[ Page 1763 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Privilege Disclosure of amendments to Bill No. 42. Mr. Chabot — 1763

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1763

Mr. Speaker — 1763

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Nicolson — 1764

Mr. Smith — 1765

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last night in this House the Premier read a letter from Block Bros. which was delivered to him by special delivery. Subsequently, this same correspondence has been delivered to Members of this House by special delivery, reached the Members the following day from the day this information was available to the Premier. The Premier used the information contained in this special delivery letter, using selective parts of the information in that letter to make his point There has been widespread feedback on the letter …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, what it the point of privilege?

MR. CHABOT: My point of privilege is that the article in the newspaper says that Block Bros indicated that they were informed that the final form of Bill 42 will include a number of amendments to be introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. Now I want to know why Block Bros. Is aware of these amendments and why the information is not available to Members of the Legislative Assembly as well. Why should Block Bros. be party …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

MR. CHABOT:…to information which is not available to Members of this House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I think it is important that I respond if the Member feels that there has been an offence. That Member seems to go out of his way to be incorrect. There were two letters, Mr. Speaker. Had he taken the trouble or the courtesy of inquiring with me, he would have had the information he needs.

There are two letters. One was a letter to me from Mr. Block which I read yesterday, which had an instruction to his staff. The second letter came to all Members today, and arrived at the same time for all Members.

In terms of knowledge of amendments, the public has knowledge of amendments forthcoming because the Minister has made statements time and time again that there will be amendments forthcoming and has given indication of what these amendments will be

He said that they are considering amendments, and anybody who wants to comment on the consideration of amendments is doing far more service than the Opposition which to this date has not placed an amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. With respect to the Hon. Members, it appears that the whole of this is out of order. A point of privilege has not been discussed before in this House — and I could cite authorities to deal with a point of privilege. It is not a point of privilege, and I cannot see it…

Order, please, would the Hon. Members be seated. Will the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey be seated. I see no point of order, and that leaves nothing upon which the Members can rise.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): …while I agree with the point you made, Mr. Speaker, really the statements of the Premier raised more questions than they answered. Why has Block Bros. been consulted about the amendments?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Absolute nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Even if that were true, this matter has been disposed of on the question of privilege, and I cited all the authorities on it. Surely if the Hon. Member had an authority that disapproved of the ones that I have cited, he would have the courtesy to furnish me with it. In the circumstances, there is no point of order and there is no point of privilege.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, continued debate on the second reading of Bill No. 42.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-

[ Page 1764 ]

Creston adjourned the debate.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the dinner hour, I was talking about the forms in which…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: …compensation should take place, and to whom it should go.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Member be seated. Will you withdraw that remark?

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. NICOLSON: I say it is very important to consider which farmers should be compensated, and I am making the point that all farmers, I believe, in this province deserve compensation in terms of an input. If there is to be capital input into the agriculture industry, that input should be in a manner to make all farming viable in this province.

There is an article printed in the Creston Advance, Monday, March 5, 1973, and it's headlined "Spend only 19.3 per cent of income on foods." And it starts:

"Many consumers believe that the cost of food has risen too quickly, and that farmers are getting an unfair share of the consumer's dollar. Farmers, on the other hand, feel that prices they receive for their products have not increased in proportion to the prices they must pay for goods and services which they buy.

"Fifty years ago, about 80 per cent of man's income went into basics: food, clothing and shelter. Today less than 65 per cent. At least 35 per cent of a family's take-home pay goes for travel, recreation, education, health and other items adding to life's quality. Today Canadians spend only 19.3 per cent of their earnings on food, the second lowest country in the world."

And it goes on to show how farmers have contributed to the prosperity which we enjoy today, and yet in terms of returns, it points out that farm labour wages average $1.64 an hour compared with $4.77 for construction workers, $3.28 for factory workers and $1.96 for general work in hotels and restaurants. It also points out here what an hour's work in a factory bought in 1971 and 1961. In 1971 it bought 2.4 pounds of sirloin steak, as compared with only 1.9 pounds in 1961. Pork chops, 3.7 pounds in 1971, 2.5 in 1961. And milk — 9.6 quarts and 7.8 quarts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm reading something here. I must say I wasn't here for the entire speech of yours, but as I say, I've been here for a good 60 per cent, and probably been here more in the debate than you have, the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. But the point that I am making here is that people have been asking for compensation for farmers and some of these farms are — well we might say corporate farms, being held in abeyance by real estate interests, and being leased out to tenant farmers by real estate interests. They are saying that compensation should be made for loss of potential paper resale values, for potential use as residential land. And I find this hard to accept, because I know people that have orchards right in the area of Creston which is being encroached upon by the growth of that city, and these people support the bill. These people want to continue farming. These people don't want to see their orchards cut down and go under the plough. They've seen it, they've seen it around them. Some have been subdivided, but they do want the industry to become viable. And you know it is rather interesting too that the former Minister of Agriculture, speaking earlier in the debate, talked about having to feed potatoes to livestock. Well, that just ain't so. Potatoes are very viable today…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Where have you been?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, in the Creston Valley the marketing of potatoes is something that the people are expanding into, they are filling out their production. It is very viable, and I could refer you to people like Bill Piper who's investing thousands and thousands of dollars, expanding in this industry and doing very well at it. It depends of course — you have to be ready to put in a little bit of market research and such, and if you had read the market research forecasts that I have read, there is a market for vegetables, which maybe you aren't aware of.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: The dairy industry has picked up somewhat in the Creston area, and although rising feed prices are a problem, it has been fairly strong in the last couple of years. There are extreme problems of viability though, and the fruit industry is certainly one of them. Another difficulty of course is the series

[ Page 1765 ]

of bad crop losses which have been suffered in the Peace River country. But one can wonder just how should we spend money in this province, As I pointed out earlier, these real estate values have been created by public expenditures, by expenditures of the Crown.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if you want to hear, such as the Deas Island Tunnel, the Port Mann Bridge, the Freeway.

How valuable would that land be if instead they had laid a six lane road from New Westminster or Burnaby out to Agassiz? Where would the development be there if all you had was, say, the Pattullo Bridge and the old Mission Bridge and the Ladner ferry to get over to Delta? What would be the value, what would be the potential of residential development over in Delta if you hadn't built those bridges?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: What I am saying and what I said earlier is that expenditure of Crown money creates wealth and it could be created in other areas. It could have been created north of the river instead of south of the river, if the Crown chose to plough the money in that way. It has been a fairly even development on both sides of the river. I would have thought these people who purport to be experts in finance and understand the intricacies of such things would…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What grade did you teach?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Too high for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal.

MR. NICOLSON: If this were to be done — just take the instance of the small amount of farmland left in Richmond, 12,000 acres. Now, what are you going to compensate people for that? $10,000 an acre, $3,000 an acre? You start talking about millions and hundreds of millions of dollars when you start to talk about this type of compensation. I say that is the kind of money we should be thinking of spending, but it should be spent on all the farmers, not just the ones contiguous to the big metropolitan areas — just the areas contiguous to cities that have been developed and have grown because of capital inflow from both provincial and federal governments.

I say that where this money should be spent and the wisest thing we can do for the farmer, for the person who lives in the city, for everybody in British Columbia — the wisest way to spend this money is to make farming viable and that is what we are going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you the last one?

MR. SMITH: I don't know, there are a few more on the Government side of the House whom we haven't heard from. I rise to my feet to join the rest of the Members of the Opposition who have spoken prior to this time.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House a statement that was made by the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — a statement that I believe, if it is true, requires not only the cabinet but every Member on the Government side of the House to resign forthwith. This is the statement and it is recorded in Hansard.

"I'll tell you about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you about the backbench, my friend. That bill was before caucus and we went over it stage by stage before it hit the floor of this House. We support it 100 per cent."

MRS. JORDAN: Who said that?

MR. SMITH: The Second Member for Vancouver Centre. If that is a true statement Mr. Speaker, it means that a message bill went before the caucus of the Government Members before it was introduced into this House. It is a breach of the legislative process in this province or any other jurisdiction and every one of your people that sit in the cabinet and the backbenchers that sit- with them should resign forthwith.

MRS. JORDAN: Resign! Resign! Resign!

MR. SMITH: If this is the type of thing that we have in this House…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you should wait until the end of the Hon. Member's speech if you have any point that you wish to correct him on. Normally.

MR. LAUK: Very good.

[ Page 1766 ]

MR. SMITH: Refer to the rules of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): If you have a point, put the motion down on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: We have a point — we are waiting for you to resign. If this is what is happening in this Legislature, then all the rules of the Legislature have gone out the window. Amendments are being introduced and discussed in the hallways, in the caucus, everywhere but on the floor of this House and message bills before they are introduced in this House.

Everyone knows that that is a breach of parliamentary privilege, Mr. Speaker, and the Government should resign on that basis alone, let alone anything else.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), are you admitting that this bill was discussed in caucus before it came before this House as a message bill? Is that what you are saying?

MRS. JORDAN: Resign!

MR. SMITH: Is that what you are saying? That that bill was discussed in caucus before it came before this House? If that is what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, then the Attorney General should resign.

MRS. JORDAN: Resign!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate is on the second reading of the bill.

MR. SMITH: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Let's get one thing straight. We'll debate bills and we'll debate message bills in the House before they are debated in the caucus of the party in power today.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Probably saw the budget too.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has a point of order.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Is the Hon. Member discussing a point of order or is he discussing Bill 42?

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, for goodness sake.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: Discussing your Member's statements made in this House about a breach of parliamentary procedure.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Shouldn't be tolerated. You would agree Barrett's a dictator. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, the matter has been raised in this debate about where or when a bill was discussed. That is not, however, the subject of second reading of the bill which is being discussed in principle. If there is some matter that you consider a matter of privilege, it should be looked into. I would certainly appreciate your discussing it with me or raising it at some appropriate time. In the meantime I wish we could get on with the debate on second reading.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll get back to the principle of the bill that we are debating this evening. But I suggest to you that there is a breach of privilege there and I will be discussing it with you at some other appropriate time.

There are a number of people who have suggested in this debate that there is a rip-off of some sort of this thing, that thing or the other thing. Even the Hon. Premier was talking about rip-offs when he spoke in the debate last evening. I would like to suggest to the Members of this House that there has been a rip-off by no one else than a federal MP. He has ripped off the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia. In dealing with Bill 42 and the principles of that bill, a Member of the federal House sent out throughout this province a copy of a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun. It so happens that the letter is signed by a Mr. Alastair R. Lucas, Associate Professor of Law and Mr. Robert T. Franson, Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia.

I am not suggesting that any federal Member is not within his rights to send out letters to whomever he may desire in the province but this happens to be a letter, or a copy of a letter, to the editor of the Vancouver Sun sent out with the compliments of Mr. C. P. Neil, the NDP MP for Vancouver East. In using and sending out this mail he used the franking privileges of Canada to send out the mail.

[ Page 1767 ]

Now, the man is interfering in provincial rights. It is a provincial matter, it has nothing to do with the Legislature or the Government of Canada. I suggest to the Minister and I suggest to the Hon. Speaker that that is a misuse of his privileges in the House of Commons in Ottawa and that, in effect, is a rip-off of the taxpayers of Canada because they paid for this propaganda that came out under his signature to the provinces, throughout the provinces, on a provincial matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I certainly do. I certainly do.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't listen anyway.

MR. CHABOT: You keep signing the same letter.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope you learn something, because we gave you a lot of information.

MR. SMITH: Another matter that was brought before this House and referred to was the position of the United Church of Canada concerning Bill 42. It was suggested to this House by inference that the United Church of Canada were in favour of Bill 42. But there was a twist involved there because only part of the letter was read or referred to. I think that's despicable that anyone would use a church organization in debate without telling or revealing to the Members of this Legislature the entire letter that was written, I say in good faith, by members of the United Church. So let's read the letter that was sent to Members of the Legislature and other people in the province — and I'll read the whole letter, not just part of it.

"The following resolution was passed at the spring executive meeting by the B.C. Conference, the United Church of Canada, Thursday, March 15, with 49 persons present from all over the province. Resolution: Bill 42, Land Commission Act. The British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada supports the principle of integrated land use by the provincial government as set out in the objectives of Bill 42, section 7 (a) to (h) inclusive.

"As Christians, we believe that all land is held in trust as God's gift, and that individual rights to the use of land must be balanced more equitably by the present and future need of all than has been the case in the past.

"Out of our concern for individuals, particularly those on family farms affected by implementation of the objects of Bill 42, we encourage the Legislative Assembly to review the succeeding parts of this bill in order to ensure that:

It clearly excludes the right of expropriation under this bill.

(b) It is altered to include adequate appeal procedures.

(c) It includes the possibility of compensation in cases of hardship."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'm quoting from a letter that was written by a responsible body, the United Church of Canada — the British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'll read the rest of the letter too.

"We recommend to your attention the fact sheet and observations and recommendations as compiled by the B.C. Environmental Council, the Vancouver Natural History Society and the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, B.C. Chapter. And we encourage such efforts towards an atmosphere of constructive discussion."

The fact sheet that they refer to is in favour of the bill, but it's a qualified statement that they make in the fact sheet. In other words, the United Church of Canada is just as concerned as the rest of us are in this House that whatever is put before this House in the way of a bill protects the rights of the farmer, does not subject him or any part of his family to abuse by law.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member speak.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We heard a great deal in this debate from the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). He talked about the real estate firms in the Province of British Columbia lobbying because it was in their best interests to lobby the Members of the Legislative Assembly. He suggested that even the staff of the particular firms that he referred to had all been instructed by someone or other to send letters to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. And I'd like to quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun dated March 24, 1973:

"Steves' charges of an organized mail-in campaign against Bill 42 by real estate interests intrigues at least one of the firms whose employees mailed in the cards. Peter McWilliams, general manager of Rutherford McRae, one of the firms named by Steves, said, "Any of the firm's employees who mailed in the cards did so on their own. We know nothing about it."

What does intrigue his firm was a break-in at the head office at 1774 West Broadway, in the early

[ Page 1768 ]

morning of March 15. He said that there were signs the firm's postage meter had been handled. The only missing item, he said, was a small calculator. He said," …and it was apparent the break-in was a search for something other than usual items a burglar would take, but so far a check has not disclosed any missing files."

In other words, the gentleman who is speaking on behalf of this firm, while he admits that perhaps his employees could have sent in cards, also brings to the attention of the public the fact that their office was mysteriously broken into and that, according to his own statement, it looked as if their postage meter had been tampered with.

Is it not reasonable to believe, Mr. Speaker, that someone who wanted to give the real estate industry in the Province of British Columbia a black eye could have arranged to stamp a large number of letters with the postage meter belonging to any real estate company in the province, including the one that was broken into on that particular night?

I wouldn't want to suggest to anyone that people would stoop to that. But, I'd like to tell you this, and this is a fact that no one can dispute.

When the farm organizations of the province got together to demonstrate on the steps of the Parliament Buildings in an orderly demonstration — and those farmers came from all parts of the province, particularly the Okanagan, the lower mainland area and the island — and held a demonstration in an orderly manner and tried to impress upon the Government their point of view, one of the people who was most vocal — not only during the demonstration but prior to the demonstration in his own area — was a farmer from the Surrey area — a Mr. Matt Kennedy.

Now I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it was just coincidence that while Mr. Matt Kennedy took time off from his duties as a farmer to be in Victoria, to argue their point of view, his barn burned down — a barn that was locked up, unoccupied, had not been in use by himself for some time. Yet, just by coincidence, Mr. Speaker, at the very time that he was over here speaking on behalf of himself and farm people who he represented, his barn burns down. Now, isn't that coincidence?

The fire department that attended the blaze say that they can see no reason why the barn burned down and it looks to them very much like arson. So, these things happen when a person who wants to protect his rights and bring to the attention of the seat of government his point of view takes time off to make a trip to Victoria.

Is this the type of action that we are about to condone in a democracy? Against a man who just wants to fight for his own individual rights and come here and make his point known — not by crashing through the doors of the public gallery — but by standing out on the steps of the building in an orderly manner, in a peaceful way, saying to the Members who would listen to him, "I protest. I protest Bill 42." No anarchy involved. No malicious statements to overthrow the government. Just a man concerned in his own way about the effects of Bill 42 on his particular farm.

Well, he certainly has a report that indicates the barn was lost as a result of arson. Now why that happened, I don't know. I'm not suggesting and I'm not blaming anyone. But I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, that it's just a little too much of a coincidence that a barn which is not being used, which has stood in his particular farmyard for years, burns down on the very day that he's in Victoria on an orderly demonstration. That's a little too much.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: It seems queer to me, Mr. Speaker, that when we bring to the attention of the House a matter that has been reported publicly all through the lower mainland on the radio, that we should be accused of trying to incite someone in some way. No such suggestion.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would have reason to believe, I think, that there's too much of a coincidence involved when a man who's involved in a peaceful demonstration loses his barn by arson at the same time that he's over here. The fire marshal I understand is looking into it.

This is not the type of thing that any of us in this House should stand for.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member finish his speech.

MR. SMITH: When we have order, Mr. Speaker, I'll continue.

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture, when speaking about this bill, said, and I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, I do invite the Members opposite to participate constructively in debate to bring forth reasonable suggestions that will accomplish the goals of this legislation. I think if they do that, if they're prepared to work with the Government, not only in the Legislature but after the Legislature rises; if they'll work in the community and talk to the farmers, they can help the farmers, help them save their land and help them farm economically."

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House or in the Opposition disagrees with or opposes the principle of conserving farmland to the best of our ability. Our opposition to this bill is based upon the absolute fact that the bill that is before us will not nor was it ever

[ Page 1769 ]

intended to accomplish that purpose.

There are clauses in this bill which, used by the commission which is to be set up, will lead to the confiscation of private property, including farm units. This will happen in the name of an all-powerful, all-embracing, five-man commission appointed by the cabinet through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, a commission that the people of this province will be subservient to from the time the bill is passed until it is thrown in the garbage can by another administration after the next election.

We've heard the Members on the Government side of the House suggest to us that they're not hearing the same things that we hear; they're not receiving the same type of communication that we receive. Their letters in the main are those that support the legislation and approve of it. Well, if that's the case, the duty of the Opposition is even more clearly defined because we are hearing from the people of the province. We are being told in no uncertain terms that people oppose Bill 42 in its present form, that they do not agree with the all-powerful, all-embracing power included in this bill.

They're not saying it by the tens or dozens or hundreds. They're saying it by the thousands and the tens of thousands throughout this province. They have asked us on their behalf to make their point of view known because it would seem to them that whatever they say is not being listened to by the Government.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for standing on our feet in this House and bringing to the attention of the Government in the most forceful manner that we can muster, arguments which have been suggested to us and ideas which have been suggested to us by people throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

During the opening of second reading on this bill, the Minister's defense of the bill in my opinion and the opinion, I think, of many British Columbians was weak, ineffective, certainly lacking in conviction — almost as if the Minister of Agriculture was being faced with the fact that he had to defend a bill drafted by someone else in the Government of this province other than himself, forced through cabinet by some other cabinet Minister and then tossed into his lap to pilot through the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Even the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) indicated not long after the bill was introduced into the House that certain sections of the bill were unfamiliar to him — he was not familiar with them. He didn't even know what they contained. It almost makes one wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture himself really knew what was in the bill when it came before this House.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister really does not have any confidence in the Act as it is prepared and is before us; and that is why not once, not twice but many times the Minister has pleaded with the Opposition to take him off the hook. He's suggested that he will listen to any amendments that we have to propose.

Well, I suggest to the Minister that there is only one solution that is acceptable to the official Opposition and the other Opposition Members in this House — although I don't speak for them — and that is the complete withdrawal of the bill now. Lay this document over until such time as you've had an opportunity — if you'll be guided by public opinion — to listen to what people have to say to you throughout this province. Take your own good advice which you seemed to be so free with before the election, and go throughout the Province of British Columbia and listen to what people are saying about Bill 42.

Put the whole matter of farmland preservation into the hands of a committee and allow them to travel throughout the province and get suggestions, ideas and recommendations. The first thing that must be apparent to all of us is the fact that if you wish to bring in a bill which will preserve farmland, then you must bring in a bill which will allow certain flexibility in one part of the province as compared to another.

There's no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the need for the conservation of farmland is much greater, much more critical in certain areas of the province than in others. That by bringing in a bill that conserves farmland you really will have done nothing to preserve the farmer in a viable situation in this province.

This is why farmers collectively throughout the whole of the Province of British Columbia have been so violently opposed to Bill 42, because most of them have worked a lifetime — if you take the average age of a farmer today — to acquire a farm unit, be it 100 acres or 1,000. They find that even on the farm unit, regardless of the size, under present circumstances and conditions they cannot make a viable income.

They have looked upon their farmland as an asset that appreciated in value, the same as all other land in the Province of British Columbia has appreciated in value. While they didn't particularly like the idea of some day parting with their land, they knew that there was an asset that backed up their desire to some day retire.

That retirement could come about in one of two ways: it could come about as a result of selling the property that they had to another farmer or to the Green Belt Fund, and the capital that they received would allow them to retire in comfort, they would hope, in much the same manner as other people in the province; or they hopefully could turn that farm unit over to another member of their family. But

[ Page 1770 ]

what young man raised in a farming community today, looking at all the trials and tribulations that his father faces, realizing that he can go out and work at almost any job, including manual labour, and receive far greater return than his father has ever received as a farmer, will enter the farming business?

Disregard the price of the land. If his father was prepared to turn the farm over to him just for the value of the assets and the machinery that was there, under today's economics it's not a viable operation. No banker, no financial institution, no father that has a real desire to see his son prosper would advise him to take over his farming unit under the economic situation that they face in British Columbia today. This is the reason that farmers so violently oppose Bill 42.

Not only will this bill lock farmers in, but it will place them in a position where their farm unit itself will be devalued. Certainly a bill that does that and will do this the day that it passes — it's already done it, as a matter of fact — is one that farmers should violently oppose with all their strength.

Farm people are not the type of individuals who are easily aroused, but they do have a love for the land. Perhaps it's certainly been good fortune for the rest of us that they do have that love for the land. Because, Mr. Speaker, farming in British Columbia, as in many parts of the world, in the last few years has been a labour of love, not one that returned to them an income comparable to what they would have received in any other job in any other vocation, regardless of what one you would like to name.

Later on this evening I'm going to refer to some letters and correspondence that I have from people in the farming communities. I think it's important that their point of view is known to the Minister of Agriculture and to the people of this province.

It seems queer to me, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when we did have a Green Belt Act in operation that a farm preservation bill which was compatible with that Act was not introduced by the new Government. Certainly it would have been a better way to approach the preservation of farmland. The bill that is before us does not and will not preserve farmland. It was never intended to do that and the only people who will lose and lose heavily will be the farmers themselves.

The second class of citizens who will be affected by this bill are those people who wish to build a home for themselves on presently subdivided property. Because whether the Government realized it or not, Mr. Speaker, the minute that bill came into the House the price of subdivided property escalated throughout the island, the lower mainland and many other parts of British Columbia.

We have reliable reports that indicate in the Okanagan, even up through the Cariboo and into my area, the price of a lot, an ordinary lot probably 75 feet or less in frontage, suitable for an individual to build a home on, has accelerated anywhere from 30 to 100 per cent.

Now why did that happen? Was there a situation that we had less land the day after the bill came in than the day before? Was there the situation that we had less subdivided property the day after the bill came in than the day before? No. We had the same amount of subdivided land and the same number of lots still available. But because of an artificial situation created by Bill 42, the market value suddenly inflated by anywhere from 30 to 100 per cent.

This, Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Government have on their heads and their heads alone. Because if this matter of the preservation of farmland, which they say is included in the principles of Bill 42, had been approached in a proper manner, then that would not have happened in the Province of British Columbia at this particular time.

It would not have happened in that manner. We would not have had the tremendous increase overnight in the price of subdivided land within the province.

No wonder a man who owns a farm became upset. No wonder he suddenly began to wonder what in the world was in Bill 42 and why a Government that says they care for people was attacking the very salt of the earth, the people who live and earn their living by the sweat of their brows.

The farming industry is just that type of profession. If people in other vocations today had the same dedication as a farmer, if they were prepared to work the same sort of hours, the income that they receive on an average would be at least double what it is today.

True, a lot of that would probably go to the federal government in income tax, but I suggest to you that anyone who is working for an average salary today — and take whatever rate you like, that is payable for a comparable job — if he worked the same number of hours and with the same dedication, his paycheque at the end of the month would be twice what it is when he works a normal 35 or 40-hour week. No wonder the farmers in the province are uneasy about this bill.

This bill is certainly the type that is unacceptable to the people who represent us at the municipal and regional level of government. They have said in no uncertain terms that the bill is not compatible with the type of legislation that they presently have, or the development plans that may be and are in effect in many regional and municipal authorities throughout the province.

There is no requirement for a Big Brother government to scuttle the rights and the responsibilities of local government with Bill 42. It came about, in my opinion, because, to be charitable, I would have to

[ Page 1771 ]

say you panicked. You made a wrong decision when you introduced the land freeze by order-in-council. You made a second wrong decision when you introduced Bill 42. But even a socialist government must realize that two wrongs do not constitute a right, and that you have, through your panic, created a situation within this province that has allowed the price of real estate to escalate beyond belief without doing anything to protect the farmer and his land.

Surely the Minister of Agriculture by this time must know that this bill will not preserve farmland. If anything, in the eyes of a farmer, it only makes it possible for a Big Brother government to take control of his land and — what's most humiliating of all, after having worked a lifetime to establish a farm — to take control of his land at bargain basement prices.

What makes it most unfair, Mr. Speaker, to an average farmer sitting out on his farm, regardless of whether that farm happens to be on the island, the lower mainland, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan or the Peace River Country — what makes it most unfair to the farmer is the fact that he reads newspapers as well as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, and he sees where the Government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has paid, and is willing to pay, up to $82,000 an acre for a parcel of land in Victoria, supposedly for the development of low cost housing. Then a farmer tries to equate that to the suggestion that his land is only worth $250 to $400 an acre as farmland, and that under Bill 42, his land may be acquired by the Government at $250 to $400 an acre purchase price, as part of a greenbelt or parkland reserve, or whatever might be the reason for taking the property at those prices.

I know this, Mr. Speaker, that any farmer in the Peace River country offered not $82,000 an acre, but offered $82,000 a section — for the uninformed, a section is 640 acres — would gladly take that price today, because I don't know of farmland up there that's selling — even good farmland — at more than $20,000 a quarter-section at the present time. So how does a farmer in that particular situation at this particular time have any sympathy or support for a government who sees fit to pay $82,000 an acre for land in Victoria and then turn around to the farmer and say, "Because you are a farmer, your land is worth, as farmland, $250 to $400 per acre." Where is the equality? Where is the fair treatment?

Do you believe, Mr. Minister, that it is fair for your government to step out and pay $82,000 an acre to assemble land in Victoria for so-called low-cost housing units, and then suggest to farmers that their land in the lower mainland and on the island is worth somewhere between $250 to $400 per acre, depending on where you are? Is that fair?

I don't think it's very fair, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're dedicated to standing in our place in this House and saying, loud and clear: that we do not accept Bill 42, that it should be withdrawn forthwith; that the bill is poorly conceived, poorly thought out; that it will not solve the problem that you say it will solve; that it has already created an artificially inflated market for subdivided property.

It is a bill that has no place in a democratic country because it artificially depressed the price of farmland and inflated the price of other land, without providing one concrete or one specific advantage to the one group of people who it says it protects — the farmers of the province, the people who are already as financially distressed as any group of citizens in the Province of British Columbia.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker — how can any Government who says, "Trust me, we believe in people," ever face the public again after refusing to withdraw this legislation? Tell me — how can any farmer, regardless of where he lives in this province, ever have any faith in a government who perpetrated this hoax and foisted it upon them against their will?

Mr. Speaker, 2,500 people demonstrated on the steps of this building to show their displeasure in a peaceful manner — 2,500 people. To the discredit of the Department of Public Works, even the loudspeaker system that was provided for them to use suddenly and mysteriously went dead about two minutes before the speeches should have started on the steps of the buildings. Somebody, Mr. Speaker, pulled the plug so that the farmers and the people who wished to speak to the farmers could not be heard.

I suppose that's as much a coincidence as the poor farmer's barn that burned down in Surrey on the same day.

I'm sure that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, had they been informed that they required loudspeaker systems, would have provided that service themselves. One thing they must have learned and learned the hard way that afternoon in Victoria, was that they could not trust the Government who provided them with a loudspeaker system but didn't check it out to see if it worked before it was to be used; the same Government that agreed with those farmers that there would be a special ferry laid on and then suddenly withdrew the ferry and said that it was not possible to have that facility available for them that morning.

No wonder that people in the Province of British Columbia and those who are dedicated to preserving land and who live on farms are very, very upset this evening.

[ Page 1772 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Who is that squeaking from the back row here? Oh, that's the farmer from Richmond (Mr. Steves) speaking — the ex-farmer from Richmond, I understand. Something happened to the property.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sold the farm, didn't he?

MR. SMITH: He sold most of the property at a profit. He found out that selling farmland was more profitable than trying to raise a crop on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about telling the truth?

MR. SMITH: Well, my friend, I am telling the truth. I'm telling it in the only way I know how on the floor of this House, representing I think a community which is rural in content and has more dedicated farmers in the area per capita than any other part of the Province of British Columbia. They're full time farmers, Mr. Speaker, if they're permitted to do that, and when they can make a living on it.

I'll tell you something else. The only reason they are not full-time farmers is because they have found it financially necessary, in order to support their wives and families, to take jobs off the farm. That's not an unusual situation today.

Certainly they are thankful that jobs have been available to them. But the whole process of farming in the last few years by many, many people has been a process of subsidizing, out of another type of vocation, the operating costs of the farms.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: They believe in farming and they wish to build their land up to get to a position someday where they will have a viable unit, one which they can be proud of and one which they can retain and farm without the requirement of looking for a part-time job for several months of the year.

This bill for all practical purposes destroys the Lands Branch of the province. Mr. Speaker, it bypasses those professional people and dedicated civil servants who have been in the Department of Lands for years. It circumvents their authority and goes completely around them and places broad dictatorial powers in the hands of an appointed five-man commission. Yet the Department of Lands of this province is recognized not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada as one of the best departments of lands anywhere to be found; people who have a knowledge gained through experience and training and a dedication to the service not found in many other jurisdictions; people who have dealt continuously on behalf of the people of this province for many, many years.

What have we done? We've completely circumvented the Lands Branch. We've destroyed it with all its checks and balances by the introduction of Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, I want no part of that type of legislation. The responsibility for that Act is on the shoulders of the cabinet. That's just one more reason why we will not support the bill, why we have suggested and pleaded with the Government benches all through the debate upon this bill to withdraw it.

Let the public tell you what they think about the bill. Hold hearings throughout the province. I am sure that you will find as we have the people do have something to say, that they do have ideas about the preservation of farmland. I think perhaps at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the House the comments of one particular person who has a number of ideas about the preservation of farmland in the province and Bill 42. He has asked myself as a Member of the Legislature, and I presume that he has asked other Members, to do him the courtesy of reading his brief concerning farmland and Bill 42, I intend to do that right now, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman lives in Aldergrove, B.C. His name is Mr. T.P. Boyle. He took the trouble to put together a well thought out brief and he sent the brief to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stupich, as well as to other Members of this House. I think it's fitting that if the Minister does not wish to reveal the fact that he has received this type of input from people, then one of the Member of the Opposition should read into the record what this man has to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. SMITH: I'm going to do that right now, my friend.

"Regarding Bill 42 I am writing an open letter in the hope that you will read it thoughtfully, inasmuch as it deals with principles and concepts, the application of which is important to the future well-being of all British Columbians and to the reputation of the B.C. Government.

"I am writing as an owner of 37 acres of land in the south Aldergrove (Langley) area of B.C., currently employed in a beef operation. The land is good for dairy or beef production but too small to produce an adequate income on a full-time farming basis.

"Most of my income is, as must be, derived

[ Page 1773 ]

from an unrelated job so that the property can be maintained as a farm.

"However, despite these poor economics and the land's higher value, if subdivided for other land use purposes, I have been content to maximize its agricultural output and to preserve the land for that kind of use. Consequently I was glad to hear that your Government intended to help preserve agricultural land through legislation. Thus, you might expect to receive my support for Bill No. 42.

"However, while I agree with the intent of the bill in regard to preserving agricultural land, I hope by this letter to influence you and your associates to reconsider the methods employed. This is because some of them will in my opinion be considered by a large segment of the population to be plainly unjust. Some of them will precipitate a running sore of discontent in much of the population for as long as they are not redressed.

"More specifically I suggest that certain sections of the bill be reworded, bearing in mind certain democratic principles and traditions upon which our country was founded. The specific sections which I review with considerable alarm and my suggestions about them are given below."

Speaking to the principle of the bill he talks about no right to compensation in respect of reserve land.

"The bill says the following under a caption, as you know: Land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason by the designation of that land by the Crown as an agricultural land reserve, greenbelt land reserve, landbank land reserve or parkland reserve. Since anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the agricultural economics of the Fraser Valley will advise you the commission's designation of land as solely agricultural in use would reduce its economic value to roughly $100 to $400 per acre from its recent value of anywhere between $1,500 and $3,000 per acre."

Below he has a note, an addendum attached and says:

"I am talking about the land included from Surrey to Hope. I am not familiar with the economics of Delta and Richmond, but the contrast would be even more startling."

So he suggests that the value is anywhere between $1,500 and $3,000 per acre, depending upon the individual characteristics of the land.

"The bill therefore is plainly, enormously confiscatory of existing property values from Surrey to Hope. Much the same situation will apply to the Okanagan and to the significant areas of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo. Without exaggeration several hundreds of millions of dollars of property values are involved.

"I appreciate that certain Members of the NDP Government have criticized the activities of some land speculators. However, I suggest very strongly that the whole Fraser Valley for 100 miles from Surrey to Hope, the Okanagan, the Cariboo and Vancouver Island are not owned by a few speculators or by a few non-Canadian residents, but by thousands and thousands of British Columbians who have invested their life savings and their life's efforts in these properties. "Moreover, all these people have been good citizens for a great many years, obeying all the laws of the land. They have been uniform in their application for many decades in British Columbia and in fact across Canada.

"Those who have been exercising good citizenship in this manner, who have been helping bring about the abundance that we generally enjoy currently and who have lawfully invested their savings in land and buildings to ensure that they will place no burden, either on their families or on society in advanced years, should suffer no penalty through sudden and dramatic changes in our laws.

"It is a widely-held view surely that in a democratic society no new laws should penalize or victimize innocent, law-abiding citizens. The Premier and other principal Members of your party have said repeatedly that your party is a 'people's party.' I submit that the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who currently own land in the Fraser Valley for 100 miles, in the Okanagan, the Cariboo and in Vancouver Island, are ordinary people too. In my view they are not a segment of society that have been parasites on our society and economy nor are they a segment of society that has been pursuing ownership of land and buildings for the purposes of some evil financial gain. Quite the opposite in fact.

"The Premier has also said repeatedly that the NDP Government will seek always to be fair in its legislation. If you and the others really and genuinely intend to conduct your Government according to that principle, then I suggest that you be sure that your legislation will be fair to everyone. I repeat, be fair to everyone.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that this part of the Act be changed to provide for the right of compensation rather than no right at all.

[ Page 1774 ]

Specifically I suggest that a possible means by which this end might be achieved is for the bill to provide for a valuation day, selected from some time between the election of your party and the end of the year 1972. Properties would be valued based upon professional appraisals at fair market value of properties as of the selected valuation day. From valuation day to some future time period when the Government might actually acquire title to the property, provisions would be made for escalation in value, at least equal to the rate of interest on long-term Government bonds.

"Such valuation would form the underlying values applying to transfers of property between individual citizens in spite of the fact that the properties might have been or might in the future be designated as agricultural land by the commission.

"If and when the province were to acquire the land on behalf of the population as a whole, then these values would apply at the time of purchase by the Government. After all, if the whole province is to benefit why should the whole province not pay fair market prices rather than riding free on a segment of the population?

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the wording of the Act be changed as follows:

"Right of compensation in respect of reserve land. Land shall be deemed to have a fair market value as of valuation day November 15, 1972. Valuation will be based upon the principles of valuation normally applied by professional land appraisers; an average fair market value determined as of valuation day. Future land values would be based upon valuation day value plus an allowance for escalation in land values at least equal to the rate of interest on long term government bonds. Where land is acquired by the commission on behalf of the province the commission will recompense owners of land in accordance with the foregoing valuation principles.

"In respect of the commission's powers to acquire land on behalf of the province as follows:

Purchase or otherwise acquire land on such terms and conditions as the commission may consider advisable and hold such land for the purpose of this Act — I have no objection to the word "purchase" so long as an individual wishes to sell, but what does "otherwise acquire land" mean?

"This could mean seizure by force of expropriation. The commission should only be empowered to purchase land where an individual wishes to sell or receive it as a gift. If this was intended why not say so specifically?

I urge this be written to be more specific.

"The words 'On such terms and conditions as the commission may consider advisable' confer powers which clearly can be dictatorially misused. Surely no agent of a democratically-elected government should have any such powers. They should in my opinion be eliminated and words indicating fair market value substituted.

"Section 11 of the bill says an owner of land aggrieved may appeal on a question of law or access of jurisdiction only by way of stated case to the supreme court. This part of the Act makes no provision for an appeal from possible iniquitous decisions by the commission on property values and in fact gives the commission dictatorial powers in that regard with complete immunity.

"When one considers the enormous powers conferred on the commission by this bill, there will undoubtedly be excesses in the future because the commission is completely protected if it indulges in excesses. After all, its members are human and will consequently sometimes act in an overzealous manner, or in keeping with their personal views.

"Consequently, I very strongly suggest that the right of appeal on questions of equity also be granted. First a separate and independent appeal board should be established to which an appeal by any landowner could be made in respect of any act of the commission and its employees — either in the application of the law or in questions of equity.

"This body could be called a Land Appeal Board and it could report separately to, for example, the Attorney General. Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of appeal to the judiciary should also be guaranteed in the Act, initially at a level lower than a supreme court not only in respect of interpretation of the law but also in respect of questions of equity, provided the land appeal board had first been involved.

"I suggest that further thought be given as to how functions are to actually be carried out both as to policy decisions and day-to-day operating decisions. At the moment the proposed organization appears to create an excessive concentration of powers and duties in a single board with completely inadequate decentralization of responsibilities. I suggest, therefore, that further consideration be given to the organization contemplated as follows:

"Should this commission, having such vast powers be confined to a membership of five only or, instead should it be enlarged in order to be representative of a cross-section of British Columbians both regionally and functionally? If this principle was adopted, the commission would perhaps be doubled in size.

"Should this commission be responsible to the Minister of Agriculture? With due respect to you,

[ Page 1775 ]

Mr. Stupich, it puzzles many people as to what business the Minister of Agriculture has to do with greenbelt land, land bank land, or urban and industrial development and parkland for recreational use. One could understand the bill being introduced by you if it had solely to do with agricultural land.

"If, however, a provincial land commission is required for overall consideration of all land use in the province through the establishment of policy, then I suggest that such a commission report preferably to the House by suitable means — if it must be directed and detailed by the party in power, then to the cabinet as a whole within the policy directives arrived at by the commission. Then the appropriate Ministers would subsequently deal with matters that would come within their own sphere of activity. For example, agricultural land matters dealt with by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Otherwise, it appears to me there will be such excessive concentration of powers that arbitrary actions and inefficiencies will inevitably ensue.

"The bill makes no mandatory provisions for specific and decentralized actions which can be taken by municipalities in respect of lands within their jurisdictions in keeping with guidelines established by the land commission and goals of individual Ministers as well. Should provisions not be made in this regard so that these actions could not be taken solely at the pleasure of the commission?,

"I ask that greater attention be paid to sound principles and concepts as suggested in this letter and none to slogans or unyielding adherence to past positions in the redrafting of Bill No. 42. Otherwise as mentioned at the outset, the bill will be considered by large segments of the population to be unjust. Consequently I hope that the foregoing principles and concepts will be applied to this bill and that the views expressed herein by an ordinary citizen will be considered."

One man's opinion, Mr. Speaker, but obviously a well thought out opinion expressed, I think, in very concise terms, addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, so I am sure he must have received this communication as well as the rest of the Members of this Legislative Assembly. Yet through Press releases and through the words of the Minister himself, he has indicated that he is really not getting any input concerning changes in Bill 42.

Well, there is one man's opinion and I think a very good one — something that certainly is diametrically opposite to what we have heard the Minister of Agriculture say.

Even the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has received letters concerning Bill 42. So has the Hon. lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard because I happen to have a copy of that particular communication, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"Bill 42. This letter comes to you from one of your constituents in the provincial riding of Vancouver-Burrard. It is my understanding that as one of the MLAs of the riding where I live you are supposed to represent me in the provincial Legislature. Therefore I am writing to you regarding the above captioned bill introduced by your Government. I would like to make clear to you that I am opposed to this bill and I hereby request your Government to withdraw this bill."

She goes on to say:

"I want to say also that I think the Government should make a thorough study of the entire question of zoning and use of land in cooperation with civic and municipal authorities throughout the province before introducing legislation regarding this important matter.

"I also feel that in order to provide for the continuation of farming as a way of life in British Columbia, the Government should provide appropriate incentives for farmers rather than restrict their freedom to deal with their property."

Even the Hon. Attorney General, I notice from an article I read, believes the economy of the farming group must be improved.

"As my representative, I request you to do everything possible to have Bill 42 withdrawn, to have a thorough study made of this entire subject and to have a new and more appropriate bill introduced at a later time — a bill which will give the required protection to personal rights in our province.

"I would like you to know that if you vote for this bill I will not only not vote for you at the next provincial election in B.C. but I will campaign actively for your defeat as an MLA."

Certainly that was one of the letters that the Members on the opposite side of the House and the Government benches didn't refer to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: You'll have an opportunity.

You know, Mr. Speaker, not everyone is opposed to Bill 42. Certainly it would indicate that there are some people in favour and one of the organizations that seems to be in favour it is an organization called SPEC. That is a little curious because we have been accused of over-reaction on this bill by Government Members. In my experience, I know of no organization in this province which over-reacts more frequently to any given situation than this organization called SPEC. Certainly I have never seen an organization, however well-intentioned it might be, over-react on almost any situation as quickly as the

[ Page 1776 ]

organization called SPEC does with great frequency in this province.

According to an article in the Wednesday, March 14 issue of the Vancouver Province, SPEC's decision to support the bill was made at a meeting of nine representatives of the organization's B.C. regions. Micky Rockwell, SPEC executive president said: "He is confident the policy has the support of SPEC's 5,000 members. 'We don't believe the legislation threatens confiscation or expropriation of land without proper compensation,' Rockwell said, 'but," — and this is a quote apparently — " 'we are confused by the wording of, 'on such terms and conditions as the commission may consider advisable' in the land acquisition section. If this is intended to give the proposed commission too much advantage, we would oppose it.' "

So a meeting of nine people, called hurriedly by the director, can speak for 5,000. It seems that even the person who gave this news release has many doubts in his own mind as to what the actual meaning of some of the clauses in the bill are and how they would be interpreted, and also how they would really be applied with that bill in force.

In all charity I must say that that organization, in my opinion, was founded on over-reaction. In fact, over-reaction has been the lifeblood of that organization and, really, the way in which it survives today. I think that in many respects they destroy their own credibility by making those types of statements.

During the discussions we have heard the Minister talk repeatedly about the loss of farmland. It's true — we have lost some farmland. It hasn't really been lost physically. The land has been changed as far as the actual use of it is concerned, but in all the things that we have heard the Minister and the Members of the Government say we've never heard, them even mention the half million acres of land that came into production in the Peace River country during the past 20 years.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): How many crops of peas do you get in one year in the Peace River country?

MR. SMITH: If you want to grow peas, there's areas of that country that will produce it very adequately.

MR. NICOLSON: Two crops a year?

MR. SMITH: Very adequately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: So if that is the type of crop that the farmer chose to grow, he could grow it. But I suggest to the Hon. Member across the hall that the production of peas in the Peace River country is not the type of crop that most farmers would be interested in when they're about 500 miles from a cannery. So the type of crop they will grow might not end up to be that type of a marketing garden product. But I'll also tell you this: there's no other part of the province that can produce carrots, turnips…

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

MR. SMITH: I thought the substance of the debate, Mr. Speaker, was to preserve farmland to grow farm products. Now, if the Member opposite wants to engage in a little debate about whether we can grow certain farm products in the Peace River country, I'm sure the Chair will indulge me for one moment in giving him a brief education in what we can grow in the way of crops.

After all, we've heard everyone in this House tell us about crops and farming methods and conditions — not only throughout all British Columbia and Canada but almost every part of the world. And it's been acceptable as a matter of debate.

The types of crops that we'll grow, Mr. Speaker, in the Peace River country will be predicated on the types of crops that grow best and for which we have a market. For the Member to suggest to me that we should be growing peas in the Peace River country when there is no cannery within 500 miles is ludicrous.

MR. NICOLSON: Where are we going to grow peas if we can't in the Fraser Valley?

MR. SMITH: You still can grow peas in the Fraser Valley, Mr. Member, in many parts of it.

As a matter of fact I suggest to the Members of this House that there is a fair percentage of farmland that is arable, that is agricultural land, not only in the Fraser Valley but on Vancouver Island, on other islands surrounding Vancouver Island, in the Cariboo, in the Okanagan, that hasn't even been tapped yet. Some of it requires irrigation in order to make it viable.

A lot of it is just a matter of the people who own the land finding the finance to put heavily-wooded land into agricultural production, because at the rate of return today, there is really no incentive for a person who has a small farm of 50 or 100 acres in the Fraser Valley, to put the total farmland that he owns into agricultural production at today's prices. If a third or a quarter of that property today is woodlot, with a lot of trees on it, that's fine. Perhaps that's what we should retain. But on the other hand, if we are so concerned about agricultural products, then we should look at what that land can produce, and

[ Page 1777 ]

perhaps assist the farmer in removing the heavy underbrush and the growth that prevents him from farming in an economic manner today.

So there has been no mention by the Members of the government about the half a million acres that came into production in the Peace River country during the same 20 years referred to by the Minister of Agriculture. There has been no mention of the million acres of land that reports show us is agriculturally suitable in the Fort Nelson plains area.

As a matter of fact, a former Minister of Agriculture was all set to find out just how and what type of crops we could grow in the Fort Nelson plains by setting up an experimental farm there — clearing the land and putting it into production under controlled circumstances to give us an idea of what can be grown.

This we do know: in the Fort Nelson plains there are over 1,000,000 acres of potential agricultural land; the hours of sunshine are greater than any other agricultural area in the Province of British Columbia; the climate is comparable to the Peace River area around Dawson Creek and Fort St. John; the elevation is 1,000 feet lower. As a matter of fact they have, on the average, in the Fort Nelson area more frost-free days than we enjoy in either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek areas, where we have been farming since the turn of the century, but in a large-scale manner since the 1940's and early 1950's.

One of the things that we should consider when we are talking about this loss of land is how it came about and what made us get into this position where farmland had to be turned over to some other type of endeavour, whether it was a subdivision or whatever. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the very fact that British Columbia became a preferred part of Canada for many people to live in has contributed greatly to the reduction in the number of arable agricultural acres available for us in the Fraser Valley, particularly that part of the area from Hope to the sea.

What have we been doing for the last 20 years? Forming large urban communities. Towns and cities that a few years ago were a few thousand in population have now reached 20,000, 30,000, 40,000. The City of Vancouver — I don't know the exact figures — has probably doubled in size over 20 years ago.

With all of this influx and growth has come a need for better highways, for wider highways, for more freeway construction, for traffic circles, for overpasses and underpasses and interchanges, for utility corridors to carry the highline wires that provide us with electrical current, for rail lines and for pipeline compressor stations, for hydro transmission lines and hydro substations, for public buildings, for maintenance buildings and yards to be used by the Department of Highways and the Department of Public Works — all of this to service people, and all has taken a toll on the available agricultural land within that specified area.

I'd just like to refer briefly to the latest report from the Department of Highways. It's the report for the year 1971-1972. I'm referring to page C-10 to the report of the chief property negotiator.

"In 1971-72 fiscal year 753 settlements were completed and a further 547 claims were in the process of negotiation.

"Five claims were settled by arbitration and steps were taken to refer a further 10 claims for settlement by arbitration,

"A total of $5,515,190.74 was expended on acquisition of highway rights-of-way and other properties required by the department.

"Land assembly on behalf of British Columbia Harbours Board for the port area and the adjacent corridor requires an expenditure of $2,066,710. Land acquisition for the Libby Reservoir project carried out by this branch requires an expenditure of $652,000.

"At the same time 8 sales by public auction and 25 sales by public tender were held covering surplus land and buildings to be cleared from rights of way; recovery from these sales amounted to $45,000,099.02.

"During the fiscal year 93 buildings and parcels of land were under short-term lease or rental agreements."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, part of the loss of agricultural land must be borne by every one of us who pressures government for increased services to people.

Every time we demand a wider right-of-way for highways, every time we demand that the road be increased in width because of the tremendous traffic congestion that we have, we place a burden upon the elected authorities to purchase land — land which is then converted to another use. No one in this House should forget the fact that all us have a share in the responsibility in any loss of farmland that has occurred in this province, because we have demanded of government services for people and in the process we have taken land out of agricultural production in order to accommodate those demands.

Let's return now to the Report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Page 16 refers to their construction programme. Yes, it's a very nice picture. As a matter of fact it's of the Gordon M. Shrum generating station on the Peace River at Portage Mouth.

But in this particular report they refer to major electric transmission lines and the cost of them. Nelway to Cranbrook, to Natal, to Alberta border — a 230,000 volt line — cost $4,959,000. Mica to Ingledow and Meridian — a 500,000 kilowatt line — cost $3,525,000. Nicola to Princeton to Newmont — the line cost $2,422,000. Jordan River to Goward — a

[ Page 1778 ]

138,000 kilowatt line — cost $1,802,000. Kelly Lake to 100 Mile House, $1,785,000. Other transmission lines — $8,390,000. Substations, associated distribution facilities and local transmission systems — $29,000,000. Electrical extensions to serve new customers — $17,678,000.

The point that I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this: to provide services to people including electric energy there has been a requirement on government to use land.

Now it's true that some of that land on Hydro rights-of-way is being put to a further use by the planting of grass and trees so that the public can use it almost as a parkway and people can graze cattle on it, so there is a secondary purpose and utility value involved. But the fact that British Columbia must cater to the people who live here and provide them with the services that they demand, that we have had a tremendous pressure from urban growth, and that this increased pressure has resulted in larger highways, better freeways, more transmission lines for electric utilities, has all resulted in losing some of the agricultural land of the province.

If one takes a look at the map in the back of the Hydro report you can easily see the transmission lines that are all scattered throughout the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's a suggestion by one of the Hon. Ministers to go back to coal oil lamps. Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if that Hon. Minister wishes to go campaigning throughout the province on the basis that everyone return to the use of coal oil lamps, he'd better not come into my riding. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that he would be in real trouble even with his colleagues if he suggested to them that they should come with him throughout the Province of British Columbia campaigning on the basis that everyone should revert to coal oil lamps.

Even coal oil is a form of energy, Mr. Minister, made from petroleum products, as I recall, and that in itself is a requirement upon some source of energy in the province.

So, Mr. Speaker, this matter of the loss of farmland — certainly we have lost land to agricultural production and we all must assume part of that responsibility, but the land has been reallocated to other uses, and that reallocation has come about as a result of people demanding services throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I, for one, am certainly not going to suggest to the people in the Peace River country that they should go back to coal oil lamps after they fought so long and so hard to receive Hydro services.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: That's right, Mr. Minister, a few people are still using coal oil lamps, but the majority are not. The reason that they have Hydro today is because there was a policy available to them that would allow the extension of electricity throughout the rural areas of British Columbia at a price the people could afford to pay.

I would think, Mr. Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Hartley) that your area reflects the benefit of that policy just as much as my own does. I would think, Mr. Minister, that the policy that they use a postage stamp grade for electrical energy throughout the Province of British Columbia has been a benefit to your area of the province as much as it has been to mine.

So don't knock development and progress, particularly when all of our areas in the rural parts of British Columbia have benefited by it. If the cost has been the loss of some farmland, that is a cost that we have had to pay. How are we going to get it back? I don't think there is an answer to that.

There is a way of bringing into production land which has agricultural potential and which is presently not being used, and that is to make it possible for a farmer to make a better income from his farm. If he can see some benefit — even a very small pot of gold at the end of the rainbow — he'll work for it. But the picture has been anything but encouraging the last few years.

In speaking to second reading of this bill, the Minister said this, in stating to the Vancouver Province on March 10:

"Asked if he would consider withdrawing the legislation, Stupich said he would consider putting it off, pending further discussion, if he were satisfied there was substantial public opposition.

"However, he said response he has received at public meetings and through the mail shows that once people understood the legislation, they favoured it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times and in how many ways we have to bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, the fact that people do not approve of this legislation. I don't know how many times and in how many ways we have to stand in our place and read letters to you from people who have a genuine concern about the matter before you withdraw the legislation.

I suggest to the Minister that we have certainly received an abundance of correspondence indicating that the bill should be withdrawn. I'd like to refer to some of that correspondence that I have in front of me. Since it comes from all parts of the province, I'm sure the Minister will be interested in it, This is a letter from…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1779 ]

MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Speaker, it seems queer that when one of the Members of the Opposition gets on his feet to speak in this debate, he's filibustering. But the Premier himself has spoken in the debate at length. Other Members of the cabinet benches and the backbenches have spoken at length in this debate. But when we get up to say our bit in this debate, we're filibustering. What kind of democracy is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have not barred you from speaking. If anyone tries to stop you speaking, you could certainly appeal to the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll remember that. I thank you for your kind concern.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You still have the right of appeal. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Are you appealing my ruling? (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: This letter is from a big game guide and outfitter who lives at Mile 428 on the Alaska Highway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Yes, a big game guide. He also happens to have a bit of land, where he runs his livestock and his horses so that he can retain the type of business that he has. What's wrong with that, Mr. Member? Is there anything wrong with that? It says:

"Dear Mr. Smith:

This looks like a bad and dangerous move and naturally I am strictly opposed to such a move. I would certainly be willing to do anything up this way that is possible. If you could give me more information, I would certainly do anything I could and, if nothing else, get a petition going against this land freeze."

A short letter from a busy man, but it certainly explains how he feels about it. I received, as many people did, all kinds of very short letters saying, "I protest Bill 42." Here's one from Fort St. John; another one from Fort St. John. That one's from Hudson Hope. Here's one from a man at Vanderhoof:

"We need to stop the land freeze and commission Act before it's too late. Please help keep government out of business, too. For the sake of B.C. and humanity, help keep us free."

It's signed by a Mr. Gary Blattner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SMITH: Gary Blattner, of Vanderhoof. A letter from Kamloops, 19 Mile Ranch:

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

"Your assistance in helping to put pressure in the right area will be greatly appreciated."

A letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Cleo McGhghy, 101, British Columbia. It happens to be north of Fort St. John.

"When we became citizens of Canada last year, one of the rights we were trying to enjoy was that of owning property. We are against Bill 42, Land Commission Act, because we feel it is a real threat to our rights.

"Being a little green on politics, we voted NDP in the last election. You can be sure they won't get our vote again.

"P.S. We are trying to get a ranch going in virgin country but wonder if it is going to be worth all the work and worry by the time the NDP takes over everything."

They're just a concerned man and his wife, who are trying to get a foothold in a relatively sparse and unpopulated part of the Province of British Columbia. Should they be denied that right by legislative process? I think not.

Those are the people who have gone into these out-of-the-way places and because of their persistence we have development there today that we wouldn't otherwise have. We have places in the province for people who get fed up with the urban life to go, if they so desire. What is wrong with those people desiring to own a piece of land in their right and their own name? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if that's the type of encouragement which we require and need to enhance new areas that can and should be developed, if that's the type of encouragement we need to get people out of the heavily-populated urban areas of the province into these new areas — then I think we should provide policies that will allow them to go into these areas and become landowners with a title in fee simple for their own benefit.

Here's a letter from a farmer who farms in the Cecil Lake area of British Columbia, my own area:

"I disagree very much with the NDP with their land freeze. I feel this is a free country and when we buy or homestead a piece of land and pay our share of taxes on it when due, we should be able to do what we want with this land.

"If we want to sell it, subdivide it or give it away, this we should be free to do. If we can't do this, Russia might as well have Canada too."

I'm quoting from a letter, Mr. Minister, from a farmer and, as a matter of fact, a very concerned farmer.

[ Page 1780 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you read all your letters, we'll be here till…

MR. SMITH: Two or three days, would you believe, if I read all of them. But I'll read enough to give you an indication of the type of correspondence I'm receiving.

I picked that letter, Mr. Speaker, out of the many that I have received for a specific reason. This is a second generation farmer in the Peace River country. His father came into the Peace as a veteran from the First World War and settled there. He's now retired — a man well up in years but well respected in that part of the country. His son, C.F. Burtons, Jr. — a Dutch family, as a matter of fact, by background — farms not only the land that his father used to own, but he's added to that farming unit since he became an adult. He's concerned about what's going on in the farming area that he represents.

Here's a letter from people who live in Fort St. John:

"We are quite disturbed that the NDP should even have considered such a move as to introduce a bill that would abolish private ownership of land. What are they trying to do to us? We have enough trouble with economic conditions and natural disasters against us. Now, instead of helping us, the Government is trying to strangle us.

"We don't want that bill to be passed in parliament at all."

A very pointed letter, I think, and very much to the point, Mr. Speaker, indicating how those people feel. Many people in this Legislature have pointed out what they call "land speculators." They pointed to anyone who subdivided property and said that person was a land speculator. Anybody who had land who decided to subdivide it must be a land speculator. I'd like to read to you a letter from a lady in Fort St. John. She's not a land speculator but she does have land. She's been subdividing it. I'd like you to hear what she has to say.

"I am writing you about the so-called land freeze which has been deemed necessary to levy on the farmers of this province.

"I own the north half-section of 108419 went of the sixth in the North Peace area. I have been a resident here since 1932."

That's 40 years, Mr. Speaker.

"Since my husband's fatal accident in 1957, I kept this piece of land, selling acreages and farming the rest. I have now four registered plans, I did this to supplement my income but some years it only barely paid the taxes on it."

Will you accept an adjournment to the next sitting of the House? Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're using the word "debate" loosely. (Laughter).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.