1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1973
Night Sitting
MARCH 26, 1973
[ Page 1701 ]
CONTENTS
Night sitting Routine proceedings Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Second reading.
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1701
Mr. McGeer — 1708
Mr. Lauk — 1711
Mr. Fraser — 1714
The House met at 8:30 p.m.
Orders of the day.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr., Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.
Motion approved.
LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off where I was rudely interrupted, but I'm being interrupted now by animal noises from the Social Credit side of the House. They are reminiscent noises because I heard one of the Members going "baa baa." That's what they used to do when they were in the backbench when they were the government.
AN HON. MEMBER: Can't you hear the "baas" now?
HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. I hear the exciting, challenging voices of dynamic Government backbenchers who are supporting this bill.
They're not saying, "out" or "now". They're taking part in the debate here in the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Official Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) has continued to maintain his position in this House — that is, one of absence. We have noted that his participation in the debate has been absolutely zero. On the other hand we know that he has been driven out of the House by his own party's filibuster.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't really need you to defend me, but I do think that some silence might be appropriate from the Opposition, The kind of yelling they are doing now is reminiscent of the rehearsal they had when they led the demonstration outside this Chamber.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: It's very interesting to see their response to this debate, because we can check some of the statements their party Members have made on the question of preserving land for agriculture in the past — also some of their legislative positions in the past on this issue.
The Social Credit Party had the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Cyril Shelford and he in the throne debate and the budget debate speeches in Hansard said not once in 1970, 1971, or 1972 in those speeches — Mr. Shelford mentioned everything about what was wrong with agriculture, but he never once spoke on the need to protect agricultural land that we can find in those Hansards. He did get very close during the throne speech debate in 1972 when on page 237 in Hansard he said when he got up to speak in that debate, "Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak on the Department of Agriculture today."
There was never a position announced by the Social Credit Party on this problem other than to make personal attacks on the people who were in the profession of trying to preserve some farmland. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Dan Campbell, knew the land speculators were the root of the problem, but he also knew the land speculators were great supporters of the Social Credit Party. The Vancouver Sun of February 9, 1972, just a little over a year ago he said: "Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell accused municipal councils and their airy, fairy plans Tuesday of permitting engaging in land speculation."
Did he do anything about it? Did he name any municipalities? And where did he land up? He got a job with the Government — or that is, with the Opposition but the Government is paying his salary. "He urged in the Legislature that municipalities freeze the resale price of land with land use contracts and stop real estate companies from creating an artificial scarcity of land suitable for housing." That is what he said. Is that what he said at the weekend convention of the Social Credit Party? No.
" 'There can be no question that there is a great deal of land speculation in British Columbia today,' Campbell said, 'and there can be no question either that there is an artificial scarcity of building lots. Zoning often confers financial benefits which are not passed on to purchasers of land who wish to build their own horns.' He noted that the Legislature last year passed legislation to permit municipalities to enter with developers land use contracts which may be used to keep cost down, to provide for parks and recreation land and development and ensure public housing needs are met. But 'some airy, fairy planners are unwilling to use the tools the Legislature has given them.' "
That is what the former Minister of Municipal Affairs said and the Minister reported that a piece of land in Delta with a book value of $279,000 can earn land speculators a total of $1.3 million because the land use contract system is not being followed. But what did they do about it? Other than make these vague attacks on airy, fairy planners, the former government did nothing to stop the kind of speculation that the former Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about.
Oh, they did have legislation for the municipalities, true. What kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker? Oh,
[ Page 1702 ]
they talk about dictatorship; they talk about commissions; they talk about restrictions within the legislation, but examine what those Members voted for when they sat on this side of the House. I refer you to chapter 261 of the revised statues, section 5. "Each section of this Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give force and effect to its provisions."
You all voted for that. Not one of you stood up in the backbench then and said it's dictatorship or it's wrong. It was Social Credit then. Then we go to the same bill, section 7 (e) (2) — the Boundary Commission Act not a group of commissioners, not five commissars — as the Official Opposition likes to refer to it — but one commissar.
Who was it that set up the commissar, as they like to describe it in their hysterical attacks? The Social Credit Party. And what did they say about his powers?
This is what they said: "Notwithstanding the Municipal Act or any other Act, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may by order appoint a commissioner" — one commissioner — "and re-define the boundaries of any municipality deemed by such order to be uncertain and upon such determination being approved by the Minister, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by supplement letters patent re-define the boundaries of the municipality accordingly."
Did you get up at the Social Credit convention and confess that? Did you get up at the Social Credit convention and announce that you had sinned in the past?
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You sound like vintage Bennett.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Vintage Bennett. What we have been getting is vintage garbage from the Opposition on this bill.
Section 2 (B). This is what Social Credit passed under the Municipal Act, section 2(b).
"For the purpose of the aforesaid and general of providing these services, the municipality may expropriate, take, enter into possession and use of any leasehold interest in any or right title or other interest in and to real property and any easement or right appurtenant to such real property and any easement and over or upon the same, and
(c) "Shall direct such taking, entering upon and into possession and use of such real property or leasehold interest therein or right title or interest therein or easement or right appurtenant hereto over and or upon, the same forthwith bylaw shall have come into effect." Mr. Speaker, Members of the Social Credit group have been municipal councilors in this province and they have used authority under the Municipal Act of this province that is far more dictatorial in their terms of definition than anything in Bill 42.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: "Oh, rubbish" they say. They are not on record, Mr. Speaker. There it is, Mr. Speaker, they don't like to read their own legislation. They make a great big show of the analogy I made of a section from the Municipal Act. Even the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wrote a letter to the editor and in it he said: "Well, he didn't really quote the whole section." So tonight I'll quote the whole section and then he can justify the difference between that paragraph and what exists in Bill 42. There is no difference and the Member knows it. Section 706 of the Municipal Act.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You can yell all you want but these are your statutes. You voted on them. You have operated on them as municipal members. You were a municipal member too; so was the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). They had dictatorial powers in the municipalities and you have operated at the municipal level under these sections and you have come in here on this bill for no other purpose than cheap politics to twist, twist, twist for the sole purpose …
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order.
MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have watched you overrule many of the Members of this House when they have imputed motives to other Members of the House and I think that that Member of the House should not be allowed to impute cheap politics to any other Member of this House. I believe he should be asked to withdraw it. He's done it twice in this debate.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the imputation that they've been involved in cheap politics. But I will say that they've been involved in inexpensive politics. (Laughter).
MR. SPEAKER: Order. I may point out that Hon, Members on both sides of the House have offended equally in this regard. In fact, the phrase "twist, twist, twist" has been on this side of the House just as much as on this. I would ask both sides of the House to refrain from imputations against the other. No more twisting.
[ Page 1703 ]
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not allege any misinterpretation by the Opposition Members but I will read the statute as it stands. Section 706 of the Municipal Act:
"(1) Property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of a zoning bylaw under this Division, or by reason of the amendment or repeal of a zoning by-law.
"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use."
Which is when the public takes it over. But this bill has nothing to do with the public taking over land. This bill is governing the zoning of land that sells between private people.
There has been an impression left abroad that every piece of farmland that comes up for sale is going to be bought by the Crown, and that is absolutely false.
What does the Land Commission Act say in its own section? "Land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the designation by the commission of that land as an agricultural land reserve, green belt land reserve, land bank land reserve, or park land reserve."
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, this bill cannot even expropriate land. There's been deliberate misinterpretation by the leader of the Conservative Party and by the official Opposition of the Social Credit Party and they know better.
AN HON. MEMBER: They're talking legal hokum.
HON. MR. BARRETT: At least the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, has a far more pure rhetoric when it comes to this point because they are on record as voting against the green belt bill and the other Act that we passed the session before. They've been consistent. You've been consistent on it and I grant you that.
But you must admit that some of your Members, through you Mr. Speaker, have worked on municipal councils under the same legislation with the same wording. Never once have I heard those Members get up in the House suggesting that the amendments be made to the Municipal Act on that principle. Not once, not once was that an issue. Not once did I hear from the Liberal Party that this section of the Municipal Act was a travesty of justice.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the council is right. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with a couple more of the positions of the Social Credit Party.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party has been absolutely hypocritical in this debate. I didn't accuse a Member; I said the party. I said the party, not you, Mr. Member.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a point of order. You've allowed a lot of latitude to that Member when he's speaking in the House. I think that you should warn him of the way he's misleading …
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. CHABOT: …using these misleading statements by accusing the members of this party of deliberately misinterpreting the Act. I don't think the Chair should tolerate that type of a charge from that Member over there. I'd like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask that Member to withdraw that statement and to withdraw it without qualification and to withdraw it forthwith.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point of order made, I indicate to the Members that to impute that to any Member of the House should be withdrawn. The words "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" are all not parliamentary expressions and are so indicated in May.
But I point out to the Members that both sides have also on occasion — I think it's wrong myself — nonetheless attributed this to a party, not to the individual Members. I think it's wrong. I think that we obviously must debate with each other in this House. If that's so, we should confine our remarks to parliamentary debate.
MR. CHABOT: A point of order. I ask you to have the Premier withdraw the statement that members of this party are deliberately misinterpreting this Act. Unless you're doing to …
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. CHABOT: He said "members." I'm not talking about his latest statement — the one just about 30 seconds before. I think he should withdraw that. He knows he made that statement. Unless you're going to have that Member withdraw that statement, you'll find a lot more of those types of statements in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to see Members attributing that to either side. I ask the Hon. Premier if he indicates that that is intended to apply to the Members of this House.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my words
[ Page 1704 ]
were that the Social Credit Party has been hypocritical. Those were my words. If the Member is concerned, then I will withdraw my remarks with no condition attached.
I will make no comment whatsoever on the three-hour personal vilification we got from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who reduced herself to a level of debate that has not been equaled in this House in my particular memory.
Then we'll go to the statements of the former Premier of this province as reported in the Vancouver Sun about this bill. This is what the former Premier said in his attempt to provide leadership to the official Opposition. I quote from the Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1973:
"The Barrett-Stupich government is a big-stick government, You can see they're hungry for power, but the socialist menace is not yet triumphant. A rescue party is on the way — the Socreds."
That's all right for a politician. That's fair game.
But then he made the following statements as a consequence of this bill. I don't think these statements are worthy of any political leader in the Province of British Columbia. He said, "I tell all the farmers, businessmen, not to sign anything with the government." He's preaching anarchy, Mr. Speaker. But he has not made that speech in the House. He's made it outside in inflammatory conditions, deliberately scaled to inflame people's feelings against this Government, without having the nerve and the decency to make these charges in this House in front of the Members of this House.
What else does he go on to say? " 'We'll free you. We'll force an election with meetings like this.' Bennett warned the crowd not to accept any amendment to Bill 42, 'because the Government will just change it back after things have quieted down.' " The most disgraceful statement I have read in the paper from the man who was once Premier of this great province, telling people to ignore the law of the province because the politicians are too cynical and they'll change it anyway.
He's not once participated in this debate. He's been back here for weeks. He has yet to stand in his place as a duly elected Member of this House and state his party's position. But he has deliberately gone from village to village and town to town in an attempt to inflame people for negative political purposes. He hasn't had the sense of responsibility to come to this House where he's been elected and state his opposition in this House.
This is what he was counselling. This is what the former Premier was counselling on this bill.
" 'This bill must be withdrawn completely,' he said. Don't accept amendments. Have parades in Nanaimo. Have parades in Duncan. Demand an election immediately. There's no room for this foreign philosophy in Duncan. You must not allow the socialist menace to destroy freedom.' "
And while making that speech, his inflammatory remarks are a threat to our way of life in terms of parliamentary democracy.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a primitive pattern of politics by the former Premier who is on an ego trip because he is bitter, bitter, bitter over his electoral defeat last year.
Mr. Speaker, they've gone from hamlet to hamlet …
Interjections by some Hon. Members,
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. MR. BARRETT: They've had signs calling me Hitler.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order?
MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the speaker is staying to the principle of Bill 42. It's a deliberate attack on another political party; nothing to do with the principle of Bill 42. I'd like the Speaker to bring that Member to order.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the debate on Bill 42 has to do with the attitudes of each party and each spokesman of each party in this House. I can't restrain the present speaker from that course because every Member is supposed to comment on what every other Member says.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. Are you meaning to imply by that "Oh" that what you say is not amenable to any discussion in this House?
HON. MR. BARRETT: I have heard attacks; we have heard attacks on the Government as being the socialist menace. We have heard personal attacks on the physical appearances of the Members. That's a matter of record — under this debate, we've heard that.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I want to thank you, but that's got nothing to do with the debate. But, we have heard that kind of debate in this House. We have had a slanging match. We have had names hurled across the floor. We have not retaliated. And the first
[ Page 1705 ]
night we stand up and expose them for their phoney politics in this province, they get nervous, Mr. Speaker. They get nervous.
MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Point of order. Mr. Speaker, before, you've ruled out the word "phony." We hear it again.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the word "phony, " please?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word "phony." But we certainly have had evidence of their…
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I saw the television speeches of the Members of the Opposition on this bill. I saw their performances — yet to see the performance of the duly elected official Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) state his party's position in this House. Why isn't he here in this debate? Why isn't he here if he thinks this bill is such a menace to the people of British Columbia. Why hasn't he been here through the hours of the debate on this bill?
I won't use the word "phony," Mr. Speaker, let the record speak for itself. But let me tell you this; I have in my 13 years never witnessed anything as disgraceful as the attempt to whip up emotion, hostility and fear by the official Opposition in the last few weeks.
The Conservative leader has done nothing more than be a "me too" gang kid.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's not so.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, what is their respect for the Crown and for the parliamentary system when it comes to this bill? Look at the material that has come out of the official Leader of the Opposition's office with the seal of the Province of British Columbia on it.
You talk about knowing what responsibility is around the debate of a bill. You talk about knowing what tradition is. You talk about knowing what's in our own Constitution Act when it comes to using this seal, Mr. Speaker, and you have to wonder, Mr. Speaker — because right on this letter from W.A.C. Bennett, the official Leader of the Opposition, is an attack on the bill — that's fair enough, but at the bottom is "Join the Social Credit Party now" — on government stationery. Right on government stationery, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: They think it's all right. They think it's all right to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money writing on government stationery — flacking for a political party on government stationery. You haven't learned a thing. You did it when you were in government and now you are doing it when you are in Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, we come down to some of the statements made by other Members and we begin to witness this whole fabric come together — this whole maneuver that we thought was a great spontaneous rising of the ordinary citizens of British Columbia.
The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) got up in the House and read about Richmond, the letters he received. And where did they come from? From real estate offices. I tell you where I got some from…They didn't come from there, Mr. Member? You must fasten your seat belt for a moment, and I'll show you where they came from.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there were two firms that mimeographed these letters and mailed them to my office, and we checked the postage meter. The postage meter was out of Clearbrook Realty, 32082 South Fraser Way, Clearbrook, B.C. And then hundreds of letters were mailed out of Paris Realty, of Aldergrove. That's their postage meter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to say that here's the…
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I've had these letters and these are the ones that I am referring to. If the Members want to deny, then you just wait a moment.
Here's a letter here; it says:
"I wish to see this land freeze lifted immediately. This step taken by you and your government is an infringement on our freedom. If you are concerned about the future of British Columbia residents, you will have this freeze removed completely."
From a name and the address which I'm prepared to table in this House, and there is a photostat.
My office phoned the woman who signed this letter. This is a husband and wife who work for the same company — they both signed the letter. She said that two women came to their office and asked them to sign the letter, indicating it was to assist the farmers. The wife said she agreed with our policy and would not sign. The husband signed. The wife was amazed when we told her the letter was mailed out by a real estate company. She said that for sure if her husband had known it was mailed by a real estate company, he would not have mailed it. They didn't know who was behind it.
Now, when these names were being drawn up was anybody told? My friend, the Member for Richmond
[ Page 1706 ]
(Mr. Steves), did make these allegations.
I received this letter on my desk this morning. I say it's an honourable letter and I appreciate receiving it. But, if you don't believe that this campaign was going on, Mr. Speaker, then just listen to this letter. March 23, 1973:
"Dear Mr. Premier:
Dear Sir:
I am obliged to forward this apology to you for the actions that some of our employees have taken in using company facilities to let their feelings be known to you. I have given instructions that no further action of this nature be allowed in our offices and that our company does not approve of such behaviour.
We will take a public stand on government bills which affect the well-being of our province but only after we fully understand the amendments now being considered.
I therefore apologize to you and the Hon. David Stupich. We shall seek to understand your policies, and support such policies which will benefit the majority of the people of our province.
Sincerely yours,
Block Bros. Realty,
Henry Block, President."
The president of this company has seen fit to send this memo to his employees. He said to them:
"It has come to my attention that some of our sales people are sending protest letters to the government on Bill 42, and using company facilities in mailing such letters or petitions to Victoria. I request that such actions be stopped immediately."
The he goes on to say what he said in the letter.
I think that the most significant thing of all in this letter in relation to this bill, Mr. Speaker, is this sentence: "We will take a public stand on government bills which affect the well-being of our province, but only after we fully understand the amendments now being considered."
I'm going to write him back and tell him that the Opposition
has offered no amendments to this point, Mr. Speaker. Have you
any input at all into this problem?
I must say that I appreciate receiving this from Block Bros. Realty Company because it was this advertisement, first shown in the House by a Liberal Member and placed by the Block company some years ago, that accelerated the problem we're trying to cope with under Bill 42.
Here is an ad that they ran in California newspapers. This one appeared in the San Francisco Examiner in June, 1969. "British Columbia For Sale." The land promotion and the land sale industry was what put the pressure on our valuable farmland. What do other people say about this move made by this Government? Well of course, the planning institute is in favour of it. But after all, they're only the "airy fairy" planners, Mr. Speaker, that the former Minister of Municipal Affairs attacked. The Sierra Club — well, after all, they're only sentimental environmentalists. The United Church — well, after all, religion is one thing but business is business.
Mr. Speaker, there is a whole catalogue of people who have endorsed this bill and asked this Government to be thoughtful in listening to the Opposition and to provide some alternatives or amendments. The Opposition to this day, let it be recorded, has not placed one word on the order paper in terms of an amendment to this bill. All they want to do with it is play politics; not save the farmland of the Province of British Columbia.
They call it socialist — yell all you want — they call it socialist, Mr. Speaker. Oh, dangerous Marxian socialists! Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, they are somehow going to usurp the democratic responsibility that the people gave them to govern the province.
Let me read to you what has just been introduced in the past few weeks, Senate Bill 100 in the State of Oregon — led by a Republican senator. Republican — that's further right than the Liberal Party. That's pretty far right in itself.
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Premier is always exaggerating.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it all depends on which Liberal I listen to. (Laughter). But when I listen to that Liberal from Point Grey they're almost Republicans, Mr. Speaker.
What does this Republican say in his bill?
"This Act creates a Department of Land Conservation and Development, composed of a land conservation and development commission."
Some Republicans are going to have a commission. Even the Republicans have sold out to the commissars, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we now know the insidious plot uncovered by the Canadian Intelligence Service has found its way into the American body politic. There are the people who say, "Bring back Douglas MacArthur for president." (Laughter).
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and listen to what it does, this bill, this Republican bill. It designates areas and activities as critical state concerns and provides additional designations. It says it requires a commission subject to the approval of the Legislative Assembly to promulgate and implement statewide objectives and regulations for such areas and activities and statewide planning guidelines for all land use planning in the state.
This is a Legislative Assembly. We have been elected to govern, and if we pass a law, the way to defeat the law is not to go out on the streets and rabble rouse or rip up legislation, but to take political
[ Page 1707 ]
activity and build up your party to defeat this government. But you haven't done that because you are still crying over the fact that you lost, and one of the reasons you lost was because you didn't do anything about this kind of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the farmers. Well, I make a speech…What, my friend?
AN HON. MEMBER: Will you make your commission subject to the control of this Legislature?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Every single law passed in this province is subject to the control of the people of this province in a democratic election. And you know it, mister.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh yes. You don't like it, eh? I trust the people; and come next election, he'll be on the platform defending this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, you can do all right. You'll stand up, but I'll bet you right now, Mr. Member, that come the next election when they put that question to the candidate in West Vancouver–Howe Sound, "If you are elected will you do away with the land commission?" you know what his answer will be: "Well, I don't know; we've got that under consideration."
Come the next election there will be not one leader of one political party who will stand up and say, "Vote for me and we'll eliminate the land commission." Not one.
Interjections from some Hon. Members.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Once should be enough.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Ch, Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting to see those defenders of free enterprisers wile away and work away at what they want to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to your attention a submission made to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture on March 7, 1969. Now this is a submission made to the agriculture committee. Page 13 of this submission says as follows:
"Land Use Planning. We are becoming increasingly aware of the need for sophisticated methods of land use management. The Province of British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of resources other than farmland. Estimates of B.C. arable land range from 2 to 3 per cent of our total surface area. Some of this land is being alienated from farm use for indefinite periods of time without thorough inquiries as to alternate uses or alternate available land. Since such good farmland is in such short supply, it appears only reasonable that every effort should be made to save it for farm use.
"There are areas throughout the province that are of marginal benefit to farming and where possible non -agricultural needs characterized by highways and railway buildings and forestry requirements should be located."
Mr. Speaker, this is what they say:
"It is our suggestion that an agency or a commission be established to determine optimum land use and be authorized to enforce their recommendations."
"A commission be established and authorized to enforce their recommendations." And do you know who brought this in, Mr. Speaker? It wasn't the Liberal Party; it wasn't the Socreds; it wasn't even the Tories. Guess who wanted a land commission with teeth and with guts? Why, bless my soul, as the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) might say and take off his shoe and wave it around — this was submitted by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture in 1969.
The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture asked for a land commission to be authorized to enforce their recommendations. But they knew the Socreds were in and it would never happen.
Mr. Speaker, what is it that this debate really started all about? It started, in my opinion, because a desperate group of politicians were looking for an issue to slander this government in every possible way, by name-calling the individual Ministers and then by stressing or trying to say that we brought in a foreign ideology. It is the lowest form of politics that I have witnessed and the party that stands condemned most, other than the Conservative leader, for their behaviour against the whole parliamentary system, is the Social Credit Party and its leader, the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett).
We had cries of "dictatorship" from that Leader of the Opposition when we went through hour after hour and no closing hour at night. We had cries of "dictatorship" from that Leader of the Opposition when we had no daily Hansard.
AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?
HON. MR. BARRETT: We had cries of "dictatorship" from that Member when he governed and we had no question period. Every single attack he's made on this government, every single remark he's made on this government and this bill is a distortion of his own behaviour when he was Premier in this House and he isn't even here tonight to face the music for his behaviour.
[ Page 1708 ]
I have been charitable to that leader. On election night I paid him the respect that was due to him, but, oh, how the mighty have fallen and how he has taken that party down with him.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of this bill. I'm proud of its intent. We asked openly and honestly for people to help us and they have. And we were listening to their suggestions. But all we've had from the Opposition is cry, cry, cry. They're not really offering any solution to this problem. They are just continuing to be part of the problem and that's why we were elected because the people know you for what you are.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.
MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I can tell from the address of the Premier that he and his cabinet enjoyed their dinner there over at the Union Club. He came back in great form. Listening to the Premier this evening, why it reminded me of the days when he was the Leader of the Opposition because in those days he used to talk a lot about cheap politics. He was always witty then and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that his speeches at that time had no more substance than they had tonight.
Mr. Speaker, he did attack the Members of the Opposition as though the Members of the Opposition had been the architects of this bill.
AN HON. MEMBER: In no way.
MR. McGEER: He attacked the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) over the Skagit Valley, Mr. Speaker. Now how we could bring that into the land Act, I don't know. But, Mr. Speaker, I do remember this. I remember when the International Joint Commission came to British Columbia and I remember when people of goodwill in this province prepared their briefs for presentation to that International Joint Commission because this was the way, the mechanism which had been created for us to make our case and to have that Skagit Valley saved.
Mr. Speaker, there was only one politician with a responsible position in British Columbia who failed to appear before that commission, who boycotted it, and who had contempt for the law and for that commission, and that was the present Premier.
And for him having sold out the people of British Columbia when he was in Opposition and failed to appear on their behalf before the International Joint Commission, and to attack the one person who has led the battle to save the Skagit Valley is nothing less than an utter disgrace and he's shamed himself. He's shamed himself this evening, Mr. Speaker. He's shamed himself.
And I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: there are some Members of this House who have respect for the law and the courts and due process and know how to pursue the case in the courts when that's the vehicle that is open to them. And, Mr. Speaker, no one understands that better than the leader of the Liberal Party, who also was attacked by the present Premier.
When it came to protecting the shores of British Columbia, the leader of the Liberal Party had no way-out proposal — no way-out schemes. He went down to the courts of the United States and won his points in law. No one can stand in this House, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Liberal Party has no respect for the law or the courts or the proper responsibilities of this Legislature in regard to the law and the courts.
Then, Mr. Speaker, he spent a lot of time attacking a man who isn't even in this House, the leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, is the Premier frightened of that man, that he attacks him? He isn't voting on this bill, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: He's frightened of everybody.
MR. McGEER: And you know, attacking the Leader of the official Opposition — well, Mr. Speaker, he's retiring from politics.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): He should!
MR. McGEER: He said so. Why attack him? But I will say this, Mr. Speaker …
HON. MR. BARRETT: All you former leaders have the same syndrome. (Laughter).
MR. McGEER: Ah, Mr. Speaker, I'll be in this House when the Premier has left.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: when a Member of this House can deliver a 12-hour speech and be a hero, there's got to be something wrong with the legislation.
The Premier talked about cheap politics. Well, I can only say that it takes a thief to know a thief. If someone here is guilty of cheap politics, perhaps the man who talks about it more than any single individual in British Columbia would recognize it when it came along.
What other description could you give for the speech that was made this evening? Not a single defence of the substance of that bill; no reason or excuses given to those of you in the backbenches — and I'm going to say a little more this evening about your role — as to why you should stand and support the errors that the cabinet makes.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Always lecturing.
[ Page 1709 ]
MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, no lecture. I can give those at the University of British Columbia. What we're here to do is to defend the rights of individuals in British Columbia — the little men.
How often I heard those who sat in the Treasury benches defend the rights of the little man.
MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): All the little men in Point Grey.
MR. McGEER: "All the little men in Point Grey" — sure. They're just as good as everybody else in British Columbia. What we're supposed to do in this Legislature is defend the rights of individuals, whether they come from Coquitlam, Point Grey, Atlin or wherever else.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) nods. I know that he feels that deeply as an individual. He stood up, Mr. Speaker, and how he defended the rights of those on the land in the area that was to be flooded for the Libby Dam. You stood up for the rights of those people to be compensated. And the former Member for Kaslo-Slocan — how he stood up for the rights of the individuals along the Arrow Lakes to receive just compensation for their land. So did the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder) and the Members for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Macdonald and Hon. Mr. Williams) when they were in Opposition, Mr. Speaker. How they defended the rights of the individual to the worth of his land.
If it was going to be flooded for a dam; if it was taken away by the white men who never signed a treaty; no matter what way that man's land was taken — expropriation by the B.C. Hydro (it was never what the B.C. Hydro said the land was worth), or by those who were negotiating on behalf of the Columbia River Treaty, or by the white men who were expropriating the land for a railroad right-of-way. No. It was the right of the individual to claim the true market value of his land in the courts. Not by commissars, but in the courts — the real value of that land.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can understand the disbelief of those of us who shared Opposition benches and who admired those speeches. Mr. Speaker, we really did admire them. We thought they came from the heart and we thought the people who made those speeches would be the last ones in British Columbia to snuff out those rights with new and dictatorial laws. So, Mr. Speaker, we say, "Say it isn't so." We wish…
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General laughs his cynical laugh. I judge it is a cynical laugh. He sounded sincere before he became the chief law officer for the Crown, before he became the architect of bills that would have embarrassed your predecessors in that office. So they would. The former Attorney General never brought in Acts like this. They did bring in Acts.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Hear, hear!
MR. McGEER: "Hear, hear," says the Attorney General. Well I can't share his enthusiasm for taking away the rights of the individual.
AN HON. MEMBER: Or his cynicism.
MR. McGEER: Or his cynicism. Mr. Speaker, there's the story about the young groom who, it was suspected, hadn't been too faithful to his bride. The time came for the toast at the wedding and he said he wished he were an octopus. Someone said, "Well, why is that?"
He said he wished he were an octopus so he could have a thousand arms to embrace his bride. At this point she broke in and said she didn't think he needed a thousand arms because he wasn't using the two he already had.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government has two arms that it isn't using. The first of these was the legislation brought in in 1971 — the Environmental and Land Use Act. That's one arm to achieve the objective that the Government Members say is so important and which we on the Opposition side agree is important. The other arm, Mr. Speaker, is the Green Belt Protection Fund — cash on the barrel head. Pay the man what his land is worth. The dough is there and it's been set aside.
Those are the two arms, Mr. Speaker. It isn't necessary, with those two arms, to have 1,000 more with the Land Commission Act that denies a public hearing, that denies access to the courts, that denies fair compensation.
How proud the Premier was to say that he was going to visit the Queen at Buckingham Palace and to tell her all about the legislation in British Columbia. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that the legislation in British Columbia, denying British justice as it does, is an embarrassment to the Crown. It's all very well for the Premier to lay the clever suggestion that all the letters that all of us have received have somehow been engineered by Block Bros. salesmen and other real estate…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: "Right on," says the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden). Both his letters were from Prince Rupert.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I've made any public statements on Bill 42. I've given no speeches for or against. But I'll tell you this: the mail that I have received has been 96 per cent against Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, Point Grey is not a farming
[ Page 1710 ]
community. The overwhelming percentage of people who are there own single-family residential property or live in apartments. Yet over 96 per cent of those who take pen in hand to write their MLA, who has not taken a public position one way or another on this Act, have condemned it.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many letters?
MR. McGEER: Well, I'll make my complete file. They're there.
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the letters that the Attorney General and the Premier have received are many more than my own, But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that like mine, they're more than 96 per cent against this bill. If the Minister of Agriculture and you backbenchers here tonight are really honest, you'll stand up and admit that your mail too, is overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: Because Mr. Speaker, this bill is a turkey if there ever was one. So, Mr. Speaker, the question comes: what do you do? What do you do when a bill is brought forward that is really bad? How do you handle it? It's difficult, Mr. Speaker, very difficult for a Government to say that the Opposition is right and we're wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government's popularity has gone from 40 per cent to 22 per cent in the last two or three months. And part of that is this 96 per cent of people who are against the bill. Sure, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is panicky tonight because he doesn't know how to handle it either. He's brought a bill down…
MR. CHABOT: That's right.
MR, McGEER: That's wrong. It's wrong, completely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, there's a difference between being Leader of the Opposition and leader of a Government. When you're Leader of the Opposition, you can stand up and make these entertaining speeches and make the fine political points. I'll give the Premier credit, when he was Leader of the Opposition no one did it better. But, Mr. Speaker, it's a different story when you have to run a government, because decisions need to be made; legislation needs to be brought down; a position has to be defended — one, two, three, four, five.
When that position can't be defended, it isn't good enough to stand up and attack the Opposition and get off a few good lines. It isn't comedy hour for television; it's serious business to the thousands of people of British Columbia who are hurting right now because of the prospect of this Act. The arguments have been presented many, many times in this House that farmers can no longer raise the credit to plant their crops.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Name one bank that's refusing credit.
MR. McGEER: Well, they've been named in the House, and I don't propose…
HON. MR. BARRETT: They have not.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier again is deliberately trying to draw a fog over situations that everyone in this House knows have occurred.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.
MR. McGEER: They know the individuals. No bank is going to say that they've stopped giving credit for land. That's not the point. It's the individuals who need to borrow on the basis of the value of their land, when those values have disappeared.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: We're not here, Mr. Speaker, to defend the Royal Bank of Canada or any other bank. We're here to defend individuals and their property. Somehow that becomes unimportant here in British Columbia. The little man doesn't matter any more that those opposition people have become great big powerful Government cabinet Ministers. Drunk with power, you forgot the little people of British Columbia and there's a heavy penalty for that.
This, Mr. Speaker, is why I want to talk particularly to the backbenchers. Good, they're listening. This is one of those times, and there aren't too many, when the backbenchers become important because in a sense, you're the little people of the House.
I haven't been here this long, Mr. Speaker, not nearly as long as the Leader of the Opposition or some who sit with them, or indeed some of the NDP. But I've been here 10 years — perhaps too long, Mr. Speaker, and the public will certainly decide that when the next election comes along. But even in that brief period, many people have come and gone. There have been 68 of them.
Mr. Speaker, during that 10 years, the average lifetime of a Member of this House, backbencher, Opposition or cabinet Minister, has been less than four years. Believe it or not. So Mr. Speaker, time is fleeting for everyone in the House. The ones who have turned over the fastest, Mr. Speaker, have not
[ Page 1711 ]
been the cabinet Ministers. They haven't been the Opposition Members — though many of those have come and gone — the ones that have turned over fastest have been the Government backbenchers. You know, Mr. Speaker, the people who pay first for the mistakes of the cabinet are the backbenchers.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: Oh, yes. You know, Mr. Speaker, he did survive. He survived, and the Leader of the Opposition knows this, by trying backbench muscle. He had a riding created and he was on his way out. So if you want living proof of how to stay in this House, it's to use your power as a backbencher — and the Member for Columbia (Mr. Chabot) can give you advice on that.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: Don't be a yes-man.
MR. SPEAKER: You'll get back to the bill fairly soon, I hope.
MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely fascinating — redistribution always is. I'm certain, I'm really certain that if the individual Member for Columbia had been an NDP, he wouldn't have got to the Premier about redistribution in quite that way. But nevertheless, it does demonstrate that at critical times, the backbenchers, by using the great power that they have, can do themselves good. Perhaps too, along the way — and I'm not sure in the case of the Member for Columbia River that this applied — but to do the people of British Columbia good as well.
Why, Mr. Speaker, should these backbenchers become the victims for the mistakes of the Premier and the cabinet? Because when your popularity slips from 40 to 22 per cent, when 96 per cent of the mail is against the stand that the cabinet has taken, then it becomes time for you to have a very serious discussion in caucus. A very serious discussion in caucus.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that why they changed you as leader?
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I've said, the…
Oh, certainly, and they'll be changing him again soon. I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, they're either going to be changing leaders or they're going to be changing backbenchers.
There isn't any way the public of British Columbia is going to stand behind the Government and its supporters when the kind of legislation which denies the right of the little man is being brought into this House. And if there's one thing that stands supreme government after government, policy after policy, it's the rights of the little man.
When a Government is so big and so confident and so arrogant that it forgets that principle, the little man reminds that Government at the next election. How many backbenchers have been sacrificed, Mr. Speaker, on that cross?
So the time, Mr. Speaker, is now. I appreciate that before very long this evening, we'll come to a vote on this bill. Perhaps by now, some of you will be aware that I will be voting, with my colleagues in the Liberal Party, against the bill. But that doesn't mean that those who have no choice in the Government backbenches tonight, in their view, but to support this legislation — why they can't go to caucus tomorrow and give the cabinet the tanning of their lives and make them take this bill back and straighten it up. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that if you in the backbench don't take the cane to the cabinet, the public will take the cane to you.
There is no way the public of British Columbia will stand for dictation, whether it comes from the cabinet, a five-man commission or a seven-man commission. Their rights must stay supreme. And when all is said and done, what this bill boils down to is one thing: do we believe in the rights of the individual citizen in British Columbia or don't we believe in their rights?
Mr. Speaker, we believe in the rights of the individual British Columbian and that's why we'll be opposing this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.
MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's most appropriate that I rise at this particular stage in the debate, after receiving my lecture from the good doctor from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).
I will deal briefly with a few of the points that the good doctor has raised.
Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).
MR. LAUK: Alan's such a kidder. He says, "Why don't you deal with the bill?"
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Have you read it yet?
MR. LAUK: I'll tell you about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you about the backbench, my friend. That bill was before caucus and we went over it stage by stage before it hit the floor of this House. We support it 100 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
[ Page 1712 ]
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Resign! Resign! Resign!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. WILLIAMS: You'll never get into cabinet now, Gary. You blew it. (Laughter).
MR. McGEER: You won't even get Deputy Speaker.
MR. LAUK: All right, Neither will you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. LAUK: Mt. Speaker…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. LAUK: Are you finished?
AN HON. MEMBER: You are. (Laughter),
MR. LAUK: The lion. First Member for Point Grey stood up and talked about the Liberal leader and how terrible the attack was by the Premier on the Liberal leader, because this man defends our shores. The Liberal leader happens to be a member of a special committee of this House on oil spills and he hasn't attended one of their meetings.
AN HON. MEMBER: They've only had one.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many?
MR. LAUK: Two or three, I think. I was told by the Chairman.
The former Liberal leader has asked us to be honest in the backbench. He's asked us to tell about the letters we've received. Well I will be. I will admit that 40 per cent of the letters that I received were against the bill. I will say that 30 per cent were for the bill and that another 30 per cent were for the bill as long as it came with some amendments.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. LAUK: I have provided that information to other Members of the caucus and that has been discussed. I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our caucus reviews all policy. We don't in any way dictate to the cabinet, because…
Interjections by some Hon. Members,
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. LAUK: We caucus on all policy. Unlike the previous administration, which was a one-man government — and everybody knows about it — our caucus is involved in policy debate all the time.
Now I want to speak on the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I will emphasize I will speak on the principle of the bill…
AN HON. MEMBER: Order. (Laughter).
MR. LAUK: …although the Hon. Liberal leader this afternoon suggested that he wasn't opposed to the objectives of the bill but he was opposed to the principle of the bill. Well I think the Liberal leader is suffering from semantic stuttering. Because in my view there's no difference between the "principle" of the bill and the "objectives" of the bill. This form of mental gymnastics is the process that the Liberal Party is now going through to shift position.
If reminds me of the poor fellow on an ice floe. Eventually it melts and he sinks into the sea.
With respect to the principle of this bill, which is also the objective of the bill, I'll just read a little quotation from The Quiet Crisis by Stewart Udall of the United States. It's available in the library. He's quoting somebody else, Aldo Leopold, who says:
"We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect, "
California has about 8 million acres of arable land. 2 million of that arable land is now urbanized. We are told by the scientists in California that another I million acres of that arable land will be urbanized by 1980, making a total of 3 million, We also know that productivity in California and arable land or agricultural land in British Columbia is increased by the use of pesticides and fertilizers and other technology on the farm. We are told, recently — in the last 10 years — that these pesticides are polluting our land and sea, that soon we will not be able to use these methods to farm and produce fruits and vegetables for our population.
I'm not an eco-freak; I'm not a Chicken Little — I'm not going to tell you the sky is falling. But we are told that we have to abandon those practices in farming technology. But I'm not planning to ignore the facts of that and be a fool. I may choose to be a fool later on but at this time I do not, We are facing an ecological imbalance — on the one hand the encroachment of our agricultural land and on the other the pollution of our land and sea through pesticides. The productivity must slow down if we stop using pesticides; yet we must do so. Therefore the demand on agricultural land increases. It is another aspect of that spectre of a sad age that we're living in today.
We're told also that cities will continue to grow,
[ Page 1713 ]
and there's no evidence that they've ceased to grow — a collision course, as I say. An answer must be found.
There are four types of land: wet lands that have a great deal to do with our water systems; prime farmland; steep land, as they call it; and forest.
There's a fifth land that includes the other four really, and that's called space. It's a sort of new resource that people are paying a great deal of attention to.
One of the only things that I agreed about with the Hon. Member for South Peace River's (Mr. Phillips) lengthy speech was his reference to a computer to programme the kind of land use control and planning that we should have in this country of ours and in North America. We are faced with the possibility of solving these land use programmes in the face of pollution and demand on agricultural land through the use of computer planning. For example, one government wishes to build a highway. They can place in the computer information about how much wet land, forests, steep land and so on there is, and also the cost factors of building a highway from A to B and come out with the best possible route for the highway.
Space has become involved. With the use of satellites around the country we can determine what kind of land is better used in a particular way as opposed to another kind. Through infra-red photograph and spectrograph photography we can find out the nature of the land.
Let's stop the rhetoric about this bill and get to the issue itself, the nitty-gritty of it — the substance of it, I should say. If we can join together to solve this problem we'll be doing a service. The rhetoric and the polarization that's taking place is a disservice.
Survival is the issue, It's a theme that I use often in any speech that I give to this House. We must come down to a total land use plan. Further, we must change our attitude towards the future. If not I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be making the worst betrayal of a public trust in the history of our democracy.
We must look to new values in North America as well with respect to land. We must reach a new global equilibrium with respect to land use control, with respect to pollution and food production or growth will stop by disaster rather than by plan. In other words extinction.
The United States has 6 per cent of the world's population and they use 50 per cent of the world's resources. This is why they want a continental resources plan — not just an energy plan, a continental resources plan — and it is up to us to resist any continental domination by the United States. The more planned we are, the more able we will be able to resist that attempt at continental domination. That does not mean that we will resist cooperation — only domination. This debate in the House is a little debate, sort of a "Mad Hatter's tea party" compared to the question of our entire future.
With specific reference to the bill I can save that I am in favour of no compensation for up-zoning. The Hon. and learned Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) must know through his experience that it is a far-reaching principle indeed to suggest that governments should provide compensation for a decrease in value — up-zoning or down zoning, the same thing.
For example, in the City of Vancouver there are some aldermen who are suggesting that the city should receive 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the increased value in up-zoned property. My suggestion is that that is a big mistake. That is a big mistake because then they will be responsible for the recent down-zoning of the West End of Vancouver where they are planning to down-zone from high-rise to low rise — the amount of compensation paid there will be phenomenal. If you could work it out, be my guest; it is practically impossible. Other jurisdictions have tried it in the United States, and it has failed. You can't give compensation at those kinds of rates. The taxpayer can't afford it and the principle is wrong.
Briefly before concluding, I can't help but comment on the role of the official Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. The role he has played, refusing to debate this bill in the House himself, personally …
MR. McCLELLAND: The debate's not over yet.
MR, LAUK: Is he going to speak? I won't continue with that . . .
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. LAUK: Is he going to speak? If he doesn't speak in this House, it will be really a shame, Mr. Speaker, because he has gone all over this province polarizing the people of this province against this bill on the wrong issues. He has sort of become B.C.'s Jean Shrimpton. He has led the Chicken Little parade all over the province, expecting people to follow him — they soon get wise to that kind of activity, Mr. Speaker. I more or less expected it from the former Premier, because that has been his tactic for some time, but the biggest disappointment I had was in the Progressive Conservative leadership. I could not believe the display I have seen in the past few weeks on his part. I know the two Hon. Members in this House who represent that party must be embarrassed at his activities, pretending to be the protector of human rights.
Let me tell you about another Tory. The Premier read the telegram in this House, but I have known the Hon. T.G. Norris for many years. He has been a Tory
[ Page 1714 ]
for as long as I can remember. I'll tell you something else - the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) know full well that his reputation in this country for protecting civil and individual rights is beyond question. He is a leader in the protection of those rights and he said in that telegram that he unqualifiedly supported the Land Commission Act. What kind of credence does the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party glean from that?
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. LAUK: This Alberta lawyer. The Tory who I want to listen to, Mr. Speaker, is T.G. Norris, who has been in this province most of his life, and not to that Alberta lawyer who is advising people not to invest in this province and running around with the Leader of the Opposition's Chicken Little parade.
Getting back to the principle of the bill…
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. LAUK: Thank you very much. I'll just close my remarks by reading the last paragraph in The Quiet Crisis. It is really a good book. I recommend it to everyone. He said:
"We can have abundance and an unspoiled environment if we are willing to pay the price. We must develop a land conscience that will inspire those daily acts of stewardship which will make America a more pleasant and more productive land.
"If enough people care enough about their continent to join in the fight for a balanced conservation programme, this generation can proudly put its signature on the land. But this signature will not be meaningful unless we develop a land ethic. Only an ever-widening concept and higher ideal of conservation will enlist our finest impulses and move us to make the earth a better home both for ourselves and for those as yet unborn."
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to start off by saying that I enjoyed the Premier of the province's remarks earlier this evening. I would remind him that it was a great performance but the Academy Awards are tomorrow night and he is too late to qualify to get one of them for tomorrow night. He did put on quite an act but he can't get in to qualify on that.
AN HON. MEMBER: If he had qualified he would have gotten one.
MR. FRASER: I would like also to say that I was certainly in the House to face the music, as the Premier said, about his attack on us. I am pleased I was here. I would like to say for our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, that he has been here for 31 years and he is now one of the most respected citizens in this province, and I don't like for one minute the attacks from the present Premier on him. He has, no doubt, done more for this province than the present Premier will ever do if he lives to be 150 years old.
MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Positively or negatively?
MR. FRASER: The other thing that the Premier mentioned in his attack on us, was to accuse particularly our party of the demonstration that was here, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is not the case. That was concerned citizens here from all walks of life. How in the world could one party ever entice a group like that here? They were a very organized and civilized group, only trying to get a message across and input to the Minister of Agriculture about Bill 42. You people well know that, too.
I want now to talk about a few things about the Municipal Act that have been mixed up with Bill 42 and their relationship to it. In particular, tonight the Premier again referred to the Municipal Act and particularly section 7 (e) of the Municipal Act. He quoted that, but he didn't say that that only applied to the lower Fraser Valley. The reason for section 7 (e) in the Municipal Act was the expressed wishes of the municipalities involved along the Fraser because of changes in the river itself which made boundary determination difficult. He didn't say that but he tried to infer — I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, when he spoke earlier.
In all his hysteria, I wish he would tell the whole story rather than just part of it. I don't like to hear him referring to the Municipal Act and only just the sections that he feels like as it pertains to Bill 42. It is quite interesting to watch the Hon. Premier before supper and since supper; he seems to be in a state of hysteria now over Bill 42 and the criticism coming from all sides of the Opposition.
He talks about amendments always coming after second reading. In the British parliamentary system this isn't the way it works — we know that. Probably if you would tell us now and before it goes into committee stage, why, we would take another position. But in effect all we are doing now is signing a blank cheque, in voting for the principle of the bill, the way it is.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that in my riding of Cariboo there are 40,000 square miles of land and in the riding of Cariboo there are less than 40,000 people. In other words, there is less than one
[ Page 1715 ]
person per square mile. While we are certainly interested in all land, we haven't got a particular problem that you have in the lower mainland — I realize that. But they are certainly concerned about all aspects of land there. I might say that nobody, I think, in British Columbia is opposed to the preservation of farmland, but we are certainly opposed to the method of approach that is shown here in Bill 42.
I had something told to me today that I think is quite applicable here and that is the definition of a citizen, in the dictionary. I will read it to you:
"A citizen is a member of a state; a person, native or naturalized, of either sex who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it. A citizen, as such, is entitled to the protection of life, liberty and property."
That's right in Webster's dictionary, Mr. Speaker. This Bill 42 takes the rights of citizens away from them and they could well become serfs of the state. I think this is one of the big principles in the bill that is causing so many problems.
My particular interest in this bill is the municipal side of it and what it does to municipal and regional districts and the local authorities. For your information, Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of a community in British Columbia for 20 years. I was in on the rewrite of the Municipal Act that we're looking at in 1957. The government of that day rewrote the Municipal Act and got input from all the elected people at the elected level at that time. Being in on the rewrite of the Municipal Act there's definitely been many amendments since I think I state with some knowledge what is in that Act as it pertains to Bill 42, The Minister of Agriculture talks about amendments. Well, I say to him through you Mr. Speaker, where are the amendments? He's saying that he's had no input from us, but he certainly has, We've had 10 days of it here. I hope that he's listening, through you Mr. Speaker. There's definitely been lots of input.
I now want to proceed to the part of the Municipal Act as it pertains to Bill 42. The reason I'm doing this is because the Hon. Premier has referred to it. Mr. Speaker, anyone familiar with the checks and balances of the Municipal Act and has any experience in working with it, which I have had, can testify to the fact that the checks and balances of the Municipal Act are quite different from those presented by the Premier to the thousands of residents in British Columbia when talking on a hotline programme recently.
Of all the people in British Columbia, the Premier of this province should know what's in the Municipal Act. Since he was elected, there have been no — and, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, no — divisions on the reading of the Municipal Act in this Legislature on its principles. Mr. Speaker, what are the principles involved with the zoning procedures in the Municipal Act as it exists today?
Number one: the checks and balances of public hearings, which don't appear in Bill 42. Two: the checks and balances of appeal procedures, Mr. Speaker, which don't show up in Bill 42. Number three: the checks and balances that compensation must be paid when land is sought for public use. This exists in the Municipal Act today but it is not in the proposed Bill 42, Mr. Speaker. Four: the checks and balances would strictly require advertising procedure for zoning. Nowhere in Bill 42 are any of these provisions provided for that already are the law of this province through the Municipal Act.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Municipal Act was designed to represent fair play and equity. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier opposite — perhaps deliberately but, more charitably, through a lack of understanding — presented quite a different view of the Municipal Act and suggested that really, the powers contained in the land commission bill were no different from those contained in the Municipal Act, and therefore should be swallowed without question by the public of this province.
Let's examine, Mr. Speaker, the first deviation of the Premier from the principles of the Municipal Act, which he suggests are the same as those contained in the land commission bill. Presumably, he read section 706, which clearly says, "Property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of a zoning by-law under this Division…."
What he tried to say to the people of the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, was the right conferred on the land commissioners to designate land was the same power of zoning which is contained in the Municipal Act. Mr. Speaker, he was 100 per cent correct. Let us not kid the people of this province. Designation by the land commission and zoning by a local government are, in fact, exactly the same power. However, Mr. Speaker, willfully or otherwise, the Premier neglected to say that section 706 also states in clear English language that subsection (1), which he quoted, does not permit the municipality to take or zone land if the use is a public one, What does the subsection say, Mr. Speaker? It says: "Subsection (1) does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use." How important that section is in relation to the Land Commission Act becomes even more credible when the land commission proposes to act not only in the public interest by preserving certain classes of land, but only presumes to operate in the private sector by having the sole discretion to subsequently sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land designated or, if you like, zoned.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this legislation with no checks and balances permits zoning power to be exercised without reservation, without checks and
[ Page 1716 ]
balances and without the principle of compensation being applicable. Mr. Speaker, nobody can read the Municipal Act and come to the conclusion that the Premier came to on the hotline programme a week ago Friday, I believe it was.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. FRASER: Yes, and again in this House tonight.
No wonder, Mr. Speaker, we think this bill is sinister. Let's go further in the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker. It's difficult to believe that the Premier of this province read section 706 and can only see subsection (1), without having read the preceding sections having to do with the zoning power or, if you like, the power to designate.
Section 702, subsection (2) clearly states the ground rules for the actions on municipal councils. It says very clearly that before any exercise of the zoning power, a municipal council shall — not "may", Mr. Speaker, "shall" — have due regard to a principle of very specific checks and balances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, read these checks and balances in the context of the power which Bill 42 seeks to confer on the faceless five-man commission:
They can zone for one use and immediately put the land zone into another use, again under such terms and conditions as the commission may determine.
Mr. Speaker, does the Premier really want the people of British Columbia to believe that the Municipal Act of this province is really the land commission bill dressed up in another suit? I don't think so. It's pure camouflage, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go to the disposal powers conferred by the land commission bill and relate these to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Does the Government opposite really want the people of this province to believe that a municipal council could literally take land for park purposes and subsequently sell it without any checks and balances? Does the Government opposite really believe that the Municipal Act permits that now?
Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Act certainly does not. It requires again the whole system of checks and balances involved with public hearings, tender call procedures, advertising procedures and the very real impact that local opinion can have on any government which is as close to the people as a municipal government is. For your information, Mr. Speaker, in 20 years I have chaired probably 500 public zoning hearings. I can tell you that the local people can really get to you. That's the way it should be.
First, second and third readings of municipal bylaws are part of the checks and balances system. But, Mr. Speaker, if you read the division of the Municipal Act concerned with the acquisition and disposal of property, you will find that a council may, subject to the restrictions in this Act, acquire property. What are the restrictions, Mr. Speaker? The restrictions are that fair compensation must be paid.
Under the Municipal Act a council may dispose of property, But when the council has reserved land for a public purpose, what does section 467 (2) say? In the clear language of the English tongue, it says: "Any reservation which may have been placed upon land pursuant to subsection (1) may be removed by a bylaw adopted by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Council." Furthermore, it states that the Lieutenant-Governor may direct that the owner-electors of the municipality affected shall have a vote.
When in the past has the Lieutenant-Governor always asked for a vote on a question of disposal of land? He asked all this when a petition of the local residents shows him that even with the two-thirds vote of the council the residents themselves don't like the deal and want to have the opportunity to vote on it.
Compare, Mr. Speaker, those provisions with the Land Commission Act. Anyone who tries to tell the people of British Columbia to "cool it," "don't be hysterical," "it is really something that we have always done," is simply not telling the facts, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, even when council seeks to lease land there are severe restrictions under section 477. For example, under this section there can be no lease offered which does not permit renegotiation after the expiration of a 10-year period and every 5 years thereafter. There can be no subletting. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Act does not permit the willy-nilly leasing of land with a restriction as does the Land Commission Act.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, in instance after instance the Government has tried to belabour the point that the powers of the Municipal Act and the powers of this non-elected five-man commission are one and the same.
Mr. Speaker, this is simply untrue.
Mr. Speaker, on February 16…
[ Page 1717 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: The man doesn't even know the Municipal Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know where to find it.
MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on February 16 the Minister of Agriculture sent a directive to all municipal clerks, regional district secretary-treasurers, approving officers in all municipalities and regional districts of this province, with reference as to how to carry out and work with the land freeze that had been put in. Because believe me, Mr. Speaker, this was put in in December and all the regional districts, and their officers and servants — the same as the municipalities — even since December, don't know what to do about zoning applications. The whole province is almost at a standstill now. But they made it quite clear in this February 16 bulletin from the Minister of Agriculture that the Minister well knew that there was certainly confusion at the local level, with the local people having no further say.
The bulletin was put out and paragraph "E" of that bulletin said this, Mr. Speaker: "Where, without these orders-in-council a subdivision will not have been approved, the approving officer's explanation" — and they're now hearing this, the Minister's saying this in this information directive — "for rejecting or not approving a subdivision should include every reason for taking the action and not give undue stress to the order-in-council."
What they're saying, Mr. Speaker, there is, "Pass the buck on the local people, but don't pass the buck on the Minister of Agriculture," who actually ordered this order-in-council.
Big deal for local control. Open government. People's government — and writing local elected officials things like that.
I would now like to read into the record a few things from an article that I thought was very pertinent to Bill 42 and deals with all Bill 42, actually. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I'll quote a few things from the article:
"Why for a start does the government apparently assume that nobody else can be trusted to manage the land? People close to the situation ask where the government obtained the mandate for invasion into private land ownership, local zoning, local planning and control of land use.
"No such mandate was sought during last summer's election campaign, but in spite of an outcry since Bill 42 was introduced in the Legislature February 23, the Minister of Agriculture continues to insist on ramming it through to see how it works for a few months.
"Only after incredible damage is done does the Minister contemplate the possibility of entertaining amendments.
"Why does the Minister demand these immediate and strict powers without providing checks, balances and adequate appeals? Why would the cabinet appoint an insulated landlord commission answerable only to the cabinet, which can override local and regional planners and elected officials who are sensitive and responsive to the needs and the peculiarities of their communities?
"Where is the mandate to punish communities for the excesses of a few? If the cabinet's sole purpose is to preserve farmland, why did municipal affairs Minister Jim Lorimer launch a provincial programme of residential land acquisition behind the smokescreen of Stupich's Land Commission Act T'
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you can't say stupid.
MR. FRASER: I didn't say "stupid" — I said "Stupich."
HON. MR. MACDONALD: You said "stupid."
MR. FRASER: You said "stupid." (Laughter).
"Two days before the Act was introduced, why did Lorimer write to all the mayors of the B.C. municipalities asking them to sell municipally-owned residential land to the provincial government? Lorimer even asked the mayors to suggest land not owned by the municipality 'which you consider we should purchase for the provincial land acquisition programme."'
And he is, Mr. Speaker, probably looking for more land at $82,000 an acre — I don't know.
"Why are class 4 soils included in the freeze when many properties with class 4 soil are small upland acreages that have never been farmed and would be impossible to farm economically? Why does the government give a windfall of profit to the subdivisions already approved and under construction before the freeze, while undermining the values of all farm and potential subdivision lands? Why is the government allowing holdouts and windfall profits on prime residential land and even trying to buy in on the deal itself, while refusing compensation to the rural victims of this policy who suddenly lost their profit expectations?
"Why does Stupich claim that bright young farmers will rush in and take over these depressed lands with no profit outlook as soon as the tired old crocks can be swept off the land?
"Can he turn B.C. Into China? State-controlled farming works in some communist countries where 90 per cent of the population is rural and has nowhere else to go. "But, Mr. Stupich, how are
[ Page 1718 ]
you going to keep them down on the farm in B.C.? "In other western countries centralized control over agriculture has resulted in higher consumer prices and poorer returns to producers. This existing gap will be further aggravated if the Land Commission Act becomes law in its present form."
Mr. Speaker, I now go back to other remarks of the Premier earlier in the evening, where he asked what banks have refused credit. Well, I have no proof of that, but I'll read from this article again about credit:
" Financial credit experts point out that a farmer holding an agreement for sale of his property is certainly holding much reduced security against the payment that has been promised by the purchaser. Anyone with a large participation of farmland mortgage loan that is otherwise unsecured is also holding doubtful security against the loan.
"Purchasers with small equities in frozen properties could just walk out and leave the lenders holding the bag. Unfortunately, it is mostly small lenders, not banks and trust companies, that are jeopardized by the loss of mortgage security. This is because the big financial lending institutions have traditionally avoided loans that count on repayment from land speculation but have always looked for their return from the productivity of the farm."
"By shutting the door on developers and speculators, the government is hurting the man in the street and the man on the farm, while making a few people very rich. Among those who will become very rich is the government itself, if it buys land for development."
I want to go back again, Mr. Speaker, to my opinion as one MLA in this province of Bill 42 as it relates to the local level of government. I'm quite incensed about the taking of all the power of control of land away from municipal councils and also regional districts, who really had control of everything throughout the province — every square inch of land. Whether or not this government, Mr. Speaker, thinks they're an irresponsible group — and they've said this, in effect — I don't agree with that for one minute.
We have around 140 municipal councils in this province and we have 28 regional districts. As in anything else in this world, Mr. Speaker, you have good and bad. But in my opinion, the majority of these dedicated local elected people have done a good job.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under Bill 42 the government comes along and says that five unnamed, faceless men can do a better job than the 140 municipal councils and 28 regional districts which comprise around 1,000 responsible citizens in this province. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't add up; it doesn't make sense. It never will to me and I don't buy it for one minute.
We sure had problems in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, prior to the regional districts coming into this province in 1965. We had municipal councils and we had the provincial government in Victoria looking after all the rest of the land from their big high offices in Victoria. With the regionalization of this province, it took the rural land back into the hands of the local elected people through the regional districts.
Mr. Speaker, those NDPers over there get up all the time and decry the regionalization of this province in 1965. I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that that passed this Legislature in 1965 by a vote of 55 to nothing. They campaigned last year that regionalization was a bunch of garbage but they didn't tell the people that they voted to regionalize this province in 1965. Just check the record and you'll find that yourself.
As far as the 140 municipal councils and the 28 regional districts are concerned, I will say that over 75 per cent of them have regional plans now. Where are they? Well, I've been trying to tell them to burn them — out the window. They spent millions of dollars in developing them. Now the land commissioners can tell them, "We're not interested in listening." And they will tell them. Their regional plans are out the window; their local zoning plans are out the window under Bill 42. You all know it over there, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to read a letter into the record, Mr. Speaker, from one of the more responsible groups in this province. It's dated March 14, from the British Columbia Cattlemen. It's a copy of a letter sent to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). It says as follows:
"Members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, after thorough study of the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, found it unacceptable in its present form."
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. FRASER: And they're not a bunch of real estate people. These are the solid people of this province. Every cattleman in this province belongs to this organization, whether he's got two tired roosters or 5,000 head of Herefords.
AN HON. MEMBER: Roosters aren't cattle.
MR. FRASER: Well, one of your Members got up yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and said he was a farmer because he owned two tired roosters. Oh yes, and 12,000 hens. Pardon me.
Anyway, back to the B.C. Cattlemen:
"This association was concerned about preservation of agricultural land for some years now and presented proposals to this effect."
This is quite correct, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 1719 ]
"After meeting with the Minister on January 10, 1973, our delegation felt that you were developing an understanding of our problems and there were grounds to feel optimistic. Bill 42 in its present form makes us wonder if we were talking the same language."
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Minister again was not listening.
"The Land Commission Act is undemocratic and does not provide assurances to ranchers on the use of Crown resources such as range and water. The bill is undemocratic because it does not provide for the following: 1. Majority members of the commission to be appointed from nominees provided by agricultural interests. 2. Public hearings before designation of land use. 3. Appeals from commission decisions to the courts. 4. Compensation for lost land values at the time of sale. 5. Notice to landowners about designation of land use. 6. Recording of designated changes in land registry records. 7. Continuation of agricultural operations when land is designated for other uses.
"As was explained" and this is the secretary writing to the Minister "to you at our meeting of January 10, guarantees of continued use of Crown range for grazing and water for domestic and irrigation purposes is vitally important to every ranch in our province and must be provided for. Beef production requires long-term planning. Therefore, grazing and water needs have to be assured on a long-term basis, not with annual permits as it is at present.
"Our association fully supports the amendments to the Land Commission Act presented to the B.C. Government by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. These amendments must be implemented in total to make it acceptable to the members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association."
It's signed, "Yours truly, Henry Blazowski, Secretary-Manager." You all got a copy of that letter.
It leads me to another subject, Mr. Speaker, on land. I refer to Crown land. Approximately 94 or 95 per cent of this great province's land is already owned by the Crown and 5 or 6 per cent — they argue back and forth — is in private hands. In the case of Crown lands, the government of the day, whoever they might be, already have a lot of ways to effectively control the land.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, through you Mr. Speaker, and preferably to the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Williams), who never spends any time in this House, what is going to happen to the Lands Branch in this province under this land commission bill? They're gone; they're out of business. I say they've done a good job and still are doing a good job. I would also like to know if the Lands Branch of this Government was consulted on the writing of this Act. Before you answer me, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they weren't asked.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people concerned about this. That is the reason the Premier got in his hysteria tonight. He knows; he's getting the message through. We've got to keep reminding him and maybe he'll do something about withdrawing this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Here's another letter that comes from the Cariboo Regional District. It's headed up, "Constructive Criticism of Bill 42 and Action Proposed." Yes, I'm going to read most of it.
"The Cariboo Regional District board of directors have in previous statements expressed strong opposition to the proposed Land Commission Act. The board of directors agree with the principle of preservation of agricultural…. ."
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on, right on.
MR. FRASER: Call those noisy Members to order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to. Order, please.
MR.FRASER:
"…However, careful study of the Land Commission Act finds that the manner in which the provincial government intends to deal with the matter is completely unacceptable for the following reasons:
"The proposed land commission is a body comprised of non-elected individuals having extraordinary powers of designation and acquisition of any land or private property for farm use, green belt, land banks and parkland.
"The board of directors feel that if there is to be a commission, such should be comprised of members of local government, somewhat along the lines of a board of variance whereby two representatives are appointed by the local government, two appointed by the provincial government and one other appointed by the other four appointees."
That's a real sane approach to this problem.
"Such a commission should only be advisory to the provincial government and, prior to making any recommendation, should be required to consult with and receive input from the appropriate local government agency."
In other words, any municipality or regional district. "The bill does not allow specifically for compensation to be paid for the acquisition of land or property, and this could apply to any land or property in British Columbia. We feel that it is enough to say that whenever an individual's basic right of ownership of land is tampered with, compensation should be his expected right.
[ Page 1720 ]
"Here it is suggested that where agricultural land is proposed to be sold by the owner for non-farm use, the provincial government should have the first right of refusal to be the purchaser at a fair market price. Such could also apply to all other lands which may be of interest for park reserve, green belt reserve or land bank reserve. This alone would give the provincial government sufficient control to preserve lands felt to be of sufficient value to preserve for agriculture or other uses.
"Land designated as agricultural land must be farmed and no other uses permitted. Here the regional board can see no reason why the present practice of the farmer-rancher supplementing his income through development of low-density tourist accommodation, campsites, et cetera, or forestry endeavours such as post plants, should not be allowed. We are sure it is a well-known fact that other individuals are able to supplement their income through home occupations which are allowable in certain zoning classifications.
"There is no right of appeal for any decision of the commission regarding the designation, acquisition or use of land. The regional board very strongly agrees that there must be individual rights to have provision for an appeal."
And so they go on.
In all the local papers up country, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of suggestions. I know that the Government is looking at that. I'd like to read one from the Cariboo Observer, my home town paper; it's dated March 21. These are the comments of a citizen on this:
"The proposed Land Commission Act will take precedence over the Land Act and the Land Registry Act, which have generally been regarded as senior legislation in the statutes of British Columbia.
"The Act places an enormous and unwarranted power in the hands of a few men."
Here we go again.
"It removes the rights of municipalities and regional districts to plan and administer lands within their jurisdiction. The Act also gives this commission the right to grant tax incentives or the freedom not to pay taxes, which is really the right of the legislative body only.
"Last but not least, the Act arbitrarily removes the democratic rights of private owners in their land and property and gives them no recourse of appeal. Not only can it remove the rights of owners; it can also arbitrarily remove any investment which they might have realized in their property.
"The exercise of personal initiative and the energy resulting from the activity of free enterprise constitute the life force of any dynamic society. These unique qualities are deeply rooted in the personal ownership of land and property. If you remove the roots, you will kill the blossom.
"So, from my analysis, I can only conclude that you must totally withdraw Bill 42 from the Legislature."
Then he goes on to give ideas about withdrawing it and rewriting it.
Now I'd like to move on to another party of British Columbia. It quite amazes me to see rural MLAs here not standing up and saying something.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. FRASER: You sure have had lots of chance and you'll have lots more chance as this week goes on.
There is so much criticism of this Act; in my 24 continuous years in public life, I've never seen as much mail and controversy over any one subject, Apparently the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is either not reading his mail or what, I don't know, but the other day 1, the Member for Cariboo, got in the mail — and I appreciate this — a copy of a petition signed by 270 farmers in the riding of Omineca urging the Minister of Agriculture to stop Bill 42. I have them all here, Mr. Speaker — their names, their addresses and everything. There are 270 signatures. They sent it to me and asked me if I would bring it to the attention of the House because they're pretty sure their own Member wouldn't do it.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. FRASER: If the Member wants to know who it is, I'll tell him. It came from the Sunkut Mountain Cattlemen's Association at Vanderhoof. They're all solid citizens of the riding of Omineca. Why isn't that Member up here pitching for them and their opposition to the bill?
They don't support Bill 42 for these reasons. They want: nominees for commission board appointments; the right to appeal commission decisions; compensation for confiscated lands; public hearings for designating land use; independent appraisals. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, there it is with their names and addresses. There's nothing to hide. They aren't real estate rip-offers. They're all citizens of that great part of our province.
I want to bring out another point that I don't think has been brought out here before. In one section of Bill 42 the bill is so poorly written that it refers to a bill that doesn't even exist in the statutes of this province, Mr. Speaker. I refer to section 20 of Bill 42, subsection (1), where it says: "This Act is subject to the Environment and Land Use Act and the Pollution Control Act, 1967 and the Environmental Protection Act," Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 1721 ]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's that?
MR. FRASER: It doesn't exist in this province but this Act refers to it. I think if we've got a real honest reliable lawyer anywhere, even if this bill were passed, I think it would be ultra vires anyway, or whatever you call it.
Mr. Speaker, I've referred to the municipal leaders of this province before but I will again. They are represented by a provincial organization called the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I was a member of that organization for 10 or 12 years and I know they usually act responsibly. Again, they represent 140 municipalities and the 28 regional districts.
They've gone to no end to try and get a message to this Government, Mr. Speaker — right directly to the Premier and also to his Minister of Agriculture. They've had meetings here and the present president of it has come down here on his own to see the Premier after those meetings. I want to read into the record what they suggest, because I regard them as a highly responsible group who represent roughly 1,000 duly elected people at the local level of this province. This is what they say:
"(1). That existing municipal and regional district planning, zoning and expenses which have already been approved" - and I mentioned this earlier — "following public hearings and which are contained in community and regional plans, be allowed to stand. For this purpose, many have received cabinet approval and such earlier approval should indicate their continuing validity.
"(2). That municipal and regional district planning for future land use, through the media of community and regional plans, be encouraged and, subject to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor — in-Council, be recognized as expressing the knowledge and, more important, the wishes of the community or area concerned.
"(3). That the proposed legislation contain provisions for the commission to be required to hold public hearings prior to decisions being made which designate land.
"(4). That the bill should not be debated in the Legislature until the proposed Environmental Protection Act referred to in section 20 has been introduced."
Just what I said earlier; it doesn't even exist. I don't know who drafted this bill but I've got a rough idea.
"(5). That the approval of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council required by section 8 (a) prior to the designation of agricultural land should be made applicable to all categories of designation referred to in this section.
"(6). That compensation should be paid when land is designated as parkland and compensation should be considered in all other cases where the
new designations adversely affect value.
"(7). That any person dissatisfied with the designation of this land should be entitled to require that it be purchased by the commission at its fair value.
"(8). That where lands are purchased or acquired by the commission but such lands are unoccupied or leased, where the lessees do not pay taxes, a grant in lieu of such taxes are hoping that it won't go through. I'd just like to read an excerpt now from regional district concerned."
They further wish to state their objections to certain particular provisions contained in the bill:
"(A) The commission is an appointed body which, although responsible to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and the Legislature, is still not elected by the determination of the people of British Columbia.
"(B). The commission is empowered to make, place or construct, et cetera, such capital improvements as it wishes on any commission land, presumably without reference to any local building or other bylaw which is in effect.
"(C). The commission is empowered to purchase or otherwise acquire land on such terms and conditions as the commission may deem advisable. In our opinion, this provision is tantamount to a power of expropriation.
"For the reasons stated throughout this unavoidably limited brief, and particularly because of the great impact that Bill 42 will have on the lives of every person in this province, we urgently request that you delay its implementation until its effects can be fully understood, not only by local government but by all the citizens of British Columbia."
Mr. Speaker, I've had hundreds of letters myself as an MLA from my own riding and other parts of the province on this bill, as I said earlier. They still keep pouring in because the bill is still here. The citizens are hoping that it won't go through. I'd just like to read excerpt now from a paper from the lower mainland. It's not one of the large Vancouver dailies, but I think it is certainly applicable in this situation:
"The present Bill 42 does nothing really to keep land in farming. Perhaps the provincial government has a companion piece of legislation which it has not unveiled indenturing the farmer to the soil. Down through the centuries that has been the solution of all types of government when face with this same problem.
"In modern times nothing as crude as a system of serfs could be set up, but the same political result can be achieved by establishing the state as holder of nearly all land and bringing economic pressure on the independent farmer. Then you end up establishing the state as holder of nearly all land and bringing economic pressure on the
[ Page 1722 ]
independent farmer. Then you end up with state collective farms with the farming community as non-owner labourers and technicians.
"These powers are included in Bill 42. As for economic pressure on the individual farm owner, there are strong indications that our present provincial government is determined to kill off independent commercial farming by this Bill 42." I now would like to read a few letters. But I'll read first from an article from another small paper in the lower mainland. This goes back a little, Mr. Speaker:
"Premier Dave Barrett today promised province-wide public hearings to discuss and put forward amendments to the controversial Land Commission Act. He said there would be an appeal procedure written into the Act, but refused to elaborate. In an interview in Victoria on the CJOR open-line radio show the Premier said: 'It would be unfair and unparliamentary for me to tell you the exact nature of the appeals without the House hearing them first.' "
Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, we're listening. Where are they? We haven't heard them yet, either. You're in the House. You spoke earlier. Why didn't you say something about it?
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. FRASER: I imagine we're to hear them from outside.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a letter from a resident of my riding who has had the fortune or misfortune to come from Holland to this country a few years ago and establish himself in the great Province of British Columbia.
AN HON. MEMBER: It was a free province then.
MR. FRASER: And he came here and he took out his Canadian citizenship papers. He says here:
"Dear Alec:
Thank you very much for your letter received. These two Acts remind me so much of what happened in Europe just before and during the last World War for which thousands of young Canadians left their lives on those battlefields. The free world wanted to get rid of everything that ended with 'isms' — like 'Nazism', 'Fascism', et cetera.
Now, lo and behold, young and old Canadians voted for a new kind of 'ism' — socialism. The Insurance Act as well as the land Act are things I have seen happen before. I still feel sick when I think back to those years, and now again, but I am afraid that only an outright revolution will do away with it.
"Soon we will not be allowed to own firearms either. I have experienced that, too. Wait and see.
Only a new election may help us to keep a small amount of freedom."
I want to read a letter from a young person in my riding that I think the Premier and you, Mr. Speaker, should listen to. This young lady wrote a letter to the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, and sent a copy to me. Written March 8:
"I am a young person of British Columbia who intended making her home in B.C. and I feel compelled to comment on your recent dictatorial action regarding the land of this province."
And get this, Mr. Speaker:
"I did not vote Social Credit in the past election simply because of their actions to attempt to change B.C.'s land policy from lease with option to purchase to lease only…. . "
And I will just say at this junction of the letter that this has not happened — the young lady was quite misinformed…
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. FRASER:
"…to which I am unalterably opposed as I believe in private ownership and personal endeavour. I am afraid I made a very serious error in judgment. With the past government I could at least negotiate, and with your government there is not even room for appeal to the superior court of law for this tax-paying citizen.
"I wish to point out that I did not vote NDP as I did not believe in absolute socialism, but my vote helped you win"
this is addressed to Premier Barrett —
"and to this day I am ashamed of my nearsightedness.
"I feel your red-herring approach to farmland is only the beginning to entire state control of all lands and private property. I shall not be party to this action and shall never work as a lackey to any bureaucratic civil servant system.
"I appeal to you now to reconsider your land Bill. Your announcement to amend this Act is not good enough. I do not want this Act at all. I want a new Act, written with specific policies dealing solely with the preservation of farmland, this Act to include the same rights to the farmers as any other B.C. citizen owning private property.
"If the land commission or the like is necessary, allow the tax-paying citizens of this province to elect the people to represent them on this very basic right that this country and this province was built on."
HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you much to go or would you like an adjournment?
MR. FRASER: I've got lots more to go.
[ Page 1723 ]
Mr. Fraser moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly and the Hon. Mr. Barrett file answers to questions.
Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
ERRATA
The following corrections were received after Hansard went to press. Lines should be corrected to read as shown:
Page 1616, col. 1, lines 56 and 57.
Mr. Speaker, if the farmers are not to take this type of action, which in essence would really only hurt
Page 1644, col. 1, line 10.
management consultants. We're building a lot of
Page 1661, col. 2, line 21.
who took their cases to arbitration lost $50 to $150 per