[ Page 1581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Energy Act (Bill No. 148) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1581

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1581

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147) Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill No. 118) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill No. 134) Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1581

An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulations Act (Bill No. 137) Hon.

Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 1581

Ruling

Adjournment of the House at 6 p.m., March 20. Mr. Speaker — 1582

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Shortage of B.C. Railcars. Mr. Fraser — 1584

Comfort allowance for Pearson Hospital patients. Mr. Schroeder. — 1584

Member for North Okanagan. Mr. Barnes — 1585

Flood prevention measures in Kamloops. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1585

Decision on elevation constructors' strike. Mr. Wallace — 1586

Details of dental plan. Mr. McGeer — 1586

Recruitment of women to civil service jobs. Mr. D.A. Anderson. — 1587

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

Mrs. Jordan — 1588

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits a bill intituled Energy Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 21, 1973.

Bill No. 148 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator,

WATER UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits a bill intituled Water Utilities Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 21, 1973.

Bill No. 146 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator herewith transmits a bill intituled Telecommunications Utilities Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 21, 1973.

Bill No. 147 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MEDICAL GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 118 intituled An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 118 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 134 intituled An Act to Amend the Hospital Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 134 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HEARING AID REGULATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 137 intituled An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulations Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No.137 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this in relation to non-contentious business?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You were so sharp this afternoon that we neglected introducing guests in the gallery and I wonder if I might ask your leave to do so?

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: I know you will be pleased, in granting this leave, to know that we have a group of seven students from the Windfield High School with their chaperons, Mr. and Mrs. Rossthorne from Oyama and Mr. and Mrs. Dave Aspinal, their teacher. They are here today; they have travelled a long way; they will be visiting the gallery in Victoria and they earned this trip themselves. I hope the Members of

[ Page 1582 ]

the House will join with me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised an important matter relating to the adjournment of the House caused by the interruption of business at 6 p.m., March 20, while debate on second reading of a bill was underway. The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was addressing the House.

The sequence of events disclosed in the records indicate that while the Hon. Member was speaking after 6 o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) rose "on a point of order", drawing attention of the Speaker to the clock. The Speaker asked the Hon. Member who had been speaking to be seated and he quite properly complied. A Minister, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) rose while the Speaker was in the chair and moved the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

When objection was heard (not formally, however) the Speaker indicated to the House that the Hon. Member who had seated himself at the interruption of business did not thereby lose his place in the debate which had been underway. This ruling is confirmed by May, seventeenth edition, p. 444 at the bottom of the page. An examination of the Journals has disclosed no occasion where a similar situation has arisen. Hon. Members will recall that on a number of occasions the Speaker and the Chairman of a committee have left the chair at the hour of interruption, returning at 8 p.m., but on such occasions no motion of a formal or any other nature has been made prior to the chair being vacated.

It seems significant, however, that on such occasions when the Chairman has left the chair at the hour of interruption, and after the hour of 6 p.m., he has reported to the House and asked leave to sit again, a time therefore has been appointed, and has been ordered by the House. In other words, formal business has in fact been transacted after the moment of interruption.

Such a procedure is noted also in the British Journals and referred to in May, eighteenth edition, p. 291. See the Commons Journals 1957-8, p. 180. Our standing order 3, clause 1, recently adopted reads:

"If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered."

From this wording it seems implicit that when some conclusion of the business at hand is required and another hour agreed upon for the sitting, it can be done. This is borne out in May, seventeenth edition, page 633, which reads:

"Procedure when business is not completed at the end of a Sitting — A Committee of the whole House has no power either to adjourn its own sitting or to adjourn its consideration of any matter for a future sitting. If its consideration of the matter be not concluded, or all the matters referred to it have not been considered, in the Lords, the House is resumed and the chairman moves 'that the House be again put into committee' on a future day. When the House is put into committee, it may be resumed upon a question put by the Lord in the chair. In the Commons, the Chairman is either directed (a question to that effect having been put and agreed to) to 'report progress, and ask leave to sit again' or (if proceedings in the Committee are cut short by the hour interruption) he reports progress and asks leave to sit again without such direction in the House."

Thus after the hour of interruption, certain formalities to preserve the order of business are committed as cited in that excerpt.

The Chairman does not leave the House, but calls in the Speaker, reports to him, and a time is thereupon fixed by the House for the resumption of the business interrupted. All of this occurs after the hour of interruption and by reason of the time having been noted.

Clearly, May contemplates the preservation of the business of the day should the House wish to do so. Failing action by the House to agree upon a next sitting time, the Speaker returns at 8 o'clock p.m. that evening.

To resume the narrative of events at adjournment time on March 20, a motion to fix the hour for the next sitting was moved by the House Leader. At this point, the question to be resolved by the Speaker was the nature and extent of business allowable to be transacted at the hour of interruption. It seemed to me in the brief time available that if it was competent for the House to act upon the report of the Chairman after the hour of interruption as above noted, it was also competent for the House at this time to determine the hour of its next sitting.

Standing order 3 provides that an hour other than 8 o'clock p.m. may be agreed upon. Such motions in accordance with the practice indicated in May do not, in the opinion of the Chair, fall into the category of opposed business but are clearly formal matters involving the business and hours of sitting of the House. This is borne out in our standing orders by standing order 45 clause 2, which states that, "adjournment motions shall be decided without debate or amendment." Standing order 34 declares that, "A motion to adjourn…shall always be in order…."

Thus, so long as the House is assembled and

[ Page 1583 ]

properly constituted, such motions according to our standing orders appear to be in order.

Were it otherwise, the proceedings of parliament could be frustrated every day by a Member holding the floor until past the hour of interruption.

May, seventeenth edition, p. 466, states that in such a case a Member,

"….who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct…. He is, however, guilty of a contempt of the House, and may be named."

I emphasize that I am not thereby imputing such a motive to the Member in the case herein. Thus the House has by custom the power to prevent its proceedings from being thwarted or obstructed, whether by a Member refusing to adjourn the debate at the hour of interruption or by using the speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House as cited in May. That this is so is implied by the fact that May indicates that another Member who has not spoken at the hour of interruption may stand and move adjournment of the debate if the Member who has occupied the floor may still resume after the adjournment.

A further matter arose to which the Hon. Member has referred.

Following the motion and a division which occupied some time, the Speaker left the chair at 6:13 o'clock p.m. after a division and returned without pause to the chair. The House resumed the business with which it had been occupied at adjournment, namely, the speech of the Member who had been speaking at the hour of interruption.

Our orders of the day were not called, but no formal objection to this was taken. Indeed, it was clear that it seemed the wish of the Members that the debate resume with the same Member retaining his place in the debate. He resumed his speech without protest and the House continued without further pause.

The physical presence of the Mace on the table after the Speaker had left the chair was also mentioned. According to Hatsell, "When the Mace lies upon the table the House is a House; when under, it is a committee; when out of the House, no business can be done; when from the table and upon the Sergeant's shoulder, the Speaker alone manages."

In my view, with respect, the position of the Mace on the Table in no way invalidated the adjournment and resumption of the proceedings. The House was assembled and duly constituted. It adjourned; and pursuant to its express will, the Speaker immediately returned to the chair after having left it. The Mace still being in the chamber, the business of the House could be done immediately in accordance with the motion passed.

It is worth noting that although we follow the customs and usages of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in all cases not provided for, no mention of their standing orders is included in our standing order 1.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, p. 9, states:

"As Canadian procedure was based on British precedents insofar as circumstances permitted them to be followed in a new country, our Legislatures from the day of the Constitution Act of 1791 naturally referred in all cases of doubt to the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. But they have never considered themselves bound by the standing orders in force at Westminster which govern local practice and are not applicable to any other legislative body than the one for which they were passed."

In the British practice, a motion to adjourn could be contentious business by reason of their standing orders providing for debate. Our standing order 45, clause 2, departs from this, and appears to be similar or analogous to their exempted business. Perusal of British Journals confirms that at the hour of interruption there may follow resolutions, motions, and even resolving of the House into committee, providing there is not debate on the matter in the process of doing so. So as is also true in our Legislative Assembly on the motion to adjourn debate or to adjourn the House.

An example to illustrate the British practice can be found at p. 372 of the Commons Journal, 1891, volume 213.

In sum: in my respectful opinion, the assembly by reason of standing order 3, clause 1, can adjourn the debate and agree upon the next sitting at the hour of interruption since the motions are made without the right to debate and because the assembly has the power to preserve its proceedings by its own will and purpose. In that course, the Speaker must be the servant of the House in leaving and returning to the chair.

Once the two motions were disposed of, he was bound to comply therewith.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to comment briefly on the most Olympian ruling or decision ever brought down in the history of this parliament. I'd just like to briefly say that much of the….

MR. SPEAKER: There is no debate on this ruling.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not debating.

[ Page 1584 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, sit down.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't make a point of order on the decision of the Chair. You can appeal a point of order that has been raised and ruled upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were the servant of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: If you are conversant with the rules of the House, you know that you can't debate a ruling after it has been handed down. You can appeal it. If you have an appeal to that ruling, do so now while you're on your feet or be seated, please. Do you appeal the ruling?

MR. CHABOT: When will it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to have a copy of that lengthy decision, or ruling, or whatever you just brought down?

MR. SPEAKER: It will be in the Journals tomorrow. You can have it now….

MR. CHABOT: I reserve the right to comment, to rise on a point of privilege, a point of order, or any other point, on that ruling you just brought down.

I MR. SPEAKER: You have a right to appeal my ruling and I invite you to do so if you wish.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to do it until such time as I have had an opportunity to….

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated!

MR. CHABOT: What a decision!

MR. SPEAKER: Then appeal it.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

SHORTAGE OF BCR
RAILCARS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, as President of the British Columbia Railroad.

Have any concrete plans been made to correct the worsening shortage of railcars, reaching 1,250 this week (up 200 from last week) and resulting, already in a loss of 300 jobs along the road due to layoffs and no storage facilities for lumber from the lumber industry?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is a very valid concern that the Member has raised. I asked for a meeting yesterday afternoon with the president of the railroad. He informs me that he is meeting later this week with representatives of other Canadian and U.S. railways to see about the boxcar shortage. There is a boxcar shortage all over North America.

I have asked for an immediate report from the president of the railway as to what can be done by the railway itself to begin construction here in British Columbia of our own railway cars, and I hope for that report in a short while. In the interim I have asked him, and he has agreed, to make every effort to get as many cars into the interior as possible.

It's an anomalous situation. Business is so good that we are losing jobs because we can't get the boxcars — yet the jobs are there and the opportunity is there. He is working on it immediately.

I repeat, I have asked for a report about the feasibility of building our own boxcars here in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject, the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject. Have you issued any orders to speed up the car orders that are on order? I understand there are around 500 cars on order, and maybe it would be good if you issued an order to speed up the delivery of these.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we had a board meeting Tuesday of this week and we discussed the 500 car order that was placed last year. We've asked that that be expedited. Unfortunately, once the cars are made for delivery they are put on railroad tracks, and on the way out for delivery they are grabbed off by the other railroads. This is a bad situation. I wouldn't like to believe that the giant railroads of Canada would treat our BCR unfairly, but I certainly hope that a large number of the 500 we ordered get out here and we get to use them first.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to ask the Premier and President of B.C. Railway first of all whether he's on good speaking terms with himself, because he said he was going to talk to the president…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vice-president.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask him why, in light of this shortage that we've had, the B.C.

[ Page 1585 ]

Rail did not undertake long-term rental arrangements until such time as further boxcars could be constructed. It would have solved this problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're not available to rent. I've given complete authority to the vice-president some time ago because we anticipated the pressures because of the boom in the interior logging and lumber industry, but they are just not available to lease. If the Member knows of any that are available to lease, let us know — privately, so no one else hears and we can get a chance at them first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. The point of fact is in dispute. Nevertheless, there is no way we can settle that for now. I wonder….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, Mr. Member, are you saying that there are cars available for lease?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it was quite possible at an earlier time, to my knowledge, to arrange for long-term rentals….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. The Member must take responsibility for the statements he makes. If he's asking a question, that is one thing; if he is making a statement, that is argumentative.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What action is being taken, Mr. President of the Railway, to get our boxcars back from the United States and Mexico?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are trying to recover as many cars as we can, but all railroads have a reciprocal exchange of railroad cars, and if we recall all our cars that means that everybody recalls their cars. We have to rely on the inter-rail agreements between railways.

We're making all efforts we can to get as many boxcars as we can into the interior. We are using all channels we can. We are even discussing with American railroads….

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a little further north?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even further north, Mr. Member, and it's quite valid. It's a serious problem and it's not one that we've decided to take action on immediately. We've discussed this since last fall. We anticipated the shortage last fall. If I recall correctly, the daily shortage now in North America is 18,000 cars short every day, right across North America.

MR. SPEAKER: On a different subject, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

COMFORT ALLOWANCE FOR
PEARSON HOSPITAL PATIENTS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the Minister of Health Services. Have the patients at Pearson Hospital in Vancouver been receiving their comfort allowance, their additional comfort allowance?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I gather the Member indicated Pearson Hospital?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.

HON. MR. COCKE: There has been a hold-up in that situation. However, it has been ordered and they will be receiving their comfort allowance, which will be retroactive to January which is something quite new and innovative.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MEMBER FOR NORTH OKANAGAN

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

At the last sitting of the House, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stated that she intended to speak on the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, until she fainted, or dropped, or something like that. To my mind this constituted a potential emergency situation, and I'm wondering if the Minister has any plans to accommodate the…. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I have to rule that question out of order.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

FLOOD PREVENTION
MEASURES IN KAMLOOPS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am always pleased to see doctors in the House, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he recovers from that last crack from our friend on my left.

I'd like to ask him: why have no steps been taken to repair the north end of the dyke in the Oak Ridge subdivision, Oak Hill subdivision area of Kamloops,

[ Page 1586 ]

which was the scene of pretty disastrous flooding last year?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am presently reviewing a Press release right on my desk with respect to the Oak Hill situation. The problem at Oak Hill, which was most disastrous last summer, is one that has concerned us. Our primary concern is with respect to the people in the houses, rather than protecting all of the vacant lots. We have been most concerned about finding the best location for a dyke and optimizing the overall situation in that location. We have been negotiating as well with the numerous developers in the subdivision.

A detailed Press release will be ready shortly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If the Press release is simply under revision at the moment, could not this be made public in this House as opposed to the normal manner with Press releases which this Government has adopted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if there is a question period tomorrow, but I don't believe there is….We want to proceed. There is not a problem, unfortunately, this year because of the snowpack — at least not a serious problem, it would appear. But we would like to make sure that some interim steps are taken before the major programme itself gets underway, and we want to do that as soon as we can.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then can we get from the Minister an undertaking to present, by way of Press release or statement in the House of some nature, a decision tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think undertakings are part of the period. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

REPAIRS ON 'QUEEN OF VICTORIA'

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Acting Minister of Highways — I understand that one of the four key vessels on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run is experiencing continuing operating difficulties. Inasmuch as this is an essential connection between southern Vancouver Island and the lower mainland, it would be appreciated if the Acting Minister could comment on this.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. I'm just not familiar enough with what's happening there, but I will pass it on.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, if I may. If the Acting Minister is considering this matter, is it not a fact that the service was interrupted last Sunday by the fact that the vessel could not…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it is a duty of a Minister who has a particular portfolio to be asked questions about another portfolio of which he is not the Minister. I don't think he has administrative responsibility in this House toward that portfolio, nor should he be answering, according to the rules. Now I may be in error, and if I am, I'd like to be corrected.

MR. CURTIS: I am just trying to elicit some information.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you are, but I don't think this Minister has to answer questions under someone else's administrative jurisdiction.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

DECISION ON
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker — two days ago he said he would have a decision to announce on the elevator constructors' strike. He promised us a statement in a day or two.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Oak Bay will refer to the comments which I made in Hansard, I made no such promise. My exact phraseology was that I anticipated that I might be in a position to make an announcement. Unfortunately I'm not in that position as yet.

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

DETAILS OF DENTAL PLAN

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. Will he be prepared to release to the House details of the dental plan which he announced last weekend?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the dental plan that I announced last weekend was clearly visible on channel 6. That's where all the stories came from. I was suggesting at that time that our approach — and if you would like to take a look at what I said it may be available — I was prognosticating the future and where we were going within the next few months. I indicated that I had had a number of reports and was getting more. As a matter of fact the next report that

[ Page 1587 ]

I expect to have would be from the College of Dental Surgery in the near future.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance whether we should attend the House or watch channel 6 for the next development? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That's entirely rhetorical. I point out also that under Beauchesne, at p.148, it raises a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to the question, and therefore is really not appropriate for question period.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

RECRUITMENT OF WOMEN
TO CIVIL SERVICE JOBS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. In the light of reports that the number of females employed in the higher ranks of the civil service is at the disastrous level of under 1.3 per cent, may I ask him what he is doing to make sure that qualified women are being recruited for jobs in our civil service?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, which I think is so far-reaching that I'm not at all certain that I can deal with all the points he raised in the one question: we inherited a civil service which is composed of 50 per cent temporary and 50 per cent permanent people; a civil service that didn't have collective bargaining; a civil service that frankly was suffering from a great number of ills and woes. We're tackling every one of those things in order, including the one you mentioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sound like Webster. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm inclined to suggest that the answer itself points out that it's a matter of rather large policy you're asking to be settled in this question, and future advice by a Minister to the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with due respect I feel that when a question is asked which is fairly specific — and I would call it non-contentious — if the Minister simply says that the variety of problems facing his department is enormous, it's not an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: You're asking the Government's opinion on matters of policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm asking whether any specific steps, Mr. Speaker, will be taken or have been taken recently to rectify this unfortunate imbalance of the sexes in the higher ranks of the civil service. I feel that that's a fairly precise and specific question.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly would allow that in that form.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's nice.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is my duty to observe the rules and to allow or disallow questions, and to say "That's nice," is impertinent.

Proceed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that at the majority of Executive Council meetings that have taken place since we took office, that question and others like it, particularly in the field of the employment of women, have been discussed by all cabinet Ministers in that chamber.

Orders of the day.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On which now? On this vote?

MR. McGEER: On the motion to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. This is private Members' day, and if we follow orders of the day, which we're bound to by rules of the House, then we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

May I refer you to the printed orders on orders of the day and our own standing orders in the House. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it would require unanimous consent of the House to pass by private Members' day and move to public bills and orders.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was under the impression that there was an agreement amongst Whips. If there is a single objection to this, then of course we'll move into committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is correct in regard to the rule that this is private Members' day and under business to be done on Thursday it would normally be public bills in the hands of private Members unless the House has otherwise ordered a precedence motion.

[ Page 1588 ]

There is a precedence motion before the House dealing with estimates, other than the introduction of bills and question period.

MR. McGEER: …the sitting, which means we move to private Members' day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I concur with the Hon. Member. What I am suggesting is that I was accepting the motion on the basis that you obviously had come to some conclusion on this — that you were all granting leave. But if you do not grant leave then the precedence motions have to proceed. It's a matter of choice, I suppose. It's up to you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a motion on the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion of precedence before the House. The House Leader is entitled, under the motion of precedence, to go on to that precedence motion unless otherwise agreed.

MR. McGEER: We understand that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. So?

MR. SPEAKER: So what is the House Leader proposing to do?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, question on the motion, obviously, unless there is an objection….

MR. SPEAKER: I can't accept the motion if any Member objects to it, without leave being granted that the motion proceed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to move to public bills and orders.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, before we give leave, I wonder if the House Leader could give us some indication of when there will be a private Members' day. We haven't had one this session and it's been in my view a regrettable tradition of the House that we never do have private Members' day. If the House Leader would give us some indication when we can have such a day, I think the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if you're suggesting this motion is open for debate, let me advise you that I'm under, I hope, some co-operation from the Whips. I'm only going on what the Whips agreed. If the Whips decide, I'm at their disposal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): What day can we have a private Members' day?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I really think we cannot be bargaining across the floor, one side and the other, in front of me. I suggest, therefore, that that's a matter really for the Whips. I have to decide whether leave has been granted.

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. As I take my place in this debate, I would just comment that in light of the remarks made by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), it is very comforting. to know that should I collapse from exhaustion I will fall into tender arms.

Mr. Speaker, you were out of the chair for some of the time last night and I'm sure you would be pleased to know that our debate proceeded on the principle of Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, in which we reaffirmed then and we reaffirm our position now that we are very much in favour of the protection of greenbelts and the development of a viable agricultural industry in British Columbia and the protection of parklands for our province and our people.

But in examining the legislation, we recognize that the legislation itself as drafted, and as being discussed under this principle, is wrong; and that it is in fact part of an overall socialist Government's plan to put their hands and their claws on the control of the lands of British Columbia. This principle is wrong. It is bad legislation.

It's a foreign bill to Canada and to the Province of British Columbia, and a foreign bill for this Legislature to be debating.

It is discriminatory. It is poorly drafted. It is full of inequities. It is the centralized control of power. Mr. Speaker, it is a Fabian flag hoisted on a Marxist pole, designed by this Government to camouflage the true meaning of its principle by draping it around the bodies of the farmers of this province to lie forever on their land.

I pointed out in part then, Mr. Speaker, and will point out again today in another area, why it is important for the farmers to remain individuals with their individual rights. Time after time, as we look around other countries where there has been state control of land, state control of agriculture and state control of farmers, it has not achieved its ultimate objective; in fact it has decreased the objective.

[ Page 1589 ]

We will point out again in other ways, Mr. Speaker, why it is important that the people of British Columbia have a return of their democratic rights and a return of fair play and equity, as much as is humanly possible.

I pointed out in part then, and I will point out in other areas today, why the independent farmer is a productive farmer, an enthusiastic farmer, and a farmer who will excel and has proven that he will excel in this province and this country well beyond the production of industry.

Mr. Speaker, recalling the debate last night, I would ask through you again that the Government accept its responsibility to the people of British Columbia and withdraw this bill. Take it back into the chambers and replace it with a statement that there will be public hearings all around British Columbia with an opportunity for everyone in British Columbia to have input into this bill as it would be redrafted. Not just for farming in this province, but farmers all over the province — farmers in the Kootenays, farmers on the northern centres of Vancouver Island and farmers in the extreme north.

Because this bill and the principle of this bill is so wide in scope that it affects every square inch of land in British, Columbia, give the small homeowner — whether he or she be in Vancouver or Victoria or Comox or Nelson or Fort St. John or Pouce Coupe — wherever this homeowner resides in British Columbia — let them have an opportunity to put their say into the drafting of a new bill; a bill that would be fair to them and would be fair to their democratic rights.

Don't do as the Premier did, at the last moment when the heat was on, and say, "Come to Victoria and talk to me " — then not see them. Let this committee go to them. The pensioner in Fort St. John can't afford to come to Victoria. The small homeowner in Nelson has difficulty in being able to afford to come to Victoria. Because when they come, Mr. Speaker, they not only have to pay for their fare and their accommodation and their eating; many of them have to pay for somebody to look after their home or take their place in business. It's just too expensive and it's just too improper, Mr. Speaker, that people, the average person of British Columbia, should have to do this in order to have their democratic rights protected.

Through you Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again, withdraw the bill. Listen to the people. They will support you on this. Don't stand on pride, Mr. Premier — a false pride. And don't through you Mr. Speaker, take away the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines this bill, one realizes the complexities of administration are going to weave a web across this province such as we've never seen in a lifetime. That must be re-examined. I said last night, Mr. Speaker, I wish I'd been a fly in the cabinet when that bill came in for examination.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Minister of Highways at that time slapped his hand down on his desk and said, "That's what we do to a fly." And that's exactly what went on in that cabinet, because they slapped their claws on the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia without a thought to democracy, without a thought to what they were doing and certainly as evidenced in the principle of this bill, without any thought as to how they would administer such an odorous plan in British Columbia.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) says that this bill is designed to help the farmer and that he is dedicated to the farmer. He denies the questions and he denies the suggestions that it isn't designed to help the farmer in spite of all that's going on.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, if the Government is so sincere, and if the Minister of Agriculture is so concerned, why he has not acted to preserve agricultural land in British Columbia?

I would cite an example in the area that I represent. I won't name names, but when the land freeze came on, this lifetime farmer had indeed subdivided his land, the subdivision was enacted but not signed. It was in the Department of Lands for registration and approval by the highway department and approval by the regional district.

Why then, Mr. Speaker, didn't the Minister of Agriculture go to this man and say, "You have a subdivision. How much did you get for your land? How much was the land value before the freeze? How much money have you put into having this land surveyed? How much money have you put into having a proper plan developed for this land? How much money have you put into legal fees?" Then add that up.

Then why didn't he say to the farmer, "How much do you anticipate your revenue will be in the next three years?" Or, figure out a reasonable interest on the money already spent, then say to that farmer, "We have $17 million in the Green Belt Protection Fund which is designed for the preservation of parklands and agricultural land in the Province of British Columbia, and it was passed by the Legislature. And the multi-land use committee says that this land is better used for agriculture." Then why didn't the Minister of Agriculture suggest that the regional district would rather see this land used for agriculture and then offer to buy the plan and the land.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture had done what he had every right to do under legal legislation, acquire this prime — and it is prime —

[ Page 1590 ]

agricultural orchard land freely, reasonably negotiated between the government…. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture's leaving, so I guess he has a guilty conscience.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll still be talking. The fact, that the Minister of Agriculture leaves at this time, on this rather contentious point, is only one more reason why the Members of this side of the House must talk, ask questions and endeavor to bring this radical Government to its senses, and bring to this province some semblance of relief from the fear that's over this province and the chaos that this Government has brought to this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your own leader walked out on you last night and he hasn't heard a word you say and I don't blame him. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Well, we have that portly, petulant boy Premier back again. Isn't that nice. The more petulant he gets, Mr. Speaker, the more I know we're speaking the truth. That Premier is uncomfortable and he knows he's wrong. He's sitting on his false pride. He will not do the right thing for the people of this province. That, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is why this side will talk. If he would listen, if he would sit down and open his ears and close his mouth, then the people of British Columbia would have more confidence in him.

But, Mr. Speaker, the point at issue is: why — when the land was there, its category was there, the money was there, and according to the Minister of Agriculture, the sincere desire to preserve farmland in British Columbia was or should have been there — did the Government O.K. this subdivision, make an exception to their own freeze? Why didn't that land come into the hands of British Columbia on a voluntary basis?

Mr. Speaker, the Ministers don't answer the questions; they don't listen to the people of British Columbia. The people are concerned and this Opposition is concerned.

We become increasingly concerned as the days go by, by the conflict of statements that are being made by this Government outside this House, not to this Legislature, not to be debated by this Legislature if they can avoid it. The fact is that these statements are just causing more and more and more unease in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what do we see from the Minister who says "trust me" as late as yesterday, while the debate was going on in this House, when we were questioning the Minister on whether or not he was making statements upon the actions of himself and this Government about bringing in amendments outside this House that he wasn't making to this Legislature, when he was making statements to groups about amendments — groups like SPEC, groups like university students and not to the farmers and the landowners who are involved? He denied it — right here on the floor of the House.

What do you find in the paper today, Mr. Speaker?

"'Two prospects,' says Stupich. Farmer sought as member of B.C. Land Commission." This is for the B.C. Land Commission that has been protested against so violently by the average person in British Columbia — a commission that has been set up by Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, the principle of which we are debating in this House today.

No law has yet been passed by this Legislature; no authority has been given to this Minister or this Government to set up this Act, this commission or appoint members. But already, while the Minister stands in this House and says, "I am not making statements outside the House and policies outside this House," we find that he is. Not only is it improper, but I would suggest that it is almost downright immoral.

What did he say in Victoria? "Agriculture Minister David Stupich said Tuesday that he has found two prospective members for the proposed controversial land commission." He has found two prospective members. He is running around personally doing the hiring of people for a commission that is not even yet established, which is highly controversial and which we feel will not be established.

Just blatant bulldozing, Mr. Speaker. Where did the Minister of Agriculture make this vital statement? Was it to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture? No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Was it to some landowners, some small homeowners in British Columbia, in the north or in the Kootenays or even here in Victoria? No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't. Was it made on the floor of this Legislature? No, Mr. Speaker, it. wasn't.

I'm sure you would like to know where it was made, Mr. Speaker. It was made to a noon audience of 250 students at the University of Victoria, at a meeting arranged for by the young New Democrats — a legitimate group, indeed, Mr. Speaker, but hardly the place where the Minister of Agriculture should be stating the policy of his government when it is already under debate on the floor of this House.

What did he say? He has interviewed the two "who I would like to see on the commission." "Who I the Tsar of the lands of British Columbia would like to see on this commission." Not who the cabinet would like to see, not who the 30-odd NDP Members of this House would like to see, not who this Legislature would like to see, not who the farmers would like to see or the small landowners would like to see on that commission — but who "I" would like to see, says the Minister of Agriculture.

[ Page 1591 ]

Would you like to know why, Mr. Speaker, he would like to see them? Because they both agree with the goals of the Land Commission Act and of the Government's approach to the preservation of farmland. Mr. Speaker, the length and the breadth of this province is in a turmoil, in a state of fear and in a state of deep, deep concern about this very Act because of the dramatic powers that are involved in the principle of the Act and that will be taken away from the public, out of this Legislature and out of the cabinet, and put into the hands of appointed members.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier and the Members of that Government and other Ministers are going out to committees, going out to meetings all over this province saying: "Yes, the powers are there, but we won't use them. Trust us." How could they possibly trust them, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister says such a damning statement as: "I have already interviewed the two that I would like to see on the commission. They both agree with the goals of the proposed Land Commission Act and approve of the Government's approach to the preservation of farmland."

Mr. Speaker, if it was unbelievable that this Government should bring in this Act in the first place in the form in which it is, it is even more unbelievable that they would proceed as they are, and that the Minister of Agriculture would dare to make these statements to a university student body and their own young NDP members, let alone anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, the article goes on to say: "When questioned later, Stupich said he would not name the two because they have not yet been discussed with the cabinet." Even further blatant abuse of power, the same blatant abuse of power about which this opposition is concerned and the people of British Columbia are concerned. "He also announced at that meeting that the commission would not be made up of five members but that it would be made up of nine members." — a statement that he has never made in this House.

Let's go on to see what other unbelievable statements he made. At a time when the Government is insisting in this House that there would not be buying and selling of land under this Act and that the powers of this Act would not be used, he says: "The commission will have the power to designate land as agricultural, land bank, reserve for future urban use, parkland, reserve of greenbelt. It will also be able to buy farmland and sell it and lease it " — a direct contradiction, Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of Agriculture on the University of Victoria campus to what he told the Federation of Agriculture, to what he was telling the beef growers in Kamloops, to what he is telling the public of British Columbia.

As if that isn't enough, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, and he must have been lulled into it because it says: "Stupich told his student audience which was generally quiet and friendly, that the commission members will have to be appointed on a political basis" — a political basis, Mr. Speaker — "because they will be dealing with individuals in the province everyday on a contentious issue."

What is this Minister saying? He is saying that the Land Commission Act is another avenue for political patronage of the NDP Government in British Columbia. While he and the Premier and the Members of this Government are travelling the width and breadth of this province, saying "trust me," they are at the University of Victoria, stating that these Members will be appointed on a political basis.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

Madam Speaker, how could the people of British Columbia possibly trust this Government? How could the people of British Columbia possibly have any faith in the Minister of Agriculture?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right, Mr. Member. I pointed out to the House last night, Madam Speaker, how, when the Minister of Agriculture started out in this programme in British Columbia — I talked about the meeting in Oliver and Osoyoos where he made a very plausible presentation and ended up by asking people to trust him. But from that date on he has consistently made misstatements, conflicting statements — statements such as this around this province. Yes, the people of British Columbia cannot trust him and they cannot trust this Government and there is ample reason why.

May I go on further? He says, after announcing that they will be political appointments: "In order to gain public confidence in the commission," Stupich said, care will be taken to see that the Members will not be strictly pork barrel selected group," — an open admission by the agriculture Minister of British Columbia that the NDP Government makes pork barrel appointments.

Madam Speaker, the public of British Columbia and this Opposition have been concerned about this. And it has arisen in previous debates. It has consistently been denied by the Government that they make pork barrel appointments, Yet we see another statement of conflict — an open admission by the Minister who says "trust me" that their Government makes pork barrel appointments.

The Minister has said consistently, outside this House and during his earlier statements in this House, that the bill contains compensation factors; this in spite of the fact that the Attorney General didn't know that it didn't; and this in spite of the fact that it had been pointed out repeatedly by various

[ Page 1592 ]

members in the opposition that the bill does not contain compensation factors. And this has been stated in spite of the fact that the people of British Columbia have pointed out to this Government that the bill does not contain compensation factors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, that's the whole point: this isn't a purchase bill, it's a confiscation bill. If you'd open your mind and listen, you would know why. And if you'd read some of the mail from your constituents you would know why they think it's a confiscation bill.

Stupich reiterated that there will be no monetary compensation for devaluation of land through the commission's designations.

Mr. Member, how much more clearly does it have to be spelled out to you, through you, Madam Speaker? Do you, through you Madam Speaker, have to wait until the claw of socialism is on your land? Or do we, Madam Speaker, assume that that Member is part of the pork barrel, that this Government is admittedly involved in, and that his lands are free from the clutches of this Government.

If that's the case, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to that Member that he not rely on this assumption, because over and over again this Government is proving that it is not only unreliable, but that it is bordering on the verge of political immorality such as we have never seen in British Columbia.

This is one meeting, Madam Chairman. Heaven knows what would happen if we had the recordings of five of his meetings. But he said — and we know he doesn't say the same thing at every meeting.

The whole debate in here from the Government side has been on the point that this bill is designed to help the farmer in British Columbia. The Minister still insisted upon this this morning after I had pointed out to him that it is the farmers who they are saving that are revolting. He pointed out that this Government is concerned. But what did he tell the meeting last night?

I would also say that he pointed out to various agricultural meetings what he had done for the farmers in British Columbia since taking office. But he told the meeting last night that the Government has not yet proposed any measures — any measures — to make farming more economical, such as the reduction and removal of taxes on farmland. But his reason Madam Speaker, is most interesting.

He says, that they haven't done this because the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture indicated it would appear at this time to be a bribe to get farmers' support for Bill 42.

Madam Speaker, this Government was elected on a platform which said in part, the removal of taxes from farmland in British Columbia and all homes.

They made other election promises such as taking the controls that this Social Credit government had tried to put on to help curb inflation. They promised to repeal Bill 33 because it was a contentious bill to a special group in our society — not the public, but a special group.

What did this Government do, Madam Speaker, when they came into office? Did they meet the commitment of taking, property taxes off land, farmlands and private homes in their concern for agriculture? You bet your rootin'-tootin' dollar they didn't.

But they did remove the 6.5 per cent inflationary control. And they did repeal Bill 33 which, as I said before, can only be described as an act of charity compared to Bill 42, this Land Commission Act.

They brought in automobile insurance — or a bill for this; not the $25 package that was offered, but a bill that put another claw in British Columbia in the form of monopoly — and a bill with the same principle as we're debating here that has a clause in it and it lies before this House now; fired without cause, and without notice.

It is these principles, Madam Speaker, that are interwoven in every section of this bill: a monopoly, controlled without notice and without cause, without compensation and without faith.

How can we help but question, how can we help but say, that this Minister of Agriculture is no more concerned in the preservation of agriculture in British Columbia, nor is this Government, than he ever was. He and this Government are concerned with power.

I pointed out last night, and I won't repeat it Madam Speaker, what this Government could have done to genuinely show its concern for agriculture. That included the commitment they made to the voters of this province — it was their commitment, Madam Speaker, no one else's. Theirs.

They knew how to take the taxes off the land, and they were going to do it. But again we see that the pork barrel came first. The real concerns of the people and the real problems of the people come second or third or fourth or fifth. Then to try and blame the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture for the inaction of their own Government is unbelievable.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture is signing his letters over and over again today, and no wonder. That man is disturbed and that Minister of that position is in trouble.

The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, I admit quite freely, asked the Social Credit Government to take taxes off land. They didn't consider it a bribe for the farmers then. They didn't ask us because they felt that they were going to have to give up something in order to get it. They asked because they felt it was a genuine need.

Whether or not the general public agreed was

[ Page 1593 ]

another matter. But that Government made a commitment. Now it says that it was because of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture's request that they not do it, because it would be designed as a bribe.

The Minister has said that he wants input into this bill. He's had input and input and input. There's been input put into his ears since he first came into office. What is his answer to this now when the heat is on; He said, "because the federation suggested similar government action now would be seen as a bribe."

Stupich said, "The onus is on them to produce a package." Stupich said one possibility which he supports would be to remove taxes from farmland. In unorganized areas now — another conflicting statement; another example of complete lack of understanding, complete lack of planning of this Minister and this Government.

What about the lands within the municipalities? What about the farmlands that are frozen in the Kelowna City — the new Kelowna City? What about the thousands of acres of farmland that are frozen in the new City of Kamloops; not a city created, Madam Speaker, by the people themselves, by a free and democratic vote after the whole programme has been studied as to its pros and cons and to its costs — not by the democratic way but by decree of this NDP socialist, all-powerful Government — a labour Government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No way they're for Labour. In failing to understand the complexities of the problems they're creating and dealing with, they don't understand that they're making the life of the working person in British Columbia more and more difficult, more and more controlled. Or do they understand? That's the question.

So from an election platform of complete removal of taxes from all farmlands we now find that the Minister of Agriculture is thinking that perhaps he might now ask the Government to remove them from farmlands in unorganized areas. Maybe they'll give a grant to the municipalities in lieu of their taxes. But that grant won't cover the taxes. Nowhere does he say that he would take taxes off all farmlands in British Columbia.

At the same time he has compounded the problems of the farmers in these edict-created communities. They can't get water. They can't live with their neighbours because good sound farming principles are not compatible with subdivision living. He's shown no concern for this; only this clawing for power.

Madam Speaker, he goes on to say:

"Referring to the Government's announced intention to introduce amendments,' Stupich said, 'it is my hope they will not be tabled in the Legislature until after second reading.'"

Why? The Minister knows this bill is bad. The public knows this bill is bad. The Minister is asking the Opposition to write his legislation for him rather than writing it himself. But he says, "I hope that there will be no amendments introduced until after second reading, even if that is next June." What is the Minister trying to prove? Is this another case of false pride; whatever happened to that boyhood dream of preserving agricultural land?

He says, "Opposition Members have been demanding the amendments be made immediately." I would ask that Minister to withdraw that statement publicly because he has misled those students. The position of the Opposition has consistently been, "Withdraw the bill. Have public hearings." "Trust me, trust me," says the Minister of Agriculture.

It goes on, Madam Speaker. You can go through one simple speech made by this Minister at a crisis time in British Columbia and find inequity, contradiction and downright immoral statements. Withdraw the bill. Then wake up and get your integrity back, or try to.

What do we find again? Wednesday, March 21: "Stupich Pledges More Changes to Controversial Land Act. The provincial land commission — which may have as many as seven or nine members…." said the Minister, "will have many amendments." Again he reaffirms that he won't withdraw the bill, even if debate goes on until next June.

But instead of the four amendments that he announced to the SPEC group, he's now announced that there may be four more. Madam Speaker, there are only 22 sections to this bill. We have pointed out to the Government that the bill cannot be amended because the fabric of the principle of this bill is woven through every section. That is the complexity and that is what's wrong with the bill. At first there were to be no amendments. Then there were to be four amendments. Now there are to be at least eight amendments.

Why, in the name of common sense if nothing else, doesn't this Government withdraw the bill, hold public hearings and redraft legislation that will return equity and fair play to British Columbia?

What else is going on in this province by other Ministers? The one matter I'd like to bring up now was made right here in the House by the Minister of Highways. I see he's gone back to repairing the ferries again. I hope to goodness he repairs the ferry that mysteriously disappeared at 8 o'clock on Thursday last, a ferry that was scheduled to sail by reservation from Tsawwassen at 8 a.m. with people and buses reserved by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. That ferry disappeared, Madam Speaker. It didn't sail and the people didn't get to Victoria. The question of what happened to that ferry has

[ Page 1594 ]

never been answered.

The farmers in this province hope that now the Minister of Highways is out getting his answer so he can give it to this Legislature. They're concerned that when they're invited to Victoria and they make reservations, they can't get here. They want to know why.

What does the Minister of Highways say in his firm and formal presentation to this House? I would quote from the Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, March 21, 1973. The headline is "Vote against land bill is vote for blacktop." This is typical of the simplistic approach and the simplistic attitude that this Government is taking to complex and deep-rooted and serious concerns in this province.

It's not just the Minister of Highways; it's a reflection of the whole cabinet's thinking. Just last night, when I was discussing the growing of rice in Japan where the farmers are independent and allowed to proceed on their own basis, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) said that they were going to blacktop the paddy fields in Japan and that they had. He backed down when I pointed out to him that Japan, whose staple diet is rice, out produces and overproduces its own needs.

They have this hang-up that all farmers are subdividers. They have a hang-up now that if you vote for democracy and you vote for equity in British Columbia and you vote for the rights of people, then you're voting for blacktop. How ridiculous.

He says, "The Social Credit opposition was accused of deliberate attempts to destroy the democratic system…." How could he say that when the democratic rights are destroyed, then you're voting for blacktop. "Highways Minister Bob Strachan during the 8½ hour debate…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm not sure he will be the "Minister of potholes." We just finished debating his estimates, Mr. Member, and the projected highway development for British Columbia passed by this Legislature — rightly so. One day later he got up and said that he was going to spend millions and millions more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please speak to the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: The farmlands of British Columbia will be like the Black Hole of Calcutta, Madam Speaker, if this Government proceeds with its dictatorial and grasping programme. You will never get the farmer to farm them.

I've tried to point out to this House that you keep farmers on farmland by seeing that they get a fair income and a return for their labours and leaving them relatively free. Not destroy the value of their land, not destroy their democratic rights, not make them serfs on the land to serve in the Black Holes of Calcutta.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: They laugh all the time, Mr. Member.

The Minister of Highways says, "Anyone who votes against this bill is selling agriculture in B.C. down the river," Strachan said. He charged that the filibuster unleashed by the Socreds was a deliberate attempt to frustrate and destroy the democratic system.

Is it democratic to have your land rights taken away from you? Is it democratic to have your values destroyed of your capital assets that you've worked for? Madam Speaker, agricultural land didn't just lie here. Take the Okanagan where our home is and where I have the honour to represent some of the people. That land wasn't prime agricultural land, lying plowed, harrowed and watered, ready for the seed. That land was made agricultural land by the blood, sweat and toil of people, human beings. It's their land, Madam Speaker, they made it what it is, and they deserve a fair value from it and from their labours.

Is it democratic to take those rights away? Is it a filibuster to fight to have those rights protected; is it a vote for blacktop if you vote for their rights? No way.

This is where he goes on and says, "a vote against the controversial bill will be a vote in favour of blacktopping the Fraser Valley." What do the Fraser Valley people have to say about it? Letters, visits — not to the Opposition, but to the Government. And when they're frustrated by the silence of the Government and unwillingness of the Government to listen, then they come to the Opposition.

The farmers that this bill is designed to save are having meetings. The small homeowners that this bill is supposed to be saving are having meetings. Are they in favour of blacktop? No way.

Just recently, after we've heard the endorsation of our stand against this bill from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — they oppose it, the lawyers oppose it, the people oppose it, the farmers oppose it — and still the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), speaking for Government policy, says to oppose it is to vote for blacktop.

What do the mayors of the Fraser Valley say when he says that if you vote against that bill you're voting for blacktop? They're joining the land bill fight. They know, Mr. Speaker, they have zoning and planning, that they have a legitimate procedure to help preserve agricultural land in British Columbia and the Fraser Valley that is fair and is equitable. They know that

[ Page 1595 ]

the Land Commission Act brought in by this Government, Bill 42, is a land seizure Act and not a land preservation Act.

What does the Minister go on to say? I'll read some letters in a minute from the people:

"Strachan said the provisions of the land bill most criticized by the opposition paralleled provisions of the Greenbelt Protection Act introduced by the Socred."

Well, Mr. Speaker, isn't that interesting? This is another statement of "socialist truth" — or should, I say "Marxian truth" — that we're getting in British Columbia. Half truths.

He says, "The opposition has been critical of the sections of Bill 42 which would allow a five-member land commission appointed by the cabinet to purchase or otherwise acquire land. The phraseology of the greenbelt Act is the same,' Strachan said."

Oh, no way, Mr. Speaker.

Let me quote to you from the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, section 1:

"The Minister of Finance shall, on the thirty-first day of March, 1972, in addition to all other moneys to be expended under the authority," et cetera, et cetera, "Appropriation Account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or partly from the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Account and partly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such proportions as he may consider requisite or advisable," up to "twenty-five million dollars to establish a fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund." .

for the preservation of greenbelts. But also, Mr. Speaker, section 2:

"The Minister of Finance may pay, at such times and in such amounts as he may consider requisite or advisable, out of the Green Belt Protection Fund, upon certification by the Comptroller-General that the expenditure comes within the purposes of the Act, moneys to acquire land for the purpose of establishing and preserving green belt areas throughout the Province."

Mr. Speaker, the differences are that the Minister of Finance "shall," and "up to," and there is a counterbalance.

What do we find in the Land Commission Act — and I hope you will just allow me one small quote, because it relates to the principle as proposed — section 7, subsection (i). This five-man commission may, "purchase or otherwise acquire land, on such terms and conditions as the commission may consider advisable…."

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

No checks and balances. No marketplace. They do it, they tell the Minister of Finance what he's to pay. There are no checks and balances at all, no appeal.

In the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, it is the non-elected commission, the five men taking over the Treasury of British Columbia. And not only that, Mr. Speaker, of the five men they only have to have three for a quorum of which two would be a majority. Two men, appointed in the self-confessed "pork barrel" system, not elected, appointed for political reasons — all stated by the Minister of Agriculture as recently as yesterday — having control of the Treasury of British Columbia. No wonder the people of British Columbia are disturbed.

The Minister of Highways seems to forget very completely that in section 3 of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act: "…to make recommendations respecting the acquisition of such lands…." I'll go back to the first part, actually, so you can understand it, Mr. Speaker.

"The Minister of Finance may appoint a person or persons to advise," and that's the difference between Bill 42 and the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. The Green Belt Protection Fund Act advises; the Land Commission Act establishes authority in the hands of advisers.

The Land Commission Act takes the authority of the Treasury out of the hands of the Minister of Finance. There's no limit on the expenditures. But there was in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. The appointed people were advisers and they were all civil servants. There was a limit on the money that could be spent, and there was the counterbalance of the cabinet and the two forces in what was to be spent. A fundamental difference, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Highways either doesn't know it or is deliberately confusing the issue.

Mr. Speaker, $7 million of the Green Belt Protection Fund of $25 million was spent by the Social Credit administration. Not one nickel, not one five-cent piece of that money was spent without a willing buyer and a willing seller — democracy and individual rights. At no time was there any attempt to take away….

I would say that the Minister's statements are nothing short of absolute garbage. To say that the principles of these two bills, the Land Commission Act and the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, parallel each other is absolute garbage. I say "garbage", Mr. Speaker, because I saw you getting angry. I know you were going to rule me out of order if I said it was an untruth. Garbage goes down the chute and that Minister's statements should go down the chute.

What's the kicker in the whole thing? Again in section (i) the kicker in this Land Commission Act is "under such terms and conditions as the commission deems advisable." The Green Belt Protection Fund Act had a willing seller and a willing buyer and fair compensation. There was no need for appeal. If they didn't want to sell, they didn't have to. But the principle of this Act gives the commission the right to

[ Page 1596 ]

set the terms and conditions. They can go into any piece of land in British Columbia that's privately owned. They can say, "I want that land for a park. You're going to accept this price."

You have no appeal as an individual. You have no right to negotiate that price. You have no right to say, "I don't want to sell." You only have the right to stay alive if they kick you out. Even that may be questionable.

Then the Land Commission Act can set other terms and conditions and decide that they want to use that land for something else. They have the power to take it out of the greenbelt category or the agricultural category and put it into the land bank. They can turn around and sell it if they want to or lease it to somebody else; not at a profit to the individual who made that land what it was and that home what it was or that farm what it was, but at a profit to the all-powerful, all-right state. No fair compensation to the individual at all. It's the same with the devaluation of property.

Just imagine if you had a little home on Elk Lake out here, or Kalamalka Lake in the north Okanagan, or Stewart Lake in the northern central part of British Columbia. This Government, on repeated occasions, has stated that they believe that there should be no private ownership of waterfront property.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: "Hear, hear," the Member says. "Hear, hear." That, Mr. Speaker, is the very reason why the people of British Columbia will not accept this state control and they will not accept the airy-fairy flim-flam explanations given by this Government and these Members. They're hollow; they're not true. There is the power in this Act — and this Government has proven its naked hunger for power and its hell-bent-for-leather attitude to bring about social revolution….

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

MRS. JORDAN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: They've said that they don't believe in private ownership of waterfront land. It's just been confirmed again. This Act confers upon them the power to go up to your summer home or your home on Kalamalka Lake, your home or your summer home on Stewart Lake, or your tent, or your home at Elk Lake, and say that the state — two men of this five-man commission; not answerable — want that land. They can set the price for it. They can tell you when to get out. They can use it for what they want. They can turn around and sell it at a profit. You have no right of appeal and no right for compensation.

The Minister says that that is the same as the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. I say that that's one of the kickers in the Land Commission Act. I would say that never has the Green Belt Protection Fund Act acquired one piece of land through taking. Every square inch that has been obtained has been obtained in a fair and equitable means by a fair and equitable arrangement between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Just as the Premier tried to give the people of this province a snow job that the Land Commission Act was the same as the Municipal Act; that they were really one in the same — and he was proven wrong by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — so does the Minister of Highways, who was formerly a man of integrity and leadership, set out to try and give this Legislature and the people of British Columbia the same snow job; that the Land Commission Act and the Green Belt Protection Fund Act are one in the same and that they will operate in the same way.

Why the fuss on the part of the public, Mr. Speaker? Because the people of British Columbia resent the snow job that they are being given by this Minister and this Government.

Mr. Speaker, it simply is not responsible of the Government to chastise so many — if I can use the term — ordinary citizens in British Columbia because of their attitudes and reactions to this bill and because of their attitudes and reactions to the statements made by this socialist Government. What they're trying to say, Mr. Speaker, and what they are really saying is that this bill — this 42 philosophy — is simply not compatible with their sense of fair play and equity. By "their" I mean the people of British Columbia.

I would doubt if the Members opposite — and I say this quite frankly — have received many letters from constituents that didn't confirm that they wished to see farmland preserved. Neither has a Member of the Opposition said this. I doubt if they have received any letters that didn't say that they would like to see greenbelts protected. I would suggest that they haven't received any letters that didn't say that they wouldn't like to see parklands preserved in British Columbia.

What the public is saying to these insensitive Members opposite is that they do want to see equity and fair play in British Columbia. What they are saying in their letters is that they want to see farmlands; they want to see parklands and they want

[ Page 1597 ]

to see greenbelts. But they do not want to see fair play and equity disappear in British Columbia, You know, Mr. Speaker, it's astonishing that those Members opposite are so insensitive that they try to suggest that the official Opposition — the Social Crediters, the Liberal Party and the little Conservative songsters down there — are opposing this bill because they are against the preservation of farmlands or against the preservation of greenbelts or against the preservation of parklands. It's simply not true.

When the Members opposite had a great and honest leader in the person of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), then they really understood what the legislative process was all about. They understood what the debate was about. Now, Mr. Speaker, they're like a ship without a rudder in a wild and stormy socialist sea. Even with the earphones that they're wearing turned up, they are so insensitive that they think that this bill is being opposed in the name of greed and in the name of speculators and the like.

But really, Mr. Speaker, if the Members opposite were listening they would hear that the people of British Columbia, that the Opposition of British Columbia opposed the bill in the name of equity and fair play.

I'm not going to belabour you, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of letters — although I have literally thousands — but I am going to read you some and excerpts from some — just a few to try and show through you, to those Members clearly what the ordinary guy, the ordinary Joe, the people of British Columbia are thinking and what they're concerned about. This one is very interesting. It's from a young farmer and he says:

"I am a young farmer, 21 years of age, one of the young farmers you pretend you try to help into farming and build a future. I was planning on buying a farm last fall if all went well. And all didn't go well. The Government ordered a land freeze to be struck on all farmlands in British Columbia. Fortunately I had not purchased a farm, and I thank my lucky stars for that. Instead, I decided to rent an orchard. The logistics of cheap farmland and a viable agricultural area are incompatible with reason.

"In January, as a delegate to the B.C. Fruit Growers annual convention, I sat through Mr. Stupich's speech and wrote down the highlights. As he came to the end of his speech I realized there were no highlights. I quickly tried to remember anything he said that might be a highlight. Oh yes, he said that he would give us a cut in crop insurance premiums — a small crumb. He also said he would give us a study if we wanted it. We don't need to be studied, or examined, we need to be paid for our farm produce."

What did the farmers say outside this Legislature the other day?

"In principle, we as farmers adamantly agree with the concept of farmland preservation. But the only acceptable way to preserve farmland is to have the products of one's labours, and investments secure and viable. The labour population is protected by immigration laws prohibiting the employer from importing foreign labour, thereby protecting the Canadian workers."

That should interest the Members in this House who represent various labour organizations.

"The manufacturing facet of Canadian business is protected by tariffs duties, and surtaxes. We, the farming community, are bound to compete with imported fruits and vegetables, be it bananas, oranges, potatoes, or others. This has become an untenable situation. But the land freeze and the inception of Bill 42 has in effect given the farmer no hope, for the future and no option for recourse."

Remember that the farmer, in saying this, is speaking for all people in British Columbia who have lost lands.

"We as farmers are facing a situation where we have lost our rights as citizens, lost our futures — as the only hope for the future was our land and our freedom to work it. We have no options or recourse, no compensation and according to Bill 42, no appeal."

You know, Mr. Speaker, farmers are very unsophisticated people. They're very sincere people, and they probably work harder than any other segment of our society. They're very independent people. He very simply says what he's concerned about and what his problem is. But does the Government listen? No. A wire, as recently as yesterday:

"WE NEED YOUR HELP TO KILL BILL 42. THE FOOD INDUSTRY MUST BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND BEFORE THE LAND IS LOCKED INTO AGRICULTURE. WE APPRECIATE ALL OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL."

That's signed by a number of independent farmers. What does another farmer say? This one lives in the Okanagan.

"We consider the land legislation bill to be the worst form of encroachment on personal freedom. Keep up the fight."

What are the young people in British Columbia saying? From Vancouver:

"As presently a student of agriculture at UBC, I would like to let you know that I am not in favour of Bill 42 as it presently stands. I think that probably most people will agree that it is poor management of our resources to subdivide our best farmland. However, what alternatives does the farmer have?

"I am a son of a farmer and I know that our farm and most of the orchards in our area were not economical. There are very few farmers

[ Page 1598 ]

making the minimum wage plus a decent interest on their capital investment. But we enjoyed this type of life, and we were free."

Then he goes on to talk about his family, where his father is in his 60's and wishes to retire; how he wants to farm and he's taking agriculture to do it. But, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't want to farm with Bill 42 as it's constituted if the principle which we are debating is in effect because he wants to be a farmer in a democratic society, not in Russia.

Another one, Burnaby:

"My husband and I do want to register that we want Bill 42 stopped. It is very wrong for our province that we have fought for years to bring about the rights that this would destroy."

There are two letters here: "Please stop Bill 42." "Democracy is threatened." That's not from a farmer, that's from Vancouver. Another one from another part of the province, "Stop Bill 42, democracy is threatened." Another excerpt that might interest you, Mr. Speaker, in knowing what the people of British Columbia are thinking. After all, isn't that what government's all about, people? And they say:

"I would hate to think that one day my house and land could be taken over by the government. And I could be told that it may only be worth a few thousand dollars for a park or whatever when I know it is worth more. Worse still, the commission which would make that decision would be appointed, and not elected by the people.

"The bill states that the decision is final with no appeal allowed. Even when a person is found guilty of murder, he's allowed the right to appeal. And I think owning a house and a lot in town is much lesser an offence."

He's got a point there Mr. Speaker.

The Member says that you can't appeal a hanging, and he's right. But, Mr. Member let's hope that the people of British Columbia's voices will be heard and that the Members of this Legislature will be heard and that there will not be this dreadful hanging of democratic rights in British Columbia.

What does another person say? This is from a farmer:

"We as farmers only want to farm. We want to farm our ranch as such and hope that it will never be sold for subdivision. We have a cattle ranch and our whole family worked very hard and long hours because it is our ranch. And it is going to stay ours as long as we can get a fair price for our cattle and can continue to improve the ranch.

"I have logged for 20 years to finally be able to ranch with my family."

And he says:

"I'm not letting anyone take this away. I think there is enough against agriculture without government starting to hinder and devalue it. I don't know what the whole answer is? But dictatorship certainly is not and it never will be."

That is from a farmer.

"Concerning forthcoming Bill 42: I definitely am against it. I cannot understand why a Canadian citizen as you call yourself….

This letter is to Mr. Stupich:

"Would you put other Canadians' personal rights in jeopardy? This country is not founded on your party's principles, nor was it fought for in the last two world wars — to keep it as free as any democracy can be — on your principles.

"Those men left their homes. A hell of a lot of them died in some damned stinking hole to keep us a free nation. Now your party and you are trying to take a big part of that freedom from us.

"Myself, along with many thousands of other citizens, can see nothing but chaos coming from Bill 42 if it is passed. Farmers and ranchers have had to fight low prices, bad weather, poor crops for years to hold onto their land. Now we can add one more thing to fight on our list — the government.

"I cannot see where there is one blankety-blank thing in Bill 42 that's going to help the farmer. So far, all it's done is knock our borrowing power on the head.

"Since your party took office, I have heard it said that farmers were land speculators, which is untrue. You put Bill 42 through and it will be the biggest land speculation deal in the history of North America. I can assure you that farmers will not be sitting in the shade,"

and I won't quote what he says while you're doing it.

That's from a farmer — that's from a farmer that this Government says that they are out to save. That's from a farmer writing about a bill that we're debating now. That's what he says to those who want to save him. I think he knows what he's talking about. He was in the last war. He knows what it's all about. He's not a sophisticated man. He's just speaking from the heart. He's typical of thousands of British Columbians today who, for the first time in history, are experiencing fear of their government and fear for their democratic rights.

Another one, Mr. Speaker, I quote just a section. This is from a woman. This is very interesting, actually. She says:

"I'm writing to you in regard to Bill 42. This bill should definitely be withdrawn as it does nothing whatsoever for us farmers. I also think that it is a very vicious and dictatorial piece of legislation.

"My husband and I have worked very hard in building up our orchard and it is one of the best looking orchards in our area. This is due to long hours of hard work and all our life savings being put into it.

[ Page 1599 ]

"Do you honestly think that this is fair, that we should not get any more for our property now after putting in nearly every cent we made back into the orchard for nothing — as our land value will be next to nothing."

She brings up an interesting point here:

"If my husband should become disabled or die, I would be left with nothing. I probably wouldn't get enough to buy another house. I think this is a disgrace after my husband put every bit of his energy and life savings into our farm. Is this the way he's rewarded for his hard work? I think it is very wrong and unjust. We are shocked that something like this is happening in our great country of Canada."

She goes on to speak a lot more about having heard the Minister of Agriculture speak and her concern that his speeches create in their minds and their family and their neighbours. Why doesn't the Government listen, Mr. Speaker? This is a simple statement of genuine interest and genuine concern from a genuine British Columbian. What do they get from this government? The three-way monkey: see no truth, hear no truth and — after looking at the Minister of Agriculture's statements and, listening to the Premier — speak no truth. It's shocking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would presume that the Hon. Member didn't imply by her remark that the Hon. Minister was not telling the truth.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh no, Mr. Speaker. You're quite right. I would like to go on with another statement. This is written on February 12. He's talking about the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), actually — he names him and that's why I pointed it out — who spoke on Channel 12 the evening of February 10, 1973.

"It is true most of us can remember, if we were old enough, when the people from the city went for a drive in the country on a Sunday afternoon and gazed at the farmers working in the fields picking strawberries, raspberries, and later beans.

It must indeed have been a pleasant sight.

"They could stop here and there and haggle over the price of a flat of berries or whatever was being harvested, usually with the buyer paying as little as possible. Or they could stop at a poultry farm and haggle over the price of a few dozen cracked eggs.

"For the most part, they were really unwilling to pay producer's prices — not wholesale or retail, but producer's prices — and so make the trip out to the country a paying proposition, as well as a pleasant one.

"However, these farmers have become extinct. Most farmers by now have heard of the $4.50 per hour that the man in the large chain store gets for putting groceries on the shelves for the shopper's convenience. He doesn't have to worry about bugs or blights, plant disease, animal disease, poultry disease, frostbite, drought, so that the 25 cents per hour that he might make doesn't sound very exciting.

"A farmer today must have a large unit. He uses machinery wherever possible, so he can no longer afford to hire people to work in the berry fields or the hay fields, leaving a void for those Sunday drivers.

"In those days, Mr. Cocke and Mr. Stupich, a man who milked five cows was a dairy farmer. Now a farmer who milks 25 cows is considered a small farmer. This is a loss of four farmers. In many cases, a farmer milks 100 or more cows, which is a loss of 20 farmers.

"In poultry, you find the same thing," and he goes on to explain. He says again:

"Now, Mr. Cocke and Mr. Stupich, a piece of land does not make a farm. It takes a very determined individual and a hardworking wife and family to make a farm."

He's right — land doesn't make a farm. It's the farmer that makes the land produce. It's the farmer that makes the land valuable. It's the farmer that feeds us, the consumer, who wants to drive out in the country, even today, Mr. Speaker, and haggle over the price — not at the supermarket, but at the source of supply. The producer's level.

Mr. Speaker, another letter says:

"I recognize the problem of the disappearing farmland. However, Bill 42 is no solution to any problem, but gives rise to many. I'm totally opposed to it being passed."

Another letter describes this as a monstrous Act — from a lady. Not a vicious letter, no real hostility in the letter. She says:

"Please do what you can to stop this monstrous Act. I disagree with the powers within the bill."

A letter from the constituency of Shuswap:

"May this letter serve to register with you"

— and this is to the Minister —

"our objection and disagreement with Bill 42, the Land Commission Act."

Extraordinary, isn't it, how the farmers that the bill is designed to save are the people writing the letters opposing the bill?

"As a lifelong farmer and British Columbia born Canadian citizen, it is my strong feeling that the bill, if enforced, would be most detrimental to the people of this province."

He goes on to say some more points about return for his labours, but he points out that if this bill is passed and the farmers and the working people of British Columbia, who are union members, who are teachers, who are clerks, who are mechanics, and who

[ Page 1600 ]

are all affected by the principle of this bill….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from the farmer in the corner?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, this is from the farmer in the corner's constituency, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful!

MRS. JORDAN: He says that when these rights are taken away, the pride of ownership will be gone in British Columbia and we will be left with nothing but dilapidation and dissatisfaction in its residents. And he's right. What is there to live for if you don't have something to do, to put yourself into, and if you don't receive a return for your efforts?

That return doesn't always have to be money. We know that. If you're a senior citizen you want a return in being needed, you want a return in being accepted, and you want a return in feeling useful and that your life is worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, if you're a farmer in British Columbia you have farmed because you wanted to farm. You have farmed because you found an emotional return for your effort. And you have farmed because you were independent. When that's taken away, what is there left for you, for that Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), for the clerk, for the mechanic, for the farmer?

Mr. Speaker, that's what life is all about. That's what the principle of this bill is all about — taking away from people what life is all about.

"This is to let you know that I'm against Bill 42 because it infringes on the rights and freedoms of the individual…. Don't forget your friends have to pay a high price for the exodus out of Moscow to freedom."

That was to the Premier.

It's not a crank letter. It's a letter expressing intestinal concern and fear that's been created by this very Premier.

Another letter, oddly enough from the Member for Shuswap's constituency. I wonder if he reads his mail, Mr. Speaker? He says:

"Surely greed for power as exemplified in Bill 42 is dangerous and destructive. There is absolutely no guarantee to the people of this province that this Act will be wisely used for the good of the people, as there is nothing in it but dictatorial powers with no recourse for the common people."

This lady goes on to say.

"I would urge that this incredible piece of legislation be completely scrapped and that common sense…" — that's not a very complicated question — "…be used in the composition of regulations regarding land use. Please assure us that we are still living in a free country."

Mr. Speaker, you're a very fair man. You know people. The position you hold this afternoon is to protect the rights of people, to protect the democratic process.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: That is a letter from a farmer's wife. They are dairy farmers in Enderby, B.C. Do you want the letter? Does that seem an unreasonable letter? Does that seem a letter from somebody that's panicked or hysterical?

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if you could say something, that you'd say to me: "Member for North Okanagan, that is a very reasonable letter. It is a very reasonable request from a very reasonable citizen in British Columbia who has a very real reason for being concerned about this legislation."

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if you could have your way — and I hope you get your way, Mr. Speaker, as I hope the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), who should stand up in this House and attack this legislation, will have his way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, now, the Member for Shuswap says, "I'll stand up for the farmers." Who do you think these letters are from? The farmers, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Speaker — the farmers in your own riding, Mr. Member.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, a farmer, the Member of the riding from which I've quoted letters from farmers, himself has a hang-up that all farmers are subdividers. I dare that Member, Mr. Speaker, to get on his little tricycle and tricycle up the Hope-Princeton Highway and through the Okanagan Valley and say that; to go into his own constituency, Mr. Speaker, and say that and accuse those farmers whom you've heard from this afternoon and before this afternoon, through you, Mr. Speaker; to accuse those farmers of being greedy landgrabbers, subdividers. I dare that Member, Mr. Speaker. I'll ride up there myself on a two-seater bicycle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please return to the substance of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: The substance of the debate, Mr. Speaker! That is the substance of the debate, that a Member of this Government who is himself a farmer is trying to peddle to the people of British Columbia that this bill is designed to save farmers. The farmers

[ Page 1601 ]

that it's designed to save, as he says, are the very people who are writing these letters, the very people who spent their hard-earned money to come to Victoria to speak to this Government, to tell them that they wanted farmland, that they wanted to be farmers, that they wanted greenbelts, that they wanted parks as much as anybody else in society. All they want is equity and fair play and their democratic rights.

That Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) should hang his head in shame, that he should even in the beginning possess such a hang-up as to accuse these farmers of greed. They're no more greedy than anyone else. The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is not to preserve farmland and farmers. It is nothing more than a camouflaged socialist claw, land-takeover in the Province of British Columbia and an erosion of the democratic rights of the people of this province.

Withdraw the bill, Mr. Speaker. Have them withdraw the bill. Take that bill. If they're so confident, if that Member for Shuswap is so sure that he is right and that he is representing the farmers, then let him take the bill out to them for six months and let them have their say. Then we'll see who is right. Because the people who are right, Mr. Speaker, are the people of British Columbia. That's what counts. And their rights are being imposed on.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Hon. little cherub, the First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) has finally come back into the House. He giggles and he laughs about the plight of the farmer. His giggle and laugh comes from a comfortable chair and a good diet and a good income and a good pension plan and good holiday time, and it comes without an intelligent thought into what this bill is doing and without a thought bred by too much security as to what is happening to other people.

I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that if that Member really knew what he was doing, he would be the first to stand up in this Legislature and say to the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, "Be fair. Bring back equity to British Columbia."

There's no way that that Member would advise his pals and his fellow workers to sign a contract that this Government has asked the farmers and the people of British Columbia to sign. Isn't that right, Mr. Speaker? Ask the Member, Mr. Speaker.

That Member is getting all embarrassed and blushing. And I don't blame him. I would be embarrassed and I would blush too if I were trying to defend the principle of this bill — especially if I were comfortable and secure, and especially if I were creating an image of self-satisfaction and lack of concern.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that you are becoming somewhat repetitious.

MRS. JORDAN: I've got another letter from the Member from Shuswap's constituency.

"My husband and I are young farmers who have worked hard to obtain clear title to our land."

Mr. Speaker, have you any idea what a clear title means to people who have come from other countries or to many hard-working British Columbians? If you'd come with me, Mr. Speaker, around this province, I would introduce you to people who have given up everything that you or I might enjoy — picture shows, a beer, maybe a steak once in a while, maybe a new shirt — in order to put every cent they earn into getting a clear title.

Well now, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says that's what they've got. This bill provides for a caveat on their title in the land registry office. The Minister of Health shakes his head. Obviously, that's why they made him the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, this bill leaves the individual farmer and the individual landowner with a marked title. This is what the young people say: "We worked hard to obtain clear title to our land. We feel the Land Commission Act is a direct threat to our personal freedom and worth."

Mr. Speaker, you would think that the Government Members would listen; if not to us, to the people who are writing these thoughts, to the people who are concerned. Another letter; this is from Kamloops. Kamloops. You know where Kamloops is, Mr. Member. Kamloops has a Member who is standing up in this House and, I'm sure, is going to defend the bill loudly. Although I think if I really knew him well, Mr. Speaker, he would attack the bill as viciously as we are and as thoroughly as we are, if he were free to do so.

Let's not deceive ourselves, Mr. Speaker. If the people of British Columbia are under the thumb and claw of the ambition of this naked-power-hungry triumvirate that sits in here, then there's no question that the Members of that party are under the same dictatorial powers. They just don't have an opportunity to speak freely. The Premier himself said, "No way would we have a free vote on this, because we know that all our Members would support it." He knows a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, but he doesn't dare test them. He doesn't dare put them to the public for question and support. He doesn't dare even trust his own Members to this support.

The Minister of Agriculture doesn't dare trust his own statements out with the public. When he wants to talk about this bill, he runs into the university; into the hallowed grounds of the sacred NDP, where he's sure of getting at least some form of support.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he runs into the sanctuary. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia are concerned that there will be no sanctuary for them. All they ask is equity and fair

[ Page 1602 ]

play. Is that so much, Mr. Speaker?

Let's hear what some more of them say. This is from Kamloops. You know where that is, Mr. Member.

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

That's all they're asking, Mr. Speaker: equity and fair play; that the Government withdraw this bill, send it to public hearing and bring in a fair and reasonable method of protecting farmland in British Columbia. Is that too much, Mr. Speaker?

I see the Premier is answering lots of letters. I'm sure they're full of apologies and his usual willy-nilly snow job on his bill. It really hurts, doesn't it, through you Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. It hurts because that Minister of Health knows that his Government is wrong and that he is a partner in one of the most shameless land grabs in the history of North America, and that he's part of a self-confessed radical government — a government that the Premier of this province has said, as recently as three weeks ago in this House, is the most radical government in North America. That's why the Minister of Health reacts.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that inside him there's a warm human being that knows that what he is part of is wrong. Through you Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Health, "Listen to the inner man." I would say the same to the Premier: "Listen to the inner man. Listen to your conscience." Withdraw this bill and bring about equity and fair play to British Columbia. Take your hand off the lands of British Columbia, through you Mr. Speaker. Return independence and freedom to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a list a mile long and these are just a few. If I read them all, I'd be here for four months. I personally have got thousands of letters.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about letters, what the Members of this Government are doing. I've got so many letters on my desk, which I'm sure you'd like to know, that I cannot get them opened. These are all related to one thing: the principle of this bill that we're debating; a simple request from people to be listened to, to be fair. They know that life is not always fair and equal but they're asking this Government to do their best; to restore their rights.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, maybe the problem with the Members is that they've got so many letters on their desks from just people in British Columbia that they don't read them. Maybe that's what divides this House. We read our mail and we listen to the people. They don't read their mail and they don't listen to the people.

That Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gabelmann) is a classic example of the type of arrogance…. I would rather name what that Member said, than names. The Member is from North Vancouver–Seymour. I wonder if that Member would dare stand up in this House and repeat what he said to a group of very average, normal, unexcited, concerned citizens.

That's the Member who accused a conscientious council in this House of being the greatest rip-off artists in North Vancouver. But he didn't have the courage of his convictions outside, Mr. Speaker. In debating the principle of this bill, I would suggest that he wouldn't have the courage to stand up in this House and repeat what he said to those farmers.

Would that be too much to ask, Mr. Speaker? Surely it's the truth we're trying to get at. I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. If those farmers had been on their farms and not in this Legislature, they would have given him back better than he could dish out. He's looking embarrassed and he has every reason to look embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, last night I took several examples of several different countries. This is the changing face of democracy at the moment. Welcome back, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Last night I took several countries — those who had their farmers under state control; those where the state controlled the lands; and those countries that had free farmers, with a free float of agricultural land among agricultural interests — and pointed out that no matter how altruistic it might have been, the state control of land and the state control of farmers simply had not worked. In that area, the substructure of free enterprise that was slowly being allowed to creep in in the farming industry was where the product was being produced.

I pointed out that in Japan, where the farmer is relatively free, where his land floats freely, that agricultural land is worth $7,000 an acre to farmers and that apple land is worth $3,000 to $4,000 an acre and it floats on an agricultural market and that they were making a living.

You know, Mr. Speaker, some of the Members laughed. I certainly don't deny them their right to laugh. I question what they laugh at. For their interest, and I hope to stimulate their thinking, I would like to tell you about an article that appeared as recently as March 21, 1973.

It's not something that I found in the library, Mr. Speaker, and not something that came from another country, but an article that was printed right here in

[ Page 1603 ]

Victoria by none other than the Victoria Times. It re-affirms and confirms what I was trying to tell this House last night. It is headed: "Farm Failures Reach Kremlin."

"The Soviet Union agricultural crisis has finally spilled over into the political arena for the first time since the current Kremlin leadership came to power nearly a decade ago. The poor 1972 grain harvest, which was 22 million tons below target, was at first blamed on freak weather conditions."

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the article goes on to say after saying 22 million below target harvest was at first blamed on freak conditions? It says:

"But mismanagement and apathy can be seen to have caused even more havoc."

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor land laws.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right, Mr. Member. You shackle the farmer to the land and you shackle his initiative and you shackle your production. You make a serf out of him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I think you are right, Mr. Member; Russia is a regional district of British Columbia. When you read the principle of this bill you are debating you wonder if that's not true.

"Transport….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member who is interrupting please go back to his seat if he wishes to interrupt — and only on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be interested in the rest of this article.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Member, that you are being interrupted.

MRS. JORDAN: That's all right, I appreciate your concern. It went on to talk about the harvest and it said.

"But mismanagement and apathy seem to have caused even more havoc. Transportation bottlenecks, bungling farm managers, shortages of fertilizer and other failings now are being singled out in the Press."

Mr. Speaker, in Russia all transportation is nationalized. The state controls every form of transportation; the state controls the land and the state controls the farmer and the state controls the manager. The state controls the production of fertilizer. The state controls equipment, farm equipment. The state tells you how to fertilize, when to fertilize, how to plow and when to plow, how to cultivate and when to cultivate — and what has been the cause of their problem in Russia? Not weather, but transportation bottlenecks — and the state tells the trains when to run and when not to run and it tells the workers when to work and when not to work.

Transportation bottlenecks are a great danger, Mr. Speaker, that we face here in British Columbia. You will recall — and I am sure that in this debate Hon. Members would like to know — that we have asked this Government in its negotiations with union leaders to guarantee and bring back to this House next year a guarantee to the producer in British Columbia that when his produce gets to the docks of British Columbia for export, or when his produce gets into a terminal centre for transportation, that it will not be he who suffers if there are management-labour problems.

We ask that there will be an insurance plan for the cost of his produce or there will be a guarantee from management and from labour that his produce will go to market because, Mr. Speaker, the farmer has been caught in this squeeze for far too long. Now he is caught in the squeeze of the principle of this bill.

This Government must not only withdraw the bill but they must give this guarantee to the producer.

In our own Okanagan area producers have planted a crop, cultivated it, tendered for it, fertilized it, they have paid to have it harvested, either through their own labours or others, they have paid for packing boxes, for down time and up time of workers — and then their produce has got to the point of transportation to go to the market area and there has been disagreement between two parties.

Nobody has cared about them and their produce has sat there and rotted. Any profit that they might have made or any return for their labours that they might have made has gone down in that rot. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Lauk) last night said. "What about Bill 33". Bill 33 would have helped protect the farmer in this situation because the action of two parties would have destroyed someone else and it would have helped destroy the economy of this province. Bill 33 had 50,000 more elements of fairness in it than this Bill 42 that we are debating now.

What is the Government of British Columbia going to do about the transportation bottlenecks? In Russia it is transportation bottlenecks that are controlled by the Government and bungling farm managers and shortages of the state-controlled fertilizer that are being singled out as the problem.

Let's read on. It says:

"Top man takes over. The job of filling the grain elevators now has gone to one of the most powerful men in the Kremlin. In his new job Polyansky has day-to-day executive control over a highly centralized empire of 15,000 state farms and 32,000 collective farms."

Mr. Speaker, is that what we want in British Columbia; a Polyansky who will be authorized by the

[ Page 1604 ]

principle of this bill to have day-to-day executive control over a highly centralized land empire? You bet your boots we don't. Neither do the farmers in British Columbia and neither do the small landowners in British Columbia and neither do the homeowners in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, if you could say so yourself, you wouldn't want that either. It goes on to say that:

"Polyansky's short-term worries must also extend to other crops. Harvest last year under this perfect state-controlled system of sugar beets, sunflower seeds, potatoes and vegetables were below the levels of the 60's. With good luck, good weather and the ability to keep his subordinates on their toes, he has a reasonable chance of producing better results and avoiding the need to dig deeply into scarce reserves of foreign exchange.

"The Soviet Union can afford to sell off gold where they have control of land, control of money, where they have control of farmers and centralized power. They can afford to sell off platinum and other precious natural resources once in a while to keep its population fed."

Isn't it extraordinary that this theoretically perfect system that has been in effect for how many years now — 20, 30 years, 40 years, still can't feed itself? They have 500 million acres of land under cultivation in Russia today under this controlled cultivation and they have 240 million people and with the serf system they can't even feed their own people.

In the United States of America, that has that terrible free enterprise capitalist system, they have 210 million people, approximately, and 300 million acres in cultivation and they're over-producing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I told you that last night and I expected you to listen to it. It's quite obvious, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that Member doesn't listen.

MR. SPEAKER: If you've said it already, then you don't need to say. It again, whether you like repetition or not. It's certainly not in accordance with standing order 43.

MRS. JORDAN: It's the whole problem with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not appropriate to standing order 43; that's what it's not appropriate to.

MRS. JORDAN: We're discussing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And we're talking about rule 43.

MRS. JORDAN: Rule 43, Bill 42.

We're back to the fact that they can't even, with 500 million acres of land, feed themselves, and they have no more people really than the United States of America, with its dreaded independence system. The result is a cut in buying desperately needed technology, such as computers, from the capitalist world. Isn't it interesting that it's not only in farming that this Utopian situation hasn't brought the people happiness or productivity?

The principle of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, reaches right into the heart of our lands and our businesses and our homes in British Columbia. And the system over there has to come to us to buy because we're independent and we have initiative and we have drive.

"Almost all Polyanski's headaches date from the days of Joseph Stalin. After the liberal New Economic Policy in the 1920's, when the peasants prospered and production returned almost to the levels of 1913, Stalin's…"

listen to this, Mr. Speaker,

"…Stalin's breakneck industrialization policies produced a swift about-face."

What have we got here in British Columbia? A government that says it is the most radical government in North America. A government intent on revolutionizing this province. The same sort of thing that Stalin did, I guess.

In this state, as Stalin was breaking out industrialization policies that were radical, people were:

"…forced onto collective farms in 1929 and 1933, often at gunpoint. The peasants slaughtered their livestock and millions died in waves of famine."

And then it goes on to say "peasants neglected."

"Until Stalin's death in 1953 the peasantry remained the Cinderella section of Soviet society, existing in a subsistence economy. Under Nikita Krushchev, massive areas of virgin land in Kazakhstan were put to the plow, but success turned to failure…. This setback and the Kremlin leaders' tendency to get carried away by the search for instant solutions…"

"Carried away by the search for instant solutions."

Don't we have just this in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, in the principle of Bill 42? Time and time again the farmers, the small landowners, the people of British Columbia have accused the Premier of this province — who's now reading a letter I'm sure that says "stop Bill 42" — have said to this Government: "You are giving us simplistic and instant solutions to a complex and long-term problem."

And in Russia,

"This setback and the Kremlin leaders' tendency to get carried away by the search for instant solutions…."

led to their downfall. It led to the downfall of the people.

[ Page 1605 ]

What were some of their instant solutions? These have a remarkable similarity to some of the solutions that the Minister of Agriculture is peddling around to agricultural groups in British Columbia or, failing that, to his NDP party supporters.

"…such as the idea of planting corn over vast, unsuitable areas were among the factors which caused" their problems and "downfall in 1964."

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia, has offered such ridiculous and instant solutions to the farmers of British Columbia — a remarkable similarity.

"Brezhnev and Kosygin raised prices paid to the farms, gave farm workers in the collective a guaranteed monthly income…."

Now that's interesting. After the state took control of the lands and after the state took control of farming and told them what to do, they gave the workers in the collective farms a guaranteed monthly income. But did this help them, Mr. Speaker? No way.

It goes on to say:

"They increased the supply of meat and vegetables by relaxing Krushchev's restrictions on the peasants' cultivation of private plots and avoided some of his worst mistakes."

So how did they in the end — in spite of a guaranteed income, in spite of all that state security and all that state equipment — begin to bring up their production? By letting individual enterprise in and letting the farmers have their own plot of land to cultivate. It's not as the farmers know it here, but in Russia it was a degree of freedom. That's the land, Mr. Speaker, that is producing the food and the produce in Russia today.

No, Mr. Speaker, one cannot overlook the remarkable similarity between the legislation that is before this House and the intent behind that legislation and what has happened in other countries. It's the legislation and the intent of that legislation that has the people of this province concerned. It isn't designed to save the farmers of British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've asked this Government to withdraw the bill, to go to public hearings, to restore the democratic rights and to restore fairness and equity in British Columbia. And we hope they will do this.

If they feel there is no other reason, then I would suggest that they look at the legislation of their sister province. Because, Mr. Speaker, at the odd meeting that we've been to there have been socialists from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and they've said, "Well, this Government here can't be any worse than they were there." And I just ask them to look at their bill. Let's just see what the land bill in Saskatchewan says. And let's think of what the principle of Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, as brought in by the radical NDP Government in British Columbia, says.

The Act in Saskatchewan is called An Act Respecting Urban and Rural Planning and Development. One must recognize that Saskatchewan isn't nearly as far advanced as British Columbia in its evolution of land protection policies and the vehicles through which this can be done, such as regional districts and regional planning where the people have the input, where the planners are in touch with local people, and where people have voluntarily voted themselves into agricultural categories.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you'd wake up the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He's going to fall off his chair. I wouldn't want him to hurt his head. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs should really be listening to this, because the principle of this bill has locked many farmers without a democratic vote into colossal cities — dreams by the Minister of Municipal Affairs — unmanageable cities. They've locked farmers into the middle of them without compensation and without concern from the Minister of Agriculture, whose bill we're debating now. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who didn't know zoning from planning a short time ago, should listen to this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you address the Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. When you listen to the people of British Columbia and then you read the Act in Saskatchewan you should really recognize, as we are trying to point out to you, there is ample justification for the concern of people in British Columbia; that indeed this Government is much more radical. Let's look at the Saskatchewan bill, an Act respecting urban and rural planning and development, 1973.

There is the usual title, short title, which is the Planning and Development Act. Then there is the interpretation about authority and building permits and building sites. If you turn over to p. 7 of this Act: "Urban and rural planning and development. General duties and powers." I'll read this for you, Mr. Speaker, because I realize you haven't seen this Act. Quite obviously the Members of the Government have not only not seen it, but they haven't shown any interest in seeing it.

The subject of investigation is lacking in the land commission bill before this House. Section 19, subsection (1), urban and rural planning and development, Province of Saskatchewan:

"The commission shall investigate and study land use, population, transportation, utilities, services, municipal finances and any other matter or thing within or outside the municipality that in the opinion of the commission is related to the physical, social or economic circumstances of the

[ Page 1606 ]

municipality and affects or may affect the development of the municipality."

It goes on two or three sections, Mr. Speaker. Investigation, study, thought, which is in the Saskatchewan Act is not in the British Columbia Land Commission Act. What else are they instructed to do? Subsection (b) of subsection (3):

"Hold public meetings and publish information for the purpose of obtaining the participation and cooperation of the inhabitants of the municipality and any adjacent area in determining the solution of problems or matters affecting the development of the municipality or any part thereof."

Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Member, public hearings — but not in the Land Commission Act of British Columbia; not in the new dictatorship in British Columbia — and public hearings not after the fact but before the fact. In British Columbia we have the fact and then we get the investigation and the study and then we get the public meetings, we hope — if any —  because there has been no guarantee of investigation and study.

In fact, it is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, as I will point out some time later in my speech, that the Minister of Agriculture doesn't even know there is a lot of investigation and study going on in British Columbia. I'll tell him about the Okanagan basin water study or water basin study: $2 million of provincial taxpayers' money and federal input to study land development, agriculture, socio-economic interrelationships, water supply — and it's due, after four years, to completion in October of this year.

Investigations, study, public hearings — and the Minister of Agriculture didn't even give it a thought; wipes it all out, not only in thought but by the actions of this Land Commission Bill because that Land Commission Bill would supercede any recommendation that would be made by that study and that would have applied under the Municipal Act or the Land Act or the Green Belt Protection Fund Act or the Park Acquisition Act; all fair and legitimate Acts passed by this Legislature which are now null and void as far as this Land Commission Act is concerned. Bill 42.

So even in Saskatchewan we see investigation and public meetings not after the fact but before it. This Government in its actions and in this bill has completely disregarded the municipalities and completely disregarded the regional districts, completely disregarded their plans.

What do they do in Saskatchewan? Mr. Speaker, that is why the people of British Columbia are concerned. In Saskatchewan they make provisions under their sections "C", "D", "E" and "F" of subsection (2), of section 19 under urban and rural planning and development for co-operation with the municipalities; for an interrelationship between the municipalities and the Government.

They work in preparing a municipal development plan, zoning bylaw or any other scheme or bylaw suitable for adoption or passing by the council and on and on; six sections dealing with public meetings, public input, cooperation with municipalities; nine sections for investigations and study — all before the fact, Mr. Speaker, not after the fact.

Then you move on in this most interesting bill to p. 16. This is a subject this Government doesn't know about. It's called purchase and fair price not confiscation like we have here in British Columbia; not confused and cloudy with one statement this way and one statement that way as we have in British Columbia. What do they say on p. 16 under "Urban and Rural Planning and Development" — 51 — they use the word expropriation.

"If the council cannot purchase the land at a fair price or otherwise acquire the land by agreement with the owner, it may expropriate the land; in which case the price to be paid shall be determined by arbitration."

By arbitration, Mr. Speaker, not confiscation; not a two-man dictatorship such as this NDP Government is proposing in British Columbia but compensation and fair price with dialogue by a buyer and a seller; and the interaction of the market place — a fair price, Mr. Speaker, for a fair day's work. This is not in the Act in British Columbia.

It was in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, as I pointed out earlier, when the Minister of Highways said it wasn't. Not one cent of that Green Belt Protection Fund was spent without a willing buyer, a willing seller and a fair price — and the marketplace came into play. But the NDP Government don't believe in this, and if they did then they would withdraw this bill and go to public hearings and listen to the people of British Columbia and bring back equity and fair play.

I won't tire you, Mr. Speaker with all the details of the Act but I would refer you to p. 26. "Urban and Rural Planning and Development, Appeals.' Mr. Speaker, "appeals." Checks and balances. The Member says "fair play," Mr. Speaker. There are no check and balances in the Land Commission Act. There were checks and balances in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, there were checks and balances in the Municipal Act; there were checks and balances in the Land Act; there were checks and balances in the Green Belt Protection Fund and the Park Acquisition Act and every other Act we had in British Columbia, but not in the Land Commission Act brought in by this Government and that we are debating now.

No appeal — you can appeal in this Act if the commission acts outside the law — and they make the law — and you can appeal if they break the law; and if they are the law, how can they break the law? It is the most gandy-dancing circle this province has ever

[ Page 1607 ]

seen. I welcome the duet gandy-dancer, through you, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. I would prefer no personalities, please, between Members.

MRS. JORDAN: No, no names, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you would like to say who I was referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: Personal references are not really in order.

MRS. JORDAN: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. "Zoning Appeals, " p. 26, section 81. I'll read it to you Mr. Speaker. I am sure you would be interested.

"A zoning appeals board established pursuant to section 38 or section 60 shall consist of not less than three or more than nine Members to hear and determine appeals authorized to be made to it by this Act, and where a municipality has a population of 5,000 or more inhabitants according to the latest federal consensus, or by a consensus to be carried out by the council, the board shall be composed of persons other than councillors of that municipality."

Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker? That seems reasonable and fair. I wonder why we don't have this in the Act in British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this idea was put forth by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, by the farmers, by the people of this province day after day after day after day after day after day after day to this Government when they knew what they were going to do, and this Government didn't listen. It is not in the legislation.

They can't hear, they're not plugged in, they're not even in touch and they don't care, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of this province has the audacity to stand up, when the heat is on so hot he can't even sit still, and say, "Oh, we want public input. We brought this bill in because we want people to put into it."

Why not have public hearings, Mr. Speaker? Why didn't he listen? I doubt that there's one thing that will come up in this Legislature or in those public hearings that was not already available to the Premier of this province and the Minister of Agriculture of this province before that bill was drafted. I heard them myself, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Clerks of this House have heard them. I'm sure the Members of this House have heard them. The public has heard them. They know what they are, Mr. Speaker. Why weren't they drafted into this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I come from a medical family. When a patient has a headache, you don't cut off his head to find out why his head is aching, because he bleeds to death. That's exactly what the Premier of this province and that power-hungry cabinet and that Minister of Agriculture have done — they have tried to cut off the heads of the people of British Columbia in a superficial statement that they "wanted to know what they thought."

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are bleeding for their democratic rights and they're bleeding for fair play. Even now the Premier of the province won't act like a responsible doctor. He won't withdraw this bill, go to public hearings and be fair. He's going to ram it through.

One wonders in the middle of this debate where the Minister of Agriculture is. You would think that he would be interested enough to at least pretend to sit in here and stay awake. He's the man that brought in a bill with no appeal; a bill that the sister government in Saskatchewan brought in with appeal.

"One-third of the original members of the board shall be appointed to hold office until the date of the first meeting of the council in January of the first year following their appointment; and one-third until the date of the first meeting of the council in January of the second year following their appointment."

They even alternate the appointments, Mr. Speaker. An excellent idea, so that you get some continuity through a board of appeal, which we are denied in British Columbia.

"And in each year following the appointment of the original members, the required number of members shall be appointed to a term of three years to fill the vacancies caused by the retirement of the members whose term has expired."

Why, Mr. Speaker, wasn't this brought in in British Columbia?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. That Government thought it could get away with stealing the land and the rights of the people of British Columbia. It was a philosophy that was kept hidden from the people during the last election. It's a philosophy, Mr. Speaker, for which they did not get a mandate in the last election.

I wonder how the Premier of this province would have felt if, when his father and his family were involved in the agricultural history — and the Premier's often said quite proudly, and I think it was a wonderful thing, that his father gave away the fruit at the end of the day because he said it was better to give it away than to have it rot; and he's right. He did it, Mr. Speaker, because he believed that way and because he was an independent and free individual.

Why, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't the Premier of this province have the same philosophy? Why would it be reversed to take? "Even that that he hath is to be taken away." You would think the Premier of this province, one of the architects of this bill, would recognize that the reason that that great human being was what he was was because of his freedom and his independence.

It wasn't for the want of wealth. It wasn't for the

[ Page 1608 ]

want of power. It was just a straight human feeling and a need. And yet the Premier of this province wants to take this away. He wants to steal it from the people of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia know it, Mr. Speaker. That's why they're uptight and they're concerned. They can't understand why this Premier won't listen, won't hear them, and why there is no right of appeal in the Land Commission Act.

The Premier won't withdraw that bill and give them the right of appeal.

In section 82 of Urban Planning and Rural Development in the Saskatchewan Act, the right of appeal:

"In addition to the right of appeal to the zoning appeals board otherwise provided in this Act, a person may appeal to the zoning appeals board."

Two avenues of appeal, Mr. Speaker. And in British Columbia and in the Land Commission Act we don't have one avenue of appeal. Not one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention farther on in this Act to page 38 of urban and rural planning and development, section 102; an act of grace:

"Relief from compliance. Subject to the other provisions of this Act where an approving authority is of opinion that compliance with the requirement of any applicable regulation is impractical or undesirable because of circumstances peculiar to a proposed subdivision, the approving authority may relieve the applicant in whole or in part from compliance with the requirement and may issue its certificate of approval endorsed to indicate that the approval is granted in accordance with the regulations, subject to the relief from the applicable section."

Perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, perfectly straightforward, well drafted, well thought out. An act of grace. O.K.

Why didn't we have such a section in the Act in British Columbia, through you Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi)? Wasn't there….

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Leave me out.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says, "Leave me out." Now the Minister may be innocent in this, and if I'd been a fly in that cabinet when this Act came in, I would know whether it was the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement who said, "Stop! Think what you're doing. We're confiscating the lands of the people of British Columbia in this Act. We are being unfair. We are not giving them the right to appeal. We've created an administrative monstrosity." Was it, Mr. Speaker, that Minister? Did he stand up? Did he try and fight for the rights of the people of British Columbia? Did he try and fight for equity and fair play?

Mr. Speaker, I think he did. In believing this I know, Mr. Speaker, that he'll stand up on the floor of this House and say that he lost in cabinet. We can understand that. He's up against tough opposition. But that he knows that the Act is wrong, the Act is foreign, the Act doesn't belong in British Columbia — it doesn't belong in a democratic society and that he wants it withdrawn, to go to public hearing and to return equity and fair play to British Columbia.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is what he wants to do. I'm sure he was the Minister in that cabinet who said to the Minister of Highways when he saw the Act and slammed his hand down and said, "Ah, we'll kill the fly," which is the people of British Columbia — that that Minister was the one who stood up. And if we're right, Mr. Speaker, then we know he'll stand up in this Legislature. Or, if he doesn't want to stand up in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, he'll just say to his cabinet colleagues — and join the many backbenchers or the private Members who believe as he does that this is a confiscatory Act, that it is unfair and has no appeal process — he'll say, "Fellas, back off."

It takes a greater man to admit that he's wrong than it does to strive along in blind belief that he is right. I know that Minister would do this, and I'm sure he believes it. In believing it, I'm sure he will do it. And, Mr. Minister, we'll support you. We won't vote for you in the next election, but we'll support you because what you would be doing would be the right thing. Is that too much to ask, through you Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, in the Saskatchewan Act, there is appeal — even for taking for highways under their Act, section 186:

"A person whose property is wholly or partly within a protected highway area and who (a) alleges that a person acting for or on behalf of the Minister has in a particular case misapplied the protected highway regulations, or (b) claims that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the regulation by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shortness, shape, topographic features or other unusual condition of the property, may appeal in writing to the provincial planning appeals board;"

and so on, Mr. Speaker — another, a third section of appeal in that Act. And we don't have one section of appeal in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge through you, that the Premier of this Province go home at supper time and sit down with his very nice family and his nice wife — I bet if he listens to her, she'll say, "Davie baby, take a look at that Saskatchewan Act. Listen to what the people in British Columbia are saying. Follow your conscience — withdraw the Land Commission bill and go to public hearing. Return equity and fair play to

[ Page 1609 ]

British Columbia."

He could sit down, Mr. Speaker…. I wouldn't fully endorse the whole Act by any means. But he could take this Act from Saskatchewan and see that the socialists, in one part of the country at least, wrote into their Act — purchase at fair price, appeals, an act of grace and appeal where the Act involved it in misuse of highway powers.

Mr. Speaker, why can't we have that in British Columbia? It seems reasonable enough. It's what there letter are talking about — people's rights and their concern for their rights — reward for effort. Simple pleas, Mr. Speaker. It really eludes me how the Premier could miss this.

I've read you excerpts from letters from very average people in British Columbia, saying very human things — just what they feel, just what they're afraid of.

Here's another one from a dairy farmer.

"Dear Mrs. Jordan:

"We would like you to protest and vote on our behalf regarding the Land Commission Act, Bill 42. We're opposed to the bill in its entirety and its principle, as it violates our rights as Canadians."

As the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said the other evening:

"The great architect of the Canadian bill of rights, the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, who spent his life fighting for the rights of the little man and people; who was the architect and the drafter and the promoter and the bringer-inner of the Canadian Bill of Rights, says that this Land Commission Act violates the Canadian Bill of Rights."

Mr. Speaker, the people know it, the people in British Columbia. The media know it, bless their hearts. The Opposition know it. Half of the Government Members know it. We even suspect that one, maybe two, cabinet Ministers know it. Why in mercy's sake doesn't the Premier know it and doesn't the Minister of Agriculture know it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I would think he does, Mr. Member. I would think he does. Because the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), while I haven't always agreed with him, is really a — well, he's sort of like happy. He's kind of cuddly. And I can't see how that Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, could accept the principle of this bill. He's a man who has concerned himself with miners working underground, who will be affected by the principle of this bill, who are having their rights taken away from them by this bill because they own homes, Mr. Speaker. Some of them even dare to be farmers, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources wouldn't have spent his whole life fighting for their rights in the mining industry and then see them destroyed through an Act of his own colleagues in their first six months in office, surely, Mr. Speaker.

I see he's having a meeting with himself, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he's saying to himself, "Himself, help me. I'm doing wrong. Help me be strong" — through you Mr. Speaker — "Help me stand up in that Legislature and help me stand up outside that Legislature and say, 'We've erred, and to err is human, but to withdraw is divine."

AN HON. MEMBER: He has no hair.

MRS. JORDAN: Be divine, Mr. Ministers, tell your Premier to do the right thing. While he'll never be divine, let him show that he is human. Let him show that he is concerned. Let him show that he is listening. Let him show, Mr. Speaker, that you, who are concerned, have an influence on him; that it's not blind pride and it's not blind ideological Marxian philosophy that is clawing away the rights of the people of this province.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, do this. The constituents that ball-pointed you into office will thank you. Because, Mr. Speaker, they are concerned and they are affected by this bill. They know him — they know he's a happy little fellow. He's always got a smile. He's human and he's made mistakes and he's a big man. He'll stand up and admit that mistake. If you put what he would do, Mr. Speaker, compared to what the Premier is doing, and the Minister of Agriculture is doing, he would be a very, very big man.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member has just said, "Maybe he'll get shot." I don't really think that would happen in British Columbia at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, when you take away the people's rights, when you take away any effort to be equitable and fair — when you take away the people's land, their personal property, Mr. Speaker, you are playing with fire such as has never been seen in British Columbia.

It is dangerous, it is without precedent, Mr. Speaker, and there is no way that anyone but a fool or a court jester could suggest that this type of democratic erosion can be bought off with a few carrots and plums and that after you've pushed people down in the mud you can bring them back again. When you push them down and you try to destroy people, you destroy something within them.

That is what is happening to the people in British Columbia and they know it. Their Premier — their bouncy boy Premier — is so prideful in his actions

[ Page 1610 ]

that the most he can say about his bill is: "We should have hired a public relations company to help sell it." That's what he said, Mr. Speaker: "'The land bill suffered from bad PR' — Barrett."

What else does he say? He says — and listen to this. Talk about a statement that could be classed as boyish — "I'm bursting to disclose the amendments to the Land Commission Act." — "I'm bursting."

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of British Columbia are bursting too, but not with hollow pride, not with titillating tidbits. They're bursting with concern about their rights. They're bursting with concern about the misstatements that are being made by the Minister of Agriculture — the conflicting statements. They are bursting with concern because the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of this province will not listen and will not do the fair and equitable thing.

What he says is that what we need to cure our ills and the erosion of our democratic rights is a public relations firm. Tell that to the peasants in Moscow. Tell that to the people in Red China. Tell that to the people of this province who are concerned, who have come from other countries where land grabs took place — tell them that they need a public relations firm.

Is this what our future is in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker — to become the toys of Menehan and Dunsky? Will our people till the soil while their directors holiday in Hawaii? Is that what the future of British Columbia is?

The Premier of this province, who is one of the architects of this terrible principle that we're debating today, wasn't in office three months when he had to take a holiday to Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 99 per cent of the farmers of British Columbia can hardly afford a holiday in Vancouver, let alone Mexico. And he was tired after three months in office.

How does the Premier of this province think an orchardist feels at the end of a 16-hour day? How does the Premier of the Province feel a wheat grower feels at the end of a 16 or 18-hour day, because they plow at night?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Eight hours a day, five days a week, weekends off, 40-hour week.

MR. JORDAN: That's the Premier you're talking about with his 8-hour day. What is it social workers get? Three weeks' sick leave….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. This is what he's practicing as Premier of this province in the principle of this bill we're debating.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that after three months fatigue drove the leader of this province and the architect of the principle of this bill out of the province for a vacation.

No wonder he was tired if he was spending those eight hours a day designing this bill that will mean that forever the farmers of British Columbia will not have an opportunity to go to Hawaii, Mexico, London — even Vancouver.

Tired? Mr. Speaker, the farmers of this province are tired of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, you can get all sorts of ideas when you're lying down on the beaches of Mexico. You can dream, and dreams are a good thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to have nightmares over this.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he's going to have some nightmares over this, Mr. Member. But you know, he dreamt in Hawaii and the Minister of Agriculture, who's almost dreaming now, he's yawning so much, said that all his life he had dreamt of saving farmland — "Ever since I was a boy."

I'd like to tell that Premier and the Minister of Agriculture that dreaming is a good thing, because good deeds should grow from dreams. It's a good horse to carry you over the ground, Mr. Speaker. But it's not a flying carpet to set you free from responsibility and probability. And that's exactly what is happening in this bill.

A dream, a good horse to carry you over the grounds of British Columbia, has become a flying carpet without responsibility and without probability to the people of British Columbia. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough, after all that the people have said, for the Premier of this province to say that "the only thing this bill needs is a good public relations firm."

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are not going to pay for that public relations firm to lounge on the beaches of Hawaii and Mexico with the Premier of this province while they are tilling the land, while they have a sub-welfare income, while they have no 8-hour day, while they have no three week holidays; while they have no pension plan, while they have no denticare plan, while they have none of the fringe benefits that other workers of this province want — and quite justifiably so. And they don't have the benefit of a $30,000-odd a year income, Mr. Speaker.

How, in drafting the principle of this bill, could this cabinet rip off the taxpayers' money the way they have and line their own pockets and at the same time take the farmers' land and their rights, the small homeowners' lands and their rights, away from them without appeal, without fair compensation? Mr. Speaker, you've got to pinch yourself to believe that this is happening in British Columbia.

[ Page 1611 ]

When the Premier stands up and says that he is the head of the most radical government in North America, this is certainly proof of the fact — and it's a deplorable truth.

Gandy-dancing, Mr. Speaker? Far too polite a word. I wouldn't insult the gandy-dancers. Nor will the people of British Columbia have a public relations firm, Menehan and Dunsky, tell them how lucky they are to have their democratic rights taken away.

What did they say? Another one — a contravention of some portions of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, if they would just listen to the people. It says here — and this is a gentlemen:

"In the last week of February I mailed a protest letter to Mr. Stupich regarding the green belt legislation."

Don't tell me that the Minister of Agriculture has been out in the province telling people that this is the green belt legislation, for this would add just one more thorn to his already thorny statements. He says:

"I'm sending a copy to you and to other Members and I would like to thank you and everyone else in parliament for working so hard with the people of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, that's where that side of the House divides from this side of the House. We think with the people of British Columbia and that Government is thinking over the people of British Columbia in control. They are thinking against the people of British Columbia.

Another one.

"Bill 42 is undemocratic and I'm strongly opposed to it. The bill violates the Canadian Bill of Rights."

Just one piece of paper, Mr. Speaker; one piece of paper and four lines, just to tell that Minister of Agriculture and this Government something that they either can't see or won't see or will not see. There's a monkey on the backs of the people of British Columbia. The monkey that will see no truth, hear no truth and speak no truth. But the people can see and, Mr. Speaker, the people want to get that monkey off their backs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Order? Does the Member not like to hear from the people of British Columbia? "Stop Bill 42." That's all he says, and that's from a socialist riding, Mr. Speaker. I've got many, many more letters which I will read at different points. It's from your riding, Mr. Speaker, with remarkable similarities. What does one say from Vancouver?

"I feel that this legislation would take from me my rights as a Canadian citizen and individual and the freedom and enjoyment of my real and personal property. This would take from me my incentive for further achievement and my goals through my labours."

You know, it would "Take from me freedom and enjoyment of my real and personal property" and "would take from me my incentive for further achievement of my goals through my labours."

I have heard many Members in this House speak about labour and their rights and their return and I don't quibble with that. I am sure that this farmer doesn't quibble with it. We recognize that everybody should have their rights and everybody should have a return from their labours.

I am sure the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who has spoken on this…who actually spoke on this in his speech and denied the right of the public. That public, Mr. Speaker, is this man and this letter. He's this man and this letter; he is this man and this letter and he is this man and his letter — it is this lady and this letter.

You denied them their rights on the floor of this House, through you Mr. Speaker, in the maiden speech and you are denying them their rights again — the same rights for which that Member stood up and spoke. How could a Member, Mr. Speaker, want to give to one group of people, in a broad philosophical basis, and not want to give to another group of people. Is this what this bill means for British Columbia? Is this what this attitude means for British Columbia; that we are going back to the old class system? Is that it, Mr. Speaker?

You organize and you push, the NDP say, and then you will be heard. You organize and you push and then you will get a share. But if you don't organize and you don't push, you not only won't get a share, you won't even have your rights, and those rights that you have will be taken away from you. The NDP philosophy: a philosophy borrowed from a country far from here and the philosophy that is concerning the people of British Columbia.

Here is another letter and this is from a lady.

"I am opposed to any legislation which would give the state power over my real and personal property. As a Canadian citizen and a resident of British Columbia, I object to the proposed legislation."

And listen, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). That Member should listen, Mr. Speaker. Just listen; open your mind and your heart and your feelings and your reason. She says:

"I worked and sacrificed to achieve a goal to own my own property and for the freedom to enjoy my labours and the fruits of my labours."

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), through you Mr. Speaker; do you oppose this? Would that Member who came to this country and enjoyed the benefits of that lady's taxes in an educational system, in a democratic society; that allowed her, encouraged her, gave her the

[ Page 1612 ]

freedom to — what ever you want to call it — rise to nearly the highest position of responsibility and honour in this province…would that Member, Mr. Speaker, deny this person who carried that weight, an equal right?

This is the type of question the Members of this House have got to ask themselves when they decide whether or not they are going to accept the principle of this bill. When they stand up — the few that will — to vote for this principle they are voting against this lady and this man and this young farmer, the very people that gave all of us the benefits of their labour.

They didn't take away the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour's rights or the Second Member for Vancouver Burrard's rights or any other Member's rights and they didn't try and take away my rights, Mr. Speaker, nor my husband's rights nor my children's rights. Why then should anyone in this Legislature, who has enjoyed these benefits, want to take away their rights? That is the question that must be answered.

Mr. Speaker, when each of us are examining our hearts and our actions on this bill, let's listen to what the people say. This one is from a person in Vernon, my home constituency and home town.

"I protest vigorously Bill 42, the land takeover and although I voted for the NDP, I protest their monopoly aspect of the auto insurance. I think it is terrible the people who are to be thrown out of work because of the NDP policies and their endeavours."

It took 20 years to build this province. This person voted for the NDP, voted for those Members and voted for that Premier who won't listen to them today. It took 20 years to build this province to one of the best provinces in Canada — one of the best provinces in Canada. But it will only take a few months to destroy it all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does the Member wish an adjournment?

MRS. JORDAN: Will you accept an adjournment?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I will accept an adjournment.

MRS. JORDAN: To what time, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's up to me. Do you wish an adjournment?

MRS. JORDAN: If the Premier would accept an adjournment to 8 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. or the next sitting of the House at 2 p.m. tomorrow, I would be glad to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you wish to make a motion?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this is another letter, it comes from Lumby. They say:

"Bill 42 is an outrage to any independent person. Your proposed land commission of five people can have a quorum of three and a majority of two person. The entire bill and the two or three Acts riding with this bill is a vicious attempt to deprive the people of British Columbia of their personal rights to own land. If the public were made aware of the exact wording of the proposed legislation, they would awake to the need of putting a stop to it."

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, could I draw your attention to the clock?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: We can't have two on their feet at once to start with.

MRS. JORDAN: Is it on the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: It's on the point that there's an interruption of the proceedings by the time, which is now 6 o'clock. You are required, therefore, to take your seat. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the entire bill, and the two or three….

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I am on my feet. In this House or in any other House that I know of, when the Speaker is on his feet the Member sits down. Thank you.

I would point out to the Hon. Member, as I did in my reasons today, that I will protect the Member's right to speak. That is a rule of this House and it's a rule in May. I outlined the procedure.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.