[ Page 1637 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962. (Bill No. 145)

Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act (Bill No. 150) Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act (Bill No. 144) Hon. Mr. Barrett.

        Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill No. 149)

Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 1637

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill No. 154) Mr. Gardom.

        Introduction and first reading — 1638

The Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill No. 155) Mr. Richter. Introduction and first reading — 1638

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act (Bill No. 141) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1638

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

Mr. Steves — 1638

Mr. Wallace — 1651

Mr. Lewis — 1659

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a group of school children from Armstrong in the Shuswap riding. They have along with them four chaperons — Cathy Heel, Mary Clopinburg, Dick Lonsdale and Bob Johnston. I would also like to thank Crown Zellerbach for helping to make it possible for these students to come to Victoria to see this beautiful city.

Introduction of bills.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of messages — nothing to do with abolishing the Opposition. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will it be a five-man board or a seven-man board?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you applying for a job?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your diploma?

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be "above-board". (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to sit down and start all over again.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 145 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. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LOGGING TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 150 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. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY
COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 144 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. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the very great honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of special importance to the native Indian people of the Province of British Columbia.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROVINCIAL HOME
ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 22, 1973.

Bill No. 149 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.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I

[ Page 1638 ]

guess he's not all bad by virtue of the last one, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COUNTY COURTS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 154 intituled An Act to Amend the County Courts Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 154 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.

THE CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD
COMPENSATION ACT

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 155 intituled The Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 155 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 CREDIT UNIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 141 intituled An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 141 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.

Orders of the day.

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

LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was sorry to see that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is not with us this morning. I would like to have told that Member a few of the things that I was suggesting last night and inform her of some more of the mail I got this morning.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I have had four cards come in opposing Bill 42, three of those cards, Mr. Speaker, date marked 805374 from the same date stamp as those ones I told you about last night coming from Dawson Agencies Limited — those wonderful friends of the farmers in Richmond who deal in hobby farms, real estate, construction and so on. This is the kind of mail I am getting — I'm getting more of it every day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on and discuss with you some of the material I have collected up over the last couple of years dealing with this particular Act. I have some clippings that go back a few years, actually just a couple of years, to November 1971.

The first one I would like to read to you is a quote from Mr. H.P. Bell-Irving, president of the city-based Bell-Irving Realty Company. I would like to address this quote particularly to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who was speaking about the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board just the other night. Here is what it says. The headline in the journal, The Commerce Weekly, November 17, 1971, says "Strict Zoning Essential to Beat Urban Sprawl.":

"Better ways must be found for the development of the lower mainland if full potential of this key area is to be achieved and the provincial government must play a key role. This became apparent in an interview with H.B. Bell-Irving.

" 'We are spreading into a town all the way from Vancouver to Langley, then to Chilliwack, then to Hope. That may be inevitable but it's something we should avoid as long as possible. Land that is not suitable for agriculture should be developed first, wherever practicable,' Bell-Irving proposed."

He went on to say:

"One can hardly blame farmers for accepting high prices for their land to retire in comfort, but Bell-Irving favours re-introduction and strict enforcement of the zoning concept developed by the former Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board."

Mr. Speaker, this is a planning board that the previous Social Credit administration did away with.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Nonsense.

MR. STEVES: Contrary to what the Hon. Member for Langley says — and he's saying "nonsense" — the plan may still be around but it is not being enacted. "This plan called for the development of satellite towns with greenbelts between them" — listen to this — "and retention of prime agricultural land to eliminate or minimize urban sprawl." This is what Bill 42 is all about.

This is what Bell-Irving said: " 'That to me would be a great improvement over what we are doing now — spreading in all directions,' he said. 'Zoning to accomplish this should go beyond the Greater Vancouver Regional District, although the regional dis-

[ Page 1639 ]

trict concept is a good one,' he said." That's what Mr. Bell-Irving said — and I mentioned last night that some of his real estate salesmen were opposing this bill.

I'd like to go a little further on the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Mr. Speaker, several years ago the planning board, which is now defunct as I mentioned, proposed a long-range plan that the Social Credit government accepted by order-in-council. It zoned nearly 60 per cent of the arable land in the Fraser Valley for agriculture. But the government paid little attention to it. In Delta it ran a railway right through the middle of the farmland to Roberts Bank.

When the planners working for the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board objected, the Socreds abolished the board — fired them. And they transferred the power of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board to four regional districts. They split them up, Mr. Speaker. They may be where they belong, but the way they did it was to break up the authority as to who would control farmland in the Fraser Valley and to allow one regional district to be played off against the other by the land speculators and developers in the Fraser Valley.

The regional districts — I told you about it last night and I can prove something further, as I will in a few minutes — controlled by the local politicians have all proven sensitive to pressures from development hungry speculators. They've proven sensitive to the pressures that the developers and speculators are able to exert on the councils and the regional districts. Due to this, suburbia has been encroaching on the farmland of the Fraser Valley ever since.

In 1962, Mr. Speaker, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board prepared a report: "Land for Farming," March, 1962. I'd like to discuss with you some of the points they outlined in that report.

Under the heading "The Significance of Agriculture, " they say:

"First, agriculture is a major source of employment in the Lower Mainland. It supports farmers, who support food processing workers, and both of these support suppliers and people in service activities. It is estimated that perhaps 20 per cent of all the jobs in the Lower Mainland are dependent, directly or indirectly, on agriculture."

Twenty per cent of the jobs, Mr. Speaker, dependent upon agriculture in the Lower Mainland.

"Second, agriculture supplies all of our fluid milk and poultry" — this is in the lower mainland area — "most of our eggs and much of our other dairy products, vegetables and small fruits. It does this with minimum transportation costs and frees us from dependence on other agricultural regions. "Third, it gives us open space — space for relaxation, even in driving; space for hunting and stream fishing; space where children can see a cow without having to go to a zoo; and pleasant approaches to our major cities — a matter of some consequence for a tourist centre."

Mr. Speaker, the crude and lasting effect of breaking up the agricultural land in our community has been three-fold: it increases the costs to municipal services by extending semi-residential development into previous rural areas; it destroys forever the greenbelt potential of large lot farmlands; and it removes agricultural land from productive use. This, of course, has the effect of raising the price of agricultural products.

The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board report went on to say: "Many of our farms, especially in fruit and vegetables, are too small to be economic and do not yield adequate returns." They suggested that to be adequate to support an adequate type of farming activity, farms of about 40 acres were required, and that the absolute minimum was 10 acres, but you couldn't make a very good living on it unless you were dealing with small fruits, such as strawberries or greenhouses and so on. Ones that had gone into five acres couldn't afford to farm that at all.

What we find, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about Dawson Agencies and Glenlivet Hobby Farms, is that not only has the Fraser Valley been under threat of land development in housing but also in breaking up the farmlands into small plots for hobby farmers. We found thousands of acres being broken up and fields within the agricultural zones being classed as farmlands but actually they are hobby farms which are owned and lived on by people who live in the cities, who have the money to be able to buy five acres of land, to keep a couple of horses. They're able to afford a very nice way of life but they take the land out of agricultural production. This is one of the areas where the regional district concept, since the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was dissolved, has failed.

It is very simple, Mr. Speaker, to cut up land — I but it is very difficult to reassemble it after it has been cut up. The smaller the unit, the fewer the alternatives that are open to the farmer.

The Lower Mainland Regional Planning report asks: "Is agriculture worth conserving?" I'd like the Members of the Opposition to consider this very carefully: "Is farmland to be regarded as real estate to be sold off as quickly and profitably as possible, or as a productive resource which should not be squandered?" I'd like them to think about that.

I'd like to have them think as well about the fact pointed out by the regional planning board about jobs. They talked earlier in this session about jobs and unemployment.

I'd like them to think about the fact that for every five acres of farming land that is lost there is one job lost to the Greater Vancouver Regional District area

[ Page 1640 ]

— one job for every five acres taken out of productive farming.

Now this is an oversimplification, but basically it's correct. This is basically what happens — take the land out of farming, we have our population depending upon it for food and for jobs. And they are saying, "Let it go. Let the jobs go." One job for every five acres. A thousand acres goes out — well, you figure it out. It's quite a few jobs.

I'm taking some quotes from the planning board report.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I don't even know Vic Parker.

"Agricultural zoning policy," the report goes on. It says:

"Zoning is the main tool by which a municipality guides its land development. It is, of course, restrictive in that it limits the range of action open to the landholder. However, two fundamental principles should be recognized. First, zoning should benefit the whole community, on the grounds that the community has the right to protect its overall interests against-the actions of individuals. In the Lower Mainland, with its mild climate, mobile population and limited land resources, most rural communities as well as the region as a whole stand to benefit from zoning primarily by avoiding the costs of premature land subdivision and scattered building development. For sprawl is the municipal locust, the great devourer of both money and land, and producer of only grief — even more for the future than for the present."

Then the report goes on. It says that there's another aspect of the problem:

"There are limits to the effective demand for residential land at any time, set by the growth of the whole community and the demand for housing. This means that in any period only a few farmers can hope to sell their land for subdivision. But if this is done in a haphazard fashion resulting in urban sprawl, everybody's costs go up, including the remaining farmers."

I mentioned from my own personal experience, last night, that this is exactly what happened in our community. As soon as sprawl was allowed to happen in the agricultural lands, taxes and all costs of servicing the community, and so on, went up. The costs in the rural areas went up. The costs in the urban areas went up.

One last and very important aspect of the problem must be recognized. I'm quoting again from the report.

"In this valley, and especially at the metropolitan end, there is a widespread feeling that agriculture, if not finished, has only a few more years to live."

This report was written in 1962. It says:

"In the meantime, this feeling of impermanence has a deadening effect on many things."

Impermanence. This is what the farmers have felt — because they were not protected, that they were not there permanently. They felt that they were not able to stay on their land, that something was going to happen and they no longer would be farming. "Impermanence" they call it in this report.

"Impermanence prevents full development of land for agriculture. Much of our land could produce much more than it does now if it were better drained, and also irrigated. But this cannot be done economically on a short-term basis. Under the present conditions" — that's the 1962 conditions and the last year's conditions — "of uncertainty, it is likely not to be done at all."

Well, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 changes all this. There's no longer impermanence. There no longer will be uncertainty as to whether the farmers will be able to put their money into their land or not. Second point — it says:

"Similarly food manufacturers hesitate to install or expand processing plants where they suspect that the farms that supply them today may not be in operation tomorrow."

Bill 42 guarantees, Mr. Speaker, that the farms will be in operation tomorrow. So the food manufacturers will be able to put in new equipment, will be able to expand, will be able to hire more people and provide jobs.

Third point:

"In the meantime, municipalities cannot be sure that the services for which they are primarily responsible, such as water supply, are being adequately or economically provided."

Now they will be assured of this as well. They will be able to put in the services required by the urban communities to the urban communities, and services to the agricultural communities required by the agricultural communities.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows how uncertainty stifles the business world. All but the few have recognized how uncertainty also stifles the agricultural world, and actually, hence the business world, for in British Columbia a good portion of the business world does depend upon agriculture. It's for this reason, Mr. Speaker — and not just this reason — but this is one of the reasons I would suggest to you that we must set our own house in order in agriculture in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm still getting mail. Yesterday, I received another unmarked envelope from the Legislative Assembly and inside it was a clipping. I'd like to thank the Hon. Member who had so much thought to send this to me. It's council news from the New Westminster The Columbian of this Tuesday. The

[ Page 1641 ]

headline says: "Wenman drafts alternative to NDP land control bill" It says:

"Surrey alderman Bob Wenman has drafted an alternative to the Land Commission Act entitled "An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Parkland." The unofficial bill was presented to council Monday."

"An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Parkland, " very interesting. I'd like to compliment Mr. Wenman on his thought for re-introducing this bill, because he introduced this bill "An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Parkland" two years ago in this House, and here it is.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Right, he was a Member of this government two years ago; of this party over here that's opposing this bill that we're presenting now. And his own government wouldn't support it. Bill No. 84, 1971, Mr. Wenman. His own government wouldn't support it.

I'd like to read you some of the Press clippings from that day:

The Victoria Times, October 14, 1971:

"Save the farms drive pressed. Social Credit M.L.A., Robert Wenman of Delta, Wednesday, urged the government to save remaining farmland in the Fraser Valley. Wenman appeared before the land use committee and urged it to initiate a system which would allow farmers to dedicate their land in perpetuity as farmland. In return, Wenman said, farmers will be reprieved from most property taxation. 'Farmers pay higher taxes on the assumption that they were holding it for speculative purposes.' "

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, Mr. Wenman said that. Higher taxes on farmers who would not dedicate their land to such a commission because they were holding it for speculative purposes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: "Wenman's proposals are outlined in his private Member's bill, which failed to win approval in the last session of the Legislature." His own government Members wouldn't support it. They didn't want to save farmland. They didn't want to do it then; they don't want to do it now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: The Vancouver Sun, October 14, 1971, the same day. The headline: "Williston doubts power. Fraser Valley Greenbelt Pleaded.

"A delegation of lower mainland farmers and municipal politicians met with the provincial government's land use committee Wednesday, to plead for government action to keep the Fraser Valley green. At the end of the hour-long presentation, the committee chairman, resources Minister Ray Williston, expressed doubts that his group of Ministers has the power to save the Fraser Valley from destruction by industry and creeping urbanization."

Their own Minister said they didn't have the power, were not willing to try and find the means to save agricultural land.

"Williston, and the other Ministers on the committee, Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell…."

— the same person I think that is writing some of the speeches from the other side of the House —

"Mines Minister Frank Richter, "

— Where's the Mines Minister now? He's not here to listen to this —

"and Agriculture Minister Cyril Shelford, heard a 69-year-old Surrey farmer and alderman, Ted Coombe, plead to be allowed to continue to work his own land."

It all went in deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. In the same article,

"Social Credit MLA Wenman told the committee that the ultimate responsibility for zoning…" listen to this — "The ultimate responsibility for zoning and other means of controlling land development interests rests with the provincial government under the British North America Act." He went on — "We, have now reached the turning point whereby in many densely populated areas, purposeful growth is changing to purposeless expansion."

Right on, Mr. Wenman. Wenman said that: "Action is needed as the hunger for more public open land becomes acute."

November 18, 1971: "Tax changes, government curbs suggested as remedies. Farmers want action on disappearing government land."

Delta: "The Vancouver Branch of the B.C., Institute of Agriculturists has decided it's time to get involved in the problem of disappearing lower Fraser Valley farmland."

They had a number of speakers. They also had He pointed out the population growth estimates and said, "There is a need not only to preserve farmland for agriculture, but also to provide open space and recreational land for the future." These are things that we're also including in Bill 42.

"The proponent of a private member's bill 'The Agricultural Park Land Act', Mr. Wenman said that his bill will be presented again this year to the Legislature as it was last year. This would allow

[ Page 1642 ]

the province to designate a land parcel as agricultural land in perpetuity."

Designate a land parcel as agricultural land in perpetuity — "Designate", this is the type of terminology we're using. We can designate it, that's what Mr. Wenman suggested that they should do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Same as preserving farmland, right.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really glad to see that the Member for North Okanagan is now here, because I think Mr. Wenman's words would help her to change her mind about what she was saying for the last couple of days.

"Mr. Wenman, the MLA said that one of the bill's attributes is that it would separate the farmers from real estate speculation. It could only be sold for agricultural use."

Well, that's what we're talking about in Bill 42.

I'd like to thank Mr. Wenman. That's what Bill 42 is all about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Well, he seems to have changed his tune a little bit now, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Yes, he's a marching farmer now.

The New Westminster Columbian, October 23, 1971. The heading:

"Developer's greed, like time, waits for no man."

It's an editorial:

"If developers know that land is not going to be available for speculation, then that land speculation value evaporates. It is absolutely imperative that some action be taken to freeze zoning particularly on large tracts now because farmland is disappearing so quickly (and in such large hunks) like the Spenifore Farm in Delta. The greed of the developer, like time, waits for no man, least of all for Cyril Shelford, the Minister of Agriculture."

This is what the Columbian said about Cyril — "Cyril Shelford had a plan to establish a land fund to buy development rights from the farmers" — and it mentions this in the editorial.

I've heard other people, recently, stating that we should buy development rights from the farmers.

To bring it up to date, in more recent times, July 1972: "Anderson pledges to preserve farms."

Not our Anderson. No, not our Anderson. It could be Liberal, yes, a Victoria farmer. It's a good quote: "Provincial Liberal leader, David Anderson, proposed Monday a government programme of purchasing development rights."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: All right, just listen to this, "…purchasing development rights from farmers and removing education taxes from farms so-owners could afford to retain the land for agricultural purposes". I understand that Mr. Anderson still agrees with the statement.

Mr. Shelford also had the same proposal — October 30, 1971, Vancouver Province "Shelford farm plan rejected." Rejected. Social Credit's been talking about development rights, Liberal Party's talking about development rights, Conservatives talk about development rights — rejected by the farmers.

"Victoria. The executive board of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has rejected agriculture Minister Cyril Shelford's latest proposal for preserving B.C. farmland. Shelford last week suggested a programme under which the government would pay farmers the difference between what their land is worth for farming and what it would be worth for real estate or industrial development." Development rights — the farmers themselves rejected it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: October 30, 1971, Vancouver Province Victoria bureau.

"Once such payment had been made, farmers would only be able to sell their land only for farming." This was the Shelford report.

"At a meeting on Friday, the Federation's board," — that's the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — "decided that the plan would be too costly and would benefit only the farmers in certain areas."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House in what areas would the farmers benefit from development rights? Would they be the farmers of the Peace River district, Mr. Speaker? Would they be the farmers in the interior of British Columbia, or would they be the farmers that I outlined last night who own the land of Richmond? — 50 per cent owned by private developers who have only interest of a speculative value in the land.

These are the farmers that will achieve the benefits of development rights, Mr. Speaker. These are the farmers that Mr. Anderson is trying to protect. They are the farmers that I talked about last night: Dawson Realty, Canada Permanent Trust, Bell-Irving, Rutherford McRae, MacDonald- & Eedy. These are the farmers they are trying to defend.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, will you address the Members of the House by their consti-

[ Page 1643 ]

tuency, please.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, the item goes on: " 'In a municipality like Delta' " — this is what the farmers said — " 'the programme to pay for development rights would cost between $30 and $40 million' said Federation secretary-treasurer Jack Wessell. Wessell said the plan would benefit farmers near urban areas but not those areas where the land had no current development value." The urban areas — the land that is now owned and controlled by the land speculators. Mr. Wessell went on," 'It would mean nothing to the rancher in the Chilcotin, for example, because you can't ask him to sell development rights that he doesn't have.' "

Well, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned last night that I have not only been a farmer but have made some studies in agriculture. Actually one of the areas I studied was economics, and so I sat down last night and figured out what the development rights would be for the entire province if we gave equity to the farmers of their development rights. I would suggest to you that in October, 1971, when the B.C. Federation of Agriculture rejected the plea for development rights, they had the people's business at heart; they were actually concerned about the people of this province. They could have insisted on the same development values for farmers throughout the province, but they didn't.

Let's took at what buying up these development rights would cost. In Delta, at $30 to $40 million development rights of 1971 for 21,000 acres, this would be a substantial cost. Richmond has 12,000 acres. However, the going prices at the present time for land in Richmond and in Delta for land that is developed for housing, for apartments and industry is a lot higher than what that 1971 figure indicates.

If we used today's prices, say, of $10,000 per acre — in my riding $10,000 per acre is a rock-bottom price to pay for development land — development rights for the 21,000 acres of Delta would cost $210 million. If we paid $20,000 an acre development rights for it, it would be doubled to $420 million. If we paid $25,000 an acre, which is the price that speculators are buying up residentially-zoned farmland in Richmond for right now, that would come to $525 million for development rights in Delta.

Closer to my own riding, Richmond, we have 12,000 acres of agriculturally-zoned land. If we paid $10,000 an acre, that would come to $121 million; $20,000 per acre, $240 million; and $25,000 — $300 million to buy the development rights of the land speculator farmers in Richmond.

We have 1.6 million acres of arable farmland in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and if we gave equal development rights to all farmers in B.C. — and I don't think we should do anything less than treat the farmers equally — the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $200,000 million to $300,000 million.

Or on the other hand, if we used the costs of the 1971 values and, further, if we depreciated the values, or if we spread the values out and said that farmers in other areas of B.C. did not deserve the same equity as farmers down in the lower mainland, it would still cost between $80,000 million and $100,000 million.

These figures speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if this is what the Opposition is proposing. When they talk of development rights, maybe they'll be able to tell us how much it is going to cost; maybe they'll be able to tell us what they are proposing. Are they going to treat farmers equally or are they going to put the money in the hands of the land speculators?

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is here. I was saving part of my speech until she got here. I'd like to go over a few of the farmers that I mentioned last night for her benefit. Some of the farmers have been writing in, like Canada Permanent Trust, who sent me, a bundle…

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a new story in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. SPEAKER: I've been fair, I might say.

MR.STEVES: …opposing Bill 42. Last night it was 22 cards; today I've got three more with the same date stamp of Dawson Developments Ltd. That makes 25 cards now with that one date stamp — most of them these and other companies several years ago instructed their employees to get into 42" — Rutherford McRae, Metropolitan Trust, Wall & Redekop, Bell-Irving Realty. All fine friends of the farmers. Rutherford McRae, Block Bros.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: You read your letters; I'm going to tell you about my postcards.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mine were letters, not postcards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STEVES: Well, your people sent them to me. If they can't write letters, that's not my fault.

The Hon. Member wasn't even here last night. Some of them came in an unmarked envelope, for her benefit, Mr. Speaker, from some Member of the Legislature who did not wish to put their name on it or tell who they were from. They sent me some of these cards from some MLA in Victoria, and I'm sure

[ Page 1644 ]

it isn't an MLA from the Government side of the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: E.H. Greczmiel Ltd., major land speculator and developer in Richmond.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got any from Japan?

MR. STEVES: Well, actually we have some people from Hong Kong that are in the business in Richmond, some Conservatives, some condominium management consultants that were building a lot of condominiums, apartments and multiple developments in Richmond — they've got an interest in stopping Bill 42. And of course a number of other companies.

As I mentioned, an anonymous petition came in with 20 names on it and one of the names, of course, was the name of Bill Wright, one of our own colleagues who ran in the last election and got badly defeated, who is also an employee of Block Bros. The names on the petition right around his name, in fact, included a half-dozen people from Montreal Trust.

These are the friends of the Opposition Members, Mr. Speaker. These are the farmers that Member was talking about last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they all farmers?

MR. STEVES: Oh, they're all farmers, Mr. Premier. They've all got an interest in the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they farm the people, or what?

MR. STEVES: They're farming the people, that's right. The Opposition Members are trying to milk the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to farm the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they deal in fertilizers?

MR. STEVES: They deal in the chemical kind, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the chair.

MR. STEVES: Yes, but it's not very good fertilizer. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the land costs and the high costs of housing. Between 1950 and 1972, the value of lots increased from about $300 a lot to $12,000 a lot.

Between 1950 and 1960 building material prices increased about 24 per cent, wages 60 per cent and land prices anywhere from 1,500 per cent to 3,000 per cent over a ten year period, due to land speculation and land inflation.

I mentioned last night references to land banking mentioned in the Land Commission Act, which would play a major part in stabilizing the costs of land. I made mention last night of Richmond's industrial land bank and one of the developers trying to take over the land in Richmond who says, "Leave industrial land in Richmond alone, because Richmond has a land bank and we can't compete with it." Mr. Speaker, land banks take the speculation out of development, and development is able to proceed in a reasonable and orderly manner.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, I also indicated that speculators already had 50 per cent control of one of Richmond's major agricultural areas, and that a major company had designs on picking up 100 acres per year of Richmond's agricultural land in order to pick up 50 per cent of the housing market.

For the benefit of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who was not present last night, I've saved the next report from the same land developer for today. This report deals with Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan talked about Holland and Russia and Japan and Edinburgh and flies on the wall in the cabinet Minister's office. I'm going to talk to you today about Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Chilliwack — and I hope the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) will come back in — and the Okanagan.

"Surrey Land Acquisition, 1972 to 1984" — that Big Brother year when the land speculators expect to take over complete control of agricultural land in the Fraser Valley and possibly throughout the entire province. 1984 — that's when this is aimed at. I quote the introduction:

"With the implementation of the land use contract, the Municipality of Surrey is presently undergoing a major change in policies related to development. Unlike Richmond, this municipality has a detailed sewer plan forecasting services to be provided to the year 1975. Because of extreme fragmentation in existing developed areas, the municipality has combined this sewer plant together with existing road facilities to produce an Urban Growth Area, sometimes called 'Development Area.' " The report goes on:

"Only approximately 10 per cent of all Surrey land is zoned either residential, industrial or commercial, with the remaining 90 per cent zoned RS or suburban Residential."

This means that they are to have one acre minimums in the zoning bylaws — small holdings. A large portion of this land is agricultural land.

I quote further from the land developers' report:

"…the Municipality of Surrey should triple

[ Page 1645 ]

its population in the next 20 years with an increase of approximately 177,000 people. Assuming an average of four persons per family, the market will then have to provide approximately 44,000 single family homes over the next 20 years. At four lots per acre, approximately 11,000 acres will be required in this time period, or 550 acres per year. These figures may tend to vary according to the restrictions other municipalities place on development of single family housing."

One of the Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, said that the regional district concept was working, and that I should give indications that it was not. This report, Mr. Speaker, proves that it is not.

This land developer I'm quoting from had designs upon Richmond. They're buying up land in Richmond, but if Richmond council does not break its resolve not to rezone, if Richmond council does not let them take the agricultural land out of production — then they're hedging their bet. And they've brought up land in Surrey, in the hopes that Surrey council will break down its resolve. And they're buying up land in other municipalities as well, Mr. Speaker.

The report goes on:

"Between. 1971 and 1976 the population of Surrey is predicted to increase by 27,849 people."

They've got pretty accurate statistics.

"Development of approximately 7,000 single family lots will be needed to meet this demand. This will mean some 1,700 acres must be made available for development, or approximately 340 acres per year."

Listen to this part:

"Assuming once again that our company's participation will be approximately 50 per cent of the market…"

They want to have 50 per cent of the house-selling market in the lower Fraser Valley, Mr. Speaker —

"…the company must then purchase 170 acres of land per year for five years, or a total of 850 acres by 1976."

Now, just think of what it would be like if every one of the development companies I've listed were able to pick up 50 per cent of the development market. They are all trying. But it certainly indicates to me, and I think it should to this House, that with this type of land speculation — this rampant land speculation — going on in the Fraser Valley, the Fraser Valley lands were in dire need for the type of legislation that we have been bringing in.

This report deals with specifies — "Northern Hills":

"Northern Hills consists of approximately 3,000 acres lying both north and south of the 401 freeway. Its proximity to Guildford Shopping Centre and its accessibility to the freeway rate the area 'Prime for Future Development.'…"

Services are available — services provided by the municipalities, not by the land speculators.

"Services are available, however, at the far west boundary of this area, and pressure groups may be able to convince the municipality (of Surrey) that the area should be considered for development prior to long range plans."

Who are these pressure groups, Mr. Speaker? I suggest to you that they are the same pressure groups that are being heard here in this House. The same pressure groups that are being heard in Richmond and Surrey and Delta are coming forth here in this House to save agricultural land in the Fraser Valley for the land speculators. Certainly no citizens' group, Mr. Speaker, is going to come out in favour of rezoning the agricultural land in these areas. I've been on the municipal council in Richmond for five years. Every time we have a public hearing we have sometimes hundreds of people — the last time we had 300 people over Laurel Properties — coming out to oppose such rezoning of the land. Because the citizens and those pressure groups know that agricultural land is valuable and should be preserved for agriculture and greenbelt.

The only pressure groups that are in favour of rezoning such land, Mr. Speaker, are pressure groups such as the ones that have written this report.

"Newton: geographically restricted by the mud flats and the flood control plain, this area of a few thousand acres seems to be a favourite of the (Surrey) municipality. Located at the centre of Surrey, Newton lacks the appeal of being within close proximity to freeway or shopping centre. The municipality, however, may be obligated to promote this region…"

— "obligated" to promote this region —

"…in that expenditures for services were most heavily concentrated in this area…Wall and Redekop…"

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Farmers?

MR. STEVES:

"…recently have purchased a 20 acre parcel at 76th Ave. and 140th Street at a price of $335,000 or $17,750 per acre…."

Maybe these are the figures I should use for figuring out development rights — $17,750 per acre.

Now, this land is presently zoned residential suburban. This is an example of what the lands are selling for.

"Expectations at the time of purchase were for multiple zoning…."

They bought it so that they could get it zoned upwards. Just like the land speculators are trying to zone the farmland upwards, they bought it to get residential land zoned upwards — for high-rises, and so on.

[ Page 1646 ]

"…but information indicates that the municipality will only consider single family zoning."

Too bad, Wall and Redekop.

The report gives other examples. Fifteen acres at 88th avenue, purchased by Link Construction in February, 1972 — $15,000 per acre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What's the name of that again?

MR. STEVES: Link Construction. That name seems to ring a bell. Link Construction — a good friend of Social Credit. Thirty-nine acres located at 88th avenue — $12,100 per acre. 4.7 acres and 4.83 acres in November, 1971 — $12,000 and $11,000 per acre.

Scottsdale area, an area restricted for development because of "urban growth area, phase one" restrictions. 4.3 acres sold in August, 1971 and 5 acres in October, 1971 — $11,162 and $10,180 per acre — that's two years ago; 4.5 acres at $11,111 per acre; 60 acres at 16th avenue and Scott Road, purchased May 24, 1972….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Search is underway — they haven't figured out who bought it yet — at $6,500 per acre. "The municipality indicates that development will not be considered in this area until the early 1990's" — that's how long ahead these land speculators are looking; they're buying it up now.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if they're going to put money into that farmland to develop it for farming during the next 20 years? Are they going to buy equipment and machinery and plows and harrows and stuff to cultivate the land and do a good job of farming? Are they going to put in the natural fertilizers to make it productive land and do a good job of farming that land? Or are they going to let the land sit and just pay agricultural taxes but take a minimum of agricultural production off the land? This is what I am wondering, Mr. Speaker. What are these speculators going to do while they wait for 20 years?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Certainly, they are going to try and get it rezoned.

"South Surrey: Since the completion of the Leach report and the presentation to the municipality and the public, little activity has taken place in the south Surrey area. Most prospective land sales are being held up pending indications as to whether the municipality will proceed with the proposed plan or whether the south Surrey area will amalgamate with the City of White Rock and continue under a totally different programme."

Now they have a plan and they are waiting to see whether Surrey is going to proceed with that plan or not. Well they aren't waiting very much: 12.7 acres, $13,000 per acre, March, 1972; 48 acres, asking price $950,000; 22 acres, asking price $11,000 per acre. The report goes on:

"Until such time as the municipality either accepts or rejects the Leach report and the south Surrey plan, it is expected that little activity will take place. It should be noted at this time that if the south Surrey plan is defeated, large land holdings other than that owned by the municipality should increase in value."

Who owns these large land holdings other than those lands owned by the municipality? Well, I'll tell you who is trying to own them. Block Brothers, Wall and Redekop, the companies I have named; they are the ones that are trying to get land like this.

MR. McCLELLAND: Who wrote that report?

MR. STEVES: Ask some of the realtors who wrote this report.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're asking you; who wrote that report?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quote your source.

MR. STEVES: That's the way it is done, Mr. Speaker. You pick up the land, you defeat the zoning plans in the municipalities that are involved and then you make a fortune. That is land speculation.

I have only read to you today and last night from two reports but it is my understanding that the same company that prepared these two reports have reports prepared for almost the entire province. They have been developing land throughout British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who wrote the report?

MR. STEVES: I would like to give another example of what is happening in Richmond specifically.

MR. McCLELLAND: An anonymous report.

MR. STEVES: When Richmond's sewer bylaws were enacted…now this isn't rezoning, it's strictly sewer bylaws — and this is how these developers operate. Land speculators and developers attend the local council meetings all the time without fail. In fact they are generally there every council meeting, every planning meeting when you drop in, especially people from Dawson Agencies in Richmond, who I said earlier had about 25 to 30 per cent of the

[ Page 1647 ]

development market. You see them in there almost every day. I see more of them in the municipal hall than I see the citizens of the community.

They attend the council meetings, the planning commissions; they're always around municipal hall and they know what is going on but the citizens don't. The only time that the citizens know what is going on is after it is almost an accomplished fact and a piece of land has been rezoned. Then they get to go to a public hearing and give the citizen's views on the matter. Of course, the citizens quite often will oppose these rezonings and quite often, because the developers have done their homework and have already convinced the local councils, the citizens' wishes are turned down and the rezonings go ahead.

These are the appeal procedures; these are the ways that the existing zoning bylaws are used in my community and in many others throughout British Columbia and we have some of the strongest zoning bylaws in the province. I should say these are the ways they are misused. The report that I have been reading from on Surrey, I would suggest, has been written in this manner by the information of the developers attending the Surrey council meetings having access to the development programmes of the municipality. I think this is indicated in the conclusion of the report. It states:

"The rate of growth of residential subdivisions in the Municipality of Surrey will remain a function of the urban growth development area and its restrictions. The writer feels that, because of the municipality's obligations to existing sewer patterns, the central core of Newton together with the central core of Whalley will be the prime areas in the next three to five years.

"Once these areas have started to fill out, the writer fully believes that the municipality will not be allowed to ignore Northern Hills any longer and will then extend its development boundaries, that the municipality will go beyond its present boundaries and extend them. It will no longer be able to ignore the pressures and it will then extend these development boundaries to encompass the property both north and south of Highway 41."

Of course, Mr. Speaker, what they are suggesting is that that is the land that they should go and purchase. Bring the pressures on, purchase the land, get the land rezoned, forget about the people. They've got public hearings. They'll come up and oppose it and if they have their work well done — if the people over here, the land speculators, have got their work well done — so much for the public hearing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Bill 42 will correct this, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned Richmond's sewer bylaws. The same thing happened there. Block Bros., using knowledge that the general citizens did not have, information which was available to the general public but not in widespread knowledge…because the general public does not have to be at every council meeting and every planning committee generally there is a developer of some sort there.

Using the knowledge of the sewer forecasts — of where the sewers were going to go — they went into the areas that were going to get sewers next. I should explain that, as far as sewers are concerned in the lower Fraser Valley, the Social Credit Government a few years ago brought in a ruling that development cannot occur in high water-table areas such as Richmond which are below sea level or just above sea level like much of the Fraser Valley — could not have any further subdivision of land unless sewers were put in. The land had to be developed in an orderly manner because you can't develop houses without sewers — so wherever the sewers go the houses go.

Anyway, these companies had prior knowledge to what the citizens had of where the sewers were going to go. In my community in Steveston where I live, Block Bros. agents went door-to-door before the sewers were introduced into my area; door-to-door throughout the community, asking people if they would sell their houses or if they had any vacant lots or any farmland to sell.

They offered them prices which were far beyond what some of the people expected the land was worth. We thought we lived in a depressed area at that time. They offered them slightly better prices than what they thought it was worth and got options from some of these lands, listed, and then the people found out.

In fact a number of them started phoning me about that time and saying, "What's going on? Block Bros. is knocking at my door. They want to buy my land. I don't want to sell my house but they offered me more money for my house. I have a lot next door here, what is it worth?"

I told them Block Bros. knows that they are going to have sewers in here in a couple of years and they want to buy the land now, because that is the next piece of land that can be developed. Some people did give them options. An option, of course, means that they give you $100 down and you wait for a couple of years until they can get the land rezoned or developed. Then they sell it for twice as much as they are going to pay you for it. You get the option but they get the profit.

Well, that's what happened in my area. Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, will stop this. Chilliwack. I would like to read you a letter from a farmer from Chilliwack, and I hope the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is listening. This indicates the same thing that is happening in Richmond and Delta and Surrey is also happening in Chilliwack. Notice the letter, Mr.

[ Page 1648 ]

Speaker….

MR. McCLELLAND: Anonymous?

MR. STEVES: No, it's not anonymous, but you people didn't name the names of the people who wrote your letters. I'll name this person, I don't think he would mind.

"Hang in there with the Land Commission Act. No doubt the going will be rough. I feel you are on the right track. When a resource is in short supply as farmland is in B.C., it appears the free market system permits too much opportunity for misuse and some type of legislative control is exerted by society.

"For instance, I understand in the Egyptian desert, water at an oasis is free. But if it has to be transported, custom permits a charge for hauling only. In B.C. we see 366,000 square miles of province but fail to see that we can only farm 10,000 or 15,000 square miles of that land.

"When the municipal plan was outlined here in Chilliwack I noticed that there was no definite boundary beyond which residential land would be forbidden to encroach on farmland. I feel the stage was set for gradual erosion and eventual loss of farmland belts between communities.

"Although never mentioned openly much, the apparent drift of events indicates an urban belt running from Cultus Lake to Fairfield Island is being permitted to develop and when that is full, I suppose it will move east and west."

That's Chilliwack.

MR. McCLELLAND: Have you ever been to Chilliwack?

"I hope there is provision for a flow of information and joint planning between municipal governments and the commission's planning agency — a two-way street. At this stage, it is the only thing I can fault the legislation on. I don't notice this aspect of the proposed legislation spelled out in the news reports, but perhaps it is provided for.

"Ever since I attended UBC in Agriculture in 1955, I noticed how the Valley how the area from Whalley to Aldergrove area has declined agriculturally and become a sort of rural slum. It was inevitable where stable environment for farming was lacking. I hope the legislation will provide that stability in the most heavily threatened farming areas where the serious farmer cannot match the resources of the realtor.

"If this legislation proves unworkable outside of the Peace River block, farming in British Columbia is doomed."

That's what a farmer said from Chilliwack.

Mr. Speaker, I've received a lot of letters. Most of them — the cards I mentioned, around 200 of them — came from the urban areas; against the Act. Among my letters from the farm area, they're at least two to one in favour of the Act. I'm not going to read them at this time. I've been talking for an hour now and I talked for an hour and a half last night. I don't intend to have a "Stevesbuster." We've had a lot of other busters around here.

If, however, you want to read about compensation, I would suggest that you might read the Vancouver Sun editorial of March 17, where they suggest that there can be no compensation; that the Act is right. I have a number of farmers here that are favouring it, and other people in the agricultural zone in Richmond favouring it. One person has offered to work one night a week to help me out because he's so enthused with the Act that he wants to help me out in any activities I have in the riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: No, he's a person I've never heard of before. His name is Neil Stevens. I don't know who he is. I've never heard of him.

interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. STEVES: No, Stevens. I have no idea. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that people should not pass such remarks against, citizens whom we know nothing about. Do you know this person? The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is trying to say by inference that this citizen is guilty of something; I'm not sure what.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I didn't say anything was wrong with him. You were just giving me this kind of flak….

I would, however, like to refer to one other letter also dealing with the land Act. This letter is from a Conservative. His name is Gerry Pirie, R.R. 2, Sardis, B.C.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: I'm sorry they're not here to hear the act. In a covering letter he says, "Please tell Scott Wallace I'm still a Conservative but I support Bill 42." It's a long letter and I'm not going to read it. It's one of the best letters that I've had. He says that the Act is right on; that it's very difficult to get into agricultural production; that he himself was seriously considering planting an orchard of dwarf apples that would take five to seven years to bear fruit. He says:

"By planting this year, if I'm lucky, I could be

[ Page 1649 ]

in production by 1980. Whether or not I should plant is in the hands of the municipal planner.

"A stable agricultural community has a complex web of interactions and many years are needed to develop them: interactions between different farmers; between farmers and outlets or processors; their sources of supply with transportation facilities; with the professional and business community; with a host of Government representatives.

"Throw in a single de-stabling situation and the web will take the strain, but as instability becomes — progressive, as in real estate speculation, the entire network becomes progressively snarled, with a mounting crisis of confidence.

"Some farmers will adapt and may even improve their economic situation. But the bulk of the farming community will be forced by economics either out of the industry or to another location."

I'm not going to read any further from that, but this is one farmer who is trying to farm in the Sardis area who finds that, due to the uncertainty in the area, he cannot go on. Under this Act, he will be able to go on.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude my remarks by a couple of quotes. One is from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture at their convention last year, November 28 and 29, 1972; their 39th annual convention. It's dealing with removal of education tax and succession duties from land. I'd like to remind you that these are some of the people who helped organize the demonstration last Thursday. I don't want to take away from what they've done because I think they are sincere in their request for help for the farmers. They state their resolutions in this report:

"Resolution 10: Request the provincial government to amend its legislation regarding the inheritance and gift tax Acts with a view to removing taxes or penalties from farms and ranches. Resolution 11: That all such taxes, including school taxes, be removed from farmland and that the home and the home side principle be implemented."

Some farmers and some Members of the Opposition have said that removing land tax and giving succession duties were small potatoes to the farmers. But this was what the Federation of Agriculture said last summer, 1972, at their convention. These are the things they thought could help the farmers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: Some of the farmers out there on Thursday said it, as a matter of fact.

But also at that convention was a report from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture President, Mr. Charles Bernhardt. I'd like to read a couple of quotes. The first one is on p. 5 of the report: "The public realization of the need to preserve farmland is our opportunity to insist on equity for the farmers." I agree. That's what they've been doing and I don't blame them. He goes on: "We must not fail to exploit this opportunity."

In order to get the resolutions that they said before, Mr. Speaker, the farmers are organizing — some of the farmers anyway — against Bill 42. But what they're really after, as is spelled out in this report from their convention, is equity for farmers. Not development rights, as I mentioned earlier in their own quotations from a couple of years ago; not development rights but equity for farmers to help them produce more economically — removal of some taxation and succession duties and so on.

Mr. Bernhardt's report also says: "There is one factor very much lacking and that is equity for farmers. This must be changed and only we, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, can supply the compulsion for that change." That's what the farmers' representatives think. That's what they're doing. They're providing the compulsion for that change. They have come and met with us. They would like to see some changes in agriculture. We will be bringing in legislation to bring equity to the farmers.

Once this bill has passed and once we have brought in companion legislation in this House that deals with equity for farmers, I think that the farmers will be very happy with the situation of agriculture in this province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some people have criticized us for bringing this Act upon them without telling them that we were going to do it. I'd like to say that we told people in the election campaign exactly what we were going to do. We published this campaign book, "A New Deal for People." It's right in here, three sections, p. 8.

"A New Deal for Farmers; Land Use. First promise for agriculture: We will establish a land zoning programme to set aside areas for agricultural production and to prevent such land from being subdivided for industrial and residential uses." We said we'd do it; we're doing it.

The second point under agriculture:

"We will establish a land bank to purchase existing and rezoned agricultural land for lease to farmers on a long-term bases."

We said we were going to do it; we're doing it.

Page 18 — this is dealing with urban affairs and urban areas such as my own riding.

"Land reforms: Land is a basic natural resource to be preserved, not a commodity to be bought and sold. An NDP Government will: (1) establish an aggressive land bank programme around urban centres financed by senior governments in con junction with a policy of leasehold only for Crown

[ Page 1650 ]

lands."

We said we were going to do it and we're doing it.

"(2) Confine new urban areas to those lands unsuited for economic agriculture recreation and conservation; preserve and extend greenbelts." We said we were going to do it, Mr. Speaker, and this bill is what is going to do it for us. We are preserving land, Mr. Speaker. We are setting aside land banks for urban use, for industrial use, for greenbelt and for parks. Page 19:

"We will set up a department of quality planning and control which will designate areas for urban, industrial, agricultural, forestry and recreational uses according to environmental quality criteria." This was our programme. This is what we said. This was our promise and we are keeping our promise.

This is the last quote that I would like to give you today. The Hon. Member for North Peace, I believe it was; or South Peace — the one who talked for so long. He talked for so long that I've forgotten his name and where he came from. He brought in a file of newspapers. I have about a dozen items that I would like to read but I'm just going to show you one, in conclusion, just for those who think that we didn't tell people what our policy was; that we just kept it in that little book and hid it in the cupboard someplace. I'll deal with a couple.

The first one: The Richmond Review in Richmond had a series of questions that they asked the candidates. They had seven questions and two of the questions dealt with agricultural land. One of the questions asked about opening up east Richmond land for residential development.

The Social Credit MLA of the day, Ernie LeCours, said — here's his picture right in the article; 'good old Ern' — "I find this question rather fatuous," he said. "The people who clamour for more roads, bridges and sewers are the same ones who complain when you provide them for them. You cannot provide these services without taking up land. The first principle of Social Credit is freedom of the individual and I believe that landowners should be free to dispose of their property as they see fit."

Do you still believe that, Members of the Opposition? The former MLA for Richmond said that, Mr. Speaker — Mr. LeCours. That's why he's the former MLA.

In the same article I was quoted: "Richmond's residential and industrial growth must be contained within the boundaries now zoned for those purposes . Our agricultural land must be preserved for agricultural production and greenbelts." That's what I said. These were direct articles we wrote. They printed word for word what we said. These were printed. Mr. LeCours wrote his; I wrote mine.

The other article asks, "What about the agricultural zone? What about industrial growth in the agricultural area? Would there be any limits to growth?"

Mr. LeCours said: "It is evident that many people are anxious to partake of the good life which we enjoy in B.C. As long as we continue to enjoy that freedom which democracy offers, we need have no fear of being told where we can or cannot live. I welcome continued growth," he said, "and population increase along with their attendant problems."

My comment: "Population growth in Richmond must be confined within existing areas zoned for that purpose. At present there is enough land in Richmond already zoned residential for more than twice our present population."

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural area in Richmond could provide an increase in population if it were rezoned from the present 65,000 population of Richmond to a population of anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people. If it were zoned for single-family development and for multiple developments, such as apartments and condominiums, Richmond alone could contain a population of one million people.

This is what Mr. LeCours was suggesting. He said, "I welcome continued growth and population increase along with their attendant problems the loss of the agricultural land.

If we extrapolate this a little further, in the lower Fraser Valley–Greater Vancouver area, if the land that is presently zoned for residential use were developed for residential use — and we have 3,500 acres of land in Richmond zoned for residential use which could be built on now without touching any agricultural land — this could double our population. If the land in the greater Vancouver area that is already upland, non farming land, were used for residential use, single family homes, we would have a population of 3.5 million people in the Vancouver area. If it were used for multiple use and single-family together, there would be room for a population of 13.6 million people — and not one single acre of agricultural land would have to be used to handle that population.

There is no need, Mr. Speaker, to use our agricultural land for expanding population. The only reason that the land speculators want to use that land is because they can buy cheaper from the farmers and they can make tremendous, exorbitant profits when they get it rezoned. These are the people, Mr. Speaker, whom the Opposition Members are trying to protect Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last quote. If you think that I was the only one who was saying it, Mr. Barrett, the Premier, was also saying it. July 28, 1972: "Save Fish, Farms — Barrett, Steves Pledge Greenbelt Protection " — front-page headlines in the local paper in my riding.

"Voters got a stout pledge of environmental protection from the New Democratic Party Thursday

[ Page 1651 ]

night. Before a houseful of supporters at Ukrainian Hall, NDP leader Dave Barrett promised that preserving farmland in the Fraser Valley was an integral part of protecting B.C.'s environment. 'A New Democratic government would require an evaluation of the environmental impact of such developments as the conversion of farmland into residential land,' Barrett told the rally. 'New Democratic Party MLAs will work hard to introduce a land-zoning programme that will protect agricultural land and prevent it from being subdivided for industrial and residential use,' he said."

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Member of this House and to stand here today and be able to congratulate Mr. Premier for keeping that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we fought the election; this was one of the issues that we fought the election on in my riding. People over here say, "We should have an election tomorrow, " and "Take it to the people." The people decided.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): 22 per cent.

MR. STEVES: "22 per cent," he says. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, this was the number one election campaign issue. Out of the seven major questions that was presented by the local paper, two of them dealt with this problem — the first two; the major campaign issue.

Mr. Speaker, I got elected and I got 49 per cent of the vote in my riding — on this issue, Mr. Speaker — 49 per cent. That's how strongly the people feel about this land Act. That's how strongly the people feel that we should preserve this farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STEVES: The Liberals got wiped out. The Conservatives got wiped out. The former Social Credit MLA, who had beaten me in the previous election by 1,500 votes, lost by 5,000 votes.

Mr. Speaker, we had an election. The people decided. They decided on August 30. They decided that they wanted to preserve agricultural land. They elected the New Democratic Party to bring in this bill that we have brought in. They decided.

We made a promise. We kept our promise. We brought in the bill. I challenge you to vote against it.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard a comment across the floor saying, "I wonder who has the guts to follow this speaker?"

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I was talking to the Liberals.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a question of guts. I think we meet in this chamber to present conflicting points of view to the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Maybe we'll hear from the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) sometime — except when he's sitting in his seat.

MR. WALLACE: We're not in this House necessarily to be right, or to prove ourselves right, or to persuade people in any deceitful way to support us. We are here in good faith and with the best of intentions to present the policies and the philosophies which we believe to be in the best interests of all the citizens of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. WALLACE: I agree, Mr. Premier. That's exactly why we're here. The two sides of the House present their philosophy; we give our reasons and our conviction. While we may on some things be diametrically opposed, I would hope that it is never suggested that it takes "guts" to stand up in this House and present our point of view.

I would just start my remarks as the other speakers have done, Mr. Speaker, by saying that my personal situation regarding land is very simple. My wife and I own our home — or at least we own the home plus a large mortgage. I own my medical office — and that is also with a mortgage. Beyond that, neither myself, my wife nor any of my children own any land in this province and I have no relatives in Canada, so my position in regard to my personal involvement in land is very clear.

This issue has been clouded, I am afraid, as every contentious issue inevitably is in the political world; clouded not by the intent of this legislation but unmistakably by the particular manner in which the bill has been written. If there is any one central aspect of this very lengthy and contentious debate from our point of view, we simply feel that it is not the intent of the legislation which is being debated, it is the bill itself and the mechanisms which are being suggested.

I think that we start, Mr. Speaker, in any important debate or any public issue by expressing our philosophy. Our philosophy — if the Member will care to listen — is to preserve farmland. But it is also the duty of any legislator to preserve the rights of any individual or minority group of individuals in the face of a majority decision. While we agree with the principle and the intent and the philosophy of preserving farmland, in all sincerity we feel that it could be done in a better, more considered, more rational and fairer manner. That is all we're trying to say. I hope that my remarks will enlarge on why we

[ Page 1652 ]

believe that this is so.

We think that basic to our system of living in harmony as a democratic, civilized society is the fact that sometimes the interests of the community at large override the interests of a minority. Sometimes priority has to be given to the consideration of the greater majority of people.

But we equally strongly believe that the rights and the interest of individuals affected by this considered decision of the majority should be respected. And we do not feel that this is what is about to happen under Bill 42.

It is presented as a bill to preserve farmland and on that basis I would have personally felt it wiser to restrict the bill to that goal and to have called it the "Farmland Preservation Act" — perhaps involving greenbelts and farmland. Certainly I question whether it was wise to try and encompass the great scope of land use in this one bill.

Furthermore, while the former speaker has explained very clearly the problem in areas such as Richmond, again I think the blanket nature of the legislation affecting the whole of the province could have been better considered and restricted somewhat at this time.

We do not dispute the facts and figures relating to the value of farmland, the need to preserve it. I stated in the debate on agriculture that it would be disastrous if we ever reached a point of being totally dependent on food sources from outside our province. No one who is the least bit objective could argue with that danger or the fact that we must avoid that danger.

One point that I feel most important, and I know it has been discussed already, Mr. Speaker, but it is the fact that the Minister and many others have explained that this is not an expropriation statute. By definition that is correct. The word "expropriation" is never used in the bill. But if you study the history about expropriation a little bit, and certainly if you study the report of the Law Reform Commission…. The Law Reform Commission, Mr. Speaker defined expropriation as the "lawful acquisition by one party of another party's property without the latter's consent."

It involves a compulsory transfer of property rights. I am quoting directly from the report. It also says: "It is fundamental justice that there should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the individual citizens from the exercise of expropriation powers."

As a matter of digressing for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The Law Reform Commission also stated that there was much need for study of land use legislation and that it recognized that this was not within the terms of reference in this particular report. But it points out that while the needs of the society as a whole frequently involves expropriation against an individual that there must be this fundamental protection to the individual concern. In addition, he should be entitled to receive compensation for the losses resulting from expropriation.

It also, as the Minister pointed out, stated that the mere granting of a power to purchase or otherwise acquire land cannot be regarded as conferring a power to expropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to make is that this Bill 42 — and I would mention this as one of the very fundamental reasons I oppose the bill, because of the means that it is trying to reach the goal of preserving farmland — the bill seems to want it both ways. It is not a power of expropriation, in which the individual would have the safeguards of expropriation, namely public hearing, appeal, and compensation regardless of the decision.

That's right, it is not a statute with expropriation which would give safeguards. In fact it goes beyond that and gives the Government, through the commission, the power under section 7, which surely must be the absolutely central part of the bill to which the opposition is so bitterly opposed.

Section 7, as we all know, states: "The commission may acquire or otherwise purchase land under conditions it deems advisable." And the preceding sentence, which I omitted to quote, states very clearly that the commission has the power and capacity by itself, There are two words in section 7 which I think are the heart and soul of our worry and opposition. It makes it very clear that the subsequent powers spelled out in the second half of section 7 give the commission the power and capacity "by itself" to do these various things. The particular section, as I say, gives it that much power without any of the protection which would normally be afforded in a statute which did include expropriation powers.

Furthermore, the bill gives the power of designation. And while the designation of agricultural land requires cabinet approval, it's very clear in section 8 that designation of other classes of land do not require cabinet approval.

It is our feeling that if you designate land….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No. I'm saying that we believe that the present power of designation is really a means of expropriating the land without the safeguards which an expropriation statute would afford. In other words, if the commission designates a piece of land, let us say, as parkland or recreation land, it's very unlikely the owner of that land is faced with any other purchaser or in future other than the state. We all know that if you have to sell something and there is only one purchaser, then it is a most restrictive situation.

[ Page 1653 ]

I take this specific example: if I owned a piece of land and they designate it parkland, what other purchaser, beside the state, wants to buy parkland?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, two wrongs never made a right, my friend. This is something that I think is terribly important to this whole debate, I've sat in this House and listened to many — and I say this with respect, it's come from both sides of the House and we all share in the guilt that things in legislation have been passed in this House, to some of which I've been a party — but because it was wrong and it was based on wrong principles, is no excuse for us to go ahead on Bill 42 and pass some more legislation which we think is wrong.

But returning to the question of designation. We are very concerned that the person who has land that can be designated by the commission is left with no choice but to sell to the commission. Why we are concerned is that the commission appears to have this power to acquire, to designate, to purchase, under conditions I've described and yet there would appear to be no avenue whereby the person affected can contest what has been done — either in terms of acquisition of the land or designation in one of three categories.

To return a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the Law Reform Commission. It made the point very clearly that statutes should, indeed, if they imply anything resembling expropriation, be clearly expressed. I'll read you the exact quotation from the recommendations of the commission:

"Statutory provisions which create…"

And this is an important phrase, the next phrase.

"…or might appear to create expropriating powers, should be reviewed and revised where necessary to ensure that the statutory language creating these powers clearly and expressly demonstrates the intention to confer these powers."

In other words, it is making the commission — I'm talking about the Law Reform Commission. I must be careful how to distinguish between that and the land commission. But it's pointing out that any bill or legislation which might appear to create expropriating powers should, in fact, say so. And on the contrary, they state that no enactment which does not use the word "expropriate" shall be deemed to confer a power to expropriate. And wherever the power to expropriate is intended, the word should be used.

Now, the fact that it is not used, I suggest, leaves this Government, through the provisions of Bill 42, with getting the best of both worlds at the expense of the individual landowner affected.

We believe — and perhaps the Minister will comment on this when he winds up the debate as to whether our interpretation is valid — that in fact it does not mention expropriation but it gives very much similar power without the safeguards which would be present in a bill mentioning expropriation. This certainly surprises me personally, because the Premier, when he was in Opposition, frequently railed against the Social Credit government for its lack of respect and protection and concern for individual rights.

I well remember the long night of March 5, 1971, when we sat in this House and heard the present Premier ask a certain question 67 times. I'm glad that the Premier has returned. There's a little personal anecdote involved.

Mr. Speaker, I'll bring back the memory of that night, because what was the Leader of the Opposition of that day asking? He was pursuing the interests and the rights of a young widow who was not apparently receiving justice at the hands of an insurance company. The Leader of the Opposition was asking for the government, at least, to show concern for this woman's rights and her protection against some overriding authority which she couldn't fight on her own.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

I find it's very strange that after a relatively short time in office the Premier should show the disregard — or lack of regard — for assuring justice for the individual landowner in this province.

This in no way, Madam Speaker, is intended to disagree with what the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said about land speculation. I'm not standing here to defend any speculator. I would favour legislation which would control the speculator.

But what I'm not prepared to do is to stand by and allow individual landowners, because they happen to own farmland, to have their individual rights penalized and for them to be used as some kind of sacrifice in the total community concerned for the preservation of farmland.

As I've said already, the bill has many faults. But the one outstanding feature which makes it unacceptable to use lies in section 7; that the power in section 7 should be given in a way which provides for the better safeguard for the individuals affected.

I feel that the bill could have with better effect restricted itself to farmland preservation. The whole question of land banks for urban and industrial development could well merit a separate bill where some of the misunderstanding and confusion which is arising in this debate would have been avoided.

Farmland, goodness knows, is a big enough problem in itself that it would justify that kind of separate attention.

If in fact this bill does not confer the power of expropriation, I think this is one of the few questions which has not been asked in this debate so far,

[ Page 1654 ]

Madam Speaker — but if this bill does not give the power of expropriation but it does state very clearly in section 7 that the commission has power and capacity by itself to purchase or otherwise….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you cannot refer to sections. We're dealing with the principle of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: The principle of the bill, Madam Speaker, gives tremendous land. I think that's very inherent to the principle of the bill. We've already established that this is not an expropriation power. Therefore, I would like, and I would hope that the Minister in winding up the debate will tell us what avenue of power is to be applied.

If you come and tell me that you want to buy my land, and I say, "But I don't want to sell my land," for maybe very valid reasons, and I tell you and remind you that you can't expropriate my land, because you've said in the House and I've agreed with you and everybody's agreed that this is not an expropriation statue — I'm just a little puzzled to know what mechanism is to be employed by the commission to purchase or acquire my land. If you insist that you want it and I am not interested in selling, regardless of price, and you can't expropriate it, perhaps the Government will tell us what particular avenue is to be used. Because I think this also is one of the crucial questions left hanging in the air, if one reads this bill.

We also object to the tremendous scope of power — not just in the section that was mentioned but the tremendous scope of power conferred upon five persons, particularly in the absence of the safeguards we've mentioned, of no public hearing and no appeal mechanism and no compensation.

It's a small point, but if you read the bill accurately, any one member of the commission — I'm sure it's simply a mistake in the way the bill is written, and I won't refer to the section specifically — it states that any one member of the commission present at a meeting constitutes a quorum. I'm sure this is just a mistake, but it's a point, Mr. Minister, you might be interested in reading. If you read it literally according to the English, if four of the members are absent from a meeting, the other person that is present constitutes a quorum. Anyway, that's a small point.

I don't want to belabour points that have been made in former debate. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made reference, I thought very well, to the whole question of concern that the regional and municipal levels of government are the closest level to the people and that the way in which they have been ignored and overruled and in which the bill is made superior to — or if there's any conflict between the provisions of this bill and the municipal bill or regional legislation, that then this bill is superior.

It has always been my experience on municipal government that the citizens in municipalities appreciate very much the ease with which they can get to their municipal representatives. I don't mean that in the rather subtle sense that they influence them unfairly or deceitfully. I am saying I mean physical access to the municipal representatives.

When one considers that we have a commission of five people in a centralized role functioning in regard to this bill, I think anyone of us can rather shudder at the difficulties that might be involved in communicating with and getting access to a commission which has this responsibility extending over the whole of the province.

I would also like to make comment, Madam Speaker, on the whole question of haste which was described as a reason given for, first of all, the order-in-council and then the legislation. The Minister has stated publicly, and I quote from a speech of November 30, 1972, in which he said, "I would not advise anyone to invest in farmland with any intention to develop it for industrial or residential purposes."

The Minister is quoted in the Press as having said that this speech led to — and the phrase quoted in the Vancouver Province was — "an alarming rush of applications to subdivide." Now I wonder if the Minister could perhaps, in winding up the debate, give us some description of the actual statistics of this alarming rush, Because I've read another quotation in the same newspaper relating to areas of 363,000 acres in the Delta-Surrey-Langley municipalities which actually showed that subsequent to the speech of November 30, applications to subdivide in December diminished below the usual average.

Yet the order-in-council was passed on December 21 prohibiting all subdivision of farmland. And, of course, the subsequent order-in-council was passed on January 18 extending the scope of the prohibition.

The other disturbing thing about Bill 42, Madam Speaker, is that when there was…well, first of all, the picture has been painted — certainly by the previous speaker for Richmond — that really the only people that are concerned are the land developers and the speculators. I think that is quite an inaccurate assessment of the degree of public response to this legislation and to the orders-in-council.

There was very considerable concern as to the impact of the orders-in-council, particularly by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who certainly contacted all MLA's and made several public statements. The Minister responded by saying, "Well, if you just have patience. We had to do this in a hurry." I've already asked if the Minister could explain the need for hurry. But even if there was such haste, he said "Give us time and we will bring in formal legislation

[ Page 1655 ]

which will meet much of the criticism which has arisen from the orders-in-council." Of course, Madam Speaker, we now have the formal legislation and in some ways it is worse than the orders-in-council.

Let me explain what I mean by that. The orders-in-council at least gave clear definitions of agricultural land. The second order-in-council, particularly, defined the very extensive work that has been done to produce the Canada Land Inventory under ARDA and used classes 1 to 4 as defining agricultural land. But nowhere in Bill 42 is there any definition or description of what agricultural land is, Contrary to what the Member for Richmond said, there are many, many people deeply concerned who could no more be classified as land speculators as the man in the moon — to use an old expression.

The fact is that the bill, which we had assumed would formalize the effect of the orders-in-council, would include all the safeguards we expect of any legislation where the total weight of a government commission can inflict a decision on a single individual.

It is very distressing to us to find that, after the reassurances which followed the orders-in-council that the formal legislation would straighten out all the concern of the landowner, in fact there are many of these serious deficiencies — particularly the ones that have been repeated ad nauseum by every speaker in the House, the whole question of right of appeal and compensation, I know that we can all change our mind — I but I have a newspaper, the Colonist from December 1972 here, where the Minister spoke at Osoyoos. Oh, everybody can change their mind. I don't do this out of malice, Madam Speaker, to put the Minister on the spot. But it shows that at one time in the development of this legislation the Minister did favour compensation. The quotation says, and I'm quoting from Osoyoos, a speech that was made there:

"Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich said Wednesday some farmers should be given compensation amounting to the difference between what their land is worth as farmland and what the farmers would get if they sold it for subdivision."

Now I'm not saying that that is the mechanism that should be followed necessarily, to give them the difference, because who would decide what it was worth for subdivision? But I certainly think, Madam Speaker, that our position is very clear. You have to do one thing or another. You either do give compensation or you make it attractive for the farmer to stay on the farm.

We've heard many speakers state that the farmers, many of the farmers are bona fide farmers. They wish to farm and they wish to pass their farm onto their sons but that faced with this invidious choice between living on a very low income or in fact capitalizing on the inflated value of their land for some other use, many of them really have very little choice and succumb to the selling of the land for subdivision.

But for the bona fide farmer who wishes to stay on the land, then I feel that this Government, as it has professed, Madam Speaker, to be planning to help the farmer, should have brought in companion legislation with Bill 42. After all, we're having a great flow of legislation this session. It would seem to me that it would be a lot easier for the Opposition to feel confident that the farmer is going to be helped in the various methods that have been hinted.

But I don't think anyone can debate a bill very intelligently when much of the evidence is by implication. I think it's a whole debate in itself. Some of the points I raised when we debated the Minister's estimates revolved around the question of the removal of taxes from the land; the question of succession duties; trying to give the farmer better facilities, and so on.

It is certainly our opinion that it would have made the debate on Bill 42 a little easier if the kind of companion legislation which we have been told will be forthcoming had been in fact introduced at the same time.

In another respect, the bill refers to the Environment and Land Use Act and states that this bill is subject to that. But if you read the Environment and Land Use Act it makes very general recommendations, whereas Bill 42 makes very specific recommendations. The Minister, when he winds up the debate, perhaps can correct me if I'm wrong; but my reading of the two bills is that in principle the whole existence and power and method of functioning of the commission is not subject to the land use committee.

Now this is maybe getting too technical — but there is no way that I can see how the power is provided in the Environment and Land Use Act to have any control over the decisions of the commission under the Land Commission Act. And yet this is the implication. In principle this Bill 42 suggests, or it could be read into Bill 42, that the commission is subject to control of the Land Use Committee.

If this were the case, if it were subject to the Land Use Committee, in principle we would find it a little

[ Page 1656 ]

easier to accept Bill 42. It is one thing for four cabinet Ministers to carry this kind of authority — that's what they're accustomed to doing — but we feel it is a far cry from that to giving such power and authority to five appointed individuals, So if the claim is being made that the power in Bill 42 is no different from power which already exists, I would have to disagree very strongly. Power in the hands of a Land Use Committee constituted of cabinet Ministers is one thing, but power in the hands of five appointed individuals is something else again.

I would have to take issue with the Premier on the fact that he stated he couldn't understand why the Opposition were getting so upset about Bill 42; that it did not create any power which didn't already exist in the Municipal Act.

Now, Madam Speaker, I think anyone who is remotely connected with municipal affairs knows that there are numerous sections from about section 702 to section 711 in the Municipal Act which go into great detail regarding the whole question of zoning land or property. They of course incorporate all the mechanisms we've mentioned whereby there must be notification of a hearing, there is a public hearing, there is a decision and there is an appeal mechanism.

I think for the Premier to suggest that that is just exactly what is in Bill 42 is hardly accurate. Even on the question of compensation, Madam Speaker, section 706 of the Municipal Act states quite clearly that when land is zoned for public use, compensation shall be paid or can be paid.

Since Bill 42 deals in large measure with parkland and recreation land, I cannot imagine any piece of land which is more clearly destined to be used by the public. So this statement by the Premier that the Municipal Act and Bill 42 grant similar powers, again I would have to refute.

To return for a moment, Madam Speaker, to this other question of the degree of public reaction and response and the implication that it is only the land developer who is really worried about this legislation; with respect, I would have to say that this has certainly not been our experience. I'm not going to read letters today, Madam Speaker, because I think it becomes tedious after several Members have done this.

I have the facts and the figures in regard to our office. In terms of individual communications — and this includes the whole works: letters, clippings, signatures, et cetera, anything which was an expression of opposition to Bill 42 — we have a total of about 18,400-odd. I don't know what it is with today's mail but it was 18,400. I have a list of signatures from the Coquitlam area. I just wondered if maybe the Premier recognized some of his friends on the list of names.

I'm not arguing or disputing what the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said in what his experience has been. The fact is that he is in one of the hottest areas in the whole contentious debate. I'm not questioning in any way the communications he quoted. Nevertheless I think it should go on the record as to what we have received.

Many of those who did take the trouble to write are no different from what I am. They don't own a farm either. They don't own any land other than the land which their home sits upon. I just brought one laundry basket down full of bundles. There are two others like this upstairs. If anybody wants this filed or opened to inspection, that's fine.

While some of the communications are simply signatures, we have had somewhere in the region of 6,000 to 8,000 actual communications — people who make comment, write a letter or write some expression of their opinion across the newspaper clipping and so on.

On that point, Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister could comment when he winds up the debate on a report in the Vancouver Province newspaper on Saturday, March 10. This was just about a week ago. I quote from the newspaper: "Asked if he would consider withdrawing the legislation, Mr. Stupich said he would consider putting it off pending further discussion if he were satisfied that there was substantial public opposition."

Madam Speaker, I'm just asking the question that if we've received in excess of 18,000 communications, does the Minister not consider that this represents substantial public opposition? Maybe not. It's very difficult to draw a figure and say whether it does or does not represent substantial opposition.

In the few years that I've been here, I can't recall any issue that evoked this kind of response or any situation where citizens who really had no direct interest in the immediate effect of the legislation became so angry and upset and took the trouble to write or phone or come to the office and see the MLA. Maybe I haven't been around long enough. Maybe some of the Members who have been here many years have had such an experience.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, perhaps the Member is right. I've read the history books and the hospital insurance issue was a hot one. But this one, since it

[ Page 1657 ]

affects land and since there is a deep philosophical difference between the Government's attitude to ownership of land and the traditional attitude, then this is affecting every single citizen, particularly every persons who owns a home or plans to own a home.

The philosophical difference is very clear. Certain Members of the Government have said that you only have a lease to the surface rights. You don't actually own the land.

As I said when I started my remarks, Madam Speaker, this is what we're in this House to do. That is to try and explain very clearly what our philosophy is and listen to the Government philosophy. Then at the next election the public, in a truly free and democratic fashion, can make their choice based on each side of the House having outlined its philosophy and tried to give its reasons; not because we feel we're right and you're all wrong or vice versa, but simply to say what we think is a fair and just way to look after the interests of all the citizens of British Columbia.

On that basis, I think the reason why we've had such an outcry and why so many people who don't own land have written in on this issue, is simply because they feel that a minority — in this case, the farmer — will be penalized without compensation and without an avenue of appeal. Who might it be tomorrow? I think this is the increasing sentiment that people express to me when they're concerned about Bill 42.

If Government can take this attitude to the farmer and tell him exactly what will be done, at what price and under what conditions, and that he cannot appeal, then the average citizen quite naturally worries considerably that possibly the same kind of edict and dictatorial legislation could quite readily tomorrow be applied to him or her.

I won't read the letters concerned. Other Members have read this kind of letter from people like myself who were not born in Canada but who came from other countries where this action was taken by governments against the land, It is a real note of alarm which is sounded in these letters.

It has been said that while the Opposition parties have criticized Bill 42, they have come up with precious few positive suggestions. I would like to make a few suggestions. I would preface that, Madam Speaker, by saying that we feel that the bill has too many things about it that need to be changed. It would make more sense to leave the land freeze as it is, follow some of the positive suggestions I'm about to make, and then bring in a better bill at a later date, presumably in the fall. Above all, we feel that there should have been more time and consideration given to actually getting an accurate land inventory.

If there's one point that keeps coming up at public meetings and in contacts with concerned farmers, it is that they often have, let us say, a 100 acres of land and perhaps five or 10 acres are just rocks and stubble and tree roots and so on. But it is all zoned as agricultural land. The question has been asked of me quite frequently, "What do I do? Why can't I subdivide the 10 acres and keep the other 90 acres as farmland?" which they would be quite happy to do.

It would appear to me that the most important positive proposal that we can put forward would be that a detailed effort be made, through cooperation with the municipalities and the regions, first of all, to establish an accurate land inventory of what land we have and just exactly how accurately it is presently classified. Maybe we could take another look at the Canada Land Inventory classifications. Classification — I haven't got it right available — but I remember reading it and thinking, "Well, it sounds like it's pretty tough to grow anything on that kind of classified land." So maybe even the original attempt to classify agricultural land in the second order-in-council could be reviewed.

Apart from the concept of getting a land inventory, we would like to think that in so doing we would re-establish in a very positive and progressive way, communication and consultation with the regions and with the municipalities. Sound government in any federated nation obviously involves — and I know this sounds like motherhood — we can get better total government if federal, provincial, regional and municipal levels can feel that at least each has the ear of the other and that not any one of these levels has to take either a belligerent or obstinate attitude because they feel that the upper or lower level is ignoring them.

While the land inventory seems a real need in itself, I think that in going through the process of defining the land and being better informed about the various classifications. This would do a great deal to heal the breach which inevitably has been brought about between regional and municipal governments, and this Government.

One other positive proposal that we would like to suggest is not new; several other speakers have mentioned other countries and other provinces. It's very interesting, Madam Speaker, that they keep picking on the Tory provinces, Alberta and Ontario. On this occasion at least, I'd like to just mention that some of the positive ideas in these provinces might not be such a bad idea for British Columbia.

For example, I'll just read the motion that was introduced in the Alberta Legislature on March 15 of this year.

"Be it resolved that the Legislature require the government to set up an Alberta Land Use Forum, consisting of three Albertans and appropriate staff to hold public hearings and report to the government and make recommendations regarding land use.

Further, that the forum consider, but not be limited to, the following matters:

[ Page 1658 ]

1. The family farm.

2. Multi-use of agricultural land.

3. The use of agricultural land for recreational purposes.

4. The use of agricultural land for urban expansion.

5. Future land needs of Alberta agriculture.

6. Corporate farms, foreign ownership of land, absentee ownership and communal farming.

7. The common ownership of land, agricultural processing and marketing facilities.

8. Land use as it influences population distribution.

9. The extent, if any, to which the historical right of the landowner to determine the use and disposition of agricultural property ought to be restricted."

I think that last term of reference is worth repeating, Madam Speaker.

"The extent, if any, to which the historical right of the landowner to determine the use and disposition of agricultural property ought to be restricted."

This again is the area of philosophy somewhat, whereby the ever-increasing value of farmland is making us review and re-assess this historical tradition: if you owned a piece of land, your home was your castle and nobody — government, man, woman or child — could interfere with your right as a landowner.

Well, with this tremendous interest to the community and society as a whole about the wise use and preservation of farmland, this may well have to be reassessed. We certainly feel very strongly in this party that if there is to be any interference with the traditional acceptance of a person's ownership of land and if he is to be penalized or restricted, then that society as a whole is obligated to see that he does not suffer unreasonable economic penalty.

I don't mean that he should necessarily get all he would get financially if it were subdivided. But I think that if the situation suggested in the principle of this bill is applied, he must inevitably suffer.

In Ontario, as no doubt the Members have read in the Press on Tuesday, the throne speech doesn't spell things out in detail. I gather nobody's throne speech ever does that. But at least it includes enough in a Press release in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, March 21, The Ontario government makes it very clear that it is moving to preserve I million acres along the Niagara Escarpment which will come under the control of a new commission charged with preserving prime land from Queenston to the tip of the Bruce Peninsula.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, we've talked to the Ontario people and I just made a few notes as to how they want to go about this. They are setting up a commission all right. But the integral mechanism that the commission will follow is local cooperation and planning with the local municipalities involved in these areas. They are planning to specifically relate the application of any legislation to the specific area concerned. Again, this legislation in Bill 42 is blanket legislation, not in any way trying to identify the problems in the province which are the most serious, namely the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and so on.

So the Ontario Government is about to set up a commission, but it will work with the municipalities and it will tend to restrict the application to the areas where it is most important. They are also setting up greenbelts, Madam Speaker, but this will be through separate legislation, They are also carrying out a great deal of research on the whole question of preservation of farmland. I feel that it has not been proven to this House that it was such an urgent situation that a bill with such sweeping effects and powers had to be introduced at this time.

Regarding the naming of the commission, the Press release I have doesn't specifically state whether it will be appointed, but I presume from the general tone of the….

My friend on my right says, "Never presume." I guess I should know by this time that it's wrong. But anyway, I can't see how it's going to be appointed — but they are going to have a commission.

Interestingly enough, Madam Speaker, when we all start off our little speech disclosing our land holdings, without ever attempting to anticipate debate on another bill, I hope that the Members of the land commission will be subject to the Disclosure Act as to what they hold.

Anyway time is flying. I just would like to make a few more remarks and then just sit down. I do feel that this bill has been prepared with some haste and without full consideration of some of the far-reaching ramifications. I think it is not just a land developer who, is very worried, it's the individual citizen who fears that this kind of legislation, while at the present time seems to be directed only to landowners, may well come to be applied in a similar way to every individual in regard to property, for example.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

We've heard some mention of the Bill of Rights, and while legally I am told there's no question that property and civil rights are in the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Nevertheless, the Canadian Bill of Rights does spell out the general concepts that our kind of society has regarding individual's rights. Whether we want to be very specific and divide it up between provincial and federal, I think sentimentally

[ Page 1659 ]

we would agree that the ideas incorporated in the Canadian Bill of Rights attempt to ensure that a person has enjoyment of his property rights.

We also can't leave the subject without repeating that a person who is being acted upon by an agent of government should be guaranteed natural justice. I was rather interested that the Attorney General is quoted in the newspaper today in regard to another matter. He says, "These are permissive powers, " and goes on to say that, "The rules of natural justice and law make hearings mandatory."

I can't anticipate another bill, but here is a principle which the Attorney General himself has been alleged to have stated: when you're given permissive powers of a fairly wide degree, the corollary to all that is that you must make natural justice available to the people concerned and that involves public hearings.

Now how come if that's going to be so important in one other commission, that we don't have it with the Land Commission Act? That's the sort of a thing that we're all asking.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Would some of the lawyers leave the room. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, one of the lawyers took your advice.

Mr. Speaker, that particular principle which is lacking from the bill, that, combined with the power to appointed individuals and the lack of any real appeal mechanism, seems to us to deny what again is a traditional basic concept that if government is taking some action against an individual, and the individual is opposed to resents it, or feels that he is not being given justice, there has to be some realistic avenue.

I'm not able or informed enough to know what avenue the appeal should take. I'm not suggesting that we have all the answers either. But there has to be the mechanism.

We feel that the bill deals specifically with the rights of land ownership and while the intent is well motivated, that it does indeed infringe on individual's rights. We are very afraid that if it can be done in this area, it can be done in many other areas.

We've talked about the positive measures and we are, ourselves, preparing a bill which we feel would represent the best of what exists in Bill 42 and provides additional mechanisms which we think are presently lacking. 

In closing, I would just ask one or two questions which, again, I hope the Minister would answer when he winds up the debate. Will the regulations give us the definition of agricultural land? Why does the bill cover personal property? Why is cabinet approval required for designation of farmland, but not required for designation of other categories?

That may be a mistake in the bill too. I notice the Minister frowning, Mr. Speaker, and it may be like the clause about the quorum.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Designate — section 8, I'm sure it may well turn out to be just another mistake in the way in which the words are put and it may be that approval of the cabinet may be…. We can't get into the sections, Mr. Speaker — I've already been reprimanded for that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, we're wasting time. Why does it cover personal property? Why is cabinet approval required for designation of farmland and not for other categories? In that regard, what does "designation" imply? What are the consequences of designation, relating to some of the points I raised earlier? Why does it have to be retroactive? Why is the commission allowed to give grants in lieu of taxes? If it acquires a property, why shouldn't the commission simply pay taxes like anyone else? I would like the clarification, which might just be a mistake in writing, on the question I mentioned — that the majority of Members present may constitute a quorum. If there is only one present, is he a quorum?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway these are some of the questions that I would like the Minister to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly welcome the chance to stand in this House and take part in this debate — especially seeing I'm one of those animals that everybody's been talking about and using as a political ploy in trying to get their point across to make political gain.

I would first like to make a confession of the amount of land that I own and I would also like to say that I'm not a hobby farmer. I'm a full-time farmer. I've been that way for seven years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: Maybe I was. I'd like to say I have 60 head of beef cattle, 12,000 chickens and two tired roosters. (Laughter). I find it of particular interest to me, the concern shown by the Socred Party. They're

[ Page 1660 ]

crying about the poor farmer and how he's darn near dead.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's a rooster. (Laughter).

MR. LEWIS: They forgot that that party was in power until just this last fall and if the farmer is in such poor straights, they're responsible. The way this legislation has been misread throughout the province by almost every political party in opposition — two of these parties really going all out to make all the gains they could.

I've had many letters too. I've had a considerable number of letters opposing the bill, but this is from a very well-organized campaign throughout my riding. Just about every one of these letters that oppose the bill is very brief. They say: "Vote against Bill 42. Copy of the letter to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). Copy of the letter to Derril Warren." I would suggest that these people have been lobbied; they've had half-truths told to them.

The legislation has been used as a political weapon for their own good, not for the good of the farmer. I would like to see these parties, after this bill is in action, stand up in this House to speak up for the farmer as often as they have in the last three weeks here. I hardly heard any voices from that Socred Party while they were in power, worrying about the poor old farmer.

I would like to remind the House of a little bit of an anniversary that we had yesterday, but kind of failed to get it on the floor. That was the Member of the Socred Party who crossed the floor a year ago yesterday because that party wouldn't do anything for the farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I would suggest that he's back in that riding and with any good luck, we may have a farmer back here in the next election.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. LEWIS: You know the type of thing that's been going on with the politicians with this piece of legislation reminds me of a little story about the politician who was around trying to sell his point of view to the farmers.

While he was talking to the farmer, flies kept swarming around his head. Finally he turned to the farmer and he complained, "The flies are around my head all the time. How come they don't bother you?" The farmer said, "You know, that's strange, I have a horse, and I find that the flies are continually swarming around the back end of that horse." So the politician got a little perturbed and he said, "Are you insinuating that I'm the back end of a horse?" The farmer said, "Gosh, in no way, but you sure can't fool the flies." (Laughter).

I would like to tell you that the letters from farmers in my riding have been running four to one in favour of this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bah, humbug!

MR. LEWIS: It's not humbug. I'll admit that many of them say that they would like to see certain amendments to the legislation. But if the legislation comes in in an amended form, and the amendments aren't radical — as some of you may think — but comes in an amended form, that they'll be supporting us 100 per cent.

I know the battle that the farmer has been up against and I'm sure glad to see that he's out in front of the public for the first time, where the people really realize that the farmer is essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: You compare to the Opposition on that.

MR. LEWIS: No, the Opposition is using it for their own gain.

I've had many, many letters from land developers in my area, and they're all deadly opposed to the legislation. I wonder why? I would suggest that there isn't going to be one farmer hurt in this province, providing there is proper legislation following it that will put the farmer in the proper perspective to where he should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean by that?

MR. LEWIS: Well, if I was a lawyer, I'd work at that but I don't know if I could make it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: O.K., well we'll get on to that. But I'll just take my time here, You've been pushing the farmers around in the province here for the last four weeks, using them as a tool, but I suggest that it's not going to work with me here right now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: That's what my farmers say. I'll tell you, I wasn't running through the Okanagan like the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) hollering, "Demand that your Member resign. He's a terrible man. Kick him out. He got up in the House and said, 'Every farmer in my riding is in favour of the bill.' " I never once said that, because I know that there's a few who are not. It's mainly due to her actions that they're not.

[ Page 1661 ]

MR. CHABOT: Speak for your constituents.

MR. LEWIS: I'm speaking for my constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEWIS: I could run a scare campaign on almost any issue in this province and convince a fraction of the people that it's a very bad piece of legislation, if you start reading into it what you want.

MRS. JORDAN: Where's the legislation for the farmers?

MR. LEWIS: I'll read you a little letter about your party and how well they treated the people in the past. This is a letter that just came on my desk this morning. I've never met the man in my life, I don't know him for Adam's off ox. (Laughter). Here's the way it reads. It says:

"Dear Mr. Lewis: As my representative in the Legislature, the next time the Social Crediters start raving about Bill 42, please ask for an opportunity to speak, and say you've had a letter from one of your constituents you would like to read."

And then he starts:

"Dear Members of the B.C. Legislature:

"Charges are made that Bill 42 is the worst thing that ever happened on the North American continent. The memories of Hon. Members of the Opposition are very short. They should have lived in the Arrow Lakes and Columbia Valley from the time that the High Arrow was proposed until its completion,

"To calm initial protest former resources Minister, the Hon. Ray Williston, addressed a meeting in Castlegar at which he promised that hearings would be held and if the majority were against the High Arrow Dam it would be dropped.

"In due time hearings on hydro and water licenses were duly held at Revelstoke, Nakusp and Castlegar. Over 400 briefs opposed the dam and only two were in favour. While Premier W.A.C. Bennett and Ottawa wrangled, people waited and waited. Suddenly the water license was granted, power saws and bulldozers swung into action.

"Before the license was granted, Hydro had promised to relocate roads, power and phone lines and other services. Now they went back on their promise and property men went into action, informing people that no roads or power lines I would be replaced and that they had to get out."

Now that's justice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Social Credit style.

MR, LEWIS:

"Many begged to be allowed to move the buildings higher up and to continue to be allowed to live on unflooded portions of their farms and still be near their relatives and lifelong friends and to enjoy the majestic scenery. But to virtually all of these the answer of Hydro was, 'No. We cannot guarantee the stability of your land, nor will we replace roads and services.' It was 'hand over your titles or face expropriation.'

"At West Arrow park there were 70 families and a nearly-new big modern school. Most lived back a good safe distance from the shoreline. People cried when they were told by the Hydro representatives that they would have to get out. Many suffered nervous breakdowns…" and maybe you should hang your heads in shame over that one — "…and did Social Credit–created Hydro give fair compensation to these 2,000 people for all their decades of long work? Prices of land were determined by Hydro and virtually all who took their cases to arbitration lost $5,250 per acre for beachfront property. This is what the property paid for beachfront property. Now that's really fair compensation — $50 to $ 150 an acre.

"B.C. Hydro came to my wife and I about the 20 acres we own near the lake. 'Here is our offer: $2,300 at $110 per acre. And you'd better take it, because if it goes to expropriation and arbitration, you'll end up with a whole lot less.' All our appeals to Ottawa under the Bill of Rights were in vain.

"Hydro was paying contractors $600 to $1,000 an acre to clear land for the reservoir, but all the hard work farmers and pensioners put into clearing was costed at nothing. After 40 or 50 years of improving their places the majority did not even get back the original $150 to $200 an acre they paid for it in 1900 to 1915.

"Even before some people had moved out, Hydro crews were already burning barns and neighbours' buildings to terrorize and break the resistance of those who were holding out for a fairer deal. Anyone doubting this can contact a Mrs. Kay at the senior citizens' home in Nakusp, B.C. "A friend of mind had 85 acres — a Mr. Joe Fish, now of Merritt, B.C. He had some gently sloping sandy land where he had a trailer court besides his farming operations and new home. He saw a lot of what would be left of his farm would be a wonderful raw new beach and wanted to keep it…."

I just don't make sense of that.

"Even though he and his wife went to the court in Cranbrook with Hydro they lost, and had to take $36,000 for all that property and a new home — which included buildings, fences, land and a trailer court and half a mile of lakeshore property."

[ Page 1662 ]

Now that's really fair compensation. How can you stand down there and worry about what we're going to do after the type of thing that happened under your government?

Did any Social Credit MLA or W.A.C. Bennett show any sympathy for what was going on? Not a word.

"One war veteran was only given $6,000 for his 10 acres and a home. Trying to find a place that they finally bought in the Okanagan for $12,000, they were too old to work and they couldn't afford to live in the home. They finally had to move into an old chicken house at the back of the new home and rent the old one. This went on until Randolph Harding, MP, opposed it and Hydro was so ashamed they paid off the veteran's indebtedness."

AN HON. MEMBER: Which party?

MR. LEWIS: He's from a decent party.

"Today there is a cry that property owners should have benefits if the land commission resells any land they buy at an agreed price. Listen to what Hydro has been doing in the past four years under Social Credit, Land which Hydro insisted had such a low market value has now become very valuable.

"The remainder of my farm has been divided into lakeside lots at $3,000 apiece. Now this is the property that they bought with $36,000 with an auto court and everything on it. They used what they wanted for the lake and now they're selling lots along that lakeshore on the same property for $3,000 apiece."

Now those people were really well treated.

"Americans were moving in and buying up lakeshore property until H.W. Herridge and the Canadian Legion brought pressure on the Social Credit government to put restrictions on this. What an injustice. Canadians chased out and aliens coming in and taking over what the pioneers were barred from retaining.

"Of the 20 acres we had, only about 12 went under water. In the spring of 1972, B.C. Hydro sold what was left of our land for $1,000 an acre to the Village of Nakusp. So Social Credit–created B.C. Hydro sold this property for $8,000, paid $2,300 for the whole chunk, sold lots along the lakeshore for $3,500. On the last deal to Nakusp they made a profit of $5,700."

They go on to say that there's an agreement of sale enclosed — the fact that the land sold for $1,000 an acre and this type of thing. And the letter is signed by a Mr. Robert J. Roader from Enderby, if anybody wishes to check it out.

Now that's the type of justice we have. No wonder you can scare people.

You know, as a farmer I spent many, many days clearing land. I picked many rocks off that property. My family helped me. And why did I have to do that? Because subdivisions had taken the prime land that was available and driven it to such a high price that a person that wanted to farm had to go onto sub marginal farms. I think that this is something that has needed correcting for years. I think that we have to take our hat off to the Minister of Agriculture.

I disagree with the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). This man's going to be a hero for what he's done — not somebody who's going to be hung by his thumbnails, as you say.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: Well, it's too bad that someone stands up and says something nasty about you for a change, You've had it coming for a long, long time.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I'd like to tell you some of the problems that a farmer faces with encroachment of subdivisions into the farming area.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's not a phony pony farmer, either.

MR. LEWIS: No, that's not no phony pony farmer. It's a chicken chicken farmer. (Laughter).

Farmland taxes are continually driven up by the encroachment of subdivisions into farming areas. There are many, many reasons for this. People that come in and live in these subdivisions demand all of the services that are available in a city lot.

It's often that a farmer is put in a position where he has to help pay for the services that the subdivider wishes in these lots even though he doesn't require them and doesn't desire them. I think that once this legislation is enacted, and the farmer has a chance to see the value in this legislation we'll come back in here maybe with 54 or 55 MLAs, not with 38.

You know, there's been more fertilizer spread in this House since I've been here, about farmers, than a farmer, spreads in 100 years. (Laughter).

Other problems that are caused to farmers by subdivisions: just about every person that dwells in one of these subdivisions has a dog. Pretty soon the dogs start running in packs, start molesting all of the domestic animals that the farmer has.

There is no way that the farmer can combat this. He can't shoot the dog, because right away he's got everybody else after him for doing it.

They run into the problem of fence control. In my area there's a trailer court that was built right in the centre of ranchland. Now the people in the trailer court are really upset because the cattle come into

[ Page 1663 ]

their nice trailer court and eat all the flowers out of their vegetable gardens and out of their flower pots. They're blaming the poor old rancher because the cows are wandering around and they haven't got enough sense to stay off their lots.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: I'll tell you that those cattle have more sense than some of those Socreds. Another area where subdivisions cause problems: the developer is in a position where he likes flatland. Flatland is very desirable; he can put in ditches much easier for his water lines, gas lines, and road construction is cheaper.

Quite often this flatland is in a flood plain area and the first thing we know we have a recurrence of the '48 flood or the one just past. Who's to bail those people out of that subdivision? Not the people that live in the subdivision, not the man that promoted the subdivision; but every taxpayer in this province is called on to bail out the people for a mistake that should have never been allowed to happen, I say that this piece of legislation can be made one of the best pieces of legislation that's ever been brought forward, providing that the Government and the MLAs on the Government and Opposition side work together. If every time we're going to do something that's going to help the farmers and we have to go through this same old tripe, we're not going to get anything done.

I would like to ask the Liberal Members, seeing that they are so concerned, to get on the telephone this afternoon and phone Mr. Trudeau and ask him to stop the dumping of some of these cheap products that are coming into this country.

MR. McCLELLAND: Which Mr. Trudeau is that?

MR. LEWIS: I think there are many ways that this Government can help if we enter into the field of extensive market expansion. This area has never been explored. For this I have to be one that's going to criticize Mr. Bernhardt from the Federation of Agriculture, I don't like to do this, I don't like to do this. But I think he has to equally share the responsibility with the Social Credit Government for the type of things that have happened to the farmers in this province in the past. Can you tell me one constructive thing that came from the Federation of Agriculture in regard to this bill?

You know, we have church groups, we have almost everybody from the Boy Scouts up coming into our caucus and making representations to the MLAs. We're lobbied continually in our offices about many things in this province. But that Federation of Agriculture never saw fit to come and talk to one MLA that I know of. They did not. They did not. The only Member that I saw from that federation was. on the day of the protest. They brought forward a brief….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I saw the brief….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEWIS: But if you cry about the situation in the Okanagan with the apple growers, O.K., what caused that situation? We have a situation that's existed there for 20 or 30 years under the same type of legislation. We've had no progressive thinking. The farmers have been scared to make a move because they had no support from the Social Credit Government in correcting the situation. And now they attack us, can you imagine.

They attack us, because the farmer in the Okanagan is in a state where he can hardly survive. I agree, there are many of them there that are. But don't put the blame on our shoulders.

I think that we're taking actions here that can correct many of these injustices that have happened in the past. If the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) wants to help we'll certainly welcome every assistance that she can give us; but not in the manner that she did yesterday. Stand up and twirl around the world…I've never even been fortunate enough to be in one of those countries.

I think this Government has to take action in regards to the interior and the marketing board structure. We're in a position now in that area where the Broiler Marketing Board has a complete monopoly over the production of broiler chickens.

There have been farmers in that area that have continually requested the right to raise broiler chickens in the interior. Under the past administration they were continually told no, there's no way. If you wish to go into the broiler production business you must….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you may be transgressing on a matter before the House on the order paper.

MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I've just about run out of wind anyway. (Laughter). I certainly hope that some of the Members of the Opposition have. Let's get this bill passed. Let's get some common sense thinking in this House. And let's get working for the farmers instead of tearing them apart.

You know it brings a little story back to me about a newspaper man that was asking a fellow that was living on a farm, "What's farm life like out in the

[ Page 1664 ]

country; what do people do out here anyway?"

"Well," he says, "at 4 o'clock in the morning I get up, and we go out and milk the cows. And then," he says, "at 9 o'clock the land developer gets out and goes and milks the farmer." (Laughter).

I would like to make one last plea to the House to come down to some concrete thinking on agriculture. To get off their butts, every one of us. I'm not just blaming the Opposition because the farmer is in a position where he is a minority — he's been abused, he's been neglected.

I think it's very evident in the type of thing that comes out in the paper…the labour unions come out and say, "We support the land bill." The next day the come out and say the price of food products is too high. Now, I say their thinking has got to change too.

I see I'm past the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to sit down and leave the House if the Hon. Premier sees fit to cease the session for today. I hope that the Members take a little time to do some serious thinking about what's happening to the farmers.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files answers to questions.

Hon, Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.