[ Page 1725 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 156). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 1725

Oral Questions

Le Dain Commission recommendation re heroin. Mr. Wallace — 1725

Negotiations on Sukunka coal. Mr. Gardom — 1726

Land use study of Gulf Islands. Mr. Morrison — 1726

Nature of work of James Rhodes. Mr. McClelland — 1726

Mincome payments to senior citizens. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1726

Financial report on B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 1727

Hiring of John Young. Mr. Schroeder — 1727

Premier's lawsuit. Mr. Gardom — 1727

Kelowna amalgamation terms. Mr. Fraser — 1727

Leader of Opposition's potential lawsuit. Mr. Gardom — 1727

Intervention in appeal of "Wild Honey". Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1728

Appeal of longshoremen's union to Peking. Mr. McGeer — 1728

Elevator constructors' strike. Mr. Wallace — 1728

Government disclosure of information. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1728

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

Mr. Fraser — 1729

Hon. Mr. King — 1732

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1734

Mr. Dent — 1737

Mr. Rolston — 1738

Mr. Chabot — 1742

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1755

Mr. Kelly — 1756

Mr. Nicolson — 1758

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a guest who is seated with us on the floor of the House today. He is a federal Member of parliament, a man who has had an outstanding career in public life in Canada and has just returned from Vietnam — Andrew Brewin, the federal MP from Toronto-Greenwood.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome another federal MP who is in the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Mike Forrestall from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome, paying us an informal visit, the Hon. A.L. Kramer the Secretary of State for Washington State and Mrs. Kramer, seated in the galleries.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a group of students from the Delview Junior Secondary School in North Delta, along with their teachers, Mr. Richter and Mrs. Lemn. I hope you will join me in making them welcome here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome my sister and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Spring from Cranbrook.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome a group of students from Centennial High School in the District of Coquitlam.

MR. SPEAKER: And following right behind them, students from McPherson Park in my constituency.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I just wonder who is in school today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: But they have learned a lot here.

MR. GARDOM: I would very much like to welcome some students from Prince of Wales High School. Included in the group is my youngest daughter who I want to see before she goes home tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: They call this the message centre.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 26, 1973.

Bill No. 156 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send in your old straps.

Oral questions.

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

LE DAIN COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION RE HEROIN

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Human Resources: in light of the Le Dain report on heroin, is the Government giving any consideration to two possibilities — (1) speeding up their meeting with the federal government on this subject, and (2) sending someone from the department to London or to England to learn what they can from the experience in that country?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, the Government at the moment is preparing a bill to bring in to establish a drug dependency commission. I think that anything that will be done in respect to the drug problem will naturally have to flow from the people who will be working with that commission.

[ Page 1726 ]

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

NEGOTIATIONS RE ACQUISITION
OF INTEREST IN SUKUNKA COAL

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the president of the B.C. Railway or the Premier, as the case may be: at what stage are the Government or the B.C. Railway's negotiations for the acquisition of the 40 per cent interest in the Sukunka coal project?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are still continuing.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier if the Government or B.C. Railway have engaged any outside experts to assist them with their negotiations with Brascan or its operating company, Coalition Mining?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Who?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two lawyers are involved, Mr. Jack Edwards and Mr. John Bouck. I think there are other people who we have called in from time to time to assist us but we are in negotiations, Mr. Member, and it is impossible for me, because we are in negotiations, to go any further on that.

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

LAND USE STUDY
RE GULF ISLANDS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would like to address my question to the Minister of Highways. In view of the fact the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has undertaken a study of the land use of the Gulf Islands through the municipal matters committee, is the Minister of Highways prepared to await the report from that committee before moving further with his survey crews on Gabriola Island?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): They are two entirely related and unrelated subjects and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I are working very closely on both.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's answer No. 6, eh?

MR. MORRISON: A supplementary. Would the Minister of Highways be prepared to consider alternatives to the byway bridge proposal on Gabriola Island if the municipal matters committee brings forth a report that is in conflict with the Government's stated policy for Gabriola?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hypothetical questions are not permitted or ones that ask what the Government's opinion on some policy in the future is.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

NATURE OF WORK
OF JAMES RHODES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is directed to the Premier and the President of the Council. Could the Premier clarify the position that James Rhodes, the former MLA for Delta, now holds with the Government?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this urgent and important?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, or I wouldn't have asked the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question's on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question's already on the paper and doubtless will be answered in due course.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, it isn't. This is a specific question. The question on the order paper asks if Mr. Rhodes is going to be employed. We understand he has been employed, and we would like to know what position he has with the Government. It's a different question altogether.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in any way indicated as being urgent or important. This is reserved for urgent and important matters.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

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

MINCOME PAYMENTS
TO SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Hon. Minister of Human Resources on the blue Mincome form that senior citizens are now receiving. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether he can indicate to the House whether or not Mincome payments will be continued regardless of whether this form is completed by the senior citizens concerned.

[ Page 1727 ]

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To repeat the question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister could indicate to the House whether or not Mincome payments will be continued to senior citizens regardless of whether or not they complete the blue form which his department sent around recently.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): We hope they would complete it; we don't intend to stop payment. We expect that the programme will take three or four months. I am sure by then we will have all the forms back.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary: if in three or four months a recipient has not returned the blue form properly filled in, will the payments then be continued?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll be prepared to answer that in three or four months. I don't want to be put in a position of saying, as I think the Member wants me to say, that somehow we're going to be punitive. We're not. We're seeking information. I am quite sure that in view of all the cooperation we've had from senior citizens that it'll be forthcoming.

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

FINANCIAL REPORT ON
B.C. HYDRO

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if he's had an opportunity to study the report of the Comptroller General regarding the financial operations of the B.C. Hydro, and would he be prepared to release it to the House at this time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've not completed my study of that report, but I am continuing my study. If we had more time I am sure we could get through.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

HIRING OF JOHN YOUNG

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): A question for the Minister of Education. Is the department considering John Young for any position in the Department of Education?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I believe that was asked on the order paper. The answer is "no."

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

PREMIER'S LAWSUIT

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, at what stage his libel lawsuit against the ex-Premier is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You may only ask questions in relation to the administrative responsibility of a Member of the House in his capacity in the House.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

KELOWNA AMALGAMATION TERMS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of Municipal affairs. Has the Minister offered in any way to give the residents of the Kelowna area any of the terms and conditions of the amalgamation? If so, is he offering any special considerations to them?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes. We are in communication with the advisory committee of Kelowna. We have sent them a letter, I think last week, setting out decisions that had already been made regarding some of the questions that they were asking. I explained to them that as a lot of their questions concerned departments other than the one in which I have jurisdiction, there may be some delays in some of the answers. I think by and large most of the answers have been sent up to the committee.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister given any assurance that the letters patent of the new municipality will be available before the Minister's order takes effect?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I haven't given any commitment of that kind. We're in communication though, and I am sure that the committee will be quite clear on what will be in the letters patent before they are prepared.

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

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION'S
POTENTIAL LAWSUIT

MR. GARDOM: I have a question to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask him if he intends to initiate libel proceedings against the Premier for stating that he was preaching anarchy across the province.

[ Page 1728 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Anything in this House is privileged, as the Members know. Therefore question is simply rhetorical.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, because he wouldn't dare to say it outside the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debates are also not permitted in question period.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said it last night outside the House.

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

INTERVENTION IN APPEAL
OF "WILD HONEY"

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. In the light of the criticism of the B.C. film classification director's office coming out of the Victoria lawsuit on the 'skin-flick,' "Wild Honey," can I ask him whether his department intends to intervene in the appeal of this case or whether or not he intends to change the terms of reference the B.C. film classification director.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Is this matter still before the courts?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am asking whether or not the Attorney General intends to intervene in the case on appeal in light of the fact that we voted more than $108,000 for this office this year and apparently the job doesn't seem to be properly fulfilled.

MR. SPEAKER: If the matter is before the courts, I don't think we should be talking about it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The matter is before the courts. I'm waiting to read the book. (Laughter). I haven't seen the film.

The Crown of course is participating in the appeal proceedings. They participated at the trial level. The matter is being appealed and the Crown will be participating in the appeal proceedings.

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

APPEAL OF LONGSHOREMEN'S
UNION TO PEKING

MR. McGEER: I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour if he's prepared to lend his very, very good offices to the appeal of the longshoremen's union to the Peking government to have more of the Chinese shipping moved through the Port of Vancouver rather than out of other west coast ports.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a permitted question but it seems innocuous.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'm not familiar with any such request. No formal request has been made to my office by the longshoremen's union in this regard. If and when they do, it will certainly be taken under advisement.

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

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I also ask the Minister of Labour if he has any information to give us on the elevator constructors' strike?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a mediator with my department is meeting with the parties in British Columbia now. They met yesterday and meetings are planned again for today. So I'm hopeful that some resolution will be forthcoming very soon.

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

GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Premier would indicate whether the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was expressing Government policy when he stated in Harrison Hot Springs that the Government has a responsibility to inform the public and that there should be full disclosure of information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I agree. That's why we've had an Opposition Member as chairman of public accounts. That's why public accounts has been able to bring the corporation heads to public accounts. It's a new era. We continue to expand the opportunity for that information which we have been starved of for so long.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again. Could I ask the Premier when he intends to inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) of Government policy and ask him when he intends to

[ Page 1729 ]

answer queries governing the Flyer bus contract.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The question is rhetorical and ironical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's in court. You wouldn't want us to discuss that while he's in court. You're a lawyer. You know that.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I read just a few letters last night that I'd had from citizens throughout the province on this Bill 42. I now want to read a few more in for the record here.

This letter is from Mr. David Cummings, a cattle rancher in the Cariboo, copy of the letter sent to the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture:

"Dear Sir:

"It is now very apparent that you and your Government are not only good socialists but would-be dictators also. You have completely ignored agriculture suggestions as to farmland preservation and are infringing upon our basic rights with Bill 42.

"You also appear to be uninformed and naive or, at the least, unconcerned about the beef industry. Your Bill 42 is intolerable in a country which supposedly permits free enterprise and enjoyment of property. The bill should be scrapped and replaced with democratic legislation patterned after the brief presented to you by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

"It is very discouraging to see the commencement of the know-it-all socialist takeovers and ever-expanding and inefficient government. I can only hope you will soon return to chicken farming.

Sincerely,

David Cummings"

I suppose another remark, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, that his chickens are coming home to roost.

Another letter here from a professional person in the Cariboo that deals with how this Bill 42 overrides all other statutes on the books:

"I am appalled and extremely concerned after studying your proposed Bill 42 and listening to your ridiculous statements via the news media. Bill 42 would give three men, a quorum, complete and total dictatorial powers over every landowner in British Columbia and it's completely contrary to our democratic way of life.

"A new report quotes you as saying that compensation would be paid to affected landowners. If this is the case, Bill 42 had better be revised to delete the several sections which give three men the right to take any land they choose or deem advisable by any method they choose buy or otherwise acquire.

"You say your lawyers have advised that the bill is quite clear regarding appeal procedure. You're darn right it's clear. The bill very specifically states there is no appeal except on a point of law or excess of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction covers the whole of British Columbia and you could change the law to suit your case. Therefore, there is absolutely no appeal.

"The bill would in effect repeal section 38 (1) of the Land Registry Act on which our entire land ownership is based and be one more step in the progressive government takeover of all land and human rights.

"Some of the points in your proposed bill may be valid. However, the dictatorial methods by which you intend to implement your grandiose ideas are nothing short of an invitation to a civil, armed or otherwise, uprising and a demand from the people for a new government.

"Your proposals are so diametrically opposed to our way of life and our basic rights and freedoms as Canadians that I for one will support any movement to demand a new government prior to expiration of your term of office.

"You advocate the preservation of vital and productive farmland which if done properly may be a completely valid and idealistic goal. However, behind this smokescreen you also throw in the power to take any land anywhere in British Columbia for any purpose.

"Greenbelts, et cetera, could conceivably cover the whole of British Columbia except for the homes of the five land commissioners and those who appointed them. You may be completely sincere and dedicated to the people and the Province of British Columbia. However, if this is proposed Bill 42 is enacted and then you step

[ Page 1730 ]

down, the next man to take your place may be an uneducated, power-hungry dictator, ready to exercise every power authorized under this Act.

"You ask the people to trust your integrity. You will enact a bill which says one thing, but you tell the people it doesn't really mean it. To me, this sounds like the used car salesman who says, 'Why put it in writing, trust me. Just bring the car back and I'll look after everything.' "

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Are you against used car salesmen?

MR. FRASER:

"I'm sure you must be an intelligent human being who can recognize that the bill as it is written is so ridiculous that it hardly warrants comment and could not possibly be enacted in this form. I pray you and the Government will do some serious soul-searching regarding your proposed legislation and come up with something that is within the terms of reference of a democratic country.

Gary E. Dawson."

And nothing to do with Dawson Developments.

Mr. Speaker, I have another letter here about how this land freeze and Bill 42 affects individual citizens. This letter was written to the Minister, Mr. Stupich, dated March 1.

"We are writing in protest of the sneaky, underhanded way Dave Stupich froze and reclassified farmland in our province."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've criticized others who have used expressions in letters or rhetorically against the other Members of the House. You're doing it by means of a letter and you know, from what I said yesterday, that I called Members on this side to order on the same point. Would you kindly withdraw that statement.

MR. FRASER: I withdraw. I was only quoting from a letter, though.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to you, you can't quote from letters and use somebody else as a means of making statements attacking Members of the House.

MR. FRASER:

"We are mature, middle-aged people with two children so, not like his public statement, we feel we are capable of making our own decisions as we have in the past before we even knew he existed.

"Due to an industrial accident in 1967, the husband broke both heels. With the aid of frequent medical aid and a brace on his left foot, he is able to walk on his feet almost four hours a day now, sometimes. So the WCB consider him able to do some type of work; therefore he has been cut off compensation in 1970.

"Since that time they have been building and selling small rural homes that the working man can afford. Last year we bought 40 acres of land 11 miles west of Quesnel in the Millburn Mountain area. At the time it was classified as improved land; now it has been reclassified as farmland, No. 4. But what can a person grow at this elevation when you can expect frost 12 months of the year?"

They go on to say to contact Ottawa or the United Nations to help keep our civil rights.

"Without the right to subdivide we are forced to take a heavy loss on our investment in the property, and no one will want to purchase it as farmland. Then we'll have to look to the present government for welfare or other public assistance, and become one of the unfortunate many.

Yours truly,

Mr. & Mrs. Cochrane."

I want to deal for a minute with the land freeze that is still in effect and what actually is taking place out in the province. I refer to a letter written to the Cariboo Regional District Administrator, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Agriculture on February 22. It deals with the appeal procedure at the environment and land use level.

"With respect to an applicant appealing a decision taken under authority of Order No. 15773, he may appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The appeal should set out relevant details, enclose any plans and documents the applicant deems necessary. If, in the opinion of the Regional District Board, the application conforms with regional zoning by-laws and has its support, then the board in writing can provide a document to applicants supporting the appeal.

"There is no reason why a regional district board cannot support, or for that matter object to, an appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The Canada Land Inventory maps are generally adequate to assess the agricultural ratings. There may be instances where a parcel is located within an area having a complex rating.

"Unless the district agriculturalist has personal knowledge of the site or has access to aerial photographs he will, on rare occasions, have to make an on-site inspection. I do not anticipate that this will occur very often. I trust this answers points raised in your letter. If, after studying my circular letter of February 16, 1973, you have further questions, please get in touch with me.

Yours truly

David Stupich."

The reason that I bring that letter up, Mr. Speaker, is the fact of the situation now with land. It's frozen

[ Page 1731 ]

in the province, the agricultural land, and a lot of the municipal councils and the regional boards don't seem to be clear on how they can appeal — in other words, to get out of the land freeze.

It is my understanding that this can be done by appealing to the Environment and Land Use Committee. But I would like to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Government should do a little more publicity to notify the ordinary citizen who the Environment and Land Use Committee is. We know in this House who they are, who the chairman is, who the coordinator of the committee is and what their mailing address is." It certainly isn't known by the general public. As I say, the legislators know, but the ordinary citizen doesn't.

I would, Mr. Speaker, appeal to the chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, who I understand is the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), to make a Press release throughout the province so these people, if they want to, can appeal and be informed of where to make this appeal.

The information is not readily available in the Province of British Columbia. Maybe I could even appeal to the Press to see if they could dig it out and run it. The ordinary citizen hasn't got a clue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nowhere to go to get cut off.

MR. FRASER: Right. I would just like to now make a short review of what has happened in the province in the immediate past, and the controls we have had on land. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of statements have been made that everything is completely out of control. We didn't have any proper Acts and there's the destruction of our environment going on…and illegally polluting everything, and so on.

I would just like to review quickly what has been going on, the changes in the last few years. The first one I would say is the Land Act. We had a brand new Land Act in 1970; and in that Land Act, dealing with Crown lands, particularly in dealing with Crown lands, this Legislature passed the Act with the now Members of the cabinet in Opposition agreeing to it; that only Canadian citizens could acquire Crown land on a lease and then to a purchase basis.

Any citizen from any nation can still lease land in this province, but only a Canadian citizen can take it from the point of lease to purchase. Again here there has been a lot of misinformation go out throughout the province. It started last year when the then Minister of Lands made a suggestion that maybe the government should change its policy of disposal of Crown lands from lease-purchase to straight lease.

Now a lot of the citizens of the interior of the province particularly, where Crown land disposal is always a big item, think the policy has been changed to straight lease and, Mr. Speaker, this House knows that the policy still exists. I'm referring to agricultural land — that it can still go lease-purchase. It is not on a straight lease basis.

While industrial land and commercial land is definitely on a straight lease basis, this does not apply to Crown agricultural land. I'd like to make that clear in the case of the Land Act — it's a fairly current Act, and things were being done to try and keep up with the pace of the time.

The Municipal Act I referred to last evening, Mr. Speaker. The Municipal Act we're working with now was originally brought in in 1957 and amendments are made to it every year at the Legislature for dealing with land, zoning and so on. There are checks and balances there that allow for public hearings and appeals. I feel that certainly there were a lot of advancements there in keeping up with the changing times.

Another Act that was fairly new that passed, that affected land in this province, the Ecological Reserves Act. This was an Act passed in 1970 or 1971 and a lot of our citizens took full advantage of that. As a matter of fact, in my riding, we had an application from professors at the University of B.C. to put the whole Cariboo riding in an ecological reserve. But in any case, the legislation's there and if approved by the Department of Lands, the reserves can be set up.

Of course we have, Mr. Speaker, the Environment and Land Use Act which this Government used to put the land freeze on that started the discussion on the land freeze and then proceeding to Bill 42 to take its place.

We have the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act which provided large sums of money to increase the development of parks in the province and certainly that can be seen. I believe that we're also looking at further money for that. But this Act I believe was an Act passed in 1971 by this Legislature.

We have the Regional Parks Act. That has been a very satisfying and good Act that has allowed the regional districts of the province to acquire further parklands with participation from the provincial Treasury. So a lot of advance was made in that.

We of course have got the Green Belt Protection Fund of $25 millions, established in 1972. Some moneys have been spent out of it, but I think that we should be speeding those things up.

We have the "Mine Reclamation" Act which brings in new regulations for mining — and to tighten up there.

Last but not least — and I am referring to fairly new Acts affecting land, Mr. Speaker — the accelerated forest planning which has been going on now for three or four years.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Premier's remarks of last night. The misuse and abuse

[ Page 1732 ]

by the Premier of the Municipal Act has never before been duplicated in this House. The hysterical way in which the Premier of B.C. saw fit to inject himself into the debate on Bill 42 is a disgrace to himself and to this party. The suggestion that he has left that Bill 42 parallels the Municipal Act will come back to haunt him in future discussions with municipal leaders where the discussions are based on trust. If trust is to be part of our system here in British Columbia, the Premier certainly blew it last night.

With reference to the boundary commission legislation, which clearly came about as the record shows, as a result of a request by the municipalities themselves. It was unbelievable to the municipal leaders of British Columbia listening to what was going on in this House last night. The boundary commission he referred to, and their powers, was at the request of the municipalities.

The sections the Premier quoted were from the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act and had to do with the peculiar boundary problems connected with a meandering river which threw survey lines into dispute. A single commissioner, at the sole request of the municipalities involved, was established by this Legislature and the Premier himself voted for it. In no way is the action of Bill 42 describable in the terms the Premier used last night. He has lost the trust of municipal government in British Columbia and he will never regain it.

I would just like now, Mr. Speaker, to have a final say here that certainly I'm voting against Bill 42 on second reading for the reasons that I have stated. I will just summarize those: I am of course incensed at how it invades the individual landowner, but I am particularly incensed at how it takes away the powers of all locally elected people at the municipal and regional level. Really some of them, I think, feel like resigning. I don't suggest they do that, but in the final conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Government to withdraw this badly written piece of legislation.

Certainly we are in favour of preserving farmland but not on this basis. Bring us back a new bill after some input has been put in by the municipal councils. The regional districts and all the good citizens of British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can hardly let this debate on second reading of Bill 42 go by without offering my comments. My comments are not based on letters and quotations from papers, Mr. Speaker. I've had my share of them and I think in the main the people of my riding, which is largely rural, have indicated support for the principle of Bill 42.

However, rather than devote my speech to the reading of letters that I have received, I wanted to comment on the posture which has been adopted by the Social Credit Party. It's one that's very interesting. They strike a pose as the defender of individual rights. They're very acutely concerned about the rights of ownership of farmers in British Columbia.

They don't seem to acknowledge, despite the evidence placed before them, that this bill in no way empowers the Government to arbitrarily expropriate land from farmers. It is not that at all. But, despite the evidence, they insist and persist in trying to obscure the real intent of the legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I think to really analyze the position that they have taken, one has to go back a number of years. Someone mentioned my predecessor in this House for the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan, the Member who now represents the federal riding of Kootenay West, Randolph Harding. He was the Member of this particular riding at the time the Columbia River Treaty was signed and ratified.

He made representation on numerous occasions to the former government in British Columbia, the Social Credit administration, on behalf of farmers all up and down the Arrow Lakes and the Duncan area and indeed in the Revelstoke area — the 30-mile stretch south of Revelstoke which at one time was a flourishing farm area. He fought for a fair system of arbitration for those farmers who were going to be dislocated by the flooding of that valley.

Let's just go back for a moment and analyze the position taken by the Social Credit Party at that time. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I was first elected in 1968, I acted for literally hundreds of people in the same area who were being expropriated due to the flooding of the Arrow and the Columbia reservoirs.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, making representation on behalf of a man who lived at East Arrow Park in the Arrow Lakes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that we're not discussing the Columbia River Treaty. We're discussing the Land Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we've travelled all around the world. I suppose we might as well get to the Columbia River.

I point out that if it has to do with process of expropriation it may be relevant. I don't know. I haven't heard far enough through his subject.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is related to

[ Page 1733 ]

the relative position that those people in that Social Credit Party took on land expropriation issues as it referred to the Columbia River Treaty and the position that they're taking on a bill before this House today which in fact does not provide for expropriation of farmland. I think it's a relative position. It bears on the veracity of statements which they have made. I think it bears significance to the sincerity of the approach they have taken to this whole debate.

I was referring — before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker — to a man who was expropriated at East Arrow Park in the Arrow Lakes area, south of Nakusp. He had a store and a number of tourist cabins in that area. He had about 80 acres of land, stretching from the lakeshore back to the mountainside on a gentle rise. He received as compensation from the former administration some $17,000 for that property.

It's true he was guaranteed access to the courts if he wished to take that route. But one can appreciate, with the resources that Hydro had at their disposal — the soil engineers, the lawyers and the legal people — that he was stacked against pretty tough opposition. Were he required to avail himself of the legal assistance and the necessary expertise to make a valid case in court against a tribunal such as B.C. Hydro, that the cost of that action would in all probability offset any increased compensation that he might expect as a result of the court action.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You can't get to court against your commission.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that that former Social Credit government did after expropriating this land from this man, they built a brand new highway right across the middle of this property. And the Journals of the House for 1969 indicate that a question was placed on the order paper.

I asked at that time, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any section of that highway between Nakusp and Needles had been built on an area of the reservoir that was below the safe line. The response of the then Minister, the Hon. W.D. Black, was as follows: "Yes — 3.3 miles of that new highway were built below the safe line of the reservoir."

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What's that got to do with Bill 42?

HON. MR. KING: Now here we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the former government expropriated farmland from an individual on the basis that it was unsafe for occupancy and then built a brand new public highway right in the middle of it.

Mr. Speaker, when this Member approached the Minister to ask if he would reinstate the ownership of that property to the individual who had had it wrongfully expropriated from him, the response of the then Premier was to turn his back and altogether ignore the plight of this individual. And this happened hundreds and hundreds of times up and down that valley.

Now these people who sat there and refused to fight for individual rights would portray themselves as the defenders of the farmer's interest today. It's a pretty cynical performance, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), the champion of the farmer's rights, the champion of individual rights — what a shame, Mr. Speaker.

I can recall attending to pleas for help from people…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What's your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is that the Hon. Minister of Labour just said that we on this side of the House were making a sham. Now we have not been allowed to use "sham" or "farce" in this House. Just because the Premier used it last night, I don't know why the Minister of Labour should be allowed to use it this afternoon. I'd like him to withdraw that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly withdraw. I wasn't aware that the Premier had used that term last night. It's one which readily came to mind, but I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall attending in response to pleas for help from individuals — not only farmers but small landholders in the Revelstoke area, who complained that the former administration had turned bulldozers loose on their buildings, bulldozed them down and set fire to them before any expropriation agreement was arrived at. Now these are the people who pillaged the private property of people all up and down that reservoir, who would now portray themselves as the defenders of individual liberty. I think it's a pretty shockingly inconsistent position for them to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I think, Mr. Speaker, that many people all throughout British Columbia can remember the arbitrary, high-handed approach that the former administration took to individual rights to ownership all over this province with respect to hydro transmission lines, with respect to highway access needs, with respect to the Libby Dam, the Duncan Dam, the Arrow Dam and so on. I think that it's just incredible that they would pose now as people genuinely

[ Page 1734 ]

concerned about farmers' rights.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that a recent editorial in the Revelstoke Review by none other than a former Member of that government, who sat in this House for a number of years — he is one of the departed because he had the temerity to criticize the then Premier and he subsequently lost the nomination for that temerity — Mr. Arvid Lundell, a longtime resident of Revelstoke, formerly mayor of the town, editor and publisher of the newspaper, had this to say about the Land Commission Act that's presently before this House, Mr. Speaker. He said: "It's of small impact on Revelstoke and area now, because of the arbitrary actions taken by the former administration in flooding miles and miles of valuable farmland in that area." But he said he "found nothing contentious in Bill 42, nothing untoward, no departure from the positions which had been taken by the former administration which they object to so strenuously now."

Mr. Speaker, we've had everything from the Little Red Rooster and the Little White Hen story here to a world travelogue around China and Russia. When the Opposition starts to get some of the flak back they stand up and they cry points of order. Well, I don't think we could have had a more irrelevant performance from the total Opposition than what we've had on this land bill. Pretty ineffective, pretty shocking, pretty lacking in any penetrating understanding of the intent of this bill that's before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that within the next few months, when the people of the province come to fully understand the provisions of the bill, when they have had an opportunity to sift the wheat from the chaff and to really analyze the irresponsible and wild statements made by the leader of the Conservative Party, the pro tem or temporary or whatever type of leader it is of the Social Credit Party, that they will understand that this is a bill which will have far-reaching and long-term effects for the benefit of all the people of this province and not a capitulation to the special interests of the real estate promoters of the province, Mr. Speaker.

All the Opposition parties pay lip service. No one will argue with the desire to preserve farmland. You show me one administration that has had the fortitude to come forward with effective legislation to do the job. You show me one alternative that's been offered by the Opposition or any element of it in this House, Mr. Speaker. Not one alternative, not one amendment, not one worthwhile suggestion — simply criticism, hysteria and calls to something perhaps short of anarchy but not very short of it in this province. I think it's a disgraceful point for the Opposition to have sunk to in this province, Mr. Speaker.

Now I simply wanted to expose particularly the Social Credit Party for the inconsistency of their position. I think that everyone can recall without dealing with letters and so on the action that they took in the areas that I have pointed to. I never heard the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) get up in this House, when she sat as a front bench Minister without Portfolio, and plead for the farmers. I never heard her criticize the arbitrary powers of expropriation that existed under Social Credit.

So when we look at motivation, when we look at sincerity, I think the position that's being taken now by that party has to be tempered by the inconsistency of the position they're taking now with that of the past. I think that the public of British Columbia is becoming more and more aware that their real concern is with the political kudos that may accrue from generating an inflammatory situation on this legislation rather than through any genuine desire to assist the farmers of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to comment further on it except to say that it's good legislation; it's needed, it's an action which no other jurisdiction in Canada thus far has been prepared to tread. I think that this Government and that Minister of Agriculture are to be commended for the fortitude and forthrightness and the desire to get into this area and once and for all preserve farmland for its highest priority. That is the issue — not the phony issues of expropriation and infringement of personal rights which some Members of this House would have you believe, Mr. Speaker.

Now that's all I have to say on the subject. I thank you for being so attentive, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly a pleasure to stand here today, more so than last week, to take part in this debate, since, with all apologies to the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), to paraphrase what he said, I no longer represent the "floodplains" of Kamloops but simply the "plains" of Kamloops.

For the information of the Members in the Official Opposition, who might not have had a chance to read the newspapers over the weekend — they were rather busy I understand running around and arranging for delegates' votes for the November convention — the decision has been made and "Soak" Hills is going to return to being Oak Hills, even though there are no hills there and even though they haven't yet planted the oaks.

This was a piece of agricultural land, Mr. Speaker. It was a place where they used to winter cattle. In the spring when it flooded it made no difference because the cattle had been moved up into the hills and the

[ Page 1735 ]

ground was saturated with a growth from some hay that was cut and stored for winter. This was a piece of agricultural land that every resident in the area fought against seeing developed as a housing project — to no avail. As a result last spring, with the little heap of dirt that was piled up, the dike broke. If it had broken at 4 o'clock in the morning instead of 4 o'clock in the afternoon I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, there would have been lives lost and it would have been a much greater tragedy than it was.

Over $1 million has been paid out in reparations to the victims of that flood absolutely unnecessarily because it never should have been developed. Over a million dollars is going to be paid from taxpayers' money to build a new dike to protect the people that live there. This is the kind of a price we pay for the former administration's treatment of what is agricultural land.

If you ask any of the older residents up there, Kamloops has always been considered, climate-wise, to be a paradise to live in — but for 16 years this has been the subdivider's paradise. If it had not been for this legislation that is being introduced into the House now, and we're debating second reading, it was rapidly becoming paradise lost.

We also had the decision last weekend on the area known as Cinnamon Ridge — once again, there is no ridge. Half a dozen of the lots would have been 17 feet below the 1972 flood level. It seems that the lower the project is below water, the more names it gets with ridges, hills and mountains in it. All of this money spent.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in the Kamloops area alone 3,000 acres of agricultural land has been lost in the past 20 years. The valleys are very narrow. There isn't much land to raise winter feed for the cattlemen in the area. We have had a leap-frogging situation of one community over another on every wide bench of land up the North Thompson River and the South Thompson River until, if it had continued and incorporations had continued, instead of 22 aldermen and four mayors, we probably would have ended up with 100 aldermen and 25 mayors.

This debate reminds me a little, Mr. Speaker, the way it's been going, of some of the shows we've watched on television depicting wagon trains and their struggles as they come west. After a long and difficult time, we manage to cross the Peace, and after a long and difficult time we manage to cross the Jordan. And my goodness, we've still got the Columbia ahead of us to cross yet. (Laughter)

Now, there's been many letters read into the House, and I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't got many, even though I represent a large ranching community. But some of the letters I have did come from ranchers — not from apartment dwellers in West Vancouver, but people who are interested in preserving the land for agriculture. I would like to read a little of one, and it's on a letterhead — not a real estate letterhead, but a ranch letterhead. It's dated December 22, addressed to myself:

"Dear Sir:

"I would like to ask you to do what you can to stop the proposed subdivision of about 300 acres of land, 10 miles north of Kamloops and adjoining the Indian Reserve. The application to subdivide into small lots was turned down by the regional board along with the recommendation that no subdivision of any kind be allowed. But I understand that they have now applied for zoning into 20-acre lots, and this does not have to come before the regional board.

"This is prime agricultural land and is completely surrounded by some of the best grazing land in British Columbia. I own the ranch to the east. Thus it would mean with three ranches around that this section would be an island completely surrounded by grazing land. As everyone knows, if possibly 30 to 50 families move in along with dogs, snowmobiles and motorcycles, our property would become almost valueless as ranchland.

"I'd also like to point out that there is no visible water supply at present, and it would mean reconstruction of about four miles of highway and the present road is next to impossible at certain times of the year. As well, the school district would have to supply bus service. The entire project does not lend itself to orderly planning."

He ends, and this is an operating, working rancher, Mr. Speaker,

"Hoping you can do something to keep this property from subdivision and retain it as agricultural land, and thanking you in advance for any effort on your part."

I too have been quite surprised, particularly as a new Member in the House, at some of the directions this debate has taken. I think, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could assist the Liberal party in finding a new name, seeing you had a trip to India a while ago. I understand that there is an organization there — as part of their ceremony they jump from one hot rock to another until they find somewhere where they can take a position. (Laughter). Perhaps you could assist them in that way.

The Conservative and official Opposition, of course, has been pretty well covered and I don't think there's much point adding to it.

At the time of the bull sale in Kamloops, we were honoured by a visit from the leader of the Liberal Party, who I think was really there to try to hold that branch of his organization together, because there were a few problems — such as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned that were coming in from Nanaimo.

[ Page 1736 ]

He was partially successful, but one of their oldest time organizers of many years and an ex-federal candidate has left the party, denouncing the provincial wing completely, and has formed a new group called SOS. Perhaps you read about it in the paper. Knowing some of the people involved, I would suggest that they simply remove the O from the centre, and it would be much more descriptive of the political leanings. I do have a letter from someone in the agricultural community who mentioned this organization, and he keeps all the letters and refers to them as "Same Old Skunks." I don't know whether that is appropriate or not, but it doesn't refer to any Members in this House, fortunately.

The Conservative Party, of course, has been pretty well covered, so I won't refer to their leader's travelling around the province as an agent provocateur, really, instead of a responsible supposed-to-be politician. But it seems that in this age of technomation, automation, calibration, that quite a surprising thing happened in the House, because when Geppetto left his seat in the gallery, Pinocchio kept moving, even though there was no one there.

I've had other letters, and one I'd like to quote from, also from the agricultural community. It will be self-explanatory — his place in the agricultural community. Before some of the employment that he writes about, he was for many years a rancher in the Cariboo. He said:

"Dear Sir:

"I understand that letters about Bill 42 are not unwelcome, even from private individuals. I am therefore writing to add my mite of praise to you and the present Government of British Columbia for your wisdom and courage in taking this necessary step.

"I was for 21 years, before 1966, secretary of the Beef Cattle Growers Association, and it became evident even then, though much more so since, that this province was allowing its birthright to be sold for a mess of pottage — a mess which must have inevitably turned sour in the mouths of our children and grandchildren.

"Observing the hysterical behaviour of some members of farm organizations, I have to be thankful that I cannot now be involved in their actions, which I sincerely hope and believe are not representative of their more thoughtful members."

He goes on to mention the attempted sabotage of the Bull Sale Banquet in Kamloops — the provincial Bull Sale Banquet and Fat Stock Show, Madam Speaker, which is one of the biggest events that the cattlemen have, and they certainly didn't want it disrupted as the plans were laid down. I'll just read the last chapter of this, where the writer says:

"In conclusion, I should like to say that the performance to date of the government of which you are a Member, has been most heartening to all those who have become disillusioned and cynical about the possibility of democracy in this province ever rising above the petty base which kept the previous administration in office for oh so long."

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I'd like to add, Madam Speaker, that this is not a Member of our party and, as far as I know, he has never been a supporter.

There have been many references made to the Municipal Act, but there's one section that was left out, I think. I'd like to quote section 791 — "Expropriation":

"In addition to any other powers to acquire property which the Regional Board may exercise, the Regional Board, by its servants, may enter upon, break up, take or enter into possession of, and use any real or personal property within the regional district not publicly owned where necessary or convenient for any of the purposes of the regional district without the consent of the owners of the real and personal property, but subject to Division (4) of Part XII."

Now this refers, of course, to the compensation section. But we're all familiar with the long court battles where owners are dissatisfied with what has been offered in the past by B.C. Hydro and the Department of Highways. There's a lot of people that feel that the appeal section or the expropriation section of this particular part is useless as far as they are concerned, and it's been on the books for the last six years.

This one I thought was rather amusing. It's from Kamloops, and I can't tell whether this is someone from the agricultural community or not:

"Dear Sir:

"We've done a lot of complaining in the past because the government wasn't protecting our agricultural greenbelt areas. Now we finally have a party in power wishing earnestly to correct the situation. Let us not let a few people who made lots of noise deter us from that goal.

"I didn't vote NDP in the last election, but I sure as 'beep beep' will in the next. All the best towards Bill 42."

There are other letters, Madam Speaker. There's one from an agricultural area that's about half gone now under housing. There's still some agricultural people left up there, and they write:

"Dear Mr. Anderson:

"There's so much to be said for you and the NDP policies, but this is just to say I'm behind you 100 per cent with Bill 42. It's something that should have been done 30 years ago. Good luck and keep at it."

I haven't had many letters, Madam Speaker. When I mentioned this fact when I was home in Kamloops

[ Page 1737 ]

last weekend I was informed that, "Well, for 20 years the previous Member never answered his mail and people got out of the habit." I don't know whether that's true or not since I wasn't doing any letter writing to the previous Member.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

We also, as was brought up by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) we all got letters in this House from the Cattlemen's Association. I also received a brief from them and I talked to them for 7 hours last March 14 at the bull sale and fat stock show. They were concerned. There were a couple of sections of the bill that they were concerned about.

At the banquet that night the Minister of Agriculture spoke to them — which was well reported in the Press — I'm sure everyone has read it — and he spoke of some of the fears and the feed-in he'd been getting and referred to the brief as, "one of the best we had received with sensible suggestions for amendments" — something that we don't seem to be hearing anything about in this House.

Their fears were allayed in many ways. Some that I knew and some that I didn't know spoke to me afterwards and said, "We're still a little concerned because the bill isn't actually passed. But we'll wait and see and make our judgment on that." Mr. Speaker, if we had that kind of reaction from the rest of British Columbia, I'm sure we wouldn't have had this long and tortuous debate on this bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I just want to make a few comments, Madam Speaker. I didn't intend to speak on this bill. However, there was a comment made by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that stuck in my craw and I feel that I've got to respond to it.

I would just begin by saying that I think this is an excellent bill. I fully support the principle of it and I'm sure that the people in the Province of British Columbia generally support it as well. Certainly from my constituency I've got very little in the way of negative mail. I've got some, that's true, from people who are opposed to the bill. But I've also received many letters in favour of the bill.

Then, of course, I've got the usual number of circular letters that have gone around from the different organizations. But generally speaking, the feeling in Skeena constituency, I believe, is either in support of the bill or a "wait and see" approach to see how it will work out.

The point that I am raising is one that I think is a very serious one that's been mentioned not only by the official Opposition but has been alluded or referred to by the Liberal Party and by the Conservative Party as well.

I'll just quote a section of a letter that was read to this House by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in the course of her speech on the afternoon of March 22. This is what she quoted from this letter. It's a letter addressed to Mr. Stupich, and it says as she read it:

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

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

Now those were words that she quoted from a letter. Obviously she agreed with them, because further down she said: "I think he knows what he's talking about. He was in the last war."

I just want to draw to the attention of this House a couple of facts when it comes to service in the Second World War that I think are relevant in terms of fighting for rights. First of all sitting opposite me is the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) who served 5 1/2 years in the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War. Behind him is the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) who served 6 years in the Seaforth Highlanders in the Second World War and fought in battles in Italy and northwest Europe. Sitting behind me is the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, just barely making it in because he was so young.

The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was also a member of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada during the Second World War. The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) was a tank driver in the British army in the Second World War.

I haven't interviewed many of the others. I don't know whether there are any other veterans, but I think that I'll just mention myself. I served in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps during the Second World War and I was discharged honourably by reason of being underage.

The point is this: the Hon. Member for North Okanagan — and this has been re-echoed by other people in the Social Credit Party and also in the Liberals and Conservatives — implies that somehow this party on this side of the House is not concerned about individual rights and doesn't care about individual rights. I resent that and I'm sure that the Hon. Members on this side of the House resent that suggestion. I'll take my stand any time, and I'm sure that any of the Members in our caucus would, against any other Member of this House in terms of

[ Page 1738 ]

defending and fighting for the individual rights of the people of British Columbia and of this country of Canada.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Withdraw the bill.

MR. DENT: I believe that this bill is a well thought out bill in terms of the rights of people. It's not a denial of rights; on the contrary, I believe it's a bill that's strongly in favour of the individual rights of people.

The analogy has been made many times, but I'll just conclude by making this analogy. There were some elephants in a chicken yard. The chickens were a little concerned because they were getting stepped on.

The elephants said, "Freedom is what we need. We need nothing but freedom. Trust us and we'll…."

MR. PHILLIPS: That's Tommy Douglas's line.

MR. DENT: I know it's Tommy Douglas's. It doesn't matter who said it. The fact is that it's relevant.

Now the thing is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the small person's rights are protected. I believe that this is the first step in ensuring that a new deal is reached for the farmers of British Columbia. Therefore, I support wholeheartedly the principle of this bill. I'll take my stand along with any other Member of our caucus in terms of supporting the individual rights and the personal rights of the people of British Columbia and of Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Ms. Speaker, I just want to add to this discussion very briefly. You know in homiletics we were encouraged to be to the point, say our thing in 18 minutes with three illustrations and sit down. After I don't know how many hours we've been into this, I feel a little guilty adding anything to the endurance test that many of the MLAs have had to experience.

I first of all want to divulge that I have no ownership in property. I live in a rent-free manse owned by the United Church of Canada and will be until the end of June. At that time I hope, if I'm lucky, to be able to purchase a small piece of property. Nobody in our family has been in the developing or in the real estate industry — not that that's all that bad anyway.

Ms. Speaker, first of all I think that part of the intention of the Government right now is simply to use some of the very best information that we have available. I was very impressed to hear the Primate of the Anglican Church two weeks ago in the Vancouver Hotel at a luncheon that was put on by the Vancouver Board of Trade plus the five largest churches in Canada — the United Church, the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian and the Lutheran Churches. They heard Ted Scott speak on the whole business of developing nations. And we are a developing nation. We're not really part of the third world but we are a developing nation.

As I remember, the archbishop really reached me when he said that there is a real responsibility for all of us to use the very best information that we have available, and that it's immoral for us to blunder on, often in a very arbitrary way, whether it is in developing the economy of Zambia, whether it is developing some other country, whether it is extracting something out of the ground or taking the trees from our hills or whether it is, Ms. Speaker, in the science of land use and of planning. It is essential, it's an ethical question today, especially with the finiteness, even in this large province, of habitable land and arable land, that we use the very best information that we have.

I would assume when I first read this legislation that this simply is an attempt — which is not a new attempt. It is certainly a new attempt as far as the legislation, but a great deal of work has been done over the last 25 years by planners, especially in the area that I represent, the lower mainland. Twenty-five years ago my father used to leave after dinner and go off to town-planning committee meetings. He was one of the architects of the original Lower Mainland Official Regional Plan. That's 25 years ago.

I simply see this in a further step, that we are with the very best planning and engineering and soil knowledge and urban growth knowledge, trying to see that there is a set of plans throughout all of British Columbia, especially in what will obviously be more populated parts of British Columbia.

In my particular home town, and I'm sure every place could hold up a map like this, my point is simply to illustrate that this is the District of Mission land-use map which we have been adhering to as much as we can, with some violations. I hope that in a sense we won't need to worry about violations because we will establish throughout the whole province a set of community plans. This is what I certainly interpret from the bottom of page 2, section 7, halfway through section 7; it's simply that it will have the power and the capacity as a jurisdiction to work with the municipalities and the districts and other technical people.

Obviously technical people have put that plan together; that wasn't put together by aldermen in Mission, it was put together by planning people so that we can see in a very orderly, rational responsible way we are going to use the finite arable and

[ Page 1739 ]

habitable land that is left in British Columbia. Now if that isn't motherhood, Ms. Speaker, if that isn't responsibility, I really ask what is.

During the election, I echoed the words of the psalmist who said that "The earth is the Lord's." It's not ours. It's something that was as stewards are using as we pass through, whether we are 90 years old, like the Clerk, and some of us might hope to reach that age or whether we'll be much younger; it's simply that we are stewards and that we're given responsibility in a very sensible way to oversee development, oversee food production. And I remind you, Ms. Speaker, that in food production, you know, we are very dependent on other parts of the world. We import into B.C. 70 per cent of our beef, 85 per cent of our hogs, 40 per cent of our vegetables, 40 per cent of our potatoes, 34 per cent of our fruit, 90 per cent of our butter, 75 per cent of our grains, 98 per cent of our sugar, 90 per cent of our cooking oils. We are very dependent on other parts of the world for food. My children would like to think that some of that food was still grown in their neighbourhood, that 1984 is not as gloomy a picture as the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) painted last Friday.

My children would like to think in 20 years' time that we still grow broccoli and Brussels sprouts on those great hills around St. Mary's Indian Residence and the Westminster Abbey complex in Mission — which incidentally the Members should realize is not owned by the farmer at all. It's owned by in this case the Roman Catholic Church and it's been leased for decades to one of the largest farmers in the Fraser Valley, Mr. Ted Horsting, who wrote me a very complimentary letter on this Act; a man who for years has been a very successful businessman, and who has been leasing I don't know how many hundreds and hundreds of acres of land, which of course he's responsible to keep in good cropping condition, from the Roman Catholic Church. I would like to think that we could continue to do this.

So it's in this sense that I see us using land wisely. I live in fear that that land that Mr. Horsting is now leasing and preparing for his crops could very, very easily go into subdivisions; that it's very easy to run a front-end loader right through there and put in sewers and storm drains and pavement.

It's not very easy to grow broccoli through pavement in 25, 30 years' time. So it's in that sense that I stand in a riding which I think obviously is very, very affected; the riding of Dewdney is a riding where I think there still is a real chance to be most responsible with land use.

So I give this every bit of encouragement. I was delighted to hear from one of the real grandfathers of the Conservative Party in British Columbia, a former chief justice and a member of my constituency, Mr. Norris, who wrote me a long letter and sent that telegram supporting the legislation to the Premier. We have had other similar letters in support from people — and we certainly have had negative letters. Let's not be dishonest. But it's the people in the farming business who largely support this.

I'd like to remind you that one of the things that has always concerned me is that in my riding, and maybe in other parts, there have been very ancient subdivisions. If you just go across the Pitt River bridge — let me be very specific. Just below the CPR bridge, along the Pitt River in 1914 the CPR subdivided a very large amount of very good dairy land into tiny little 33-foot by 120-foot lots. They sold off these little paper lots, and the certificates are probably all over the world. And there's been a hope on my part and on the part of the people of Maple Ridge, especially the council and the dairy people, to assemble this land.

But this has been difficult. We've gone through the Municipal Affairs, the Environment and Land Use Committee. I was hoping that maybe under this legislation it would be possible to very quickly assemble these little paper lots and put them back into dairy production.

We have a farmer who's eager to buy that land and put it into production.

Now I could describe many other places throughout the riding where there are these anomalies of paper hobby-farms, some of them subdivided 15 years ago. For instance in Agassiz, just below the bypass, if you come over the Agassiz bridge and you take the bypass across the south of Agassiz to the Haig Highway here there are two 55-foot dairy farms — and Agassiz I would like to boast has the best of all the soil in the Fraser Valley, but I could be challenged on that — but here is this excellent soil subdivided now into 5-acre hobby farms, all set to go.

I met with the mayor of Agassiz on Thursday and it's our hope that we can control that situation, just as I'd hope the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is concerned. Two very successful dairy farms were sold just before Christmas time, subdivided into three and five acre hobby farms outside Clearbrook and we are afraid that these once very successful milk producing enterprises have gone into the little, euphemistically termed "hobby farm". I don't think that's responsible. I personally don't think that's moral, that we're taking out of production very valuable dairy producing areas. People have said that only 1.6 million acres is under production. That's not very much. That's less than 1 per cent of the province really under production and cultivation. More of that is under other forms of agriculture. But under real detailed cropping conditions there is barely one per cent. It's not very much.

Our population is growing. The West End of Vancouver, the Member for Vancouver Centre said, is growing faster than any other place in Canada.

[ Page 1740 ]

Where's this food coming from? What type of variety are we offering our people that if this gloomy picture of 1984, of most of the Fraser Valley being controlled by the large real estate developing people, is that imminent.

I would like to say that we have had many meetings in my riding — seven meetings plus two radio programmes. I was thrilled with the little editorial on March 14 in the Maple Ridge Gazette. It's called "Participatory Democracy," where a leading Member of the Liberal Party chaired a meeting at which I spoke. We went actually clause by clause through this Act — I share this with the leader of the Liberal Party, because it even amazed him that we could actually go through this Act with about 500 or 600 people in a hall in Maple Ridge. I think that's participation.

Not all of them agree with the Act. There needs to be clarification. We concede that that's obvious. That clarification will be coming. I suspect we're going to nearly "motherhood" the bill to death with amendments by the time we're finished.

But I really think that this is a responsible thing. I think my children and grandchildren will remember 1973 as the time when we kind of took stock at what's happening to land use in British Columbia.

I have a six page précis — it's only a précis. It was sent to me by Mr. Justice Norris on what the Hon. J.V. Clyne said in 1955 about land use in the Fraser Valley. The Members will remember that the Hon. J.V. Clyne was asked to study the dairy industry in the Fraser Valley. In this précis he pointed out the seriousness of the loss of top dairy producing areas in the Fraser Valley and that was nearly 20 years ago.

Of course, the figures of 60,000 acres being lost in the last 10 years in the Fraser Valley has been quoted. I am personally concerned about places like one bulb farm out near Mission, one of the best known bulb farms in the Fraser Valley, where the farm is threatened by subdivisions around it. Even the mayor of Mission is afraid that this could go.

Sometimes people by resignation say, "Oh well, we'll have to let this well-known bulb farm, 50 years of producing some of the best gladiolas and dahlias in British Columbia, we'll have to let it go." I would hope that wouldn't be true. And I don't want to resign myself to that fate.

If I were a developer, if I were part of this commission developing land banks, I'd like to see land banks all the way around the bottom of some of the hills — and Mission is mostly hills — so that you could look down over those beautiful bulb farms, just as in the United Kingdom, with their very wise land use legislation which came since the second World War. You can look over the bulb farms and over the beautiful greenbelts — economically viable greenbelts. This is both a beautiful thing to look at and it's also economically viable.

We have hog farmers in my riding who desperately need land now. They need land for expansion. They need land for their manure to be spread. I think these are things that could be expedited under the commission.

I hope we can see that this is only the very beginning to making farming economically strong. It's bare bones. Even taking educational tax off of the family farm is just barely scratching the surface. Our party is committed to that. Personally, I would like to think that we could take all land tax off the farm. I wish the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) were here. I think we've got to ask whether we should not take the actual construction costs of diking and ditching off producing farms in all of British Columbia. The farmers seem to be quite willing to pay the actual maintenance and pumping costs for the six weeks of pumping.

I really think that these are some of the things that we must see are done immediately to take this load off the farmer. Of course we've got to look at other tax incentives. The legislation does talk about tax incentives — and we'll be dealing with that in the committee stage — to induce people to be more successful and more aggressive in their farming.

In my riding, where dairying is a very big industry, I think that we have to look at the whole marketing of milk. I'm concerned about the milk quota system. I'm concerned that many farmers are dumping, at half the revenue per hundredweight, nearly half of their production of milk onto other forms, such as cottage cheese. They're just not getting the return they should be getting. I'm concerned about all other forms of marketing, which surely is the most basic and probably chronic problem that farmers have had.

I would like to think that this is at least accepting the problem. If you look back at the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations, marketing of farm production was a problem 4,000 years ago. We're not going to resolve it in this session or even this year, but we're going to start. I would like to think that this is just a slow and responsible start at making farming far more lucrative. There's no reason why they shouldn't be given every inducement to make a very worthwhile living. They certainly work hard enough. There's a great deal of money tied up in it. They often have difficulty, Ms. Speaker, in getting farm credit — at least getting enough credit at the right interest rate.

As I say, this is just bare bones. There will definitely be tax incentives, even in the Act.

I want to say, Ms. Speaker, that there has been consultation. I can't think of an alderman in my riding who, in the last two weeks, has not had discussion with me — and certainly prior to this. There is a democratic process; there have been meetings. I have always interpreted this legislation to

[ Page 1741 ]

mean that there will be consultation. There are two places in the Act where it talks about sharing.

I think we should make it very clear that we will be assisting and advising and working with the planners, the agriculture people, the regional district people and the municipal people to see that there is this network of plans. Later on in the legislation, in section 17, it refers to consultation and "working with." Maybe I have too much confidence in human nature, but we're working with them now. We will continue to work with them.

I can't think of a major zoning thing in my riding, in my eight months of being an MLA, on which we haven't had a lot of though, Ms. Speaker? I find that it takes a great deal of time to get a major amendment change through the Environment and Land Use Committee. There are two right now. In fact, I hope this committee is meeting right now as I speak. We're hoping to get a sawmill to move into the Whonnock area — a half million dollar sawmill. I'm hoping on that. It's called Bestwood Industries. We've had letters back and forth.

We passed Water; then we passed Agriculture; then we passed Highways. I'm hoping that this will expedite these things. It couldn't be any slower than it is now, Ms. Speaker, as far as the process of getting through these regional plan changes. I am hoping that this will be a management committee. There will be people under it. Most of the detailed planning — and it's usually very detailed — will still come from the regional areas, such as in my riding.

Again, it says that in two places. In committee we'll certainly look at that. I'll fight for that, if that is concerning you all that much — that the input will come from the regional people.

But, Ms. Speaker, I think time is running out. Remember it was 20 years ago that Mr. Clyne reminded us of the seriousness of the depleting dairy industry in the Fraser Valley. It was many years ago that people were concerned about these strange subdivisions. I would really like to think that we are taking our blinkers off in British Columbia. We're facing the real issues of urbanization, of the tremendous growth of people, of the restlessness of people to move. We want to get on with the job.

I personally cannot understand why Members would be asking for compensation to what I would think to be unrealistically escalated land values, especially around my riding and in Richmond, Delta and Surrey. I personally reject this idea, that through a pretty detailed and deliberate pressure approach — and often changing of regional plans — we, the taxpayers, including the Members in this House who work very hard, must compensate for an escalated, book value of property. I don't think that's in the interests of the majority of the people that we have a mandate to represent.

I must make it very clear, Ms. Speaker. I had 15,000 cards printed in my name. Three of the five items on that card had to do with land use, with responsible planning for people. I would gladly table these or send them around to all the Members. To me there was no doubt that we asked for responsible use of land.

The other thing I want to say, in facing the times we live in, is that this is an old problem — a theological problem. Most of the history of Israel is a struggle over land use. It might interest the Members that the actual Hebrew word for heaven is actually a land, a place of water. It's called hamayeem in Hebrew, which simply suggests a place of continual water. Of course, water and an oasis was crucial to the nomadic Jewish people.

In the sixth chapter of the prophet Micah there's a pretty descriptive picture of the final judgment of the people of Israel. Israel could be us. Israel could be the Fraser Valley. There's this picture of a courtroom scene. Like yourself, there is the great lord up in his high seat. He is looking down on Israel. Around the chamber…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member — "She." (Laughter).

MR. ROLSTON: She. She is looking down onto Israel. The 12 members of the jury are the mountains. They look down and they witness what Israel has not done by omission. I think that's where many of us really are right now. Israel, in a sense, is put to the test. What have you really done? How responsible have you been? What kind of stewards have you been?

Of course, the mountains are looking down at this courtroom scene. So the Israelites kind of placate the Lord and say, "Well, look, we thought you'd be very happy if we had a great celebration." So they have a great celebration. That doesn't please the Lord.

"Would you be happy with great rivers of oil?" They come out with a great stewardship programme, a big PR thing. Bring out all the advertising people and explain what we're doing. That doesn't please the Lord.

"Would the Lord be happy if we gave the best oil — our best possession?" That doesn't please the Lord. Finally, the Lord was asked, "Would you like our first children? Could we give our first child?" No, that doesn't please the Lord.

Finally, the State of Israel is pretty anxious about this. It hasn't been able to be recognized, just as some of us are somewhat anxious that we have really been very responsible with land use in this province and throughout the world. Finally, there is this comment. The Lord says, "You know what is required: to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly."

I would hope that is where all of us are. Long after this sitting of the House, people are going to go on to

[ Page 1742 ]

use land. Land is a most essential product. It's going to far outlive any of the Members, even the beloved Clerk of this House. I would hope that there is a sense of justice.

I think the appeal process, both as a sense of fact and also on a point of law — appeal on the sense of sharing. I think the best justice is the kind of work that we've done here; the kind of input that we've already got is very worthwhile and very fair. Therefore, appeal will not be necessary.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. ROLSTON: No way. Well, we'll get to that in committee. It may be that there really is a sense of mercy, that we are in a sense a community; you know, seeing the total justice of the community, not just a few people that have hoarded land or have been lucky to own land or misused land.

Finally, I think it is incumbent on all of us, not just the commission, but all of us as legislators, in humility to administer this Act wisely — not concerned about political gain, because land is far more valuable and a treasure. It's a trust. I ask all of us responsibly support this Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

My predecessor who just took his place, the Member for Dewdney, talked about communication with the Lord relative to this Act. As he was talking I had a little meeting with the Lord, and He said, "Advocate public hearings. There should be some public input into this legislation. There should not be this dictatorial overpowering five-man commission over the rights of individuals in this province." And He said, "The Member for Columbia River, when you stand, speak on that principle." And that is what I'll do.

Now, the Member for Dewdney talks out of both sides of his mouth at once. He is extremely inconsistent. He comes here and he pleads for the preservation of agricultural land. He says there is a genuine need for this. Then in the second breath he says, "I'm pressuring the Land Use Committee for some amendments so we can get a sawmill in the Mission area." So we can get a sawmill! Let's designate just a little bit of this agricultural land — so we can get a sawmill!

Why don't you be consistent in what you say. You know, the Minister suggested, and I don't really think he has a right to suggest it, that there should be a public confession relative to land ownership. He went on to divulge what he owns and controls, and suggested that every Member should reveal themselves as to what kind of land they own.

Yes I will — and I'll tell you why; because I don't trust him if I don't. So I am going to say what kind of a land baron I am of the Province of British Columbia. I control 1 1/4 acres of land in British Columbia. I happen to have my home on that land. But also, in case he wants to know, I have a wife and six children, which really financially are a liability, but I consider them a credit.

Then we listened to the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Hon. Mr. King) who, in his usual cynical way, indicated to us that he pleaded the case of the landowners who were being disrupted along the Arrow Lake. At least they had the right of appeal to the courts, which this legislation does not tolerate or allow. They have that right, and in many, many instances when it was appealed they did get a different decision.

But we find now that there are still cases outstanding behind the Libby Dam in which farmers feel they have not been fairly compensated, that the government appraisers there felt are unfair. They are appealing to the courts.

I used to listen to the Member who is now the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) plead very valiantly on the floor of this House for those people, those farmers, whose land is being taken away for the purpose of the Libby Dam and the pondage. But what is he doing now? He is not doing very much pleading on their behalf now that he is Minister. Now he certainly isn't.

He used to blame the former government for the way they treated those people. There are still some outstanding claims on land in the Libby pondage. Why don't you stand up and speak on behalf of those farmers? You and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) have completely forgotten the rights of those farmers that are being affected by the Libby pondage. You are nothing but a tool of the state, Mr. Minister. You've lost your cause.

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

MR. CHABOT: No, you certainly are not as eloquent as you used to be for individual rights.

We listened to the Premier last night talk about a demonstration which took place outside this hall a few days ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member, on a point of order, the Hon. Member said I was a tool of the state. I would like to inform him that I am a servant of the state.

[ Page 1743 ]

MR. CHABOT: I could use another word too, but I had best not.

I'll never forget seeing the peaceful demonstration that took place in front of this assembly just a few days ago. The people who were concerned with their rights being taken away from them by this very bill and the principle of the bill which we are discussing right now — peacefully demonstrating in a demonstration sponsored by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Don't you think people should have a right to demonstrate; to express their feelings in a peaceful way?

They reminded me of the former demonstration, the last one previous to the one last week, in 1971 when the B.C. Federation of Labour sponsored the demonstration out in front of the Buildings. That was not a peaceful demonstration. You didn't see in the demonstration of the farmers out here just a week ago any banners promoting Social Credit out there. But you saw them in that ruthless, destructive demonstration of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

The NDP had their banners there. You had better believe they were. Attendants were injured in the galleries, windows were broken, and the Premier has the gall to bring the subject of the peaceful demonstration up and saying that it was Social Credit sponsored.

You know people all over British Columbia are extremely concerned with what is happening to their individual rights. In fact they are sending in their membership cards to us in bits and pieces. One that I was able to salvage — and I talk about membership cards, NDP British Columbia membership cards, and I've never seen one before…but I am amused by what it said on the back of this card. It says, "The holder of this who has undertaken in writing that he accepts and will abide by the democratic principles, programmes and constitution of the party, and that he is not a member or supporter of any other political party."

Democratic principles! Why don't you bring back democratic principles to the people of British Columbia by withdrawing Bill 42 which is a direct attack against the rights of the people of this province. Then we hear the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) who attended a conference at Harrison Hot Springs — it was the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters — and he pleaded with them, "Come and meet with the cabinet. We think you are putting the wrong twist on our legislation."

The Provincial Secretary said there is a need for more responsibility in the newsroom. He suggested that news is not being interpreted to suit the cabinet, and "Come and meet us; we'll tell you how to interpret Bill 42 and other pieces of legislation which the Government feels are controversial."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, I hope the day never comes that you will control the media. You are certainly suggesting that the interpretation they put on Bill 42 is not to your liking. Maybe there should be changes…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would like to remind you to please address your remarks to the Chair.

MR. CHABOT: I am always speaking to the Chair. I might be looking over there…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might try a "through you, Madam Speaker", once in a while. It would help.

MR. CHABOT: Through you, Madam Speaker (Laughter)…I listened to the Premier, Madam Speaker, just last night talk about section 706, subsection 1 and 2, of the Municipal Act. That is the same section about which he misled the people of British Columbia on an open-line show that was pushed out on about 14 different radio stations out across the province; indicating that the powers that exist in Bill 42 are no greater than those in section 706 of the Municipal Act.

But he failed while he was speaking on the hot-line, he failed to spell out the significant part of that particular section. It's a very short section. He didn't talk about subsection 2, but he did last night mention it. But he never did mention it when he was speaking out on the airwaves; and subsection 2 is a very significant one to the main section of the Act.

It says subsection 1 does not apply when land is zoned exclusively for public use, Madam Speaker, which is a very significant thing to the whole principle of section 706, because there will be times when the Government will zone land for land bank purposes, park purposes and greenbelt. This is for public use.

That is the significant part in that there is no room for compensation for the land which they zone into these various public categories. He also brought out a copy of a letter — a very speedy delivery we see on this — from Block Bros. Industries Limited, Henry J. Block, president. Special delivery, arrived by plane from Vancouver just in time for the Premier to stand, Madam Speaker, in this House and to say that they have support for this legislation, providing there are certain amendments, mind you, from one of the largest land speculators in the Province of British Columbia.

I am wondering, when I see the great haste in which this letter came to the chambers here — by plane if you please, from Vancouver, in time for the

[ Page 1744 ]

Premier to use in his speech, because it was void of other material — whether there was pressure by that Government to solicit this type of a letter from one of the large real estate firms, one of the ten largest real estate firms in this province.

Was there pressure by that Government against Block Bros. to write this type of a letter? Was this a solicited letter by that Government by one of the largest land pushers in this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, what is your point of order?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Simply this: that the Opposition has done such a poor job, the real estate promoters had to come to help them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that is a point of order. Continue.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I remember when they used to sit on this side of the House and attack the real estate interests; now they are in bed with the real estate interests. New found friends. They're looking for support; support which they no doubt have pressured out of these people, pressured out of them, to give them credibility with this legislation.

This is the same firm, I am sure you realize, that had ads in California that said, "British Columbia — for sale." You used to be critical of that and now you quote them as your friends. And they write a letter to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). The letter is, "Yours very truly, Block Bros. Industries Limited, Henry J. Block, president — and it is signed "Henry."

Oh, my long lost buddy. From Henry to Dave. Oh, they've got buddies now in the real estate business. They have certainly changed their tune. They'll go to almost any length to get support for this legislation or invoke any types of pressure as well.

No, I think the principle of this bill is clear enough to me and it is clear enough to the people of this province as well. It is clearly spelled out that it has absolute, overbearing, overpowering control over Crown land and all private land, every square inch of land in the Province of British Columbia.

It is centralization and bureaucracy at its very worst. Very worst. It is "closed-door" legislation. Ask us no questions because you will get no answers. That is the message you are giving the people of British Columbia today. Don't call us — we'll call you. That is the attitude of that Government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Now, when the people knock on the door, Mr. Speaker, they find the door is closed, the phone is off the hook and the mail slot is blocked. Don't approach us — " Big Brother" Government — we know best. Then they have the temerity and the gall and audacity to talk about open government. Open government — "trust us — trust us."

You know, anyone who has tried to have communication about this legislation with the Government has been excommunicated. There is no communication with that Government, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever. That Government will not hear; that Government will not listen; it will not listen to the farmers who express their concerns and anxiety to that Government — and they're not listening. If they were listening, they would have withdrawn this bill and brought in a bill which dealt specifically with the preservation of agricultural land.

They don't listen to farmers, they don't listen to people, they don't even listen to their own party Members, Mr. Speaker. When they were in convention just last fall, the 1972 convention, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia; summary of policy resolutions — they had a resolution on the question of agriculture.

It was resolution No. 4 and what did they say? What did the people who used to support you say? They said that the Government, on the question of land, should hold public hearings on land use policies. Why are you going against the wishes, Mr. Speaker, of the people who have put their first trust in you; who have said there is a need for public input, a need for public hearing?

These are not the words of the farmers, the general public of British Columbia; these are the words of people who have put their money on the line to support the New Democratic Party by taking out membership.

Those are some of the memberships, I am sure, that we are receiving today, torn up in bits and pieces. Those people are appalled by the lack of democracy that exists in that very Government in view of the approach they have taken to Bill 42.

Oh, we remember, Mr. Speaker, very well during the last election when the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture were speaking on Vancouver Island and in the Nanaimo area; when they talked very highly of

[ Page 1745 ]

the land on the Gulf Islands — about the preservation of the Gulf Islands. Oh, the jewels. These islands were little jewels and had to be preserved.

Now what do we see: the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) arbitrarily saying this is going to be a land bridge. There are going to be ferry docks; there is going to be a four-lane highway across your islands, as it links between the mainland and Vancouver Island.

Where is your concern for the landowners and the residents of Gabriola Island? You have told them arbitrarily, this is what will take place. What an arrogant Government. What an arrogant Minister, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder the people on that island are asking for your resignation, Mr. Minister of Highways.

Now, we listened to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who believes that no one should have ownership of land and this is what she has to say about government action 10 years too late relative to Bill 42:

" 'The provincial government should have acted 10 years ago to protect valuable farmland from subdivision,' Comox MLA Karen Sanford said Monday. 'Farmland is very important to British Columbia and to the world,' Mrs. Sanford said in a telephone interview from Victoria. 'It will become even more important in the years to come.'

"The MLA was commenting on her Government's recently announced legislation to place rigid controls on the use of farmland in the province. That legislation, tabled Thursday in the Legislature, was introduced by the Agricultural Minister. Stupich froze most farmland in the province December 21 with an order-in-council prohibiting subdivision, rezoning or other development.

"The owner of the land so frozen will now have to wait another two months to find out if restrictions on their particular tract will be lifted. The legislation introduced by Stupich last week will establish a new land commission with authority to establish agricultural land reserves. The commission will have an initial budget of $25 million with authority to buy any farmland which becomes available for sale."

Just on that point, the Premier said last night there was no intention of the commission to buy farmland. Yet the Member for Comox says that the intention of the commission is to buy farmland with the original $25 million.

"Land thus acquired may be leased back to the farmers, may be re-sold as agricultural land or may even be farmed by the commission itself."

So we are going to have collective farming in British Columbia now. Collective farming — I'll tell you what collective farming has done in some other countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. CHABOT: In Chile…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Stop being so facetious will you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want you to be serious.

MR. CHABOT: I am being serious.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're not.

MR. CHABOT: I am so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all Members address the Chair.

MR. CHABOT: In Chile, a Doctor of Agriculture was visiting and he studied what was taking place in the agricultural community in that country. He had this to say about collective farming and the land use policies of that country:

"Land reform programmes expropriated farms of more than 176 acres with the apparent aim of ultimately taking over all private land. There is little doubt that this reform has had disastrous consequences on production. Much land is idle. Beef is not obtainable; bread is now black and not appealing; butter and margarine are almost unavailable. The swine and poultry industries are suffering because of lack of feed."

That is what the expropriation of farmland has meant to Chile. That is what collective farming is bringing to that great Marxist nation of Chile. In view of the fact that the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has suggested that the five-man commission might go into collective farming I thought it only fair that I come in, in a constructive way, and point out to that Government which is promoting collective farming in British Columbia that collective farming has been failure where it has been tried.

I did not take any isolated volume dealing with the matter, I picked up three different volumes and each volume, I think, is worthy of quoting very briefly on what collective farming has done. This is primarily in Russia where it has been tried for the last 40-some-

[ Page 1746 ]

odd years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Quote it, quote it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I know we have been around, many times around, the world in this debate but I fail to see the connection between collective farming and Bill 42.

MR. CHABOT: You fail to see a lot of things, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think it is going a bit far to suggest that because the commission…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. I think it is going far beyond the debate and principle on the bill to talk about collective farming unless you can indicate where, other than what you have said already…

MR. CHABOT: I come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that, in all due deference — it says in section 12(b) that the commission can carry on farming operations on commission land…

MR. SPEAKER: That is not collective farming. If it said collective farming, I suppose it would be in order but that is going beyond what he says it says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Comox is probably, through caucus, aware of information which is not available…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I want to explain to Members, once and for all, that the debate has ranged on this matter — the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and others have discussed areas of confiscation that do not appear in the bill, but I have allowed it because it is your impression of what the bill is about. I have tried to be as free as possible in this debate, in the extent of the debate and even the repetition in the interest of free speech. But, it should also mean that there are some limits — and it certainly doesn't go as far as the Hon. Member is trying to push it now.

MR. CHABOT: I beg to differ with that point of view because it states very clearly in the Act the commission can go into the business of farming. It says that in the Act. That is one of the principles of the Act.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Comox is probably aware, Mr. Speaker, through caucus, of information which is not available to the Members of this party. And when she said that the commission can go into the business of farming, it has to be collective farming.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonsense.

MR. CHABOT: Because she says, "The land thus acquired may be leased back to the farmer." — that is one way it can be handled — "It may be re-sold as agricultural land" — that is two ways it can be handled — "or it may even be farmed by the commission itself." That is three ways it can be handled.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member, for example, were describing the several demonstration farms this government has or the federal government has — which are experimental farms — I don't suggest that experimental farms could be described as collective farming. That is presumably what the Act is talking about. If you are saying the Act goes beyond that to collective farming, I would ask the Hon. Member to point out where in the Act, so we can get down to the relevance of this debate.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't know what words you are using. You are interpreting the Act as you see the Act yourself, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if you are privy to information in caucus which is not available to me, but I want to say you are pointing to an interpretation which is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Not actually, because my duty is to deal with the Act as it is.

MR. CHABOT: You are saying that it is for the purpose of experimental farms and that is not an interpretation that you should put on the Act. It is an interpretation the Minister of Agriculture, when he speaks, if he feels that is what should take place, he should state it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member please be seated a minute.

I want to point out to him that I used an example that if the government owned an experimental farm, you would not thereby classify that as collective

[ Page 1747 ]

farming. I am suggesting to the Hon. Member if it says that a commission should own or operate a farm, that does not go so far as collective farming unless the Act or the bill says so somewhere in it. Now, your interpretation of words may, in all fairness to debate, go that far. If you want to put that proposal, put it in terms that makes sense to the relevancy of this debate.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I suggest we allow the Member to…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. I am interested in the good order of this House. I suggest in order to preserve the good order of this House, the Member be allowed to continue the drivel he has been spouting this afternoon.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no. Order.

If the Hon. Member can relate the ownership of land by the commission to collective farming, I presume in the interest of freedom of speech, he should be allowed to do so. But, I think it is extending the debate quite a ways beyond the meaning of the Act.

MR. CHABOT: I don't have to take those facetious remarks from that arrogant, dictatorial Minister of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. CHABOT: I do want to say that when I was speaking about land usage…

MR. SPEAKER: "Arrogant" and "dictatorial" should not be used in this House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): He has no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree. I pointed that out, that he didn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he be allowed to continue the drivel as he has all afternoon.

MR. CHABOT: I don't have to take those facetious remarks from that arrogant, dictatorial Minister of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw the words "arrogant and dictatorial Minister."

MR. CHABOT: Well, have that Minister withdraw those statements about my speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think both of you should withdraw your statements to each other. I ask both of you to do so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I accept the Member's offer to stop talking drivel in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I apologize to the Member if I have upset him.

MR. SPEAKER: Now would the Hon. Member be as gracious?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that isn't gracious at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, he has withdrawn it and apologized, that is something. Would the Hon. Member also withdraw his remarks about "arrogant and dictatorial Minister."

MR. CHABOT: I won't call him arrogant and dictatorial. He's too stupid to be that.

MR. SPEAKER: Now wait a minute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for your charity.

MR. CHABOT: Really, Mr. Speaker, you introduced some…a new term in my talk which I hadn't…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You tell them, you tell them.

MR. CHABOT:…new ideas, really. Because until you said so, I never even considered the possibility of the provincial government going into experimental farms. I have seen the national government in the field of experimental farms — now, is the provincial government going to go into competition with the national government? Is there going to be coordination between the provincial government and the federal government on testing of soil, testing of various products, testing of cattle? Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I don't suggest anything.

MR. CHABOT: Is it going to be a co-operative…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you get back to the debate on Bill 42?

MR. CHABOT: You introduced it. Really, the bill very specifically states, Mr. Speaker, that the Government can go into the business of farming. If the Government does operate more than one farm, which they have the right to do by this legislation, then I have to term that type of farming as collective farming. If you get two things together, it is a collective association — so that is collective farming. I want to point out that collective farming has proven to be a failure. I am not going to be selective in my information. I'm not going to be parochial by going to only one source. I am going to go to three volumes. I'm not going to read the entire volumes, Mr. Speaker, I assure you of that. But, they are books that are studied — that I am sure have been read by the Premier in his days in the Jesuit College down in the United States. These are some of their reference books down there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's "A Soviet Dictatorship." It's the title.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you attacking the Jesuit College now?

MR. CHABOT: It says in this one here:

"Intensive collectivization of agriculture, for which the 15th Congress had given authority, entered into its full compulsive phase in 1929 and virtually achieved the complete extinction of the private farmer at the end of 1930. Stalin halted it as a product of official excess of zeal. This, in part, it probably was but Stalin's magnanimity did not extend to the reversal of its achievements. From 3.8 per cent of the total crop area in 1928, the share of socialized agriculture apparently rose to 98.4 per cent in 1936.

"Here results in terms of production were less favourable, peasant embitterment and resistance and government reprisals kept output down and cost the country some half of its livestock, but the land for the first time was made substantially amenable to the will of Moscow and Stalin. It could hope to make good by mechanization what has been lost."

That's Russian Political Institutions, by Derek J. R. Scott.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do any Russians read our Hansard?

MR. CHABOT: The next one is dealing with the Soviet economy. It's by Mr. Schaeffer, in Collection of Western and Soviet Views.

It says,

"Soviet agriculture indeed is marking time. The Liberal post-Stalin policies did produce quick results. But since 1958, the growth rate has been negligible for a number of inter-connected reasons, which I've endeavoured to analyze here.

"Clearly, it does not follow that growth cannot be resumed. If more investment funds can be made available for the fertilizer and farm machinery industries, for instance, then the very low crop yield in natural and fertile lands of the centre, north and west of European Russia can be increased.

"Success in agriculture tends to reinforce itself. Higher yields of fodder grains, more livestock, more manure. Higher yields, higher productivity, increased incomes, more incentives — therefore still higher productivity.

"None of this is impossible, despite the adverse natural conditions under which Soviet agriculture operates. Yet it remains true that the huge farms of the Soviet Union have been inefficient in the use of resources and have shown a deplorable lack of flexibility and a failure to mobilize necessary human ingenuity.

"It is also significant that the only country in the Communist block which fulfills its agricultural plan is Poland, where most farms are privately owned and privately run. One reason for this is that the Polish plans are reasonable. Had Gomulka been so foolish as to promise to treble meat production in five years, he too would have failed.

"Polish farming has its own weaknesses and it's surely impossible on practical as well as ideological grounds to apply the Polish model to the Soviet Union. Yet Polish experience underlines a fact too often overlooked — that with all the familiar inadequacies of small peasant agriculture, it possesses advantages which Marxist theory has failed to recognize and Soviet practice has yet to find a way of emulating.

"Khrushchev is making an all-out effort to seek efficiencies within the basic institutional and political framework of the Soviet system, and has mobilized the Communist Party machine for that purpose."

Now, it's quote evident that Russia is moving away from the field of collective farming, because they found that over the last 44 years, really, that it has failed — that private enterprise, individual farming, individual production is by far the most efficient way to produce agricultural products.

So collective farming has failed, and I hope that

[ Page 1749 ]

that term in the Act which gives the commission the right to enter into the field of collective farming — that they refrain from doing so. Because I don't think that collective farming has worked anywhere else, and it will fail miserably in British Columbia as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says that they have not allowed rezoning since coming to office. I don't know where he gets his authority to overrule the municipalities, but nevertheless he has effectively stopped rezoning through the land freeze which he brought on, which is still on. But one of the statements that I find rather appalling from the Minister is the point that he made when he introduced the bill on second reading that there would be no agricultural land left in the Okanagan in 10 years unless this legislation was introduced.

You did mention the number of acres that had been lost in the lower mainland — agricultural land that has been lost to urban sprawl or residential complexes — but the statements that you made are not really in conformity with the statements of some of the planners on the lower mainland. I think it's important that we take into consideration the statements that have been made relative to the type of stringent policies that they have pursued over the years.

We find that Mr. Gillam, planner for Chilliwack county, said there has been no alienation of farmland for development in the Chilliwack area for nearly three years. Not since the zoning and development plan was introduced.

"In the rich and heavily populated Greater Vancouver Regional District, planner Rich Hankin insists that in 1966 plans approved by the provincial government for the lower mainland before regional districts were introduced, has been followed with only modest changes and no major exceptions. This contemplates the eventual use of lands currently zoned and taxed as agricultural for other purposes. The grab for land by speculators has been within these limits, and the eventual loss of the farmlands involved has been known, understood and approved for years."

To go to the Abbotsford area:

"In Abbotsford municipality, John A.K. Hocking, the municipal clerk, 'The council has consistently refused to open up flood plain farms to developers, and there is no possibility that that policy will be changed regardless of the freeze or the bill.' "

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: That's in the Abbotsford municipality. They don't need the bill. They can control land and they're doing it, and have been doing it for some considerable time.

"Dieter Norman, planner for the Dewdney-Aloutte Regional District pointed out that the 1966 official regional plan has been followed and there have been no drastic amendments in this region. 'In broad outline,' he said, 'prime farmland has been protected ever since.' "

That's for seven years that it's been protected.

" 'Mission City municipality has also followed the 1966 plan,' says planner Harry Jones, 'and even in the urban areas, the amount of speculative land held is not large, and the area already for development is less than 100 acres.'

"The worst alienation of farmland in his region ended five years ago, said Tony Roberts of Victoria, planner for the Capital City Regional District. 'Municipalities since then,' he said, 'have had a first policy that has worked pretty well.' "

Over and beyond this article which I have just quoted, I've listened to other mayors of the lower mainland municipalities. I listened to the mayor from Delta on television a few nights ago, and he says that there has not been in the last six years one square inch of agricultural land zoned for residential purposes in his municipality, or for any other purpose. So the matter is not as pressing and as drastic as you've attempted to leave the impression, not only in this chamber, but throughout the Province of British Columbia.

Now, I've done a little bit of research about the acreage we have in British Columbia, the number of acres we have under crop, the number of arable lands we have in British Columbia, the under-utilized number of acres that exist in the Province of British Columbia. I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to use a similar reference that the Minister used when he opened the debate, and mine is the ninth British Columbia Natural Resource Conference Study. I thought there was some very revealing and some very important statistics quoted in this report that are worthy of being repeated.

This was using 1955 figures — that's 18 years ago — and we can carefully assess these and come to a conclusion on what has really taken place in British Columbia in the last 18 years relative to agriculture. It talks about the potential acreage of agricultural land in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. CHABOT: That was 1956, as late as the spring of 1956, dealing with 1955 figures. It says:

"It is estimated that British Columbia possesses 4,615,000 acres of potentially arable land. However, much of this potential acreage will require, in most instances, large scale reclamation projects and considerable government assistance

[ Page 1750 ]

before being brought into a state of production. Table 2 indicates the distribution of this potential acreage. The total is the equivalent of 2 per cent of the provincial land area. Of this potential acreage, 500,000 acres are estimated to be arable."

Then it goes on to talk about the various areas where these potential arable acres exist. At that particular time British Columbia was broken into 10 regions, prior to the days of the regional district.

Region 1 was the East Kootenays — 400,000 acres of potential arable lands in the East Kootenays. Region 2, West Kootenays — 160,000 acres. Region 3, Okanagan — 80,000 acres of potential arable land.

Region 4, Fraser Valley — 300,000 acres of potential arable land.

Region 5, Vancouver Island — 500,000 acres.

Region 6, Kamloops — 75,000.

Region 7, Cariboo — 100,000.

Region 8 is blank. It says "limited agricultural potential" and it's blank.

Region 9, Central B.C. — 100,000 acres.

Region 10 is the Peace River — 2,000,000 acres.

There are some other quotes here relative to agricultural potential in the province which are very revealing. These are statements by experts in the field of agriculture in the Province of British Columbia. Many of these are quotations from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the day. They go on to talk about agriculture. They say:

"Agricultural development in British Columbia, to be successful and healthy, must of course be able to compete with similar production from our neighbouring provinces and the northern United States.

"There is no incentive for our farmers to go ahead and develop new land unless reasonable assurance is present that by good and efficient farming practices it will be possible to sell the farm produce at an adequate profit. Competition is regarded as keen because of large and small-scale reclamation developments in Alberta and the northern United States, many of which have been brought into being by federal financial assistance.

"Two such developments of recent years have an increasing effect upon the economy of our existing and potential agricultural development within British Columbia, namely the Columbia Basin project in the State of Washington and the St. Mary's River project in Alberta.

"The Columbia Basin project, located in the southeastern portion of the state, embraces a total of 2.5 million acres of which about one-half is suitable for irrigation. The climatic conditions are comparable to those within the interior of British Columbia and consequently crop production is similar.

"Cheap electric power is available for irrigation pumping from the federally-financed and constructed Grand Coulee power plant. Roosevelt Lake, created by the Grand Coulee dam, provides a source of water for the land. Reclamation of the land, construction of irrigation canals and facilities have also been carried out by the United States government.

"The land is sold to settlers on such terms as to make it possible for the farmers to become established without the heavy burden of annual costs which have been the death knell of many of our farming enterprises in British Columbia.

"The land is sold on a long-term basis with low initial rates. Irrigation charges are deferred for a 10-year period which allows the farmer to equip his farm and become firmly established. Thereafter, repayment of the construction costs of irrigation facilities are made up over a long period, free of interest."

These are some of the things that were being done in the United States. There are many other interesting articles in which they make recommendations but they're too lengthy for me to read at this time. But there are two very brief statements made in the report that I think bear repeating.

After being asked by the chairman of the conference, Mr. Murray had this to say. Dr. Friesen asked the question. He says:

"I have another question here. How long would you expect the present production in the lower Fraser Valley to continue? Also, if urban expansion absorbs farmland, where will agricultural production move to? Mention was made, by the way, to certain areas near Vancouver, Lulu Island and so on in regard to the same problem. I'll direct that to anyone who wishes to pick it up. Dr. Anderson."

So Dr. Anderson suggests that Mr. Murray answer. Mr. Murray says:

"Insofar as the agricultural production is concerned, I think we can consider today that Lulu Island, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey are moving out of the horticultural picture. The new areas that we're going to look to for horticultural crops will be Langley, Matsqui, Sumas, Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack, Kent, Mission, Dewdney and Nicomen Island."

Mr. Landon went on to say,

"Mr. Chairman, in my contribution to this particular question, I might point out that the committee that prepared this material came to the conclusion that this region of the Fraser Valley was the only one in which there would be a reduction in crop acreage, and that urban and industrial development within the area would reduce the acreage in the cultivation for agricultural purposes faster than we could clear it in the Fraser Valley and increase acreage in

[ Page 1751 ]

particular sections of the valley.

"So I believe that in the next 25 years" — this is 1955 — "it is indicated that the crop acreage in the Fraser Valley, now 218,000 acres, will be reduced to 175,000 acres at least."

They're talking about 25 years. Really, their projection was not too far off. Certainly we have not lost the number of acres which they indicated it was possible to lose.

We look at the lower mainland region now and we look at the type of land and the number of acres that are under crop in the lower mainland. I've amalgamated and attempted to relate the regional district figures to the old agricultural regions in the province — the lower mainland region. I've included in the lower mainland region the areas that go to make up that former agricultural region. They are the regional districts of Central Fraser, Greater Vancouver, Fraser-Cheam and Dewdney.

We find that at the end of 1972, compared to 1955, there are 190,329 acres under crops in the lower mainland region, which includes all the lower mainland. In 1955 the crop acreage was 218,000. There has been a loss, really, in the lower mainland — not 57,000 acres as has been noted by the Minister of Agriculture. These figures are authentic figures. The natural resources conference quoted them in 1955 as authentic. The figures which I'm quoting you now have come from the Department of Agriculture relating to number of acres under crop.

They've found that there's been a loss of 27,671 acres of land in the lower mainland since 1955 — in the last 18 years — that are not to crops. They've either gone to residential development or are not in production for one reason or another.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, some are in parks. That's right. The 1955 report stated that there was 300,000 acres of potential arable land in the Fraser Valley. So really we have remaining in the Fraser Valley 82,000 acres of land undeveloped — arable land in the Fraser Valley that could be put into agriculture.

That's one of the areas to which the Minister should direct his attention — to carrying out the necessary projects of irrigation, diking and clearing and ARDA projects to bring this land into production. If we're really concerned about the amount of land we have in production, I think some effort should be put into developing these 82,000 acres that remain undeveloped in the lower mainland.

Now we look at other areas in the province. I'm not going to go through all the areas in the province but I think these figures are very significant. In the east Kootenay region we find that there are 34,802 acres of land under crop at the moment. We compare it with 1955, when there were 33,000 acres under crop. Eighteen years later, there's been a gain of 1,802 acres. There's more agricultural production in the east Kootenays today than there was 18 years ago.

We find that the potential amount of land that can be farmed in the east Kootenays is 400,000 acres. There remains undeveloped in the east Kootenays 365,198 acres.

The west Kootenay region, which comprises the central Kootenay Regional District and Kootenay-Boundary Regional District — we find that there are 65,814 acres under crops in that area. In 1955 the crop acreage in that area was 41,000 acres. There's been a net gain of 24,814 acres of agricultural land — about 50 per cent more agricultural land under crop than there was 18 years ago.

The potential acreage in the west Kootenay region is 160,000 acres. There remains undeveloped in that area 94,186 acres to which the Minister could direct his attentions.

We look at the Okanagan region. This is a peculiar one because it's made up of the North Okanagan Regional District, the Central Okanagan Regional District and the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District. We find that there is under crop at this time 171,238 acres. In 1955 there were under crop at that time 147,000 acres. There's been an increase in the Okanagan of land being utilized for agricultural purposes of 24,238 acres.

Yet the Minister indicated that if the urban sprawl continues in the Okanagan, within 10 years there would be no agricultural land left. Yet in the last 18 years there has been a significant increase in land under crop in the Okanagan.

Relative to the number of acres they have under crop in the Okanagan, one of the peculiar things is what the report stated in 1955 was potential arable land in the Okanagan. They indicated that there was only 80,000 acres of land that was potential arable land. Yet we find that in the Okanagan there are 171,238 acres under crop. So the ARDA projects of irrigation and moving up into the benchlands that were in 1955 not considered accessible really for irrigation projects have now been found to be potentially arable land, because of the availability of water. So really in the Okanagan they have under crop twice as much land as the 1955 report indicates was potentially arable.

There's been a tremendous increase. It hasn't been the tremendous loss of land which has been projected to us by the Minister of Agriculture and the indications that in 10 years from now there'll be no agricultural land left. It is not really true, when you find there's 24,238 more acres under crop in the Okanagan.

The Peace River region is where the real growth has been. In 1955 there were 222,000 acres under crops. In 1972 there were 761,107 acres under crops

[ Page 1752 ]

— an increase of 539,107 acres in the Peace River area. Over half a million acres of land have been put to crop in the Peace River.

The Peace River has just barely been touched. Because they have a potential in that area of 2 million acres and only half a million acres is under crops in the Peace River today. There's room for expansion of agricultural land, not only in the Peace River but in every other agricultural region in the province. I think if there is concern for the well-being of agriculture and for the development of agricultural land, that the Minister should direct all his efforts to developing those lands that remain undeveloped in the Province of British Columbia.

In British Columbia there's been an increase, because of the ARDA projects that have been carried out in the Okanagan, over the 1955 report as to the acreage that is considered potentially arable. We find that now there are 4,929,000 acres that are considered arable in the Province of British Columbia for agricultural purposes.

Yet we find that there is only 1,755,000 acres under crop in British Columbia — approximately one-third of the potentially arable land is being utilized in British Columbia; two-thirds is not being used.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: My figures are from the Natural Resource Conference of British Columbia of 1955, plus information that I've obtained from the Department of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings, Victoria.

I realize there's a concern to preserve every square inch of agricultural land in British Columbia and I support that philosophy, because I know that in this day and age you require approximately 2.5 acres of land to properly support each individual, you might say, on a proper and full diet. But as technology increases and improves I am sure that we'll be able to raise substantially more per acre in the years ahead.

We find that British Columbia should really preserve every piece of agricultural land it has because it has only sufficient land today, if fully utilized, to look after the needs for agricultural products of the population we presently have in the Province of British Columbia. We do have the land today to look after our existing population, but that land should be put to use by certain projects of irrigation, diking, draining and things of that nature.

I don't think that we should start making hysterical statements that in 10 years we'll find no agricultural land in the Okanagan when there's been a substantial increase over the last 18 years.

We listened to the statements from the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) the other day, talking about the great rip-off that has taken place in the Richmond agricultural community. He indicated to us that he's from farming stock and he's a farmer at heart. His family has farmed for many years. Certainly they've been farmers in the Richmond area for some time. They've been farming there, I believe, since 1926.

We find that they've profited from the sale of agricultural land to real estate firms. In 1971 a very small portion of the farm was sold for $130,000 — just a small part of the farm was sold for $130,000.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, for real estate development. They've subsequently sold off most of the original farm that they had in the Richmond area. I don't know really what they've netted from the sale of farmland, because you do hear a great variety of figures. Some people say the liquidation of their farm through subdivision has netted a lot of money to the Steves family. Some people say half a million. Some people say three-quarters of a million.

You also hear that the Steves brothers have each got a quarter of a million out of the subdivision of their farmland that has been sold to real estate firms. I wonder whether the Member for Richmond would care to tell this House whether his family has sold any farmland to David Dawson Agencies, which he so viciously attacked in the House when he spoke last Saturday.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Friday and Saturday. He spoke on both days. I'm sorry. On Friday. But he shows his concern about the preservation of agricultural land and tried to justify the rip-off of their farm by saying, "Oh, we're being encroached upon by residential development adjacent to us." They sold just a small part of their farm in 1971 for $130,000. Most people in the Richmond area know or assume that they received between half a million and three-quarters of a million dollars for the sale of agricultural land through subdivisions. And then he attacks the real estate firms about their tremendous holdings and taking over of agricultural land.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you sit down, please. What is your point of order?

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, some of the statements this Member is accusing myself and my family of are entirely false. All the figures he is using are false. I myself am not aware of exactly what they sold their farm for because that was my parents'

[ Page 1753 ]

farm. But his figures are about 100 per cent off base.

I myself owned four lots of land in Richmond. I sold them for $4,000 a lot, which is a total of $16,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. STEVES: And that was residential land, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, speaking about farmland, the Member for Richmond has even indicated in a meeting he had with the B.C. Federation of Wildlife that the Act will, on the remaining land he has, cut down his value by several hundred thousand dollars. But the Member certainly profited from the sale of the Steves farm. There's no doubt in my mind that he's profited from it. He's received dividends from the sale of farmland for subdivision purposes — the destruction of farmland in the Richmond area.

There are people who are concerned about what he's had to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't even be honest.

AN HON. MEMBER: "I've got mine, Jack. We'll catch the others."

MR. CHABOT: There's an article here: "Firm Rejects MLA's Land Charges." It says here:

"The Richmond Municipal Planning Director Bill Kerr was skeptical about Steves' fears on the future of the municipality's remaining farmland. 'We've got our farmland pretty well tied down,' he said in an interview. 'It's immaterial to us who owns what or who sells it. We still control the use of that land.'

"He said, 'The municipality's present zoning regulations are geared to provide for an ultimate Richmond population of 150,000. This figure will likely be reached by 1985 and can be accommodated within the existing urban residential zones.'

"Kerr agrees with the developers who claim there are no projects now underway or planned in any way for agricultural land. He dug up figures to show that since 1956 the municipality farm-zoned area has increased from 14,260 acres to 15,732 acres."

In other words, there's been an increase in the designation of land towards agriculture in the Richmond municipality. One would think that the Member for Richmond, who apparently is an alderman — I don't know whether he still is, whether he's been kicked off or resigned or what — should know the things that are taking place in the Municipality of Richmond.

The Member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley) had some revealing statements to make about the principle of the Land Commission Act and I think it's worthy of reading — it's not a lengthy article. It appeared in the Merritt Herald, Wednesday, March 14, 1973:

"MLA Hartley Supports Bill 42 as the Most Advanced Legislation. Merritt's MLA Bill Hartley, who was in town on the weekend, told the Herald he is in favour of Bill 42, the controversial land commission bill which is presently being processed through the British Columbia Legislature.

" 'I think this is legislation that will go down in history as the most advanced legislation of our time. It will help not just reserve farmland for the future but make farming more viable, more profitable to the farmer, and more permanent to the province.' "

How will it make it more profitable to the farmer, more viable to the farmer? I haven't seen anything in the Act that gives any indication that this will take place by the passage of this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It kills land values.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, there is no doubt about it, it has killed farm values — it certainly has.

"Mr. Hartley said there will be one or two amendments but the basic principle of attempting to preserve what remains of B.C.'s arable farmland, which is less than 2 per cent of our province, will be retained."

He is a little wrong in his figures there.

"Mr. Hartley was asked what amendments are being considered. He said he was not free to say this at this time. 'It will have to come from the Minister, Dave Stupich, who is responsible for the bill in the Legislature.' Press reports from throughout the province have said that Mr. Stupich is considering amendments, but it is not known yet just what the amendments are.

"Mr. Hartley was then asked if he favoured municipal control regarding zoning of local properties, and he answered, 'Yes, providing it is in harmony with the overall provincial planning for zoning.' "

That is a very inconsistent statement — very inconsistent. Take it away, give it to the five-man commission. Have them say, "O.K., you can zone, providing it conforms to the dictatorial powers of the five-man commission." That is what you are saying, Mr. Speaker. What an inconsistent statement from a Minister who is supposed to be a reputable Minister of the Crown, making such an irresponsible statement I will never understand.

Then he goes on. He says: "The more I fly around…." What is he doing, spending his time in a

[ Page 1754 ]

plane all the time?

"The more I fly around the province on government business, the more concerned I become about the preservation of the agricultural land in this province, and the bill is to stop further loss of farmland in B.C."

He sees it from the air. I didn't know that that Minister's vision was that good, Mr. Speaker. He sees it from the sky — all the farm land disappearing. He sees the sawmills going into Mission on agricultural land, as advocated by the Member for Dewdney. He is advocating the rezoning of agricultural land for the establishment of a sawmill in Dewdney. Then they talk about the preservation of farmland. Highly irresponsible.

He goes on:

"It is basically for the preservation of farmland in B.C. If a farmer wishes to sell his farm to another farmer he is free to do so, and the government will not interfere. But if he wishes to sell to a land Developer, that is another question. If he wishes to sell to a friend of this government"

— Block Bros. —

"then there will be interference."

I am sure you wouldn't allow that type of interference, Mr. Speaker, to take place.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: That's right, Mr. Webster would interfere.

"With regard to the charge that the Land Commission Act would eventually result in the burden of the taxes being carried by the city dweller, Mr. Hartley pointed out that the NDP has said all along that we will remove the education tax from the land, and that this bill will give us the power to do this."

Which section is that, Mr. Speaker, that you will have the power to remove the education tax from the land? In Bill 42 where does it say that? That Minister is going around the Province of British Columbia misinterpreting the Act, misleading the people as to the actual intent of that Act, Mr. Speaker. He is saying it will make it possible to remove the education tax. What a bunch of hogwash from that Minister! What a mixed up Minister of Public Works you have, Mr. Speaker. What a mixed up Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I never know, he doesn't answer questions. How would I know what Minister he is of?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: You don't even know what portfolio the Minister from Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi) holds.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT:

"We are not there to hurt anyone, we are there to create order out of confusion. We are very concerned about the cost of housing and land. We are concerned with the lowering of the cost of housing. We feel that this is one way of doing it."

So they bring in the Land Commission Act, and immediately, Mr. Speaker, the value of zoned residential land increases by 25 to 50 per cent, by bringing in this legislation. And they want to reduce the cost of homes to people. What a ridiculous statement!

" 'We are just not going to allow the uncontrolled division of land to continue. The idea behind the bill is to keep that 2 per cent of land available as farmland for now and for the future.' He said that when Bill 42 comes before the Legislature for a vote he will be voting definitely in favour of it, but with some amendments."

He won't be voting for it with amendments — the Government has refused to withdraw the bill to put in amendments. How can he go around again misleading the people of British Columbia on how he's going to vote on this bill, because he will be voting on this bill without amendments. So the statements that he has been making throughout the countryside are absolutely not true. Absolutely not true!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): "Trust us."

MR. CHABOT:

"He did not qualify on his own ideas of what the amendments should be."

MRS. JORDAN: "Trust us."

MR. CHABOT: He is not suggesting what the amendments should be.

Then we look at the housing starts in British Columbia. In 1972 there were 14,126 housing starts — down by over 9 per cent from 1971. Down over 20 per cent from 1970. And there is a growing need for housing in British Columbia. This is a growing province with people coming from other provinces and other countries.

What are you going to do — close the door on those people that want to make British Columbia their home? Are you going to deny them the opportunity of building and owning a home in British Columbia, when the former government created incentives through home acquisition grants, second mortgages, homeowners' grants and renters' grants,

[ Page 1755 ]

and did everything to promote home ownership in the province? And now this Government here has a concern about home ownership.

They are closing the door to many, many people of low income because those people of low income have found themselves faced with increased values, increased housing costs, because housing is not coming on stream.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflationary policies.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, the inflationary policies of that Government as well have had a drastic effect on the cost of housing in British Columbia. And you are hurting everyone you profess to help.

No, when I look at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I have to conclude that that Government is insensitive to the wishes of the people of British Columbia. I think that a government has the responsibility to carry out the wishes of the people. The people have given you a mandate to carry out their wishes.

You know, we heard a lot on January 25 when the session opened, when there was a special part of the throne speech which made a reference to the B.C. bill of rights. Two months later we haven't seen that bill of rights. Where is it? What's the delay, to protect the rights of the people of British Columbia? I'll tell you, if we were government and brought in this type of legislation we would be embarrassed, too, to bring in a bill of rights after bringing in a Land Commission Act.

No, this legislation is the action of a radical, arrogant, insensitive, insecure, short-term, misdirected government — that's what it is. I want to suggest to that government that they retreat, that they withdraw the legislation, and that they reintroduce an agricultural preservation Act, and remove the fear and the apprehension, and the resentment that they have generated throughout this province.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, following…

MRS. JORDAN: Pop, pop, pop! Pop, pop, pop!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please — no insults.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Following the previous speaker, I couldn't help but realize that I should get up and say a few words in support of this bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: You had better support your own bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll support my own bill, and we'll wait until it comes up.

I sympathize with the Opposition, and especially the official Opposition, because I was over there a long time, and I know what the feeling is over there. In your case you were dumped out of the boat on August 30, you see, and you have been splashing around in the water trying to find a policy.

In order to have an effective voice in the Opposition you have got to have a policy. And you have failed in this regard so far. You are scrabbling around in the water trying to reach for something to save yourselves. You've grabbed onto this handle of Bill 42 — it was the first thing you saw, and you thought that it was a good idea. Now you are not too sure, and you are beginning to waver quite a bit because you find that the general public is really for the principle of Bill 42.

I came here in 1949 following the 1948 floods of the lower Fraser Valley. And the taxpayers of British Columbia spent millions of dollars to pay for flood damages in the Fraser Valley. I am sure if the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) were in here, he'd remember that at that time I suggested that we should stop all further subdividing and building on the land that was below the potential flood line.

If we had done that, we wouldn't be in the position that we are in today. If we have another flood like the 1948 flood, there'll be far more people for whom we would have to pay damages because of our shortsighted policy over the years and our fear of placing restrictions on the building below the flood line.

Don't forget that freedom is not a licence. Freedom is a responsibility. If it's the responsibility of society to save the people and pay for the damages caused through floods, then it's the responsibility of society to lay the plans so that it doesn't happen again.

We didn't lay those plans. We did nothing in 1950 to see that it doesn't happen again.

Most of the letters that I get from my area tell me that the legislation that we're placing on the statute books today is 30 years too late.

Being in the Opposition, whenever the Government brings up a bill you've got to try and read into it — and especially since this is the New Democratic Party with a new philosophy for British Columbia — all sorts of sinister plots, as if it was away down in the cellar someplace in a smoke-filled room and a group of people plotted and planned this sinister legislation.

If there's anything sinister in it, it's you people who are reading it into it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't worry about what effect you've got, because I don't blame you for

[ Page 1756 ]

reading those sinister things in because that's all the handle you've got. If you didn't do that, you'd have nothing to say and there'd be no debate on this bill. You'd be supporting it all the way down the line. You know that.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're having a hard time finding something good to say about it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They say there are so many thousand acres of land underdeveloped in British Columbia. Thank goodness that we've got some underdeveloped land that we can still develop as the population grows in British Columbia.

When we talk about expropriation — and you're trying to read this into this bill — don't forget that the land that anybody owns today…

MR. CHABOT: How much land do you own?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Three lots. (Laughter). No, 2 1/2 lots.

When you talk about expropriation, nobody really owns their land. If they fail to pay their taxes, it can be taken away from them.

I listened to the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mention about section 38, where it gives you the right of title to your land. But did you read all the exceptions that it had? Exception (a) the subsisting exceptions or reservations contained in the original grant from the Crown; (e) any public highway or right-of-way, watercourse or right of water or other public easement; (f) any right of expropriation by statute. So the government could have done anything with your land in years gone by.

So when you try to read these sinister plots into this legislation, you're just trying to grab onto a handle so that you've got something to talk about. Not that you would have any reason to fear the legislation at all, because in this legislation it does not say anything about expropriation at all.

It's surprising to me that you people could talk about expropriation at all, in view of the ruthless methods by which you expropriated the people in my area. I've still got a headache at this stage.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We're not compounding it with this. There's no expropriation in this Act. But these people here took that land, the best agricultural land in the East Kootenay, and gave it to the United States without any compunction at all about the people who were on that land for years and years, and their families before them. No thought of them at all.

You took it away. You even flooded the land to force people off it. You didn't give them the opportunity to go to expropriation. They were living in the houses and the water came up and they had to move. That's how you people handled the situation there and a similar situation in Natal. You didn't give the people the privilege of paying them a visit to try and solve their problems. You paid them half-prices for what their houses were worth and these problems are not altogether settled yet.

We did do one thing. We stopped the case of attrition that was going on by informing these people that they were going to be evicted every little while and keeping them dangling at the end of a string so that they would give up from time to time and say, "Well, what's the use of hanging on?" There's quite a few in there yet.

But you people, when you talk about treating people sensibly and the way they should be treated, you shouldn't talk at all. I think you should hang your heads in shame. You should say that this bill has got something in it.

I'll tell you one thing. You've got a Government behind this bill that believes in people and they will be doing the right thing by the people.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Listen! We're working for the people on Libby Dam, on the Libby pondage right now, to try and get a fair and complete settlement for the last 10 people that are left. We've at least placed a moratorium so the people in Natal are not going to be forced out of their homes until we settle these properly.

When you are faced with the dilemma of all the inaccuracies that these people created over the years, it's a difficult problem for a new government to go back and correct all the mistakes. Because if we did, we'd even have to go back into some Liberal governments and correct some of the mistakes, and Conservatives before them. So this is going to be quite difficult to do.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing wrong with this bill is that it is about 30 years too late. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a very interesting debate, Mr. Speaker. Because I am from a farming constituency and because I have been challenged on numerous occasions by the Members of the Opposition as to the fact that I hadn't arisen to defend Bill 42, I now do so.

I say that I do support Bill 42 because, as the last Member has said, I think that it has been at least 30 years too late. It has been my belief for many years that this should have been the philosophy of any

[ Page 1757 ]

government, that at least the land should have been under some control where the big rip-off artists couldn't have taken advantage of the farmers who were living in areas where they could make a nice tidy profit from prices that were offered, especially near the big urban centres.

Of course, in the Okanagan, it's everybody's apparent desire that they would like to have a piece of property to retire on, and if this land is available near the centres it becomes in great demand, and I've often said that myself.

I've owned a lot in the Okanagan. I had to sell it because I couldn't hang on to it — the taxes were too high. I've had other land & I also own in excess of 200 acres of land today, and I know that this land is going to come under this Land Commission Act. And I support the Act because of the fact that speculators could come along and because I am in the recreation business my land could be taken and divided up, made into parcels here and there — hodge-podge. I could capitalize on it tomorrow and make a lot of money on my land, but I don't think that this is the proper thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

Omineca is made up of mostly cattle ranches and hay ranches. There are very few farms comparable to those in the Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan. When you own land there, it's usually not in small parcels. In fact there are ranches up there that have several thousands of acres. But most of them relate maybe to a section of land.

Until about two weeks ago, or 2 1/2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had only received four letters on the land bill — on Bill 42. And those four letters, Mr. Speaker, were all in support of Bill 42. Then I attended a meeting at Burns Lake. It was an inter-municipal meeting — there were the mayors or councilors of five municipalities at that meeting. Of course I was asked to attend because those particular councils were asking for some direction, or to get advice concerning Bill 42.

At that time I had a discussion with them. As you will notice I had been quoted in the paper that I had said at that time we would not listen to the Union of B.C. Municipalities — the brief that they presented. I said that they were loaded with real estate types. Well, so there are some real estate types, Mr. Speaker, in the municipalities.

But you see, the Press wasn't altogether fair with me there, because I have friends in the real estate business and I don't consider them to be gougers. I don't consider them to be big operators. I do know that there are some people in the real estate business who are quite honest and make a fair profit in a land transaction. I was quoted by a couple of Members here as stating that I should even name names. Well, I don't think that really should be necessary.

You know, when we're talking about the mayors — the host mayor for example, Mr. Speaker, is a real estate man. I think he's quite a good one. He also admitted to me, and the rest of the meeting — and it doesn't state that in the article — that he owned 2,000 acres of land which he intends to sell. Now, I'm sure in Omineca he's not going to sell it to a speculator who's going to build a housing site or anything else. So really, that's not very pertinent as compared to this bill.

But there are some of those mayors who I think were opposed to the bill for certain reasons — reasons either political or for their friends who have large portions of real estate.

For example, I would look at the mayor from Houston. Houston, which is a real mess — and I think most of the Members in the Opposition know about it — was reincorporated as a district municipality and has a land area of 42 square miles. And you know, Mr. Speaker, they only have a little over 2,000 people in that community. Apparently there's a lot of land in the district municipality that must be under somebody's control and I wonder whose control this would be.

When they made that municipality up, Mr. Speaker, they made it to the advantage of Buckley Valley Forest Products, a company that was to have been a very successful company there just a few short years ago. They were deeded in fact large areas of land. That land now has become very valuable. But you see, Mr. Speaker, under Bill 4 a lot of that land will not be classed as agricultural. So you can see the reason that these particular mayors might want to fight the Bill 42 for their very own personal reasons, as well as being mayors of these municipalities.

I feel that…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. KELLY: There is a possibility that the mayor could have a lot of land of his own. I didn't ask him. But the mayor of that town is a long-time resident. There probably are large portions of land held by different people up there. And if you had believed that some day somebody might build a plywood plant or some other kind of institution on it, certainly you would be upset if you had seen profits were going to be taken away from you.

That is the very thing, though, that I would like to discuss, because for some reason the Members of the Opposition seem to feel that there is just no end of land in British Columbia, especially agricultural land. They just feel that the population that we have today is going to remain where it is today. For example, even the former Minister of Agriculture said on March 20 of 1969:

"No one can claim all is well while between 4 and 10 million people will die of starvation this year and millions will go to bed hungry every night. Here we are, the fat cats — the people who

[ Page 1758 ]

have — and we consider not those that don't have, because there are millions who will starve, millions who will go to bed hungry every night."

That was the statement by the former Minister of Agriculture, and I believe his heart was in the right place when he said that.

What about up in the Peace River? We were quoted a few minutes ago about the many hundreds of thousands of acres of land that haven't been brought under cultivation. For today's population this is fine. What about our wildlife? Aren't they supposed to exist anymore? We need hundreds of thousands of acres of this very arable land for our wildlife. It's a proven fact that a lot of our wildlife has to remain at below the 3,500 ft. elevation in the winter time in this province to survive. This is where their winter forage is and where they must live.

AN HON. MEMBER: No land in the Peace River country even comes close to 3,500 ft. unless you go up on top of a mountain.

MR. KELLY: Well, I would talk about Omineca then, which is very close to your riding, Hon. Member. We have many thousands of square miles that could be farmed but should never be farmed because the fact is that we must keep a place, a habitat for our wildlife. In fact, I am going to urge the Government to take some of the available farming land now that it could be classed as agricultural and put it into a reserve for wildlife.

I was accused of not answering my mail, Mr. Speaker. I've received letters since the original four that were all for the bill. In fact I've received about 25 since, of which the majority were opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the campaign was started from the date that I arrived in my constituency to talk about the bill, when the people who were involved in that meeting found that I wasn't going to support them in full, because after all, there were pressure groups. I said that I supported the Government and from that time on they did conduct a campaign against the bill, and against myself.

In fact, yes, letters to that paper are from Members of this Legislature — from the Opposition group, and also from the leader of the Conservative Party. Although I think they went to great extent to try and shoot the bill down, I have had no more than about 25 letters — except yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I received a single letter here. The postmark is Burns Lake, and inside are 14 pieces of paper with only names on them. No return addresses.

In most cases I couldn't read the names, they were more or less scribbled. But in any case, because they didn't have an address on them — a return address — I don't really think that they are responsible people who would want to hear from me. In every other case I have answered my mail. And I am of the opinion that anybody who is really concerned would write to me directly.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said last night that he had a petition with 270 names on it that was supposed to have been directed to me — or it was for my benefit.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have never, ever received this petition, although I would admit that about a week ago one of the Members in the Opposition spoke to me and said that I was going to receive a petition. So it shows me and it proves to me, Mr. Speaker, that there was an organized campaign to do everything in their power to shoot down Bill 42.

I'm also concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that they quoted many letters from people that had emigrated to Canada and said they wanted to leave that behind them — whatever that was. In fact, two or three of the letters were from people that came from Holland. Those people that came from Holland know of course that they left some of the finest farming land in the world behind — and the finest managed farmland too. In their particular cases, there was also a letter read here, Mr. Speaker, from some gentleman that had fought for his right to own land.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I also fought for my land and I believe that I have every right to express my opinions and to let everybody know that as far as I'm concerned what I do is the right that I earned when I did go overseas. Now that I am trying to represent the majority of the people of Omineca, I am doing my function as it should be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've listened to probably a good deal of this debate. It's rather interesting; I think I got seagulled — I did copious amounts of research on Hawaii and other places, but the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Vermont and such places. It's been a rather interesting debate.

I was shocked last night after having listened to the Members of the Social Credit Party decrying the dangers of commissions, to hear former Attorney General Leslie Peterson calling for commissions and Crown corporations to take over the duties of cabinet to more easily facilitate the flow of government and governmental business. He was calling for commissions, calling for Crown corporations to assume the powers of cabinet. So I'd like you to get your act together and you'd better have a bit of a meeting.

It's rather interesting. I live in a farming community. There's some concern there about the bill,

[ Page 1759 ]

but I have received precious few letters. I can count them on the fingers of my hand; I wouldn't even have to take my shoes off to count them.

I have gone searching in other areas. I've looked in newspapers; I've found one letter written from Creston. In the Victoria Times today it says, "Save the land," and concludes: "One day hopefully when we see uncontrolled automation give way to the healthy work ethic we once knew and when each will contribute his personal effort, we will also see the farmer thankful he still has a chunk of B.C.'s arable land with which to do his thing. He will be happy with his renewed identity, while the rest of us will carry on with our jobs, happy also with the thought that there is still arable real estate around us which will produce food, and that will at the same time uphold the claim of beautiful B.C.

John Grigoruk,

Creston, B.C."

This man — I happen to know him — is a teacher. He does, I think, have a fair amount of land that might be possible to subdivide; he lives in an orchard area. I don't know what his personal interests are there in terms of land but his is one letter which I found.

Another expression: headline, "Trail Mayor Favours Government Land Bill 42." "F.E. Devito of Trail has joined the battle over the provincial government's Land Commission Act by coming out in favour of the proposed legislation."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, oh, which party does Mr. Wenan belong to? Are we to silence people from speaking out…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: Rather interesting set of letters in the Nelson Daily News on March 9, 1973. There are three letters in favour, and one of which I think might bear some reading. It says:

"Sir:

"In view of the present publicity regarding the farmland use bill, I would very much like to share the following thought with you; readers. Gestalt is a word which applies to the wholeness which is more than the sum of its parts."

Having taken a bit of psychology and never having understood what the word Gestalt meant before, I found this a very interesting letter because I think I do understand the meaning of it very well in this context.

"Such a Gestalt is occupying a great deal of newspaper space lately.

"Number one: it is intelligent for a farmer to sell his farm for a great deal more profit than he could possibly realize in many years of working it."

And this is quite true. A lot of farmers maybe have a capital investment of $80,000 and are working for maybe, if they're lucky, $7,000 a year. They could probably make as much money off of that if they were to sell and collect mortgage payments. So it would be intelligent.

"Secondly: It's intelligent for developers to want to build houses and industrial sites on flat, cleared land with good, soft soil for ease of bearing service lines, et cetera.

"And number three: It's intelligent for a prospective home-owner to buy a home on such flat land because it's less expensive, although less pleasing, than a similar home on a hill or mountainside."

Then he makes the point of understanding Gestalt, or the wholeness, in relation to the sum of the parts. He says:

"But these individually intelligent courses of action result in the trend of a growing society to drastically reduce its food production potential by building homes on prime farmland.

"Thus three separately intelligent situations add up to a Gestalt of gross societal stupidity."

These are letters written to the editor. And there are others there in favour…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: I know none of these people personally; not a one. Here's one letter against it too.

However, this was very interesting — the Nelson Daily News. We're very fortunate in our area. Someone mentioned something about rotten apples spoiling a barrel. The media are on the whole very fine people. However, it's only natural perhaps that one or two are irresponsible.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Name names.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of being anti-Gaelic or anti-Irish.

I guess Mr. Brian Freemantle, who is not a Member of the NDP by any means, is a staff writer who went out to see what the feelings were in the town of Nelson and area on the Land Commission Act. The headline: "Little Opposition to Land Commission Act." This is March 19, 1973. Perhaps in the absence of some of these people who would promulgate and inculcate hysteria, in Nelson we're a little bit isolated from some of these influences of the media. We have our own media — responsible media.

"This Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, has caused some of the greatest controversy in British Columbia since the present New Democratic Party was elected,"

[ Page 1760 ]

but it goes on to interview people. Here's one farmer, it says: "Charles Noakes of Balfour had planned to subdivide a five-acre parcel from a 15 acre block before the freeze. Yet he's not opposed to the idea of the land freeze. 'I really think it's a good idea,' he said.

" 'I don't know what else they could have done. For years when I was farming I said the same thing myself. I hated to see that good land in the Fraser Valley go under pavement.' " Lionel Stainton, RDCK director, pointed out that there is a discrepancy between various systems of land classification used by the provincial government, and he supported the bill in principle. He has 40 acres of land and he could see the point in trying to save farmland.

"But in areas like the North Shore, farmers can't make a living. There are older people who farmed and were short of money all their lives and looked forward to subdividing and taking life a little easier, and now they can't," he said. So this is one of the opinions.

Mr. Hall, RDCK director, said, "A farmer should be compensated if he cannot sell this land for other purposes." What was very interesting was what the real estate fraternity had to say in Nelson. "Several real estate agents were also contacted for their views on Bill 42. One who didn't want his name used was completely in favour of the bill, because it was something that had to be done despite the fact that it would hurt his business.

"Gordon Burgess, manager of RHC Realty, said he hadn't come across anyone who had been harmed by the land freeze.

"Rod MacDonald, salesman for McHardy Agencies, pointed out farming hasn't really been viable in this area since World War II, when the cost of labour and transportation went out of reach.

"And Don Rosling, of T.D. Rosling and Son, expressed the greatest opposition to the bill. However, it must be remembered that Mr. Rosling was an active Progressive Conservative Party worker during the last provincial election."

Here's an interesting letter from a resident of my constituency — a person who owns 161 acres of land 90 miles north of Kamloops on the Yellowhead route, and is gradually getting it cleared is getting ready to retire there.

"We hope to raise vegetables and small fruits and keep a few hundred chickens. This is to inform you that I support Bill 42 in principle."

And it goes on…

"Recently a sawmill has been built three miles away. Our neighbour to the south who has better farmland than we have subdivided and cleared the flattest part of his land and sold it for a very low price to the sawmill workers. The workers, without bothering to find if there was water easily available — there isn't — threw up shacks and little trailers. The result is a rural slum, an eyesore that was once an attractive forest. It could have been a pleasant farm.

"Fortunately we are protected on the other three sides, on two sides by Crown forestry land, and the third side by a Christmas-tree farm. I believe that in a period of rapidly increasing population and economic chaos the greatest security a person may have is available through the ownership of land.

"We shall leave the property to our children. As we shall be leaving them little else we are pleased to know that should they be tempted to sell it, a decision that they would almost surely regret later, the government will exercise some restraint on them."

The Creston Fruit Growers — and this is from the Creston Review reprinted in the Nelson Daily News on March 20, 1973.

"Land Act Intentions Good but Compensation Crumbs."

This is I think where there is a great deal of concern.

"On my first reading of the bill, section 16, where it says that 'by zoning shall not be deemed to be injuriously effected, and there shall not be compensation'; this is the lack of compensation for farmland under the proposed Bill 42, the Land Commission Act. It is a touchy point for some owners of rural land in the Creston region, even though persons interviewed were generally in agreement with the intentions of the Act.

"And at the Creston Valley Fruit Growers meeting this was the consensus of opinion that came up. A land owner on West Arrow Creek, Everett Biddlecombe said, 'We'll just have to see how it will be under the Act.' "

So I think that this is what it boils down to — the concern, and a lot of expression has been about compensation.

Now, I think there should be some compensation but compensation for what, and compensation to whom? Is a farmer in Delta more deserving of assistance in making his farm viable than a farmer far outside of Creston; or a farmer on the outskirts of Creston than a farmer in Rolla, or Pouce, as compared with a farmer in Dewdney?

What creates these resale values which someone could get if he could sell his land for residential or industrial use?

Rather interesting yesterday that a group — I don't know if it was the Vancouver Board of Trade, or the Vancouver Real Estate Board or some group in Vancouver — has requested that the provincial government move the proposed government building from block 61, or 51, or wherever it is to the south end of Granville Street, nearer the Granville Street bridge, in order to upgrade what they say is becoming a slum area.

[ Page 1761 ]

It's rather interesting that they think that this expenditure of public capital can lift real estate values in that area. That is exactly what will happen. If these moneys are expended in that area it will raise real estate values in that area. Whoever the property owners happen to be contiguous to that building, should it be built there, would realize a capital gain, because of money spent by the Crown.

This is what's gone on in the lower mainland. Why do you think land is so valuable? How valuable would land be in Delta had the Oak Street Bridge and the freeway and the Deas Island Tunnel not been built? How valuable would land be in Surrey and Langley had there not been another freeway and the Port Mann Bridge?

In fact what would be the value and the potential of residential land in Chilliwack had there not been capital expenditures by the Crown. So, when the Crown spends money it creates wealth. But who should share in that wealth, and who should be compensated for a loss of that paper value?

Going a little farther out of the Fraser Valley, what happened up in Kelowna and the Okanagan? That was declared an economically-depressed area by the federal government, and federal government moneys were used as incentives to attract industry — West Mill Carpeting was one. There was a truck assembly plant.

With these moneys there has been an increase and a change in the economic base of that area — and, I'm sure not altogether unwelcome up there. I'm not attacking that concept. But how valuable, and how great would be the demand on residential lands, or I should say on agricultural lands for residential use, contiguous to Kelowna had that thrust had not been taken? So by the expenditure again of public funds, wealth was created contiguous to the large centres such as Kelowna and Vernon and so on. So when we talk about compensation, who should be compensated? How should the money be spent? Now, in fact it says here, "Land Intention Good but Compensation Crumbs." It mentions in here purple gas, which is already a fact — purple gas for farm trucks; something that farmers asked for, something that farmers had been given…but people say that's not much. It isn't a great deal. It isn't going to amount to thousands of dollars a year.

Farmers have also asked to have taxes removed from the land which is in farm use. There are provisions in the bill whereby that could be done, and whereby regional districts and municipalities would not lose revenue if there were tax incentives given. There's permissive legislation, enabling legislation, in the bill that would allow this, but pointing out to this some people say, "well this isn't what we want," although they've asked for it, and asked for it on many occasions.

So this is one form of compensation, but I'm sure that the farmers out in Lister from whom I haven't heard — the ones outside of the outskirts of town, the ones who know they aren't going to be subdividing — I'm sure don't consider the removal of school tax, the purple gas thing as crumbs. They're expecting more, and they're going to get more.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: But suppose that we were, without this Act, to remove taxes. Without this Act, what would we be doing? We would be just subsidizing real estate development. We would be making it even more lucrative for real estate developers to hold on to land, to control the supply and demand of land as they do.

And let's not kid ourselves, zoning does have a danger. If zoning falls into the hands, as it has from time to time in the lower mainland and other areas, of real estate developers — the previous administration in the City of Vancouver had seven out of eleven aldermen and the mayor, previous to this present administration, with property industry interests; this can be documented.

But suppose that we were to bring in, without this type of legislation, regulations which would remove school tax from agricultural land. We would just be playing into the hands of these people; we would just be making it more lucrative for them to speculate in farmland and more…

I have a few other comments to make later. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Nicolson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.