed Sukunka coal participation and wide powers to enter other

[ Page 1566 ]

businesses — this affects the farmers, very much so. The Member who called for order is a fine example of why this Opposition must endeavour to explain, explain, explain, in hopes that these Members will think beyond their noses and recognize that this is no bill to help the farmers of British Columbia.

"The wider powers they have taken to enter other businesses, each separately might be explained as useful and necessary measures and inevitable outgrowths of party policy and election commitments."

This Government is well known for meeting some of its election commitments.

"But who's measuring the overall results of increasing the tax costs of private business? Or conferring wide Government powers to further increase business costs through new cabinet discretionary power — and at the same time as the Government starts flexing its own business ambitions."

That concerns the farmer, Mr. Speaker, because there are ample examples of Government flexing its business ambitions, which I'll go into, that strike nothing but cold fear in the heart of the farmer of British Columbia.

"So far it appears the measure is being done mostly outside the Government. In a recent letter to Premier Barrett, Vancouver Board of Trade President All Campney wrote, "Speaking of business and industry, you have stated on several occasions that you have no desire or intention of killing the goose which lays the golden egg."

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of this province think that he's out to confiscate the golden egg, and to kill the goose, kill the chickens, kill the cows, kill their independent processing, and to kill the farmers.

I'd read just one more quotation because it's good advice for the Government:

"Any Government that fails to plan its programme in such a manner could be accused first of innocence, second of incompetence, but ultimately of deliberately divisive tactics, aimed at forcing political opponents to identify with extreme causes out of sheer frustration."

Mr. Speaker, that in a nutshell is a large part of this bill. That is part of the masquerade that's going on. That's what the farmers of this province and many other people know. That's why, Mr. Speaker, they say to the Minister of Agriculture that if you really were concerned, through you Mr. Speaker, why didn't you bring in some of the things that I've just mentioned? Why didn't this Government show a sincere desire to help the farmer?

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when this Government is cornered on the real simple issue of this bill and the facts of this bill and with the real effect that their own philosophy is having on people in British Columbia, and when they're confronted with the real words face to face from these people, they start flailing their arms and, in the manner so characteristic of the Premier of this province, they start covering up. And they drag out the old sugary phrases — the sugary phrases that have been that Premier's stock in trade ever since he entered politics.

But, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, that isn't going to help you now.

The Premier of this province has stated outside this House and inside this House — this session — he stated and he's been quoted as saying: "This NDP Government is the most radical Government in North America today." All your Ministers — and there they start — and all your backbenchers, Mr. Speaker through you, have applauded this fact.

Then at that time that I last recall the Premier saying it, he repeated the boast that this NDP Government is the most radical Government in North America today. He's right, Mr. Speaker. He and that Government are bent on social revolution in British Columbia, rather than social reform.

When they're cornered with this fact, as it's outlined in their legislation, as it is outlined by their statements in this House and in this bill and when they're cornered with the consequence of their actions, out come the sugary phrases and the willynilly routine that, "We will listen. We're doing it for you." A camouflage of the worst possible type.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what is concerning many people in British Columbia is the principle of this bill. They look around the world and they look at other countries where this principle has been applied, and most of them are behind a nefarious curtain.

But one country, Poland, that believes in state control and oppressive policies, withdrew their policy of state control of land. They incorporated a slight ray of light. The one thing that the communists did not do in Poland was to confiscate the farmers' land.

It's interesting to note that Poland is the only country behind the communist curtain that has freedom of their farmers on their land. It's the only country behind the Iron Curtain that eats well. In fact they eat better than the other countries. It has most food for its people. It's very simple because the farmer and the farmland are left to their own practical devices. A farmer is essentially an enterpriser. Poland was one country that recognized this, and it's the one country behind the Iron Curtain where the independence of the farmer is respected — and where no government, Mr. Speaker, since the war dared to interfere. The production is there, Mr. Speaker, and the farmer is free.

What about Russia? The potentially great country but always, Mr. Speaker…. the Premier says just ignore her. That's part of the problem, isn't it. That's the problem that the people of British Columbia know they have. They're being ignored by the Premier of this province and by that power-hungry

[ Page 1567 ]

cabinet, and that's why this debate is going on this evening.

The Premier laughs. Well, Mr. Minister of Health it's easy to sit in your $35,000 a year job and travelling expenses and become very benevolent with your own ideas….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member refrain from comments. The Hon. Member may proceed with her speech.

MRS. JORDAN: You know, Mr. Speaker, in Russia, Kruschev tried to patch up the state-controlled farm. There's a lesson to be learned there. Because in Russia where Kruschev tried to patch up the state control of farms he lost his crown and went into retirement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That's very typical of this Premier's tactics! Divide, divide, divide!

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: Pick on the weak! That's what the Premier … you know, Mr. Speaker, what they call that Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. No personalities, please.

MRS. JORDAN: They call him Chairman Barrett. And in this province today people are going in and out of barber shops and they're saying, "Have you heard from Chairman Barrett?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member get on with her speech.

MRS. JORDAN: We are not happy about this. We regret very much that this is happening and we're trying to let the Premier know why this bill should be withdrawn; and why there is concern in this province; and why people are labelling him what they are. It's not a facetious label.

You know, Mr. Speaker, Kruschev lost his crown and went into retirement; and he was lucky because if it had of been 40 years ago he would have been shot. But we tell him this, Mr. Speaker, because this Premier is going to lose his crown. The crown he so proudly put on six months ago is a crown of thorns. The thorns are the thorns of his own philosophy and they're the thorns of his own pride.

Over and over again since this bill came in, the Premier of this province, the Minister of Agriculture have admitted that this bill is wrong, that it is unclear, that it has caused fear, that it was poorly drafted. They've admitted that the people won't accept the philosophy that's been masqueraded in this bill. Yet for the sake of price they will not withdraw the bill. They want the Opposition to bail them out. They've asked this Opposition, about whom they can say nothing good, to draft their legislation for them.

They've said to the Liberals — and they can say little better about them — "Draft our legislation for us." And they say to whoever they are that sit over there: "Draft our legislation for us." Mr. Speaker, that's why the thorny crown will be lost and will take this Premier down. Because he cannot govern. He needs the Opposition to draft his legislation. And when he brings in an admittedly unacceptable, poorly drafted and improper piece of legislation that has stirred the people of this province as they have never been stirred in the history of this country, he stand on his pride.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Bill 33, Bill 49….

MRS. JORDAN: Well, my dear Member for Vancouver-Burrard, Bill 33 is considered an act of charity compared to this bill. There was the right of appeal; there was fair warning; it was in the public interest.

This bill has no appeal. This bill has no fair warning. This bill, Mr. Speaker, was drafted without paying one iota of attention to the input that that Minister had received from the Federation of Agriculture, from private farmers, from private little people and landholders, small business, his own department. He bragged that there was a volume of information on this subject in his department.

Why does he think it hadn't been used? Because the whole problem of the preservation of farmland and greenbelts is hinged around a fair return to the farmer for his produce and his efforts, Mr. Speaker, and that is a complex problem. That's what that Minister refused to accept. He got hung up on this boyhood dream that has become the people's nightmare of British Columbia.

There's not a labour union in British Columbia or in Canada or in the United States or in Great Britain or in New Zealand or in Australia or in any free country that would tolerate for a moment actions of management such as this Government in its role of management has displayed since this session of the Legislature began, and in this bill.

This bill is a signed contract in which the farmer is locked in and didn't have a word. It is blank in regard to his remuneration. It is blank in regard to his hours of work. It is blank in regard to his return for his capital investment. It is blank in regard to his pension. It is blank in regard to his other fringe benefits — holiday pay, denticare, babysitting.

[ Page 1568 ]

Do you, Mr. Speaker, through you to that Member, think that a union leader would have allowed this on the part of management? And you're a union government. You're a labour government. And you're asking the farmer to do what you as Members, through you Mr. Speaker, wouldn't dream of doing in your own unions.

These Members have got up and talked about a 35-hour work week. The farmers in British Columbia are working a 70-hour work week for half the money that you get as a secretary, and certainly half, Mr. Speaker, that one gets in a professional capacity, whether it is a doctor of medicine or a doctor of psychology or a doctor of philosophy or a doctor of chiropractic. There's no way that a union member or a union leader would have asked his members to sign this.

You dare, Mr. Speaker, talk about Bill 33. And those Members dare, with this bill in this Legislation, to get up and talk about a 35-hour work week — $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9 and $10 an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against workers?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm for workers and I'm for fairness to all workers, not just those that can have the biggest voice. It's the responsibility of this Legislature to look after those who have a lesser voice, who aren't organized.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How much land do you own?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, you keep wanting to know how much land I own. Come out with us and put up fence posts at 12 o'clock at night by headlights of a truck and I'll tell you. Because any farmland we own we work, Mr. Member. We work it night and day. It's a good farm and it will be a good farm and you will not get your claws on it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to subdivide?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member says: are we going to subdivide? This is just typical of the mentality of the people who drafted this bill. They've got nothing on the brain but subdivision. Their own Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) listened to the farmers of the Okanagan in January at their convention, after he had invited them to tell him their concerns and they did, some of it in good English, some of it in French, some of it in Portuguese, some of it in broken English, and all he said to them at the end is just what that Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said: "You come through to me loud and clear as subdividers."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I cannot interrupt. If you want to engage in a debate with one Member on the floor back and forth and back and forth, you obviously invite it. I don't want Members interrupting the Member who's speaking and I hope that they will desist. But on the other hand, the lion. Member should address her remarks to the Chair and not be baited into a separate debate altogether.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your comments. I rather enjoy that Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: We're destroyed!

MRS. JORDAN: He brought out a very important point, Mr. Speaker. It is very directly related to what the Minister of Agriculture did when he was with the farmers. This whole business that the Member stated and that the Minister of Agriculture stated and which you yourself suggested perhaps shouldn't be debated deeply, is terribly important, because there is an absolute hangup between the Premier and the Members of his cabinet and that Government that farmers are subdividers. This simply is not true.

That's part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. That's very evident of their thinking in this legislation. It's warped thinking and it's warped legislation. It must be the result of a warped philosophy, If they would just get out of these plushy chairs and go and talk to the farmers, learn what farming is about and what small land ownership is about, then they would know.

As I said before, if they had even listened when they were down here they would know. They are not subdividers.

AN HON. MEMBER: There aren't many farms in North Vancouver.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there aren't many farms in North Vancouver, Mr. Member, and more's the pity. If you live in North Vancouver, I guess you get a job that pays well.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): I grew up on a farm in the Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I know, and the farmers remember that Member well and they're terrified. They feel that that legislation is very typical of him. And when his colleague told them that he had helped draft it — the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) — the people felt very sure that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour also had helped draft it. So I wouldn't brag about that Member's farm upbringing,

[ Page 1569 ]

because he doesn't have any understanding of the problems of farming.

It's a phony principle, Mr. Speaker. It's a phony bill and we're getting phony comments from that side of the House. It's a distasteful bill and it's run through with the camouflage that I've outlined.

I would say again, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Agriculture and this Government had been sincere, they would have brought in some actions which would have given the farmer confidence that this Government was going to move more, and I say quite honestly even more, in the direction of the previous government in trying to make farming economically viable and therefore alleviate the majority of the problems of disappearing farmland.

Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects the philosophy that has been rejected in Ottawa and Ontario and in other countries. When you discuss the principle of this bill you recognize it is a socialist claw of control being latched onto the land of British Columbia, and its effect means the socialist claw is on agriculture through this bill. It is a claw of control over the democratic rights of people in British Columbia.

Let's see what happens to agriculture in other countries when this happens. If you take Russia, it has a population of approximately 240 million people. The figures vary between 236 million and 240 million. It has 500 million acres of land under cultivation and it cannot feed its own people because it is controlled. Yet in the United States they have only 300 million acres of land in production and they are overproducing and, in fact, overfeeding 220 million people. It's a very simple fact.

A few years ago when Mr. Kruschev came over to North America, he boasted that the state structure and state control of farming and lands would outdo farming and farmers everywhere in the world and certainly everywhere in the free world.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Well, the United States and many other free countries are overproducing. It is because they recognize that the farmer is an enterpriser. He is essentially a farmer not because of money but because of his particular personality, his love of the land and his desire to produce. Under the state corporate structure which this Government is embarking on here in British Columbia, it has been little but disaster.

I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from p. 40 of the U.S. News and World Report of December 20, 1971. It says:

"'Russia's plan to outdo U.S. farmers,' or, 'What happened?'

"It was 16 years ago in 1955 that a Soviet farm delegation came to this country. This was one of the first major moves by the Russians outside the iron curtain that they had draped across eastern Europe after World War II. Later Nikita Kruschev, then top man in the Soviet Union, toured America and made his famous boast that Russia would eventually bury the U.S. In economic competition. He specifically promised that Russian farmers would outstrip American agriculture. But the Kruschev goal has not been reached.

"It is indicated that the Russians have made significant agricultural progress in recent years and that the diet is slightly better than in the early 50s when black bread, potatoes and beet soup were its mainstays. Today the average Russian gets twice as much fresh meat …"

Well, two times nothing is nothing.

"… about double the amount of milk, dairy products, twice as many eggs, three times as much sugar. He also eats only about half as many potatoes as he did and less bread and other starchy foods."

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly a diet to be proud of and it's hardly a diet that is nutritionally sufficient. It is the result of controlled farming.

Russia today is having to purchase more and more of its agricultural products from other countries. It says:

"Today, investment is up in Russia and meanwhile Russian peasants are getting more carrot and less stick. In the last five-year plan, capital investment in agriculture was raised by 66 per cent. Additional increases of 62 per cent are planned in the current five-year plan. The enlarged allocation is being used to provide more fertilizers, tractors and other tools to increase production."

But it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that it says here that, "private enterprise is emerging in Russia and is playing a role in boosting Soviet farm production. One-third of farm products come from the private plots and pastures that peasants tend on their own time."

Mr. Speaker, a privately-owned plot of land in Russia which they are now just getting and which is now being taken away from the farmers in British Columbia, consistently outproduces a state-owned and controlled plot. I must say that the farmers' stock is going up in Russia. It says here: "Along with the creeping in of a substructure of free enterprise to help meet their needs, the farmer is allowed to own livestock and he can feed them with kind payments of grain."

Mr. Speaker, this is what the farmers in British Columbia are concerned about: not only the state control of their land, not only the state control of their production, but the fact that state control is inefficient and leads to non-production, and loss of their democratic rights and thus their spirit. They don't want to be farmers as there are farmers in Russia under that state control of land, money and initiative; where there would be a creeping in again of the enterprise system and the enterprise land and that eventually they might be allowed to own their own

[ Page 1570 ]

cattle. They want to own their own cattle now, Mr. Speaker, and the evidence is here for years that they haven't done well.

They have had ups and downs but they were always there and they were always working and they were always producing and they are among the most efficient producers in the world today.

There is a lot to be learned from that, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Agriculture and this Government would do well to heed the concerns of people of British Columbia and to heed the lessons that were learned in such a country as Russia. And in Poland — in Poland where they let the farmer use his own initiative, left his lands unconfiscated and where he proved again that he is most productive.

Mr. Speaker, in countries where the land is controlled as it is being controlled under the principle of this bill, we can look to find where they have controlled land and farmers that they are, to quote U.S. News and World Report of 1972, "They consider it an eyepopper." The efficiency and high production of American farms. An eyepopper, Mr. Speaker.

Freedom and the democratic process in North America has produced a farmer that is an eyepopper to the Russian farmer and the Russian bureaucrat. He is an eyepopper because he is so efficient and has such a high production on American farms that he fascinates Russia's communist leaders and has done for years.

It says here:

"American methods of farming have been cranked into the bulky communist system of collectivized agriculture with beneficial effect. One of the first moves was to abolish the machine tractor stations that have been used by communist leaders to keep a whip hand on the peasants."

Collectivized farm equipment — it seems to me we've heard that before from the Members of the NDP when they were in Opposition.

"It was the stations that determined the flow of equipment to the collective farms and did the repair work. If managers of a collective farm got out of line, the tractor station would force a mending of their ways by cutting off essential equipment."

Whether it's there or here in British Columbia, collective stations for equipment will have the same problems no matter how well meaning they might be managed. I'll say more about that later.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member keeps saying, "What has that got to do with British Columbia." That again, Mr. Speaker, is the problem — that the Members of the Government have not read this bill and do not know the principle that's involved here.

The people of British Columbia know …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, stop worrying about who I've got listening to me and look at who you've got supporting you.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: What a brilliant remark from the chairman, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You're not allowed to speak out of your seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps more importantly, Russian farmers have been given a sweet taste of capitalistic incentives. They now have virtually free rein on some of their private plots that are assigned to workers on the collective state farms to cultivate on their own time. They have to do it after they work for the state. They can cultivate it on their own time.

"On the private plots they can grow vegetables, flowers and other products for market. There they keep livestock that are pastured on the collectivized land. The stock can be fattened on payments in kind with grain that the peasants get as part of their share in the output of collective and state farms. The produce from the private plots can be sold at farm markets.

"Today, although such plots comprise only 3 per cent of the total farm acreage in Russia"

— these are the individual enterprise farm plots —

"they account for an astonishing part of total farm output."

Mr. Minister of Agriculture,

"they account for an astonishing part of total farm output.

"From these small acreages in 1971 the peasants produced 63 per cent of the country's potatoes, 38 per cent of the vegetables, 35 per cent of the milk, 51 per cent of the eggs, 33 per cent of the meat and 20 per cent of the wool."

That's very significant, Mr. Speaker, because the principle in this bill is state control. I'm pointing out that state control, even in countries that first practised it, has not worked. There is a great deal of emphasis — and proof that there's a great deal of emphasis — that must be put on individual initiative and individual enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make this clear to the Members. If they don't want to listen, then I guess again that's part of the problem we have in British Columbia at the moment and it's part of the reason why we Members are concerned.

I would just add one more quote. It's very evident

[ Page 1571 ]

that in Russia crop failures and political turmoil have gone hand in hand. Mr. Speaker, this bill — Bill 42, the Land Commission Act — and the principle of this bill are causing turmoil in British Columbia. They're causing turmoil in the hearts of 90 per cent of the farmers of this province. They're causing turmoil in the hearts of the small landowner in this province.

We have turmoil.

The Government won't listen. The Premier, the Minister of Finance, has admitted the flaws in the bill. He's asked the Opposition to redraft the bill for him. All he does is sit on his pride. It's a pretty healthy pride at that. I should know.

But let's look at another country. The Members have taken umbrage at the comparison with Russia. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned Holland. He held up Holland as one of the fine examples of successful state control of agricultural lands; Holland is certainly a controlled country of agricultural land. If you can't find it, Mr. Minister, look it up in Hansard.

They control all the farmlands. They tell you who can go into agriculture — that's part of state control. If it's going to subsidize farming, then it's going to tell you who's going to be in. You have to have a degree in agriculture to farm in Holland.

What happened? Well, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) says "rent control". You bet they've got rent controls in Holland. The last figures I read, you had to wait 17 months before you could get married because you couldn't get an apartment to rent. What good is rent control if you haven't got an apartment in which to live to have it controlled in? Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Public Works, who's so interested in the principle of this bill, would just do a little homework, he wouldn't make such hollow remarks.

I'd like to talk about the apple situation for a minute. Under this state-controlled land policy and state-controlled agricultural policy, where the farmer is told what to produce and what not to produce and where anybody wanting to go into farming has to have an agricultural degree, they have a situation in Holland now, Mr. Speaker, where farmland is worth half of what it was eight years ago. Who's been the loser in the value of that land, Mr. Speaker? You can bet your tooting-tooting dollar it wasn't the state. It was the farmer.

Mr. Speaker, they have had a scientific tree fruit development programme in Holland. Today they are requiring their farmers to grub 22,000 acres of intensely-planted apple tree plantings — 22,000 trees. Mr. Speaker, if you take Dutch costs and you look at the cost of this input by an individual farmer, the minimum is $3,000 per acre. That's for intensive planting, which they've gone into. This constitutes a loss of some $66 million to those farmers.

What were the growers paid by this all-wise collective government? The "Minister of Popcorn" says, "Where's this?" For your edification, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, it's in Holland, a country that was held up as an example by your colleague as having one of the finest agricultural policies in the world. These growers were paid $400 an acres to grub this land. They had to absorb personally themselves the huge losses. They not only had to absorb these losses, Mr. Speaker; they had to refinance their entry into another avenue of agriculture.

This has happened in spite of the concern of a government that reflects very much the concern of this government in ;Bill 42. The reason that I point this out is because the farmers in British Columbia know about this.

They had a marketing system in Holland. That marketing system did what the state told it to. In frustration, the farmers rebelled against the system and they attacked the system. The state split the system. They ended up with a disastrous marketing non-system. There were not returns for the growers. That's why this land has been taken out of cultivation. Some of the biggest, most successful growers in that country, Mr. Speaker, are now on welfare.

It was a series of controls, which led to frustrations, which led to an attack on the system and which lead to a complete loss of marketing, a loss of return, a loss of the producing trees, a loss to the farmers, and a loss of 22,000 acres of land with no compensation. The marketing system got so bad, Mr. Speaker, that I personally know of a tree fruit producer over there, a very successful man, who got to the point that rather than go on welfare, he and his wife worked their farm all day and they sat up at night bagging apples — putting apples into brown paper bags — until midnight. Then they got up at 5 o'clock in the morning and they went from door to door peddling their produce. That's the only way that they've been able to hold on to their farms, and it's the only want that they've been able to stay off welfare.

I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Agriculture must understand the complexity of the marketing and the production of agricultural products in any country. He must understand that the proposals that he and the Members claim in this Act are not the answer. They're throwing fuel on the fire. They're putting the farmer in British Columbia in the same position, in the way of frustration and controls and the fear of controls, as the farmers in the countries that I have mentioned.

Surely it can't be in the best interests of British Columbia to go this cycle — to destroy the farmers' initiatives, to destroy his right for fair compensation, to tell him what to produce, to tell him what not to produce, to control him and thus destroy him — and then come around and let a substructure of his

[ Page 1572 ]

original initial enterprise be the way that is right, as happened in Russia.

Mr. Speaker, right here in British Columbia there was a long scientific programme over Spartan apples. The federal Department of Agriculture was involved, and all the scientists were involved. The production of this apple was to be the ultimate. It was to be done under high density planting; it was to be a good keeper; it would respond well in controlled atmosphere storage; it would meet the market at a time when our local produce isn't able to. There was much effort put into this — much sound, scientific background. Many farmers in the Okanagan, Mr. Speaker, became involved in this programme.

I'll cite just one. He put in a whole orchard of high density planting. It cost him altogether $45,000. He grew his produce over a three and four year period that it takes to bring a tree into any form of production at all, and his apples went into controlled-atmosphere storage along with the others — all very scientifically proposed and done.

Mr. Speaker, there's only one problem. They break down as soon as they're brought out of storage, and they can't be marketed because our consumer won't accept this apple. So one farmer I can tell you of tonight, is out $45,000. This includes his labour, his trees, his nursery stock — not his capital equipment. And that's a programme that was done under presumably the finest of conditions and the finest of scientific advice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this farmer says: "I did it on my own, and I was free." And he's not even crying. I admire him for that — I would be. But when this Act came in, Mr. Speaker, then he became concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You're right, Mr. Minister of Health — it is a dastardly act. There's no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, in any area of agriculture at all, that we can overcome the problems of production and weather, let alone the problems of marketing. It's the problem of the consumers. As much as we like to think so, the consumers in Canada are not geared to the utilization of their own produce.

I'd like to tell you for a minute about Japan, which has an enterprise approach to farming which is not evident in the principle of this bill. In Japan a farmer is a free enterpriser. The land floats on the agricultural market — the government doesn't come along and take it. There are very few restrictions imposed on the Japanese farmer, and the consumer in Japan plays a very strong role in his survival.

I would like, just before going on, Mr. Speaker, to bring up the point of the consumer and the Minister of Agriculture and the Government's attitude with regard to the consumer.

I think if the Minister of Agriculture had taken a strong position and if this Government had, in relation to the consumers' concern, that this might have given the farmer more inspiration. At a time when one Minister — the Minister of Agriculture — is saying, "I want to save farmland, I want to save the farmer in British Columbia, trust me, trust us, trust this Government," the Premier of the province is on a hotline. When one segment of our agricultural industry is getting a reasonable return for their produce — the beef cattle growers — a consumer phones in and complains of the price of beef and the Premier of this province, whose philosophy of state control of land is in this bill, says, "Boycott it. Boycott the farmers produce."

Are we to assume, Mr. Speaker, that there's a difference of opinion between the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of this province? How can one Minister go out and say, "This bill is designed for you farmers," and the Premier of this province and his colleagues say on a hotline, "Boycott their products," when they're just beginning to get a fair return.

This was brought up to the Minister of Agriculture at an agricultural meeting. He looked very uncomfortable, and I don't blame him. If I'd been him I think I'd have been inclined to just about take a pot-shot at the Premier for such an irresponsible, almost stupid statement.

But the answer that the Minister of Agriculture came up with was hardly much better, because he said, "Oh, well you know what it is when you're on a hot-line and you're under pressure — the Premier was under pressure." Now, if the Premier of this province can't stand the pressure of a hotline, how is he going to withstand the pressure of the federal government and their agricultural policies? How is he going to stand the pressure of international trade as it's going to relate to agricultural products? Is he going to sit on his blind pride and make irresponsible statements like, "Boycott it"? Is he going to tell the Americans that we're going to boycott them? I won't bring up some of the most extraordinary statements he has made in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and the farmers in Canada and British Columbia and those caught in this bill are between the squeeze of the consumer. Let's not kid around about it. And the Premier of this province is not doing anything to alleviate the situation. That squeeze and that consumer includes many housewives, many of the Premier's friends, the Minister of Agriculture's friends, my friends, and many of the friends of the backbenchers of this Government who have steady incomes, who get regular vacations, who enjoy a home, and a camper, and a trailer, and a boat.

They complain, Elizabeth Forbes complains, Penny Wise complains about the cost of British Columbia produce. Well, they have every right to

[ Page 1573 ]

complain. That is typical of the attitude of the consumer in British Columbia, and that's part of the squeeze that the Minister of Agriculture and the farmers of this province are in.

I'd like to now go on and tell you about Japan and what the difference is there — not only in the free floating of agricultural land and the initiative of the farmer, but in the consumer attitude. They are not concerned in Japan about how much land they have. They're concerned about what that land will produce, that will feed their country and that is profitable to their farmers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Blacktop.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of Mines says, "Blacktop". I think maybe that we would have to condone his going to Japan. Because in Japan, Mr. Member, they have one-third the land area that we have in British Columbia, and they have 110 million people. They produce, Mr. Speaker, more rice than they can consume. I couldn't believe that it would be news to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) that rice is the staple of their diet.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You're right. Do you want to know why, Mr. Member? Because (1) the production of rice is subsidized; (2) the farmers' income in Japan is one of the higher; and (3) the agricultural land floats freely, through you Mr. Speaker, on the agricultural land market.

It is trading today at approximately $7,000 per acre. As I said before, if a farmer can make a reasonable return there are going to be people wanting to go into farming. The fact is if you can make a good buck people will be fighting over themselves to go into farming, because there is a genuine trend of people back to the land.

That, Mr. Speaker, is higher than the average price of farmland by a great deal in British Columbia before the freeze. It's certainly a good deal higher now.

Apples — oh, I just asked the Minister of Mines whether he really thinks we should grow rice through blacktop.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That's why, Mr. Member, they are calling the Premier of this Province "Chairman" because they know the price of rice in China. It was their freedom. And that's what they're concerned about in British Columbia.

Apples and other tree fruits in Japan, again, are very much a profitable production in Japan, and tree fruit land changes hands freely on an agricultural market at approximately $4,000 an acre.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the problem of the consumer in British Columbia and Canada. This is where we differ from what they do in Japan, not only do they now allow their land to float freely in agriculture and they assure a decent income to the farmer, but the whole attitude towards fruit is different. In Japan it is part of their national custom to utilize fruit. They have 110,000,000 people in their domestic market and they've had no tree fruit imports up until recently, when we started to think we could put British Columbia apples in there.

The oriental custom — and it might interest the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain — is to give fruit where we would give sweets or other things to someone who is ill or who is in the hospital. They give fruit. And they pay a great deal for it. On New Year, their New Year's celebration, or on children's days, they give fruit. On feast days they have highly decorative and very beautiful fruit baskets. They'll pay the equivalent of $6, $8, $10, or $20 in our money for these fruit baskets. There's almost a universal exchange — and that's one of the differences. The consumers there place a value on their produce. It's become part of their culture and they'll pay for it.

They have apples in Japan, Mr. Speaker, as big as that. In the spring, when the blossom comes, they put a huge plastic bag over the whole tree and the blossom. That blossom matures into fruit and comes up to maturity all within the keeping of this plastic bag, and if it wears out then they change it. And then, about three or four days before they are ready to harvest this luscious great size of fruit, they open the bag and let the sunlight in and this brings up a very delicate pinkish blush.

They will pay up to $1.60 to $3 for one of these apples.

Interjections by an Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: When the Member for Shuswap said there would be calls over here, you've got your wires crossed, Mr. Member, because we, as you may well know, have not only this problem about a different attitude of the consumer, but we have a lot of problems within the production of fruit. One is called "water core" — I'm sure the Member has heard of that.

Mr. Speaker, we can't sell an apple with water core in British Columbia. In Japan it is considered a delicacy and they will pay more for it because they like the soft, pulpy core.

So again we have a cultural difference, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1574 ]

MRS. JORDAN: So there they have a viable industry, a fair return to the producer, and I'm sure they have lots of problems.

They have a different situation in their own viable domestic market, and in cultural attitudes. That's what the Minister of Agriculture in British Columbia must carry on here. It was started by the previous Minister, but we as consumers in British Columbia, if we want to preserve agricultural land, must change our attitudes and we're going to have to change some of our tastes, because we don't have a 110,000,000 domestic market.

One other advantage that they have in Japan is that it is almost impossible to export fruit. When it comes to apples, which are very much affected by this bill, they don't have what is called a codlin moth in Japan. We have it in North America and it's almost extinct here. But it's why we can't sell our apples in Japan, Mr. Member, and why the farmers are concerned about this bill. If the Minister of Agriculture had come to the farmers and said, "We can get 400 tons of British Columbia produce into Japan," they might have had more faith in him than they do in him through this bill.

They have restricted trade of fruit into Japan through really artificial barriers based on codlin moths or any other reason.

But for the first time, Mr. Speaker, in our history, the British Columbia fruit industry believes that they can invade this market. But the farmers are asking themselves, with this bill around, "What for?" They won that market. They worked hard for it and they don't want somebody telling them what to do with it. They're willing to take their lumps with their profits.

The Japanese farmer gets his share of time and money like Japanese policemen, stenographers, like the politicians. He receives a return on his capital investment. He has a domestic market. He has a protected trade market.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture had come in with some of these benefits instead of the confiscation of their rights and lands, the farmers would have been standing up cheering him. He knows that. He made a presentation at the fruitgrowers convention in Oliver the other day, in January, and he spoke in the morning. I'm not sure I know what he said — one often doesn't know what politicians say — but I thought at the end of his speech, when he pleaded that he needed time, that he had plans, that he was concerned about agriculture and farmers, to trust him — that he'd really come out of that meeting a winner.

Even I couldn't criticize his statements. He was new at the job but that's no sin. He said there was lots of information in the department and that's true. He said he was interested in the farmer and agriculture and I certainly believed at that time that that was true. I didn't know that I really bought his "trust me" so much, because I don't think a politician should ever say that. If you can't conduct yourself in a manner to inspire some degree of confidence and trust then possibly you shouldn't be in politics — you shouldn't have to go around asking for it. That's not to say that everybody trusts a politician. But I would hope that most of us are sincere in our ultimate objective even if we don't agree on how we're going about it.

Mr. Speaker, those growers thought he was a winner, too. They were pleased to know that he was going to spend the day with them and listen, and then they decided to debate their resolutions that evening, and he said he would stay and listen.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister had everything going for him. Finally he even had the Member of the Opposition going for him. But he blew the whole thing, and in blowing it he revealed the true intent of this Government, and in blowing it he put himself in a position of serious question.

These farmers got up and they told him many of the things that I have mentioned tonight and will mention, and a lot of other things about their problems.

Some of you must know farmers. They're just people; they're not sophisticated professors or other people. They speak frankly. They call a buck a buck and they talk about their crop. They're like the car dealers — they talk about the threads that the Hon. Member for Point Grey talked about.

They tried to tell him what their worries were and what their fears were. Mr. Speaker, he ended up telling them how lucky they were that he spent a day with them. He ended by telling them, after they had told him their problems, that the only thing he could see was that they were subdividers. Mr. Speaker, he hadn't listened a bit. He's proved over and over again that he hasn't listened since.

They're nervous and they're concerned. They read things like "Labour takeover of land would be irreversible" — the Daily Telegraph, January 22, 1973. We've heard the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) talk very proudly in this House about his roots in the British Labour Party. We've heard the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) talk in this House with great pride about his roots in the British Labour Party. We see, not only in reading through history, but in an article as late as January 22, that "Harold Wilson told the supporters in Edinburgh that Labour's policy for land must be and would be comprehensive, socialist and irreversible."

That's the philosophy that's in this bill. That's the philosophy that is camouflaged in this flag that's draped around the farmer's neck in British Columbia. It's a masterpiece of flag-draping — a masterpiece.

If it hadn't been for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that bill would have gone through

[ Page 1575 ]

this House without people realizing the content. Even their own Members wouldn't have read that bill. Some of them admitted the other day, and it was quite obvious that they hadn't read it.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill is designed, as the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) says, for the farmer's salvation, why isn't the farmer applauding the bill? I'd like to read you a letter from a farmer in the Vancouver Sun on March 17, 1973. It says, "Farmer Rejects Salvation":

"Dear Editor:

"It takes a lot of patience to sit back and listen to the vocal few expound on how the NDP with its Bill 42 is really saving and helping the farmer, while the real estate business is supposedly the villain who takes our farms for nothing and is busily subdividing them. 'With this bill, the real farmer is the winner,' they say.

"All of us who are concerned here in the Okanagan are real farmers. My husband has been an orchardist all his life, as have most of the others here. Believe me, all of us are quite intelligent people.

"Now please think. If this Bill 42 was such a great salvation to the farmer, who at this time can be likened to drowning man ready to grasp at a straw, do you think we are so stupid that we would not recognize it?"

That's a pretty reasonable question, isn't it, Mr. Speaker?

"Do you think we would be opposing it so hard?"

Isn't that a reasonable question?

"Is it really the farmer they are protecting by the land freeze? From whom are they protecting him? I know of no real estate firm that has forced a farmer to sell, that took away his land or developed it. If anything, they help to bring up the value of the land, which is as it should be in these days of rising costs and wages. What is more, I've never heard anyone say of the real estate man, 'Let's not antagonize them,' like I've heard said of our present Government. It does smell of fear of losing our freedom of speech next, wouldn't you say?

"It is not surprising that the ones who are most vocal in their support of the Government action do not own a farm or at least" — like the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) — "do not depend on it entirely for a living. What have they got to lose? Yet, 'Freeze them on their farms without compensation,' they cry. 'Where will we get our vegetables, fruit and milk?' Serfs on a reservation — does that sound about right?

"If the government or anyone wants our farmland, they should be prepared to buy it at today's prices.

That is the bone of contention. How many of you, who are so ready to save someone else's farmland, would honestly give up your job and sink everything you've saved into agricultural land and would work in the fields to grow vegetables because I might be concerned about having fresh vegetables on my plate a year from now? I wouldn't expect you to, nor would I freeze you in your job at 1945 wages, take your savings and refuse you any appeal.

"Contrary to what Mr. Stupich would have you believe, fruit growers, grape growers and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture have on several occasions presented constructive amendments to our Minister. These he seems to very conveniently forget."

Well, Mr. Speaker, who do we believe? The conflicting statements between the Minister and the Premier, the statements of the proud root of the heritage in the British Labour Party of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement and their philosophy, the philosophical statements that were read by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) last night which reflect the view of his party, the Member for Delta or do we believe the farmer who's supposed to be saved? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we believe the farmer.

Mr; Speaker, in this bill we see this Government exposed shamelessly. The Minister of Agriculture tells the SPEC group that he's going to make some amendments and he tells them what they are. He doesn't tell the farmers. He doesn't tell the Legislature. He doesn't tell the rural Members. He tells a delegation of non-farmers whom he's trying to save, what these amendments were going to be. Then we hear the Premier….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, maybe this is one of the problems. The Minister says he hasn't told anyone what his amendments are going to be. Yet we have people coming out of his office saying to the Press, "The amendments are going to be one, two, three." We have the Minister of Agriculture tell people he will listen and he doesn't listen. He tells them that there's a bill that will come in that will clarify their fears, that will set their minds at ease, that will show the Government's policy.

Well, it clarified their fears all right, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly showed the Government policy. But it wasn't what he told them he was going to do. This is a great danger, Mr. Speaker. That Minister is making himself more unbelievable every day. That's part of the problem. If a man asks you to trust him….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1576 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he is developing a credibility gap — a very large one, Mr. Attorney General. Yours is not much better, through you Mr. Speaker. When the Attorney General, the chief justice officer in this province — number one — gets up and says about an Act, "Yes, it's a bit discriminatory but we don't feel any responsibility for those that this legislation hurts," and then he discussed another Act — this Act, Bill 42 — in the province. This is the cheap justice of this province. The man who not only must be symbolic of justice but must enforce justice, says, "Oh, isn't there any compensation in that Act?"

Mr. Speaker, talk about a credibility gap. He's going to need more than Geritol. That's just unbelievable and that, Mr. Speaker, is why the people of British Columbia are concerned and are afraid.

There is credibility gap after credibility gap after credibility gap; there is conflicting statement after conflicting statement and it is all tossed off with a laugh by this Government. They are giggling away like a lot of little school children over there right now. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) giggling to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). When you bring to the attention of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — that chief symbol of justice, of equality and fair treatment in our province — that some proven statements that he has made that are conflicting, he giggles.

Mr. Speaker, psychiatrists say "beware of he who laughs loudly, for what does that laugh hide?" That is a very good warning and a very good message to consider in the action of these Ministers. When they laugh so loudly, what do they hide?

They are trying to hide what they tried to hide in this bill, and that is a naked hunger for power. People who haven't had responsibility in their life before and who have battled for it and when they get it they don't know how to handle it and it becomes a naked hunger for power. That is what is in the principle of this bill, Mr. Member.

Now, I mentioned to the Premier that his garland crown had become a crown of roses. I would like to add to that suggestion that he stop asking the Opposition to write his legislation for him and that he stop playing hide and seek with truth — that he get off his pride and learn that pride goeth before a fall. He has been asked by us to withdraw this bill. He has been asked by the Hon. Liberal Members to withdraw the bill and he has been asked by some of his own backbenchers to withdraw the bill. He has been asked by many editorials and I would like to quote the Vancouver Sun on March 17, 1973. "For all this, the stubbornness of the Government in continuing to demand approval in principle of a bill that acknowledges by its pledged concessions to be imperfect is no less than deplorable."

Mr. Speaker, that is what the people are concerned about and that is what they know about out there. These conflicting statements. Democracy eroded by legislation of this Legislature, mis-statement after mis-statement, and pride — pride of the Premier standing in the way of justice in this province.

You wonder why the farmer is concerned. The man who is the president of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, a lifelong farmer, a sincere man, a man whose integrity has never been questioned, a man who tried to present a brief to the Premier the other day and the man who was presenting that brief in frustration because he met on previous occasions with the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and been put down and had his words twisted.

And what did the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) say to him on that day? The Minister of Public Works accused this man — and you can ask anybody about him, don't take my word on how sincere he is — of trying to whip up the crowd. This is the type of "responsible" statement that we get from the Minister and that responsible statement from a man who has had ample experience in crowds and the moods of crowds.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was a slip of the tongue.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you did. You tried to incite a riot right here in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: He may have tried to start a riot, but I heard from many quarters that his heart wasn't in his debate and that proves that that Minister of Highways knows this legislation is wrong and knows this legislation should be withdrawn. Don't rely on the Opposition to write your legislation. How weak can a Government be?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll tell you, when we were Government we wrote our own legislation and we stood by it. If it was wrong, we corrected it. I would stand by our legislation, Mr. Speaker, more than I would ever even acknowledge the existence of this legislation.

[ Page 1577 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Highways has come awake at last and the old lips are going, "brrrrrrr."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: If I could use his name in the House I'd have a good description.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member confine herself to words that Hansard can repeat. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that "brrrrrrr" wasn't allowed in Hansard.

Speaking of words that are allowed here and there and what's in this and that, I would really like to have been a fly on the wall in the cabinet chamber when this legislation was brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you.

MRS. JORDAN: You know when I said that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways put his hand down like this, to kill that fly. Right? And, Mr. Speaker, if I had been a fly on the wall in that cabinet chamber, I would have bet my last dollar that that's what his thought was about that legislation. That's what that Minister and that cabinet and that legislation are intended to do to the people of British Columbia. The claw, the clutch of socialism.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Flies carry disease, don't you know.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, try and run a balance of nature without flies and you will find out how important that is. If the Hon. Minister of Highways would like me to give him a lecture on flies or tell him about flies, I'd be glad to.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, at his age, if he doesn't know about the birds and the bees, there is certainly no hope for the highways in this province. (Laughter).

When this bill was presented to cabinet, I would like to know which Members joined that Minister of Highways in unanimous approval of crushing the people of British Columbia, taking their land and crushing their democratic rights, just as that Minister squished the fly.

I would also like to know which one of those Ministers who are so eager in their hunger for power and control in British Columbia ever thought to say, "Mr. Minister of Agriculture, how are you going to administer this Act?" Mr. Speaker, if you read that Act and you know anything about the complexities of administering legislation in a province as complex as this one is, the size that this one is, and with the complexities that are built into the broad scope of this Act and what it covers, it is virtually an impossible Act to administer.

I guess if you had been a fly on the wall or I had, we would have seen what we have seen tonight: laughter, lack of concern, irresponsibility, a camouflaged philosophy that they are afraid to come out and say, but haven't yet denied in this House. Not once have they denied all through the budget debate or the Speech from the Throne debate that they weren't going to deny the right of private ownership of land.

We have asked them time and time again. Since the heat has been on through the farmers coming to Victoria, they have hedged a little bit. But there still has been no denial by any responsible Minister in this Government that they are not going to take over private lands in British Columbia. No time have they denied that in their principle of this bill there is the opportunity for the Crown, the state, the claw to profit at the expense of the private individual, to profit from their labour, to profit from their lack of income, and to profit from their assets.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it's only fair to accept that Members of this Legislature have a common and ultimate objective to see that all people live with a reasonable standard of living. They should enjoy a comfortable shelter or home; adequate, nutritious and healthy diets, high standards of health care and safe and pleasant environment.

Where this House divides, Mr. Speaker, is as to how this utopian existence for people is to be achieved. This House divides again, Mr. Speaker, in questioning very seriously whether man can live — live, not just exist — in a theoretical, utopian state.

The NDP Government of British Columbia have revealed since taking office that they collectively represent extremes in socialism, with few exceptions. That socialism, Mr. Speaker, is practised behind the Iron Curtain and to a lesser degree in Sweden. As is becoming evident, the socialism of this NDP Government preys on the poor by elaborating their weaknesses. We saw this in the last election, and we see this now, in this legislation.

They stimulate people to blame their personal plight on the nebulous "They". And the nebulous "They" are all through this legislation and the principle of this legislation.

They offer simplistic solutions to highly complex, human environmental and economic problems. I cited some examples earlier where this simple solution can all be answered by control — absolute control. They say it's the answer. But you go through history, you go through current day examples and it just simply

[ Page 1578 ]

isn't so. Mr. Speaker.

I question, first, whether the theoretical utopia is even possible. The second question is whether man can or wants to live in the utopia.

Everywhere that you examine the effort to bring about this utopia, which is claimed by the socialists to be brought about by this extreme socialism — Marxism if you want to call it that — there is state control of the land, there is state control of the wealth. Where you promise simplistic solutions to complex problems, you blame the big "They" for the problems. You fill the stomach and you dull the mind. That's what's happening in British Columbia — in this legislation, the land control, and in other legislation, the monetary control.

Filling the stomach? — this is done on the promise of filling the stomach. "It's all for you. 'They' are the cause of your problems." The little carrots are going to come out and they're beginning to come out.

The denticare suddenly popped out, less than five days after the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) estimates. The pressure was on the Chairman, and he said to the Minister of Health: "We've got to do something to counteract the principle of this bill. We've got to build up the camouflage of the principle of this bill. Go out and offer denticare." $20 million — just out of the hat! But did we hear about that in the Minister's estimates? $20 million. More of the camouflage. It isn't even in the estimates. Centralized, clawing power.

Then we're going to hear — to tone down the principle of this bill and to try and alleviate the fear that's brought by this bill — about neighbourhood pubs and things. That will fill the tummy, and then they'll dull the mind by taking away the responsibility and the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has made this abundantly clear. We'll deal with that under his estimates. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: There is a blind belief…. well, Mr. Premier if your mind has just been revealed to you as dull, I would assure you, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia know how dull it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: It's dull and it's filled with pride. And it is going to destroy the democratic rights of the people of this province. You may find it dull, Mr. Premier, but they find it frightening. And I'm not standing here with any intention of entertaining you, or any Member of your House.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to come here — I am here to speak for the rights of the people I represent and the people of British Columbia. I was sent here not to be an entertainer, but to fight for their democratic rights. I could care less whether you like what I say, whether you find it entertaining, whether you fall asleep, but I'll stand here and fight until I drop as will every Member of this Opposition until you return the democratic rights of the people in this province! Until, Mr. Speaker, that Premier, and that Government, that have got a claw of socialism of the most extreme kind on this province, withdraw that claw. And until that Premier can stand up and be worthy of the name of Premier, and draft his own legislation and not ask the Opposition to do it for him.

There is a blind belief on the part of this NDP Government that they, the chosen few, 38 Members …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Members don't have any say, anyway. It's all in the cabinet — they know best for the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: What was your portfolio again?

MRS. JORDAN: … that they, the chosen few of the cabinet, with their supreme self-generated knowledge, have the answers to the problems of British Columbia. And that they know how to implement these answers. And that they, the chosen few in this cabinet, must have supreme control in order to achieve their ultimate objective, which is controls, controls, controls. They won't listen, and they've proved it over and over again. Their philosophy is clearly spelled out in this bill, and it's clearly spelled out in other bills before this Legislation. I would refer to the Revenue Act.

The principle of this bill, which exemplifies this grasp for power, transfers it out of the cabinet to an even more select chosen few — not only outside this Legislature, but outside the cabinet and beyond the Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia can't believe that this is happening. They are trying their best to tell this Government, and the Government won't listen.

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is shaking his head. Well, Mr. Minister, let me give you some facts about why the people from British Columbia now smirk when the Government and the Minister of Agriculture say "trust me". They keep calling for input, input, input.

Mr. Speaker, the first point that we come to in examining why there are serious questions about the sincerity of the Minister of Agriculture, and the legislation, is that it all started when a very naive — if one wanted to be charitable, or perhaps if one wanted

[ Page 1579 ]

to be realistic — calculating Minister announced to the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture at their convention that he was going to preserve farmland.

He didn't spell it out as a vague theory. He laid it on the line. And then, Mr. Speaker, he promised to consult with these people to give them the opportunity to have a lot of input …

He didn't spell it out as a vague theory. He laid it on the line. And then, Mr. Speaker, he promised to consult with these people to give them the opportunity to have a lot of input, and they accepted this, because one of the things that the Premier always said when he was in the Opposition was that he would go to the people concerned before legislation was drafted and ask them what they wanted in the legislation. Quite frankly, we didn't believe that because it's just not possible. But he believed it, and he said it, and his Minister of Agriculture said it. They said it. "Input; you will help us draft the legislation." But, Mr. Speaker, what they say and what they do are two different things.

MR. CHABOT: The people should be heard.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the people should be heard. Mr. Speaker, on December 18, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture met with the cabinet. I know that's not news to you. But probably their reaction is news to you. Those people went to that cabinet believing what the Minister of Agriculture had said. They went to that cabinet trusting the Premier, trusting the Minister of Agriculture. They went to tell him their concerns.

Their first reaction was that they found that the Ministers weren't very interested. They kept getting up and leaving with never an "Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have another appointment." They just got up and left. They didn't even excuse themselves to the federation delegates.

Eventually they were left with about a third of the Ministers they started with. They were impressed that those Ministers were not listening. But I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be of interest to you to know what they said at the invitation of the Minister of Agriculture … 

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you wish adjournment?

MRS. JORDAN: To continue debate on second reading? Will you accept adjournment?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking you if you'll accept one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Obviously if you make a motion we'll accept it.

Mrs. Jordan moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.