[ Page 1781 ]

CONTENTS

Motion to adjourn

Denial of union certification vote. Mr. McGeer — 1781

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1781

Hon. Mr. King — 1782

Mr. Speaker — 1782

Mr. Gardom — 1782

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1782

Hon. Mr. King — 1783

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1783

Routine proceedings

The Labour Relations Act (Bill No. 157) Mr. McGeer. Introduction and first reading — 1783

Land Commission Act Bill No. 42. Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 1783

Amendment on second reading. Mr. Smith — 1788

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1788

Mr. Morrison — 1788

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1788

Mr. McClelland — 1789

Mr. Chabot — 1789

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1790

Mr. Wallace — 1790

Mr. Gardom — 1791

Mr. Dent — 1792

Mr. Curtis — 1792

Mr. Williams — 1792

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1793

Mr. Phillips — 1793

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1799

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1799

Mr. Lea — 1799

Mr. McGeer — 1800

Mr. Richter — 1800

Mrs. Jordan — 1801

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1803

Mr. Schroeder — 1804

Mr. Fraser — 1805

Division on the amendment — 1805

Privilege

Mr. Steves — 1806

Mr. Smith — 1806

Mrs. Jordan — 1806

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Gorst — 1807

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1811

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1811

Division on second reading — 1815

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

The House met at 10:00 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, two major national television networks have asked permission to film the first 15 minutes of the proceedings which I presume is the question period. I have turned the lights on to that end in the hopes that you will agree to that being done. Is that agreed upon?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a committee of this House which is concerning itself, or I understand concerning itself, with the matter of televising these proceedings and also the radio broadcasting of debates. We have had no report from them as to what the current situation is and until we have such a report I don't see why this House should from day to day continue to amend its rules and its procedures in order to suit the convenience of anyone who may come along.

MR. SPEAKER: Then in that event, I will have to order the lights turned off and…

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would reconsider. I think they are here and I am sure the people would like to see it. The official Opposition would be in favour of having the television, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I feel that the committee, which I am the Chairman of, is considering the ways and means and orders of this House of putting coverage in the House and I would like to say that I would not like to see the rules changed today.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the television people please remove themselves from the chamber.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I move under standing order 35 (1) the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the action taken by the Labour Relations Board in denying a certification vote to two Canadian unions, the CWU at Trail and the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union of Terrace.

Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to this motion, on a point of order, there was a newspaper report this morning in which the president of the Canadian Workers' Union at Trail stated that he felt he could not take responsibility for the actions of the workers up there, and it becomes a matter…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. I have to be guided first, before any statement of the matter beyond what you have already indicated in your written submission, by whether the action of the Labour Relations Board in denying a certification vote is urgent and important and sufficiently so to disturb the regime of the House each day; and whether, indeed, it also falls within the jurisdiction of the House at the present time.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may assist you in your deliberations, may I say that any matter affecting labour peace in the province definitely is a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't need any assistance about the details; what I need assistance in is in regard to the question in May that deals with such a motion to adjourn the proceedings of the House.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, there is no statute of this House that would enable the Legislature to intervene in a decision made by the Labour Relations Board, so how can there be urgency of debate in this House with respect to what would essentially be interference in the decision of an inferior tribunal when we have no authority as a Legislature to intervene in such a decision. There's no urgency of debate.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is now no statute of this Legislature which enables us to intervene in the decision of the Labour Relations Board. Maybe the Hon. Member thinks there should be. But that's another question.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the situation now.

[ Page 1782 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I would hate to have you take the case to court on behalf of…

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't take your…

MR. McGEER: That's the most specious point of order raised in this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't take your case under any circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The issue before the House that has to be determined by the Speaker under the rules is whether this is a matter failing within the jurisdiction of the Government or whether they have, by statute, transferred this matter to a board appointed to deal with these problems, and what the process is from that board. Is there a method of appeal from the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, for example?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that under the Labour Relations Act the Government has the power to appoint the members of the Labour Relations Board. It would be a very simple thing, on resolution of the House or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to take action under the present legislation. Perhaps it would be an appropriate matter of urgent consideration to change the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, does the Hon. Minister of Labour have something to contribute?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Act does provide the ability to appeal the decision of the board to the Labour Relations Board. They have the right of appeal contained in the legislation now. There is no such right of appeal contained in the Labour Relations Act with reference to this Legislature or any tribunal other than the Labour Relations Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I thank you for that information because the Speaker has to decide on the basis of what the law is in terms of administration of the law. At p. 372 of May in the sixteenth edition, it deals with this question of what…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: P. 372 of the sixteenth:

"Matters must be of public importance; matters must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law. Motions have been disallowed because the matters raised by them involve no more than the ordinary administration of the law."

Then it gives examples. For example, in nine: "exercise of discretion under statutory powers." For example, where there was a refusal to appoint a court of inquiry in a marine wireless dispute; loans to boards of guardians or the appeal from their decision.

These are administrative duties conferred upon boards and it is not, therefore, a matter that is other than the ordinary administration of the law by a board appointed under the law. How then could we interfere in a matter of that kind when it has obviously been delegated to a board and there are processes of law and administration of law which deal with the outcome of the decisions of boards?

It would be wrong, in effect, for this House to take upon itself what amounts to short-circuiting the processes that have already been laid out for the law to take its course. It would be as if this assembly started to debate in the middle of a court case what the judge was doing, what the litigants were doing, which had long been forbidden to this House.

Does the Hon. Member have something to contribute on this point?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the context of your remarks is to the general effect that there is totality of administrative power unto the Labour Relations Board and that is not the case. I draw your attention to the statute, the Labour Relations Act, and particularly section 80 of the Act which says this: "The Minister is charged with the administration of the Act."

So this is certainly a matter within the competence of the Minister, and the point that has been raised by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is indeed in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order. If we wish to carry that argument further for those great defenders of freedom, it then means that we're to accept the point offered by the Opposition that the Attorney General, who is responsible for the administration of the courts, has within his authority the power to tell the judge what decision should be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have that power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the same administrative power, Mr. Speaker, wherein the Attorney General appoints…

[ Page 1783 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …the Attorney General appoints provincial court judges. They are suggesting that because of that administrative power, the Attorney General would tell a judge what the decision should be. Where is their respect for the law and freedom that they're always fighting about?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: In response to the proposition put forward by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), section 80 of the Labour Relations Act refers to questions on points of law. Indeed, if anyone wishes to indicate that the Labour Relations Board has acted in less than conformity with the statues, then I would be very glad to receive any submission on that basis. To this date I've received no such indication from Members of this House, or indeed any other area.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the Members for their  various submissions on this point. I don't want a debate on the merits of the case.

MR. McGEER: That is what the debate is to be about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I'm trying to find out what the jurisdiction is of the board. I think that the contributions from all sides have been useful in determining whether or not this House should adjourn its debate on the basis of urgency where the matter must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law. There's nothing from the statement of the matter to indicate that it is either urgent or of public importance, in light of the fact that there is a method that is indicated for the administration of the law under the Labour Relations Act. This does not involve more than the ordinary administration of law and is just one more example of cases where the litigants or parties may be feeling aggrieved, but it does not thereby take it out of the rule in May at page 372.

I therefore must rule that the matter is not one which would fall within the motion proposed by the Hon. Member. The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since I've been in the House that I've had the pleasure and privilege of introducing to the assembly a group of students from the great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon. I wish to ask the assembly to join with me in welcoming students from the Moscrop Secondary School, along with their teachers, Mr. Waters, Mr. Grant, Mr. Orr and Mr. Wasnick.

I might also say that later on in the day there's a group of students coming from Windsor school, which is across the street from my constituency and in Mr. Speaker's constituency. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, in view of the wording of our present orders on questions period, it will have to take place in the afternoon. It says "afternoon sessions." So there will be no question period at this time. "Agreed?" I don't think it's a matter of agreement. I think it's a matter of interpretation. The Hon. Premier.

Introduction of bills.

THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 157 intituled An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 157 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River adjourned the debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last evening at the hour of adjournment I was reading from a letter that I received from a lady in Fort St. John.

Much has been said about the need for this Land Commission Act. Much has been said about rip-offs, about real estate speculation, about people who are in the business to do nothing but rip off individuals who wish to buy land or obtain a lot for a new home. So I'd like to continue with the letter that I started reading last evening. Then I want to refer to another matter which I think does, in many respects, constitute a rip-off.

I'd like to bring it to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that this letter comes from a lady who, with her family, has spent her lifetime in the Peace

[ Page 1784 ]

River country of British Columbia. Her husband was a pioneer rancher in that country and lost his life through a serious accident. Her husband's father was one of the earliest telegraphers in northern British Columbia. The family is an old and respected family with a history of residence in that part of the country going back to the early 1900s. This lady is writing to me about the land freeze, as it was called at the time this letter was written.

She indicates in the letter that she owns a half-section of land in the Peace River area.

"I have been a resident here since 1932" — 40 years. "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.

"I went back to teaching in 1960 but had to retire last year due to ill health. My superannuation after 18 years' teaching, including two years given because of the shortage of teachers at the request of the government during the war, amounts to $110.97 per month. This income, I think you will agree, is insufficient to live on. I am not yet eligible for old age pension.

"I understand by your pre-election campaign platform that the elderly people would probably be looked after under your leadership, if elected. But this land freeze renders that conclusion to be a false one, in my thinking.

"I also concluded that you would never favour the policy of dictating to the people what they could do or not do with their property which some of us have worked so hard to retain for the above-mentioned purpose; that is to sell acreages to people who do not desire to live in town and to supplement our income.

"Trusting you will give this new legislation further thought and realize the hardships it would bring to people like myself and disallow or exempt this law for the betterment of retired people, whom I am sure you have not meant to bring a hardship on. Will you reconsider your position?"

This is a letter, Mr. Speaker, from a woman who, through no fault of her own, ended up with a fairly substantial amount of land but without the skill to farm it herself; a woman who is reaching retirement age without adequate income, again through no fault of her own, and has found that as a means of supplementing a small pension, she could subdivide part of this property as it was required and sell it to individuals who wanted to live on a small acreage.

Now let's look at the other side of the issue, the side which all of us may question, the side that is pointed out by the Government side of the House, the side which I want to bring to the attention of the chambers this morning. That is the side that is represented by one Henry Block, when he gets up publicly on television and supports Bill 42.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reason Mr. Henry Block supports Bill 42 is that as a land developer and a land speculator he knows very well that the price of every lot and piece of property presently under his control has appreciated in value anywhere from 30 to 100 per cent by bringing this Act into being in the Province of British Columbia. If he says the right things to the right people, to the commission that's appointed, hopefully he'll be able to continue development of in the neighbourhood of 40,000 acres at 108 Mile Ranch which is presently a part of an old, old ranch settlement. This man has already done very well at 108 Mile Ranch by subdividing that property.

I would say that what we have seen and the posture that he has taken is a smoke-screen intended to provide him with some edge with this Government in order that he may continue to speculate and rip off the people of British Columbia.

What he is saying and what is being said by the salesmen that work for him is completely opposite. They're concerned people. Their head salesman has issued a comment this morning in the Vancouver Province newspaper dated Wednesday, March 28. He's certainly not in favour of Bill 42. As a matter of fact he indicates that he, along with 20 more of the salesmen who work for this company, will be meeting with the president and will ask him to retract the things that he has said because they do not agree with what he is saying.

They are concerned about the preservation of land and they are also concerned about the impact that this bill has had on forcing inflationary pressures on subdivided land.

After all, people who are legitimately in the real estate business are there to do a service for people. Certainly they are entitled to be paid for that service. But if through the actions of Bill 42 no one in this country can afford to buy a lot on which to build a new home, they're out of business and they know it very well.

It may be O.K. for Henry Block to come out in support of Bill 42, but I'll tell you one thing — the people who work for him do not support it because they are ordinary citizens in the province of British Columbia just like the rest of us.

Reading from the article: "The salesman also said nothing has been done to stop the sudden rise in land value due to the freeze. He said most increases are from 30 to 40 per cent and in one case 100 per cent over the December prices. He called the prices 'desperate'."

He indicates that any support for the bill must be very qualified. The bill does not contain the checks and balances that are very necessary. The bill should provide for adequate and fair compensation procedures to anyone suffering loss. The power of designation must be limited in area. The commission

[ Page 1785 ]

should be increased to at least 10 persons from the proposed five with a broad non-political representation from all sections of society. There should be no restrictions as to building a personal residence on land regardless of area.

This salesman, who asked not to be named, said that,

"Between 20 and 30 salesmen of the industrial-commercial division would be meeting with the president today. He said the main objection is that the company statement is 'misleading.' He said the salesmen strongly feel the bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of a few commissioners and the 'reserves' of land are not defined clearly enough. 'It's too vague. It could lead to tremendous abuse…'"

That is why we, as members of the official Opposition in this House have stood in our places as long as we have done: to bring before the people of this province the fact that this bill, this Land Commission Act, Bill 42, does not protect the farmers of British Columbia.

If anything, it heaps a little heavier load than they are presently carrying on their shoulders. It was never intended, Mr. Speaker, to protect the farmers of British Columbia.

I have a telegram before me received from the Mayor of Fort St. John:

"RE LAND COMMISSION ACT, BILL 42. THE COUNCIL OF TOWN OF FORT ST. JOHN STRONGLY URGE YOU TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE BILL FROM PASSING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE'

SIGNED:

MAYOR PETER FRANKIW, TOWN OF FORT ST. JOHN."

Living in a rural area such as Fort St. John, knowing the problems of the farmers as well as he does, knowing that this bill will not support or protect their interests, he's asked me to do everything that I can to prevent the bill from passing through this Legislature. Certainly I know that he is echoing the sentiments of not hundreds, but thousands of people who reside presently in the Peace River area of British Columbia.

I have a letter from a resident of Fort Nelson:

"I urgently request that you do all in your power to oppose the forthcoming takeover of privately-owned land by the provincial government. We have spent the last 20 years developing a small acreage for a homesite for our family. At much personal sacrifice, we secured room to have a garden and to keep some livestock for recreational purposes for our own use. At no time has our land been farmed nor is it suitable for farming, but we subsidized it because we wished to enjoy this type of life.

"Now it appears we may no longer be allowed ownership of this private property which is our home. We feel very threatened, indeed, to feel that we may not be able to retire there and pass it on to our children. We chose this rather than other securities, and loss of it will leave us destitute after so long as contributing and tax-paying citizens of this province."

That letter is signed by a Mr. Stan.

A very worthwhile objective; one that he's worked 20 years to accomplish, and he sees in this bill as we see — the ability to wipe out everything that he has worked so hard for.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we oppose Bill 42. That is why I am standing in my place in this House this morning, bringing before the Minister of Agriculture in the best terms that I know how and the way that I know how, the matters that have been brought to me by letters, by telegrams, by petitions.

I have a petition from the farming community of Goodlow signed by 37 people, all farmers in that area: "We the undersigned wish to state that we are against any bill being passed by government bringing in a foreign-ownership Act or any such Act concerning our land".

In other words, even in that community they consider Bill 42 a foreign piece of legislation — foreign to a way of life in British Columbia. They're not speculators. While I don't know all of these people personally, Mr. Speaker, I do know a number of them and I know them to be what they are: dedicated, sincere, hardworking farmers trying to get a foothold in a newly-developing area in British Columbia.

Other letters from Fort Nelson:

"I urgently request that you do all in your power to oppose the forthcoming takeover of privately-owned land by the provincial government. We feel very threatened indeed, to think that the right of private ownership of our homesites and farmland is about to be taken away."

A letter from a lady in Fort St. John. She's asked, and gives consent to have this letter read, mimeographed, copied, or printed in any newspaper in Canada:

"Dear Sir,

"I most certainly do not approve of or wish to see any land freeze, land grab, or any changes in land laws or land inheritance laws, or for that matter, any further Balkanization of Canada by petty, non-resident owner laws of any degree or kind in any province.

"Also, I would suggest that any otherwise qualified American citizen who agrees to become a Canadian citizen be allowed to begin purchase of land and to receive deed for same when he becomes a Canadian citizen and has paid for his land.

[ Page 1786 ]

"Any Canadian citizen should be able to buy and hold land in any province. I believe that landowners, be it farm, acreage or city lot — and all who ever hope to own land — should now, at once organize to combat any of the mooted law changes which plan to take land away from families or people and place it under government ownership and/or administration.

"Membership fees in such an organization would be used to engage legal counsel and to fight in the supreme court, if necessary, the illegality and unconstitutionality of any ideas, law, or order-in-council along such lines as this NDP or any future government has schemed or may scheme up.

"Farm organizations may already have plans and departments dedicated to these ends, but small holders and lot owners could and should contribute voice and funds to the cause, as should those who hope to own land.

"Proposed legislation is a proposed return to feudalism — Government feudalism, the worst kind. The English speaking world overthrew governments and nobility to get rid of feudalism; let's not stand around teeth in pocket and let them foist it back upon us.

"NDP land law schemes, as mooted, are a form of the old cry, 'Take from the rich and give to the poor.' And as ever and always the poor will not in the long run have more than presently, and no opportunity to acquire more. Wake up, B.C.! Wake up Canada!

Yours truly, Mrs. Annie E. Romide."

I think that I have indicated to the Government and to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) by communication — correspondence and wires that I have received — the sentiments that are widespread throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I ask the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the bill. Withdraw the bill now and reconsider your position on it. Allow the people that you have been silent to come forward. Allow these people to have an input into the drafting of a land Act, not a "land commission" Act that confiscates property in its present form. Withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker.

The legislation is ill-conceived, it's poorly thought out. It will not protect farmland; it will not give the farmers a more viable income. In fact, it will do none of the things that you have said it will do, either publicly or in the Press.

Everyone in British Columbia knows that this type of legislation removes an individual right and a basic freedom to own land in their own name in Canada. They're not deceived into thinking that this is being done for the protection of the farmers. Every communication that I have received from all parts of the province indicate that people are concerned about the preservation of farmland, but they're concerned about the preservation of a farmer as a viable part of our economy as well. They don't like the legislation, they know it will not do what it was intended to do. Even the Urban Development Institute, who has written to the Hon. Premier quite a lengthy document, indicates many faults and errors in Bill 42. They suggested amendments:

"Included should be the proper appeal procedure with respect to rulings made by the commission. It should include compensation for losses that will be suffered due to the enactment of a bill where such losses can be reasonably demonstrated. It should include access to the courts to be granted to those that deem themselves injuriously affected by the bill. It should include that the bill with the proposed regulations be given full public hearings before being introduced."

Mr. Minister, it has been introduced, through you, Mr. Speaker. If the concern of the Government of this province is to preserve farmland and keep the farmer in a viable position in British Columbia, then I recommend that the Minister withdraw the bill. Go throughout this province and hear what people have to say about it. Isn't that the democratic process? Isn't that the means by which we've built a strong viable nation in not only British Columbia, but all of Canada?

A letter from Vanderhoof:

"Dear Mr. Smith: I am very much concerned about the legislation unveiled by the NDP government. I am against a bill to create the Development Corporation of B.C., which will have the powers to purchase 51 per cent of any and all business operating in B.C. I am also opposed to the amendments to the Mineral Act which give the NDP more dictatorial powers. But above all, I am opposed to Bill 42. Stop Bill 42. It is a violation of our fundamental rights. Don't let them abolish our right of private ownership.

Yours truly, Mr. G. Hogglandt."

The Federation of Agriculture, when presenting a brief in January, indicated that the present legislation would provide the Government with the means of confiscating the farmers' pension plan; that it would seriously impair the farmers ability to meet capital requirements; and it would destroy the basic incentive to continue farming in this province.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture will not allow the denial to farmers of the basic rights of land ownership. To do so would be unfair to farmers now

[ Page 1787 ]

and to the future generations of British Columbians who will rely on this province's farmers for their food needs. The B.C. Federation is in agreement with provincial government on the need to preserve this province's limited agricultural base.

"We believe that if the industry is in a viable condition, the incentive to sell farm land for non-farm uses will be greatly diminished, which in itself will preserve farmland for farming. As this state of viability continues to elude our industry, and farmers continue to exist on substandard incomes, we are in total disagreement with any regulation that locks farm families into permanent poverty. It is surely society's responsibility to preserve greenbelts and open spaces, and the onus on financing this public policy should fall no more heavily on the farmer than it does on anyone else."

[Mr. Dent in the Chair]

I'd like to repeat that statement. "It is surely society's responsibility to preserve greenbelts and open spaces, and the onus of financing this public policy should fall no more heavily on the farmer than it does on anyone else."

That is the principle that we're fighting for this morning — at a session called four hours earlier than usual — the right of a farmer to be viable in his farm. The right for him to own land in the Province of British Columbia; the right of people to expect the government to provide open space and greenbelts, but also the responsibility of the government to point out to the people that that responsibility should fall no more heavily on the farmers than it does on anyone else in the province.

If we agree that we need greenbelts and open spaces in the province — that it's a good thing — then the responsibility for finding the finance falls equally, on all shoulders and all people within the province. Certainly this was the intent of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. It took consolidated revenue that was generated throughout the province and used it to purchase back at fair market value areas which should be preserved for greenbelt purposes.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture I say, withdraw the bill. Do it now, before the Government loses complete credibility with the people of this province.

What other action can a responsible government take in view of the position that people have taken on this bill? What other action can a government take if they do feel they have a responsibility not only to farmers but to every person in the Province of British Columbia? The bill should be withdrawn and it should be withdrawn now.

Mr. Speaker, I can go through another half-dozen briefs that I have received indicating the position of organizations, both farm organizations and other interested citizens in the province, concerning Bill 42. I can summarize it by saying not one of these organizations that have forwarded briefs are against the preservation of farmland.

Every one of them indicates that Bill 42 is unacceptable in its present form; that it will not accomplish what the bill — pardon me. I should say that it will probably accomplish what you desire to have accomplished through the bill, but it will not preserve farmland. It was not created to preserve farmland. It was created to take the 5 per cent of the land presently in fee simple out of the hands of individuals in the province and return it to the Crown

An all-powerful government, for reasons best known to themselves, develop a land Act, they call it the Land Commission Act and then go throughout the province trying to indicate to people that this bill will somehow protect farmers and their land. Mr. Speaker, the farmers know that the bill will not accomplish that purpose. They're against it. The average person on the street knows the bill will not accomplish that purpose. They're against it. The people in universities who have written many articles on it know it will not accomplish that purpose. And they're against it.

What would happen if this bill passes is that we would be setting up in British Columbia a situation very similar to what is presently happening in Hong Kong. I'd like to refer to an article that is headed, "Millionaire Unable to Afford House in Hong Kong." The article goes on to say:

"Hong Kong has beyond doubt just established the world record for real estate prices. An undistinguished house with small grounds that might well cost $80,000 to $100,000 in North America, was sold recently for $1.5 million. A somewhat larger house with smaller grounds has been offered for rent at $12,000 a month."

They go on to point out what has happened to real estate in Hong Kong.

But I think the interesting part of the whole article is an analysis that comes very close to the end of it:

"Behind the boom which the Hong Kong government officially deplores lies the government's policy — all land belongs to the government, which leases it for extended periods to individuals. Auctions dribble out new plots of land at irregular intervals. And insiders have the inside track."

That is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker, that insiders — and we could well classify Block Bros. in that category from the statements that Mr. Block has made — that insiders will have the inside track with regard to land ownership in the province and land leases with regard to land in the Province of British Columbia under Bill 42.

[ Page 1788 ]

That is why we oppose it in the strongest terms, Mr. Speaker. I ask once more, through you to the Minister of Agriculture, withdraw the bill. Bring in a new document that will preserve land after you have held hearings throughout all of the Province of British Columbia. Get input from the people who are concerned today. Use the democratic process before you ram through a bill that is not designed to protect farmers, that will not give them a better income, that will put the government, through a five-man appointed commission, in an all-powerful, all embracing position. Withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister, before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the Minister who has listened to all of the comment in this debate has no intentions of withdrawing the bill. It leaves me no alternative therefore, Mr. Speaker, but to move an amendment to the motion which was moved by the Minister in second reading when he said, "I move that this bill be read a second time now."

I move that the motion be amended to delete the word "now" and substitute therefore the words "in six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I would like to speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. This is the time honoured way in which the Opposition seeks to prevent the bill going forward. It's mentioned in many of our statutes. I don't think we need much of a debate. The Government will not accept this amendment. I think it's safe to say that we should simply call the question and again get on with the people's business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, during this debate in and out of this House, many times they have discussed the fact that people want input. I think if we adjourn this debate for a six-month period, allow the people to have hearings, allow those who are affected to state their cases…

HON. MR. HALL: A point of order, if I may. Mr. Speaker, will you rule for the benefit of the House the extent to which debate can take place on a motion, which is really a six-month hoist motion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order I will consult with authorities and then I will give a decision.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that I am permitted…?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated for a moment, please.

I would rule that the amendment is in order. However, I would caution the Members that their remarks must be relevant to the reasons why the bill should not be now read a second time but rather should be adjourned for a six-month period. It must be strictly relevant to the reason why.

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, was there a seconder to the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no seconder required on an amendment of this kind. I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has carried that point entirely through the period, that the input from the public who are affected is not being listened to by the other side. They want the opportunity to present their case so that they may be heard, so that people who are directly and indirectly affected have the opportunity before this bill becomes law. This is the reason why I support this amendment,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking strictly to the proposal that this be hoisted for six months, I suggest to you that to delay this urgent matter for six months would be contrary to the interests of the people of the Province of British Columbia.

In the debate that has ensued so far, time and again Members of the Opposition have said that damage is being done because of the freeze, order. To maintain the present position for six months would continue and enlarge on any problems that may now exist.

There has been input from the public. For two weeks now we have heard hundreds of letters read to the Members of this House from both sides of the House. All of us have received hundreds of letters about the situation from the various members of the public.

This suggestion merely means that the people across the way, the people who moved this amendment, really don't want to do anything. It's a further attempt to delay action in a very important problem. I suggest this amendment be defeated, as it deserves to be defeated, so we can get on with the people's business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1789 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The very reasons for delaying this bill for six months have been made very evident in this House. First of all, the Members of the Government — the Premier, the agriculture Minister and others — have indicated on open-line radio programmes and in the newspapers and on television interviews that there would be a varying number of amendments put forward to this bill.

It's mentioned that there may be four amendments or there may be 12 amendments or there may be 18 amendments; they may come in on third reading or they may come in in the fall or they may not come in at all. After saying on a number of occasions that there would be amendments to this bill, the Minister said yesterday that he would "consider" amendments to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the urgency of up to 18 amendments is there, then the urgency to delay this bill is much more recognizable. If the bill is as badly drawn as that, it must be taken back and another look taken at it. Mr. Speaker, if the Government admits that the bill is badly drawn, then it should be withdrawn and reviewed and rewritten.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we haven't had any input from the public at all. Despite the fact that we've been told that the Government will listen, there has been no listening, despite the fact that many interested and public-spirited people have submitted their ideas about the preservation of land, particularly agriculture land, in British Columbia. We should allow those people to be heard. We should allow those people to have that input, which will directly affect the bill.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture has complained, Mr. Speaker, that they have not been consulted on this bill, although they were told that they would be. We should give them now the opportunity to come in and make their suggestions. The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association has said that they want to be consulted as well. Let's now give them that opportunity over the next six months to be consulted.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has said, "Ask us. We've got some ideas." Let's give them the opportunity to share those ideas with the Government. Let's ask them to come in over the next six months and meet with Members of the Government and an active travelling committee to give their input to this bill as well.

People like the Urban Development Institute that was just mentioned a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker — let's give them the opportunity over the next six months to meet with us, to meet with a committee of this Government, which would travel to every hamlet and community in the province and talk to the people and listen to the people, make the amendments that are necessary and bring in a real agricultural preservation bill — not a land Act that gives dictatorial powers to some kind of an unnamed and, to this point, unnumbered commission.

Let's lift the freeze, Mr. Speaker, and get back to the official plans that are already in effect in the Province of British Columbia. Let's take this next six months to find out what the people want in this province and what is necessary for the orderly development of the land in British Columbia. Let's withdraw it for six months, Mr. Speaker, so we know what we're doing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it is quite obvious not only to the Members of this assembly but to everyone in British Columbia that this is ill-prepared legislation. The Minister has admitted himself that he's gone through at least six drafts on this legislation. He's had to rethink the input into the legislation at least six times.

What would be wrong with one more time? It's quite obvious that he has not studied the broad implications this legislation will have on every landowner in the Province of British Columbia. Now that he has had a certain degree of input and to allow further input, I think it is appropriate that he withdraw the bill for six months so that it can be properly brought back into the House.

I've listened very attentively to the Members of the Government…

HON. MR. HALL: On a point of order. The amendment clearly says that the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want a point of order to be made quite clearly now. We're not talking about withdrawing this bill. Your amendment clearly says that it not be given second reading now but be given second reading in six months. Therefore, how on earth can you talk about withdrawing it or amending it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. Stick to the order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken in this instance.

MR. CHABOT: We've listened to the suggestions from the cabinet benches for the Opposition to propose amendments to the bill. They've suggested that there's a need for amendments; that the bill is

[ Page 1790 ]

ill-conceived and ill-prepared.

There are reasons for this six-month delay in passage of the second reading of this bill, so that the amendments — which they have suggested should be put into the bill — can really be thought out. I think that before passing the second reading of this bill, which is the principle of this bill, that cabinet should have an opportunity to rethink what they're doing to the people of British Columbia.

I listened to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) talk about the urgency of passing second reading of this bill. He seems to forget that there's a freeze over the land in British Columbia. The urgency for passage of second reading of this bill is not apparent to me, not apparent to other Members of this Legislative Assembly, and is only apparent to the Minister of Highways — only him.

I think there are many people in this assembly who support the six-month delay in the passage of second reading of this bill. Members of the backbench of the Government, I'm sure, have had an opportunity in the last several. days to realize that this legislation is ill-prepared and that there is a need for rethinking on the principle of this bill.

I'm sure that if they're listening to the constituents they represent, the backbenchers will stand up and support this amendment. If they believe in fair play for the people of British Columbia, they'll help. delay this bill for six months so that fair play can take place in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through a lengthy debate we have witnessed a lack of substance in terms of positive input into this bill. Then we've heard the temporary House Leader, deputy leader and second to I don't know who, announce that the official Opposition's position on this bill is that there's no apparent reason for the urgency.

Mr. Speaker, that's the problem. For 20 years they didn't understand the urgency of preserving farmland in this province. We were elected, Mr. Speaker, to govern. To delay the passage of this bill is an attempt to thwart the responsibility of this Government to govern. We have a different philosophy and we have a responsibility in terms of preserving arable land in this province. When a Member suggests that a six-month hoist on this bill would lift the freeze, it means, "Let the subdividers go at it again." That's exactly what they mean.

We reject this amendment, we say the farmland must be saved, we say there must be rational planning of that land in this province. We have said there would be amendments, we have asked you to participate in those amendments. You have not at all participated on the order paper on those amendments and now all you have to offer is the six months' hoist.

But the most damaging argument of all was the last one made by that Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). It is the first public admission of it. He said, and I quote: "We have to rethink the principle."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, that's what divides us from the official Opposition. The principle of this bill is to have some rational planning in land use in this province. If they want irrational use of the land, let that be on their conscience. But we will not back down on this bill and we intend to proceed with the legislation.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I tried to point out when I spoke on the principle of the bill earlier, we feel in this party that there should have been greater thought shown in some of the aims and goals.

I will make it very plain, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, we do support the idea of preserving farmland. Never let that be in any doubt. What we do express concern about is some of the mechanisms in the bill which we don't like and some of the things that are missing from the bill which should, be there.

Some of the media have chosen to sneer at our idea that there should be a land inventory, but I don't make any apologies. I can't understand how anyone in private or public life would want to take some very far-reaching step without knowing exactly what the pattern of the material is that you are dealing with. I think it makes a great deal of sense to suggest that there should be greater cooperation at the regional and municipal level to define exactly what we are talking about. We have had examples of individuals coming to us and speaking at meetings saying that their land is classified as farmland and they could no more grow crops on it than fly.

In our support of the amendment — and I reiterate that we believe in the preservation of farmland — there can be greater study done in a period of six months to make the bill more rational, more readily understood and less open to all the bitter acrimony. Why do you think there has been so much bitter debate on this bill? It is because the interpretation by the two sides of the House has been so different.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather presumptuous of the Government to feel that right is always on their side. Are we not entitled to have some of the thoughts we have had about the bill? You sit and scowl at me as though I am some dummy that can't understand English. I can understand English. The whole essence of legislation is to try and bring what you feel is a fair and honest appraisal to the interpretation of the bill put before us.

This is the basis on which I have acted as a representative of the people in Oak Bay. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in this kind of situation, we already

[ Page 1791 ]

have safeguards. The freeze can be maintained; what will we lose in six months? Mr. Speaker, what will we lose if the land continues to be frozen?

The suggestion made by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago that we would be letting the developers run free in the next six months just is not so. The fact is that nothing can change in terms of losing land but a great deal could be gained in improving the legislation and in carrying out further inventory, further study of the land that is to be involved, and to attempt through regional and local communications and cooperation- to develop an accurate and rational land inventory. So the freeze can continue; we would lose nothing and we would gain a great deal.

I think it is really unfair of the Premier to suggest that by supporting this amendment or the idea of a six months' delay, that this is simply a delay which would give land developers and speculators the chance to run free. That is not so; it is not a delaying tactic, Mr. Speaker.

I did not suggest not lift the freeze. Let me make it very plain again, Mr. Speaker; I am in favour of two things. I am in favour of preserving farmland and I am in favour of preserving the freeze until we have a better bill.

I mentioned earlier in the debate that the urgency with which the Government said this bill had to be introduced was not actually proven in fact — certainly not in the municipalities that I quoted where the actual applications for subdivisions in December were below the average.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bill with such far-reaching implications that we have nothing to lose by maintaining the freeze for six months and showing respect for the rights of individuals in the whole province and a more moderate and more considerate appraisal of exactly what this bill might do. On these grounds, if we have nothing to lose and a great deal to gain, then a six months' delay for further study only makes good sense.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in this bill we find there is no right to compensation, there is no right for appeal, there is no right for a fair hearing, there is no right to go to court, there is no assurance, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member confine himself solely to the question before the House and not debate.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed I am. Indeed I am, and there is no assurance that this bill or the matters that it contains will ever be open to public scrutiny. This is the object and this is the reason behind this man's amendment. There has been no consultation. There has been no consultation with the general public, there have been no hearings, there has been no participation with the side of society that is opposing this measure.

The official Opposition, by their amendment, is just asking this: they are asking that the public of British Columbia be entitled to have a hearing before the highest court in the province of British Columbia and that is this Legislature.

You are denying them that democratic right. The Premier is denying them that democratic right — denying them the right to approach the Legislature, denying them the right to go ahead and advance their own postures, their own ideas. You people talk about participatory democracy. What you do is practice closure, make no mistake of that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Boy oh boy. He says we're going to have amendments. You know, I get so blankety-blank fed up of hearing that man come into this House and talk about amendments. What are they going to be? What are they going to be? Where are they?

If we were governing this province, we wouldn't bring in a lousy bill like this. No way. We'd bring in a bill that would do the job. Furthermore, we would consult with the general public. We would consult. That is the object of democracy and this is what you are denying these people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Go ahead, you say; you say you don't support the motion for one single, solitary reason. I suppose we are going to get back to the words that we have heard so often from the official Opposition that your posture is "trust us". I would like to see it in writing, under seal, preferably under oath. That's what I would like to see.

We don't know what your amendments are. It might be to…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The amendments come in committee, you know that.

MR. GARDOM: Oh well, we have got to remember, Mr. Attorney General, that this bill without the right of appeal, without any opportunity for compensation, without access to the courts, without any opportunity for public scrutiny, this darkness bill passed through your whole caucus and it seems to have three lawyers in it — how did you fellows miss it?

I totally support the amendment.

[ Page 1792 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this amendment and I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Members of the House what the significance of this amendment is. I think it should be done.

I would just quote from May. A traditional way of opposing the second reading of a bill, "is to move an amendment to the question, by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "upon this day six months hence". Then further along it says. "The acceptance by the House of such an amendment being tantamount to the rejection of the bill, if the session extends beyond the period of postponement, a bill which has been ordered to be read a second time upon that day 'six months' is not replaced upon the order paper of the House."

This is simply, as May has pointed, a means of defeating the bill and I would submit the proper procedure is to vote against the bill on the vote on second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A.CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the remarks made by Members of the Opposition with respect to the amendment before us. A bill which was rushed into this House deserves six months' careful consideration. The repeated references by leaders of the Government to "there are amendments coming…we are bringing amendments…we are going to change it…trust us" are really quite tiresome, Mr. Speaker.

If it was such a good piece of legislation just a few weeks ago, why would it need all these amendments just a few weeks later?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River. I'm sorry. I had recognized the Member. Is he wishing to speak? He wishes to defer to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for South Peace for allowing me to rise at this time.

I support this amendment to hoist the bill for six months. The indications are quite clear that from the moment that this legislation was brought upon the floor it has been filled with imperfections. Indeed, Members of the Government when speaking in the debate in principle, such as the Hon. Minister of Highways, said "Help us." They're asking for help from the House and they're asking for help from the people of the province. The opportunity has not been presented to the people of the province to give you the help that you need.

The Hon. Premier has spoken twice in the last few days on this bill and has criticized the Opposition for not putting forward its ideas. He is trying to put forth the suggestion in this province that the Opposition have not seriously presented alternatives to this Government. It's not true. If you want me to go through the items that I raised in this debate, I will do so now. But they are in Hansard for the Government to see.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Take three hours.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take as many hours as I need to do it. An inventory of land — the availability of land in this province; a forecast of land use needs; the establishment of a plan — the presentation of that plan to be made throughout this whole province so that the people can see what is to be done for land control in British Columbia, and the recommendation of that plan to this Legislature for final consideration and adoption — those are the steps that need to be taken.

The establishment, first of all, of a commission completely independent of government is the number one step.

We've had a debate earlier this afternoon on the actions taken by another administrative tribunal in this province, and we were told this afternoon by the Attorney General that this Legislature had no power over what that administrative tribunal did. Here we are tackling a bill which has a commission established with no obligation to hold public hearings, no right of appeal, no control by anybody — least of all by this Assembly.

Is this what we're to have a year from now when this commission takes actions which we, in this Assembly, consider to be wrong? We stand on a matter of urgent public business and are told by the government that you can't do anything because they've already been given the complete and unfettered authority? Is this what we're to be told a year from now about this commission?

The people of the Province of British Columbia should have a right to assess whether or not this kind of legislation, to establish this kind of commission, is the kind that they want passed.

The Premier said today, "We have to have planning." Mr. Speaker, the significant thing and the reason for the delay is that there is not one mention of planning in this whole bill. Not one mention of planning. It was suggested that agricultural land is the problem; control of use of many other aspects of land use in this province besides agriculture is what is required.

[ Page 1793 ]

There are greater problems in areas outside the agricultural areas in this province regarding land waste that need to be considered. But this commission is given no specific responsibilities for planning. You look at the powers. After stating the objects the very first power given to this commission is to acquire land, all by itself — not in the name of the Crown.

There has been lengthy debate in this House, and there has been widespread and sometimes emotional debate outside this House. The legislation is imperfect. Additional time is required in order to calm the emotional debate taken outside this House, to give the Members and the people of the province opportunity to rationally consider this new direction that this government is taking with regard to land control. We cannot do that until the government does more than just deal with the bill as it is presently before us.

Let's see the amendments that they say will improve this bill and remove its imperfections, because if you are to improve this bill and remove its imperfections in any way acceptable to the people of British Columbia, you destroy the principle of this bill.

For the Hon. Member from Skeena (Mr. Dent) to stand up and read May is just a shocking situation. And for the Attorney General to suggest that they can bring in these amendments which would change the principle of the bill indicates that he doesn't know what takes place during the committee stage when the principle of the bill is affected.

The chief law officer of the Crown didn't read the bill before it was introduced, didn't know there was no public hearing, didn't know there was no right of appeal — he still doesn't know that if you amend the bill in committee to change the principle, it can't be read a third time. And that's why we need six months to give that Attorney General and the rest of the Members of the Government side the opportunity of really understanding what the bill is all about, and really considering the implications that it has for other than agricultural land, the implications that there will be year after year when we set loose this all-powerful commission, without control of this House, upon the Province of British Columbia.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to enter this debate. Everybody knows that I intend to retire from public life and so I haven't pushed myself in the debate, but our caucus has done a splendid job on this bill and other legislation.

I couldn't let this situation go by, Mr. Speaker, without raising my voice, having been in the Legislature since 1941. In 20 years as a Premier, at no time, Mr. Speaker, in all that period have I ever seen the public so aroused about one bill as they are about Bill 42, and that is the reason why it should not be read a second time for six months.

In public life such as ours, in a democracy such as ours, where people are supposed to govern themselves, Mr. Speaker, you know so well that they all can't come to the Legislature, so they delegate that power to certain duly elected representatives, but when those duly elected representatives hear the people who have the real power speak out so clearly that they are all confused about this bill, the best you can say about it is that thousands and thousands are against it, but nearly every person is confused about the bill.

Now it is ridiculous, indeed, for the Government to say, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't put their amendments on the order paper before second reading was adopted. You know that's not a principle; you know very well in the orders of the day today the Government has amendments for many bills.

What is the government trying to hide now that they won't put the amendments on this bill before the people? Why are the rules of the House being broken today, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier advised on the radio this morning that they have committee meetings at the same time as the Legislature was in session, when you know so well that you must have consent of the House for these committees to meet, Mr. Speaker?

It is because, Mr. Speaker, this Government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly you need some order. You need some law and order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member confine himself to the question, which is whether the bill is to be read now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, and I'm advocating that it be read in six months instead of now, Mr. Speaker. That should be very clear. I am sure the people of the province nearly all want it to be read not now, but in six months.

I would ask the Premier that this new government do not make this mistake, do not shove this down the people's throats so quickly. It is not easy — I found it was not easy to take a second look. Take a second look and you will go down in history as a great Premier, Mr. Speaker, but if he forces it through this day, even his own Members throughout this province will know that he is a dictator and they will remove him from office.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well,

[ Page 1794 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have taken my part in this debate on the amendment to this motion to have this bill set aside for six months. I think that by bringing in this amendment the Opposition has given the Government a chance which, if they are smart, they will take, Mr. Speaker. If they are wise, and if they are truly interested in the rights of British Columbians, they will take a second look.

We have not had, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to have input from all segments of the community. As witnessed by the debate, Mr. Speaker, that has taken place in this Legislature over the past three weeks on Bill 42 the people themselves are confused and want to have some input into this very important bill.

All segments of the community, Mr. Speaker, should have the opportunity to have a say and to give the Government some input.

We've heard from the farming community but they were not listened to, Mr. Speaker. We have heard from the real estate people but they were not listened to, Mr. Speaker. Because they haven't had the opportunity to come into this Legislature or to come to any, public hearings where Government representation was there with the idea of listening and changing Bill 42.

The meetings that we have heard, Mr. Speaker, have been public meetings, but there has been no official Government representation there to listen to what the people are saying.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there has been no intelligent debate on Bill 42. Well, the people who have said that there is no intelligent debate on Bill 42 should have the opportunity to enter into this debate themselves. The only way that they can have the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill 42 is through public hearings. If this amendment is passed and Bill 42 is not read for six months, this will give those very people the opportunity to have a say in this debate. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for asking that this bill be set back for six months.

British Columbia has got to have a place to grow. That growth must be planned. By not allowing the people who take a part in growth — the business community, the real estate people and the other industries who need land for the development of this province, and municipalities — to have the opportunity to have some input into this bill, we are in essence, Mr. Speaker, denying them their rights as citizens of British Columbia.

We should have a committee set up while we're waiting for this six months to go to thoroughly study this entire land use in British Columbia, a committee, Mr. Speaker, similar to the committee recommended by the now Premier of this province in 1970 when the Land Act was being changed. Then, Mr. Speaker, by his very own words, he said that this is such an important subject that it should go to the committee, that the committee should sit in all parts of the province, and that the committee should sit for at least a year. That is what the Premier of this province said in 1970, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're at a loss to understand now why the urgency to press this bill through.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lack of substantial input into Bill 42 by the community. There is at the present time legislation which will look after the protection of our greenbelt. If it's not doing the job we should revise the Act and we should have more input. To say that there is nothing being done, Mr. Speaker, is to mislead the people of this province.

To say that there is no legislation on the books at this time — this will come out in the six months while the bill is being debated. The people of the province will know what legislation is on the books.

We all have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to preserve farmland. We all recognize that responsibility. But we in the official Opposition also have the responsibility to preserve the rights of the citizens of this province. Bill 42 clearly erodes those rights.

No one, Mr. Speaker, on the Government benches has stood in this Legislature and said that Bill 42 does not take away the rights of the individual. By going to the people and by having a six-month delay and by allowing people to have some input, then we can find out exactly what is going on behind Bill 42.

The principle is not only to preserve farmland, Mr. Speaker. By a six-month delay and by holding public hearings, maybe the Government will tell us exactly what the principle behind the bill is, because they have not clearly brought it out.

The Government gets nervous and excited. Maybe the six-month delay, Mr. Speaker, will give them a chance to simmer down, take a look and realize what the people of this province are thinking about Bill 42. Give the people of this province a chance to speak. Give the people of this province a chance to have their say. Let the individuals who are interested in the preservation of farmland have their say.

Mr. Speaker, this is poor legislation. A six-month delay will give the Government the opportunity to revise its thinking. to take a second look at this bill. By delaying for six months the second reading of Bill 42, it will give the Government the opportunity to say — which by the way they haven't said in this Legislature — that the Government still truly agrees with the principle of ownership of land. Not one Member on the Government bench or one member of the Council have stood on the floor of this Legislature and said that they agree with private ownership of land.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would you confine your remarks to the amendment, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what I'm doing,

[ Page 1795 ]

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you're not. You are also, I might add, repeating the arguments others have already made on this particular amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think anyone has said, Mr. Speaker, that the Government would have the opportunity to tell us whether they agree with the private ownership of land or not. This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition bringing in the amendment to delay the reading for six months. It is because no one has said that they agree with the private ownership of land. Not one person on the Government side of the House has said that they agree with that in principle. No one has defended it. This is why we want the bill delayed, so that that Government can go to the people and they can defend their actions. We're giving them an out. Because if they put it through now without going to the people, Mr. Speaker, they will be forever branded dictators. They will be forever branded as the Government that took the right of the individual to hold land away from them.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has told us that we are away off base on the principle of Bill 42, that we don't know what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker. By delaying the reading of Bill 42, maybe the Government will take the opportunity in that six months to tell us and to tell the people of British Columbia exactly what they are trying to do with Bill 42; because they, have not, on the floor of this Legislature during this debate, told us that, Mr. Speaker. They have said that they want to preserve farmland but the bill clearly does not outline how they're going to preserve farmland. The bill clearly outlines that they're going to take control of all the land in British Columbia. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this six-month delay will give them…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a false statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's not a false statement. You haven't explained this legislation. You've tabled the bill and what's in the bill is all we have to see. If you stand up and say that we're reading things into the bill that aren't there, I defy you to stand up and tell us exactly what you intend to do. You haven't done it! No, you haven't done it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now you're going to have six months to do it. If you don't take that opportunity you know what's going to happen to you. If you've got something to say, stand up and say it when I'm finished. Otherwise, let me speak.

MR. CHABOT: Fat boy. Fat boy,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal insults are not acceptable in this House. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that and apologize? The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw what?

MR. SPEAKER: The statement that you have just made.

MR. CHABOT: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: I heard it. You heard it. It's defiance of the Chair not to withdraw it.

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated.

Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River please withdraw the statement.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, that's right. That's not his name.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you apologize to the House.

MR. CHABOT: I humbly apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CHABOT: That's not his name. Not his name.

MR. PHILLIPS: So, Mr. Speaker, what I say in essence is the reason for asking that this bill be delayed is that the Government has not given good leadership, either in the debate on Bill 42 or in bringing in this poorly-constructed bill.

We've heard some harangues from the Premier and from some of the other Members telling us we don't understand the bill. Mr. Speaker, the only thing we can see in Bill 42 is the bill as it is written. They have talked about amendments and then they've said there won't be amendments. We have nothing to go by but exactly what we see.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, has had the opportunity to stand in this Legislature and tell us, to straighten us out if we're wrong, but he hasn't seen fit to do so. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the people out there are confused and if the official Opposition is confused, we would like the Government to take the opportunity of this six months coming up to unconfuse us — to explain exactly what they intend to do.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's impossible.

[ Page 1796 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess it might be impossible; when you're leading us into the confusion and you're confused yourself, that might be impossible. But the confused Minister of Public Works knows whether he's confused or not. He doesn't understand the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad subject as you know.

MR. SPEAKER: But it's a very narrow amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad subject and the amendment, I realize, is very…but what I'm saying is that you know yourself, by the amount of debate that has taken place in this Legislature, that this is a very, very broad subject. I think that the Government owes it to the people and owes it to the official Opposition to postpone the second reading of this bill until everybody has had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to learn exactly what the Government intends to do.

If the Government had given leadership, if the Government had backed down from their stubborn position, withdrawn the bill and brought in the amendments, maybe all of this debate would not have been necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is not only land involved in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is the reason that we have to take this stand. It's not only the preservation of farmland; there is a complete way of life involved, Mr. Speaker. I think that six months debate with the people who are involved, with the input from the people who are involved, is very little to ask, Mr. Speaker, when a complete way of life is involved.

No one in this Legislature, either on the Government side or on the Opposition side, will deny, nor have they denied during this debate, that there is a way of life involved. It's not only the preservation of farmland, Mr. Speaker; it's not only the preservation of all land. It is a way of life, Mr. Speaker.

When a way of life, Mr. Speaker, is involved, six months is a very short time to have more input. Mr. Speaker, by the results of the debate, you know and the Government knows that everybody in this province is concerned and confused about Bill 42. They're not only concerned and confused, Mr. Speaker, because of the preservation of farmland, but they are concerned and confused because their whole way of life rides or falls on Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Premier of this province, who is supposed to be a man for the people; I plead with the Government that was elected because they are a Government of the people, who are supposed to have been elected by the people — not by business and industry. If that Government and that Premier are truly concerned about the way of life which brought them to power, the way of life which gives them the life that they are able to enjoy in British Columbia, the life of freedom…they exercise their freedom, Mr. Speaker, by owning land prior to coming to office.

They exercise their freedom in a democracy by having the right to run for election. This is the way of life, Mr. Speaker, that is involved in Bill 42. It is the very roots of our democracy. As I said before, no one on that Government side of the bench has denied that the whole way of life is involved. No one has denied that we are not going to have the right of private ownership of land — not the Premier or any of the cabinet Ministers who have spoken on Bill 42.

No one, no one has stood and said that Bill 42 is not going to take away the right of the individual to private property. We have heard from some of the Members, Mr. Speaker, in the backbench that the private ownership of property is not necessary in the public interest. That's the only thing we have to go by.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member again standing order 43, which says that where "…the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments" — and you have been doing that consistently in the last while —"or of the arguments of other members in debate…" — you've done that as well. In such a case, the Speaker "may direct him to discontinue his speech…"

I don't like doing a thing like that. I'd like the Hon. Member to appreciate that all these arguments have been made before and he's becoming tedious in repeating them. Would the Hon. Member please pay respect to that rule?

MR. PHILLIPS: I will, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry that I have repeated myself. But when our complete democratic way of life is at stake, I feel it very necessary to plead with the Government.

No one, Mr. Speaker, in this debate this morning has talked about our way of life. This is what is at stake, Mr. Speaker. I'll move on and I'll say this, Mr. Speaker: I'll ask the Government again to accept this amendment, and I'll point out to the Government that, by accepting this amendment, they will be accepting their responsibility that they were elected to fulfil last August 30.

They were not given a mandate last August 30 to take away our democratic right of life, Mr. Speaker, our democratic way of life. They were not given that mandate last August 30.

Mr. Speaker, the Government owes it to the people of this province to show their concern for what is happening. The people have showed their concern. Now if the Government is truly a

[ Page 1797 ]

democratic Government it will respond by accepting this amendment, going to the people, allowing the people to have input and taking a second look.

Mr. Speaker, the facts prove and it has been proven during this debate, that more than the preservation of farmland is behind Bill 42. This passing of this motion will allow the Government, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To save the farmland of this Province.

MR. PHILLIPS: To save the people of this province and their democratic way of life. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate, and it's about time the people of this province who have some regard for maintaining this province as a decent place for children and grandchildren after them to live in, stood up to be counted.

Never in the history of this province has there been more misinformation and misrepresentation about any piece of legislation…

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is that when the Hon. Member for South Peace River is asked to cease shouting, that he do so. You were listened to by the other side. You should have at least the courtesy to extend the same courtesy to them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt outside of this House to mislead the people of this province, and to spread some of the worst legal hokum that's ever been addressed to the people of this province by all of the parties opposite and their people. They have tried to claim one after the other, that this is an expropriation bill. That is pure hokum and they know it. It never was.

They have tried to say it's confiscation. That is pure legal hokum. There is no change whatsoever in the traditional laws with respect to compensation on questions of zoning that have existed in this province for the last 20 or 30 years — none whatsoever. That is pure legal hokum, spread by people who ought to know better — who do know better.

They have said and the Liberal Party has said this, that the commission could hold secret hearings, that they could make their decisions in secret without notice to anybody, and that is pure legal hokum. Hokum! Is now and always was.

There is a provision in that bill, and there always has been, whereby the courts have superintendence over it; and if there is a denial to anybody of fair notice, or natural justice, or a fair open hearing, the decision of that commission would be set aside in the courts.

People like Mr. Derril Warren and other people who are lawyers in this House, going out and peddling that kind of hokum about secret meetings to the people of this province, is a disgrace. Believe me, the hour of truth, Mr. Speaker, is here when they say, "Hoist this bill for six months." Those who believe in saving this province, instead of having it turned into one vast wasteland like Greater Chicago, had better stand up right now and recognize where the opposition to this bill comes from and who they stand for — and vote against this amendment.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The previous speaker has made a number of claims and charges which we feel are most unjust and unfair. (Laughter).

He is claiming that misinformation on the bill has been spread inside and outside this House. If he admits that, Mr. Speaker, I think he'll have to admit that a good deal of this has been peddled by the person sitting on his right, namely the Premier of the province himself.

Constantly we have been told that there have been no suggestions from anyone as far as improvement of this bill goes. We've heard in this House, from the Hon. Member on my left, concrete useful suggestions about amending this bill and improving it. Outside this House, we've heard from the B.C. Cattlemen and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture offer concrete useful suggestions for amendment.

Sure, we don't have the legal draftsmen that the Government has, which apparently they're unable to use on this bill. But there have been suggestions for improvement. There are proposals which have been put forward. They're in Hansard if the Premier will look in that. I think that it's about time that they decided to defend their own bill or else withdraw it and put in a proper bill properly done which has the guarantees that we insist upon.

As I mentioned, we don't have the draftsmen and the reserve of legal talent that apparently the Government thinks it has. Indeed, we're not sure that

[ Page 1798 ]

what they do have is all that good. I think it's time that if there are amendments to be put forward, they be put forward as other amendments have been put forward to other bills in this House. The legal hokum which the Attorney General was talking about applies completely to the Premier's statement that he can make no amendments to this bill.

The Attorney General knows well, Mr. Speaker, that this bill can be withdrawn, amended and brought back in the House and that that can probably be done in 48 hours. Had it been done when it was first suggested, we'd probably have the bill dealt with already. The Attorney General knows well that in addition there are other amendments on the order paper. Yet he comes here and gives us what can only be described as: legal hokum from his own mouth, as to what this bill has or has not got. In it. The need for a six-month hoist is this, Mr. Speaker: in that period of six months the agriculture committee of this House can tour the province and can listen to the briefs of interested groups, apart from the few that have been able to put things together in the last few weeks. They will be able to do this in a dispassionate, realistic way, without the heat of debate that has been generated, in the last six weeks.

We feel that if this is done there will be an opportunity for plans to be put forward — realistic plans for the preservation of farmland and plans which can be based on legislation that does not deny natural justice, right of appeal, right of compensation or due process of law.

A moment ago we were accused of incorrectly stating that decisions can be made in secret. Well, where in. the bill is it that these decisions have to be made public?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nowhere in this bill have the things that we have talked about been dealt with. The Attorney General knows that, as does the Premier.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's appeal there on a point of law and, that includes the matter of natural justice. Lawyers in this House who say otherwise simply don't know what they're talking about, or they're deliberately attempting to mislead as they have been deliberately attempting to mislead throughout the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General knows that natural justice rules only apply if there's a hearing. They don't have to have a hearing.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is actually a matter for debate at a later stage in the bill. Would the Hon. Member please proceed on the amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is for a six-month hoist. May I take the example of this dispute between lawyers as an indication of why we need a few weeks or months to sort out this type of problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing but negative criticism.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney General gets up on a hotline and doesn't know that the appeal provisions in this Act simply don't cover the points that were being made by the interviewer. The Premier gets up last night before a television interviewer and states that he didn't think the thing had been handled very well.

Well, we do have an opportunity to correct mistakes. We have a simple, reasonable course of action to follow. This Government has deliberately denied it in their efforts to stir up their official Opposition to polarize the people of the province on this issue. It is an important issue. There are issues of principle at stake. There's no reason for Ministers of the Crown or the Premier to simply make facetious comments about what went on before and use bad legislation in the past to justify bad legislation in the present.

We in this party have opposed the legislation that they referred to as examples of how bad the previous administration was. Yet they at that time supported it. We have a consistent policy, on the NDP part, of supporting bad legislation of this type. That is why we want to see a six-month hoist, so there can be an opportunity for reasonable debate, so there can be an opportunity for reasonable hearings, so there can be presentations from the public, so there can be an opportunity to look at the land inventory of the province and find out what needs to be done to correct it and find out how we can bring in a bill which could deal with the problem of preserving farmland and of preserving land for other uses, and at the same time not destroy various principles of natural justice — which I've gone into before — which we feel cannot be accepted by this House in principle now, because to do so would prevent us from amending that later on.

Mr. Speaker, on March 20 my Hon. friend on my left from West Vancouver (Mr. Williams) put a motion to this House that the bill not be read now a second time, suggesting that there should be formal

[ Page 1799 ]

consultation with regional districts and municipal governments by means of public hearings to ascertain whether effective government at the local level would be impaired and individual rights infringed. Since that time debate has pointed out that there are plenty of individual rights being infringed and that there are plenty of people who would like to be consulted.

Accept this amendment. Give this bill a six-month hoist. It could have been done a great deal better, had the Government been reasonable enough to accept our suggestions earlier. At this stage the only thing we have is the six-month hoist. We think that if this were done, it would be possible for a bill to come forward dealing with the preservation of farmland, and yet at the same time excluding most of the very objectionable — indeed reprehensible — provisions which the Government wished to include in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I speak obviously in favour of this amendment. I speak with a great deal of feeling. We tried hard in this House to be reasonable. We tried hard to put forward reasonable proposals. Yet consistently this has been rejected by the Government, as they go wailing away at the former administration for sins going back to 1960 or 1959 or even beyond.

That is not good enough at this time. What we want and what we think the people of the province want is something better. The opportunity of getting something better is pulling bad legislation at this stage, accepting this amendment and bringing in something which is reasonable in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you force him down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Force him down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member deferring to this Member or what? Are you speaking next?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Prince Rupert…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'd be glad to defer to the Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. SPEAKER: I started to recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert. This Member has risen. Do you defer to this Member?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll speak, thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Talk about getting smoked out!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed with his remarks? We're on the amendment, I assume.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment. For the first time in this House since this debate started, we have a consensus. Everyone in this House knows now that the people out there want this bill to pass. That's why those groups over there want to have six months — not to get input, but to go out and give more baloney to the people of this province. They want six months; they need it. But it wouldn't do them any good anyway, Mr. Speaker.

You know, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and listen to people like the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) talk about democracy — when he was Premier of this province, he said, "We were voted in to govern. If the people have a say between elections, that's anarchy." He was quoted as saying that. Now he wants to listen to the people. Now he does? Baloney.

They want another six months to have meetings like they had in Ladner. Let me tell you about that meeting in Ladner. They warmed it up with a red-necked western orchestra. The only things missing were the burning crosses and the sheets.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Right on!

MR. LEA: They say politics makes strange bedfellows — the three Opposition parties on the stage with the Canadian Intelligence Service, better known as the John Birch Society. You squirmed a little but you stayed there, didn't you? I could see you squirming.

You want six months to go out there. Why? Because you know the people of this province want this bill now. You're frightened! It's your political life!

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in just a few moments we'll come to the question on this particular amendment and then the main question.

I want to speak very, very briefly to compliment the Leader of the Opposition. I suppose no one has been a more consistent critic than I have of the positions that he's taken in the past. He's been accused of many things, not too often complimented and seldom have people said he was eloquent. But,

[ Page 1800 ]

Mr. Speaker, he was eloquent today.

He gave the Premier advice. He could have lashed back, because he was given ample cause to do so. He was accused of things that, had they been said outside the House, would clearly have been actionable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that any person who has sat in this House for as many years as the Leader of the Opposition has some wisdom. When in good faith he offers that wisdom to the leader of a new Government, and in a sense pleads with the new Premier not to make some of the mistakes that he would admit himself he's made in the past, the least that Premier could do is to gain enough wisdom I've been in the House for a far briefer period than the Leader of the Opposition, but I do agree that in my time in this House never have the people been as upset by a bill as this one. Whether you want to contend that the bill is misunderstood or whether it's wrong, there can be little doubt that the people are upset and that it is our duty to listen to them, If we've gone this long in our history without land controls, six more months will not spell the ruination of British Columbia. But when the people are upset, there should be a mechanism of hearing what they say, and that mechanism has been offered today in good faith by the Opposition.

I've been accused of many angry speeches to the Leader of the Opposition. But when he's eloquent, when he makes common sense, when he offers advice to the leader of a Government and to the people, then I think everyone including myself should stand up and praise that effort. The Leader of the Opposition, in speaking for five minutes in this House, has made the best speech I have ever heard him make. I say to the Leader of the Government: accept his advice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of the amendment at this eleventh hour — a fervent appeal to the Government and the Premier to reconsider their position in the interests of all the electorate who have shown great concern. If they have not understood the legislation as the Government intends it, six months is not too long to give them to have this one day in court. The land freeze can continue on. Nothing can be done in that time.

You have the orders-in-council; there is no termination date of those orders-in-council so there is no real reason why anything undue could occur in a matter of six months.

It's generally understood that the Government intends to have another session in the fall. Bring back your bill in the fall after you have had some input. Send a committee or a commission or whatever you want to send out across the province. Have some hearings.

We have had royal commissions before. I don't think you need a royal commission. I think a sound committee could go out and receive the input from the people and maybe all this contention will disappear. At the same time your committee should be fully conversant with the intent and spirit that the Government will bring about through this legislation. Then I don't think there is any question in anyone's mind but that we can come up with an intelligent, acceptable piece of legislation.

Certainly the angry words of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll fight to the last ditch so we might as well face up to it right now.

MR. RICHTER: So! The Attorney General in his angry words — and he's repeating his same position again right now — doesn't want to listen to the people. Who put you there? Forty per cent of the people put you there; 60 per cent opposed you. What's the matter with you anyway? Don't you understand people for goodness sake? It's about time you understood.

AN HON. MEMBER: You took over B.C. Electric, didn't you'!

MR. RICHTER: And you supported it too. You supported it. We're not supporting this legislation until you explain to the people what it is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHTER: I will vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'll refrain from speaking in the debate on this amendment if we can have a commitment from the Premier of this province that he will accept this motion and that he will hoist the bill for six months;

[ Page 1801 ]

that he will go to public hearings and that he will listen to the people of British Columbia.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier will he listen?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's too high a price not to listen to you. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, that's very typical of the facetious, irresponsible, acting, joking remarks from this jokester Premier of this province. The people, Mr. Speaker, in this province, are afraid for the first time in the history of their government. They are concerned…

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They were afraid for 20 years.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Premier, Mr. Speaker, actually think that all of the Members of the Opposition and the people outside of this Legislature have nothing better to do with their time than to play games? Is that what he thinks, Mr. Speaker?

How could that Premier be so cynical as to take this joking posture and to literally ridicule the concerns of the people of British Columbia, and to ridicule the genuine concerns of the Members of this Opposition on all sides?

Mr. Speaker, we've tried to make it clear over and over and over again that we support, we favour and will do everything that is fair and just to preserve agriculture in British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, we become concerned and the people of this province become concerned when we see such an action as we have seen in this Legislature this morning; when we've seen the chief justice officer of this province, the law enforcement officer of this province, the one man, Mr. Speaker, in this province who must not only speak to justice but must be prepared to lay down his life to preserve justice, stand up in this House — after on the television he said, "I didn't know there wasn't room for compensation on this Act" — and then ridicule the concerns of the people of British Columbia. One shudders, Mr. Speaker, not only for our democratic rights but the sanity of that man; the responsibility of that man.

Mr. Speaker, over and over again the public and the Members of this Opposition have questioned the Attorney General, the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and all Members on the Government side of this House: do they believe in the private ownership of land in British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, they will not answer, and that is a very important issue.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) just now quacked out and said, "That's nothing to do with the principle of this bill." Mr. Speaker, what does he think this debate is about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. We're on the amendment now, dealing with the six months.

MRS. JORDAN: In asking the Government to hoist the bill for six months, we are asking the question to be clarified: does the Government believe in the private ownership of land? The Attorney General, in speaking to this amendment…

MR. CHABOT: They won't answer.

MRS. JORDAN: …said that he is fighting for the preservation of agricultural land for his children and his grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, what do you think that the people are fighting for? It is for the democratic rights of our children and our grandchildren.

This Government, in speaking to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is wrapping the erosion of democratic rights up in a flag of emotionalism. They have said to the farmers of this province — and there's a letter right here from the Minister of Agriculture — "You will take note of this and expect to receive fair treatment by this new legislation." That's what they're saying to the farmers of this province. And yet the legislation is in here and there is nothing in this legislation to help the farmer of British Columbia.

In wrapping, in camouflaging the principle of non-ownership of private land in British Columbia, this Government, the "Minister of Justice" — in speaking to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and those Members are willing to bury the farmers in a pauper's grave today in the name of the state and in the camouflaged name of the erosion of the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when we asked them about private ownership — the Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture and all those Members — all we get from the chief justice officer, the law enforcement officer of this province, is that it is hokum. The hokum, Mr. Speaker, is on the lips of that Member and that Government because they will not answer the question. If it is disguised in the principle of the bill that we are trying to amend now, Mr. Speaker, what do we ask them to hoist it for six months? Because this is a government that has gone the width and breadth of this province saying, "trust us."

After this legislation has come in they have said "trust us," and yet every group in British Columbia that is concerned with this legislation has met with this government, has met with its caucus, has met with this Minister of Agriculture before the bill came in, to put in their input. That Minister of Agriculture gave them the assurance that it would be fair and equitable. And yet the Bill lies here today an absolute

[ Page 1802 ]

disgrace to the democratic process and the rights of people.

The actions of this Government during the debate of the principle of the bill that we are now amending has been an absolute disgrace to the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.

We've seen closure; we've seen forcing of Members; we've seen ridicule. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they will maintain, "trust us." There is nothing in this bill which indicates that the people they met with before have any reason to trust them. We're asking them to reinstate their image, if you want to call it that. Let them prove to the people that they can be trusted, that they are concerned, and that they understand the complexity of this problem of 'preservation of farmland and that they are not trying to foist the non-ownership of private lands on the people without telling them.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that one can conclude in listening to this debate and seeing the response of the Premier in not being willing to take this bill to the public is that they are afraid. They know they're wrong. They know they've made a mistake and they're afraid. And, Mr. Speaker, a government that is afraid has no right to govern.

Government is a responsibility not just to one pressure group or another pressure group — but in British Columbia and Canada it is the right to represent all people and the responsibility to take care of all people, and to see that their input, whether organized or unorganized, carries its weight in the decisions being made by that government.

That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we are asking for the hoisting of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we've asked this Government — every Member of the Opposition has used every approach, trying to be kind, to appeal to reason and to common sense, and they still refuse. We get the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) standing up and quoting May, after the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has said that their caucus went through this bill clause by clause by clause before it ever came to this Legislature — a breach of parliamentary ethics. "Trust us," and a breach of parliamentary ethics.

Mr. Speaker, the concern about this bill is as it lies on the order paper of this House, and that Member for Vancouver Centre said, "We have been through it clause by clause and we support it."

MR. CHABOT: Somebody should resign.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, that is what the public is concerned about — that that side has stated over and over again that it fully supports the principle of this bill and every word that's in this bill as it lies in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier of this province and that government, with its wall of steel between it and the people of British Columbia, bludgeons the second reading of this bill through this House, then there is no question that never before in the history of a democratic parliament have the rights of the people been so trampled as they are being and will be trampled into the carpets of this Legislature today.

Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, have they given one good reason for not withdrawing this bill and laying it over for six months. And, Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that if not withdrawn it is downright arrogance or ignorance, or there is a hidden meaning which is the confiscation of lands in British Columbia and the doing away with private ownership of lands in British Columbia and a complete erosion of the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia, or that it is a matter of false pride on the part of the Premier of this province.

As I said to him once before, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment and asking him to withdraw, to err is human, and we will accept that. And the same goes for, "To forgive is divine." But we would suggest that to understand is the mark of a man and the mark of a leader, and that it would be a mark of the fact that this Government has confidence in its programme and that it has confidence in the people of British Columbia, and that it's not hung-up on a fantasy that it cannot tell the people what the truth is and that it is in fact out to erode the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.

I would ask again, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier of this province to listen. Take this bill out; lay it over. What is wrong? What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the farmers in this province having an opportunity on their own ground to put some input in, to reaffirm the input that they've already put in and which was ignored?

What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the people in the northern part of this province, the small homeowners, senior citizens, having the opportunity ?

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) sits there and says, "Bwea-a-agh!" — and that's exactly the problem of this government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Arrogant! That Minister professes to be a socialist. He has destroyed names in this House and he himself epitomizes the worst of any free enterprise system in his own actions.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. If one gets a little excited, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will understand that one who knows the history of that Minister and hears him make these remarks and knows that that Minister's hunger for power is behind this bill, then I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment; that you will understand why one gets a little emotional. We feel that by withdrawing this bill for six months the

[ Page 1803 ]

rights of the people would prevail over the naked hunger of that Minister. That's what must happen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we ask again, for whatever reason the Premier would choose to say — withdraw this bill for six months, prove to the people in hoisting the bill that this Government is concerned, that this Government believes in the private ownership of land, that this Government most of all listens and, most of all, Mr. Speaker, believes in the democratic rights of the individual person — man, woman, or child — in the Province of British Columbia, that it is a responsible government worthy of trust, and worthy, Mr. Speaker, of respect, and that the Premier himself is a man to lead, a man to protect the weak and a man to be trusted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): How long have we in this House, Mr. Speaker, listened to the shallow dramatics of the Member for North Okanagan? How long? First it's the quiet, dramatic voice pleading for reason; then it's the loud yelling and nonsense items, as we've had again this morning, talking about closure. Talking about closure! Twelve days of debate, and the Opposition tries to sell the story about closure. Closure — after 12 days of debate on this one bill? And the Opposition tries to talk about bludgeoning a bill through this House after 12 days of debate. That rump group over there was not content to try to destroy parliament when they were in the government — they are trying to do it when they are in Opposition!

I'd like the Hon. Leader of the Opposition going out to the towns, preaching anarchy outside of this House, urging the farmers not…

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He wants another six months, Mr. Speaker, that's what he wants, another six months to preach…

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: The rules, of the House, Mr. Speaker, should be obeyed by all sides of the House. When I was speaking just a few moments ago I strayed very narrowly from the principle of the amendment…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: …and I was immediately read the laws of the House. That Member has not mentioned the amendment yet and no one has brought him to order. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that in this House you should be just. You are a servant of the House and the rules should apply to both sides of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you. May I also add that I tried several times to stop the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) from attacking the Minister? Now I presume he's not to be given the opportunity to reply to any extent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Now the rules must apply on each side. I try desperately to keep the Members within the relevance of debate. But they will go beyond the area of debate into personalities and then they expect to get away with it when the next Member is called. If you will each obey the rules, we'll have no problem.

I would ask the Minister to stay within the relevance of the motion of the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your point and I accept it. If the Minister has nothing better to do with his time than to attack me, let him go ahead.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: After 12 days of debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition's asking for another six months of political vilification, the likes of which we've never seen in this province; vilification with respect to a statute that is little more than a provincial zoning bylaw; little different from the zoning bylaws in hundreds of towns and villages across the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stick to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: It's on the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The one thing that has become clear in this particular debate in the recent hours, Mr. Speaker, is how comfortable they all are together — the red-neck right, the radical right and the middle right — comfortable in bed together. As

[ Page 1804 ]

the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) so eloquently stated, you're quite right to sit together with these who would destroy democracy on a platform outside this House. No wonder there's some concern over there right now, because you're all in bed together. Your position is abundantly clear. Really we've got a coalition over there — the radical right, the red-neck. right and the middle right, all happy to live with the destruction of a simple statute that has one simple goal.

MR. CHABOT: All a bunch of Commies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is one simple goal in this statute: the preservation of farmland.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the kind of vilification, Mr. Speaker. We had it just a few minutes ago from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that we want to destroy private ownership. That's what they're all saying.

We're simply preserving farmland in British Columbia. And you take it down to that level, the way you're always wont to do, that we're ready to take over the corner grocery, that your toothbrush won't be safe in the morning. This proposal is no different from what every municipality in British Columbia itself is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And you know that!

Then we get the quiet voice of the Member for North Okanagan, pleading, after all the vilification, to listen. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a group that did listen and that's why we were elected in August.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, even if I had been opposed to this amendment an hour ago, I would be forced to be in favour of the amendment now. After having listened to the irresponsible statements and watched the irresponsible actions in this House, Mr. Speaker, there's no way but that we have to ask for six months.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that what we have seen in this House this morning is multiplied a thousand times outside this House. What makes us believe that eloquence is limited to these four walls? If eloquence is not limited to these four walls, what makes us believe that vehemence is limited to these four walls?

Over here we have the advantage of these. barriers. We have the influence of the Mace on the table. We have the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of a referee who sits behind that desk. But out there on the streets there is neither of those.

I fear that unless we do something to let the public understand the intent of this bill, give the Government six months to explain their position, there will be bloodshed on the streets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: I've watched it here in the House today. If I might quote from the greatest of all authority: "Anger is the basic ingredient of murder." And don't you make any mistake about it. Mr. Premier, you know the truth as well as I do. Don't make funny faces in the face of the greatest truth…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked at your words.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. You'd be awful glad I said them if blood was shed.

All I'm interested in is law and order in the streets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: I want you to know that the kind of ramrod legislation that we are seeking as a government to push down the throats of gullible citizens out there is exactly the kind of legislation that serves to inflame and incite rebellion. We've seen it in other lands. Why would we be different here? Do you think that because we live in British Columbia that the human nature of the people who are resident here is different from the human nature of those folk who live, for instance, in Hungary? And let me ask you, was there bloodshed in Hungary? You're cotton pickin' right there was.

Now I want you to know that the people will respond to imposed legislation just like they did over there, because the people are used to democracy. They are not used to dictatorship. We've got to give them at least six months, Mr. Speaker, to acclimatize to the new kind of legislation that seems to be coming from this House.

I think we're doing this Government a favour in allowing them six months.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: I have had to smile, Mr. Speaker — if I might interrupt the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) for just a moment — at the Government benches who have said, "We don't have one piece of amendment from over there." The only way they can interpret an amendment is by a piece of paper apparently lying on that table.

They have had suggestion after suggestion. I can

[ Page 1805 ]

point to Members all across here who have been giving suggestion after suggestion, Now may I tell you for just a moment what response we have received from the Government side? I quote the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke): whenever we said, "Would you like to see some amendment?" the man said, "When you get to this side of the House it's then that you start to create policy and not until then."

What did they do? They squelched any kind of amendment that was sought to be offered by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say six months is the minimum length of time that this Government needs to understand its own legislation, to understand its own position and to understand Bill 42. If they don't understand it, what makes them think that the people on the flood plains will ever understand it?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Your kind of guy, eh?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. I don't think there's ever been a bill put before this Legislature since we've been a province like Bill 42. I want to say here that I'm one who represents 60 per cent of the voters of this province and in no way should Bill 42 go through here against the majority wishes of the people of this province.

As I said the other day, it takes away all the authority from even the local elected officials. I refer to 140 municipalities and 28 regional districts. They'll have no further authority over land. They might as well throw all their legislation out regarding land.

You people have been asked to amend this. You refuse to amend it; yet you are asking us to sign a blank cheque here today to vote for this and wait for the amendments and "trust us."

MR. CHABOT: They still haven't said that they believe in the private ownership of land. Nobody has.

MR. FRASER: I was quite amazed at the diatribe that we got from the chief law officer of this province a few minutes ago, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). That was just terrible; that's exactly what it was. You blew your cool entirely and I don't think a person in your position should be doing those things.

MR. PHILLIPS: He can't stand the responsibility.

MR. FRASER: We ask again in this amendment here: what is the policy of you people over the? Do you believe in private ownership of land or don't you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Answer it!

MR. FRASER: Answer it. That's what we want to know. It is obvious if you won't answer that you don't believe in it. Of course this is against our very way of life in this province and in this nation. For that reason I will be voting to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 32

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are we back on the main debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we're on the main debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: May I speak on the main motion?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, I had been about to recognize another Member. The last Member who spoke was from the Opposition. I try to be fair in…

HON. MR. BENNETT: As long as the debate is not being closed.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no.

[ Page 1806 ]

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. What is your point of privilege?

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment was moved the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) had made some inferences to my person which I would like to correct.

The Hon. Member implicated in his discussion that I or some people associated with me were involved in a breaking and entering and perhaps even in burning down a farmer's barn on March 15. The inference, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I don't think there was any such inference.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. SPEAKER: There may have been other implications but not that.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the Hansard that is in the process of being printed which definitely shows this inference in his remarks. I'd like to quote:

"We heard a great deal in this debate from the Member from Richmond. Mr. Steves. He talked about the real estate firms in British Columbia lobbying because it was in their best interests to lobby the Members of the Legislature" et cetera.

He went on to quote from a newspaper report from the Vancouver Sun which said that one of the companies that I had named in my speech last week had had their firm broken into and that their metered postage stamp machine had been handled. He left the implication that perhaps I might have had something to do with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. STEVES: He went on to say, Mr. Speaker:

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

Now these are the words of the Member for North Peace River. I object very strenuously to those implications that I would be in any way involved in such a thing as this.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that this type of activity, by inference and by coincidence — the accusations he's making are unbefitting a Member of this House. It has brought this House to disgrace and brought the debate in this House to an all-time low.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, I named two people from the Rutherford McRae firm, who had sent me cards opposing Bill 42. They did not have metered stamps. They had 8-cent postage stamps with the Queen's picture on it. There was no postage meter even used.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You are not allowed to make a speech when you are clearing up a matter where there is a contradiction between you and another Member about either your actions or your words. You are entitled to make your explanation, which will be accepted. But it does not include thereby another debate on what the other Member has said.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The record as will be shown in Hansard is a record of the things that I said on the floor of the House. I retract nothing that was said. In no way did I refer to any Member of this House…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite sure of that.

MR. SMITH: …when I suggested that someone could have gone into that office with the sole intent of using their meter. Now that is not in any way reflecting upon any Member in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. May we proceed with the debate? The Hon. Member for Esquimalt — do you have a point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said that he was quoting from Hansard which was in the process of being typed up. I made my point of order in saying that the other day I went to Hansard with a view to getting a quotation, which was in the process of having been debated at that sitting and was told that these were not available until the end of the sitting.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if (1) you would clarify where this Hansard came from…

MR. SPEAKER: It's been delivered to your desk as of now.

[ Page 1807 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't have a copy here, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify this for me, please?

MR. SPEAKER: All I can say is, I don't know what the Hon. Member has seen, I don't know what time Hansard is delivered in regard to the pink copy, but they're supposed to be immediately the next day. We're talking about a speech that was made yesterday, I believe.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I don't know this. I don't know one way or the other. I see some pink copies are out already.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member who spoke yesterday should have a copy of Hansard yesterday. Has he got it in front of him?

MRS. JORDAN: My point, Mr. Speaker, was that in listening to the Hon. Member this morning he said, "I am quoting from Hansard, which is in the process of being typed up."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MRS. JORDAN: This is the point that I wish — is he quoting from…?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: I just wonder if this point could be clarified and if in fact the Hon. Member is quoting…

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look into the matter. I am sure it's of no relevance to the debate at this point. But I'll certainly look into it for the Hon. Members.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Esquimalt, on the main motion that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the previous debate on the amendment, I'd like to give you a few quiet remarks from the quiet riding of Esquimalt. Mr. Speaker, last February 7, when speaking in this House during the throne debate, I made reference to the question of land use and to the activity of land speculation as practiced by those who cannot in any way be considered to be seriously engaged in farming as an industry or way of earning a living.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, I said we would be involved, in the not too distant future, in a deep and serious debate on this very vital question of the sensible and wise land use policies. At that time, I had no idea that the not too distant future was to become the immediate present.

I say again, as I did on the last occasion, that land is a resource and not a commodity to be bought and sold as if it were an item of manufacturing. Once again, I say the profits in land are not a function of any particular merit or action of the holder except patience and timing.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very interesting book here, which has been recently put out and has some excerpts from American magazines of 1895 to 1905. The title is Looking Forward. From this, you will see that the same old gang in new clothing are practicing the land speculation policies today that they were practicing at least 70 years ago.

Here's a small one called "The New Cities:

"Our cities sprung up so suddenly and spread so swiftly that the country has been pushed beyond the easy reach of the urban population before there was a chance to prevent it. At enormous expense, and with results that cannot be wholly satisfactory, cities are now trying to repair the really deplorable omission. In a few years, hundreds of towns will become cities. Now they have the country in their very streets, soon it will be gone."

If I can refer to another one, "How money is burned in New York":

"A land speculator bought a piece of property fronting 18 feet on Broadway and 15 feet on the side street. 1902, bought it for $20,000 and in the space of a few months, sold it for $355,000."

Another one here:

"1902, all eyes turned to real estate when other speculative investments fail."

They say here:

"Opportunities far greater than those grasped by the Astors, the Goulettes and the Hoffmans, now loom large on the vistas of progress opened up by the union of Manhattan and Brooklyn. As land values inevitably increase, hand in hand with population, the wise buyer of today will be the rich man of tomorrow. And the wise man invests right here in the fastest growing spot in the world where we control 2,000 acres of land."

Then we can go to one which says:

"Make money as the Astors made it. Of course you've heard of the Astors of New York, you also know they are multi-millionaires. You also probably know that their vast fortunes were made through real estate. William Waldorf Astor visited this country a few weeks ago to find that his holdings had increased in value to the extent of $20 million in seven years and the result was he

[ Page 1808 ]

increased the rents so that it would bring him another $1 million a year."

These people are farmers I guess. Another one:

"If Russell Sage told you you could make a fortune in real estate, you better believe him. His reputed wealth is worth $100 million, and you know what he says? Young man, buy real estate in the outlying boroughs then work hard at your usual vocation." — I suppose a hobby farm — "Your real estate purchase will make you wealthy."

So, what's new?

The speculators have been with us for a long time and they're here still. They have a group of representatives in the Legislature working hard to perpetuate that sort of thing which has been going on for far too long.

We've heard all about those hundreds of letters opposing this bill, so I thought you'd be interested in the letters I've received from Esquimalt. Now, nobody went to Esquimalt and whipped up a campaign to send letters in either for or against. So the letters that come from Esquimalt — and yes, there's farming land there. There are farmers, bona fide farmers. There are people in the riding of Esquimalt that have some land holdings.

Mr. Speaker, from Esquimalt — as the MLA for that riding — on Bill 42 I received a total of 11 letters, and only two of them are in opposition to the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST. Well, they found that out with their former Member. You used to have a Member for Esquimalt, and they got wise there. He's gone.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: Well, we're not going to have elections every eighteen months I guess.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of letters read into the record of Hansard in this debate, and I don't want to add to the burden of the girls of Hansard who have to listen to some of them from the other side of the House — letters that were laboriously produced by an incited campaign to get them in. But, I would just like to refer to a couple of these that came in without any pressure from anyone or any solicitation for them at all.

This lady says:

"I would like you to know that I approve of Bill 42. This bill should have been enacted into law years ago. It was for such corrective legislation as Bill 42 that the voters of this province elected the NDP into office. So press ahead with your programme, and the majority that voted you in will continue to keep you in. My wife and myself believe that Bill 42 will be a wonderful thing for the Province of British Columbia. After watching and suffering the destruction of our irreplaceable farmlands we think this action is long overdue. Congratulations on Bill 42.

"In regards to the government Bill 42, I feel I must state my support. During the period when wages and prices of most other commodities have increased 600 per cent, land costs have risen 4,000 per cent."

You think about that, from Okanagan, you were there 20 years and land costs went up 4,000 per cent.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST: You bet. You and the real estate people who have been ripping the province off with this kind of permission should think about it — think about it long and hard.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST: Well, I don't know. Henry Block came in long before the NDP did, you talk to him.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: Here's something, Mr. Speaker, that would be of interest. A mention made the other day in this House that a federal Member of Parliament had used franking privileges to send out a letter or statement on this bill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say to the Hon. Member that I'm sorry that he's hungry, so am I. As a matter of fact, I didn't have breakfast. I had to stay here in case I might miss my turn if one of you sat down — and I haven't eaten either.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: Send out for a pastrami.

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the matter raised in this House yesterday by the Opposition that a federal Member of Parliament of the New Democratic Party used his franking privileges to send out statements referring to this legislation. What a terrible thing that Member said that was and how expensive it was to the taxpayer's purse.

Well, Mr. Speaker, here's something that's a lot more expensive on the taxpayer's purse. We have here two Xerox copies; it looks like the Xerox machine has been used as a printing machine. One is a form for a petition to hold about 30 names. It says, "We, the

[ Page 1809 ]

undersigned, believe that the legislative programme of the NDP Government is being placed before the Legislature without any mandate from the people."

Now isn't that a laugh. You know who it's from because they all pounded the table. There's a group of people that governed this province for 20 years and they never did have the kind of a mandate they're talking about. They never did have a majority — never.

Now, they have not only had this petition drawn up opposing Bill 42 but the whole programme — 34, 35, 42, 44, 74 and 102. You know something else? They're going around the province asking people to sign this piece of paper with those numbers on. They don't even have the decency or the ethics to tell the people what those exact bills are. They're just numbers. That sheet of paper costs about 5 cents a sheet, right here off the Xerox machine in the legislative buildings. God knows how many thousands of copies they've put out.

Then they have another sheet of paper off the same Xerox machine, right down at the end of the hall here. It's even copied on legislative paper because the heading is on — "Legislative Assembly, British Columbia." From the Leader of the Opposition — you know, the fellow that got back after the long trip. "He's still on a trip," somebody said — ego trip.

"Dear Friend:

"I'd like to personally thank you for supporting the stand of the Social Credit caucus on Bill 42."

So the letter goes on and it's signed "W.A.C. Bennett." And he says, "Social Credit membership now."…"Invest" — they're tied up with this word "invest." They can't get this investitis or real estate out of their minds. "Invest $5 for four years." Just four years. You know what they're saying to the people? They don't want you around after the next election. They just want you to line up now and come forward in four years.

What kind of party is that that can actually run it for $1.25 a year as a membership? Now somebody somewhere is going to go broke running that party or you've got an angel for finances. $5 for four years. You can't even buy the postage stamps to mail out the monthly notices for that. So it says here, "Application for membership, mail to Box 820, Victoria, B.C." I don't know whose box number that would be but it might be somebody who's a Member for Victoria. I don't know.

But that's a Xerox sheet. So between the two sheets of paper that go out — one's a petition and one is this — that's 10 cents of the taxpayer's money of the Province for straight political propaganda and party publication. So, I ask you, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: Can you answer that? How many hundreds of thousands of sheets have you sent out? That's a real imposition on the privileges of Xeroxing for the Members of this Legislature, to put this sort of thing out on the taxpayer's money.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: I'm going to come to that. And you're speaking to the wrong people.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a great deal of confusion, misunderstanding and distortion of what this bill is all about. Perhaps this Government might have done, as the previous administration did, and had a public relations campaign. But this party has never been a participant in the swish public relations job designed to sway public opinion. We prefer to allow the people, through their own wise judgment, to conclude the moral honesty of this legislation, which they will do once they see through the smoke screen of the hysteria, the emotionalism and the those who know differently but are being motivated by reasons of self-interest and greed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST: Speak up louder.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please proceed with your speech.

MR. GORST: One of the most serious distortions being said about this bill is the question of expropriation. This power is not in the legislation. Those who say it is are, to say the least, not presenting the true facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member try to reduce the amount of his copious notes, please?

MR. GORST: Well, that's a fait accompli. I know how you do that. We had a Member over there speak for 12 hours. I only want about 22 minutes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST: Yes, that's right, Pat.

MR. SPEAKER: There's been a certain amount of reading of speeches on both sides here. It is, I think, desirable and it is the rule that we do not read our speeches. I hope that all the Members, especially new Members, can get away from it.

MR. GORST: Thank you very much. Now, they're perfectly aware of this fact but they choose to go around the province screaming of the power to take over the home, the land and every piece of personal

[ Page 1810 ]

property that people have.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of the House who goes around encouraging or allowing such groundless statements to be made and to be believed in, is gravely betraying the cause of truth, honesty, responsibility and integrity that every MLA is bound to uphold in this House.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made some remarks on this bill. He said it was the worst kind of legislation; it was overwhelming, all-empowering; he couldn't endorse it; it was a document of shock. He referred to the acquisition clause.

I would say to him that if he has any objections to using acquisition as a way of getting property, he should speak to his fellow Members in Ottawa. He should speak to Eldon Woolliams, the urban affairs critic for the federal Progressive Conservative Party, who said on February 10, 1973 that if there was going to be any real dent made in housing and obtaining land for housing, it would have to be done by three levels of government, and they would have to work out a programme of land expropriation similar to that now used for expropriating land for airports. The report reads:

"I say the three levels of government should get together and coordinate their influence, abilities and powers; they should find out the true situation in the various cities, just as is the case for expropriation of land for other purposes,' said Eldon Woolliams."

The Member for Saanich and the Islands wants to pay out compensation on artificial prices, a hypothetical question. But Eldon Woolliams, his own man, scoffed at the idea of a $100 million five-year land bank fund by the federal government. He said, "Just how far will the $100 million go in land banking? In Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver $100 million a year would not purchase the land in any one of those single cities."

Mr. Speaker, all political parties have talked about preserving farms but little action has been taken. Farmland is a limited resource and steps must be taken to preserve our farmland or we will be facing a critical situation in 10 or 20 years. The use of public money for acquisition of greenbelts should be above politics and political campaigns. It will be remembered long after the candidates are gone.

Well, those are the kind of statements that you would expect from me, one of the socialist hordes. But they're not mine. Those statements come from a couple of the Hon. Members opposite. The Liberal leader, Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and the Conservative backbencher for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made those remarks last year when they were in favour of the ecology, in favour of greenbelts, in favour of farmland preservation and, though they didn't say it, they are probably in favour of motherhood too.

Now everyone it seems is in favour of preserving the environment — and a popular drum that is to beat. Even General Motors, Dow Chemical and General Foods are in favour of that. Not one Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, would say a word against preserving the environment. Most people in British Columbia are also in favour of preserving as farmland the 2 per cent of such land that has managed so far to survive as farmland. Who in this House wants to go on record and declare they are not in favour of preserving that small amount of farmland that remains?

It is only when you come to doing something about it that people show their true values. Somebody made a reference about private ownership of land. That question seems to have bothered some people for quite a while here.

I suggest that you take that question to other people in another area of government administration than British Columbia. What is the date here? December 16, 1972. Here is an article by Douglas H. Fullerton, chairman of the National Capital Commission at Ottawa. That is a pretty highly responsible job and he says: "The case for government ownership of land."

So maybe those people who are so concerned about Government ownership of land had better turn their direction towards Ottawa and take that argument up there. Mr. Fullerton does have a couple of good points to say on the preservation of farmland. He says:

"Land is in fact a resource, not a commodity. It's scarce and grows scarcer all the time. On that point alone the case can be made for treating it differently; and governments must be involved in the allocation of this scarce resource much as they cope with monopolies now."

That's what this bill and this argument is all about, the allocation of a scarce resource. There are those who look on land, Mr. Speaker, as a precious heritage which we have the sacred and moral duty to preserve and pass on. There are those who want to pass the birthright of our children on to them, and there are those who look on the green fields and see green bucks; who see farmland as that commodity which Mr. Fullerton made reference to — to be exploited and destroyed in the name of greed and speculation.

Having listened to this long debate on this Land Commission Act there seems little hope that those selfish attitudes will be changed, but there will certainly be a change in standards and regulations.

Mr. Speaker…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GORST: No, I just keep shuffling them around like the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) does — making out he has notes.

[ Page 1811 ]

This legislation being presented here to the people today is not a new idea. It is done in many other parts of the world and we have been on that world trip by some of the Opposition people. Similar legislation does exist in New Zealand, Holland, Scotland, England and Sweden and it is long past the time that something likewise was done here in British Columbia. This Government today is not going to allow the continued erosion of our agricultural land. We will not sell out the future by selling out the farmland of today.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few remarks on the greenbelt portion of this Act. That has not really been touched upon. That is equally as important to my mind as the provision for safeguarding and preserving the agricultural land. I think of the great amounts of shoreline, particularly around Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia. We are a coastal country and I think of the land around this area of greater Victoria, the south end of the Island.

There are great amounts of federally-owned land in Esquimalt — William Head, Albert Head — that someday will become surplus to the federal government and will be put on the market as we know they have done in the past. I would like to hope this legislation will permit the designation of those coastal lands — now in public hands, but in the Department of National Defense of the federal government — along with the experimental farm in Saanich, to remain as coastal greenbelt land. That will be a benefit to the people of this area through this legislation because that is very important to the urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great amount of satisfaction and pride that I give my support to this land Act, Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was a little alarmed about one statement made by the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) when early in his address this afternoon…and it was a good address; I congratulate him on the delivery — I didn't agree with the material…but where he said that land was not something that should be bought or sold. It is not like something else; you shouldn't be allowed to buy it or sell it.

That is the whole point; then there cannot be private ownership. If you own something, Mr. Speaker, you know full well you have the right to sell. And in an inflationary world like we live in today…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The record will show what he said, Mr. Speaker. The record will show what he said was that it wasn't a commodity like anything else. Land was something you couldn't buy and sell. Therefore, Mr. Speaker…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Don't twist words.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not twisting words at all, I listened very attentively to the Hon. Member. I want to say very clearly that there has been protection for land in this province and we did have increases in agricultural land. We had a great policy of assisting land clearance; and more land has been cleared in the different years than was ever taken out of agricultural production.

We then not only had it in municipal governments but we set up the regional districts so they had full control of zoning of all land, with local control by elected people locally who know best. So there was absolute control there, Mr. Speaker. Then, too, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt, when he talked about greenbelts, would think that was something new.

We have legislation on the statute books now with greenbelts. We set up a fund to start it of $25 million. It has not all been invested yet. We said there would be $25 million each and every year to make sure that we had these buffers to protect the different areas. So we had this protection, Mr. Speaker.

But that isn't what the people of this province are scared of. They're scared of the extent of this legislation and the power it will give the Government. That's the reason why I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture — that if he couldn't accept a motion from the Opposition to postpone this legislation, he do so himself. I ask that when he gets up to speak he will move an adjournment of the debate — and I don't mean the adjournment of the debate until 2 p.m., Mr. Speaker. I mean adjournment of the debate until he has had a chance to see the country and get some more input.

Mr. Speaker, it's 1:30 p.m. and there is a regular session at 2 o'clock, and there has to be a period of questions at that time and everybody wants to be in the House. I think we are entitled to a half-hour lunch break, surely. Surely it would be a minimum. So, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Order, please. The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 has been before this House and

[ Page 1812 ]

the people of this province for almost four weeks. It's been debated in this House for over two weeks. The debate on second reading started two weeks ago yesterday.

When I introduced the bill I said that the government was prepared to listen, to consider the arguments that were being put forward and listen to the concerns; that we were ready at any time to hear positive suggestions for improving this legislation; that we would consider amendments. But all we've heard, Mr. Speaker, are requests to put off any action. We've heard two of those requests today: first a motion that we defer it for six months; then, of course, in the last two weeks and again today, asking us to withdraw on our own.

But, Mr. Speaker, there was precious little in the way of positive suggestions to improve the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, we've been told that the people of the province are confused. There is good reason for them to be confused when the official Leader of the official Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party, in particular, have been doing their best or, if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, their worst to travel the length and breadth of this province and heap confusion upon confusion with regard to this particular legislation — while they have been fighting, not against the principle of preserving farmland, as they said themselves, but fighting, Mr. Speaker, for political survival for two political parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate in the House when we asked for positive suggestions, constructive suggestions, there have been a few suggestions from the other side of the House — but there have been many more from this side.

All of these suggestions have been listened to. I listened to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who spoke for 12 hours and 20 minutes. I took a page of notes on him. Very little. Very little content — a lot of hours and a lot of minutes. But what did he say, Mr. Speaker? He said that the government didn't listen. After sitting for 12 hours and 20 minutes listening to him — he kept repeating that we didn't listen. He said he supports — and he was speaking on behalf of his party, he said — the principle of the bill.

Then he went on to say that there is plenty of room for expanding food production in British Columbia. There's plenty of room for expanding the amount of land available for food production. He produced all the arguments to say there is really no need to save farmland and then went on to say that he supports the principle of the bill. That was when he moved from one foot to the other as he got weary during the 12 hours and 20 minutes.

He asked "did the Minister go personally and look at the land that was being built upon?" He asked did I have personal knowledge of the rush to subdivide land.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to walk on that land to know it is disappearing. If anybody here is seriously interested in looking at some photographs of what the situation was 20 years ago and what it is today, there are air photos. There are air photos that will prove even to them, Mr. Speaker, and to anyone in the community who has even a little bit of an open mind on this that the land has been lost to agricultural production.

Sure, there's more land available; sure, there's more land that isn't being used. But that's not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point of this bill which we stressed over and over is that we want to preserve such land for agricultural production, not because it is necessarily needed today or tomorrow, but to have it so that when it is needed it will be available.

Mr. Speaker, in his 12 hours and 20 minutes he made one positive suggestion, and that is that succession duties be removed from farmland moving within the family. Mr. Speaker, Bill 144 is now on the order paper. The Government listened.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) didn't speak as long, but gave more in the way of suggestions, much more than the Hon. Member for South Peace River in his 12 hours and 20 minutes. Six suggestions he made — all listened to. Some of them…as I said in Kamloops when I said that there were four areas of concern in particular that we had heard, and in those four areas we were considering amendments. That's what I said that day.

More recently, in this House, a Member speaking on behalf of the government said that there will be amendments. More recently, after the Kamloops meeting, I said there would be amendments. But speaking in Kamloops I simply said that there were four areas for concern and we were considering amendments and, Mr. Speaker, at any time at all we could have put amendments on the order paper. Correct. That's true. But, Mr. Speaker, we said from the beginning we wanted to listen to the contributions from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we hadn't made up our minds definitely What areas needed amending. We knew there were concerns. We wanted to hear the contributions from the other side of the House. There were amendments we were considering that might very well be changed if the Members opposite had directed their attention to the changes that they felt should be made rather than simply asking us like a broken record to withdraw the legislation.

Member after Member — and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said there is nothing on the order paper to help the farmer and Bill 42 is there to hurt them. He has omitted seeing, I suppose, Bills 32, 36, 65, 108 and 144, and has omitted the reference to agriculture in Bill 102. They are all on the order

[ Page 1813 ]

paper and I have given you the numbers. I'll give them to you again if you like.

Speaker after speaker — the Hon. House leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) actually had more in the way of concerns, suggestions and advice to give in his speech of 1 hour and 5 minutes than the total combined speeches of the official Opposition in some 34 hours and 50 minutes. They alone took up 11 periods of debate in this House on this one bill, Mr. Speaker. Eleven sittings in total — 34 hours and 50 minutes, and no constructive suggestions except the one to remove succession duties.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I asked at the very beginning for constructive suggestions and they were very few in coming.

Trust? O.K. Let's get into that, then. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) produced some material and kept talking about this business of "trust me". I wonder, Mr. Speaker; there's an old saying that figures don't lie, but liars figure. Then there are all kinds of references, all kinds of interpretations you can draw from the documents she produced.

But one thing in particular stands out in my mind; and that is that the spread between what the farmers are receiving for their products and their cost of production increased dramatically and steadily over the 20-year period in which the government of which she was a member was in office.

They asked us what we were going to do to save the farmers and in the 20 years they did nothing except make the situation steadily worse.

Mr. Speaker, I never said it was in this bill. Mr. Speaker I said that this bill was to preserve farmland…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You've had your say. Please be quiet.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I said from the beginning that the purpose of this bill, with respect to agriculture, is to preserve farmland. I said, Mr. Speaker, that we must do more than that, that we must go beyond that. I've named several bills on the order paper currently that do make a very small beginning in that way.

I've said that other policies are being considered, and the House has been told that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture had been invited to submit proposals — a package of proposals that will help the people engaged in the agricultural industry; that the government has offered to put up the money if they don't have the money themselves to hire the expertise required to do this.

Mr. Speaker, I think if you look back in whatever records there are of debates in this House, or any records that you might have of any meetings between the Federation of Agriculture and the previous government, you will never find an offer to equal that in the history of British Columbia.

And they may laugh, Mr. Speaker, but I ask them to produce one example of that kind of cooperation being offered by the government of the Province of British Columbia.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, according to the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party, the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) told us that the B.C. Federation was treated badly by the Premier and by the Ministers. Of course he wasn't in at that meeting but he'd heard reports of it. He'd heard reports that during that meeting we told them that the government was determined to save farmland in this province for farm production.

He was told that among the things the government suggested to the B.C. Federation that they look into were taxation policies with respect to farmland, a pension plan for farmers, lower costs of production, protection against imports, quality bonuses, or anything else that they might come up with in the way of concrete suggestions.

But where are they? Where are the suggestions with respect to the legislation? Not one simple amendment, Mr. Speaker. They've boxed themselves into a corner.

They tell us at one time that they're for the principle. Then they tell us that there's no need to save farmland because there's so much of it and there's so much more to be opened up. They suggest by implication, Mr. Speaker, that opening up 1,000 acres in the Peace River is equivalent to saving 1,000 acres in the Fraser Valley. They know that we've had a succession of crop failures in the Peace River the last five years. The only thing different from one year to the next is that they get steadily worse.

Yet they're honestly — not honestly — they're suggesting in this House that opening up new acreage in the Peace River, in areas that are even worse for agricultural production than the ones presently open and where the risk of crop failure is even greater — they're suggesting we should open up more of that acreage and sacrifice the precious land in the Fraser Valley, the Saanich Peninsula and the Okanagan Valley. Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a responsible position is that?

And, Mr. Speaker, when they talk about saving land, they don't all speak with the same tongue. The official Leader of the official Opposition, for example, is quoted as saying at a meeting here in Victoria, I believe it was: "…called upon the

[ Page 1814 ]

farmers to hang onto their land until the next provincial election, when a new government will take the freeze off subdivision. Just wait. We'll let you subdivide it all. We'll let you get rid of it. Just wait until after the next election." Now, is that a responsible position, Mr. Speaker, when they say, on the other hand, that they recognize the need to save farmland?

Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of suggestion they come up with outside of the House. Inside the House, even less than that.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) keeps wanting to get into this debate, in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we listened to her for 7 hours and 15 minutes, during which time she made no constructive suggestions with respect to this legislation, other than to ask for withdrawal.

I'd just like to read from a letter from someone in Vernon. It's not a letter that was written to me. It was written to the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I'll read part. of this letter:

"Things are pretty rough in Vernon. Last week I attended the huge landowners' association meeting, Pat Jordan was at the head table, never missing an opportunity to add fuel to the panic and frenzy so much in evidence.

"Eileen, the violence and hatred expressed was almost unbelievable. What a pity that somehow these irrational people had not been given a better opportunity to understand the bill."

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, that is not what happened at that meeting. If the Member wishes to quote that letter, I would ask that he reveal the name. I suspect that it is signed by a card-carrying member of the NDP party, Mr. William Helena.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not signed by any Mr. It's signed by a Mrs. It's not a letter addressed to me. I don't intend to…

Mr. Speaker, group after group has been quoted in this House — and quoted, Mr. Speaker, not only by the Members on the Government side, but quoted on the Opposition side — as being in favour of the idea of land preservation, as supporting Bill 42, but asking that some areas of concern be cleared up. They've supported it. Almost invariably, the recognized organizations from this province have supported the legislation, but they've wanted changes. They've asked the Opposition to bring forth some changes. The Opposition has been extremely delinquent in that they have not submitted one specific change to this legislation. They've simply said, "Throw it out. It's no good. We can't deal with it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll show them that we can deal with it. We'll show them that things can be changed in this legislation. We've said from the beginning, "Tell us what you want done with it. Give us some ideas for amendments. If they're good amendments, if they preserve the spirit of the legislation, if they're going to help to preserve farmland in this province, then we'll work with these amendments." We've extended that offer from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, for four weeks since the bill has been on the order paper. Still not one amendment from that side.

We've held back on our side to get as much expression of opinion from the whole community as we could, to get as much expression of opinion from this House as we could. We've waited in vain, Mr. Speaker. For all they've contributed to a serious discussion of the legislation before us, they might as well have had the second reading on the day that I introduced second reading of this legislation.

I had all kinds of letters that I was going to read but I don't think there's too much point in getting into them now. Yes, I know I could and other Members have taken up time of this House. Mr. Speaker, you know, of course, what the effect of this has been. What they have done is to hold up passage of the legislation — a great achievement. What they have done, Mr. Speaker, is to hold up consideration of all the other legislation. The bills, for example, that I mentioned that have been on the order paper at the request of the agricultural industry — they've held up consideration of that legislation. They've held up all the work that has been going through this House. They've made the whole community live longer with these orders-in-council because of what one of the Members opposite called a "Phillipsbuster."

Mr. Speaker, if they were making any sensible contribution, if they were putting anything in that would improve this legislation, then there would have been some reason for it. But nothing, nothing except this business of succession duty removal which, as I say, has already been acted on.

Letters — I don't know the correspondence you're getting. The letters that I'm getting are in support of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Since the bill came out, I have had more letters in support of the legislation than I've had against it. Surely, I've had a lot against it. A lot of them have been one-liners against it. That's true. A lot of good letters against it; a lot of good letters in favour of it. Most of the good letters against it are not against the principle of preserving farmland, are not even against the principle of the legislation. But they do express these areas of concern.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, this is where the Opposition has fallen down completely on its job. It has not served the community at all. As an Opposition it has a responsibility to the people it represents to amend government legislation when it feels this legislation needs amending, rather than to

[ Page 1815 ]

simply stand up and attack it without suggesting any alternatives.

There was one alternative suggested, Mr. Speaker, by the House Leader of the official Opposition when the official Leader was out. It's a very simple solution to the whole problem of preserving farmland. All the Government need do is have first refusal on any private land that is offered for sale. Mr. Speaker, if the solution were that simple, why did the previous government wait 20 years and do absolutely nothing about it?

Mr. Speaker, they know it's not that simple. They know that the Government would have to indicate in advance what areas are worth saving. In other words, they would have to zone it. They would have to indicate to people ahead of time what areas they were interested in. They would have to zone it first. Having done that, they have to right away indicate to the community that regardless of what price is offered between two people, the government will stand ready to pick it up at that price at least — regardless of what fictitious price was entered into between two people.

Mr. Speaker, they know it's not that simple. If they have another solution that is equally simple, then, Mr. Speaker, their crime against the community has been even greater than I've suggested up to this point. That is that they have done nothing to save the farmland that has disappeared in this province over the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that some Members of this House did pay some attention to time when they're speaking. It's also time that they had some idea of what they were going to say before they stood up, so that they wouldn't simply be wasting the time of the House to no good effect — simply stalling, with what end in mind I don't know. Simply stalling, I suppose, to try to preserve themselves as political entities but nothing really beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, we said from the beginning that we would consider amendments. Mr. Speaker, I and other Members of this House identified areas of concern and we said that we were working on amendments. We have received not much help from the Opposition side of the House — a little and some of this has been considered. Certainly some of the suggestions and some of the concerns expressed by the Hon. leader of the Conservative Party have been listened to — the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I keep making him the leader.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us — in spite of all the confusion that's been heaped upon it by the official Opposition and by others — contains no provision for expropriation, in spite of everything they've said. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the implications they have read into it, this bill does not call for the designation of any reserves without some local involvement. Mr. Speaker, there's no denial of hearings anywhere in this legislation. None of these things are in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there's no suggestion in this bill — except some people are reading it in somehow — that this does call for confiscation of personal belongings. There's nothing like that in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing in the legislation that suggests for one moment that the land commission expects, intends, wants or would even be obliged to go into corporate farming. There's none of this in the legislation.

But there's one thing, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation. It starts with a "no" as well. That is that this legislation will provide that there will be no further alienation of agricultural land, except that it be in the interest of the community. There's one area of concern that has surprised me I think perhaps more than any other, and it's one with respect to which there will be no amendment. That is the area of concern that has been expressed by Members in the Opposition, from all parties in the Opposition, and that is the concern that this commission, because it is going to be named by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is going to be a political commission, Mr. Speaker, they are concerned that it's going to be a political commission because it's named by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I ask you in the name of all that is holy — or whatever they believe in — what are they doing in this House if they don't believe in politics?

Mr. Speaker, we've said from the beginning it's the responsibility of this Government to govern. We've accepted the responsibility foisted on us to save farmland in this province. We promised we would in the election campaign, we promised we would during this session and we're still promising we will.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, has been introduced primarily with an aim to preserve agricultural land so that when it's needed for food production it will be available. And with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and with confidence that I will have the support of the Members in the House, I now move second reading of Bill 42.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 32

[ Page 1816 ]

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting.

Motion approved.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MR. CURTIS: An exchange a few moments ago is the kind of thing which distresses me greatly in this House. As I heard it, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) pointed out that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was not present for this vote. I heard someone on the other side of the House, I believe it was the Premier, say that he was at a funeral. I heard the Hon. Member reply, "NDP." I suggest that that type of comment is not proper in this House at any time under any circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 2:00 p.m.